(no subject)
Nov. 16th, 2005 09:05 amSo apparently Bill O'Reilly is now trying to start a boycott against San Francisco. From his site:
Should Americans who disagree with San Francisco's anti-military stance avoid traveling to the city?
Yes
No
My response is twofold, first anybody who actually believes a single word coming out of that lying, pompous gasbag's hole should absolutely refrain from visiting SF. We neither need nor want your kind around here, so pack up the kiddies (all 9 of them) and head for Kansas instead. You can actually watch time roll itself back to the Dark Ages right before your eyes! It's fun and educational (and by educational I mean in a godly sort of way, none of that elitist "science" stuff).
Second, one wonders if this boycott will have the stunning financial repercussions of his previous ones against France and any department store that instructs its employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".
via Rising Hegemon
Should Americans who disagree with San Francisco's anti-military stance avoid traveling to the city?
Yes
No
My response is twofold, first anybody who actually believes a single word coming out of that lying, pompous gasbag's hole should absolutely refrain from visiting SF. We neither need nor want your kind around here, so pack up the kiddies (all 9 of them) and head for Kansas instead. You can actually watch time roll itself back to the Dark Ages right before your eyes! It's fun and educational (and by educational I mean in a godly sort of way, none of that elitist "science" stuff).
Second, one wonders if this boycott will have the stunning financial repercussions of his previous ones against France and any department store that instructs its employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".
via Rising Hegemon
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 05:39 pm (UTC)Travel, IMHO, expands one's mind. Gasbag and his dittoheads would have their skulls blown apart if an orginal thought managed to germinate.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 05:49 pm (UTC)Is it wrong of me to admit that I would pay good money to see Bill O'Reilly's skull blown apart? It is, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 10:24 pm (UTC)Yes, it is, because then you look like a complete hypocrite when you complain about the Right making similar inflammatory statements about Liberals.
I detest Bill O'Reilly's politics, but I have no desire to see him physically harmed. There's too much of that in the world as it is. Would I like to see him discredited for being the hate-mongering windbag he really is? Of course. Do I want him dead? No way.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 10:36 pm (UTC)Uh, yeah, that's why I was hoping the addition of the "It is, isn't it?" would indicate the sarcasm there. I think you know me well enough to realize I'm not the kind of person to actually advocate such a thing.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 11:26 pm (UTC)Given that I'm too wimpy to even bring myself to eat animals killed well out of site of me, there's very little chance I'm going to be calling for anybody's blood any time soon. Even infuriatingly stupid and obnoxious pundits, of which we seem to have an overabundance right now. ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 11:41 pm (UTC)You know, I never actually thought of that as being wimpy before. I've always admired you for sticking to your beliefs in regard to being a vegetarian, even when we've disagreed on particular aspects of those beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 11:55 pm (UTC)