O'Reilly Baffled by Peikoff

FoxNews | today | me

[motzman]

O'Reilly baffled by Piekoff. O'Reilly cannot allow himself to face the truth that if we do not eradicate the Fundamentalist "Jihad", a nuke (or worse) will strike this country. Then and only then will he agree with the use on Nukes by the U.S.

Mr. Bill needs to check his premises.....

[motzman]

Have at it...

[motzman]

bump

[AppyPappy]

do not eradicate the Fundamentalist "Jihad",

I'm considered a "fundamentalist" and I ain't real comfortable with your premise.

[motzman]

He thinks he's on the right side, but he's only half-there....

Which isn't good, overall.

[Rodney King]

The appeal for me is that he is a real journalist, who makes his guests answer the questions put to them. I agree with you in many respects, but who else asks liberals the tough questions? When Larry King interviews a liberal, the toughest he gets is "It must be very trying working so hard on behalf of women's rights and diversity when there is so much hate out there?"

[BurkeanCyclist]

Well, you've got to admit that Peikoff could be arguing that chocolate tastes good, and he'd still be a little baffling.

But I think that what really threw O'Reilly was the idiotic assertion that the military should decide whether or not to use nuclear weapons.

[motzman]

I'd assume that your type of Fundamentalism doesn't advocate flying commercial aircraft into office towers.

[motzman]

nd watch him all the time, but he has a habit of pointing out problems, scams, injustices, etc., but never addresses the root of these problems..


Economic and Cultural Socialism in the U.S.A.

[syriacus]

My husband and son said John Gibson was terrific today when he said he thought we may have to use nuclear weapons to forestall the terrorists' use of biological weapons.

[motzman]

Well, you've got to admit that Peikoff could be arguing that chocolate tastes good, and he'd still be a little baffling.

He has a face for Radio, and a mannerisms of a muddled nerd.

But, I agree with him.

[UnBlinkingEye]

Well, you've got to admit that Peikoff could be arguing that chocolate tastes good, and he'd still be a little baffling.

Peikoff started his 'dissertation' by saying killing innocent civilians is totally justified in war. If that is true the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were justified. Piekoff is no better than the perps.

[motzman]

Hopefully, more will begin to understand that we cannot wait for "The Day After" before we take these freaks out.

[ExpandNATO]

O'Reilly has a good reputation among conservatives because he is abrasive to some liberals, others get a total pass.
For example, having read of O'Reilly's reputation I decided to watch his interview with the head of the AARP
about drug benefits for seniors. I expected tough questions like "Given that seniors as a group have the greatest net wealth, why should they all get free prescriptions?" Instead, O'Reilly basically gave the man a puff interview. He provides a slightly different slant, but has his own group of favorites.

[GalvestonBeachcomber]

But I think that what really threw O'Reilly was the idiotic assertion that the military should decide whether or not to use nuclear weapons.

It depends on who is doing the dying. If the choice was a nuke or his ass on the point, I think he would change his mind.

[Malcolm]

O'Reilly is not a Republican, that's for sure. But when he interveiws liberals, he gives them the works. No easy posh interviews to be had on his show. The same for John Gibson. You have to admit, that after decades of ultra-leftist media coverage, FOX is a total breath of fresh air. BTW, everytime FOX interviews some "peacenik," who thinks the only way we can deal with the bombings is to forget all about it, some FOX person jumps down their throat; you think someone on CBS or CNN would do that? Of course not!!!!

[splint]

GET THEM B4 THEY GET YOU! They've already MURDERED 7000 civilians. Nuke'em and Nuke'em now! Otherwise, we will be Nuked! This is SURVIVAL!

[motzman]

If that is true the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were justified.

Well, these freaks have been declaring war on us for years now and we didn't take them seriously.

I fear that we are still not taking them seriously (enough).

We might not survive a "strike three" (Cole being 1, and WTC/Pentagon being 2)

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Your husband is your son? What???

[PISANO]

There is a difference between PLANNING an attack with the PURPOSE of killing ONLY and as many civilians as possible and planning an attack on a military target, executing that plan and civilians are inadvertantly killed. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE!