I know where you are coming from, but, “bawdy” does not equal “pornographic”. Just as “racy” does not equal “obscene” and “dressed sexy” does not equal an “excuse to rape”.

Your point? The point you ever made was that one between your ears on top that causes your hat to fall off.

Allen lost his Senate seat because he screwed up. He called a spectator a slur. He was in a close race against a conservative Democrat. He couldn’t articulate during his debate. In other words, he blew it. Most of all, he was on Bushes side.

Regardless, none of that has anything to do with O’Reilly.

It’s hard to preach tolerance with much success when you believe it means anyone who disagrees with you is intolerant.

Liberals aren’t any better or worse than anyone else, it’s just that they are miserable bastards on a mission to force their never-ending discontent on everyone else.

My point exactly. George Allen lost a Senate seat when he didn’t realize that.

Shakespeare was pretty bawdy for his day, if I remember my college literature class correctly.

We miss a lot of it, because of the flowery old English but it was pretty sexual.

But, unlike O’Reilly, Shakespeare didn’t make a career of preaching moral virtue.

This book doesn’t even bother me much — writing about creepy stuff does not make a person sleazy. (necessarily)

If you want to see what a REAL LIFE sleezebag O’Reilly is — go find the deposition to his sexual harassment suit on Smoking Gun or similar.

And, we know perfectly well that O’Reailly not unique at all — the loudest preachers of “family values” in the conservative movement have proven themselves to be total moral disasters in their own lives: Limbaugh, Haggard, Gingrich, Dole, McCain, Craig, — the whole pack of ‘em.

No, this is not a page out of Karl Rove’s playbook.

Karl Rove playbook is to UTTERLY DESTROY HIS OPPONENTS — with total LIES if necessary.

This video is just showing that Bill O’Reilly is kind of creepy, yet he’s made of moralistic finger wagging.

O’Relly’s gonna be fine. His followers don’t care about this stuff.

But we liberals, who preach tolerance, are no worse — and often better than they.

Have any of these guys written serious literature?

Now how about Tom Wolfe, Shakespeare, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Judy Blume?

>There are very few successful writers that have written porn and serious literature.

I see you haven’t read much serious literature, …

Since the discussion is about authors and not literature, you are demonstrating your new moniker. Ann Rice might be successful, but I don’t think of her as serious. J.K. Rowlings on the other hand, is a serious writer.

You still haven’t answered the original question.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA SOLD DRUGS?

Reasoned argument not your forte?

Most people can see your feeble attempt to baffle ‘em with your bullshit.

Geeze, my nine y/o writes better than that. Yes, I know it’s a blog but I did ask you to explain it before.

Reasoned argument not your forte?

U should have looked up the word “sound/unsound” first…

Obama’s drug use is irrelevant to your conclusions…and the non sequiturs upon which you found them.

I still haven’t seen anything backing up your accusation that Obama sold drugs. I do see a lot of obfuscation, word play, ad hominems, and bullshit.

So? where is your evidence that Obama sold drugs?

AND

Please explain this sentence:

In other words, for the critically challenged, your argument is unsound, and my Obama “analogy” is supposed illustrate that fact EVEN to you, a very irrational person.

Geeze, my nine y/o writes better than that. Yes, I know it’s a blog but I did ask you to explain it before.

I see you haven’t read much serious literature, or perhaps you have and don’t remember the porn, since it rarely gets treated to this level of scrutiny.

I don’t see anything in that post about MY reasoning being sound

Precisely my point, your conclusions are always unsound…even when correct, they are predicated upon non sequiturs.

#27, Alphie,

That does not explain anything. O’Reilly promotes his image as All-American. The passages read from his book don’t sound very “wholesome” to me. They sound quite hypocritical.

O’Reilly doesn’t promote his image as “All American, which term is ambiguous…

For your argument to be correct, O’Reilly would have to promote his image as including past porn fiction, but declaring the image as “free of porn.”

That contradiction is not found in O’Reilly statements, ONLY in your conclusion,” which is seeing what isn’t there, and taking offense at it.

I’ll give you this, your conclusions are consistently unsound, even when they are correct, your belief in them is for unsound reasons…

Before you reply, learn what “unsound” means.