Shocker! Bill O'Reilly's book on Lincoln's assassination full of factual errors.

Interesting footnote in a picture of President Lincoln giving his second inaugural speech and Booth can be seen in the crowd watching him.

Just think of how many of his zombie army ... faithful followers (I mean) who read this book and then consider themselves authentic experts on the subject just from reading a solitary book or better yet simply buy the book and not even read it but getting their alleged knowledge by hearing O'Reilly talk about the book at a book signing and/or his radio show.

Don't really want to stick up for him, but I think he said Iraq, not Iran. It doesn't make it any less ridiculous though.

Oh, now that's cogent.

You're a little slow today, aren't you, Finn. That was posted two days ago, I believe. I didn't know sarcasm was supposed to be cogent somehow.

He's an arrogant SOB who is as much or more about self-promotion than anything else, but you calumny is ridiculous.

If you don't like the guy, fair enough. I don't either, but these ridiculous accusations are just that.

Hyperbole works in literature but when used in discussing current events, it makes the user look foolish and not worth serious consideration.

Sorry, but I'm not watching for every silly comment you post. Two days later I came upon this one and commented.

According to O'Rielly everything is based on researched fact. LOL!

Finn, why do you feel the need to defend every doofus on the block. O'Reilly has been proven time and time again that he's not the most factual guy. If ever there was a person who used hyperbole it's him, in current and now in historical context. Perhaps you could tell me exactly what the ridiculous accusations are?

Why do you fell the need to hyperbolically attack everyone who is associated with "The Right?"

I'm not defending O'Reilly, I'm merely pointing out the obvious reality that he is not all about spreading lies.

If you wish to cling to such a ridiculous (there's that word again) accusation,it says far more about you than O'Reilly.

Obama is an Islamist Sleeper and he hates America and wants to turn it into a communist state.

Obviously hyperbolic, and obviously ridiculous.

Your take on these things doesn't lend to reasoned argument because you are an extremist.

I apologize if that offends you. I've no reason to think you are not a decent person.

This has nothing to do with right or left. Did I once make that allusion? No.
So, I think he's a lying douche. I didn't once mention politics, you did.. You're defending him because of politics??? WTF
Time and time again, he's been caught. Once again he's caught telling lies and you defend his right to lie? Seriously, Who mentioned Obama, or Islamists? I didn't say a ******* thing about the US!! Who's hyperbole? Maybe you should look in a mirror?
You are ******* ridiculous. How many times are you going to pick a fight tonight? I didn't attack you or you precious right minded extremist fundamentalist repugnants!!
I called a spade a spade and you jump to the douches defense? Why???
Maybe you should get a sense of humour while your at it...
This is so ******* stupid. I think I'm going to put you on ignore, because every time you see my name you make up some false bullshit, just to prove what?
I'm done with you.

Wow!

You're a fiery vixen, aren't you?

Put me on ignore, I would expect nothing less from someone so cemented to leftist nonsense.

Somehow I'll survive Ceili.

Have a nice life you anti-American you

I'm just heartened to see that there is enough of your singular charm, insight and wit that I am not alone in experiencing the effects of it.

When you're happy snood, I'm happy.

Wow. That may be obvious to you, Finn, not to most of the rest of us.

...and your deep enduring care about people shows in all you write, you courageous humanitarian genius.

I haven't read O'Reilly's book and don't plan to. However, it is more than a little amusing to note the sometimes hot tempered criticisms of the author and the repeated references to the " frequent lies that everyone knows he tells, but no specification or example at all of what inaccuracies may actually be in the referenced book. Could it be that those who here express such certainty - and sometimes with such emotion - are merely repeating opinions they have heard from a critic or read somewhere, but are themselves utterly ignorant of what they repeat?

If so just who are the credulous fools here?

The fact is that O'Reilly, even more than most TV political commentators today, is a relentless self-promoter. However, he does at least make some pretense (and occasionally real effort) towards objectivity and balance in presenting alternate points of view. One could never say even that of Rachael Madow, Lawrence O'Donnel, or Ed whatever-his-name-is - they are all utterly consistent and often extreme advocates of a left wing point of view and make little effort at presenting news and factual information. I find it more than odd that the emotional criticism is rather consistently directed only at Fox and O'Reilly. Perhaps the shrill (there's that word again) criticism arises from the fact that he is a better and more effective propagandist than his competitors.

I only hope to be half the humanitarian you are snoody.

Well Lustig, I can't help that you allow your thoughts to venture into the irrational because of your partisanship.