Bill O'Reilly takes aim at San Francisco

[autographcollector]

LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN

Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer & would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can was invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement."

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girliemen.'

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided. Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, cotton farmers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, Marines, athletes and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond to the above before simply laughing and forwarding it. A Conservative will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other "true believers."

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.

[NavyDave]

Does anyone know it is perfectally fine to call for the destruction of an AMERICAN city, yet the people who call for the destruction of the city are the first to call everyone else traitors?

No. . . no double standard there. DLR, you hit the nail on the head.

Some would be offended to have Frisco and American City said in the same breath.

Now Frisco, Sodom and G'morah is better.

Reading it instead of hearing his sarcasm is how media matters attempts to spread outrage.

The thing is though is that terrorists will probably see frisco as a lost cause and won't rate the outrage of normal cities that could be hit and would ignore it.

[NavyDave]

Actually, I would disagree, Johnny Punani. I would bet that some of the folks who cast their vote in San Francisco have an idea what the phrase "military-industrial complex" refers to, and is a reason why they cast it. I am sure they all didn't cast it just out of being "anti-military," but out of various beliefs, including the previously remarked phrase. Of course, we always have to separate the average grunt from the war profiteer; that is something that San Fran citizens have to keep in mind, too. Halliburton does little to change this perception, which in turn colors the perceptions of citizens towards the military.

Those deviants were anti military when I was stationed there back in the 80's so its not surprising though I thought Berkeley would pass the measure first.

[NavyDave]

I assumed you served and served in combat??? Please elaborate...

Maybe we should ensure the military recruiters have access to all those private schools which our representative's sons and daughters attend. Maybe everyone should be required to sit down with a military recruiter, no parent could avoid it then. Maybe we should re-institute the draft. Is that too much or not enough?

Last I checked we have a volunteer force. If parents do not want their children talking to recruiters they should be able to decide that. The ones that want have the freedom to pursue it simply and easily. Why is it critical to have military recruiters in schools? What is gained beyond having a recruiting office available for anyone to walk into? I sure would not want my daughter serving under this President and would not want any military recruiter talking to her without my express permission (she is only 4 months old so they would not get very far in any case).

Oh, forgot to mentioned...

Served 8 years as a Naval Aviator. Walked in on my own. Flew combat missions over Iraq and received the Air Medal for those operations. Completed my service as an FA-18 instructor. Love my country and the Navy. Just do not see this President and his use of our all volunteer military as anything but a complete disaster.

Another clueless brownshoe

I keep wondering why the officers are always among the f*ck ups while the enlisted are among the best and brightest and bledd red white and blue the most

[NavyDave]

You do have to wonder if we didnt secure flights on 9-11 after the WTC and Pentagon attacks that if a tragedy(?) had befallen Frisco how they would react today?

[Johnny Punani2]

Because they are part of this country. Why should Texas get any of their tax money? Why should my state, Massachusetts get less in tax money then Wyoming, when we pay twice as much as them? This is America Johnny, and they have a right to their point of view if you like it or not. Just because you don't agree wit it does not mean you should advocate their distruction, which is exactly what you are doing.

You said you guess you are a right wing extremeist, well then I guess you are right. Your posts make you no better then the wackos in the pictures Sarge posted. The only difference is you are on opposing ideologies, but you equally have distain for this country and its democracy, that is for sure.

Let's quit jumping to conclusions chom.

I never said I wished for the destruction of the City of San Francisco. I'm questioning whether they deserve the right to be protected by the militarty in the case of attack considering their obvious anti-military bias. The defense of this country depends more on volunteers then tax money. Speaking of tax funds your state got a huge about of federal funds for an over budget project call the big dig which cost US tax payers billions of dollars.

I will state this again in case you misunderstood me. It is their democractic right to vote for whatever they want. However, I have a right to give my opinion on it and other states have a right to question why they are trying to prevent people from joining the military and protecting this country.

I have no distain for this country. I lived in Europe for two years so I have more insight into what this country stands for them most here. The only people who have distain are the ones openly hostile for what this country stands for and the military who tries to protect it.

[Johnny Punani2]

Because they're part of America. You wackos seem to forget that sometimes, when people disagree with you, they might not hate America or be evil, they might just disagree with you.

So people from other parts of the US should defend them but not themselves? I guess I'm a wacko but you sound like a sissy.

[chomerics]

Let's quit jumping to conclusions chom.

I never said I wished for the destruction of the City of San Francisco. I'm questioning whether they deserve the right to be protected by the militarty in the case of attack considering their obvious anti-military bias. The defense of this country depends more on volunteers then tax money. Speaking of tax funds your state got a huge about of federal funds for an over budget project call the big dig which cost US tax payers billions of dollars.

I will state this again in case you misunderstood me. It is their democractic right to vote for whatever they want. However, I have a right to give my opinion on it and other states have a right to question why they are trying to prevent people from joining the military and protecting this country.

I have no distain for this country. I lived in Europe for two years so I have more insight into what this country stands for them most here. The only people who have distain are the ones openly hostile for what this country stands for and the military who tries to protect it.

When you say if they are attacked, they should not be defended, then you are in fact advocating for the destruction of the city. They go hand in hand. They pay for the military just as much as you or I and they deserve the protection just as you or I.

Being part of a democracy means you have to defend people you do not agree with. That is what makes a democracy great, the second you say they should not be defended, just as O'Reilly did, you are in fact advocating something other then a democracy, whether you realize it or not. You are infact saying that your opinion is worth more then somebody elses. You are saying because they don't feel the military should recruit, for whatever reasons, they should not be protected as you or I should. It is completely wrong, and it is fascist in its form. It promotes a premise that only YOUR viewpoint should be protected and not theirs. It IS placing yourself above them, and saying that you are better then them. Even if you don't think this is what you are doing, that is the effect of your words.

[Johnny Punani2]

When you say if they are attacked, they should not be defended, then you are in fact advocating for the destruction of the city. They go hand in hand. They pay for the military just as much as you or I and they deserve the protection just as you or I.

Being part of a democracy means you have to defend people you do not agree with. That is what makes a democracy great, the second you say they should not be defended, just as O'Reilly did, you are in fact advocating something other then a democracy, whether you realize it or not. You are infact saying that your opinion is worth more then somebody elses. You are saying because they don't feel the military should recruit, for whatever reasons, they should not be protected as you or I should. It is completely wrong, and it is fascist in its form. It promotes a premise that only YOUR viewpoint should be protected and not theirs. It IS placing yourself above them, and saying that you are better then them. Even if you don't think this is what you are doing, that is the effect of your words.

You also pay for defense by offering to join the military yourself. Something they are obviously trying to prevent. The military needs people more then money. If you are not willing to buck up and join the military yourself your not really protecting this country. You can talk about "I pay taxes" but that's a cop out. To openly try and prevent the military from recruiting people which are highly critical for the defence of this country is treasonous. And furthers the liberal elitist mindset of looking at the military and the people who serve in it as lower class.

[DeanCollins]

Another clueless brownshoe

I keep wondering why the officers are always among the f*ck ups while the enlisted are among the best and brightest and bledd red white and blue the most

Mind if I copy/paste this into your Patton thread? :doh:

[Quote:

Originally Posted by gstahl

I assumed you served and served in combat??? Please elaborate...

Maybe we should ensure the military recruiters have access to all those private schools which our representative's sons and daughters attend. Maybe everyone should be required to sit down with a military recruiter, no parent could avoid it then. Maybe we should re-institute the draft. Is that too much or not enough?

Last I checked we have a volunteer force. If parents do not want their children talking to recruiters they should be able to decide that. The ones that want have the freedom to pursue it simply and easily. Why is it critical to have military recruiters in schools? What is gained beyond having a recruiting office available for anyone to walk into? I sure would not want my daughter serving under this President and would not want any military recruiter talking to her without my express permission (she is only 4 months old so they would not get very far in any case).

Oh, forgot to mentioned...

Served 8 years as a Naval Aviator. Walked in on my own. Flew combat missions over Iraq and received the Air Medal for those operations. Completed my service as an FA-18 instructor. Love my country and the Navy. Just do not see this President and his use of our all volunteer military as anything but a complete disaster. QUOTE]

Good point about the private schools "Fortunate Son"-CCR?

My father was also a Navy pilot/intructor-F4's, flew in Korea, Cuban MC, Nam. He liked to say that "the Navy is comprised of the Aviators and the Submariners, and then there are those "others" , black shoes".

[chomerics]

You also pay for defense by offering to join the military yourself. Something they are obviously trying to prevent.

You do not know why they voted the way they did, and my bet is that it has to do with some real nefarious recruitment practices. In Boston, the Army Recruitment Center tried to tell recruits that they could have free plastic surgery if they signed up. They told a woman she could get free breast implants, it was part of their benefits. It is practices like this that people object to Johnny, not the military itself.

The military needs people more then money. If you are not willing to buck up and join the military yourself your not really protecting this country. You can talk about "I pay taxes" but that's a cop out. To openly try and prevent the military from recruiting people which are highly critical for the defence of this country is treasonous. And furthers the liberal elitist mindset of looking at the military and the people who serve in it as lower class.

You are not going to understand anyway, as you put it before Johnny, you are a right extremist. , . In other words, you are not interested in hearing anything about the other side, and are only interested in your own warped viewpoint as reality. Well, you can chose to live your life in a myopic bubble, but I myself prefer to be a bit more openminded about everything. There is nothing American about your position, but you have every right to believe it. . . just like the KKK, the Nazis and the Enviroterrorists have their rights as well. It doesn't make you right, it just makes you extreme.

[Johnny Punani2]

This whole conversation is bunk anyway.

I just found out under federal law recruiters are allowed on school grounds.

[Johnny Punani2]

You do not know why they voted the way they did, and my bet is that it has to do with some real nefarious recruitment practices. In Boston, the Army Recruitment Center tried to tell recruits that they could have free plastic surgery if they signed up. They told a woman she could get free breast implants, it was part of their benefits. It is practices like this that people object to Johnny, not the military itself.

You are not going to understand anyway, as you put it before Johnny, you are a right extremist. , . In other words, you are not interested in hearing anything about the other side, and are only interested in your own warped viewpoint as reality. Well, you can chose to live your life in a myopic bubble, but I myself prefer to be a bit more openminded about everything. There is nothing American about your position, but you have every right to believe it. . . just like the KKK, the Nazis and the Enviroterrorists have their rights as well. It doesn't make you right, it just makes you extreme.

I recieved plastic surgery for a deviated septum. It was free. That's one of the perks of being in the military. Please don't even try to compare me with the KKK or Nazis ok. That is just way over the top. And you call me extreme?

Your not being openminded. All you are doing is defending those who hold the same illogical mindset as yourself.

[Johnny Punani2]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-10T002557Z_01_SPI974371_RTRUKOC_0_US-ELECTION-SANFRANCISCO.xml

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Voters in famously liberal San Francisco overwhelmingly approved measures banning handguns and encouraging schools to keep military recruiters off campus, according to election results on Wednesday.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting results from Tuesday's election, Measure H, which prohibits San Franciscans from owning handguns and bans the sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, passed with 57.9 percent of the vote.

The National Rifle Association responded by filing a lawsuit challenging the measure in state court, noting it is preempted by federal and state laws and that the same state court had invalidated San Francisco's last attempt to impose a ban on handguns.

"Lawful residents of San Francisco are being stripped of their freedom because of an illegal measure that defies common sense," association vice-president Wayne LaPierre said in statement. "I believe that we will prevail,"

Measure I, a largely symbolic "declaration of policy that the people of San Francisco oppose the federal government's use of public schools to recruit students for service in the military," passed with 59.7 percent of votes.

The measure will have no effect on military recruiters as they are allowed on school grounds under federal law, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Defense.

Have a nice day...

[chomerics]

I recieved plastic surgery for a deviated septum. It was free. That's one of the perks of being in the military. Please don't even try to compare me with the KKK or Nazis ok. That is just way over the top. And you call me extreme?

I was also giving you an example of WHY people may not want military recruiters to be on HS of College campus'. I was pointing out something that you were failing to take into consideration when labeling an entire city as being extreme.

As for the extreme argument, you said you were an extremist, not me. I gave you examples of extreme ideologies on both sides of the spectrum, and I didn't say you were a member of any of the groups, but used their postion to show you who you are aligning yourself with. When you say you are an extremist, you are equating yourself to those ideological nuts, I wasn't the one who labeled you as that, you were, I was merely pointig out others that have extreme viewpoints.

Your not being openminded. All you are doing is defending those who hold the same illogical mindset as yourself.

You are equating the military not to protect an American city, which is more over the top, your position or my words?

I am defending the right to think what they want, and I am also saying that both O'Reilly, Sarge and your arguments are completely out there ideologically speaking, and they are alongside the groups I mentioned. If you did not want the inferences of those wacked groups, then maybe your position should be more mainstream and less extreme.

Either way, the argument seems to be moot, as you say it is illegal anyway.

[Destino]

Can we stop the bull**** and cut to the chase. Is there any standard that needs to be met for a city or area in the US to deserve protection of the US military? The answer is no. This country wouldn't be half as great as it is if citizens were forced to agree with right wing governments or face death.

San Fran should also realize that the military has a right to recruit. Elected officials should know better then to encourage sectionalism.

[Baculus]

What is worse? Citizens who are unpatriotic and could care a lick about this country, or citizens who claim to be patriotic, but in reality are un[/]patriotic because they TRULY do not represent this country's ideals, but only their own narrow-minded, bigoted sense of ideals? (Yes, Bill O'Reilly, I am talking to YOU.) To me, they are and the same.

I see this from the Left and the Right. I just want to sometimes tell both sides, with a megahorn, to SHUT UP and freaking listen to yourselves.

So, all in all, this was really much ado about nothing, and yet, folks went on an organism of self-hatred, immediately turning an eye on one of our OWN cities and suggesting its destruction by outside forces (such as what Pat Robertson talked about). THAT is the "hyperpatriotism" that I am talking about: national self destruction under the guise of patriotism. That ain't patriotism. That is not what I was taught to BE patriotic - I have a feeling that some folks really do not know what the term means and use it only to wrap their own beliefs. It does not belong to just one person, group, political party, religion, race, military, civilian...whatever. My family fought in the American Revolution - I have just as much right to start boasting about "long patriotic history" - but I can't make any claim that millions of my fellow citizens can make as well.

Because it doesn't belong to me.

Sometimes, everyone, Right and Left, need to take a step back for a moment of reflection...if that is possible at all.

[Barney B]

Sometimes, everyone, Right and Left, need to take a step back for a moment of reflection...if that is possible at all.

Why do you hate freedom?

[webnarc]

When this thread reaches 100 posts, O'Reilly win's.

[Tarhog]

I want to give props to Baculus in this thread. Guy has a strong viewpoint, argues his position aggressively, and never gets personal or nasty. Heres to you Baculus

NavyDave - I don't appreciate your comments regarding the officer ranks brother - I served 5 years as a Marine enlisted guy, and another 5 as an Officer. I respected 99% of the guys I served with in both categories. I'm hoping I'm misunderstanding your viewpoint there - if not, sorry to hear you feel that way.

For those that keep circumventing our profanity filters (I won't name names, but several of you did it in this thread), if you feel the absolute need to throw nasty words out there, spell them out so our filter blocks them. Not a request - its an expectation.

As for this thread - well, its pretty obvious it was a poorly thought out statement for a guy like O'Reilly to make (clearly sarcastic, but stupid nonetheless). I'm not a big fan of his, because he tends to make ridiculous statements like this fairly often.

We're going to be taking a very close look at some of these Tailgate threads guys - if we can't keep it civil, we'll just start shutting the political threads down. Police yourselves or we'll do it for you.

[semiskin]

O'reilly was staying at the hotel where I worked, for a speaking engagement. The lady who was walking him around while he was there, was standing at my desk, waiting for O'reilly. And she started going on about how he was in her words a "disgusting human being". I just stood back in amazement that this lady was telling me these things, while at any second he could have turned the corner and been right there. Take it for what's it worth.

And those of you who think it would be ok if they bombed SF are mindless and don't care about our country.

I second what Tarhog said of Bacculus.

[DarkLadyRaven]

You also pay for defense by offering to join the military yourself. Something they are obviously trying to prevent. The military needs people more then money. If you are not willing to buck up and join the military yourself your not really protecting this country. You can talk about "I pay taxes" but that's a cop out. To openly try and prevent the military from recruiting people which are highly critical for the defence of this country is treasonous. And furthers the liberal elitist mindset of looking at the military and the people who serve in it as lower class.

Most people I know that are anti- war are people who work were my mother works in the Department of Commerce or mothers old Navy buddies - Most make 40,000 or less-- how are they looking down on the lower classes and elitest. San Fran has parents in it, those parents dont want the recruiter on school grounds- Remeber we live in a nation that if one parent complains about the pledge its gone, if one person complains that Harry Potter is occult its gone.Why should this be any different?

If parents dont want the recruiter on campus (because they dont want their kids to join) you want to put them there despite the parents objections? Do you want young people to disrespect their parents?

Are you expecting that are 17 soon to be 18 year disrespect his parents and join the military agianst their word. Sorry thats anti-bible to disprespect your parents and therefore anti christian

[Chopper Dave]

:snicker:

for those who care what makes me snicker is that he makes a statement like that, and in the picture in his signiture he has a quote that makes it snickerable to his statement

What the hell are you babbling about?

[Chopper Dave]

So people from other parts of the US should defend them but not themselves? I guess I'm a wacko but you sound like a sissy.

Typical conservative know-it-all. You're missing the point. San Fran is part of America. You don't have to like their demographics or opinions, but they're part of America nonetheless. If you don't like their ability to vote against having recruiters, write your Congressman and ask him to bring about a vote voting against it. If you think they're un-American, write Congress and tell them to remove San Fran from the Union. Until then, quit ****ing. Because you sound like a sissy.

[Tarhog]

Typical conservative know-it-all. You're missing the point. San Fran is part of America. You don't have to like their demographics or opinions, but they're part of America nonetheless. If you don't like their ability to vote against having recruiters, write your Congressman and ask him to bring about a vote voting against it. If you think they're un-American, write Congress and tell them to remove San Fran from the Union. Until then, quit ****ing. Because you sound like a sissy.

I see you took my request to heart Chopper. Thanks.