The persecution of atheists exceeds the power reduction of religions

For those religious people that think atheism is taking away their power over society, I ask you what dissent - of any kind - justifies this sort of action:

"I stabbed him because he humiliated my prophet," said Jikrullah, a 20-year-old student at Hathajari Madrassah in the southeastern district of Chittagong, without elaborating.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/police-say-blogger-hacked-to-death-in-bangladesh-1.2303602

Who teaches people that this is an acceptable form of counter argument?  To kill someone in cold blood for speaking their mind is not acceptable under any circumstance.  This is the tyranny of religion that gives people more justification to hide their wicked and foul actions under a cloak of religious obedience.

 "I was just following religious orders."  is very similar to another justification often given.

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Arbeit_Macht_Frei_Dachau_8235.jpg/220px-Arbeit_Macht_Frei_Dachau_8235.jpg

"Work Makes Free"

 
"I was just following orders," was claimed by many guards at Nazi concentration camps.

Death is a justified response for insults and hurt feelings? A crime not even approaching the level of rape, theft, or murder?

So to any religious group that complains they are not being given the respect they are due, it is because you have been given more respect than you deserved for many many years.  Do not expect any more in the future.

One can think good...

but to be good
one must do good

Commercial airline planes need a "fly safe mode"

In the wake of this tragedy, new ideas are needed on how to prevent preventable plane accidents.

All modern planes can fly themselves in normal operating conditions.  That shouldn't shock anyone, if you are unaware how much advanced control systems exist, the computer cores are a significant part of the avionics. They can be commanded to land themselves.  All modern airlines have GPS and the best satellite reception for the best position estimates. 


Instead of ignoring this reality, it should be used as a last resort.

If the air traffic control thinks the pilots are not able to fly the plane, why not allow them to send a remote control override that is ONLY capable of commanding the plane to fly to the nearest airport and circle the field? It could override commands to change course until the crew reconnects with the air traffic control and the air traffic control unlocks the plane controls. After a designated time window, or when the fuel reaches critical levels, then the plane can make the landing.


If the plane is full of fuel, there is no rush to land it as they can circle for hours. That is ample time for an intercept jet to see whats going on in the cockpit. That gives lots of time to assess the situation if there is no need to panic.  To unlock the controls, the air traffic control has to be satisfied that the plane is in good hands and then control is given back. 

There is no rush to land if there is no urgent need to land.

As a final last resort, the plane can land itself.  I would rather trust the automation than a sick pilot.  I would rather use the computer control than trust a suspect crew.

Again, Why would you trust Bill O'Reilly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woi4RAmJh7U


I first asked this question here.


So again, is there anything he can't lie his way out of?  He has an excuse for every misdeed. Brian Williams was tortured for misremembering  an Iraq War helicopter incident.  He had to leave, go on vacation and most likely won't return.  Bill O'Reilly is supported beyond reasonable standards by Fox News. He attacked everyone that questions his statements.  How can anyone claim his reporting is fair and balanced?

If Fox News supports this sort of dishonest anchor, then can they claim they are fair and balanced?

Leniency for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl should be punished with understanding and sympathy.  More importantly, his punishment must underline the consequences that resulted from his action.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/bowe-bergdahl-charges-decision/index.html

War is an abnormal time that elicits abnormal psychology in people.  We all break under pressure. We all have doubts in our beliefs.

Sometimes people need to punish themselves, and 5 years in the care of the Taliban will not be equaled by any time in Fort Leavenworth.

If we want to turn him into a jihadi then we will treat him harshly.
 
Instead, Sergeant Berdahl should be charged with writing a book about the brave soldiers that died on the many rescue missions looking for him. He should talk to all the family members, he should interview the people special in the lives of those people, and he should promote that book and share the proceeds with those families.

 

Atheism shown on CNN

I'm glad to see that atheism gets the same mainstream recognition in the media, beside the paedophiles of the catholic church and the suicide bombers of Islam.  Finally, a look without calling us devil worshippers....

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/17/exp-cnn-creative-marketing-atheists-inside-the-world-of-non-believers.cnn

Rescue overflights should be drones first, helicopters later.

It's now demonstrated that unmanned aerial vehicles  ( UAV ) drones can fly over much of the earth's surface in lieu of human pilots. Manned planes are heavier and more expensive but also expose amother human to risk.

If that's the case, then rescue missions should lead with drones before pilots are put at risk.  UAV can reduce the search area and in case of bad weather reduce the time on station for over flight.

Heretical ideas propose the extinction of Islam, not a reformation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/excerpt-heretic-ayaan-hirsi-ali/story?id=29807824
In Ayaan Hirsi Ali's new book, she states:

"For more than thirteen years now, I have been making a simple argument in response to such acts of terrorism. My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them. Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qur’an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace. For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions—or even in theological error—but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an “Islamophobe.” I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed. In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims—for whom I am already an apostate—but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such “insensitive” pronouncements."

Her points are valid but her conclusion isn't. It may be that Islam needs to change and a reformation may be needed.  But to do away with Islam entirely removes humanity from the dangers of radical extremism.  Society would do better to ban the practice entirely than to accept a reformed Islam.  She does all this work and stops short of the reasoned conclusion.

Conservatives now as corrupt as the Liberals they replaced...

It's official, the Conservatives are now inserting themselves in what should be fair procedural competitive contract processes to pick winners and losers based on personal interactions.

The proposal, which was submitted by Rabbi Chaim Mendelsohn on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch, was added at Finley’s request to four projects already selected from 167 eligible proposals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/diane-finley-s-ethics-rule-breach-should-be-reviewed-by-committee-ndp-1.3005763

163 projects got no money, one parachuted in got full funding.  This is a very non-conservative thing to do and smacks of political interference.

Of course, they will resist all efforts to expose this infraction.

This is not something to be indifferent about. The party of principles has now pointed they are past using what they "believe".


This is the sort of thing that would get a civil servant fired for breaching fairness and transparency for all competitors.  They inserted an extra winner into the money circle that ultimately failed to work; so that's bad on two fronts- they perverted the process and it didn't work!


There is no ignorance of the law nor inexperience excuse, conservatives lined up to support this one particular project in 2011, 5 years after becoming the government.

They are now operating against the principles they claim to espouse. It's time to get fresh leadership into federal government.

If Obama has to go back to Kenya, then Ted Cruz has to go back to Canada

 http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2014/10/30/102136388-Cruz3.530x298.jpg?v=1414673759

It's fascinating how small minds can make glaring exceptions in their particular case, but expect everyone else to follow their rules.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/rafael-cruz-birther_n_4181207.html

Obama may or may not have been born in Kenya. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, it's documented and can't be denied.  That makes him ineligible to be president according to rules that predate Ted Cruz.

So if Obama has to go back to Kenya, then Cruz must go back to Calgary, Canada.  We don't want him back but that would be the same rule applied to all.  Isn't that what Republicans want, illegal immigrants to stay out of America?

So where does Ted Cruz get all  the arrogance to run for president?

ISIS is pure evil in the name of religion

ISIS is pure evil in the name of religion, in this case Islam.

And 150 years ago it was the Klu Klux Klan that also acted like ISIS terrorists after the Civil War.  They promoted and justified their actions in the name of Christianity.

They killed other christians, jews, and most heinously minorities all in the name of their interpretation of religion. The KKK was pure evil in the name of religion.

The undercurrent of radical extremism is given sanction to commit anti-humanity acts all because one can interpret ancient books to support the cause.  Without the religions and the ancient books, there would be no justification!

This is why it is wrong to marginalize ISIS as extremists that are not Muslims because that gives cover to ALL religions that can produce the same kind of ideology based terrorists.  The world must accept that they are Muslims carrying out what the koran says. In that way, we can expose the dark side of them and not hide from it.

Conservatives: Pro-Religion & Anti-Science

The Harper government has divested itself of scientific counsel while at the same time invested money in religion; this from a first world nation at the dawning of the 21st century.

The often antagonistic relationship between the governing Conservatives and Canada’s scientific community turned acrimonious soon after the Tories won a minority government in 2006 and made the key decision later that year to marginalize the Office of the National Science Advisor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/30/science-cuts-muzzling-canada-conservatives_n_3112348.html

Don't believe it?  This is what one scientist opined:

“It means that international scientists will not want to collaborate with Canadian scientists,” he said. “This is reminiscent of the Cold War era, with the KGB in Russia … George Orwell would just be chuckling in his grave.” - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/harper-controlled-dfo-is-censoring-federal-scientists-with-research-rules-critics-say-1.75280#sthash.A33ShF7p.dpuf

"It means that international scientists will not want to collaborate with Canadian scientists, he said. "This is reminiscent of the Cold War era, with the KGB in Russia... George Orwell would just be chuckling in his grave."

 http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/harper-controlled-dfo-is-censoring-federal-scientists-with-research-rules-critics-say-1.75280

This is completely contrary to their stated position in the new 2014 science plan:

6.2.2 Promoting Open Science

As part of a government-wide initiative to broaden the breadth and depth of information available online through the Action Plan on Open Government, our Government will advance open science policies and practices for publicly funded research by increasing public access to the results of government funded research.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/07482.html#promoting


How can one muzzle scientists on one hand and at the same time make their information available?  Simple, you vet it for sensitive stuff that's not good for you and then paste the safe material on the Internet and ignore all of it.

At the same time, the Conservatives are pro religion; funding an office of religious freedoms complete with budget to promote religion overseas.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/niqab-debate-important-for-canadians-religious-freedoms-ambassador-says-1.2276352


Here's the problem: the future crises facing our nation, facing our children, are going to need solutions.  Global warming, plentiful fresh water, global competitiveness, advanced weaponry, are just some of the future issues governments need to tackle. Governments need to lead the people and position the nation in the face of serious challenges.  Are any of those solved with religion?  Can a shaman predict rain reliably?  Can a rabbi counsel you how to deal with improvised explosive devices (IED)?

Praying for guidance is free.  Keeping up with science issues is not.

Investing money in religion is not a wise government decision.  Manipulating science outputs to commercial only purposes and ignoring science counsel at the highest level does not help Canada into the future.

The intolerant undercurrent of Conservatives

Intolerant in a political context means:

"Not tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas. Indisposed to tolerate contrary opinions or beliefs; impatient of dissent or opposition; denying or refusing the right of private opinion or choice in others; inclined to persecute or suppress dissent."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mp-apologizes-for-stay-the-hell-where-you-came-from-comment-1.2283513

This Conservative just told people who don't remove their head coverings for citizenship ceremonies to

'stay the hell where you came from'

even though as a landed immigrant that could mean Toronto, or Montreal.


Conservative is supposed to mean:

A person who favors maintenance of the status quo or reversion to some earlier status.

 What happens then is people that want to do more than maintain the status quo, people who are intolerant, end up voting for the least tolerant option which ends up being Conservatives.

This tinges the whole parties' philosophy with some pretty insensitive views on issues. People that want to hate on foreigners have no other alternative.

Here's the reality:  an immigrant coming over to Canada or America believing in the free market and freedom is MORE LIKELY to believe the same conservative ideology of minimal government and social order, just like the right wing political core.

But what ends up happening is local people mistake prejudice for policy differences. Just because someone looks different than you or dresses differently from you does not mean they don't agree with your ideology.  In fact that's beside the point. And if they are taking jobs away it's because they are better qualified or more willing to work for it.  Not because they have it any easier.

Exactly what is contrary to conservative fiscal policy in that? Competition and freedom are exactly what that means.

Real Hardship versus Real Drama

Lisa Vanderpump	Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth
"Brandi slapped me in the face."	An Iraq War veteran, Duckworth served as a U.S. Army helicopter pilot and suffered severe combat wounds, losing both of her legs and damaging her right arm. She was the first female double amputee from the war.

How can any Infidel trust an agreement with Iran?

While President Obama is hell bent on a nuclear deal with Iran he forgets the subtle moral imperative of Islam that makes a real deal impossible.

From an Islam Explanation website: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie?

Summary Answer: Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences." There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers  in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

This is the problem: under any circumstance a religious leader of Islam can lie to anyone that is not a Muslim, to break any agreement, to deceive any party, all in the furtherance of Islam.

There is no greater justification for Iran to renege on a deal than to gain nuclear weapons.  So any deal is a very temporary and unrealistic thing.

This is why we as society need to attenuate religion's influence, it is anti-civilization through it's death cult for god mentality.

Major Dams Project

Do you know what makes Las Vegas possible?
 It's not this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Las_Vegas_Strip_at_night,_2012.jpg

It's this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Ansel_Adams_-_National_Archives_79-AAB-01.jpg/220px-Ansel_Adams_-_National_Archives_79-AAB-01.jpg

The Hoover Dam provides all the power and water to make life in a desert possible.  It was visionary thinking to change the course of water flow into a town in the middle of nowhere; one of the richest and most prosperous places on Earth.

Now consider the future problem of global warming:

In terms of practical solutions, the left has been just as ridiculous as the right. The Right wants to deny the existence of the problem, hoping to make a few more dollars from oil.  The Left wants us to abandon energy-using technology, go back to before cell phone charging stations, and stop any project that might transport fossil fuels.


Neither side has a monopoly on stupid. We can't stop global warming and we can't turn back on technology. So what else are they offering?

Instead of ridiculous posturing and unhelpful solutions, why not consider a realistic alternative?

If the sea levels will rise, then let's work at building massive dams and store the excess water where it's needed.  Turn the Sahara into a swimming pool.  There is ample dry land on the Earth's surface to store gigatons of water, clean drinking water.  All it takes is the vision to start and the time to build them.

Dam off mountain ranges near population centres and you can make every thirsty place easier to live.  Las Vegas is the example.

We have the knowledge and we have the need, but do we have the vision and drive to accomplish as they did back in 1920?

Is America really sure they want the Clinton Dynasty?

I have a new rule, called the Hitchens Rule:

"Lacking evidence to the contrary, assume Hitchens' position is correct."

Hitchens predicted the caliphate: in 2005 - 9 years early.

and Hitchens commented deeply on the Clintons: betrayers of the left.

Be very careful what you wish for America. Voting in a Clinton might be contrued as a schizophrenic episode...

Total waste of taxpayer's money: Canada has an ambassador for religious freedoms

Canada has an ambassador for religious freedoms 

http://www.international.gc.ca/religious_freedom-liberte_de_religion/mandate_mandat.aspx?lang=eng&_ga=1.102889728.101197233.1426169870

Separation of church and state does not apply in Canada? 

Promoting all religions is favoritism because it biases towards faith ideology. It doesn't matter if they are picking all religions.  It is picking a side in a debate it should remain neutral on by principle.  Instead, it is actively participating.

How does a conservative government justify spending money on a person to talk about religion on behalf of who, the people of Canada?

It gets worse: they have money and hand it out in the name of religion:

The Religious Freedom Fund funds projects outside Canada to help religious communities that are facing intolerance or persecution in their country.
More specifically, the Fund is aimed at projects that will accomplish the following objectives:

• Raise awareness about issues related to freedom of religion or belief by providing financial support to organizations for their activities, including interreligious dialogue and education on freedom of religion or belief and pluralism;
• Conduct research on freedom of religion or belief that provides governments and decision-makers around the world with sources of information and analysis related to freedom of religion or belief;
• Support dialogue among different religious groups leading to clearly identified outcomes in countries where religious issues are principal factors of tension between communities;
• Provide legal and legislative or related forms of support on issues of freedom of religion or belief in order to build local capacity and help protect communities that are targeted because of their faith.

 http://www.international.gc.ca/religious_freedom-liberte_de_religion/fund_fond.aspx?lang=eng

I don't want my tax dollars going to any religion at any time. How can a government justify this favoritism?  They won't spend on arts but they will spend on religion.  This doesn't make jobs that get people out of poverty, that turns them away from religion.  The real reason poor people turn to religion is a lack of good jobs.  Busy people don't have time for nonsense.

According to webblog http://www.canadianatheist.com/separation-of-church-state-in-canada/

there is no separation of Church and State.

 

Science Literacy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/NoahsSacrifice.JPG/250px-NoahsSacrifice.JPG

It's no wonder that kids know the story of Noah and all those animals on an arc but they know very little about science.  They get dragged to Sunday School and undergo indoctrination. They have more opportunities to familiarize themselves with this nonsense.

Science literacy is more important to society than fables or comparative literature.  Understanding we can solve problems using the tools that are known will change what things are done.  Instead of praying for help, people can help themselves.

As we counter the religious influence in society, more must be made available - for free - to people so they understand more and are afraid less.

Belief

Belief is the absence of critical thought in the presence of dogma.

Upper Class Twit of the Week

"It makes no sense to pay whities to stay home while we bring in brown people to work in these jobs."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tory-mp-apologizes-for-offensive-language-about-temporary-workers-program-1.2269655

A Canadian politician actually thought it was smart to use colours of people to explain his analogy about the different workers needed across the country.

It makes lots of sense to bring immigrants who would be willing to get off the couch and work those jobs.  So it makes sense to many of us, including those that live near Brooks where there is a massive slaughterhouse.

Instead of disparaging hard working "brown" people and lazy "white" people he could have made a serious point about East Coast people unwilling to move where the jobs are. That would not have been racist or insensitive.

The Vatican Bank: another reason the church doesn't concentrate on its core mandate

The Vatican Bank is a prime example of a church overstepping its bounds to manipulate society, or be manipulated by society, to do things that were never spiritual. Temporal matters are expressly outside it's core mandate.

Anyone that thinks the bank does "good work" must also accept that the bank does "bad work" as well.

Whether those two realties cancel out or not, it cannot be claimed that they only do good work.  If the church is a co-conspirator in bad work then how can they be a moral authority?


Huffington Post interview with Gerald Posner

This was so funny, and sad I thought I would share it...

Atheists, they are the lesser minds. They're overconfident about science. For them, the world is a laboratory. Their heads digest only scientific facts and a pity that they are proud of it like peacocks. They're ignorant to the fact that science is too contemporary. They're ignorant about the limits of humans, a puny little hydrocarbon form life. They believe that their heads, which's not bigger than a little coconut, is all powerful, all mighty, all knowing, all intelligent, all everything. They think human imagination is infinite. They're just too confident about their brains. They're blind to their limitations. They don't take anything for granted. They verify everything with their little heads. Pity that they're still proud of it. They taunt and taunt the believers their whole life.

This is the "About This Community" post for the Anti-Atheism community.

So this says a lot about the psychology and viewpoint of many religious people.  Science is too contemporary, that's a reason? Sounds like it is coming from someone that reads the classics.

We are really good at verifying facts, despite being puny hydrocarbons.We feel all too powerful. Man, I could go for some all-powerful knees right now, they both ache. So we know too much we are too cocky with what we know. We are proud of all we know. There is someone that feels dumb because of the way scientists talk to this person.  I suspect religious leaders are tapping into this emotional response, making people feel like scientists are mocking them.

All we know is puny and so are we. If only we were as mighty as a god.

I don't know about you, but I detect a real undercurrent of jealously and envy.  I thought those were sins?

Atheists have heads like coconuts, we know too much. We can verify facts with our coconuts. All they do is follow dogma with theirs.

This is written by someone that feels attacked personally by ideas that just can't be accepted. Taunting believers makes us arrogant. The more we point out how wrong religious ideas are, the more we are showing how stupid they are in this person's opinion.

There's a lot to laugh at here, but there is also lots of unhappy emotion from people that are suffering. We are making them suffer by not doing a good job

If we can't use our coconuts to come up with better ways to get across our messages, then we will have long lasting problems communicating.

It is not up to atheists to prove there is no god, it is up to deists to present one

Atheists have done a pretty good job of exploring and explaining what we understand in science and technology, how the universe works, what is in it, and where it is going.

We haven't found any deities, and probably never will.

Therefore, it is up to the proponents of religion to PROVE there is one, not up to the atheists to demonstrate there isn't. That argument of placing the burden on the other side is a cheap legal trick.  It changes the focus to trying to uncover what doesn't exist so one side, the theists, can distract people.

No longer.

It is not up to atheists to prove there is no god, it is up to deists to present one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_S3BMevzM

Obama: beats up on allies, whimpers to dictators.

If you weren't up to speed on US foreign relations, one could mistake these people for enemies of the USA:

Stephen Harper	Benjamin Netanyahu	Angela Merkel

Obama is insensitive to their countries' aspirations and need for fair treatment.  He is willing to stand on principle, or not, and disappoint allies because he knows he can. With future consequences that may or may not happen within his presidency, the likelihood of blowback is not clear. The damage from blowback is seen as less harmful?


Instead, one might think these were his key allies and trading partners.

Vladimir Putin	Ali Khamenei	Xi Jinping

Obama has shown more diplomacy and more listening for these enemies of US interests, or least competitors on the global stage,  to pursue an isolationist agenda that includes cow-towing and dithering despite a mandate to apply those same principles he imposes on allies. With future consequences that are more likely and indeed far more consequential this damage might be catastrophic.  

Do the ends justify the means?  Is this diplomacy by damage control?

Science is cool: Light as a wave and particle

Clever people come up with new ways to see old ideas.

EPFL has just imaged light acting as both a wave and a particle.  There is wonder in the universe at any scale, no mysticism needed!


http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/1-thefirstever.jpg

Meet the new George Bush

Ever wonder who's the actual successor to President George Bush?

George Bush	Vladimir Putin
"The Patriot Act closed dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, gaps that terrorists exploited when they attacked us."	The strengthening of our statehood is, at times, deliberately interpreted as authoritarianism.
I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president.	Sometimes it is necessary to be lonely in order to prove that you are right.
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.	Terrorism has once again shown it is prepared deliberately to stop at nothing in creating human victims. An end must be put to this. As never before, it is vital to unite forces of the entire world community against terror.
Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States.	The point of conservatism is not that it prevents movement forward and upward, but that it prevents movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.
George Bush	Vladimir Putin

It's obvious why Bush thought Putin was someone he could do business with...he taught him everything he knew about manipulating a state.

Why would you trust Bill O'Reilly?

Bill O'Reilly encapsulates everything that's wrong with the media. 

He staunchly follows dogma in many areas - insulating himself from ideas that should change a reasonable person's mind.

He attacks people personally for disagreeing with him.

He makes up stuff out of convenience.  He gets shrill when he's cornered. He thinks he can get away with anything so long as he claims to love Jesus, love the USA, love patriots, love Americans or whatever else that can.

His best quote is from this video, "It's true for me."

 What exactly does that mean?  There is a truth that is absolute, and then there's this local one for me, Bill O'Reilly, over all.  I don't care about that other one, I'm throwing in with my dogma.


Exactly why would you listen to this man, seriously?