Um, Mike, so why SHOULDN’T polygamy be legal? Sounds like Bill O’Reilly is a bit too liberal for you. Polygamy was legal, and the sky did not fall .. and it is legal under the U.S. Constitution (it just is not REQUIRED under the US Constitution). Utah simply made a ‘deal’ with the U.S. to voluntarily bar it in exchange for admittance into the Union. But it was purely voluntary (admittedly of course in the sense that ’seatbelt laws’ are voluntary – the feds will find someway to punish if a state strays, mainly by withholding funding), there is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal government to intervene in State definitions of Marriage. That is O’Reilly’s point .. advocates who want to federal protection and recognition of gay marriage will be giving the federal government that power for the first time! The side-effect may be that of moving the country in what seems to a ‘Progressive’ direction for today, but may be freezing in place policies that will seem anything but that in 50 years. In other words, federalizing marriage will give the overall mass population of America veto power over the policies in California or Vermont. Anything power the Feds have to REQUIRE an activity comes with a commensurate ability to BAN it – that is the basis of the Religion clause in the First Amendment – and Marriage was considered at the time to be a purview of Religion and thus not a matter for the federal government.

Very few people predicted that the recession would happen, at least as quickly/severely as it did, even on the left. They might have complained about distribution of income, tax cuts for the rich, etc. But I think it’s pretty clear that the recession took almost everyone by surprise. There were people talking about a possible housing bubble, but very few people understood the dynamics of the credit market (derivatives, etc.) that would cause the dominoes to fall.

To be fair though, Beck didn’t understand all of that either, which is why I don’t give him a lot of credit. But he did say that things would get bad.

Mike :
Beck, while I think he believes what he says, is a little crazy in my opinion. I’ll give him credit though, that he was talking about the financial mess while everyone else was still saying things were peachy. He is still saying it’s going to get much worse, so I think he’s made his business being the doom-predictor. It’s a little too gloomy for me (and hopefully wrong, but who knows).

lol which *everyone* ? for eight years we constantly heard the Left cry wolf over the absolute horrible economy the world’s ever seen. – that is up to when it did actually go down.

********

wasn’t it O’Reilly who was on Letterman before when Letterman didn’t have the knowledge to par with O’Reilly and said he didn’t know but thought he was full of crap anyway? Last time I ever watched Letterman.

He and Rush Limbaugh are obviously not the same people.

You’ve been listening to liberals on this, haven’t you?

Seriously, though, do watch it sometimes. He definitely isn’t as conservative as a lot of his foes make out. Where I do disagree with him is on his style of field interviewing (the get in the fact tactics), and that he is quite stubborn (and often wrong) on legal matters, especially when it comes to the first amendment. He and Megan Kelly always get into it when the subject comes up. I also disagree with his stance on torture/enhanced interrogations/whatever. At least, whatever he had a couple years ago, anyway.

Bill O’Reilly is “pro-gay rights?” In what sense, exactly? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with marriage equality for Gay couples. Every time that issue comes up, O’Reilly throws out the tiresome old canard about polygamy, saying that if we allow Gay couples to marry, then by logical extention we HAVE to allow people to have more than one spouse.

Does O’Reilly support ENDA? Does he think Gay Americans should be allowed to serve in the military? I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here, if you can provide some quotes to this effect.

Limbaugh is actually the more intelligent of the two though. O’Reilly blusters when he gets backed into corners, while Limbaugh is much more skilled at real debate.

Both of them lean more toward folsky wisdom/common sense than high intellect, and neither is willing to frame his/her speech in the manner that intellectuals demand- thus they get branded as idiots by intellectuals, particularly lefty ones.

As far as Limbaugh vs. Bill is concerned, I think they are really in two different leagues, although they are often lumped together. I agree with Letterman that Limbaugh doesn’t believe everything he says. He tries to be controversial in order to get ratings. He often says things that can be interpreted to be way over the top, but then leaves it vague enough so he can backtrack later (such as the “I hope Obama fails” comment). So he deserves all the criticism he gets.

Beck, while I think he believes what he says, is a little crazy in my opinion. I’ll give him credit though, that he was talking about the financial mess while everyone else was still saying things were peachy. He is still saying it’s going to get much worse, so I think he’s made his business being the doom-predictor. It’s a little too gloomy for me (and hopefully wrong, but who knows).

O’Reily, on the other hand, is usually smart and reasonable. He admits we were wrong to go into Iraq, for example. The difference between Rush and Bill is that Rush says things to make a controversy and get attacked, while Bill gets attacked for things that he says that are taken out of context. And yes, he does say stupid things sometimes, and he is arrogant, but I think that’s a job requirement for a talk show host.