# Bill O'Reilly calls internet posters "the criminals at the computer" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 17, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457 "2003-06-17T13:53:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/81 "2003-06-20T14:54:47Z")
didn’t he go on to say that **he** considered them to be “enemies of the state”, which admittedly is not the same level of a charge, but by implication, suggests that the speaker _wishes_ it were to be. at any rate, being called a ‘bad American’ for speaking one’s mind IMHO, is **being** a “bad American” for we (rightfully) are proud of our Bill of Rights (and yes, I do indeed understand that the BoR protects us from **government** restriction of speech, not necessarily promising that no one will think ill of you for speaking your mind, however, the ability to critize our government is yet another aspect of our FoS that we, as Americans **rightfully** are proud. So it strikes me as bizarre that some one should be considered “unAmerican” for critizing our leaders) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/82 "2003-06-20T14:59:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > Actually, he did. No. He did not. > [@](#): > > You might say (spin) that O’Reilly is using that term ONLY for NAMBLA and the one child molestor that blamed NAMBLA’s site. O’Reilly makes a statement. [quote] So which is the bigger threat to America? The big companies or the criminals at the computer? Interesting question.\*\* You interpret it your way, but suggest that me interpreting it differently is _spin_? I must call bullshit on that. It seems that many just do use the term spin to describe anyone who disagrees with them. > [@](#): > > But it sure seems to me that he makes no difference between them and internet posters who say stuff he doesn’t like, or that Den of Iniquity, the ACLU. Remember, the piece is about posters. The Nambla and pedophile are there only to provide an extreme example. O’Reilly talks about internet posters only once during the memo. The piece is not about posters. > [@](#): > > Sex, lies and videotape on the Internet, that’s the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo. The piece is about the internet in general. O’Reilly talks about: > [@](#): > > In truth, **The Chronicle’s story [is] small stuff** compared to other Internet sins. The child molestation people have now figured out a way to chat about their crimes without being charged with obscenity. And the Supreme Court actually helped these people by ruling that virtual child porn, computerized images of kids being raped, are legal, an extension of free speech. O’Reilly minimizes the online postings himself. Clearly the focus of the article is more serious internet crimes. > [@](#): > > The Internet has become a sewer of slander and libel, an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about anything goes. For example, the guy who raped and murdered a 10-year old in Massachusetts says he got the idea from the NAMBLA Web site that he accessed from the Boston public library. The ACLU’s defending NAMBLA in that civil lawsuit. Slander and libel are crimes. Rape and murder are crimes. When he says “Criminals at the computer” why do you make the assumption that he is talking about “internet posters”? It’s obvious he is referring to the criminal actions he was just describing, not posters on the internet which he never even mentioned in the entire talking points. In fact, the term “internet posters” or even “posters” doesn’t even appear in the article once. Don’t bother to lie about what the article says. It’s right there for me to read. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/83 "2003-06-20T15:05:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > Actually, he did. No. He did not. > [@](#): > > You might say (spin) that O’Reilly is using that term ONLY for NAMBLA and the one child molestor that blamed NAMBLA’s site. O’Reilly makes a statement. > [@](#): > > So which is the bigger threat to America? The big companies or the criminals at the computer? Interesting question. You interpret it your way, but suggest that me interpreting it differently is _spin_? I must call bullshit on that. It seems that many just do use the term spin to describe anyone who disagrees with them. > [@](#): > > But it sure seems to me that he makes no difference between them and internet posters who say stuff he doesn’t like, or that Den of Iniquity, the ACLU. Remember, the piece is about posters. The Nambla and pedophile are there only to provide an extreme example. O’Reilly talks about internet posters only once during the memo. The piece is not about posters. > [@](#): > > Sex, lies and videotape on the Internet, that’s the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo. The piece is about the internet in general. O’Reilly talks about: > [@](#): > > In truth, **The Chronicle’s story [is] small stuff** compared to other Internet sins. The child molestation people have now figured out a way to chat about their crimes without being charged with obscenity. And the Supreme Court actually helped these people by ruling that virtual child porn, computerized images of kids being raped, are legal, an extension of free speech. O’Reilly minimizes the online postings himself. Clearly the focus of the article is more serious internet crimes. > [@](#): > > The Internet has become a sewer of slander and libel, an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about anything goes. For example, the guy who raped and murdered a 10-year old in Massachusetts says he got the idea from the NAMBLA Web site that he accessed from the Boston public library. The ACLU’s defending NAMBLA in that civil lawsuit. Slander and libel are crimes. Rape and murder are crimes. When he says “Criminals at the computer” why do you make the assumption that he is talking about “internet posters”? It’s obvious he is referring to the criminal actions he was just describing, not posters on the internet which he never even mentioned in the entire talking points. In fact, the term “internet posters” or even “posters” doesn’t even appear in the article once. Don’t bother to lie about what the article says. It’s right there for me to read. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/84 "2003-06-20T15:12:17Z")
O’Reilly calls those who _are actively working against the military_ during a time of war of being “enemy of the state”. The two examples he uses are foriegn powers and celebs like Barbara Streisand. IMO, he then realized what people here are accusing him of: That if taken literally and out of context some of his statements could be interpreted to mean that he called regular folks who are against the war “enemies of the state”. [So, the next night he retracts.](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79779,00.html) > [@](#): > > I made a mistake yesterday. Can you believe it? That’s the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo. > > For those of you who say I’m never wrong, I never admit I’m wrong, well, you’re wrong, because I was wrong when I said that Americans who continue demonstrating against the war once the shooting begins are being un-American. I’m taking that back. He goes on to say: > [@](#): > > The word un-American implies some kind of lasting stigma and is a word of intimidation. Thus it is the wrong word to use in this scenario. > > People who lawfully dissent should never be labeled un-American. Instead, I will call those who publicly criticize our country in a time of military crisis, which this is, bad Americans and it is my constitutional right to make that judgment and you are free to agree or disagree. You can call me a bad American for making the judgment. It looks like he gets the gist of the first ammendment to me. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/85 "2003-06-20T15:20:12Z")
Don’t you find it ironic that he’s pointing out his right to criticize other people in public life for expressing **their** opinion of people in the public life? I’d suggest that either it’s “OK” in his eye for some one in the public life (which would include politicians, celebrities and quasi intellectual commentators) to publically air their critique of other people in that same public life, or it’s “not OK”. Seems to me that he wants to be able to criticize these others for doing the same thing that he is doing. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/86 "2003-06-20T15:27:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Slander and libel are crimes. \*\* No they aren’t. No one gets sent to jail over slander and libel. Slander and libel are _torts_, actions for which a private plaintiff can seek monetary recompense. O’Reilly’s an idiot. Just look at the section you quote. He complains about “slander and libel” and then starts his next sentence with “for example” – indicating to the the reader that this will be an example of truly terrible slander and libel. But that isn’t what follows. What follows is an example of murder and rape, and notions that the NAMBLA website led to the commission of those crimes. Nowhere in that example is there a single instance of slander or libel. One wonders if O’Reilly is just a bad writer, or if he really doesn’t understand the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/87 "2003-06-20T15:30:09Z")
Isn’t this an example: > [@](#): > > Today’s example comes from Web sites that picked up a false report from The San Francisco Chronicle that said a San Francisco radio station dropped The Radio Factor. If anyone had bothered to make even one phone call, they would have learned that Westwood One made a deal with another San Francisco radio station, weeks ago to move The Radio Factor. Thus the word “dropped” is obviously inaccurate and dishonest. We’ll see if The Chronicle runs a correction, but you can bet you won’t be seeing many corrections on the net. I didn’t quote it before. Did you not even read the memo we are discussing? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/88 "2003-06-20T15:33:54Z")
Oh, and the section you refer to: > [@](#): > > The Internet has become a sewer of slander and libel, an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about anything goes. For example, the guy who raped and murdered a 10-year old in Massachusetts says he got the idea from the NAMBLA Web site … The rapist and murderer is an example of how the internet has become “an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about anything goes.” You are reading too much into his statements. O’Reilly didn’t say that the rapist and murderer is an example of slander and libel, unless you twist his words to make it so. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/89 "2003-06-20T15:41:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Debaser_ > > Slander and libel are crimes. > [@](#): > > _by Dewey Cheatem Undhow_ > > No they aren’t. No one gets sent to jail over slander and libel. > > Slander and libel are torts, actions for which a private plaintiff can seek monetary recompense. You are correct. I retract this. In my defense “slander libel crime” produces 15,700 hits in google. “slander libel tort” produces 14,200. I don’t feel quite so foolish now. 🙂 However, rape and murder are crimes. Those that rape and murder are criminals. The example O’Reilly used was someone who claimed to get the idea of raping and murdering a child from the computer. It makes sense to asssume that when he says “criminals at the computer” he means these people. He certainly isn’t referring to “internet posters” because _never in the entire memo does he mention “internet posters”._ ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/90 "2003-06-20T16:26:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Prove that O’Reilly is “against the first amendment” as you said you suspect in your last post: \*\* Why on Earth should I have to prove anything? I stated what I think he meant from his own statements. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/91 "2003-06-20T16:28:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Isn’t this an example: \*\* Actually, it probably isn’t. It certainly isn’t slander – the words were printed, not spoken – and it’s doubtful that it’s even libel. Literal truth is a defense. O’Reilly is no longer with the San Franscisco station. Reportage of that fact is accurate. Bill just doesn’t like the characterization that he was “dropped.” But that characterization can be deemed true even if everything O’Reilly says is correct – even if O’Relly decided station A wasn’t giving him the best deal and thus decided to bolt to station B, station A could still be fairly described as “dropping” O’Reilly because they consciously made the decision to not meet his demands. But I digress. My point wasn’t that O’Reilly hadn’t mentioned libel or slander anywhere in the article, it was that the argument he set up in that paragraph did not make sense as he wrote it. The second sentence is supposed to be an example of that which is described in the first. \*\* > [@](#): > > I didn’t quote it before. Did you not even read the memo we are discussing? \*\* Yes, I did. It doesn’t make that argument any better. At best, O’Reilly is a shitty writer; at worst, a total moron. \*\* > [@](#): > > The rapist and murderer is an example of how the internet has become “an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about anything goes.” > > You are reading too much into his statements. O’Reilly didn’t say that the rapist and murderer is an example of slander and libel, unless you twist his words to make it so.\*\* I’m not twisting a damned thing. I’m just reading what O’Reilly actually wrote. You’re just willing to be a hell of a lot more charitable in your reading than I am. \*\* > [@](#): > > You are correct. I retract this. In my defense “slander libel crime” produces 15,700 hits in google. “slander libel tort” produces 14,200. I don’t feel quite so foolish now. \*\* Google returns 30,300 hits for “bill o’reilly crime.” Thus, a lot of people must believe being Bill O’Reilly is a crime. :rolleyes: \*\* > [@](#): > > However, rape and murder are crimes. Those that rape and murder are criminals. The example O’Reilly used was someone who claimed to get the idea of raping and murdering a child from the computer. It makes sense to asssume that when he says “criminals at the computer” he means these people. \*\* Actually, since his TPM is about content produced on the Internet, he’s actually referring to NAMBLA, assuming we adopt your charitable reading of his screed. \*\* > [@](#): > > He certainly isn’t referring to “internet posters” because never in the entire memo does he mention “internet posters”.\*\* You’ve GOT to be kidding me. He complains that “[n]early everyday, there’s something written on the Internet about me that’s flat out untrue,” complains about “web sites” that picked up the _Chronicle_ story, and describes his targets as those “net people.” Are you seriously suggesting that because he never used the exact words “internet posters” that he isn’t referring to those who post to blogs and message boards? That deserves a rolleyes: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/92 "2003-06-20T17:46:57Z")
First you say: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Nowhere in that example is there a single instance of slander or libel. Then after I point out an example you say: > [@](#): > > Actually, it probably isn’t. It certainly isn’t slander – the words were printed, not spoken – and it’s doubtful that it’s even libel. Literal truth is a defense. O’Reilly is no longer with the San Franscisco station. Reportage of that fact is accurate. Bill just doesn’t like the characterization that he was “dropped.” But that characterization can be deemed true even if everything O’Reilly says is correct – even if O’Relly decided station A wasn’t giving him the best deal and thus decided to bolt to station B, station A could still be fairly described as “dropping” O’Reilly because they consciously made the decision to not meet his demands. > > But I digress. My point wasn’t that O’Reilly hadn’t mentioned libel or slander anywhere in the article, it was that the argument he set up in that paragraph did not make sense as he wrote it. The second sentence is supposed to be an example of that which is described in the first. So, it seems that a case can be made that O’Reilly made an example of libel in the article. It’s debatable what merit it has, but it is in fact there. Your original statement that “nowhere” is there a “single instance” was a little to strong for my liking, and I called you on it. But, I agree this is off subject and not really important. It’s just annoying to me that we have the TPM linked to right here in the OP, and most of the memo has been quoted already and still people completely distort O’Reilly’s words. If he is such a bad guy, and against the first ammendment and whatever else people would like to accuse him of then you should be able to find some examples of him actually saying these things. Not just use contorted logic to twist his statements into ways that fit your meaning. > [@](#): > > Google returns 30,300 hits for “bill o’reilly crime.” Thus, a lot of people must believe being Bill O’Reilly is a crime. :rolleyes: I admitted I was wrong and retracted. You give me a rolleyes for that? Dick. I was just pointing out that it seems to be a common mistake. > [@](#): > > Actually, since his TPM is about content produced on the Internet, he’s actually referring to NAMBLA, assuming we adopt your charitable reading of his screed. This isn’t being charitable with the reading. It’s just being reasonable. If you gave the memo to someone who hadn’t read this thread and asked what O’Reilly meant at the end when he said “criminals at the computer” you would get NAMBLA, or “Child molesters” as the answer every time. > [@](#): > > You’ve GOT to be kidding me. He complains that “[n]early everyday, there’s something written on the Internet about me that’s flat out untrue,” complains about “web sites” that picked up the _Chronicle_ story, and describes his targets as those “net people.” Are you seriously suggesting that because he never used the exact words “internet posters” that he isn’t referring to those who post to blogs and message boards? That deserves a rolleyes: :rolleyes: Yes, he mentions “web sites” and “net people”. Not message boards. Nope, not even once. If he were talking about message boards and posters on them he would have said so. But he didn’t. Because he wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/93 "2003-06-20T17:51:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, I did. It doesn’t make that argument any better. At best, O’Reilly is a shitty writer; at worst, a total moron. Not forget option “c”: all of the above. > [@](#): > > You are correct. I retract this. In my defense “slander libel crime” produces 15,700 hits in google. “slander libel tort” produces 14,200. I don’t feel quite so foolish now. Oy. “debaser is a moron” produced 162 hits. “elf6c is a moron” produced 0 hits. Therefore, you’re a moron and I am not. Right? Heck “george bush loves donkey porn” returns 1220 results so it has to be true! And no, I did click any of **those** links. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/94 "2003-06-20T18:57:46Z")
**elf6c** , after being corrected by **Dewey** about slander and libel being torts not crimes, I did a little research to find out more. You know, fighting ignorance and all that. While poking around the internet with google, I couldn’t help but notice that I am certainly not alone in making that mistake. I pointed this out, and simply mentioned it made me feel less foolish for having made the mistake. **elf6c** , if you think that O’Reilly is both a shitty writing and a moron then it is you who are lacking in intelligence. Just because you disagree with O’Reilly doesn’t make him a moron. Only a fool would say these things of someone with O’Reilly’s obvious talent just because of ideological differences. Do you think that this “moron” just stumbled into his long held position as the highest rated program on all of cable news? ( Just to clear things up for the 1st ammendment impared that seem to be drawn to this thread: I am in no way denying or suggesting that the federal government should deny **elf6c** his or her right to free speech. 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/95 "2003-06-20T19:19:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*So, lets say France aided Saddam in leaving the country. That would be actively working against the military and would make them an enemy of the state, IMO. \*\* Since it was the express intent of the United States to remove Saddam from power, it seems to be that by taking him out of the country and into exile, France would be working FOR the U.S. military. The dude can’t run the country from an apartment in Paris. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/96 "2003-06-20T19:24:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you think that this “moron” just stumbled into his long held position as the highest rated program on all of cable news? I don’t think Bill O’Reilly is a moron, although I do think he’s dishonest and manipulative. But your thesis that stupid peo0ple cannot stumble into high positions is ridicualous. Behold Geroge W. Bush. Behold any number of popular movie stars. It’s possible to be stupid AND popular. Hell, visit any high school. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/97 "2003-06-20T19:29:02Z")
Quick note: I am off for the weekend, when I usually don’t post. Hopefully a SDMB weekend warrior who is also an O’Reilly fan will come along and pick up his defense. Don’t worry, it’s easy. The liberals’ hatred of O’Reilly make them irrational and unbalanced. One just needs to refute the incorrect claims that are made of him. Eventually, it will boil down to a simple fact: many don’t like O’Reilly’s politics and style. However, the millions who do have made him the most watched program of it’s kind. His radio show is similarly successful. The fact is, most of “the folks” as O’Reilly calls them, agree with his mainly conservative worldview. That’s why they watch. And that’s what drives others crazy about him. It’s actually quite amusing watching a gaggle of liberals try and defend a **december** OP. It’s completely wrong, yet they clamor over eachother trying to prove it true. This goes a long way towards showing that **decembers’** problems on the board are based in ideology rather than personality. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/98 "2003-06-20T19:36:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > Since it was the express intent of the United States to remove Saddam from power, it seems to be that by taking him out of the country and into exile, France would be working FOR the U.S. military. The dude can’t run the country from an apartment in Paris. I meant this to mean taking Saddam from Iraq _during the war_ when we were trying to find him. This, of course, would be working against the US military. Unless the handed him over to us or something, which wasn’t what I was meaning. You’re the second person to question this, so I guess it was a bad example. I just meant it to illustrate a foreign power working against the US military during a time of war. Instead replace it with supplying the Iraqi’s with weapons. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/99 "2003-06-20T19:42:45Z")
this is amusing - **Debaser** -may I point out that neither **gobear nor DCU** can _possibly_ be described as a liberal? But that’s understandable. You also seem to think you’re winning this show. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457/100 "2003-06-20T19:59:18Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s actually quite amusing watching a gaggle of liberals try and defend a december OP. It’s completely wrong, yet they clamor over eachother trying to prove it true. This goes a long way towards showing that decembers’ problems on the board are based in ideology rather than personality. Alternatively, since those who have favored the OP come from both sides of the political spectrum, it might indicate that the “problems” some people have with **december** are clearly _not_ the result of ideology, but presentation. (Not that either the opponents or defenders of **december** ’s presence will ever agree on _that_ subject.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-calls-internet-posters-the-criminals-at-the-computer/182457.md?page=6)