Skip to main content

View Diary: OPERATION: FALAFEL (403 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (183)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Elections (42)
  • Culture (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (38)
  • 2016 (34)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • Labor (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Rescued (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (22)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site