digg

Join DiggAbout

O'Reilly asks if judge who ruled against NSA wants Americans to die watch!

youtube.com — Last night, Bill O'Reilly and Tom McArdle of Investor's Business Daily took turns slamming the federal judge who recently ruled against the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program as a "liberal activist" who may want "Americans to die" or "wish ill will on our forces."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Carbito, on 10/12/2007, -30/+301Is O'Reilly serious? Its like he is trying to do a bad Stephen Colbert impression...

    I find it deeply concerning that there really are millions of people in the US who are just as ignorant as Bill O'Reilly, is it really that hard to read a newspaper once in a while?
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -23/+128It may become difficult for colbert to keep his show with all this competition from established new-conedians (neo-con + comedian).
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -354/+23I'm sure O'Reilly would laugh at your comparison between him and that no-talent hack, Colbert. You ought to check out their ratings before making more stupid comments like that.
    • truspector, on 10/12/2007, -39/+291Fox new is about as fair and balanced as Hitler at a bar mitzvah.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -280/+30@truspector

      It's too bad that they have the highest rated news shows. Other networks might need another generation of Dan Rathers (people who invent dramatic news stories) just to compete.
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -38/+247I wouldn't mind if the american who died is Bill O'reilly.
    • xenoputtss, on 10/12/2007, -21/+119lol. BullyJack said "News Show"

      LOL
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -107/+37I believe the phrase you are looking for is "deeply disconcerting".

      As for O'Reilly being ignorant, I have to differ. Mean spirited Ideologue, yes. Ignorant, no.
    • lordjpg, on 10/12/2007, -19/+257@BullyJack
      Ratings on tv.com

      Colbert: Show: The Colbert Report
      Popularity Rank: 620 of 15,916
      Ratings Rank: 112 of 15,916

      Show: The O'Reilly Factor
      Popularity Rank: 3,912 of 15,916
      Ratings Rank: 4,292 of 15,916

      ..what is your point again?
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -131/+21@lordpig:

      Colbert isn't a news show.
    • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -15/+98And this is the type of person from whom millions of Americans get their propagan... oops I mean news. Sure does go a long way towards explaining quite a few things.
    • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -15/+235"Colbert isn't a news show."

      No sensible person believes that O'Reillys show is either.
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -159/+23The stupidity and lack of logic on this site is truly astounding. I found the "I wouldn't mind if the american who died is Bill O'reilly" comment specifically amusing. Liberals try so very hard to convince the majority of people that they are mentally superior. They try desperately to defend counterintuitive positions. Defending counterintuitive positions makes liberals feel like abstract intellectuals, capable of grasping the larger point beyond the ken of the little people. But just because something is counterintuitive doesn't make it true. (College students everywhere, just beginning to practice this annoying pretension, are staring blankly at that last sentence.) The question was a fair question, depending on what point of view you subscribe to. Wishing the people that hold a different point of view would die, doesn't give your point of view any more merit. It just proves how ignorant you really are.
    • the_atomic_ned, on 10/12/2007, -12/+106O'Reilly is a "narcissist enthralled in his own overblown ego, projecting his own petty insecurities onto the world around him, inventing false enemies for the sole purpose of bolstering his sense of self importance. An itty bitty Nixon minus the relevance or a hint of vision."

      I know Stephen Colbert is supposed to be a joke... But damn he hit the nail on the head with that one.
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -21/+102BILL ORILEY HAS AN ACCOUNT ON DIGG!!!

      his name is BullyJack.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+76@whiskeymb:

      Actually, The O'Reilly Factor isn't a news show either. It is an editorial/opinion show.
    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10Thanks for the video link. I missed the show last night. Great digg!
    • andy370, on 10/12/2007, -36/+17Nice to see comments being dugg and dugg down on their merit and not their personal view. /sarcasm/
    • MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23@4wheel:
      The "I wouldn't mind if it was bill o'reilly" comment was, I'm assuming, a joke that was intended to be ridiculous. Effete liberals call this "humor", but I don't know if the word is used beyond the ivory towers in which we live, so you may not have come across it.

      As far as the rest of your comment, it's a far cry from saying you disagree with some group's positions to saying that they only espouse those positions from some sort of inferiority complex, and get off on the fact that no one can understand them. Conservatives love to make wild generalizations like these. (Note that the last sentence was what we liberals call "ironic")
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23btw... even if O'Reilly's show was a news show (which it isnt), ratings still wouldnt matter. Ratings only mean a lot of neilson families watch it, it doesnt mean it should be trusted as a reliable news source.
    • netjd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+42@4Wheel:
      Quote"Liberals try so very hard to convince the majority of people that they are mentally superior."

      Liberals try hard to prove thier ideas may be better for the country, or in your words 'superior', but elitist Neo-Cons act and believe that they are superior.
    • GrendelT, on 10/12/2007, -6/+86I consider myself a conservative (I live in Texas for Pete's sake!), but I agree that wire-tapping at will goes against the "checks and balances" system we have in place. I think a judge's order SHOULD be required before wiretapping. At least pretend that it's warranted and not stepping on civil rights.

      Suppose these NSA wiretaps went on. Now, fast foreward 30, 40, 50, 100 years down the road. When one party is in control, what's to stop them from wiretapping the opposition? Oh, because this is only during the "war on terror"? When will that end? Never, you say? Ok, so you've just granted the gov't of our future a blank check to "monitor traffic".

      This is my reason for not supporting the NSA wiretaps - there's nothing to stop it from flowing over into a tool of control.
    • truthRises, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23I wish Billy would come say stuff like that here...

      And see how fast his rhetorical nonsense gets not only dugg down to the upper mantle, but also gets a serious logical smackdown.

      Turn your mic off indeed.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -23/+20Guys be fair, the O'Reilly show isn't meant to be taken seriously(unfortunately it is), I mean would you pay attention to it if it were called Faschist TV?
    • Promantarius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24"Nice to see comments being dugg and dugg down on their merit and not their personal view. /sarcasm/"

      It's a flawed system, some people believe voting should be restricted to constructive comments getting 'diggs' and any comments which are not constructive getting 'diggs' removed. Then there's another group of people which believe that you should 'digg' if you agree and 'digg down' if you disagree.

      Simple fact is, using the second system you get a better overview of the general opinion of digg users, and have less comments per article (since you can simply vote to agree with someone instead of replying to agree), so people generally go with that. Having a more advanced voting system would be nice, but it'd take away from the simplicity and the whole 'digg' and 'digg down' thing would still remain dominant.

      In other words, just deal with it.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -94/+2@lordjpg

      Wow!!! I didn't realize that there were that many mindless dolts who watch Colbert. I guess that makes sense though, based on all of the idiotic comments on this article.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Mindless dolts? You mean, the people who watch Colbert, and UNDERSTAND that it is SARCASM? What is sad are the people who take his show serious, sounds like you might be one of them bully, and his guests that come on and don't get it.

      I so love it when halfway through an interview, the person catches on that Steven is being sarcastic, and his personal views are the opposite of what he talks about in mocking O'Reilly.

    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -45/+2I loved Colbert in "Strangers With Candy". He sucks by himself though....just awful.
    • babayada, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18What gets me is the stupidity of this all or nothing logic.

      If you are for civil liberties, then you are against the war on terror, and so you are siding with the terrorists and want Americans to die.

      It's quite a leap to go from protecting Civil Liberties and causing the death of civilians by way of terrorist attacks. The cause and effect relationship is by no means direct. The point that gets buried is that the powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies when they do things the right way is probably sufficient to handle these issues effectively. Do we really *need* the NSA and other organizations to have all this power? Really?

      If they can do their jobs well, why give them carte blanche?

      When it comes to making these kinds of leaps, O'Rielly is practically Superman, being as absolutist and extremist as he is. Nothing is ever reasonable with this man. I think he may be incapable of making a compromise in any field of endeavor. What a stubborn, rigid ass he is.
    • krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Much better discussion of this than you will ever find from O'Reilly OR Digg: http://qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4443
    • krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6While Judge Taylor probably does not want "Americans to die" she is a liberal activist. That's been evident since she tried to tamper with a case in 2002: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=110001857
    • wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@BullyJack

      It is obvious that you side with the O'Reilly crowd, and do not appreciate satarists such as Colbert. What I wonder, however, is what your view on O'Reilly's comments are. Do you agree? Do you ACTUALLY think that anti-constitutional privacy invasion is a good thing, and that you should hate and despise a judge who wishes to defend those rights. If so, why? And if so, could you please tell me the number of terrorist related arrests in America there have been due to new privacy invading bills and acts being passed?
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4@wildleaf

      No, I do not like the idea that my rights are being trampled. I'm not sure if there is a middle ground though. Do you know how easy it is to kill a half a million people in this country? I'm not going to list any of the methods for obvious reasons.

      You asked, "could you please tell me the number of terrorist related arrests in America there have been due to new privacy invading bills and acts being passed?" The federal government does not release that information for fear that terrorists will wise up to their mistakes. I know that for a fact.

      Let me ask you this? When the Clinton administration was caught red-handed with Republican FBI files in their possession, did you stand up for their rights? I have a feeling that you did not. Bill Clinton called it a 'snafu'. I called it 'felonious'.
    • wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You seem to like this word "fact" I wonder, do you have any "proof" of this fact? I would honestly like to know, because the people need to be tried and proven either innocent or guilty at some point in time.

      And for your information, until I discovered the horrible intricacies that is now the Republican party, I was a Republican. You know, in the true sense. Someone who wanted less government instead of more. So yes, I believe that any activity that gives the government power that nullifies that of smaller government bodies (region and state) is a big No-No. So don't come around swinging your party elitism to me.
    • brick71, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The ignorance is the many "sheep" out there that buy into the MSM continually stating wrongly that this is a domestic spying program.
    • spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The Republican Party is worse than the democratic party now. I used to be a republican, but they sicken me so much now that I can't help but be a democrat. When Bill O'Reilly is the spokesperson of your party say goodbye to any intelligence in your party.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3@wildleaf

      That's strange about your conversion from the Republican party. It's usually the other way around. By the way, I don't believe you.

      I personally consider the Democrats and Republicans to both be 'big gubment" morons, but I side with Republicans on the threat of radical Islam. I don't trust organized religion in general (especially when it involves blowing yourself to kingdom come so that you can have sex in heaven). I don't believe that it's possible to negotiate with somebody like that.
      Imagine trying to convince a Southern Baptist to vote for gay marriage, and then multiply that by 1000. To put it into perspective, check out Iranian TV for kids http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=165 These clips are very eye-opening.

      P.S. Good non-answer on the FBI files question.
    • wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14You really are ignorant. You say "I don't believe you." Like I somehow didn't become an Independent. That's right, your assumption that I am a Democrat is *****. Yep, you fly by the seat of your pants but you are out of gas!

      Oh, guess what else? I am also a Christian, and believe that abortion and gay marriage aren't what we should want in our world. But guess what else? I will never vote to ban abortion or gay marriage, as I believe in the seperation of Church and State, and also that the full Kingdom is far from what we can achieve on earth.

      Wanna hear another peice of information that will blow your extremist mind? I believe that radical Islam is a rational and justifiable reaction from those who have been abused and misguided by our government in the past. I believe they think they are 100% correct in their retaliation to us. And I believe once people like you shut up and open their eyes, that these things will die down, and the extreme radicals will no longer have power on logical Muslims who are tied into agreeing with radicals with every ***** political agenda America pushes with the backing of someone like you.

      P.S. Good non-answer on your "proof"
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Is O'Reilly serious? Its like he is trying to do a bad Stephen Colbert impression..."

      Where do you think Colbert got his act from? The purpose of the Colbert Report is to parody the O Reilly Factor, and he does a damn good job.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -16/+0@wildleaf

      Why are you against abortion and gay marriage?

      @wildleaf said, "I believe that radical Islam is a rational and justifiable reaction from those who have been abused and misguided by our government in the past."

      Are you saying that innocent American civilians deserve to die at the hands of suicide bombers? It could be anybody....me, you, Anne Coulter, Ward Churchill, Hillary, O'Reilly....anybody. Terrorist acts are totally random.

      Did those 180 civilians on that train in Bombay, India deserve to die? Did America, Britain, or Israel do something to cause that?

      YOU are the extremist. You're fanatical, and you don't seem to stand for anything.
    • wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I believe abortion is the termination of a human life. We could argue this for ages, but it is my belief. I believe that homosexuality is something that can be natural and genetic but I also believe God has a plan for for our sexuality and that he has blessed us with sexuality, and I do not see homosexuality as a part of God's will. (Will, intent, evolution and other things all play into this). Now, I won't go into this any further, as I am sure you will only find joy in flaming hate on views rather than actually understanding people have different opinions.

      No, I never said that innocent people DESERVED to die, but I DID say that I believe that the radicals that have done suicide bombings fully stood by their beliefs. I also think that this needs to be a healed relationship rather than a radical reaction. War does few things.

      1) It ends lives (always)
      2) It changes power (sometimes)
      3) It affects economics (most of the time)
      4) It changes hurt hearts (never)

      So, even though you say I stand for nothing, you are mistaken. I stand for quite a few things. I just don't think that it is right for me to pass laws to force people to my beliefs. Since, of course, I believe that laws should be used for the betterment of mankind and to establish universally accepted morality (killing is wrong, etc). So just because I don't force my beliefs on others, does not mean that I don't have them. And - I think this is my last response to you.
    • veenified, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1O'Reilly makes a lot of great points and you cannot deny the facts of this judges history.
      This judge has been known to be involved in a lot of activist programs.
      It is scary to see power given to someone that has supported parties that are "anti-american" or were enemies of the United States.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0@wildleaf

      You're correct; you didn't say American civilians deserved to die. You said that terrorists' reactions were rational and justified. I, on the other hand, believe that innocent lives are sacred.

      I'm sorry that you don't want to correspond with me anymore. I'll miss you.
    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You evidently aren't aware that this judge had somewhat of an "ethical lapse", given she sits on the board of an organization that gave funds to the plaintiff...OOPS. She shouldn't have heard the case in the first place, given that conflict of interest. No worries, America will be safer when her ruling gets smacked down on appeal.
    • Reap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"It is scary to see power given to someone that has supported parties that are "anti-american" or were enemies of the United States."

      First off, listen to what the guy says- she is involved with the National Lawyers Guild, which was "connected" to all the various parties that he named- which he did not explain a SINGLE CONNECTION! Now, I don't know what the connection was myself, but take the communist party for example- If the NLG took the position that the communist party should have the right to exist in America (which, by the letter of the law and the spirit of everything American, it should) I fully expect that would be considered a "connection" by O'Riley et al.

      She's "accused" of being a member of the ACLU? Oh, heavens no! Not people whose sole purpose is to give people as many liberties (aka- freedom, for the buzz-word loving button pushing members out there) as possible!. I'll be the first to admit I don't agree with every position the ACLU takes, but I wouldn't want to do without it just because of that.

      Think about what is acctually said in the program before you jump to demonize the judge- she may legeslate from the bench, but don't assume that until you hear some facts backing it up.
    • xst4t1kx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Colbert isn't a news show."
      It's more "news" than O'Reilly will ever be.
    • ufia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"It's more "news" than O'Reilly will ever be."

      Shut up! Shut up! Cut his mic!
    • msipes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Carbito
      You're the idiot if you don't get it.

      1000 clams that the Supreme Court will overrule this ruling. Warrantless wiretaps on international calls is not illegal and is not covered under any area of the Constitution. Most legal experts agree that the Judge's ruling was weak, and will most likely be overturned.
    • Hurricane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whats the point of living anyhow if there is nothing left to live for.
      Everyone forgets that we need to defend our way of life as well as our actual lives themselves.
      Taking away rights and damaging the freedom of America is actually allowing the terrorists to win without them having to fire a shot.
  • anonymoustroll, on 10/12/2007, -9/+91So... when *DID* you stop beating your wife?

    On a more serious note: it is very important that Americans die; if they lived forever, could you imagine the mess we'd be in.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -151/+8You're a mental giant.
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -7/+83@BullyJack -

      You're a comedic dwarf.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -83/+4@nsmike

      Do you have a beard to remind yourself that you're a man? That's actually pretty common among liberals.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Wow, I've never seen more republican circle-jerking in my life. No wonder O'Reilly's ratings have been slipping.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Everyone, please just ignore BullyJack. He's one of those poor Conservative souls filled with raw, unmitigated hatred of anyone who disagrees with them. He's lashing out because one of his icons is being attacked, and anyone who disagrees with him will be instantly labeled as a "liberal." Once that label is applied, BullyJack will begin attacking not the person or their comment, but his stereotype of a "liberal."

      Questioning the accuracy of O'Reilly's original statements would, in BullyJack's mind, constitute heresy.

      Remember, that many extremists, Liberal and Conservative alike, threat their leaders with a reverence akin to that shown prophets or, in the case of a devout Catholic, the Pope.

      Following a charismatic leader or figurehead allows a person to avoid thinking. It's just plain easier to let someone else think for you and tell you what to believe. One of the most amusing things about this is the way Left wing extremists will debate Right Wing Extremists. Each member of the debate thinks they are thinking on their own, while their opponent is mindlessly spewing talking points.

      The irony of course is that both extremists are merely parroting the bias and talking points given them by their respective leaders.
    • ChuckIT, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@bullyjack

      got a problem with beards?
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17@BullyJack

      Ah, so having a sense of humor is liberal. Got it.
    • misterhand02, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11And you, BullyJack, apparently don't know a joke when you see one.

      Maybe that explains why you take O'Reilly seriously?
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Bully when you have to resort to personal attacks, you have already lost your argument.

      What does that say for the GOP since the only way they debate is through personal attacks.

    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -29/+3Call me paranoid, but I'm starting to think that I'm not wanted around here.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -29/+3@bemenaker

      I'm not a Republican.

      I enjoy debating whackos from both ends of the political spectrum. It just so happens that liberals get the craziest, which makes it more entertaining.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10bullyjack
      you views are most welcome here..
      some of your comments are not.
      Try to attack ideas views and positions without resulting to stereotypes and name calling.
      People recognize straw men and really don't care how many you knock down.
      Not everyone who disagrees with o really are liberals.. some are independents and even conservatives.
      Just remember that when you try to make your point. There are some people that hate both O reilly and Clinton.
      Also often controversial figures get high ratings. Ann culter book did really well, when we all know that a majority of republicans are not that extreme. I am sure many liberals read her book as well.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -19/+0@misterhand

      I don't watch O'Reilly.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5@powercow

      I ran into @anonymoustroll on another article. He made a comment in favor of 'sawing off the heads' of the captured Fox news journalist, which I thought was incredibly evil. I ran into his comment on this article, and I couldn't help myself. You're right about personal attacks though...point taken.
    • ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What's neat is only seeing the responses to the jackass ... btw don't feed him
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1@ccheath

      You don't want to play with me?
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2@halleyscomet

      Please don't ignore me. I'm begging you.
    • elhaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. In fact it is important that crimes are committed too. Otherwise we have the "precrime" division arresting everyone for their thoughts. The founding fathers DID know that we could catch more criminals/terrorists (yes, they had both) without the fourth amendment. They also knew that government could become one of the worst threats to the safety of the governed if it was unchecked. Modern era and this modern Islamist threat is not so new that it trumps the constitution. Sorry, but I'd rather die than live in a fascist state.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0@ChuckIT

      No, I don't have anything against beards. I've had 5 or 10 good ones myself.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Break constitution.
      Say its in your best interest therefore its legal.

      Be found to be illegal.
      Declare the judge, therefore the legal system itself is flawed...

      Maybe it's not *everything else* thats flawed, but just the mindless rhetoric of one man and his administration (which extends to the Faux News Network)
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@bitcloud

      Just a suggestion....don't smoke crack and blog.
  • melvs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+98The man is an idiot, plain and simple. I will watch him late nights simply for the comic relief he provides. My favorite episode was the one where he brought in 2 people who were completely against each other, and it ended with both of them agreeing and calling him an idiot.
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53Requesting video of this.
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10youtube link plzzzz!!1
    • innerspirit, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8link please
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Ironically, Bill O'Reilly makes me wish that it were illegal for some people to talk.
    • melvs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I don't recall the episode, I believe it was one dealing with teaching Intelligent Design in public schools.
    • rzurad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31From Wikipedia article about Bill O'Reilly:
      "O'Reilly has requested that no photographs of his home or family be made public — citing a desire to protect his family's privacy and security."

      So he's concerned about his family's privacy and security, but an illegal NSA wiretap is fine? The man seems to have a twisted definition of privacy and security.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"So he's concerned about his family's privacy and security, but an illegal NSA wiretap is fine? The man seems to have a twisted definition of privacy and security."

      What does he care? He's on the side of the oppressors.
    • JamesK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2O'Reilly should release his "loofa" sexual harrassment phone calls to the public to stand in solidarity with those who have been illegally wire tapped.

      http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html
  • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41the scary thing is, i wonder how many people agree with him. do people watch him like they watch guests on jerry springer? or do they watch him for his "insights"? i loved jon stewarts rebuttal when o'reilly said stewart is adding insult to injury "but, but.. you add injury". people like him are really bad for our country and the world in general.
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I think the only people who take him seriously are the ones who disagree with him. I agree in principle with a lot of his views, but he's got a pretty strange outlook.
    • SecretChief, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If people were only watching his show for their entertainment value, I guess nobody would be repeating his ***** arguments.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@VTmruhlin

      I know a number of people who take him very seriously because they agree with him.

      Hell, I've been in conversations with people who quoted him for support when debating this or that point.
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Hell, I've been in conversations with people who quoted him for support when debating this or that point."

      Next time just dismiss their quote because it doesnt come from an authoritative source. =)
    • whisk3rs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He pretty much first calls Anna Diggs Taylor a left-wing nut, then a communist, and then proceeds to paint a straw-man / slippery slope picture of her alleged (like that plot in Britain) anti-terrorism stance.
      If any Americans were to die, I wish it were people like O'Reilly and the ***** NEWS network.
  • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+61i don't understand his and his guests beef with the aclu. i guess civil liberties are something to fight against, not for.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -129/+17The ACLU is a total joke. It's just a bunch of biased left-wingers and nothing more.
    • Strider817, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47Wow, apparently the ACLU is always on the side of it's enemies. Apparently it's also still an insult to associate people with communism.

      Perhaps they should say it like it is.... ACLU is for the the rights of the average citizen.
    • matthewaaron, on 10/12/2007, -43/+11Wrong... ACLU is for the rights of the minority, right or wrong. If you're a minority, the aclu has your back! Otherwise, you're on the hit-list.
    • daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -24/+18I just wish the ACLU would get a copy of the Bill of Rights that had all 10 amendments on it.


      :)
    • garfvader, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Obviously, fighting for civil liberties somehow equates to a lack of patriotism and a desire for the terrorists to win. Oh, and then the bodies in the street thing.

      That whole video clip is mind boggling.
    • bntphoretwunny, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25@BullyJack:
      Bill? is that you?
    • jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13O'Reilly picks his enemies and rides them into the ground. I watched his show for a few months in order to get a grasp on where he really stands and there was one day in particular that clinched it for me what O'Reilly was really all about.
      The day that congress had their vote on weather or not to pursue an amendment to outlaw gay maarriage what did O'Reilly talk about? Not that. He spent most of the show talking about something Michael Moore said while in Europe and something Hillarly Clinton did. Whether you like those two or hate them, you would think that the vote about gay marriage would be more important. Apparently not.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18The ACLU is selective about which rights they protect, take a look at their web site, do you see anything about the Second Amendment? Or the ninth? Or the Tenth?
    • beotch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@repins, pick your battles and you have a chance at winning the war.
    • medieval, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@repins:
      the NRA already has the 2nd Amendment pretty well covered. As one of the 5 biggest lobbies in Washington in terms of spending, I don't think they need the ACLU's help. The 10th Amendment doesn't really embody any civil liberties. The Supreme Court said in 1931 in US v. Sprague that the Amendment "added nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified." So what's there to defend as far as the 10th Amendment goes?
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -16/+13My beef with the ACLU is that they tried to ban the Boy Scouts from using public land because they're a "hate group", but they also stuck up for the KKK's right to use the same land.

      If you don't like the BSA's policies, that's cool. But don't say they're worse than the Klan. The ACLU is far more dedicated to creating controversy than they are to protecting civil liberties.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12AMENDMENT 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Seems clear to me, if it is not specifically stated in the Constitution the Federal Government does not have that power. This seems to be one of the most ignored Amendments.
    • medieval, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29@VTmruhlin:
      no, the ACLU wanted to stop government SPONSORSHIP of the Boy Scouts and PREFERENTIAL access to public facilities. They merely wanted the Boy Scouts to be treated exactly like other private organizations, not to ban them from public land.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@repins:

      I suggest you read the rest of the constitution and then explain how the federal government can make any law against abortion, stem cell research, etc when they are "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      Start with Article 2 section 8, which lists the scope of the Legislative branch.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@DaveV

      Exactly my point, show me where they have the power to do 99% of what they do.

      check out this bill that was proposed and will most likely never get passed.
      The Enumeration of powers act http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr2458.html
    • misterhand02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13If the ACLU is so selective, then why did they represent Rush Limbaugh in his recent battle to keep his medical records out of the hands of Florida prosecutors? Why have they time and again represented religious groups in their various battles?

      Anyone who says the ACLU is a purely liberal group out to advance a purely left-wing agenda is someone who doesn't know what the hell the ACLU is about and doesn't know a god damned thing about their history.

      Look it up.
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hmm, you seem to be right about the BSA. Apparently they were leasing the land really cheap. I thought the ACLU was just prohibiting them from gathering on it, not that they were leasing it.

      Why did I hear it compared to the KKK then? Honestly wish I remember the specifics. If the KKK had a cheap lease on land and the ACLU defended them, then my statement stands; but that seems pretty unlikely.

      Guess I need to find a new reason to hate the ACLU...
    • osuadh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@repins

      It's called the Necessary and Proper Clause. Its in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. It gives the federal government the right to do things not stated in the Constitution that it feels are proper.
  • TheNoot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Ahh yes! Reason #514863 on the list of "Why Bill O'Reilly is completely insane"
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31"completly ***** insane" is what I think you meant.
  • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34You do all realize that this is exactly why he has a show? He is supposed to get people all pissed off, and then they watch his show to see what he'll say next.

    He is a complete ***** closed-minded idiot with intelligence level that barely rivals a 4th grader. No matter what the argument is, you will not be able to spill facts to him because he doesn't listen and has no desire to become knowledgable about anything.
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -14/+45in other words, he's a republican.
    • gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I've said it thousands of times before, and I'll say it thousands of times in the future... Democrats are a party of no ideas, and Republicans are a party of very bad ideas.

      Bill fits nice and square into the Republican part of that. Pretty soon, I'm going to have to leave the country for a loooong vacation just because I can't ***** take this ***** anymore. You've been given the power to be on television, to essentially be able to preach to the people, and this is the ***** you say, Bill? How disappointing and disconcerting.
    • jasonuher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I am _so_ ***** tired of Diggers holding up Bill, George W, and their lot as a model for the Republican party. They aren't. Call them neo-cons, or theo-cons, or fascists, I don't care. The current 'Republican' administration does nothing but ***** on everything the Republican party has stood for for decades and it is really starting to piss me the ***** off. I guess I'm going to have to start calling my self a Libertarian.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jasonuher

      In theory you should be right. The GOP as a party in "PRINCIPLE" does not stand for the Neo-Con agenda. Unfortunately, the GOP in order to maintain power has put all principle aside and votes as a party and not as a representative of their constituents, (WOW NOVEL IDEA). So, in essance, you are right the GOP is not supposed the be the Neo-Con agenda. The truth of it is, they are.

      Right now, you do see a scrambling of GOP members to distance themselves from the Neo-Cons and try to say they are heading back to the GOP ways. While I totally welcome this, it is sad that it takes such a bad rap in public opinion polls to make this happen.

      Our system is unfortunately a two party government. What makes the Dems weaker, is that they hold seperate opinions, and don't just vote party lines to get "their" way. Even when it isn't their way.

      Screw em all. Vote ALL incumbents out, let's get this turned over with some new blood who cares about us, not their own power.
  • bolapara, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30O'Reilly is a nut-job. I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.

    He doesn't argue facts, he doesn't try and use intelligent points, he just says insanely stupid things like "Do you want Americans to die?" and hopes that other morons completely abandon intelligent debate and think he is making a point.
  • hockeysk8, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21I've ran out of patients for O'Reilly. He's a ***** mental midget.
    • ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42I dugg you up for your exceptional example of irony.
    • Chebyshev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4irony++
    • goathurter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'll second that.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, procuring patients for Dr. O'Reilly is a rather difficult task, give a bloke a break.
    • hockeysk8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1errr ... patience? /sheepish_grin
  • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39Ok, I don't understand why this is controversial. It's clearly in the constitution that warrentless wiretaps are illegal. she said that they are illegal. how can her ruling be considered wrong?! it's her job to look at the facts (the constitution) and say whether or not it is legal or not. it's clearly illegal per the constitution, so why is she wrong!?

    I love Bill's attack... "does she want americans to die?". it is scary that people think like Bill. he brainwashes millions of americans every night.

    but no doubt, the best part... he even interupts people who AGREE with him. He's a bully even to those people who SUPPORT him!!! lol... Bill, you're an idiot.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5What part of the constitution that CLEARLY say "wiretapping" is illegal?
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32@SyDIGG:

      The part called the Amendment IV. Wiretapping is considered a form of search.

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    • Shadowe, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3Warrantless Wiretaps are not illegal. Most states have laws that would make information gathered from a wiretap without a warrant unusable in prosecution. Since the wiretaps are conducted primarily non-US citizens, the constitutionality only comes into question, when charges are brought against a US Citizen (let me say it again a "US Citizen") from information gathered with a warrantless wiretap.

      The second point, Do you guys actually think that people are listening to every single phone call? Anyone know how many simultaneous calls are going on in the US at any given time? It would be impossible for the government to listen to all of them. It is a software program that monitors calls to specific locations/people etc, and listens for key words. When certain words are used, or calls are placed to certain phone numbers, the calls are recorded. The program is even setup in such a way, that if you discuss both domestic crimes, and terrorist plots in the same call, they are only allowed to use the information to stop a terrorist plot.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2form of search ...yeah that was clearly stated in the constitution. ROFL.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@SyDIGG:

      4th amendment.... go read it.
    • fahrenheitlf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Shadowe

      It's not how the information is gathered, it's how it can be used. We went through this in the 60's and laws were placed to protect citizens. These laws have been reversed and need to be changed back.

      If you trust the government, you might not see anything wrong with the warrentless wiretaps. Why would you trust this government or any future government, democrate or republican? Self-interest and fear I assume.

      Example of misuse of wiretaps: http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm

      True checks and balances are needed to prevent corruption and guarantee our rights.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@sydigg

      I don't think the forefathers had thought that "wiretapping" would even exist in it's present form, so are you saying it's their own fault for not including this?

      wiretapping falls under seizure, since you are taking information (their words/writings) from a person without their knowledge.
  • bontaq, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to even read the article. Anything related to Mr. O'Reilly I read actually hurts.
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17read the article? its a video!
    • Shadowe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Then why click, or even comment, view the title, and pick something else.
    • Trizor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Then his eyes would bleed or he'd get cataracts or his retinas would detach and run away.
  • Spidermunkey, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4This is ridiculous. Why give him more of an audience? Buried.
    • shikaga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Wow, you really don't understand how digg works do you?

      Just because you submit a story, doesn't mean you agree with the opinions included the story.
    • Roche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9O'Reilly's disingenuous arguments should be exposed for the vapid and damaging falsehoods they are, to as wide an audience as possible.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He does have a point. If O'Reilly's ratings went low enough, the plug would be pulled.
  • manumitx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Her last name is "Diggs"
    • sgreger1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ SyDIGG

      Actually the UK had been following them and was collecting evidence and the US pressured them to arrest the conspirators at a time which was politically benificial, the UK said they didnt want to yet because they didnt have enough evidence on them. Now because of this they are about to all be let go ina week because they havnt found any evidence on them and there have STILL been no charges brought against them. I believe they were plotting to do something but the US is owrried about political gain more than actually making things safer and now these men will soon be free.
    • aakins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5if you read names from the outside in
      Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
  • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -49/+10Do you guys think we could of stopped that terrorist plot a few weeks ago WITHOUT wiretapping? What happened if those terrorist did carry out their plan? People die perhaps? O'Reilly does have a point.
    • manumitx, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Everything should be open. No one should be able to hide. And no one would have a reason to.
    • shikaga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Umm, yeah he has a point, but does that mean that he can be so biased? The whole point of being a reporter is that you look at both sides of the story, not to interview people that will agree with you while you defemate people who have no chance to defend themselves and give their own point of view.
    • TheNoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27The NSA was placing illegal wiretaps in the UK and all across Europe?
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Ummm, you didn't stop any plot. The UK did.
    • eexlebots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19The problem is wiretapping without a warrant, which isn't that hard to get in the first place.
    • hasbeen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I laughed, good joke.

      This was a joke, right?
    • tehdood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15At some point you have to ask what the cost of security is...and what it is that we're securing. Is the important thing to secure life above all else. In the pursuit of protecting life, is it acceptable to remove "liberty" from the concept of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

      If we're trying to protect our way of life, then how is acceptable to sacrafice our way of life to do so? Isn't that killing the patient to protect them from the disease? Or, even better, isn't that like killing an intended murder victim so that the murderer can't? Isn't the murder's intent still becoming the reality?

      Is it possible for me to write a single statement that isn't a question?
    • putamare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Nobody is asking to impede the process of a valid investigation by outlawing wiretaps; intelligent people just want a warrant, some oversight, due process, to make the wiretaps legal. Only a fascist fool would have it otherwise.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3"Ummm, you didn't stop any plot. The UK did."

      The UK stopped the plot with valuable help from the United States. You should like read a valid news site once in awhile.
    • jbcghia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It has nothing to do with wiretapping in general, it has to do with wiretapping without a warrant. The Fisa court was enacted to make sure that wiretaps could be carried out for things like national security when time was critical. Getting a warrant within 72 hours after a wiretap has been in place doesn't seem like too much to ask. Without warrants we have no oversight, without oversight abuse of power is not likely it is guaranteed to happen. Any citizen of the U.S.A. should be outraged that this is even a debate. Warrant less wire tapping is a direct assault on the founding principles of this country and anyone who supports it is an enemy of liberty and a traitor.

      The same asshats who cry every time a flag is burned don't mind ***** on the constitution as long as it serves their political parties needs. The specter of communism has been replaced by terrorism. The real terrorist are the ones who keep you afraid and docile, they aren't taking your rights you are giving them away every time you tacitly go alone with the "I don't care as long as I am safe crowd." Cowards who wrap themselves in flags and support the troops bumper stickers have no place in the sphere of public opinion when they lobby for the erosion of the most important element of American citizenship.
    • sgreger1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ SyDIGG

      Actually the UK had been following them and was collecting evidence and the US pressured them to arrest the conspirators at a time which was politically benificial, the UK said they didnt want to yet because they didnt have enough evidence on them. Now because of this they are about to all be let go ina week because they havnt found any evidence on them and there have STILL been no charges brought against them. I believe they were plotting to do something but the US is owrried about political gain more than actually making things safer and now these men will soon be free.
    • kakwakas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Wiretaps aren't enough! We need to have cameras installed on every streetcorner so we can watch and make sure there are no terrorist activities! Everyone should be required by law to have at least ONE camera per room in their houses!
      IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU'RE A BABY-EATING TERRORIST COMMIE WHO WANTS AMERICA TO DIE IN A FIRE!!!
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0hahahahahahahahahahahahah

      do you really want to see what I do in my bedroom? :)

      think about that one :D
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tehdood

      "At some point you have to ask what the cost of security is...and what it is that we're securing. Is the important thing to secure life above all else. In the pursuit of protecting life, is it acceptable to remove "liberty" from the concept of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?"

      Amen brother. I find it sad, very sad that the motto "Give me liberty or give me death" is now considered an extremist, liberal screed with no value. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves. I would rather die from a terrorist bomb a free man than die an old man as a slave to the state.
  • stinknugget, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
    Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.
    • tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well yeah...Bond's not an American.
  • sjm20k, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Im sure you'd be singing a different tune if you got harassed by an ***** cop in a bad mood one day and the ACLU were the only ones willing to help you defend yourself in court for free. But I guess cops are always right, so is the president, and so is Bill O'Riley, right BullyJack.

    God, you're dumb.
  • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -44/+5Honestly, i dont know what problem people have against wiretapping. If you arent doing anything illegal, you shouldnt care if whether or not the government is mnitoring your phone calls, its not like George bush is going to gossip about your conversations with SS agents. And if you are doing things that are illegal, you should be in prison.

    Please dont digg me down without giving me a COUNTERPOINT, otherwise you are being like O'Riley.
    • GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40I don't have a problem with wiretapping.

      I have a problem with them not having a warrant before they do it.
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -29/+2because?......
    • garfvader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25The counterpoint is that sort of thinking is the first step that leads towards a police state.

      "If you're not doing anything illegal, you don't have anything to worry about."

      That's not how the rights of citizens should be treated. I shouldn't expect the government to be watching me at all times and feel good about it just because I'm not doing anything illegal. If I'm not doing anything illegal, I shouldn't be watched or wiretapped in the first place.

      And please note that perhaps the strongest objection to the NSA's wiretapping policy is that it's warrantless. It's bypassing FISA which is designed to permit legal wiretapping through obtaining a warrant. The government has stated that it needs to be able to wiretap quickly and doesn't have time to obtain warrants. The strange thing is FISA actually permits this as long as a warrant is obtained within a certain time period after the wiretapping.
    • jonprc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8haha.. bush gossiping with *SS* agents. love it.

      (yes i do realize what ninjab3ar probably meant, but still, it's nice to actually see it in print)
    • Nonsuch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19How's this for a counter: I *do* care whether the government is monitoring my calls, even if it's just to the pizza place on the corner. I am innocent until proven guilty, and no government agency should be able to monitor me without going through established legal procedures (including presenting evidence as to why I should be monitored).

      It's a shame that times like these bring out the authoritarian types and their followers, people who will gladly submit to having their freedoms taken away as long as some big, powerful entity like the government cradles them and tells them everything will be OK.
    • ben_nushmut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Unfortunately, the Bush admin. and reality give us 2 different views of this issue. At the rate we're going, people will soon find themselves jailed under the Patriot Act for acts of terrorism because someone said "George Bush is a f*cking moron," where historically we have always operated under the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.

      I'm not concerned about Mr. Bush engaging in gossip about my phone calls, I am concerned that ordinary citizens will be have their "God-given" rights as Americans trampled upon.
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19So your argument is "If you're not doing anything illegal then you shouldn't have any problems with the government violating your right to privacy."

      But what if you're not sure what you're doing is illegal (e.g. some obscure law on the books that's hardly enforced)? What if what you're discussing might be illegal but you're talking about it in jest or as devil's advocate? Illegal wiretapping can lead only to thought crime.
    • DJNephilim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Amendment IV
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    • berfmurret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9the only problem i have with wiretapping is that it goes against what this country was built on. its UNCONSTITUTIONAL. uhhhderrrrrrrrrrrrrr..

      not just that but its just one step closer to police state.. 1984.. all that jazz..
    • psion01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If you're not doing anything illegal, sure you'd have nothing to worry about. But with thousands and thousands of obscure laws on the books, how can you ever be sure you're not doing something that's against the law? And what happens, once you've used that "if you're not doing anything illegal" argument to grant government all the power it wants, when that same government starts doing illegal things? What happens when they overhear you complaining to your friends in a phone conversation about how the government has crossed a line?

      It won't happen here? Then how come the government is fighting so hard to protect an action that IS illegal right now: warrantless wiretaps?
    • Kale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It's not that I care about wiretapping, it's the fact that we are being treated like the enemy. The ever-watchful eye of government has turned from outward (USSR, Cuba) to inwards. We are the new enemy. We are guilty until proven innocent.

      Society seems to be on the edge of a state of paranoia. People are willing to give up rights because we have become conditioned that there are terrorists all around us. Airport security has in effect said to mothers, "No, ma'am, your baby can't have his milk because we think you might be a terrorist hell-bent on blowing up this plane".

      I realize these security measures have stopped terrorists. I know there are people that hate us and think that by killing innocents, they are doing their god a favour. There is no easy answer, but there's no reason to lay down and let Big Brother stomp all over the Bill of Rights.
    • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Look at it this way, sex is perfectly natural. No one minds if you have it with your wife. The average American has no problem with people assuming they have sex... but it starts getting annoying when people start watching through a hole in the wall and it takes you years to find out they're doing it.
    • facelessmanchs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Ninjab3ar

      Ok...so you are fine with the NSA's warrantless wiretaps because you aren't doing anything wrong...let's say for a moment that I accept that. What happens when they decide that audio isn't good enough? Then they 'wiretap' your computer. Is this is fine too since you aren't doing anything illegal? Ok, now text and video aren't enough. What about video? Do you want your life to become a movie next? I know what you are thinking: that is an extreme jump. The problem is that if you give the gov't exceptions then they will keeping doing more and more until you have zero privacy. It isn't an issue of whether you are doing illegal things; it is a privacy issue.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Do you want the NSA or whomever listening to you tell your SO what sexual acts you want to perform on them later?

      Do you know all the laws you are subject to?

      Perhaps you use an expletive and violate a state law covering telephonic communication.
      Admit to oral or anal sex? In some states either and/or both are crimes.
      Did it doggy style in Florida? It's a crime.
      Have snails in your aquarium in California? You are breaking the law.

      Here is a fun one: You call your female friend in Virginia and tell her you will be coming into the state and can't wait to have sex, you are engaging in a conspiracy. And, depending on other laws, you may be guilty of crossing state lines for immoral purposes, etc.
    • beervolcano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7How would you like a police officer following you around all day? He's going to take notes on everything that you do and say. As long as you aren't dong anything wrong, then you should be fine with this, right?
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@ bennyboy371
      although i can see where your argument is coming from, i dont think it applies unless you are calling sex lines through your phone, but like i said before hypotheticaly, "George bush isnt going to gossip about your conversations with SS agents."

      @ everyone
      i understand all your concerns on the patriot act, but read this article, its about how the U.S. found out about the attacks in england and informed british authorities
      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

      just to inform you, i do not consider myself a left wing nor a right wing. each side has extremely different opinions on important issues that i support, (for example lefties would not allow warrantless wiretapping, while righties will not allow stem cell research)

      im just stating my opinion on what i think about wiretapping
      -thank you
    • GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"with thousands and thousands of obscure laws on the books"

      This is true. I actually can't buy a hat in my home town without having a guy try it on first.

      swear to God. it's on the books. I could actually be arrested.

      Now granted it would get laughed out of court ... but if some ***** prosecutor had beef with you ...
    • Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4DaveV has it pretty well figured out I think. "Sodomy laws" are insane to begin with, but with politicians who run claiming to be "good Christians"... it's worrisome.
      Today it's going to be used against terrorists, but once you give up a "right" or a "protection" there's a really good chance you may never get it back.
      Who's to say that in coming years/adminstrations that it won't be used (abused) to go after other, more mundane "crimes".

      Imagine if you have a trip planned to Amsterdam and are planing on visiting a coffee shop to smoke a little reefer (it IS legal there you know) and mention it to a buddy on the phone, should they be able to investigate you or yank your passport on such grounds?
      What happened to "pursuit of happiness"?
      Traveling to Mexico to get some experimental AIDS drugs?
      Taking some American cigarettes to a Canadian friend?

      With the current resurgence on the 'moral' right in this country, I'm hesitant to give up ANY privacy right.
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1the comment about going to Amsterdam to smoke a little "reefer". if by reefer you mean cannabis, then why are you are talking about it on the phone. doing that shows that you do smoke pot and know people who do it as well, and with an investigation, the police can network theyre way towards teh source of the drugs. im just mentioning that to the incentive, if any, that someone wiretapping would try to turn you in.
      the other counterpoints just make no sense.

      @ everyone
      please stop mentioning how the NSA can catch you TALKING ABOUT very obscure laws, i can see why that makes you worry, but not every law is perfect, and if you want to stop wiretapping because you are afraid of the government hearing you talk to your wife abouthow you had doggy style sex in Florida with her (@DaveV), thats just nonsense.
    • Roche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Ninjab3ar
      "read this article, its about how the U.S. found out about the attacks in england and informed british authorities"

      Actually, I did. Thanks. Did YOU? The article, which is the part after the authors' byline, says nothing of the sort. It clearly states "Britain's MI-5 intelligence service and Scotland Yard had been tracking the plot for several months". What the US did was provide assistance to the British investigation. That shows excellent international cooperation and that's as it should be. You are wrong, however, that we "found out" and wrong that there were "attacks".
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Ninjab3ar
      The point is the content of the conversation isn't important; the fact that the content was being listened to without a warrent is the problem. If the content can get you into trouble even though those listening in weren't supposed to be listening are you to be punished?
    • Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, talking about smoking in Amsterdam doe's NOT show that I "smoke pot". It shows that I intend to do it while overseas in a nation where it's legal...nothing more.

      As for the other points not making sense, I'm sorry, maybe you don't realize that if you go to Mexico for a non-FDA approved AIDS treatment and are 'caught' crossing the border with it you can be charged with "drug smuggling' and locked up. (yes, even though you are dying of a terminal illness).

      As for you not understand how once you give up a protection, you don't get it back or that many people in this country want to force their "morals" upon you... Be glad you don't have to deal with Christian zelaots on a regualar basis. I do, and the fact that they vote for canidates that support their adgenda worries me. (One thinks that homosexuals should be forced into 'treatment' (by law!) for their 'mental illness'.)
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Ninjab3ar

      Are you seriously saying you're OK with the government being allowed to wiretap anyone they want without getting a warrant?

      Would you still be OK with the government having this power if Hillary Clinton were elected president and the Democrats achieved the kind of control of the House and senate that the Republicans have now?

      Do you understand what a warrant is?

      A warrant is a piece of paper that says the people who wanted to place the wiretap went before a judge and gave a justification for that wiretap.

      And thanks to the Clinton administration, the government can get them from a secret court retroactively.

      I'm serious in asking this: Why do you believe the government should be allowed to place a wiretap without getting a warrant? Why do you believe a warrant is an unnecessary burden on law enforcement?
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I just used some easy samples of laws that exist but no one thinks about. But, the fact still remains that if there is a law one doesn't know about and one breaks that law, you can be arrested and convicted ( remember, ignorance is no excuse). Meanwhile, they can use the offense to search one's property. Even without arrest and/or trial, they can use it to obtain search warrants for other items.

      As a side note: Smoking pot in Amsterdam is illegal, the law just isn't enforced. If the FBI/NSA/(insert favorite TLA here) were to hear it, they may be able to charge with a crime when you return. I would have to check the laws that are used to arrest child sex tourists returning from other countries.
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@everyone
      this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in order to explain to everyone here ignorant as to how the NSAs wiretapping works:
      Under the program, the NSA conducts surveillance on phone calls placed between a party in the United States and a party in a foreign country, without Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court authorization.

      and dont assume it happens every time you callsomeone outside the US, or that it has even happene to you AT ALL. just because you have made a long distance call to a foreign country does not mean there was probable cause for them to try to even wiretap the call. Although under that law the NSA does not need probable cause or a warrant, its a waste of time to just wiretap "anybody" and its the actual calls that matter that are being tapped into, i do not worry about the NSA because the way i live my life will never be cause for them to wiretap my calls, and if they did (which i highly doubt, although i make ocassional calls to the dominican republic) i will not know, and i have not done anything to actually mae them want to question me or arrest me.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ninjabar, noone needs to argue your point. All they have to do is say study history. Go study EVERY facist state in history. No America is not a facist state, yes you can draw a couple correlations, but that's it.

      Italy 1930's Germany 1930-1940's East Germany 1940's-reunification. and on and on and on.

      Look at how there was no private life or secrecy. You are entitled to a private life. You are entitled to your personal secrets. So long as they do not inflict harm upon someone else. This is the basis of Natural Law, and the US Constitution.
    • LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Our forefathers built this country around Civil Rights, and intentionally limiting Government control (checks and balances). I say, if Bill O'Reilly, Bush (aka The Decider), or whoever else supports taking away our Civil Rights, they are the true unAmericans.
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -29/+3Well just remember when their is another attack, and you complain that the government is not doing enough. The New York Times has taken it upon itself to make sure that those who want you dead get every opportunity to accomplish their goals. While supporting political officials who want to limit your right to defend yourself and exercise your Second Amendment Rights.

    Oh and BTW, the the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

    • garfvader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
      Benjamin Franklin
    • robb.monn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Give me Liberty or give me Death. Take your proto-facist police state mentality and shove it up your ass. People like you are going to let every last bit of what made the US a great nation go for some kind of pseudo assurance that you are relatively safer than you would be with a Constitutional Democracy and strong individual rights? What a bunch of losers. Talk about cut and run.
    • Fraize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Dear God, man. Do you really think that the New York Times, Justice Diggs, Michael Moore, and the ACLU get together in some secret powwow, rub their hands together and ask themselves "how can we destroy America today?" You are seriously drinking the Kool-Aid, son!

      FISA allows for wiretapping of anyone. Nobody's stopping wiretapping, just WARRANTLESS wiretapping! Hell, even if you HAVE to tap a line this very minute, you still can! FISA lets you file the paperwork 72 HOURS after the fact. There are justices on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week who's ONLY JOB is to approve FISA wiretaps. You can't tell me that the process is too slow to protect Americans. You're simply deluded, my friend.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6And you are supporting the government violating the 4th amendment.
    • kozie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is just a question, not a statement, as I'm not from the US, i'd like to know what the opinion, the actual opinion of US citizens are.

      Is the US still a great nation? You have a big deficit. Hmm, can't really come up with anything else, you have a bad administration at the moment... These are things that I subjectively think. Enlighten me. :) (South-African citizen)
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@ Fraize
      No, but do think they are blinded by their hatred of GWB, and will do anything and everything they can to discredit him and make his policies fail. Including doctor photos and documents to back up false stories and accusations.
    • sibhod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The New York Times has taken it upon itself to make sure that those who want you dead get every opportunity to accomplish their goals."

      Can we stop with this arguement? How about think for a few seconds about this before you just go spouting O'Reilly's talking points.

      A free press is what keeps a government in check. A democratic government should be transparent, but this administration more than any has made a point to hide everything they can in the name of 'national security'. We can obviously see why, when things like illegal wiretapping leak out.

      And for baby Jesus' sake, stop with the ***** that the NYT or anyone who disagrees with you is 'aiding the terrorists'. This is such an idiotic concept I can't even begin to understand how people actually swallow it. The NYT wrote an article about the administration monitoring money transfers, yet the administration had already revealed this info.

      One of the main tactics of the neo-cons is to rally followers against a common enemy, and then demonize that enemy. There is not a problem with "activist judges" in the US, we are not experiencing an influx of "liberals", and there are not "terrorists who hate our freedom". Terrorist attacks on the US have been in responce to our insistance of backing Israel no matter how henious they act, and insisting on keeping a troop presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Middle East in general.

      YES there are a few whackos out there who really do want to kill Americans just 'cuz, but there are whackos right here in the US that want to kill people for eating meat or cutting down trees. There are whackos who believe the earth is flat, or dinosaurs were made up by liberal atheists. The fact is the Terrorist Boogyman is almost entirely ficticious enemy cooked up by the fear-mongering administrator to rally support for a perpetual war and to shift focus away from the US' gaping wounds of domestic policy.
    • miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3repins, you deserve to work at mcdonalds for the rest of your life.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@miketrin
      LOL, nice...but a tour of duty in the Marines (including Iraq 1.0) and a nice cushy job say otherwise
    • kakwakas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'd rather be free than safe.

      @kozie
      I do have a love for my country (blame it on ethnocentrism). Things aren't too good right now (nothing is perfect), but the nation was founded on great principles that I believe in very much and hold dear. Sure, I don't run around waving a flag and singing the national anthem, but I believe in the Constitution and I have faith (or at least hope) that our government will be better in the next administration.
  • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4While I don't agree with O'Reily(sic) it should be pointed out that the ACLU is a tool of radical leftists who arguably are trying to undermine the government by using our civil liberties in ways they never were meant to be used. This is shown by their contradictory viewpoints and their selective manner in which they approach the bill of rights.

    It is also shown by their history, their founding members, and their original funding.

    Do some research for yourselves on those subjects... it's pretty scary.
    • fohat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Not sure what you base your "original funding" claim on...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
    • robb.monn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You've got to be kidding me. Do some research yourself. The fact that you said 'radical left' is a dead giveaway that you are full of crap. Did they make you memorize that statement at Bob Jones U?
    • miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7radical left, ha ha, you can always spot the folks that only watch fox news and have never opened a paper or read news from another perspective other than the USA. Here's another oxymoron for you, Islamic fascist.
    • sibhod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The ACLU will defend anyone who's constitutional rights are in jeopardy. This invariably leads them to defend very unpopular people or groups. Yet they stand firm on their commitment to represent ANYBODY.

      That's perfectly fine with people when they represent a baptist church or Rush Limbaugh, but if they defend a suspected terrorist all of a sudden they are a "radical leftist organization" who is the "number one threat to America".

      Educate yourself to reality and stop spouting these neo-con talking points. Just because you don't like or agree with something doesn't mean it's wrong, illegal, or a threat to America. We are a free nation, and that's the beauty of it. Quit trying to make it less free.
  • Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Okay, so it's either death or lose our rights and freedoms... What an ignorant statement. Every time you lose your rights, the terrorists win. Every time you lose your freedom, the terrorists win. Every moment of your life where you are scared a terrorist is going to come and kill you, so you stop living your normal life, the terrorists win. Every time you support an unjust war on another nation, the terrorists win.

    Every time you watch Bill O'Reilly for "news", the terrorists win.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If you watch any political opinion show for "news," you're an idiot.
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1Yes. And every time you lose your life, your rights don't mean a damned thing anymore. Good grief.
    • robb.monn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Give me Liberty or give me Death. Sound familiar? Get some balls. My grandfather had some when he fought for what our country is supposed to be about.
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@4wheel

      "Live free or die." Last I heard that was a state motto and a rally cry during the formation of our nation.
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1We are at war. Bush is in the White House. If Bush were not in the White House, we would still be at war. We would still have to take extreme measures during a time of war to fight the war. The difference between this war and other wars we've engaged in, is that this enemy abides by NO rules. They don't care if you are young, old, black, white, or purple. They only want you to do one thing. Die. Whine about our government listening for patterns on overseas calls all you'd like. Cry out about the mean old Republicans and conservatives all you want. At least the Republicans and conservatives are doing more than just whining and crying. It's fighting a war. It's a war that has to be fought so we can return to the freedoms and liberties which we enjoy in this great country.
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@4wheel
      Once a government begins to take away liberties it is very rare that they return them.

      Also, being in a state of war doesn't justify all government actions, regardless of the enemy. And how can you have a war on "terrorism'? Last I checked war can be declared only on other nations and not on tatics. The terrorists' goal isn't to just kill people but sow fear and distrust. They don't want to kill people but make our government change. If killing people will do that then they'll take that step. By reducing the rights of its people a government is falling right into the terrorists' hands.

      The whole "war is the justification" argument is just getting stupid. If Bush said that government officials must rape dissenters because we're at war and these dissenters must be dealt with somehow would you agree? The level of severity between reality and my hypothetical is certainly different, but where do we draw the line? Can we trust a governement to be given absolute power to draw that line? You know what they saw leads to absolute corruption.
    • nickj6282, on 10/12/2007, -1/+124wheel:

      You're missing the point. I'd much rather be dead than live in (and thereby support) a police state.

      "Live free or die" and "Give me liberty or give me death". Do those phrases ring a bell to you? Or did you sleep through Civics class in 9th grade?
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0No. I'm not missing any points. I may as well be talking to a rock.
    • jbcghia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+84wheel - without your rights you may as well be dead. Give me liberty or ...nevermind you are a coward such statements would be lost on the likes of you.
    • jbcghia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+84wheel - You are a coward and don't deserve freedom. The war on terrorism is a catch phrase creating a Pavlovian response in the weak hearted. They say it, you piss your self and offer up another freedom to help the cause. You believe that these terrorists are mindless killers, you know nothing of your enemy. You are not safer because of warrant less wire taps, you are simply less of an American.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Why is this news? People already know O'Reilly is an idiot. Why can't we get real news on the front page instead of Aidenag's political agenda?
    • dracflamloc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Knowing what the real enemy is doing is the first step in preventing it from being a huge problem...

      I want to know what the pro-dictatorship people are thinking, and right now the best insight into that is the propoganda they feed their zombies.
  • therippa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Sorry Bill, the ACLU is not the greatest threat to this nation, people like you and your guest are.
  • BelchSpeak, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2Gosh, who has the highest rated cable news show? If O'Reilly sucks so bad, then all of his competition sucks a whole lot more.

    Besides it is a fair question to ask: "Does this judge wish ill will against americans?"
    Its a debate show, and that was the topic of the debate. O'Reilly wasnt asking the question, just repeating what many others across the US have been asking about this subject.
    And as it turns out, there is evidence of a conflict of interest on the Judge's part. The judge should have recused herself from this case.
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Ad hominem attacks don't win your arguments. Asking such a loaded question is obviously to try to weaken her position.

      Of course she doesn't want Americans to die; only a sociopath would. A better question would have been "Is she concerned that her ruling might cause an event where more Americans could die?" But O'reilly is of course going to take the approach that makes him look better while demonizing his opponent. He might have as well drawn a horn and flames on her picture.
    • Nonsuch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Serving on a foundation that donates to the ACLU (among dozens of other nonprofit groups) hardly constitutes a conflict of interest. Conservatives had no problem when Scalia ruled on a case involving his duck-huntin' buddy Dick Cheney; even to suggest impropriety was seen as just more evidence of deranged lefty Bush-hatred. Didn't take that shoe long to move to the other foot ...

      The judge's decision was not only fair and valid: it was blind ***** obvious. Warrantless wiretaps are illegal. Presidents have to uphold the law, not subvert it. This wouldn't even be up for debate without the legions of starry-eyed Bush cultists still crowing throughout the national media.
    • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Gosh, who has the highest rated cable news show? If O'Reilly sucks so bad, then all of his competition sucks a whole lot more."

      Just because its the highest doesn't mean people want or agree with him. I mean hell, look at the president! Theres the best example.
  • dmann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I believe the term youre looking for in reference to O'reilly is liar, fraud, person who makes his facts up on the fly. RE: Him telling Jay Leno that Tommy Chong deserved prison because of his 17 past convictions for drug offenses, when chong has NEVER, prior to his prison term for chong bongs, been imprisoned. Him saying the "Paris Business Review, which he claimed to have in front of him said his boycott of france had cost the country 4 billion dollars, when in fact, there IS NO SUCH MAGAZINE, and no boycott cost the country any billion dollars. The FACT is... bill o reilly is an ACTOR... he isnt a news man, at all. His show is less factual that Colbert or Stewart. It's theatre, just like Stewart said of crossfire.
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Well, one things for sure - they're both full of *****. I thought that one professor was a little off for saying the 9/11 attack was possibly an inside job, but these people are just throwing so much ***** out there it's insane -

    "Does she want Americans to die?"

    No, she doesn't, but illegal search and seizure should not prevail. I don't want Iraqis to die, much less Americans.

    I think we as a nation need to ignore political pundits who make outrageous claims and profit by the polarization (market) they create and just decide for ourselves.

    Get out and vote, people.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2It was not an illegal search and seizure the the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

    • innerspirit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"much less americans"?
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5repins: This only applies if the police have a warrant. Unless they have a warrant for monitering every single call from every single American, this is a violation of the constitution.

      Besides, criminals are a step ahead of the game. They just won't use phone anymore. I mean, if you're going to kill a few dozen people, blow something up or etc, you don't exactly say so on the phone. Hell, not even teenage pot dealers will use the phone in an obvious manner.
    • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4innerspirit,

      We are not in a position where our homes or families or source of income can be accidentally destroyed by a stray American or insurgent munition, and internally we are not at civil war. We do not have to worry if tomorrow will come for us, and we shouldn't. No authority in America wants Americans dead, but it's ok if a few Iraqis go by the wayside of life in an unjustified war. I don't think those people should have to die for our goals, "much less Americans."
    • heliosxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@repins
      Actually, the "pen register" that was installed only recorded the phone numbers he dialed. As a matter of fact, the supreme court ruling specifically goes on about how the numbers dialed are not private whereas the conversations held are.
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I want Americans to die! If we lived forever we would really get on each others nerves...
    Immortality is over rated...
  • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -27/+2Don't worry: the dems will soon win and in come the terrorists for attacks. mark my words.
    • fodder650, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm sure thats what the terrorists are thinking to. Lets just wait until the useless (and I am one) Democratic party gets into power! That will show those lazy liberal americans who should be running their evil country

      Antonio your vote has been bought and paid for by Republican propaganda. Welcome to the system
    • sibhod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Consider your words marked. In fact, I'll refrigerate them for you, so they'll be fresh for later when you eat them.
  • Caislean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4People like O'Reily, who are actually doing damage with their horrific "reporting", could die and I wouldn't care because the world would be better off. People like O'Reily I think are as dangerous as a murder with a knife to your throat.
    • ccarrigan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Which of Bill's reporting segments have you found to be like murder? Specifically.
  • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -17/+0O'Reilly is correct. That judge would rather see another 9-11 than allow known terrorists from being monitored in their phone calls.

    In any case this decision will be reversed on appeal.
    • ElegantFiend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No she would rather see that civil liberties are upheld, you can't fight terrorists by breaking your own peoples freedoms.
  • sjm20k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's right anton, brace yourself for whats been happening as long as people have existed on the earth! (That would be violence, if by chance your insight reaches as deep as your foresight)
  • durazine, on 10/12/2007, -15/+0We all should be VERY concerned about wire tapping. They might hear things like...

    "Hey Mom, how's it going?"
    - "Not bad, honey, how are you?"
    "Oh, pretty good...doing good."
    - "That's good."
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Or maybe:

      "I placed the bomb next to crates!"
      "Sweet! Did it go off in time?"
      "Oh yeah! All of them died!"

      Of course they might not know these guys were talking about Counterstrike.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Next they'll hire a man to sit in your house and watch what you do. You shouldn't give a ***** if you aren't doing anything wrong, right? sigh......
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4The true state of Digg (hopefully not our country):
    -65 Diggs "I'm sure O'Reilly would laugh at your comparison between him and that no-talent hack, Colbert. You ought to check out their ratings before making more stupid comments like that."
    +43 Diggs "Fox new is about as fair and balanced as Hitler at a bar mitzvah."

    FYI I find Colbert hilarious, but it seems like Digg is one big teenage liberal circle jerk.
    • munacra, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2DITTO
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3sorry... posted in the wrong spot


      -30
    • reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So you think that O'Reilly is more talented than Colbert? And that Fox News isn't biased?

      -digg for you.
    • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm no liberal and also dugg down the first and dugg up the second.
  • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Terrorists only succeed when political wackos like O'Reily use them to threaten people.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4or when they crash planes into really large buildings... you sir, are an idiot
    • munacra, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Your intellect is shining through.. Or lack there of.. You simply attack the man because you don't like him but offer not a single alternative idea about what you would or could do better than what is being done.
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@CraigB12

      The terrorist action isn't their true goal. Their real goal is to get people to mention them and their acts to propagate fear among the people.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2so your saying that crashing planes into very large buildings doesn't get people talking about them, or put fear into the people? you sir, are also an idiot
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@CraigB12

      Of course it gets people talking about the terrorists.

      But eventually you must let it go. To mention the event to disparage others or justify illegal actions just tarnishes the memories of those that died. I'm pretty sure none of them ever wanted the US to become a police state.

      And by the way: it is better to argue your point then attack those that disagree with you.
    • Fraize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@munacra - "...but offer not a single alternative idea about what you would or could do better than what is being done."

      Think about what you just said. If you say "1 plus 1 is 3" and I say "no it's not" then by your logic, if I don't happen to say "1 plus 1 is, in fact, 2" my point is wrong?

      People, I happen to think in this case O'Reilly is completely and totally wrong, and I also happen to think we should stick to the FISA rules and continue wiretapping as long as it remains fruitful. There are times, however, when I can look at a policy and plainly see it's wrong, but have no immediate good ideas. That's where dialog comes in. We need to discuss the issues.

      The Right keeps saying, "All Democrats do is complain, but they have no ideas of their own." That's total ***** because it implies that the Repubs have all the answers.
    • Trizor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@CraigB

      It will only propegate fear if we insist on being affraid. I am not changing my way of life because they attacked us. I refuse to change my way of life because they attacked us. These new lawas and measures however do require us to change our way of life out of fear of the terrorists. That is what they want, constant fear and submission from us, not our destruction. If you cannot refute my argument please refrain from an ad homineim attack, as it simply makes you look like a buffoon.
  • mike1979, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4O'Reilly has really got guts you gotta admit - having someone on the show like this that has such ideological differences from himself must be absolutely frightening lol
  • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I've never liked the guy, but this is seriously getting out of hand. What kind of people are O'reilly fans?
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5People are going to say "republicans", but i think that gives O'Reilly too much credit. He's a republican extremist. No matter what the issue is, he's on the republican side and he can't be brought to think otherwise no matter what is said. I would consider myself a republican, but I have an open mind (or at least a *mind*). I support gay marriage and abortion, so don't condemn all republicans.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"what kind of people are O'Reilly fans?"

      Typically ignorant, redneck fascist assholes.
  • munacra, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3This place is absolutely loaded with lunatic lefties.

    Her (the judge) decision is wrong and it is only the far left or anti-bushers who will argue her point. When it is your sister, mother, son or daughter who's layed out on the street because of some sort of terrorist attack that couldn't be caught due to the NSA's hands being tied in intercepting the communications of these people, you'll think otherwise. You'll be first to ask what the hell the government is doing to prevent this. Is there anyone here who has lost one single freedom? Has one person here been personally effected by NSA phone taps? I think not.
    • dracflamloc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You realize they CAN already wiretap without a warrant provided they get one after the fact. Your point is invalid.
    • m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Maybe what they (the terrorists) actually want is for us to shred the Constitution a little...once we start giving in and destroying what makes this America, they win. So as soon as you start bitching about the "lunatic lefties", you support the terrorists!
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My brother was visited by some men in black suits to discuss the amount of fertilzer and chemicals he had recently discussed purchasing. Little did they know my brother wanted to start his own landscaping business. If only my brother hadn't been looking at ordering through a site where a former employee had made a contribution to a "terrorist" orginization. Now my brother was left alone after everything was explained, but was it really worth anyone's time here? Couldn't these men in black suits have spent all that time and effort to look for real criminals instead of making assumptions based on what they hear in a conversation?

      Of course I'm not telling the truth, but such a story could be true. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened to others.
    • garfvader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's not just "far left" and "antibushers" that defend her decision.

      I'm sorry, but the government could be getting the intelligence they wanted through perfectly legal channels without having to subvert the system. It's called the FISA court. It allows for delaying the obtaining of warrants for wiretapping. But apparently this isn't good enough