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?
I just love it. O'Reilly goes ballistic, right, when he hears that the Democrats are having one of THEIR debates at the Yearly Kos convention. He criticizes the crap out of them in fact. This, I'm saying, as opposed to him saying nothing when (for example) John McCain goes to Liberty University and cow-tows to Jerry Falwell (that's right, Mr. "Agent of Intolerance on the Right" himself)...................Oh, and let's not forget all those little tea-parties that President Bush has with right-wing, talk-radio neanderthals. Gee, that's not in any way, shape, or form catering to the lowest common denominator of political discourse. I mean, come on, O'Reilly himself, comparing the Daily Kos to Adolph Hitler. Now THAT is some SERIOUS hate-speech, dude!
Friday, August 10, 2007
Damned, though, if I can figure it, either - any attraction for Spoonhaurer, period! First of all, the son-of-bitch is married - married to a drunk and a fool, too, for criminy! Two, she doesn't even like me. And, three, damned if we even have a single thing in common, kerplunkingly so. Of course, when it all boils down to nothing under the sun but hag-like beauty, peaches....and the creamiest of pairings, preposterously, all you really have to do is, yep, you guessed it, LEAVE!!!!.................Well, that and admit to it, I'm saying.
I'm not sure you're aware, either, Bill, that the International Association of Fire-fighters has come out, strenuously, against Giuliani. Specifically, it appears that this tough-on-crime, tough-on-terrorism hero of yours (I gather, in that you've never to my knowledge criticized the fellow - ever!), in the eight years following the first WTC attack, never, despite constant prodding by the NYFD, took the initiative to get the cops and fire-fighters on the same radio frequency. And because of this, apparently, a lot of fire-fighters lost their lives unnecessarily. Kind of a damning indictment, in other words, and, yeah, maybe it's one that even your viewers might be needing to hear. I mean, those fire-fighters are, after all, men in uniform, aren't they?....................Oh, and P.S., before you even think about putting these chaps into that far-left loony category of yours, please be warned, nearly 40% of THEIR campaign contributions over the years have gone to Republican candidates. No Kool-Aid drinkers here, me-bucko.
Another news-flash, Bill. It appears that Congressman Tom Tancredo, erstwhile Republican presidential candidate, has recently suggested that bombing Mecca and Medina (Islam's two most holy places, mind you) might not be the worst idea in the world.................. I mean, seriously though, that is ten times more preposterous/ inflammatory a statement than Obama made (i.e., suggesting that we bomb Al Qaeda in the mountains of northern Pakistan IF WE HAD ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE). At least ten times more preposterous, I'm saying, but, no, we don't hear any criticism from you....pertaining to it. Why is that, Bill? Please, explain it to me - this time, though, without the spin, me-bucko.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
At this point, though, it actually might be a good idea to counsel those on the other side, as well. This, I'm saying, in that, sure, while we probably need to spend more of our capital on improving the infrastructure, it might also be stated that this simply is rarely the entire answer to a problem. I mean, I don't have to remind you, do I, of those four little magic words, "the bridge to nowhere"? And, besides, didn't the Bush administration/ the Republican congress just this past year sign a multi, MULTI, billion dollar highway bill - a bill that many of us who opposed the President for his deficit-spending habits lambasted the poor guy for? Not, of course, that this wasn't too little, too late for those who are in fact predisposed to bash the fellow, unconditionally (oh, my god, I'm Bill O'Reilly!). This, I'm saying, as opposed to me, who picks his battles reluctantly (though fiercely, when he picks them).
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Hey, Bill, have you heard about those 200,000 missing weapons in Iraq - weapons in fact that were supposed to used by the Iraqi military and police to fight the insurgency? I'm asking, well, because I haven't heard much about it on FOX and thought that maybe you guys over there were unaware of it....................I mean, it is a troubling story, right, in that it appears highly likely that many of those weapons have fallen into the hands of, hello!, the insurgents?! Oh, wait a minute, I see, there's a conflict here, huh? If you report about this on the "Factor", it makes, one, the military look bad, incompetent, inefficient, etc and, two, the Bush administration equally uber-foolish. And we certainly can't be having that at FOX News, now can we? Fool!!
Monday, August 6, 2007
Alright, so they're saying, what, that those billions we're spending in Iraq, refereeing a civil war over there, could in fact have been used to strengthen our infrastructure here, instead? That's the unfair argument you're referring to , Bill? I mean, don't get me wrong. It's not necessarily (being that I myself an NOT a knee-jerk reactionary type of guy) the first thing that would have come out of my mouth, either, in that, yes, a lot of people at a lot of different levels of government should no doubt share the blame here (i.e., the bridge collapsing). But it is, I'm saying, a legitimate point that SHOULDN'T be dismissed so purely on partisan grounds. I mean, it's certainly not any more preposterous than YOU blaming the New York Times, you know, FOR EVERYTHING!!!!! Just as an example, I'm saying.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Oh, so because Senator Dodd thought you made that idiotic San Francisco comment on your radio show (as opposed to you having made it on the radio, I'm saying), this somehow damages HIS credibility? I mean, sure, he probably DOESN'T watch the "Factor" every night but, really, it seems like he's seen enough of your shtick to get at least a basic handle on it; your penchant to see everything through a cut-and-dry political lens, a tendency to idiotically extrapolate broad, self-serving, and paranoid conclusions from limited data, etc.. Of course, the scariest part of all is that the minions who worship you in T.V. land actually buy this garbage of yours - that you in fact are the reasonable one/ guru. Talk about a wake-up call, huh? A wake-up call for the country, I'm saying!!.................Oh yeah, and then you bring Dennis Miller out afterwards to bash Senator Dodd, unencumbered. How frigging typical was that, for Christ? Fair and balanced, my ass.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Did you catch it the other night, folks? O'Reilly (Mr. Number-one in the ratings himself), because of the bridge in Minnesota collapsing, GETS PREEMPTED!! Man, he must have been way-pissed. An entire evening, I'm saying, without being able to spew his venomous, hackneyed, categorically-driven view-points/ access the mediocre masses of this scapegoat-hungry culture of ours. "Damn that frigging bridge", he and his minions/ brethren - they had to have been cussing over at FOX...................Of course, it also must be stated that him having the night off also bought the son-of-a-bitch some time to ponder. I mean, he is (isn't he?) going to have to come up with some sort of explanation for WHY the bridge collapsed. "Secular progressives", perhaps, trying to ruin the country, put it on it's boom-boom, etc.. Investigative journalism, FOX style, in other words...................P.S. I'm sorry if this sounds too irreverent but, really, the guy deserves it. He is absolutely shameless and needs to be countered - the more, the merrier in fact.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The fact that the mainstream media doesn't cover Ward Churchill - damned if that, too, isn't a bug-a-boo for O'Reilly, another component of the left-wing conspiracy, etc.. Of course, to say that the mainstream media, while it ignores Ward Churchill, O.J. Simpson, and, yes, most of the sleazy crap that he seemingly CAN'T ignore, is covering actual news (A.G. Gonzales's deceit before congress, the Pat Tillman cover-up - you know, the stuff his broadcast COMPLETELY ignores) doesn't seem to mediate it for him, EVER!! All the news that's fit to ignore, in other words. Fox News and the Bill O'Reilly show, ladies and gentlemen.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Alright, let's see if I've gotten THIS ONE straight. The army is efficient, you say, but only up to the point when a person gets shot? Hmmm, that's interesting. Only when the army, by necessity, has to take care of it's wounded soldiers, suddenly THEN it becomes inefficient! Wow, that sucks. Kind of convenient for you, though, in that, yeah, it substantiates YOUR preconceptions, etc....................But, seriously, what DOES such an argument say about your precious army? I don't know, to me it says either that they're sadistic (i.e., that they only care about a soldier if he continues to be functional) or that (the more logical conclusion) they're not in any way, shape, or form the efficient, well-oiled machine you've consistently portrayed them to be. Either way, I'm saying, it doesn't exactly substantiate your argument after all, now does it?