You can't explain that.

EFF IT, WE'LL SELL IT LIVE!

It may be short on facts, but it feels right.

Maybe there was a miscommunication?

So, it was Liberals that did it? Hipster Eastern Liberals who wanted integrated bussing and socialized medicine? John Wilkes Booth was really the precursor to the Hollywoood Elite, with a gun and a hate for everything good and decent?

MayoSlather: Well the sales and O'Reilly's ratings speak for themselves...How can something possibly be wrong if it's popular?

That's a good point. Can't we just edit Wikipedia until he's right?

what they said,"Ford's Theatre, as you might recall from fourth-grade history class, is the Washington, D.C.-based theater palace where John Wilkes Booth fatally shot Lincoln back in 1865. According to the Washington Post, the theater has banned Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever, a new book O'Reilly wrote with fancy American writer Martin Dugard, because it's "sloppy with the facts and slim on documentation"-an assessment given by Ford's officials and outside historians who have panned it."

what they really wanted to say


"Ford's Theatre, as you might recall from fourth-grade history class, is the Washington, D.C.-based theater palace where John Wilkes Booth fatally shot Lincoln back in 1865. According to the Washington Post, the theater has banned Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever, a new book O'Reilly wrote with fancy American writer Martin Dugard, because it's "it was written by a right wing nutter that would NEVER get shelf space under the Obama regime"-an assessment given by Ford's officials and outside historians who have never read it but panned it anyway because it was written by Oreilly, founder of Oreilly's Auto Parts Store."

Facts have a liberal bias, you can't explain that

EnviroDude: what they really wanted to say

How people think you're being serious, I really don't understand.

The important thing is that the book is a best seller. In fact, that's the ONLY thing that matters to Bill.

The book has all kinds of inaccuracies. Apparently, he says that the Lincolns were at the theater to see a production of Cats.

wyltoknow: How people think you're being serious, I really don't understand.

I think most people know he's not, but that doesn't stop people from wanting to respond to obviously inaccurate claims. People get upset when the noise/information ratio gets too low.

All he cares about is making money, if other works site him as fact then that's a bonus. Now the Texas rewriting of history on the other hand is scary and Orwellian.

Also, in the book, he claims that Ford's Theater was named after Harrison Ford.

SphericalTime: wyltoknow: How people think you're being serious, I really don't understand.

I think most people know he's not, but that doesn't stop people from wanting to respond to obviously inaccurate claims. People get upset when the noise/information ratio gets too low.

I think it was a little bit of sarcasm mixed in with satirical humor regarding the Obama administration and their disdain for all those that oppose them.

/in other words, it's a joke. get it?

//you would have thought the line about Oreilly founding Oreilly Auto Parts Store would have tipped you off.

///Hope you have a great day and may your favorite team dominate whomever they are playing (as long as they aren't the Falcons-cause I root for Drew Jesus Breesus).

There's also a passage in the book where O'Reilly claims that after Lincoln died, one of the local constables tells another that Booth's bullet got him and the other replies, "Oh no, it wasn't the bullet. It was beauty killed the beast."

Well, why ELSE would we have declared war on Japan the next day?

Did you guys get to the part when Bill goes back in time and calls Mary Lincoln after the shooting and tells her how he wants to do things to her in the shower? It was really hot. Made me crave falafel.

Bill is such a charmer. *swoon*

Hmmmm..."afag". i r teh smrts. Previewing comments before posting is socialism.

EnviroDude: I think it was a little bit of sarcasm mixed in with satirical humor regarding the Obama administration and their disdain for all those that oppose them.

Yes, the Obama administrations disdain for all those that oppose them is so great that they have compromised with them on EVERYTHING.

Verily, when John Harvey Boothe fired his glock that chilling morning in the Harrison Ford Theater, it was the shot heard round the universe.

EnviroDude: SphericalTime: wyltoknow: How people think you're being serious, I really don't understand.

I think most people know he's not, but that doesn't stop people from wanting to respond to obviously inaccurate claims. People get upset when the noise/information ratio gets too low.

I think it was a little bit of sarcasm mixed in with satirical humor regarding the Obama administration and their disdain for all those that oppose them.

/in other words, it's a joke. get it?

//you would have thought the line about Oreilly founding Oreilly Auto Parts Store would have tipped you off.

///Hope you have a great day and may your favorite team dominate whomever they are playing (as long as they aren't the Falcons-cause I root for Drew Jesus Breesus).

Now I have "Oh-oh-oh-O'Reileyyyyyy" stuck in my head.

EnviroDude: ///Hope you have a great day and may your favorite team dominate whomever they are playing (as long as they aren't the Falcons-cause I root for Drew Jesus Breesus).

My boyfriend's a Patriots fan, so no rooting for the Falcons to spoil your game. Have a great day too.

SphericalTime: EnviroDude: ///Hope you have a great day and may your favorite team dominate whomever they are playing (as long as they aren't the Falcons-cause I root for Drew Jesus Breesus).

My boyfriend's a Patriots fan, so no rooting for the Falcons to spoil your game. Have a great day too.

I effing hate the Patriots, but please, please beat the Jets.

Did he base his book on:

NSFW language (new window)

sweetmelissa31: Did he base his book on:

NSFW language (new window)

I think they copied Eddie Murphy's "black person at a horror movie" skit. "What you shooshing me fo'? I'll rip yo' goddamn lips off!"

Blaming Lincoln's assassination on the Kennedy clan extracting revenge over JFK and RFK was considered a stretch?

Marcus Aurelius: The important thing is that the book is a best seller. In fact, that's the ONLY thing that matters to Bill.

WND and the like will "buy" them by the case and give them to you for any old reason. Voila, best seller

Skail: Is it full of more holes than ol' Abe Lincoln?

Sounds like it has more holes than a lesbian orgy.

Motherfarker, I want more popcorn and a large diet coke!

As a fan of history, O'Reilly should have done better sourcing, but to be fair, the vast majority of the things pointed out as "inaccuracies" were pretty petty. Example: The book says something happened in 1863 - the critic says it happened on December 30, 1862. (Two days apart, really?) Another: Book claims a distance of around 9 feet, critic states distance is 11.5 feet. That's not even 3 feet difference.

Still, I won't be purchasing this book because it does sound like a lot of sloppy writing.

PC LOAD LETTER: Well, why ELSE would we have declared war on Japan the next day?

Dude, that was like three days later. We had to bury him first, and swear in president Hoover.

CanisNoir: As a fan of history, O'Reilly should have done better sourcing, but to be fair, the vast majority of the things pointed out as "inaccuracies" were pretty petty. Example: The book says something happened in 1863 - the critic says it happened on December 30, 1862. (Two days apart, really?) Another: Book claims a distance of around 9 feet, critic states distance is 11.5 feet. That's not even 3 feet difference.

Still, I won't be purchasing this book because it does sound like a lot of sloppy writing.

Ya think? There are several scenes of Lincoln in the Oval Office, FORTY years before it was constructed!

Also, if this isn't a novel, you expect it to be accurate. If you can't get the date of the fire correct, what the hell are you even writing a history for?

CanisNoir: As a fan of history, O'Reilly should have done better sourcing, but to be fair, the vast majority of the things pointed out as "inaccuracies" were pretty petty. Example: The book says something happened in 1863 - the critic says it happened on December 30, 1862. (Two days apart, really?) Another: Book claims a distance of around 9 feet, critic states distance is 11.5 feet. That's not even 3 feet difference.

Still, I won't be purchasing this book because it does sound like a lot of sloppy writing.

The thing is, these are very well agreed upon facts. While there may be some differing opinions, when you go against the consensus, it is common academic practice to at least cite some references. His lack of citations, especially where he differs from the generally accepted timeline in what is supposed to be a serious accounting of events regarding a huge point in American history is unacceptable.

Then again, he's an entertainer, not a journalist.

I read it but disagreed with his conclusion that Barack Obama traveled back in time to kill Lincoln as a way to set up his socialist communist union

coeyagi: Winston Smith '84: JerseyTim: Also, in the book, he claims that Ford's Theater was named after Harrison Ford.

I thought he claimed that Ford's Theater was named after Henry Ford and his son, Harrison, gained notoriety when Henry named a car in his honor.

I thought it was named after Chadd's Ford, named for John Chadd, but really famous for Andrew, NC and Jamie Wyeth living there. So Ford's theater is named after Andrew Wyeth.



You sure about that?