Bill O'Reilly: OK for terrorists to attack San Francisco

I'm not conservative.

I loathed my time in the Army.

I have not advised people to join the military.

I'm not up in arms.

Sadly, the American system has become a democracy but that is not the most American of ways. The most American of ways would favor the individual over the mob rule of democracy.

You thought wrong.

 

True, but if you didnt pay your taxes you would go to jail. I think what he is saying is a Civil Responsibility. What SEEMS to happen is political "idiotology" gets in the way of civil responsibility regardless of party affliation. Think about how people hide Eric Rudolf after he bombed abortion clincs. I dont think we should not protect SF, that crazy, but what they are effectivily saying is that they dont want to do their part in protecting the city by provide themselves as a resource to the military. To some people that just stinks of the entitlement mentallity and definatly MAY reflect the city's liberal slant. I think turning it into a social is alittle cheap though. I was in the service and met people of all types, shapes and colors. This has nothing to do with inner city. I wish we had statistics of who joins, and specificly who joins and going into an area that involved combat.


IMHO, our responsibilities is to fellow americains first and foremost no matter what their party of beliefs. I am disappointed in O'Riellys statement.

 

Bruce, thank you for telling me what I'm obviously missing based on your assumption. This makes no sense.

You've been in combat. What's your point? Seriously, what IS your point?

You served in the Army with kids from the suburbs and you don't recall them getting a pass. You've missed the point entirely here. What can you say about their decision to join the military in the first place? Did they feel it was their only viable option? Was it based on economic needs? Was it to escape drugs or crime?

You make the blanket statement that it's safer in the military than in the inner city. That is true for some, and not true for some. It depends on where in the inner city and where in the military.

Let's assume that it is safer in the military. This means that inner city youth will be pressured to join the military and face those risks - something their suburban brothers don't have to deal with (I'm not talking about AFTER they join the military). So perhaps military recruiters are not such a good option. Perhaps these young people would be better served by getting a better education and better counseling.

If we assume that it's more dangerous in the military, then this is even more reason to keep recruiters off campus and give students a chance to find the alternatives that are open to other students.

Please can the "I served in the military" routine. Was that your choice? If so, then good for you, but don't keep pulling that card out of your hat expecting a free ride on all arguments having to do with the military.

Are you teaching 150 inner city kids every semester? No, you're not. Nevertheless, I trust you still have something to say about education, and though I might not agree with it, I don't dismiss it out of hand because you're not a teacher.

Our different backgrounds probably explains our different perspectives on this. You defend the military option; I defend the education option. You say the military is good for inner city youth because it's less dangerous than their current lives. I say we can do better, and the answer is to work to give them the same options as other kids. You cite individual examples of minorities in the military. I say that may be interesting, but it says nothing about the problem at hand, and whether military recruiters on campuses is a good idea. You assume that denying recruiters access to high schools and colleges somehow rejects the entire notion of the military, I say it just gives some distance to students and allows them to explore all their options before making a commitment in any direction.

 

Gee, why do we need to even hold a vote when we have Bill, who can neatly summarize the inner workings and motivations of a few hundred thousand adults -- all in a few paragraphs. Incredible. To top it off, Bill even tags on a psychological evaluation. We now know that all "alternative" neighborhoods are made up of the self conscious. My guess is that you wouldn't dream of standing up in front of a representative crowd of SF voters to spout this neat summary. You'd be too embarrassed - and with good reason.

 

Middle-Class Warfare, or Support Our Semi-Fortunate Sons and Daughters

 

Relax. It's not a personal attack... or a TOS violation. It's more of a simile. The whole "what God's gonna' do to them" thing is what someone like Pat Robertson would say... and has said, in fact. That was my point. If you took it as a personal attack, I apologize. But one can't make such a statement here and expect it not to be commented upon... including in a way that you dont' like. I'm a Christian... and I don't like the idea of someone warning that God's gonna' punish all the crazy people from San Francisco. It's silly. Let's not even pursue it, okay? Please.

Finally, please don't make one's status here -- moderator, administrator or otherwise -- the subject. Bruce and I are both in here debating as just one of the guys... er... I mean... in this case, just two of the guys. Let's not spoil that, shall we?

Maybe, maybe not. My point was that for however long he's not in jail, no one can stop him from using public services, even though he hasn't paid his fair share in taxes. We don't work on the toll-booth system... except, obviously, on bridges where there are toll booths, but that's a special circumstance. And that's how it works, and how it's supposed to work.

But that's the beauty of how our system is set up. One doesn't have to have "Civil Responsibility" if they don't want to... at least not as a condition of enjoying his/her constitutionally-guaranteed equal protection.

That, too, is a crime... but I'm confused: We're not talking about anything even remotely related to that, are we? I mean... what am I missing?

That is not what they're saying... not even close. If that's what they had meant to say, then recruiting of any sort, anywhere, would have been banned. What San Franciscans have said is very narrow and specific. They're not collectively refusing to "do their part." Now that is crazy.

Since you misunderstand what they're doing; and since that comment was based on that misunderstanding, I don't know how to reply to that other than to say, "No, it doesn't."

Well, I haven't been involved in that part of the discussion, you might notice. No comment.

Unless, of course, some of their fellow Americans deem them lacking in civil responsibility, or unwilling to do their part, or stinking of an entitlement mentality, or liberal of slant, right? Those Americans are exempt, then... right? Dont' forget that dissenters are patriots, too... maybe even the best kind.

On that we agree!

 

I just pointed out that that the immigrant families that produce so many of the kids that are in the SF public schools are probably less opposed to military recruiting than the white singles and childless couples whose counterculture sentiments and voter registration are both very high.

So I'm questioning whether talk about "our children" is really accurate. It wasn't exactly the city's parents who were doing this. This was more of a political statement ram-rodded by the majority of voters without children, a municipal 'fuck you' directed by the counter-culture community straight at George Bush.

If voting maps for this election are available, broken down by neighborhood precincts, I think that they will show that support for this measure was lower out in the avenues where there are lots of Asian families with kids, more non-citizens and lower voter registration, but very high in places like the Castro and the Haight where there are lots of domestically grown and politically active gays and twenty-somethings but very few children.

I think that the Castro and the Haight are deeply aware of, and very proud of, their oppositional stance with regard to middle-America and what they regard as the American mainstream. It's why cultural criticism of all kinds is so rife in those communities.

I've said countless things like that in San Francisco. Why in the world would I be embarassed? I think what I said is accurate and even rather self-evident to anyone who knows anything about city politics. I'm not saying anything that the professional political analysts won't tell you. (They can pull out detailed precinct maps to illustrate city voting patterns.)

It is true that I don't like angry emotional confrontations. If I was in Modern Times bookstore down there on Valencia, I'd probably keep quiet. Disagreeing with political activists and radical true-believers never goes down well whatever their stripe. That's true whether it's the cultural left in San Francisco or the conservative fundies in the rural deep South. Heretics have this annoying habit of getting themselves burned at the stake.

 

Ya know,


What I find interesting and telling is the side supporting the recruiters are pointing out the illogical stance of the opposition while the side supporting their ouster is unable to clearly explain why their presence is so destructive. We haven't heard of one instance of improper conduct of the recruiters. I believe Bill is right on the money when he points out the vote was a political statement and not a logical decision. From that point of view, fine, but it is sad to see these people unable to suggest a change or a plan that would move this country to a better position.

 

You stated I had "survivorship bias", as if I were considering the thought of being KIA as some abstract concept that I pondered from the cigar room of the country club, snifter of cognac in hand.

Tom, I have news for you....each recruiter has quotas to meet, it doesn't matter where their recruiting station is. There is no more pressure from recruiters in the South Bronx than there is in Podunk, North Dakota.

Again, that's not feasible for everyone. Even most everyone.

Where did I say I expected a free ride? Tom, I'm starting to suspect you simply don't like the military in general. If so, it's okay to admit it.

No, I'm dealing with them outside the world of magnatometers, classrooms, and desks. Out in the street, which I promise you is much more of an indicator as to how their lives are going to end up.

Teaching high school? I don't know a thing about it, so feel free to dismiss me, should I ever pontificate about it.

Who is going to pay for your option? The military is all about providing service members with educational opportunities.

No, I didn't say that, I mentioned it as an afterthought. I think it's a viable option because of the opportunities it presents.....job training, career prospects, money for college, etc.

Again....who is going to pay for your programs?

Tom...as I mentioned, many of these kids don't even have a TV in their house, and when I ask them if they know where the closest recruiting station is, they just stare at me. If recruiters aren't allowed on campus, exactly how are these kids going to even know their options?

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lspahn
IMHO, our responsibilities is to fellow americains first and foremost no matter what their party of beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless, of course, some of their fellow Americans deem them lacking in civil responsibility, or unwilling to do their part, or stinking of an entitlement mentality, or liberal of slant, right? Those Americans are exempt, then... right? Dont' forget that dissenters are patriots, too... maybe even the best kind.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said that. I though I stated that "our responsibilities is to fellow americains first". I didnt say conservative, or liberal, or even purple. I also never challenged you patriotism. I may be on the other end of idiology from you, but the fact that you CARE and are informed is hugh and important. I just feel with rights comes responsibilities. Would you support draft "dodgers" if the reinstate the draft? Is that a "civil responsibility"? If not what are our responibilities civicly and militarily?

In reference to eric rudolf, i was illustrating how stupied people can be when it comes to political beliefs and sometimes lose sight of right and wrong.


I agree that dissenters are important. I believe thats what all our founding fathers were. I have a honest question for you, and maybe you can help me understand a person who definatly agrees with you.

My best friend & godfather of my childern, a serious lefty by way, is constantly upset because he says is patriotism is being challenged by conservatives. What is he hearing exactly that makes him feel that way? I suggested that it was a guilty consicince (i know, but i am a smart a**), but he was very pretty clear it wasnt. What is your take?

 

Bruce,

There are plenty of ways students are exposed to the military without recruiters on campus. My neighborhood has gigantic billboards. There are recruiters at the mall. The military advertises heavily on television. And there is good old word of mouth.

You write: "You stated I had "survivorship bias, as if I were considering the thought of being KIA as some abstract concept that I pondered from the cigar room of the country club, snifter of cognac in hand." I'm not sure what this means. My point was that you use examples from your personal life and make generalizations. I believe you when you say you've known minorities who were happy and prosperous in the military. For every one of those, there are surely others for whom things don't work out. Either they waste 3 or 4 years in the military, or the worst possible case is that they don't return alive.

You write: "No, I'm dealing with them outside the world of magnatometers, classrooms, and desks. Out in the street, which I promise you is much more of an indicator as to how their lives are going to end up." You're essentially assuming that, because they live in a hell hole, that's the way their life is going to end up. No wonder you advocate the military. It's sort of like saying, "hey you're destined for drugs and early death anyway, so why not take a chance on the military." That's not much of an endorsement for their own ability to change their lives, or for the military either.

I see them in the classroom, which is a pretty good portal into what's possible. Lots of kids live in hell holes but have the intellectual ability for something different - apart from the military. You get to see them at their potential worst; I get to see them at their potential best.

You ask how we'll pay for my options. The answer is the same way we pay for the military - with tax dollars and, at least in the case of big government Republican administrations, huge deficit spending. That's how all government programs are funded.

More troubling, I guess, is exactly why you think my option is so expensive. What I proposed was putting more qualified counselors in schools, and improving the education options for inner city kids. Against the current backdrop of a couple of billion a month to keep pouring troops and supplies into the Middle East - it seems a pretty sensible, and economical option - don't you think?

 

If you mean sincere -- and the operative word, here, is "sincere" -- conscientious objectors, then yes. Always have. And so does the United States government, or the category would not exist.

Or, if you mean, by "draft dodgers," those who find a lawful way to avoid conscripted military service without lying or being in any other way deceitful or disingenuous, then yes. And so does the United States government, or the very legal means by which what you consider to be "draft dodgers" are able to avoid conscripted service would not exist.

To obey the law. Period. And unless doing so is prima facie unconstitutional, to obey it even if one disagrees with it; and, if so, then to change it (while continuing to follow it while so doing, and accepting the failure if one cannot) through lawful means.

Beyond that, none of us have to do anything except be whatever is the color of our respective skins (unless maybe you're Michael Jackson), and die.

We are a nation of laws, not people... or armies. Our civic responsibility is to follow the law... no more, no less. As long as one does that, then even one's so-called military responsiblity is honored and will take care of itself... including if one never actually serves. Lawful means of avoiding conscripted service is exactly that: Lawful. It is neither right, nor wrong; and imposing such concepts onto that legal construct is not what the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had in mind.

And my point in questioning it was a back-door way of pointing out that "right" and "wrong" have less to do with it than did their obligation to follow the law. Helping Rudolf was unlawful. That it was also "wrong" was just icing on the cake.

I would have used the word "essential," but "important" works, too.

Among other things... but mostly they were patriots.

My delay in responding to your post, generally, was, in largest measure, because I wanted to ruminate on your question for a day or so... not that my response, now, will reflect that kind of preparation, mind you. I sensed sincerity in your question, so I wanted to honor that with thoughtfulness... and I think you for asking it as you have. You should print-out and show this back-and-forth between you and me to your friend and get his input as well.

Another reason why I needed the rumination time was that I was having trouble seeing how I could respond in any thoughtful or meaningful way without using your own words in your very post to which I'm now responding as illustration... and I didn't (and still don't) want to offend you by what I have to say about that. To get anything from my response, here, I suggest you take a giant (but, gratefully, only temporary) step back from your fundamental beliefs and how you typically express them; that you force yourself to a level of empathy with which most people -- including even me -- are unaccustomed, uncomfortable, and find hugely challenging; and that you allow yourself to take a long, hard look at your own sensibilities which I would argue are the very things which blind you to the effect you have on such as your "lefty" best (and, as evidenced by his being the godfather to your children, well-loved by you) friend... and which causes him to feel like his patriotism is, as you say he put it, "being challenged by conservatives" such as you. I envy that the two of you are able to love despite your political differences. It is sometimes not so easy for me to separate it... but as is my gift, I now digress.

Let's begin with your use of the word "lefty" to describe him. He's your friend, so I realize there's a good-natured, "just yankin' yer chain" sort of aspect to it. But, though he calls himself "left," the underlying pejorative of "lefty" is not lost on him. The term, as you use it, harkens back to the days of McCarthyism, communist witch hunting, guilt by association, ending of careers, ruination of lives, questioning of patirotism, fear mongering, betrayal, being "un-American," and all else that was horribly wrong with those terrible days. By your mere use of that term, you question your friend's patriotism by labeling him that which the whole of American society in those days considered inherently bad and unpatriotic... and incurably so, I might add. The taint of the term lingers still. If your retort includes that he, himself, calls himself a "lefty," then I ask you to consider that he who says the word -- with all that that, because of who he is and what he belives, imputes -- controls how it was meant. If you don't believe that, imagine, for illustration purposes, that your friend is African American while you remain white; and that the word in question is "nigger." Now who gets to use the word... and when so, note how its meaning changes depending on the color of the skin of he who utters it. While the scale of "lefty" is less, the analogy is apt.

Then, next, let's look at your use of the phrase "guilty conscience," as you used it here. In order for you to wonder if he feels guilt, you must, necessarily, see him and his lefty value system as inherently wrong. Never mind that it's lawful. To you and those of your ilk, it's wrong... objectively. You, yourself, in the very post of yours to which I'm now responding wrote of inherent rightness and wrongness, notwithstanding legality. They're two terribly different things. When lawfulness and rightness collide, it's kismet... but not necessary to a free society. In fact, it can even be an impediment. Your friend is offended by the very notion of someone else -- especially someone with your particular value set -- prescribing for him what should be his values and standards of living. The notion of it being dictum from someone who believes his values to be superior; and who further believes that those who deviate therefrom are somehow deviant and should be stricken with guilt is repugnant to him, at its deepest possible levels. That you characterize him as defiant in his left-leaning sensibilities betrays your penchant for prescription and compliance... as does your argument for civic and military "responsibility."

Those are your values... along with not rocking the boat, just generally, by dissenting. You say that dissenters are important, and you cite the founding fathers as illustration; but then, in quite literally the same breath, you characterize your friend's dissent as defiance. How dare he defy your sense of how things should be, is the unspoken remainder of that sentiment. How dare the citizens of San Francisco fail to honor their civic and military responsibility by dissenting.

You and the others here who argue that San Franciscans are unpatriotic by their recent actions would seem to wish them drummed-out of the union because of their failure to comply with that which you believe is right... notwithstanding that they acted lawfully, in any case. But by their lawful dissent and non-compliance, they do not become disenfranchised, as Bill O'Reilly now advocates should be their punishment.

In the face of such sentiment, how can you wonder what your beloved friend is hearing that you are not?

Others, having read this, will now chime-in and tear apart what I've written here... and you will read that and your understanding, if I have helped you to any at all, will diminish.

Please, Lou -- just a moment -- don't let that happen. Force upon yourself the inordinately high level of empathy to which I encouraged you earlier. Stand in your friend's shoes. Listen with his ears. Wear his skin. Hear what conservatives like you say as he hears it. Know, as you're hearing it through his ears, that beneath his skin that you're wearing, you are a patriot; that you truly understand what it means to be a patriot; that lawful, good faith dissent makes you even more of a patriot. Embrace what it must be like to see things that way; to believe it in your heart 'til the notion of someone saying that you'e not a patriot causes an ache that wells tear in the eye and catch in the throat. Hear, honestly, what your friend hears, Lou. Really listen. Understand. Empathize. You don't have to agree with him. Just hear it as he hears it... even if only for a moment.

Then step back into your own skin and shoes, let your empathy drop to its normal levels, and return here to join in the tearing down of what I've just written... for I know I have not changed you. But if you love him, I will have at least helped you hear him...

...and that's what you asked me to do.

 

All the billboards in my patrol area advertise either the latest movies, latest video games, alcoholic beverages, or (in season) the political candidate that promises people the most free handouts.

As for "word of mouth", exactly where is this going to come from? I do my best to spread the word of the opportunities offered by the military, but I'm only one guy. Even then, I'm "The Man", who isn't to be trusted, no matter what.

Very simple. You tried to paint me as a theorist that has no idea of what combat really means. I'm here to tell you that I do know what it means. And, I challenge you trump my real-life experiences in combat, with your real-life experiences in combat. Let's compare notes.

My personal experiences are not generalizations, I assure you.

You have data to back-up that claim, right? <insert crickets chirping>

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but are you seriously that clueless? If you truly teach high school in the inner-city, go visit some of your student's homes.

Let's see......funding the military, which protects our way of life, versus funding a perpetual system of people who have children they can't possibly care for.....Quick cost vs. benefit analysis....I gotta go with the military on that one.

Very simply, you could have Harvard professors/counselors volunteer to teach high school in the inner cities, and the results probably wouldn't be much different. It all starts with, as my Drill Sergeant used to say, home training.

 

Tom, I love ya man..... but I gotta go with Bruce on this one. His points are superb, and irrefutable except by someone so naiive as to think we don't need a military at all.

 

No, I'm not clueless. You need to stop making generalizations about inner city life based on your patrol stops. And I see your true colors have come out: funding the military which protects "our" (read "your") way of life, versus "funding a perpetual system of people who have children they can't possibly care for".

Bruce, I'm talking about improving schools, not funding procreation in the inner city. I see where you're coming from. The inner city is a bunch of low lifes who don't deserve any funding. I see why you recommend the military.

Why would inner city kids want to join the military? It doesn't protect "their" way of life. It protects Bruce's way of life. I see why you would want them to make that sacrifice. You'd get the double benefit of perhaps fewer patrols stops to the inner city where you'd have to be disgusted by their way of life.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass either, but you should get your ass to church and give thanks for what you have, and stop making crass generalizations based on your limited experience.

 

The truth hurts. I've seen way too many kids living in squalid conditions, and it's painfully obvious the parents can't even manage their own lives, never mind care for children. Ever seen a toddler with rat bites on his body? It's not pleasant, I assure you.

Improve schools? Exactly how would you do that? Whenever I see "money to improve schools", it usually means more money for the teacher's unions, which doesn't seem to ever improve the quality of education. Throwing money at a problem doesn't work.

I believe in a hand-up, not a hand-out. If I had a dollar for every able-bodied person I've encountered with a welfare card, I'd be comfortably retired right now.

Get out of the ghetto, get job training, money for college, career options.....the question should be, why *wouldn't* inner-city kids join the military? It certainly beats the hell out of most of their other options.

Tom....if I truly didn't give a shit about these kids, why would I try my damndest to steer them towards a positive option?

I would hardly call 18 years "limited experience". My "crass generalizations" are simply the truths of my experiences, sorry if they don't fit into your rose-colored world.

 

ban all recruiters then

I agree with kit. If u ban military recruiters then ban all including the corporate ones. Banning just one type of recruiter is somewhat discriminating. I'm sure these kids can find out info from these companies elsewhere besides on campus, just as they can with military recruiters.

 

Re: ban all recruiters then

Discriminatory. There's a difference.

And as to that...

• One doesn't risk making an irreversable and most-likely life-altering decision when one goes to work for a corporation. One does when one signs-up for the US military.
  
• One has legal recourse against a corporation if it misrepresents itself, breaks its word, or its actions result in injury or loss of life. One does not with the US military.
  
• One may say "no" to something that a corporation asks one to do without there being dire consequences which may include loss of liberty. One may not with the US military.
  
• One can't be jailed -- or even executed -- for deserting a corporation. One most certainly can for deserting the US military.
  
• One may quit a corporation. One may not simply quit... well... you know the rest.

The two kinds of recruiters are so excruciatingly far from being even remotely equivalent that the suggestion is prima facie ridiculous.

 

Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy - I can't beleive that you have a picture of this POS on your signature line. He is so pathological, he has even convinced himself. Remember the part played by Martin Sheen in the movie "The Dead Zone"? Well - that is Bush to the key. A dangerous and evil man - a man who uses god to promote his own sick agenda.

 

Re: Re: ban all recruiters then

Well said Des. Recuiters do lie - all of the time. And they do it with impunity because no one usually believes a 17 year old against a career military person. Problem is, all military recuriters lie to some degree to make their quotas - whether it is misrepresenting a certain occupation, time in service, to even failing to disclose certain obligations. In civilian life, you have the choice of simply quitting or the right of other recourse. In the military, you have little recourse at all.

I tell my son's friends not to join the military for an education. Education is a consquence of your MOS - nothing else. If you are a ET, then you are going to be trained on a fixed group of products which suit the Navy - period - nothing else. The purpose of the military is to defend the US - to kill - everything else is secondary. Whether you are in the band, fixing radios, or on the front line as a Seal or Infantry, you must never forget your primary mission and forget all of the fluffy ads and BS propaganda.

I joined and served under both Carter and Reagan. I beleive and still beleive they were both honorable men. GW is not an honorable man, he is merely a dangerous demogogue with illusions of godhood.