NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, no link as it's behind a subscription wall and I only got it because I have access to Lexis/Nexis through my job at a university. But I'll post an extended excerpt here.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not generally a fan of Nicholas Kristof's writing--I think he's pompous and condescending most of the time. But in this column, I think he's absolutely right.
After I suggested in last Sunday's column that a better way to honor the season might be to stand up to genocide in Darfur (a calamity that Mr. O'Reilly has ignored), Mr. O'Reilly denounced me on his show as a ''left-wing ideologue.'' Bless you, Mr. O'Reilly, and Merry Christmas to you, too!

Later in the show, Mr. O'Reilly described us print journalists in general as ''a bunch of vicious S.O.B.'s.'' Bless you again, Mr. O'Reilly; I'll pray harder for the Christmas spirit to soften your pugnacious soul.

Look, I put up a ''Christmas tree,'' rather than a ''holiday tree,'' and I'm sure Mr. O'Reilly is right that political correctness leads to absurd contortions this time of year. But when you've seen what real war does, you don't lightly use the word to describe disagreements about Christmas greetings. And does it really make sense to offer 58 segments on political correctness and zero on genocide?

Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to religious hypocrites because I've spent a chunk of time abroad watching Muslim versions of Mr. O'Reilly -- demagogic table-thumpers who exploit public religiosity as a cynical ploy to gain attention and money. And I always tell moderate Muslims that they need to stand up to blustery blowhards -- so today, I'm taking my own advice.

Like the fundamentalist Islamic preachers, Mr. O'Reilly is a talented showman, and my sense is that his ranting is a calculated performance. The couple of times I've been on his show, he was mild mannered and amiable until the camera light went on -- and then he burst into aggrieved indignation, because he knew it made good theater.

If Mr. O'Reilly wants to find a Christmas cause, he should invite guests from Catholic Relief Services, World Vision or the National Association of Evangelicals -- among the many faith-based organizations that are doing heroic work battling everything from river blindness to sex trafficking. Indeed, the real victims of Mr. O'Reilly are the authentic religious conservatives, because some viewers falsely assume that ill-informed bombast characterizes the entire religious right....

Some authentic religious conservatives are embarrassed by television phonies. Cal Thomas, the conservative Christian columnist, warned: ''The effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a 'Merry Christmas' might be more objectionable to the One who is the reason for the season than the 'Happy Holidays' mantra required by some store managers.''

So I have a challenge for Mr. O'Reilly: If you really want to defend traditional values, then come with me on a trip to Darfur. I'll introduce you to mothers who have had their babies clubbed to death in front of them, to teenage girls who have been gang-raped and then mutilated -- and to the government-armed thugs who do these things.

You'll have to leave your studio, Bill. You'll encounter pure evil. If you're like me, you'll be scared. If you try to bully some of the goons in Darfur, they'll just hack your head off. But you'll also meet some genuine conservative Christians -- aid workers who live the Gospel instead of sputtering about it -- and you'll finally be using your talents for an important cause.

So, Bill, what'll it be? Will you dare travel to a real war against Christmas values, in which the victims aren't offended shoppers but terrified children thrown on bonfires? I'm waiting to hear.
I especially like that Kristof draws a clear delineation between the so-called christian conservatives that O'Reilly purports to represent, and the actual christians who are out there risking their necks to make the world a better place.

I imagine O'Reilly will be taking Kristof up on his challenge right about never.

Bill O'Reilly is a loudmouth jerk anyway. Whoever listens to him has serious issues.

O'Reilly's just a television personality; sometimes I seriously wonder if he intentionally created this persona for his show, kind of like an actor. He's big on talk but not on substance.

Let the left and right anihilate each other for all i care! :mp5:
The libertarians will then rise from their defeat.

Excellent article, Nazz.

O'Reilly's just a television personality; sometimes I seriously wonder if he intentionally created this persona for his show, kind of like an actor. He's big on talk but not on substance.

... you only wonder _sometimes_? :p

Media wars! I love 'em. Good fun. :cool:

Elgesh']... you only wonder _sometimes_? :p

I stop wondering when I change the channel on him...

O'Reilly's just a television personality; sometimes I seriously wonder if he intentionally created this persona for his show, kind of like an actor. He's big on talk but not on substance.
If that really is the case, then Mr. O'Reilly is a notable disgrace to his chosen field of endeavour.

Let the left and right anihilate each other for all i care! :mp5:
The libertarians will then rise from their defeat.
You are the right. Or have you forgotten what your stance on the economic axis is?

You are the right. Or have you forgotten what your stance on the economic axis is?
Yeah, that's a complete picture of American politics. I know you know better.

Bill O'Reilly is a loudmouth jerk anyway. Whoever listens to him has serious issues.
The Nazz sure listens to him enough. I think it's addling his brain.

Yeah, that's a complete picture of American politics. I know you know better.
Hey, if someone makes an inane post wishing the death of two groups of people, when they fall into one of those groups, I'm going to point that out. If anyone doesn't have a complete picture of American politics, it's Super-Power.

If that really is the case, then Mr. O'Reilly is a notable disgrace to his chosen field of endeavour.
That really depends on what you consider him. Is he a journalist? Okay, then he's lousy. Is he an entertainer? In that case, he isn't half bad. Opinions are worth what you pay for them and I'm not going to buy cable to get his.

That really depends on what you consider him. Is he a journalist? Okay, then he's lousy. Is he an entertainer? In that case, he isn't half bad. Opinions are worth what you pay for them and I'm not going to buy cable to get his.
I think his audience is composed mostly of people who are outraged over what he says. I've never watched him, nor do I plan to. But people like Nazz seem to get an adrenaline rush from listening to him screech, so go figure.

Hey, if someone makes an inane post wishing the death of two groups of people, when they fall into one of those groups, I'm going to point that out. If anyone doesn't have a complete picture of American politics, it's Super-Power.
Can you wrap your mind around the idea that a spectrum with two "wings" doesn't fly for everybody?
I've known him a while now on NS, and he can't accurately be described as "right wing", or any wing for that matter. Neither can I.

Can you wrap your mind around the idea that a spectrum with two "wings" doesn't fly for everybody?
I've known him a while now on NS, and he can't accurately be described as "right wing", or any wing for that matter. Neither can I.
Yes, I can. Right-wing, however, is properly used to refer to one's position on the economic axis. Under that definition, he would be right-wing. Like it or not, that's the correct definition for the term.

I imagine O'Reilly will be taking Kristof up on his challenge right about never.
About Darfur? Well, getting the UN to move on it would be a bit hard. Yet that seems to be Mr. Kristof's line of inquiry. I wonder when the UN will do anything. Oh, that's right, not any fucking time soon. Besides of course, the meaningless paper trail. I don't see him denouncing france for their blocking actions, or China. Instead it's all Bush this and Bush that. Of course, the quickest way to stop the violence would be to annihilate the Janjaweed and ground all of Sudan's air power, which we could do pretty fucking easily without too much usage of resources, but of course that makes too much sense.

About Darfur? Well, getting the UN to move on it would be a bit hard. Yet that seems to be Mr. Kristof's line of inquiry. I wonder when the UN will do anything. Oh, that's right, not any fucking time soon. Besides of course, the meaningless paper trail. I don't see him denouncing france for their blocking actions, or China. Instead it's all Bush this and Bush that. Of course, the quickest way to stop the violence would be to annihilate the Janjaweed and ground all of Sudan's air power, which we could do pretty fucking easily without too much usage of resources, but of course that makes too much sense.

Just send those brand spankin' new F-22's over...

Hm, does any one else get the feeling that Nicholas Kristof is somewhat interested in Darfur? I know, he was really subtle abouDARFURt it, but if you DARFUR read between the lines, you stDARFURart to notice things like DARFUR that.DARFUR

Anyway, anyone who watches Bill O'Reilly is wasting their time. Sure, the man is crazy, but Michael Savage is 18 times the crazy and you don't actually have to watch his facial contortions.

I think his audience is composed mostly of people who are outraged over what he says. I've never watched him, nor do I plan to. But people like Nazz seem to get an adrenaline rush from listening to him screech, so go figure.
I've told you before, DK--I don't listen to him. I read the occasional transcript, but I don't listen to him. It's painful to do so.

I just get a kick out of seeing him make as ass out of himself on such a regular basis.:D

If that really is the case, then Mr. O'Reilly is a notable disgrace to his chosen field of endeavour.


Huh?

He's a "news" channel talk show huckster, perhaps the most successful at his "chosen field of endeavour."

Huh?

He's a "news" channel talk show huckster, perhaps the most successful at his "chosen field of endeavour."
Perhaps to properly make the grade as a right wing ranting head he needs to have a sex change and go on a crash diet before writing a couple of poorly argued books?

I see that it is not just the taints on MSNBC who think thye need to target Bill O'reilly. I guess everybody needs a hobby.

Let the left and right anihilate each other for all i care! :mp5:
The libertarians will then rise from their defeat.


Hmm all libertarians are centrists?

There are no centrist repubs or demos?

Hmmmmm

Instead it's all Bush this and Bush that. Of course, the quickest way to stop the violence would be to annihilate the Janjaweed and ground all of Sudan's air power, which we could do pretty fucking easily without too much usage of resources, but of course that makes too much sense.

Ok the shrub said Iraq was basically a humanitarian cause by eliminating a bad man.

So what's different about Dafur?

Hmm all libertarians are centrists?

There are no centrist repubs or demos?

Hmmmmm
Don't bother with it. I already did this, and look where that got me.

I see that it is not just the taints on MSNBC who think thye need to target Bill O'reilly. I guess everybody needs a hobby.
That and you need a better one. So far you're posting sophomoric, playground-grade taunting. At this point, your posts might rate in the "novice" to "amateur" rating.
Sure enough though if you keep up in your hobby someone will want to listen to you and argue with you for money, too.

I especially like that Kristof draws a clear delineation between the so-called christian conservatives that O'Reilly purports to represent, and the actual christians who are out there risking their necks to make the world a better place.
As do I.

You're scaring me; you're actually starting to make sense! :D

As do I.

You're scaring me; you're actually starting to make sense! :D
Having been watching since 2003, i'd say that you, Eutrusca, are coming more and more to terms with the actual situation we're in ... and although you have some prominent conservative views, most of yours don't appear to be the irrational fascist kind of bilge that many of the spewcraft inundate the airwaves and a few of the posts here with.

Ok the shrub said Iraq was basically a humanitarian cause by eliminating a bad man.

So what's different about Dafur?
well, Darfur is happening now. Saddam was genocidal about a decade ago (not to say he wasn't doing horrible things since then...just refering to the genocide)
Also, we went in on different terms. Maybe humanitarian was part of it...maybe not. I personally don't recall that being part of it at the start, but I could be wrong.

Additionally, we could be doing something about Darfur, at the very least economically or politically, if not militarily.

Don't bother with it. I already did this, and look where that got me.
What, you missed the memo that everything can and will be labled only in extremes?

How many people watch that twit because they hate him and want to see what abomination will spew from his lips next?

The beautiful sweet irony is that if everyone who disliked him stopped watching him, it would probably put a large enough dent in his ratings to make him GO AWAY!!!

Hehehe.

http://www.billoreilly.com/blog#8136247634035887

He responded! And ignored the offer to go to Darfur, then repeated his talking points and completely missing the point.

http://www.billoreilly.com/blog#8136247634035887

He responded! And ignored the offer to go to Darfur, then repeated his talking points and completely missing the point.
So he'll probably invite Kristof onto his show, where he can offer to maim him in his usual bellicose, infantile fashion.

Not to sound too off topic or anything, but he actually had a pretty good interview with Rumsfeld the other day.

Not to sound too off topic or anything, but he actually had a pretty good interview with Rumsfeld the other day.
Rumsfeld is the sort of character that you want to interview. As a person, he actually seems kinda likable, and there's always something to talk about with him.

It's strange, I hate the man's policies with all my guts, but I think if I had to meet anyone of the US Leadership, I'd want it to be Rummy.

Not to sound too off topic or anything, but he actually had a pretty good interview with Rumsfeld the other day.
So did NPR. They asked pointed questions .... and he responded as i've come to expect a neoconsucker responded, with the whole shifting-value non-answer answers.

Hey, i found it!! Bob bless the internet!!!

*ahem* (excerpts)

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Radio Interview with Melissa Block, NPR

BLOCK: You know that after the elections last year in January there was a wave of attacks, and insurgent attacks lately have seemed to be growing more lethal, deadlier, more sophisticated. Would you anticipate the same thing after these elections, and wouldn't that complicate these plans for withdrawal?
SEC. RUMSFELD:
Well, who knows? We'll see what happens as we go forward. The conditions on the ground the President has pointed out, will be what will determine the level of forces that are required and the success of the Iraqi security forces. I mean it's their country. Over time they're going to have to provide the security in that country and the only question is at what pace will that occur? I must say, I've been very encouraged in seeing the success that the Iraqi security forces are having. I think they're notably stronger, they're larger, for sure, but the critical element is not just size. It's also leadership and the relationship between the police and the army, and the relationship between the intelligence community and the army, so that all of those pieces, logistics, all those things that have to come together for a competent capability, army with a capability to do the tough job they're facing. All of those things have to work and we're working on them all.

BLOCK: You mentioned a question about the pace of all of this. Do you have a timeline in the back of your mind?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, we know --

BLOCK: In the front of your mind?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Sure. We know roughly the rate at which the Iraqi security forces have grown, from zero to 220,000 right now, I suppose, and they're headed up to a much higher number and we know how long it takes to train them and so forth.
What you can't know precisely is the soft things. Not how much equipment they have or how many troops there are, but how's the leadership? How are the non-commissioned officers? How are the junior officers? Is there a rib cage to that structure that will enable it to have leadership reflected down? Is the ministry strong enough to assure a competent chain of command? Those are the kinds of things that you can't quantify as such, and yet they're every bit as important as numbers. (ED- we know what we know ...)

BLOCK: It seems to me there's another complication here. We've been talking about the Iraqi army, the police, but there are any number of other security forces that come into play here. There are Interior Ministry squads that are running prisons where we now know that prisoners have been tortured. There are rogue militias that are going around in uniform abducting and killing Iraqi civilians. What do you do about those?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, you say, what do you do? The question is, what do the Iraqis do. It's their country. They obviously are doing, with respect to the first point you made about these prisons, they're conducting an intensive investigation into the information that they've been provided, and they've announced publicly that they're going to hold people accountable for any wrongdoing in connection with the management of those prisons. And they're going to train people to conduct proper prisons, which is exactly what they ought to be doing.

BLOCK: But doesn't the U.S. play some role in that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, apparently the U.S. has discovered that this was going on and reported it. The next step is that the embassy has indicated that they are part of an Iraqi team that is going out to investigate each one of them and then report back to the Iraqi government. To the extent they ask us to assist with training people in terms of managing detention facilities, obviously we'd be happy to be helpful. But these were all, as I understand it, Iraqi operations which clearly needed to be investigated.

BLOCK: And do those also complicate then the plans for U.S. withdrawal?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You know, every one of your questions is looking at something that's a problem, and I'll tell you, we could have this program go on for 15 hours and discuss problems in a country like that. Life is far from perfect. (ED- How sage!)
I would say one thing, the election that just took place was historic. The turnout was enormous. The security situation controlled by the Iraqi security forces was done brilliantly, and the people for the first time had a chance to vote for somebody that they want to put in public office and the votes are being counted and tabulated, and that is an enormous achievement. The Iraqi people have every right to be proud of it and to develop confidence from it that they may very well be able to have a piece of paper, a constitution, that will keep them from fighting each other or imposing their will on each other. The only thing that kept them from doing that in the past was a very dictatorial repressive regime that put hundreds of thousands of people into mass graves. (ED- flags wave, ribbons on)
I was with somebody the other day who's an expert on the country and he said you know, the situation in Iraq is just terrible, but it's never been better. You might want to think about that. (ED- I might think you made it up. Post his name!)
(ED-HERE'S where he can't take it anymore.)
You seem to think the glass is half empty. (ED - spin or what?)
I would say that, depending on your perspective, if you're an Iraqi looking at it and you saw all the schools open, you saw 100 new newspapers, you saw 44 radio stations and dozens of television stations, and you saw clinics functioning, people not being killed and put in mass graves, not sponsoring terrorism, you'd probably look at it a little different than you look at it and you might say to yourself, my gosh, things are a lot better. We just have our own constitution, we just voted for it; we're now putting our own people in office; they're out there politicking, they're arguing, they're debating, they're discussing. That's a thrilling thing to see! (ED- flag wave, ribbons on)

BLOCK: There are also a large number of Iraqis, a majority I think, who would like to see U.S. troops out very quickly.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well of course, so would the majority of Americans. So would I. I don't know what you think about it, but the goal is not to stay over there. There are a bunch of people running around telling lies and saying oh, my goodness, they're there to get their oil, or they're there to stay there forever and occupy the country. That's utter nonsense.
The United States went in there to do what we did, to replace that regime, and to turn that country back over to the Iraqi people, and that's what's going to happen. That's what the Iraqis want, that's what the Americans want, and that's what's going to happen, and that country is going to be vastly better off for it.

BLOCK: Let me ask you this. President Bush called Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but of course it was Osama bin Laden who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa -- not in Iraq, in Afghanistan. What's happened to the hunt for bin Laden and why isn't that the central front in the war on terror?
(ED-note that he doesn't actually answer this pointed and ACCURATE question)
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, you go to the FBI Most Wanted list and you'll see people who have been on there for 10, 15, 20 years. It's very hard to find a single individual.
What we do know is the hunt for bin Laden and for Zawahiri, his number two, and for Mullah Omar, goes on. Pressure is being put on them. If bin Laden's alive, and he very likely is, he probably spends about 9/10ths of his day trying not to be discovered, and he certainly isn't functioning very effectively. And an awful lot of wonderful people are out trying to find him. And he's hiding.
Now, is he able to conduct al-Qaida's -- mastermind al-Qaida? I don't know. He may be still giving general orders, but I doubt if he's in day-to-day command of that operation. And it hasn't ever stopped, the look for bin Laden, and you must know that.
(ED - EVEN BETTER time for that "we know what we know ..." speech he gave.)
BLOCK: Is Iraq, though, a distraction from that hunt?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Iraq is the central front of the global war on terror.
Look, you have to appreciate that in this world there are a lot of Muslims, and there are a handful, a very small number, not millions, but thousands, who are violent extremists, who are determined to reestablish a caliphate in this world stretching from Indonesia through the Middle East, and to reject the role of women in their societies and to reject the West, and to conduct a clerical type government that tells everyone in that country how they must live their lives.
Now, they're not going to surrender. They're determined to do that. And the United States, the way of life of the American people would be dramatically altered if we allowed that to happen. And they are determined to have Iraq and to use that as their launching point.
(ED- WTF? That's where we want them to be, you think they're just gonna fill in? Besides, IT WASN'T THE IRAQIS WHO ATTACKED US, IT WAS THE SAUDIS!)
And to the extent they're successful, ours will be a dark world, let there be no doubt. And to the extent they fail, it will be a much brighter world. You'll have a democracy in an important country, a country that has oil and water, that has an important history and will be an example of democracy for other countries in the region.
BLOCK: Secretary Rumsfeld, thanks for your time.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you.

(Dec. 16, 2005)

Well i didn't take much out. I added the (ED-) part, obviously.
N'joy.

And if i were Neu Leonstein, i should hope i don't get the wet noodle bidet that this interview turned out to be. :(

*bump*

O'Reilly is the right's Moore. They should both be shot.

to stand up to genocide in Darfur (a calamity that Mr. O'Reilly has ignored),

Huhhh this is 100% false. He's been reporting on it. He's constently called the UN on the carpet for ignoring this so I have to wonder what else he got wrong in this article.

BTW: This is an editorial :rolleyes:

Ok the shrub said Iraq was basically a humanitarian cause by eliminating a bad man.

So what's different about Dafur?

Apparently nothing since the UN didn't go into Iraq this time around and they sure aren't doing it in Darfur. Go figure. So much for the Genocide Convention.

I especially like that Kristof draws a clear delineation between the so-called christian conservatives that O'Reilly purports to represent, and the actual christians who are out there risking their necks to make the world a better place.

NOw how did I miss this?

Care to tell me where he represents the so-called Christian (yes with a capital C) conservatives? I have never heard him say that he does.

Additionally, we could be doing something about Darfur, at the very least economically or politically, if not militarily.

How would you do it Economically? They are already in dire economic straights for the most part.

O'Reilly is the right's Moore. They should both be shot.

Actually, Ann Coulter is the Right's Moore.

Actually, Ann Coulter is the Right's Moore.

O'Reilly is more like the Right's Al Franken, but without the funny.

O'Reilly is more like the Right's Al Franken, but without the funny.

Actually, O'Reilly has said truthful things against both sides of the aisle.

Actually, O'Reilly has said truthful things against both sides of the aisle.
I think I'll need some tutoring here...

The Right has Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

The Left has Michael Moore (who doesn't have a column, a show or anything like that I don't think).
Are there any other actual Leftish people in the US media, and do they have websites I can read?

Actually, O'Reilly has said truthful things against both sides of the aisle.

Yeah, sometimes his editors miss those truthful things. He retracts them though.

While looking at the Bill O'Reily blog i found this http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle which compares the Democratic Party to Fascists and as we all know, when a debate devolves to calling one a Fascist or Nazi the one who has been attacked in such a manner has won. I believe Bill O'Reily just lost all future debates! :D

In reality, I think that this 'War on Christmas protrayed by the neo-cons and 'conservative christians' is bullsh*t. i am a Liberal who also happens to be a Catholic. I am not offended by anyone saying Merry Christmas yet also do not care if people prefer Happy Holidays. Why might the right wing ask? Well it shows religious tolerance and acceptance for the other religions who celebrate holidays in the same season. Now if the neo-cons want to not tolerate the minorities and other religious groups by saying Merry Christma then all the better for them, it just makes you seem more ignorant and oppressive.

Yeah, sometimes his editors miss those truthful things. He retracts them though.

Actually, he only retracts falsehoods and not the truth. Apparently you don't watch enough of his show.

Also, this NYT reporter probably never watched O'Reilly otherwise he would know that Bill has reported on Darfur and on more than one occassion.

I think I'll need some tutoring here...

The Right has Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

The Left has Michael Moore (who doesn't have a column, a show or anything like that I don't think).
Are there any other actual Leftish people in the US media, and do they have websites I can read?

You honestly don't know about Al Franken and Air America?

That really depends on what you consider him. Is he a journalist? Okay, then he's lousy. Is he an entertainer? In that case, he isn't half bad. Opinions are worth what you pay for them and I'm not going to buy cable to get his.

As an entertainer Cedric is better. At least Franken understands the concept of humor.

Can you wrap your mind around the idea that a spectrum with two "wings" doesn't fly for everybody?
I've known him a while now on NS, and he can't accurately be described as "right wing", or any wing for that matter. Neither can I.
Yeah, I hear a lot of talk about how different Libertarians are from Republicans, but their actions are entirely on the economic axis. Libertarians tend to vote for authoritarian right-wingers over socially-libertarian economic-moderates. In fact as I understand it a majority of Libertarians voted for that corporate-welfare, fiscal-hemhorage neo-con idiot Bush. Kerry and Gore may not have been hot tickets, but Jesus Christ!

So I'm not really that interested where the Libertarian Party claims to be on their own chart...

Actually, he only retracts falsehoods and not the truth. Apparently you don't watch enough of his show.




Anything past the opening credits is too much of his show for intelligent, sane people....


But you keep on watching for us.


I'm sure you'll learn lots from him.

Maybe humanitarian was part of it...maybe not. I personally don't recall that being part of it at the start, but I could be wrong.

Pretty much all the reasons given for the Iraq war at the start were either lies, distortions, or intentional intelligence lapses. The humanitarian and "spreading democracy" argument was not played up much if at all. It was and is completely inconsistent with the policy of the Bush administration.

I haven't really seen an argument to replace the 'clear and growing danger' fib that was perpetrated at the start. The rationale now seems to be, "We're there. You can't stop us. Fuck you."

----------------------------------------------
Has anybody noticed how Bush is a better talker when he's saying something vengeful, mean, or arrogant. I mean maybe he's just not a good actor. Now Reagan could fake kindness and compassion with the best of them.

O'Reilly is the right's Moore. They should both be shot.
Not shot, just ignored. Moore night be able to get jobs as a cinematographer; his name would be in the credits in small print. O'Reilly... he'd probably end up in a tenement with a crack whore living off of welfare. Maybe if he's as tough as he thinks he is he could take up a career of robbery.

Cool.

Actually, Ann Coulter is the Right's Moore.
I don't think Moore has Coulter's delusion of attractiveness. My God at least Moore doesn't dress skimpy for his cover shots. My aunt Alice may be kind of pretty, but I don't want to see her thighs up to there! I certainly don't want to get that close to seeing Coulter's taint!!!!!!!!!!! :(

I certainly don't want to get that close to seeing Coulter's taint!!!!!!!!!!! :(
Or maybe close enough to see where she's tucking it back and taping it down? :eek:

Anything past the opening credits is too much of his show for intelligent, sane people....


But you keep on watching for us.


I'm sure you'll learn lots from him.

At least he actually reports stories and has people that represents both sides on his program.

I don't think Moore has Coulter's delusion of attractiveness. My God at least Moore doesn't dress skimpy for his cover shots. My aunt Alice may be kind of pretty, but I don't want to see her thighs up to there! I certainly don't want to get that close to seeing Coulter's taint!!!!!!!!!!! :(

I'll agree with you there though I do not know about your Aunt Alice but I sure as hell don't want to see Moore dress skimply.

You honestly don't know about Al Franken and Air America?
I just had a look at this website...is he actually employed by anyone? And who owns this Air America station (to which I'm listening to over the web, and all I get is ads)?

At least he actually reports stories and has people that represents both sides on his program.
Tell me you don't actually believe what you post. Please, tell me that you're a paid shill, or that someone in the administration has pictures of you in flagrante delicto with a goat, or that there's some other reason that you post these ridiculous statements. Anything other than that you actually believe it.

I wouldn't look down on you, I swear. People have to earn a living. Some people like goats a lot. But if you actually believe this crap you post? Damn.

Tell me you don't actually believe what you post. Please, tell me that you're a paid shill, or that someone in the administration has pictures of you in flagrante delicto with a goat, or that there's some other reason that you post these ridiculous statements. Anything other than that you actually believe it.

I wouldn't look down on you, I swear. People have to earn a living. Some people like goats a lot. But if you actually believe this crap you post? Damn.

I just happen to track down what he says. I know for a fact that he has his own beef with the administration, especially when it comes to border control. He's yelled at both the right and left on his program and both sides think he's a mouth piece for the other. His email segment is proof of that.

I listen to what he says yes! I also track down his stories and see what everyone is saying on the issue and form my own opinions on those stories. I do not believe everything h e is saying just like I don't believe everything the press as a whole is saying.

Anyone who actually believes the press 24/7 is a fool and needs to have their heads examined.

At least he actually reports stories and has people that represents both sides on his program.
Then it'll certainly be interesting to see what he has to say about Jon Stewart's rant on the "War On Christmas" special they've been running - the response to O'Reilly's oh-so-casual "slip of the tongue" about "Secular .. whoops, Comedy Central."
I doubt there's enough integral fibre in O'Reilly's being to take it like a man.

Tell me you don't actually believe what you post. Please, tell me that you're a paid shill, or that someone in the administration has pictures of you in flagrante delicto with a goat, or that there's some other reason that you post these ridiculous statements. Anything other than that you actually believe it.

I wouldn't look down on you, I swear. People have to earn a living. Some people like goats a lot. But if you actually believe this crap you post? Damn.
Hahaha *flort*
Congrats on hitting your new postcount title.

BTW, some other thread was saying O'Reilly is actually AGAINST the death penalty.
:eek:

Then it'll certainly be interesting to see what he has to say about Jon Stewart's rant on the "War On Christmas" special they've been running - the response to O'Reilly's oh-so-casual "slip of the tongue" about "Secular .. whoops, Comedy Central."
I doubt there's enough integral fibre in O'Reilly's being to take it like a man.

I don't watch Jon Stewart nor do I intend to watch Jon Stewart. I'd rather get my news from CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the Washington Post.

BTW, some other thread was saying O'Reilly is actually AGAINST the death penalty.
:eek:

Yes he is. He even said that last night.

I don't watch Jon Stewart nor do I intend to watch Jon Stewart. I'd rather get my news from CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the Washington Post.
I don't get my news from him. Remember what you said about getting your head examined?
I think he does the best (overt) parody of anyone i would watch on cable.
I've liked him since his short stint with MTV.
I sure as f*ck don't expect him to tell me "the truth". I expect that when they're being facetious, YOU MIGHT TAKE A CLUE FROM THE AUDIENCE. Or Jon himself. Or any of the other dudes/dudettes making a presentation. They aren't insidious like, say .... FOX. Or "Flush". Or the Leprechaun. Or "Psycho" Weiner. Or .... or ....

Seriously though, you'd gain some perspective, methinks, by viewing a few episodes, Corny. You might come to understand a few things about media.
If nothing else, watch the "War on Christmas" segment they keep repeating.

Trust me. :D

Yes he is. He even said that last night.
Well good thing a person can count on his word. :rolleyes:

I'd rather get my news from CNN.
:eek:
The Clinton News Network??
Gasp!! Gasp!!

:eek:
The Clinton News Network??
Gasp!! Gasp!!

You mean CNN is run by and/or only reports on Bill Clinton?!

GASP! GASP!!:eek:

You mean CNN is run by and/or only reports on Bill Clinton?!

GASP! GASP!!:eek:
That's what my brother in law says! Everytime he flips the channel to it and watches it!!!
By the way, his middle name IS Clinton!!
I think that's why he takes it personally! That, and he's one of the many, MANY conservative creationists who apparently hasn't bothered to look up the veracity of the things he supposedly is taking a stand against. *sigh*
Other than that he's a good guy.