Actually, what’s being discussed here is Bill O’Reilly calling internet posters “the criminals at the computer”. Something O’Reilly clearly did not do.
Well, the discussion diverged somewhat. Happens quite a bit around here.
To cut to the chase: debaser, do you think celebs like Streisand shouldn’t be allowed to organise protests against the President or his decisions?
I don’t see how that makes things any better: so he’s only targeting people because they’re famous? He still obviously thinks that their views make them bad americans: it hardly makes sense for that to apply ONLY when you are famous. You and Bill can take your self-righteous, exclusivist, uncritical version of America and shove it up your ass. I’ll take the real thing, thanks.
BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!
Given the huge efforts at bribery and coercion employed by Bush and Company to get their “coalition” together, the two paltry (and unproven) claims of French “bribery” are pretty silly.
(And that would be “third world” at the Security Council while NATO would not involve third world countries, pretty much by definition.)
suprised folks glossed over this:
Originally posted by Debaser, from some cite quoting BO’R:
A. and just how is this supposed to work? we aren’t supposed to say a word unless ‘facts prove the operation wrong’? how do these facts become known w/o the appropriate questions concerning the action?
B. IN this particular case, seems that the ‘facts’ coming out now are demonstrating that the ‘operation’ was wrong. Do we get a retroactive reprieve from his lord and master for Sarandon et al, or since they didn’t ‘know’ at the time, they merely had questions about the appropriateness of the actions at the time, do they remain condemned in his eyes as (paraphrasing, pick your prefferred epitaph ) ‘bad americans’?
C. at what point are we ‘allowed’ to question it? Apparently not before the war, or during, so we’re supposed to wait until after ? which would mean that we’d allow our government to do something we find morally reprehensible (should later facts come out), 'cause it’s be ‘wrong’ to question it before the nation embarks on war?
Have I mentioned how much I love you?
You could probably remove the words “up on” from that second sentence and still be pretty spot on…
Of course not.
Do you think that O’Reilly shouldn’t be allowed to use his position to put a spotlight on them?
(I’ll answer for you)
Of course not.
See, there really isn’t any first ammendment issues here. Think what you will of O’Reilly, but he isn’t a stupid man. I’m sure he is aware of and a supporter of the first ammendment. In fact, considering his line of work, I am sure he is a big fan of the idea.
It’s odd that you can’t see how silly it is that you think someone is against the first ammendment because they don’t like what someone else is saying.
Yep. My bad. I was thinking ‘UN’, but for some reason typed ‘NATO’. Odd.
There is a big difference between the US giving incentives for other countries to join us in action against Iraq, and what France was doing. They were giving incentives for African countries to not join us, not building a coalition, just working against ours. Keep in mind, he wasn’t calling anyone an enemy of the state yet, just saying that they would be if they continued to actively work against our military once the war is under way.
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.
Don’t you think it would be accurate for the US to be called an “enemy of the state” by someone in France if we were aiding a country they were at war with?
This reminds me of the following Q&A bit, backstage at the 2003 Academy Awards, after Michael Moore’s high-profile anti-war tirade:
Reporter: Mr. Moore, why did you say the things you said?
Moore: Because I’m an American.
(pause)
Reporter: Is that all?
Moore: That’s a lot.
I don’t think he’s against the 1st amend. because of the “spotlight” comment. I suspect he feels it doesn’t apply to some people though, because of his “enemy of the state” comment.
Prove your suspicions. O’Reilly is on the radio three hours a day. He is on television one hour a day. He writes a column. (weekly, I think.) If O’Reilly ever says something off color there are dozens of Liberal web sites quick to point it out.
There is certainly ample ammunition for you to use against him. He is certainly not shy with his views. It’s not good enough for you to be suspicious that he doesn’t support the first ammendment.
Go get some proof.
What does O’Reilly mean, then, when he says that celebrities should be treated as “enemies of the state?” Enemies of the State are arrested and imprisoned. How can he support the free speech of celebrities on the one hand and then say that speech should be criminalized on the other hand?
Prove what, that the made the “enemy of the state comment”, or what it means?
Actually, he did. From the OP’s link:
You might say (spin) that O’Reilly is using that term ONLY for NAMBLA and the one child molestor that blamed NAMBLA’s site. 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.
I was under the impression (having watched him say it on television) that President Bush was willing to call off the war if Hussein left. How would helping him leave make France an “enemy”?
(And, of course, this avoids the issue that the phrase “enemy of the state” is routinely used regarding citizens or, at least, residents of a country, not of other nations. I do not recall any instances of Germany or Japan being identified as “enemies of the state” between Dec 7, 1941 and September 2, 1945; I also have no memory of the U.S.S.R. ever being characterized as an “enemy of the state.” Such epithets are reserved to our own people.)
So we were bribing one group of nations to do what we wanted, and some other nation might have been bribing other nations to do what they wanted.
Some big difference. :rolleyes:
Right. I wonder if that’s what triggered december’s OP reaction – the lumping together of everyone who Bill thinks is abusing the Internet as being just the same. It’s one thing if he has a beef with the Chronicle and with the bloggers who spread the misinformation, it’s another to write a piece where he so facilely associates them with people engaging, potentially engaging, or advocating, actual criminal activity.
Prove that O’Reilly is “against the first amendment” as you said you suspect in your last post:
What did he mean? He misspoke and retracted it the next night. Calling them “bad americans” instead. I know you were paying attention when I posted this for the first time because you told me to go fuck myself as a result of it.