Talk Elections

No, and this yet another reason I don't watch Fox.

O'Reilly seems to be coming a little unhinged lately.

At this point, I can't tolerate any of those political shows.  They're either a bunch of people screaming at each other, or they spend the whole hour talking about the latest missing blonde.  There is simply too much dead air time to fill.  I'd rather watch reruns of Law and Order, or something like that.

Making it out as if nobody cares about San Francisco would probably make San Francisco the least likely place in America to be attacked.  It seems to me that al-Qaeda would want to blow up something that actually has some sort of impact.

So, O'Reilly should propose that the location of the American capital be moved to San Francisco. :P

^^^^^ Hell, even Dallas reruns.

O'Reilly needs to check the expiry dates on the little bottles in his pockets.

jfern, and everyone else, don't take him seriously.  Take it as comic relief.  If he's gonna make an arse of himself, it's better to laugh than think he's serious and get angry in his favor or against.

If only the rest of the country could realize this...

No, but if San Francisco wants to secede, I'm more and more inclined to let them as time goes on.

Oh, don't worry, me and my friend sometimes would watch him, and laugh at how "fair and balanced" it was.

Actually, the "fair and balanced" claim does not apply to opinion shows, like O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes or Greta's show.  They are not news shows.

Well regardless of whether you think it does, the term "no spin zone" is specifically for O'Reilly's show, which seems to imply some sort of reasonably non-biased views. Hoping that San Francisco gets attacked by Al Qaeda does not fall in that catagory.

An attack there > An attack in NY or DC

I remember O'Reilly saying something like that on one of his shows. He was talking about the S.F. proposition that would ban military recruiters from schools. He said that if San Francisco was going to shun the military like that, then why should we pay for their protection.

No, O'Reilly is an idiot.  He also said we should force people to own guns and go to classes to learn how to use them.

I don't get FoxNews, so the first time I saw O'Reilly was when I was on a business trip about a year and a half ago.  I watched for about five minutes.  The funny part is, I switched to Law and Order reruns (three of them in a row, good call, dazzleman!) and then watched Family Guy and Futurama on Adult Swim.  That was also the last time I watched O'Reilly.

Its nice that you've finally seen the light on the whole Aruba Natalie scandal ;)

I have seen snippets of O'Reilly over the past few years, obviously I don't agree with him on most things, but he's not extremely conservative on all issues. My problem with him is his rude behavior towards guests and all the charges Al Franken made against him in "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them".

It'd be nice to hear the whole story behind the comment instead of some little out of context clip.

I doubt he wants San Francisco to be attacked.  I think his point was probably that we should not try too hard to defend San Francisco, since the people there are so hostile to the concept of national defense.  He has a point, actually.

Does that go for everybody in San Francisco?  What about the people who do care about national defense?  Would O'Reilly mind if they all got killed in a terrorist attack too?

I think it's a general statement made for rhetorical effect, not to really be taken literally.  Clearly, those who care about national defense, and those who do not, cannot be geographically isolated.  In general, people in far left places like San Francisco are hostile to national defense.  I'm not necessarily defending the intent of the statement, but just trying to explain the context in which it was probably made, and suggest that it isn't 100% off the wall.  People should not s&$t where they eat.

I realize that, but I expect 54,355 people would probably disagree.  (The number of Bush voters in SF County in 2004)

Yes, I'm sure you're right.  God bless those poor people, living in a virtual insane asylum.

Of course, I don't want an attack anywhere, and if there is to be one, I certainly wouldn't choose one place over another.  We should be a united people, but I fear that most people on the far left are perfectly willing to sell the rest of us down the river.

Heh, my mom used to live in San Francisco during the 1970s-1980s. She attended graduate school there and then taught at a number of (grade) schools. As you can imagine, she ultimately moved out. Surprise? I think not. :P

It's a shame because San Francisco really is a beautiful city.  But it's getting to the point where it's hard to really consider it part of the United States.  The hippie generation there has just taken over everything.

Is that where you live?

Are asians usually hippies? It's 30.8% asian compared to a national average of 3.6%. It's also got more people 65+, and more Hispanics.

I can't believe anyone actually watches this dickhead.  I don't know what's worse -him making claims like this or his proclaiming to be an "independent" and non-biased.  True, he should not be taken seriously at all, but why even make remarks like that in the first place?  Just like that crazy bitch Ann Coulter urging someone to blow up the New York Times building.  I stopped watching cable news a while ago because of people like this.


Fox News -What a joke network. 

Thanks for the fair analysis.

I certainly would rather SF be hit than Dallas or something. They certainly would deserve it collectively, but not every person in SF is a complete loser, just as not every person in SF is queer.

That's ridiciulous. I stand against terrorist attacks, whether they are Kerry's 3rd best county (San Francisco, CA), Kerry's 9th best county (New York, NY), or a more Republican county.

That makes you almost as bad as the terrorists themselves.  Congrats.

Hahaha, Asian hippies.  They're a rare breed.

It's nice to hear you say that, Jfern.  I have gotten the sense for a long time that the far left would not mind seeing more conservative areas of the country attacked, as long as their areas are left alone.  I think this is a deplorable attitude whether promulgated by conservatives or liberals, so it's nice to hear you say that you are against it, and not more hostile to Texas than you are to al-Qaeda.

You should tell that to AuH2O. ;)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008

The audio clip is linked from there.  Or, here's a more detailed transcript of his comments:

More then likely tongue and cheek but he makes a good point with the comment. I vote agree.

This part doesn't even make sense.  The old fart is just jabbering.

Not to burst your bubble, but there aren't any hippies left in San Francisco, they are modern liberals. You might as well talk about SDS, Patty Hearst and Ford Station Wagons if you are going to call them "hippies".

You are right about San Francisco being alienated from the United States, the same thing happened with New York before 9/11. People used to consider it "an island off the coast of America". In those days it was b/c New York was seen as too Jewish. I think we all know what mainstream Americans problem with San Fran is today. They hate the sin AND the sinner, despite what they say.

Sorry to burst your bubble too, but I have seen real hippies before. ;) You just have to look around for them sometimes. I saw a bunch of them at a progressive rock concert in June. They aren't as numerous anymore, but they're there, and they oftentimes like to hide in concert venues like The Fillmore! :)

If the people of San Fransisco want to advocate anti-military policies, why should other citizens pay the price?

They obviously don't want protection. Maybe if they got it on the chin, others would be more prudent in their actions.

What about the people of Manhattan who advocate anti-military policies? They went almost as strongly for Kerry as San Francisco. Perhaps we should let them get attacked by terrorists?

I didn't say WE should attack. I didn't even say I WANTED them to be attacked.

I just said that, if a terrorist attack is totally unavoidable, I'd rather someplace advocating bad policy be hit, because in the long run its in everyone's best interest to have a vigorous policy of self-defense.

So Kerry's 9th and 61st best counties would be far preferable to some place more Republican?

Everything else held constant, yes.

AuH2O, you really should take a leaf out of Dazzleman's book:


Of course, the last sentence is now ironically inaccurate, given your comments.

O'Reilly is the worlds greatest retard that seriously believes that the people are laughing with him, and not at him. (when we all know thats not true ;))

Yes (normal)

Have you actually read this thread, or O'Reilly's comments, or even thought about this at all?  Or are you simply joking?

It was clear O'Reilly was venting, as most people do when something crawls up their ass and dies.

In O'Reilly's case, the ass bug is San Francisco's unseemly anti military attitude (not letting the ROTC recruit on high school or local college campuses), combined with the outrageously unconstitutional antigun ordinance they recently passed, presumably to stop law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against rapists and robbers.

Of course, O'Reilly went to far -- SF is an American city, as much as its residents pretend otherwise; the US Congress is constitutionally obliged to protect it in event of foreign attack.

And on a minor note: it's disingenous to to compare Manhattan's social liberalism, annoying as it is, with San Francisco's plainly authoritarian Leftism.

The only political show I watch anymore is Special Report, which is fairly unbiased.  I became disenchanted with O'Reilly a long time ago.  I would like to see this quote in context, however, just the same.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, and I take it for what it's worth, now c'mon, this is alot of  hubub for nothing.

I just found an article which can explain some of O'Reilly's ire:

SF SUPERVISORS VOTE DOWN RESOLUTION SUPPORTING USS IOWA (http://www2.cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2005/07/12/n/HeadlineNews/SF-SUPERVISORS/resources_bcn_html)

07/12/05 9:00 PDT
SAN FRANCISCO (BCN)

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today voted 3-8 against a resolution urging the San Francisco Congressional Delegation to support the permanent berthing of the USS Iowa as a museum at the Port of San Francisco.

The congressional delegation secured $3 million in 2000 to move the USS Iowa, which was present at the signing of the treaty between Japan and the U.S. in 1945, from Rhode Island to the Bay Area, the proposed resolution says.

A study commissioned by the Port of San Francisco concluded that the ship would attract more than 500,000 people during its first year at the waterfront, according to the proposed resolution.

But Tom Ammiano said today he didn't want the ship berthed in San Francisco because of the military's treatment of gays and lesbians and its "don't ask, don't tell'' policy.

"It's dehumanizing,'' Ammiano said. "You are not allowed to be a gay or lesbian in the military except when there is a war and then when the war ends, you are kicked out.''

Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly also spoke out against the resolution, citing their opposition to the US occupation in Iraq.

"I am sad to say I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s,'' Daly said.

Supervisors Sean Elsbernd, Fiona Ma and Michela Alioto-Pier voted in favor of the resolution.

Truth be told, I'm surprised Ma and Aliota-Pier voted for it. All the same, how petty and hateful of the SF municipal government against the US Navy, considering the importance of the Presidio and Alameda to that city's growth and stability.

Mr Ammiano's whine is ironic when you consider why SF has so large a gay population. Back in WWII, all the servicemen who were discovered to be homosexual were forced back to their port of call, namely San Francisco. In fact, Ammiano should have been the first Supervisor to welcome the USS Iowa from its current dry-dock.

I don't have a source, but a usually reliable friend of mine that reads more news than I do apparenlty saw somewhere that O'Reilly's ratings have been tanking, and thus he's been resulting to more outlandish things to say to get people's attention.

This could be 100% false, but in theory, it definitely makes sense. Anyone have the most recent ratings of Fox News shows at hand?

We should protect all ciites, but if they don't want our protection, should we protect them? But it was 59-41 as opposed to 100-0 so some people do want protection.

Put it this way. If you didn't want anyone to protect you, would you want anyone to protect you? (Yes, I know that sounds stupid, but that is the point.)

Great point. Those shows were vaguely interesting about thirteen months ago, but I find myself sickened by some of the stupid crap they talk about now.

I don't know the ratings but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.

Most people I know tell me they can't tolerate these cable news shows anymore, and I feel the same way.  At this point, they're just boring.  On political issues, they're not telling me anything I don't already know.  The rest of the time they have people screaming at each other, or they obsess over some missing person, 99% of the time a white woman.

One of the big problems with our media is that they provide no perspective.  Even if they sometimes report well on certain events, they seem to have no way to put it into context of relative importance, and few members of the general public seem to have that ability either.

Perhaps this genre of television has just run its course.

That's one of the most insightful posts on cable news I've seen in a long time. I've been trying to say that for years, but I think now people are starting to listen.

Thanks dude. 

I think there's just too much air time to fill, and not enough to fill it with that the public wants to hear.  What's really important is not necessarily interesting, and wouldn't get good ratings most likely.

At a time when Iran is working toward an islamic bomb, among other threatening developments, we see show over show obsessing over every twist in the Natalie Holloway case.

And I can't take these shows where they just have people screaming at each other over some issue.  Frankly, my opinions are already formed, and I'm not going to change them because some nutcase liberal gets on a show and makes snide comments about the president.

What's your next crusade Nation?  Could you speak out against "The Surreal Life" and "My Fair Brady?" :P

The media reports on nothing for a reason. If they wanted an informed populace, they would obviously report on real news. Instead they report on Scott Peterson or whatever to distract people from the serious problems that America faces. I don't give a sh**t about Scott Peterson, and he dumped his wife's body right near where I live.

The question is not whether the media wants an informed populace, but whether the populace wants to be informed.

My grandparents live two doors down from the Peterson's house.  They ended up going on vacation for a couple weeks at the height of the circus because the media was such a nuisance.

The overall crappiness of the news media is a combination of two factors: one, the public wants to watch crap (ever watch daytime TV, with the soap operas, Judge Judy and Jerry Springer?) and two, the media promotes crap, which just leads to more of number one.

It's a cycle.  The public finds there pretty white girl missing stories tantalizing, for whatever reason.  I follow them mildly, but not to the extent of many people.  The advent of the whole thing was probably the OJ case and trial.  Watching talk shows like Jerry Springer is pretty scary, because it's scary to realize that there are actually people like that out there.

Hey! No cheap attacks on Judge Judy. :)

I like Judge Judy, but you have to admit, the people who appear on her show are trash.

Of course they are but that's what makes it so funny.

sure. Why not?