Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

O'Reilly Blasted for Coit Tower Comments

Old 11-14-05, 12:38 PM
  #51  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Malvern, PA
Posts: 5,013
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
Polizei, although I'm sure we don't agree on many issues, I have always admired your balanced, non-partisan stance, and refusal to make pejorative remarks.
Goldblum is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 12:43 PM
  #52  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,153
WTF? Have people ever heard of rhetoric? Satire? Once again (like the ridiculous William Bennett "abort all black babies" 'controversy') a public figure makes rhetorical points that are completely taken out of context. Anyone can see from the quote that O'Reilly was making a point about the handgun ban in SF, not actually advocating blowing up Coit Tower.

This (perhaps willful) inability to discriminate between rhetoric and direct statements has been taken to new heights recently. I'm reeeeally sick of this recently arrived breed of idiotic politicians who's job seems to be to get offended at the merest perceived slight. All they do is assign only the evilest possible intentions to any statement or action taken by someone they don't agree with. It's childish and embarrassing, but people keep voting for them.

Last edited by Hiro11; 11-14-05 at 12:45 PM.
Hiro11 is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 12:55 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by Hiro11
WTF? Have people ever heard of rhetoric? Satire? Once again (like the ridiculous William Bennett "abort all black babies" 'controversy') a public figure makes rhetorical points that are completely taken out of context. Anyone can see from the quote that O'Reilly was making a point about the handgun ban in SF, not actually advocating blowing up Coit Tower.

This (perhaps willful) inability to discriminate between rhetoric and direct statements has been taken to new heights recently. I'm reeeeally sick of this recently arrived breed of idiotic politicians who's job seems to be to get offended at the merest perceived slight. All they do is assign only the evilest possible intentions to any statement or action taken by someone they don't agree with. It's childish and embarrassing, but people keep voting for them.
Rhetoric or not, there are some things in the world that should be beyond such rhetoric, and some things that are just in really bad taste. This qualifies as both. Again, not saying he doesn't have the right to say such things, just that others have the right to call him on it if he says it.

And I'd like to amend my last post. Even if he was being disciplined or fired for it, that still wouldn't have made it a free speech issue. Whoever it is that produces/hosts his radio show is presumably a private, not government, entity, and is therefore fully allowed to discriminate on the basis of the content of one's speech.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 12:59 PM
  #54  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Originally Posted by WildcatLH
What's there to defend? He's not being fired, disciplined, or arrested for what he said. Free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to talk and nobody's allowed to respond negatively.
When you have a government entity, in this case SF supervisors, wasting public's time and money to draft a resolution to get some regular citizen fired over a comment, the ACLU should step in.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 01:04 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by Myster X
When you have a government entity, in this case SF supervisors, wasting public's time and money to draft a resolution to get some regular citizen fired over a comment, the ACLU should step in.
Nope. If the council was drafting a regulation that ordered his termination, I'd agree with you. However, since it's nothing more than a "this pisses us off" kind of regulation.. i.e., it has no force or effect, then I can't see the problem.

Kinda like all the municipalities that drafted anti-Patriot act resolutions and anti-Iraq war resolutions.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 01:09 PM
  #56  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
You're talking about a private citizen and US government related issues here.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 02:12 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by Myster X
You're talking about a private citizen and US government related issues here.
Yeah, but again, you're talking about something that has no force and effect. This isn't the SF government requiring the radio broadcaster to take him off the air -- that would be blatantly illegal. It's just an official statement that they didn't like what he said. It doesn't do anything.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 02:48 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: NY, NY
Posts: 3,100
Originally Posted by Myster X
When you have a government entity, in this case SF supervisors, wasting public's time and money to draft a resolution to get some regular citizen fired over a comment, the ACLU should step in.
There's a Terri Schiavo metaphor here somewhere...
Yancey is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 03:06 PM
  #59  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,153
Originally Posted by WildcatLH
Rhetoric or not, there are some things in the world that should be beyond such rhetoric, and some things that are just in really bad taste. This qualifies as both. Again, not saying he doesn't have the right to say such things, just that others have the right to call him on it if he says it.
I don't follow you. How can being deliberately misinterpreted be bad taste?

For example: you know the Dead Kennedy's song "Kill The Poor"? The chorus:
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill the poor
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill the poor
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill the poor, today.

Judging by this song, Jello Biafra wants to kill the poor! What jerk!!! String him up!

(ok, maybe that was an obscure example)...but the point remains.
Hiro11 is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 03:59 PM
  #60  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by Hiro11
I don't follow you. How can being deliberately misinterpreted be bad taste?

For example: you know the Dead Kennedy's song "Kill The Poor"? The chorus:
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill the poor
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill the poor
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill the poor, today.

Judging by this song, Jello Biafra wants to kill the poor! What jerk!!! String him up!

(ok, maybe that was an obscure example)...but the point remains.
There's a difference between something that tongue in cheek (and you could've at least used "Eat the Rich" ) and what O'Reilly said.

Again. Although I think it was stupid, he can say it all he wants. I'm just trying to point out that in public discourse, there are certain lines you're not supposed to cross, and that's one of them.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 06:04 PM
  #61  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Originally Posted by Yancey
There's a Terri Schiavo metaphor here somewhere...
Yeah, that was really really dumb.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 07:13 PM
  #62  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
http://www.billoreilly.com/site/preview?pid=3593

Here is a link to the segment. He said that it was satire on his show tonight.

As for the proposition itself. It just shows how far away San Fransisco is from the main stream in America.
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 10:05 PM
  #63  
Mod Emeritus
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Originally Posted by BKenn01
He said that it was satire on his show tonight.
Sounds like he's covering his ass.

Originally Posted by BKenn01
http://www.billoreilly.com/site/preview?pid=3593As for the proposition itself. It just shows how far away San Fransisco is from the main stream in America.
You think so? Why? If someone wants to join the military, they can go and sign up.
Gallant Pig is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 11:09 PM
  #64  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Gallant Pig
Sounds like he's covering his ass.
I hate to quote myself (okay, who am I kidding...I love it! ) but take a look at the example I posted of what I have said in jest before:

"I'd like to see the "no-profiling" people get one of their children abducted. Then the police and FBI can come and start looking for the perp at the local old folks home and the kindergarten, because, you know, we can't profile."

Obviously there is no way in Hades I would ever wish anyone's child to be abducted, but can't you see that I am using the situation to make a point, however misguided my logic? In other words, do you think O'Reilly really wants San Fransisco to be attacked by terrorists?

Originally Posted by Gallant Pig
You think so? Why? If someone wants to join the military, they can go and sign up.
Do you think that Planned Parenthood should not do any PSA's or "advertise" the services they offer? How about junior colleges or universities public awareness campaigns concerning scholarship and financial aid opportunities. I realize how polar opposite these examples must seem, but the facts are that certain people decide that the rewards of military service (pay, college education, health care, etc) outweigh the risks. Isn't the liberal stance freedom of information? Or have we gone the way of the dodo like Republican's and small government?
Ovid is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 11:23 PM
  #65  
Mod Emeritus
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Maybe it's changed from when I was in high school, but military recruiters were always a notch below used car salesmen in terms of sleaziness.

Hell I remember taking an intelligence test required by the school and administered by the military to see what type of military jobs I could get. I did pretty well and they wouldn't stop calling me.

I guess my real life experience has made me biased to this issue.

On the other hand, I don't ever remember PP doing anything in my school.
Gallant Pig is offline  
Old 11-14-05, 11:36 PM
  #66  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,695
I don't remember PP recruiting me to get an abortion.

And I think it's fair to say that today's military "recruiting" can fall into the lines of harassment.
Ranger is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 01:08 AM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Ranger
I don't remember PP recruiting me to get an abortion.
WOMEN HATER!!!!



Totally agree with both of you. My philosophy degree betrays me again by thinking about the general situation as opposed to the actual one. I agree the military recruiters are in no way the same as PP folk or even the other example of college recruiters.

I do still have two questions for you/us. 1. do you think O'Reilly really wants San Fransisco to be attacked by terrorists?

2. Do you think the military should actively pursue (through commercials, etc) the dissemination of its contracts and "benefits"?

I know we are in "politics" and this is probably a stupid place to get opinions from colleges, but I like this place, want a few 'others' views....oh, and I AM stupid!!
Ovid is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 01:46 AM
  #68  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally Posted by Gallant Pig

Hell I remember taking an intelligence test required by the school and administered by the military to see what type of military jobs I could get. I did pretty well and they wouldn't stop calling me.
In my high school, it wasnt mandatory, but almost everybody took it so they could get out of class. What they didnt realize was that since so many kids went to take it, there wasnt any class, so the teachers would let the handful of other kids go to the library or computer lab. Suckers!
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 02:25 PM
  #69  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
You think so? Why? If someone wants to join the military, they can go and sign up.
Yes. I think that 80% of Americans, including most Democrats that I know would consider that vote over the top. That is why I feel it is out of the mainstream.
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 02:38 PM
  #70  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
I don't get why the liberals are so concern over this military recuiters in school. Don't they know a thing or two about boot camp? I doubt these radical liberals can make it through 8 weeks of hell let alone bother sign up and serve the country. That's is why boot camp is needed to weed out the puny and fairy-like recruits.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 02:54 PM
  #71  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,835
Originally Posted by Myster X
I don't get why the liberals are so concern over this military recuiters in school. Don't they know a thing or two about boot camp? I doubt these radical liberals can make it through 8 weeks of hell let alone bother sign up and serve the country. That's is why boot camp is needed to weed out the puny and fairy-like recruits.
Quoted because I just love how stupid of a statement this is. Especially the "fairy-like" part. I'm beginning to see why you might not like living in SF.

Last edited by uberjoe; 11-15-05 at 03:00 PM.
uberjoe is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 02:59 PM
  #72  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Originally Posted by uberjoe
Quoted because I just love how stupid of a statement this is. Especially the "fairy-like" part. I'm beginning to see why you might not like living in SF.
Tell you the truth, I love it here. I've been living here since 1980. The radical supervisors are the ones I can't stand.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 03:28 PM
  #73  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
He's anti-abortion. Anti-legalization of drugs. Very much against marijuana and believes it's an evil plant. Anti-homosexual. I remember he said homosexuals should just "keep it in the closet".

But he did write some true words about the oil companies, and I respect him for that:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173370,00.html

I've been saying all along oil companies merely charge what they can get away with, which has nothing to do with supply or demand--an argument many economics students on this forum try to justify. It's got nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with gouging the US consumer.

And all those items you listed make him a conversative beacause ..... ?


I think it's laughable that any person who says anything positive about Bush (no matter the ratio of their Bush praising vs. bashing) they are automatically labeled 'conservative', 'republican', 'Naz', etc,etc

I have personally heard O'Reilly bash Bush more then he has defended them. The views you list above may be his beliefs in life and the political spectrum. But for someone (not you in particular) to say he is Conservative, just because he has some views that overlap with the republicans is nonsense.


As for the direct comment at hand. He was over the top with it, and I don't believe he really the asshats of Al Queda to attack an American City. But he still said it none the less. I understand where he is coming from. Certain people in SF are sending and spreading an "anti-military" message. He is trying to illustrate that why should a city who doesn't want the military there to recruit be afforded its protection?

Last edited by Sominex; 11-15-05 at 03:30 PM.
Sominex is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 03:49 PM
  #74  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by MovieExchange
I've certainly heard it enough from Rovian conservatives like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. I'm tired of being accused of being "anti-American" (their exact phrase) just because I do not march in step with every decree from the Bush administration. I'm tired of hearing "why do you hate America?" just because I dare to question what is said, especially when evidence suggests that they are lying.

It is not only the right of an American citizen to question his government when he thinks they are wrong, it is his duty to do so.

Fine Speech


Do you have any main stream examples and links to solid verifiable news stories of people being called "Anti-American" just because they questioned the government?

There is questioning the government and thinking they are wrong, and then there is saying things like "Bush is a murderer! Get the troops out of Iraq! They are killing innocent civilians! The world hates us and we should leave Iraq now!"

Those kind of things hurt the troops morale and make them bigger targets while over in Iraq, and that is anti-american



In some ways what O'Reilly said is Anti-American, and in other ways I undertans WHY he said it
Sominex is offline  
Old 11-15-05, 04:19 PM
  #75  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,695
Originally Posted by Ovid
I do still have two questions for you/us. 1. do you think O'Reilly really wants San Fransisco to be attacked by terrorists?

2. Do you think the military should actively pursue (through commercials, etc) the dissemination of its contracts and "benefits"?
1. I don't think he seriously wants SF to be attacked, but he seems to be just talking out of his ass, like he usually does.

2. Commericals are fine. But you know that some military recruiters can be overly aggressive with their tactics so it wouldn't be surprising if some parents become fed up and want to limit their recruiting tactics in whatever ways possible.

Now answer this: do agree with O'Reilly's comment that this ia a SLAP to the face of the military?
Ranger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.