Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:mYmdnZyJO7IrJLXVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink . com ...
<snip>
> and make no mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like all the
> rest of them.
And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most important
issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of propaganda disguised
as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to me...
I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting... and real debates and
dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap. Of course,
you might as well ask for reporters that take their job seriously... or
politicians that aren't bought and paid for by corporations and the
ultra-wealthy.
Good Lord, you'd think we lived in a democracy or something...
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:mYmdnZyJO7IrJLXVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink . com ...
<snip>
> and make no mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like all the
> rest of them.
And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most important
issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of propaganda disguised
as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to me...
I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting... and real debates and
dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap. Of course,
you might as well ask for reporters that take their job seriously... or
politicians that aren't bought and paid for by corporations and the
ultra-wealthy.
Good Lord, you'd think we lived in a democracy or something...
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
Lane Baldwin wrote:
>> and make no mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like
>> all the rest of them.
>
> And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
> problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most
> important issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of
> propaganda disguised as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to
> me...
It brings to mind that old line about people getting the govt. they deserve.
> I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting...
Journalism has become a branch of the entertainment industry. Bernard
Goldberg pointed out in one of his books the moment when CBS execs realized
the news dept. didn't have to be considered a public service anymore, that
they could treat it as just another box in a corporate chart that had to
bring in revenue like the sports dept. or Sat. morning cartoons or anything
else, and the impact that had on how the news dept. was run. It wasn't a
positive development.
> and real debates
> and dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap.
> Of course, you might as well ask for reporters that take their job
> seriously... or politicians that aren't bought and paid for by
> corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Never fear, the Dems are committed to ending the Culture of Corruption so
that corporate influence will soon be a thing of the past. Just look at
those tough lobbying restrictions they brought in when they won control of
Congress. Oh, wait, maybe that's a bad example considering the new rules
were so laughably easy for the lobbyists to get around that one could be
forgiven for thinking they were written with that in mind. I used to think
I was a bit cynical, lately I think I was always just being realistic.
Lane Baldwin wrote:
>> and make no mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like
>> all the rest of them.
>
> And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
> problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most
> important issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of
> propaganda disguised as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to
> me...
It brings to mind that old line about people getting the govt. they deserve.
> I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting...
Journalism has become a branch of the entertainment industry. Bernard
Goldberg pointed out in one of his books the moment when CBS execs realized
the news dept. didn't have to be considered a public service anymore, that
they could treat it as just another box in a corporate chart that had to
bring in revenue like the sports dept. or Sat. morning cartoons or anything
else, and the impact that had on how the news dept. was run. It wasn't a
positive development.
> and real debates
> and dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap.
> Of course, you might as well ask for reporters that take their job
> seriously... or politicians that aren't bought and paid for by
> corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Never fear, the Dems are committed to ending the Culture of Corruption so
that corporate influence will soon be a thing of the past. Just look at
those tough lobbying restrictions they brought in when they won control of
Congress. Oh, wait, maybe that's a bad example considering the new rules
were so laughably easy for the lobbyists to get around that one could be
forgiven for thinking they were written with that in mind. I used to think
I was a bit cynical, lately I think I was always just being realistic.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 13, 3:15 am, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Lane Baldwin wrote:
> >> and make no mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like
> >> all the rest of them.
>
> > And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
> > problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most
> > important issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of
> > propaganda disguised as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to
> > me...
>
> It brings to mind that old line about people getting the govt. they deserv=
e.
>
> > I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting...
>
> Journalism has become a branch of the entertainment industry. Bernard
> Goldberg pointed out in one of his books the moment when CBS execs realize=
d
> the news dept. didn't have to be considered a public service anymore, that=
> they could treat it as just another box in a corporate chart that had to
> bring in revenue like the sports dept. or Sat. morning cartoons or anythin=
g
> else, and the impact that had on how the news dept. was run. It wasn't =
a
> positive development.
>
> > and real debates
> > and dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap.
> > Of course, you might as well ask for reporters that take their job
> > seriously... or politicians that aren't bought and paid for by
> > corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
>
> Never fear, the Dems are committed to ending the Culture of Corruption so
> that corporate influence will soon be a thing of the past. Just look at=
> those tough lobbying restrictions they brought in when they won control of=
> Congress. Oh, wait, maybe that's a bad example considering the new rule=
s
> were so laughably easy for the lobbyists to get around that one could be
> forgiven for thinking they were written with that in mind. I used to th=
ink
> I was a bit cynical, lately I think I was always just being realistic.
With the Republicans publicly swearing to fillibuster each and every
Democratic bill, no matter the content, the Dems' approach seems very
reasonable. Wait for a Republican-proof majority, and then start to
clean up the mess. You don't mop up puke when the kid is still spewing.
On May 13, 3:15 am, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Lane Baldwin wrote:
> >> and make no mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like
> >> all the rest of them.
>
> > And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
> > problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most
> > important issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of
> > propaganda disguised as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to
> > me...
>
> It brings to mind that old line about people getting the govt. they deserv=
e.
>
> > I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting...
>
> Journalism has become a branch of the entertainment industry. Bernard
> Goldberg pointed out in one of his books the moment when CBS execs realize=
d
> the news dept. didn't have to be considered a public service anymore, that=
> they could treat it as just another box in a corporate chart that had to
> bring in revenue like the sports dept. or Sat. morning cartoons or anythin=
g
> else, and the impact that had on how the news dept. was run. It wasn't =
a
> positive development.
>
> > and real debates
> > and dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap.
> > Of course, you might as well ask for reporters that take their job
> > seriously... or politicians that aren't bought and paid for by
> > corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
>
> Never fear, the Dems are committed to ending the Culture of Corruption so
> that corporate influence will soon be a thing of the past. Just look at=
> those tough lobbying restrictions they brought in when they won control of=
> Congress. Oh, wait, maybe that's a bad example considering the new rule=
s
> were so laughably easy for the lobbyists to get around that one could be
> forgiven for thinking they were written with that in mind. I used to th=
ink
> I was a bit cynical, lately I think I was always just being realistic.
With the Republicans publicly swearing to fillibuster each and every
Democratic bill, no matter the content, the Dems' approach seems very
reasonable. Wait for a Republican-proof majority, and then start to
clean up the mess. You don't mop up puke when the kid is still spewing.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
The Bishop wrote:
> With the Republicans publicly swearing to fillibuster each and every
> Democratic bill, no matter the content, the Dems' approach seems very
> reasonable.
Quote them. Quote the Repubs vowing to block any and all legislation the
Dems propose, on lobbying or any other issue. Post a link something like
this to back up your claim:
* w w w .nytimes . com /2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html?ex=1343793600&en=d5b2b102596d8d6e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - The Senate gave final approval Thursday to a
far-reaching package of new ethics and lobbying rules, with an overwhelming
majority of Republicans and Democrats agreeing to improve policing of the
relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists. [snip]
> Wait for a Republican-proof majority, and then start to
> clean up the mess. You don't mop up puke when the kid is still
> spewing.
Explain exactly what is preventing the Dems from adopting their own party
rules that force the lobbyists away from the table, what's to stop them from
seizing the moral high ground? What's to prevent them from proposing tough
changes and forcing the Repubs to block them in view of the public? The new
rules are full of loopholes, the lobbyists must have laughed themselves
silly when they saw the bandaid this legislation turned out to be. Credit
to Obama for fighting opposition in his own party to even this feeble
reform, and credit to McCain for pointing out the new rules are just a coat
of fresh paint over the same old rot. So far as I'm concerned the Bush
administration has been a circus of corruption, but if you're waiting for
the Dems to change that then you might want to read up on what happened the
last time the Dems maintained control of Congress for an extended period,
pay particular attention to how many folks with "D" after their names ended
up indicted.
The Bishop wrote:
> With the Republicans publicly swearing to fillibuster each and every
> Democratic bill, no matter the content, the Dems' approach seems very
> reasonable.
Quote them. Quote the Repubs vowing to block any and all legislation the
Dems propose, on lobbying or any other issue. Post a link something like
this to back up your claim:
* w w w .nytimes . com /2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html?ex=1343793600&en=d5b2b102596d8d6e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - The Senate gave final approval Thursday to a
far-reaching package of new ethics and lobbying rules, with an overwhelming
majority of Republicans and Democrats agreeing to improve policing of the
relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists. [snip]
> Wait for a Republican-proof majority, and then start to
> clean up the mess. You don't mop up puke when the kid is still
> spewing.
Explain exactly what is preventing the Dems from adopting their own party
rules that force the lobbyists away from the table, what's to stop them from
seizing the moral high ground? What's to prevent them from proposing tough
changes and forcing the Repubs to block them in view of the public? The new
rules are full of loopholes, the lobbyists must have laughed themselves
silly when they saw the bandaid this legislation turned out to be. Credit
to Obama for fighting opposition in his own party to even this feeble
reform, and credit to McCain for pointing out the new rules are just a coat
of fresh paint over the same old rot. So far as I'm concerned the Bush
administration has been a circus of corruption, but if you're waiting for
the Dems to change that then you might want to read up on what happened the
last time the Dems maintained control of Congress for an extended period,
pay particular attention to how many folks with "D" after their names ended
up indicted.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 13, 5:59 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The Bishop wrote:
> > With the Republicans publicly swearing to fillibuster each and every
> > Democratic bill, no matter the content, the Dems' approach seems very
> > reasonable.
>
> Quote them. Quote the Repubs vowing to block any and all legislation th=
e
> Dems propose, on lobbying or any other issue. Post a link something lik=
e
> this to back up your claim:
>
> * w w w .nytimes . com /2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html?ex=13437936...=
HA! You think I'm stupid, apparently. Yeah, I'll accept the NYT as an
unbiased source.
The fact that Harry Reid (in a dumbass move) agreed to only press
bills on the floor if they had 60+ support says all you need to know.
Whay is there such an agreement in place? Because the Republican'ts
said flat-out they would fillibuster any and all Dem-authored
legislation.
And, uh, I don't know what YOU'RE doing here, but what I'M doing is
schooling your sorry ass. I don't need to bring links. What I say is
common knowledge. You can believe the truth and help save our country,
or continue to be part of the problem. Your choice, rightard.
And now, POOF! You no longer exist.
On May 13, 5:59 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The Bishop wrote:
> > With the Republicans publicly swearing to fillibuster each and every
> > Democratic bill, no matter the content, the Dems' approach seems very
> > reasonable.
>
> Quote them. Quote the Repubs vowing to block any and all legislation th=
e
> Dems propose, on lobbying or any other issue. Post a link something lik=
e
> this to back up your claim:
>
> * w w w .nytimes . com /2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html?ex=13437936...=
HA! You think I'm stupid, apparently. Yeah, I'll accept the NYT as an
unbiased source.
The fact that Harry Reid (in a dumbass move) agreed to only press
bills on the floor if they had 60+ support says all you need to know.
Whay is there such an agreement in place? Because the Republican'ts
said flat-out they would fillibuster any and all Dem-authored
legislation.
And, uh, I don't know what YOU'RE doing here, but what I'M doing is
schooling your sorry ass. I don't need to bring links. What I say is
common knowledge. You can believe the truth and help save our country,
or continue to be part of the problem. Your choice, rightard.
And now, POOF! You no longer exist.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
The Bishop wrote:
> HA! You think I'm stupid, apparently.
Actually I was going to go with misinformed, irrational and arrogant.
>Yeah, I'll accept the NYT as an
> unbiased source.
Yeah, well it is a well-known bastion of right-wing skullduggery so you're
wise to mistrust them.
> The fact that Harry Reid (in a dumbass move) agreed to only press
> bills on the floor if they had 60+ support says all you need to know.
> Whay is there such an agreement in place? Because the Republican'ts
> said flat-out they would fillibuster any and all Dem-authored
> legislation.
Again, quote them. Any credible news organization will do, moveon.org and
similar sites do not qualify as credible BTW.
> And, uh, I don't know what YOU'RE doing here, but what I'M doing is
> schooling your sorry ass. I don't need to bring links.
Well of course you don't, 'Because I say so' is all you need, you are just
that convincing.
> What I say is
> common knowledge.
In which case you should have no trouble providing links to mainstream news
stories confirming what you claim, should you.
> You can believe the truth and help save our country,
> or continue to be part of the problem. Your choice, rightard.
Yes, clearly anyone disagreeing with your delusions must therefore be a
"rightard."
> And now, POOF! You no longer exist.
How devastating, I've so enjoyed our exchanges, you wave your placard with
such style.
The Bishop wrote:
> HA! You think I'm stupid, apparently.
Actually I was going to go with misinformed, irrational and arrogant.
>Yeah, I'll accept the NYT as an
> unbiased source.
Yeah, well it is a well-known bastion of right-wing skullduggery so you're
wise to mistrust them.
> The fact that Harry Reid (in a dumbass move) agreed to only press
> bills on the floor if they had 60+ support says all you need to know.
> Whay is there such an agreement in place? Because the Republican'ts
> said flat-out they would fillibuster any and all Dem-authored
> legislation.
Again, quote them. Any credible news organization will do, moveon.org and
similar sites do not qualify as credible BTW.
> And, uh, I don't know what YOU'RE doing here, but what I'M doing is
> schooling your sorry ass. I don't need to bring links.
Well of course you don't, 'Because I say so' is all you need, you are just
that convincing.
> What I say is
> common knowledge.
In which case you should have no trouble providing links to mainstream news
stories confirming what you claim, should you.
> You can believe the truth and help save our country,
> or continue to be part of the problem. Your choice, rightard.
Yes, clearly anyone disagreeing with your delusions must therefore be a
"rightard."
> And now, POOF! You no longer exist.
How devastating, I've so enjoyed our exchanges, you wave your placard with
such style.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 13, 12:33 am, "Lane Baldwin" <l...@laneonbass.SPAM . com > wrote:
> And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
> problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most important
> issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of propaganda disguised
> as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to me...
>
> I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting... and real debates and
> dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap. Of course,
> you might as well ask for reporters that take their job seriously... or
> politicians that aren't bought and paid for by corporations and the
> ultra-wealthy.
>
> Good Lord, you'd think we lived in a democracy or something...
Actually it's supposed to be a REPUBLIC not a "democracy"! And you
have put your finger on the essence of the problem. Those in power and
the owned media have been drumming into to American public for years
that we live in a "democracy". It's a lie. In fact it's MORE than a
lie, because it's a calculated lie designed to sell the notion of a
democracy. Democracies in history have NEVER worked. They quickly
decay into tyrannical rule. Why? because it's a simple "majority vote"
that makes all the rules. As Lincoln noted, since you can fool some
of the people all of the time, all you need to do is just use the
press to fool a few more and you've got that majority vote you need to
change things YOUR way! Republics on the other hand have rules about
changing things and to change the serious rules takes not just a
majority, but a SERIOUS supermajority. That makes them much harder to
subvert than a democracy. Think about it. In a democracy a simple
majority vote could make George Bush or Obama king for life! Think
about that the next time you hear the media heads going on and on
about how we live in a "democracy"!
And therein enters the role of the media. They function as a cheer
leading squad to "sell" people on whatever needs to be voted upon.
They are a "propaganda" department. It's a major function needed in a
"democracy"! And Like Lane, I think we all are hungry for real news
and real reporting. These days the lies are often so blatant it's
laughable. Often you will see "reporters" speaking earnestly into the
camera describing some event, and if you look right past them at the
"scene" behind them, the evidence that they are lying about it is
right there on the screen! That always gets me shouting at the TV! :)
I always love the way the way the media gets a bunch of reporters on
TV for a "discussion" of some issue. HA! Like these professional liars
are supposed to be some kind of knowledgeable "experts"? It's
downright laughable, but it's the standard thing. Why would you
believe ANYTHING a professional liar has to say?
These days in spite of a definite effort to throw chaff on the
internet, still that is about the only place left one can find some
"real" news. Once people start feeling they have a duty when they
witness some news event to report on the net as to what "really
happened", and the media starts getting discredited for the paid liars
they all are, will things start to improve. I do see some movement in
that direction which is encouraging.
Benj
On May 13, 12:33 am, "Lane Baldwin" <l...@laneonbass.SPAM . com > wrote:
> And that worries far more than his specific politics. It's a serious
> problem, regardless of political leaning. The fact that the most important
> issues in our lives are meted out to us in the form of propaganda disguised
> as entertainment is abso-freakin-lutely scary to me...
>
> I'd give almost anything to hear real reporting... and real debates and
> dialog between politicians... instead of all the SwiftBoat crap. Of course,
> you might as well ask for reporters that take their job seriously... or
> politicians that aren't bought and paid for by corporations and the
> ultra-wealthy.
>
> Good Lord, you'd think we lived in a democracy or something...
Actually it's supposed to be a REPUBLIC not a "democracy"! And you
have put your finger on the essence of the problem. Those in power and
the owned media have been drumming into to American public for years
that we live in a "democracy". It's a lie. In fact it's MORE than a
lie, because it's a calculated lie designed to sell the notion of a
democracy. Democracies in history have NEVER worked. They quickly
decay into tyrannical rule. Why? because it's a simple "majority vote"
that makes all the rules. As Lincoln noted, since you can fool some
of the people all of the time, all you need to do is just use the
press to fool a few more and you've got that majority vote you need to
change things YOUR way! Republics on the other hand have rules about
changing things and to change the serious rules takes not just a
majority, but a SERIOUS supermajority. That makes them much harder to
subvert than a democracy. Think about it. In a democracy a simple
majority vote could make George Bush or Obama king for life! Think
about that the next time you hear the media heads going on and on
about how we live in a "democracy"!
And therein enters the role of the media. They function as a cheer
leading squad to "sell" people on whatever needs to be voted upon.
They are a "propaganda" department. It's a major function needed in a
"democracy"! And Like Lane, I think we all are hungry for real news
and real reporting. These days the lies are often so blatant it's
laughable. Often you will see "reporters" speaking earnestly into the
camera describing some event, and if you look right past them at the
"scene" behind them, the evidence that they are lying about it is
right there on the screen! That always gets me shouting at the TV! :)
I always love the way the way the media gets a bunch of reporters on
TV for a "discussion" of some issue. HA! Like these professional liars
are supposed to be some kind of knowledgeable "experts"? It's
downright laughable, but it's the standard thing. Why would you
believe ANYTHING a professional liar has to say?
These days in spite of a definite effort to throw chaff on the
internet, still that is about the only place left one can find some
"real" news. Once people start feeling they have a duty when they
witness some news event to report on the net as to what "really
happened", and the media starts getting discredited for the paid liars
they all are, will things start to improve. I do see some movement in
that direction which is encouraging.
Benj
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 12, 5:42 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
> >> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing
> >> anything like that.
>
> > Nobody has said anything about left-wing/right-wing.
>
> Nobody needed to, it remains that a right-wing jerk was offered up for our=
> collective ridicule and we probably wouldn't want to hold our breath waiti=
ng
> for most of the folks in this thread to find a left-wing equivalent, would=
> we.
Of course, the left doesn't offer itself up as the moral arbiters of
the nation. We KNEW we were human, and bound to screw up, whereas the
Right purports to be closer to God. Turns out God enjoys crystal meth
and young male hookers. Who knew?
>
> I have no doubt, someone who wants to be taken seriously as O'Reily does i=
s
> always amusing when he loses his cool. The only thing I ever read by hi=
m
> that impressed me was a piece in an airline in-flight magazine. His adv=
ice
> on picking the right hotel etc. was quite well thought out, made me think =
he
> isn't as dumb as the character he plays on radio and TV, and make no
> mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like all the rest of them=
.
On May 12, 5:42 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
> >> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing
> >> anything like that.
>
> > Nobody has said anything about left-wing/right-wing.
>
> Nobody needed to, it remains that a right-wing jerk was offered up for our=
> collective ridicule and we probably wouldn't want to hold our breath waiti=
ng
> for most of the folks in this thread to find a left-wing equivalent, would=
> we.
Of course, the left doesn't offer itself up as the moral arbiters of
the nation. We KNEW we were human, and bound to screw up, whereas the
Right purports to be closer to God. Turns out God enjoys crystal meth
and young male hookers. Who knew?
>
> I have no doubt, someone who wants to be taken seriously as O'Reily does i=
s
> always amusing when he loses his cool. The only thing I ever read by hi=
m
> that impressed me was a piece in an airline in-flight magazine. His adv=
ice
> on picking the right hotel etc. was quite well thought out, made me think =
he
> isn't as dumb as the character he plays on radio and TV, and make no
> mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like all the rest of them=
.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On 12 May, 16:42, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
> >> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing
> >> anything like that.
>
> > Nobody has said anything about left-wing/right-wing.
>
> Nobody needed to, it remains that a right-wing jerk was offered up for our=
> collective ridicule and we probably wouldn't want to hold our breath waiti=
ng
> for most of the folks in this thread to find a left-wing equivalent, would=
> we.
>
> > Take a deep breath, smile, it's all in good fun! The clip is funny!
>
> I have no doubt, someone who wants to be taken seriously as O'Reily does i=
s
> always amusing when he loses his cool. The only thing I ever read by hi=
m
> that impressed me was a piece in an airline in-flight magazine. His adv=
ice
> on picking the right hotel etc. was quite well thought out, made me think =
he
> isn't as dumb as the character he plays on radio and TV, and make no
> mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like all the rest of them=
.
I think your last word should be us instead of them.
TS
On 12 May, 16:42, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
> >> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing
> >> anything like that.
>
> > Nobody has said anything about left-wing/right-wing.
>
> Nobody needed to, it remains that a right-wing jerk was offered up for our=
> collective ridicule and we probably wouldn't want to hold our breath waiti=
ng
> for most of the folks in this thread to find a left-wing equivalent, would=
> we.
>
> > Take a deep breath, smile, it's all in good fun! The clip is funny!
>
> I have no doubt, someone who wants to be taken seriously as O'Reily does i=
s
> always amusing when he loses his cool. The only thing I ever read by hi=
m
> that impressed me was a piece in an airline in-flight magazine. His adv=
ice
> on picking the right hotel etc. was quite well thought out, made me think =
he
> isn't as dumb as the character he plays on radio and TV, and make no
> mistake, he's in the entertainment business just like all the rest of them=
.
I think your last word should be us instead of them.
TS
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 12, 3:57 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
> > having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompter
> > showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
> > brat.
>
> > Mike
>
> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything like
> that.
>
> Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a little
> steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young daughter
> in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course, when a
> right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a left-winger
> does it he's just being human.
Mike, I guess you missed it (I don't mean the show), but Baldwin was
self-mocking in the spirit of parody. Now, don't misinterpret this
post as well. This post is neutral. I'm just saying you missed the
point. He didn't lose his cool, he maintained it. IMHO...
On May 12, 3:57 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
> > having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompter
> > showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
> > brat.
>
> > Mike
>
> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything like
> that.
>
> Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a little
> steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young daughter
> in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course, when a
> right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a left-winger
> does it he's just being human.
Mike, I guess you missed it (I don't mean the show), but Baldwin was
self-mocking in the spirit of parody. Now, don't misinterpret this
post as well. This post is neutral. I'm just saying you missed the
point. He didn't lose his cool, he maintained it. IMHO...
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 12, 5:33 pm, BW <barrybass...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 12, 3:57 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike wrote:
> > > I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
> > > having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompt=
er
> > > showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
> > > brat.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything =
like
> > that.
>
> > Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a litt=
le
> > steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> > judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young daug=
hter
> > in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course, when a
> > right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a left-winger=
> > does it he's just being human.
>
> Mike, I guess you missed it (I don't mean the show), but Baldwin was
> self-mocking in the spirit of parody. Now, don't misinterpret this
> post as well. This post is neutral. I'm just saying you missed the
> point. He didn't lose his cool, he maintained it. IMHO...
It hardly matters, but it was DGDevin that missed the point of the
Baldwin self-mockery. I myself missed 60 Minutes last night as I was
putting kids to bed.
Mike
On May 12, 5:33 pm, BW <barrybass...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 12, 3:57 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike wrote:
> > > I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
> > > having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompt=
er
> > > showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
> > > brat.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything =
like
> > that.
>
> > Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a litt=
le
> > steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> > judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young daug=
hter
> > in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course, when a
> > right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a left-winger=
> > does it he's just being human.
>
> Mike, I guess you missed it (I don't mean the show), but Baldwin was
> self-mocking in the spirit of parody. Now, don't misinterpret this
> post as well. This post is neutral. I'm just saying you missed the
> point. He didn't lose his cool, he maintained it. IMHO...
It hardly matters, but it was DGDevin that missed the point of the
Baldwin self-mockery. I myself missed 60 Minutes last night as I was
putting kids to bed.
Mike
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 12, 9:52 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 12, 5:33 pm, BW <barrybass...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 3:57 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Mike wrote:
> > > > I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
> > > > having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompter
> > > > showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
> > > > brat.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything like
> > > that.
>
> > > Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a little
> > > steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> > > judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young daughter
> > > in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course, when a
> > > right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a left-winger
> > > does it he's just being human.
>
> > Mike, I guess you missed it (I don't mean the show), but Baldwin was
> > self-mocking in the spirit of parody. Now, don't misinterpret this
> > post as well. This post is neutral. I'm just saying you missed the
> > point. He didn't lose his cool, he maintained it. IMHO...
>
> It hardly matters, but it was DGDevin that missed the point of the
> Baldwin self-mockery. I myself missed 60 Minutes last night as I was
> putting kids to bed.
>
> Mike
Oops, sorry.
BW
On May 12, 9:52 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 12, 5:33 pm, BW <barrybass...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 3:57 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Mike wrote:
> > > > I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
> > > > having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompter
> > > > showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
> > > > brat.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything like
> > > that.
>
> > > Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a little
> > > steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> > > judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young daughter
> > > in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course, when a
> > > right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a left-winger
> > > does it he's just being human.
>
> > Mike, I guess you missed it (I don't mean the show), but Baldwin was
> > self-mocking in the spirit of parody. Now, don't misinterpret this
> > post as well. This post is neutral. I'm just saying you missed the
> > point. He didn't lose his cool, he maintained it. IMHO...
>
> It hardly matters, but it was DGDevin that missed the point of the
> Baldwin self-mockery. I myself missed 60 Minutes last night as I was
> putting kids to bed.
>
> Mike
Oops, sorry.
BW
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
Mike wrote:
> It hardly matters, but it was DGDevin that missed the point of the
> Baldwin self-mockery. I myself missed 60 Minutes last night as I was
> putting kids to bed.
>
> Mike
"Self-mockery?" He was kidding around early on when he was asked about
profitable movies he chose not to be in for example, you can tell that
because he's laughing. He sure wasn't laughing later on when Safer asked
him about the incident where he left a brutal answering machine message for
his daughter. If you doubt that take a look for yourself, the appropriate
section starts at 9:30. Get back to me about just where I find this
self-mockery you refer to unless you mean him trying to lighten the mood
somewhat later by bursting into song, 'cause he sure doesn't look too amused
to me in the section I referred to.
* w w w .cbsnews . com /sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4086547n?source=search_video
Mike wrote:
> It hardly matters, but it was DGDevin that missed the point of the
> Baldwin self-mockery. I myself missed 60 Minutes last night as I was
> putting kids to bed.
>
> Mike
"Self-mockery?" He was kidding around early on when he was asked about
profitable movies he chose not to be in for example, you can tell that
because he's laughing. He sure wasn't laughing later on when Safer asked
him about the incident where he left a brutal answering machine message for
his daughter. If you doubt that take a look for yourself, the appropriate
section starts at 9:30. Get back to me about just where I find this
self-mockery you refer to unless you mean him trying to lighten the mood
somewhat later by bursting into song, 'cause he sure doesn't look too amused
to me in the section I referred to.
* w w w .cbsnews . com /sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4086547n?source=search_video
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:NfqdnUYKbZWgPLXVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@earthlink . com ...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
>> having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompter
>> showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
>> brat.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything
> like that.
>
> Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a little
> steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young
> daughter in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course,
> when a right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a
> left-winger does it he's just being human.
Why would it be acceptable from anyone of any political leaning? Personally,
I think Alec was FAR out of bounds, no matter what... and I'm *related* to
the guy...
Why reply to this thread with what seems to be "yeah, well so-and-so did it,
too" as a response? The fact that Alec was an @$$ doesn't make it OK for
someone else to do it.
Now that we both know how we both feel about Alec, I'd be interested in your
comments on O'Reilly's blow-up. I wish I'd heard it... if only for the humor
factor. Kind of like that one from Casey Cassem (sp?) or the recording of
Buddy Rich. (I felt bad for the musician... but you have to admit it was
sort of funny in a "what an @$$" sort of way...
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:NfqdnUYKbZWgPLXVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@earthlink . com ...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> I was hoping that clip would stay up. It was basically O'Reilly
>> having a tantrum while he was taping Inside Edition. The teleprompter
>> showed something that was confusing and he started cursing. A real
>> brat.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Shocking, you'd sure never see a left-wing placard-waver doing anything
> like that.
>
> Say, did you see Alec Baldwin on 60 Minutes last night? He got a little
> steamed with Morely Safer over being asked in what he thought was a
> judgemental fashion about that episode were he chewed out his young
> daughter in an answering-machine message. Totally different of course,
> when a right-winger loses his cool it's because he's a brat, when a
> left-winger does it he's just being human.
Why would it be acceptable from anyone of any political leaning? Personally,
I think Alec was FAR out of bounds, no matter what... and I'm *related* to
the guy...
Why reply to this thread with what seems to be "yeah, well so-and-so did it,
too" as a response? The fact that Alec was an @$$ doesn't make it OK for
someone else to do it.
Now that we both know how we both feel about Alec, I'd be interested in your
comments on O'Reilly's blow-up. I wish I'd heard it... if only for the humor
factor. Kind of like that one from Casey Cassem (sp?) or the recording of
Buddy Rich. (I felt bad for the musician... but you have to admit it was
sort of funny in a "what an @$$" sort of way...
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
"Lane Baldwin" <lane@laneonbass.SPAM . com > wrote in message
news:AO8Wj.2634$ah4.927@flpi148.ffdc.sbc . com ...
>
>
> Why would it be acceptable from anyone of any political leaning?
> Personally, I think Alec was FAR out of bounds, no matter what... and I'm
> *related* to the guy...
>
> Why reply to this thread with what seems to be "yeah, well so-and-so did
> it, too" as a response? The fact that Alec was an @$$ doesn't make it OK
> for someone else to do it >
> Now that we both know how we both feel about Alec, I'd be interested in
> your comments on O'Reilly's blow-up. I wish I'd heard it... if only for
> the humor factor. Kind of like that o
"Lane Baldwin" <lane@laneonbass.SPAM . com > wrote in message
news:AO8Wj.2634$ah4.927@flpi148.ffdc.sbc . com ...
>
>
> Why would it be acceptable from anyone of any political leaning?
> Personally, I think Alec was FAR out of bounds, no matter what... and I'm
> *related* to the guy...
>
> Why reply to this thread with what seems to be "yeah, well so-and-so did
> it, too" as a response? The fact that Alec was an @$$ doesn't make it OK
> for someone else to do it >
> Now that we both know how we both feel about Alec, I'd be interested in
> your comments on O'Reilly's blow-up. I wish I'd heard it... if only for
> the humor factor. Kind of like that o
