StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Bill O'Reilly's "Lincoln" fail
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bill O'Reilly's "Lincoln" fail - Page 2

post #16 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy View Post

You include a review by someone who posted their thoughts on the barnes and noble website?
cwm27.gifcwm27.gifcwm27.gifcwm27.gif

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....cwm27.gif
post #17 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Deckhand View Post

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?
post #18 of 82
Thread Starter 
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.gif
post #19 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith View Post

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.....
post #20 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Deckhand View Post

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.
post #21 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith View Post

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

DID YOU READ THE BOOK.
post #22 of 82
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.
post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Deckhand View Post

DID YOU READ THE BOOK.

Nope, but then I'm not the one making 'Claims' about it, am I..............cwm27.gif So, again, did 'you' read it...........wink.gif
post #24 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith View Post

Nope, but then I'm not the one making 'Claims' about it, am I..............cwm27.gif So, again, did 'you' read it...........wink.gif


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

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Deckhand View Post

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.....
post #25 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranfordJeff View Post





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.
post #26 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianBM View Post

Now, there's a claim for which I'd like to see some evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranfordJeff View Post



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.
post #27 of 82
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.
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.]
post #28 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranfordJeff View Post



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. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestexile View Post

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.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.
post #29 of 82
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.
post #30 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Deckhand View Post

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Graffiti
StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Bill O'Reilly's "Lincoln" fail