The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: graywolf on February 18, 2010, 07:47:31 PM
-
I had heard on this website that Mr. O is no friend of the 2nd Amendment, but I didn't believe it until I saw his interrogation of Stewart Rhodes of the Oathkeepers. He questions, but he doesn't let his guests respond. He pointed out that the New Orleans police had every right to disarm law abiding citizens in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina. How were citizens supposed to defend their lives and property from looters and others who were intent on doing bodily harm? O'Reilly's slant on soldiers disobeying unlawful orders seemed off base as well. I would appreciate if some of you ex-military members would comment on the Oathkeepers and O'Reilly's comments regarding a soldier's duty as relates to "unlawful orders" and the oath to protect and defend the Consitution. Thank You For Your Service to our Country.
-
I had heard on this website that Mr. O is no friend of the 2nd Amendment, but I didn't believe it until I saw his interrogation of Stewart Rhodes of the Oathkeepers. He questions, but he doesn't let his guests respond. He pointed out that the New Orleans police had every right to disarm law abiding citizens in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina. How were citizens supposed to defend their lives and property from looters and others who were intent on doing bodily harm? O'Reilly's slant on soldiers disobeying unlawful orders seemed off base as well. I would appreciate if some of you ex-military members would comment on the Oathkeepers and O'Reilly's comments regarding a soldier's duty as relates to "unlawful orders" and the oath to protect and defend the Consitution. Thank You For Your Service to our Country.
An accurate portrayal my friend.
-
I missed it but will watch it when it is on the foxnews website. Usually I agree with oreilly when it comes to politics, activist judges, and other dipsh**s that infest most of the MSM, and politically correct dolts that are in the world today.
I know he's a pushy guy, and was unaware he would find a Constitutional right, based on the foundation of this country, a problem.
Until I see it for myself, I will hold off posting on what I haven't seen. Although I will say, he has an open feedback email address, and if this is how you interpreted it, let him know, he's a big boy, let it rip.
-
The thing you all need to keep in mind is that Bill O'Reilly is a fairly LIBERAL Democrat who probably voted for BO.
-
The thing you all need to keep in mind is that Bill O'Reilly is a fairly LIBERAL Democrat who probably voted for BO.
You wouldn't know it, he seems to disagree with most of the Obamic Plague's agenda. He does, however, bash both sides for their rampant incompetent and corrupt actions. Which seems worthy in this day and age, and HE HATES THE FRENCH. ::)
I'm not defending him, I find his talking points, and analysis, regarding the direction the politicians are taking this country pretty damn accurate. I know he is a blowhard, and he's tough in a face to face interview. Have to bring your "A" game, and I look forward to seeing this interview for myself.
-
Haven't seen O'Reilly since they took the TV away at work. In the past I have noticed he has an antigun position. Can't tell you anything specific from memory, other than to paraphrase what I think his reasoning is, and that is private citizens don't NEED to have guns. I personally think he is ignorant and unknowledgeable about firearms. It's like he has been listening and taking as fact everything the Brady bunch and antigunners say.
-
twyacht, took your advise and emailed Mr. O'Reilly. Will watch to see if he replies!
-
::) O'Riley has always been a moderate and tha means he is "all wrong half the time and half wrong all the time" I listened to his radio show because I was bored with Rushs's Republo Speak and O'Riley does have some insight to the big city media wack jobs. He should, he is one. He is still sort of a statist wannabe.
Fides sed veritas!
-
I listened when he had his radio show until I got fed-up with his refusal to let anyone actually answer a question. Anyone who disagreed with him was "talked over." Anyone who tried to make a point that countered one of his points was not allowed to get his viewpoint aired. Even some of the people he had on his show, like Lisa Wiel (sp?) were routinely talked down to or shouted down--and she's pretty liberal, too. Perhaps the one thing that sealed the deal for me was when the tapes were released of Bill telling one of his young producers/interns what he would like to do to her in the shower--and this from a married guy who portrays himself as the most moral of commentators and a dedicated husband. (I called "BS" and switched stations)
If you really gave him a listen, you would find that he is a moderate dummycrap with no solidly conservative views. That he is anti-gun comes as no surprise because he is a fan of bigger government-fewer rights in many areas. I think he would strongly oppose the concept of "The government is best that governs least."
I was rather pleased when his radio show was discontinued and do not understand why FOX would keep him on their TV network.
That's all I'm sayin'
-
He is a moderate with some very outspoken traditional values -- which have caused him to be vilified by the far left.
-
Here is the video:
The more I think about this the more it makes me irate. Because of the pulpit he has, what O'Reilly was saying in that video is traitorous. What he is preaching to his very substancial audience is endangering this country should we ever, God forbid, be faced with a tyranical govt that wishes to impose their will on us.
The declaration of "State of Emergency" is declared all the time. Look at the recent North Carolina thing where they got too much snow and needed to declare a "State of Emergency". It happens all the time for weather related occurances so that federal dollars can be handed out for assistance.
Are you telling me, Mr. O'Reilly, that next time there is a blizard or a flood that Govt should be able take away everyone's (except criminals and the Govt) guns? Heck, that sounds like a great way to me to "get guns off the streets". Are you telling me that "State of Emergency" is good enough for us to surrend all of our God given rights -- lets remember that during Katrina Neagan suspended civil rights and Miranda rights while also taking away all those guns. What happens when someone like, Oh I dont know.... Barrack Obama decides that the gun violence in America has reached the point that it should be declared a "State of emergency"? Are we to let him take all the guns in the nation and destroy them while at the same time burning down all the property, plant, and equipment of the nations gun manufacturers? Yeah, it might be deamed unconstitutional later on down the road, but that wont get all our guns back..... That wont remove the Tyrant from office and put him in prison (It never has). Additionally, without a well armed malitia how is the Supreme Court going to enforce the verdict? How are the American people supposed to get back control of their country?
Good grief this guy makes me sick..... hmmmm I wonder how Keith Olbermann(D) feels about this subject ::)
-
You need to keep in mind that TV and radio people like O'Reilly are, in a sense, "political entertainers." They make their money by creating controversy.
The interview went off track right from the beginning. Specifically, O'Reilly began with an amalgam of the Oath Keeper's 1st and 4th point, "We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people" and "We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law..." (To see the orders go to - http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/ )
Mr. Rhodes could have helped himself out by breaking apart the two points. Instead, Rhodes charged ahead equating hurricane Katrina to "bad weather." I don't care what measure you have the aftermath of Katrina was not about bad weather.
Things further got off track when O'Reilly talked about a "state of emergency" and Rhodes was talking about "martial law." O'Reilly made a crucial mistake by linking and equating the two issues. Legally they do not mean the same thing. Neither O'reilly nor Rhodes had a clear basis for the discussion.
That being said, one could conclude that O'Reilly can situationally justify disarming law abiding citizens. However, from this clip I'm not sure he was making that point. He could have been trying to highlight the Oath Keeper's "Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey" and trying to understand the meaning.
Look at the video clip a couple of times and look at the Oath Keeper's web site. I think this was simply a botched interview on the part of O'Reilly and Rhodes.
-
You need to keep in mind that TV and radio people like O'Reilly are, in a sense, "political entertainers." They make their money by creating controversy.
The interview went off track right from the beginning. Specifically, O'Reilly began with an amalgam of the Oath Keeper's 1st and 4th point, "We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people" and "We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law..." (To see the orders go to - http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/ )
Mr. Rhodes could have helped himself out by breaking apart the two points. Instead, Rhodes charged ahead equating hurricane Katrina to "bad weather." I don't care what measure you have the aftermath of Katrina was not about bad weather.
Things further got off track when O'Reilly talked about a "state of emergency" and Rhodes was talking about "martial law." O'Reilly made a crucial mistake by linking and equating the two issues. Legally they do not mean the same thing. Neither O'reilly nor Rhodes had a clear basis for the discussion.
That being said, one could conclude that O'Reilly can situationally justify disarming law abiding citizens. However, from this clip I'm not sure he was making that point. He could have been trying to highlight the Oath Keeper's "Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey" and trying to understand the meaning.
Look at the video clip a couple of times and look at the Oath Keeper's web site. I think this was simply a botched interview on the part of O'Reilly and Rhodes.
When a State declares a "State of Emergency" it is giving iteslf powers that are very similar to martial law..... Martial Law itself does not exist under Louisiana State Law. If you are suspending Habeas Corpus (suspending the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary) you are essentially declaring Martial law. Military involvement in domestic law enforcement can not happen without congressional approval. Katrina was different to some extent because most of what happened involved National Guard which is state run..... But it is still a situation where govt was denying second amendment rights, civil rights and Miranda rights and those troops were not following their oath.
*What pisses me off the most about this O'Reilly thing is that after Katrina he was touting the hurricane as a posterchild for why Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms. I cant find the video, but he went on and on night after night about how this will spell the end of the gun grabber movement because it was such a shinning example of how guns can keep us safe when govt cant. He talked about how it was total anarchy for three days after the storm, and how those who did not have weapons at their side were helpless against the badguys who were free to do as they wished. And he was right. Thats why there were so many news stories about people with ARs by their side and people being interviewed saying that they would shoot to kill anyone who tried anything -- and even the far left was not saying anything about it. They where in a desperate situation..... but here is a question for O'Reilly: What if Nagan declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the storm (They knew it was going to be catastrophic) and sent them out to confiscate everyones guns 3 days before the storm? Where would everyone have been then?
I also take great offense at the fact that O'Reilly called it "a pretty extreme position" to say that it is unconstitutional to disarm law abiding citizens.
**O'Reilly is going to take a lot of heat for this..... all the other blogs that are covering this and especially gun forums are really fired up.... he is gonna get a lot of mail about this.
-
**O'Reilly is going to take a lot of heat for this..... all the other blogs that are covering this and especially gun forums are really fired up.... he is gonna get a lot of mail about this.
Yes he will. At least a clarification of his stance on the 2nd Amend. regarding LAW-ABIDING FOLKS, who ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
-
Well he just addressed it at the end of his show... he cited Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and said it was legal (Supreme Court said it was not) and then he said what they did during Katrina was legal (also decided by the Supreme Court that it was not). He seemed to say that we have a judiciary that will keep us safe from all this kind of stuff and apparently he does not care that it will be well after the fact.
What a piece of ****!
-
Seems to be opening up a can of worms on this one.
-
O'Reilly is a paid shill.
-
O'Reilly is a paid shill douchebag.
Corrected for accuracy. ;D
-
You need to keep in mind that TV and radio people like O'Reilly are, in a sense, "political entertainers." They make their money by creating controversy.
Exactly the same thought I had. I had this idea that he has sensed the country's shift away from bho and toward more historical values on the part of the American people, and in order to create controversy, spouted off in opposition to the 2A.
Could it be that simple?
Naw, he is a paid douche bag, jerk and a$$hole. We do not need anyone with his platform spewing this kind of nonsense anymore. No Shrug Zone here.
-
One also has to keep in mind that there are many interpretations of what "conservative" means. There are many who may be fiscal conservatives (often in name only or as nicely put by Beck, they just cut out the tax portion of tax and spend) that essentially support the idea of a nanny state or that people may need to be controlled. And often with our "entertainers" they are simply that not a paid shill as in being paid off but they are paid to have a big audience, they are paid to drive advertising dollars and they will position to whatever helps that cause.
I love a lot of the writing and general content of Michael Savage, he too seems to have had alternating positions on the 2nd amendment - lining up on the side of gun control for "assault rifles" and now having the "2nd Amendment Commemorative" KelTec 9mm that he advertises (as the greatest quality gun known to man) but in generally you will find that he is solidly behind the 2nd amendment and he blows O'Reilly away when it comes to belittling basic scumbag left wing schmucks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRjGJB7COX4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRjGJB7COX4)
And here he says it is time for and AWB http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5193 (http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5193) I read this and I wonder where his head is at. The police can't own these weapons? They are coming from Mexico? Did he just have a bad hang over this day?
The real problem isn't with these entertainers, it is with our politicians who often seem to also believe that they are entertainers or at least play the role of "helping us their poor constituents" and love their adoring public. Ugh.
tom
-
Stop the presses! I agree with Eric! No ifs ands or buts. O'Reilly is a bully, and a self righteous douche bag. He doesn't invite guests on his show to debate, but to yell at them. What's the point? To be informative, you let a guy make his case, and then say why he's wrong, then argue. Just yelling at someone says nothing. Heat, not light. I've praised Rachel Maddow before and I'll do it again. I don't agree with her, but she gives her guests uninterrupted time to make their point, THEN, starts in on them. That's fair, that lets me learn something, why can't O'Reilly, Hannity and Olbermann get this? Its not about you. I don't tune in to hear bill. I want to hear both (or three or six) sides addressed. O'Reilly is like Bill Bennet. He is neither a liberbal nor a conservative. He is a populist authoritarian. The state, representing the will of an "authentic" in this case American, people is right and can do what it will. Anyone who defys that will (citizen, judge, politician, artist), can and should be slapped into line by the state. For Bill, the Bill of Right's is just a bunch of technicalities in the wayof the "greater good". Screw him.
FQ13
-
I used to be an O'Reilly fan, and still watch his show, but my opinion of him is changing as well. He really needs to let his guests finish a single sentence before chopping them off. The other day he had Suzanne Sommers on to discuss free marketing of vitamin supplements without government interference, which Sommers is for. The woman could not complete a sentence without his constant interruptions.
What also turned me off is on a previous program he seemed to almost support the New Orleans gun confiscation by police that went on after Katrina. He had a member of the "Oath Keepers" on when he managed that little display.
His classic was when he refused to call Hussein a socialist, stating pure socialism is when the government can come into your home and seize your personal property. He just about made a fool of himself in front of Newt Gingrich who opposed him very well. Gingrich is one of the best debaters alive today. Hannity is simply a hard core Republican that regurgitates every right wing, anti Hussein message he hears. While I agree with him 99% of the time, it gets tiring listening to the same rhetoric every night. Bill T.
-
Quaker, You are wrong about Maddow(D)..... she only does that with her guests who are as far to the left fringe as she is (which encompasses about 90% of her guest roster).
*Chris Mathews(D) is the worst at stone walling his guests.
-
Quaker, You are wrong about Maddow(D)..... she only does that with her guests who are as far to the left fringe as she is (which encompasses about 90% of her guest roster).
*Chris Mathews(D) is the wost at stone walling his guests.
Very true. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, and CNN are all left wing leaning. Just remember before becoming too critical of Fox. They are the only conservative news outlet on television today. The more the liberals criticize their content, the more I like it ! Bill T.
-
Very true. NBC(D), ABC(D), CBS(D), CNBC(D), and CNN(D) are all left wing leaning. Just remember before becoming too critical of Fox. They are the only conservative news outlet on television today. The more the liberals criticize their content, the more I like it ! Bill T.
Fixed it for ya ;)
-
Its not the content, its the style. As far as I'm concerned you could tie Olbermann and O'Reilly in a sack and drop them off a bridge and America would be a better (or at least quieter) place. I just want an intellectual debate on the merits rather than a shouting match. That means a host that will STFU and let the guest speak before starting in. No interruptions, y'know like our mothers taught us. All we seem to get are Jerry Springer wannabes.
FQ13
-
And a host that will keep the "Liberal guest" from talking over or interrupting the " Conservative guest".
-
Matthews is far worse than O'Reilly. He can't even get along with his liberal guests. Dean actually made some sense in his analysis. Bill T.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoGaUrwm2TI&feature=related
-
Which is worse:
Shouting down the other point of view or the giant liberal circle jerk?
*I've noticed Chris Mathews(D) only goes into shouting down his guests mode when he gets cock blocked
Stop the presses! I agree with Eric!
FQ13
I'm as sickened by that as you are.
-
I've noticed Chris Mathews(D) only goes into shouting down his guests mode when he gets cock blocked.
When there is a liberal circle jerk, Matthews is always upset when he doesn't get to be the pivot man. Bill T.