« Tim Kaine's Semi-Pyrrhic Victory | Main | Quality, Not Longevity »

November 11, 2005

What the hell is wrong with O’Reilly?

Shakes here, with something semi-frivolous…

Via MediaMatters, O’Reilly has decided to offer San Francisco to Al Qaeda, since San Franciscans passed a ballot measure urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting:

From the November 8 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. 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.

The 210-foot Coit Tower was dedicated in 1933 and contains a museum and murals that depict working life in 1930s California.

Good grief, what a bloviating buffoon. It’s no wonder he hates MediaMatters and the blogosphere so much, since they’ve exponentially increased awareness of the insane spewage that comprises his radio show. He says all the really wacky shit there; the constant circulation of transcripts from his radio program undermine the (dubious) pretense of moderation he uses on his television show. And he’s such a sneaky, lying turd that he’ll rebut items that reference his radio transcripts with footage of his television show. I get the feeling he likes to have his little radio outpost of extremism that doesn’t get tons of attention while he parades himself, even if unconvincingly, as Mr. Pragmatic Everyman on the telly every night.

Wasn’t he talking about retiring soon? When can we expect that, exactly?

And by the way, the mere extension of a hypothetical in which he is president is practically enough to turn my office into a vomitorium.

November 11, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8349562be69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What the hell is wrong with O’Reilly?:

Comments

If SF and the surrounding areas get to keep their federal tax dollars, they might be willing to agree. Hell, it could be a movement.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Nov 11, 2005 2:35:11 PM

I heard that program and I thought he was over the top. O'Reilly is right on some things, but he also talks shit about subject he should not be speaking(cuz he don't know what he's talking about). He is arrogant and is no mouthpiece for the right, most of us rethugs don't think so anyway.

But he also pointed out how San Fagcisco is disrespecting the military that is protecting their right to be gay as hell in the streets of the city. Why would you ban the military from recruiting in a time of war? It is an all volunteer army, SF is a liberal city and the military isn't going to get a lot of volunteers from SF, but I guarentee you there are people who live there who want to join the military. Why not let them?

I thought San Fagcisco was all about personal freedoms. Why not let people join if they want? Why make it harder for people to serve their country? Isn't the right to join the military just as much of a right as the right to an abortion?

The city allows abortions on demand but no military recruiters?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 11, 2005 3:09:26 PM

I wonder how the wingnuts would feel if the military started showing up at churches to recruit?

Posted by: Robert McClelland | Nov 11, 2005 3:16:16 PM

Because Captain military recruiters are deceptive and disproportionately target people who have no other options.

Lying is one thing; lying to the poor to get them to join a pointless war is another thing.

I thought San Fagcisco was all about personal freedoms.

?? I don't even know what to say to this. This is just bizarre. Do you have a set of puns for every city that doesn't tar and feather gays? What do you call Minneapolis? New Orleans? New York? Hell, any large metro area?

But he also pointed out how San Fagcisco is disrespecting the military that is protecting their right to be gay as hell in the streets of the city.

I'm confused here. How is the Iraq war a war for gay rights?

Posted by: Karl the Idiot | Nov 11, 2005 3:22:02 PM

Of course it's ridiculous and it sounds like Mr. O'Reilly is speaking out of frustration at the lack of cooperation of the City of San Francisco.

That being said, his statements should be viewed by all as just one more piece of evidence of a growing feeling about San Franciso and like cities who attempt to throw a monkey wrench in a duly authorized federal military campaign.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 11, 2005 3:26:36 PM

I'm confused here. How is the Iraq war a war for gay rights?

All wars have been fought to preserve the right for people to do things that I hate and that I am trying to outlaw.

If the Hate Amendment were to pass and be ratified into the Constitution, then we would retroactively change the reasons for all our wars to no longer include the right for gays to get married. Though now that I think about it, there are 19 states, currently, that were not included in the reasons for all of our past wars for gays to get married.

See? It's really very simple. All of our wars were fought so that we could burn the flag in protest until earlier this year when it was made illegal.

Posted by: Stephen | Nov 11, 2005 3:28:24 PM

?? I don't even know what to say to this. This is just bizarre.

So who is *really* surprised? San Francisco is infamous as the homosexual capital of the United States.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 11, 2005 3:29:47 PM

"I wonder how the wingnuts would feel if the military started showing up at churches to recruit?"

We have a memorial to troops injured or killed from our area or church in our church and we say the pledge of allegiance every week. It is a very patriotic church, like most are.

Are you equating SF or schools in SF with church?

karl, you're an idiot.

Them muslim/fascists would love to have a shot at the citizens of San Fagcisco. Queers, whores and drug addicts ain't real popular with regular muslims, let alone the extremists.

What kind of military do you propose, moron? I mean a all volunteer army in a time of war is not acceptable?

I bet you think if we just didn't have a military everybody in the world would try to love one another, don't you?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 11, 2005 3:39:59 PM

"I wonder how the wingnuts would feel if the military started showing up at churches to recruit?"

Interesting hypothetical - but considering that young conservative men of conscription age are about the very least likely to volunteer for the army, I doubt that the military will ever try.

Posted by: sprocket | Nov 11, 2005 3:48:43 PM

sprocket,
Who joins? Liberals? Blacks? Gays? Do they turn conservative after they join?

Bush got 60+ percent of the military vote against a "war hero".

Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 11, 2005 4:19:25 PM

he also pointed out how San Fagcisco is disrespecting the military that is protecting their right to be gay as hell in the streets of the city.

No right to be gay as hell in the military, though, is there?

Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Nov 11, 2005 4:23:06 PM

"No right to be gay as hell in the military, though, is there?"

As long as you don't tell anybody about it.

Do you know who to thank for that brilliant policy? Bill Clinton! (cue the porno music)

Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 11, 2005 4:26:53 PM

Oh, you mean there is no right to be gay as hell. You want them to be able to dance around in thong while wearing their sailor's cap on the aircraft carriers.

I don't think that complies with the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' criteria.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 11, 2005 4:37:53 PM

Toke, no doubt you are on your way to the recruiting office right now. Good luck with all that and thank you for defending our country.
Compilations of personnel stats are well documented, you can look them up. The lower ranks are made up in large portions by minorities, lower middle income/poor, and persons with minimal education requirements. It has been that way for decades.
My experience, which was not so long ago, was that most of the young enlisted folks had little interest in politics and did not have the kind of partisan obsessions that wingnuts have. Most enlisted because they hoped to get certain kinds of professional training, hoped to get a leg up for college, or simply had no other options that they could find. Nobody enlisted hoping to get into the kind of extended tours that are being dumped on our servicemen and women these days - that you can be sure of. But things like will power, personal commitment and character can go a long way in adverse situations, so a good many of them knuckle down and get the job done somehow, even if they don't like it. Maybe you can pick up some of these characteristics after your trip down to the recruitment office today.

Posted by: sprocket | Nov 11, 2005 4:38:04 PM

"If SF and the surrounding areas get to keep their federal tax dollars, they might be willing to agree"

You're onto something here. Blue states typically send more money (in taxes) to the Feds that they get back. The cracker barrel states actually get the windfall. Being a blue-stater, I'd be happy to vote for anything that would keep my tax dollars in my state - to hell with the rednecks.

Posted by: CParis | Nov 11, 2005 4:39:45 PM

It is a very patriotic church, like most are.

You have stats on that?

Them muslim/fascists would love to have a shot at the citizens...

Them there bullfrogs caught a willy on me pitchpit cuz I don't peanut the butah...

What? Learn to speak English, jackass.

Here's what you have in common with the religious fanatics the US went to war with in Afghanistan: you hate gays; you want to outlaw abortion; you're in favor of increasing government power; you want a strong link between the church and the state.

Tell me again, jackass, what side you're on?

And if you're of age, jackass, why aren't you in the army?

And Captain, if your church has a picture of a long-haired Jesus in it, you know you're going to hell. Or are you too busy hatin' fags (you know, so you can protect them) to read your Bible (which is, by the way, far more interested in divorce than in male homosexuality: as for lesbians, the Bible doesn't give a damn)?

--

Oh, and thanks for the substantial attack on my position regarding deceptive practices in military recruitment.

--

Fred, you jackass, I was responding to Toke's puerile slang.


That being said, his statements should be viewed by all as just one more piece of evidence..

You mean along the lines of O'Reilly's rewriting of the history of the observance of Xmas in this country (which, by the way, was seen as a British holiday and hence shunned by all patriots well into the nineteenth century) is evidence of....? His willingness to lie? Or O'Reilly's citing of imaginary business journals for his Quixotic boycott on France is evidence of...?

The only thing O'Reilly's evidence of is the willingness of jackasses like you to align yourself with a mendacious, cowardly sexual harasser. Good show Fred.

Posted by: Karl the Idiot | Nov 11, 2005 4:57:12 PM

"You want them to be able to dance around in thong while wearing their sailor's cap on the aircraft carriers."

A mental picture similar to 'partyboy' from Jackass.

sprocket,
People who volunteer for the military in a time of war know there is a significant chance of going to war. The people in Iraq knew we were at war when they volunteered. Some actually wanted to go!

You still haven't explained why all them liberals, blacks and gays in the military keep voting for Bush.

As far as the military demographics, my understanding is that it is fairly representative of the population as a whole. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

As far as my joining the service, as soon as they want a dope smoking captain, Ahoy!

Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 11, 2005 4:59:03 PM

As far as my joining the service, as soon as they want a dope smoking captain, Ahoy!

The degree of personal sacrifice that you are taking for your country and this adminstration's goals is touching.
You are asking me to explain the voting patterns of the military? Hell if I know, Toke. Unlike, say, a message board troll, I don't pretend to have all the answers. Alot of servicemen don't even vote. Why that is would be a more interesting question to consider.

People who volunteer for the military in a time of war know there is a significant chance of going to war. The people in Iraq knew we were at war when they volunteered. Some actually wanted to go!

That certainly explains why recruitments have been at rock bottom, and that recruitment goals have been dropped many times since the war began. Once again, this is why your trip down to the recruitment office today will be doubly appreciated. Perhaps the officer there can help you with your little personal problem that is standing between you and your service to our country.

Posted by: sprocket | Nov 11, 2005 5:10:42 PM

The city allows abortions on demand

Well of course. You want people to be given abortions who don't want them? Bi-fucking-zar.

As far as my joining the service, as soon as they want a dope-smoking captain. [punctuation corrected]

They'd take you. Your flippant, "oh other people can go and die to protect fags" attitude isn't winning you any points, you pathetic stoner.

As far as the military demographics, my understanding is that it is fairly representative of the population as a whole. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Then you haven't looked hard enough. And you're looking at the wrong stats if you've looked at all.

Posted by: Karl the Idiot | Nov 11, 2005 5:26:58 PM

try starting here, stoner, although with all your qualifications ("my understanding": as if that counts for anything; "fairly": cya, yeah?; "representative": count mean anything) you're pretty much right no matter what.

And what's your position on noncitizens serving and dying in the US military?

And next time, learn to Google.

Posted by: Karl the Idiot | Nov 11, 2005 5:36:13 PM

Coit Tower, which O'Reilly points to as a good target to blow up, happens to be a monument to San Franciwco firefighters.

Only an ignorant blowhard jerk would suggest that it's OK to blow a memorial like that up.

Oh, and not that it matters, but Military.com's offices are also in downtown San Francisco.

Posted by: fiat lux | Nov 11, 2005 5:46:28 PM

Sorry about the typo above!

Posted by: fiat lux | Nov 11, 2005 5:47:05 PM

"That certainly explains why recruitments have been at rock bottom, and that recruitment goals have been dropped many times since the war began"

Re-enlistment is well above goals for the military.

karl, you seem like a bitter atheist who can't stand for churches being tax exempt, but thinks tax dollars should pay for teenagers to have abortions without their parent's consent or notification. Boy are you going to hell! Seriously tho, but you are going to hell, don't you see how vile your reasoning is?

"Oh, and thanks for the substantial attack on my position regarding deceptive practices in military recruitment."

Accusations don't count as proof. Where is your link citing incidences? (michaelmoore.com and moveon.org don't count as sources)And the aftermath?


Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 11, 2005 6:35:02 PM

Oh, you mean there is no right to be gay as hell. You want them to be able to dance around in thong while wearing their sailor's cap on the aircraft carriers.

Captain Toke, being an expert on everything, you should know that the element of surprise is a necessary ingredient in successful military action. What could be more surprising than the Gay as Hell Brigade? Which, since - again - being an expert on everything, you must know is more than just thongs and sailor caps, but also glittery batons and Zima.

All of which is way cheaper than the body armor we're not providing our soldiers with, btw.

Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Nov 11, 2005 6:50:16 PM

Wow, Toke sure showed his true colors here. He didn't even pretend to be semi-rational, like he often does.

But it's good to know that he goes to a church which all about loving the troops and hating the fags. Last I checked, neither of those were in the gospels, but maybe I missed a few things in my reading. He's a fine example of Christian love, though, isn't he?

Posted by: paperwight | Nov 11, 2005 9:44:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.