Bill O’Reilly’s ‘controversial’ remarks

Cal over at California Conservative takes on those who are harshly condemning recent remarks Bill O’Reilly made after the election in San Francisco, an election which saw a majority of voters there choose to vote against military recruiting of young people as well as for a major gun ban. The spin from the mediots and other critics of O’Reilly’s comments is that he was encouraging Al Qaeda to blow up the Coit Tower in SF. He was not. Cal’s comments:

NOTE: For the reading impaired, Bill O’Reilly is NOT (in no way) suggesting or recommending that anyone “blow up” Coit Tower. However, based on San Francisco’s insistence to alienate itself from the rest of America — i.e. legalizing homosexual marriages (with the Mayor himself presiding), promoting public S&M exhibitionism, harboring left-wing extremists, legalizing marijuana, holding a defiant middle-finger up to the U.S. military, banning legal gun ownership and recruiting for our armed forces — O’Reilly is simply pointing out that, given the City’s disrespect for homeland security (let alone personal security), “Baghdad by the Bay” should be the last place deserving of defense. San Francisco can use its liberal arrogance to fend for itself.

Spot on.

14 Responses to "Bill O’Reilly’s ‘controversial’ remarks"

Eddy Johnson says:

November 13, 2005 at 6:04 pm

Stop trying to justify Bill’s call for a terrorist attack. Did it ever occur to him or to you that not everyone in SF voted for the intiative? Also, Bill always talks about bombthrowers which is what he is but is too dizzy from his own spin to realize just how hypocritical he is. His acts are deplorable and should be condemned by all right thinking Americans.
Baklava says:

November 13, 2005 at 7:20 pm

I condemn the acts of Eddy? I think I learned from you. Did I?
Charles says:

November 13, 2005 at 7:39 pm

I think it’s all a crock of sh*t.

Edited-language. –ST
PCD says:

November 14, 2005 at 8:10 am

Personally I think SF should be stripped of all Federal Funding and subsidies, then declared a free fire zone to terrorists. I also think any Liberals who try to leave SF after such a declaration should be forced back into the cesspool they left. In about 10 years we can reclaim the city. It will have burnt it self out from their Liberal fires by then.
Norah says:

November 14, 2005 at 3:19 pm

Now, Sister, won’t you explain to me how PCD’s above comment is also not a suggestion that terrorists attack San Fransisco? I mean, it seems to me that it is exactly that; likewise O’Reilly’s and CalConservative’s comments. But I must be reading-impaired, since I’m a liberal, and we aren’t deserving of anything but scorn and derision and the occasional death threat.

How will you feel if AQ really does attack SF? I’m curious.
Baklava says:

November 14, 2005 at 3:56 pm

Norah, AQ attacked New York City which is very liberal also. The country rallied and the only people left supporting the war on terror are conservatives.

It is SF and towns like Berkeley who are repeatedly making laws and declarations against the military in some form or another.

In reporting it, is only simple analysis that Bill and or PCD is simply stating that SF should reap the rewards of it’s efforts and the military should leave SF alone completely. Norah you and I know that that won’t happen. THe good people of America will continue to spend dollars fighting the people of SF so that we can continue to defend it.

Isn’t that great. We spend more dollars fighting SF in the court and trying to overturn it’s decisions and you come hear talking about what WE want as if we want people to die. The people dying would be a result of their own policies.

Steve for example would probably counter us getting hurt by words. He wouldn’t use force to stop someone hurting us. Peace man!

There are evil people in this world. We need to have a strong national security and police system. It was due to cuts in intelligence over a few decades that left us in the position we were in. We had ZERO intelligence agents on the ground in middle east countries according to the 9/11 report. We had to rely completely on other countries intelligence operations who had people on the ground and technology. Our technology didn’t paint the complete picture. Colin Powell brought the pictures to the UN and every country agreed with the analysis presented by Colin Powell. Our only problem at the time was we didn’t know how in bed with Iraq France was in the Oil for Food scandal and so even though they agreed with the analysis they voted no for the use of force.

We went above and beyond the convincing duty. Bill Clinton never got U.N. approval for Yugoslavia/Bosnia. Yet the left didn’t call that an “illegal” or “immoral” war.
Baklava says:

November 14, 2005 at 8:07 pm

heh. I heard Bill O’Reilly smack down leftists and what he called their “stupid” take on his remarks.
Kevin says:

November 15, 2005 at 3:01 am

I thought O’Reilly’s coments on the radio about the Coit tower were poorly worded, even though he was just being snarky. He clarified them extremely well in his talking points on TV today though.

He basically said what baklava just said. If you won’t support the military, you should not expect the military to support you. I’m not sure if denying advertising to the armed forces constitutes not supporting them, but at the very least it’s close.
Norah says:

November 15, 2005 at 10:16 am

is only simple analysis that Bill and or PCD is simply stating that SF should reap the rewards of it’s efforts and the military should leave SF alone completely.

And once again, please explain how that is not a wish for terrorists to come in and attack an American city. And it IS an American city. But you don’t like the way a majority of voters feel on certain issues, so you think they deserve to die when AQ comes knockin’. Someone already pointed this out, but do you care that the people who voted against those propositions will die too?

Isn’t it funny, that when the policies you righties agree with are voted in with a majority, the rest of us should all shut up and deal? (It’s a MANDATE! At least we win elections!)

But let some left-leaning policies get voted in, and y’all call for bombs. I don’t get it. I really don’t.
PCD says:

November 15, 2005 at 11:00 am

Norah, it is called reaping what you sow. If you in SF, don’t like the military, then fine, the military should be reserved for the rest of the country that wants and supports them.

Same for gun control. You in SF don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment, so call a hippie when you get robbed, assaulted or raped.
Baklava says:

November 15, 2005 at 12:54 pm

Norah wrote, “please explain how that is not a wish for terrorists to come in and attack an American city

It isn’t. It’s English 101. You are extrapolating.

Norah wrote, “so you think they deserve to die

I don’t. Sorry you are incorrect.

Norah wrote, “Isn’t it funny, that when the policies you righties agree with are voted in with a majority, the rest of us should all shut up and deal?

I’m sorry. The issue is that we are pontificating and expressing an opinion but you are peeved about the opinion and extrapolating something that isn’t out of what was being said.

Norah wrote, “But let some left-leaning policies get voted in, and y’all call for bombs”

Nobody called for bombs. You are incorrect again.
Norah says:

November 15, 2005 at 1:52 pm

Nobody called for bombs. You are incorrect again.

Oh. So when Bill said: “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.”

he didn’t mean with bombs. He meant blow it up with…uh..something else. Gotcha. And when I read that statement as an intention to sit idly by and watch should AQ ever take the notion to “blow up” SF, you say:

It isn’t. It’s English 101. You are extrapolating.

I wouldn’t know, I didn’t take English 101 in college. I passed my AP test with a 5, so I never had to. It’s not a matter of extrapolation, it’s a matter of comprehension. There’s no mystical, deep, unknowable meaning behing that choice statement; the intent is pretty clear. Either you need the extra coursework, or you’re being deliberately disingenious by telling me black is white, down is up, and I didn’t hear what I know I heard. We have always been at war with Eastasia, right?

In the same vein:
Norah wrote, “so you think they deserve to die

I don’t. Sorry you are incorrect.

When you ruminate about the potential consequences of a free, lawful election in which the people expressed their will democratically:

“I think SF should be stripped of all Federal Funding and subsidies, then declared a free fire zone to terrorists.”

you are saying that they deserve to die. I realize you didn’t post that, but

is only simple analysis that Bill and or PCD is simply stating that SF should reap the rewards of it’s efforts and the military should leave SF alone completely.

you defended it.

Reprehensible. You should be ashamed.
PCD says:

November 15, 2005 at 2:16 pm

Norah, what is wrong with Liberals facing the consequences of their actions? You are not some privileged class, untouchable by the rest of the world. You, and I use the inclusive you, seem to think you have no obligation to the costs of security and wellbeing in this country, that only the red-state knuckle draggers have to join the armed forces and police to keey you safe.
Baklava says:

November 15, 2005 at 2:20 pm

You attributed to me incorrectly the phrase, “I think SF should be stripped…. ”

That’s ok. I’m used to it. NO need to apologize.

I defend their right to free speech. Bill was speaking in a satirical sense. Bill explained that over and over. You were stating things that they want or I want or wish for incorrectly. You have no wiggle room. You were incorrect. It wasn’t a fact. I don’t wish or want for anyone who is innocent to be blown up.

The fact that I have to explain that I’m compassionate and don’t wish for innocent people to be blown up shows your contempt for people who are conservative. We have to defend ourselves from people like you and your ever growing list of accusations. It is a sickness that you liberals have. Al Gore talks about how we want old people to not get social security and we are mean-spirited. Many many democrats besides AlGore say the same things.

In order to have an honest good debate you must first get past those hateful thoughts and realize that conservatives and liberals both want good education for their kids and a clean environment and for nobody to suffer but we each have different solutions towards the problems.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and understand that utopia can’t exist. Communism doesn’t work because of human nature and slothfullness and evil exists. I as a centrist conservative believe in making the safety net (for non-able bodied people) stronger and I believe that liberals policies dilute the safety net with able-bodied people by the millions receiving benefits. In order to provide those benefits the government must tax more and that hurts the economy (and that is a fact). The more the government taxes the more people who produce and are successful (not lazy) are penalized.

There is a happy medium and we’ve gone far beyond that happy medium decades ago with respect to government spending.

HECK the Senate controlled by leftists (as both parties are to the left of center) want to spend 3 Billion dollars to give people $50 digital to analog converters because the airwaves will be analog by 2009. Excuse me Senators but the poor in America have an average of two TV’s and they can buy they digital to analog converter themselves (not from my hard earned money)

I personally would appreciate it if every one of your comments wasn’t something that compelled anyone of us conservatives to “explain” ourselves or “defend” ourselves. We really are “well-intentioned” people like everyone else and have emotions like anyone else and I think Bill O’Reilly who was doing a satirical bit is allowed his commentary and to express his frustration freely. He wasn’t calling for anyone to bomb. He was probably giving SF’ers a wakeup call. Thier “slap in the face” of the military (as Bill calls it) feels like a slap in the face. I served in the Navy for 6 years and was well aware of SF’s attempts at banning Navy ships from it’s docks and whatnot. This latest “ban” of recruiters from schools (I can only guess it happens during career day which is when it happened when I was going to High School in VA) is only another showing of SF’s contempt for the military (as we feel it is). The military that provides for their freedom to do what they do in their city.

Comments are closed.