O'Reilly accuses Joan Walsh of having "blood on her hands" for defending Tiller
June 12, 2009 8:52 pm ET
From the June 12th edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
-
Hannity falsely suggests Democratic health bills would only insure "12 million" people
November 20, 2009 9:58 pm ET -
-
Beck says that at his rally tomorrow, he will announce his "multi-level plan" for the 9-12 Project
November 20, 2009 8:48 pm ET -
O'Reilly to Palin on why no one questioned Biden's experience during campaign: "Well, he's got a lot of experience"
November 20, 2009 8:18 pm ET -
-
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
by Greg Lewis - November 20, 2009 -
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
by Jamison Foser - November 19, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
I think this is relevant to this conversation. Watch the link and write back after you pick up your jaw. To quote a line from a Woody Allen movie..."If Jesus came back and saw everything that was being done in his name...he wouldn't stop throwing up"
Imagine if someone used THAT on him.
What does she have blood on her hands for? Because she defended someone for doing their job? For defending someone that wasn't breaking any laws, and was being targeted by extremists?
Yeah, I don't think she's the one that has blood on her hands Bill. You sir, are indeed a large scale moron.
Watch him try to recover his composure as Walsh asks the final question (which he dodges).
That's gotta drive a man to the brink, squashing down your conscience for years and years, until it starts to fight back.Maybe there's a little crumb of that conscience left in Bill, and it's not letting him fool himself as to his part in influencing his nutty followers.
Blowhole O'Reilly surely has blood on his hands.
Nicely played, Ms Walsh.
Her last comment like another poster pointed out she dodged because there was only one conclusion and that is...SHE WAS RIGHT!
BOR knew this and didn't answer it. Seriously, this guy needs to come off our airwaves. We need to do something and I am open to suggestions.
The reality is that very, very few people watch cable news.
PS- she also (repeatedly) pointed out his vile references to tiller and the way he would use that pathetic nickname against him. bravo.
According to his logic:
If you were a fan of John Lennon when he was alive, you have blood on his hands for his murder?
Ronald Reagan supporters had blood on their hands for his own assassination attempt, because they made him out to be a great president?
Supporters of Abraham Lincoln had blood on their hands?
Supporters of Dr. King?
Supporters of Jews in Germany in WWII?
Supporters of U.S. troops, for the recruiters that were killed last week?
O'Reilly is an idiot, as usual. The pro-life movement does not condemn, ever, the killing of abortion doctors. You cannot get them to say that murdering abortion doctors is bad without them saying, "But he/she had it coming and he/she was a baby killer and we have no sympathy".
I thought old Bill was going to bust a gut.
Fox news hardly even covered the shooting.
They were busy covering really important topics like how Miss California was so horribly wronged.
Says a lot doesn't it?
YOU are the idiot.
The blood O'Reilly refers to is that of the babies Tiller slaughtered. He's not saying Walsh has Tiller's blood on her hands.
Everybody here knows who BilldO is trying to shift blame to.It's only you pinheads who are falling for it.
Believe me, if someone slaughters babies, even Liberals are upset by that. We all think murder is wrong, and the murder of innocent babies is really horrific.
But Dr Tiller didn't murder any babies. He performed a legal medical procedure. Murder is illegal. Abortion is legal.
It stuns me that people can't comprehend the difference, and think that gross hyperbole is reality. Tiller didn't slaughter any babies, and Joan Walsh doesn't have an blood on her hands since she supports the right of women to take advantage of a legal medical procedure!
Obviously, these people who think that O'Reilly was saying that the woman on his show had blood on her hands for Tiller's death didn't listen to the conversation and are simply regurgitating what they have seen posted on leftwing blogs.
It was that vile “Pro-Choice Catholic” cretin who accused O’Reilly of “having blood on his hands” for telling the truth about Tiller's "baby-killer-for-hire", late-term abortion business, his practice of ending a babies life, while still in the womb even when there was no medical reason for it and the baby would have been able to live a healthy life if allowed to be born instead of being killed. Tiller was doing it for profit only and didn't care about the baby's health or right to life and became a millionaire doing so.
O’Reilly told that woman that she “had blood on her hands” for aiding Tiller in his baby killing operation by calling him a “Hero” and encouraging women to have their healthy babies killed in the third trimester for no reason other than they didn’t want it.
Now you are free to believe that a fetus, or an embryo, or a zygote, is a baby in essense. Physically and legally, however, it is not. Whether or not we have immortal souls is unknowable, and is a matter of faith. Equally unknowable is when, if it exists, that soul enters the body, making it, to the religious, a human being. You will recall, as a Catholic I guess, that to believe is to make an "act of faith," which has little or nothing to do with reason. Your right to that is, as it should be protected. You have no right to impose that belief on those who choose not to make that act of faith, and no right to act as if the strictures of your faith are a given for all.
To presume to call those who don't agree with you, and who act within the law and according to their own consciences, "baby killers," is incendiary, culpable, and evil. It is also a step onto a very slippery slope, as the unquestioned murders committed by people who agree with you attest.
Remember, if you will, the 30 Years War. It was an internecine religious war between Catholic and Protestants, and reduced Europe's population, according to some historians, by 30 percent, if not more. The effects of that kind of fanaticism can still be seen, hopefully in their last throes, on the streets of Northern Ireland. But hatred, especially religious hatred, is very easy to stoke and difficult to eradicate.
Our Founders were very aware of this danger, and determined to avoid it. That's why our Constitution enshrines freedom of conscience: freedom both of, and from, religion. Back off from your presumptuous, judgmental rhetoric. You are sowing the wind, as the Bible says, and we all may reap the whirlwind.
Memories are short indeed. Where was the outrage from Walsh, Olbermann or MadCow when Bush was routinely labeled a "murderer" or literally hung in effigy at your left wing protests? Isn't that type of extreme rhetoric just as much (or more) of an incitement to violence as O'Reilly calling Tiller a "baby-killer"? Unfortunately, liberals tend to push the 1st Amendment to the limit in speaking out forcefully for their point of view, which is fine by me, but then turn around and try to muzzle anyone like O'Reilly who disagrees with them.
I think the direction FOXnews is taking is going to be catastrophic for their network, because the country is smarter than these loons.
Remember when it was the liberal guests who ended up looking like sputtering morons on the O'Reilly Factor? Tonight it was the host.
How To Crush Bill O'Reilly.
This is what O'Reilly said and he has to live with it. Anybody who does not stop Tiller has blood on their hands as Sebelius does. This is the statement that he has to live with and should have thrown back in his face over and over again (just as he should the death mill comments and the rest).
He is such a despiccable human being that he not only believes this comment deserves no explaining now that someone has stopped this man to keep from having blood on their hands. Not only does he continue to insist that he was only stating facts and that he only called Tiller what he heard others call him. He actually has the nerve to suggest that Joan Walsh has blood on her hands for not insisting that someone stop Tiller (to keep from having blood on their hands).
You know, I enjoy laughing at this comical windbag as much as anyone. But "fair"-liberal and the rest - it's really not funny anymore. People are being killed and this man continues to pile on as if he is the hero and you apologists continue to excuse his behavior. It has really crossed the line now to dangerous and disgusting.
This is no longer a partisan issue with this man. It must be made clear that in this country we do not advocate assassinations of people doing things that we WISH were illegal. That is now how this country works and this line of thought cannot be mainstream if we are to continue as a robust democratic republic. If you disagree with a law - get enough votes to vote in the lawmakers and leaders to get the law changed. Do not advocate that "if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius". And then act as if you have clean hands when that man is murdered.
As usual.
seems to me Mr. O'Reilly's value system would demand
that he call for the death penalty in this case, instead of his backdoor hero-worship for the alleged (legally speaking) murderer in this case.
This murder took place in a church.
Although not technically correct, I suppose, this is special circumstances in my book... and I am not even religious...
Turns out values is just talking-point with this
failure-of-a --broadcaster. O'Reilly the Misanthrope
and there, of course, is another part of the problem - another reason his viewers feel they have the right to take the law into their own hands.
they are encouraged to not respect the institution of law, they are encouraged to take vigilante action against laws they don't like, they see bullying as acceptable and funny, they see violence as being justified on the basis of what a talking head tells them to believe, and they are brainwashed with a warped wordlview filling them with intolerance designed primarily to preserve republican wedge issues
the problem is, now, that through the internet, the talking heads suddenly find themselves in a bigger pond, and as they struggle to cope so they're taking the republican party down with them
the republican party has to reinvent itself
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Beck preaches to his listners that the goverment is coming to get you. When he gets called on it he tries to deny the intent of his comments.
Hannity is the king of editing the Presidents statements to help spread his hate to the uneducated.
Fox is being monitored closely and it was long overdue.
Bill, that sounds a lot like condemning her.
How did Bill, another Irish Catholic end up on Fox? He'd fit like a glove at MSNBC or the Supreme Court. His paddy moralizing grates.
He thinks that Joan, another Irish Catholic (?), can be bullied by using the word condemned with its connotations of eternal damnation. Bill wants to use the Catholic doctrine as if that's the law, or oughr to be.
What Bill doesn't get is that the Catholic Church's laws are for Catholics to follow. There's nothing in the teachings that civil law is to be ignored whenever it doesn;t conform.
How easy it is to forget that the founders insisted on separation of church and state for situations just like that of Dr. Tiller.
Render unto and all that.
I did gain some additional respect for her after seeing her exchange with Bill O'Reilly.
Why I went on "The O'Reilly factor"