NationStates Jolt Archive

OutFoxed (http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Outfxd2/Trailer_A(Med).mov)

While ferinheit 9/11 targeted the Bush administration, this targets the Fox media.


It looks like a good watch. I can't believe that Bill O'Reilly once said that he doesn't want to learn about Islam, the religion of the enemy, when being interviewed by Al Franken.



flip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip floppingflip flopping

Fox News Channel = PROPAGANDA

Fox News Channel=Right.

CNN=Communist News Network.

Alright, but I want comment on the trailer.

fox news = news channel filled with talk shows with radical right wingers: o'rilly, hannity and kovuto

cnn = news


if you think all news outlets are liberla just for reporting the news, your ass is TOO far to the right

It was a pretty solid documentary, mainly because it let Fox hang itself with its own footage. Carl Cameron's virtual blowjob of Bush during the 2000 election was particularly telling.

nonononono I am a leftist and proud of it. This movie looks good because it ATTACKS fox.



cnn rocks.

It was a pretty solid documentary, mainly because it let Fox hang itself with its own footage. Carl Cameron's virtual blowjob of Bush during the 2000 election was particularly telling.
as maddox would put it

The best part was when Cameron was falling over himself to give Bush fellatio during his 200 interview.

That was just pathetic, wasn't it? And the bit about Reagan's birthday where the anchor is basically having to make shit up on the spot about the celebration that wasn't was also priceless.

got it in the mail today and will be watching it tomorrow with a friend so we can discuss it. :cool: About them hanging FOX with their own footage, it's good to see that they have ex-employees speaking out about it too.

yay! I also got "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq war" in the mail today and may also have time to watch that tomorrow.

the whole of am radio is filled with right wing propaganda, mike savage is one of the worst, sean hannity that drug addict rush limbaugh.
micheal moore did a good job on all his films. i really think farenheit 9/11 is excellent. the relation of these big oil families to the worst elements in saudi arabia needs to be closely examined. if this had been the 50s and that tie had been with the USSR there would have been hell to pay. these guys were friends with the mujahadin and the taliban, they helped them get their opium into our country. now the US has to sit on central asia for the russians. that is stupid.

I still think the part that made my jaw drop the most was the way they treated Jeremy Glick, the kid's father died in the WTC on 9/11.. I was shocked.

Fox = fascism!

nonononono I am a leftist and proud of it. This movie looks good because it ATTACKS fox.



cnn rocks.
That Glick kid is a rude little prat who lied non-stop when he was being interviewed. He got called on his lies, and people like you propagate the myth of his "abuse".

Foxnews is indeed conservative. While CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and the BBC are liberal.

I would get into publications, but there are too many to list.

I have yet to see a news network that isn't baised, the key is knowing who is who so you can take the snippets out of the news that are fact and ignore the propaganda.

One thing I like about Fox though, is that they have Liberal people come on and get interviewed to get there side of the equation. On the other hand, MSNBC will have a liberal host, and five liberal panel members.

Atleast all the sources above check their sources (99% of the time anyway) and won't air something unless they are sure it is true, THEN put their spin on it.

Unlike most of the websites mentioned here as some factual data, when it's only Jimbob at home making stuff up for his IhateBush.com or IhateLiberals.com website.

Foxnews is indeed conservative. While CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and the BBC are liberal.

I would get into publications, but there are too many to list.

I have yet to see a news network that isn't baised, the key is knowing who is who so you can take the snippets out of the news that are fact and ignore the propaganda.

One thing I like about Fox though, is that they have Liberal people come on and get interviewed to get there side of the equation. On the other hand, MSNBC will have a liberal host, and five liberal panel members.

Atleast all the sources above check their sources (99% of the time anyway) and won't air something unless they are sure it is true, THEN put their spin on it.

Unlike most of the websites mentioned here as some factual data, when it's only Jimbob at home making stuff up for his IhateBush.com or IhateLiberals.com website.
tthe only liberals that fox news hosts are those they can mock and use to mock other liberals

I'd hardly call that Congressman from Tennesse (someone they have on quite often) someone that can be mocked. I wish could remember his name, he's african-american...anyone know?

Pretty intelligent guy too, good charisma...probably why they like him on the channel.

or use to mock other liberals

Oh, I can tell you don't actually watch, just wait to see what other Liberals tell you to watch and think. Alright, saves me the trouble of debating.

Oh, I can tell you don't actually watch, just wait to see what other Liberals tell you to watch and think. Alright, saves me the trouble of debating.
oh please lets spout right wing bullshit for an hour ok? ive heard this shit so much I can quote it for pete's sake

you dumbasses say the same crap over and over, it never get more intelligent or less hypocritical every time you say it. the right wing are proven to be more tight woven and think alnog party lines without other thought. because the radical right are usually hardcore christians, and hardcore christians dont like logic, they like inane quotes and simple rhetoric there emotionally controlledm idns can understand

Yes, you're right. I must be some Christian nut job, because that's what they tell you we all are. What else do the other liberals tell you to say and think?

fox news = news channel filled with talk shows with radical right wingers: o'rilly, hannity and kovuto

cnn = news


if you think all news outlets are liberla just for reporting the news, your ass is TOO far to the right

lol no they are liberal for only reporting part of the news. dont want to belive that than aske 3 or 4 military personal that have been in iraq.

ROFL The old: "Every other station other than FOX is commie shit" argument. Hahaha

ROFL The old: "Every other station other than FOX is commie shit" argument. Hahaha
or how about every one that watchs fox is a religous nut lol. sorry dumb ass but i have not been to church since before most of you where born. to bad most of you dont rember what cnn did in the 91 golf war

Yes, you're right. I must be some Christian nut job, because that's what they tell you we all are. What else do the other liberals tell you to say and think?
woo woo radical right wing rhetoric alert

or how about every one that watchs fox is a religous nut lol. sorry dumb ass but i have not been to church since before most of you where born. to bad most of you dont rember what cnn did in the 91 golf war
oh yeah the golf war was horrible, gold balls, everywher,e my god, i cant imagine it any more

or how about every one that watchs fox is a religous nut lol. sorry dumb ass but i have not been to church since before most of you where born. to bad most of you dont rember what cnn did in the 91 golf war

...Talk about making assumptions. You truly are an idiot, this is evident in your grammar, spelling and misinterpretation of what I said. If anything you are more evidence of the stereotype of the kind of people who watch FOX.

Nazi guy, they're all shit. But if you know who has what agenda you won't be fooled by the stuff they add on to the facts.

And as someone who just came back from Iraq, I'll tell you that Kd4 is right.

Right in what? He didn't even make a general point. :D

And as you are somebody coming back from Iraq, your bias is evident in revealing this fact.

oh yeah the golf war was horrible, gold balls, everywher,e my god, i cant imagine it any more


Hey Chess, before you make fun of some one else's mistakes...shall we revisit one of your posts on this thread...it goes like this.....

oh please lets spout right wing bullshit for an hour ok? ive heard this shit so much I can quote it for pete's sake

you dumbasses say the same crap over and over, it never get more intelligent or less hypocritical every time you say it. the right wing are proven to be more tight woven and think alnog party lines without other thought. because the radical right are usually hardcore christians, and hardcore christians dont like logic, they like inane quotes and simple rhetoric there emotionally controlledm idns can understand

...Talk about making assumptions. You truly are an idiot, this is evident in your grammar, spelling and misinterpretation of what I said. If anything you are more evidence of the stereotype of the kind of people who watch FOX.
your name says it all about you. next

How about you make a point, back it up with evidence, and then conclude it, The maybe we will take you seriously?

Nazi, he said that what makes those stations liberal is that they only report the part of the news that reflects what they want people to believe...and that is true, they report all the bad stuff (which makes up about 2% of what's going on) and they don't mention the other 98%.

And exactly how is being recently returned from that deployment betray my bias?

your name says it all about you. next

Says what exactly?

The fact that is my nation in a fictional Computer Game?

The fine line between reality and fiction needs to be bridged in your mind, I am a liberal.

Nazi, he said that what makes those stations liberal is that they only report the part of the news that reflects what they want people to believe...and that is true, they report all the bad stuff (which makes up about 2% of what's going on) and they don't mention the other 98%.

And exactly how is being recently returned from that deployment betray my bias?

What 'Good Stuff'?

The fact that the New Government is being attacked daily, and most of it is comprised of Rich Iraqi-American Exiles, and that as a result of your invasion - the region is more unstable?

And you are bias as the military gears for a right wing way of thinking, represented in the vast majority of its brainwashed killing machines (troops).

Foxnews is indeed conservative. While CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and the BBC are liberal. The BBC isn't liberal, it's inverted racist! It goes in for positive descrimination at the expense of equality and quality.

Good stuff would be...

Like the fact that every town and city have a democratically elected council or mayor.

Like the fact that the Iraqi's want the insurgents gone more than even us?

Like the fact that Iraqis think that countries like France and Russia are selfish because they would rather see them rot under Saddam so they could make money than free them.

Like the fact that more children are going to school now than before the war.

Like the fact that economy over there is booming.

I could type all day, but here is something you can read instead.

Before the war, Iraqis couldn't have access to the internet nor cell phones. One of the by products of this is that many proffesional Iraqis have started blogs.

Here is a link to a blog that an Iraqi friend of mine (who we had to work with to treat sick Iraqis...oh yeah, they have a functional health care system now), he showed it to me to see what I thought of it.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

i looked on the file sharing places and no one has it. also it is getting dick for news coverage. big surprise. i might just go out and buy it, as it seems to be the only thing worth buying these days

I think if you haven't seen "Outfoxed" it's sort of hard to comment on it, don't you think? *nods* :rolleyes:

Thats right... if youhaven't seen it then you have no room to talk.


And if you are goign to say that all these other stations are liberally biased, then you need to point out specific facts. If the Replicons had a case to make, then they would make it, because they have the money and resources. So until there is evidence of this, I see it as just a bunch of right-wing rhetoric.

I watch Fox News more because it is comedy than journalism. It amazes me how many take it seriously.

There's no such thing as news on the TV.

At least in America, it's all entertainment.

fox news = news channel filled with talk shows with radical right wingers

cnn = news


if you think all news outlets are liberla just for reporting the news, your ass is TOO far to the rightfox news=news w/ moderate right-wing commentary
cnn=news with subliminal left-wing spin, the same goes for the New York Times.

FNC is conservative? Oh, wow. Tell me something I don't know. What I would like to see is a similar doc made about CNN. I have watched them frequently and I am almost certain that they have a left-wing bias. Most of it is subliminal:

What stories they choose to report: FNC is the only channel I have found that reports the openings of schools and hospitals in Iraq. All you hear from CNN is the bad news from Iraq. CNN's Iraq is a chaotic firework show, while other sources (and not just FNC) suggest that things are, for the most part, stable and that things are drastically improving over there.

The order of the stories they report: On a daily basis, I watch CNN report abuse in Iraq (live or recap). It's typically followed by a debate, then an update of whatever Kerry happens to be doing. They show something bad, link it to Bush, and boost his opponent. Try watching it and you'll see that.

The time spent reporting different stories: I heard almost nothing out of them about the UN oil-for-food scandal, but they spent an incredible amount of time talking about Abu Ghriab and "how high up the ladder it goes," while showing pictures of Bush. It was then found Bush had nothing to do with the abuse, but they didn't choose to spend much time reporting about that. If you watch, they also spend an inordinate amount of time reporting on the Kerry campaign or discussing the Kerry campaign; far more than what they say about Bush.

Absence of malice: reporting what is accurate, but not true. Remember the big crisis about Bush's national guard service? It turned out there were some payroll stubs that went missing. CNN was all over this, but they neglected to mention that every national guard payroll record for everyone in that time was missing. Why? No, Bush did not have them destroyed, as was implied. The reason was because the military was making the transition between storing such records on paper and storing them on microfilm. Some of the records were lost in the process. Though I must admit it was funny when they went too obvious: 9/11 Commission: No Iraq-Al Quada Link (on 9/11)

Believe it or not, even the graphics: take a good look at their "Decision 2004" graphic sometime. Keep in mind that blue states means Democratic, red states means Republican. The "Decision 2004" graphics shows a red circle with an elephant in it next to a picture of Bush, and a blue circle with a donkey in it next to a picture of Kerry. Fair enough. Below that is the white lettering "Decision 2004". Good so far... wait. Why is there a large blue star in there, too? Sort of drowns out the red.

Yes, I would be very interested in seeing a similar documentary about CNN.

As for the newspapers I have read, FNC dug up an interesting fact: The New York Times had 43 front-page headlines about Abu Grhaib, and only 2 about the oil-for-food scandal. In addition, when the report came out about how yes, Saddam actually was pursuing African uranium, the New York Times deemed it only to be worthy of page ten, as opposed to the front-page headlines received by the statement to the contrary made by the head inspector before the war.

About the doc itself, keep in mind that it was made by several outspoken liberals who are trying to do as much damage as possible to FNC, and they aren't afraid to use Moore-ish tactics to do it. Like the part about Jeremy Glick, for example. They show O'Reilly telling a family member of a man killed in the WTC to shut up. What they don't show is that he did it because Glick went berserk. Security actually had to take him out of the building.

*Looks at the topic*
Wow, Reynes, you killed it!
*Creeps self out for talking to self*

*Looks at the topic*
Wow, Reynes, you killed it!
*Creeps self out for talking to self*

Probably because you've copy/pasted that in another thread on the same subject and it was shot down.. perhaps people don't feel like repeating it.. Although on NS, you never know..lol ;)

Probably because you've copy/pasted that in another thread on the same subject and it was shot down.. perhaps people don't feel like repeating it.. Although on NS, you never know..lol ;)Actually, I don't recall it actually getting shot down. It was criticized, but not analyzed. I do remember there was one guy who started misquoting me on the same page I posted it originally. That was kinda funny ;)

Sorry, Steph.

By the way Steph, did you get my telegram?

Actually, I don't recall it actually getting shot down. It was criticized, but not analyzed. I do remember there was one guy who started misquoting me on the same page I posted it originally. That was kinda funny ;)

Sorry, Steph.

By the way, did you get my telegram?

Ah, maybe, I don't really recall, I just recall that you've posted it before and some one took you to task on it. I can't recall what the points actually were and am feeling far to lazy to go find it atm.. :D

Here's the thing Reynes--whether or not CNN or any other network is conservative or liberal leaning is beside the point as far as "Outfoxed" is concerned. "Outfoxed" only makes the argument that Fox is conservatively biased, and makes it very well, using their own footage against them.

Now if you or some other group wants to try to make the case that CNN or some other group is liberally-biased, go ahead and try to make the case--it won't change the fact that Fox is a right-wing tool. And let me say again--I've got no problem with Fox's bias, as long as they're honest about it. It's their misrepresentation of themselves as fair and balanced, as objective, that I have a problem with.

Here's the thing Reynes--whether or not CNN or any other network is conservative or liberal leaning is beside the point as far as "Outfoxed" is concerned. "Outfoxed" only makes the argument that Fox is conservatively biased, and makes it very well, using their own footage against them.

Now if you or some other group wants to try to make the case that CNN or some other group is liberally-biased, go ahead and try to make the case--it won't change the fact that Fox is a right-wing tool. And let me say again--I've got no problem with Fox's bias, as long as they're honest about it. It's their misrepresentation of themselves as fair and balanced, as objective, that I have a problem with.Yeah, I think it's funny that both FNC and CNN say they are the most trusted, when both have their own agendas. I am not defending FNC with my post, I am disproving what some have said here about CNN being fair and balanced. I have less of a problem with FNC because they are obvious about it, some come right out and say it. However, CNN plays mind games with you, and that I cannot accept.

Well, you'll never hear me saying that CNN is fair and balanced either. What you will hear me saying about the media as a whole is that it's corporate, more concerned about profits than objectivity. Now what that translates into these days is a bias toward business interests and toward the politicians that support those interests, and those are overwhelmingly conservative.

If you want examples of how the media is not liberal, look at the way they've covered Democratic candidates and politicians over the last ten years. Clinton got hammered by everyone, from FNC to the NY Times and CNN over charges that, with the exception of a blowjob, turned out to be completely false.

Look at the way all the media covered the run up to the war in Iraq. There were plenty of people online, and even in Congress who were questioning the intelligence long before the war, and no one--no one in the mainstream media--ever called the Republicans on it. The NY Times was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the war in Iraq--and they're liberal? Come on.

Thing is, it's expensive to actually do journalism, to look deep into stories and not just repeat what the government gives you, and corporations don't want to do expensive. They want cheap, because cheap increases profits, and higher profits mean happy shareholders. That's what drives most of the media--profit margin, not ideology. FNC is lucky--they made a profit using the ideology.

Who ever says Fox is fair and balanced is a moron, same goes for the people who think that CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC are fair and balanced.


NPR is also very liberal, which makes me wonder why our tax dollars support this? Shouldn't NPR atleast be non baised due to it being funded by the whole US, not just Liberals, Conservatives, ect?

Reynes, these guys on this board are not going to dispute the facts with you. I've only been coming to this board for a couple of days and all I've seen is either personal attacks, start spouting the standard liberal faire or give a link to a website called IhateBush.com written by a guy named Jimbob in Cambridge who gets his info from the voices he hears in his head.

There are a few liberals here that I see making good points and actually debating, too bad they are drowned out by all the robots.

EDIT: Added a word in there that changed the whole meaning of my first sentance. So I had to take it out.

The problem is that people do not actually want the news. They want their own opinions fed back to them to prove that they were right all along. ALL the 'news' networks are happy to do this as it keeps the viewing figures as high as possible. The 'news' networks have no real responsibility to inform, only to keep up the advertising revenues.

I loved the part in Outfoxed though with the poll that showed Fox viewers were vastly more ignorant than PBS/NPR viewers. That made me laugh.

Ignorant of the facts I should add, not in general. (Although this may be the case.)

Well, Neusia, a recent study just discovered that when it came to sources, NPR gets more of its information from conservative sources than from liberal ones, at a ratio of about 3 to 2. I'll see if I can find the study and post a link. NPR is actually pretty balanced--the thing is that they don't cover much in the way of hard news. They do Talk of the Nation and Marketplace, Fresh Air and All Things Considered among other shows, but none of them have a real strong leaning politically speaking.

One thing I do find interesting is that NPR has been allowing some of their on-air talent to rent themselves out to other media sources, and that two of them, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams, found their way onto Fox News, and they don't exactly hold up a liberal banner when they're on tv.

Well, Neusia, a recent study just discovered that when it came to sources, NPR gets more of its information from conservative sources than from liberal ones, at a ratio of about 3 to 2. I'll see if I can find the study and post a link. NPR is actually pretty balanced--the thing is that they don't cover much in the way of hard news. They do Talk of the Nation and Marketplace, Fresh Air and All Things Considered among other shows, but none of them have a real strong leaning politically speaking.

One thing I do find interesting is that NPR has been allowing some of their on-air talent to rent themselves out to other media sources, and that two of them, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams, found their way onto Fox News, and they don't exactly hold up a liberal banner when they're on tv.

You ever hear the Diane Reims show? I can't remember what they were talking about one day, but after her expert guest explained something she said, "And that's because Bush did this, right?" and they guy replied, "No, actually the President doesn't really have much to do with this at all.", and she replied, "Yes, but if Bush didn't do that it would be better right?", and they went back and forth about three times until she gave up.

Also, on Talk of the Nation, there are constantly reports on the prison scandle, when was the last time you heard a report on, lets say, the Oil for Food program?

I listen to that crap every day because I'm stationed in a place where they don't play the music I like on the radio. Gives me a few laughs though.

Well, Neusia, here it is. (http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704rePUBLICanRADIO.shtml)

National Public Radio, though founded as an alternative media outlet that would "speak with many voices," relies on largely the same range of sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, a new study by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has found. Characterized by conservative critics as "liberal" radio, NPR has more Republican than Democratic voices, and male sources outnumber female sources by nearly four to one.
Nine of the top 10 most-frequently used sources on NPR were white male government officials. (Secretary of State Colin Powell was the one exception.) The top seven sources were all Republicans.

Comparing partisan sources--including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants--Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than three to two.

FAIR's study looked at every on-air source quoted in June 2003 on NPR's four main news shows: "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition," "Weekend Edition Saturday" and "Weekend Edition Sunday." Think tank sources and regular commentators were analyzed over a four-month period. Results were compared to those from a 1993 FAIR study of NPR sources.

Read 'em and weep.

Well, Neusia, here it is. (http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704rePUBLICanRADIO.shtml)



Read 'em and weep.

Go to Fair.org and tell me that's not a partisan site. If you can with a straight face, I'll conceed defeat. Though Diane Reims is a huge liberal, nothing you can say would change my mind about that.

who calimed cnn was fair and balanced, i claim its more fair and balanced than fox

who calimed cnn was fair and balanced, i claim its more fair and balanced than fox


Chess, you only think that because they reflect your point of view. Same with the Neo-cons and Fox.

Go to Fair.org and tell me that's not a partisan site. If you can with a straight face, I'll conceed defeat. Though Diane Reims is a huge liberal, nothing you can say would change my mind about that.What specific facts in that report are you disputing?

Go to Fair.org and tell me that's not a partisan site. If you can with a straight face, I'll conceed defeat. Though Diane Reims is a huge liberal, nothing you can say would change my mind about that.Partisan or not, the study is legitimate. Look at the methodology. Look at the internals. If you can attack the study, go ahead. The Heritage Foundation has done legitimate studies in the past as well, and they're as conservative a group as you'll find.

Chess, you only think that because they reflect your point of view. Same with the Neo-cons and Fox.
except fox actually OFFICIALLY claims to be fair and balanced

except fox actually OFFICIALLY claims to be fair and balanced


That's true. Makes me laugh every time I see it.

Partisan or not, the study is legitimate. Look at the methodology. Look at the internals. If you can attack the study, go ahead. The Heritage Foundation has done legitimate studies in the past as well, and they're as conservative a group as you'll find.


I did. What they aren't saying (and this is an assumption based on what I hear on the station and the fact that Fair.org has 10 anti-conservative articles to every anti-liberal one) is that while they get info from Conservatives they spin it liberally.

You may find this interesting and perhaps entertaining....

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/OReillyGlick.mov

Good stuff would be...

1)Like the fact that every town and city have a democratically elected council or mayor.

2)Like the fact that the Iraqi's want the insurgents gone more than even us?

3)Like the fact that Iraqis think that countries like France and Russia are selfish because they would rather see them rot under Saddam so they could make money than free them.

4)Like the fact that more children are going to school now than before the war.

5)Like the fact that economy over there is booming.

I could type all day, but here is something you can read instead.

Before the war, Iraqis couldn't have access to the internet nor cell phones. One of the by products of this is that many proffesional Iraqis have started blogs.

Here is a link to a blog that an Iraqi friend of mine (who we had to work with to treat sick Iraqis...oh yeah, they have a functional health care system now), he showed it to me to see what I thought of it.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

PLEASE NOTE NUMBERS ARE NOT PART OF QUOTE BUT PUT THERE FOR READERS TO AVOIDE CONFUSION.

1)with no power on the ground

2)France and Russer were right WMD found "0". also it was usa that was making a killing geting 40% of the oil exports

3)to get blown to bit by enemy combatents

4)only because of shanctions being lifted that semented a dictators power and if boom is hperning howcome no iques compines are being used in the reconstution of Ique and there is mass unimployment

5)see my 3rd point and was it really worth the cost as when Britain and the USA "LIBERATED" Iraq thousands died not really worth a cellphone you think?

Also fox is a biased network im glad i get the bbc as it is politically impartial and informative rather than right wing propaganda

Also fox is a biased network im glad i get the bbc as it is politically impartial and informative rather than right wing propaganda


You shouldn't add stuff to people's quotes like that it will confuse other people that are reading this thread.

Anyway, the BBC is very baised, if you can't see that then you're setting yourself up for being lied to and misled.

You added that kids get blown up by angry Iraqi's. That's not true, for two reasons. 1) Most of the people we've captured from the Insurgency are from outside Iraq...hense the word "Insurgency". I've captured some myself so don't bother telling me I'm lying. And 2) There haven't been any school bombings.

France and Russia were wrong too...you see they thought the Iraqi's had WMD too. All you have to do is look back on News Stories from before 2001, also a recent report that stated Russia warned us of Iraqi WMDs just before we invaded because they thought they had some insider info.

You may find this interesting and perhaps entertaining....

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/OReillyGlick.mov


Some day I want to meet Bill O'Reilly and fricken kick his ass. All he was saying was "shut up" and "I hope your mother isnt watching this" What kind of host says "shut up" to their guest??

Some day I want to meet Bill O'Reilly and fricken kick his ass. All he was saying was "shut up" and "I hope your mother isnt watching this" What kind of host says "shut up" to their guest??
you know hannity is at the democratic convention

if iwas there i'd be like

"hey are you sean hannity?"

"yeah, i am"

"wow, how are you doing"

"oh im grea-"

*punch the fuck out of him*

you know hannity is at the democratic convention

if iwas there i'd be like

"hey are you sean hannity?"

"yeah, i am"

"wow, how are you doing"

"oh im grea-"

*punch the fuck out of him*
I was listening to Air America yesterday and they noted that Hannity had gotten 3 cops to "stand guard" for him, like his sorry ass was ever in any danger. To quote James Carville (who was talking about Nader--I'm talking about Hannity) "I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart was on fire."

I was listening to Air America yesterday and they noted that Hannity had gotten 3 cops to "stand guard" for him, like his sorry ass was ever in any danger. To quote James Carville (who was talking about Nader--I'm talking about Hannity) "I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart was on fire."
i think ican throw a bottle full of water over some cops and hit hannity in the head...

You people are so narrow minded and barbaric. Upset that a dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of people has been overthown but you would physically attack someone because they have a different point of view than you....hey, didn't the Nazis do that?

You people are so narrow minded and barbaric. Upset that a dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of people has been overthown but you would physically attack someone because they have a different point of view than you....hey, didn't the Nazis do that?
no, id attack him because he is a pompous self righteous ass. him rush limbaugh and every other host on fox news

Thanks for proving my point, Chess.

Thanks for proving my point, Chess.
i did not prove a point. id throw a bottle at moore too if i knew enough about him to think he was a pompous ass.

you call me un-american or un-patriotic for excercising my right of free speech, you get a bottle at your head

i did not prove a point. id throw a bottle at moore too if i knew enough about him to think he was a pompous ass.

you call me un-american or un-patriotic for excercising my right of free speech, you get a bottle at your head

And you're proving it even more.

You're saying they can't give their opinion or you'll harm them. That's what the Nazis and Communists used to do. People like Saddam and Pinochet did that, people like Stalin and Mussollini.

Wow, you're in good company.

Fox isn't covering the DNC when Ted Kennedy is speaking...

Fox isn't covering the DNC when Ted Kennedy is speaking...

Someone throw a bottle at it!

And you're proving it even more.

You're saying they can't give their opinion or you'll harm them. That's what the Nazis and Communists used to do. People like Saddam and Pinochet did that, people like Stalin and Mussollini.

Wow, you're in good company.
its amusing how you compare me to the nazis and communist and nazis for being angry at people who oppose voicing opinions of their political party and suggest putting away anyone who does


"the nazis arnt dangerous, they are just another political party"

Moore is ignorant. So is FNC.

Chess, are you really that clueless?

What were their original quotes anyway? Someone have a link to them?

Anyway, they can give what ever opinion they want...you can't stop them. We have something called Freedom of Speach here, if they think something that someone says in Un-american...then that's their point of view. You're free to tell people your point of view, they're free to state theirs.

When you don't agree with them, that doesn't mean they are evil, that doesn't mean they have horns growing from their heads, it just means they have a different opinion. You don't throw things at them or attack them in this country...if you did, and that was okay, then instead of the United States of America, we'd be The United Soviet States of America...get it?

See Chess, grown ups say things, and if other grown ups don't agree with them, they debate like grown ups.

Bush and Kerry are at odds about a lot of things. At their debate, you're not going to see them throwing water bottles at eachother because they are adults.

I hope you get it now. If not, then maybe you will in a few years.

Chess, are you really that clueless?

What were their original quotes anyway? Someone have a link to them?

Anyway, they can give what ever opinion they want...you can't stop them. We have something called Freedom of Speach here, if they think something that someone says in Un-american...then that's their point of view. You're free to tell people your point of view, they're free to state theirs.

When you don't agree with them, that doesn't mean they are evil, that doesn't mean they have horns growing from their heads, it just means they have a different opinion. You don't throw things at them or attack them in this country...if you did, and that was okay, then instead of the United States of America, we'd be The United Soviet States of America...get it?

See Chess, grown ups say things, and if other grown ups don't agree with them, they debate like grown ups.

Bush and Kerry are at odds about a lot of things. At their debate, you're not going to see them throwing water bottles at eachother because they are adults.

I hope you get it now. If not, then maybe you will in a few years.
the problem here, captain obvious, is the republicans enforce this free speech is only free if its pro GOP: free speech zones and other crap

I just typed out a response, but you know what?

You're too brainwashed already, too bad they didn't brainwash you using atleast semi real facts and arguements. You're going to be one of those people who grow up and think that "The Man" is watching you with his black helocopters, I can see it now.

I just typed out a response, but you know what?

You're too brainwashed already, too bad they didn't brainwash you using atleast semi real facts and arguements. You're going to be one of those people who grow up and think that "The Man" is watching you with his black helocopters, I can see it now.
woo woo cluelessness in the vicinity

1) attempt to pass an anti-flag burning amendment in spite of Texas v Johnson
2) attempt to regulate the internet
3) creation of free speech zones miles away from political figures with fences
4) people arrested sneaking in anti-politic signs during said politics gatherings

Bush and Kerry are at odds about a lot of things. At their debate, you're not going to see them throwing water bottles at eachother because they are adults.



Yeah, but imagine the ratings spike if they did!

woo woo cluelessness in the vicinity

1) attempt to pass an anti-flag burning amendment in spite of Texas v Johnson
2) attempt to regulate the internet
3) creation of free speech zones miles away from political figures with fences
4) people arrested sneaking in anti-politic signs during said politics gatherings

God you make this so easy. Why do I bother.

1) Texas v Johnson is a court ruling, not a law. I know you're going to say Captian Obvious but you seem to ignore that point. Burning the flag should be legal, I agree...but you don't like the Republican's point of view so it's stifling your Freedom of Speach? How so? Can you not make a statement without burning the flag?

2) If you don't think that porn, ect should have restrictions so that only adults can view it...then wait till you have kids and re-think your position.

3) Aren't you the one telling people you'd throw a bottle at Hannity? Then you wonder why they make you have to go into a fenced area away from the politicians? What if you filled that bottle with gas and when you got close, you could throw it molitov cocktail style at him?

And if some right wing nut did that to Kennedy as he was entering you Libs would be calling for blood and how they didn't have enough security, ect.

4) You see, they leased out the Fleet Center for their convention, they don't want some nuts disturbing it. If you have a party at your house and some people come in and start chanting and throwing shit, you wouldn't call the cops because it would stifle their freedom of speach?

Dude, come up with some better ones.

God you make this so easy. Why do I bother.

1) Texas v Johnson is a court ruling, not a law. I know you're going to say Captian Obvious but you seem to ignore that point. Burning the flag should be legal, I agree...but you don't like the Republican's point of view so it's stifling your Freedom of Speach? How so? Can you not make a statement without burning the flag?

2) If you don't think that porn, ect should have restrictions so that only adults can view it...then wait till you have kids and re-think your position.

3) Aren't you the one telling people you'd throw a bottle at Hannity? Then you wonder why they make you have to go into a fenced area away from the politicians? What if you filled that bottle with gas and when you got close, you could throw it molitov cocktail style at him?

And if some right wing nut did that to Kennedy as he was entering you Libs would be calling for blood and how they didn't have enough security, ect.

4) You see, they leased out the Fleet Center for their convention, they don't want some nuts disturbing it. If you have a party at your house and some people come in and start chanting and throwing shit, you wouldn't call the cops because it would stifle their freedom of speach?

Dude, come up with some better ones.

1) i know you THINK thats not stifling my freedom of speech, but it proves my point trh republicans are trying to force their political beliefs on us, one being the right to free speech

2) if you think the government was going about it the right way you are sadly mistaken.

3) you ignorant twit, i never said it was just bush, also you want me to quote where i said that i would do the same to moore if i knew enough about him to think he is threatening freedoms as a pompous ass, if you want to make ignorant coservative assumptions keep on

4) im not talkngi about private places they rent out to preach to the choir, i am referirng to an open air public appearance. and all they did was hold up anti-bush signs, at a public gathering


i love how the coservatives bitch about we should have the right to own a gun because it protects our ability to protect our other rights, while at the same time giving the government the ability to take away every single one of those rights without so much as a twitch

1) i know you THINK thats not stifling my freedom of speech, but it proves my point trh republicans are trying to force their political beliefs on us, one being the right to free speech

2) if you think the government was going about it the right way you are sadly mistaken.

3) you ignorant twit, i never said it was just bush, also you want me to quote where i said that i would do the same to moore if i knew enough about him to think he is threatening freedoms as a pompous ass, if you want to make ignorant coservative assumptions keep on

4) im not talkngi about private places they rent out to preach to the choir, i am referirng to an open air public appearance. and all they did was hold up anti-bush signs, at a public gathering


i love how the coservatives bitch about we should have the right to own a gun because it protects our ability to protect our other rights, while at the same time giving the government the ability to take away every single one of those rights without so much as a twitch

Let me do this last favor for you, then I'm going to stop posting.

1) See, and you THINK it is. You can't just hold up a sign saying, "I hate America" instead of burning a symbol that represents our country while in said country?

On point 1, we disagree, no one is dead, the world isn't going to end if you can burn a flag, nor will it end if you can't. And we don't need to throw bottles at eachother.

2) Again, we disagree. The actual correct answer the this question is probably a little of both sides. And if either side won on this issue...again, the world will go on.

3) Doing the same to Moore is still doing it. It doesn't matter if you think he is a pompous ass because of his beliefs. It doesn't give you the right to attack him because he used his freedom of speach, that's what the fucking Nazis did, don't you get it? It doesn't matter what side you're doing it to, it's the fact you're doing it.

4) You're leaving out the part where they didn't have a permit for a demonstration. You do know you need to contact the local authorities and get a permit so that the police can be there to protect them from people like you who would throw bottles at them? You do know they need that permit so that the demonstration does not hinder everyone elses freedom of movement, or their freedom not to see the demonstration if they don't want to? You do understand, that the people at that public place had a permit and did not want their freedom of speach hindered by some people who oppossed their view?

And finally, you do understand how the world doesn't revolve around your point of view and that others with differing points of view have just as much right to express it without people bugging them as you do?

Good luck and grow up.

Let me do this last favor for you, then I'm going to stop posting.

1) See, and you THINK it is. You can't just hold up a sign saying, "I hate America" instead of burning a symbol that represents our country while in said country?

On point 1, we disagree, no one is dead, the world isn't going to end if you can burn a flag, nor will it end if you can't. And we don't need to throw bottles at eachother.

2) Again, we disagree. The actual correct answer the this question is probably a little of both sides. And if either side won on this issue...again, the world will go on.

3) Doing the same to Moore is still doing it. It doesn't matter if you think he is a pompous ass because of his beliefs. It doesn't give you the right to attack him because he used his freedom of speach, that's what the fucking Nazis did, don't you get it? It doesn't matter what side you're doing it to, it's the fact you're doing it.

4) You're leaving out the part where they didn't have a permit for a demonstration. You do know you need to contact the local authorities and get a permit so that the police can be there to protect them from people like you who would throw bottles at them? You do know they need that permit so that the demonstration does not hinder everyone elses freedom of movement, or their freedom not to see the demonstration if they don't want to? You do understand, that the people at that public place had a permit and did not want their freedom of speach hindered by some people who oppossed their view?

And finally, you do understand how the world doesn't revolve around your point of view and that others with differing points of view have just as much right to express it without people bugging them as you do?

Good luck and grow up.

1) the POINT is it proves my point the republicans are trying to force their views of freedom of speech on the people, learn to read. and it will only get worse fi that goes through

3) again, learn to read, this time your own post. you are accuisng this of beign aliberal thing and if it was a liberal who did it no one would be complaining, no i would still complain, LEARN TO READ

4) when did just holding up signs count as demonstrating, you dont even know the facts surrounding the case, obvious in the fact you thought i was talknig about conventions

Let me do this last favor for you, then I'm going to stop posting.

1) See, and you THINK it is. You can't just hold up a sign saying, "I hate America" instead of burning a symbol that represents our country while in said country?

On point 1, we disagree, no one is dead, the world isn't going to end if you can burn a flag, nor will it end if you can't. And we don't need to throw bottles at eachother.Then you are accepting at least some restraints on freedom of expression.

3) Doing the same to Moore is still doing it. It doesn't matter if you think he is a pompous ass because of his beliefs. It doesn't give you the right to attack him because he used his freedom of speach, that's what the fucking Nazis did, don't you get it? It doesn't matter what side you're doing it to, it's the fact you're doing it.Bollocks. You're mixing up cause and effect. Many groups have used violence over the years- fascists, communists, liberals, conservatives, christians, jews, muslims, hindus etc. It's what lies behind the violence that defines an ideology, not the violence itself. And to argue otherwise shows a distinct lack of understanding of the nature of Nazism. Violence is neither inherently good or inherently evil. It's a tactic, and knee-jerk anti-violence is as pointless as beliving everything can be solved by it.

4) You're leaving out the part where they didn't have a permit for a demonstration. You do know you need to contact the local authorities and get a permit so that the police can be there to protect them from people like you who would throw bottles at them? You do know they need that permit so that the demonstration does not hinder everyone elses freedom of movement, or their freedom not to see the demonstration if they don't want to? You do understand, that the people at that public place had a permit and did not want their freedom of speach hindered by some people who oppossed their view?So you only think free speech should be allowed if the authorities decide to permit it?

And finally, you do understand how the world doesn't revolve around your point of view and that others with differing points of view have just as much right to express it without people bugging them as you do?
Apart from those of us who believe that sometimes violence is necessary, because our views are irrelevant to you.

Saw it - it was pretty good.

It was too rowdy in my house and I didn't get to pay close attention though so I need to see it again.

O'Rielly certainly is an ass though. "I've only used the 'shut up' line 1 time", O'Rielly says. HAHAHAHAH then they show him saying "shut up" a million times. Yeah, we can believe what that guy says.

You shouldn't add stuff to people's quotes like that it will confuse other people that are reading this thread.

Anyway, the BBC is very baised, if you can't see that then you're setting yourself up for being lied to and misled.

You added that kids get blown up by angry Iraqi's. That's not true, for two reasons. 1) Most of the people we've captured from the Insurgency are from outside Iraq...hense the word "Insurgency". I've captured some myself so don't bother telling me I'm lying. And 2) There haven't been any school bombings.

France and Russia were wrong too...you see they thought the Iraqi's had WMD too. All you have to do is look back on News Stories from before 2001, also a recent report that stated Russia warned us of Iraqi WMDs just before we invaded because they thought they had some insider info.

i am sorry for making my post confusing and will edit it leater

however.......

Point 1) I was unawer of this but it does not afect my argument. People in Iraq are in danger of geting killed by enermy combatent.

Point 2) Can you say no children have been killed due to this war or it aftermath? My point is that they are in danger of being killed.

Point 3) France and Russia wanted more time for the inseptors to establish what capability Iraq had. In my view they were right to allow the inspectors DO THERE JOB. It would have proved that Iraq had no WMD. That is how i belive thay were right.

Point 4) maby the BBC is baised, i dont know. however it makes no clame of being unbaised. UNLIKE FOX. Also the BBC suports no political party therefore it is politicaly unbaised. Fox suports the republican party.

yeah the BBC is definitely biased against right wing propaghanda