If you March into my house uninvited, it's criminal. Advocating replicating the scene in the Philippines you noted, by marching "into" the White House, with the objective of removing the President, is ridiculous and of course, would be criminal too. Your idea, if taken to heart by others and employed, would require force (so that you won't march into the white house, or yes, force by you so that you would). You may describe now some peaceful intent, backing down from of use of "into" and the reference the Philippines, but I think most folks can see that your proposal as written implies a mob scene inside the white house. That should explain everything, eh?
I could care less what this O'rielly things is about, but I can tell that you've left out the role of San Francisco in irking the man.
Shame on you for covering the context, not that I agree with the guy. However, it is San Fransciso that makes the initial unusual proposal in this case, and when O'Rielly suggests not defending San Fran., it is because he sees a San Fran. that refuses to contribute in typical fashion to defending the U.S. I may not agree with either party here, but Bill's reaction is a logical response if extreme response to the leading extreme proposal by San Fran.
Let San Fran decide not to let recruiters talk to their kids, but by god let's not call your proposal to have folks march into the White House Philippine style, anything safe and sane at all.
Dan B. |
