First O'Reilly, Then They Come For You

Update: And the DailyKos jumps in calling O'Reilly's site a "hate site" - perfect! Just read below.

A dumb move by Liberal bloggers. They had better be careful what they wish for. While they may have succeeded in getting the Secret Service to look into a Bill O'Reilly commenter, the DailyKos may have to shut down so its commenters are free to all be screened in one day.

The Lefty blogs seem to have reached out to the Secret Service over a post on a Bill O'Reilly site:

After seeing this post by John Aravosis on AmericaBlog, I was incensed and concerned at the same time. Here is the comment on O'Reilly's blog that crossed the line:

If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list.

So, I did what a responsible person should do when they see something like this on a blog. I called the Secret Service to report it. This comment isn't about politics or defaming Senator Clinton. It outright states a threat to her life. It is unacceptable.

DailyKos a few comments after an open letter to the President:

Open Letter to President Bush: Fuck you George

I understand the anger at the current holder of the office, but calling for the death of a US President is a federal offense.  You might want to tone it down a notch.

It is erroneous to think I want Bush dead.

I just want him in pain. :D

right before I hit Post I ask myself if I've written anything that could evoke a visit from the feds.  If the answer is 'maybe Yes' then I change it.  Because I don't really want to talk to them.  You know what I mean?

via DailyKos:

When you insist on maintaining liberty, there will be casualties. ... If more people were threatening to kill Bush and anyone who doesn't actively work towards impeaching him, that death-count (in Iraq) could be going down, not up.

via DailyKos:

Bush Bitch's daddy stabbed Saddam in the back, when after fighting the Iranians for us and Israel, Saddam needed Kuwait to get his oil on the market and get his country back on it's feet and Bush Bitch sr. gave Saddam the go ahead to go into Kuwait. I would have tried to kill Bush sr. also if I were Saddam.

Fuck you Bush Bitch,(servant of the anti-Christ), you are a very poor excuse for a man and a human being.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

You can always count on the Kos kids for the choicest most delicious crazy

[Sara]

I have a question and this blog post seems a good place to post it. First, let me premise that I have not visited Daily Kos ever. Yet, I am kept apprised of the content on that site over and over again in great detail thru quotations and commentary. So, my question, why do conservative-leaning blogs give Kos so much publicity and link to it so often, jacking up the site stats and making it seem legitimate to outside observers? I have been reading blogs for about 3 1/2 years now and not an hour goes by that someone somewhere isn't quoting one of the foul or ignorant passages from Kos, but do any of us really know people who think like the quotes indicate the writers there think? I don't know anyone like that, but then I don't hang with skinheads, white supremacists, anti-Semites, extremists, or teenagers.

[JoeCitizen]

Sara,

Dkos is an open site. Anyone can register and post comments or diaries. The notion that it is representative of anything more specific than the general public is simply wrong. You dont need to prove that you are a liberal, or a Democrat or anything, in order to post there. Any retard, or, for that matter, any political opponent who might wish to manufacture outrage can post something there.

It has become a cottage industry for the blowhards on the right to troll thru lefty sites to find the most outragous comments, and to then pretend that this is what "the left" stands for. It is a way of avoiding any serious discussion of the real issues - its the blog version of tabloidism. Keep everyone talking about the sensationalist ridiculous stuff that happens on the margins - demonize half the population by claiming they think like the most extreme jerks, and thereby avoid any responsibility for the incredible screw-ups of your own team.

Anyone who spent a few minutes on some right-wing sites, like LGF, would find a far greater concentration of mindless ugly hate than on Kos.
I dont go to Kos very often becuase I find most of the comments to be just the kind of vapid chit-chat that you would hear from any random group of people, and quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time. There are 500,000 people visiting that site everyday, and thousands, if not tens of thousands of comments. You can be assured that the ones you hear about are not representative of anything, but are carefully cherry-picked by those who want to give you a false impression of what is going on there.

[IanY77]

JoeCitizen:

Get the hell off this blog. Common sense and reasoned discourse have no place here.

Sincerely,

IanY77

[southdakotaboy]

Sara, JoeCitizen is flat out not telling the truth in other words he is telling a lie. The libs must lie in order to keep their ugly bigotry and hate in the shadows. Notice that as soon as he could JoeCitizen tried to shift the spotlight to someone else. There is a strong anti Jewish tilt over at the KOS site. Lets be clear most of the people over at the Kos hate Christians and Jews. They would be perfectly happy to let the muslims kill off all the Jewish people they could.

[iany77]

"Lets be clear most of the people over at the Kos hate Christians and Jews. They would be perfectly happy to let the muslims kill off all the Jewish people they could."

See? Now that's the kind of crazy only riehlworldview.com can provide.

[Sara]

My question was not meant to criticize. It is a question I've wondered about for a long time. I did not realize that anyone could post at Kos. I personally find the content from that site that I see quoted to be very naive and lacking in any intellectual thought. It reminds me of some of the outrageous and outlandish statements my son used to make when he was around 15 or 16 and said just because he knew it would get a negative reaction from me. My Mother said, "he's just trying to get your goat and test you, ignore it." He is a grown man now with adolescent children of his own and he still throws out outrageous statements once in awhile. I asked him why and he told me Grandma was right, he wants to see if I'm a hypocrite or really believe in the values I've "indoctrinated" him with all his life. Nowadays though, it is usually some really right wing statement by Michael Savage or Mark Levin. I can live with that. But if he ever came home spouting the anti-Semitic stuff I see or began calling for the death of an elected official, even a leftard, I'd have a hard time not reacting. I sometimes wonder how this pro-military over-the-hill flowerchild moderate ever produced a child with such rigid views of the world.

[Purple Avenger]

"making it seem legitimate to outside observers?"

Those notions evaporate as soon as one wades into the fever swamps.

[Steve J.]

southdakotaboy writes:Lets be clear most of the people over at the Kos hate Christians and Jews.
==============================================================================================

LMFAO! This is exactly the kind of thinking that shows how shallow the conservative mind usually is. Anyone who either (1) thinks biology is a science or (2) doesn't agree with the neo-conservative agenda MUST hate "Christians" and "Jews."

[LOL]

The overwhelming majority Jews in America vote Democrat.

Sorry for the rude wakeup call boy. Maybe you should spend some time away from the computer and rightwing blogs, and--I dunno--experience reality for a change?

[Rich Casebolt]

Why is Kos a subject here?

1> Their diarists and commenters, supposedly "tolerant" and "open-minded" Leftists, too often melt down into the rage illustrated in Dan's examples when challenged. I thought the "enlightened" were above that!

2> From what I've heard, they share the characteristics of DU and Indymedia regarding the deletion of comments that don't toe the Party Line, even when not abusive (in sharp contrast to RWV and other conservative blogs).

3> The GOP isn't going to a Yearly LGF this year ... but the Dems are flocking to the Yearly Kos ... this cesspool of Leftist idiocy and moral relativism is considered a source of Dem support significant enough to justify such a conference. This fever swamp is TAKEN SERIOUSLY by a major political party ... a major difference over the fever swamps of the Right, which do exist.

"I sometimes wonder how this pro-military over-the-hill flowerchild moderate ever produced a child with such rigid views of the world."

Could it be because he saw the aftermath of the non-judgmentalism our generation indulged in, and realized that on some principles, rigidity is called for? That is not to say that the particular principles he rigidly supports are right ... or wrong ... for I don't know enough about the specifics. But the idea of "flexibility" on principles is highly overrated, and has not served us well during my lifetime.

****************

"This is exactly the kind of thinking that shows how shallow the conservative mind usually is. Anyone who either (1) thinks biology is a science or (2) doesn't agree with the neo-conservative agenda MUST hate "Christians" and "Jews.""

Steve, I think biology, including the study of genetics and mutation, is a science ... but its extrapolation into a theory of origins that is taught as fact -- without mention of the limitations of the theory, while dismissing ANY alternative to it as "unscientific" on its face -- reeks of the dogma Galileo faced ...

... except this time, it is the fundamentalists of the secular faith who are eschewing the scientific method, because their peers might look down upon them in a spasm of herd-think that rivals that of lemmings.

I'm an engineer ... I respect science, for I make my living applying it.

I am also an evangelical Christian ... who states faith as faith, theory as theory, and fact as fact.

I do believe in a "young earth" ... because the old-earth theory held by the secularists disregards the potential for nonlinear, "outside" intervention that can accelerate natural processes, and because there are theological shortcomings to the concept of an old earth (i.e. if one believes that death didn't enter the world before the Fall of Man, millions of years of death and destruction prior to the Rise of Man doesn't compute).

But of course, my position is highly based on faith ... and I say so.

Do you do the same, with the tenets of your secular faith?

Or are you just another spiritualphobic, who fights more against some hypothetical possibility of American "theocracy" being established by President Bush ... than the concerted efforts of our enemies to establish their totalitarian Caliphate over the top of their fellow Muslims -- then us -- one severed head at a time?

And here is some conservative thought ... for the clueless like yourself:

http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2004/11/mans-gotta-know-his-limitations.html

[seekeronos]

Spot on, Rich.

While I tend to lean toward an "old earth" concept (Age-Gap Genesis 1:1-1:2), it is good for the Christian to remember that the "things which are impossible with men are possible with God".

To wit, none of us were present when God stretched out the firmament and fixed the stars into their places; and even the staunch secularist must admit that the _theory_ of evolution is based upon a certain amount of (his) faith in order for it to work.

Secularists do themselves a great disservice by dogmatically standing upon Darwin's macroevolution and scorning any challenges to the same - like you said, they have taken the seat of those church fathers who scorned Galileo and Copernicus for thinking differently from the prevailing school of thought.

When it comes to man's wisdom - and our willingness to make idolize our own "wisdom"... Jeremiah 51:17 is always a good reminder of just how foolish we really are in the eyes of Almighty God.

[chris]

Oh no, the Jesus-freaks are taking over!! The young/flat earthers are quoting 'scripture' and links to their 4th rate blogs. The rapture must be around the corner.

[Rich Casebolt]

Chris ... compare the tenor of what we "freaks" say here, to that of Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and the 911 Truther bunch that you make common cause with ...

... and you look more and more like a potential acolyte for a secular Jim Jones, ripe for the picking.

You are proving my point about too many of the "tolerant"/"open-minded"/"realists" being, at their core, spiritualphobes who strive to impose a monopoly of their faith ... in fallable humans like themselves ... upon the public discourse, to the point that they will not engage in discussion with someone who dissents from their secular dogma in a reasonable fashion, for fear that their opponent might just be right on some things.

Just watch out for the Drink-Aid ...

[chris]

Michael Moore decried your 'leader' as a stuttering fool. Anyone want to contradict that?

I think you kooks love to think that you are being persecuted. In fact, many of us just look at you with amusement. I am now off to say a prayer that Pastor Ted gets all the meth and man-whores that he needs.

Amen.

[seekeronos]

Michael Moore is nothing but a man deceived by his own conceit and propaganda. Therefore, anything that comes out of his lying, deceitful, gluttonous gullet is best taken with...

...a "liberal" dose of salt. Like a metric tonne's worth, at that.

But of course, you're quite content to ride along on his bandwagon like a deceived little sheep, aren't you?

[chris]

Right, oh pious one. Didn't think you could contradict the fact that your 'leader' is a stuttering fool. Perhaps you should pray for guidance about what to say next.

Amen.

[Rich Casebolt]

Better men than Moore ... and you, chris ... have tried to discredit this President.

And failed.

Miserably.

http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2006/09/reposting-truth-about-iraq.html

BTW, any error on the part of this President pales in comparison to the error of four decades of INACTION promoted by you, Moore, and other gnat-strainers of the Left.

[chris]

The blind (and i do mean blind) faith that you Jesus-freaks have is comical. Tell us more about your great leader.

Go with God. Amen.

[Rich Casebolt]

Not as comical, chris, as seeing you prove that the tolerance and open-mindedness Leftists crow about is a lie ...

... as you strain at gnats and fling them like monkey-poo upon those you disagree with, vainly hoping that some sticks ...

... all the while apparently willing to passively swallow the twin camels of death and destruction whole, in one butter-covered gulp.

Watch out for the Drink-Aid ...

[Cynndara]

I really don't know how I got sent this link, but what the hey. I hang out on Kos lately. I find the average level of discourse to be FAR higher than these examples. Sure, there are some highly-charged political rants ... and I make some of those myself, although I usually censor myself to avoid getting kicked off the site (Kos WILL kick you off the site if you're totally obnoxious and without redeeming social value. And if you openly --rather than carefully and metaphorically, with many disclaimers -- advocate that the current bunch of crooks in charge of this country ought to be shot. Leftists don't believe in armed revolt, you know. They want somebody else to take care of the messy stuff.) But there are also occasionally excellent references, good book reviews, and some fantastic history nut-cases who take the time and energy to assemble articles about everything from the Roman monarchy to the Barbary Pirates. And people monitoring the latest Chinese food adulteration reports and product recalls. Embedded foreign correspondents in Europe. Direct communiques from major members of Congress. Too much good sh*t; I no longer have time to read all my e-mail.

And I still don't understand how or why this link ended up in my mailbox.

[seekeronos]

Chris (and all of your other split personalities/sockpuppets) :

I do not refute your position that Bush is "a stuttering fool" -- because:

(a) He got admitted to, and graduated from a top Ivy League school. Even if you carry an "average" grade (and "C" is by all means a mathematical average), that is no easy feat in that kind of elite school.

(b) He was elected - TWICE - to be the POTUS. Cry all you want to about the hows and whys of it ... but clearly, there was no "landslide" of either popular or electoral votes in either 2000 or 2004 that could be contested easily in light of allegations of voting fraud. Call it the will of God if you like, but George Walker Bush is the chosen Leader of this nation until 20 January 2009.

Of course, if you feel that you are much more qualified, then go right on ahead and raise a few million dollars and see if you can run for POTUS yourself.

[LOL]

"(a) He got admitted to, and graduated from a top Ivy League school. Even if you carry an "average" grade (and "C" is by all means a mathematical average), that is no easy feat in that kind of elite school."

ROFL

Did you even go to college knuckle-dragger? A C average is fucking terrible. Almost all schools expel students who average below a 2.0 for several quarters. (Hint for the uneducated: A C is a 2.0 grade.)

I guess your lack of education explains your above ignorance. Trying to discredit evolution through exegesis. LOL Science has proven itself as a discovery mechanisms, yet you still offer as some sort of perverse counter-factual, quotes from the Bible.

Maybe seeker, you should shut your mouth, and listen. You might learn something.

[Rich Casebolt]

LOL:

"Discovery" and "proof" are quite different, both in the laboratory and in the courtroom. Stating theory as fact, simply because your peers have reached a consensus ... a consensus that may be driven as much by a need to prove they are "open-minded" and "enlightened" to the point that they are impervious to "superstition", as it is driven by their observations ... isn't objective science.

BTW, you still graduate with a "C" average from any college I know of, at least at the Bachelor's level.

However, there is one better test I can add to the list seekernos gave us.

GWB has hundreds of hours logged in F-102's ... a Century Series fighter that predates the fly-by-wire technology used in today's fighter aircraft.

It was no Cessna 172 -- that type of hand-flown, supersonic aircraft had flight characteristics that predisposed it to eliminating the terminally stupid from the gene pool, were they to strap it on and go flying.

Like I said, GWB has hundreds of hours in his logbook from flying in one of those. I wonder if you could achieve the same record.

The problem is ... y'all confuse knowledge and erudition with wisdom and prudence.

The self-proclaimed Best and Brightest in my lifetime -- those who think that their intellect has somehow taken them above-and-beyond the need for both timely/resolute/decisive armed conflict to defend the civilization they live in, truly-free enterprise to keep it running -- persistently confuse those characteristics.

They also have an excess of faith in their ability to completely and accurately perceive the universe.

As a result, they look like a box of dim bulbs to reasonable people.

So do you.

[LOL]

Proverbs 17:28, maybe you wingers need to take another look at it.

Sure he still graduated, but he did the bare minimum to graduate. Maybe that looks like a big accomplishment to idiots who never went to college? I dunno, but we should have higher standards for our presidents.

"Discovery" aka "Epistemology". Science has proven itself. Science has created cures to once mysterious and horrific diseases. Science has created this here internet and electricity. And still you wingers seem to think evolution is some dubious theory. It is based on the same principles of discovery as the technology you are using to complain about it!

You can't quote the Bible to disprove evolution. That's not how science works tools.

[Rich Casebolt]

LOL, take your own Scriptural advice.

Science has indeed proven itself ...

... but extrapolation of today's observations of physical processes into a theory of origins, without regard to possible nonlinear, unnatural influences upon these processes prior to the time of observation, while glossing over even the most obvious shortcomings in such a theory from the viewpoint of present observations, is not science ...

... at best, it is THEORETICAL analysis ...

... at worst, it is an EXPRESSION OF FAITH in the ability of a fallible human species to accurately and completely perceive the Universe ...

If your position was stated as faith, or even theory, I would not be sitting here debating this.

However, you present it as FACT ... and then, just as is now being done regarding climate change, y'all try to shut the door on the debate.

Smells like fear, to me.

[LOL]

No door is being shut. The problem is, you don't realize that your method of debating, denying real research, using exegesis is not how science is debated. Plenty of global warming skeptics get funded for their research, and its produced very little compelling evidence. Exegesis is not scientific debate.

[Rich Casebolt]

"Real" research includes a clear disclosure of the limitations of the methods used, and how those limitations impact any conclusions drawn from the research results. The failure/refusal of those who toe the evolution and/or HIGH party lines to do so reeks of the same defecit in critical thinking ... and reliance on faith in one's viewpoint ... that you accuse me and others of having.

As I said, I am honest enough to state my faith, as faith. When are those you support, going to do the same when they are acting from a position of faith, as opposed to conclusive proof?

**********

No door is being shut? Have you heard the believers in human-induced global heating (HIGH) when they say that the debate is "settled", then label those who dissent from the Party Line as global-warming "deniers"?

Too many researchers who are advocates of the HIGH, either have a financial stake (i.e. pursuing further research grants from organizations whose gatekeepers are predisposed to the HIGH, just as the "deniers" are accused of having financial ties to corporations and others who would be adversely impacted if the HIGH view affects public policies) ...

... or were already predisposed to imposing the socioeconomic restrictions seen by those who are HIGH as necessary to bring down the HIGH, in the name of "social justice" or other idealistic objectives -- and believe that, even if they are wrong regarding the HIGH, we would be "erring on the side of right" by still imposing those restrictions in the name of HIGH.

The irony is, the economic costs of bringing down the HIGH will reduce the resources that can be brought to bear on proven socioeconomic and environmental problems ... actually retarding progress on protecting the environment in real terms.

Too many act as if the economics are irrelevant to the debate ... they ignore the fact that one's awareness for Saving the Planet wanes greatly when they have to worry about where their next rent payment ... or meal ... is coming from.

[LOL]

The irony in your posting is that it is actual global warming skeptics who are doing so to make the money.

And it is actually global warming skeptics like the Bush administration that are covering up and censoring research they disagree with.

This is why "HIGH" alarmists are so upset with your side. Because Bush and other conservatives are doing exactly what you accuse the others of doing. It never seems to be wrong when a conservative does this though. At least, I never hear y'all complaining about it.

[juggadore]

first of all, i might be left or right of center, but why is it that people are calling these sites "liberal sites" and "conservative sites". i dont have anything to do with either of these and most people dont think like that.

[Rich Casebolt]

LOL ... the kind of agenda-sculpting of the data is too often done by BOTH SIDES.

Just as this Administration does not PROMOTE (and, probably, anything short of promotion is "censorship" in your eyes) reporting that does not agree with their considered opinion on things, the HIGH believers can twist the peer-review system, and especially play to an MSM looking for ANYTHING to smear the Administration with, to both promote their view and trash dissent.

Problem is, the HIGH believers tell us they are "objective" in large part because "they have no profit motive" ... when they do, in terms of getting grants, being perceived as leaders in the scientific community, and getting advancement opportunities in their field if they toe the Party Line ... the objectivity of the scientific method and peer review be damned.

When y'all admit how your faith ... not just in your own perceptual abilities, but in the belief (in the face of evidence) that more control by government of our socioeconomic systems produces a better world ... then you can gain some credibility in the eyes of people like me.

[Rich Casebolt]

Excuse me ... a correction:

(in the face of HISTORICAL evidence TO THE CONTRARY, WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES)

[Melanie Dahlberg]

Pastor Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.