Bill O'Reilly goes nuclear

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

War never solves any problems. In this day and age, violence oftens brings on more violence

 

Wow, Jesus, someone finally gets it.

[Guest JMA]

Well, I got you. No response to my point.

Scroll up. You did get a response from me. The fact is Iraq sits atop the world’s second largest reserve of oil. Then there is the fact that Sadaam was in conflict with Bush Senior. Thus, my reasons for the war on Iraq: Oil AND revenge.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I commented on this in another thread. I think O'Reilly came across looking worse, but Glick was getting on my nerves more because it sounded like Adam Sandler reading a talking points memo from the peacenik movement.

 

Kotz -- better enjoy Donahue now, because he won't be around much longer...

[Guest TheGame2705]

Bush has already said a while ago it was a personal vendetta AND then brought up this whole "they have weapons" mess. I realized Bill was a tool when he said Ludacris was a disgrace and bad role model for Pepsi commercials but Ozzy and Brittney have also done Pepsi commercials and one has no problem acting like a slut and the other used to bite off bats' heads. And when he yelled at a lady for owning a porno shop and not having an 18+ policy. She said that there's nothing you can't find at Spencer's and he said "Meh I don't even know what Spencer's is and I don't care". THAT really shows he's good at debating when he's ignorant to what some people are saying.

[Guest JMA]

Kotz -- better enjoy Donahue now, because he won't be around much longer...

Do you not like Donahue or something? I notice you like Rush, and Phil is basically the left version of Rush. Donahue seems a hell of a lot nicer and smarter, IMO. The good thing is that his show WON'T be leaving MSNBC. It just won't be on during prime-time. You could always tape it.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Donahue isn't getting completley yanked from the air. Considering how bad is ratings are it's suprising.

[Guest JMA]

Donahue isn't getting completley yanked from the air. Considering how bad is ratings are it's suprising.

I guess being the nice guy really does pay off in the end.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Either that or is contract isn't up yet.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

That rarely stops networks.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Do you not like Donahue or something?"

 

Not really.

 

"I notice you like Rush, and Phil is basically the left version of Rush."

 

No. Rush is more entertaining, and Phil has guests. Both distort the truth at times to try to prove their point. (And who doesn't from time to time?)

 

"Donahue seems a hell of a lot nicer and smarter, IMO."

 

That's your opinion, and opinions are like @ssholes -- some stink more than others.

 

"The good thing is that his show WON'T be leaving MSNBC. It just won't be on during prime-time. You could always tape it."

 

Shoot. Oh well, being on MSNBC isn't like being on "real" TV anyway...

[Guest JMA]

"Not really."

 

Alright.

 

"No. Rush is more entertaining, and Phil has guests. Both distort the truth at times to try to prove their point. (And who doesn't from time to time?)"

 

He was entertaining when he first came on the radio. Then when you found out he was serious he stopped being entertaing. I'd watch Donahue just for Phil's facial expressions.

 

"That's your opinion, and opinions are like @ssholes -- some stink more than others."

 

Not mine. I shower regularly.

 

"Shoot. Oh well, being on MSNBC isn't like being on "real" TV anyway..."

 

I think Chris Matthews would disagree. Anyways, the good thing is Phil isn't leaving. I think Ventura is replacing is timeslot too, so that's a plus. It will be nice to hear a non-partisan like Jesse Ventura. Heck, maybe he'll even have some wrestlers on as guests.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Not mine. I shower regularly.

 

But, do you wipe?

 

 

...

 

 

+!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Heh. I read a column last week or so in the Chronicle about the current MSNBC situation.

 

Jesse Ventura and Tina Brown are the latest Great White Talking Hopes to land jobs on cable news channels. Both of them should be in place and gabbing away by March. And both are expected to revitalize the flagging fortunes of MSNBC and CNBC, respectively.

 

Here's a short prediction: not bloody likely.

 

While Ventura, the former professional wrestler, XFL aficionado and, oh yeah, former Minnesota governor, makes for an intriguing addition to MSNBC, there's just one small fact about the news channel that seems to have been lost in the discussion: MSNBC is dead.

 

When the Columbia shuttle blew up, almost no one turned to MSNBC. It barely received any mention in the national press as coverage of the catastrophe was dissected. Why? Because nobody cares about MSNBC. The only real mystery is why Bill Gates and Microsoft continue to be involved. You'd think he'd want to bail out of the deal and let the channel become RadioShackNBC.

 

Ventura's arrival will certainly Foxify things at MSNBC, and that's probably a good sign for ratings -- but unless he pile-drives Ari Fleischer in the first week, Ventura's presence won't be nearly enough to turn the channel around.

 

Ventura's hiring had been hinted at for months, and the only oddity was why he wasn't going to Fox, which might have been a better fit and bolstered an already powerhouse lineup.

 

Clearly, MSNBC needed Ventura in the worst way -- even worse than it needed Phil Donahue, the most recent of saviors, now all but booted back into oblivion.

 

Which brings us to the central problem of MSNBC: It doesn't know what it wants to be, in what direction it's going or how to stop its current slide. More important, America's NewsChannel, as it likes to call itself, is not listening to America. If it were, then it would hear this: We don't need you.

 

Chris Matthews is about the only calling card MSNBC has left. And while Matthews has a lot of hot air, he doesn't have enough to do five shows back to back every night.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Who's Tina Brown

 

I thought I heard Jesse Ventura's show will be on at 9:00 CST.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Well, I got you. No response to my point.

Scroll up. You did get a response from me. The fact is Iraq sits atop the world’s second largest reserve of oil. Then there is the fact that Sadaam was in conflict with Bush Senior. Thus, my reasons for the war on Iraq: Oil AND revenge.

A reserve of oil that the U.S. can get absolutely dick from in the next 10 years. Scroll up.

 

Drilling in Alaska would be far more productive.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Drilling in Alaska should be reserved for a total catastrophic emergency, like a total cutoff of oil from every foreign country or something.

 

Anyways, I had no idea MSNBC was in so much trouble. Haven't they been around longer than Fox News?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well, I got you. No response to my point.

Scroll up. You did get a response from me. The fact is Iraq sits atop the world’s second largest reserve of oil. Then there is the fact that Sadaam was in conflict with Bush Senior. Thus, my reasons for the war on Iraq: Oil AND revenge.

A reserve of oil that the U.S. can get absolutely dick from in the next 10 years. Scroll up.

 

Drilling in Alaska would be far more productive.

Sure, yeah, drill in Alaska and kill endangered animals.

 

Rawk.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Look at the context, fellas. That's why this "war-for-oil" argument is so stupid.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Look at the context, fellas. That's why this "war-for-oil" argument is so stupid.

What context? Drilling in Alaska will kill whole species of animals. It's a terrible solution.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I'm not saying we should drill for oil, I'm saying that because we can, it disproves the weak argument of war-for-oil.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Everyone who says "War for oil" is pretty much an idiot anyways.

 

I think, personally, that Bush thinks this war is going to pull us out of our economic recession; therefore, he wants to accomplish this war at any cost, so that the "only blemish" on his presidency will go away.

 

What's hilarious is that he's completely and undeniably wrong.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Hell, the last three conflicts we've been in (Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf) should show that war doesn't do much good for the economy. During the Korean conflict, Truman had to declare a national state of emergency due to the nosediving economy, Vietnam's effects were felt for the whole of the 70s, and the Gulf resulted in the recession that sunk his own father. The lesson is that the only way that it will ever help the economy is if everything converts to war production like in WWI and II, and this conflict won't be nearly involved enough to do that. Hell, those two were really the exceptions to the rule in all of history if you think about it.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Most of the reasoning behind that, if I'm not mistaken, is that the women were forced to go to work due to the scale of each of those wars... and it boosted production and efficiency in the work force. This war is barely going to effect anyone (save the arms manufacturing industry), and Bush is simply hoping people will buy into the "War = Good Economy" theorem.

 

It's sad.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Exactly. Besides, the conversion of our economy from production-centered to service-centered over the last 50 years makes such a theory even more boneheaded. Oh, and that nasty trade deficit.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If a bunch of idiot college kids on a message board can figure this out, someone tell me why some of the "brightest minds" in the world can't.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Umm... because they have grey hair? I don't know.

 

Youth will always be considered a joke as far as opinions go for some reason.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I suspect the reasoning behind said opinion is threads like this.

 

But it was so much fun!

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

You're right. Much fun indeed.

[Guest Brian]

Part of it is because the government wants to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan but can't get the oil companies to invest because of the stability in the region. Face it, there's a lot of oil along the gulf taht they can get into but there are alot of worries.

 

The situation is intriguing in Alaska since we export a great deal of oil that already comes out of there.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Or we could just.. You know, use less oil.

 

Now oil has a place and will always be necessary, but think about it. They say we get 13% of our oil from Saddam. So, if we used 13% less oil, we wouldn't need Saddam at all.

 

There's quite a few uses for oil where an alternative could be used instead.

 

But since so many of those in power live in luxury thanks to the Enrons and the Chevrons, we'll never see that.