We Decide, you Shut Up

[Cain]

In Harper's Magazine I read a partial transcript of O'Reilly's interview with Jermey Glick, whose father died in one of the towers on 9/11. After the interview, Glick says O'Reilly told to "get the f*ck out of here before I tear you to pieces."

This comes from http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyglick.htm

He's more hysterical than usual...

O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

 

[Tony]

Glick is obviously a bedwetting pussy, to bad he wasnt killed.

 

[Cain]

I tend to agree.

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

 

[a_unique_person]

I tend to agree.

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Did she really say that?

As for O'Reilly, he just demonstrates how thin the veneer of credibility is for his cause.

 

[Tony]

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

I tend to stay away from extremist demagogues like Coulter and "oriellysucks.com", but if you feel the need to give legitimacy to such propaganda. By all means.

 

[Tony]

As for O'Reilly, he just demonstrates how thin the veneer of credibility is for his cause.

What "cause" is that?

 

[crackmonkey]

Perhaps a good, hard slap across the face would snap Glick out of his hysteria.

 

[Cain]

Yes, she did say that (Ann Coulter 2/6/02, speech at Conservative Political Action Conference)

I tend to stay away from extremist demagogues like Coulter and "oriellysucks.com", but if you feel the need to give legitimacy to such propaganda.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If your original comments were made in earnest (I thought it may have been sarcasm), then there's no point replying. Oreillysucks.com/ is only cited as a source, and I quoted no editorial content from that site.

The quote taken from Coulter -- if anything -- delegitimizes her.

 

[DrBenway]

Not having much access to TV, I don't know O'Reilly very well. But this interview is moronic.

Anyone who claims sympathy and solidarity with 9/11 survivors is in no position to abuse a family member of someone who died there. O'Reilly ought to have respectfully allowed the guy to present his views without interruption and badgering. At the end, he might have said, "I thank you for taking the time to share your feelings with us. I'm afraid I see things a little differently myself."

This display is embarassing. O'Reilly comes off as an ego maniac who has to humiliate his opponents.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/coul-f27.shtml

Coulter was unapologetic afterwards, claiming that her statement was a “huge hit with the audience.” About 3,500 people attended the four-day CPAC conference, the annual gathering of far-right elements in the Republican Party, which was held January 30-February 2 in Arlington, Virginia. Representatives and supporters of some 70 organizations and publications participated. (It was at the 1994 CPAC conference that the Paula Jones sexual harassment case was publicly launched against the Clinton White House, at a press conference organized by a group of right-wing activists.)

Coulter’s comments, and the audience reaction, are an expression of one of the most important realities in American political life—the emergence within the political establishment of a significant fascist layer, cultivated and promoted by sections of corporate America and the media, which now plays a dominant role in the Republican Party and wields enormous influence within the Bush administration.

 

[Tony]

O'Reilly ought to have respectfully allowed the guy to present his views without interruption and badgering.

Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.

 

[corplinx]

"the florida coup", priceless

 

[a_unique_person]

Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

 

[Cain]

Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.

What are you talking about?? The transcript is right there; O'Reilly initiates most of the interruptions. Watch any of O'Reilly's so-called interviews.

Here's my favorite part:

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts with a non sequitur]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

[Glick "interrupts" to complete his sentece]

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts again]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

[O'Reilly's fatuous and irrelevant remark:]

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

[The CIA did indeed support the Mujahadeed against the Soviets]

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

[O'Reilly interrupts with another non-sequitur]

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

 

[corplinx]

"GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. "

O'Reilly learned the hard way, don't put a woo-woo on primetime. What's next? A family member of a 9-11 victim who is a black helicoptor john birch woo-woo?

 

[Tony]

What are you talking about?? The transcript is right there; O'Reilly initiates most of the interruptions. Watch any of O'Reilly's so-called interviews.

Here's my favorite part:

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts with a non sequitur]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

[Glick "interrupts" to complete his sentece]

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts again]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

[O'Reilly's fatuous and irrelevant remark:]

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

[The CIA did indeed support the Mujahadeed against the Soviets]

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

[O'Reilly interrupts with another non-sequitur]

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

Again, re-read the interview. Glick has more dialogue, and he interrupted Orielly first.

 

[a_unique_person]

I thought it was supposed to be an interview. You ask a few questions to get them started. When they dry up, you as a few more.

 

[corplinx]

Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.

 

[Tony]

I thought it was supposed to be an interview. You ask a few questions to get them started. When they dry up, you as a few more.

Actually, its more of a debate. If you knew anything about O'reilly's show, you would realize that. Do they have "The Orielly Factor" in australia?

 

[Tony]

Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.

That reminds me of the time he had the christian fundy on his show debating him on gay adoption. Orielly tore the guy up.

 

[Cain]

Sigh. So much nonsense here...

Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.

What left-wing conspiracy propaganda? How can anyone on television be expected to reasonably support every claim that diverges from the mainstream? Talk shows are all about regurgitating pre-packaged sound-bites.

No one regards Bush's stolen election as a "conspiracy" -- it happened right out in the open.

Again, re-read the interview. Glick has more dialogue, and he interrupted Orielly first.

This does nothing to refute anything I've said, of course. If you noticed, he politely corrected O'Reilly. It wasn't an interruption to go off on a rant. I'm also no disputing that Glick has "more dialogue," he should because -- get this -- he's the subject of the interview.

You're fighting a losing battle here. O'Reilly screamed for him "Shut up, Shut up!" and ordered that his mic be cut.

 

[Tony]

No one regards Bush's stolen election as a "conspiracy" -- it happened right out in the open.

Sigh. So much nonsense here. Bush also stole my pink unicorn.

You're fighting a losing battle here. O'Reilly screamed for him "Shut up, Shut up!" and ordered that his mic be cut.

Because he was going on a bedwetting rant, something O'reilly has never tolerated. The fact is, glick is a conspiracy nut not capable of rational debate.

 

[corplinx]

For the record:
Left wing woo-woo Right wing woo-woo
florida coup! nwo coup!
we trained osama! we trained oswald!
imperialism! one world government!

At least both sides can agree on:
Bush's dad was CIA director!

The right wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world towards one socialist totalitarian state.

The left wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world into a corporation controlled global feudal state.

I think the left wing woo-woos have a great thing going in that the right wing woo-woos are labeled as such consistently but the left wing woo-woos are not.

 

[Tony]

For the record:
Left wing woo-woo Right wing woo-woo
florida coup! nwo coup!
we trained osama! we trained oswald!
imperialism! one world government!

At least both sides can agree on:
Bush's dad was CIA director!

The right wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world towards one socialist totalitarian state.

The left wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world into a corporation controlled global feudal state.

I think the left wing woo-woos have a great thing going in that the right wing woo-woos are labeled as such consistently but the left wing woo-woos are not.

Wanna see some real woo-woo dribble? Go here.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

O'Reilly might have tried to address the notion that america is not a terrorist state. He would not have been able to prove that. Instead he cut off Glick again and again appealing to the emotions of his audience.

If Fla was so above board why did Bush try so hard to avoid a hand count? Surely if he had nothing to hide a hand count would only exonerate him? And how many judges on the supereme court panel were republicans? Just a thought.

 

[Cain]

For the record:
Left wing woo-woo Right wing woo-woo
florida coup! nwo coup!
we trained osama! we trained oswald!

Are you kidding me? Of course we sent aid to Osama. That's not some crazed conspiracy theory, it's indisputable fact. Your Ronald Reagan compared the Mujahadeen to the Founding Fathers.

see this interview with Zbignew Brezezinski with a French paper (before the 9/11 atrocities).

http://www.nonviolence.org/comment/archives/104.php

Not only does he openly acknowledge what everyone today knows (except for maybe you), but he's proud that we armed the Taliban.

The left wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world into a corporation controlled global feudal state.

Yeah, a "global fedual state" -- that makes sense . Broadly speaking, the mainstream left -- which has a tiny if non-existent presence in the mainstream media -- argues that states act on behalf of wealthy elites, especially when it comes to foreign policy. I don't see why that's so controversial. Expanding markets, opening up trade, the Washington consensus. There's nothing conspiratorial about it. The differences are normative. Op-ed writers in elite publications like the _New York Times_ think it's good. Indeed, everyone in the mainstream (Fox, Weekly Standard, Time, WaPo, Newsweek etc.) thinks globalization is good. Others don't.

 

[corplinx]

Are you kidding me? Of course we sent aid to Osama. That's not some crazed conspiracy theory, it's indisputable fact.

Its also indisputable fact that we trained Lee Harvey to use a rifle. Its the woo-woo that uses these facts to draw a sinister web.

 

[corplinx]

If Fla was so above board why did Bush try so hard to avoid a hand count? Surely if he had nothing to hide a hand count would only exonerate him? And how many judges on the supereme court panel were republicans? Just a thought.

Yes, the same kinds of conundrums that point to a JFK coverup. "If this was this, then why is that?" The fact is, Bush has won every recount done on the original voting standards.

The only tangible claim the rigged election people make is that the company that was in charge of making sure felons could not vote had too many false positives in their lists. This means that _if_ those people showed up at the polls they would have been turned away. Unfortunately, this is one of those screwups we can't go back and change. The "woo-woo" will go on about voter cleansing, who worked for who, and suggest without direct accusation some form of collusion. At least the left wing woo-woos have enough sense to imply strongly rather than openly accuse. This I guess makes them more reasonable.

Florida wasnt a coup, it was a clusterf*ck. The woo-woo sees a coup.

 

[Smalso]

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Glick is obviously a bedwetting pussy, to bad he wasnt killed.

Perhaps a good, hard slap across the face would snap Glick out of his hysteria.

Pretty good ways to silence those with differing opinions. It's the American way,

edit: typo

 

[Cain]

Its also indisputable fact that we trained Lee Harvey to use a rifle. Its the woo-woo that uses these facts to draw a sinister web.

No one is saying that we aided the Taliban knowing they would attack us. The left criticizes aid to tyrants *because* they are tyrants and not for the reason that they might some day turn on us. Compare Saddam and Osama to Suharto and Pinochet. All received US support, but the latter are no better than the former (and in many ways worse). But the US adopts a egoistic subjectivism: you're goodness is measured in relationship to us.

Did you read the interview I linked with Carter's cherished National Security Adviser?


Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of The pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intégrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

 

[Tony]

Help me out here cain, what is your beef with the content of that interview? I dont see anything objectionable. (excpet that the national security adviser plays down the danger of fundy islam)

 

[gnome]

The only tangible claim the rigged election people make is that the company that was in charge of making sure felons could not vote had too many false positives in their lists. This means that _if_ those people showed up at the polls they would have been turned away. Unfortunately, this is one of those screwups we can't go back and change. The "woo-woo" will go on about voter cleansing, who worked for who, and suggest without direct accusation some form of collusion. At least the left wing woo-woos have enough sense to imply strongly rather than openly accuse. This I guess makes them more reasonable.

Florida wasnt a coup, it was a clusterf*ck. The woo-woo sees a coup.

(emphasis added)

It could be considered just a screw up, if the state had not been informed of the problem well in advance, and insisted on using the list anyway. Then it becomes deliberate.

 

[Gregor]

Enough with the whining Florida vote crap. Bush won in the first count. Bush won in the second count.

Then . . Did none of you notice that when all the votes were hand counted by the publishing consortium after the election was certified that Bush's lead widened?

You can dislike his policies, but for god's sake stop posting things that are factually inaccurate.

 

[shanek]

I've seen O'Reilly's show many times. This is how he always is towards people he disgarees with. He constantly interrupts them, never letting them finish a sentence or getting a point out. It's the last place to go if you want to hear a real debate on the issues.

 

[Sundog]

All of you with responses like "Too bad he wasn't killed", you are the worst thing wrong with America today, and you all just made it onto my ignore list.

You have no idea what America is about.

I've been indecisive about this forum partly because it seems to have a few borderline right-wing psychopaths that I can't co-exist with. I have been reluctant to use ignore until now but I feel it's the only way I can co-exist with such unAmerican people.

I will be thankful if those of you who do not see that O'Reilly is OBVIOUSLY the nutcase here, please put me on ignore as well, I don't want to talk to idiots any more.

 

[Thanz]

Actually, its more of a debate. If you knew anything about O'reilly's show, you would realize that.

I'm surprised that you would say this as some sort of defence for O'Reilly, who invited a guy onto his show because he thought that as a family member of someone who died at the WTC he had some interesting world political views. O'Reilly then tells him, twice, that he refuses to debate world politics with him because he doesn't care what Glick thinks.

The most sickening part of this is that O'Reilly claims to cut off Glick's freedom of speech out of respect for Glick's father. Glick's father probably had the same views as Glick, and would be disgusted by this display by O'Reilly. How O'Reilly, who would have never even met Glick Sr., can claim to do anything out of respect for him as a "good American" is beyond me.

 

[corplinx]

The most sickening part of this is that O'Reilly claims to cut off Glick's freedom of speech out of respect for Glick's father.

Thanks for demonstrating how little people know about what the first amendment actually means.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Say as you like. If someone opposed to your political idealogy talked to a relative of a 9/11 victim like that you'd be up in arms about and demanding someone's resignation. But I guess the rules for one don't apply to another.

 

[daredelvis]

Enough with the whining Florida vote crap. Bush won in the first count. Bush won in the second count.

Then . . Did none of you notice that when all the votes were hand counted by the publishing consortium after the election was certified that Bush's lead widened?

You can dislike his policies, but for god's sake stop posting things that are factually inaccurate.

I am sorry, but HORSES**T!

1. There was never a second count (as called for under Florida law), only a re-tally of the totals.

2. The publishing consortium found Bush to be the winner in only one scenario. If the recount were done as outlined under Florida law (states rights?!??) Gore would have been the winner. It is clearly stated in the findings of the consortium.

For my sake please stop repeating things that are factually inaccurate. It was a coup.

Daredelvis

 

[Thanz]

Thanks for demonstrating how little people know about what the first amendment actually means.

Oh, please. I know perfectly well what the first amendment means, and I know that it doesn't apply to O'Reilly's rude behaviour. I was using "freedom of speech" in a broader, figurative sense. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

What I am appalled at is how someone who claims to be a journalist (in a "no spin zone", no less) can show so little regard for actual debate and exchange of ideas. He knew Glick's views when he invited him on the program, and then refused to actually debate him on those views simply stating that he doesn't care what he thinks. If that was so, why invite him on?

Worst of all is O'Reilly presuming to speak for the views of the man's father, whom he had never met, and implying that his parents would both be ashamed of him. This is nothing but a baseless personal attack, and does nothing to refute the arguments put forth by Glick. If his views are really so out there, they should be easy to debunk in an actual debate. Instead, O'Reilly puts on a show of caring for the victims of 9/11, ignoring that those people who died all had their own views of US foreign policy which may have conflicted with his own.