O'Reilly: "I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of things"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly replied to a caller who said she was
"disturb[ed]" over an email she received about Sen. Barack Obama, showing he was
"the only one with his hand not over his heart" during the "Pledge of
Allegiance," and "over the lapel pin thing," by saying,
"Well, I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of
view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of things, and he simply doesn't do it."
On the December 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Bill O'Reilly took a call from a listener who claimed she was "disturb[ed]" over an email she received about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), which showed he was "the only one with his hand not over his heart" during the "Pledge of Allegiance," and "over the lapel pin thing." She added: "I don't want an anti-American or an unpatriotic person running our country" O'Reilly replied: "Well, I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of things, and he simply doesn't do it."
The "lapel pin thing" to which the caller was apparently referring was Obama's statement in October that he had decided to stop wearing a U.S. flag lapel pin during the run-up to the Iraq war because it had become "a substitute for, I think, true patriotism." In an October 3 interview with ABC-affiliate KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Obama explained: "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism." As Media Matters for America documented, Obama's comments led conservative media figures to question whether he "believe[s] in America"; to describe him as a "domestic insurgent"; and to suggest that he has "patriotism problems."
The email the caller apparently referred to was a chain email containing a photograph that appeared in Time magazine with a caption indicating it was taken during the national anthem -- not the Pledge of Allegiance, as the caller asserted. Several commentators criticized Obama for his purported failure to place his hand over his heart during the anthem, as Media Matters noted, with one even baselessly suggesting that Obama was violating United States Code.
Later in the broadcast, another listener called in to say, "it seems to me that after I saw what was on the Internet with Obama and next to [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] -- he didn't -- everybody else put his hand over the heart to say the Pledge of Allegiance to these United States of America that we're so fortunate to live in, and he not even would place his hand over his heart." O'Reilly replied, "Well, I gotta find out about that." The caller replied, "Well, it's in the news, OK." O'Reilly then stated: "I know. But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet, Bonnie. Come on. You gotta be a consumer that's skeptical. You've gotta -- it's like -- look, just be careful of the Internet."
A separate caller subsequently told O'Reilly: "I had heard that [the photo] was actually during the national anthem, where it is not customary to place your hand over your heart." O'Reilly replied: "I always put my hand over my heart during the national anthem myself, but I know that that's not compulsory. But anyway, look, it's a little thing, I think. The bigger thing is that Barack Obama doesn't really want to answer a lot of questions. That's huge."
From the December 10 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Mandy, Portland, Oregon. What say you, Mandy?
CALLER: Hi, Bill. Thanks for taking my call.
O'REILLY: Pleasure.
CALLER: I'm calling because, at first, I was interested in Obama, but recently, over the lapel pin thing, and I had got an email where him, Hillary Clinton, and another candidate are all doing the "Pledge of Allegiance," [sic] and he's the only one with his hand not over his heart. These things disturb me. I don't want an anti-American or an unpatriotic person running our country.
O'REILLY: Well, I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of things, and he simply doesn't do it.
One of the things that I don't like about Senator Obama is that they've kept him away from everybody -- they, his handlers -- and they have. It's a strategy. It's a conscious strategy. Don't let Obama get into anywhere where he has to answer any questions that are tough. I don't like that. You know, if Giuliani can go in and sit with Tim Russert -- he knows Russert's gonna give him a hard time -- then why can't Obama come in and talk to me?
I mean, we asked him. He said he would, and he hasn't. Now, maybe, he will down the road, but, you know, look, this is -- it's unlike Hillary Clinton, who you know who she is. You know, I hope she'll come in for an interview someday; I'm not counting on it. But you know who she is. We don't know Obama. We don't know her [sic].
[...]
CALLER: Hi, avid listener, Mr. O'Reilly. Just a question. Maybe if you do get Oprah on, you could ask two things: If she admires -- well, you've mentioned you admire Oprah, and I'm questioning the fact that her special children that she has in Africa that she wants to help and everything -- what about the other 25,000 that she might have been able to get malaria meds for, to help them? And how does that make everybody else feel in the country that, you know, they're not so special --
O'REILLY: Well, but I mean, you only can do -- go ahead.
CALLER: -- and the more important point about Obama, that she is preaching on television to the black vote, as far as I'm concerned, because she placated -- that voice she pulls out every once in awhile for that audience -- seems to me that after I saw what was on the Internet with Obama and next to Hillary Clinton, and he didn't even -- everybody else put his hand over the heart to say the Pledge of Allegiance to these United States of America that we're so fortunate to live in, and he not even would place his hand over his heart.
O'REILLY: Well, I gotta find out about that.
CALLER: But he wouldn't even recite it. Well, it's in the news, OK.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I know. But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet, Bonnie. Come on. You gotta be a consumer that's skeptical. You've gotta -- you know, it's like -- look, just be careful of the Internet. I think the point you're making is -- and by the South African thing, look, you do what you can. You can't save everybody, and I think Oprah Winfrey's spent a lot of money trying to save people. So you can't disparage her because she can't do more. She's spent, you know, tens of millions of dollars trying to save people, so I respect that.
[...]
CALLER: Hey, I wanted to give you a call and just let you know, the caller that had called about Barack Obama not placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance --
O'REILLY: Right.
CALLER: I did -- I think a lot of people got that email, and I had heard that it was actually during the national anthem, where it is not customary to place your hand over your heart. So just wanted to throw that out there to you this morning, that --
O'REILLY: All right, so Pledge of Allegiance it is [sic] -- now, I always put my hand over my heart during the national anthem myself, but I know that that's not compulsory. But, anyway, look, it's a little thing, I think. The bigger thing is that Barack Obama doesn't really want to answer a lot of questions. That's huge.
HOLY MOSES!! O'Reilly complimented someone for doing something GOOD!! And I don't mean by shooting robbers... And if REALLY has a problem with Obama 'not being around to answer tough questions', then he must absolutely LOATHE the republicant runners...
The O'Reilly culture warriors are already patrolling the NYC subway trains. Evil Joos and Muzlims, submit to the will of the Christ, or face certain doom.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html
it'd be interesting to see if they actually do watch O'Reilly
Kyle,
I regard your attempt at humor as a thinly veiled bigoted statement against Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Don't you realize that making statements like that do not reflect on O'Reilly but on you?
Had you said or written your statement in a workplace, I do believe you could be prosecuted. (Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.) Lampoon O'Reilly all you want, but please do it without insulting those who have religious beliefs.
AA,
Did you even follow Kyle's link? His comments aren't anti-religious, he's pointing out the effects of O'Reilly's insistance on the dominance of Christianity at Christmas time. I don't see how anything he said is offensive in the context of his link!?
Thanks Tom Joad. AA is known for not being able to see deeper than the surface on most issues. I'm glad SOMEONE appreciated my satire.
I figured it was outrageous enough that I wouldn't have to label it </satire> or </sarcasm> but apparently some posters around here aren't bright enough to tell the difference. (I even used misspellings to try and illustrate that, but to no avail)
Kyle,
Your comment about seeing below the surface is laughable and your insensitivity is appalling. Of course it is satire. But you think putting the words in someone else's mouth absolves you of your quote? You can't see the hate and prejudice you ascribe to Christians?
You insulted the faith of millions and your misspellings added to the insults portraying Christians as illiterate.
I find it interesting but not surprising how many here on the left defended you and attack Tommy and me for stating the obvious. Religious bigotry, especially toward Christianity is on display here every practically every day. Heck Dbeden below boasts of his bigotry. Funny, not one peep from any of you (as I write this, calling him on this.)
Had you said something equally as stupid about women, blacks, gays or any other group you would have been villified here to no end.
Obviously you can say what you like. I just find comments here beneath you. Lets raise the level of discourse, not lower it with bigotted satire.
AA - I was making fun of religious fundies, which is OK. It's not OK to make fun of somebody because they are of a certain religion, because that's not a choice. However, how you observe IS a choice, and I think that the zealots need to be ridiculed from time to time. There's no satire or humor in that statement, it's the absolute truth about how I feel.
I can't be concerned with whether ALL Christians will be offended if I rail against bloviators like Bill O or some nutcase Christian punks on the subway. If you behave in a certain way, expect to be called out.
Your projection of my comments as an attack on ALL Christians, and suggestion that I refrain from attacking any Christians or Christianity at all is just the type of PC behavior that you conservatives loathe. I'm not going to mince my words so as to not hurt your feelings.
Fundamentalists of any religion are nuts, and deserve to be taken to task as much as possible.
Whatever AA, bro. His comments fit perfectly in the context of his link. I thought it was liberals who were supposed to be bleeding heart. stop being so pathetically melodramatic. its not insulting mate.
Religious bigotry is commonplace here towards Christians, towards Jews on occasion, but rarely towards Muslims - this is a bit of a suprise coming from the left. Normally they go out of their way not to insult Muslims because of the incredible tolerance they have, for at least one religion.
Tommy, I consider you a friend.
But that was the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.
Worrier, You're not serious. How many posts everyday do you see here bashing Christians and their religion? It is rarely challenged or called on to apologize. It is high-fived more often than not, and you know that.
Yet let Beck make some comment about Muslims and it's up here faster than you can shake a stick at it, with posters slamming Beck for his insensitivity.
My comments aren't directed at everyone, obviously.
Ah, the old persecuted super majority argument once again.
Even if it were true that Christians were slammed and degraded on here on a daily basis, which isn't true at all, there are more than enough Christians in the US for them to protect and huddle around one another because some scary commenter on this website might have said something bad about Christianity. God forbid we try to stand up for people who are in the minority (Muslims in the US) end of things.
That being said, myself included, there are probably a majority of Christians who post here that are also liberals. I know, shocking isn't it? Just because we don't bow down and accept everything our church leaders say, and or hold them accountable for things that may have happened on their watch, does not make us hate Christians.
Can you cite me an example of this supposedly rampant Christian hate that is posted on here so much?
no, he can't. I've never seen it. And Tommy makes the common mistake of assuming that criticism of some person or some aspect representing the mega-religion that is Christianity is equivalent to 'bashing Christians' which is an entirely superficial argument used to dominant discourse on Christianity. Much like those who think people who criticise some aspect of the United States are 'anti-American' or someone criticising apartheid and illegal occupation in Israel are 'anti-Semitic.' Don't back down from the discussion here just because people throw false accusations around.
TOMJOAD:
Correct, as usual.
The Rightwing has made their primary defense against ANY criticism, to hide behind their mommy's skirts.
If you criticize Bush, it's "WHY do you hate America?"
If you oppose melding church and state, it's "WHY do you hate God?"
If you object to Bush's war-started-for-no-good-reason, it's "WHY do you hate the Troops?"
These candy-assed cowards that call themselves Rightwingers and Republicans cannot stand their policies and decisions to ANY criticism whatsoever, so they hide behind the flag, the cross, or any suitable hiding place to protect themselves from having to take responsibility.
Not even kids are exempt. If you oppose their school "voucher" program, it's "WHY do you hate the children?"
Like terrorists, they have no compunction about hiding behind human shields.
It's because we Liberals LOVE our country, our countrymen, and our military that we LOATHE that rightwingers are busy destroying every principle upon which this nation was founded.
Impeach Bush and Cheney, NOW! Once the floodgates are open, there will be no shortage of grounds by which to remove from office, and then prosecute these malicious incompetents. America will be much better for the cleansing.
exactly. it's basically a method of shutting down the debate. Tommy has a knack for it, actually, because the discussion shifts from the substance to forcing a defense. And then every argument begins with 'I love Christians, however...' or 'America is the greatest country in the world, but...' Just that little assertion of position that simply shouldn't be necessary in any discussion between 'grown ups' lol.
I think when Tommy et al make these ridiculous accusations, it would be better to just dismiss them, because responding (which I did) lends validity to the argument, when there isnt any.
Tex: I appreciate the posts of a lot of people on this site, but I have to say, for the most part, I love your posts. You so often say what I think, only you articulate it better. Keep up the good fight.
MARK:
Thank you kindly.
You know, I consider myself to be on the left of most issues, but I'm intolerant of all religion, regardless of what it is. Religion is for the weak.
How did this thread turn into a discussion of religion?
Tommy -
That was typical of the response I would have expected from you. Thanks.
"Religious bigotry is commonplace here towards Christians"
Are you and I looking at the same forum?
I've seen plenty of criticism of those who pimp their alleged Christian values to forward their political agenda, but this criticism can hardly be considered bigotry.
This is just another weak attempt by you to condemn other posters without getting personal, enabling you to maintain a clear conscience and a squeaky clean, straight-shooter forum participant image in your own mind that you hold so dear.
Grow a pair and get specific if you're going to vilify people.
Tommy says: Religious bigotry is commonplace here towards Christians, towards Jews on occasion, but rarely towards Muslims
Hmmm, and what are the 3 top religious beliefs in this country by order of popularity? Could there be a correlation here?
Anyone who oposes organized religion generally isn't any more "bigoted" (since that's the word you choose to use) to one than the other. Could it be Christians are most commonplace posters on here, Jews on occasion , and rarely muslims?
Here's the religion flap, how can that improve on the flag pin and pledge of allegiance criticism?
I think O'Rye Cracker needs to wrap his fat head around some reporting he doesn't do and questions he doesn't ask:
One acquitted and mistrial for the six others in an FBI allegation they plotted to blow up the Chicago Sears Tower (Source: Associated Press 12/14/07, story by Curt Anderson)
1. Compounding the demolition mayhem of the WTC with a reversal on the first false alibi of aircraft impacts. Soliciting the 9-11 false pretenses in another permutation as likely or remote possibility within the accuseds' wherewithal.
2. Attempting to blame the same set of circumstances on others for a scape goat in case people might think terrorists pyrotechnically demolitioned the Twin Towers.
3. Entrapment to frame the 7 for the above two counts using a $50,000 bribe.
You can take your flag pin off now Bill, but you don't want people telling you what you can do with it.
Isn't this the same pattern we see in the destroyed CIA tapes, you know why they're defrauding the pretense of torture now don't you? It's to coerce false confessions from those they need to frame in order to cover their own crimes up. They need an acknowledged, spoken affidavit from someone they drug and beat to a pulp (just like in the movie: the good shepherd). Congress outlaws waterboarding (that's another evasion tactic to avoid impeachment) it's already got laws on the book to put away that whole administration.
The ignominy of that racist party and regime's inhamity will not stand in this America, or it will tear everything down with it.
O'Reilly is ridiculous. Now I am all for Obama being more available to interviews and tougher venues than stage appearances with Oprah, but what exactly does he need to answer questions about his "point of view on the USA"? What is O'Reilly saying? That Obama's point of view about the USA is somehow in question, or not clear.
It would be in Obama's best interest to go on an interview and blast these subtle little inferences away, once and for all.
TOMMY,
Even you have to realize that if Obama went on FOX itself and answered every single question asked of him (that Bill is refereing to) the very next show on FOX would simply claim that he was hidding something or answered in a way that was only to appease them because he happened to be there.
Thr right-wing media pundits and some of our own brainless citizens will never be happy about anyone but those that appease only them!
I don't and never have seen a gray shaded area when it comes to these people.....
There are plenty of media outlets with tough questioners other than Fox, if he chooses to ignore them that is his business.
That's what this is all about really I think. BO is mad because Obama and none of the other candidates will come on his show or Fox, so of course he hasn't answered any tough questions in BO's opinion. I guess it escapes BO that if he wasn't such an ass, maybe he'd get those interviews.
is that right? they have a policy of not engaging with fox news? thats awesome, i hope it aids in marginalising fox news.
Democrats often appear on Fox News. Bill Richardson has been on O'Reilly many times. Many of them appear on their Sunday shows, Mrs. Clinton quite recently.
ok so thats bootsy generalising. still, its probably right... everything about O'reilly points to an overinflated ego and false self importance... so it wouldn't suprise me if he lashes out ever now and then with this garbage because he feels hes being ignored.
O'Reilly often uses his "come in here and face me otherwise you are a wimp hiding under your desk" schtick.....you are right, his ego has him fooled.
i noticed in the video from yesterday's post on O'Reilly regarding criminals endorsing Edwards... even his guests were looking at him a bit funny, in a 'sandwich short of' sense. I really think Obama has too much integrity to validate O'Reilly by discussing anything with him. But that might contradict other arguments regarding the influence O'Reilly has (and thus, the relevancy of criticising and documenting his megalomaniac rants). But I think anyone who is seriously influence by what O'Reilly thinks is probably out of the Hussein Obama camp by now lol
If I remember correctly, O'Reilly cravened out on a debate challenge from George Clooney. Clooney's only ground rule was that it be held in a neutral forum. If BilldO doesn't control the mic he's not going to play. Ballsy/
Yeah I was generalizing for the most part. I'd forgotten about Bill Richardson. I do remember however BO complaining on GMA that Obama needs to come on his show and GMA and answer tough questions, even though Obama had been on GMA already. So what BO is saying now isn't surprising.
He's as arrogant as he is stupid: "if Giuliani can go in and sit with Tim Russert -- he knows Russert's gonna give him a hard time -- then why can't Obama come in and talk to me?" What kind of logic is this?
Truth and logic are not two of BO's strong points Gov!
CAPTFOSTER:
Exactly correct. The Rightwing build their narrative about each of their "enemies", and that narrative only builds ... it never backtracks.
An absent lapel pin has become a fear that Obama is a foreign agent, wishing to DESTROY America.
Everything else feeds that narrative; his middle name is ... gasp! ... the same as an Islamo-Terrorist! He wants to ... GASP! CHOKE! ... actually TALK to countries that do not believe exactly as America believes! He was trained at a "MADRASSAS" ... whatever the hell THAT is, but it sounds like a Terrorist Training Camp! And so on.
The narrative for Obama is that he cannot be trusted, is probably Anti-American, and is no doubt a mole sent to hand America over to our enemies. (Oh, and pssst! He's BLACK! Good God, "those people" hate America, don't they? At the least, they must want to get even with whitey for how we've treated them for centuries. That would be awful!)
So it's hate, fear, innuendo and invention. It's politics, rightwing style: politics of personal destruction.
You don't expect Republicans to play FAIR, do you? To be "honorable"? To back THEIR candidates on their merits? Or POLICIES? Are you MAD? The only prayer the rightwing has is to paint all competition as Bin Laden or worse (worse would be a FEMALE Bin Laden).
And spaeking of emails... I got one from the Deputy of something or another from South Africa who wants to give ME 3.5 million U.S. dollars (that is three million five hundred thousand U.S. dollars) and all I have to do is send her my resume, social security number, job status, etc..- I can't WAIT to meet her representatives when they come to America after confirming that I will be the receipient of the 3.5 million U.S. dollars (that is three million five hundred thousand U.S. dollars) minus a 30% fee to transact this deal...
Awesome, dude!
Someone sent me an email warning me about some credit card scam thing (but couldn't even spell fishing right--he spelled it "phishing!"), but I emailed him back and told him not to worry, I had just gotten an excellent offer from a Nigerian diplomat who needed to use my bank account temporarily and would reward me with over 1 million dollars. Of course, who could turn down an offer like that, so I gave him my account information and will be on easy street this season.
Actually, Pants, "phishing" is the proper term and he proper spelling. Not sure why its spelled that way ... maybe the guy who invented the term is a Phish fan or something.
I think he was being facetious, funnyman
sorry, sportsguy...I get confused cuz you can't see the other posts when you comment. Come on MMFA, update your posting capabilities!
Should't that be "Phish phan?"
When hasn't Obama answered questions? I remember reading a story, about where he was attending one of his campaign events, and outside the event, a group of folks, or a family, were protesting about his stance on abortion. What does he do? He goes to the rope line, and asks the folks what their names were, and what questions did they have for him about abortion. Now, bear in mind, he's at an event, he's supposed to be inside, he takes 15-20 minutes to stop, talk to this family about their concerns, and tries to answer their questions as best as he can. He asks the family if they want to come inside, and hear what else he has to say about his platform, and the issues. They politely decline, but when they spoke with the family later, they stated that even though they disagreed with Obama on abortion, they came away with a definite new found respect for the man to take the time to stop and talk and answer their specific questions.
Now, this isn't to say that he's doing this all of the time, because if he did, he'd never be able to get anything done, but I think it makes a point that he did do this, and he does do this. When so called journalists stop asking him stupid questions about what kind of drugs he did, and his middle name, maybe they can get to good hard questions.
And about Rudy sitting down with Russert. Old Tim didn't ask him one hard question during the entire interview, so again, O'Reilly, way off base on that one.
When so called journalists stop asking him stupid questions about what kind of drugs he did, and his middle name, maybe they can get to good hard questions.
You've got it MAGNOLIALOVER. And I haven't heard BillO even come close to explaining what he means by "a lot of things". So let's hear these piffy questions you have on "a lot of things" already BIll, instead of rehashing the same old deceptive non-issue you dreamed up a month ago and scaring away little old ladies with phony propoganda that you call "news".
This is all about Obama not appearing on O'Reilly or Fox at all really. He already stated why he doesn't wear the lapel pin Bill. I have seen Barack put his hand over his heart many times, yet the e-mail forwarding which absolutely thrives in the right wing, has this poor woman upset. Hey Bill, is it because his name is Barack Obama and not Whitey McCracker? Come on Bill, what are some of those questions you want to ask him about his point of view? You want to review Glenn Beck's interview with Keith Ellsion for some ideas? If you are not a white elitist, they don't exist.
HAHA...Whitey McCracker...my boss looked at me funny cuz I laughed so hard
It was either that one or Honk E. Whiteman.
CALLER: Hi, avid listener, Mr. O'Reilly.
.
.
.
CALLER: But he wouldn't even recite it. Well, it's in the news, OK.
More proof that Fox spreads manure and people eat it up like candy.
I'm sure BO was in a full froth over this photo as well:http://content.pyzam.com/funnypics/stupid/bush-stomach.jpg
Isn't that where Bush's heart is?
His brain's on the other side and a little lower...
Is the pic real? If so......was it:
Indigestion?
Ulcer?
Is he sick to his stomach for having to do something that resembles acting human?
"The bigger thing is that Barack Obama doesn't really want to answer a lot of questions. That's huge."
This man's paycheck should be tax-deductible.
I think O'Lielly needs to shut up. Now.
Patriotism isn't something you wear on your clothes. It's also not something that someone like O'Reilly should be defining.
A patriot doesn't hide behind his flag, a patriot stands up for his country's constitution and the freedoms granted by the constitution.
I see no patriots in the right wing media, and certainly none in the executive branch of our government.
Who the f__k is O'Reilly to question anyone's patriotism?
Mr. O'Reilly come out from behind that flag!
exactly - hand over heart, lapel, no lapel... it has nothing to do with patriotism. patriotism isn't standing up and crying at an image of the flag.
Well said, Worrierking. Symbols like lapel pins and singing the national anthem in a loud voice while putting your hand over your heart mean nothing. Any folks from the most repressive regimes on the planet can do that. What differentiates Americans, at least what should differentiate Americans, is our love of freedom, our constitution, our collective rights as citizens, and belief in the rule of law. Why is it that so many of the people who are ready to trash all that truly makes America great are the same ones wearing the lapel pins and putting their hands over their hearts during the nationa anthem?
Exactly! (from dictionary.com)...
pa-tri-ot noun
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
See, it all depends on your definition of a patriot. This is why I will let Republicans like Bill O'Reilly get away with calling themselves one. But they undoubtedly fit in definiation #2 - a person who regards himself or herself as a defender.
So what do these superficial signs or actions prove? You can do 'patriotic' things such as wearing flag pins or heart-crossing, without being a patriot - by either definition. Just like you can do moronic things without being a moron. ...Except in the case of Bill O'Reilly.
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
Oscar Wilde.
Dr. Johnson's Dictionary defines patriotism as "the last refuge of a scoundrel." Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary) says it's the first.
I'll be deploying in the near future. My wife just purchased a shirt that says "Sexually deprived for your freedom". She won't put one of those stupid yellow stickers on her car. She hates what she calls "bumper sticker patriotism".
Stay safe, NG.
If you have access, let us know how you're doing.
Thanks for your service, NGO. Be safe and come back soon. We'll be thinking of you.
NGOfficer: You got a lot goin' for you. A strong, supported, intelligent, free-minded spouse with a good sense of humor is hard to come by.:)
Remember the "patriotic" automobile decorations you saw on 50% of the cars on the road right after 9/11? I bet if The President had come out and asked the nation, as a pre-emptive fuel saving war measure, to stop driving personal vehicles except in case of emergency - you'd have then seen them on 100% of the cars on the road. LOL
Thank you for your service. It's people like you who make me proud to be an American!
Guys, Thanks for the well-wishes. I'll try to keep reading and posting while I am there.
Really, why should any candidate agree to go on a "pudit's" show to answer any questions? We hear allthe time that these "pundits"are not news people, they are opion-givers. Then why should any candidate go on a pundit's show when the pundit has no incentive or desire to do anything but push their own agends? O'Reilly has demostrated numerous times that he will frame questions unfairly, shout over anyone he disagrees with, and even cut his guests microphones, if he deems it necessary to do so. Why would anyone bother tosubject themselves to his b.s, especially when O'Reilly would just use the candidate's appearance to tout his (O'Reilly's) own importance as the show that "got such and such a candidate to appear"? What is driving O'Reilly crazy is that everyone is on to his schtick, and at this point he must get a lot of refusals to appear by all kinds of people who refuse to play his gotcha games.
any candidate with respect for the media and respect for themselves should know that the worst possible way to disseminate their message is via fox news and O'Reilly in particular. Unless they want to pull a Bill Clinton and just attack the interviewer, which I'd suggest largely for my own gratification.
Well I can't say that this is unexpected, Obama is rising in the polls and Oprah is supporting him.
What I was waiting to see was how Republican/Conservatives get their message out without actually having to express their true views. They never had to speak with the Horton ad but of course, Obama is no Horton so I guess it will be "Is he a TRUE American". Should I be surprised? Not really, this type of divisive politics is what they are best at. Next will be Limbo and Sean wondering if Obama is their really really an American, and on and on and on, all along "conservative talk radio" airwaves.
Pearlene,
This is all about O'Reilly & his frustration in not being able to lure most of the Presidential candidates to appear on his show. He can't admit that these folks don't have much use for him, so he has to make it appear they are too frightened to face him.
At the moment Obama is being treated mostly with kid gloves by Conservative/Republicans. This is, IMO, because they would rather bump Hillary out of the race.
Now IF Obama wins the nomination, I'm sure the gloves will come off.
Right now it is Hillary, not Republicans, doing the most attacks against Obama.
Jeter, you're right, Hillary is the target now but don't be fooled that republicans don't have a plan if Obama get the nomination.
Right now the Hillary discussion is about how her campaign is falling apart based on one bad debate, but if the momentum for Obama sticks then watch out Hillary takes a back seat and "Is Obama really American enough?" will come out. I'm not saying it will be racially motivated but more along the 'his father was Muslim" angle.
Help me out here, is it a State law or Federal law that says you must place your hand over your heart for the Pledge of Allegience and/or the National Anthem?
P.S. How much longer till the RWnuts start wearing flag armbands?
I've always thought the flag lapel pin was bogus. I'm not impressed by people who wear the flag lapel pin while at the same time defecating on all the flag is supposed to stand for.
Just another whine-fest from O'Reilly, who becomes more and more irrelevant and strident every day. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the "No-Spin Zone" is the biggest spin zone on TV - it's just that O'Reilly controls the spin. Obama's to be praised for declining to engage the Foxbots on their crooked playing field.
O'Reilly is just angry because no one will go on his show.
The U.S. has a former? coke head and alcoholic in the White House and Obama has to answer. C'mon O'Liely grill the shrub, tough guy...
Off the mark as per usual...
It isn't Republicans or even O'Reilly who brought up Obama's past drug use.
It was one of Hillary's supporters, Billy Shaheen up in N.H.
Hours after the Wednesday release of a CNN/WMUR poll showing Obama in a statistical tie with Clinton for the first time among New Hampshire Democratic voters, Billy Shaheen -- husband of the former governor and an influential Democrat in the Granite State who is a constant presence by Clinton's side whenever she campaigns there -- told The Washington Post that should Obama get the Democratic nomination, "one of the things Republicans are certainly going to jump on is his drug use."
Shaheen said Obama's having been so open -- as opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use during his 2000 presidential campaign -- will "open the door to further queries on the matter.
"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called the attack "desperate," and referred to a Clinton campaign attack on Obama -- who alludes to Clinton having planned for years, if not decades for her run -- for having told his kindergarten teacher he wanted to be president some day.
"Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the 'fun part' of this campaign, and now she's moved from Barack Obama's kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls," Plouffe said.
"Sen. Clinton's campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he's talked about the lessons he's learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country."
Jeter, you are right, Hillary's bringing up the drug use.
I watched Morning Joe and he was asking why her campaign would do something so dumb when she is ahead in some national polls by 30%. I'd love to ask her that same question.
I really hate to say this cause it's important to me not to sit out this election but she is staring to leave a really bad taste in my mouth, really bad.
the worst thing about it is an Obama/Hillary ticket is going to be harder to fuse if they have to attack each other to get there....
personally i'd prefer Obama/Kucinich, but thats just me...
I doubt it was ever going to be Clinton-Obama anyway.
That was as likely as Gore running for Prez again in 2008.
Obama/Biden in 2008!
Honesty, integrity, and experience
Just wait until you taste a GOP victory if the party nominates her. A Zogby poll showed that 50% would NOT vote for her. She is too polarizing, too easy to paint as an outright socialist, and she cannot garner the independent vote. She cannot win. Nominating her is giving the election to the GOP. the primary process has been hijacked by the radicals in both parties. Moderates, who make up most of this country, get left with a choice of what the ideologues choose for us. Pitiful, but it seems like I read a Zogby poll as well which showed that 60% of the people would vote for an independent if provided with that choice. This two party system which has turned into a fight between the far right and far left, leaves most in the cold. Pitiful.
Chris they said the same thing about a little known governor from Arkansas with the same name.
Don't underestimate Hillary, she smart, cunning and just as ruthless as Republicans and that's why they fear her.
Clinton never was close to Hillary's ideology. If you remember he and the Democratic Leadership Council (?) coinded the term "The Third Way" which was essentially a way to lead from the middle. It worked, that's why he won some of the southern states. He never had the polarizing force she has. Perhaps I will be wrong, but I have only voted GOP one time in, 1984, and although I can't stand the thought of doing it again, I will not vote for her. She can in no way unite this country, all we will see is four more years of this partisan war. She has a way of bringing this out of people. Nominate a winner....Biden, Dodd, Obama, Edwards. It's ours for the taking.
YES YES YES
Biden, Dodd or Obama would have this Republican/Moderate Conservative's possible vote.
Especially if Rudy gets the nod from the other side.
It's odd you cite Dodd. (I like him alot) He's probably further left than Edwards in his view of government.
Roundhouse.
Keep in mind that although I consider myself a Conservative, I'm fairly "moderate" in my views. I've read about Dodd's stand on a number of issues, & am in agreement with most. Or not strenuously opposed.
The one thing that separates him from Edwards in my mind is that I find Dodd to be authentic & genuine.
I'm alright with that. I disagree about the Edwards part. But I'm alright with that.
Yeah Roundhouse, I know you're an Edwards supporter, & believe me I've tried to warm up to the guy, but there's something about him that says phony to me. Hey I could be wrong about that, but that's just my take.
A bigger phony IMO is Huckabee. I'm not buying his aw shucks BS.
And btw, Chris I agree with your overall assessment of her high negatives and what it could mean for the 08 election. I'll be voting green or independent if Hillary gets the nomination.
She's a corporate Dem despite the socialist tag that some righties would label her. We've had enough corporate politicians.
Chris, you’re right, his governing from the middle worked but it didn't stop Republicans from hating him and trying their best to do anything to destroy him. I guess I’m hoping that she will do the same IF she gets the nomination, but that’s all I have is hope.
I’m working hard for Obama. I want someone who has not been in Washington for years and years. I want change and I think he can provide it. I also think it would send a positive message to the rest of the world about America and maybe, just maybe improve our standing.
I have never voted GOP and truly can’t stomach the party but the election is too important for me to sit out soooooo I'll have to simply work harder for Obama and hold my nose IF Hillary’s the nomination. But again it’s only Dec. 13th and anything can happen.
I kind feel like Bill Maher, if Democrats screw THIS up..... I'm not sure what I'll do.
It's always funny to me that people want to paint Hillary as some sort of socialist. She ain't even close. She's not even liberal. She's so middle of the road, it hurts. But, the media, and the republicans have painted her as some crazed hard core left winger.
Her actions, and her voting record say otherwise, and that she is indeed, NOT very liberal at all.
Nice job, Jeter, but I think we both know that the Republicans would have used this too, if Obama gets the nomination. They have a history of taking the low road - especially when they're as bereft of a positive agenda and someone to carry it forward as they will apparently be in 2008.
I don't know why Hillary has decided to be the RNC watergirl, but in a weird way, I think this actually backfires and helps Obama. It gets this issue out there now - and Obama's people have been masterful in swatting it down. When the Republican slime machine recycles it later, it won't carry much oomph at all.
Nice going, Hillary!!
Sportsguy,
How about placing the blame where it's due instead of guessing what Republicans might do. This is Hillary's crowd & has nothing to do with any Republican.
Personally I doubt the RNC would have gone after Obama for his use of drugs mainly because they'd look foolish considering Bush's past.
The RNC may be cunning, but they aren't stupid.
Jeter2:
Just curious - and I ask only because O'Reilly fails to give an example - what tough question do you think O'Reilly would ask Obama if he went on his show?
Well I'd only be mind-reading.
So I'll have to answer...I've no clue.
Jeter:
Just an opinion - no guesswork involved at all in my opinion. The Republicans really don't know how to run a positive campaign any more. . smear and fear is what these guys do.
Are you really going to try to tell me that they wouldn't have been all over the Obama drug thing, looking at past history?
Now I guess they'll just have to try to go after him on his middle name and the madrassa thing.
The Republicans really don't know how to run a positive campaign any more. . smear and fear is what these guys do.
Neither do the Clintons apparently. Again place the blame where it's deserved. You wrote earlier that Hills is the RNC watergirl, I say Bullsh#t, this lady & her staff are carrying their own water. If & when the RNC gets down & dirty, then you can holler. But for now how about admitting it's DEMOCRATIC Hillary Clinton throwing mud.
Are you really going to try to tell me that they wouldn't have been all over the Obama drug thing, looking at past history?
I already told you it was doubtful because they'd look foolish considering Bush's history with drugs. Again, they are cunning not stupid. And as it turns out a Hillary backer brought it up.
Now I guess they'll just have to try to go after him on his middle name and the madrassa thing.
Why bother? I'm sure Hillary's people will find a way to put it out there first.
Here's a newsflash for ya Dave....Democrats, or at least Clinton Democrats can play as dirty as anyone. Stop blaming Republicans for the Clinton Crew putting out smears.
Not defending Clinton, but you might be ignoring the recent history of Rove and the not so recent history of Lee Atwater.
And as far as the possibility of the RNC looking silly for going after Obama's history in light of Bush's, that never got in the way of a good smear before.
Hey Roundhouse,
I'm not ignoring Rove or Atwater or past smears, however bringing up what the Republicans might do in the future when discussing what the Clintons have done in the here & now is an attempt by Sportsguy to deflect the discussion/blame away from Hillary. Especially when he says things like Hillary is the RNC water carrier. Ridiculous! The RNC had zip, zilch, zero to do with this smear planted by a Clinton backer. Why even bring Republicans up at this juncture? It's not relevant at this time.
As far as what Republicans might do in the future, or Democrats for that matter...well they both do opposition research & I'm sure both have a dirty trick or two up their sleeve, but until we have evidence that the games have begun it's only conjecture about what exactly they'll go after.
Well, Jeter, thanks for your usual dose of snark. Pardon me for expressing an opinion. I never said Hillary wasn't doing it ... I'm an Obama supporter, anyway and not a big fan of Hillary ... so maybe you should take your Hillary bashing somewhere else. I'm sure there's plenty of demand for it.
The WAHHHH Hillary does it too defense is lame. Come on, Jeter. Surely you can do better than that.
"they'd look foolish considering Bush's history with drugs....."
When has the fear of looking foolish ever stopped these guys before? No sale. The last eight years have been pretty much full of foolishness.
"Here's a newsflash for ya Dave....Democrats, or at least Clinton Democrats can play as dirty as anyone. Stop blaming Republicans for the Clinton Crew putting out smears." ...
Thanks for the update, Jeter, but I know that. It's a big part of why the flying monkey right hates the Clintons so much ...They've routinely beaten them at their own game for 25 years and counting.
Over the years, the Republicans have routinely underestimated the Clintons and overestimated themselves. And it's happening again. They'd just love to see that kook Huckabee nominated. He's Walter Mondale with a Southern drawl.
And here's a little tip: Sarcasm is overrated. It just makes you look foolish. Try debating the issue on the merits without the smart-ass comments.
"Off the mark as per usual... It isn't Republicans or even O'Reilly who brought up Obama's past drug use. It was one of Hillary's supporters, Billy Shaheen up in N.H."
No one here claimed otherwise, but congrats nonetheless!
Congrats? For what?
I'm not trying to play a game of Gotcha! here.
Marker brought up the Obama/Drug thing, and made it sound like O'Reilly or Republicans were behind it.
I simply corrected him.
"made it sound like"?
Kinda or really?
I could have read it [Marker's post] wrong, but it doesn't change the facts that yet another attack is launched at Obama from a Hillary backer.
Although I don't think Marker was implying that, but I could be wrong
Could be I misinterpreted Marker's post but when he wrote:
coke head and alcoholic in the White House and Obama has to answer.
I figured he was bringing up this latest attack from someone backing Hillary but blaming O'Reilly somehow.
If that wasn't his intention then I apologize.
As I read it, it doesn't talk about who brought up the charges. It's just saying that Obama has to answer questions about drug use that Bush didn't.
Barack Obama is more patriotic than phony Bill who is more interested in his ratings and salary. Plus, Obama has more class than this short-tempered News Corp. boar.
I cannot imagine why the "Factor" is still the most popular show on cable news. Bill O is such a gasbag. Such an imbecile. Such a bloated idiot.
However, for some of the previous posts I just want to point out that the recent attacks on Obama were put out by Hillary Clinton staffers -
Shaheen steps down from Clinton campaign Email|Link|Comments (5) By Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor December 13, 2007 04:26 PMBy Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff
Bill Shaheen resigned today as Hillary Clinton's campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire after Clinton apologized to Barack Obama for Shaheen saying that Obama's drug experimentation as a youth would be an issue in the general election.
I really like Obama - and I'm not worried about the RNC smear machine - I'm worried about the Clinton smear machine.
HOLY MACKEREL! If the people who call into Bulluy-O's show are any indication of the level of intelligence of that 33% who love this administration, Man, are we in DEEP trouble in this country. To equate a pen worn on the lapel with being PRO American and those who don't wear one as being ANTI American is beyond moronic. As far as Obama or any of the other candidates "answering questions", well, I haven't seen too many doing that anyway. Also, I don't give a **** what Oprah thinks. I am going to vote for someone because Oprah likes them? Duh! Now, JON STEWART! That's a whole different story.
Maybe people like O'Reilly and those on the right should ask about someone's patriotism for supporting cutting military benefits, squandering a huge surplus, destroying the constitution, not letting gay citizens share in the joy of marriage, and so on and so on.
Question the patriotism of those who cannot serve the citizen, not those who don't do silly hand gestures or wear pins.
Media Pattern:
Same mawkish drills rehearsed for avoiding analysis of the great infamy: dote on the religion test, dote on someone’s flag pin or whether they hold their hand over their heart. Its the network news organizations way of preying upon the simple minded red herrings in order to defray and scuttle anything of substance people are talking about, that people want to have investigated and reported.
They do it because while they think we have to listen to them, they don't have to listen to us.
why does anyone watch the train wreck?
I think O'Rye Cracker needs to wrap his fat head around some reporting he doesn't do and questions he doesn't ask:
One acquitted and mistrial for the six others in an FBI allegation they plotted to blow up the Chicago Sears Tower (Source: Associated Press 12/14/07, story by Curt Anderson)
1. Compounding the demolition mayhem of the WTC with a reversal on the first false alibi of aircraft impacts. Soliciting the 9-11 false pretenses in another permutation as likely or remote possibility within the accuseds' wherewithall.
2. Attempting to blame the same set of circumstances on others for a scape goat in case people might think terrorists pyrotechnically demolitioned the Twin Towers.
3. Entrapment to frame the 7 for the above two counts using a $50,000 bribe.
You can take your flag pin off now Bill, but you don't want people telling you what you can do with it.
OReilley is no arbiter of good citizenship. He is a Zenephobic, racist, judgmental person who is so hateful to most people he speaks about. Even if one disagrees with someone there is a more acceptable way for one to say such things. Par for the Fox nework to have such a bigot on their network. One can almost resign thinking and just do the opposite of what OReilley suggests. OK, OK, I was just joking.