Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ted Belmont]

Bill O'Reilly wants Obama to end DADT.

If that doesn't belong here, I don't know what does.

[TA]

OReilly doesn't want Obama to end DADT.  He's calling for Obama to arbitrarily stop enforcing DADT, so he and his ilk can tear into Obama for disregarding the legislative process and refusing to prosecute crimes based on personal prejudice.

 

[Ziiro]

I'll agree with .

"He's changing military policy? He's overstepping his bounds as president!"
"THE PRESIDENT THROWING OUT DADT IS JUST ANOTHER STEP IN HIM TAKING THIS NATION TO HELL!"

etc.

[SCD]

Wow, that side of O'Reilly makes me want to listen to him, not that I have the time.  I also think TA is almost on the ball, except that it wouldn't be O'Reilly himself but the other Fox cast on their shows and guests who appear on his show.  Plausible deniability is a nice thing. 


I would be shocked if anyone at the leaf level and up in your forces had a problem about homosexual soldiers, and I would bet that in the infantry units, the better commanders already have a good idea who the gays are.  Under that rank, I'm not so sure.  Your military (as a cross section of your citizenry) has problems at the ground level, and while the stories that I hear are less intense than what the old crowd tells me on post-vietnam, there are still racially segregated messes in certain bases, and places on the aircraft carriers where officers dare not tread (McDohl or Guild can call me if I'm making this up).  I'm certain despite my ignorance of the decision chain that a great part of DADT was more to protect the homosexual minority from elements within the heterosexual majority, than it was to keep people out.  This would be why I would fathom getting the ground information to the JCOS is pretty key to the pres before passing decision. 

For this, I believe more than TA's valid and plausible theory, that O'Reilly would love this more for the potential of follow-up materials on the dangers of a Democratic Chief of Staff in the coming years the moment the first report of a gay-bashing or murder would come out.  That would be at least one complete 1/2 hour show and segments for years to come.

Oh, and in solidarity,

[Detonator]

Last I checked, even the majority of Republicans support the repeal of DADT, so this might just be going with the flow.

[Classic]

They want to replace it with something more draconian, eh?

[Berk]

I can't tell if he's drunk or mentally handicapped, but it's still hilarious.

I'm pretty sure this account is just a huge troll on the guy.

[Thad]

Colbert's been having fun with him for the last couple of weeks.

[Berk]

I'm more of a fan of the Daily Show, but I do watch Colbert twice a week. Must have missed that episode!

...and here I thought I found something out of the blue.

[Mongrel]

Man busted for 'marinating' a cat he claimed he was going to have for dinner

The story itself is probably worth posting, but two things put it over the top:

1) Jesus, look at the guy. I mean, just look at him.
2) 0:31 is a meme waiting to happen.

[Pacobird]

Wow, that side of O'Reilly makes me want to listen to him, not that I have the time.  I also think TA is almost on the ball, except that it wouldn't be O'Reilly himself but the other Fox cast on their shows and guests who appear on his show.  Plausible deniability is a nice thing. 

The day after Super Tuesday 2008 I was in the process of a cross-country road trip; that particular day I drove from Amarillo, TX to some hovel south of Chicago.  Now, being that I'd missed most of the primary shenanigans the day before (and that I was sick of my CD collection by that point anyway), I decided to check the radio for the breakdown. 

Now, since I was listening to talk radio in God's Country, naturally all I was able to get were conservatives.  Hey, any port in a storm; I'll just glean the facts from the spin and enjoy the rest for what it is, and then fact-check when I get to Michigan.  No sweat.

Well, first of all, Laura Ingraham was hilariously distraught about Mike Huckabee somehow cockblocking Mitt Romney out of winning one primary, like that mattered or whatever.  Michael Savage was equally histrionic but he is an Objectively Awful Person too so w/e Bl   

Anyway, the point is I ended up listening to Bill O'Reilly's radio show for a while, and I have to admit I unironically enjoyed it.  The guy is just hilariously egotistic and wastes absolutely no opportunity for self-promotion (my favorite was how he managed to segue from some state's primary results to his record on predicting Super Bowl results in under 15 seconds), but if you take that for what it is he actually sounds pretty fair if not always accurate.

One bit of his I liked was when he was talking about Obama being a liberal (maybe not accurate in hindsight but he was hardly alone in this appraisal in February of 2008), and then defined "liberal" as someone who believed in "using government power and resources to right wrongs"; he said he thought it was a totally defensible position, if not one he necessarily agreed with.  I kind of liked that; might have not been exactly accurate but it was reasonably close for someone who disagrees with it, and sort of frames the policy debate for his listeners as "disagreement in judgment, not in character". 

So yeah, as Fox pundits go O'Reilly is pretty okay when his ego isn't wounded.  I think he's a little too insecure to make a living out of it but I could easily see him being That Conservative Guy at the Bar I Don't Hate.  Out of anyone on Fox, I could see O'Reilly saying this and meaning it.

[Royal☭]

It's amazing how Glenn Beck can shift your appraisal of Bill O'Reilly.  Honestly the man is probably how he was before 2008, so Beck just makes him sound more reasonable.


Speaking of Beck and O'Reilly, apparently Beck defended gay marriage against O'Reilly

Admittedly, he defends it on "I don't have the time for this" grounds, but since "What should I care?" is the basis for allowing gays to marriage, it shows a glimmer of reason in the man.

Honestly, that video is hilarious to watch for so many reasons.  It's like watching toddlers have a debate.

I think he's a little too insecure to make a living out of it but I could easily see him being That Conservative Guy at the Bar I Don't Hate.  Out of anyone on Fox, I could see O'Reilly saying this and meaning it.

As long as you can ignore the whole racist, sexual predator thing.

[SCD]

Thanks for the word there p-bird.  Conservative at that bar that I wouldn't hate sounds good.  Will have to seek him on the FM dial when I drive south next.

[Mongrel]

I feel like somewhere there's a Tom Tomorrow image macro aching to be posted to this thread.

[Brentai]

O'Reilly will often take a seemingly liberal position just to be controversial and get people watching him.  I'm sure he believes it about as much as he believes all the other stuff he says.  The man is, first and foremost, a TV personality, an entertainer whose livelihood hinges on being interesting, not on being correct.  Just like Beck, and yes, just like Stewart and Colbert.  Which is not to say that can't be a more trustworthy news source than the paid anchors, but uhhhhh... yeah.

[Thad]

But I think O'Reilly actually DOES believe the shit he says.

Even -- ESPECIALLY -- when it contradicts the shit he just said two sentences prior.

[Mongrel]

But I think O'Reilly actually DOES believe the shit he says.

Even -- ESPECIALLY -- when it contradicts the shit he just said two sentences prior.

Having never seen him 'off camera' I can't speak for O'Reilly, but I've met more than enough such guys in real life to know such people do exist.

[Thad]

But I DO agree that he's good at playing his audience.  He's made me chuckle on The Daily Show.

[Pacobird]

As long as I'm playing Conservative Apologist, I am honestly a little embarassed I'd never heard about this.  It's also kind of frustrating to think that all along Bush was involved in something that I could point to and say, "hey, I think the current president is awful and I manifestly disagree with is opinions and approaches on virtually everything but here's one thing he did that I have to admit is pretty much Objectively Awesome", but I never heard about it in the media because motivating right-wing focus groups was apparently more important than making everybody to the left of George Will slightly less embarassed of their country.

[SCD]

There was a good article on the subject in the Economist (article:  "Doing Good, Quietly" in Feburary 14, 2008) which also credits the former president for money spent on malaria remedies including bednets as well.  One of the reasons why this was not really widespread in North American magazines was that there was a lot of hype around Bush's support of "Abstinence-only" prevention, which turned out to be but a small pillar in financial terms of the prez's strategy.  Also, with the "Surge" going on in Iraq, a lot of right-wing energy seemed to be spent on defending war policy and post 9-11 security measures, but the later is speculation on my part.