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..