Skip to main content

View Diary: OPERATION: FALAFEL (403 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't People Understand Rhetoric? (3.50)
    I actually think it is disingenuous to misinterpret O'Reilly's ravings as an invitation to Al Qaeda to bomb the towers.  It's rhetoric, people.

    It is what we detest in them; the making of political hay by destroying the logical basis of rhetorical discourse.  O'Reilly wasn't making the point that he wishes Al Qaeda to attack San Fran because he really wishes an American city to be attacked, just as Robertson does not wish for Penna to get the wrath of God imposed upon it.  Both are mendicants, but for different reasons.

    His point is that San Fran should allow recruiters into their schools to prey on our kids to enlist to fight the dirty and unlawful war in Iraq because that is somehow an American thing to do.  No, it is a Nazi thing to do.  His rhetoric is just a stupid way of making what he thinks is a valid point:  the basis of that point - that fighting in Iraq will save us in the Homeland - is unfounded, however.

    I wish people would agree to fight fair.  To me this whole thing is bullshit.

    I recommended anyway; I think O'Reilly should be boycotted, but not because he invited Al Q to bomb those towers.  We should not go there.  It dilutes our reason and warps out logical rectitude.

    •  What about being responsible for (4.00)
      the inflammatory words that comes out of his deranged mouth?  If he won't, at least the sponsors should.
      •  Absolutely (none)
        I hold him accountable for all sorts of non-enforceable crimes; lying, bullying, all sorts.  But he didn't say what the article posits that he said.  We need to get him on plain truth:  his 'rhetoric' is based on lies.  I don't know, but it's kind of insulting to me that we should jump on this "he invited al qaeda into san fran" bandwagon.  Are we that sensationalistic and jingoistic?  That plastic?

        Yes, I totally agree with you.  Why I gave him a recommend.

        •  How would you suggest the most (4.00)
          effective way to counter O"Reilly's lies and bombast?  IMO nuanced
          arguments don't seem to work all that well. Sometimes a cannon is the best way to counter another cannon.
          •  Belief in the Supernatural? (none)
            As a child I was taught that Good will Triumph over Evil always.  Maybe that's a naive notion.

            For Falafel to say what he said is god-awful, but he didn't invite AQ to bomb San Fran just like we don't hate America and want the insurgents to kill soldiers.

            I don't have an answer.  Maybe I should just step aside and let you guys lead, I dunno.  You got my two cents.

            •  What you have to say is fair and reasonable. (none)
              But O'Reilly has been playing a dirty game for a long time. He has gotten really good at it, knowing just how far he can go before going over the edge. One way of refuting his arguments is to take them absolutely seriously.
            •  He did invite them (none)
              That's the whole point.

              The spin to save O'Reilly's ass is that he didn't invite al Qaeda to attack San Francisco, but rather that he was engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

              Wrong.

              "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."

              He said that he would make that statement if San Francisco voted against military recruiting.  The "hyperbole" is that he said he would make that statement if he were the President, but the reality is that San Francisco did vote against the resolution, and he did say, in reference to al Qaeda, "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

              I don't know how you can spin that in any way other than he was using his position as a nationally prominent pundit to tell al Qaeda that it would be okay with him if they attacked San Francisco, just to show them how wrong they were in not supporting a policy that he agreed with.

    •  And isn't the point of rhetoric to move (4.00)
      people to action?  And does O'Reilly fight fairly?
    •  Yeah but (4.00)
      As far as letters to B.O.R sponsors are concerned, it might not be a bad idea to react as though you really do believe B.O.R. was inciting Al Queda.  Perception is everything as far as advertising is concerned.  If people want to boycott a company based on a perception that is a bit off, that really doesn't matter to the company.  What matters is that they are being boycotted.  

      When arguing with PEOPLE, it may be wise to go deeper, but really, all companies' worry about is the bottom line.

      explain how sending young people into battle without armoured vehicles is supporting the troops?

      by bluestatesam on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 02:30:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Words have consequences (none)
      or something to that effect.
    •  Actually (none)
      I'm not so sure Robertson doesn't want to see the wrath of God wrought upon Dover.  Rhetoric or not, he did call on al-Qaeda to attack my home town.  That is unnacceptable discourse regardless of his point and his advertisers should know that.

      George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

      by Dave the pro on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 06:44:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  People understand rhetoric all right ... (4.00)
      ... in spite of some thick-headed ones who don't understand mass politics. The point is to attack O'Reilly, attack him relentlessly and effectively at every opportunity, and to take relish in it. And he has let down his guard here.

      Al Franken and Stephanie Miller have elevated bashing O'Reilly into an art form. It does seem he's lost his edge, no question his ratings are falling. Now is the time to go for his jugular, then take credit for his fall.

      That's how you build a high-morale mass movement: carefully pick your targets, mobilize your people, move from victory to victory. But always, always fight.

    •  sometimes the only way... (none)
      ...to highlight the hypocracy of the right is to let it bite them in the ass.

      They have metaphoricly crucified lefties for saying less, I say it's time to give them a taste of their own medicine. Maybe if they get bit a few too many times the'll become the scared, careful quiet pushovers the Dems have become (but are trying to break out of).

      The GOP Love the soldiers like they love children: Seen but not heard.

      by DawnG on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 08:44:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not rhetoric (4.00)
      Rhetoric would be him saying, "Look, you don't want to support the war effort by allowing recruiters into our schools?  Than don't expect any Federal assistance.  It's a two way street, buddy".

      It crosses the line when he makes the suggestion that it would be okay for an American city to be attacked because they don't agree with one of his policy points.

      At least, that's my interpretation.

      I hope you wrote to his sponsors suggesting that you would not buy their products - and I hope you used the rationale that your conscience agrees with.

      We are all in this together :)

      •  Agreed. (none)
        If what Bill O'Reilly said was just "rhetoric" then it's just "rhetoric" when Bin Laden calls on his followers to attack America. O'Leily has a bunch of survivalist types listening to him too, and many of them are in the Bay Area. Even if Al Qaeda doesn't hear him or act on what he invited them to do, many of the domestic terrorists might. There is that element in this country.

        To me, O'Leily just showed that he is the equivalent of Bin Laden, he has his followers, and he has called for a violent attack on one of our most beautiful cities. He has invited an attack on American Soil. He is despicable and should be regarded an "enemy of the state". What he said, after all, is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" which Bush said that if you did this, you would be regarded as the enemy by the very administration that O'Reilly supports. "Your either with us or 'agin us". Following the rhetoric of that retard in the White House, he should be gitmo-ized, shouldn't he? (not that I'd wish that on my worst enemy, but come to think of it, he's NOT my worst enemy -- Bush is)

        Reducing what O'Leily said to just "rhetoric" under estimates his loyal listener base.

    •  Oh, yeah, right, we all know that... (none)
      ... the freepers would say that if, say, Al Franken had invited Al-Qaeda to harm so much of as a hair on the head of any American.

      Jeez.

      -6.75, -2.41 All actions -- especially votes -- have consequences.

      by bwintx on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 11:36:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Think That's One of My Points (none)
        I tend to prefer to distinguish my approach to figuring out what's needed in America to theirs.  They are at war and will use any means to an end.  I won't willingly lie to myself or others to gain political points.

        Look, what he said was dumb and typical, but I will not destroy logical thinking to win, personally.

        Again, I think his suggestion that all towns and schools should open their halls and homes and places of business to allow recruiters in to take our children off to an immoral war is American is much more dangerous.

        As a side note, I can't understand why he and Limbaugh aren't out on their asses.  The perv and the drug addict.  Novak too.

    •  I think the broader issue (4.00)
      is that O'Reilly is a person in a position of influence who uses his influence to encourage hatred, misunderstanding and potentially violent activity.

      I actually respect the need for people like William Kristol, David Brooks, etc. to convey the conservative viewpoint on the air, but inciting violence is "screaming fire in a crowded movie theater" and is not tolerable, IMO.

      And I'd add that the lack of comity in our current public discourse is due largely to O'Reilly and Hannity and the like.

      By taking actions like this, we are actively pursuing measures to bring reason back to the public square. It is our square, after all, and letting O'Reilly and his ilk dominate it is akin to letting drug dealers and gang bangers take over a public park because it's too inconvenient to stop them.

      This is the first amendment at work: you have a right to make an ass of yourself, and I have a right to call you an ass for doing so.

      I am the federal government.

      by mateosf on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 02:31:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site