Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Arising_uk »

Immanuel Can wrote:There's no such thing, just like there's no such thing as Hindu polar bears or Atheist butterflies.
Not true as the UK has an official church, the CofE and its protestant christian. But IC is right sort of, there are no christian nations anymore as we've all gone secular due to the grief.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Skip »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Skip wrote:Christian nations...
There's no such thing, just like there's no such thing as Hindu polar bears or Atheist butterflies.
Polar bears? Butterflies? Now, you're really reaching for a deflection!
Butterflies and polar bears (both endangered by human activity) don't have religions, governments, or legislative policies.
How many political offices in the USA are held by people who do not profess to be some denomination of Christian - or at least Jewish, which is in the same book - but not people of that other book, which tends to get burned.
https://www.treasury.gov/about/educatio ... trust.aspx
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins.
Butterflies and polar bears don't manufacture weapons of mass destruction to kill and maim the babies of other colonies, while denying their own females the right to determine their own reproductive function.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skip wrote:...that other book, which tends to get burned. ...
Which one? Do you mean the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Skip »

They burning those now, too? I haven't heard,
but it shouldn't be really surprising, with the treatment those documents have had in America of late.
Usually, they stick to religious texts they dislike, but sometimes political ones, too.
Hardly worth the bother, though, given the declining literacy rate.

(I see what you consider significant. The burning books, not the burning babies.)
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Walker »

When Totalitarianism meets the U.S. Constitution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO3RwSKFK_8
(offensive language)

*

In the link, the totalitarian’s rationale, his self-stated justification for attempting to silence freedom of speech, is to “protect his students.”

The question is, from what?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by thedoc »

Walker wrote: In the link, the totalitarian’s rationale, his self-stated justification for attempting to silence freedom of speech, is to “protect his students.”

The question is, from what?
Freedom of speech works 2 ways, you can say whatever you like, (within reasonable limits) but I am not required to listen.

The vice-principal had just as much right to tell the protesters to move along or block them as the protesters had to be there.

Who's rights were being violated? I believe harassment needs to be proven in a court of law, and then an order can be issued.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Walker »

thedoc wrote:
Walker wrote: In the link, the totalitarian’s rationale, his self-stated justification for attempting to silence freedom of speech, is to “protect his students.”

The question is, from what?
Freedom of speech works 2 ways, you can say whatever you like, (within reasonable limits) but I am not required to listen.

The vice-principal had just as much right to tell the protesters to move along or block them as the protesters had to be there.

Who's rights were being violated? I believe harassment needs to be proven in a court of law, and then an order can be issued.
He was harassing the protesters, plain and simple. Up close and threatening, including the faux backhand fist.

Likely that was the reason he resigned, after reviewing his options.

The rest of it? Self-sabotage, and quite revealing of a totalitarian.

The guy acted like he was coked-up.

A few drinks and he would have started stripping for his drive-by audience,
- the children he was protecting,
- responsibly driving their expensive automobiles, which probably cost 13-20K.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Skip »

Walker wrote:When Totalitarianism meets the U.S. Constitution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO3RwSKFK_8
(offensive language)

*

In the link, the totalitarian’s rationale, his self-stated justification for attempting to silence freedom of speech, is to “protect his students.”

The question is, from what?
So, let's see. If you are angry that someone else has a right you disagree with and believe that they should be deprived of that right,
you're just exercising your constitutional right.
If somebody gets angry about the way you do it, on their premises, they're totalitarian.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Walker »

Skip wrote: So, let's see. If you are angry that someone else has a right you disagree with and believe that they should be deprived of that right,
you're just exercising your constitutional right.
If somebody gets angry about the way you do it, on their premises, they're totalitarian.
Not just somebody.

Not just anybody.

He's the Man.

I'm sure you know what that means.

And, saying "on their premises" is dishonest.
Reason?
It's quite clear in the video that the protesters are standing on public property.

Reasoning and correcting deliberate falsehoods.
They often do go together.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by thedoc »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Skip wrote:...that other book, which tends to get burned. ...
Which one? Do you mean the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
Several years ago a pastor in the south threatened to burn a Koran in protest to some of the actions in the middle east. While I understand his motivation I objected to his methods and I suggested that we gather several Bibles and burn them in protest. I wasn't going to tell anyone that the proper way to dispose of old worn out bibles is to burn them, and I was going to be sure they were all old worn out Bibles, I just wasn't going to tell anyone. Several others thought it was a bad idea and talked me out of doing it.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by thedoc »

Walker wrote: He was harassing the protesters, plain and simple. Up close and threatening, including the faux backhand fist.
A teacher in HS explained freedom, my freedom to swing my arms ended at the tip of his nose, as long as the vice-principal didn't actually hit the protesters there was no assault committed, and he was no more harassing the protesters than they were harassing the parents and pupils of the school. The vice-principal claimed there were no pregnancies at the school, so the protesters were making false claims accusing the parents and students of murdering unborn children. So far the question of when human life begins hasn't been completely answered.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Walker »

thedoc wrote:
Walker wrote: He was harassing the protesters, plain and simple. Up close and threatening, including the faux backhand fist.
A teacher in HS explained freedom, my freedom to swing my arms ended at the tip of his nose, as long as the vice-principal didn't actually hit the protesters there was no assault committed, and he was no more harassing the protesters than they were harassing the parents and pupils of the school. The vice-principal claimed there were no pregnancies at the school, so the protesters were making false claims accusing the parents and students of murdering unborn children. So far the question of when human life begins hasn't been completely answered.
You’re referencing aggravated assault with the nose punch connecting.

A fool who stops an inch short of your nose with his fist is committing simple assault. He is menacing.
Getting as close as he did a couple of times, in the intimidating manner in which he did, just might also qualify.

The youths whom he was treating like dogs had every legal and moral right to do what they were doing, and, that right is protected by the laws of the land. This so-called caring educator, talking to youths that way who were younger that those he was protecting, my oh my.

This is likely why the fool resigned.

If you want to get biblical, quite a metaphor of demonic possession, if not literal.
He had a legal right to act bonkers.
To sing and dance on the street corner like a show-boy.
However, who but the possessed would do so, under the circumstances?
They have no choice. :shock:

Notice how every mention of Jesus sent him into a paroxysm?
Like he had been poked with a cattle prod.

Those kids were disciplined.

*


“Dr. Ruff has acknowledged that the demonstrators had a right to be on a public sidewalk. He acknowledged that his conduct cannot be defended or condoned and he deeply regretted his actions as displayed on the video.

“This school district will not interfere with the rights of anyone to express themselves, as those US Constitutional 1st Amendment rights are established in law. The Downingtown Area School District has policies that comply with all legal requirements, including compliance with the First Amendment. The two demonstrators had a right to be on a public sidewalk and a legal right to speak there as well.”


- http://www.dasd.org/cms/lib8/PA01916467 ... 20Ruff.pdf

Dr? The guy is a doctor of philosophy. :roll:
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Skip »

Walker wrote: Not just somebody.
Not just anybody.
He's the Man.
I'm sure you know what that means.
Yes. It sure as hell doesn't mean a simple principal or vice principal of a high-school.
Police, judge, prosecutor, prison warden would qualify as "the man".
Pedagogues do not even have the power to enforce any kind of totalitarianism on their own students.

He just got mad at someone harassing his student in front of his school...
Yes, I will grant: a whole inch away from the actual school property, which is at least the
distance he kept from the picketer - so they were even... except that she started it, unprovoked,
butting into the very private business of strangers who had dome nothing to her.
He was protecting his school. I suppose he resigned for that same reason.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Walker »

Skip wrote:Yes. It sure as hell doesn't mean a simple principal or vice principal of a high-school.
It sure as hell does.

Teachers are fond of telling students that school is not a democracy.

Chorus-boy simply stepped outside of his fiefdom and into the real world.
When he came back down to earth, he realized, oops.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Post by Skip »

Chorus-boy? Fiefdom? Real world?
Your derision doesn't make him either The Man or a totalitarian.
And what's this little demitasse-hurricane in aid of, anyway?
More diversion?
Locked