O'Reilly: al-Qaida, please blow up Coit Tower

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What commentators called for Bush to be assassinated? Links?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=5494

Randi Rhodes . . . .

 

[scottyz]

Maybe not political commentators.
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001196.php


http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/advocate_of_kil.php

The Guardian isn't even an American publication.

 

[Inuyasha]

When it was O'Reilly's moment to serve his country he took a half a dozen deferments and then went to England for the duration. So just consider the source and forget it.

BTW someone told me he is now saying he was a veteran of the Marine Corps. I bet that's got a lot of Jar Heads really p¡ssed off and rightly so. He had better not try to do his program from El Toro.

 

[MSgt]

The only one's that care what he said are too stupid for their own good or they are simply riding it for all it's worth.

Too stupid = Actually believe that he wants Al-Queda to attack the U.S.:roll:

Riding it = Political opposition and the many sheep.

 

[26 X World Champs]

No you have commentators on Air America who call for Bush to be assasinated.

Bullshit....prove this crap...and don't refer to a comedy bit that was done by Randi Rhodes, which was a comedy routine...

 

[debate_junkie]

Bullshit....prove this crap...and don't refer to a comedy bit that was done by Randi Rhodes, which was a comedy routine...

LMAO See above Champs, Rhodes was already mentioned, though frankly I was confused for a moment. I thought he was referring to Ozzy Osbourne's old guitarist, who's dead.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Bullshit....prove this crap...and don't refer to a comedy bit that was done by Randi Rhodes, which was a comedy routine...

Bullshit, a comedy routine about murdering the president during war time, or anytime for that matter is supposed to be funny? Asking where John Wilkes Booth is when you need him is supposed to be a joke? Well excuse me if I aint laughing. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said something along these lines during the Clinton administration, the media would have tared and feathered him but when this crazy bitch says it not even a peep, it's just an innocent comment give me a ****ing break.

 

[scottyz]

Bullshit, a comedy routine about murdering the president during war time, or anytime for that matter is supposed to be funny? Asking where John Wilkes Booth is when you need him is supposed to be a joke? Well excuse me if I aint laughing. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said something along these lines during the Clinton administration, the media would have tared and feathered him but when this crazy bitch says it not even a peep, it's just an innocent comment give me a ****ing break.

Coulter said something along those lines and they didn't tar and feather her. "whether to impeach or assassinate"

 

[hipsterdufus]

http://kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=4107018

It's interesting to see so many conservative commentators wishing harm or terrorist attacks on U.S. cities. Maybe the GOP will get its wish.

That's right up there with Ann Coulter wishing Timothy McVeigh to blow up the New York Times building.

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.
Ann Coulter

 

[cnredd]

Here is the topic at hand...judge for yourselves if it is less, equal, or more offending than O'Reilly's comment...

Liberal radio is airing bad jokes and worst taste

The United States "is on the slippery slope to theocratic fascism." "The Catholic Church has been secretly encouraging oral sex for years."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "ought to be tortured." President Bush should be taken out and shot.

Those are a few nutso nuggets from the hosts of Air America Radio, which calls itself the new liberal voice. The fledgling network is carried in New York on WLIB, 1190 AM. With the Iraq torture scandal everywhere, I tuned in, expecting to hear sober policy analysis mixed with glee over President Bush's political pickle....

...The queen of venom, Randi Rhodes, followed Franken in the host slot. Her imitation of a cracker military type telling a soldier to "insert this fluorescent light bulb into that man's buttocks" was revolting. She compared U.S. prisons in Iraq to the "Nazi gulag" and said, "The day I say thank you to Rumsfeld is the same day I'll say thank you to the 12 people who raped me."

Rock bottom came when she compared Bush and his family to the Corleones in the "Godfather" saga. "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw," she said, imitating the sound of gunfire.

http://www.nydailynews.com/05-12-2004/news/politics/story/192675p-166266c.html

It would've been nice to find an actual story instead of an op-ed piece...but the MSM either deleted it from their archives or never reported it in the first place?...

At least the source is more credible than a right wing site....:shrug:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Coulter said something along those lines and they didn't tar and feather her. "whether to impeach or assassinate"

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency [the Clinton administration], we have a national debate about whether he 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."

http://www.nndb.com/people/474/000022408/

That's what she said now check out what you get when you google Ann Coulter gets heat it's a hate fest:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ann+Coulter+gets+heat+

Now check out what happens when you google Randi Rhodes gets heat, it's a love fest:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Randi+Rhodes+gets+heat&spell=1

 

[26 X World Champs]

Bullshit, a comedy routine about murdering the president during war time, or anytime for that matter is supposed to be funny?

My, my, my....seems like you're changing the previous post you wrote, remember:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
No you have commentators on Air America who call for Bush to be assasinated.

Get it? You wrote that on air personalities were calling for Bush's murder in all seriousness. Now you've backpedaled to express your "revulsion" that anyone would joke about the subject. The two things are quite different.

This thread is about O'Reilly calling for a terrorist attack on San Francisco, and he obviously didn't mean it literally but he wasn't joking either.

You barely condemn O'Reilly but you get vicious re Air America. Seems like your politics are interfering with your idealogy?

 

[hipsterdufus]

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency [the Clinton administration], we have a national debate about whether he 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."

http://www.nndb.com/people/474/000022408/

That's what she said now check out what you get when you google Ann Coulter gets heat it's a hate fest:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ann+Coulter+gets+heat+

Now check out what happens when you google Randi Rhodes gets heat, it's a love fest:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Randi+Rhodes+gets+heat&spell=1

Randi apologized for her remarks on numerous occasions. To put them in the proper context it was part of a (not that funny) comedy routine.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

My, my, my....seems like you're changing the previous post you wrote, remember:

Get it? You wrote that on air personalities were calling for Bush's murder in all seriousness. Now you've backpedaled to express your "revulsion" that anyone would joke about the subject. The two things are quite different.

First off I was thinking about the guy who asked where John Wilkes Booth was when you needed him and then wrote an entire article to that effect.

Second off Randi Rhodes has called for the assasination of Bush twice the first time it was a sketch but the second time she was serious:

"Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "
Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

Doesn't sound like a joke to me partner.


This thread is about O'Reilly calling for a terrorist attack on San Francisco, and he obviously didn't mean it literally but he wasn't joking either.

Ever hear of an analogy to make a point?

You barely condemn O'Reilly but you get vicious re Air America. Seems like your politics are interfering with your idealogy?

I did condemn O'reilly and then I said this:



"No you have commentators on Air America who call for Bush to be assasinated. And they're serious, OReilly was obviously making a point which is no excuse but I seriously doubt that he truly wants San Fran to be attacked."

In response to this:

Originally Posted by scottyz
Do we not have two commentators that speak to large audiences on the right hoping for disaster in U.S. cities? Or was that just more responsible behavior?
What's with this GOP memo about the positives of new terrorist attacks?

. . . . . . . .

 

[26 X World Champs]

I did condemn O'reilly

This is what you wrote in your first post in this thread

O'reilly went over board on this one by saying Al-Qaeda should attack anyone let alone a U.S. city but his point still stands; why should the U.S. military defend a city which has taken it upon itself to publicly denounce the armed forces?.

Yes, you condemned O'Reilly, but IMHO you did so in an extremely mild way, yet you continue to rant on about Randi Rhodes. How come?

Randi Rhodes' words that you cited were meant as comedy. They were in bad taste, and she apologized profusely. How about O'Reilly? Haven't seen him apologize?

Regardless, this thread is about O'Reilly, not Rhodes. While it's OK to make a comparison to Rhodes it is not appropriate to dwell on Rhodes as your defense for O'Reilly. They are two different threads.

O'Reilly was wrong to say what he said. I know that he didn't mean it literally, but he said it to hurt people in California. He said it with malice. He's too smart to speak off the cuff, so his remarks were calculated, and that is what, to me, is so wrong.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is what you wrote in your first post in this thread

Yes, you condemned O'Reilly, but IMHO you did so in an extremely mild way, yet you continue to rant on about Randi Rhodes. How come?

And yet you still haven't apologized for Rhodes.

Randi Rhodes' words that you cited were meant as comedy. They were in bad taste, and she apologized profusely. How about O'Reilly? Haven't seen him apologize?

Oh you did just apologize but in a very mild way . . . hypocrit. Comedy sketch? Was the Godfather a comedy now?


Regardless, this thread is about O'Reilly, not Rhodes. While it's OK to make a comparison to Rhodes it is not appropriate to dwell on Rhodes as your defense for O'Reilly. They are two different threads.

I answered a direct line of questioning in relation to left wing commentators and it's you who keeps bringing it up because you said I was back peddling and I responded. What am I not able to respond to a question in relation to back peddling without bringing up what I was supposedly back peddling about?

O'Reilly was wrong to say what he said. I know that he didn't mean it literally, but he said it to hurt people in California. He said it with malice. He's too smart to speak off the cuff, so his remarks were calculated, and that is what, to me, is so wrong.

Would he be to stupid not to be able to speak off the cuff? Ad-libbings a talent not a hindrence. How do you know it was calculated are you psychic now do you have some special ability to see inside O'reilly's brain now?

. . . . . . . . .

 

[26 X World Champs]

Would he be to stupid not to be able to speak off the cuff? Ad-libbings a talent not a hindrence. How do you know it was calculated are you psychic now do you have some special ability to see inside O'reilly's brain now?

Regularly his talking points are scripted. The words are even superimposed on the screen as he speaks to illustrate his point. I did not see this particular piece so I cannot say for sure whether he was speaking from a script or "off the cuff."

You asked me to apologize for Rhodes. Why? This thread is about O'Reilly. I've not lashed out against O'Reilly the way you did about Rhodes. I spoke about each indiscretion as "bad taste" or inappropriate. I did not rant on about O'Reilly. You, however, were vicious in your attack of Rhodes but let O'Reilly off with a shrug of your shoulders. Don't you see the difference?

If you want to start a thread about Rhodes comments from a long time ago then we can discuss her, though it's kind of an old story...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Regularly his talking points are scripted. The words are even superimposed on the screen as he speaks to illustrate his point. I did not see this particular piece so I cannot say for sure whether he was speaking from a script or "off the cuff."

You asked me to apologize for Rhodes. Why? This thread is about O'Reilly. I've not lashed out against O'Reilly the way you did about Rhodes. I spoke about each indiscretion as "bad taste" or inappropriate. I did not rant on about O'Reilly. You, however, were vicious in your attack of Rhodes but let O'Reilly off with a shrug of your shoulders. Don't you see the difference?

If you want to start a thread about Rhodes comments from a long time ago then we can discuss her, though it's kind of an old story...

Ya I didn't see it either I'm not even sure if it was on the radio program or the t.v. show.

How was I viscous sir? To me atleast saying that you want the president to be murdered is a very serious statement and alot more viscous than what I said.

I didn't start the conversation on Rhodes I answered a direct line of questioning in relation to left wing commentators and then it was implyed that I was a lier by you and Skottyzz and was asked to verify my statement of Air America commentators calling for the murder of the president which I did.

I could really give two shits about either Rhodes or O'Reilly, I'm of the opinion that they're both talking head media whores but that doesn't excuse someone for placing an out of context quote and blowing O'Reilly's statement way out of proportion. Furthermore; O'Reilly's show is not a smear the left wing screw the Democrats hate fest, while on Air America and the Randi Rhodes show imparticular, Republicans are constantly being compared to nazis and the Bush administration likened to the inner circle of Adolf Hitler and her listeners are just as viscous and hateful as her which is why when she makes a stament that she hopes someone will murder the president it must be taken very serious.

 

[ShamMol]

Let's put it this way-it is Bill O'Reilly. I watch him to laugh, not get my news.

Nobody will pay attention, and if they do...like yourself perhaps...then they probably have way too much time on their hands.

 

[MSgt]

My, my, my....seems like you're changing the previous post you wrote, remember:

Get it? You wrote that on air personalities were calling for Bush's murder in all seriousness. Now you've backpedaled to express your "revulsion" that anyone would joke about the subject. The two things are quite different.

This thread is about O'Reilly calling for a terrorist attack on San Francisco, and he obviously didn't mean it literally but he wasn't joking either.

You barely condemn O'Reilly but you get vicious re Air America. Seems like your politics are interfering with your idealogy?

Unbelievable. I believe everyone on this thread who has shown grief over a statement that was meant to show a point rather than a literal call for a terrorist attack are the one's that are parading around a political interference.

Fact: A personality made a statement inside a paragraph that was meant to dissaprove of San Fransisco's disrespect towards the military.

Fact: People have chosen to use this statement to parade around that the source of this statement is a Conservative, Republican, Bush lover, GOP affiliated, Iraqi war supporter, etc....

Now, what did his statement have to do with the bottom fact? Nothing. There's your "political interference." What's to condemn? Move on.

 

[KCConservative]

Stupid comments like this are typical of editorialists.

Like Michael Medved (Jew) calling for the annhilation of Russia with nuclear bombs for disagreeing with American foreign policy.

Like Michael Savage (Jew) telling his Chrisitan listeners to fight for Israel while reading from the Talmud on occaision (The Supreme Jewish Holy Book which claims that Jesus Christ is currently being tortured in hell)

Like Pat Robertson (Satanist) calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez disagreeing with Multi-NAtional Oil Companies.

and Michael Moore and Keith Oberle and Barbra Streisand and Al Franken.

 

[MSgt]

and Michael Moore and Keith Oberle and Barbra Streisand and Al Franken.

More individuals with their own belligerent opinions. Hey look at that, I expressed my opinion while protecting theirs. See how easy it is to "move on?"

 

[Inuyasha]

[/B]

Unbelievable. I believe everyone on this thread who has shown grief over a statement that was meant to show a point rather than a literal call for a terrorist attack are the one's that are parading around a political interference.

Fact: A personality made a statement inside a paragraph that was meant to dissaprove of San Fransisco's disrespect towards the military.

Fact: People have chosen to use this statement to parade around that the source of this statement is a Conservative, Republican, Bush lover, GOP affiliated, Iraqi war supporter, etc....

Now, what did his statement have to do with the bottom fact? Nothing. There's your "political interference." What's to condemn? Move on.

What's to condemn? Simple. I guess you didn't read my post. Here is a man (along with John Gibson) who for all practical purposes, avoided his duty at a crucial moment. Now he's become gung-ho for the very military he refused to serve. It's easy to talk when there is no chance that you will have to put yourself in harm's way. These people, to me. are hypocrites of the first order. That's my gripe and I believe it is a justifiable one.

I have never condemed George Bush for his service nor will I. At least he went and did something. Perhaps he was not the most ideal soldier but then not everyone is cut out to be in that career. And although I prefer Clinton as a president and a savy politician I am disappointed that he did not serve his country in time of need, But... he never talked about it and I think, from his attitude, that he feels somewhat guilty about it.

Many of my gereration feel the same way. Gunny you have to remember something. That was "my" (generation's) war as much as this one is yours (your generation's). There are different feelings about it. You are younger than I but I hope that you will respect how I feel about it because that was was a whole different basket of apples. You had to live the era to really know about it.

I simply condemn his hypocracy. I respectivly diagree wit what SF has done. However the schools still have ROTC programs and the door has not been totally shut. The young should have the right to listen to a military recuiter as well as those of the business world. After all it is a career, though you may agree with it or not. Bill O'Reilly or John Gibson, however, have not really earned the right to say anything about it and if they do I will say again-I condemn their hypocracy. I am unbemding on this point.

 

[MSgt]

What's to condemn? Simple. I guess you didn't read my post. Here is a man (along with John Gibson) who for all practical purposes, avoided his duty at a crucial moment. Now he's become gung-ho for the very military he refused to serve. It's easy to talk when there is no chance that you will have to put yourself in harm's way. These people, to me. are hypocrites of the first order. That's my gripe and I believe it is a justifiable one.

I have never condemed George Bush for his service nor will I. At least he went and did something. Perhaps he was not the most ideal soldier but then not everyone is cut out to be in that career. And although I prefer Clinton as a president and a savy politician I am disappointed that he did not serve his country in time of need, But... he never talked about it and I think, from his attitude, that he feels somewhat guilty about it.

Many of my gereration feel the same way. Gunny you have to remember something. That was "my" (generation's) war as much as this one is yours (your generation's). There are different feelings about it. You are younger than I but I hope that you will respect how I feel about it because that was was a whole different basket of apples. You had to live the era to really know about it.

I simply condemn his hypocracy. I respectivly diagree wit what SF has done. However the schools still have ROTC programs and the door has not been totally shut. The young should have the right to listen to a military recuiter as well as those of the business world. After all it is a career, though you may agree with it or not. Bill O'Reilly or John Gibson, however, have not really earned the right to say anything about it and if they do I will say again-I condemn their hypocracy. I am unbemding on this point.

I don't feel that everyone has to serve. And since most do not, does this mean that commentators and politicians that do not serve have no right to their opinions on matters of the military? I don't mind serving while others do not. I certainly don't mind serving while others support privately and publicly as O'Reilly has seen fit to do. What I do mind are the one's that criticize military actions while enjoying their freedoms that said military actions are protecting (whether they understand the undertaking or not). That, to me, is the true hypocrit and I call it "selective" support.

But, what does all of this have to do with his silly little statement that has been taken way too seriously by people who search high and low for anything to throw in a conservatives face? Or to use when referring to the GOP? Or to use when referring to Republicans? Or to use when looking for ammo to fire off at an administration they don't like?

 

[Inuyasha]

I don't feel that everyone has to serve. And since most do not, does this mean that commentators and politicians that do not serve have no right to their opinions on matters of the military? I don't mind serving while others do not. I certainly don't mind serving while others support privately and publicly as O'Reilly has seen fit to do. What I do mind are the one's that criticize military actions while enjoying their freedoms that said military actions are protecting (whether they understand the undertaking or not). That, to me, is the true hypocrit and I call it "selective" support.

But, what does all of this have to do with his silly little statement that has been taken way too seriously by people who search high and low for anything to throw in a conservatives face? Or to use when referring to the GOP? Or to use when referring to Republicans? Or to use when looking for ammo to fire off at an administration they don't like?

With regrad to paragraph one. Not everyone needs to serve, TODAY. But again i remind you that my era was different. The conflict was larger and more important EVERYONE was more or less expected to serve (the draft was in effect). Those who purposly avoided it with dozens of deferments are not respected. That's just the way the mindset was and still is. Today you have an "all volunteer" military. I am i making it clear why there is a difference of thought and opinion between you generation and mine. That's something that is only going to change when my generation have all died.

In paragraph two, what this has to do with thesilly /and you are right on thr mark) statement O'Reilly made is that you ask "What's to condemn?" and I answered "The hypocracy." It well could have been any other silly statment that was hypocritial. Not JUST this one. I am condemning his hypocracy THROUGH his statment. "Hypocracy" is the key word. You'll find that many of my generation feel this way. It doesn't help to try yo compare it to these times any more than we can compare the war in SE Asia to the one in Iraq. It's apples and oranges. Do you see what i mean?