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!