-
RSS Subscribe
-
Books
Luis Palau
Bill O’Reilly is a Pinhead
Bill O’Reilly had John Stossel (a well know Libertarian and award winning news correspondent and co-anchor of ABC’s 20/20 news magazine) on his program discussing the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore. ABC’S John Stossel made a wonderful presentation (like he always does) about the bogus nature of Gore’s work in the movie “Inconvenient Truth” including the point that the increased polar temperature levels came before the carbon dioxide levels went up.
Why is Bill O’Reilly being labeled with the much vilified (on The O’Reilly Factor) term “Pinhead” here at NSL? …..because he took an opposing view from Stossel and based it on a position that CLEARLY demonstrates he doesn’t even categorically understand the nature of the debate. O’Reilly gave kudos to Al Gore by saying that “even if Al Gore’s facts are wrong, his message is worthy.” Something regularly stated in the comments section of NSL itself. Bill goes on further to claim that he (Al Gore) did a good job in “raising awareness that we need to clean the planet. I’d like conservatives and liberals to get together and talk about how to clean things up.” Sheeeesh…..
Bill O’Reilly must believe that CO2 is a common garden variety environmental pollutant. Apart from Gore’s bogus thesis that (man made) CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the planet CO2 is not a pollutant and is part of the natural and ordinary processes on the planet. So accordingly, Al Gore’s thesis on CO2 emissions rises or falls on the Global Warming issue and is not further augmented by the “environmental pollution” argument. All O”Reilly points out here is his own ignorance on the framework of the debate (apart from his or anyone else’s position). I wrote Bill O’Reilly today and explained his error and requested a retraction on air………..we’ll see, if he doesn’t he is a Pinhead. Below is the full segment summary from Bill O’Reilly’s website.
Al Gore may have a Nobel Peace Prize, but he doesn’t have the approval of ABC’s John Stossel. “Gore is saying the debate is over,” Stossel complained, “and that anyone who disagrees has been purchased. That is repulsive intimidation. Yes, the globe has warmed, but to say for sure that man caused it and government can fix it, that debate is by no means over. How about the exaggerations in Gore’s movie? He says polar bears are drowning when polar bear populations are increasing. He didn’t reveal that temperature increase came before carbon dioxide levels went up.” The Factor argued that even if Al Gore’s facts are wrong, his message is worthy. “He did a good job in raising awareness that we need to clean the planet. I’d like to conservatives and liberals to get together and talk about how to clean things up.
comments
9 Responses to “Bill O’Reilly is a Pinhead”
Leave a Reply
[…] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptBill goes on further to claim that he (Al Gore) did a good job in “raising awareness that we need to clean the planet. I’d like conservatives and liberals to get together and talk about how to clean things up.” Sheeeesh… … […]
RE: All O”Reilly points out here is his own ignorance on the framework of the debate (apart from his or anyone else’s position).
Nice observations…(laughing out loud) Welcome to the world of BillO Steve… The “pinhead” title & companion frustrations in the body of your post apply probably four days a week.
But he’s “keepin’ em honest” or “keepin’ it real” or keepin’ it pilthy” or what the freak ever his tagline is?
I love the title of this post Steve! O’Reilly is such a moron. Of course, he comes across right on some issues, but for the most part, I’ve never seen such a blathering idiot.
I saw this piece. John Stossel was just giving the my god, why am I stuck on such an idiot’s show? look.
Good post!
Hi Tammi……..Glad you caught Stossel on the Ozone Factor. I can’t believe that Bill was so general in his piling on about cleaning up the planet, which has nothing to do with the GW debate. He doesn’t have much to contribute to the question………steve
I’m glad you saw the light. Could it be that Bill is starting to align himself with Hillary who Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock have been supporting? Maybe Fox wants to be on the band wagon of whatever party is in control.
Patrick………Never thought about that, it would be hard to believe. Wasn’t aware that Ailes was supporting the beast, what is this world comming to? …….steve
Here is the video clip. It is very even handed and well done. One more report I like from Stossel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo
Patrick…………..I just watched the video. This was put forth in the wonderfully typical Stossel fashion. Thanks for posting it on my site………steve
Hi Steve,
It’s so nice to know that I’m not alone in that view. Thanks.
the Grit
Hi Grit….I am surprised that O’Reilly is so inarticulate. I guess he is just a lot of steam…….steve
Great post.
That is what was said about the Duke Lacrosse case - even if the facts don’t support charging the boys, they deserved it anyway. Or it highlighted race relations in the South. Or whatever - thing is, though, none of it is showing a “worthy” message, because we don’t even know if the message is true.
Hi Bridget…………Yes, Yes and Yes. I think O’Reilly wanted to come across as such a “reasonable” guy in his pandering to the Gore crowd that he wasn’t sitrred enough to realize he was talking about increased (alledged man made) carbon levels and its resulting increase in global temperature instead of Enviromental Pollution. Two unrelated matters neither of which advances the other……….steve
Ok, did you notice in the Fox debate all the Hillary questions? They manage to get her name out there quite a bit don’t they? It’s subtle but an effective way to resign people to the fact that she is going to get the nomination. Another peice of evidence she is Fox backed, but who knows maybe I’m wrong.
Hi Patrick…………….I’m going to take the other side on this one. Here’s why. Just tonight Fox was commenting that as Hillary becomes the likely candidate for the nomination (which I agree for now) that Republicans from all wings of the party seem to be coalessing around Rudy because he is percieved as the one that can actually beat her. Given that they believe this (true of false) I suppose if anything that they would emphisize her in order to continue to stir the “base.” So I see that all this doesn’t demonstrate their support for Hillary, but quite the opposite.
As to the merits, I really don’t think the Democratic matrix hasn’t figured on spending a lot of money in defending New York and Rudy’s nomination would put NY in play and cause her to alter seriously that part of the strategy. I think he is the last one she wants to meet and likely for just that reason. I don’t care what they say about the Republican’s chances in 08, if Rudy would take NY she couldn’t win………steve
He couldn’t get her senate seat… What would all of a sudden change?
& I agree with you on the Faux News theory Steve… Not a chance they’re in bed with Hillary for any reason! Not a chance at all…
Interesting how everyone is on the “BillO is a tool” bandwagon. Funny how something galvanizes the conservative community. Shame on BillO, he shoulda known better. Keepin’ em honest or whatever right?
He’s an idiot in many areas but whatever it takes to get you guys to realize…
M2……….I really hate to do this, but I’m going to have to take you for a walk to the woodshed. I can only assume your comment “He couldn’t get her senate seat… What would all of a sudden change?” refers to the 2000 Senate contest. Now everyone knows that Rudy pulled out of the Senate race in May of 2000 because he had cancer (this is not a political position). So I say that Rudy makes NY competitive and will require heavy resources for the Hill to carry it (something she hasn’t planned on). Why do I say this?
There is no way you can say he “couldn’t get her seat.” Actually he was pretty much on course to do just that. It was close and I know that polls don’t elect people, elections do. But you can’t look at the only indicator, the polls, and make a comment that he “couldn’t get her seat.”
On 2/6/2000 the Quinnipac Poll had Rudy leading Hillary 45-42 (ok, within the margin of error, but his doesn’t support your claim). The 3/2/2000 Quinnipac Poll had Rudy +7 and the April Poll had Hillary +3 with the same poll giving the momentum back to Rudy by recording a tie in May, just before Rudy pulled out of the race for health reasons.
The nod then went to Rick Lazzio who lost in November and many say he hurt his cause deeply because in his debate he stood up to her like he would a man and the rap was he “beat up on the girl” something that I worry about in 08. So I don’t agree that Rudy couldn’t get the Senate seat, he did get the Mayorship in NYC (and re-elected by a large margin) and since then carries additional goodwill following his leadership roll on 9/11/2001.
In order for Hillary to carry NY she needs to win NYC big to offset the Republican support in upstate.
Would you agree that if Hillary would lose NY she lose the race? (net swing of 62 votes). If Bush had won NY in 2000 we would have called it a landslide.
Mea Culpa………… ?
……….steve