OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

Lane Baldwin wrote:

> 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.

I was merely noting what appeared to be a predictable thread starting, i.e.
bash an easy target like O'Reilly (or Coulter or Limbaugh or any of the
usual right-wingnuts) quickly followed by excuses for the equivalent
spin-doctors from the other end of the spectrum. The repeated denials, the
claims that it was really just about the humor without a particle of
politics crossing anyone's mind etc., well those ring a bit hollow to me,
YMMV.

> 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 saw only a brief excerpt, he looked either like a spoiled prima donna
having a hissy fit, or someone who got a bad night's sleep and had been
pissed off all day. In either case he was unprofessional and even a little
bizarre.

> I wish I'd heard it... if
> only for the humor factor. Kind of like that one from Casey Cassem

LOL, I recall that, U2 etc., and yeah O'Reilly's blowup is similar if not as
surprising since O'Reilly isn't known for trying to come across as a nice
guy on camera. Of course this won't hurt O'Reilly, the audience that buys
his bullshit will just think he was justified in responding to some
deliberate attempt to mess him up on air or something. And it's not like
those folks who would cross three lanes of heavy traffic to belabor the
obvious point that O'Reilly is a petulant ass could have a lower opinion of
him, so all things considered it looks kinda like preaching to the choir.

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 li=
ke
> 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 daught=
er
> 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.

Who said that besides Baldwin? Did Baldwin even say it?

It's easy to be right when you basically just make everything up.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

The Bishop wrote:

> It's easy to be right when you basically just make everything up.

Or when you jam your fingers in your ears and repeat, 'It's not true, it's
not true, it's....'

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

On May 13, 6:06 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The Bishop wrote:
> > It's easy to be right when you basically just make everything up.
>
> Or when you jam your fingers in your ears and repeat, 'It's not true, it's=

> not true, it's....'

You're the rightard, you ought to know.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

On May 12, 3:11 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 12, 2:04 pm, "Lane Baldwin" <l...@laneonbass.SPAM . com > wrote:
>
> > "Brian Running" <brunn...@XXameritechXX . net > wrote in message
>
> >news:fk%Vj.411$l97.103@flpi144.ffdc.sbc . com ...
>
> > >> Coming from the Ralph Furley of TV news (how does a jockstrap-holder
> > >> qualify as a serious journalist?) that's especially ironic.
>
> > > It doesn't matter who said it, on what motives, or with what credentia=
ls,
> > > it's dead-on and funny.
>
> > Yeah, but by the time I saw this thread, it had already been removed...
> > --
>
> 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

What I love is what he didn't understand. He didn't get the phrase,
"play us out." They had a Sting video, and they were going to let
Sting "play them out." Even if you've never heard it, you could figure
out what it meant in two seconds. What an ignoramus.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

Olbermann takes provable FACTS and milks them for all their
emotional/entertainment worth. O'Rielly is just lies and propaganda, for
which he neither checks his facts or apologizes for his errors.

And it always KILLS me when people bring up O'Reilly's ratings. Last I
checked, The guy has a 2.5 - 3 rating. Olbermann has like a 1.5 - 2 rating.

By contrast, the network evening news that supposedly no one watches anymore
pulls in an 8-10+ rating regularly. Any network show that got a 3 rating
would be off the air before the next commercial break.

It's like battling over which local Public Access show has more ratings...


"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:eZKdndL-Xodn47XVnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@earthlink . com ...
> Brian Running wrote:
> >> A Bill O'Reilly out-take from a few years back. This is a hoot. A
> >> couple f-bombs.
> >
> > Aye, a serious, responsible journalist is he. Keith Olbermann called
> > him "the Frank Burns of TV news." Perfect!
>
> Coming from the Ralph Furley of TV news (how does a jockstrap-holder
qualify
> as a serious journalist?) that's especially ironic. I have to wonder if
the
> source of Olbermann's ongoing Jones for O'Reilly isn't the fact that
> O'Reilly has three times the audience. Odd how Olbermann discovered how
> wicked Fox was only after they stopped writing him paychecks....
>
> You couldn't pay me to watch to either of these mutts, enough with the
> spin-doctors already. I like my news straight up, I don't need it
filtered
> and packaged by an advocate of either wing. Infotainment does not equate
to
> journalism.
>
>

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

js wrote:

> Olbermann takes provable FACTS and milks them for all their
> emotional/entertainment worth. O'Rielly is just lies and propaganda,
> for which he neither checks his facts or apologizes for his errors.

Hey, thanks for explaining that. I had kinda thought that stunts like
Olbermann first announcing there is no place for dumbass propaganda like
calling people you disagree with "nazis," and then later repeatedly doing
just that in reference to O'Reilly (including giving a stiff-armed Nazi
salute and then trying to explain it away as waving at someone--in the
middle of a broadcast) made him not so much different from O'Reilly, but
apparently I was mistaken.

> And it always KILLS me when people bring up O'Reilly's ratings. Last I
> checked, The guy has a 2.5 - 3 rating. Olbermann has like a 1.5 - 2
> rating.

So far as I'm concerned all these clowns are just background noise
regardless of their ratings--Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Riley, Franken,
Moore--they're propagandists lining their pockets by preaching to their
respective choirs. Sadly quite a few people take them seriously, and it
usually isn't hard to figure out the viewer's political sympathies by noting
which propagandist they think is worse. However it's also silly to pretend
the right-wing crap doesn't outsell the left-wing crap by a considerable
margin, how that doesn't KILL anyone.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

In article <KNednX3QhKBTCrXVnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@earthlink . com >,
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> js wrote:
>
> > Olbermann takes provable FACTS and milks them for all their
> > emotional/entertainment worth. O'Rielly is just lies and propaganda,
> > for which he neither checks his facts or apologizes for his errors.
>
> Hey, thanks for explaining that. I had kinda thought that stunts like
> Olbermann first announcing there is no place for dumbass propaganda like
> calling people you disagree with "nazis," and then later repeatedly doing
> just that in reference to O'Reilly (including giving a stiff-armed Nazi
> salute and then trying to explain it away as waving at someone--in the
> middle of a broadcast) made him not so much different from O'Reilly, but
> apparently I was mistaken.
>
> > And it always KILLS me when people bring up O'Reilly's ratings. Last I
> > checked, The guy has a 2.5 - 3 rating. Olbermann has like a 1.5 - 2
> > rating.
>
> So far as I'm concerned all these clowns are just background noise
> regardless of their ratings--Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Riley, Franken,
> Moore--they're propagandists lining their pockets by preaching to their
> respective choirs. Sadly quite a few people take them seriously, and it
> usually isn't hard to figure out the viewer's political sympathies by noting
> which propagandist they think is worse. However it's also silly to pretend
> the right-wing crap doesn't outsell the left-wing crap by a considerable
> margin, how that doesn't KILL anyone.

Methinks you are the kind of nerdy dolt nobody wanted to sit with in the
school cafeteria. To even begin to put the likes of Olbermann, Frankin,
or Moore in the same category as these right wing nut jobs of which you
speak, and then pretend you're so much the wiser than all, is rather
pathetic. And embarrassingly so.

Good god. read a few things will ya.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

bvoiced wrote:

> Methinks you are the kind of nerdy dolt nobody wanted to sit with in
> the school cafeteria. To even begin to put the likes of Olbermann,
> Frankin, or Moore in the same category as these right wing nut jobs
> of which you speak, and then pretend you're so much the wiser than
> all, is rather pathetic. And embarrassingly so.
>
> Good god. read a few things will ya.

I certainly don't think I'm so much the wiser than all (whatever that's
supposed to mean), just wiser than you, but then that probably isn't saying
much. Bet I already read more than you do sparky, and I'm not afraid to
read from outside the party line either, I wonder if you can honestly say
the same. Michael Moore not in the same category as O'Reilly? LOL, that's
funny, even Moore would probably have a good laugh at that.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

Sorry, but he's not. Neither is Olbermann. And I'm NOT shilling for them
either, so lets not break out the "L" word. Thanks.

What people don't seem to get is that the irrational hatred for all things
"liberal", the vicious attacks on any real or perceived "liberal" misstep
(To mask the foot tapping in the bathroom, I guess), has FORCED the
"liberals" to be beyond meticulous when it comes to vetting their facts.
They know all to well what the penalty for being wrong is...or even worse,
looking like a hypocrite (*cough*Spitzer*cough*)

There are people who hate Michael Moore with a passion that is only bounded
by their hatred of Hillary (irrational hatreds are a whole other thread).
However, it's damn near impossible to find an unsubstantiated assertion or
an out and out fabrication in his movies. Ah, I can hear the furious click
of typewriter keys Googling "Why Michael Moore Is Wrong" sites as we
speak...

But before you do, notice that I did NOT say, Michael Moore is RIGHT. You
can disagree with his assertions, you can quibble about his penchant for
inserting himself into his documentaries (which was cute and novel in "Roger
and Me", but more annoying with every subsequent movie). You can even throw
a shit fit because he's doing a voiceover about ICBMs when a scene shows him
standing next to a rocket that's not an ICBM. But you'd be hard pressed to
find anything he fabricated out of whole cloth...


...As opposed to say, Bill-O, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. who say the most
outlandish, unsubstantiated lies day in and day out, and are allowed to
skate because their audience is stupid and the "liberals" can't or won't get
their own bully pulpit going.


OTOH, you have a conservative like Tucker Carlson who backs up his
assertions with actual facts and generally refrains from the lowest common
denominator crap the other guys spew. But that's why he's terminally between
shows and can't get decent ratings anywhere. Ditto for Air America. Rational
arguments and reasoned opinions don't sell.

The sad and scary part is that lies, divisiveness and hate DO sell. THAT'S
why you should care about the FAUX News crowd...There are a WHOLE lot of
people in this country who "think" like that, 3 share or not.

As for Olbermann and the Nazi thing: Yeah, I remember it, and it was pretty
funny. I'm not saying that you can't be factual and sarcastic at the same
time, or that you can't use hyperbole to get your point across, or even spin
the fuck out of it - as long as you present your evidence somewhere in
there.

And IIRC, he was attacking O'Reilly's pronouncements about war, patriotism
and immigration - which sounded suspiciously like something Der Fuhrer might
say. I'll always remember Bill-O's rant that any Senator who votes against
the Iraq War should be tried for treason as they obviously hate America. If
the jackboot fits...


I guess the point is that hating EVERY TV commentator is no better than
believing everything they say. Both ways only keep you from having to think
critically.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

js wrote:

> But before you do, notice that I did NOT say, Michael Moore is RIGHT.
> You can disagree with his assertions, you can quibble about his
> penchant for inserting himself into his documentaries (which was cute
> and novel in "Roger and Me", but more annoying with every subsequent
> movie). You can even throw a shit fit because he's doing a voiceover
> about ICBMs when a scene shows him standing next to a rocket that's
> not an ICBM. But you'd be hard pressed to find anything he
> fabricated out of whole cloth...

Really, so that newspaper that complained over the doctored "headline" from
their paper in F9/11, does claiming a newspaper ran a story they didn't in
fact run not qualify as fabrication? The bank manager who said the scene in
BFC where Moore walks in, fills out an application and walks out minutes
later with a gun was staged for his camera and was not an accurate depiction
of how they really ran that promotional gimmick, was she lying? Offering
glowing praise to the Canadian health care system while somehow overlooking
that just a couple of years ago the supreme court of Canada said in fact the
system is messed up enough that life-threatening delays in treatment are
widespread, is that just poetic license?

I certainly enjoyed his 180-degree reversal over being booed when he
accepted his Academy Award. At the time he claimed it was just a few
right-wingers in the audience and a couple of stagehands. Yet today he
tells a very different story, he recently claimed to have been booed off the
stage. The reason for the revised story is now he gets 'I told you so'
mileage out of it, he warned us about Iraq but we wouldn't listen. For
those of us who remember the original version it suggests a willingness to
rewrite the record as needed.

I'll give you an example of classic Moore from outside his movies. In 2004
he showed up at a vote counting center in Ohio on election night. He ranted
and blustered and yelled at some poor security guard, demanding to be
admitted to the building with his camera, 'What are you people hiding in
there,?' that sort of thing. Of course there was no reason to believe
anything was being hidden in there, Moore had no grounds to suspect the
staff at this particular center were up to no good, Moore just wanted a nice
photo op showing him as the people's hero. Once he got his video he packed
up and left, his usual audience was no doubt thrilled at his courage, not
being troubled much at all that Moore made no specific charges and found no
evidence, that all he did was strike a dramatic pose.

I suggest to you that his movies are full of similar rubbish, lots of sound
and fury, lots of innuendo, lots of suggestion and quick editing so nobody
is tempted to really think about what just flashed across the screen. So
strictly speaking the usual range of propaganda film techniques don't have
to involve outright lying, but when you lead people to believe what you want
them to believe without actually proving your case the end result seems
awfully similar. Moore is good at it too, leads a very comfy lifestyle as a
result of his skill, for all the baggy-ass bluejeans and crumpled baseball
cap he affects.

> ...As opposed to say, Bill-O, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. who say the most
> outlandish, unsubstantiated lies day in and day out, and are allowed
> to skate because their audience is stupid and the "liberals" can't or
> won't get their own bully pulpit going.

Based on the implosion of Air America it would seem "can't" is the correct
explanation, not for lack of trying.

> OTOH, you have a conservative like Tucker Carlson who backs up his
> assertions with actual facts and generally refrains from the lowest
> common denominator crap the other guys spew. But that's why he's
> terminally between shows and can't get decent ratings anywhere. Ditto
> for Air America. Rational arguments and reasoned opinions don't sell.

You're kidding, if Carlson is the gold standard then we're in worse shape
than I thought. His stupid remarks about the French govt's sinking of that
Greenpeace ship were enough for me, it was okay because they didn't intend
to kill anyone, that part was just an accident. Anybody who says planting a
bomb amounts to just vandalism does not make my short list of reasonable
commentators.

Speaking of Air America, are we supposed to have forgotten about their slimy
financial dealings yet?

> The sad and scary part is that lies, divisiveness and hate DO sell.
> THAT'S why you should care about the FAUX News crowd...There are a
> WHOLE lot of people in this country who "think" like that, 3 share or
> not.

People have the right to choose to be misinformed, whether it's by watching
Fox (something I do only for The Simpsons and similar fare) or reading
Moveon.org or the Daily KOS like everything posted there is believable.
[Pause for outraged defense of those websites by those who believe
everything they see there]. Many of the most prominent newspapers in the
country have a strong political affiliation, always have had, that shouldn't
come as a surprise to anyone. That some news outlets are more successful at
selling their line of bull than others only seems to be a problem for those
who can't accomplish the same thing. I have to wonder if we'd hear much of
this complaint if Air America had been a huge success?

> I guess the point is that hating EVERY TV commentator is no better
> than believing everything they say. Both ways only keep you from
> having to think critically.

I'd rather get the news than commentary, I like the BBC for that. How
mistrusting all obvious spin-doctors prevents critical thinking is beyond me
however. I enjoy politics-based comedy as much as anyone, but it seems like
a lot of folks don't consider it comedy anymore, it's their primary source
of insight, left or right. No wonder things are such a mess.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

*sigh*

Like I said, you can quibble about Moore's ARGUMENTS all you want - but his
FACTS are solid. He got a gun for opening a checking account - what would
you like to dispute about that? And so forth...


Nor do I give a flying fuck about Tucker Carlson or Air America. They were
merely EXAMPLES of reasoned thought, but you completely missed the point.

My guess is that you cop the line that they're ALL crooks, because you have
been burned by BELIEVING Bush... for example, when he aid he knew "in his
heart" that Saddamn had WMDs. You just WANTED to believe it so badly. But
then...


Frankly, I'm too lazy to Google your AGB posts 2001-2004, but I'm gonna
guess they follow the party line...until we started losing.


Your comments are exactly the type of thing that I expected. You really need
to think more objectively about BOTH sides of the issues.






"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:VaydnUUvDprhu7fVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink . com ...
> js wrote:
>
> > But before you do, notice that I did NOT say, Michael Moore is RIGHT.
> > You can disagree with his assertions, you can quibble about his
> > penchant for inserting himself into his documentaries (which was cute
> > and novel in "Roger and Me", but more annoying with every subsequent
> > movie). You can even throw a shit fit because he's doing a voiceover
> > about ICBMs when a scene shows him standing next to a rocket that's
> > not an ICBM. But you'd be hard pressed to find anything he
> > fabricated out of whole cloth...
>
> Really, so that newspaper that complained over the doctored "headline"
from
> their paper in F9/11, does claiming a newspaper ran a story they didn't in
> fact run not qualify as fabrication? The bank manager who said the scene
in
> BFC where Moore walks in, fills out an application and walks out minutes
> later with a gun was staged for his camera and was not an accurate
depiction
> of how they really ran that promotional gimmick, was she lying? Offering
> glowing praise to the Canadian health care system while somehow
overlooking
> that just a couple of years ago the supreme court of Canada said in fact
the
> system is messed up enough that life-threatening delays in treatment are
> widespread, is that just poetic license?
>
> I certainly enjoyed his 180-degree reversal over being booed when he
> accepted his Academy Award. At the time he claimed it was just a few
> right-wingers in the audience and a couple of stagehands. Yet today he
> tells a very different story, he recently claimed to have been booed off
the
> stage. The reason for the revised story is now he gets 'I told you so'
> mileage out of it, he warned us about Iraq but we wouldn't listen. For
> those of us who remember the original version it suggests a willingness to
> rewrite the record as needed.
>
> I'll give you an example of classic Moore from outside his movies. In
2004
> he showed up at a vote counting center in Ohio on election night. He
ranted
> and blustered and yelled at some poor security guard, demanding to be
> admitted to the building with his camera, 'What are you people hiding in
> there,?' that sort of thing. Of course there was no reason to believe
> anything was being hidden in there, Moore had no grounds to suspect the
> staff at this particular center were up to no good, Moore just wanted a
nice
> photo op showing him as the people's hero. Once he got his video he
packed
> up and left, his usual audience was no doubt thrilled at his courage, not
> being troubled much at all that Moore made no specific charges and found
no
> evidence, that all he did was strike a dramatic pose.
>
> I suggest to you that his movies are full of similar rubbish, lots of
sound
> and fury, lots of innuendo, lots of suggestion and quick editing so nobody
> is tempted to really think about what just flashed across the screen. So
> strictly speaking the usual range of propaganda film techniques don't have
> to involve outright lying, but when you lead people to believe what you
want
> them to believe without actually proving your case the end result seems
> awfully similar. Moore is good at it too, leads a very comfy lifestyle as
a
> result of his skill, for all the baggy-ass bluejeans and crumpled baseball
> cap he affects.
>
> > ...As opposed to say, Bill-O, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. who say the most
> > outlandish, unsubstantiated lies day in and day out, and are allowed
> > to skate because their audience is stupid and the "liberals" can't or
> > won't get their own bully pulpit going.
>
> Based on the implosion of Air America it would seem "can't" is the correct
> explanation, not for lack of trying.
>
> > OTOH, you have a conservative like Tucker Carlson who backs up his
> > assertions with actual facts and generally refrains from the lowest
> > common denominator crap the other guys spew. But that's why he's
> > terminally between shows and can't get decent ratings anywhere. Ditto
> > for Air America. Rational arguments and reasoned opinions don't sell.
>
> You're kidding, if Carlson is the gold standard then we're in worse shape
> than I thought. His stupid remarks about the French govt's sinking of
that
> Greenpeace ship were enough for me, it was okay because they didn't intend
> to kill anyone, that part was just an accident. Anybody who says planting
a
> bomb amounts to just vandalism does not make my short list of reasonable
> commentators.
>
> Speaking of Air America, are we supposed to have forgotten about their
slimy
> financial dealings yet?
>
> > The sad and scary part is that lies, divisiveness and hate DO sell.
> > THAT'S why you should care about the FAUX News crowd...There are a
> > WHOLE lot of people in this country who "think" like that, 3 share or
> > not.
>
> People have the right to choose to be misinformed, whether it's by
watching
> Fox (something I do only for The Simpsons and similar fare) or reading
> Moveon.org or the Daily KOS like everything posted there is believable.
> [Pause for outraged defense of those websites by those who believe
> everything they see there]. Many of the most prominent newspapers in the
> country have a strong political affiliation, always have had, that
shouldn't
> come as a surprise to anyone. That some news outlets are more successful
at
> selling their line of bull than others only seems to be a problem for
those
> who can't accomplish the same thing. I have to wonder if we'd hear much
of
> this complaint if Air America had been a huge success?
>
> > I guess the point is that hating EVERY TV commentator is no better
> > than believing everything they say. Both ways only keep you from
> > having to think critically.
>
> I'd rather get the news than commentary, I like the BBC for that. How
> mistrusting all obvious spin-doctors prevents critical thinking is beyond
me
> however. I enjoy politics-based comedy as much as anyone, but it seems
like
> a lot of folks don't consider it comedy anymore, it's their primary source
> of insight, left or right. No wonder things are such a mess.
>
>

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

js wrote:

> *sigh*

Spare me the theatrics, if you have a solid point to make then do so,
rolling your eyes only suggests you don't have anything else to offer.

> Like I said, you can quibble about Moore's ARGUMENTS all you want -
> but his FACTS are solid. He got a gun for opening a checking account
> - what would you like to dispute about that? And so forth...

No, he didn't, it wasn't a checking account and if details like that don't
matter then be careful the next time you're in court. At the very least
stop and consider your ignorance of the details points to you not having
read jack shit about it. The point is Moore's filmed version of what
happened was a fabrication. His staff obtained the paperwork for the
background check etc. months before filming took place, his completion of
the form in the movie was purely for effect. The bank manager insists they
did not keep rifles at the bank (the one on display was just that, a
non-functional display) and normally the rifles had to be picked up at a
firearms shop miles away, clearly an exception was made for Moore's camera.
So Moore's representation that anyone could walk into the bank, deposit the
necessary x-thousand dollars in an investment account, fill out a piece of
paper and in minutes stroll out with a rifle is by any reasonable definition
false. You couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, only Michael Moore movie maker
was able to persuade the bank to make it appear to happen that way. They
learned their lesson, other people it would seem would rather go with the
story than the facts.

> Nor do I give a flying fuck about Tucker Carlson or Air America. They
> were merely EXAMPLES of reasoned thought, but you completely missed
> the point.

It would appear you don't give a flying fuck about anything that doesn't fit
your formula. For a guy who insists Moore and Co. rely only on facts it
doesn't seem you want to follow their lead.

> My guess is that you cop the line that they're ALL crooks, because
> you have been burned by BELIEVING Bush... for example, when he aid he
> knew "in his heart" that Saddamn had WMDs. You just WANTED to believe
> it so badly. But then...

I recall having an argument with a buddy of mine shortly before the invasion
of Iraq. He's an ex-Marine who served in Desert Storm, he got a bit steamed
when I told him what a bad idea I thought trying to occupy Iraq was. After
all, Dick Cheney himself had said so years before in praising Bush 41's
decision not to take Baghdad and topple Saddam. Your baseless insistence
that I believed something I did not believe, entirely without evidence and
merely to satisfy your own outrage that anyone could disagree with you
without being a Bush drone really does not speak well of you. Why don't you
try reading and thinking about what someone actually writes instead of
constructing a fantasy that plays to your own biases, is that asking too
much?

> Frankly, I'm too lazy to Google your AGB posts 2001-2004, but I'm
> gonna guess they follow the party line...until we started losing.

Guess away, it seems to be about as far as you prefer to go.

> Your comments are exactly the type of thing that I expected. You
> really need to think more objectively about BOTH sides of the issues.

And having made up your mind in advance you're now seeing exactly what you
hoped to see, who could have predicted that? As for your advice about
thinking more objectively about both sides of the issues, Kapow!--there goes
another irony meter. Dude, you wouldn't know objective if it sat next to
you and asked you to buy it a drink, if smug was four bucks a gallon you'd
be rich. That's one thing both wings have in common, they're full of people
like you who just *know* they're right and to hell with anyone or anything
that might challenge that. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

> decision not to take Baghdad and topple Saddam. Your baseless insistence
> that I believed something I did not believe, entirely without evidence and
> merely to satisfy your own outrage that anyone could disagree with you
> without being a Bush drone really does not speak well of you. Why don't you
> try reading and thinking about what someone actually writes instead of
> constructing a fantasy that plays to your own biases, is that asking too
> much?

Well, DG, that's political discourse in the US these days. The first
thing we do is apply a label to our partner in discussion, and then
refer only to the label, not what's actually been said in the
conversation, in formulating our responses. Else, how could we possibly
use our canned arguments that we copied down so diligently while
listening to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken? Everyone must fit neatly into
a labeled category, and if they don't, then they go into the catch-all
categories of "kook" (if you're Republican) or
Bush-loving-wolf-in-cowardly-quasi-independent-sheep's-clothing (if
you're Democrat). At least, that's what we're told all the time by the
loudmouths on the radio and TV.

It's the American Way!

Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans

Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX . net > writes:

>> decision not to take Baghdad and topple Saddam. Your baseless
>> insistence that I believed something I did not believe, entirely
>> without evidence and merely to satisfy your own outrage that anyone
>> could disagree with you without being a Bush drone really does not
>> speak well of you. Why don't you try reading and thinking about
>> what someone actually writes instead of constructing a fantasy that
>> plays to your own biases, is that asking too much?
>
> Well, DG, that's political discourse in the US these days. The first
> thing we do is apply a label to our partner in discussion, and then
> refer only to the label, not what's actually been said in the
> conversation, in formulating our responses. Else, how could we
> possibly use our canned arguments that we copied down so diligently
> while listening to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken? Everyone must fit
> neatly into a labeled category, and if they don't, then they go into
> the catch-all categories of "kook" (if you're Republican) or
> Bush-loving-wolf-in-cowardly-quasi-independent-sheep's-clothing (if
> you're Democrat). At least, that's what we're told all the time by
> the loudmouths on the radio and TV.
>
> It's the American Way!

Brian, this is gold. And oh so true.


--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | * w w w .toddh . net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ * w w w .toddh . net /netiquette/ | * myspace . com /bmiawmb