I am sure you could fill a whole web site with stupid shit this guy says. In fact, I am sure there are a multitude of such sites available.
The current *rabble rabble* is that he called the ACLU "terrorists". I could really give a shit. He calls people Nazi's and Terrorists seemingly every other day. This, however, cracked me up:
O'REILLY: This ACLU has no strategy to fight the war on terror at all. Everything the United States government does -- everything -- they oppose. Everything! Nothing they like in defending ourselves against terrorists -- nothing.
Um. I'm no expert here, but the ACLU is, you know, not a security organization. I am pretty sure that, oh, PhRMA, the Sierra Club, the AARP, the Southern Baptist Convention, the BSA and the Girl Scouts have no strategy to fight the war on terror too. That is not the ACLU's job. The ACLU is there to make sure we all know where we are drawing the lines.
I am sure the RAND Corporation has a strategy. The Fraternal Order of Police might. Hell, the VFW might. Hell, Focus on the Family might, but I would argue that they shouldn't be taken seriously on... anything. But all these groups have (at least pretend) expertise and are founded commenting on security issues, or "every" issue.
Comments
RE: O'Reilly (Bill, that is)
My favorite O'reilly quote: "loofah"
RE: O'Reilly (Bill, that is)
I am hella glad the ACLU is around just to piss off ass clowns like O'Lielly by pointing out pesky things like the rule of law. (And hell yes I am a member.)
RE: O'Reilly (Bill, that is)
LOL
http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/
RE: O'Reilly (Bill, that is)
RE: O'Reilly (Bill, that is)
Well Cooper, Bill O'Reilly, Focus on the Family, The VFW and every other group you target for your loathing is not running about the country trying to undermine our national security. Here is the point, if the ACLU wants to tell us we can't defend our nation by doing X then they, as allegedly freedom loving Americans, should have the decency to say "try Y, it won't violate people's rights." The simple fact is as a group dedicated to using the Court's to advance their various positions they often have a duty to demonstrate that there are less intrusive or less invasive ways of performing a valid governmental function to protect what they perceive to be a persons rights, so even though they are not a security organization, they will need to meet a burden of proof in court, not just yell from the rooftops that they hate bush, and love free speach so long as it tows the ACLU/Democratic party line.