Fox's Bill O'Reilly considers lynching Michelle Obama

[superstition]

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts....We'll track it down."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/b...-w_n_87616.html

 

Ann Coulter "joked" that the USA would be better off if someone were to poison US Supreme Court Justice Stevens. Limbaugh said Michael J. Fox fakes Parkinson's for political gain. It seems like these right-wingers can say whatever they want and face no consequences.

[capt_cope]

And yet no liberals are being hung for treason either. Even though they continually aid and comfort the enemy at a time of war. Talk about saying what you want and not facing the consequences.

[apowerr]

And yet no liberals are being hung for treason either. Even though they continually aid and comfort the enemy at a time of war. Talk about saying what you want and not facing the consequences.

What enemies are they 'aiding'? I'm not aware of any liberals directly aiding or helping insurgents in any significant way.

 

O'Reilly slipped up, and should probably apologize. I'm sure that he is not that much of a racist, and he was most likely attempting to make a joke. I believe in saying whatever you want ({censored} P.C.), but O'Reilly was at work and of course he can't get away with that. Still, it makes no sense for Fox News to fire O'Reilly, as he attracts a ton of viewers. Comments like that would get me fired however.

[Numberzz]

There's this thing that this one country has, it's called "Freedom of Speech." Too bad he doesn't live there-oh wait...

[(MoC)]

There's this thing that this one country has, it's called "Freedom of Speech." Too bad he doesn't live there-oh wait...

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

 

LMFAO OVERALL!

[CupofDice]

What consequences should they face? This is America where freedom of speech rules. Get use to it. Also it isn't like liberal commentators haven't said disparaging comments about conservatives.

 

Also you obviously missed this part-

 

"What Bill said was an obvious repudiation of anyone attacking Michelle Obama," he said, according to Fox spokeswoman. "As he has said more than ten times, he is giving her the benefit of the doubt."

 

Seems a legit enough excuse, though he could have used better terms.

[PSPHax0r9]

Wow, huffington post...reeeaaalll unbiased news there And he was actually defending Michelle Obama.

[dakine]

I guess freedom of speech only applies to a position you support, not about NHH as Imus said.

[39thRonin]

I listened to the ENTIRE comment. O'Reilly, was referring to the techo-lynching the media, bloggers, talk radio, et. al. perform on anyone who they feel steps out of line. While the statement in the segment you posted may be in poor taste considering that Obama's wife is black, and there is some level of hypersensitivity in that community about the word "lynching", O'Reilly was actually defending her. Freedom of speech is a right, of course, but it is political correctness that I feel is the curse of our day. Due to the balkanization of our country by the liberals in the name of multiculturalism and diversity, people take over-offense to literally anything most people say.

 

The title given to this topic is a prime example, at no time did O'Reilly advocate or suggest the literal or figurative lynching of Michelle Obama.

[killbot1000]

Man would you guys quit bashing on liberals, there's nothing wrong with multiculturalism, the problem is with conservatives, who make it an issue. Our world is becoming more global, and as such, our attitude ABOUT the rest of the world has to change, we frankly (for better or for worse) have to put up with more. You can't turn back the clock 100 years, that ship has sailed. We do have freedom of speech, I love that, I think freedoms and rights are mostly what make this country great.

 

Conservatives, I can understand what you SAY about liberals. I really can, but think about who conservatives have been voting into office since reagan. They elect people who only preach "tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts" and then they claim they want more states rights, less regulation, etc. Yet the first thing they try to do is regulate human morality, and deregulate business, the tax cuts almost always go to the wealthy or well-off, and the middle class and the poor suffer the consequences. They always talk about decreasing the size of the federal government, but the conservative candidate, the republican candidate currently in office has increased the size of the federal government 3x more than the last 3 presidents combined.

 

Children continue to fail in education, roads and infrastructure are crumbling, wages are staying the same while prices for everything continue to go up. Inflation is through the roof and the Canadian dollar is worth more than ours. We're occupying Iraq, still less than nominal progress has been made. The patriot act was passed, severely limiting our personal freedoms. There is an act that says that if there is an "emergency" the president can take direct control of the government. Our image with the rest of the world has taken a negative turn, and continues to deteriorate. We continue to pump burnt oil into the atmosphere, claiming that there is nothing better without even giving it a try, while at the same time environmental standards are loosened. Also, gas prices are $3.50 a gallon while the Government subsidizes oil companies, at a time when Exxon/Mobil is declaring more record profits. Compared with every other industrialized nation, our internet infrastructure is laughable.

 

Our economy is declining, and people are having a tough time finding jobs. And not only are they having a hard time finding jobs, they are having a hard time finding jobs that actually pay a decent amount, or even offer room for advancement. We are leaving our children, and our citizens behind.

 

You conservatives just don't get it. You just don't. And when I say conservatives I mean neo-cons. Because true conservatives would never support the views of conservatives today. This society that I just described, its the united states, its a society where those who are in charge in the richest country in the world, are unable to meet the basic needs of its citizens. This is apparently the kind of America that Conservatives want to live in, because it represents harsh restrictions on personal behavior, and complete deregulation of business. The only thing the "free market" has established in the united states is rising prices, price fixing, and CEO's cashing out before their company tanks.

 

This is conservative America, and to just be honest here, its screwed up. It obviously doesn't work, its time to admit it, move on, and try to find something different that works.

 

I don't think the liberals have it right either (I might add), democrats and liberals are mostly responsible for laws like "wear your seatbelt or you'll get a ticket" or "you can't smoke 25 feet or closer to a building" etc. etc.

 

But right now, the liberals understand what needs to be done a little better than the conservatives do. At least, thats what it seems.

[PSPHax0r9]

Uh...someone's a little defensive...

[killbot1000]

Uh...someone's a little defensive...

 

I'm not defensive, I am just trying to make a logical point without just yelling opinions across the room, I have presented facts as to why the conservative base in charge is screwing up.

 

You have just simply stated that liberals cause problems without and kind of tangible evidence to back it up. Its not called being defensive, its called having a logical argument.

[39thRonin]

Children continue to fail in education

 

Don't look at Conservatives as the cause of this problem. The issue is the Education Unions and the NEA who refuse to address the real issues wit our educational institutions: teachers who can't teach, and curriculums that stress acceptance of alternative sexual preferences over the basic ability to THINK.

 

There is ALOT wrong with the diversity and multiculturalism as currently practiced in the US. The concept that has made this country great is the precept that we are a melting pot - e.g. people come here from many lands, and become AMERICANS. I have a varied background, but I don't need to constantly remind myself that I come from Italian, German, Polish and God knows whatever other culture is in my family tree, to feel good about myself.

 

Your rant about the "Free Market" is typical socialist {censored}. Provide everything for someone and you remove their incentive to do ANYTHING for themselves. This is the goal of Liberalism - to replace an individual's natural desire to achieve and succeed with total dependance on a central government. The government has never managed anything effectively - why would anyone willing give control over their lives to those bureaucrats?

 

Conservatism is not about putting people down - it is about giving everyone the opportunity to realize their goals... Liberalism is about enslaving people to the whims of government...

[apowerr]

After having watched the clip of O'Reilly making the comment, I really don't see what the big deal is. The article really takes things out of context.

 

@Killbot1000: A great post, while I disagree with modern liberalism, you have done a good job of summing up the problems the United States currently faces. Also you're right on with the neo-cons, the Republican party as a whole is dominated by them and true conservatives (like Ron Paul) hardly have a voice. Neo-cons are for 'big government' just as much as liberals (Iraq, "American Empire"), and its funny to hear them spout about liberal's spending.

and curriculums that stress acceptance of alternative sexual preferences over the basic ability to THINK.

What?! Do you have one example of students in US public schools being specifically taught to accept alternative sexual preferences rather than be taught normal things (i.e. reading comprehension)?

[PSPHax0r9]

I'm not defensive, I am just trying to make a logical point without just yelling opinions across the room, I have presented facts as to why the conservative base in charge is screwing up.

 

You have just simply stated that liberals cause problems without and kind of tangible evidence to back it up. Its not called being defensive, its called having a logical argument.

I never stated anything buddy...

 

 

..See what I mean?

[superstition]

There are limits to free speech. Free speech doesn't guarantee anyone a national audience, for one thing. When people cross lines, like Howard Cosell and Don Imus, they're often fired. People like Ann Coulter (who "joked" about poisoning Justice Stevens) and O'Reilly, seem to be able to get away with more than most.

 

Threaten the President's life and we'll see how much free speech you have. Yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Offer to pay someone to kill your spouse. Say they were jokes and that they're being taken out of context.

 

Context or not, O'Rielly had no business considering joining a lynching party against Michelle Obama in front of a national audience. Free speech is a myth. In reality, all speech is condoned, or that person ends up paying a price. If you care to test free speech well enough, you'll end up in jail.

 

There is a local poetry student who did a presentation called "Can Poetry Be Dangerous?" When he acted manic during his poetry reading, some people got worried and called the police. When they showed up he said "See. Poetry can be dangerous!". Well, what he really proved is that freedom of speech doesn't exist. What you can say merely boils down to the comfort level of the people around you.

 

Students who put up an art display with nooses were threatened with expulsion and harshly berated by the university President because some people thought it was about lynching. Incidentally, when a professor asked rhetorically what is the first thing that comes to mind when one sees a noose, I said "capital punishment" and people acted as if I was purposefully lying because according to them, in America, the first thing that always comes to mind is lynching.

 

The students may have been expelled. They said the exhibit had nothing to do with promoting lynching or racism. There were debates on campus and a lot of people said things like "art shouldn't offend people". That shows you the mindset the average person has when it comes to speech, and that mindset truly goes all the way to the upper echelons of human bureaucracy. When we boil everything down, if you offend the wrong people, you're out of a job and possibly in jail.

[killbot1000]

I never stated anything buddy...

..See what I mean?

 

PspHax0r9, you have said plenty on other threads, I was not only referring to this one.

 

I do not agree with modern liberalism either, I believe in personal drive and personal responsibility, as well as individual achievement. But from what I see on who I get to support as a leader in this country, I have a CHOICE between two kinds of futures, both of them being imperfect . I can either choose modern liberalism, or neo-conservatism. I have to look at both futures and decide which negative effects I can deal with...as I have had to grasp this in my head, I have decided on liberalism, while I don't think its perfect or even good, I at least find it acceptable. Liberalism has its downfalls but in the end, it at least makes some measure of sense. Neo-conservatism fails on this front.

 

There is no way increasing spending and cutting taxes makes any sense at all.

 

There is no way screaming to deregulate business, yet legislating morality makes any sense.

 

There is no way that basing life or death decisions on faith makes any sense

 

There is no way that running the United States like a business where the president fills the role of a CEO makes any sense.

 

We are not employees, we're citizens, were free to have different points of view, on policy, or whatever. A modern liberalism future doesn't make perfect sense, and a neo-con future REALLY doesnt make any sense. Given those two choices, I'll choose liberalism.

 

But for the record, I think we can have our cake and eat it too. I think we can have personal responsibility along with multiculturalism and government assistance. The problem is getting people out of the two pre-constructed boxes that we have been put into in this country.

 

Have you ever met a person that is for {censored} marriage and against abortion?

 

Have you ever met a person that is for the social agenda of democrats yet the fiscal agenda of republicans?

 

Have you ever met a person who wants a strong national defense and lots of social programs?

 

Have you met an atheist conservative?

 

I guarantee you, most of us know of a few people. But sadly, most of us fall into one box of thought or the other, without really thinking about why were there or why we think that way. We are devoid of almost all critical thinking, this arguing we keep having back and forth. Those who are REALLY in power, the banking interests of this country and many others want us to focus on these petty differences, while they run amok with our world, shaping it to the vision that THEY have for the future, rather than letting us as a group decide our own future. It is incredibly sad that most of us don't see that. If we cant move past this petty bull$hit, then they've won.

 

Enjoy 1984, except a few decades late...

[capt_cope]

I think the reason you're completely wrong most of the time is simple terminology. For the most part I think you're on the right track, but you need to realize that Republicans are not conservatives by default, though conservatives can be republicans. Traditionally republicans have been more conservative than democrats, but I haven't lived in a time where a republican president was conservative. They are usually middle of the road, combining the worst of both camps.

 

One is a party, the other is an ideology. I am a conservative, NOT a republican. I have ended up voting republican because I believe that given a choice between the republican and the democrat, the republican will do the least harm to the country. This election cycle, however, I'm going to do a write in, because I can't honestly say McCain will do any less harm than Obama.

 

I do not like what Bush has done to the country, but I still suspect I'd like what Kerry might have done less. I believe state's rights, and the liberties of individuals should extend beyond what Republicans often think they should. I voted NO to the ban on {censored} marriage, while I voted for bush and Mark Green. It has been a LONG time since any conservatives have held office, regardless of what the liberal media would tell you. I believe that individual freedoms should not be restricted because certain groups/religions dis-agree with them. I'm all for {censored} marriage, and 100% against abortion, because in my mind, if nature is left to it's course, the ONLY reasonable outcome of a fetus is a human. Therefore it IS murder. You can slice and dice the bible all day long, you can tell me it's just a mass of cells, I don't care. It is a closed loop. Just like when you drop something, it falls to the ground unless somehow diverted, a fetus will become human. And like it or not, the only real reason for condemning the acts of homosexuals is religion, and I do recall something about the separation between church and state. Not to mention, it doesn't affect me in any way if two {censored} men want to get married, why should I deprive them of that happiness?

 

I think the government is far too large and unwieldy as it is, and all I see from the liberals is a desire to "change" in the direction of more government control. I strongly believe that is the wrong choice. The control of government should be limited to only the amount needed to secure our personal liberties.

 

And I will always disagree with you when you claim the rich need more taxes. There was this line I read somewhere, went "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And those words go directly against your ideology in many ways. For starters, it says "pursuit" which rules out the government needing to provide happiness, it just has to protect our right to pursue it. Secondly, when you wish to steal money from those that have it, you are restricting their pursuit of happiness. Adding hurdles they must overcome for no other reason than to give it to those who don't deserve it. I am all for charities, but GIVING willingly, and taking with the intent to give are two completely different things. It is not the government's place to take money from those who have, and give it to those who don't.

[PSPHax0r9]

PspHax0r9, you have said plenty on other threads, I was not only referring to this one.

 

Sounds more like you've assumed plenty, bud.

[dark4181]

religion aside, i still view homosexuality (and marriage by extension) as wrong. while there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, two males are completely incapable of conceiving offspring together, regardless of species. thus, with no possibility to create life, then the sole purpose MUST be pleasure. so to round off this argument, and to hedge against you "evolutionists" i offer this though:

 

if evolution is real, and life evolves what it needs to survive, and throws away what it doesn't need, then homosexuality is not natural because you have two sexual genders. if one sex only needed someone of the same sex to survive and reproduce, then by the rules of evolution and natural selection, there would be only one sexual gender. since gendered species need an opposite sex to procreate, then logically speaking, nature did not intend us to be homosexual. those that do it do it for some degree of pleasure

 

even if you factor religion back in, there's still the "free will" option. if all you care about is living for now, then by all means, do what you want *shrugs* as a Christian, i'll pray for you, whether you want me to or not

 

 

but, on topic, o'reilly was defending ms. obama, not slandering her. this is a case of the opposing media taking comments out of context, as per usual

[killbot1000]

religion aside, i still view homosexuality (and marriage by extension) as wrong. while there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, two males are completely incapable of conceiving offspring together, regardless of species. thus, with no possibility to create life, then the sole purpose MUST be pleasure. so to round off this argument, and to hedge against you "evolutionists" i offer this though:

 

if evolution is real, and life evolves what it needs to survive, and throws away what it doesn't need, then homosexuality is not natural because you have two sexual genders. if one sex only needed someone of the same sex to survive and reproduce, then by the rules of evolution and natural selection, there would be only one sexual gender. since gendered species need an opposite sex to procreate, then logically speaking, nature did not intend us to be homosexual. those that do it do it for some degree of pleasure

 

even if you factor religion back in, there's still the "free will" option. if all you care about is living for now, then by all means, do what you want *shrugs* as a Christian, i'll pray for you, whether you want me to or not

but, on topic, o'reilly was defending ms. obama, not slandering her. this is a case of the opposing media taking comments out of context, as per usual

 

You are just thinking of homosexuality too cerebrally. The fact of the matter is, there are many human beings and there is an extreme amount of variation in our bodies, how we react to certain chemicals, and how much of one chemical is realeased, etc. Homosexuality is just a form of variation, and evolution is true because there are far fewer homosexual people than strait people. Evolution doesnt completely eliminate traits, it accentuates some while minimizing others, but traits dont simply go away (apendix and tailbone are good examples of this)

 

Don't pray for me, I find it condescending and rude that you say something like "I'll pray for you, whether you want me to or not. It just feels kind of self righteous to me.

 

Christianity is based completely on astrology, if you think that the stars determine our destiny, then cool, enjoy that, but don't drag everybody else's intellect down with you.

[dark4181]

it's not really self-righteous if i'm not doing it for myself, is it?

 

it's kind of funny that you accuse me of "thinking too cerebrally" in one breath and then accuse me of dragging down everyone's intellect in the next breath. isn't logical argument based on "cerebral thinking" ?

 

by your argument, murder and mental illnesses are just "forms of variation" ...should we let murderers and sick people out onto the streets?

[apowerr]

Have you ever met a person that is for {censored} marriage and against abortion?

Yep, me. I'm all for {censored} marriage, but while I think abortion should remain legal, I'm against it (use contraceptives more, abort less) in many ways.

Have you ever met a person that is for the social agenda of democrats yet the fiscal agenda of republicans?

Historically Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They typically favored New Deal programs, welfare, and civil rights—usually promising to run them more efficiently than the Democrats. They were strong supporters of big business. In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurship, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects.

Source

Have you met an atheist conservative?

Yes.

if evolution is real, and life evolves what it needs to survive, and throws away what it doesn't need, then homosexuality is not natural because you have two sexual genders. if one sex only needed someone of the same sex to survive and reproduce, then by the rules of evolution and natural selection, there would be only one sexual gender. since gendered species need an opposite sex to procreate, then logically speaking, nature did not intend us to be homosexual. those that do it do it for some degree of pleasure

I have no idea what nature's intent is, but I can say that homosexuality is not genetic. By the way, evolution is real. Treat yourself to a science book

Christianity is based completely on astrology, if you think that the stars determine our destiny, then cool, enjoy that, but don't drag everybody else's intellect down with you.

So true.

[dark4181]

last i checked it was still "darwins 'THEORY' of evolution"

[apowerr]

last i checked it was still "darwins 'THEORY' of evolution"

You are completely misunderstanding science, and the scientific method as a whole.

In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Source

Put simply, in science facts are things that are clearly observed and do not require proving. Theories are used to prove facts. Since a theory cannot be clearly observed, it is not a fact and may be falsified. Scientists are always trying to disprove theories, for example, the theory of gravity is still being proved and disproved because of theories on quantum physics. If a theory cannot be falsified however, then one can accept it as fact.

Source

In Biology, the term 'evolution' encompasses a wide variety of things. To sum things up, the 'observed changes in populations of organisms over time' aspect of evolution is fact, and has not been falsefied. Where modern organisms came from and how (or in what order), has not been definitely proven and is still up for scrutiny.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Dark4181, what doesn't make sense to you about natural selection and mutations in alleles leading to adaptions to environments? Take for example the Peppered Moth, it has evolved over the course of the past 300 years (Source). Just 300 years ago, the moth was light grey, yet now it is black. The Peppered moths that were darker could handle the new environment caused by the industrial revolution better than the lighter peppered moths; the lighter peppered moths died in greater quantities than the lighter colored moths. Over the course of generations, the dark colored moths became dominant, and are today present in much greater quantities than they were 300 years ago.

 

Another example of evolution occurring: As you may know, we are currently coming out of an Ice age, and have been for a while now. Rhinoceros had a difficult time surviving in northern Eurasia, so Rhinoceros that had thicker fur endured and survived better than their thin furred counterparts. This eventually lead to the Woolly Rhinoceros (which evolved thicker fur over the course of generations) becoming the dominant species of Rhinoceros in the northern parts of Eurasia as opposed to the Giant Unicorn Rhinoceros, which lived in southern Eurasia.

 

What about the evolution of the Peppered Moths and Woolly Rhinoceros do you disagree with?

 

I don't know what else to say, except for Evolution is true: Q.E.D.