If it were an issue involving a leftist or labor leader who had used strong language, some nut or police-influenced person taking them up on it, two-thirds of Congress, including most Democrats, would be calling for their arrest on incitement charges. In fact, the history of the labor and left are replete with such prosecutions. Which is why prosecuting O'Reilly is a very very bad idea. There are better and more effective ways to defend women and the rest of us against him.

Gabby, Gabby

It seems that you have a serious leftist liberal chip on your shoulder. Your article will resound with many of your silly ilk (certainly for the MSNBC crowd).

Though you decry the way O’Reilly chooses his words, you did exactly the same thing in the same manner. Though you will blindly deny it, (irrationally rational thinking), as will those thinking like yourself.

Of your many problems you state that “This is where O'Reilly's campaign against George Tiller becomes dangerous. While he never advocated anything violent or illegal,”.

“While he never advocated anything violent or illegal”! Well, if he did not advocate anything violent or illegal, what then is your problem with what he freely expressed? How does “his campaign … becomes dangerous’?

“the Fox bully repeatedly portrayed the doctor as a murderer on the loose."

The “Fox bully”? I thought that part of your thesis was how name calling can be very dangerous. Yet you calling O’Reilly a bully is/was OK? What if a demented liberal (not unlike that Olberman guy) took your (coded) words to mean to take action against O'Reilly?

A “murderer on the loose”? Funny, you quote him as saying “some call Tiller the Baby Killer.” So, O’Reilly didn't call the doctor a “murderer on the loose”! He said that other people called him the "baby killer".

“This is where it gets most troubling. And if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius."

How is the above troubling? Does pointing out that if the State allows the good doctor continue doing well at his job, then in O’Reilly’s opinion, the State has the 60,000 late-term aborted fetuses blood on its hands. "Troubling?"

It's left to "judgment day" to give him what's coming." Again, what is “troubling” about that? Didn’t Obama and many others use “judgment day” in several of their speeches? And “judgment day” is entirely left in God’s hands, not some demented soul who decides to kill one day.

Gabby, it’s time to get real. The evil here is that there are some really sick people in the world that given the opportunity to get treatment, you would advocate for their right not to get better.

TELL HIM HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT HIS HATE SPEECH .....please

oreilly@foxnews.com

@Kegan05: 60,000 babies

Kegan, I don't suppose you've given that 60,000 figure much thought. Let's do the math. Together. To help us, I'm going to quote the moron Steele the First, who, like a broken clock, was right at least once today.

60,000 / 365 = 164 and change.

So this doctor, if he performed one abortion a day, has been working for 164 years straight. Let's say he did two abortions a day. That's 82 years straight. How about three a day, every day? That's 54 years. Wow. He has worked every day, for 54 years straight, performing 3 abortions a day. On top of all of the other medical services he provided to women, besides abortion! Fucking Amazing.

-- paulpsd7

paulpsd7, I don't suppose you've given any of your figures very much thought. Otherwise you might not have written something so stupid.

Let's do a little remedial math together. Let's say that Tiller ran his abortion mill full-time from 1975 to 2005; 30 years. And that the clinic was open 250 days a year. That's 7500 days of high-rpm abortin' fun. Divide "60,000 abortions" into that number of clinic days, and you have 8. Eight abortions a day. Performed by Tiller and his staff. At $5,000 a pop. (Or perhaps $1,000 a pop back 20 years ago.) You can see how Tiller became a multimillionaire off the business.

I actually think the 60,000 number might be low. It's certainly not beyond comprehension.

Fucking amazing, eh?

My math may have been off, so let's go with yours.

The only way to reach that 60,000 number is for him to spend EVERY SINGLE WORK DAY for 30 YEARS doing 8 ABORTIONS A DAY.

This, I take it, assumes that Tiller was the only doctor on earth who didn't take a day off to play golf, never took a vacation, and worked like a fucking dog every single day of his career. This assumption is required to make your point. Is that the assumption you're making?

Or is it time for you to slink away?

The terrorist call themselves "Americans" and "Journalist". The terrorist hide behind the First Amendment. They run their rhetoric and preach to the educational disadvantaged, mentally ill, and fearful populist their place in society will be taken over by minorities (women, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and all in the underclass. They plant the seeds knowing that once in a few years someone will finally succumb to their hate speech and act on the fears they have been preached. Wow! Isn't that what Hitler did? O'Reilly, and Terry Randall, are America's Taliban. American Fundamentalist that are from the spawn of Satan. American fundamentalist that are Christians are no less evil than any other type of radical extremist. O'Reilly is today's Hitler. History has repeated itself. He even had a mistress. He idolizes Hitler. He models his life after Hitler. O'Reilly is Hitler. Judgement Day will come to O'Reilly and he too can explain himself, and his righteousness to God. With his type of hatred and abuse of the First Amendment it makes me want to reconsider my position for the Fairness Doctrine. If intelligent men can't self police, I want my government need to do it for them. Or, perhaps O'Reilly would be okay if some mentally ill American did it for us in his place of worship some Sunday. Oh yeah, Ann Coulter is a sheman Taliban too. If Don Imus can be canned for saying something stupid on a comedy show, why can't O'Reilly be fired for saying many things untruthful and on a news show?