O'Reilly's EGO Has Struck Again
Today on Oreilly's radio show, he said several things that annoyed me.
1. The kindergarten thing about BHO, he said was fabricated.
Sorry Bill, we heard BHO say it.
2. The AD was silly from BHO about McCain not knowing a computer.
He did not say one word about McCain not being able to use a computer.
Sorry Bill, wrong again. Dufus
3. He said that if Governor Palin does not go on his show, that she will
lose the election.
Can you believe the gall and ego of this man.
Who does he think he is?
Is he jealous that Sean got her first?, which I had sent an email to Governor Palin
and Sean that they should get the interview, not Bill.
What is wrong with this man?
Does he think more people listen to him than Sean and Rush??
Somebody has to straighten this guy out.
His EGO is getting bigger and bigger.
I am going to email Governor Palin and tell her that she should not go on his show,
because of what he said.
Everyone should revolt against O'Reilly and tell Governor Palin not to go on his show.
Trackback URL for this post:
O'Reilly's ego
Bill O'Reilly needs to get a case of reality. He is forgetting his base of watchers which is primarily conservative. Liberals have far more avenues to pursue than Fox. Conservatives have much fewer and have relied on Fox to present the conservative view. The ONLY way to make a dent in that fat head of his is for people to boycott his show. The only way he is going to listen to anyone outside of his own ego talking in his ear about his greatness is to be reminded...he is only as great as his viewers allow him to be. Stop watching him for awhile. Or boycott all over the nation a specific night. He needs a wake up call...even if it isn't at 3 AM. Why doesn't some enterprising conservative start a ground swell of viewers and have them boycott his show one specific night....see what his ratings would tell.....
But O'Reilly looked into Obama's eyes and saw.....
he wasn't a wuss...that he was an all around great guy. If only Obama would promise to leave O'Reilly's money alone, O'Reilly would endorse him. And sex education for 5 year olds? Yes some of us watched Obama advocate that. But like Reverend Wright, that's just a "distraction", unlike Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy, which O'Reilly throught was fair fodder.
Has O'Reilly hit on Obama yet for making fun of McCain's inability to use a keyboard? Oh, yea. That's nothing. After all, Obama's from Chicago: "you bring a knife, we bring a gun"
Give Bill a break
Bill Oriely is nothing but good for us. Yes It's alot about Bill but but so are they all. And really his audience is only 40% conservative. Only 30% of Americans even watch the news or read the paper. The top 5 radio shows are conservative and Bill and Sean Demolish all 3 other networks combined, MSNBC way last, and getting rid of both anchors for being so rediculas recently. 6^ million people watched him give Oboma at least a real interview which is an amazing number. He has the numbers that give him the power they have to go on. 4 million a night. Same with Sean #2 on radio behind Rush and more of an attack dog.Idependents watch which is what we want. Liberals just whine and vicious blog to make themselves look stupid Yes Bill is about Bill but he is also about us. Who else would make the messiah squirm some in front of 6 or 7 million? Nobody thats who. Be glad he's with us ego and all. The spin stops here!
Facts, not Spin--ie, Sex Education for 5 year olds
Before I paste the actual wording of the bill which O'Reilly said DIDN'T call for sex ed for 5 year olds and that McCain was a liar here, I'd also like to note his masterful grasp of the economy. Last night, he's screaming that no one in Washington told him that the financial markets would melt down or was in danger. He was dead wrong--unless, of course, he wanted a personal call from Bush or McCain. They DID warn and DID introduce legislation, and Obama's good buddies at Freddie and Fanny defeated the bill.
So here's the truth about the sex education bill that O'Reilly slammed McCain on. I'd say ignoring the facts is the very definition of "spin". I'd say O'Reilly has jumped the shark.:
From Michael York's research:
The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.
Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.
The bill’s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. For example, the old law contained passages like this:
Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…
The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this:
Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV…
The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.” And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances:
Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.