It’s gratifying in a way to watch the psychotic soothsayers of the idiot Right hiss and fume and snarl, because it’s an indicator of their situation. They are cornered vermin and their rage is no longer couched in soothing, pseudo-Christian, quasi-logical phrases.
The Far Right Fabricator Bill O’Reilly told America on November 8th, that it would be just fine with him if someone like al Qaeda would attack San Francisco because that city was uncomfortable about the recruitment of cannon fodder in the schools. Although neither Bill nor anyone in his family seems to feel any personal commitment to military service other than to launch brainless attacks, he has no scruples when it comes to treason, for that’s just what backing a violent attack on America is.
In a subsequent rant this week on a radical Right talk radio program (yes, I know that’s redundant) O’Reilly refused to back down from his support of another al Qaeda attack on the United States, claiming his treason “needed to be said.”
His attempt to make it seem as though he was somehow the victim of a personal attack by critics of his treason, is of course a relic of the old days of Bill O’Reilly for whom the pre-emptive accusation was a trademark, but this is a new day for this enemy of all America. Although he will escape the fate that the law provides for traitors, It’s the beginning of his slide into disgrace.
Go Fox yourself Bill, and I really mean it.
3 comments:
If any Arab or Muslim said the same thing, he'd be calling for concentration camps. Since he said it, free speech and the First Amendment reign supreme.
It sure seems like treason to me, to wish terrorists to attack a city in your own nation.
I can't believe he would call someone else unpatriotic... it sounds like he hates Americans. Indeed, he seems to have a problem with democracy voting.
And to suggest, in essence, the death penalty, for people who don't want military recruiters going into schools, is irrational at best.
But I guess it seems normal if you're a control freak. Control freaks often get unusually fired up over trivial matters. Like the husband who blows his stack over what his wife cooked for dinner, or how she stacked the dishwasher - in a manner that might make sense if she just informed him she was having an affair with his brother.
O'Reilly's comments would at least make more sense if they voted for a law that favoured school beatings, or at least reprimands, for students who expressed a desire for a military career.
As it stands, they seem completely out of place.
And yeah, I think that's people's gripe with military recruiting in schools - is because it does seem to focus on recruiting poor & minority youths. The Draft was more fair. (Indeed, I think if we had across the board required military service, where rich & poor alike had to serve 2 years - I think our country would be more careful about choosing its battles.)
I agree with all of that. O' Reilly would be far more comfortable with a dictatorship and I'm sure he would want to be part of it.
I think one of the reasons we don't have a dract is that we would have to choose our fights. This way they can make it seem more like professional sports.
Post a Comment