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.