Do you agree with O'Reilly that we should let Al Qaeda attack San Francisco?

[Storebought]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

[Storebought]

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

SF SUPERVISORS VOTE DOWN RESOLUTION SUPPORTING USS IOWA

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.

[Nation]

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?

[Brandon H]

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.)

[Jake]

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.

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.

[dazzleman]

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?

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.

[Nation]

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?

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.

[dazzleman]

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?"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[dazzleman]

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.

[Blue Rectangle]

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.

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.

[dazzleman]

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.

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.

[dazzleman]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[KillerPollo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sure. Why not?