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
Brian Running wrote:
>> 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!
Yeah, I'm afraid you've summed it up depressingly well. I'm struck by how
many people in this thread reacted to just the suggestion that the left's
talking-heads are just as biased as their right-wingnut counterparts with
the instant evaluation that I must have Karl Rove on speed-dial, how else to
explain that I would dare to question tribal dogma? Everybody has their
sacred cows it would seem, and everyone figures all the crap on the ground
has nothing to do with them.
Brian Running wrote:
>> 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!
Yeah, I'm afraid you've summed it up depressingly well. I'm struck by how
many people in this thread reacted to just the suggestion that the left's
talking-heads are just as biased as their right-wingnut counterparts with
the instant evaluation that I must have Karl Rove on speed-dial, how else to
explain that I would dare to question tribal dogma? Everybody has their
sacred cows it would seem, and everyone figures all the crap on the ground
has nothing to do with them.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
DGDevin wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
>
>>> 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!
>
> Yeah, I'm afraid you've summed it up depressingly well. I'm struck by how
> many people in this thread reacted to just the suggestion that the left's
> talking-heads are just as biased as their right-wingnut counterparts with
> the instant evaluation that I must have Karl Rove on speed-dial, how else to
> explain that I would dare to question tribal dogma? Everybody has their
> sacred cows it would seem, and everyone figures all the crap on the ground
> has nothing to do with them.
>
>
Very few people have a firm grasp on their own identity. It's "I'm
a Yankees fan" vs "I'm a Dodgers fan." ( in the '40s).
This reminds me. I need to watch "Fight Club" again...
--
Les Cargill
DGDevin wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
>
>>> 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!
>
> Yeah, I'm afraid you've summed it up depressingly well. I'm struck by how
> many people in this thread reacted to just the suggestion that the left's
> talking-heads are just as biased as their right-wingnut counterparts with
> the instant evaluation that I must have Karl Rove on speed-dial, how else to
> explain that I would dare to question tribal dogma? Everybody has their
> sacred cows it would seem, and everyone figures all the crap on the ground
> has nothing to do with them.
>
>
Very few people have a firm grasp on their own identity. It's "I'm
a Yankees fan" vs "I'm a Dodgers fan." ( in the '40s).
This reminds me. I need to watch "Fight Club" again...
--
Les Cargill
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
Brian Running wrote:
>> 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!
Next thing yer
gonna say is that rasslin ain't real, and my Gramma will have
to kick yer teeth in. Cuz' she *LAHKS* her rasslin.
Peter Griffin: "Watch my sone wrestle an imaginary bear!"
Chris: "Ooof! Ah AH AH AH AH!" ( "bear" gets him in a full
Nelson)
Spectator: "Oh my! I hope that boy will be okay."
Chris(aside): "Don't worry. It's a really well-trained bear."
--
Les Cargill
--
Les Cargill
Brian Running wrote:
>> 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!
Next thing yer
gonna say is that rasslin ain't real, and my Gramma will have
to kick yer teeth in. Cuz' she *LAHKS* her rasslin.
Peter Griffin: "Watch my sone wrestle an imaginary bear!"
Chris: "Ooof! Ah AH AH AH AH!" ( "bear" gets him in a full
Nelson)
Spectator: "Oh my! I hope that boy will be okay."
Chris(aside): "Don't worry. It's a really well-trained bear."
--
Les Cargill
--
Les Cargill
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 13, 7:38 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
Why are rightards always pretending to be "independents" these days?
Oh...yeah...
On May 13, 7:38 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
Why are rightards always pretending to be "independents" these days?
Oh...yeah...
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
The Bishop wrote:
> Why are rightards always pretending to be "independents" these days?
>
> Oh...yeah...
Your credentials as one of the less sharp tools in the shed are already well
established, you can take a set break now.
The Bishop wrote:
> Why are rightards always pretending to be "independents" these days?
>
> Oh...yeah...
Your credentials as one of the less sharp tools in the shed are already well
established, you can take a set break now.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 13, 4:16 am, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
It's supposed to mean you think you are wiser than all present. It's a
clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy when you pick on your
adversary's phrasing, especially when it evinces more education than
yours does. So you're probably wiser than no one, which you disguise
by claiming to know better than to have an opinion. And you can read
all day and learn nothing--outside the party line? Of a centrist? Huh?
And uh, yeah, despite your all-knowing pronouncement (sorry if those
words are too big), Moore tells the truth. Even if you disagree with
his conclusions, he doesn't make false statements to get to them.
Coulter, Hannity et al do, every day. Franken pulls apart their lies
in his books. They TRY to do the same to Franken, but keep tripping
over the facts, which never seem to be in their favor.
You right-wingers disguised as "centrists" have been using flippant
dismissal as your stock in trade for eight years now. It's getting
really old. You have no facts, just your contempt. Go crawl back under
your rock.
On May 13, 4:16 am, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
It's supposed to mean you think you are wiser than all present. It's a
clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy when you pick on your
adversary's phrasing, especially when it evinces more education than
yours does. So you're probably wiser than no one, which you disguise
by claiming to know better than to have an opinion. And you can read
all day and learn nothing--outside the party line? Of a centrist? Huh?
And uh, yeah, despite your all-knowing pronouncement (sorry if those
words are too big), Moore tells the truth. Even if you disagree with
his conclusions, he doesn't make false statements to get to them.
Coulter, Hannity et al do, every day. Franken pulls apart their lies
in his books. They TRY to do the same to Franken, but keep tripping
over the facts, which never seem to be in their favor.
You right-wingers disguised as "centrists" have been using flippant
dismissal as your stock in trade for eight years now. It's getting
really old. You have no facts, just your contempt. Go crawl back under
your rock.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
In article
<061acd5f-7dd1-4bb6-9fe4-ff64465e5080@34g2000hsf.googlegroups,com >,
The Bishop <Convery.Kevin@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 13, 4:16 am, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's supposed to mean you think you are wiser than all present. It's a
> clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy when you pick on your
> adversary's phrasing, especially when it evinces more education than
> yours does. So you're probably wiser than no one, which you disguise
> by claiming to know better than to have an opinion. And you can read
> all day and learn nothing--outside the party line? Of a centrist? Huh?
>
> And uh, yeah, despite your all-knowing pronouncement (sorry if those
> words are too big), Moore tells the truth. Even if you disagree with
> his conclusions, he doesn't make false statements to get to them.
> Coulter, Hannity et al do, every day. Franken pulls apart their lies
> in his books. They TRY to do the same to Franken, but keep tripping
> over the facts, which never seem to be in their favor.
>
> You right-wingers disguised as "centrists" have been using flippant
> dismissal as your stock in trade for eight years now. It's getting
> really old. You have no facts, just your contempt. Go crawl back under
> your rock.
Well, I was going to reply but you seemed to have summed it up rather
well.
In article
<061acd5f-7dd1-4bb6-9fe4-ff64465e5080@34g2000hsf.googlegroups,com >,
The Bishop <Convery.Kevin@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 13, 4:16 am, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's supposed to mean you think you are wiser than all present. It's a
> clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy when you pick on your
> adversary's phrasing, especially when it evinces more education than
> yours does. So you're probably wiser than no one, which you disguise
> by claiming to know better than to have an opinion. And you can read
> all day and learn nothing--outside the party line? Of a centrist? Huh?
>
> And uh, yeah, despite your all-knowing pronouncement (sorry if those
> words are too big), Moore tells the truth. Even if you disagree with
> his conclusions, he doesn't make false statements to get to them.
> Coulter, Hannity et al do, every day. Franken pulls apart their lies
> in his books. They TRY to do the same to Franken, but keep tripping
> over the facts, which never seem to be in their favor.
>
> You right-wingers disguised as "centrists" have been using flippant
> dismissal as your stock in trade for eight years now. It's getting
> really old. You have no facts, just your contempt. Go crawl back under
> your rock.
Well, I was going to reply but you seemed to have summed it up rather
well.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 12, 3:17 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@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.
What SELLS doesn't matter. Who tells the truth, and who's lying does.
Franken and Moore use vetted, verified facts. Everyone else on your
list, the opposite. And no, I'm not talking about "liberal facts"--I'm
talking about the old-fashioned kind, where the thing they say
happened, actually did.
People who fence-sit politically, when the ethical chasm between the
two wings is so vast, start to look pretty silly. I know it feels all
worldly wise and stuff to say, "Six of one, half a dozen of the
other," but it just doesn't fly in this instance.
On May 12, 3:17 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@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.
What SELLS doesn't matter. Who tells the truth, and who's lying does.
Franken and Moore use vetted, verified facts. Everyone else on your
list, the opposite. And no, I'm not talking about "liberal facts"--I'm
talking about the old-fashioned kind, where the thing they say
happened, actually did.
People who fence-sit politically, when the ethical chasm between the
two wings is so vast, start to look pretty silly. I know it feels all
worldly wise and stuff to say, "Six of one, half a dozen of the
other," but it just doesn't fly in this instance.
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > writes:
>> 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!
I think John Stewart said it best when he called O'Reilly and his
partisan "news" peers as "hurting America" and "partisan hacks" "doing
political theater."
From the classic Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire:
http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http :// www .toddh,net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http :// www .toddh,net /netiquette/ | http :// myspace,com /bmiawmb
Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > writes:
>> 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!
I think John Stewart said it best when he called O'Reilly and his
partisan "news" peers as "hurting America" and "partisan hacks" "doing
political theater."
From the classic Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire:
http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http :// www .toddh,net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http :// www .toddh,net /netiquette/ | http :// myspace,com /bmiawmb
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 12, 2:09 pm, bmia...@toddh,net (Todd H.) wrote:
> I think John Stewart said it best when he called O'Reilly and his
> partisan "news" peers as "hurting America" and "partisan hacks" "doing
> political theater."
>
> From the classic Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire:
>
> http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v¯QFB5YpDZE
If you haven't seen this, you MUST see it!
A week later, Crossfire was off the air.
Corey
On May 12, 2:09 pm, bmia...@toddh,net (Todd H.) wrote:
> I think John Stewart said it best when he called O'Reilly and his
> partisan "news" peers as "hurting America" and "partisan hacks" "doing
> political theater."
>
> From the classic Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire:
>
> http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v¯QFB5YpDZE
If you haven't seen this, you MUST see it!
A week later, Crossfire was off the air.
Corey
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
"coreybenson" <coreybenson@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:c90c7127-d240-4df2-b171-97c02963474a@26g2000hsk.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 12, 2:09 pm, bmia...@toddh,net (Todd H.) wrote:
>> I think John Stewart said it best when he called O'Reilly and his
>> partisan "news" peers as "hurting America" and "partisan hacks" "doing
>> political theater."
>>
>> From the classic Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire:
>>
>> http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
>
> If you haven't seen this, you MUST see it!
>
> A week later, Crossfire was off the air.
>
It sort of felt that the guy in the bow tie proved Stewart's point... in
that he never addressed the point. Instead, he tried to roll over him by
constantly interrupting with belligerent comments and taunts...
"coreybenson" <coreybenson@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:c90c7127-d240-4df2-b171-97c02963474a@26g2000hsk.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 12, 2:09 pm, bmia...@toddh,net (Todd H.) wrote:
>> I think John Stewart said it best when he called O'Reilly and his
>> partisan "news" peers as "hurting America" and "partisan hacks" "doing
>> political theater."
>>
>> From the classic Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire:
>>
>> http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
>
> If you haven't seen this, you MUST see it!
>
> A week later, Crossfire was off the air.
>
It sort of felt that the guy in the bow tie proved Stewart's point... in
that he never addressed the point. Instead, he tried to roll over him by
constantly interrupting with belligerent comments and taunts...
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 12 May 2008, 22:53
-- deleted messages --
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 12, 12:06 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> A Bill O'Reilly out-take from a few years back. This is a hoot. A
> couple f-bombs.
>
> http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=IAaHime9aaM
For those that missed it, same clip posted elsewhere. The canned
laughter was not present on the Youtube clip;
http :// www .liveleak,com /view?iú3 1210620462
Love or hate the guy, this is funny/embarassing.
Mike
On May 12, 12:06 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> A Bill O'Reilly out-take from a few years back. This is a hoot. A
> couple f-bombs.
>
> http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=IAaHime9aaM
For those that missed it, same clip posted elsewhere. The canned
laughter was not present on the Youtube clip;
http :// www .liveleak,com /view?iú3 1210620462
Love or hate the guy, this is funny/embarassing.
Mike
Re: OT - For Bill O'Reilly fans
On May 13, 4:54 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On May 12, 12:06 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > A Bill O'Reilly out-take from a few years back. This is a hoot. A
> > couple f-bombs.
>
> > http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=IAaHime9aaM
>
> For those that missed it, same clip posted elsewhere. The canned
> laughter was not present on the Youtube clip;
>
> http :// www .liveleak,com /view?iú3 1210620462
>
> Love or hate the guy, this is funny/embarassing.
>
> Mike
As if he viewed this discussion, Stephen Colbert did a take off of
O'Lielly's tantrum last night on "The Colbert Report". Anyone catch
it? When asked why he puts nazis in his movies, Mel Brooks once said
that (paraphrasing) "Ridicule is the best weapon."
BW
On May 13, 4:54 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On May 12, 12:06 pm, Mike <tetri...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > A Bill O'Reilly out-take from a few years back. This is a hoot. A
> > couple f-bombs.
>
> > http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=IAaHime9aaM
>
> For those that missed it, same clip posted elsewhere. The canned
> laughter was not present on the Youtube clip;
>
> http :// www .liveleak,com /view?iú3 1210620462
>
> Love or hate the guy, this is funny/embarassing.
>
> Mike
As if he viewed this discussion, Stephen Colbert did a take off of
O'Lielly's tantrum last night on "The Colbert Report". Anyone catch
it? When asked why he puts nazis in his movies, Mel Brooks once said
that (paraphrasing) "Ridicule is the best weapon."
BW
