oh... oh my!


the last thing i am is a leftist or revisionist. but this show makes "turn: washington spies" -- with its overwhelming innacuracies -- actually appear factual.

this is not a good thing.

not only is this show fast-and-loose with the facts, but o'reilly typically leads his super-crafted, pre-scripted, overly-rehearsed "candid" sound bites with, "some historians believe..." ? talk about a catch-all phrase!!

put down the remote and pick up David McCullough's (narrator of ken burns "civil war") books "1776" and "john adams"... in that order... and you will learn more about the american revolution than anyone else has ever even thought to teach you.

o'reilly's ego is out of check and getting worse with these "truths" of his, which do little else than prove how ignorant he is.

reply

I'd like to hear about some of the overwhelming inaccuracies you have found.

reply

to start with?

woodhull wasn't married during the war... simcoe was a peaceful man who helped found many parts of ontario, canada in his postwar years...

if you wish more information about the truth i suggest you read about it yourself.

reply

I agree with the loose facts on Turn, but what inaccuracies have you seen on Legends & Lies?

reply

exactly.

my original comment referenced "turn"... and that is the same point on which you questioned me.


reply

But how is L&L fast and loose with the facts...which ones? And I have read both books you are referring to...

reply

"not only is this show fast-and-loose with the facts,..."

I would also like to know specifically where it is "fast and loose with the facts".

reply

Sounds like he has an anger and hatred for Bill O'reilly and Fox News, so I doubt he would even give the show a chance, before attacking it, with false inaccuracies

reply

Oreilly is telling tango how it is .... he's ramming it down tangos throat and tango loves it

reply