Originally Posted by One_Tycoon
I don't think so. His ideology is wrong to begin with, then you get the terminologies wrong...implying that Clinton's surplus eliminated the entire National Debt and that Bush racked up 10 trillion during his two terms...and it's game over.
Now he may be able to "cream" O'reilly because that guy is a dunce himself but at least he leans the right direction and had the whereabouts to stop Stewart and correct him. A lot of Liberals use this kind of talk and it passes right over peoples heads. And they get applauded for it.
I'll address the substantive points a little. Basically, I already agreed with the substantive matter in this post.
And as much as I dislike O'Reilly, I also agree on that point as well (it was good of O'Reilly to correct him).
O'Reilly could've been creamed. As far as the broader issue, I also think the entire perspective O'Reilly represented is wrong. I'd like to say that I would enjoy hearing an honest scholarly commentary on the matter supporting the view represented by O'Reilly. However, I am not sure where one would be found, and the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing think tanks don't qualify as 'honest'.