Jump to content


Photo

Bill O'Reilly's "Lincoln" fail


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#16 The Mad Deckhand

The Mad Deckhand
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,521 posts
  • Joined: Jun-06 2010

Posted November 13 2011 - 3:45 PM

You include a review by someone who posted their thoughts on the barnes and noble website?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Waiting for you to prove that the book is different than the way it was represented by the review.

Eddie, you mocked me for posting it, fine. Explain to us all that this book is not full of fail.

I triple dog dare you.

Quit ignoring me, you asked for this....:laugh:


  • 0
  • -

#17 Wraith

Wraith
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,958 posts
  • Joined: Mar-24 2006

Posted November 13 2011 - 3:48 PM

Did you read it? Did you even look at the critical reviews? I read it. It's a good read, it's just factually inaccurate.


I did read what you Posted. Do 'You' have anything more then Mr. SBrizek's opinion? Anything?


  • 0
  • -
SLOP. (Standard Liberal Operating Procedure)

#18 The Mad Deckhand

The Mad Deckhand
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,521 posts
  • Joined: Jun-06 2010

Posted November 13 2011 - 3:50 PM

Still waiting Eddie. You usually will keep writing back over and over and over. Waiting for you....or any of the other right wingers here to step up and deliver. :confused:


  • 0
  • -

#19 The Mad Deckhand

The Mad Deckhand
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,521 posts
  • Joined: Jun-06 2010

Posted November 13 2011 - 3:52 PM

I did read what you Posted. Do 'You' have anything more then Mr. SBrizek's opinion? Anything?


Bill O'Reilly Book 'Killing Lincoln' Banned At Ford's Theatre

A reviewer for the official National Park Service bookstore at Ford’s Theatre has recommended that Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling new book about the Lincoln assassination not be sold at the historic site “because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.”

Rae Emerson, deputy superintendent at Ford’s Theatre, which is a national historic site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, has penned a scathing appraisal of O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever.” In Emerson’s official review, which I’ve pasted below, she spends four pages correcting passages from O’Reilly’s book before recommending that it not be offered for sale at Ford’s Theatre because it is not up to quality standards.

For example, “Killing Lincoln” makes multiple references to the Oval Office; in fact, Emerson points out, the office was not built until 1909.

At one point O’Reilly writes of generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, “The two warriors will never meet again.” In fact, according to the review, Grant and Lee met for a second time in 1865 to discuss prisoners of war.

The book says that Ford’s Theatre “burned to the ground in 1863.” In fact, the fire was in 1862, according to the review.

I’ve reached out to O’Reilly’s publisher, Henry Holt, for comment, and I will update this post when I hear back.

O’Reilly’s book, co-authored with Martin Dugard, has spent six weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and is currently in the #2 spot, behind only Walter Isaacson’s blockbuster biography of Steve Jobs. Publisher Henry Holt said late last month that the title had sold nearly 1 million copies, the AP reported. The company also announced O’Reilly has agreed to write two more books, one of which will be a history of a not-yet-specified president.

O’Reilly’s book has received friendly media coverage from big outlets ranging from the New York Post to NPR. (Though the NPR piece had to be corrected because O’Reilly misstated the number of handwritten copies of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.)

One dissenting take came from University of New Hampshire history professor Ellen Fitzpatrick, who questioned the book’s sourcing in a Washington Post review.

‘Killing Lincoln’ also resurrects an old canard debunked long ago by serious historians: that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was involved in the plot to kill Lincoln, in the hope that he might ascend to the presidency. There is no credible evidence to support such an assertion, nor do O’Reilly and Dugard provide any. (In fact, ‘Killing Lincoln’ offers no direct citations for any of its assertions. In a three-page summary under the heading ‘Notes,’ the authors assure readers that they have consulted “hundreds” of sources; they list the secondary sources they have relied on.)

The book is also getting hammered in customer reviews on Amazon, with some charges of historical inaccuracy and an average rating of just two stars out of five.


Bill O'Reilly 'Killing Lincoln' Errors: Book Contains Plethora Of Factual Inaccuracies

As Salon points out, "Killing Lincoln", which he co-authored with Martin Dugard, is riddled with factual inaccuracies. The National Parks Service outed the mistakes in a recent review before banning it from the Ford's Theatre bookstore.

In one instance, the book claims Ford's Theatre was burned down in 1863 when it was actually destroyed in the end of 1862. The book contains multiple references to Lincoln in the Oval Office, which wasn't built until decades after his death. It also includes the line "He furls his brow"; furl is a nautical term, the correct word is furrows.....


  • 0
  • -

#20 dena

dena
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,025 posts
  • Joined: Dec-07 2006

Posted November 13 2011 - 3:54 PM

What were your thoughts on the book, or are you also here to blindly defend all right-wingers?


I did not read the book.

Bill O'Reilly is not the guy I go to for my history, current events, maybe, but not history.
There are much better books on the 16th President. check out 'Mary Lincoln's Dressmake'r for a different look at the Lincoln White House.
Like I said above, you don't have to support the guy.
Thanks for the book review though.


  • 0
  • -
There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of curious idiots out there.

#21 The Mad Deckhand

The Mad Deckhand
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,521 posts
  • Joined: Jun-06 2010

Posted November 13 2011 - 3:59 PM

I did read what you Posted. Do 'You' have anything more then Mr. SBrizek's opinion? Anything?


DID YOU READ THE BOOK.


  • 0
  • -

#22 nipsip

nipsip
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,555 posts
  • Joined: Feb-10 2011

Posted November 13 2011 - 5:28 PM

Apparently the book is so filled with errors, inaccuracies and lack of documentation that historians are pointing their fingers and laughing.

How about those Lincoln meetings in the Oval Office, which wasn’t built until 1909!

Proof positive that O'Reilly can sell anything to his listeners.


  • 0
  • -

#23 Wraith

Wraith
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,958 posts
  • Joined: Mar-24 2006

Posted November 13 2011 - 6:07 PM

DID YOU READ THE BOOK.


Nope, but then I'm not the one making 'Claims' about it, am I..............:laugh: So, again, did 'you' read it...........;)


  • 0
  • -
SLOP. (Standard Liberal Operating Procedure)

#24 The Mad Deckhand

The Mad Deckhand
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,521 posts
  • Joined: Jun-06 2010

Posted November 13 2011 - 6:24 PM

Nope, but then I'm not the one making 'Claims' about it, am I..............:laugh: So, again, did 'you' read it...........;)



I understand now why you didn't read the book....


Did you read it? Did you even look at the critical reviews? I read it. It's a good read, it's just factually inaccurate.



Arguing with you is really boring....I have to explain simple things over and over.....


  • 0
  • -

#25 BrianBM

BrianBM
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,596 posts
  • Joined: Dec-16 1999

Posted November 13 2011 - 7:12 PM




A new low for SOL's PG forum. Hell, we're scraping the bottom of the internet for book reviews to try to take a dig at O'Reily? 


How about we discuss the Bill Ayres (anti-American terrorist) written series of books attributed to Barack Hussein Obama. It's clear they weren't written by Barry Hussein himself. Friggin fraud. 

 

 


Now, there's a claim for which I'd like to see some evidence.


  • 0
  • -

#26 The Mad Deckhand

The Mad Deckhand
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,521 posts
  • Joined: Jun-06 2010

Posted November 13 2011 - 7:30 PM

Now, there's a claim for which I'd like to see some evidence.




A new low for SOL's PG forum. Hell, we're scraping the bottom of the internet for book reviews to try to take a dig at O'Reily? 

How about we discuss the Bill Ayres (anti-American terrorist) written series of books attributed to Barack Hussein Obama. It's clear they weren't written by Barry Hussein himself. Friggin fraud. 


Yes, Jeff....who ever said that Bill Ayers has ever written for Obama? It's ******** and you know it. Quit posting crap on my thread.

"Trying" to take a dig? O'Rilley blow this like a $2.00 ho.


  • 0
  • -

#27 midwestexile

midwestexile
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: May-21 2007
  • LocationIllinois

Posted November 13 2011 - 8:38 PM

The claim is out there over the internet, but evidence for it not so much. The public discussion on this argument apparently started with Donald Trump, who rolled it out with his argument that O'bama was not born in Hawai'i. [Video on the internet]

The best I could come up with as evidence was the article below from Accuracy in Media. Ayers routinely answers questions about this with "Yes I did, and if you can help me prove it we can split the royalties." That's about it. A non-denial denial, which must mean it is really true, which is why he denies it by saying he did it. Oh, right. And from another key critic, both books have nautical metaphors. The claim runs something like Obama would not know what ballast was and so would not have used it in a sentence but Ayers has used the term ballast too.

"As of now, Ayers has not denied being the ghost. Andersen has said he was, and he has sources and a fine reputation in the MSM. It is just lazy reporting to ignore the implications and claim anyone who continues to look into it is some kind of wingnut. The ultimate Ayers joke would be telling the truth and having the media think he was just yanking chains. You can tell the truth and yank chains at least as effectively as you can tell a lie.

Thomas Lipscomb is the Founder of Times Books and a Senior Fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future."



====================================================
So let me go back to the larger question -- do political figures [or most public speakers who can afford it] use ghost writers? Is it ethical to use ghost-writers or for that matter secretaries, editors, and researchers? There is logically some possibility that BO used a ghost-writer for all or part of any writing project or any speech he has ever given. Does the Lincoln letter to the mother who lost 5 sons in the war { ". . . to have laid so heavy a sacrifice on the alter of freedom"} lose meaning if his personal secretary John Nicolay drafted it like a multitude of other letters? How about Eisenhower who allegedly heard the line "I will go to Korea . . ." in a manuscript during the 1952 campaign when he read it out loud? [A good story, but probably only half true, because he was planning to do so but not to have it in that speech.]


  • 0
  • -

#28 The Mad Deckhand

The Mad Deckhand
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,521 posts
  • Joined: Jun-06 2010

Posted November 13 2011 - 8:47 PM



A new low for SOL's PG forum. Hell, we're scraping the bottom of the internet for book reviews to try to take a dig at O'Reily? 


How about we discuss the Bill Ayres (anti-American terrorist) written series of books attributed to Barack Hussein Obama. It's clear they weren't written by Barry Hussein himself. Friggin fraud. 



The claim is out there over the internet, but evidence for it not so much. The public discussion on this argument apparently started with Donald Trump, who rolled it out with his argument that O'bama was not born in Hawai'i. [Video on the internet]
The best I could come up with as evidence was the article below from Accuracy in Media. Ayers routinely answers questions about this with "Yes I did, and if you can help me prove it we can split the royalties." That's about it. A non-denial denial, which must mean it is really true, which is why he denies it by saying he did it. Oh, right. And from another key critic, both books have nautical metaphors. The claim runs something like Obama would not know what ballast was and so would not have used it in a sentence but Ayers has used the term ballast too.
"As of now, Ayers has not denied being the ghost. Andersen has said he was, and he has sources and a fine reputation in the MSM. It is just lazy reporting to ignore the implications and claim anyone who continues to look into it is some kind of wingnut. The ultimate Ayers joke would be telling the truth and having the media think he was just yanking chains. You can tell the truth and yank chains at least as effectively as you can tell a lie.

Thomas Lipscomb is the Founder of Times Books and a Senior Fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future."
====================================================
So let me go back to the larger question -- do political figures [or most public speakers who can afford it] use ghost writers? Is it ethical to use ghost-writers or for that matter secretaries, editors, and researchers? There is logically some possibility that BO used a ghost-writer for all or part of any writing project or any speech he has ever given. Does the Lincoln letter to the mother who lost 5 sons in the war { ". . . to have laid so heavy a sacrifice on the alter of freedom"} lose meaning if his personal secretary John Nicolay drafted it like a multitude of other letters? How about Eisenhower who allegedly heard the line "I will go to Korea . . ." in a manuscript during the 1952 campaign when he read it out loud? [A good story, but probably only half true, because he was planning to do so but not to have it in that speech.]


It's crap. The whole theory that Ayers was even associated with Obama beyond serving on a comity together is a steaming pile of dog poo. People have tried to tie Obama to that nut forever, and all it ever ends up being is a bunch of "I heard that......"

Crap to the first order.


  • 0
  • -

#29 Skiddd

Skiddd
  • Bring me DECAF!!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,562 posts
  • Joined: Apr-05 2010
  • LocationPSE&G HELL!

Posted November 14 2011 - 2:28 AM

I read it and enjoyed it, only thing is it wasn't accurate since I wasn't in It(I was an assistant secretary of war under Stanton) I might be in another book about my sexual affair with Mary Lincoln(I like short plumpy wacko chicks) so we'll see.


  • 0
  • -

"Life's tough. It's tougher

 

if you're stupid."

         

                 -John Wayne      :)

 

 

 

Eggy Award Winner!


#30 Eddy

Eddy
  • Scholarly Gentleman

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 76,643 posts
  • Joined: Jul-11 2005

Posted November 22 2011 - 9:03 AM

Bill O'Reilly Book 'Killing Lincoln' Banned At Ford's Theatre


Actually, it's not on sale in the book store, but it is on sale in the gift shop


  • 0
  • -