Billo (as in Bill O'Reilly) Sees the Light?

Tuesday night, while lamenting the growing number of religiously unaffiliated Americans (now 23 percent of the population, up seven points in less than a decade), the #1-rated Fox News host put his finger on What's Wrong With America These Days. He reflexively pointed at ragtime music Elvis Presley's gyrating hips metal bands rap music and the generic "the media," of course. But then he said this:


"The prevailing wisdom, especially among young Americans, is whatever is good for me is good, period---the overall good be damned. … Any student of history knows that when a nation turns inward toward the pursuit of individual gratification, the nation is in trouble."

I couldn’t agree more, Bill.

When a political party promotes the notion that selfishness and greed and…oh, let's call it rugged individualism…is more important than the collective good, the nation is indeed in trouble.

When followers of a certain ideology put the "me" over the "we," it diminishes the enormous public good that comes from pooling our resources to solve problems, improve our quality of life, have each other's backs, and ensure that future generations have it better than we do.


I never thought I'd say this, but…welcome to democratic socialism, Bill O'Reilly.

It's a pretty sweet way to live. And to honor you for seeing the liberal light, I'm giving another thirty-five bucks in YOUR name to the presidential campaign of Team Bernie Sanders. And to think I was this close to giving up on you.

Call me, Bill. We'll do a phone hug.

www.dailykos.com...#

I agree with Mr O'Reilly that the principle he mentions (Any student of history knows that when a nation turns inward toward the pursuit of individual gratification, the nation is in trouble) is a core principle of any functional society. It fascinates me that he can see this Truth in the case of religion (though I hardily disagree that the decline in adherents have anything to do with the decay of US society) but cannot see it as Truth for any other collective body.

There is truth - with a lower case 't' - which is subjective and prone to change and modification.

And then there is Truth - with a capital 'T' - those universal principles that are True regardless of culture, time or expediancy. Mr. O'Reilly is stating a Truth (Any student of history knows that when a nation turns inward toward the pursuit of individual gratification, the nation is in trouble) and needs to learn how to apply it univerisally and not subjectively.

Way to ummm confuse what O'Reilly is talking about. He's referring to hedonistic self-gratification.

He's not talking about greed in the same way you are, nor is he making a call for socialism.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's just splitting hairs. I see the point the OP is making and Reilly really does look like a hypocrite with that statement. Greed is all ABOUT self-gratification over the majority. Just because it is money instead of bodily pleasures doesn't make it immune to this criticism.

I have never watched O'Reilly, but with that first quote in yellow , I may start watching. When did Bill become that much of a philosopher ? A lot different than the rest of his stuff and spot on point. That is the reason for most of the Empires now turned to dust.

a reply to: Gothmog

No it isn't. It may contribute to it, but most empires fall apart due to widespread corruption and consolidation of wealth to the elite, followed by local forces slowly stripping land away from the empire because it is too mired in bureaucracy to field an army to combat all its border skirmishes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

That's just splitting hairs. I see the point the OP is making and Reilly really does look like a hypocrite with that statement. Greed is all ABOUT self-gratification over the majority. Just because it is money instead of bodily pleasures doesn't make it immune to this criticism.

Considering I'm fairly familiar with Bill, I know what he's about here. He's talking about hedonism, not dollars and cents this time.

Bill is pretty big on being soc con, and the licentiousness of society really disturbs him.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

No it isn't. It may contribute to it, but most empires fall apart due to widespread corruption and consolidation of wealth to the elite, followed by local forces slowly stripping land away from the empire because it is too mired in bureaucracy to field an army to combat all its border skirmishes.

The ROman Empire fell in part because of its hedomism. There were so many holidays that the productivity fell off. The bread and circuses were a nail in its coffin. Bread being the public ration of grain (welfare state) and circuses being the ever expanding and endless exhibitions put on in the arena. Then Rome imported its own productive class and defense in the form of barbarians because Romans couldn't be bothered to work anymore (sound familiar). Those same classes were the ones who eventually turned on the Romans.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Not really sure how my pursuit of individual gratification troubles our nation?

I was at work at 6:30 AM yesterday and worked until midnight. Back at 6:30 this morning and will most likely work late again. I put in allot of hours so I can buy the things I want and trust me, I want a LOT!!!

The reason my wife and I have what we do is because of HARD work. Yes, we both are people of faith and donate to multiple charities. But neither of us lose sleep over what other folks do or don't have.

One phrase that got my attention at a very young age is, "God helps who helps themselves", er something like that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

No it isn't. It may contribute to it, but most empires fall apart due to widespread corruption and consolidation of wealth to the elite, followed by local forces slowly stripping land away from the empire because it is too mired in bureaucracy to field an army to combat all its border skirmishes.

And what is the major cause of corruption anywhere? Hint : Its all about me,now

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: FyreByrd

Not really sure how my pursuit of individual gratification troubles our nation?

I was at work at 6:30 AM yesterday and worked until midnight. Back at 6:30 this morning and will most likely work late again. I put in allot of hours so I can buy the things I want and trust me, I want a LOT!!!

The reason my wife and I have what we do is because of HARD work. Yes, we both are people of faith and donate to multiple charities. But neither of us lose sleep over what other folks do or don't have.

One phrase that got my attention at a very young age is, "God helps who helps themselves", er something like that.

Bill wasn't talking about you, but the columnist wants you to think he is because according to the socialist worldview, people like you and me who work hard for our money and resent seeing half of it ripped out of our pay before we even get it into the bank are just being greedy and selfish and causing the downfall of society because we don't want to "share" more.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

No it isn't. It may contribute to it, but most empires fall apart due to widespread corruption and consolidation of wealth to the elite, followed by local forces slowly stripping land away from the empire because it is too mired in bureaucracy to field an army to combat all its border skirmishes.

And what is the major cause of corruption anywhere? Hint : Its all about me,now

Actually, I would say the major cause of corruption is power.

a reply to: ketsuko
And by what method do you think most leaders have come to power in the nations? Most times it isnt by playing by the rules....

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

No it isn't. It may contribute to it, but most empires fall apart due to widespread corruption and consolidation of wealth to the elite, followed by local forces slowly stripping land away from the empire because it is too mired in bureaucracy to field an army to combat all its border skirmishes.

The ROman Empire fell in part because of its hedomism. There were so many holidays that the productivity fell off. The bread and circuses were a nail in its coffin. Bread being the public ration of grain (welfare state) and circuses being the ever expanding and endless exhibitions put on in the arena. Then Rome imported its own productive class and defense in the form of barbarians because Romans couldn't be bothered to work anymore (sound familiar). Those same classes were the ones who eventually turned on the Romans.

The Roman Empire didn't fall. It shrank until it was just the church. Plus the Eastern Roman Empire lasted for another 1000+ years after the western one.

I DID say that selfishness can play a part in an empire's downfall though. I'm just saying that it is by no means the only reason.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

No it isn't. It may contribute to it, but most empires fall apart due to widespread corruption and consolidation of wealth to the elite, followed by local forces slowly stripping land away from the empire because it is too mired in bureaucracy to field an army to combat all its border skirmishes.

And what is the major cause of corruption anywhere? Hint : Its all about me,now

The acquisition of more power.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
That would have been the Holy Roman Empire and not the original Roman Empire that tried to spread it control over Europe and The Middle East . The original Roman Empire did fall from within.

a reply to: Gothmog

Leaders come to power in various ways, some legal, some not. Money by itself is a means to an end. If money were the determinant, I can think of plenty of people who should be in power right now who aren't.

So many people make the same mistake with money that they do with guns. Neither are animate objects that act on their own.

In the end, you have to come back to the individual. I think it is overly simplistic to boil everything down to greed all the time, especially when the next step is inevitably - If only we just took away the money ...

Money doesn't make you greedy. There are people without money who are just as greedy as most powerful men and women on earth, and if you gave them the power, they'd be just as despotic. There are people with money who could care less about power and if they didn't have the money would quickly adjust to the new circumstances and find a way to be just as content with what they had.

It all comes back to human nature. What kind of human are you? Are you covetous? Do you look at what others have that you don't and covet it? Are you greedy? If so, then you likely think no one deserves to have more than you and you will do anything you can to make sure that happens.

a reply to: Gothmog

No, it split in half. One half became increasingly irrelevant as it mismanaged the empire and was conquered from outside sources. The other half managed to exist for another 1000 or so years until it was overthrown in the 1400's.

Bill is a tool. He's smug and condescending. He'd say anything for ratings and more money and he has.

I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

originally posted by: amazing
Bill is a tool. He's smug and condescending. He'd say anything for ratings and more money and he has.

I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

You just described john Stewart!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gothmog

It all comes back to human nature. What kind of human are you? Are you covetous? Do you look at what others have that you don't and covet it? Are you greedy? If so, then you likely think no one deserves to have more than you and you will do anything you can to make sure that happens.

I am the type of person that would not compromise his morality for greed. Know how many people out there in this country get their one-up by lying , cheating , stealing from their place of business , the government , their neighbors ? All in the name of "greed" . The ones they feel like should have better than their neighbors , then become the people they comment about by becoming exactly what they are against. By "hook or crook" .