Monday, November 14, 2005

Look who's inciting terrorism

Gee I guess that if you don't get your way on something, or you disagree with how an American city wants to run its life, it's ok to incite terrorists. At least in Bill O'Reilly's version of America...

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

On Tuesday's version of O'Reilly's syndicated radio program, "The Radio Factor," the host vented his exasperation at two ballot measures that San Franciscans were in the process of approving on election day.

If city voters were intent on voting to oppose military recruitment in public schools and to ban handgun ownership, O'Reilly reasoned, then maybe it should be cut off from federal dollars. To illustrate his point, O'Reilly riffed on a vision of a San Francisco nation-state:

"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on. "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."


Interesting thing that he chose Coit Tower. Did you know it's a tribute to firefighters? Like the kind of firefighters we lost hundreds of in the 9/11 bombings...

O'Reilly is a man who hemorrhages hate, fear and idiocy. It's time we stopped allowing it to spew. Go to Fox News
And scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on E-Mail Us and tell them what you think about O'Reilly.

40 Comments:

Blogger Shawn said...

From what you posted, O'Reilly didn't say he wanted to blow up the Coit Tower. He says to the people of San Francisco, "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

"It's time we stopped allowing it to spew." What does that mean? Take away his right to speak?

8:25 AM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger boni said...

Shawn,
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had trouble reading.
O'Reilly clearly encouraged Al Qaeda to take a shot at SF and Coit Tower. Free speech, in case you didn't know, (and I imagine you don't) doesn't allow you to incite terrorism or violence. Like not being allowed to yell, "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

San Francisco held an election. The people voted. The people have a right to vote. He doesn't have the right to threaten them when he doesn't like how they voted. His very act is terrorism. But he does have the right to be a flaming asshole.

And if you'd like to email Fox and tell them that you agree with what he said...that terrorists should come here and violate our cities...go ahead, knock yourself out, that's your right...

9:12 AM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

I think you are taking O'Reilly's comment in the wrong context. There wouldn't be any bias here, would there?

There is no encouragement here. He is saying SF people are morons for not wanting the military to recruit, and if they don't support the military and want to be so different that the rest of the country, why don't they just make their own country. Then, if they are attacked they will be screwed.

There is no encouragement here. You only hoped there would be so you can trash O'Reilly. BTW, I don't listen to the guy's show and I am looking at this objectively.

10:23 AM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger boni said...

Honestly Shawn,
I'm just quoting the source:
"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."

I think it's pretty hard to interpret that any other way than as an invitation to commit terrorism against an American city.

You know, when O'Reilly is just a big bombastic gasbag, that's one thing. Hateful, destructive -that's something completely different.

10:31 AM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

You must take quotes into context.

10:42 AM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

shawn, into what context should this quote be taken? How is this possibly anything more than hateful, vindictive, bullying speechifying?

I have not checked, but I did read that the transcripts from the show in which said comments were made have been edited to remove this comment. There are folks who have the audio of the show, and are with no small amount of glee passing it along to anyone who's interested.

So, if even the people who were involved in making the comment are doing their best to cover their trail, again I ask:

In what context should this quote be taken?

Yeharr

10:55 AM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger boni said...

Here's where you can hear the audiofile of O'Reilly's comments:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008

11:03 AM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

The point of his comments seem to be if SF doesn't support military recruiting then they don't deserve the protection the military. I'm not saying it's a good or bad comment, I just think that is what it means. He is not encouraging terrorists to actually attack SF.

11:17 AM, November 14, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

once again, liberals are being hysterical. quelle surprise!

"Look Who's Inciting Terrorism"!

I mean, get a life! Hey, Cranky, if you're out there, look who's playing semantics now.

Granted, OReilly's a big, brash goof. That's what he gets paid for.

But this is the liberal problem: instead of trying to take the moral position, why can't you let this roll off your back, call it for what is (O'Reilly spouting off again); or conversely, have a proper debate about what he's actually talking about: recruitment.

Jeez, you libs get your knickers in a bunch and miss the entire point of arguments 'cause you're too busy getting all huffy.

Guys, relax...

1:28 PM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

Boni made a topic about O'Reilly's comments. That was this is about.

1:53 PM, November 14, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

honsetly, what a waste of a post!

I gotta say it again, maybe it'll get thru:

guys, relax. Seriously.

2:09 PM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

Shawn,
How did Boni take the comments out of context? She quoted him exactly. He suggested, quite clearly, that SF could was not off limits to Al Qaeda. He may not have been serious, but his statement was. Any encouragement is a bad thing. Haven't you ever heard of how the KKK encourages lone wolfs? What he did and said, though he meant it (possibly) as a joke, is dangerous.

Perter,
Here is the conservative problem: thinking they can say anythign and get away with it because they often do.

4:51 PM, November 14, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

polanco, please, you're a teacher: first off, make sure you edit your comments for grammar and spelling (my name is Peter, not Perter. Perter is my long lost cousin from Sweden).

second, as a teacher, do you take everything literally?

I mean, I agree with everyone who says O'Reilly is a loud mouth tosser. But, what he was doing was stirring the pot about recruitment.

I say it again, if the dems took less time trying to get to the top of the moral high ground and started to debate real ideas (i.e. recruitments) with real solutions, they'd be better off. But no, you guys always gotta show your moral indigantion over everything. And that's why nothing's going to change in '06 and '08.

People don't want leaders that huff all the time, they want action. But then again, action means you've got fresh ideas, something the dems are bankrupt in.

The Republicans have been leading this country since '94. Changing and shaping the direction of the country. Why? Because the people listened to fresh ideas.

No matter how angry you guys are at Bush, nothing indicates that when the time comes to it, you will present anything fresh for the people. Instead, the dems will go on crossing their arms, huff and stamp, while the Republicans will be presenting ideas with messages.

All of you, just chill out.

5:28 PM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger boni said...

Peter,

Liberals are hysterical. That's rich. O'Reilly spews his hate and you think that's business as usual. That's very bizarre.

So, here's my question. Where do you draw the line?
O'Reilly dramatically invites Al Qaeda to blow up
San Francisco. Pat Robertsons advocates the assassination of a foreign leader. He tells Dover, PA that God won't protect them anymore because they voted out a school board that was behind Intelligent Design. What the hell are they thinking?

All of the above comments were not meant to entertain or enlighten. They were threats. They were saying,"Believe as I do or else." And I'm tired of this kind of shit trying to pass as public discourse.

What if New York had voted the way SF had. Do you think for a minute O'Reilly would have made the same
threat? No fucking way. So, if he's going to be such a dickwad and shoot his mouth off, we have the right to
complain. As I told Shawn, if you want to send an email to Fox and tell them what a great guy Bill is, be my guest.

6:03 PM, November 14, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

boni

did i say O'Reilly was a great guy? No. I said he was a loud mouth. God, you don't even like it when a republican agrees with you! Damn, you guys are harsh!

But c'mon, dude, to take seriously, to think that the guy's inviting terrorists to bomb SF, buddy lay off the shit you smoke, or give me some!

As far as Pat Robertson, I agree with you a hundred per cent. And anyone who had a mild association with him tried to distance themselves from the outlandish crap he spewed. And from what I remember, the old koot had to make a public apology...

Anyhow, you guys are hysterical, every day you tut-tut or lash out at little evil people like me who think a little differently from you. I wish a few more of you guys and gals for the dems would grow some balls and do some thinking outside of the box, for once...

to use Warrren Beatty as an example: that guy's the perfect model for the dems, a washed up has-been from the 70's. A guy that's skipping like a broken record: "Not interested in running. But I'm not closing the door either-not interested in running. But I'm not closing the door either..." C'mon you sack of old bones and too many martinis, say one way or the other. Be brave, man! Stand up for your beliefs! Oh, wait... what am I thinking, the guy's a democrat...

6:15 PM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger SFChick74 said...

I have to agree, no one would ever say it's OK to blow up NYC or they'd be run right out of the country.

San Francisco didn't say, do away with the military entirely. The voters said no recruitment at public schools. Why O'Reilly got his panties in a bunch is beyond me. I'm surprised the handgun thing didn't chap his hide more. He could wrap himself up all cozylike in the 2nd Amendment and rake in the ratings.

9:51 PM, November 14, 2005  
Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Peter: anyone who points to spelling is a pedant and an ass and missing the damn point. You may dismiss O'Reilly as a windbag but he's a dangerous mouthpiece for right-wing views, you attacks on Dems show you for what you are. Also, anyone who tells someone else to stop taking things so seriosuly is fatally flawed, this is life and death. Go back to watching sports and let us get on with being pro-active.

Shawn: you don't have a leg to stand on and if you need context for the comments of O'Reilly then you really don't know much about this hate mongering man. His grotesque exagerations are the stuff of nightmares.

The pair of you, don't visit blogs just to try and undermine their content, there are plenty of nasty places you two can visit and hang out.

1:33 AM, November 15, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

Daniel, your words illustrate exactly my point: i come on this web site, voice an opinion, you get all hysterical. You call me an ass, tell me to go back to watching sports while you and the rest of your ilk move on to more important things like becoming procative.

But, daniel, to be proactive means you actually have to have ideas.

from your comment it looks like you've got nothing to offer but worn-out cliches about asses and sports.

1:43 AM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I'm surprised somebody hasn't killed him.

4:41 AM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

Peter,
When the Burned out guys ask me to edit my comments, I will. Spelling, honestly, is the least of my worries at the moment. I would appriciate it if you would edit your comments for intelligence.

As a teacher, I take a lot of things seriously, especially the people who have influence oer my students. Unfortunately, that includes the "news" media. He knows he's in a position of power, and he does his best to use it to make comments that will incite others to action, usually political, but in this sense... I think we all need to be careful about what we say, especially on national TV, and I think his comments, not matter how they were meant, were not appropriate.

I find it interesting that you think Daniel has gotten hysterical. The same could be said of you on one or two occasions. He has a point, spelling and grammar are irrelevant in times of war. Pointing those things out shows that there is little to refute in a statement, and so it is attacked on the most elementary of levels. Your grammar, by the way, leaves a lot to be desired, but it seems to me that what we're really discussing is the CONTENT of your comments.

As a teacher, I correct grammar and spelling, but none of that matters without IDEAS. Yours are not entirely without merit though we disagree, and I often find some spark of intelligent life in there. Keep up the good work!

7:39 AM, November 15, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

thanks teach!

9:15 AM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

Shawn: you don't have a leg to stand on and if you need context for the comments of O'Reilly then you really don't know much about this hate mongering man. His grotesque exagerations are the stuff of nightmares.

It's just important to consider why someone says something and what it really means. I don't think he is really inciting terrorism. And I will undermine the content of something if I find it to be inaccurate. I believe Boni has misinterpreted O'Reilly's comments. That's all.

10:52 AM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

shawn: this is truly a first ammendment right's issue. He has the right to speak his mind as protected by the constitution, and I would never want that to be regulated, ever, for wear do you draw the line? On the other hand someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, resulting in panic and injury could face legal action for harming the public good. Somewhere in there the grey line lives. You feel O'Reilly was being less thoughtless than Boni. She is outraged at his thoughtless disregard. Remember, SF hasn't banned recruiting, just on high school campuses - which as a father myself, I can tell you feels unfair and intrusive. So O'Reilly did his attention grabbing thing, and stuck his pin in them. I personally feel that in a nation at war, dealing with terror alerts, and watching the NYC subway system recently strip searched, that he crossed the line. He uses his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but it rarely takes into regard anyone but himself. I don't think there's anythning wrong in calling him on being unfair and unbalanced, as there is no more fairness doctrine, there is no more equal time required by broadcasters to uphold opposing views, so it falls to us to do the job.

12:40 AM, November 16, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

Shawn,
You're absolutely right. why did he say those things? Was he trying to incite violence? Probably not. Can we be sure? No. Nor can we be sure that his comments, taken out of context by someone less intelligent, would not cause harm. Speaking carefully is one of the hallmarks of intelligence and social consciousness. We object because he did not speak carefully. Everyone makes mistakes. The intelligent and caring people admit to their mistakes so that other intelligent and caring people can forgive them. O'Reilly made a mistake. We have the right, and the moral obligation to point out mistakes that could be detrimental to our society.

8:01 AM, November 16, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

yet cranky wonders, not once, but twice, why no one kills this guy and none of you batt an eye lash. isn't that kinda hypocritical?

maybe i should make a side note before i go further: guys, i know it's hard for you to understand, but not all humanoids of my repugnant stripes like this o'reilly guy.

hopefully this time, it'll sink in...

now, getting back to bizziness: don't you guys hate the whole violence thing? i mean, all those who don't write stevan seagal flicks where he uniquely murders everyone who stands in his way all the while as he chows down on a double big mac?

what am i thinking asking dems to be honest?

6:57 PM, November 16, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Don't you wonder why somebody hasn't killed him? What's wrong with that. It's not like I'm saying I wish somebody would kill him or that the world would be a better place if somebody just kill him already.

9:04 AM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

believe me cranky, i'm not calling you hypocritical. your remarks are consistent with everything else you've ever said. and i ain't necessarily disagreeing with you.

as far as i'm concerned, o'reilly's such a loud mouth ass, that even when he does make sense, no one can take the guy seriously. let's just say's he's an unloveable kinda guy and leave it at that.

but, your friends on the left, all these hysterical loonies, they go crazy saying the ol'fartreilly is inciting terrorism.

your statement leads us to believe that on some level, not only wouldn't you be surprised with his murder, you may somehow, on another level, find the murder just...

to juxtapose this: imagine if i wrote: i'm surprised no one's killed clinton yet. and i repeat that statement. your friends like mr morton and boni and especially balloon would be calling for my head (and fail to see the irony in it...). They would call me hate monger, sick, psychopath and every adjective that rhymes with pucker, dip-head and so on...

their silence over your statement is typical leftist b.s. plain and simple.

12:02 PM, November 18, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

Cranky didn't say it on national TV in front of an audiance of millions. Wondering is different than saying, "You want to kill Bill O'Reilly, go ahead."

1:09 PM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

does it really matter if it reaches one person or a thousand?

and polanco, how would you interpret my statement if i said: i'm surprised no one's killed clinton yet. and then i repeated it.

what would you deduce?

1:16 PM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

... oh, that's what i thought...

5:07 PM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

go figure, democrats not being able to confront a question up front, to answer honestly. wow, i am shocked!

5:11 PM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

take a few more years to answer my one simple question. wow... how... what's the word i'm looking for...? predictable.

i would expect something more from mr morton who's taught that if there's a door no.1 and a door no. 2, he should choose door no.3...

i guess that's why he can only write recycled, microwaved, stevie seagal flix.

5:29 PM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

something else mr morton should have learned thru his craft: conflict is story...

but it seems in real life, he wants everyone to think the same thing, say the same thing...

6:41 PM, November 18, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

Peter,
Gee, I'm sorry I didn't answer your question quickly enough. Next time you say "jump", I'll be sure to hop right up!

Have you ever heard this quote, "With great power comes great responsibility"? Sometimes who says it is more important than what is said. And the number fo people it is said to is always important. And, Cranky iddn't suggest anyone kill O'Reilly, he simply suggested that we might be better off without him. O'Reilly suggested that an act of terrorism would be welcomed. There IS a difference, even if it is only in semantics.

Here is a question for you: How is attacking myself, Mr. Morton, or anyone else you disagree with helping you to get your point across? Though I don't claim to never have personally attacked an adversary, I have found that it minimizes my point and make people less likely to respond and engage in itelligent converation with me. You are not a stupid person, Peter. Try not to act like an ignorant one.

8:02 AM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

please, just answer the question(s):

i'm surprised no one's killed clinton yet. and then i repeated it.

what would you deduce?
how would you feel?
what would you say to me?

you accuse me of avoiding???

and since when did mr morton need a personal body guard? who the hell does he think he is, Charlie Kaufman???

10:40 AM, November 19, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

I did answer your question. Please read more carefully. The answer is the same whether it is O'Reilly or Clinton. Cranky expressed suprise that O'Reilly lives, but did not suggest that anyone kill him. You used a faulty analogy. Try another.

Yes, you are avoiding. You use insults and accusations to avoid intelligent discourse. Your research is lacking and your demeanor is juvenile. I don't need to defend Mr. Morton. The quality of his writing speaks for itself.

You still have not answered any of MY questions.

12:51 PM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

what questions? am an idiot, i admit that for the 10000000000th time. maybe it'll be easier and list them all in one comment and i promise to answer them for you.

lets help each other out polanco. now, i promise i won't run from any issues, i won't make any snide immature comments (although most of them are based on my repulsiveness so i think it's kinda sweet that you don't like that much. sure you got nothing for me?) and you clearly list these oh-so-important questions that i have to answer.

1:38 PM, November 19, 2005  
Blogger Sheisthemessiah said...

Unanswered Question: How is attacking myself, Mr. Morton, or anyone else you disagree with helping you to get your point across?

2:50 PM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

Unanswered Question: How is attacking myself, Mr. Morton, or anyone else you disagree with helping you to get your point across?

considering i have savagely attacked myself on this blog, i guess the only answer i can give is: i'm not sure i have a point to get across.

now that you made me see the error of my ways, i'm going to read a full page of chomsky and get back to you guys in about a year, fully re-educated!

3:26 PM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

i'll tell you who is inciting terrorism:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he said that Israel should be wiped off the map.

but the best you guys can come up with is O'reilster incites terrorism. puhleeeeze, there's real killers out there wanting to wipe a whole people off our planet.

that's why nothing, nothing will change in '06 or '08.

sorry...

6:27 PM, November 21, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home