O'Reilly sure has thin skin about 'personal attacks' -- mebbe because his whole show is built around them
By David Neiwert Saturday May 30, 2009 5:45am
Yes, Bill O'Reilly, it really is a crappy thing when major public figures -- or pissant ankle-biters -- can outrageously smear other public figures as "racist" and do so with impunity and repeatedly. That's what BillO was on about last night, anyway.
But no, he wasn't talking about Sonia Sotomayor. She's just a minor figure, after all. O'Reilly was talking about his own august self. Of course.
It was really quite the stomach-churning whinefest. He started off ranting that "my civil rights" and "my rights as an American" had been violated because he's been branded a "racist" on numerous occasions, which he claims is "libel." Then he indulged one of his periodic bully-the-women routines ("My rights were violated here!"), where he had on two female lawyers who proceeded to explain to him that he was full of crap. This, of course, did not sit well with O'Reilly, who ended up shaking his finger at them and accusing them of enabling the destruction of America.
Along the way, he managed to emit some momentous howlers:
If I were a minority, they couldn't do this to me. You know it. You know it, Tonia. If I were African-American like you are, and they started to do all this kind of stuff, I could kill 'em. And that's my point now. White Americans, Miss California, their rights are being violated, at least the spirit of their rights, by these unbelievable attacks, personal attacks.
...
They're attacking people who disagree with them in very personal ways. That's what they're doing. Don't dodge it.
Then, when they pointed out that the same could be said of his own behavior, he flew into a barely contained rage:
Wait a minute! Hold it! Tonia, keep quiet. I don't dish it out, madam. I don't do that stuff. Don't sit here and say I do. ... We don't do that here. Ever.
And then, at the end of the show? His usual segment of "Pinheads and Patriots." The "Pinheads" segment featured Barbra Streisand:
On the Pinhead front, Barbra Streisand's gonna write a book -- about design. It's gonna tell us all about her mansion in Malibu. I just can't wait for that, can you? No truth to the rumor she'll be concentrating on designs in ... Red Square!
That, of course, is only a sampling of the nonstop flow of "attacking people who disagree with them in very personal ways" on The O'Reilly Factor. Indeed, his whole show is built around it.
Every single night on his show, O'Reilly demonizes liberals. It's what he does. His critics are all "far-left loons" and "haters" who he himself has compared on a regular basis to Nazis and the Klan. Guess he doesn't much care for it when the shoe's on the other foot.
Especially when, as in the case of Joanne Ostrow of the Denver Post -- who O'Reilly claims "libeled" him as a racist for noting that he was indeed spewing racist bile during that infamous dust-up with Geraldo Rivera -- there's more than abundant evidence to back up her charges. There's a reason O'Reilly hasn't filed a libel suit, and it's not merely because he's a public figure.
The crazy thing about this is: Not only have O'Reilly's "rights" not been violated, but he is doing to Charlize Theron and Joanne Ostrow and the L.A. Times' Ann Powers (who also recently criticized him) and all of the countless parade of targets who populate his newscasts every night exactly the thing he is accusing them of doing.
He's trying to shut them up. By claiming they're trying to shut him up. And it isn't hard to figure out who started the to-and-fro in the first place.
What set him off, apparently, was this remark from Charlize Theron in response to the Prop 8 ruling:
I don't agree with homophobia or discrimination of any kind. I will continue to fight this fight for equality and speak up for the basic civil rights of all Americans.
O'Reilly asks:
"Does that include the rights of Americans who sincerely do not believe in gay marriage the right NOT to be called homophobes?"
Sorry, Bill, but no such "right" exists. Otherwise, there would be a similar "right" not to be called a "pinhead" or "Nazis" by Bill O'Reilly. And trying to claim that it does exist is in fact every bit as much an attempt to suppress the free-speech rights of the people Bill O'Reilly is criticizing.
Login or Register to post comments.
being fair and balanced.
She would have smacked the shit out of O'Really when he told her to keep quiet.
NEVER EVER do that to ANY woman.
everyone should keep up the reverse personal
attacks on billo like he does everyone else,
it's just about time to watch him have an
"on air" meltdown.
that's a show i will watch, over and over and over.
Do it live! We'll do it live!
Shill O: "We've been fair about his (Adam Lambert) situation"
What "situation" is that Shill O? his being gay? Your closet homophobia's showing.
doth protest too much.
Loofah.
http://smalltownelitist.files.wordpress.com/2...
;)
oh, drag loofah guy to hell.
There's an empty seat between Falwell and Reagan when he gets there. Don't take the double wide couch though, that's being saved for Rush.
What a clueless freak.
Because at some point, when the crazy comes out, sane people are left dumbfounded as to how to respond. Logic doesn't work... pointing out hypocrisy doesn't work. That's why I think maybe it's time for liberal *thinkers* to discontinue all appearances on shows like O'Reilly and Hannity. They go in thinking they can do some good, but nothing good can come of it.
And you see it in almost every clip of him trying to 'debate' someone. Imagine you walk into a library, looking for a book, and some huge, blotchy, rage-filled man gets into your face and screams, 'WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE BOOK?!?! WHY? WHY IS IT YOUR FAVORITE BOOK??!?!?!? SEE, YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL ME WHAT YOUR FAVORITE BOOK IS, LET ALONE TELL ME WHY IT IS!!! LOOK AT THIS, YOU JUST SIT THERE, AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME.... OHHH, NOW YOU'RE WALKING AWAY... SEE, YOU CAN'T EVEN DEBATE ME, SO YOU WALK AWAY!!! I WAS RIGHT!!! I WAS RIGHT!!!! "
That, in essence, is the phenomenon driving every major conservative voice.
They're bullies, and the absolute LAST thing they want to do is engage in a debate where each side is using reason, facts and a desire to actually find the truth.
Poor oppressed conservative straight white men like Bill. They gan't get married, they can't serve openly in the military and they don't have 90% representation in the US congress and, until recently, 100% of the White House occupants, looking out after their best interests.
Guess cause far right wingers can't freely burn crosses on anyone's lawn, string blacks from trees, beat gays and tie them to fences leaving them to die, or make the bible the law of the land, they feel oppressed.
sixandseveneights tells it like it is! ;)
No, Shill O just shuts of his guest's mic, he's not against anyone's free speech. And calling people pinhead, that's not slander.
Racist,racist,racist,racist,racist,racist,loofah,racist,racist,racist,Andrea Mackris,racist,racist,racist,racist,homophobe,racist,racist,racist,cracker.
I hope his head explodes on TV someday.
This POS ratfink is running on empty!
it's somewhat puzzling that even though billo's shtick is so transparently bogus, he continues to draw such a comparitivly large audience. it's bizarre that there continues to exist a subset of the populace that so stubbornly resists learning to parse facts in a logical fashion in favor of allowing svengali bill to do it for them.
why grown adults let the likes of billo, beck, rush, malkin, and coulter, nosering them around is beyond me.
n/c
Welcome to the world of lemmings. What he apparently didn't get was that those lemmings are the very people he associates himself with. During that entire segment I was screaming at the television, "Duh" and "Those are your people buddy". They are like roaches. You flip a light on and they scatter, not because it's the reasonable thing to do but because that's the way they are wired. Conservatives by definition need that leader, somebody to do all of that uncomfortable thinking for them. Someone to digest current events into a simplified puree of easy concepts and catchy phrases. The ones who can think exploit the ones like Mancow and O'Reilly who cannot.
Orally simply represents the low I.Q. knuckledragger viewpoint.
These people hate everything, including themselves. Life is hell, and they are being screwed somehow, somewhere, buy some dark skinned-forces who are going to get even for the social injustices of the past. They are such complete sociopaths, that they have few if any friends, so they tune into the "misfits" channel, where they can have their psychotic view of the world reaffirmed for them.
These people are too stupid, and bigoted, to figure out that its the rich white guy assholes like Orally, Rush and the GOP who are the ones who have screwed the shit out of them.
Its like watching the dog in the yard bark and whine because he wound all his rope around the pole and can't move, when all he has to do is walk in the other direction to unwind his rope and free himself.
This nation has spent decades in dumbing down the lower classes, and we wonder why there are more Rush/BillO/Michelle/Coulter/et al. fans with courtesy high school diplomas that there are with even 2-year degrees?
Nothing new here, folks. I was young at the time, but I remember when the telling argument against Adlai Stevenson was that he was an "egghead" and therefore not worthy of election. Over time, the anti-intellectualism has morphed (with a lot of help from the Conservative media machine) into anti-intelligence, or possibly just anti-anybody-who's-smarter-than-my-dumbest-dog.
Is it getting better? Not yet,and not without a lot of work by people who have a vested interest in an educated electorate (and that SHOULD be all of us).
I don't think people that set fires should have their right not to be called "arsonists" violated either! What about the rights of serial killers to not be called "depraved"? And how can we exist as a society if we continue to call people who fly in space "astronauts"? It's sick I tell you! Political Correctness run amok, (or whatever O'Reilly would say at this point).
If one disagrees with the talking points of a wingnut = violating their right to free speech.
.
It violates their rights to be assholes actually. Apparently they think that particular right was given to them by God himself!
Entitlement. Entitlement and rank hypocrisy.
is not a racist. He is just a lying fool. or idiot!
He's an extremely rich man who got richer directly related to how stupid, rage-filled, vile and ignorant his opinion became.
He knows where his bread is getting buttered, and knows exactly what his targeted audience is looking for when they turn his show on. And they're not looking for reason, intellectual integrity, truth-seeking, or rationality.
They make my head hurt, so much cognitive dissonance, pain, ache, hurt, bad.
Well, the truth can hurt sometimes. Especially when you want to package yourself as something you are not.
The only thing conservatives have to fear, is the truth. As long as they can keep it hidden or covered by mountains of GOP bullshit talking points - they are fine. Hit them with it, and its like watching vampires who failed to get back into their coffins before daybreak.
Is he for real? I have seen Oreally go over the deep end time and time again, but this time I am seriously bowled over.
Does he really believe that his civil rights include preventing people from calling him names? What?
I think he suffers from Little Man Syndrome
I think Bill'O is suffering from Not-A-Man Syndrome
Billo O'Reilly or guys like Google CEO Eric Shcmidt. Shcmidt was a speaker at a class of 2009 graduation this past week and he's talking about how Twinkee's were one of the great inventions to come out of the great depression.
O'Mousedick says
By definition fascism is (American Heritage Dictionary) "a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right. Typically through the merging of the state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Furthermore fascism was named by Benito Mussolini. Mussolini noted in his entry he wrote for the Encyclopedia Italiana, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
You see, O'Reilly and Beck constantly use this word, fascism, as a liberal thing. They are trying to change the definition of fascism. For the life of me I cannot understand why this is not pointed out to them every time they use it. Fascism describes the Bush administration exactly!!! They should not be allowed to get away with redefining it for their own idiotic purposes.
I agree with you, but if the reichwing were smart enough they would ask who's in charge after the merger?
Why ya think they're doing it?
BillO said, “I don't dish it out, madam” while he was in the process of dishing it out.
Not many people realize that when you yell into BillO’s ear you can hear an echo.
Republican men are mad that they don't have all the power anymore, just most of it.
...but when he ends this clip by implying that Streisand is a communist, that's just nice, friendly discourse.
As always, a few seconds of Bill O and I've got to take a shower.
Colbert is a satire of O'Reilly but the best satire of O'Reilly is O'Reilly himself.
They're attacking people who disagree with them in very personal ways.
I Colbert were to say that he would get huge belly laughs.
If you watch O'Mousedick as if it were comedy it is really very funny.
...are "reactors", a trait of people who "reason" with their limbic (reptile) brains -- while progressives/liberals (Democrats for the most part, but Independents, too) are "thinkers" who actually DO reason with the more dominant lobes of their brain.
I want to add to that observation. There seems to be a large segment of Republican "leaders" and spokespeople who have damaged limbic reptile brains.
In other words, they're insane. And they have no fall-back because the "thinking" part of their brains have atrophied for lack of use.
Actually the limbic system is like a secondary nervous system.
Our reflexes as well as our emotions come from there.
The reptile brain is a part of that system.
But he idea is that the limbic system is less centralized than the rest of our nervous system.
By less centralized I should've said less localized.
It's not secondary in importance, because it operates the functions of our giblets.
One doesn't have to think to remember to breathe or have another heartbeat.
Orally builds his whole program daily around smear attacks on the "Liberal Loon Pinheads" and has the nerve to say he NEVER does that on his show. Anyone with an above-room-temperature IQ can see that Billo slanders people on a daily basis. Anyone that believes what this guys says is an idiot. Sue me.
Hypocricy.
Hypocrisy...
n/c
Hate to break this to ya chum
In parlance you can understand
There ain't no Red Square no more
Or are ya sayin' that
ronnie ray gunn didn't "win the Cold War?"
It is so great of Bill to prove the point the two lawyers were trying to make. After claiming he never attacks people he attacks Barbra Streisand.
Bill tries to say the attorneys know he has been libeled. So now, in addition to being an expert on race relations and politics, he is a greater expert on the law than two practicing attorneys. Maybe he should be charged with practicing law without a license.
... on at least two occasions that I can recall, he lectured Jonathan Turley on Constitutional Law.
Freedom of speech for me, but none for thee.
Have y'all noticed the ones on the right who complain the loudest about their freedom of speech tend to rant and harrangue and expect the rest of us just to listen without a response?
If I wanted that I'd go to church.
Pearl: At 4:30 O'Reilly says "I don't care about the law." Hard to debate the legalities of libel with that point of view.
needs to go the way of the Edsal. Now.
ok...loofa boy doesnt understand the first amendment
if anyone wants to watch the live stream of britains got talent...here is a link
http://music.rightcelebrity.com/?p=2439
lets bring some joy into our miserable lives
wingnuts were not enough, these idiots have followers. Wait till he reads a few selected viewer emails on Monday.
Isn't it ironic that immediately after he shouts, "we don't do that!" (referring to people who "attack" by name calling) he starts a segment in which he calls people "pinheads."
What a MORAN...
Pooor Bill Orielly... Awwwwwww
LMAO...
What a jerk off..
I've tried to put myself into a right wing state of mind in order to understand the appeal of the O'Reillys and Hannitys of the world, but the cognitive dissonance makes me both angry and nauseous at the same time. I've realized that without cognition, there is no dissonance and without dissonance, there is no nausea. That leaves only the pure sweet anger that these hate junkie viewers of right wing television need to get through the day. That's how Pat Buchanan can angrily proclaim "You've got that hostility and bigotry toward white males in America..." Hate is their Viagra.
Oliely is a sexual intellectual=f**king know it all!
Why would anyone invite another to participate in a talk show and tell them to, "...be quiet..."?
Why is this guy still on TV? He makes logical arguments the way a 6 yr. old would, and I think that's insulting to a 6 yr. old.
O'Really's self-righteous posturing about anything he doesn't like is so perverse it borders on paranoia. This guy doesn't listen to reason, he simply fabricates his own reality to fit his narrow understanding of the world.
He throws around words like "far left" or "libel" so freely and yet he doesn't even understand what they mean. What the hell is "far left fascism" anyway??
It takes a very special kind of person to be able to watch a show like Bill O'Really's, but it speaks volumes about the character of such person.
"Does that include the rights of Americans who sincerely do not believe in gay marriage the right NOT to be called homophobes?"
They still have the right to believe that, just not necessarily act upon it (McrReynolds v US).
"If I were a minority, they couldn't do this to me."
Congratulations billo, thanks to demographic shifts us white guys are now the minority.
BillO spews "They're attacking people who disagree with them in very personal ways. That's what they're doing. Don't dodge it."
Then how about YOU not dodge your own hateful behavior, Mr. BillO?
BillO engages in personal attacks on people who disagree with him all the time and there is the evidence of his own words to prove it. One easy example that comes to mind is when he said Neil Gabler (one of the few outspoken liberals who used to be on FOX News) ought to be fired because he said something on "FOX News Watch" that BillO didn't like. BillO also called Gabler a "rabid dog". He called him a name AND wanted him to lose his job.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200602210007
BillO does the exact same thing he complains about. Except he's worse because he pretends he doesn't and spends countless segment calling out liberals for doing it.
And apparently BOR doesn't like people thinking he is a homophobe. But when he declares that he doesn't want gay people to cluster together or mingle with straight people for the sake of the children, it shows just how much of a homophobe he is.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200707120004
BillO is seriously thin skinned and making a total a$$ of himself by denying that he does personal attacks. His rights haven't been violated and saying they were doesn't make it so. He knows this too or else he would have filed a libel suit by now.
Classic bully behaviour. This guy never advanced beyond the third grade.
but I must say if he shook that index finger at me he would pull back one less finger. He makes me ill. Wonder when FOX viewers will every have too much of his idiocy?
O'Lielly can't handle and is scared shitless of strong women that he can't bully slap around. He just pees or shits his pants.
Perhaps Bill O'Reilly's diatribe is a bit of projection. This is how I describe it in my e-letter/blog 'Tips from the Queen of Rejection'®
Projection – Spreading the Garbage Around . . .
Psychological projection is when one person mistakenly imagines that certain thoughts or feelings exist in the other person that they cannot acknowledge in him or herself. They may even blame the other person for showing these feelings.
When undesirable thoughts or feelings intrude we can get anxious. Projection is an unconscious way of protecting ourselves from anxiety. It is a coping or defense mechanism for dealing with feelings we cannot come to terms with.
There is an old Saturday Night Live joke about finger pointing. When someone is pointing their finger at you, remind yourself that three fingers are pointing right back at the person pointing. The SNL folks got it right. It helps put things in perspective.
It's a reminder worth repeating to yourself:
"This is not about me.
This is most likely about the other person.
They are probably talking about themselves.
What might they be saying?"
So let's take a look at how projection operates and how it affects relationships.
Anytime you have unacceptable thoughts, needs, feelings, or fears your anxiety level can shoot up. Your tendency would be to protect yourself from experiencing the anxiety associated with these thoughts and feelings. A common way is to unconsciously attribute them to others.
When thoughts or fears are too hot to handle we want to get rid of them. You might toss it over to someone else.
The problem is, these ideas, thoughts and feelings are usually blind spots - we are not aware of them.
Could this be what we are seeing here?
More about projection, political personal attacks, and thin skin:
http://queenofrejection.typepad.com/tips/2008...
and
http://queenofrejection.typepad.com/tips/2008...
Why are malefactors like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck et al not removed from the airwaves? Why do Americans think being allowed to broadcast damaging, sociopathic lies and hatred to mass audiences is a valid example of freedom of speech? I've said it before and I'll say it again, before Reagan's 1987 rescinding of the Fairness Doctrine this sort of shit was not allowed, for reasons that ought to be obvious by now. And I know the Fairness Doctrine was somewhat vague and didn't go far enough, but it worked to keep divisive trash like this off the air. Oh, but if we did that, we'd be guilty of something the Republicans have been accusing us of wanting to do. Can't have that! Always have to cower before right-wing accusations and deny them! They've got y'all whipped.
I swear I don't like violence, but I'd bust his ass at the drop of a hat. He's a bully of the worst kind and attempts to hide behind the veneer of being a victim. He's an ass of the worst kind.
Does he know he does this type of shit? or is he really this stupid?
"she couldn't back up her statements (about O'rielly spewing racist bile)"
then O'rielly goes on to say,
"If I was African American like you are i'd be able to kill them."
I like at the beginning of the segment when he first gets into it with the lawyer, he snarls, "I don't care about the law!!!" yeah only when it's not benefiting him! this whole segment was about how he should sue, but then he doesn't care about the law!? what a dipshit!
In the same breath by which he vehemently denounces personal attacks and claims he doesn't take part in them, he swiftly vilifies Barbara Streisand for being a pinhead. What a hypocritical nimrod!
Oh. Okay. So what if billo refers to Therion as a "left wing loon" and liberals "fascists" while complaining about the way he's been "attacked"? So what if this segment is immediately followed by a segment in which he deems Streisand a "pinhead" for no apparent reason? So what? He's Billo and we're not!
long time reader first time poster: i'm glad you have the bawlz no one else does to put billo in his place. i'd like to see you go head to head with him. when can we see you on the factor? perhaps i'll see you under pinheads before he even invites you on, lol.
great post, keep it up!
Bill, you are not a racist.
Bill. You are really an Irish, Catholic, Long Island based, Jesuit trained bigot!
And, there is a difference, you know..
Right to free speech without Reprisal FROM THE LAW, Mr. O'Reilly. Saying something under the pretense of free speech and then accusing anyone who disagrees with you of violating your rights is outrageous. They can disagree with you all they want to because of the free speech that you used in the first place. Saying they violated your rights is just a way of saying that you can't think of a good argument to back up your claims.
I'm sorry but he is such a douche bag.
And i think that all the idiot sheep out there that enjoy listening to his filth are just as ignorant as he is.
How could ANYONE enjoy listening to him rant like a pissed off child who just cries about everything because he can. He is obviously just an unhappy man who thinks there's this huge conspiracy to take over white America. It's because of people like him who are so scared of change and progress as a COUNTRY, NOT RACE OR POLITICAL PARTY, that hold us back from growing as a country. I wish all the people like bill would just stop having influence on people, because they really are doing nothing but damage to our society.
BUT God forbid we say that because he might cry that we're violating his right to be a psychotic douche bag if he wants to be. The world will be better off when bill can no longer breath one day. Though i'm sure he'll be stupid to the very end and die while choking on his hate-filled filth before he shuts his stupid mouth for good.
WAKE UP PEOPLE, all of you who think like bill will eventually be filtered out through the survival of the fittest test one day. You all need someone to direct you and tell you how to think and what to say... how ever will you survive when you're asked to think and do things for yourselves? You won't... and that's just fine for us "crazy liberals" that THINK FOR OURSELVES.
AND bill... don't INVITE someone to speak on your show if you're going to tell them to be quiet... you rude SOB.
...Because the truth is that pro-gay rights people really are attacking those that disagree with them and they really ARE hiding behind the Constitution and ideas of freedom and equality when all they really want is to forward their own interests and shut out opposition.
Look at what happened to Miss California. She answered an opinion question the judge gave to her about gay rights, she expressed her own opinion and Perez Hilton DENIED HER THE FUCKING MISS AMERICA CROWN BECAUSE OF IT. He TOLD ABC NEWS THAT HE DID THIS. This, coming not from the usual suspects but from one of the very same nutballs that would stand on his soapbox and preach to the unwashed masses day after day about equality and civil rights!
You can talk to me about how gay people deserve the same civil rights as heterosexuals and that they should be equal in every way. And I would agree with you. But trying to ignore shit like this, trying to say you believe in the rights and freedoms of others while you blatantly censor those that disagree with you like you did with Miss California, and fostering an environment where people have to go along with this blatant doublespeak or face social ostracization like this is both intellectually dishonest and insulting.
You want to know why conservatives won't listen to you guys? BECAUSE YOU DO SHIT LIKE THIS WHILE YOU CHASTISE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR THE SAME THING. If you want to be taken seriously, you HAVE to face up to the fact that this is what you guys are doing. You HAVE to look in the mirror and face up to your own hypocrisy. And you HAVE to either start walking the walk or start being more honest about what it is that you want.
If you simply want to forward the interests of gay and lesbian people, then fine. Just say so. But don't try to hide behind abstract concepts that evidently hold no meaning to you because you're too chickenshit to be honest about what it is you truly are trying to take a stand for.
(And before anybody asks, yes, I'm talking about the shit Billo said in the beginning of the video, as if that wasn't obvious enough, but I just want to cover all of my bases here.)
Nothing is stopping the woman who won the Miss California USA crown(she isn't in the Miss America tournament) speaking her mind. She can say whatever she wants. But if she violates the terms of the contest that she won, she waives her right to wear the crown.
If I want to go out on a street corner and howl about the evils done by Company X, I have every right to do so. But if I've signed a agreement with Company X in order to be employed by them, an agreement that says as an employee of Company X I won't denigrate it, and I go out and violate that rule, they fire me. They haven't stopped me from saying they're evil or wrong: I agreed to conditions.
People like Limbaugh and O'Reilly have agreements that they've signed that they agree to comply by FCC rules. You and I, by registering to this site, have agreed to comply with the rules set by John Amato. If O'Reilly violates an FCC licensing rule, he doesn't have to stop saying vile shit, he just can't do so on the airwaves. If you or I get banned from C&L, we are still free to speak our minds on the street corner, because Amato doesn't have to pay for us to say something with which he doesn't agree.
...is that if I exercise my right to free specch and say that BillO is an idiot who makes senselss, unbased comments, I'm not infringing on his right to free speech at all: I'm offering a critique on what he says. If he chooses not to speak any longer because of the criticism, that's his choice, not my command.
That's such a blatantly weak excuse. By that logic, Billo is just "critiquing" the people he brings on his show when he yells at them and tells them to shut up. If the people on his show are too overpowered by the volume of his voice to speak, then that's their choice, everything Billo does to them is automatically their fault and everybody's constant whining and carrying on about his behavior is completely baseless.
Don't expect people to sit back and take your shit when you do that to them. Don't expect Billo to not say something about it on his show if you insult and attack him. Don't expect that out of ANYONE, for that matter. Freedom of speech goes both ways, NOT yours.
Then it means nothing. If you can't answer a simple question the way you truly feel and not have to spout party lines without fear of reprisal or punishment from ANYONE, then freedom of speech means nothing. If a company can give you the run-around and fire you because you disagreed with them, then tell you it's OK for them to do so because they say you traded the ability to do so away for a simple paycheck, then freedom of speech is nothing.
Freedom of speech is more than just words on paper. It's more than a mandate dictating Congress not to pass any laws that infringe it. It transcends law, transcends personal preferences and exists in the realms of humanity, morality and decency. It is a human right, a basic human need. It means EVERYBODY gets to speak, period. End of story. There is no middle ground; there can never BE a middle ground with it, otherwise you're never truly free.
It is NOT something you can selectively ignore whenever it is convenient for you or your political agenda to do so. It is NOT a commodity to be bought, sold or traded away at the behest of some obnoxious business owner or because you're greedy and morally bankrupt. Saying that it's OK to strip that woman of her crown because of her opinions and try to protect freedom of speech in the same breath is doublespeak. Saying that A FUCKING LIBERAL-SLANTED WEBSITE can and will ban you for saying something the owner disagrees with while claiming to stand up for the rights and freedoms it's blatantly violating just proves my point completely.
"Saying that it's OK to strip that woman of her crown because of her opinions and try to protect freedom of speech in the same breath is doublespeak."
You want to know who said it's okay to take her crown away for stating her opinions? She did. She agreed to it when she accepted the crown. It's part of her contract that she won't engage in public controversy and a host of other activities -- perfectly legal activities that she's free to engage in if she doesn't mind forfeiting her crown.
You want to know who said it's okay to take her crown away for stating her opinions? She did. She agreed to it when she accepted the crown. It's part of her contract that she won't engage in public controversy and a host of other activities -- perfectly legal activities that she's free to engage in if she doesn't mind forfeiting her crown.
Are you nuts? She NEVER agreed to such a thing and neither does anyone else who enters the Miss USA pageant. Donald Trump, who OWNS most of the Miss Universe organization and the Miss USA pageant came out and DEFENDED her for speaking her mind. The POINT of the question was to get her honest opinion, not to toe the gay-rights party line.
And no, since she was stripped of her crown by Perez Hilton for doing exactly that, she apparently is NOT free to express her opinions. You should get a gold medal for the mental gymnastics you had to do to come to the conclusion that it's somehow Miss California's fault that her right to free speech was blatantly denied her.
Unless you can show me whatever part of her contract makes Miss California sign away her human rights like that, you lead me to believe you are full of shit as well as hypocritical. SHE didn't cause any public controversy by speaking her mind, PEREZ HILTON DID BY DENYING HER THE CROWN. The ONLY "public controversy" any hypothetical line in whatever contract Miss California might've had to sign applied at were for nude photos that Donald Trump, who need I remind you again OWNS THE FUCKING MISS USA PAGEANT AND STUCK UP FOR HER, allowed her to keep her Miss California crown over and even said "in some cases the pictures were lovely."
Miss California's right to free speech was denied her and she lost the Miss USA crown because she dared to express a dissenting opinion. End of story. Case closed. The fact that you guys are honestly trying to blame this on her, of all the insulting ways to justify your blatant hypocrisy, is absolutely mind-boggling.
http://www.diversedreams.com/pdf/MissEntryAff...
Check out subparagraph #11.
Not California. That's ok, though. The keys are, like, right next to each other.
I'll play along, though, for the sake of argument. Show me, anywhere in this paragraph, where not supporting gay marriage violates this clause in any way whatsoever.
I represent that at all times prior to the date of this Agreement, I have conducted my activities and life in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards and that I have never been charged with the commission of a crime or engaged in any
activities that might bring myself, you, Miss Universe, the State Pageant, the Miss USA Pageant, the Miss USA Pageant system,
Trump, NBC, or any of their respective subsidiaries, affiliated or related companies, officers, directors, partners, shareholders or
employees into public disrepute, ridicule, contempt or scandal or might otherwise reflect unfavorably upon any of the foregoing
individuals or entities or might shock, insult or offend the community or any class or group thereof. I acknowledge that, by way of example, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing in any way, having appeared in public or permitted myself to be
photographed in a state of partial or total nudity or in a lewd, compromising or sexually suggestive manner constitutes a violation
of this subparagraph.
Are you trying to imply that not being pro-gay marriage or disagreeing with you is not "conducting one's activities and life in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards"? If so, you definitely aren't supportive of free speech at all.
Are you trying to imply that Miss California not being pro-gay marriage somehow caused that scandal? By that logic, it should've been Perez Hilton's limp-wristed ass hauled out of the pageant, because he's the one that denied her the crown for her opinions in the first place. No other sane human being would deny her the Miss USA crown over a stupid fucking opinion.
Are you trying to imply that having a dissenting opinion on gay marriage has somehow "shocked, insulted or offended the community or any class or group thereof"? Well, that's a surprise, since, get this, THE MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO AND PROMINENT GAY RIGHTS SUPPORTER Gavin Newsom defended her too. That's right, one of the activists for the very movement you idiots are trying to use to justify blatant censorship is not only not offended but is defending her. The ONLY ones I've run across in this contentious debate that have seriously tried to justify denying Miss California her crown because she didn't agree with the pro-gay party line was Perez Hilton(the perpetrator)and YOU guys, the supposed bastions of freedom and justice for the internetz.
The only thing she did that could've possibly violated that clause were the nude photos that Donald Trump, that I already mentioned, allowed her to keep her Miss California crown for. Expressing her opinion is so obviously not violating anything of the sort, at least according to Donald Trump who owns the fucking pageant and anybody else with two working eyeballs, it's not even funny.
She lost her crown because Perez Hilton didn't like the fact that she had a dissenting opinion on gay marriage. Perez Hilton violated her right to free speech by blatantly censoring her like that. Donald Trump knows it and so does everybody else. Well, except you guys. Stop trying to blame this blatant censorship and violation of her rights on her. Stop trying to justify it, stop trying to act like this is OK because it's NOT, it's supporting the very fuckstick behavior you call others out on constantly and reflects very, very badly on both your causes and yourselves.
Since free speech is apparently so worthless to you guys, though, what's the point in being liberal? What are you really trying to fight for? And be honest.
I don't care if Jesus Christ himself defended her, she entered into a controversy that does have the potential of offending "a group" and that violates her contract. As an individual, she can have any opinion she comes to, but as Miss USA, she'll have to keep it to herself. If she can't do that, she can give the crown back. What do you not understand about that? I can almost guarantee that you'd understand it if she were giving a contrary opinion about something you cared deeply about.
She didn't "offend a group" or do any kind of excuse you want to pull out of your ass to justify censoring her by expressing her opinions. Perez Hilton violated her free speech rights by denying Miss California the crown because she gave an opinion he didn't like. No one at that fucking pageant ruled she violated ANYTHING by answering the judge's question the way she did, which is irrelevant anyway because even having NUDE PHOTOS taken of her, which is *actually* a violation of the pageant's rules AND NOT EXPRESSING HER OPINIONS NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY TO SHOVE THAT DOWN EVERYBODY ELSE'S THROATS, wasn't enough to make Donald Trump take away her crown.
As an individual she obviously CAN'T have any opinion she wants because according to you nutballs, she has to keep it to herself whenever it's inconvenient to you or your political agendas. She obviously DOESN'T have free speech rights since she disagrees with you because you think it's ok for her rights to be trampled by denying her the crown she rightfully deserved. If you have to say the line, "She has every right to her opinions as long as she keeps them to herself", then NO, SHE DOESN'T HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. The whole POINT of free speech is specifically to keep shit like this from happening. It's not just a mandate against Congress in our Constitution. It's a hell of a lot more than that. Free speech is free speech. Period. Anywhere and everywhere. Private or public property. At the beauty pageant or the line in the DMV. It transcends your political agendas, law and order, EVERYTHING. Because that's what being free to speak without fear actually means. And if you're gonna sit here and try to argue that we're not really free and that it is OK to blatantly censor people the way it is done with Miss California and undoubtedly more nowadays, well, that just exposes you for the... what's the word you like to throw around when people try to impose policies you disagree with? Oh, right. The FASCISTS you really are.
What the fuck do YOU not understand about that?
I can almost guarantee that you'd understand it if she were giving a contrary opinion about something you cared deeply about.
Ohh, I understand, all right. This is about silencing someone who doesn't agree with YOU and your political agenda. And I understand that you expect me to sympathize with you idiots blatantly censoring Miss California because she disagrees with you about the gay marriage issue.
Well, guess what, sweetcakes? You know that quote from Voltaire you like to throw around? "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" That goes both ways, including against you. If you guys truly believe in the freedom of speech you like to hide behind, if you guys are truly here to fight for the rights you believe are being stripped from people, then you have to stop trying to justify what happened to Miss California and start understanding that the world does not revolve around you and your political opinions.
And you have to start taking an objective look around, start seeing the damage you're really doing by censoring Miss California like that and start trying to fix it, because if it's OK to deny Miss California her crown because of her opinions like that, what's gonna stop the next girl from having her crown stripped because she... let's say... supports ALF or PETA? Or--horror of horrors--what if the next girl to lose her crown did so because she AGREED with you? What would happen if people started losing their jobs because they had a dissenting opinion from their boss? What would happen if people lost their jobs for being anti-gay marriage... and then anti-Obama... and then pro-Obama... and then for something like, say, wanting Bush arrested? I bet you and your liberal circle-jerk buddies would be all up in arms about that, but you know what? Nobody would do shit for you about it because you threw open the barn doors to private censorship by allowing, defending and blatantly trying to justify stripping Miss California of her crown in a bid to push the gay rights movement one step forward while pushing everybody two steps back. And when the howling and the moaning starts, and you start screaming your heads off about discrimination and censorship(which only apply when someone you agree with suffers from it apparently), you know what people will say? "Well, those schmucks have every right to their opinions as long as they keep them to themselves." And with that, nobody will have free speech, ever.
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, or it means nothing at all. Deal with it.
(stupid Crooks and Liars not letting me log in *grumble grumble*)
Doesn't BOR know that Russia is no longer a Communist country?
Login or Register to post comments.