Speaking of Inconsequential Rhetoric, How's this for fair and balanced? Bill O'Reilly had some choice bits: (Via Atrios)
O'REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.
Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.
Is anyone else confused?? What I want to know is how Billy differentiates between undermining and dissenting, cause I certainly wouldn't want to be arrested as a traitor. Actually if disagreeing with the war meant that I was a traitor I WOULD want to be arrested. Maybe they'll deport me!
1 comment:
O'reilly is a classic example of how easily the media can influence the masses. If you listen to an opinion or ideology long enough and are lied to that a great majority of the world believe and accept it, then you also naturally accept it.
Post a Comment