I've read your poor critique of the O'Reilly v. Rivera dust up from 'The Factor' and watched the video footage of the event.
Your characterization of it is completely wrong and driven by your craven hatred of conservative perspectives on what are rational and sensible principles of justice.
You claim that the debate had little substance and shed more heat than light, but this is shallow and partisan.
Comparing postures such as "spewing bile" to "forceful objection" is pure sophistry. Both men were equally vehement. Of course, we all know that males engaged in passionate argumentation can only be, if not simply scary, dangerous from a radical feminist position.
It is unfortunate for the left, who battle to stifle debate, that the debate medium is so popular with the right and becomes more so with the general population every day. It flourishes while established media dries and dies on the vine of tacit acquiescence. The value of what you consider unrefined "modern political discourse", "today's cable chat", and "overwrought exchange" is precisely what perturbs propaganda proprietors such as yourself. As opposed to somber studio diatribes with edited positions, debate shines light on conflicting views, giving consumers clear alternatives from which to refine and enhance their values. Yet you deride that.
Pity you have so little desire to discern truth.
The truth is Bill remained calm throughout the interview. Commendable, having been subjected as he was to Rivera's defensive badgering and filibustering. (It's typical of the left to belittle with incessant meaningless chatter and then cry when someone dares speak over them.) Rivera's defense of this criminal's behavior was devoid of logic, reason and force of law. Only insanity defends such repetitiously illicit behavior without applying appropriate and serious consequence.
I might have had some sympathy for the guy and could understand, perhaps, the leniency he received after an initial offense of public intoxication, but to allow such an infraction as driving intoxicated to happen more than once is irresponsible and falls at the feet of the mayor as O'Reilly suggested.
Rivera brought up an interesting point, "had the perpetrator been Ramoski [sic]", would anyone have cared? The pertinent detail would be whether or not Jaime Ramoski - in my scenario, a Jewish immigrant - were here illegally. If so, I guarantee O'Reilly would still line up on the side of deportation and justice. You and Heraldo probably would also, revealing your bias to make this issue about pc Hispanic sympathy and not immigration or law.
Scott Cogswell
No comments:
Post a Comment