O'Reilly's no fool, he knew what he was doing and the reaction it would bring. Or is he so used to being able to say whatever he wants on Fox that it di..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The 'View' walkout

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, October 22, 2010 13:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3168
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, October 15, 2010 5:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


O'Reilly's no fool, he knew what he was doing and the reaction it would bring. Or is he so used to being able to say whatever he wants on Fox that it didn't occur to him? I'd LOVE to have been able to hear what Whoopi said, she's not one for holding her tongue! I THINK it was something along the lines of "that's bullshit"...


Quote:

“The View” has turned into quite the drama fest over the years, and Thursday’s show was no different.

The fuss this time surrounded Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly, who appeared on “The View” to talk about politics and his new book "Pinheads and Patriots.”

Before the guest segment was over, O'Reilly himself was called a pinhead by one of the hosts.


His appearance started out reasonably enough, discussing the upcoming elections. O'Reilly didn't make predictions, but called the vote a referendum on President Obama. A bit later he brought up the proposed Islamic center in New York, which is set to be built close to ground zero.

O’Reilly referred to it as a mosque and said it's inappropriate to build it there. He then added that the President's stance on the developer's right to build it and his decision not to comment on the wisdom of building it is part of the reason for what he calls a gulf between Obama and the American people.

Whoopi Goldberg asked why it would be inappropriate to build the center near ground zero, to which O'Reilly responded, "Muslims killed us on 9/11." Whoopi then lost it, and I don't know exactly what she said, because the sound dropped out a couple of times. I think it’s a safe bet that ABC's producers or censors thought what she said wasn't appropriate for a morning talk show.

Joy Behar called O’Reilly’s assertion BS and said she didn't want to sit there anymore, and then she and Whoopi walked off the set.
After Behar and Goldberg made their exit, Barbara Walters disagreed with their actions, saying they should be able to discuss things without walking away, but added that O'Reilly can't demean a whole religion based on the actions of extremists.

First he said he wasn't demeaning anyone, but then apologized "if anybody felt I was demeaning Muslims,” and Joy and Whoopi came back after that. At the commercial break, Barbara said they'd come back and discuss his book "Pinheads and Patriots" adding that it was tough to see which term was applicable to O’Reilly.

Later, Sherri Shepherd said O"Reilly was being a pinhead” because she believes he knew what he was saying when he commented that "Muslims killed us," without noting the attackers were extremists.

What do you think? Did the ladies overreact, or was Bill O'Reilly wrong in not talking about Muslim extremists?

Here comes OUR 'pinheads' to defend him: "But it WAS Muslims who killed us on 9/11!" ("killed us"? What about the Muslims who died on 9/11??


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 7:55 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
"But it WAS Muslims who killed us on 9/11!" ("killed us"? What about the Muslims who died on 9/11??


What makes you think the "us" didn't refer to the innocent Muslims killed on 9/11? Are you bias against Muslims that you naturally assume they are not "us"?

BTW, I think there were about 70 Muslims killed, along with folks from dozens of different nations.

The two ladies who walked out displayed a typical liberal political correct reaction. You can't generalize when talking about anyone who is not a Conservative Republican. For example. They say we can't say Muslims attacked us, even though all the attacks were Muslim and Muslims danced in the streets following the attacks. They can say and have said that all Tea Partiers are racist when only a small handful of persons attending any given rally display racism.

I think this is dangerous thinking. I don't like the idea of giving moderate Muslims a pass on 9/11. They don't condem the attacks or subsequent attacks and often actively support or condone terrorist activity. If the Muslims want no blame then they need to do more then keep their heads down. Between December 7, 1941 and May 8, 1945 the Japanese people could have overthrown the radical Japs responsible for the December 7 attack. They chose not to and suffered for their choices. Since 9/11 moderate Muslims could have united against and defeated, with American help, Bin Ladden and all the other radical Muslim elements inside the world Muslim community. Until they do war should and will continue, much to our regret.

As for the View, walking out is something their audience gladly does every day. Their biggest failing in my book is the inherent sexist nature of the program. The premise is we're going to be bias against men and conservatives. I think they have always been lacking a male perspective, even on the liberal side of things.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 8:23 AM

KANEMAN


I would agree that making the assumption that Muslim Americans that died on 9/11 are not included in "us" is wrong and biased. How old are you?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 8:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


According to your interpretation, one should always mention the perp's religion when decrying their actions. Yes, right now Muslim terrorists are an issue, but in your version it should be "A Christian shot the abortion doctor and Christians cheered him on". They're not representative of Christians, they're Christian fanatics...they did it in the name of their "god", supposedly, but to call them merely Christians is wrong in that it indirectly condemns all those of that faith.

As well, one would have to say "A Christian" about anyone who commits a terrorist act, whether they did it in the name of their god or not. So the IRA terrorism should be referred to as committed by "Roman Catholics". To be fair, he should have said "Al Qaeda killed us", if you compare the IRA terrorism.

It's not PC, it's about using the word "Muslim" to identify someone, and people wouldn't even think of saying "Catholics killed ___". His intent was to link the New York community center to terrorism because it's proposed by Muslims, that was obvious.

I agree walking out wasn't the answer, but no, it's not a "liberal" tactic. I seem to remember a few people refusing to continue (one woman in particular who took off her mike on Larry King's show) when they got too pissed off. It's a HUMAN response, when feelings overcome reason, and equally dumb when done by anyone. Babwa did good, in both calling them on it and calling O'Reilly on the tactic.

By the way, I don't say the Tea Party is racist, I've always said there are racist elements to the Tea Party, and I believe it's their leaders (and the politicians behind them) who use buzz words and other means to ENCOURAGE the racists among them.
Quote:

They don't condem the attacks or subsequent attacks
Oh, Jezus, here we go again. You may not have been around, but I've posted tons and tons of material about Muslims decrying, protesting and demonstrating about, and speaking up against terrorism in the name of Islam. They don't get media play, is the problem, but your statement is wrong. Moderate Muslims, prominent Muslims and everyday Muslims speak up every DAY.

Maybe I should put up a post every day about protests by Muslims against terrorism; I kinda thought once we'd gone through that we'd had done with it, but apparently not.

As to the View, I don't watch it. I see clips occasionally, which have given me little respect for the show. As to male perspective...I think you're showing a double standard, in that many political shows are almost exclusively, OR exclusively, male. I see nothing wrong with an all-female political show...and it's not even that, from what little I've seen. If they represent an anti-male perspective, I think that's wrong, but it's not up to me to say.

The "dangerous thinking" you claim is, to me, not so much dangerous as an effort to bring some sanity to the discussion, to view terrorists AS terrorists, not condemn a whole religion. If you wish to do so, that's your right, but it's not accurate.

Of COURSE neither the Japanese nor the Muslim community raised up against their leaders, any more than Germans did. It's not in the nature of a population to rise up against their worst aspects. For one thing, they're usually brainwashed into thinking they're in the right and the other side is "evil"...just as we do. For another, they're not organized, and what happens outside one's country isn't as given to riling up a population as what directly affects them. Here in America we DO protest, but we don't overthrow our government for invading sovereign states or deposing governments, so what's our excuse?

Yes, Iran is a theocracy, and religion is intertwined with everyday life among Muslims; that doesn't make all the millions of Muslims around the world terrorists, nor should they be inferred to be such. There is no connection between a community center in New York and the terrorists committing atrocities around the world, in fact exactly the opposite was intended, but the mood of the country currently is to hate all things Muslim, which O'Reilly and his cronies at Fox are playing on really well. I'm glad he was called on it, and I'm glad he apologized.

I would be pissed all to hell if some radical buddhist group (and there are a couple) bombed a building and people ran around saying "buddhists bombed that building".

Can you see past any bias you might harbor to understand what I'm saying?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 9:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


By the way, O'Reilly's use of "us" was intended to make the distinction between "us" and "them", which should have been obvious to anyone aware of his entire manner of speaking. It's the same as his saying "Muslims killed us"...it's using verbiage to manipulate the audience. A transparent tactic, having nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

And, just 'cuz I love language, please note that "bias" is a noun, "biased" is a verb. We don't "bias" something, we "are biased against" or "have a bias against" something.

Go ahead and snark, Kane; in my opinion it does no harm to try to help educate people about their own language. It's not a diss, it's information.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 9:33 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
According to your interpretation, one should always mention the perp's religion when decrying their actions. Yes, right now Muslim terrorists are an issue, but in your version it should be "A Christian shot the abortion doctor and Christians cheered him on". They're not representative of Christians, they're Christian fanatics...they did it in the name of their "god", supposedly, but to call them merely Christians is wrong in that it indirectly condemns all those of that faith.

As well, one would have to say "A Christian" about anyone who commits a terrorist act, whether they did it in the name of their god or not. So the IRA terrorism should be referred to as committed by "Roman Catholics". To be fair, he should have said "Al Qaeda killed us", if you compare the IRA terrorism.

It's not PC, it's about using the word "Muslim" to identify someone, and people wouldn't even think of saying "Catholics killed ___". His intent was to link the New York community center to terrorism because it's proposed by Muslims, that was obvious.

I agree walking out wasn't the answer, but no, it's not a "liberal" tactic. I seem to remember a few people refusing to continue (one woman in particular who took off her mike on Larry King's show) when they got too pissed off. It's a HUMAN response, when feelings overcome reason, and equally dumb when done by anyone. Babwa did good, in both calling them on it and calling O'Reilly on the tactic.

By the way, I don't say the Tea Party is racist, I've always said there are racist elements to the Tea Party, and I believe it's their leaders (and the politicians behind them) who use buzz words and other means to ENCOURAGE the racists among them.
Quote:

They don't condem the attacks or subsequent attacks
Oh, Jezus, here we go again. You may not have been around, but I've posted tons and tons of material about Muslims decrying, protesting and demonstrating about, and speaking up against terrorism in the name of Islam. They don't get media play, is the problem, but your statement is wrong. Moderate Muslims, prominent Muslims and everyday Muslims speak up every DAY.

Maybe I should put up a post every day about protests by Muslims against terrorism; I kinda thought once we'd gone through that we'd had done with it, but apparently not.

As to the View, I don't watch it. I see clips occasionally, which have given me little respect for the show. As to male perspective...I think you're showing a double standard, in that many political shows are almost exclusively, OR exclusively, male. I see nothing wrong with an all-female political show...and it's not even that, from what little I've seen. If they represent an anti-male perspective, I think that's wrong, but it's not up to me to say.

The "dangerous thinking" you claim is, to me, not so much dangerous as an effort to bring some sanity to the discussion, to view terrorists AS terrorists, not condemn a whole religion. If you wish to do so, that's your right, but it's not accurate.

Of COURSE neither the Japanese nor the Muslim community raised up against their leaders, any more than Germans did. It's not in the nature of a population to rise up against their worst aspects. For one thing, they're usually brainwashed into thinking they're in the right and the other side is "evil"...just as we do. For another, they're not organized, and what happens outside one's country isn't as given to riling up a population as what directly affects them. Here in America we DO protest, but we don't overthrow our government for invading sovereign states or deposing governments, so what's our excuse?

Yes, Iran is a theocracy, and religion is intertwined with everyday life among Muslims; that doesn't make all the millions of Muslims around the world terrorists, nor should they be inferred to be such. There is no connection between a community center in New York and the terrorists committing atrocities around the world, in fact exactly the opposite was intended, but the mood of the country currently is to hate all things Muslim, which O'Reilly and his cronies at Fox are playing on really well. I'm glad he was called on it, and I'm glad he apologized.

I would be pissed all to hell if some radical buddhist group (and there are a couple) bombed a building and people ran around saying "buddhists bombed that building".

Can you see past any bias you might harbor to understand what I'm saying?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off






No. I am unaware of the Vaitican or any major christian church calling for a crusade against non-christians. Understand that I do not believe in any god. I do see the difference in these religions. One IS the religion of peace...the other? not so much. That you fail to see the difference , shows you are either stupid or a fool.

If the dali lama called for the deaths of others. People would say......

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 9:40 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
By the way, O'Reilly's use of "us" was intended to make the distinction between "us" and "them", which should have been obvious to anyone aware of his entire manner of speaking. It's the same as his saying "Muslims killed us"...it's using verbiage to manipulate the audience.


Actually I think his use of the term goes farther then what any of us has mentioned.

Watch the clip. When he says "Muslims killed us" I think we are getting a rare glipse at how very deep a connection he feels to 9/11. I think that he feels personally attacked by what happened, like he was in the building himself. I think this is reflective of most Americans...which is why the line drew substantial and spontanious audience applause.

In a way we were all in those buildings on 9/11 and a part of all of us was killed. Time changes things and some people find it easy to forget what that morning felt like and the anger we all felt after, but I think 70% of Americans would agree with me...we were all in those buildings, the mosque is legal and Constitutional and dead wrong to build it there, and we're sick and tired of having to kowtow to the hurt feelings of (insert offended group here) who don't give a frack about how we feel.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 10:26 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I think it's refreshing to see some of these hate spouting gits get at least SOME evidence that not everyone is willing to tolerate their bullshit - he was HOPING they would cut his mike or something, so he could whinge and whiiiine about how unfair it was, how persecuted he is... you know, like them types do, when you call them out on their shit.

But no, Whoopi and this other lady decided fine, fuck it, he might have a right to say that shit, but no one says I gotta listen to it, and off she went, depriving him of any excuse to whine, and of the ability to spout his vile verbiage at her - and you know what it reminded me of ?

Arthur Ashe walking out on Ilie Nastase
Quote:

In 1975, Arthur Ashe played against Ilie Nastase in the Masters tennis games in Stockholm, Sweden. Nastase was out of control. He delayed the game. He called Ashe bad names.

Finally, Arthur Ashe put down his tennis racket and walked off the tennis court. He said, "I've had enough. I'm at the point where I'm afraid I'll lose control. " The officials were shocked; Ashe was winning the game. One official told him he would lose if he walked out of the game. Ashe said, "I don't care. I'd rather lose that than my self-respect. "


Free speech, sure - but when you start spouting hate, intolerance, and malice, or in this dweebs case, stupidity...

Nothin says I gotta listen to you, and no, I do NOT agree with that whole "we should be able to..." - no, fuck that, I REFUSE to countenence hate, I won't take that shit from Muslims, from Christians, Pundits, ANY-BODY, ok, and just cause "70% of americans" (A figure pulled out of his ass, and a blatant lie besides) believe something doesn't give any automatic rollback of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Cause that, in the end, is what this is about, pricks like this guy wanting to deny rights to others while having their own respected, no different, nor any better, than Fred Phelps or any of these radical Tali-tubbies, none of whom I have a single ounce of respect for.

But I *do* have respect for the folk who finally showed this asshat that his behavior is intolerable, and they *can* and *will* choose not to put up with it.
"You know what, I don't wanna be in the same room with you."
That, I can understand, that, I can respect - especially in the face of a punk who would prefer anyone who isn't just like him be killed, and doesn't even have the balls to say it plainly.

I like Whoopi - might not agree with her on everything, but she has the nerve to bust some chops when they need bustin, cause she salvoed Pat Robertson pretty good too.



And yanno, if anyone ever asked her, she'd be just as quick to tear a strip off those radical asshats over the water too, cause hate is hate, and just because some wound up nitwits want someone to blame other than themselves, or just wanna hurt someone, anyone, to ease their own pain - and play along with this shit...

Doesn't justify it, nor does it make it right.

So I am pleased by this - anyone who thinks they're completely in the right all the time damn well OUGHT to, every once in a while, run into someone willing to tell them "Yanno what, I don't have to stand here and listen to your bullshit." just to let them know, they'll NEVER have everything their way.

-Frem


I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 10:46 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

The two ladies who walked out displayed a typical liberal political correct reaction. You can't generalize when talking about anyone who is not a Conservative Republican. For example. They say we can't say Muslims attacked us, even though all the attacks were Muslim and Muslims danced in the streets following the attacks. They can say and have said that all Tea Partiers are racist when only a small handful of persons attending any given rally display racism.



So you're a liberal then?

You DO realize that you just made several gross generalizations in that one single paragraph, right?

Oh, and is O'Reilly a liberal too? He stormed out of an interview with NPR's Terry Gross in 2003, when she asked him about yelling "SHUT UP!" at his guests, which he denied. She then played a tape of him doing it, repeatedly, to several guests, at which point he got up and ran away.



The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 11:52 AM

WHOZIT


It was staged, they were going to walk out on him no matter what. It's good thing Rosie's gone, she mite have ate him.



Those arn't boobs, they're lies! - Stewie Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 1:39 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'm a bit surprised Whoopi fell for that bait O'Reilly set, she usually shows more intelligence than that. Joy? Not so much.

Still, Bill must have been taking lessons from Newt on how to insert foot into mouth.

He should have clarified his point, ( that's right, I'll say it, not ALL Muslims are evil ) and then he pulled the phony " I'm sorry for anyone who got upset " non - apology apology. I hate that crap, when ever anyone does it.

But note how the gals got all fussy at the crowd reaction - THEIR crowd, as they approved of what O'Reilly said. His point, though poorly presented, was valid. And everyone knows it. Even Joy and Whoopi.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 2:24 PM

WHOZIT


Joy and Whoopie SHOULD have walked out, then kept on walking untill they got to the East River, then jumped into the East River, then their bodys were never found.....funny?




Those arn't boobs, they're lies! - Stewie Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 2:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Joy and Whoopie SHOULD have walked out, then kept on walking untill they got to the East River, then jumped into the East River, then their bodys were never found.....funny?



I'd be fine if Whoopi used Joy as a flotation device, though by the looks of both of them....

Buoyant, Very Buoyant.



"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 2:49 PM

CHRISISALL


Pinheads inevitably *prick* people.

Hate is WHAT the evil ones want to provoke.
O'Dummy is playing into it.

The cycle never ends that way.

BTW, Hero, you are so shallow. Chrisisall, October 2010.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 3:35 PM

DREAMTROVE


I saw that earlier. The sad thing is that the left doesn't recognize when they just got pwned.

Here's a tip: The person who stays calm wins.
The person who loses their cool loses.

I watched Reid vs. Angle also

Here's another: The person who brings up questions wins, the one who dodges questions loses

Not taking sides, but seriously, attacking Bill O'Reilly is a sign that you've aimed your weapon in the wrong direction. He's pretty moderate. A lefty who can't tolerate O'Reilly is sending a message "I'm completely unreasonable and will never be satisfied, please don't try to compromise on my behalf."

Yeah, I don't agree with everything Bill says, hell, I don't agree with half of it. But he's hardly the hellfire of rightwing lunacy.

Attack Rush or Beck if you want to paint us as loons. Hell, we have plenty of loons.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 3:40 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Yeah, I don't agree with everything Bill says, hell, I don't agree with half of it. But he's hardly the hellfire of rightwing lunacy.


Actually, you make a great point here, Dream.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 4:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Nope, I don't buy it - tolerance for them and their hate, malice, and generally vile behavior is what got us INTO this fucking mess.

You gotta draw the line somewhere.

I also take some issue with loss of cool being the end of an engagement, cause when I blow a gasket, it usually the other guy who winds up wishin they'd stood in bed - sometimes rage is entirely appropriate.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 4:21 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I also take some issue with loss of cool being the end of an engagement, cause when I blow a gasket, it usually the other guy who winds up wishin they'd stood in bed - sometimes rage is entirely appropriate.


I don't disagree with any particular point.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 7:19 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Originally posted by DreamTrove:

Quote:

Here's a tip: The person who stays calm wins.
The person who loses their cool loses.



But they didn't lose their cool.

They calmly walked out and calmly communicated their counterpoint with their body language: "I choose not to tolerate this level of hatefulness and bigotry."



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 9:17 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


Quote:

that's right, I'll say it, not ALL Muslims are evil
Hooray!!!

And, Kane, Christianity is NOT even close to the religion of peace. I'd give that to Buddhism.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 9:57 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I saw that earlier. The sad thing is that the left doesn't recognize when they just got pwned.

Here's a tip: The person who stays calm wins.
The person who loses their cool loses.

(...)

Not taking sides, but seriously, attacking Bill O'Reilly is a sign that you've aimed your weapon in the wrong direction. He's pretty moderate. A lefty who can't tolerate O'Reilly is sending a message "I'm completely unreasonable and will never be satisfied, please don't try to compromise on my behalf."

Yeah, I don't agree with everything Bill says, hell, I don't agree with half of it. But he's hardly the hellfire of rightwing lunacy.

Attack Rush or Beck if you want to paint us as loons. Hell, we have plenty of loons.

DT, you may be seeing this incident through a sexist lens. You may argue that the world is a sexist place and, therefore, the ladies here "lost" the argument by the sexist rules of the world and you're just reporting it, but I think you endorse those rules, at least just a little.

What rules? Well, the rule that says showing emotion is weakness, to start with (and a whole bunch of corollaries describing typically female expression and experience as definitively inferior to more typically masculine ones).

The one (man) who doesn't get upset wins? By your reckoning, I doubt Bill could have done anything but pwn talking to the "hysterical" denizens of The View. As CTS notes, there was no attack on Bill (beyond the initial expletive, of course). I think your conservative values may be getting in the way of seeing what actually happened.
Quote:

A lefty who can't tolerate O'Reilly is sending a message "I'm completely unreasonable and will never be satisfied, please don't try to compromise on my behalf."
Replace the word "lefty" with "woman" and you may see what I'm getting at. I think you misunderstand (choose to ignore?) some pretty basic touchstones of female culture.

I think you may be demonstrating why so many women vote Democratic year after year.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 10:13 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


What makes you think the "us" didn't refer to the innocent Muslims killed on 9/11? Are you bias against Muslims that you naturally assume they are not "us"?

To be sure: This is Bill O'Reilly saying "us" - now that means something.


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 15, 2010 11:04 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


You know DT, I thought about it and it actually makes sense:

_________________________________________________
Here's another: The person who brings up questions wins, the one who dodges questions loses
__________________________________________________

I recently saw a portion of the debate with Coons v. Christine O'Connell and you are absolutely correct.

She dodged!

http://www.newser.com/story/102858/odonnell-blanks-on-court-cases-in-d
ebate.html


Otherwise she's a better study than Sarah Palin.
It's funny though, she's a Tea Party candidate but she sounds an awful lot like a republican regurgitating the party line - Dems messed up the economy, responsible for unemployment, cronism in Washington. The only thing left is for her to yell - YEEEEEEHHaaaaaa! I'm a maverick.


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:

Quote:

Here's a tip: The person who stays calm wins.
The person who loses their cool loses.



But they didn't lose their cool.

They calmly walked out and calmly communicated their counterpoint with their body language: "I choose not to tolerate this level of hatefulness and bigotry."




Ha ha. I encourage you to re-watch the video. Watch the faces of Joy and Whoopi. Listen to the first thing Whoopi says after Bill says it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. Much of her reply is bleeped out.

That ain't calm and collected.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 6:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hero: I remember all too vividly where I was and how I felt on 9/11. It doesn’t mean I demonize an entire religion people believe in and never will. I hold to account the people who committed the act. I refuse to condemn more than them and their brainwashing leaders. And yes, I recognize that I’m among the minority, given what I see happening every day.

However, I do think that’s a good point about O’Reilly taking it personally and many in the country feeling the same. Nonetheless, think about this: After Bush made his plea that we not blame all Muslims, you didn’t see the uprising in the country you do now. After a Black President came along and the Right started fanning the flames of “he’s a terrorist sympathizer”, “He’s Muslim” and all the rest of their crock of shit, look what’s happening. That speaks eloquently to me.

As I said, were I to hear claims that “Buddhists did ___”, I would be as offended as any Muslim is about O’Reilly’s comments. I think it was wrong, and I maintain that either he’s so accustomed to saying whatever idiocy he wants that it was reflexive of him to do so, and/or that, like the rest of his ilk, he finds it effective to fire the flames of anti-Muslim thinking. And yes, I noted immediately the applause at his remark, and it saddened me. I don’t know whether the equivalent applause both for the walkout, for Babwa’s castigation of both, and for his subsequent apology represents people thinking twice or just visceral response, but it’s the first which represents what’s happening in America today, for me.

Unfortunately, Frem, he didn’t pull the 70% out of his ass. The figure has been written about and spoken about frequently as a reason not to put up the community center, and is probably accurate. Unfortunately. People are fired up and scared by all that’s happened/is happening in America today; they need someone to hate, and it’s being pretty evenly divided between Muslims and Obama, thanks to the buzz words and manipulation of people like Fox News and Republican politicians.

And I don’t agree with the walking out. I’d rather have seen them shut up and let Babwa restore order, then say exactly what she did.

Me, I LOVE The Whoops, and have since she came on the scene. Her standup routines, in which she portrays everything from a Valley Girl to an addict visiting the shrine to Ann Frank, are amazing. She has her flaws, unquestionably, but I do admire her brains and her ability to tell it like it is, and damn the consequences...especially given she’s right more often than not. First time I’ve seen her in ages, however, and it struck me: damn, she’s gotten fat, what a shame!

Yes, it IS a joke to see “You can't generalize when talking about anyone” used, given all the generalizations about liberals made by EVERYONE seriously on the right, be it here or on TV or in politics or whenever/whenever, and that the statement itself is a perfect example of just that. Why does nobody recognize all sides do that, and just shut up about it, rather than protesting some kind of “holier than thou” stance as if they didn’t do it too?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 7:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well said, Raptor, and I agree...except I didn’t see any reaction by them to the audience applauding his remark, Actually, and personally, I attribute it to what I said above, not actual agreement with what O’Reilly said. An unthinking response, with a later attempt to nullify it by applauding both the walkoff and Babwa’s subsequent comments. To me it kind of reflects what’s going on right now; if you dismissed the hard-core Muslim haters, I think a lot of Americans would be ashamed of their reactions if they were talked to calmly and made to see the wrongness of blaming all Muslims for anything. You know, the old saying about individuals vs. mob mentality...

DT, also well said for the most part. I do recognize, as Jon Stewart did in his interview, that O’Reilly represents the “moderate” voice...tho’ as he also said, “that’s not saying much”. But O’Reilly was there, he made the statement, so he’s responsible for it. I in NO way demean O’Reilly’s intelligence; he’s one bright cookie and knows how to play the game and where to aim his shots, but I really think this wasn’t thought out, any more than the walkout was; I think it was O’Reilly being accustomed to saying such things and Joy and Whoopi not being sensible. Babwa had it right, in both instances.

CTTS, if I recall correctly, Joy DID say something along the lines of “I won’t stay here and tolerate...” I think walking out was stupid and made them look as bad as O’Reilly, but I definitely don’t think it was planned, as some others do. And no, I didn’t see it as calm and collected, for sure. Yes, they didn’t scream at him, they just walked out, but their walking out definitely made the point of anger beyond self-control as well as any words would have.

Cav, a very pertinent point. How many times is a woman expressing emotion dismissed with “it must be her time of the month” or something, and her point completely dismissed as a result...AND the people being addressed laughing, as well? While I don’t think that was the intention of the statement, it is valid in this world. Until the day (if ever) that women’s anger can be seen as validly as men’s, we won’t progress.

By the way, NEAT discussion. With a couple of obvious exclusions, I love hearing people debate like this without going personal, extreme or obscene!

Oh kriste, Kane, get off it.
Quote:

I am unaware of the Vaitican or any major christian church calling for a crusade against non-christians.
Again, go back to the Crusades, which were exactly that; to witchcraft (which, whatever the motives of those who led it, WAS put forth as a crusade against "non-christians"), the inquisition, or, more recently, Bush SPECIFICALLY calling it a crusade. I wish we could put that one to rest; all religions have called for vendettas against other than their own religion, it is the mark of a religion.

Your caveat "MAJOR" means nothing; religion is acted on by people, a specific call from the leadership isn't needed, inference works just as well, as does brainwashing and manipulation. And I'm curious...are you saing that if the Dali Lama called for the deaths of non-buddhists, people would say "buddhists killed ___", but that when anti-abortionists kill and applaud the killing of doctors, it's not okay to say "Christians killed ___", but it's okay for any other religion? By the way, thank you Dmann, for giving buddhism the award for being less violent. But it's not a religion, tho' unfortunately called such all the time; it's a philosophy.

Which brings up an interesting point; WHY is buddhism made out to be a religion, when it's not? We don't "worship" anything; we believe in a set of tenants, yet even buddhists, when asked what religion they are, say "buddhist". Is it that a philosophy can't be accepted IN PLACE of a religion, so has to be seen as a religion? Or something else? Just occurred to me to wonder.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:32 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
CTTS, if I recall correctly, Joy DID say something along the lines of “I won’t stay here and tolerate...” I think walking out was stupid and made them look as bad as O’Reilly, but I definitely don’t think it was planned, as some others do. And no, I didn’t see it as calm and collected, for sure. Yes, they didn’t scream at him, they just walked out, but their walking out definitely made the point of anger beyond self-control as well as any words would have.

Sounds to me like they conducted themselves as good buddhists might, actually. I'm serious. It is entirely appropriate to walk away when your anger is too intense to control otherwise. What you seem to be arguing, and falling into the same anti-emotional trap as DT in the bargain, is that they SHOULD NOT HAVE FELT the anger, and that is a fundamentally disrespectful conclusion to draw. You weren't there. You didn't have to sit next to Mr. Falafel and listen to his oily prevarications. What are we humans to do when confronted with bilious, smirking hate? When we are confronted by our own unasked for and unforeseen strong emotion in response to remorseless contempt? Y'know, what are we supposed to do, Nik? Bill's had months and months to consider his stance on the community center and he framed the discussion exactly as he wanted to--it was a set up and a deeply ugly distortion. You think ANYONE there was gonna make the man see reason? Not a chance.

I don't see Barbara's tepid "polite" discourse as the solution. She tells us, "You have just seen what should not happen," vividly laying blame at the feet of her cohosts and they are called to sheepishly return to the site of their, to my mind, entirely appropriate outrage and be further humiliated, all but silenced. I think walking off that stage was the sanest thing they could have done under the circumstances and I'm a little disgusted with Barbara's high handed denunciation of the women when the pig O'Reilly is sitting there to gloat.

O'course, these shouting-match style shows have never made a lick o' sense to me. Stepping on that stage in the first place is questionable in my book.
Quote:

DT, also well said for the most part. I do recognize, as Jon Stewart did in his interview, that O’Reilly represents the “moderate” voice...tho’ as he also said, “that’s not saying much”. But O’Reilly was there, he made the statement, so he’s responsible for it. I in NO way demean O’Reilly’s intelligence; he’s one bright cookie and knows how to play the game and where to aim his shots, but I really think this wasn’t thought out, any more than the walkout was; I think it was O’Reilly being accustomed to saying such things and Joy and Whoopi not being sensible. Babwa had it right, in both instances.
I don't think Bill-O was there speaking as a "moderate," I think he was there in his capacity as "asshole." You walk right into DT's trap, when you let him frame the discussion as a partisan conflict. It renders emotion exterior to the issue at hand: Bill's not being a racist dipshit, he's being "opinionated." Joy and Whoopi aren't reacting to his inhumanity, they're being "lefties" and "attacking" the "moderate." The women react to his dipshitery and are condemned for their getting emotional about a simply partisan difference of opinion--see how it goes? The next step is for DT to tell you that Joy and Whoopi walked off, not because Bill was being a hateful pig, but because "they didn't agree with what he had to say" which leads nicely into the thoroughly disingenuous, "Niki, why can you hates the free speech so much???"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:05 PM

TRAVELER


I have to agree. There are times I get so angry that I have to walk away before I say something that will only make it worse. The action of these two women is mild compared to the rantings that Bill has thrown at some of his guests.
I would also add that Bill sees himself as always right and it took that step, of walking out, to show Bill that he had gone to far. As has been said here, Bill is intellegent, so he new exactly what he was saying. Being a commentator, Bill knows how to pick his words. That is what he is paid for. His comment is deliberate hate and his apology is hot air.


http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


the View drives me crazy. They all talk over the top of one another.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:11 PM

RIVERLOVE


O'Reilly behaved poorly on the show.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:30 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Sounds to me like they conducted themselves as good Buddhists might, actually.

Right on.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 2:04 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


I'm using religion in a general sense (**salutes**) in that it's a system of beliefs used a guide for the way people run their lives rather than a belief in any specific diety. (I know that's not technically correct, but it's just easier to call them all religions than start calling some "philosophies".) It's the same thing for Confucianism and Taoism.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Sounds to me like they conducted themselves as good buddhists might, actually. I'm serious. It is entirely appropriate to walk away when your anger is too intense to control otherwise. What you seem to be arguing, and falling into the same anti-emotional trap as DT in the bargain, is that they SHOULD NOT HAVE FELT the anger, and that is a fundamentally disrespectful conclusion to draw. You weren't there. You didn't have to sit next to Mr. Falafel and listen to his oily prevarications. What are we humans to do when confronted with bilious, smirking hate? When we are confronted by our own unasked for and unforeseen strong emotion in response to remorseless contempt? Y'know, what are we supposed to do, Nik? Bill's had months and months to consider his stance on the community center and he framed the discussion exactly as he wanted to--it was a set up and a deeply ugly distortion. You think ANYONE there was gonna make the man see reason? Not a chance.

I don't see Barbara's tepid "polite" discourse as the solution. She tells us, "You have just seen what should not happen," vividly laying blame at the feet of her cohosts and they are called to sheepishly return to the site of their, to my mind, entirely appropriate outrage and be further humiliated, all but silenced. I think walking off that stage was the sanest thing they could have done under the circumstances and I'm a little disgusted with Barbara's high handed denunciation of the women when the pig O'Reilly is sitting there to gloat.


Amen, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Tolerance for other people, fine - tolerance for pure, vile, vicious hatred and the inevitable violence, social, emotional, and physical it causes ?

Like bloody hell - and imposing that kind of "tolerance" by force and threat is an evil act in my book, a word I never use lightly, because by forcing someone to listen to that kind of foulness, you abuse them in a way you should not.

And yeah, I'm pretty sure some level of "force" was involved, probably by threatening their continued employment, and think about what THAT says about these hateful asshats and the power they have, use, and abuse in the name of tolerance... of what ?

Hate.

Fuck that noise, that's where I draw the line.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2010 8:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


“What are we supposed to do?” That’s not for me to say, Cav, I can only say how I view what happened and what my opinion is. My opinion is that Babwa should have stopped the discussion the instant he said “Muslims killed us...” and called him on it, just as she eventually did. Me, I’d have added a few remarks about buzz words and manipulation, but that’s just me.

To have them walk out, TO ME, is exactly the sort of thing he was seeking, and which allows his Fox audience types to say “See, they can’t take the heat, so they just run away”. Yes, absolutely, when anger is such that we can’t control it, leaving is best. No argument whatsoever there.

I also viewed their return as their having made the statement, the protest, and now being willing to return to the discussion when he apologized (as much as he ever would). I didn’t view it as them having been castigated, and I CERTAINLY don’t view it as pressure involving their employment having been put on them! Like I said, I don’t watch the View, but I’m guessing from the clips I’ve seen that nobody’s gonna threaten any of those ladies for expressing her view, whether by arguing, yelling OR walking off. I don’t know how it works, but if like other such shows, they could have returned for the rest of the show after O’Reilly left, which would have left them free to further remark on the issue without him stirring up trouble. I think once they walked off, their doing so did cause a break in the flow and thereby gave Barbara the opportunity to speak and be heard, and I think her saying “we should be able to...” was a good reflection of a reasonable attitude which says “we “liberals” are wiling to use self-control and debate, rather than fly off the handle”, which anyone who knows O’Reilly might have seen as a good comparison to HIS inability to utilize self-control..

I’d have LOVED to have someone point out the manner in which O’Reilly’s choice of words L(on that and other things) were specifically chosen for a reason and what that reason is. It might have educated just a COUPLE of women (since I assume their audience is vastly female) to hear Fox News’ bullshit with new “ears” as it were. Whether his remarks were deliberately intended to spike emotions (which is probably the best guess) or a reflection of his being used to spout that shit and forgetting he’d get called on it there, I can’t say. But to let him trigger you is very similar to people here getting triggered into climbing into the gutter by the absurd claims made by those who want to trigger them.

As such, absolutely Traveler, even their walking off, especially with Barbara’s subsequent remarks, were examples which could be used to good results in comparing them to the idiocy and rantings on Fox...and I’d like to have seen both pointed out as such. O’Reilly may be the “moderate” voice on Fox, but that still makes him a raving bigot and manipulator. And absolutely his non-apology was pre-planned in case anything went wrong on ANY subject, it is the modus operandi of the type he represents. “I apologize IF my remarks...” meant to mean “there’s nothing wrong with what I said, but if you’re such hypersensitive wooses...” Would have been nice to have Barbara or someone else stop him THERE, too, and say it wasn’t just Muslims who were offended, any thinking, civilized person would have been.

Yes, I don’t watch those shows largely for that reason, that they turn into an incoherent babble. I turn Chris Matthews off for the same reason; I despise his habit of asking a guest a question then giving his own opinion right over whatever they say, etc. It’s a waste trying to hear what anyone’s saying at that point.

Oh, definitely O’Reilly wasn’t speaking as a moderate on The View. He was the only one there, no comparisons could be made to more fiery rhetoric, so he was free to be the ONE expressing it He was definitely there to be the asshole, and if possible to trigger some kind of lack of self-control in one or another of the others.

You see, their walking off DID lead to the excuse that they did so
Quote:

not because Bill was being a hateful pig, but because "they didn't agree with what he had to say"
You read it right here, an you can be sure it was said by others, and might even appear on Fox as such. The ability to stop everything at that moment and call him on it succinctly and clearly would have been so much more impactful, and left the Fox News folks with nothing to twist to their own uses.

If there is no option but absenting oneself in the face of such things, yes, I firmly believe it is the right thing to do. I guess I just wish there was an alternative which could be used to better effect.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2010 8:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Dmaan, that makes sense. And certainly when speaking, it’s easier to lump them together and leave out the deity thing, that may well be the explanation I was looking for. The fact that a deity is missing in those philosophies does become irrelevant, in that it’s more complicated to say “religions like... and philosophies like ...” Thank you.

Frem, I wouldn’t have seen their not walking out as tolerance...I would have hoped that one or the other stopped the discussion and said just what Barbara did (and a little more, if it were my decision). I think calmly pointing out the wrongness of his statement, and (wishfully) then showing what a perfect example it is of what his intentions were, MIGHT have gone a long way toward making SOME people think a bit when they heard such outrageous statements.

I don’t for one minute believe there was any threat or force used, either to make them NOT walk off or to make them come back. I think they’re free to do either, but I think walking off is easily made to be viewed as “running away” because they couldn’t deal with the statement.

Mostly, I’d have loved to see Barbara (or any of them) say “Stop” and dealt with it as Barbara did, without any allowing of interruption...and I wish to hell she’d said “Listen to me, you will learn something” just as the O’Reilly did at one point. It would have been an excellent counter-point to his condescension, and further possibly worked its way into one or two brains to SEE his condescension for what it was.

Anger in response to idiocy usually doesn’t work...it makes the “victim” of the anger look more reasonable and the one who is angry look like the one out of control. UNQUESTIONABLY, given the hullabaloo that followed his comments, if that had continued it would have served NO purpose. But if someone had stopped everything right then and addressed it, without saying anything nasty or walking off, I think it would have been ten times as effective.

Upon thinking about it, and given I don’t know the show, can anyone tell me if walking off has been done before? It’s interesting to contemplate if that is something they planned to do when he got too far out, AS a way of stopping everything so a rational statement could be made calling him on his bigotry. Just a thought, but just as O’Reilly had plenty of time to plan what he was going to say, they HAD to know what was going to come out of his mouth would at least at one point go too far, so they logically should have had a plan for when that happened. Just a thought.

As an aside, I'd like to believe a "good buddhist" would have stopped things (calmly but forcefully) and called him on his remark without any anger whatsoever, rather than walk off in what would be viewed by some as a "huff". Buddhism isn't about avoiding the ugly, it is about confronting it peacefully and speaking the truth, as I see it.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA



And this is where Vajrayana differs so fundamentally, so radically, from Buddism.

Cause yanno, traditionally, someone like that, with that kind of intention - instead of choking down, sublimating or restraining ones outrage at such an inhumane concept in combination with incitement to act upon such intolerance in hostile fashion...

One would be encouraged to EMBRACE it, in all it's furious glory.

In short, my own beliefs would have STRONGLY encouraged me to dish out to him what he would love to provoke others to dish out to whatever group of the week he's hating on - i.e. beat him to a fekkin bloody pulp.

Walkin out might be a more CIVILIZED response than that, but IMHO, it is not the correct one when dealing with such like this, for it is our very tolerance of their admitted hostile, inhuman, insentient, attempt to destroy all that is not exactly like them, which have given them the power to fucking do it, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again....

And we forgive, and we forget, and they do it to us, again, and again, and again...

It's like a decaying orbit, too, we never quite make up all the ground we lose, and sooner or later, like a planet which strays too close to the sun, it'll be the END of us, one, all, and every, probably in nuclear fire or winter.

And I know this, and I hear, let it go, forgive, forget, and all I can see is the laundry list of dead PEOPLE which has resulted from doing exactly that - each one had a NAME, had hopes and dreams and plans, which are naught but dust and ashes now cause no one stood up against this, this... INSANITY, when it could have been prevented.

Again, Fuck. That. Noise.

How many more times are you fools going to draw back a bitten hand ?

How many more times are you going to pull the knife from your back ?

How many more times are you going to eat their shit with a smile before you fucking realize this is why hatred, malice, and sociopathy win out even against far superior numbers of decent people ?

Sometimes you *need* a black hearted sumbitch, when decent people are too decent to do what must be done, if there is ever to be a place in this world for decent people that isn't under some sociopaths thumb, enriching them and making them powerful, feeding the cycle.

And it starts with not taking THIS kind of shit.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I don't think the only two options are tolerating and beating to a bloody pulp, really, Frem.

One can CALL HIM OUT, put it out there what a terrible thing that is to say, and be more effective than fisticuffs.

How do you think the viewing audience would have felt if Whoopi and Beyhar had attacked him?

Violences isn't the answer. Sometimes it's counter-productive to utilize force, as it only makes those watching empathize with the victim of the violence. Can you imagine how that would be all OVER the media, especially Fox, and how people would feel about it?

I don't think we're encouraged to "forgive and forget" when it comes to politics (unless you're a politician who's been involved in a sex scandal...), I think we're supposed to "learn and remember".


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2010 12:22 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
By the way, O'Reilly's use of "us" was intended to make the distinction between "us" and "them", which should have been obvious to anyone aware of his entire manner of speaking. It's the same as his saying "Muslims killed us"...it's using verbiage to manipulate the audience.


Actually I think his use of the term goes farther then what any of us has mentioned.

Watch the clip. When he says "Muslims killed us" I think we are getting a rare glipse at how very deep a connection he feels to 9/11. I think that he feels personally attacked by what happened, like he was in the building himself. I think this is reflective of most Americans...which is why the line drew substantial and spontanious audience applause.

In a way we were all in those buildings on 9/11 and a part of all of us was killed. Time changes things and some people find it easy to forget what that morning felt like and the anger we all felt after, but I think 70% of Americans would agree with me...we were all in those buildings, the mosque is legal and Constitutional and dead wrong to build it there, and we're sick and tired of having to kowtow to the hurt feelings of (insert offended group here) who don't give a frack about how we feel.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.



I have more than a little catching up to do on this thread, but I saw this and have to say I completely agree. You won't see me arguing against religious rights or even trying to convince others that the mosque is wrong, but I do kinda think it is. I'm just willing to keep that to myself for the most part and hope that I am wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2010 4:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh indeed, Niki - there's ALWAYS a range of options, in dealing with any situation, something I am quite fond of pointing out... I just wanted to also point out that my own philosophical and spiritual beliefs encourage "paying evil unto evil" when it is knowingly and intentionally committed, even when that MIGHT not be the best way to handle the situation at hand.

Still, I think it's ultimately self-destructive for us to "tolerate" hatred for hatreds sake, that's a fools bargain if there ever was one.

If I had time to set-piece a response to something like that, knowing what he was gonna pull when he got on the show ?
I woulda refused to take him seriously and laughed him right off the set - which is, in it's own way, even MEANER than beating the hell out of him.


-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 18, 2010 7:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'm not sure laughter would have been the best way to go, either. Like I said, I'm assuming their audience is mostly female--viewing as well as studio--and tho' I don't imagine too many right-wing women watch (isn't The View rather liberal?), to laugh at him would seem to me to minimize the issue and make it look, again, like there's no comeback.

I'm no believer in tolerating hatred, and speak up whenever it happens around me, and it wasn't "tolerance" I was suggesting, remember. It was calling him on it, without him being able to start a scrap and get them all talking over each other--which DOES give him what he wants.

In fact, it's kind of fun to imagine being in charge on the show and stopping every single stupid, asshat thing he says, making him shut up while you reduced each statement to the idiocy it is. Gawd, that would be fun. It'd take talent, to keep him shut up and keep control, but it sure would be a blast.

It would be fun to do that with every one of those Fox assholes...but it'd probably take more time than it's worth, given there's so MUCH material and their audience isn't capable of listening anyway. Just a waste of time.

But no, I don't believe in toleratig hatred for ANY reason, in that we fully agree. I just don't think "an eye for an eye" is always the most effective strategy, satisfying tho' it may be sometimes.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 18, 2010 3:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


I disagree with O'Reilly that we know it was muslims, because I'm a looney conspiracy theorists. Still, I thought he handled himself well, and they really lost it. So, kudos. The calm man wins the argument.

The lame attempt by the View to be taken seriously as political commentary has still failed to launch. Maybe they should try comedy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 5:42 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by DreamTrove:

Quote:

Here's a tip: The person who stays calm wins.
The person who loses their cool loses.




But they didn't lose their cool.

They calmly walked out and calmly communicated their counterpoint with their body language: "I choose not to tolerate this level of hatefulness and bigotry."




Error. Them starting to swear is what you claim is calmness?
Then waddling out in a huff because they cannot partake in reasonable discussion, that's their calm showing, compared to all those who maintained their composure and stayed?
Whoopi has made it absolutely clear that the reason she walked off was because she was about to swear off a blue streak and needed to get off microphone before she did it on air. For you to claim that this is any proof of being calm is just delusional. Not to mention massive denial of your and their intolerance.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 8:03 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Buddhism seems a pretty shiney philosophy or is it a religion? Not being demeaning, I'm just not entirely sure, seems to vary with the person I 'spect. Anyhow, I hate to be a dick, but Buddhism has it's bad apples just like any other religion, just look at the Samurai, many of which brutalized their own people. Of course, I think blaming Buddhism is as ridiculous as blaming Christianity for Timothy McVeigh.

Being a believer in the positive things a faith can accomplish I can't just leave it at that, so I'd like to add that many believe Buddhism lead many a Samurai to abandon torture and needless killing. Also, many Samurai became pacifist Buddhist monks after realizing the error of their ways.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 8:25 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Buddhism seems a pretty shiney philosophy or is it a religion? Not being demeaning, I'm just not entirely sure, seems to vary with the person I 'spect. Anyhow, I hate to be a dick, but Buddhism has it's bad apples just like any other religion, just look at the Samurai, many of which brutalized their own people. Of course, I think blaming Buddhism is as ridiculous as blaming Christianity for Timothy McVeigh.



...or Islam for 9/11...



Whether you view it as a religion or a philosophy probably depends largely on whether you're in it or not.

As a *philosophy*, I can find lots of shiny things about Christianity. As a *religion*? Not so much.

Any belief system tends to lose me when they start demanding blind obedience, blind faith, and lots of bowing and scraping.



The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 11:12 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, Trader, we just recently briefly considered the "philosophy" v. "religion" definition of buddhism. Oh, JUST as an aside, tho' it is capitalized virtually everywhere, buddhism isn't supposed to be. Buddha, yes, but not buddhism or buddhist.

I see it as a philosophy because there is no deity to pray to, nor is "preaching" inolved, nor do we have any "holy text" to abide by. But the counterpoint was made that it's a way of living, which is usually viewed as a "religion"...I think the point was made better than I just did, but I saw the validity of it.

Yes, in history there have been instances of violence in buddhism, and you pointed out a very valid example. I would never deny it. I would say that virtually all "philosophies" have violence somewhere in their history, too, but "religions" seem to be much more personalized and to somehow be better suited to "us v. them", which may be part of why it can be turned to violence.

But the fact is that, throughout the history of buddhism, violence has played it's part...and not just the Samurai. Even today there are buddhists who practice violence...admittedly mostly in Thailand where they live in fear of persecution so it's more survival than violence by choice, but it's there. There are military monks, covert, fully ordained soldiers placed in monasteries throughout Thailand. To these monks, peacemaking requires militancy. Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars.

Maybe that will explain to you part of why I'm so rabid about not calling Islam a "violent religion". While Muslim extremists have done horrific things in the recent past, they do not represent Islam, any more than violent buddhists represent buddhism. As well, the vast majority of buddhists are non-violent, as are the vast majority of Muslims.

The usual view of buddhism is that it's peaceful, because in recent times there have only been a few violent buddhist uprisings, and here in America we seldom even hear of them. But, because of 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Muslim terrorists both here and around the world, which we hear about DAILY, Islam has become viewed as violent. It's not, any more than buddhism is 100% peaceful. It's what we're shown that colors our perception.

There have been violent aspects to buddhism in Mongolia, Tibet, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India throughout history...but how much do you hear about them? That doesn't mean that buddhists are angry, violent people—-but rather that Buddhists are PEOPLE, and thus share the same human spectrum of emotions, which includes the penchant for violence in some.

Islam preaches peace; Christianity preaches peace; buddhism advocates peace...that doesn't mean all the followers of any of them are necessarily peaceful people. But to blame any one reliion and call it a "violent religion" is wrong, in my opinion. The best of any religion (or philosophy) can be corrupted into violence. I'd like to believe buddhism less than others, but the buddhism I experience is here, in America, where there is no threat to it and where it is very much a peaceful thing. How would I feel if I lived in Kashmir? I can't say.
Quote:

Any belief system tends to lose me when they start demanding blind obedience, blind faith, and lots of bowing and scraping.
Well, then, Mike, you should like buddhism, as we have none of those things.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 1:42 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I can't resist this one. It's the best comment on the walk-off I've yet seen:




Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL