Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

O’Reilly, Goldberg should be careful providing cover for Costas
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 4 December, 2012 | Dave Workman

Posted on 12/05/2012 5:39:04 AM PST by marktwain

The Bob Costas flap has become the gaffe du jour this week, with some well-meant attempts to help the embattled NBC announcer do damage control in the wake of Sunday night’s remarks and Monday’s blistering reaction.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and contributor Bernie Goldberg jumped to Costas’ defense Monday night and while they made some reasonable points, they also said some things that may just exacerbate the situation, and leave them looking a bit foolish. It's a pity, because both guys seem like honorable men trying to do what they believe is the right thing.

To wit, during O’Reilly’s popular “Talking Points” segment, the former high school teacher remarked, “The Constitution gives the right to Americans to protect themselves, that’s clear.”

No, that’s not what the Constitution does. The Constitution doesn’t “give” anybody anything. It affirms and protects rights, granted by the Creator if you will. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as clearly explained by Justice Antonin Scalia in his landmark majority decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller in June 2008. The right to arms goes back at least to English common law. The right of self-defense, or self-preservation, is the oldest natural right, a human right, if you will.

Mr. O’Reilly further observed, “Talking Points has long felt that criminals who use handguns should be punished more harshly than they are now. In fact all gun crimes in America should be federalized, and that includes illegal possession… There should be mandatory federal prison time for any person convicted of having a gun illegally.”

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; costas; oreilly
Bill O'Reilly is no fan of limited government.
1 posted on 12/05/2012 5:39:11 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Here’s the biggest problem: Costas sounded like Katie Couric (probably not a coincidence) in his follow-up remarks as he went off on one of these paranoid rants about ‘assault weapons,’ militiamen armed to the teeth and so forth. The cliches flew at a furious pace e.g. ‘why should a citizen have the same weaponry as the army?’ Those of you who own M1 tanks and howitzers, raise your hand.

At no point did he address so-called gun control in places that already have it like Chicago, Philly, DC, NYC, etc. nor did he admit that, as always, those who ignore the laws of today will ignore the laws of tomorrow.


2 posted on 12/05/2012 5:48:03 AM PST by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Stopped watching O’Reilly back in 2004. He should take his own advice and stop with the bloviating.


3 posted on 12/05/2012 5:48:48 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
There should be mandatory federal prison time for any person convicted of having a gun illegally.”

O'reilly's said a lot of ridiculous, off-the-cuff, absurd things, but that's got to be up there in the top 10.

4 posted on 12/05/2012 6:04:14 AM PST by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

O really calculates the position that will garner the most viewers, then spews it. Jus bidness.


5 posted on 12/05/2012 6:23:46 AM PST by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Time for Goldberg to go (never happen). O’Reilly’s been doing this posturing as left-pf-Limbaugh forever & Goldberg even moreso. Call us “loonies on the right”.

Goldberg Monday said he talked to his buddy Costas Monday and everyone has him wrong. BR promises something tonight. More palp.

After the election BG cited a caller into Rush who prefaced “I heard that and I knew what was coming”. The guy calling into Rush had announced himself as a traditional conservative into family values or something. Heck- that’s me! The caller then said he didn’t vote for R/R because they wanted to reach across aisle. That’s not me Bernie so you had it wrong.

Late last week BR used the words kooks , nuts for values voters- those who vote on abortion/homo marriage 1st and for sure. He quickly withdrew that but his color’s showed.

BP/BG play fake peacemaker.

Give me Rush anytime. Tues or Werds he was saying the microphone is a dangers and announcers weren’t to blame for their errors, its the mike.


6 posted on 12/05/2012 6:25:18 AM PST by BonRad (The world is full of educated derelicts-Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Mr. O’Reilly once was known by a more descriptive name given him by his students. RICHARD WITHEARS.

The remote is a wonderful invention, let old one eye bloviate on whatever subject he chooses, watch Duck Dynasty or some other highbrow show.

Most of you will get the descriptive name, hint: nickname for Richard. split Withears into two words. Any way he despises FR so bad.

You own it Barack.

Caddis


7 posted on 12/05/2012 6:42:35 AM PST by palmerizedCaddis (Uncle Si for president!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

O’Reilly is a self-satisfied, smug blowhard who makes a fool out of himself by showcasing his ignorance on a routine basis. I rarely, if ever, watch him anymore. But the other night, he was going down a list of Christian denominations-—Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc.-—and he included Mormon in the list.

He’s a Catholic, yet he’s clueless of the fact that the Catholic church officially views Mormonism as a cult.


8 posted on 12/05/2012 6:45:38 AM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmerizedCaddis

Remember the sexual harrassment claim? B’OR weaseled out of it but it was well known how many times he touted his mantra “big hands, big feet”=ME! around the “office”..


9 posted on 12/05/2012 6:58:21 AM PST by Mountain Mary (Pray for our Republic...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

For a “Harvard-educated” man, BO really knows how to demonstrate abject stupidity like a pro.


10 posted on 12/05/2012 7:11:25 AM PST by RavenATB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Costas, O'Reilly, Goldberg = limosene liberals who, one and all, rely on others for "security" that they demand be removed from the rest of "us" or our own "safety!"

They can all go straight to Hell!

11 posted on 12/05/2012 7:14:06 AM PST by zerosix (Native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I watched some of O’Reilly’s show last night, and it seemed to me that he made a pretty big point of the idea that guns and access to legal guns do not cause the crimes. Also that the football player was not a victim of anyone/anything, the NFL was not liable, and that Costas’ comments were not appropriate. So I think this article is a bit one-sided. (Or I completely misunderstood O’Reilly’s perspective, which is possible.)


12 posted on 12/05/2012 8:22:10 AM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

I agree with you about last night’s show. O’Reilly was holding the K.C. player responsible for his actions and did not entertain the notion that the gun was the problem.


13 posted on 12/05/2012 12:08:25 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Faith

Thank you for the sanity validation!! :)


14 posted on 12/05/2012 12:11:15 PM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Bob Costas is saying: So What??? So What if my comments were poorly timed??? It’s not like I made a monkey out of someone:

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIBjsr9Qp0EAqGr7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvZ3AycDJsBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzMA—?p=bob+costas+at+olympics+gabbie+douglas+monkey&vid=b0f77043c5fd93485e08d059907e860a&l=00%3A28&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DV.4980324626923544%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOFBHjgpIq7I&tit=NBC+Air+Racist+Monkey+Commercial+After+Gabby+Douglas+Olympics+Gold+...&c=0&sigr=11abd37n4&;

The glib Bob Costas has been eating a lot of shoe leather lately.


15 posted on 12/05/2012 12:58:50 PM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

You act as if being Catholic meant something. It’s just a badge to most. Plus, think of the good old days when Romans thought Catholicism was a cult.


16 posted on 12/06/2012 1:43:19 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

You’re not trying to compare Catholicism to Mormonism, are you? Hopefully not, because it doesn’t work. And no, I’m not Catholic.


17 posted on 12/06/2012 7:46:35 AM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

They’re comparable.


18 posted on 12/06/2012 11:40:45 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Only if Catholics believe God used to be a man who had wives, and now has flesh and bones, and if they believe in multiple gods; if they believe Satan is the brother of Jesus, Jesus is a created being, and they will inherit their own planets when they die.

Catholics are Christian. Mormonism denies basic Christian doctrine.


19 posted on 12/06/2012 1:31:28 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zerosix
Costas, O'Reilly, Goldberg = limosene liberals who, one and all, rely on others for "security" that they demand be removed from the rest of "us" or our own "safety!"

I would classify O'Rielly as a populist, not a liberal or conservative.

20 posted on 12/06/2012 1:35:31 PM PST by superdad (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

Catherine, you’ve named their differences and poorly. Now, compare them.


21 posted on 12/06/2012 2:04:35 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
"Catherine, you’ve named their differences and poorly."

Oh, another internet intellectual.

"" Now, compare them."

Cults and Christianity are not comparable.

22 posted on 12/06/2012 2:48:52 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and contributor Bernie Goldberg jumped to Costas’ defense Monday night and while they made some reasonable points, they also said some things that may just exacerbate the situation, and leave them looking a bit foolish. It's a pity, because both guys seem like honorable men trying to do what they believe is the right thing.

***************************

Only if "honorable"="stupid".

23 posted on 12/06/2012 2:52:39 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
Cults and Christianity are not comparable.

*************************

Agreed.

24 posted on 12/06/2012 2:56:32 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
You could look things up.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

"might make men gods"

That's just one similarity for comparison. There are more. The ironic thing is that when the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants expanded the definition of Christian to include each other they didn't realize just how broad the definition would be.

25 posted on 12/06/2012 3:43:13 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson