O'Reilly comments irresponsible

[norml]

O'Reilly comments irresponsible


By Joel Adkins / Columnist
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005


snip


"You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead.' And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

He would later appear on a San Francisco radio show to defend his comments saying, "What I said isn't controversial," and "What I said needed to be said." O'Reilly would go on to call the ban a "fascist act" and renamed the war on terror "World War III." I guess the "struggle against violent extremism" wasn't catchy enough. O'Reilly then proceeded to disseminate his usual right wing drivel.

Personally, I don't find it necessary to give the military access to schools, but I can understand that some, like O'Reilly, would disagree. Indeed, I feel it is a strength that we can agree to disagree. The problem with O'Reilly and his brethren is their blind self-assurance and utter distain for the viewpoints of others. I suppose it never occurred to O'Reilly that this "fascist act" was a response to or safeguard from the questionable, often illegal recruiting tactics employed by the military. In O'Reilly's mind it is absurd for the citizens of San Francisco to want more for their children than a vain death in Iraq or to be reasonably free from the overbearing recruiters equipped with false promises.

O'Reilly's comments were irresponsible and asinine. I feel that O'Reilly's programs are of little worth and serve only to stroke his insatiable ego. Furthermore, I believe his programs exist solely to smear excrement on the face of society. Does that mean I should advocate a terrorist attack on Fox News? After all, I find their commentary to be reckless and detrimental to the United States of America. Would it be acceptable for me to say, "Hey Al Qaeda, I'm not too fond of the political views of the Fox News anchors. I think they're a bunch of lying, manipulative, chicken hawk, sleaze ball perverts who shamelessly service the Bush administration like a gaggle of over-paid, coked-up, hookers on New Year's Eve. Therefore I would find it swell if you were to blow up network headquarters."

No. That would be wrong.


snip


http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?31054

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Good article. Thanks for posting.

check out the video from Countdown, "O'Reilly Offensive". It is great. He says O'lielly is a few lightbulbs short of a marquee....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5370204

[Erika]

2. I think Bill O'Lielly took a big hit

Most Americans don't advocate one of our cities hit by terrorists as he did. I have zero in common with rural red staters but never would I advocate they be hit. If the right-wingers choose to keep him it's to their embarrassment. He's already had the kinky sex charges to contend with.

[billr]

3. On his way out

I bet he'll be gone soon over this or something else. I'm not a regular viewer, but he's been raving more than I remember in the past about people being out to get him. Not a healthy sign.