Thursday, January 31, 2008
O'Reilly, he says he's neutral, right, but THEN, during one of his crack prognostication sessions, procedes to enumerate each and every destructive policy that DEMOCRATS, if in fact THEY are elected, will perpetrate upon us; decisively high taxes, lessened security on the border, anemic anti-terror measures, etc. (the list was quite expansive, actually). I mean, seriously, he made it sound as if the end of western civilization was itself a possibility here. Ha! Not that he was suggesting we vote Republican or anything. For THAT, I'm saying, WOULD have been partisan, huh?....................................P.S. Seriously, though, how crafty is this guy? He talks himself up one way and, boom!, in he comes through the back-door with his real agenda. Kind of like a bamboozler, in other words. Of course, when I say that this S.O.B.'s a crafty S.O.B., you do know that that means he's good at fooling idiots, right?....You do? Good.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Gee, what a surprise, a Laura Ingraham diatribe that leaves out critical information. Yep, that's right, folks, it seems the reason that those Chicago schools are limiting military recruiters IS BECAUSE THESE MILITARY RECRUITERS have broken the rules/ sought advantages over the other recruiters. FOR EXAMPLE, these military recruiters have muscled their way into the classroom (a violation), taken up valuable classroom time (a violation), failed to provide many students with "opt-out" forms (a violation), and, yes, failed on many occasions to provide even basic advisement as to the risks and benefits of military service (a sleaze-ball maneuver, at the very least). It appears that they've also been showing up to many schools on a daily basis and have sought to establish relationships with the kids (some of them as young as 14-15), a tactic that other recruiters (those from trade-schools, for example) clearly don't have the financial resources to compete with..................................So, no, Laura, it's not that these schools are, as you would lead us to believe, acting out of some sort of hatred for the military. They're just trying to level the playing-field (a fairness thing, in other words). NOW....if we could only get Laura Ingraham to accept such a concept (that, and a couple hundred other little miracles, etc.).
Monday, January 28, 2008
You know something there, Laura Ingraham, I agree with you. We should definitely let the U.S. military recruit in America's high-schools. I don't have a problem with that, whatsoever................................Of course, having said that, though, I also want the military to be able to pedal it's wares at all of the major prep and private schools as well. This, I'm saying, in that, think about it, Laura. If the military has such an incredible amount to offer the youth of America, shouldn't the off-spring of this great country's wealthiest (those who attend Choate, those who attend Hotchkiss, those who attend Andover, etc.) also get a crack at this wondrous experience of patriotism? I mean, seriously, shouldn't they?................................P.S. Seriously, though, I don't want anybody to be forced to do anything. Well, unless of course it's a draft. Then I want everybody under the sun to be forced. EVERYBODY!!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
All David Letterman (yes, I'm talking about the talk-show host, folks) cares about, apparently, is his radical far-left agenda. This, according to Bill O'Reilly, I'm saying. Wow, huh? I mean, talk about ludicrous/paranoid. How the hell does he know what Mr. Letterman's current political orientation is? Seriously, other than the fact that he doesn't like Mr. O'Reilly and apparently doesn't think much of the war in Iraq, when was the last time you heard the talk-show host tip his cap on anything? I mean, sure, he's had John Edwards on his show a time or two but so, too, he's had Republican candidates - all of whom he's treated respectfully. But, no, O'Reilly, he turns it into a personal thing and vilifies the guy. What a frigging prince/sweet-heart, huh?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Seriously, though, the ticking time-bomb scenario - that's the one they're always forcing down our gullet, right? If we don't "coercively" interrogate X terror suspect, thousands and thousands of innocent Americans will die. The worst-case scenario, let's just call it. I mean, seriously, this is what we're all led to believe, correct?.................................Well, let me just tell you something there, friends. If this is the template that we as a nation are going to formulate our foreign policy by, then, yeah, there might be some difficult sliding ahead for us. First of all (and, yes, this is where Mr.s O'Reilly and Gaffney majorly go astray), we always have to remember here that this particular stuff tends to have big consequences - not necessarily for this conflict, mind you, but for all the future ones. This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, while maybe Al Qaeda and company are themselves impervious to fairness/reciprocity, other potential opponents could actually be keeping a scorecard or two. And damned if we're not tipping the the scales, too, substantially!!.................................As for the actual far-fetched story-line itself, I don't know, I just don't see too many people getting upset IF IN FACT YOU KNOW A BOMB IS GOING OFF (how we would necessarily know this, that's never been satisfactorily been explained to me)!! Not that these tactics are necessarily going to work, mind you (coercive measures rarely do, most experts say), but, hell, if nothing else is working, it might be worth a shot (smack the guy around a little bit, whatever). Careful of the slippery slope, though. Always be careful of that, me-buckos....................................P.S. And, no, don't even get me going on world opinion, America's present status as a laughing stock, etc.. That, I'm saying, and the rest of the Bush-induced idiocy.
Monday, January 21, 2008
I have a question for you, Bill. What IF the only way we could get actionable intelligence (and, yes, I'm talking here about information that could potentially save thousands of lives) would be for us to dismember a dude, would that be O.K.? I mean, really, he's not giving it up with the water-boarding, etc.. DO WE....take it up a notch? I'm just asking, in that, yes, you said the the Republic could in fact survive water-boarding. Could it also survive dismembering a dude? I mean, come on, tell me. You are the frigging oracle, correct?..................................P.S. I'm not even saying, Bill, that it WOULD be wrong to annihilate the guy, given the scenario I provided to you. I just think it would be nice to get you on the record, that's all. I mean, you still are of the mindset that torture works, that we shouldn't get bogged down in theory, etc., aren't you? AREN'T YOU, BILL? Answer me.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Seriously, though, doesn't O'Reilly remind you a little bit of Sonny Liston (God rest his miserable soul, huh?)? I mean, think about it. They're both thugs (Liston, obviously in the past tense). They've both had a series of "issues" (not pertaining to their respective professions, I'm saying). They both like to pick on vulnerable folks, those incapable of defending themselves, etc.. And, yes, they both have had a tendency to crumble/stumble whenever a potential target/perceived chump retaliates. In Liston's case, he would simply take a dive/ sit on his stool in the corner cowering. O'Reilly? Well, let's just say that his tactics are a tad more convoluted. Him, he'll either attack the messenger (in his case, anyone courageous enough to call/site him), viciously, or (and here's where it gets real juicy) change the goal-posts to a point so ludicrous it's comical. Different strokes for different folks, I gather................................Of course, it also must be stated that O'Reilly has at least a couple of advantages over Sonny. First of all, he has the herd-like/unending stupidity of America (well, a segment of it anyway) uncritically backing him. "We" frigging like the son-of-a-bitch, apparently. But even more important than that, I'm saying, he has an employer, Fox, who 1) absolutely refuses to reign him in and 2) demands nothing of him in terms of accountability. It's like, seriously, I don't even think that Cassius Clay himself could penetrate that defense. I mean, just ask the circus clowns and midgets..................................
Saturday, January 19, 2008
You're spinning again, Bill. Your initial displeasure with Edwards's bringing up of the homeless vets wasn't, WAS NOT, that Edwards was unfairly blaming the economy for the homelessness, wasn't, WAS NOT, the fact that Edwards was ignoring substance-abuse as a possible cause of this homelessness. Your beef, your initial beef, was strictly with Edwards's "audacity" in bringing up this issue, PERIOD! "There may be a few of them out there....but not a lot", you go. Yeah, that's right, you idiot, you were essentially denying that the problem even existed. And then, I'm saying, you have the temerity to say that you, it's you who supports the troops. What a frigging joke, huh?...............................P.S. A couple more points here, Bill. One, the 200,000 homeless vets figure, that was supplied by the V.A., not by NBC News, not by the New York Times. And, yes, two, even if 90% of those vets are in fact addicted to drugs/alcohol and/or HAVE mental illness, don't we still have an obligation to help them, bro? I mean, we can't be having the "culture war" take precedence here (i.e., over the troops), can we? CAN WE?
Friday, January 18, 2008
Bill, in the words of Burt Lancaster's Mr. Merrill in "The Swimmer", "You're a liar, you're a God-damned liar!!" Seriously, though, bro, all of the other networks HAVE reported on the lessened violence in Iraq. Of course, they've also analyzed said trend and, yes, taken at least a cursory glance at possible other explanations (other than the surge, I'm saying); sweet-heart deals with Sunni militias, the fact that these same Sunni militias have turned on Al Qaeda (is the government next?), the fact that the country has largely already been ethnically cleansed, the fact that Al Sadr is most likely waiting us out, etc.. I mean, come on, Bill. What do you want the media to do - a daily homage to the Bush administration that, yes, the surge is in fact working (ignoring as well the total lack of political reconciliation)?................................Oh, and while we're at it here, if you're going to criticize the other networks for not covering this lessened violence (which is, in and of itself, a lie but whatever) then, yes, I think we're going to have to take a look at you, too, me-bucko. For instance, I think it's fair to criticize you for not covering the four million (20% of the population) displaced Iraqis, the fact that the Christians there are being persecuted daily, the total lack of political reconciliation inside the country, etc..............................And, really, Bill, the the fact that we're even having a one-year anniversary of the surge....and still haven't declared "mission accomplished" yet/again, maybe you ought to look at that, too, bro. That, and the overall mindset of preemption, I'm saying, nation-building, etc..
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Let me ask you something there, Bill. Kiersten Powers, does Fox News PAY HER to be unprepared? I'm serious. Does Fox News pay her MORE money to come on....and NOT have the facts? I mean, just look at that whole faux torture debate that the two of you had. You asked her, "name me one expert who says that torture doesn't work." John McCain. That's all she could come up with, John McCain.............................Well, guess what, Bill, Fox News doesn't pay me and, yes, I will in fact answer you there, pal. Newscientist.com, bioethecist Steven Miles, and Fairleigh Dickinson University ALL have stated that torture does not in any way harvest quality intelligence. Oh, what's that, you want some military experts? Alright, fine, I'll give you some of them. There's Air Force Colonel John Rothrock, Army Colonel Stuart Herrington, and, yes, former CIA officer Jack Rice, a man who's actually done interrogations. All of these folks, too, have said that torture is utterly unreliable as an intelligence-gathering device...............................Seriously, though, Bill, it isn't at all hard to find this stuff. I could have given you a hundred reputable names. And so could have Kiersten Powers, too, for Christ sakes. You have a deal with her, don't you, Bill? I mean, I hate to be suspicious here, but, damn it, that's the only thing that makes any sense at all - her being in your back-pocket and Fox paying for it all, PERIOD!!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Of course, according to O'Reilly, Matthews' vitriol for Clinton....is strictly for the purpose of helping Obama (a part of that "everything has an ulterior motive" mindset of his, I gather). I mean, talk about a convoluted paradigm, huh (yes, Matthews has in fact spoken well of many Republicans over the years; John Werner, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, basically all of the moderates)? That, and the fact that he's lying....BIG TIME! Like I've already stated, folks, Matthews has had an enmity regarding both Clintons for years. This is NOT partisan stuff, at all!................................P.S. Think about it, though. Grill a Republican, you're a liberal. Grill a Democrat, you're a liberal. Participate in the all-you-can-eat pancake breakfast down at I.H.O.P., you're a liberal. It's like, what, the facts exist only to prop-up Mr. O'Reilly's imbecilic prisms....and vise frigging versa? Apparently yes, huh?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Poor Chris Matthews, though. This guy just cannot win. He gets hammered by O'Reilly and company on the right and by Media Matters on the left. Kind of like a frigging pin-ball, for Christ! It's like, I don't know about you folks, but that basically tells me one thing -THIS SOB is doing his job (as opposed to the other SOB, I'm saying).
Sunday, January 13, 2008
I don't know, Bill, I guess that Dan Abrams didn't get the memo that MSNBC is rooting for Obama over Hillary. I mean, seriously, bro, this guy has been doing nothing over the past few days BUT criticize the media FOR it's treatment OF Hillary. And the fact that he does it, I'm saying, right after your stupid program concludes (i.e., mercifully ends). It's like, talk about an argument that doesn't hold water, me-bucko................................P.S. And for the record, Bill, Chris Matthews has been harsh critic of the Clintons FOR YEARS! He didn't need a Barack Obama candidacy to remind us of this. I mean, seriously, by your convoluted reasoning, Rush Limbaugh (he of the "Americans aren't ready to watch a woman age in the Presidency" mindset) is an Obama supporter, too, in that damned if he hasn't been just as unfair to Hillary. Oh, wait a minute, he's been consistently/equally unfair to Obama ditto. Never mind!!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Here's one that I really love. O'Reilly, right, sensing that former Bush press-secretary, Scott McClellan may in fact have turned on Bush (McClellan's got a book coming out, I guess), tries to bait Mr. McClellan, "he's gotta man-up, I'm telling you, Bernie, he's gotta man-up." I mean, how incredibly/delectably delicious IS THIS, huh, O'Reilly telling somebody else to be a man about something?.................................Think about it, I'm saying. When was the last time O'Reilly "manned-up" and admitted to any of HIS vulnerabilities/mistakes, ANY OF THEM? Why, for example, doesn't dude "man-up" and just once mention Keith Olbermann by name (this, I'm saying, instead of taking it out on poor Chris Matthews)? Why doesn't he "man-up" and finally admit what he so idiotically said about that boy - that the kidnapped youngster was, gag, "enjoying it" in his new surroundings? Why doesn't he "man-up" and admit that by saying he was surprised by the civil behavior of African-Americans in a Harlem restaurant (actually, I do give him credit for going there and for, yes, trying to make a positive point in his broadcast) he was probably knee-deep stepping in it there, too? I mean, I could go on here but, really, is it in any way necessary, folks? No? I didn't think so.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Protecting Bush at all costs, is that not what it all boils down to, essentially? Take, for example, this whole national intelligence estimate (you know, the report that basically said Iran had in fact given up it's nuclear weapons program in '03) whup. To practically everyone else in the media/ on the planet, it all kind of smelled a little on the fishy side (i.e., the fact that Bush had said he was only recently aware of it, etc.); the fact that Bush's language seemingly changed last August, the fact that National Security Advisor Hadley had in his statements implicated a prior knowledge by Bush (yes, Mr. O'Reilly, Hadley denies it now, but the film-clip is the film-clip, me-bucko)..................................Everyone, that is, except for, you guessed it, Bill O'Reilly. He dismissed any and all inference that Mr. Bush's explanations may in fact be contradictory. He also dismissed, summarily, anyone even remotely suspicious of a cover-up here, called them the "Bush lied crowd" or something...............................Wow, huh? And to think that 2-4 million people a night watch and uncritically digest this partisanship/rancor. It's like, OF COURSE BUSH LIED/ knew back in August that circumstances had changed - not 2 days before the report went public, mind you, but, yes, 4 frigging months before it did! I'm telling you, these Bush folks/O'Reilly stooges must think we're total idiots or something - the only explanation I can muster, frankly.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
I'm telling you, while there are indeed many things that O'Reilly SHOULD refrain from, him....accusing another person of hyperbole - THAT, my friends, would have to be numero uno. He shows this film-clip of Chris Matthews, right (and, yes, Matthews does in fact get excited from time to time), and tries to portray this as an example of the media, "going absolutely crazy over this whole Obama thing". He further goes on to say that "everybody knew Obama was going to win in Iowa" (this, I'm saying, despite the fact that Obama was enmeshed in a 3-way tie one day prior to the balloting). I mean, if O'Reilly doesn't see the significance of an African-American candidate winning in a state that is 95% Caucasian, then, yeah, maybe the blinders are on a little too tight here. Not to mention that the frigging guy is fighting a culture-war, too, simultaneously, for Christ!!
Saturday, January 5, 2008
And what about Mr. O'Reily's recent treatment of John Edwards? How absolutely despicable has that been, huh? I mean, he either takes the guy out of context OR misconstrues the hell out of his words (the implication clearly being that Edwards won't protect us against terrorism). Oh, and then there's the name-calling (he's a far-left loon), obviously..................................Of course, what I find MOST unsavory, though, is when he and his hand-picked guests do their God-damned piggy-back routine. First O'Reilly does his character assassination of Edwards, then his guest. Dennis Miller, for example, he calls Edwards a maggot, an empty suit, etc.. That, I'm saying, and then some douche-bag military "expert" (Fox's definition, not mine) comes out and calls Edwards, what, a good-looking version of Huey Long or something? Huey Long, for crying out loud. It's like, talk about taking the poor fellow apart. That's pretty close to the worst, I'm thinking.......................................P.S. And then there's the frigging inconsistency/hypocrisy component. I mean, just look at Bill Maher, for example. When Maher goes on Leno and ridicules Bush, O'Reilly makes a major stink about it. This, I'm saying, while, at the same time, he doesn't challenge Miller for the maggot comment PERIOD! Of course, the fact that O'Reilly himself says stuff like, "the only thing living under a bridge these days is Edwards's brain", damned if that isn't just as incriminating - at least it is to these ears, me-buckos!
Friday, January 4, 2008
Even more amazing, though, is when you compare Mr. Gaffney with fellow Reagan Defense Department official, Larry Korb, what these two men derived from their experiences there, etc.. Just look (for example) at the way the two men view American power (military power, specifically). While Gaffney sees it as essentially limitless (i.e., that we can constantly attack/occupy countries, and do it without repercussions), Korb sees it as a double-edged sword, recognizes that the world is a messy place (one in fact that can be made worse by wretched policy - installing the Shah of Iran, for example). Of course, the fact that Korb is also a student of history makes this distinction even sharper. As for Mr. Reagan himself, would he have ever invaded Iraq, allowed a couple hundred thousand American troops to languish in the desert FOR YEARS!? Me - I'm not really thinking so. Neither does Mr. Korb, evidently.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Frank Gaffney, folks, remember him? He had, like, what, a cup of coffee in the Reagan administration or something? Unfortunately, that's evidently enough these days to secure yourself a life-long tenure as a cable-news talking-head/Bush apologist. And I'm telling you here, folks, this guy (again, unfortunately) is the benchmark/total package. I mean, seriously, you name it, he's for it. Illegal wiretaps, check. Torturing detainees, check. Invading/occupying sovereign nations, check. A rubber-stamp for the neocons, in other words................................And, so, no, what I saw recently didn't surprise me in the least. Yeah, I'm referring to his assertion that water-boarding isn't bad in that, as part of special training, we water-board our own marines. "If it's acceptable to water-board our own soldiers, why then is it bad to water-board terror suspects?" Of course, what he clearly forgot to mention was that our soldiers know that THEIR water-boarding is a simulation and that the detainees don't They actually DO think they're going to die. That's a pretty important distinction, don't you think?.................................As for Gaffney specifically, he, evidently, is as much a master of the partial expose' as O'Reilly himself. In fact, they should probably collaborate, huh? Just got to find a facility big enough to house their egos. Stench from their arrogance, notwithstanding.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Have you noticed, though, how O'Reilly's been staying neutral during this Republican primary season? I mean, the fact that he's been so totally uncritical of these bozos (this, I'm saying, despite all the fodder they've provided) that, my friends, is NOT surprising. But the mud that they've been slinging at each other - surely this, I'm saying (him having such a nose for injustice and all), is something that under normal circumstances would be worthy of at least a mention................................And the fact that conservative commentators, too, have gotten into the mix of late. For example, I just heard Bill Bennett (currently a CNN analyst - CNN, supposedly one of these far-liberal cable-news venues) refer to former Arkansas governor Huckabee as (drum-roll, please) a huckster (a play on words, obviously).................................Yeah, that's right, folks, Governor Huckabee's being attacked, not by liberals so much, BUT BY CONSERVATIVES. And not just on his political record, either. Supposedly his fellow Baptist preachers have said that here, too, the fellow is far to the left of where he needs to be. He's a liberal (at least that's the accusation)!.....................................But let's get back to O'Reilly. And, yes, I am in fact serious here, folks. I would truly like to know what Billo thinks about this - all of it. Does he agree with Huckabee's conservative critics here....OR are they being totally unfair to him? Certainly, folks, there's got to be an outrage somewhere here. Damn it! Where the hell's O'Reilly when you really need him?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
"Has the culture ever been worse?" He actually had the temerity to ask one of his "colleagues" that. I don't know, I guess he evidently feels that girls kissing (for example) has a much more deleterious effect on society than segregation, sweat-shop labor, etc.. I mean, talk about fellow whose values are, shall we say, a tad askew. And the thing is, folks, when all those lights go down in O'Reillyville, I'd be willing to bet that he, Mr. O'Reilly - well, let's just say he's probably willing to compromise. In the words of Al Franken (his mortal enemy, I gather), "I didn't know that phone-sex was a (pause for effect) "traditional" value."