O'Reilly, --- Let al Qaeda Blow Up Coit Tower in San Francisco

[Steeplerot]

Nice job trying to explain this one. He stated SF should be bombed and wishes seccesion of a city.

Not only is he stating he is a traitor to our union but he is trumpeting an attack on american soil becasue those interested in the service would have to *gasp* walk to a recruiting station.

So what country is this oreilly speaks for if it is not our current country? Sounds awfully subversive to me. Another reason he should be investigated.

I hope the SF Attorney General brings charges upon him. And he has NOT apologised in any way, he is standing firm in his traitorious comments.

I am sure there are those in gitmo for less. He is plain outright dangerous and a lot of the reason there is so much division in this country through his outright lies and exposure to so many uninformed people.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

Ripe for the picking is nowhere in there, looks like you are either lying or making something up here.

I may not "know" you but your character is being shown fast.

Do you understand the concept of predicate clauses:

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

He's saying that if San Fran wants to secede from the union and establish itself as its own country (his reasoning being that they are already currently rejecting many US tenets, so why not extend this to the extreme end of the spectrum,) he would not be supportive (were he the PotUS) of any attempt to continue to defend this newly-established country, should they become the target of a terrorist attack. He's not actually inviting or calling for an attack on the current city.

No, this certainly doesn't make O'Reilly any less of an asshat blowhard, but your ability to twist and distort the interpretation of select quotes rivals that of the man himself. Good job! :roll:

Besides, I thought you were a huge proponent of free speech? Even if he was saying that San Fran should be attacked, as despicable as that would be, do you not feel that is one of his basic rights as a American citizen? I mean, you've said that it is ok for rioting mobs to burn down buildings and hurl bricks at vehicles, as they are merely exercising their right to express their anger at oppression. Do you feel race, economic status, or political affiliation should be a determining factor in what is allowable and what is not?

It's his right to say whatever he wants, but that seems like an odd thing to talk about. IF SF becomes it's own country? Where in the world did that idea come from? Or was it simply a convenient "begging the argument" point to use to beat a city he clearly doesn't like. I applaud your logical look at the situation, but I don't think O'Reilly (or his viewers) are quite that smart.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why do people defend O'Reilly? I would think that he represents the kind of person I would think the Republicans would want to take a big step away from. Not because they disagree with him so much as that he's a jackass. He's the kind of guy that, I would imagine, one day Republican voters are going to look at and wonder if they really want to be listening to these people.

Ask yourself the same question why Micheal Moore is sitting next to Jimmy Carter for dinner.

One difference however is Oreilley will go after republicans as much as the next guy if he disagrees with the issue.

For instance he has blasted Bush for holding people in gitmo for the rest of eternity without a process of letting them prove their innocense.

He has blasted the Bush administration on their terrible record concerning the border situation. He really went off the high handle when Bush called the minutemen vigilanties.

He has blasted the republicans for not controlling spending one bit since 2000.

And lately he is rambling about not having a conclusive exit strategy in Iraq.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why do people defend O'Reilly? I would think that he represents the kind of person I would think the Republicans would want to take a big step away from. Not because they disagree with him so much as that he's a jackass. He's the kind of guy that, I would imagine, one day Republican voters are going to look at and wonder if they really want to be listening to these people.

I assume we are all familiar with the (paraphrased) quote, oft attributed to Voltaire?

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

Few people like O'Reilly, but the OP is the one (pehaps only mockingly) calling for accusations of treason. Fortunately for many members of this board, being a loud-mouthed blowhard with extremists views is still perfectly legal, and I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why do people defend O'Reilly? I would think that he represents the kind of person I would think the Republicans would want to take a big step away from. Not because they disagree with him so much as that he's a jackass. He's the kind of guy that, I would imagine, one day Republican voters are going to look at and wonder if they really want to be listening to these people.

Ask yourself the same question why Micheal Moore is sitting next to Jimmy Carter for dinner.

One difference however is Oreilley will go after republicans as much as the next guy if he disagrees with the issue.

For instance he has blasted Bush for holding people in gitmo for the rest of eternity without a process of letting them prove their innocense.

He has blasted the Bush administration on their terrible record concerning the border situation. He really went off the high handle when Bush called the minutemen vigilanties.

He has blasted the republicans for not controlling spending one bit since 2000.

And lately he is rambling about not having a conclusive exit strategy in Iraq.

That is true, I suppose. I dislike O'Reilly for his overall political views, but I guess I can respect the fact that he's not a partisan toolbox like Sean Hannity or his counterparts on the Democratic side of things. I still think he's an idiot, but at least he has principles.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

That is true, I suppose. I dislike O'Reilly for his overall political views, but I guess I can respect the fact that he's not a partisan toolbox like Sean Hannity or his counterparts on the Democratic side of things. I still think he's an idiot, but at least he has principles.

Even if he doesn't know the differnce between a loofa and falafel.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why do people defend O'Reilly? I would think that he represents the kind of person I would think the Republicans would want to take a big step away from. Not because they disagree with him so much as that he's a jackass. He's the kind of guy that, I would imagine, one day Republican voters are going to look at and wonder if they really want to be listening to these people.

I assume we are all familiar with the (paraphrased) quote, oft attributed to Voltaire?

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

Few people like O'Reilly, but the OP is the one (pehaps only mockingly) calling for accusations of treason. Fortunately for many members of this board, being a loud-mouthed blowhard with extremists views is still perfectly legal, and I'd like to keep it that way.

I've always thought there was a line between defending someone's right to say something and defending WHAT they say. I will defend the KKK's right to hold rallies, but you aren't going to see me suggesting that they might be on to something. There is a difference, that's what I meant by "defending" what O'Reilly says. I support his right to say what he wants as much as anyone, I think the OP is as wrong as anyone else who's busy throwing the word treason around, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's an idiot that the Republicans would be better off staying away from.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hahaha he was speaking of treason being a executable offense and of course stated that literal execution of the president is not what he meant. that is really pathetic.

But then treason IS an executable offense and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. He even clarified this point in almost the same sentence.

Unlike oreally who called for the bombing of an american city and even reaffirmed his stance today on the radio saying "SF hurts america"

Franken = Stating a american LAW

O'Really = Calling for terrorism on a american city

No comparison except to partisan hacks like you desperatly clinging to your hate.

If o reilley was muslim he would be under serious investigation, but then why would the right-wing terrorists prosecute one of their own.

Maybe I missed it the 3 times that I watched the clip specifically trying to hear him say Bush should/would/could be executed for treason. I keep hearing him say that Rove and Libby will be executed. The only reference to Bush is mentioning that HIS FATHER (not GW) stated that outing a CIA agent is treason.

Can you find a source that actually states what you claim Fuzzy?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hahaha he was speaking of treason being a executable offense and of course stated that literal execution of the president is not what he meant. that is really pathetic.

But then treason IS an executable offense and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. He even clarified this point in almost the same sentence.

Unlike oreally who called for the bombing of an american city and even reaffirmed his stance today on the radio saying "SF hurts america"

Franken = Stating a american LAW

O'Really = Calling for terrorism on a american city

No comparison except to partisan hacks like you desperatly clinging to your hate.

If o reilley was muslim he would be under serious investigation, but then why would the right-wing terrorists prosecute one of their own.

Maybe I missed it the 3 times that I watched the clip specifically trying to hear him say Bush should/would/could be executed for treason. I keep hearing him say that Rove and Libby will be executed. The only reference to Bush is mentioning that HIS FATHER (not GW) stated that outing a CIA agent is treason.

Can you find a source that actually states what you claim Fuzzy?

huh.

Letterman: ?I see, yeah. Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated President??

Franken: ?No, this will be the closest.?

Letterman: ?This will be the closest, yeah.?

Franken: ?Unless we get that amendment passed now.?

If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

I'm surprised you didn't ask the OP the same question.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Last time I checked, Al Franken is a comedian, Bill O'Reilly is not. Look at the context of Franken's comment, it seems clear to me that's he's joking. More Daily Show than "The Factor". Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, seems to be holding back his rage every time he talks. My guess is that he was very serious.

Ah - the typical Franken fallback. If it's inflamatory, he's being a comedian. If it's not, he's being dead serious. Is his radio show comedy or politics? When should he be taken seriously?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Last time I checked, Al Franken is a comedian, Bill O'Reilly is not. Look at the context of Franken's comment, it seems clear to me that's he's joking. More Daily Show than "The Factor". Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, seems to be holding back his rage every time he talks. My guess is that he was very serious.

Ah - the typical Franken fallback. If it's inflamatory, he's being a comedian. If it's not, he's being dead serious. Is his radio show comedy or politics? When should he be taken seriously?

Did I say that? I was saying that in THIS instance it appears he is joking. That would make sense since he is a comedian and all. O'Reilly does NOT seem to be joking, which also makes sense as he never seems to make jokes.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hahaha he was speaking of treason being a executable offense and of course stated that literal execution of the president is not what he meant. that is really pathetic.

But then treason IS an executable offense and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. He even clarified this point in almost the same sentence.

Unlike oreally who called for the bombing of an american city and even reaffirmed his stance today on the radio saying "SF hurts america"

Franken = Stating a american LAW

O'Really = Calling for terrorism on a american city

No comparison except to partisan hacks like you desperatly clinging to your hate.

If o reilley was muslim he would be under serious investigation, but then why would the right-wing terrorists prosecute one of their own.

Maybe I missed it the 3 times that I watched the clip specifically trying to hear him say Bush should/would/could be executed for treason. I keep hearing him say that Rove and Libby will be executed. The only reference to Bush is mentioning that HIS FATHER (not GW) stated that outing a CIA agent is treason.

Can you find a source that actually states what you claim Fuzzy?

huh.

Letterman: ?I see, yeah. Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated President??

Franken: ?No, this will be the closest.?

Letterman: ?This will be the closest, yeah.?

Franken: ?Unless we get that amendment passed now.?

If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

I'm surprised you didn't ask the OP the same question.

Sorry....didn't see that there was a second vid clip. My mistake.

As for what he said, he still never once said Bush should be executed. What he said was actually the polar opposite.

Franken: "I think, by the way, that we should never, ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."

Then he goes on to saying:

I think that we should have a Constitutional Amendment." (stating that you can't execute a sitting President)

So, where exactly did he call for Bush's execution?

Also, I didn't comment on the OP or O'Reilly's statements so you are off base in claiming that I "read" anything into it. I was just trying to get clarification of your statements/claims.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Last time I checked, Al Franken is a comedian, Bill O'Reilly is not. Look at the context of Franken's comment, it seems clear to me that's he's joking. More Daily Show than "The Factor". Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, seems to be holding back his rage every time he talks. My guess is that he was very serious.

Ah - the typical Franken fallback. If it's inflamatory, he's being a comedian. If it's not, he's being dead serious. Is his radio show comedy or politics? When should he be taken seriously?

Did I say that? I was saying that in THIS instance it appears he is joking. That would make sense since he is a comedian and all.

Is he a comedian? I thought his radio show and books (one of which he was pimping on the Letterman show) are of a political nature. Where is the divider?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hahaha he was speaking of treason being a executable offense and of course stated that literal execution of the president is not what he meant. that is really pathetic.

But then treason IS an executable offense and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. He even clarified this point in almost the same sentence.

Unlike oreally who called for the bombing of an american city and even reaffirmed his stance today on the radio saying "SF hurts america"

Franken = Stating a american LAW

O'Really = Calling for terrorism on a american city

No comparison except to partisan hacks like you desperatly clinging to your hate.

If o reilley was muslim he would be under serious investigation, but then why would the right-wing terrorists prosecute one of their own.

Maybe I missed it the 3 times that I watched the clip specifically trying to hear him say Bush should/would/could be executed for treason. I keep hearing him say that Rove and Libby will be executed. The only reference to Bush is mentioning that HIS FATHER (not GW) stated that outing a CIA agent is treason.

Can you find a source that actually states what you claim Fuzzy?

huh.

Letterman: ?I see, yeah. Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated President??

Franken: ?No, this will be the closest.?

Letterman: ?This will be the closest, yeah.?

Franken: ?Unless we get that amendment passed now.?

If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

I'm surprised you didn't ask the OP the same question.

Sorry....didn't see that there was a second vid clip. My mistake.

As for what he said, he still never once said Bush should be executed. What he said was actually the polar opposite.

Franken: "I think, by the way, that we should never, ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."

Then he goes on to saying:

I think that we should have a Constitutional Amendment." (stating that you can't execute a sitting President)

So, where exactly did he call for Bush's execution?

Once again:
If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

It is a response to the original poster - a response due to his defense of Franken in comparison to O'Reilly. It's *context*.

Also, I didn't comment on the OP or O'Reilly's statements so you are off base in claiming that I "read" anything into it. I was just trying to get clarification of your statements/claims.

Hmm - since the OP *is* writing about O'Reilly, are you going to ask the OP to find a source that states what he/she claims?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Last time I checked, Al Franken is a comedian, Bill O'Reilly is not. Look at the context of Franken's comment, it seems clear to me that's he's joking. More Daily Show than "The Factor". Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, seems to be holding back his rage every time he talks. My guess is that he was very serious.

Ah - the typical Franken fallback. If it's inflamatory, he's being a comedian. If it's not, he's being dead serious. Is his radio show comedy or politics? When should he be taken seriously?

Did I say that? I was saying that in THIS instance it appears he is joking. That would make sense since he is a comedian and all.

Is he a comedian? I thought his radio show and books (one of which he was pimping on the Letterman show) are of a political nature. Where is the divider?

They are political, that doesn't mean he can't be a comedian. Jon Stewart is certainly political, but does anyone argue that he's not a comedian as well?

There is no divider between politics and comedy, the divider is between humor and serious commentary. Franken does both, and IMHO it's pretty easy to tell which one he's doing. Bill O'Reilly does not do humor, only serious commentary. Why is this a hard concept?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Last time I checked, Al Franken is a comedian, Bill O'Reilly is not. Look at the context of Franken's comment, it seems clear to me that's he's joking. More Daily Show than "The Factor". Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, seems to be holding back his rage every time he talks. My guess is that he was very serious.

Ah - the typical Franken fallback. If it's inflamatory, he's being a comedian. If it's not, he's being dead serious. Is his radio show comedy or politics? When should he be taken seriously?

Did I say that? I was saying that in THIS instance it appears he is joking. That would make sense since he is a comedian and all.

Is he a comedian? I thought his radio show and books (one of which he was pimping on the Letterman show) are of a political nature. Where is the divider?

They are political, that doesn't mean he can't be a comedian. Jon Stewart is certainly political, but does anyone argue that he's not a comedian as well?

I don't recall Stewart going on the air to advertise his book and, in the process, calling for the execution of anybody.

There is no divider between politics and comedy, the divider is between humor and serious commentary. Franken does both, and IMHO it's pretty easy to tell which one he's doing. Bill O'Reilly does not do humor, only serious commentary. Why is this a hard concept?[/quote]

It's not a hard concept - but thanks for attempting to belittle me. :roll:

What obviously *is* the hard concept is that Franken rolls with the popular opinion - if it's inflamatory and the public doesn't like it, *of course* it was intended comedically. If his following agrees with it, it's polital commentary.

Perhaps if Franken would preemptively decide if he's doing comedy or political commentary (and stick with it), it'd be different - but then he'd lose his "edge".

edit: typo

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hahaha he was speaking of treason being a executable offense and of course stated that literal execution of the president is not what he meant. that is really pathetic.

But then treason IS an executable offense and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. He even clarified this point in almost the same sentence.

Unlike oreally who called for the bombing of an american city and even reaffirmed his stance today on the radio saying "SF hurts america"

Franken = Stating a american LAW

O'Really = Calling for terrorism on a american city

No comparison except to partisan hacks like you desperatly clinging to your hate.

If o reilley was muslim he would be under serious investigation, but then why would the right-wing terrorists prosecute one of their own.

Maybe I missed it the 3 times that I watched the clip specifically trying to hear him say Bush should/would/could be executed for treason. I keep hearing him say that Rove and Libby will be executed. The only reference to Bush is mentioning that HIS FATHER (not GW) stated that outing a CIA agent is treason.

Can you find a source that actually states what you claim Fuzzy?

huh.

Letterman: ?I see, yeah. Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated President??

Franken: ?No, this will be the closest.?

Letterman: ?This will be the closest, yeah.?

Franken: ?Unless we get that amendment passed now.?

If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

I'm surprised you didn't ask the OP the same question.

Sorry....didn't see that there was a second vid clip. My mistake.

As for what he said, he still never once said Bush should be executed. What he said was actually the polar opposite.

Franken: "I think, by the way, that we should never, ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."

Then he goes on to saying:

I think that we should have a Constitutional Amendment." (stating that you can't execute a sitting President)

So, where exactly did he call for Bush's execution?

Once again:
If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

It is a response to the original poster - a response due to his defense of Franken in comparison to O'Reilly. It's *context*.

Also, I didn't comment on the OP or O'Reilly's statements so you are off base in claiming that I "read" anything into it. I was just trying to get clarification of your statements/claims.

Hmm - since the OP *is* writing about O'Reilly, are you going to ask the OP to find a source that states what he/she claims?

Ok, one last time.....Franken's "comments" about the amendment were that there should be one stating that we CANNOT execute a sitting President. Watch the vid again.

 

[Zap Brannigan]

If Al Franken was better at comedy you probably would'nt know his political opinions.

 

[ramuman]

O'Reilly goes out of his way to show that he knows a lot of information. That in itself was probably why he mentioned something like Coit tower over the the Golden Gate bridge. He always asks rhetorical questions on his show to guests who don't share his views and then gives the often obscure answer. O'Reilly has directly compared Michael Moore with Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propoanda minister) as the answer to one such question. I'll grant him that he does have a large breadth of knowledge. However that doesn't mean how he weaves that into what he says has any actual bearing on what he's talking about.

He also b*tches about how he has to pay more than 50% of what he makes in taxes and he is probably one of the least charitable people for someone in his position.

O'Reilly is a rich moron with a large following, but so is Pat Robertson - nothing to see here, might as well move on.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hahaha he was speaking of treason being a executable offense and of course stated that literal execution of the president is not what he meant. that is really pathetic.

But then treason IS an executable offense and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. He even clarified this point in almost the same sentence.

Unlike oreally who called for the bombing of an american city and even reaffirmed his stance today on the radio saying "SF hurts america"

Franken = Stating a american LAW

O'Really = Calling for terrorism on a american city

No comparison except to partisan hacks like you desperatly clinging to your hate.

If o reilley was muslim he would be under serious investigation, but then why would the right-wing terrorists prosecute one of their own.

Maybe I missed it the 3 times that I watched the clip specifically trying to hear him say Bush should/would/could be executed for treason. I keep hearing him say that Rove and Libby will be executed. The only reference to Bush is mentioning that HIS FATHER (not GW) stated that outing a CIA agent is treason.

Can you find a source that actually states what you claim Fuzzy?

huh.

Letterman: ?I see, yeah. Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated President??

Franken: ?No, this will be the closest.?

Letterman: ?This will be the closest, yeah.?

Franken: ?Unless we get that amendment passed now.?

If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

I'm surprised you didn't ask the OP the same question.

Sorry....didn't see that there was a second vid clip. My mistake.

As for what he said, he still never once said Bush should be executed. What he said was actually the polar opposite.

Franken: "I think, by the way, that we should never, ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."

Then he goes on to saying:

I think that we should have a Constitutional Amendment." (stating that you can't execute a sitting President)

So, where exactly did he call for Bush's execution?

Once again:
If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

It is a response to the original poster - a response due to his defense of Franken in comparison to O'Reilly. It's *context*.

Also, I didn't comment on the OP or O'Reilly's statements so you are off base in claiming that I "read" anything into it. I was just trying to get clarification of your statements/claims.

Hmm - since the OP *is* writing about O'Reilly, are you going to ask the OP to find a source that states what he/she claims?

Ok, one last time.....Franken's "comments" about the amendment were that there should be one stating that we CANNOT execute a sitting President. Watch the vid again.

Honestly, if you can't take this thread in it's entire context, your "points" are invalid.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Corn


What are you rambling about now? I'm talking about you turning fascist, not terrorist.

Fascist? How did you come up with that?

A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."--American Heritage Dictionary

It's so ironic: When, in a democratic election (the antithesis of what happens in a dictatorship), the people (not a fascist dictator) vote for non-belligerent, non-nationalistic policies (the precise opposite of the belligerent, nationalist policies that would be forced on the people in a fascist state), the righties here on AT (and I'm sure they're representative of the greater right-wing "brain" trust) say that's fascism.

Given this transposition of reality and fantasy by the right, is it any wonder that these same defective intellects see convincing evidence in support of Intelligent Design, in support of the notion that homosexuality is a psychological "problem" that can be "cured", against the notion that greenhouse gasses and CFCs emitted into the atomsphere by human activity are a significant cause of climate change and ozone depletion, and against the notion that needle-exchange programs significantly reduce the incidence of new AIDS infections in IV drug users.

Right is wrong. Wrong is right Good is bad. Bad is good. Big brother is protecting your liberties.

You become what you resist.

you forgot war is peace.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hahaha he was speaking of treason being a executable offense and of course stated that literal execution of the president is not what he meant. that is really pathetic.

But then treason IS an executable offense and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. He even clarified this point in almost the same sentence.

Unlike oreally who called for the bombing of an american city and even reaffirmed his stance today on the radio saying "SF hurts america"

Franken = Stating a american LAW

O'Really = Calling for terrorism on a american city

No comparison except to partisan hacks like you desperatly clinging to your hate.

If o reilley was muslim he would be under serious investigation, but then why would the right-wing terrorists prosecute one of their own.

Maybe I missed it the 3 times that I watched the clip specifically trying to hear him say Bush should/would/could be executed for treason. I keep hearing him say that Rove and Libby will be executed. The only reference to Bush is mentioning that HIS FATHER (not GW) stated that outing a CIA agent is treason.

Can you find a source that actually states what you claim Fuzzy?

huh.

Letterman: ?I see, yeah. Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated President??

Franken: ?No, this will be the closest.?

Letterman: ?This will be the closest, yeah.?

Franken: ?Unless we get that amendment passed now.?

If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

I'm surprised you didn't ask the OP the same question.

Sorry....didn't see that there was a second vid clip. My mistake.

As for what he said, he still never once said Bush should be executed. What he said was actually the polar opposite.

Franken: "I think, by the way, that we should never, ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."

Then he goes on to saying:

I think that we should have a Constitutional Amendment." (stating that you can't execute a sitting President)

So, where exactly did he call for Bush's execution?

Once again:
If you can read into O'Reilly's comments that he is asking AQ to bomb San Fransisco, then you can surely read into that last bit that Franken wants an amendment passed so that you can execute a sitting President.

It is a response to the original poster - a response due to his defense of Franken in comparison to O'Reilly. It's *context*.

Also, I didn't comment on the OP or O'Reilly's statements so you are off base in claiming that I "read" anything into it. I was just trying to get clarification of your statements/claims.

Hmm - since the OP *is* writing about O'Reilly, are you going to ask the OP to find a source that states what he/she claims?

Ok, one last time.....Franken's "comments" about the amendment were that there should be one stating that we CANNOT execute a sitting President. Watch the vid again.

Honestly, if you can't take this thread in it's entire context, your "points" are invalid.

I am taking it in it's entire context. You are trying to pass off what Franken said as an equal comparison to what O'Reilly said. There is no comparison. Fraken's comments were in no way what you represented and were in no way malicious in content. O'Reilly's on the other hand were.

I suggest you take your own advice and look back at the entire context of the thread.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
If Al Franken was better at comedy you probably would'nt know his political opinions.

Well he is funnier than Dennis Miller.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well he is funnier than Dennis Miller.

Dennis Miller was occasionally funny on Saturday Night Live... before he joined the Bill O'Reilly fan club.

 

[Moonbeam]

The next time you get assaulted call a hippie. Just a take-off on that. I also think it's sound psychology. I think if my lovely San Francisco were attacked by Al Qaeda, say the GG Bridge, a ton of SF liberals would turn into rabid conservatives. Untested liberalism is a form of spiritual magnanimity based on a feeling of plenty. The job and purpose of terrorists is to make others suffer the kind of terror that terrorists themselves experience. People who are bitter and live in tiny souls will kill to make others feel that way. Evil always wishes for evil.

Unconscious and lucky liberals are easy to destroy. That is why the unconscious move to conservatism with age. Lacking the psychological sophistication to understand that deep joy comes from deep within the forging of the soul by fire, the lucky, naive, and superficial liberal gets eroded away by the nicks of time. This is called by the foolish, 'sadder but wiser now'. While it is sadder, it is the exact result of a lack of wisdom.