Kamiya vs. O'Reilly (Free Republic Mentioned)

Salon ^ | 4/23/03 | The editors of Salon

[Oldsailor]

I will try to be civil in my reply .......although it is especially difficult in light of the fact that I am sure that even if I use a "civil argument" the chance that it will be recieved with any modicum of reality is slim to none.

I take from your last remarks that a mere thought is pardonable, even though it may be a thought that a certain thing will happen and the thinker of that thought wishes for that thing to take place. After that thought which is some way not acted upon the one who thinks that way is pardonable because it was only a passing thought and therefore can be excused. He did after all say he thinks Saddam is bad (which all of the anti-war....anti-Americans say) but he wishes the American troops could have a harder time winning the war.

The most glarinfg difference in what you think and what I think is that I hold that person responsible for the blatant anti-American feelings he had just for the purpose to make G.W. Bush look bad.

[Oldsailor]

I will try to be civil in my reply .......although it is especially difficult in light of the fact that I am sure that even if I use a "civil argument" the chance that it will be recieved with any modicum of reality is slim to none.

I take from your last remarks that a mere thought is pardonable, even though it may be a thought that a certain thing will happen and the thinker of that thought wishes for that thing to take place. After that thought which is some way not acted upon the one who thinks that way is pardonable because it was only a passing thought and therefore can be excused. He did after all say he thinks Saddam is bad (which all of the anti-war....anti-Americans say) but he wishes the American troops could have a harder time winning the war.

The most glarinfg difference in what you think and what I think is that I hold that person responsible for the blatant anti-American feelings he had just for the purpose to make G.W. Bush look bad.

[Skywalk]

I'm not sure why you'd have a hard time being civil to someone who did not stoop to ranting, raving or flaming.

As for your remark, actually I DO hold people accountable for their thoughts, but only to the extent warranted.

For instance, I have had some really terrible thoughts about some of the most venomous anti-Americans. However, I know that when confronted with the reality of the person's humanity(what remains of it) I would not take their life.

In fact, all humans, at least those capable of imagination and confronting their darker sides, have probably had to work out a passing impulse or thought in their head because they REALIZE the thought is wrong or ill-conceived.

Should we judge adulterers and people who gave a half-second thought to adultery equally reprehensible?

All that said, I believe MOST of the ones who wished for a hard time in Iraq have NOT changed, and they are the evil ones. The people who had to be confronted with reality to show them the evil nature of their thoughts are not AS reprehensible.

After all, David Horowitz needed a lot to turn from Leftism, so did Sowell. Should we forever condemn these men for having the wrong thoughts in their head?

[Egregious Philbin]

I don't understand how you can claim that your personal opinions are "reality." The reality in print, if you compare the Salon article that Kamiya wrote with the statements about him in the Washington Times and Newsmax articles, and by O'Reilly - is that they took quotes out of context.

I'm saying that private wishes are not the same as advocating for those things to take place. If Kamiya actually wrote or stated publicly that he wished those things to happen before or during the war, O'Reilly could have at him and I wouldn't feel the need to defend him. But Kamiya confesses in his article that he wished those things secretly AND admits he was wrong. Is no one allowed to change their mind? How are you going to "hold him responsible" for private feelings made public, and ones that he admitted were wrong?

[amused]

Of course, the real agenda of conservative media's overbearing pundits -- despite their lip service to the marketplace of ideas -- is to drive everyone who disagrees with them out of the public arena. They're not interested in open debate; their goal is to intimidate and silence.

In other words those stinking conservatives took a page from the left's playbook and since the political pendulum has swung to the right in this country people don't care. Just like the people didn't care when the pendulum swung left and liberals did the same thing. Both sides just shout at each other anyway. The only measurement of what's fair or debate is how much the audience agrees with you.

Hey the left got what they wanted now...mob rule democracy ;-) They just forgot that the mob is fickle.

[amused]

Special FReeces

That one doesn't sound too good ;-)

[amused]

Bill scares the crap out of me sometimes, some of his stances are way too authoritarian for my tastes.

[amused]

FRapistas? FRuerillas? FRinutemen? FRatpack? Hole in the FR gang? FRezerkers?

[BOBTHENAILER]

FReedayeen? FReehadists (FR Jihadists?) Agents of F.R.E.E.P.? I'm sure we could come up with a better term than wing nut fedayeen. FReepublican Guard? Special FReeces?

FReezbollah, FRamas, FReeRepublic Liberation Front, al FReepers Martyr's Brigade, al FReepa, FRee Qaeda, Jamiat al FReezlam, FReemilitia.

We could all change our screen names to Abu, Mohammed, Achmed, OSAMATHENAILER, etc.

[amused]

We could all change our screen names to Abu, Mohammed, Achmed, OSAMATHENAILER, etc.

amusedattheinfidel?

[BOBTHENAILER]

amusedattheinfidel?

Now that one the NYT author would love. LOL

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

"O'Riely is almost unwatchable because of his rudeness. Watch carefully. No matter who is on, he will ask a question and ALWAYS interrupt before the guest has a chance to answer. Doesn't matter whether the guest is right left, or center, O'Reily will ask questions and NEVER wait for an answer."

Not true. When the first words out of a guest's mouth are pure lies, Bill should just sit there and let the guest get away with lying? No way. That's not responsible journalism.

I applaud Bill for interrupting immediately when someone starts off with an agenda. In a perfect world, every journalist would do the same thing.

Lastly, I have seen Bill ask a guest a question and -- if the person is not lying -- they can easily get in 60 to 90 uninterrupted seconds of speaking. Easily.

[sarasmom]

Re your #11.
Clarification-
Its not really FReeping at work if you have never logged on and posted while at work is it?
I try to keep my personal activities separate from my job, and I only monitor this site during business hours...
LOL!
BTW, nice inheritance.

[Lancey Howard]

Salon is not a doctrinaire or party-line publication. We seek the full, free exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of liberal discourse. And we believe that there is still room for, even hunger for, honesty and nuance in political debate

Salon wholeheartedly supports the Democrat Party's culture war against traditional America.
Period.
Lying scumbags.

I wish Salon would hurry up and go under already.

[Lancey Howard]

How are you going to "hold him responsible" for private feelings made public,

Uh.... They were "made public" by HIM.
The guy's a liberal scumbag who deserves nothing but loathing and disdain.

I guarantee you that like every other scumbag Democrat, Kamiya walks into the polling place on election day and votes to have big government confiscate more and more taxes from.... his NEIGHBORS.... so that that money may be used by big-government Democrat whores to continue to fund their purchase of votes from the parasite class.

I wouldn't defend that mouse Kamiya from ANYTHING.

[Congressman Billybob]

Salon still exists? Salon still has editors? Do they stand on street corners with signs that say, "Will edit for food?" Is Salon's stock price now a negative number?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on FR, "Who's Next?"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[SkyPilot]

it is mandatory if you have a soul,

Since they are using religious jargon here, let us remind them of the words of their messiah:

"It depends on what the meaning of is - is."

[Sans-Culotte]

O'Reilly has become an over-the-top grandstander IMO. He may allow an occasional guest to speak, but his bullying does him no credit. I saw him try to argue with Ann Coulter about liberal bias in the media. O'Reilly took the position that it basically does not exist (which makes one wonder why there is a need for a "no spin zone"). He never offered any good reasons for disagreeing with Coulter, and tried to blow her off, but she would have none of it.

His worst outburst was when he was arguing with a lawyer about the Danielle van Dam case, and how lawyers who intentionally try to get a client acquitted when they know he is guilty should be held accountable for his actions. I agreed with him, but after he went off on such a loud, pre-scripted rant at the top of his lungs it was obvious that the moment had been staged so O'Reilly could get on his soapbox.

I still watch on occasion, but I used to watch him every night. Just can't take him that often anymore.