We know that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian (as professed agnostics Bill Maher and teh author of this blog agree). Is Bill O'Reilly really Catholic? I dno't thinks so (as an outsied observer: now aganostic and raised Presbyterian, with an admitted suspicion of the Catholic religion coming fro both my upbringing and knowledge of the HSTORY of what led to the Reformation). Whny do I say that? O'Reilly BRAGGED about "getting" an interview with Rick Santorum ,tonight, and then DISHONEST HYPOCRITE O'Reilly proceeded to basically take the HIT PIECE" mainstream media na narrative to do one of the wort interviews I have everf seen.
Is the "news" here really the potential SMEARS that the mainstream media will bring against Santorum? Those are NEGATIE ADS, and have noathing to do with whether Ricmk Santorum should be President. I assure you, I am not exaggerating. O'Reilly went through tthe litany of possible SMEARS against Snatorum, knowing full well that this is a way of DESTROYONG Santorum. If all Santorum gets is q2uestionis about possible SMEARS, tehn Santourm has no chance to get into the question of why he shouyld actually be President (as distinguished from defending against every STUPID possibl esmear there is. Doubt me? Never do that. Look at this list of subjeccts O'Reilly spent MOST of this PROMOTED interview talking about, in the context of Santorum being to extreme":
1. Contraceptioin (again, is O'Reilly really a Caholic--a believing one?). I could never make this up. Is this one of the burning issues of our time? Not a chance. Does Rick Santroum support making CAONTRACEPTION illegal? Not a chance. Waht Santorum said, in answer to a question once, is that states have a RIGHT to make contraception illegal. That happens to be my positoin. It goes back to the much criticized Supreme Court decision--a decsion lthat was then EXTENDED to justify Roe v. Wadae on the mocuh more seriouis issue of abortgion--that it violated a "right of privacy" for states to have a law against sale of contraceptives. Now no one was ENFORCING such a law, in terms of individuals and maybe in terms of sales, but this was a deliberately manufactured case to try to lead in to an atttack on abortion. There were one or two states ONLY that had such a law still on the books, and the law was unlikely to stay on the books. Notice how ESOTERIC this "issue" is. Do you CARE whether states have the "right" to prohibit sales of contraceptives? This is a DELIBERATE, DISHONEST attempt to imply that Santourm would like to "take away" your "right" to use contraceptives. It is a SMEAR, pure and simple, and O'RFeilly knows it. O'Reily; YOU ARE A DHSHOENST HYPOCRITE. This is what leftists do: confuse the policy issue of conhtraception with the issue of whether the Constitution has anything to say on the matter, and then confuse contraception with the l\ife and death issue of abortion. It is obviously also what O'Reilly does, and I will never foregive him for it. This is the LAST time I will even SRUF a single minute of an O'Reilly program, or any program he is on, and the LAST time I will see a single minute of the "prime time' lineup of the unfair and unbalanced network. I will continue to SURF no more than two minues a day as to the daytime propaganda of the unfair and unbalanced network, and to listen to EVENTS like debates, but I am again confirmed in my BOYCOTT of the unfair and unbalanced network, and beg you to do the same.
2. Gay marriage and gays in the military. I kid you not. In the entire HISTORY of human civilization, prior to the 21st Century, marriage has been between a man and a woman. We have had INCEST mar\riages (Egypt, including Cleopatra). We have had MANY times and cultures, including some continuing to this day in some Muslim countries, where OLYGAMY is not recognized. NEVER homosexual marriage, at ANY TIEM, or in ANY CULTURE, until this recent insantiy. Ye O'Reilly, with a straight face, suggested to Santorum that his position on gay marriage is "extreme". O'REILLY< YOU ARE A DHISHONEST HYPOCRITGE. Again, this is a SMER of Santroum, not because it "hurts' him directly, but because it sends the MESSAGE that Santorum is ONY about this kind of "social issue'. As Santourm said, his SEPEECH in Iowa said NOTHING about "bay rights" issues. O'Reilly ignored the speech, and went with the SMEAR.
3. Gays in the military. See 2 above.
4. This is from O'Reilly DISHONEST HYPOCRITE, who has often said how HURTFUL it has been when the left has accused him of RACISM based on an intterpretation of what he said. This one is totally absurd. Santorum is "accused" of saying: "you do not help blacks when you give them welfare." First, this statement is TRUE, especially in the context of Santorum talking about welfare merely creating a "dependent class". Second, Santorum probably DID NOT SAY IT. The "criticism" is that Santorum implied that ONLY blacks are on welfare. Say what? If I were asked, for examle, whether the GOP should not reach out to African-Americans by MORE welfare probrams, or whether the GOP is not HURTING minorites and the poor by CUTTING welfare--with special emphaiss on black people, I would be likely to say something like what Santroum DENIES that he said (with an ambiguous tape). This blog, of course, has correctly told ou that LEFITST DEMOCRATS are RACISTS because THEY keep talking aobut how Afircan-Americans and Hispanics should VOTE for Democrats because Democrats supposedly "helip" them by giving them "benefits'. THAT is RACIST. To say that it does NOT help blakcs to be looked uypon as a dependent, wellfare class is NOT racist. Now if Santorum were out there continually talking about "blacks' on welfare, you might see the "criticism". But, ONE SENTENCE, that he may not have even said? Give me a break. This is a SMEAR. And, O'Reilly, you are a DISHONEST HYPOCCRITE. Yep. It is BEING a hypocrite to have an interview with Santorum and ONLY bring up SMEARS, based on the assertion that OTHERS are going to attack him that way. So, O'Reillly, you are jsut as BAD as CNN, MSNBC and the rest, by your own admission. Well, I AGREE with you. You, and your network, ARE just as bad.
I think there were more, but you get the point, O'Reilly just brought up SEMAR after SMEAR, as if that is what Santorum's campaign will be all about. If Santorum LETS his campaign be about that, then Santorum will lose, and the SEMARS will win. That is their purpose: to simply make the campaign all about the SMEARS and not about why you should vote for Santroum
Now Santorum was fine in terms of his answwers to O'reilly--EXCEPT, Santourm is going to have to STOP answering those questonis--attakcing the question--and go on to the IMPROTANT things he wants people to know about himn. It is probably too much to ask him to have handled O'Reilly that way, at this point. But he MUST start doing that. If he lets himself be DEFINED as someone ONLY interested in "social issues', and someone who has to keep "defending" himself on allegedly "extrem" positions, then Santorum will never have a chance. That is the INTENT.
The unfair and unbalanced network has become CNN light, and is beoming more so every single day. The u;nfair and unbalanced network more and more presents the mainstream media narrative as the way this election should be "covered". FACTS? Don't be silly? IMPORTANT issues? Don't be silly. Get away from the SEMARS? Don't be silly. The unfair and unbalanced netowrk LIVES for those, especailly since they are ALL IN for Romney (I guarantee you on this).
Nope. Unless by accident, or on another program, tonight represented the last time I will see O'Reilly's face on televisonis. It was a disgraceful interview, and I am convinced O'Reilly was fully aware of what he was doing. NO light. Only HEAT (and propaganda, smear heat at that).
B y the way, the CORRECT thing for Santorum is to IGNORE tghe smears (not go out of his way to "answer them). Santourm needs to keep to HIS MESDSAGE. And if the attempt is made to FORCE him into a bos by onlly asking him about these smears, then Santourm MUST ATTACK THE QUESION (whether as harshly as I do or not).
P.S, No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment