If only it were true!

We have too many troglodytes on the Court as it is. A rational secularist would be a welcome relief.

O'Reilly

Never lets facts or reality get in the way of a good pointy rant. He doesnt need facts or reality, he has an ideology

LET'S GET IT STARTED IN HERE

Pleae let be the first of many to point that the Senate not the House votes on Federal Judges including the Supreme Court. BO going crazy again.

By the way notice how he said "Perceived failure in Iraq." We are only perceiving how badly things are going in Iraq.

SP's

Bill O's new work of the month.

What a liar and a worm.

OH NOOOOOO...

...secular-progressive judges on the court! What planet does this dung slinger live on? Geez, one minute he says it's OK to have opinions - next minute he's burning witches at the stake. Some free country...

O'Reilly should stick to the talking points....

Karl undoubtedly told him to mention Pelosi as often as possible, but Bill's apparently ad-libbing here. In the future he should just read what Karl sends him, lest he expose his own ignorance.

I Could Be Wrong

But aren't Federal Judges confirmed by the Senate, not the house of Representatives? Ms. Pelosi if she becomes speaker, won't be involved in the process.

I was worried ...

a whole day would go by without Bill O'Reilly saying something completely stupid. Whew.

BO may be a moron, but at least he's consistently moronic.

Translation:

O'REILLY: If the Dems win the House, Nancy Pelosi will become speaker. However, according to the Fox poll, 43 percent of Americans have never heard of Congresswoman Pelosi. They know nothing about her. So the country is facing a possible big change, and almost half of us have no idea what the change might be.

What O'Reilly is really saying:

O'Reilly: There are a large group of people out there who don't know who Nancy Pelosi is, so we saw that as an opportunity to fill our listeners heads with mush and fear about her.

The world will end as we know it if you vote for a Democrat. Pelosi IS satan. Do you want America to look like San Francisco? Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve...etc.

The hopeless 33%...

Those who still support George Bush, who still believe that Saddam was invovled in 9/11, who still believe that Bush's tax cuts caused an economic miracle, who still believe that we never landed on the moon, who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, who still believe that Rush Limbaugh tells them the truth...those people will believe whatever Bill O'Reilly tells them.

Bill's talking bollocks

Very few know who Pelosi is. And those who do know she's as "secular-progressive" as a concentration camp gate. Who's Bill trying to kid? Dem leadership are Repub-lite, there's nothing progressive about them at all. After all, haven't they given Bush everything he's wanted?

People who can only think in two dimensions have no depth. So much for O'Reilly and his "Repubs vs. Dems is all that exists" ideology.

no

the democrats haven't given bush "everything he's wanted". they simply do not have the numbers to stop him. the democrats are not far enough left for you, but they differ from bush in most areas.

Reality vs. ritual

They're not even trying to fix things. They vote for all the wars, all the corruption...they're not fighting back, they're collaborating. Pelosi refused to let Conyers start impeachement proceedings. We have a President who tortures and she refuses to impeach. Who's side is she on?

We have a Dem governor here who only now "promises" to fix our property tax woes...after four years in which all he did was legalize slot machines. We have a Democrat senatorial candidate who is pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-corporate...a Republican in all but name. I've watched my state Dem machine drive the Green's off the ballot, so much for being democratic. DC's Dems are voting for war crimes and torture and promoting people who violate the Bill of Rights.

Who's side are the Democrats on? Liberty or fascism? What's it look like? They are not an alternative to the Republicans. If we want to save this nation, we have to stop voting for them, otherwise it's a slow suicide.

and what were the chances

bush was going to get impeached in a gop house. you talk about reality? the democrats are an alternative. maybe not the best, but the only ones that offer a chance to get elected. all your spin can't change the fact there are some major differences.

Unviable options

Pelosi wouldn't even TRY to impeach Bush. She blocked it from happening! You can't hide the Democrats total lack of effort and collaboration behind a Repub majority. The opposition MUST be vocal or they are just along for the ride. And looking at the Democratic voting record in both houses, they're enjoying the roadtrip.

We either save this country or keep voting for those who are killing it. I prefer saving it. If the choice is to vote for war criminal Republicans or their Vichy Democrat collaborators, you'll find me with the Resistance. Long live liberty.

disingenuous

you talk about the democratic senate candidate who's "antiabortion" when you know that is not the position of the party. it is in fact not a common position among democrats. that was one of the major issues about bush vs. the democrats, concerning bush appointing anti-choice judges. you also complain about the lack of property tax relief. most states require a balanced budget, so exactly which programs are you willing to cut? you blather on about reality, but you don't seem to have much of a concept of it.

Say it ain't so!

Say it ain’t so…say it ain’t so!! Not secular-progressive judges. How could this be happening? Separation of church and state, enlightened forward thinking judges. What is this world coming to?

The next thing you know we’ll have investigations on waste and corruption on government spending for the Iraqi war.

Of course the House has nothing to do with confirmation hearings, but hey, what the heck never let the facts get in the way of a good story huh, Bill. A B.A. in History and a Masters in Public Administration didn’t seem to take very well. Maybe you should try and get your money back.

I saw O'Reilly's lips move....

>>"Morris said O'Reilly had "framed it great""<<

Dick Morris is to Bill O'Reilly what Charlie McCarthy was to Edgar Bergen.

They're both Dummies

I think that Dick and Bill are more like Charlie and his cousin, Mortimer, while Roger Ailes is the Edgar Bergen.

Wow, worrierking

you're even older than I am- I barely remember Jerry Mahoney & Knucklehead.

If only billo realized most americans dont mind SP judges

Most people I know dont care whether they are right or left as long as they dont use thier affiliations to boast laws. I had a problem with Alleto because i had a feeling he would use his position to elliminate abortion completly. It hasn't happened yet and most likely never will. We need MODERATE judges like O'Conner because they are the most trustable ones...

I Couldn't Have Said It Any Better

O'Reilly states the differences between himself and Nancy Pelosi with more clarity and insight than I could have done myself:

"I see the world in black and white. Nancy Pelosi never does. I think that's dangerous in a time of terror. I think there are villians who want to kill us. You know, and if you don't accept that, your odds of dying go higher."

No Bill, we know that there a villians out there who want to kill us. We see the problem as well as the causes of terrorism as multidimensional rather than black and white. We see the policies to respond as requiring flexibility and involving nuisance rather than black and white. We see the chances of dying by extremists as higher by those who engage in the black and white thought dogma rather than those who see the need for careful and thoughtful analysis

Finally, I hadn't heard that Haskert used his Congressional position to enhance the value of some investment propery that he owns. I see you and Dick Morris have no problem with this because "they all do it." and then baselessly claim that Nancy Pelosi would do even "worse" What a great ethical bar all you rightwinger hold yourselves to and I guess that Haskert gets a free pass on this because you know (somehow) that Pelosi would do worse.

Seeing In Black And White

“I see the world in black and white, Nancy Pelosi never does, you know, I think that’s dangerous in a time of terror.” Say’s Bill O’Reilly. I don’t know very much about Nancy Pelosi but his comment gives me reason to have more respect for her abilities as representative in Congress.

People are too often tempted to simplify their view on the world to black and white especially when under pressure. When a situation is too complicated to understand or too time consuming to resolve quickly people fall back on black-or-white thinking. It is undoubtedly comforting to feel as though the problem has been solved but this has nothing to do with reality. No problem, no situation, no challenge in our complicated, multicolored and textured world is that simple.

Most issues facing our society like terrorism, the ecology, the economy and world alliances are extremely complex. Many facets and facts come from many people and countries. It takes extensive knowledge and cooperation to evaluate and act upon the facts that will affect millions of people. Simplistic, black-and-white thinking will produce bad decisions and poor leadership. In fact, it already has.

“... I think there are villains that want to kill us, you know, and if you don’t accept that, your odds of dying go higher” Mr. O’Reilly admonishes. What does this mean in a black and white world? Should we grab a gun or a bomb and go blow up something or shoot someone? How will we know when we have found and killed all the villains? Maybe we should give all of your rights to an incompetent President and administration and let them decide. I know what seems more dangerous to me.

Newsflash for BO

Why should we have anything but secular judges? He can argue with "progressive" all he likes (although after the last six years arguments for the alternative are getting more and more difficult to make), but secular?

In case you didn't know, Billy, our laws are not based on religion. They're based on the needs of society. Yes we have laws against murder and theft, similar to the ideals of the ten commandments, but we don't have laws against lying (unless under oath through legal channels) honoring your parents, adultery, worshipping false idols, or taking the Lord's name in vain. I find it impossible to believe that ancient civilations in general did not comprehend that murder and theft were wrong, because they harmed their society. It's not like the ten commandments came out and everyone was shocked that murder and theft were no-no's.

So, bearing that in mind, what is to fear from "secular" judges? If we were such a "christian nation" as many claim, surely we would have laws that conformed with all of the ten commandments, plus other biblical rules, right? Yet we don't. Excluding localized and ancient blue laws, our laws are based on purely secular grounds, namely the needs of society. They are not based on morals. Hence, anything but a secular judge is unnecessary and frankly inappropriate.

Smile..

when you say secular progressive Bill! We need more secular progressives on SCOTUS, and in the government an don the TV and on the newstand and on the radio etc. etc.

Don't Jesus and his dad

get to judge for all eternity? FerChristsakes, let the other guys have their turn down here in the real world.

I've always wondered about the Cons fear of lib judges.Is that liberal aversion to the death penalty keeping them from getting to heaven soon enough, no matter who they kill?

And all the Conservative Christians can take heart- when we non-believers die, we gotta face their guys.

Seems like a fair trade-off

What would Pelosi have to do..

What would Peolosi have to do with "secular" judges? Wow, Bill O'Reilly has no idea how our country runs. Good one Bill.

Bill O'Reilly is Fair and Balanced

While I’ve met and debated with many people of varying political and spiritual persuasions, I don’t know of anyone who claims to be a “Secular Progressive”. “San Francisco Values” is an interesting notion but just how were they developed and where do you sign up for a copy? So I went to good ole reliable Google and found out that Bill O’Reilly is the leading authority on both. Mmmmm, now what does this mean?

I guess it means that Grand Master O’Reilly can accuse Congressman Nancy Pelosi of being a “committed Secular Progressive “ who subscribes to “San Francisco Values”(as defined by Bill O), without asking for her thoughts or opinions, then call it “Fair and Balanced”. “Fair And Balanced” continues to be the Fox News media joke of the decade. Bill O’Reilly wouldn’t know fair and balanced if Blind Lady Justice bit him on both sides of his hypocritical fanny

Go ahead Bill.

Make people afraid of responsibility to your fellow American and fellow human. Keep them afraid of effective government. Make them fear freedom from conservative oppression. Deny human dignity and celebrate torture. Keep committed loving people from enjoying equal rights under the Constitution. Revel in the invasion of your privacy through unwarranted wiretaps. Subjugate the tender love of our nation's mothers to authoritarian male dominance. Forego the liberal teachings of Jesus and the Buddha for fundamentalist dogma.

Go ahead Bill, when you argue for conservative principles, you argue against American values.

The law of opposites

If Bill hates secular progressives, does that mean he loves sectarian repressives? But I think we already knew that.