He is still after Sen. Hillary Clinton, his favorite target, who has not and will not talk to him on his show 'The Spin Zone'. I applaud her for her stance.
I do not understand why anyone with an opposite view of that of O'Reilly, which seems to be just about everyone, would agree to appear on his show, to be insulted, lambasted, told to shut up, or sometimes even have their audio cut off.
Who does this clown think he is that everyone "owes" him an explanation? If Hillary felt obligated to grant every obnoxious constituent an audience, nothing would get done.
First about the still ongoing subject of the study of the Koran at the University of North Carolina.
He is still riding the same subject about freshmen students being required to read 'about' the Koran. Now The Washington Post and Nightline took him to task on his ridiculousness and he accuses them of twisting facts, where in reality it is he who cannot keep the truth straight.
At the start of this evening's segment and again just after halftime he is still trying to convince more learned and intelligent people that he has a tenable and correct position on the UNC requiring students to read "Approaching the Koran: The Early Revelations".
The book should not be forced upon students because it is religious in nature, he claims.
If students were forced to read the Bible in order to get admission to a public university all hell would break loose.
Just where are these two related? Whereas "Approaching the Koran" is a scholarly study and dissertation ABOUT a religious fable, the Bible IS the fable. Not the same. The latest I have heard, no one is asking students to study the Koran.
He replayed a piece of a prior interview with UNC Professor Robert Kirkpatrick.
O'Reilly then pondered what purpose it would serve to look at the religion of our enemies.
O'Reilly would not have required students during WWII to read a book about "The emperor is god". O'Reilly would not have read "Mein Kampf" either
The professor suggested that studying "ABOUT' the Koran would help put the terror of 9/11 in perspective.
The Koran has nothing to do with the war on terror, says O'Reilly. You don't have to understand Islam to understand murder. he continues. O'Reilly thinks that the professor wants to elicit a favorable impression of Islam.
What O'Reilly doesn't comprehend is that the terrorists do not see their terror as murders. They insist that it is demanded of them in the Koran by allah. That is what the Koran and religious belief have to do with the recent terrorism. For his information it is religion. Just as Christianity has evolved (catholics and protestants, then further separated) and been perverted (Jones, Moon, Applewhite), so has Islam. The corrupted, terrorist version of Islam is still religion. Is still Islam.
Nightline wants to know why should the students study what he (O'Reilly) calls the enemy's religion. O'Reilly objects to the wording 'what he calls....'
Seems to me that that is exactly what O'Reilly called it.
He never said the students shouldn't study Islam, it should not be forced upon them.in order to be admitted to the college.
The Washington Post opined 'In a particular display of demagogic illiteracy, popular talk show host Bill O'Reilly compared studying the Koran to reading Mein Kampf during WWII. He called it a complete distortion.
You need not understand the theology of people to understand the threat, responded O'Reilly.
Mein Kampf is theology? Even Hitler, on his best days, would not have made that comparison.
He claims that 'NOW' the UNC has pulled back. Now, if freshmen don't want to read the Koran. all they have to do is discuss it with the teacher. This he approves of, even suggesting that freshmen check out the Koran, just don't let the university force you.
Contrast that with his statements of Aug. 16 in which he stated at the beginning of the segment 'studying about the Koran that "all freshmen have to read the book, or write a paper explaining why they didn't want to read it." Then he blabbered on: " The book shouldn't be mandatory".
Very obviously there is a choice. If he doesn't see it I pity him.
Later he stated that reading the book is mandatory. I don't see where he got that from.
Mr. O'Reilly, who is spinning what here? For once be honest.
About Hillary Clinton.
He accused her of playing the race card - that she is supporting Comptroller Carl McCall for Governor, because he is African American This he claims brought up the question of reparations. An invitation for her to answer the question got him nowhere. He confessed to not having any foundation for that accusation.
So he got Geraldine Ferraro instead, who intended to set him straight, but that is an insurmountable task.
O'Reilly accused Hillary that since her day of election her MO was to refuse to answer any tough questions and that she doesn't feel that she is accountable to the public.
O'Reilly got all out of shape stating that he, as a citizen of New York, is entitled to an answer and she is required to answer his questions.
How arrogant can one talking head get?
Why he brought up the subject of reparations is a puzzle. Is it because he wanted to attack Hillary and was looking for a subject? Any subject?
As O'Reilly says......you decide who spins.