O'Reilly to terrorists: San Francisco is yours to attack

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on. "And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. 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."
Click to expand...

Here's the rest of the article http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/11/MNGFMFMNV41.DTL. He also said that katrina should have hit, and flooded, the u.n. building and he wouldn't have attempted to rescue anyone.
 
Can't say I disagree with Mr. Bill on this one.

If Sodom on the Sea went up in flames or fell into the Pacific can't say I'd shed a tear. I'd love to see the coverage of it though. I wonder, do you think the citizens of San Francisco might support military retaliation then? Maybe actually hunting down and killing those responsible and the organization they belong to? Or would they want them arrested, charged, put on trial and then have the subsequent verdicts thrown out by the 9th Circus of Appeals.

I'd also get a real kick out seeing an attack on the U.N. imagine the change in attitude from the corrupt governments that make up the bulk of membership. I completely agreed with John Bolton, if they knocked off a few stories of the U.N. building would anyone really miss what happened on those floors?

BTW, this is over a week old. It's barely worth posting at this point.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If Sodom on the Sea went up in flames or fell into the Pacific can't say I'd shed a tear. I'd love to see the coverage of it though. I wonder, do you think the citizens of San Francisco might support military retaliation then? Maybe actually hunting down and killing those responsible and the organization they belong to?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure they would. And then Bush would some semi-random oil-rich country, hand a few billion dollars off to Halliburton for contracts that would never be fulfilled, and then sit back while the area collapses into civil war. Pretty much like last time, really.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Can't say I disagree with Mr. Bill on this one.

If Sodom on the Sea went up in flames or fell into the Pacific can't say I'd shed a tear. I'd love to see the coverage of it though. I wonder, do you think the citizens of San Francisco might support military retaliation then? Maybe actually hunting down and killing those responsible and the organization they belong to? Or would they want them arrested, charged, put on trial and then have the subsequent verdicts thrown out by the 9th Circus of Appeals.

I'd also get a real kick out seeing an attack on the U.N. imagine the change in attitude from the corrupt governments that make up the bulk of membership. I completely agreed with John Bolton, if they knocked off a few stories of the U.N. building would anyone really miss what happened on those floors?

BTW, this is over a week old. It's barely worth posting at this point.[/QUOTE]

Given the concentration of liberals in NYC, and given your logic here, your reaction to 9/11 should have been a shrug of the shoulders, and perhaps a severe masturbation session to the news coverage of the dead.

I don't think that was your reaction, so why would the reaction change if the location did?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Can't say I disagree with Mr. Bill on this one.

If Sodom on the Sea went up in flames or fell into the Pacific can't say I'd shed a tear. I'd love to see the coverage of it though. I wonder, do you think the citizens of San Francisco might support military retaliation then? Maybe actually hunting down and killing those responsible and the organization they belong to? Or would they want them arrested, charged, put on trial and then have the subsequent verdicts thrown out by the 9th Circus of Appeals.[/QUOTE]


yeah it sux people have different opinions as you. Free speech is overated as long as it disagrees. Its much better to get rid of gays than guns. etc etc
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Can't say I disagree with Mr. Bill on this one.

If Sodom on the Sea went up in flames or fell into the Pacific can't say I'd shed a tear.[/QUOTE]

...and I thought this was just going to be another thread with Alonzo whining about some crazy talk from O'Reilly / Robertson / . You really believe that?? Hilarious!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I really believe I wouldn't shed a tear?

Absolutely.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget the part about declaring San Francisco fair game for the terrorists.

You really don't believe in Democracy, free speech, or America. You want a big fascist play-along, under the banner of the stars and stripes.
 
No, I believe in a representative republic. Democracy is mob rule.

Like I said, sedition is not a protected free speech.

It would be even better if such an attack, if it took place, took out Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi. Then again, terrorists would probably hesitate to kill such ardent supporters.

The point of this conversation is moot. Why would any group attack a hotbed of political support?
 
Well, if we're going to kill supporters, we might as well tell them to target washington. Seriously, no other city has done more for their cause in the past 4 years than washington d.c.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, if we're going to kill supporters, we might as well tell them to target washington. Seriously, no other city has done more for their cause in the past 4 years than washington d.c.[/QUOTE]

The citizens of Washington DC, the ones who live here, are fully against the war.

Texas is the base of red state sentiment.
 
Don't worry o'reilly, san francisco is built on one of the largest faults in & around the united states, you don't have to have a weak-kneed political viewpoint to know that.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I don't view sedition as a legitimate and honorable opposing viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

Ahh so what's your view on southern states displaying the Confederate flag? I mean that's a representation of the southern rebellion against the U.S. according to many republicans.
 
[quote name='camoor']The citizens of Washington DC, the ones who live here, are fully against the war.

Texas is the base of red state sentiment.[/QUOTE]

I know. All you have to do is look at PAD's comments to realize why I said it.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ahh so what's your view on southern states displaying the Confederate flag? I mean that's a representation of the southern rebellion against the U.S. according to many republicans.[/QUOTE]

It is? That's really news to me. I hear the "southern heritage" or "historical south" lines 20-1 over anything that would involve active rebellion against the existing Federal government.

[quote name='Quackzilla']Get fucked, PAD.[/QUOTE]

I did, Friday. Thanks for your concern.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I did, Friday. Thanks for your concern.[/QUOTE]


Thanks for the mental image

fatass.jpg
 
Oh, and you throwing a picture out there of an unattractive backside is worthy of the Nobel Prize okay, back to the padded room, time for your thorazine.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']back to the padded room, time for your thorazine.[/QUOTE]



Original, do you get your insults from the same cesspool as your skewed viewpoints? Or is your dull wit kind of a family trait?
 
Skewed viewpoint?

San Francisco isn't a liberal hot bed full of people who question America's social values, societal makeup, election results, nature of it's military mission, purpose of corporations and private enterprise, standing of the church and moral issues? I could go on but that right there is enough to sit down, grab a bag of popcorn and watch you flail about with one foot in your ass and the other in your mouth as you perform incredible mental gymnastics explaining to us how Sodom on the Sea is representative of mainstream America.

Go on. Please. Indulge me by telling me how wrong and skewed that point of view is.

This shall be PRICELESS.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']San Francisco isn't a liberal hot bed full of people who question America's social values, societal makeup, election results, nature of it's military mission, purpose of corporations and private enterprise, standing of the church and moral issues? I could go on but that right there is enough to sit down, grab a bag of popcorn and watch you flail about with one foot in your ass and the other in your mouth as you perform incredible mental gymnastics explaining to us how Sodom on the Sea is representative of mainstream America.[/QUOTE]

You're right! Why question accountability!?! It's overrated! It's not like conservatives or republicans ever question the accountability of the president. It's too sacred a position (stupid Marbury v Madison! Why did you let us sue the president?!?!)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Not the question posted.

Nice try dodging the postulate forwared.[/QUOTE]


It must be very unfortunate for you that nobody knows how to decipher your idiotic babel. It really must be overexhausting for you to have to actually create a coherent argument and have to type it to boot, & to all these damn libs too!
 
Ah, I see. You can't answer it either.

Just as I thought.

No entry found for overexhausting.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA, please, do go on about this.... idiotic babel.

Oh wait, I hate to question anyone's grasp of the English language due to forgetting a simple click of the space bar on their keyboard. Let's check the suggested synonym.

No entry found for over exhausting.

Oh yes, do continue on about idiotic babel. I sit at the base of your wisdom tree, er, uhm, shrub, no wait, seedling? No, sprout? No.... weed. Yeah, your wisdom weed.
 
Hmm, well your arguments just seem so much stronger now that you've noticed I didn't use a space between over and exhausting, really!

I could go on about your idiotic rantings but I can just hang back and let the rest of the board community do that for me, you're a beacon of stupidity.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Dude, you can't even come up with words and phrases that a dictionary can identify.

Now who's spouting idiotic babel?[/QUOTE]


You, care to continue?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Keep going.[/QUOTE]


I asked you to continue first, therefor you can't just tell me to continue based on your play on words, unless you want me to call you a smug little prick that only feels the need to get the last word in, no matter what the substance of what you say is. You're so pathetic you feel the need to put some lackluster partisan speech in your signature on a video game forum, what else needs to be said to such a man?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Not the question posted.

Nice try dodging the postulate forwared.[/QUOTE]

There are no postulates in politics. Everything has to be steeped in fact. Otherwise, you have a slippery slope.

As for the question, you brought it up. Mull that over for a second.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Like I said, sedition is not a protected free speech.[/QUOTE]

So what part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" is not protected?

ANY time sedition acts have been put into place (including John Adams' Alien and Sedition acts), the supreme courts has struck them down as unconstitutional. EXACTLY how is sedition not a protected free speech?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It would be even better if such an attack, if it took place, took out Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi. Then again, terrorists would probably hesitate to kill such ardent supporters. [/QUOTE]

Can you provide a quote that shows them explicitly supporting terrorism? Not some anti-Bush speech where you attribute that to supporting terrorism because Bush makes Us vs them, with or against us speech. Something concrete and recognizeable. Really, start backing up your claims rather than just making right-wing nutjob statements. I want to hear this.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Ditto, you're last call was on a space, loser.[/QUOTE]

One last piece of advice for you Madison Avenue.

If you're going to advertise a product on your screen name?

Get paid for it.
 
I think this is hypocritical logic by mr. O' Reilly to say these kinds of things when the presidents main argument is about how democrats are "sending the wrong signals" to the troops, yeah by telling them part of our country should be open game for terrorists to bomb...


This man isn't a journalist, he's a talking head made to shock people.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']One last piece of advice for you Madison Avenue.

If you're going to advertise a product on your screen name?

Get paid for it.[/QUOTE]


He's gone delusional, is this your marathon forum night? Get some rest, we can continue this shit tossing contest when you're not so deprived.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I don't view sedition as a legitimate and honorable opposing viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

Forgive me for interrupting the regularly scheduled purse swinging, but, given the source, I’d have to say this nugget is the finest piece of comedy gold I’ve seen in these parts in ages.

Seriously, PAD, for you, and indeed all of us, this board is about 2% hard facts, 13% party rhetoric, 25% smart-assed retorts, and 60% pure, unadulterated agitation of the other side. I think we can all admit that.
 
This just in: O’Reilly now claims that his statements were 'satire'. This after having previously stated that he meant what he said, he didn't think his statements were controversial, and that he simple said what he thought needed to be said. Mmm-hmm. I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the rather large public boycott of his sponsers that has been organized over the past few days.

He's also decided that's going to create an 'enemies list' online, on which he's going to publish all the names of the people who thought that asking terrorists to destroy a major US city was a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top