« 40 Days of Rain Takes a Toll on Austin | Main | Slate Gets One Right »

O'Reilly Smeared by Boulder High School Supporters

Some pinhead named Jesse Lange attempted to "show the hypocrisy" of Bill O'Reilly last week on the O'Reilly Factor, and is getting all sorts of praise from the whacked-out left for it:

O'Reilly was right when he said the quote was taken out of context. Google Books has the O'Reilly Factor for Kids in their system, and you can click that link to read this on page 67:

You're telling me that the best athletes, the most active leaders, and the most original students in your school are smoking marijuana? Most are not. Like many of you, they may have experimented - they may enjoy toking on Saturday nights at a party. but these people are rocking your teenage world because they are motivated, healthy, and hard-working kids the majority of the time. Like a brain surgeon who drinks a martini when he's not on call, the successful kids in your school may smoke pot on occasion, but they are not stoners.

Most kids who smoke marijuana say they can stop anytime.

Stop right now.

You know what I always say: Don't do things that prevent success.

That's the part that pinhead Jesse failed to quote on Bill's show. If you read the book, it's obvious that Bill is taking kids through the various pro-drug propaganda, and showing the fallacy of each and every misconception.

I captured a screenshot of that page from the book, just in-case Google removes it:

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us


are you crazy?? how is that NOT condoning drug use?? he's saying it's okay to smoke weed just as long as youre not a "stoner".

"Like a brain surgeon who drinks a martini when he's not on call, the successful kids in your school may smoke pot on occasion"

successful kids smoke every now and then. smoking pot every now and then is ok. how is that NOT condoning drug use?

Keep reading pinhead. How is that NOT condoning drug use? KEEP READING.

"Stop right now.

You know what I always say: Don't do things that prevent success."

Did you even read the article? I doubt it. If you take the first paragraph out of context, it looks like he is condoning drug use. If you CONTINUE to read, you see that he is NOT condoning drug use.

Lay off the pot and eat something better than just twinkies, bro. It's rotting your brain.

If you watch that whole video Bill O'reilly asks,

"Do you think I'm condoning drug use?"

The kids response was, "No, and neither were these people." (the lecturers.)


Must be a stoner thing than, bro. That response is totally taken out of context as well.

Stoners ...

I don't agree with much of what O'Reily says, but that is inconsequential since my point in posting here is to let you know that saying someone is "taking things out of context" and "proving" this by taking something else out of context is not a valid way to prove a point.

Basically, you are proving yourself to be unsophisticated and incapable of thought by missing the very valid point that the high-schooler was making. First, O'Reiley was in the wrong by claiming the speaker had said he would do ecstasy with students. Further, O'Reiley, by his own measure used against the speakers, was condoning recreational drug use in his book. In fact, by creating a peer-group scenario, I would argue that O'Reiley's statement is equally suggestive as the panelist (Dr. Becker) who encouraged safe use with the stated knowledge that many kids would experiment with drugs.

Both you and O'Reiley seem to think it is "pinheadish" to return to source material to prove a point by citation rather than nebulous bullshitting. I will now substantiate my claims at length.

As with most partisan hack apologists, you (DJFelix) miss the entire point of the conversation and use this to distort the truth. O'Reily clearly is saying in his book that some drug use is ok, but that being constantly under the influence, or over-using (being a stoner) is not conducive to getting things done. You cannot possibly disagree with this, yet you have somehow.

Lets go ahead and analyze his short passage. He allows that many kids experiment with drugs. He also allows that some kids who are "doing well" (nebulous, but I think the point comes across that these kids are getting good grades etc.) smoke on the weekends (and one would assume are drinking as well but thats neither here nor there).

So, there we have it. O'Reiley clearly states that drugs can be used and experimented with by "normal" "motivated" kids. This is not condoning drug use per-se, but it surely isn't damning it as the worst thing in the world. He is however warning against addiction/habit forming. This line of reasoning is exactly the same as that promoted by the speakers in warning about the consequences of *heavy* drug use.

The following line of "then stop right now" is a not so subtle challenge to the claim that weed isn't addictive. It is not an edict to stop all drug use, as is made clear with his prior admission that achievers can use drugs. However, it still is in line with the overall message (and context) that while drugs can be consumed in moderation, their over-use is damaging and should be avoided. Indeed, he follows this by saying "don't do things that prevent success." Now, according to his prior statements, the kids "rocking" the teenage world can do so even when they are smoking over the weekend at a party. Thus, to the extent that he allows for experimentation, if he claims the speaker was condoning drug use by talking about fringe medical uses of ecstasy, Bill too is guilty of condoning drug use. His standards cannot change because it is convenient for his show.

All O'Reiley was expressing was to not put drugs before something substantive in your life. For that I applaud him, but he is contradicting himself in his crusader approach to this school event.

Simply put, O'Reiley is eschewing the Reagan era "Just Say No" mantra (a failure) in favor of what I would agree is a more enlightened stance, then doubling back and screaming bloody murder at the school. As the astute high-schooler observed, he is not condoning drug use so much as pragmatically petitioning against over-consumption without crying abstinence...just as the speakers did, albeit more colorfully and candidly.

By the way, whoever you are, I would be careful to deride "stoners" as there are plenty of people in the world who are more intelligent and capable of rational thought than you who themselves partake. I know Cum Laude high-school inductees, and Pi Beta Kappas at top 10 universities who have "used mary-jane as their muse" (lifted from Mad Men).

Oh, and "then" is different entirely from "than." You look like an even bigger idiot when you not only mangle comprehension, but also the English language.

Q.E.D. (that means quod erat demondstrandum or "that which was to be demonstrated")

I hope you take this opportunity to engage more deeply with your world by seeking out information and thinking critically for yourself. Everyone would benefit.

link to transcript of the panel: http://www.bvsdwatch.org/content/view/91/1/

Pitiful, you fucking win.

pitiful just owned the DJ. fantastic retort.

If this kid "schooled" Bill O'reilly, then yall' must go to a pretty damn dumb school? Oh that's right, you do,(did) go to the Useless Schools of liberal IDIOTology, otherwise known as the United States National Education Association's handy work.
Yeah this kids as sharp as a Rubber Spatula? And as skillful at delivering the Anti-Parent, God hating message as Barry Soetoro himself.
Anyone who's "actually" read Bill O's book knows we can liken Jesse Lange's nervous chin pinching to Billybob Clinton's lip biting.
It tells us all a great story when Liberals proclaim this kid "owned" Bill because he learned (already) in his young life that lying gets the applause of the rest of the idiots liars in the world.
As long as liberal, God hating idiots keep arguing this kid was right, we're safe from their attacks that try so hard to make the people who "CARE" about children look dumb. Seriously, any person who READS pages 66-68 of Bill's GREAT BOOK FOR KIDS, and comes away thinking Bill is in ANY way promoting any drug use is one of two things!
Either REALLY -EXTREMELY IGNORANT, or more likely, just like this kid, severely, mentally handicapped in all the drug and sexual perversion rhetoric of the left.
Kids, you ARE WAY SMARTER THEN YOUR LIBERAL POLITICIANS who graduated Harvard. AND THAT is something to be very proud of and something to use to shut the idiot Jesse Lange's in your life up!

so im late but i would like to make it clear that it is impossible to become physically addicted to marijuana, as it has be analytically proven that marijuana in its natural state contains no substances that the human body can become addicted to. there are, however, two instances in which a human can become addicted. one: foreign substances have been added to intentionally addict the user to not just marijuana, but that specific strain to increase the sellers sales. it is also possible to become mentally dependent on marijuana. only certain types of people can become dependent on marijuana, but those people are just as likely to become dependent on alcohol or caffeine or chocolate. seriously people who claim its addictive without ever having been addicted to something themselves need to stfu cause they have no idea what they are talking about.

@trololololol, I agree with you, but don't reduce yourself to insults. I mean, that's a pejorative phrase to ranting idiots around the world. @ billbo, LET'S SEE SOME EXAMPLES. Bill O'Reilly is obviously, if not supporting, at least ok with recreational drug use, as he likens it to surgeons while not on call (which IS legal). And, as for the last paragraph, isn't that like saying to a smoker, "Yes, many of the athletes smoke, and smoking won't destroy your life, but you should quit". Yes. What a great campaign slogan

Oh, and pitiful is my new homeboy

ACTUALLY, Jesse's chin pinching is more likely because he's frustrated Bill O'R is shouting over everything he says and not letting him give his opinion (wich was the point of him going on the show in the first place).
ACTUALLY, even in Jesse's choice of wardrobe (hair combed, suit and tie - showing respect for the TVshow) and preperation (the transcripts) you can see plainly that he knew he was going into a place where his opinion was going to be chalenged.

Jesse's nervousness is perfectly normal for a 16yo who's ideas are being twisted by a respected public figure. Bill O'Reilly's attempt to censor what this kid is saying is inexcusable. He was in his own comfort zone and should have been the mature one in this conversation.

But when was the last time Bill ever listened to someone else's opinion...

Idiots. Jesse did school O' Reilly, most of you who commented seem to be severely uneducated. The kid DID take the quote out of context, and that was the point. O' Reilly )the real pinhead in this conversation) along with most of the media reporting on this case, took Joel Becker's comments out of context to paint a portrait of the man as condoning drug use and whatnot when he clearly was not.

Jesse was making a point by doing the same thing the public at the time was doing, skewing the facts. You guys hear that? It's the sound of the point of the kid's argument WHOOSHING over your heads.

No doubt about it. O'Reilly got owned. He's also intellectually dishonest and panders.

I like Glenn Beck much much more.

Post a comment