| Do you agree with the article and Talking Points memo? |
| Yes, I agree with both. |
|
75% |
[ 3 ] |
| I agree with the article, but not the memo. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I agree with the memo, but not the article. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I agree with NEITHER. |
|
25% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 4 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:37 pm O'Reilly's Latest Collumn and Talking Points Memo |
|
| O'Reilly's Latest Collumn wrote: | The Iraq Litmus Test
Email This Article Print This Article
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jan 06, 2005
With the Iraqi election looming, the predictable violence by anti-democratic forces inside that chaotic country is causing angst among many loyal Americans. On the one hand, most of us want the USA to prevail in Iraq; to succeed in seeding democracy there. On the other, it is tough to watch young Americans get killed on a daily basis.
Opposition to the war in Iraq should, of course, be respected. But that opposition has to be responsible in order to deserve respect. Let's look at two examples.
First, former Presidential candidate George McGovern, an ardent anti-Vietnam War opponent, is continuing his dovish philosophy. Writing in The New York Times, McGovern states, "Once we left Vietnam and quit bombing its people, they became friends and trading partners. Iraq has been nestled along the Tigris and Euphrates for 6,000 years. It will be there 6,000 more, whether we stay or leave..."
With all due respect, Senator McGovern's view is naive at best, dangerous at worst. He conveniently forgets that, according to an analysis by The Los Angeles Times, more than 900,000 South Vietnamese were sent to concentration camps after the North Vietnamese violated the U.S. negotiated peace treaty and overran the South in 1975. McGovern also fails to mention that communists in neighboring Cambodia slaughtered two million human beings after the USA withdrew its forces from Vietnam. Trading partners indeed.
From the very beginning, Senator McGovern and many other Americans played down the evil that is communist totalitarianism, just as many anti-Iraq war people are diminishing the evil of the Saddam loyalists and Zarqawi terrorists inside Iraq today.
It is true that fighting evil in Iraq may not be feasible. To be successful in any war, you must choose your battles wisely. But to actually think the North Vietnamese and Iraqi "insurgents" are some of kind of reasonable opposition is nuts.
Which brings us to the second example of war dissent, those Americans who actually want the USA to lose in Iraq. They are out there, and they are shameless.
On December 17th, I interviewed Professor Jeffrey Stone who teaches law at the University of Chicago on my television program. The topic was whether one could be a loyal American and want to see the USA defeated militarily in Iraq. Stone said yes:
O'Reilly: "I want to make sure you want to stand by your statement, that you can be a loyal American rooting for your country to lose militarily in Iraq. Do you stand by that?"
Stone: "I stand by that. One can be a loyal American and still root against the country."
Stone went on to say that wanting the USA to lose in Iraq could save lives in the long run. I said that any military loss would have to mean more causalities for the U.S. military, which is absolutely true. You don't lose militarily without taking casualities, so how could any loyal American want that to happen?
Subsequently, Professor Stone wrote an op-ed in The Chicago Tribune accusing me of, among other things, spewing "ugly invective" and "inflaming my audience."
Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.
Rationalizations walk. If you are rooting for the insurgents, you are one.
##
Source |
| Bill's Talking Points Memo wrote: | The Left-Wing Media Kicking Some Proverbial Butt...
Friday, January 07, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
The left-wing media kicking some proverbial butt, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Even if you believe the left is misguided, you have to admire the passion and organization they are bringing to their cause.
Today across the country, the left-wing media in a seemingly coordinated effort, attacked the nomination of Alberto Gonzales (search) to be the new attorney general. "The New York Times" ran a front-page torture story and two anti- Gonzales op-eds. "The Washington Post" ran a front page torture story and an anti-Gonzales editorial. "The Los Angeles Times" ran a torture story and an anti-Gonzales editorial. "The Boston Globe" ran a torture story, as did "The Chicago Tribune."
In addition, the far left Web sites took out ads that blamed Abu Ghraib (search), among other things, on Mr. Gonzales. All of this happened on a single day. Can you say coordinated attacks?
Of course, today, poor Alberto testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee (search). But no right wing groups took out ads. "The Wall Street Journal" defended him on its editorial page, but that was it.
The Bush administration hasn't really helped Gonzales very much either. And if you're a casual news reader or watcher, you would think Alberto Gonzales was Dr. Evil -- Mr. Torture.
The point is that the left-wing media is getting more aggressive and more organized. Their machine is very effective. And anyone they don't like is going to get it right between the eyes.
In just a few moments, we'll discuss the other side of the story, why Gonzales may indeed be looking out for us. But it's not my job to defend the man. The Bush administration should be aggressively doing that.
"Talking Points" realizes most Americans know the Geneva Conventions (search) do not apply to terrorists, and that coerced interrogation is necessary when killers are attacking civilians. But the left-wing media doesn't believe that. And their message is much more effective than their opposition.
The way the left frames it, if you support coerced interrogation -- as Gonzales does -- you support torture. The headline in "The New York Times" op- ed today: "We Are All Torturers Now." Ridiculous? Of course it is. But that's how the left is framing it. And that message has been effectively delivered.
And that's "The Memo."
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
As you know, I write a newspaper column, and hundreds of papers carry it from coast to coast. One of those papers was "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution," but now that paper has dropped the column after I confronted its editorial page editor yesterday for cheap-shotting me in one of her columns. It was awful.
Now I wouldn't mention this except that you should know a lot of things that go on in journalism are personal. There's no question the column is successful. Millions read it every week. But the editorial page editor down there, Cynthia Tucker (search ), really dislikes me even though I've never even met her.
So you "Journal-Constitution" readers, you might want to let that paper know what you think about that. But keep it pithy and cogent. To not do so would be ridiculous.
And, by the way, we really appreciate the papers that do carry my column. Many of them are listed on billoreilly.com , and you might drop them a line as well, give an attaboy, all right.
�You can watch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel. Send your comments to: [email protected]
Source |
So, what do you think about these two things from Bill O'Reilly?
Last edited by Republican_Man on Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:44 pm |
|
I agree with the collumn 99%. O'Reilly is right on, and this Stone character is nonsense. The part that I disagree with is, "Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.
Otherwise, he's right on.
The Memo, I believe, I agree with. And the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" is definitely ridiculous.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:56 pm |
|
I think that the article has tread upon dangerous ground, implying that one is disloyal for disagreeing with the opinion of the country is starting to sound awfully limiting . . . the point of a free country is freedom of expression, speech, and opinion without fear of being branded 'disloyal' for those opinions. I dislike the adage that "If you aren't with us, you're against us", it's another monochromatic over-simplification of life.
I'm not overjoyed by victories of the insurgents, I don't route for them. And I agree that now that the U.S. is there, they better stay there until they've cleaned up this mess.
As for the memo . . . about the Geneva convention, it doesn't apply to terrorists? As in you're allowed to torture them inhumanely during interrogation?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:59 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | I think that the article has tread upon dangerous ground, implying that one is disloyal for disagreeing with the opinion of the country is starting to sound awfully limiting . . . the point of a free country is freedom of expression, speech, and opinion without fear of being branded 'disloyal' for those opinions. I dislike the adage that "If you aren't with us, you're against us", it's another monochromatic over-simplification of life.
In the collumn, though, he's talking about if you ACTUALLY want the US to LOSE, that's bad.
I'm not overjoyed by victories of the insurgents, I don't route for them. And I agree that now that the U.S. is there, they better stay there until they've cleaned up this mess.
And agreed.
As for the memo . . . about the Geneva convention, it doesn't apply to terrorists? As in you're allowed to torture them inhumanely during interrogation? |
No, it doesn't apply to terrorists, because it was a treaty, and al Quada, etc didn't sign that treaty, and no, it doesn't apply to terrorists. However, there ARE standards, in my opinion, to be followed, but no, the convention does not apply to terrorists.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:02 pm |
|
The convention itself might not apply to terrorists, but the spirit of the convention should . . . no one should be tortured, eh.
I think the memo has a good point that the left-wing media has more PR ability.  As I've said before, as much as I despise the fact, most of our opinions today are formed by what we see and interpret. The media has the power to mould minds for their own purposes, they are just another PR front devoted to promoting their own propaganda.
And the English language has way too many words that start with 'p'.
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:34 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | I agree with the collumn 99%. O'Reilly is right on, and this Stone character is nonsense. The part that I disagree with is, "Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.
Otherwise, he's right on.
The Memo, I believe, I agree with. And the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" is definitely ridiculous. |
'Unwinnable situation' can mean many things, and you should not dismiss it so easily.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:36 pm |
|
I dont even need to read it before I know I disagree. And ill have you know I did read it. Bill OReilly is a tard.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:29 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | I agree with the collumn 99%. O'Reilly is right on, and this Stone character is nonsense. The part that I disagree with is, "Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.
Otherwise, he's right on.
The Memo, I believe, I agree with. And the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" is definitely ridiculous. |
'Unwinnable situation' can mean many things, and you should not dismiss it so easily. |
Um...I watch O'Reilly most nights. He has a very liberal view on what's going on in Iraq.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:34 pm |
|
He doesnt have a liberal view on ANYTHING that ive seen. Ive watched him about 10 times in the last month. Cant stand the guy. He doesnt argue, he just pretends. I cant stand him.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:36 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | He doesnt have a liberal view on ANYTHING that ive seen. Ive watched him about 10 times in the last month. Cant stand the guy. He doesnt argue, he just pretends. I cant stand him. |
You've watched him 10 times and I'm Michael Moore. No, I've gotten very angry at him. He's filling himself with Liberal crap now-adays. It's disgusting. And btw, he's an Environmentalist.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:39 pm |
|
I used to like him, and I still think some of his points are valid, but I don't watch his show because I don't think it is at all fair. He doesn't let his guests get hardly anything out and always cuts them off. No wonder he always wins his arguments...it's not hard to make someone look like an idiot when you don't even let them finish their sentence  . It is good entertainment though sometimes  .
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:40 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | I used to like him, and I still think some of his points are valid, but I don't watch his show because I don't think it is at all fair. He doesn't let his guests get hardly anything out and always cuts them off. No wonder he always wins his arguments...it's not hard to make someone look like an idiot when you don't even let them finish their sentence . It is good entertainment though sometimes . |
Uh, no, he doesn't cut them off. Only on his radio show. But he's full of liberal crap, now.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:45 pm |
|
Well not all liberal ideas are crap...but that's another debate .
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:45 pm |
|
I never said I wasnt open to some proof. Show me some liberal crap that hes said, thats all. No need to get all pissy now. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:57 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | I never said I wasnt open to some proof. Show me some liberal crap that hes said, thats all. No need to get all pissy now. |
His election coverage didn't do much against the democrats, but did the republicans. His Iraq coverage. Those are 2 instances. I, Exalya, and many other conservatives have gotten mad at him. Remember that Yoda-O'Reilly presidential bid? I say no, now, at least to the O'Reilly portion.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:01 pm |
|
Well just keep in mind, you are quite a bit to the right in your views (no offense), so just because you get mad at him doesn't mean he is truly that liberal. Of course some of the time he is, but that is the "fair and balanced" part coming out .
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:08 pm |
|
I do not think hes fair and balanced at all. You know the thing that pisses me off the most? When he does that stupid pen spin thing. Damn. And every damn show. SO ANNOYING!
Anyways, got a comment handy that pisses you off?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:13 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Well just keep in mind, you are quite a bit to the right in your views (no offense), so just because you get mad at him doesn't mean he is truly that liberal. Of course some of the time he is, but that is the "fair and balanced" part coming out . |
Actually, you're right. But if anything, he would NOT be Republican. He's independent straight away.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:13 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | He doesnt have a liberal view on ANYTHING that ive seen. Ive watched him about 10 times in the last month. Cant stand the guy. He doesnt argue, he just pretends. I cant stand him. |
Reason I can't stand you POV. 
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | I used to like him, and I still think some of his points are valid, but I don't watch his show because I don't think it is at all fair. He doesn't let his guests get hardly anything out and always cuts them off. No wonder he always wins his arguments...it's not hard to make someone look like an idiot when you don't even let them finish their sentence . It is good entertainment though sometimes . |
Sounds exactly like Bill Maher. He had two liberals and one conservative guest. He would gang up on him/her and never let him/her finish. He would pay the audiance to cheer everytime he said something and boo when the Conservative talked. Stupid show. O'Reilly is ALOT more fair than that. I like how he puts Liberals in thier places. About time there is a show that does it.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | I used to like him, and I still think some of his points are valid, but I don't watch his show because I don't think it is at all fair. He doesn't let his guests get hardly anything out and always cuts them off. No wonder he always wins his arguments...it's not hard to make someone look like an idiot when you don't even let them finish their sentence . It is good entertainment though sometimes . |
Sounds exactly like Bill Maher. He had two liberals and one conservative guest. He would gang up on him/her and never let him/her finish. He would pay the audiance to cheer everytime he said something and boo when the Conservative talked. Stupid show. O'Reilly is ALOT more fair than that. I like how he puts Liberals in thier places. About time there is a show that does it. |
That's not really fair, nor balanced if he is not putting conservatives in their place either though, which I do think he avoids a bit.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:18 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | That's not really fair, nor balanced if he is not putting conservatives in their place either though, which I do think he avoids a bit. |
Tell it to the Liberal shows that does that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:21 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | That's not really fair, nor balanced if he is not putting conservatives in their place either though, which I do think he avoids a bit. |
Tell it to the Liberal shows that does that. |
They wouldn't believe that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:22 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | That's not really fair, nor balanced if he is not putting conservatives in their place either though, which I do think he avoids a bit. |
Tell it to the Liberal shows that does that. |
Well their big thing isn't being fair and balanced...that all O'Reilly's talks about sometimes. I am sure he tries...maybe...we would never know either way...but just saying. I know the liberal show isn't fair and balanced either, never would deny that .
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:23 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | That's not really fair, nor balanced if he is not putting conservatives in their place either though, which I do think he avoids a bit. |
Tell it to the Liberal shows that does that. |
Well their big thing isn't being fair and balanced...that all O'Reilly's talks about sometimes. I am sure he tries...maybe...we would never know either way...but just saying. I know the liberal show isn't fair and balanced either, never would deny that . |
He's usually fair, but lately he's been giving Dems the easy way out.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
It seems that he doesn't know much about the Geneva Convention.
| Geneva Convention Article 4 wrote: |
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
|
This fits under the section on "Prisoners of War"
There's more that fits the current resistance fighters in Iraq, but they are long and lenghthy and I must work in the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
