Of course, this is a rhetorical question, as a radical Muslim cleric would never speak out against any "proposition" that hurt or embarrassed the US military - which is O'Reilly's "over the top" but well made point: the leftist liberal bozos in San Fransico are trying to send the message that a young person's choice to serve his or her country through active or reserve military service, is a bad one, and a choice not to be encouraged or supported by allowing military recruiters to attend at public High Schools or Colleges.

O'Reilly's point being that who do these bozos think ultimately protects and promotes their freedoms? And, if these bozos would rather not support or promote those institutions who protect their freedoms, then fine: go it alone.

The blowing up of Coit Tower just makes the point: who is to stop it, if not the military?

I will add you to the sides of the terrorists, then. O'Reilly's point is one of the best examples of destroying freedom to save freedom.

O'Reilly's comments are free speech, though over the top. I imagine he'd give a very emberrased apology if anything like that happened. I think San Francisco made some bad decisions and I won't make any plans to visit there if they decide to act that way, but I think he has to watch himself sometimes, as he has quite an ego, but not as bad as Svend Robinson who champions people that would kill him in a heartbeat.

I don't recall Sven saying a building's worth of people would be justified because of a municipal policy.

O'Reilly's comments are free speech

Uh, free speech?. Or: 'Student arrested for making terrorist threats

Um, actually having spent some time in Berzerkely(Berkely) and San Francisco (not only is it a city it's a county, and many of the residents seem to act like it's a seperate country) I can tell you, definatively, that Palestinian supporter types say seditious things there all the damn time. You get world worker party people advocating destruction of the US by violence, all the damn time.
So what?
O'Reilly says quit acting like military hating A-holes(yeah, like I was gonna wear my USS Forestall cap to a U2 concert in SF last week--hell I got crap because I didn't clap at the end of Bullet in the Blue Sky) and behave like you're your own f'n country. Fine. Accept what happens.
Was it a jerkish thing to do? Yeah. Sedition? No way. Not unless you're going to arrest and try for sedition the jackalopes who chained themselves to the gates at the ports of Oakland and SF to prevent war material from being shipped out of there, or unrepentant Communist profs there who advocate the destruction of the US, or the ME studies prof that has said that the US deserves an Intifada.

Advocate that, ALan, and I think you've got a case. But having been there alot over the last decade, and seen the $h!) that goes on in the Bay Area which is several orders of magnitude worse, on the other side, I think you're kicking O'Reilly because it's fun.

Oh, and how was this worse than Pacifica Radio(with NPR dollars, US tax dollars, to boot) saying that anyone who voted for prop 22 deserved to be strung up and beaten like Matt Sheppard?
Come on Alan, you've got thicker skin than this.

I do actually have thick skin medically speaking. I bend the needles they use to sew you up. But how did you know that and how does it relate?

Heeee. I've got contacts all over the world--being part of the Beamish Army has it's perks. Heee. Alan, you've got those who count on you. If you get this dispeptic over O'Reilly I'm afraid you're going to have an early heartattack the next time Billy Graham or Pat Robertson open their mouths.

Basic point: while distasteful, is this any worse than Ward "I'm a fake Injun" Churchill or any of the comments from any other loonies?
I'd say no. At least it isn't being said with support from my tax dollars(unlike the bizzaro world rantings of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson or Prof. Churchill).

Sedition's a strong word. Maybe you're playing tit-for-tat here(pro-war types calling anyone against the war un-American). But sedition? Hardly. Criminal? You must be joking my good man.

Considering how the SF and BErkeley city councils act like they're superior or even a seperate country I'd say they deserve'd it. The moment something bad happens in the area they'll be clamoring for military aid---while doing everything in their power to make sure that the sons and daughters comming to the aide are from somewhere other than the BA. Being part of the Republic means you kick in your share. That means allowing the military in to recruit. THe BA has gone off its rocker in this by trying to block recruiting. So, they pay the price of not trying to be part of the Republic. Doom on them. O'Reilly told them du ma ngu. If that's enough to be called a seditionist I hope you never use the English equivalent of the Vietnamese I used above in an argument.

Boy! I missed all of the above, with ry pounding the proverbial crap out of you, Al, along with the SanFraners. I agree (not surprisingly) with ry - you really gotta lighten up, heart-attack boy - you must know O'Reilly was only joking, engaging in sardonic critcism. Otherwise, we'll start thinkin' you have the sense of humour of a Quebec sovereignist!

BTW, if Al Qaeda ever took out Coit Tower, they would be lucky to take a few middle-age tourists with it. Coit Tower is not an office building, it's merely a tourist attraction.

You can't see the trap I am setting for you both, can you...

Ugh, I almost threw up a little bit in my mouth when I saw Billy Graham mentioned in the same sentence with Pat Robertson. The two are apples & oranges among evangelical Christians.

The Alien & Sedition acts, which were largely gone by 1802, served to silence an opposing political party. They were passed under the pretense of enhancing national security. However, the acts were viewed as a violation of the 1st Amendement.

I don't know the law concerning what O'Reilly said, but my own brand of logic would tell me that if his words might somehow actually cause real damage to national security (i.e. people's lives & sensitive material), then deal with him. Otherwise, let him continue to show himself as the windbag he is.

Hey! Who's taking US history to 1865 around here? Brian!

The good news: I got a 100% (A++ to be exact) on my term paper about The Alamo & the Texas Revolution.

The bad news: I think I bombed* the final exam.

[* not "al-Qaeda" <i>bombed</i>, but <i>bombed</i> as in "did poorly."]

Why would I, or how could I more specifically and realistically, slap around McLeod? Not happening. A good charlie horse in passing maybe, but a smack down? Nope.

"You can't see the trap I am setting for you both, can you..." Damn you Alan, have you been readin Liddel Hart again? All this indirect carp? (Note, I did mention the stupid 'Anti-American' claims---if that's the trap I've tefloned up on that front.).

Okay, Billy Graham may have been unfair. I just couldn't think of another Televangelist to thru under the bus at the time.

The Alien and Sedition act may be gone, but they passed another sedition act in the US around the time of WW1. It's been challenged in SCOTUS and been limited, but it still is on the books.

The best bits of O'Rielly to watch are the first 3 minutes and the last 3 minutes. The opening editorials and the hate-mail. Fun stuff. The rest? Eh, who cares. Get better coverage of the issues elsewhere.