Another reason I hate the media

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The thing is, the rest of the world IS becoming more liberal, or at least most civilized areas. There are the poverty-stricken countries filled with bandits and thieves, the religious-based government areas ala the middle east, and the occasional near-police state (In Singapore, not flushing the toilet is punishble by law.) Europe, Russia, et al however, is slowly becoming more and more left. The weird thing however, is that the people of many of these countries seem to value their freedoms more than we do.

 

As for Bill O'Reilly, I've read one of his books and seen some segments of his show in netcast. He's a Populist with a pretty good research team. He finds an issue and takes the perspective almost always of your typical moderate voter. That's why on one hand he's arguing with the Religous Right in favor of gay adoption and then arguing with some official against some city advertising tourism to gay people.

 

He's a good tool for bringing certain subjects to light (such as the fundraisers not giving out the 9/11 money properly), but all this fluff about no-spin is a bunch of bull.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

What??How do Euros value their freedom more than we do? It would seem like wanting a socialistic state would imply that you want the gov't to be alot more hands on. Is that what most Americans want. I really don't think so.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, I said many. I wasn't including them in that freedom statement. They're probably closer to our culture than many other countries.

 

However, in countries like Russia, Japan, etc. there's a lot less censorship and open-ness that is lacking over here. Other countries either don't see children's minds as these easily-tainted mallable things that we do, or simply believe the populace will use better parenting skills.

 

Meanwhile, at home, people abuse our justice system and ruin things for other people. One of my big hobbies is theme parks and chatting to other people who like them too. Disneyland down in LA is having a children's play area butchered up because children twist an ankle or slip and fall or what have you. These parents then sue Disney for big-money lawsuits.

 

However, this section of the place has been open for 35 or so years, and it's never been a concern to the legal or safety departments until the past decade or so when the lawsuits started all falling in. Meanwhile, people are suing for spilling McDonald's coffee on their own lap and for "slipping on dust" when entering a bank (true stories, even on that last one)

 

My examples aren't particularly hard-hitting ones, but what can I say? I'm a person who's big interests are wrestling and cartoons and roller coasters so it comes off rather silly when I equate politics to my own life.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

What??How do Euros value their freedom more than we do? It would seem like wanting a socialistic state would imply that you want the gov't to be alot more hands on. Is that what most Americans want. I really don't think so.

Regarding the disturbingly high percentage of people that have elected to "give up necessary freedoms for security", I disagree.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

As Tom pointed out once: "In 1996, 89% of people working for national media outlets voted Democrat." For proof that this affects their work, witness the farcical persecution of the President during his campaign: people asking him a thousand times a day whether he was dumb (and then criticising him for ignoring the submoronic question), gleefully reporting every slip of the tongue (which people like Mystery Eskimo and Zorin Industries STILL harp on) while ignoring equally (that is to say, trivially) significant goofs by Gore and Clinton, declaring that Gore had won in Florida before the polls closed (which should be illegal), and finally, telling voters in a heavily Republican district that the polls were closed one hour before they were (which is illegal).

 

Enough for a start?

The reason they didn't report on any such "slips of the tongue" by Bill Clinton is because they were too busy overblowing every single aspect of his private life. Plus, Bush makes many many more of these mistakes than Gore or Clinton ever did.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Oh no doubt this country's gone sue happy.

 

The problem with Russia is prostitution and organized crime has gone throught the roof recently.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I think Bush has got better with his grammatical slips, but still, it was an absurd number of mistakes for a man seeking the highest office in the land to make.

 

If he has a problem with his speech shouldn't he seek help to clear it up. I just thought he looked absurd during his campaign and I thought no one would vote him into office, but thats why I don't gamble.

 

Full marks to him for his improvement, and I only brought it up because I was pissed off at him for some of his more recent comments. Specifically "I don't give a fuck what the Europeans think", I take that as an insult AND bad statemanship.

[Guest Some Guy]

Well, I said many. I wasn't including them in that freedom statement. They're probably closer to our culture than many other countries.

 

However, in countries like Russia, Japan, etc. there's a lot less censorship and open-ness that is lacking over here. Other countries either don't see children's minds as these easily-tainted mallable things that we do, or simply believe the populace will use better parenting skills.

 

Meanwhile, at home, people abuse our justice system and ruin things for other people. One of my big hobbies is theme parks and chatting to other people who like them too. Disneyland down in LA is having a children's play area butchered up because children twist an ankle or slip and fall or what have you. These parents then sue Disney for big-money lawsuits.

 

However, this section of the place has been open for 35 or so years, and it's never been a concern to the legal or safety departments until the past decade or so when the lawsuits started all falling in. Meanwhile, people are suing for spilling McDonald's coffee on their own lap and for "slipping on dust" when entering a bank (true stories, even on that last one)

 

My examples aren't particularly hard-hitting ones, but what can I say? I'm a person who's big interests are wrestling and cartoons and roller coasters so it comes off rather silly when I equate politics to my own life.

Russia isn't as free as you might like to believe. They are run by organized crime, mostly made up of former KGB memebers who were out of a job when teh Iron Curtain fell. Japan is very conservative in their public behavior, they still have their traditional values to a degree.

 

About otehr countries appreciating their freedoms a lot more than we do. Russian's have never had hardly any freedom prior to 1990. They were Czarist and then Comnuict for theri entire history, Japan became a Democracy when we conquered them and wroet their constitution in 1945, so they have had about 57 years of freedom. Compare that to our 227 adn there you go. We tend to take things for granted because we've always had them.

 

Lawsuits are getting crazy in this country, they are easy money for all involved in teh suing. The Lawyers don;t have to work much and the plantiff does nothign adn collects teh settlement. I heard today that someone is suing McDonalds becassue their kids ate their eversay and got really fat. Who's fault is that? I'd say teh fat ass kids and teh dumbass parents for not realizing that eating at McDonalds everyday is bad for you. Shit, even McDonalds will tell you that. BTW I've never seen someone outside McDonalds witha lasso roping kids in and making them eat Big Macs and Happy Meals.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Oh no, I wouldn't doubt that this country was established with far more freedoms than any other, I've been saying that countries that have gaining freedoms in recent times are valuing their freedoms more than our people have. It's a generational thing, not a nationalist thing.

 

evenflowDDT brought up the comment about people sacrificing their civil liberties for security. I've mentioned how some things have beecome more difficult or become changed due ot the idiot-proof level of safety required to not get sued by somebody. And, since we're all here because we're wrestling marks, I'm sure we're all familiar with the organizations that claim professional wrestling is killing kids, so it must be taken away from EVERYBODY to protect the children.

 

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[Guest Some Guy]

Ok, I agree to an extent. But people volunatarilly suspending a very small amount of their rights in order to help protect themselves from terrorists is not a particularilly crazy notion to me.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

it was an absurd number of mistakes for a man seeking the highest office in the land to make.

I'd like to see you do half as well while making your 18th campaign stop in a single day. Every political candidate for every office misspeaks. The press didn't hear President Bush speak, and then decide he was an idiot. The press decided he was an idiot, and then leapt on every slip of the tongue imaginable to "prove" it. Gore made far worse slips than "billion" for "trillion" and they were excised from Congressional records. Gore also failed to recognise carvings of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, asking the curator, "Who are those guys?" Clinton told us we'd be a great country if we'd just "steel our wills and lose our minds." Ever hear about those things? No, you didn't, did you? That's because the media never had a vendetta against them. But you (like all liberals with a herd mentality and a childish three year-old grudge) take wildly biased reporting, brand it gospel, and then use it to "prove" that the President of the United States is stupid.

Spare me the bullshit.

 

If he has a problem with his speech shouldn't he seek help

He doesn't have a speech problem. He's extremely intelligent, articulate, deliberate, and precise in his manner, his actions, and his speech. If you ever met him face to face you'd understand how insignificant a worm you are next to him. But of course, you won't, because you don't even have that much luck. Ignorance surely must be bliss.

 

* Clinton/Gore gaffes found in Ann Coulter's Slander.

[Guest MrRant]

*coughBURNcough*

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"He (O'Reilly) is a good tool for bringing certain subjects to light (such as the fundraisers not giving out the 9/11 money properly), but all this fluff about no-spin is a bunch of bull."

 

I agree that the "No-Spin Zone" is a (VERY successful) gimmick, and when all those 9/11 fund-raisers were going on the first question that popped in my head was how all the $$$ was going to be distributed. That's why I didn't give a penny. Of course I boycott the United Way for other reasons (Personal experience with their discriminatory hiring practices, calling the Boy Scouts a hate group because they don't want homosexuals going camping with little boys in the woods, etc.)

 

BTW: He made an interesting observation tonight about Big Media's slant over whether or not the U.S. should take out Sadamm (sp). I'll post it when it becomes available on his web site...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And for the record, I should say that I agree with SG on the civil liberties thing. The temporary suspension of the right to a speedy trial in limited cases involving self-declared enemies in no way undermines the Constitution.

[Guest razazteca]

but Bill O'Reilly is set in his ways and at times refuses to let the guest talk.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

but Bill O'Reilly is set in his ways and at times refuses to let the guest talk.

That's usually because a lot of his guests start blathering on about nothing to avoid answering a direct question.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Ok, I agree to an extent. But people volunatarilly suspending a very small amount of their rights in order to help protect themselves from terrorists is not a particularilly crazy notion to me.

A small amount of rights? I'd call sacrificing all privacy rights and the right to a speedy trial and the right to not be imprisoned without committing an actual offense pretty damn huge.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I'd like to see you do half as well while making your 18th campaign stop in a single day. Every political candidate for every office misspeaks.

It wasn't just stops on the campaign, I watched him on sit down interviews making the same mistakes, but you seemed to have missed the part where I praised him for his improvement.

 

I may still not like him, but I can admit he certainly looks more professinal and statesman like now.

[Zorin Industries 0]

If you ever met him face to face you'd understand how insignificant a worm you are next to him.

Um, no, hes just an elected offical, not some King who rules by divine right. Therefore I consider him no better or worse than myself.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

You'd consider a divine right king to be better han you? Wow, that's falling for propaganda if I've ever heard it.

 

In all seriousness, I think what Marn meant (correst me if I'm wrong) is that the man, being leader of the free world, has an air which impresses most people. You can deny that you'd be impressed, but you can't know unless you met him. Seeing someone on television and meeting them in person are two different experiences.

[Zorin Industries 0]

You'd consider a divine right king to be better han you?  Wow, that's falling for propaganda if I've ever heard it.

 

In all seriousness, I think what Marn meant (correst me if I'm wrong) is that the man, being leader of the free world, has an air which impresses most people.  You can deny that you'd be impressed, but you can't know unless you met him.  Seeing someone on television and meeting them in person are two different experiences.

No, I was just making clear the distinction between the positions. He is an elected offical who can be removed from Government if necessary, not a King or Queen who rules for life( weve got one and I don't support her either).

 

And I would not be impressed because of my personal feelings towards the man, I have meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu and was impressed meeting him because I respected him, plus he was a very charming, intelligent man.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Well, guess what, a king or queen can be removed from power if the populace feels it necessary. Part of the reason that democracy works is that it reflects people, and other systems that have fallen to revolutions have fallen to the will of the people. Quite frankly, I don't care if "the masses are asses". No one knows everything, so they're all ignorant about something, but I'd bet that everybody does know about something.

 

And as for you saying you wouldn't be impressed with meeting our president, by indirectly calling him stupid, slovenly and a callous man, I send out a hearty "SCREW OFF." You apparently haven't watched the man. He's personable, he actually happens to give a damn what happened to the people on the anniversary of this day. I watched his visit to the crash site of Flight 93, and he was genuinely moved, he talked with people, he spent time with them. Your insinuations that he as the highest elected official make him not only expendable but also as callow and stupid are supremely insulting.

[Guest ant_7000]

1st off O'Reilly calls himself an Independant, so they don't even show him the respect of saying what he claims to be and 2nd he isn't a racist or at least has never said anything racist that I;ve heard. His critisism was that rappers provide a bad influence on children, which they do and I am a fan of rap. He gets crusified for saying this and has racist accusations thrown at him becasue he dared to critisize prodominately black music, he's no fan of Eminem either and last I checked he is white.

Well, I've seen the Pepsi Commercial with Ludacris and I don't see nothing wrong with it, basically the commercial focus on two dudes who trying to find a party. Bill O'Reilly Doesn't know nothing about about "Black Music" because if he did he would know that there postive music out there

[Guest Olympic Slam]

1st off O'Reilly calls himself an Independant, so they don't even show him the respect of saying what he claims to be and 2nd he isn't a racist or at least has never said anything racist that I;ve heard.  His critisism was that rappers provide a bad influence on children, which they do and I am a fan of rap.  He gets crusified for saying this and has racist accusations thrown at him becasue he dared to critisize prodominately black music, he's no fan of Eminem either and last I checked he is white.

Well, I've seen the Pepsi Commercial with Ludacris and I don't see nothing wrong with it, basically the commercial focus on two dudes who trying to find a party. Bill O'Reilly Doesn't know nothing about about "Black Music" because if he did he would know that there postive music out there

<Sarcasm> Don't you just looooove how EVERYTHING can be turned into a racial issue? O'Reilly's beef isn't with "Black Music." That's a blanket statement and I'm sure you're inferring it as racism (much like the morons on MTV.) O'Reilly is against music that sends an anti-social message and glorifies a life of violence and sex because he feels it is detrimental to children. It just so happens that a fair majority of that music is from black musicians. If O'Reilly was against "Black Music" then I guess he'd be against Stevie Wonder and the Jackson family.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'd like to see you do half as well while making your 18th campaign stop in a single day. Every political candidate for every office misspeaks.

It wasn't just stops on the campaign, I watched him on sit down interviews making the same mistakes, but you seemed to have missed the part where I praised him for his improvement.

 

I may still not like him, but I can admit he certainly looks more professinal and statesman like now.

Bush has and sometimes still does make gramatical and speaking errors, but so does everybody. His trouble with "subliminal" was played over and over and over, yet Gore got off lightly bu comparison for claiming to have invented the internet despite being in high school or College at the time the military invented it.

 

I thought Bush dramatically improved after 9/11 and gave one hell of a speech on the 13 or 14th. Since then he has made very few speaking errors that stick out like the aforemetioned one during his campaign.

[Guest bob_barron]

Bill O'Reilly didn't like that PEPSI was using a guy whose lyrics could be offensive to promote their product.

 

You know you have a weak argument when you gotta play the race card.

[Guest Some Guy]

Race has nothing to do with O'Reilly's dislike of rap music it is the messages that it mostly sends, anti-authority, pro-drugs and violence, anti-woman and gay, etc... that he doesn't like. He has been very critical of Emimen and continues to be, I assure that he would have been more outraged if everybody's favorite white rapper was chosen to do the ad.

 

You can argue that rap doesn't predominantly send the messages that I've listed but you'd lose that argument very quickly. I am a fan of rap music and have listened to the words. I am also aware that a lot of songs that anti-rap people would use as examples aer meant in a tounge in cheak fassion, like Nelly's "Hot in Here" (or however he spells it), the fact remains that they do not send positive messages to young people (the impotance of sending postive messages is anotehr debate) and many times when they do they either contradict themselves in the next song or in their behavior in life, 2Pac is a good example of this.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Here's that TP Memo I talked about earlier in this thread...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62748,00.html

 

"Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

 

We are here at our 9/11 studios at the World Financial Center in lower Manhattan. The view behind me, of course, Ground Zero.

 

Now, we realize many Americans are a little on edge tonight because of all the terror warnings earlier today. Of course, we will be on it immediately if anything happens.

 

The big story this evening, however, is Iraq and the media. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

 

I know some of you think I am a know-it-all, but I am truly confused about why some in the media are so opposed to removing Saddam Hussein. I just can't figure it out.

 

The Center for Media and Public Affairs in D.C. did a study of the establishment media and its reporting on Iraq. Listen to this. According to the study, 72 percent of all media assessments on President Bush's Iraq policy were negative. In The New York Times, 71 percent of the coverage criticized Bush. On ABC News, 80 percent of the nightly news coverage was negative, on NBC 76 percent, and CBS was the most fair and balanced at 56 percent negative.

 

We'll talk with the director of that study in just a few moments.

 

But again, why do these guys want Saddam to stay? It makes no sense at all. Number one, he has violated the Gulf War surrender terms. Just that alone means the USA has a right to oust him. Number two, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London confirms he's working hard on nuclear weapons and has deadly chemicals and germs already in his arsenal.

 

Number three, Senate Resolution 71 signed in January of '98 urged then-President Clinton to take, quote, "all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

 

That resolution was co-sponsors by Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and other prominent Democrats, most of whom are now criticizing Mr. Bush's saber-rattling.

 

The truth is that Saddam Hussein is a criminal who's violated international law and could cause grave harm at any time. There is no good reason not to remove him.

 

Now, I understand why France and Germany and Canada will not support America without U.N. approval. Those countries are uneasy the USA is so powerful. It is a case of envy and resentment against the big rich kid on the block.

 

I also understand the Vatican wants peace. That's what the pope stands for. But with all due respect to the pontiff, he's not in charge of protecting people against murderers like bin Laden and Hussein.

 

What I don't understand is the elite media's embrace of nonaction against Iraq. The weapons inspections are a game, a charade of hide and seek. Saddam has had enough time to obey international law. His tenure is up, and all clear-thinking Americans should ask, Why doesn't the elite American media know that?

 

And that's The Memo."

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I see the idiot brigade has been out in full force today.

 

hes just an elected offical... Therefore I consider him no better or worse than myself.

Fifty million Americans obviously disagree. Or else you'd be President.

Give it a rest. I mean seriously, comparing yourself to the President of the United States is bad enough. But claiming you're his equal? Are you completely out of your fucking mind? I've never seen such ridiculous megalomaniacal self-importance in my life.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Fifty million Americans obviously disagree. Or else you'd be President."

 

Yes, but Fifty-one million Americans obviously agree, and a few hundred in Palm Beach not-so-obviously agree with Zorin as well.

 

Hey, I proudly voted for Dubbya but I couldn't pass that one up...