Monday, December 31, 2007
Romney's speech, Bill (you know, that "please don't hate me because I'm a Mormon" speech he gave recently), while it may not have been as blatant as some of his other missives, was nothing but another blatant attempt on his part to ingratiate. And if that wasn't bad enough, bro, he basically excluded millions of others (non-believers) from his obviously focus-grouped paradigm. Yeah, Bill, he didn't just "fail to mention" atheists in his speech. He went out of his way to eliminate them as meaningful participants in modern American democracy. That, me-bucko (and, yeah, I think if I got you drunk you'd probably agree with me) was well, well, over the line. Even for a neocon, I'm saying....................................P.S. I found it hilarious, Bill, that you would actually have the balls to say to your atheist guest, "I'm just getting tired of the whining." Tired of the whining? Bill, that's all you frigging do (well, that, and the fact that you infuse it with spite/intolerance) - NIGHT AFTER NIGHT!! I mean, talk about some irony, huh?
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
So, have you heard the latest buzz from the neocons? According to them, the infamous bunch of hoodlums that we've since come to know as "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (you know, that construct that never existed UNTIL WE invaded the country) has, because of the surge, been decimated. Mission accomplished, part 2, I guess is what they're going to call it. Well, guess what, friends? I've decided that, this time, I am going to take the bait. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, now that we've totally (allegedly) dismantled Al Qaeda (which was, after all, the stated reason for our staying there), there isn't any longer a reason for our being there. We can leave/ we won. Yippee, victory in Iraq!................................You see what I'm saying, right? If the Bush administration, after having made such a pronouncement, still maintains that we cannot leave Iraq, they're either going to have to admit that they lied 1) about Al Qaeda having been defeated or 2) that the reason for our continued presence was in fact to fight Al Qaeda in the first place. Bottom-line, folks, we ARE refereeing a civil war. What, pray tell, ELSE could it be? Oh, wait a minute, there's oil, huh? I forgot about that.
Friday, December 28, 2007
You say you want a stable Iraq, Bill? Well, I hate to tell you this, buddy, but, yo!, WE HAD A STABLE IRAQ!! I mean, granted, it was under the auspices of a scum-sucker by the name of Saddam Hussein but, really, how in the hell can you get more stable than that?..................................Actually, Bill, I'm beginning to think that only a person with a dictatorial posture CAN rule modern Iraq. This, I'm saying, in that Iraq, as we've come to know it isn't and never has been an actual (actual, as in formed and integrated organically, ala other countries) country but, rather, a by-product of lone British edict. Prior to that, it (not to mention it's warring tribal components) was under Turkish control. And while, yes, there may in fact have been a smidge of national sentiment resulting (this, I'm saying, despite the colonial and fascist influence), it's still basically going to be a free-for-all in the end............................Look, Bill, I know you told Congressman Paul that you, the great Bill O'Reilly, didn't need a history lesson but, seriously, bro, take a good, long look at that mess over there. That's the result of NOT knowing history, me-bucko, ignoring the past to spite the future, etc..
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The vilification of Saddam Hussein, damned if THAT hasn't become a full-time job, huh? I mean, sure, the guy was a total ass-hole but, come on. I especially love it how we're constantly inflating the death-toll the bastard levied over there; 200,000, 300,000, 500,000. It's like, why don't we just call it a billion and be done with it?...............................Of course, the fact that a large, large chunk of that was him putting down the Shia uprising that WE, the United States, encouraged after the first Gulf War....does, I'm saying, make it a tad more complicated. Well, that, and the fact that we "tilted" (oh hell, let's just admit it here folks, we armed the God-damned son-of-a-bitch!) toward him - you know, during the entire Iranian conflict...............................Not that that was necessarily a mistake, mind you. Or maybe it was. I don't know. I just don't know anymore.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
So, yeah, I guess I'm still not exactly sure what we're doing here. I mean, we're supposedly waging a war against Islamo-Fascism/Islamic Extremists/whatever the buzz-word of the moment is, right? This and, yet, who the hell do we frigging invade here BUT THE most secular regime in the region. Does that make any sense at all, folks? It sure as hell doesn't to me, me-buckos..................................And neither did it make sense, either, that whole ruse about Saddam giving his weapons to terrorists. This, I'm saying, in that that son-of-a-bitch wouldn't give as much as a pea-shooter to terrorists. I mean, seriously, that would be like Tweedy giving Sylvester the key to his bird-cage. Suicidal, in other words.
Monday, December 24, 2007
I'm telling you, folks, if I have to hear it even one more time; Sean Hannity's dissing of Al Gore and his private jet, I'm going to flat-out frigging die. It's like, even if Al Gore IS being a hypocrite here, I'm saying, does that alone obviate his message entirely? Of course, not (a person preaching against drugs while doing them - that doesn't mean that drugs are good, right?). And, besides, what the hell does he expect Gore to do, ride in coach? The secret service alone, I'm saying.................................I don't know, the way I see it here, nothing short of Al Gore (who I, I have to admit here folks, don't have much in terms of love for, either) fading into the woodwork will satisfy him. Now THAT'S a frigging ruse, for Christ! Don't ya' think?
Sunday, December 23, 2007
How 'bout Giuliani, though? He's pro-choice and, yet, he vows to nominate judges hell-bent on eliminating choice (strict constructionists, gee, that wasn't focus-grouped or anything, huh?). I mean, talk about equivocating, wanting it both ways, having your cake and eating it too, flip-flopping, talking out of both sides of your mouth, double-speak, covering your ass, touching all the bases, pandering, being disingenuous, selling out, and groveling, THIS is the epicenter of it all. But, no, O'Reilly, over there at Fox - he has the audacity to call John Edwards the phony. Incredible, huh?.................................P.S. And now Mitt Romney's been saying that he, too, marched with Martin Luther King. Yikes, huh? Of course, this is the same guy that's supposedly been a hunter all his life/ who couldn't even keep Guatemalans off of his own front lawn, for Christ! So, yeah, please, take it with a grain of salt, I'm saying.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
You say we need to use torture, Bill, to save American lives? Well, guess what, bro? It appears now that torture may have actually cost American lives. Yeah, that's right, a large chunk of that supposedly rock-solid intelligence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda, that was probably derived via torture in an Egyptian prison, Bill. Apparently, those terrorists simply told THEIR tormentors all the bull-crap American politicians wanted to hear. And, yes, me-bucko, because of this bull-crap DERIVED FROM TORTURE, nearly four thousand United States soldiers (who you claim to have so much compassion for) have lost their lives (never mind the thousands more maimed and disfigured). Of course, if it makes a bunch of sadistic bastards like you feel good about themselves, a hell of a lot more patriotic, etc...............................
Friday, December 21, 2007
I hate to burst your bubble, Bill, but those folks in Great Barrington can call THEIR Christmas lights whatever they want to call them. And, no, you can't do a damn thing about it, bro. As for the dissenters up there, if they don't like it, they have a little something you may have heard of. It's called voting. They also have the option of moving out of town (nobody's holding a gun to their head, as far as I can tell). In terms of tourists being offended, here, again, they, too, can vote with THEIR feet/ take a vacation elsewhere. I mean, you've just got to face it here, Bill. Not everyone on the planet completely shares your values. Just try and be a grown-up about it, O.K.? Damn!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
And, really, all those Machiavellian stratgies you've been conjuring up, they're almost comical. At the very least, they're contradictory. On the one hand, you always brag on the fact that 90% of the people in this country believe in God AND that 90% of those who do believe in God practice Christianity. This, I'm saying, but then you also say that a Presidential candidates experience as a minister, a Christian minister, is a liability - especially, that is, if the media plays it up. I mean, yeah, I know he's a fundamentalist but, damn, that's a hell of a voting-block, too, me-bucko.................................Of course, what I find most amusing is that you can't even decide whether the media's being easy or hard on him. It changes, ala the weather/ you....trying to figure out how to keep your story straight. And all because of an incapacity on your part to dial it down a notch. Poor, poor, pitiful you. Poor poor pitiful you.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
So, Newsweek is a far-left publication, huh? Gee, that's interesting, Bill. I guess that that then means that this "far-left" has a great deal of respect for Defense Secretary Gates, former Bush 1 Secretary of State Jim Baker, Senator chuck Hagel, former President Ford, etc................................Look, bro, you you got me on the New York Times. I never get a chance to read that paper and so, no, I don't know whether it's biased or not (doubtful it's as bad as you say....but whatever). I do, however, read Newsweek regularly. And, yes, only a complete and total idiot and/or con-man would have the audacity to say that those guys are a "far-left" publication...................................As for Huckabee being on the cover and the cover underscoring his religious faith, look at him!! He's frigging posing for the picture, dude! He's knows exactly what's going on (this self-proclaimed "Christian leader") and, yes, he's participating. Oh, and, Bill, it might have been a good idea to have actually read the article - you know, FIRST!!, before you opened your mouth, made a total idiot out of yourself, etc..
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Typical Bill O'Reilly - only hearing what he wants to hear. Yeah, that former C.I.A. officer did say that water-boarding provided actionable intelligence (this, I'm saying, despite the fact that he wasn't there when it happened and couldn't specifically say what the intelligence was). Of course, he also said that, in retrospect, it was in fact torture....and that, yes, we probably should refrain from it in the future. Such was his entire message, I'm saying. Too bad Mr. O'Reilly doesn't trust his audience (or should I call it his constituency?) with ALL the information - you know, so they could decide for themselves in the end.
Monday, December 17, 2007
F.Y.I., Bill, you don't have to be a far-left loon to recognize right-wing idiocy, the intellectual frailty of George W. Bush, etc.. I mean, just take me, for example. I've voted in eight presidential elections and guess, guess how many times I've voted Democratic. Twice. Yeah, let me say that again, twice. The other six times I've either voted Republican or Independent. So, no, when I say that the Bush administration has in fact been as corrupt/bankrupt as any, it's not exactly coming from the mouth of a radical...............................P.S. Nor, either, am I even remotely alone. It's like, what, what does he have now, a 28% approval rating or something? Oh well, at least he still has you and Barney, Laura on a good day and Cheney. Wow, talk about a goofy/steadfast constituency, huh?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Alright, here's the deal, Bill. I've seen Eugene Robinson many times. I've never read his column but I've heard him speak. Kind of like I've heard you speak, I'm saying. And, guess what, the individual is a hell of a lot more reasonable than you, big fellow. I mean, sure, the guy's politics may at times be a tad left-leaning but, really, he's not paranoid, he doesn't jump to absurd conclusions based on anecdotes, he's not a lackey for any individual politician (as you clearly are for Bush), he doesn't try and con his audience/ vilify his adversaries. He's essentially mainstream, for crying out loud! But, no, because he has the audacity to disagree with you, vilify! Absolutely incredible.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Neither will he stop at anything in his effort to marginalize homosexuality. This, in that he actually did a show on the following:..................................Apparently his crack "research" team was able to uncover a case in which a certain high-school class voted (drum-roll, please) a lesbian couple the "cutest couple" PERIOD. I mean talk about, BOOM!, hitting a raw nerve, giving Mr. O'Reilly a field day, etc.. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, right out of the blocks he starts with that mind-reading pose/crap of his, "They only voted for a lesbian couple to tweak the adults." That's right. He doesn't even consider it a possibility that these young people may in fact be sincere (not to mention more evolved than him/his bigoted mind-set). Only the most wretched motivation does Mr. O'Reilly see.................................Oh, and, get this, when his guest for the segment said that, "Thankfully, young people, especially, are far more accepting of homosexuals these days", damned if Mr. O'Reilly didn't start to self-destruct further. He actually had the balls to say, "You say thankfully, but a large segment of the population doesn't approve of the homosexual lifestyle. You shouldn't be so dismissive of them." The frigging guy is advocating intolerance, for Christ!..................................An, no, I'm not buying for an instant his distinction that, as opposed to race (for instance), homosexuality is behavior/conduct. Homosexuality isn't any less of a human trait than eye-color, damn it!! It's like, what, homosexuals are tolerable....but only when they don't engage in homosexual activity? That's like saying that eyes of a different color shouldn't be permitted to see, allowed to do what THEY do naturally.................................What a jerk, huh?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Just to let you know, Bill, that positive press-coverage you say that Huckabee's been getting, apparently it's dissipating, bro. I mean, just this past week or so alone, I've learned that 1) Governor Huckabee advocated parole for a convicted rapist WHO, after he was in fact paroled, raped and murdered somebody and 2) back in 1992 (yeah, that's 92, not 82), he advocated quarantining A.I.D.s patients to keep them away from the rest of society. That's some pretty brutal stuff, huh?.............................Serious and, yet, I cannot wait to see how you're going to go about spinning this little sucker. It's like, are you going to posit that their strong liberal bias superseded said strategic sense - that they couldn't help themselves, in other words? OR, are you going to do a 180 on Huckabee's electability - saying that, yes, it now appears that the Democrats may indeed be fearful here, a fear, I'm saying, that necessitates such negativity? Oh hell, either way, it's going to be interesting. P.S. Of course, a third possibility is that you could just flat-out ignore it for a while, focus on a different set of liberal outrages. Recreate history, in other words!!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
I've got some news for you, Bill. As far as I know, there were no car-bombs that went off in Karbala today..................................There, ya' happy? I just gave you some good news (well, actually more of a non-event, the absence of bad news). Of course, I should probably inform you of some other non-catastrophic events that happened (i. e., didn't happen); no bank-robberies in Waterbury, Connecticut, no tornadoes in Topeka, Kansas, no kidnappings in Syracuse, New York. It's like, talk about a cup runneth over, huh?...............................Seriously, though, Bill, wars, whether the war was started by a Democrat or a Republican, have always, ALWAYS, been about casualties. I mean, sure, we'd like the coverage to be coupled with depth, context, and analysis and NOT be merely a body count (a criteria that most of the coverage I've seen has in fact met - O'Reilly's protestations to the contrary). But, no, to merely say that something DIDN'T happen, that's not journalism, bro.................................P.S. CNN and MSNBC HAVE reported on the lessened violence in Iraq. They've reported it, because I've seen it. Of course, they do tend to wait til the end of a month before they report on the casualties OF THAT MONTH!! I don't know, something to do about getting an accurate number, I guess. Journalists, huh?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Alright, listen to this one. While O'Reilly does admit that Huckabee's press-coverage has in fact been favorable (this, yes, from what he considers to be a corrupt left-leaning media), still, his paranoia, it lingers. His explanation for the positive coverage? This media (according to him), so much so are the bulk of them rooting for Hillary, have seen in Huckabee a Republican unelectable....and it's because of this that they are rooting for him............................Of course, when presented with McCain's favorable press in 2000 (McCain, I'm saying, a Republican who COULD have won), O'Reilly, instead of acknowledging the inconsistency of his reasoning, proceeded yet again to "tailor" a response; "McCain's a maverick. The media loves mavericks."..............................Wow, huh? It's like, the press-corps just can't win with this guy. They only root for variable X, he says, except, he says, for when they root for variable Y. And it's always cynical of him, too - always, always cynical of him, I'm saying. Hell, I'll bet he even sees this stuff in his oatmeal, for Christ! Seriously!
Monday, December 10, 2007
"Typical liberal, always equivocating." He actually said that to somebody (Jane Hull, I think it was). Talk about chutzpah, huh? Where the hell does he get off(!), trying to pigeon-hole people like that? I mean, I would never use the word, "typical", to describe a conservative thinker. This, I'm saying, in that there are, what, libertarian conservatives, economic conservatives, cultural/religious conservatives, NEO-conservatives (worst of the worse, AKA)? Oh, and, yeah, as for this whole "equivocating" charge, seriously, Bill, you might want to try it yourself some time. Hell, if nothing else, it just might clear out the cob-webs for you................................P.S. And all because of a reluctance to echo Mr. O'Reilly's categorical certainty. Damned if THAT isn't pathetic, huh?
Friday, December 7, 2007
Oh, and yeah, then there's that whole, "the ACLU is trying to secularize America" bromide of his. Gee, that's not a wee-bit deceitful or anything, huh? I mean, seriously, all the ACLU is trying to do here (and he frigging knows this, the son-of-a-bitch) is keep religion and government-sponsored activities separate. It's like, sure, maybe from time to time they do overstep/ trivialize what IS in essence a noble endeavor. But if you listen to O'Reilly, I'm saying, one gets the impression that these people are trying to close down churches, convert people to atheism, etc.. It's preposterous, I'm telling you.................................P.S. Damned if it isn't typical, too, though, huh? This, I'm saying, in that 1) he's exaggerating, 2) he's impugning the integrity of his "adversaries", and 3) he's trying to scare his viewers. The ACLU? It's a legal voice, for Christ's sakes! Do I want to live in a country where EVERYTHING goes according to them? I don't know, probably not. I mean, I wouldn't want to live in a country where any ideal-type vision prevailed, Mr. O'Reilly's included. Can you even imagine that, though - stuck in "O'Reillyland, forever? Yikes, huh?
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The thing with you, Bill, you have no perspective (and, no, I'm not talking in terms of the piddly stuff here; O.J. Simpson being one of the top three villains in the world, etc.). You go around saying that the Christians of this fine nation are being "persecuted" while, at the same time, you completely ignore perhaps the world's most egregious example of Christian persecution IN IRAQ! Yeah, that's right, bro, because of Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq, most Christians in THAT country have either fled to Jordan or Syria, been killed by militants, or have had to worship in fear/secret. Christians are being persecuted, Bill. Christians, Bill! Surely, THAT should trump your allegiance to President Bush. I mean, you do in fact care about the Christians, don't you, Bill?..................................P.S. I didn't mean to imply that O.J. Simpson wasn't a shit - a complete and total one in fact. But one of the top three villains in THE WORLD? I mean, just confining oneself to "O'Reilly's list" alone, O.J. - he's a frigging wannabe, for Christ! And, besides, don't we still have people running around out there who (swallowing hard, excuse me) bumped off nuns BY THE DOZENS (El Salvador, remember?)? In fact, I seem to remember the U.S. government supporting those bastards. It's America's fault, Bill! Ha!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Did you catch O'Reilly spinning for Giuliani and Romney last week? I mean, talk about accommodation and shit. This, I'm saying, in that this frigging guy is even willing to put a partisan spin on an issue that's supposedly life and death to him. Yeah, that's right, illegal immigration. Seriously, during his "talking points" memo, he basically said that, yes, despite their checkered pasts on the issue of illegals (both having presided over sanctuary cities), these men are in no way weak on immigration now. Both, in other words, are currently "saying" the right things.................................Wow, huh? I mean, I don't know about you folks but when a person tailors his or her political views to a certain electorate, in my world that's considered a flip-flop. It was a flip-flop when Bill Clinton and John Kerry did it, right?................................P.S. Seriously, though, isn't it disgusting of O'Reilly to be such an accommodator for Republicans (Ron Paul, the obvious exception)? This, and the fact that he never holds them accountable, I'm saying. I mean, think about it. If he truly was....what he says he is, a true and honest broker of facts, he would be just as critical of Bush as he is of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. But he isn't....and doubtful, I am, that the son-of-a-bitch ever will be. Damn, does he ever need to be stopped.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Don't you just love the analogies that Chris Matthews makes? Just take the one he made the other night, for instance. When confronted with the lessened violence in Iraq....and the fact that this situation may in part be due to the surge, Matthews proceeded to compare it all to a dying tree. Specifically, if you have a dying tree that's about to fall, and you fill the weakened base with concrete, it'll stand. It'll stand for a good, long time was his point. And, yes, if in fact you take the concrete out.................................So it is with Iraq, he's saying. As long as we continue to keep our troops in-country, policing the country, sure, we probably CAN keep the hellish place together. And that's the God-damned point, unfortunately, in that, seriously, for how frigging long can we afford to do this? This, I'm saying, in that, soldiers, as opposed to concrete, have a tendency to bleed. Not that O'Reilly gives a shit, of course.
Monday, December 3, 2007
And the son-of-a-bitch is always such an absolutist. Just take this as an example. Say that there's this 15-16 year-old girl who, out of desperation, I'm saying, goes into a Planned Parenthood office. She wants to consider her options but is fearful of her parents. In O'Reilly's world, this clinic would HAVE TO contact the parents, deny this desperate young girl (whose parents may in fact be abusive, mind you) confidentiality, etc.. The down-side? Well, let's just say that in this same O'Reilly world, that same young girl would probably avoid professional advice, altogether, and, yes, end up getting a back-alley abortion, instead. Pretty frigging nasty, huh?...............................Look, I'm not saying that this is an easy issue, AT ALL. I'm not even saying that the parents SHOULDN'T be informed (this, I'm saying, after all the consequences are weighed). All I'm saying is that none of this stuff (very little of it, anyway) is as clear-cut as Mr. O'Reilly constantly portrays it. And that maybe, just maybe, those on the other side of these issues AREN'T, as he says, driven by some necessarily God-less form of anarchy but, rather, a concern for folks, their emotional/overall well-being, etc.. I mean, that is a possibility, right?
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Have you noticed, too, folks, how O'Reilly refuses to cover the Blackwater story. I mean, I don't know about you but I continue to find that fact rather compelling. Think about it, I'm saying. Blackwater security officers are strictly contracted employees. They have absolutely nothing to do with the military. But, still, he refuses to touch it. I mean, if that's not proof positive of where Mr O'Reilly's allegiances truly reside....This, I'm saying, in that this is a story that flat-out hurts Mr. Bush's policy and, yes, in a major way, his legacy, too. In the famous words of Heraclitus's son/Sassy's whores, "damned and a double-damned kerplunking."
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Hey, Bill, Chris Matthews (you know, that moderate/nonpartisan....who you've so shamelessly and moronically labeled a far-left lunatic), damned if he, too, hasn't been hammering away at the Clintons of late. I mean, seriously, have you been catching any of it? Pretty awesome, huh?...............................Of course, I can't help but wonder what his bosses over at MSNBC are going to do about it - him going off the reservation and all. I mean, you do consider this going off the reservation, don't you, Bill. Answer me, you son-of-a-bitch!
Friday, November 30, 2007
I love it. O'Reilly, right, he's always belly-aching about Obama, accuses him of not having the courage to do tough interview shows (his, obviously, first and foremost amongst them) - choosing, instead, to go on the Oprah show, etc.. Well, GUESS WHAT, Mr. Obama, not only has he gone on Good Morning America (Mr. O'Reilly mistakenly saying he hadn't), but he's recently added Meet the Press as well to his itinerary. Does Mr. O'Reilly give him credit for this? Of course not. For, to do so, I'm saying, would require him to acknowledge something that contradicts him....DOUBLY. First, he'd have to admit that Obama has in fact cleared the bar that he, O'Reilly, has set for him; handling a tougher set of q and a, etc.. That, and he'd also have to acknowledge that Tim Russert (yes, an evil NBC news employee), during this interview, acted as far from a water-carrying Democrat as O'Reilly himself. He'd have to do something that just isn't in him, in other words...............................P.S. This is just so typical, isn't it - him deleting information that doesn't suit him, his theories, his propaganda, etc.? And the fact that he has the balls to call his rivals on the carpet FOR PRECISELY THE SAME THING (his allegations largely hyperbolic, of course) It's practically hilarious, I'm telling you.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Last week on Fox's Sunday show (you know, the one where their "panel" consists of one wishy-washy liberal sandwiched between two crass neocons/Bush apologists, where the wishy-washy liberal almost always capitulates to / gets him or herself co-opted, etc.) - more, I'm afraid to say, in terms of shameless water-carrying............................I point, specifically, to the panel discussion. Being (I guess) that we were fast approaching the Thanksgiving holiday, the moderator proceeded to ask these panelists, "so, what are you thankful for this Thanksgiving?" Their answers? Both Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer said that they (are you ready for this?) were thankful for all the "wonderful progress that's been taking place in Iraq.".............................Wow, huh? Talk about using an American holiday (and, yes, what clearly should have been an opportunity to show SOME humility) to make a cheap/blatantly partisan political point - and an obviously deceptive one, at that. It's despicable, I'm telling you - beyond the pale and then some..............................P.S. Seriously, though, how many times do I have to say this? Yes, there may be some reduction in violence in certain places. Does this mean that the surge is working? Of course not. 1) The added influx of troops has only squelched the violence (any time you add more checkpoints, the violence is suppressed BUT ONLY FOR AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE CHECKPOINTS). As soon as we leave, the violence will return, whether we leave nine months from now or nine years from now. 2) A great deal of the reduced violence in certain areas is because those areas have already been ethnically cleansed (all those frigging refugees, hello!). There isn't any longer a need for murder/mayhem. And 3) the goal of the surge, AS WAS STATED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, was to create an opportunity for political reconciliation. The fact that there hasn't been any, folks, DE facto, makes the surge a failure. A failure, Mr.s Barnes and Krauthammer, am I safe to assume that you're thankful for that as well? Ya' morons.
Friday, November 23, 2007
And he talks about war with Iran likes it's just another day at the office. I mean, it's like, what, we bomb them and they're not going to do anything back at us? They're not going to launch missiles against us in Iraq? They're not going to give the green-light to Hezbollah? They're not going to close off the Straits of Hormuz and send the price of oil sky-rocketing? And what about Israel, too, I'm saying? Does he think that they're just going to sit back and NOT retaliate against Hezbollah? Evidently, I'm gathering.............................Not that the guy EVER thinks of consequences, mind you, dirty little details, etc..
Thursday, November 22, 2007
"Winning the war on terror." I don't know, I guess that that just sounds kind of odd to me. I mean, sure, I want to reduce as much as possible ALL forms of senseless violence/mayhem. But, so, too, I'm saying, I want to reduce the ill-effects of drunk driving, illicit drug use, sexual violence against women. I want the murder rate, especially, to go down. Cancer deaths, air-pollution, I want all of it to be eliminated/reduced as much as possible............................But, really, let's get sober here my friends. How, pray-tell, do you "win" a war on something that's as ill-defined as some douche-bag blowing himself up in a crowded place. I mean, sure, there are probably many things we CAN do to keep ourselves safe/safer - both from an offensive (intelligence sharing, covert operations, limited military action, supporting the moderate elements of Islam) and defensive (homeland security measures) perspective. But, really, are we ever going to totally eliminate (which I gather is what Mr. O'Reilly means by "win") terrorism from the face of the earth? Hardly, I'm thinking...............................Of course, the worst of all possible worlds is a policy....that doesn't just fail to contain terrorism but actually makes it worse. What we're frigging doing now, in other words; bludgeoning, sabre-rattling (axis of evil, love that one), occupation, the having of a large chunk of our military stuck in Arabia (forever, apparently), etc.. George W. Bush's policies, in other words. P.S. I fully recognize the dangers of WMD in the hands of terrorists and that, yes, everything needs to done to hopefully prevent that. All I'm saying is that here, too, let's not be stupid, O.K.?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Hey, Bill, I've heard that the military's desertion rate is the highest it's been in 25 years. If I were to report that, would THAT be considered an anti-military story? Seriously, I'm saying, and would I myself be considered a hater of the military as well? I mean, not to be overly rhetorical, mind you, but you do see what you're doing here, don't you, bro? You've basically created a situation here (granted, it's essentially in your own mind but, still, you apparently do have some influence) where you've "scoundrelized" objectivity, stifled dissent, and, yes, dumbed down the journalistic profession substantially............................Of course, so, too, is your hypocrisy a nasty and troubling thing at times. i mean, I've already documented your refusal to cover the Walter Reed story (not exactly "supportive" of the troops then, now were you?) - choosing, instead, to "support" the Bush administration by not embarrassing it. Couple that, of course, with all the other stories you've ignored; inadequate body armor, reductions in standards (recruitment-wise), the pandemic of P.T.S.D. and T.B.I. as a result of this war, multiple/lengthened deployments, etc. and, really, a person has to wonder, is your allegiance really to the American soldier? I'm serious, bro, I'm thinking the only way that you might report on the fact that (drum-roll, please) one in four homeless persons is a vet....is if in fact our present "commander" in chief gets kicked out of his (actually, it's our)....out on to the curbs of, yes, Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
To be honest about it, I've always kind of thought Dennis Miller was brilliant. Oh hell, I guess I probably still do. That's why I'm totally astonished that I would have to explain something to him. This, I'm saying, and, yet, apparently here it is, a necessity.............................Remember when Joe Biden ridiculed Giuliani, poking fun not just of his qualifications, mind you, but questioning his capacity as well, "Giuliani's sentences consist of three things; a noun, a verb, and 9/11."? Ya, well, it seems that Mr. Miller, being that he himself's a Giuliani supporter, kind of took some umbrage with the pun, saying in effect that Senator Biden was using 9/11 as a "punch-line" (adding, also, a wish that Biden and the Dems would continue to do so....in that, yes, this in fact would ensure their defeat), treating it as some sort of trivial event, etc.............................I mean, I don't know whether it was intentional or not but, to me anyway, the "punch-line" of Mr. Biden's statement wasn't necessarily 9/11 but, rather, the former mayor's chronic and incessantly shameless utilization of the event as a form of self-promotion. It's like, I'd even go as far as to say that the Senator went a little TOO easy on him. The good mayor's (and, yes, in many ways he was good) actual record on terrorism hasn't been stellar at all (the radio fiasco, the command and control fiasco, the mayor's recommendation of Bernie Kerik to be the Secretary of Homeland Security, etc.). This and, yes, the guy's a flaming S.O.B. as well.............................And to think, folks, just how much of an independent thinker Dennis Miller used to be....prior to his turn as a terror warrior, partisan stooge, etc..
Friday, November 16, 2007
Of course, so, too, does his jihad against MSNBC continue. This time, though, damned if he wasn't able to incorporate (drum roll, please) Rosie O'Donnell (talk about a perfect storm, huh? - she obviously being another of his targets) as well into the equation............................That's right, apparently Ms. O'Donnell did have some sort of negotiations with the network (something about offering her a show, I gather) - preliminary and, yet, man, did Mr. O'Reilly ever have a field-day with them. The fact that these negotiations broke off early and led to nothing, that was obviously beside the point. HIS shit had already left HIS rectum. And, no, neither did it matter, either, once in fact it (i.e., the obvious) was pointed out to him; the illogical fit of Rosie O'Donnell and MSNBC. Na, that just made him turn up the juices even more, "Of course, it's a perfect fit. They're just as far to the left and loony as she is. She'd have a perfect home over there.".................................I mean, talk about insulting, huh? To say that the skilled and highly intelligent professionals of that network (from Chris Jansing all the way to Chris Matthews, I'm saying) have as THEIR kindred spirit....some lunatic conspiracy theorist, an absolute fountain of misinformation (yeah, I actually kind of DO agree with O'Reilly about her), etc., that is absolutely beyond the pale, folks. Way to go, Mr. O'Reilly - ya' frigging turd.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
O'Reilly, I'm telling you, he's been throwing around these idiotic assertions of his like they're the gospel. Just the other night, for example, he spitted out that "Saturday Night Live" - "They usually make fun only of conservatives" (everything through a political lens with this guy, I'm serious). It's like, what an idiot, huh? This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, I felt like asking the son-of-a-bitch, "where in the bluest blazes were you in the 90s, dude? - all they frigging did back then WAS blast the Clintons."................................... Of course, as straight forward as all this apparently is, we are in fact talking about O'Reilly's audience here. Me, I cannot help but think that a massive chunk of those peons watching are buying it; all the mindless dichotomies, all the conspiratorial crap, all those frigging leaps of faith, etc.. And, yes, it really and truly scares me big time, O'Reilly and all of his minions, folks................................Oh, and did you catch him, too, in that idiotic name-dropping tactic of his, once more lumping war-hero, Jack Murtha, with Sean Penn? I mean, really, how insulting is THAT - not just to Congressman Murtha, mind you, but to those very few reasoned/fair-minded people still around watching that three-ring circus? Seriously, it's almost enough to make you forget what a thin-skinned son-of-a-bitch HE IS, always complaining about HIS "unfair"treatment, etc.. Bill O'Reilly, I'm saying.
Friday, November 9, 2007
How 'bout Brit Hume, though? In yet another effort to make Bush's war in Iraq seem more successful, he stakes out this claim that the refugee problem (a problem, mind you, that he himself up to now has never really acknowledged) is getting better. Specifically, he says that instead of leaving Iraq (into Syria) in droves, most people are staying and a lot of the refugees themselves are returning. Of course, what Mr. Hume forgets/ purposefully leaves out is that Syria is now making it harder for people to enter their country (harder to get visas, specifically). Kind of a critical piece of information, don't you think?..........................Oh hell, this is quintessential Fox, folks, ignoring an issue that's inconvenient to the advancement of your agenda UNTIL you can find a way (almost always deceptively, of course) to make it work FOR your agenda. There are two million Iraqi refugees (four million, if you count those that have been displaced internally) and Fox has virtually ignored this U.S.-created humanitarian disaster. Shit, Bill O'Reilly would just as soon cover an illegal alien jay-walking in Tupelo, Mississippi...............................Seriously, though, we all know what's been going on over there. Any issue that casts an unfavorable light on our current president will not, WILL NOT, receive an adequate amount of coverage. This, I'm saying, in that, no, conservatism (a la, say, George Will), while it may be of some importance to the network, isn't it's primary focus. It's primary focus is that of an uncritical political lackey to Bush, the neocons, and, yes, our present insane misadventure in Arabia. And to think that Brit Hume used to be an actual newsman. Go to frigging figure, huh?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The inimitable Christopher Hitchens, folks, very entertaining and, yet, he does appear to struggle at times. For instance, in his latest effort to blame organized religion (specifically, Christianity) for every atrocity under the sun, he tries to link Christianity (convolutedly, at best) not only with fascism but with the development of Communism, too. It's like, what's next, I feel like asking him, pornography having as IT'S justification various Biblical scripture?............................I don't know, it seems to me as if Mr. Hitchens here is attempting to create some dogma of his own. Not that I necessarily disagree with the essence of what he's saying, mind you. Christianity, above and beyond it's anthropomorphic absurdities, has in fact been an impetus/justification for many atrocities (Native-American genocide, slavery, the Salem witchcraft trials, etc.). All I'm saying is that, no, Mr. Hitchens really needn't have to embellish/ over-the-top reach to state it as so............................And, besides, isn't the problem itself not one so much of religious versus secular dogma but of an over-reliance on dogma, period? I mean, seriously, are not Hitler's beliefs (whether or not they're theistic OR atheistic) nothing but the insane rantings of a "systematizer" gone haywire? And, really, for either side to compare Hitler to the other is hideous. This, I'm saying, in that, no, while Adolph Hitler doesn't resemble Bertrand Russell, so, too, is a resemblance to Pope Paul lacking. An agnostic's perspective, at least.
Monday, November 5, 2007
I love how O'Reilly constantly focuses on the vagueness and/illogic (as determined by him, of course) of the Democratic presidential candidates' positions. I mean don't get me wrong here, a lot of what they've been saying IS problematic (Hillary's lack of consistency on drivers licenses for illegals, the latest) but for him, I'm saying, to so regularly focus just on that side of the aisle, it's kind of telling, isn't it?...........................And, no, it's not like the Republicans are holding back, either, not giving allegedly fair-minded journalists ammo, etc.. Just look at those frigging miserable front-runners, for Christ! Giuliani actually said that water-boarding "may or may not be torture....depending on who does it." I mean, talk about a situational ethics scenario/argument. I thought O'Reilly and his colleagues at Fox hated such ambiguity. Apparently not............................Oh, and let's not forget Mitt Romney. When asked about our options regarding Iran, he pitched that, yes, he would consider "bombardment of some sort." It's like, how's that for a vague/ cover-your-ass response to an extremely difficult issue; "a bombardment of some sort"? And he makes it sound so clinical, too, like he's moving a frigging chess piece or something. Of course, none of this is a problem in O'Reilly's mind - too busy looking for chinks in Edwards's armour, the bastard.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
It's official, folks, it's now fair to say that these lunatics (Hannity and company) see everything, EVERYTHING, through a political prism (a hackneyed/idiotically partisan one, at that). I mean, have you ever seen them NOT try and wedge one of their stand-by dichotomies into even the most pedestrian of discussions, make every contorted effort possible to put liberals on the defensive (phrasing all inquiries in a slanted manner/ the use of ridiculous/pejorative labels, etc.), etc.? And then they have the absolute chutzpah to deny that THEY have an agenda. It's over-the-top comical, I'm saying.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
I don't know how the rest of the folks feel, Bill, but me, a president who doesn't believe in evolution, that just flat-out scares the crap out of me (never mind the fact that he believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible). I mean, we're talking about the leader of the free world here, basically thumbing his nose at the scientific community, believing in a bunch of superstitious folk-lore instead. It doesn't look good to say the least, me-bucko............................And, no, while it may not be "equivalent" to Islamic fundamentalism, I am in fact telling you, bro, this is NOT a school of thought that we should be leaning toward - not in these troubled times, big fella'.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Bill, you couldn't even carry Tom Brokaw's pencil, for Christ! I mean, seriously, bro, to actually have the nerve to denigrate a reporter like Mr. Brokaw, when you yourself, I'm saying, put forth such an absolutely pitiful performance (water-carrying at it's absolute finest) NIGHTLY!!...............................Just look at what you did tonight (10/30/07) alone, me-bucko. Less than ten minutes after sticking it to Brokaw for being soft, you yourself allow Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to say all sorts of bizarre stuff UNCHALLENGED!! I mean, the frigging guy believes in Adam and Eve, for Christ! How in the bluest blazes do you NOT challenge that? It's like, what, you can't pronounce the words, Australopithecus robustus, or something? Talk about a guy who doesn't do his homework.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
I don't know, why does O'Reilly consider those whacked-out 9/11 conspiracy theorists to be part of the "far-left"? I mean, seriously, couldn't they just as easily be considered vestiges of that lunatic militia movement of the 90's - you remember, those that didn't believe in government, period? Of course, that would then make them instead part and parcel of the FAR-RIGHT lunatic fringe - which according to O'Reilly anyway hasn't a shred of power/influence in America. And why, pray tell, would he ever take the time to cover THAT - Mr Number One in the ratings and paranoid?............................P.S. I hope that everyone is capable of fathoming the totality of my tongue-in-cheek here. This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, folks, sometimes a lunatic is just that, a lunatic. In terms of all these 9/11 conspiracy theorists, specifically, no, I really don't think that political affiliations are very high on THEIR list of priorities. I mean, I know that those at Fox have, as their penchant, a need to decipher EVERYTHING politically but seriously, most paranoid knuckle-draggers don't. Common sense, me-buckos!!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, too, right? This, I'm saying, in that, yes, while it may be true that Olberman did in fact ignore the medal of honor story, so, too, has O'Reilly himself ignored many stories. I mean, I've already documented his refusal even to acknowledge the two million Iraqi refugees (four million, if you also choose to count those displaced within the country). But, even more recently, I'm saying, he refuses to bring up the 17 Iraqi civilians killed by Blackwater, the latest 1.2 billion dollars unaccounted for by the Pentagon, the fact that Afghanistan has rapidly deteriorated into basically a narco-state (how's that going to help your culture-war, Bill?), the resurgence of the Taliban in that same country, the rising tide of popularity in Iraq for Muqtada al-Sadr, that bogus FEMA press-conference, etc., etc.. I don't know, to me anyway it looks like O'Reilly might be the one with the agenda here. Hell, he might have to start calling HIS network, MSNBC - Make Sure No Bush Criticism. There, take that, Dennis Miller!!
Monday, October 29, 2007
O'Reilly, though, very Clintonesque. This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, while he "technically" didn't lie - CNN and MSNBC didn't cover the medal of honor ceremony in prime-time - his implication clearly was erroneous (not to mention despicable, of course). He plainly tried to leave the impression that his cable competitors COMPLETELY ignored the story. And he absolutely impuned their patriotism, too............................As for his time-slot competitors ignoring the story, it would be nice, wouldn't it, if O'Reilly at least occasionally had the courage to name them? I mean, hell, he certainly goes out of his way to name/label everybody else who crosses him/ disagrees with him; "failed radio talk-show host" Jeanine Garafolo, "socialist commentator" Paul Krugman, "far-left comedian/bomb-thrower" George Carlin, etc..........................And the overall logic, too, I'm saying. "Hannity and Colmes" didn't cover the story. Does that mean Sean Hannity disrespects the troops, has a visceral hatred for George Bush, and is rooting for us to lose in Iraq? According to O'Reilly's tortured logic, he does/is...............................P.S. MSNBC doesn't even do news from 10PM to midnight. They do documentaries/exposes. It's like, what, they're supposed to preempt that for a story they've already covered seven times (including live coverage of the ceremony) during the course of the day? It's ridiculous, I'm telling you.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
O'Reilly and company, remember how bent out of shape they got when the Democratic presidential candidates stiffed them, refused to have their debate on Fox, etc.? I sure do. Of course, what I don't remember, though, is ANY word out of them when the top-tier Republican candidates skipped the NAACP debate - nothing about THEIR COURAGE, THEIR INTEGRITY, etc............................I mean, at least the Democrats were honest about their reason for avoiding Fox. They didn't trust their anchors. This, I'm saying, as opposed to the Republicans who gave, what, a bunch of lame/full-of-crap excuses relative to scheduling. Lies, in other words...............................Seriously, though, can you imagine what a frigging honest O'Reilly (one, I'm saying, who actually did eschew spinning) could have done with THAT? He would have hit it out of the ball-park, for Christ's sakes - out of the ball-park and then some kerplunking, a miserable excuse....such as that.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Gee, what a surprise, yet another right-wing bromide self-destructs when examined. You know how we're always about how this nation was founded on Christianity? Hmm, well, it appears that that, my friends, is only about a quarter true...........................I mean, we already know for sure that a large chunk of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians, had a majorly hard time accepting as gospel....the gospel, etc.. But, even beyond that, I'm saying, those that did embrace Christianity....only embraced the Protestant side of the faith. They frigging hated Catholicism. Yeah, that's right, the founding fathers hated Bill O'Reilly's religion. Kind of amazing, isn't it - this, and the fact that he and others continue with this myth?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Alright, here it is, Bill, nice and simple. Discussions of God, arguments for the existence of God, THAT is philosophy. They have absolutely nothing to do with science and shouldn't, SHOULD NOT be part of a science curriculum. I mean, seriously, how would one even attempt to apply the scientific method here/ go about trying to empirically prove the existence of something that is, I'm saying, by it's very nature intangible? Logical arguments - fine, syllogisms - fine but, like I was saying, bro, THAT is philosophy..........................As for your argument that "Intelligent Design" at least deserves a mention in science class, O.K., fine, but then what about all the other possible theories; "the universe is but a molecule on the tip of a giant's finger" theory, "the life as we know it is nothing but a computer simulation" theory - don't they at least deserve a mention, as well? I mean, those, too, are at least remotely possible, correct? The fact that I'm able to conceive them, I'm saying.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
So telling, also, was O'Reilly's interview of Bush's new press secretary, Dana Perino (yes, I'll admit it here, folks, she's a hottie). Telling, I'm saying, in that, not once did Mr. Blowhard even make an attempt toward pressing her. In fact, all he really attempted was to rope her into his "the media are a bunch of pin-headed liberals" crusade; "doesn't it make you crazy having to answer all of those biased/idiotically partisan questions from them?" I mean, seriously, talk about rolling out the red-carpet for someone. Of course, the fact that he did it for a person whose sole responsibility in Washington IS TO SPIN....IN THE NO-SPIN ZONE, I'm saying, did in fact make it little comical.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Did you hear O'Reilly's excuse for not questioning Ann Coulter on her latest anti-Semitic remarks ("it is the job of the Christians to perfect the Jews")? He said that he, Bill O'Reilly, makes it a point "not to discuss theology with non-theologians", how it's an utterly pointless endeavor, etc.. Hmm, well I guess it's a fact then - Bill O'Reilly considers former "Growing Pains" star, Kirk Cameron....a theologian of sorts. This, I'm saying, in that, damned if Mr. O'Reilly didn't sit down and discuss the follies of atheism with the fellow (a love-fest was more what it was)...........................And, yes, what about, too, his constantly holding NON-politicians accountable for THEIR political statements? I mean, seriously, every time Sean Penn, Danny Glover, or (heaven forbid) Rosie O'Donnell opens up those traps of theirs and says something stupid, he, O'Reilly goes absolutely ballistic, for Christ! It's like, what, only liberal celebrities (and, yes, let's face it here, that's exactly what Ann Coulter is, a celebrity) need to held accountable? Evidently, it seems.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Don't you just love Duncan Hunter's explanation for why Senator Craig is being shunned by fellow Republicans; "we have moral values....as opposed to the Democrats who make their moral degenerates committee chairman."?.......................Wow, huh? I mean, seriously, does he actually expect us to buy such an explanation? Larry Craig, folks, is being treated like crap FOR ONE REASON; it appears that he's gay. Seriously, what other explanation is there? Just take a look at David Vitter, for instance. He apparently gave it up to a call-girl, for Christ! I don't hear Mr. Hunter and company calling for this son-of-a-bitch's ouster. It's like, what, only those moral acts relative to homosexuality are worthy of taking a stand against? Man, I hate to have to tell Mr. Hunter but "damn, that 'taint a moral value, son, it's homophobia (well, that, and a tad, too, of pleasing the base)." Not that he would agree with me, of course.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Alright, Bill, those douche-bags who barged into the catholic mass and disrupted it, that was wrong. They clearly shouldn't have done it. But, really, to somehow cite that as an "atrocity" of some sort, I really think you need to get some historical perspective there, fellow. The Holocaust was an atrocity. Mussolini's march into Ethiopia, that, too, an atrocity. The Armenian genocide, 240 years of slavery in THIS country, the "Disappeared" in Chile, the killing of nuns in El Salvador, the exploits of Pol Pot and Stalin - those, me-bucko, THOSE were atrocities............................I mean, seriously, what do we have here in San Francisco, trespassing, bad taste? And, no, don't give me any of that "they denigrated Christianity" bullshit. Christianity is a faith, Bill, a belief. And, because of that, it is subject to the same level of scrutiny as any belief. It's like, what, because it's a religious belief, we're not allowed to point out the absurdities of it - the fact that, for example, Christianity places as IT'S cynosure something as insignificant as, ugh!, man? Note to Bill, Homo Sapiens (to which you are a member of, me-bucko) are, at best, only the 19th or 20th species relative to humanity, the vast majority of which predated US by millions of years. You see what I'm saying here, don't you, US using religion to glorify ourselves, glorify the particular, etc.? The absurdity of Christianity, in other words.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
As for Springsteen, Bill, alright, he's probably not the most informed individual in the world. I will in fact give you that one. But, really, don't you think that maybe you were a tad too dismissive of the guy? I mean, it's pretty much been established, hasn't it, that we DO "render" suspects to foreign countries that absolutely DO torture people? This, and how 'bout, too, I'm saying, Alberto Gonzales's midnight ride to a comatose John Ashcroft - the former trying to get the latter to sign off on illegal wire-taps (Ashcroft, of all people, showing some integrity), the fact that those douche-bags have already admitted to some water-boarding, etc.? It's like, what, none of this stuff bothers you, me-bucko?............................As for Guantanamo Bay, alright, I do kind of have mixed feelings about that one. This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, if a large number of these mothereffers ARE, as you say, lethal, perhaps it is best to keep them all isolated, try and get as much information out of them, etc.. Of course, on the other hand, to be keeping people (some of whom may be innocent) imprisoned....in perpetuity, to NOT give them a day in court/representation, that does kind of wreak of un-Americanism - American, at least in terms of how I've come to define the term, Bill.
Monday, October 15, 2007
O'Reilly's recent (10/10/07) interview of Howard Kurtz, though, I couldn't believe it. He asks of Kurtz, right, "give me the name of just one conservative at CNN." Kurtz, a seemingly fair and decent fellow, responds, "O.K., Glenn Beck." End of discussion, right? Not so fast, my friend. O'Reilly, apparently unprepared for a correct answer, damned if he didn't take yet another trip into the spin zone. "He's a radio guy, a commentator. I'm talking about news people." I mean, talk about a fellow (himself a radio guy/commentator, ditto Hannity) who, when he doesn't like the facts presented to him................................And I'm thinking, too, what about Lou Dobbs? He's a frigging business guy who's probably even farther to the right than O'Reilly - on immigration, especially!! And, really, how the hell does O'Reilly know that, say, Wolf Blitzer is a liberal? Was he in the voting booth with Blitzer when he casted his votes for Al Gore, John Kerry, etc? I mean, I've been watching Blitzer for a long time, and he is absolutely less biased than those bozos on "Fox and Friends", Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, etc.. I don't know, I'm thinking that maybe O'Reilly's the one with some explaining to do; the stooges that pass for "liberals" on Fox, the way that those bastards even frame the questions, for Christ!! And, yes, the fact that they constantly do it, I'm saying. Disgusting!
Friday, October 12, 2007
Alright, what are you saying here now, Bill, that, because two hold-outs in the Phil Spector case opted not to convict this freak, this somehow vindicates your "the secularists are taking over California" theory (oh, by the way, congratulations on figuring out yet another way to wedge "secular-progressive" paranoia into a story-line)? And these two other cases, too, me-bucko, didn't you yourself admit that the O.J. Simpson case was in fact primarily racial, the Robert Blake case, celebrity-driven?........................But, no, you have to make some sweeping/idiotic indictment that Californians are somehow unwilling to "make judgements". California, I'm saying a state that has often elected Republicans to state-wide and national offices. California, again, a state that has the largest prison population IN THE COUNTRY (granted, they have the most people but, still, three strikes and you're out, etc.). I mean, come on, Bill, they have to be casting some sort of dispersions on the "bad guys" out there - factually speaking, I'm saying. You do like facts, right?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
O'Reilly, though, he actually has the chutzpah to stare us in the eye and ask us to take AS GOSPEL....what George Tenet says - in this case, that "enhanced interrogation" techniques yield reliable information. George Tenet, I'm saying, the same George Tenet who said, what, that weapons of mass destruction were a slam-dunk? I mean, seriously, how stupid does he think we are?.......................And, besides, aren't we learning that most of what this Khalid Sheik Muhammad told us, hello!, WHILE HE WAS BEING WATER-BOARDED, has turned out to be total crap? Ha, not, of course, that Mr. O'Reilly has a tendency to keep up with such details. That, I'm afraid to say, would be far, FAR TOO "reliable".
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Alright, Bill, so you don't directly attack illegals, expunging them with racial epithets, generalized brow-beatings, etc.. But, really, bro, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, this constant-ass drum-beat of yours, this constantly focusing on illegal criminals (as opposed to the vast majority of illegals who DON'T commit crimes), this incessant/categorical assertion that illegal immigration is hurting America, this paranoid fear of yours that the white-male "power- structure" is in fact in jeopardy, might be feeding a fire of some sort in middle-America? Ha, not, of course, that that's what you're necessarily trying to do over there - you know, at the Fox "fair and balanced" news network, Murdockville, whatever.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Congratulations, Bill, on yet another of those "fair and balanced" bull-sessions of yours. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, in the first segment alone, you 1) excoriated "Media Matters", 2) brought out a Rush Limbaugh apologist, and 3) had yet another one of your nauseating "traditionalist" summits with Laura Ingraham. I mean, seriously, talk about some deck-stacking there, bro. THIS is as good/bad as it gets. And the fact that you so viciously attack others for supposedly doing the same thing. Disgusting!...........................P.S. If Rush Limbaugh didn't do anything wrong (this, I'm saying, in regards to the "phony soldier" comment), then why did he edit two minutes off the tape when he posted it on his web-site? I mean, Bill, he must have had some sort of misgivings, relative, don't ya' think? Common sense, me-bucko!!
Sunday, October 7, 2007
I did not, NOT, institute a "scorched-earth" policy at Sassy's. In fact, the ONLY things I did were 1) inform the commander that, yes, I, too, was tired of fighting (over rations) and 2) being that another opportunity had arisen, I had opted for it. At no point ever, I'm saying, did I myself drone....on and on, use said names as examples/fodder for a whipping-post, or sever. Anything, in fact, that the commander herself may have inferred, she inferred freely. I mean, she does know her troops, right - better and better, I'm saying, AS SHE REIGNS?
Friday, October 5, 2007
As a long time reader of Newsweek, I found myself particularly outraged by this little gem. I'm referring to an effort, by O'Reilly, to vilify said publication/portray it as part of some sort of left-wing cabal. His evidence? He specifically points to a recent feature written by Christopher Hitchens - one in which the avowed atheist negatively critiques Mother Teresa (a small two page article, mind you). He goes on to state that this article, in particular, underscores the magazine's clear and absolute hostility toward religion; Christianity, most specifically.......................I mean, I don't know how many of you folks read Newsweek regularly but, seriously, I'm telling you, they have done a plethora of articles on Christianity and, yes, without exception, these article have always, always, been extremely fair. Hell, John Meacham, the managing editor that O'Reilly cited as "not answering my phone-calls", in many instances has been the writer of these articles. He is NOT in any way, shape, or form hostile toward religion. As for Christopher Hitchens, his opinion is HIS OPINION. The fact that Newsweek gave him an opportunity to voice HIS OPINION, that is something they do across the spectrum. This, I'm saying, as opposed to ....certain other media outlets.......................P.S. In that same issue O'Reilly complains about, Fred Thompson gets not only a cover article but a relatively favorable one. Left-wing media bias, yeah, right.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
I'm telling you, though, O'Reilly's definition of what constitutes a "smear", now THAT is bizarre. This, I'm saying, in that "Media Matters" (the Internet site being a favorite target of HIS!) apparently has had the unmitigated audacity to smear Mr. O'Reilly (109 times, according to him) BY QUOTING HIM VERBATIM. Yeah, that's right, O'Reilly says something paranoid and/or idiotic, they quote him, and THAT constitutes a smear. Wow, huh?........................And as for all this, "they quote me out of context" nonsense, that, my friends, is exactly what it is - bullshit!!! They quote the son-of-a-bitch word for word and, yes, in most instances, PROVIDE THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT. This, I'm saying, as opposed to what O'Reilly himself does, referring to "Media Matters" as "despicable", "a bunch of stooges", etc.. I mean, talk about a truly unsavory individual - Bill O'Reilly, ladies and gentlemen!
Truth be known, though, that "group" was nothing but a bunch of over-priced piranha-donnas. And, yes, the fashion-sense from ether, too, I'm saying, damned if that wasn't just as much an incoherent matter/pitter-patter. I mean, just take a look at the way that those whose moral sense had as well been buttressed, prior to, the way that they had hit the skids BOOM!, kerplunkingly. What if NOT....for that, I'm saying - sadness of the matter itself being stupid?
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Note to Laura Ingraham. Laura, dear sweet Laura, I really hate to break this to you darling but, no, the "average" American ISN'T smarter than the elites who run Harvard Law School. The average American, as a matter of course, I'm saying, is anything BUT intelligent. Hell, you might even say that he's stupid, at times. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, a large number of them in fact still think that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. An even larger number of them believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I mean, talk about a patently absurd statement - even for YOU, Laura Ingraham; "smarter than the elites at Harvard Law School." It's precious, I'm telling you.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
So telling, too, I'm saying, are all of these "O'Reilly Factor" survey questions. Take, for instance, the recent one, where he so simplistically asks his not entirely unbiased audience, so, "do YOU believe General Petreaus?" I mean, talk about a loaded question, huh?..........................Seriously, though, what, if we in fact question the validity of what this general says, that automatically means we're calling him a liar? You see what he's doing here, right? This, I'm saying, in that, yes, he's laying the ground-work for yet another of those "us versus them" landmark "culture-war" struggles of his.....................Of course, it's also illustrative to compare this over-simplified yes-no model of his with how a thoughtful person might have reacted to the general's speech. For example, "Yeah, I think the guy is probably being sincere. HE probably believes what he's saying up there and, yet, he is in fact a general, folks. What's he supposed to say? And it wouldn't, I'm saying, be, either, the first time that a general has in fact led us astray; William Westmoreland, Colin Powell at the United Nations, for Christ! I mean, I don't know, Bill, I'm thinking that maybe I might have to reserve some judgement here - perhaps even be a little bit skeptical, etc.. This, I'm saying, and, yes, he has been primped by the Bushies, too, correct?"......................Oh well, you get the drift here, right, Mr. O'Reilly's divisiveness, his constantly forcing us to take up sides, etc.?
Monday, October 1, 2007
It's like, what, we're not supposed to frigging question the military at all now? I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I'm thinking that maybe we need to question/challenge them even more. You know, kind of like we should have done with Colin Powell, I'm saying, PRIOR TO the Iraqi invasion. Holy grail, my ass.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
I just love all this outrage I've been hearing over the "sliming" of General Petreaus, the Move-On.Org print-ad in the New York Times, etc.. This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, while it may have been a tad over-the-top to insinuate that the General was going to be deceptive when he testified, I still couldn't help but want to ask Sean Hannity, O'reilly, etc., "where in fact WERE YOU BASTARDS when Max Cleland (a man who lost both of his legs in Vietnam, mind you) was being slimed, unmercifully, in Georgia?" I mean, seriously, are these guys so beyond the pail in terms of partisanship that they'll frigging turn the other cheek when a Democratic war-hero gets savaged, ravaged, and torn? Christ, I'm saying, that's what it appears to be - to me, at least.......................And, really, wasn't it President Bush who started this whole fiasco by inserting the General INTO politics? I mean, how frigging deplorable is that? Of course, the fact that this whole Petreaus report seems to have come directly out of the President's White House spin-machine (tinkering with the definition of what constitutes a civilian death, for example), oh hell, maybe we are being "betrayed", for Christ.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
I love O'Reilly's excuse for covering people like Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, the myriad of retarded rappers he constantly lambastes, etc.. It's because, he says, of the fact that what they say, the idiocy that they utter (and, yes, a lot of it truly is QUITE idiotic; 9/11 conspiracy theories/crap, compliments for Hugo Chavez, etc.), because of their notoriety, finds it's way into the culture. And, yes, because of this, these dangerous people need to be countered, absolutely. Ergo, coverage.........................Wow, huh? I mean, talk about some conspiracy bull-shit here. It's like, first of all, anybody who does in fact get their wisdom from THESE jerks probably is shooting some blanks themselves. How many of them even vote?, I'm wondering. But even if we concede that some of this stuff does get "into the culture", couldn't we also conclude that a lot of other stuff, far more meaningful and influential, also finds it's way there, too?..........................Take, for instance, "greeted as liberators". Didn't that find it's way into the culture, too. Oh, and, yeah, what about "cake-walk", "slam-dunk", "mission accomplished", "the insurgency's in it's last throws", etc., couldn't we just as readily say that these little gems, uttered by far more powerful figures in society, have as well poisoned the culture? I mean, I'd probably say that they have. You?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
That was pretty ballsy of President Bush, though, don't you think - bringing up Vietnam in the context of what we're going through now....in Iraq? I mean, first of all, the fact that Bush himself was A.W.O.L. (literally AND figuratively) to THIS, what he NOW calls a conflict we ended prematurely, wreaks of hypocrisy..........................But even worse so, I'm saying, this man, whose grasp of foreign affairs has itself become a punch-line, completely puts forth the wrong message from Vietnam. The issue ISN'T that, once we get ourselves involved in misadventure, we stay until the blood runs dry. No, it's that we plain-old don't get involved in the first place. Prudence and, yes, prudence above all else, me-buckos!.........................But seriously, though, talk about a fellow who has no business being anywhere near the oval-office - whether or NOT he's being "serviced" under the table. I'm saying.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Have you noticed, though, how pro-war advocates have a tendency to speak out of both sides of their mouths? Take this whole Al Qaeda in Iraq situation. On the one hand, they try to sell (as a measure of success, mind you) the fact that the Sunni militias have turned AGAINST Al Qaeda, have rendered them impotent "in-country", etc.. Al Qaeda's been defeated, in other words........................Of course, on the other hand, they constantly warn us that, if in fact we ever leave Iraq, it will inevitably become a safe-have FOR Al Qaeda. It's like, what, after WE leave, the Sunni militias are going to start getting warm feelings for these bastards? But even if they did, I'm saying, do you ever think that the dominant Shia majority would ever let such a hyper-Sunni group flourish in it's setting, unencumbered? I mean, it's like I said before folks, Shiite-controlled Iran, prior to this debacle, hated the Taliban and helped us FIGHT the terrorists in Afghanistan. Ha, not that any of these facts are ever put into the war monger's calculations, mind you.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
He's at it again, folks. The latest? Some douche on the Bill Maher show, right, he puts forth some wacky claim that it wasn't Al Qaeda....but the U.S. government that brought down the World Trade Center. The usual/prototypical conspiracy theory bull-shit, in other words. And, yes, I'm telling you also here folks, it was SO obvious that this guy (some nit-witted rapper, I'm thinking he was) was, in fact, a total fruit-cake....even a child would have been able to sniff it out........................But, no, O'Reilly, yet again, has to go out of his way to elevate such a person, add him to the list of "far-left" lunatics trying to overthrow the country, etc.. It's like, look, I don't mind exposing these ludicrous members of what is obviously the lunatic fringe of society. Hell, I even love to make fun of them myself. I'm just getting a little tired of having O'Reilly trying to pin the frigging "liberal" on them, him thinking that anybody with an I.Q. over 85 would even own such stupidity, etc..
Monday, September 17, 2007
And so, too, do you, Bill, make a blanket distinction between Iran and Saudi Arabia; Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, the Saudis merely unequipped to deal with it. Ha, if only it were that easy, me-bucko.........................For one thing, I'm saying, hasn't it been established that the Saudi government has in fact something of a deal with it's home-grown terrorists, "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" (a.k.a., free to attack other countries with impunity)? And haven't, too, the Saudis allowed religious fundamentalist schools to flourish throughout the country - schools whose major function, oh by the way, has been that of a breeding-ground for hatred, suicide bombers, terrorists, etc?..........................I mean, so, no, the Saudi government isn't "sponsoring" terrorism....like Iran apparently is with Hezbollah. But, really, Bill (and, yes, here's where a closer examination might in fact have helped you), they're not exactly clean, either.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The thing is, Bill, you kind of DO need a history lesson. And, no, I'm not just talking about how our country deposed the legitimate Iranian government 50 years ago, installed the cruelmeister Shah in it's place, etc. (though, yes, that probably did set the whole mess in motion). I'm talking about more recent history, bro. For example, you're apparently unaware that the Iranians helped us during the early stages of the Afghan war, that they in fact had had just as much, if not more, animosity toward the Taliban as we........................Neither, evidently, have you made any connection between Bush's idiotic pronouncement....that this same Iran (right after they had helped us in Afghanistan, mind you) happened to be a member of the "Axis of Evil" and the Iranian's recent turn toward hyper-radicalism (that douche bag's election, specifically). It's like, what, you think that they'd be happy (the people of Iran, especially), hearing that their country is an evil one? And, yes, the country's pride in the nuclear program - that's all a part of it, too, Bill.......................Look, I'm not saying that Iran isn't a problem. Clearly, it is. I'm just thinking that maybe (and, no, I'm not saying that America is a bad country, America is always wrong, etc.) our policies over the years have at least been a contributing factor over there. I mean, it's just like Congressman Paul told you, Bill, there's almost always a negative "blow-back" to bone-headed policies - historically speaking I'm saying.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
And while you're at it over there, Bill, why don't you ask President Bush if HE wants to "win in Iraq"? I mean, you'd never know it with this "whack a mole" strategy of his, his stubborn insistence on Iraq having a strong central government (Federalism applies only in America, I guess), etc.. Of course, so, too, you might want to ask him just what in fact our objective is now - "it" obviously having changed from time to time, over the years, whatever..........................Real investigative journalism, in other words.
Friday, September 14, 2007
I don't know, Bill, it seems as if you might be working on yet another straw-man argument here. This, I'm saying, in that, no, I don't really hear a lot of the leading Democrats arguing for a "precipitous" withdrawal (Kucinich, not necessarily a mainstream Democrat, would you not agree?). I mean, I've been listening to Joe Biden saying that a precipitous withdrawal is in fact an impossibility, that it would take at least 12-15 months for us to totally withdraw.....IF WE STARTED NOW!! This is Joe Biden, me-bucko, a man who, in addition to THIS frankness, is also one of the few people from either party (Mr. Bush included, bro) who's actually put forth a plan FOR success (partitioning the country, sharing the oil revenue, etc.). Precipitous withdrawal, my ass!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Here's another challenge for you, Bill - a fun one, actually........................We start by randomly gathering (this, as opposed to "cherry-picking", I'm saying - no cherry-picking on my watch, bro) 100 or so moderate/independent voters. We then expose these individuals to one hour each of Brit Hume and Brian Williams broadcast segments (again, randomly selected). Afterwards, we ask them, "which of these two newsmen did you find to be more balanced/less partisan in their presentation?"..........................You see where I'm going here, right? This, I'm saying, in that, yes, I'd be willing to bet some serious money that Brian Williams would in fact gather such a significant portion of the votes that you, Bill O'Reilly, would crap your pants, me-bucko! Aw, come on, what do you say we do it, huh?
Monday, September 10, 2007
Don't you just hate the way O'Reilly constantly tries to equate freakazoids like Rosie O'Donnell and Tim Robbins with other, more legitimate voices such as Jack Murtha? I mean, sure, Murtha's clearly had his issues over the years with ABSCAM, etc. but, really, this is a man that, in addition to being a war-hero himself, has for many years been a strong supporter of the military. And O'Reilly, paranoia aside, KNOWS THIS - or at least he should........................Of course, none of this stops him from going around playing "gotcha" with these idiotic Hollywoodites or, in as cynical a move as humanly feasible, plastering their idiocy as somehow synonymous with mainstream Democrats. So much so he blurs the lines, I'm saying, that Jack Murtha is now a member of the American "far-left", apparently. I mean, talk about an absolutely ridiculous analogy to try and perpetrate on the folks. And he does it all the time, I swear. Just watch.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Of course, so, too, is O'Reilly nonsensical at times. For example, he constantly refers to David Letterman as a liberal, a member of the "far-left" entertainment establishment, etc. (this no doubt as a result of the beat-down he received from Mr. Letterman on "The Late Show"). He then, though, several months later, bitches and moans when Senator McCain goes on "The Late Show" and gets NOT a grilling, mind you, but respectful treatment from Mr. Letterman. Majorly perplexed he was in fact. Hmm, could it be, I'm wondering, as simple as David Letterman not being the doctrinaire lackey that O'Reilly has consistently portrayed him to be (and that O'Reilly himself ever so plainly is)? THAT, me-buckos, is what I'm thinking the situation clearly is; Bill O'Reilly being paranoid, a lunatic, an imbecile, etc..
Thursday, September 6, 2007
So, Bill, you want to know why NBC isn't running that "let's stay in Iraq until we get the job done" advertisement? It's actually pretty simple, bro. They, as opposed to you, recognize it as a piece of war-mongering propaganda that's basically filled with lies. For instance, the ad completely overstates the "progress" that's being made over there - ignoring, in so doing, the TOTAL lack of political reconciliation and claiming AS success peace in those areas of the country where ethnic cleansing has in fact settled things already.........................Of course, the biggest/baldest lie is the idiotic claim that THEY (i.e., the terrorists in Iraq, who never resided there prior to our invading it) attacked us. Oh, wait a minute, maybe they aren't lying. Perhaps these former soldiers are part of that 40% of the American public who actually DO believe that Iraq attacked us on 9/11 - a fact that makes them too stupid to be listened to in any event. Seriously, I'm saying.......................And as for all this "our freedom's at stake" nonsense, please, give me a break. Our being over there in large numbers, in perpetuity - THAT is as great a risk to our freedoms as anything those terrorists in Iraq represent.....in that, yes, we're leaving ourselves vulnerable 1) by wasting time (not to mention the vigor of our army) refereeing a fabricated country's naturally occurring internal strife and 2)by creating bushel-loads of people who, I'm tellin' ya', are going to make Osama bin Laden look like Jethro, only stupider.........................That.....is why they're not running the ad, Bill.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
And yet, the steadiest rationale for Bush's actions, relative to the U.S. attorney firings, is that the President has in fact carte blanche to fire whoever. This, I'm saying, in that, according to these certain folks (Dick Morris, anyone?), the President has the power to fire people for anything; if he thinks their nostrils over-flare, if he doesn't appreciate the cut of their drawer, whatever! Of course, the offshoot of this reasoning is that so, too, is the President perfectly within his rights to fire U.S. attorneys for political grounds - even if he thinks they aren't partisan enough. A neat little justification of the firing, in other words. Incredible, huh?........................I mean, don't get me wrong here. That assessment probably does have a certain degree of merit to it - legally, I'm saying. But if in fact that is the case, shouldn't the President and/or his justice department at least have the power of their convictions and fess/ be straight with the American public? This, I'm saying, as opposed to them stone-walling, misleading congress, etc.. I don't know, it seems as if, regardless of the legality of their actions, they might as well be a tad embarrassed by them. I mean, don't ya' think? Yeah, I'm talking to you, Bill O'Reilly.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
The thing is, though, if O'Reilly's going to be going around justifying Bush's actions like this, he should at least get on the same page with the fellow. Take, for instance, the firing of those eight U.S. attorneys. In his justification for why Carol Lam should have been fired, he pointed to her supposed reluctance to prosecute illegal-aliens for drug crimes (or something like that).......................A topic, in other words, that isn't even on President Bush's agenda (illegal immigration, the only topic I can think of that O'Reilly has vociferously challenged the President on). Of course, if O'Reilly had in fact stated the real reasoning for her firing; the fact that she wasn't partisan enough in her political prosecutions, that, clearly, would have hurt the President - something he's apparently unwilling to do at any cost, the S.O.B..
It was a frigging lynch mob, I'm tellin' ya' - all of dem and dem dar slugs at Sassy's....stumblin'/bumblin' reportin' on me. And even though the pattern was itself, I'm saying, just as petrified as anything that had had IT'S legacy there, viciousness in a major sense kerplunkingly, damned if that wasn't just as preposterous. Of course, to be like me....and to get all bummin' about it, surgically, well, let's just say that that wasn't the best way to be going about it, either, ending all the other discussions, etc..
Friday, August 31, 2007
Kudos, though, to Michelle Malkin (yeah, you heard me right). This, I'm saying, in that on one of her recent stints as O'Reilly's replacement, she actually the even-handedness to frontally assault President Bush on the cronyism issue. I mean, not only did she mention the usual litany of losers (Gonzales, Miers, "Brownie", etc.) but proceeded as well to a bunch of names I'd never even heard of before....................Granted, she no doubt is mega-pissed at Bush for his "comprehensive" (a.k.a., moderate) immigration proposals and could merely be taking out HER frustrations on what is clearly a lame-duck administration. Still, though, I'm telling you, I was very impressed with the way that this critique of a sitting Republican President was stated. I mean, seriously, if we're always going around sticking it to these people for their partisan shrillness, shouldn't we also give them credit when it's due - whether or not we expect it in return, I'm saying?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
How 'bout this for a deal, Bill? For every 10,000 stories you do on illegal aliens committing crimes in this country, you do one (yeah, that's right, one) story on the two MILLION Iraqi refugees that have been forced to flee THEIR country....because of President Bush's war. Of course, to make it seem even more pertinent, you also might want your viewers to know that, of this group, 100,000 of these refugees had been coalition collaborators....and that because of this they've been especially ear-marked by insurgents and, yes, would in fact be killed if they ever returned to Iraq. I mean, seriously, don't you think your viewers would appreciate hearing this story - you know, being that they probably haven't heard it elsewhere, FOX News, fair and balanced-wise, I'm saying?....................Oh, and, yes, you also might want to tell them that only a couple hundred of these 100,000 brave collaborators have even been considered for U.S. citizenship. Yeah, that's right, I'm saying, after they've risked their lives to help us, we've been letting them rot in refugee camps in Syria and Jordan. I mean, talk about a story that could potentially boost your ratings there fella' this, though, yes, it might as an off-shoot embarrass Bush a tad. Hmm, oh well, weigh it all out and get back to me, O.K.?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Unlike the so-called bomb de jour in Iraq, which he clearly has no interest in reporting on, O'Reilly apparently has no problem feeding us a daily-dose of illegal alien atrocities. I don't know, I guess he feels that in doing so here, the story DOES "get advanced" - this, at least to the specification he desires, anyway.....................Of course, the funny thing here is that on this particular issue, I kind of actually agree with the guy (gasp!). This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, when an illegal-alien commits a crime in this country, it might not be the worst thing in the world to alert the Feds - national security concerns, fears for public safety, etc.....................Me? I just want the son-of-a-bitch to tone down the rhetoric a little. I mean, he can't be so stupid, can he, to think that a night after night vitriolic response to such singular events WON'T in fact have some spill-over effect? It's like I said before, folks, people (especially those that watch his crappy show) are stupid...and when they hear night after night that illegal-aliens are committing all these crimes (when, in reality, they commit crimes at no higher a rate) it seems obvious that they're not just going to look at illegals with suspicion but at basically anyone whose skin-tone is different. I don't know, maybe if he (in addition to toning down the rhetoric, I'm saying) occasionally had a positive story about illegals - those, in fact, who do some good while they're here. Not that I'm holding my breath or anything, mind you.
Monday, August 27, 2007
In my opinion, though, if O'Reilly is going to use these same idiotic labels day after day after day, then he should at least try to utilize them plausibly. Take, for instance, when he recently assigned MSNBC's Chris Matthews to his far-left galaxy of media villains. Yeah, that's right, Chris Matthews - the same Chris Matthews who Media Matters (yet another member of that same hit-list, mind you) regularly chastises for not being liberal ENOUGH and/or fair ENOUGH to the "liberal" guests on HIS show.....................As to how Matthews ever got on this (s)hit list, one can only speculate (O'Reilly himself having once admitted that he's never even seen "Hardball"). My guess is that his production assistants, ever so eager to please the SOB, have (and, yes, through his edicts, entirely) provided him with the usual cache' of cherry-picked examples of bias (mostly out of context, of course) - which he obviously and uncritically accepts. And, yes, he does, I'm saying, have a hell of a built-in bias against the competition, as well - MSNBC, in particular. Keith Olberman, anybody?.......................Of course, another factor is that O'Reilly never, ever allows people to transcend ANY previous associations (guilt BY association, always and forever it seems). In terms of this situation, he evidently found out that Matthews had once worked for Tip O'Neil. And even when reminded, mind you, that this was a long time ago......and that Matthews himself doesn't consider himself a liberal, O'Reilly persisted. I felt like telling him - "Dude, Arianna Huffington - she once worked for (and, yes, was in fact married to the bastard) that right-wing degenerate, Michael Huffington. Is she as far to the right now as SHE was then? I mean, she has to be, right?, according to your logic - people not having the capacity to transcend and all." Billy O'Reilly, folks.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
I know you're probably not a big Newsweek reader, Bill - them being part of the villainous mainstream media and all. But I still think you might be interested to know that in the August 20th issue, George F. Will (not exactly a member of the Democratic base, mind you) offers up a very flattering critique of Senator Dodd.......................Granted, Mr. Will has for a while been showing increasing dismay with what he (and many others on the traditional right) perceives to be the imperial leanings of our current President and, therefore, it's NOT surprising that he'd be sympathetic to an alternative message now - even if it comes from a Democrat, I'm saying! I just thought I'd bring it up , dude, 1) to show how "extreme" YOU ARE, denigrating a well-respected member of the nation's highest legislative body and 2) to show, as well, how a classy conservative tends to behave - thoughtfully, in other words.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
I actually watched that bogus "comedy" show on FOX News. And guess what, folks? - DIDN'T LAUGH A SINGLE TIME!! I mean, seriously, talk about lame. First of all, the show is a frigging rip-off - twice removed, I'm saying, in that, yes, John Stewart has in fact been doing a "Chevy Chase" himself for quite a while. But even more-so, me-bucko, it just isn't funny. Granted, nary am I a knuckle-dragging, right-winged neanderthal who would in fact find a one-sided, agenda-driven perspective of any kind amusing (they had Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham doing "bits", for Christ!). Of course, if I had been drunk or something, THAT might have helped. I doubt it, though.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
But you know what else is hilarious, though? O'Reilly, a few months back, remember?, he kept on harping on the fact that Iranian weapons have been falling into the hands of insurgents, that the Iranian government was in fact responsible for this atrocity. Hilarious, in that, yes, I cannot help but ask him, now that American weaponry has apparently fallen into the hands of these same insurgents, will you, O'Reilly, similarly conclude that the U.S. is itself arming the insurgency? I mean, we are in point of fact doing so, aren't we - evidence being symmetrical and all?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
How, I'm wondering, do those who say that the "surge" is working square THAT with the increasing civilian deaths recently registered? That's right. According to Newsweek, July, with 1,652 civilians killed (those that we know about, anyway), was amongst the bloodiest months on record....................And you know what else, you "let's try to focus on the good news coming out of Iraq" bunch of lackeys, a large chunk of the carnage is being done by suicide bombers.....COMING OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA - hello!!...................It's like, I know that that doesn't exactly mesh with the original "Iran as a member of the axis of evil" paradigm of yours. But it is, I'm saying, still a point of fact that's there, me-bucko. Time to reevaluate, O.K.?
The chutzpah of O'Reilly, though. He actually had the temerity to go on television and accuse his competitors of bias, of eschewing the actual reporting of news and replacing this with some ideological agenda. Seriously, he did it - on one of his frigging "talking points" memos. I mean, come on, this is a fellow who never (virtually never), ever makes a strident case against conservatives (those to the left of David Duke, anyway), who, with such a nauseating regularity it disgusts, constantly ignores any news that even mildly embarrasses the President/ current crop of Republican Presidential candidates. Oh, but, yes, his ratings are good.....................Frigging ass-hole.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
I don't know, Bill, most of the people I know DO want a positive outcome in Iraq. I mean, granted, after all the blunders that have taken place there, most people probably think the best we can do now is either 1) a partition or 2) a marginally less brutal dictator than Saddam who won't, I'm saying, sell out to Iran down the road.......................But, really, though, and here's where you're totally missing the point, these same people are highly skeptical that a military-style bludgeoning of the problem will in fact create these desired results. "Victory in Iraq", as you so drumbeatingly call it, yeah, it's probably going to take a little bit more of a thoughtful approach.....................And to think outside the box, too, me-bucko!!
Friday, August 17, 2007
How incredibly hypocritical, though, can this O'Reilly fellow get? He rails against Bill Moyers for HIS supposedly one-sided reporting but, then, when O'Reilly's own EXTREMELY one-sided network touts (during a commercial break, I'm saying, for O'Reilly's own show - the Bill Moyers beat-down episode, in fact!!) a Sean Hannity story that ONE-SIDEDLY dresses down the Wilsons, damned if he doesn't at that point turn the other way......................Hell, I'd even go as far as to say that one-sided and/or "gang-bang" coverage permeates the FOX news network; Hannity's show on a weekly basis, the FOX News jihad versus Sandy Berger, O'Reilly's putrid/regular love-fests with Dennis Miller and Newt Gingrich, the network's pale attempt to create a conservative version of the Daily Show, etc., etc., etc.. And, yeah, like I've said before, the "liberal" opposition, it's usually quite paltry/pissy indeed. I mean, you might as well just let O'Reilly rant, I'm saying - his message, the only one worthy of sound at FOX, evidently.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The thing is, Bill, I'm not running for anything. I don't give a damn about my ratings, either. And, yes, because of this, I have a whole hell of a lot of latitude to express myself here - to be straight with people, in other words. Let me just give you an example here, O.K.?.......................Like with you, for instance, I have absolutely no compunction in telling you, Bill, the reason that your particular show has good ratings? It's really quite simple, actually - three little words; people are stupid. The average person (which, clearly, makes up the vast proportion of the television audience) plainly cannot handle complex, nuanced analysis of complicated issues. They like it cut and dry, good guys versus bad guys, etc.. The way that you apparently like it, in other words.......................And, no, I'm not in any way saying that this is strictly your province. I mean, look at the frigging movies that we watch, the music that we listen to ; "Like a Prayer", " Like a Virgin". Those aren't songs. They're similes, for Christ's sakes. What, some douche-bag rolls around on the ground at the MTV music awards and....out of THAT we create an icon, a music legend?.........................Ditto with you, I'm saying.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
I love it, though, how O'Reilly gets these mamby-pambish, ineffectual pseudo-liberals on his show and proclaims that this, let's just call it token, resistance somehow constitutes fairness. I mean, first of all, the vast majority of these people are hardly articulate spokespersons for the liberal (look, he's even got me using these stupid labels now) cause. They're either uninspired to engage O'Reilly (Kierston Powers, for example) or, when they do have the chutzpah to (ala Ellis Henican), they come off as shrill or a caricature of what O'Reilly himself has deemed his opposition to be; far-left loons, in other words...................... But even, I'm saying, when the stars are aligned and one these jokers does make some sense (well, that, or when a legitimate spokesperson sneaks through the cracks and gets some air-play), O'Reilly will inevitably cause the conversation to disintegrate; shouting, name-calling, yada-yada-yada. I mean, it's almost as if the son-of-a-bitch has some sort of fail-safe system intact - one in fact that, let's just face it here folks, keeps rational/ intellectually vigorous debate ever from rearing IT'S ugly head.......................Actually, though, the funniest off-shoot of this was when O'Reilly, after a particularly queasy example of "fairness", looked into the camera and said, "you see, Howard Kurtz, that's how it's done, two liberals versus me, always fair and balanced." Talk about busting a stitch, I'm telling you - the entire stupid segment, farcically speaking.
Monday, August 13, 2007
I don't know, though, I guess Giuliani has made a habit out of not exactly listening to folks. Take, for example, this whole issue of where to put the command and control center after the first WTC attack. Everybody, EVERYBODY told Giuliani NOT to put it back in the World Trade Center, that that could prove to have a calamitous outcome if in fact he did so. So, what did he do? He put the command and control center back in the World Trade Center. Brilliant, huh?.....................I mean, seriously though, can you only begin to imagine the sharpness of the criticism that O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, et. al. would have heaped upon the Democratic mayor of a major city who acted so irresponsibly? This, I'm saying, in that, yes, they would have crucified the bastard, unmercifully. Couple that, of course, with the whole radio frequency thing and, BAM!, it would not have been a pretty sight, AT ALL - Fox News, being what it is and everything.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Let me explain this to you, Bill - very, very slowly. The surge, of course, is suppressing violence. Any time you create checkpoints like this, the violence in that area will obviously be reduced. It doesn't mean (unless, that is, you plan to keep those checkpoints operating indefinitely) you've in any way, shape, or form solved the problem in a meaningful way. I mean, look at the Israelis in the West Bank, for Christ! The checkpoints that they've instituted have seriously curtailed violence. Have they, though, I'm saying, solved the Palestinian problem?..................Look, I guess what I'm trying to say is that what we've in fact created here....is a holding-pattern - something along the lines of the little Dutch boy. And even though I've made an Israeli analogy here, at least what they're doing has a semblance of necessity to it. The terrorists in the West Bank truly ARE a threat to Israel's existence. Al Qaeda in Iraq, on the other hand, they haven't the capacity to strike the U.S.. And, besides, do you really think that those S.O.B.s are going to survive the aftermath of us getting the hell out of there? I mean, you have been predicting a genocide, haven't you?