O'Reilly, Daily Show, and Nielson

[insertwackynamehere]

Bill Oreilly's new book sucked BTW, from what I heard

[fodders]

insertwackynamehere said:

Bill Oreilly's new book sucked BTW, from what I heard

Ahh, you got the audio tape version?

[david_a]

Scuba Steve said:

Is that the show that had the 9/11 commison report? Because that was a pretty good program I saw.

Uh, I don't really know what you mean by "had the 9/11 commision report," but yes, they did cover it like (I hope) the rest of the news programs did (the others did cover it, didn't they!?).

The Newshour is fairly easy to spot... It's on PBS, so they don't exactly have millions to waste on a fancy HUD with 3D rendered spinning logos, stock tickers, and a gargantuan studio in the background with 100 extras sitting amongst expensive looking computers :)

DaJuice said:

Hurray for Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley etc etc. Thank God for PBS.

Don't forgot Frontline! Their story on how the second Iraq war unfolded on the ground was a real eye-opener for me.

[Linguica]

It's amazing how anti-press The Daily Show has gotten. Practically every night there's a piece talking about how worthless the press is and how they don't actually ask questions and verify facts and try to protect objectivity and do all those things the press is supposed to do. It's pretty obvious now that The Daily Show is not just laughing about how lackadaisical the press and the public has gotten in terms of news reporting, but instead, really, really angry. Obviously this is conveyed through jokes and humor but still, the anger and frustration is obvious to see.

[Piezo]

I read an article recently about that very subject of "the press not doing their job." The problem is that the mainstream media is owned by five companies which are biased because what the president does in terms of big business affects them. And yes, I spent a lot of time on whatreallyhappened.com

[COBALT]

Scuba Steve said:

Please, with all due respect... elaborate.

His 19 year senate record is worse than Ted Kennedy's. He doesn't bother to even have a respectable attendance. There's a reason he's shying away from talking about that (and NO ONE in the press bothers to be critical about it either), and instead he insisted on talking about his Vietnam experience until he was blue in the face. It's also amusing that a war literally spit apon by the American left is now embraced in the form of this candidate, but he also won't talk about his testimony before Congress in 1971, and NO ONE in the press has bothered to talk about it either - in spite of how inflamatory and utterly demoralizing it was. Utterly amazing.

netnomad312 said:

Which is not to say I really like Kerry... he's got some good ideas, yeah, but he really lacks some of the character he needs to put this election in the bag. Bush's "god sent me, now plz let me do my job kthx" attitude is very asinine IMO, but there are a lot of people out there who will cling to anyone who uses "the G-word." (And I'm not dissing any religion here; every group will do this) That said, I'm going with Kerry not only because he's "not Bush..." but that's certainly a part of it.

He hasn't given you any indication he has any substance behind those "ideas" of his. That's why he's rhetorical. He even has a bad habit stealing Howard Dean's own talking points from before the primary - points he disagreed with when he ran against him. Also, everyone who supports Kerry and Edwards are suffering from selective memory when they forget about Kerry and Edwards publically saying the other wasn't fit for the presidency BEFORE they were on the same ticket. AFTER they're best friends. Find that odd?

Finally, one thing I do like about the president is that he doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve. Remember Clinton's big "lets go to the church and make sure the press sees us do it" antics with Hillary and Chelsea in tow make sure they're seen going into church? Do you think if he was asked by the press if he believed in God he would answer as honestly as Bush did? That's a vulnerable thing to do, but I guarantee Clinton would figure out a way to dodge it.

People don't "cling" to Bush because he uses the "G-word". They like him because he's honest. He's not shoveling BS at you. Now, you may think he is, but then again you've somehow missed all of Kerry's enormous pile, so maybe you're listening with the wrong ear.

What's my life like? I'll tell you one thing: I take this war seriously. I have plenty of friends who are currently deployed. Their families need support. Some are married. Some even have kids. Where do you think they get the support they need? From their community. We don't spend a lot of time chastising what the president is doing, because it means demoralizing them.

Finally...

Well think about it, Bush isn't giving them much to work with. You turn around twice and we're at war already.

I hate to remind you but the war started the moment the first plane hit the first tower. Bush didn't START a war. He's trying to finish it. Therefore peace isn't possible until we win, because refusing to fight isn't going to stop anything. The war will continue whether we like it or not.

...and if your candidate isn't willing to do what it takes to kill these thugs then this war is going to go on, and on, and on....

The men and women in our millitary are willing to go fight a terrorist that wants you and everything you stand for dead. If it weren't for them our days would be numbered and the freedom we enjoy to have these little debates would be gone.

[Quast]

COBALT said:

I hate to remind you but the war started the moment the first plane hit the first tower.

Well, one could say the "war" started some time before that even.

Bush didn't START a war. He's trying to finish it.

He didn't start the war on terror or in Iraq? Who did then? Obviously we retaliated to 9/11 by going after the taliban in Afghanistan. I won't argue on who started what, where there. But to say Bush didn't start the war in Iraq is being intentionaly ignorant of what happened.

Therefore peace isn't possible until we win, because refusing to fight isn't going to stop anything. The war will continue whether we like it or not.

You can't "win" battles and wars against an ideology

Nihilism is the answer

[Linguica]

COBALT said:

Finally, one thing I do like about the president is that he doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT

[fodders]

I cannot find it on google (gasp) {fodders is screwed without google}, and here I only get the Daily Show digest, showing the highlights of the week, on a Friday night, so cannot tape the disclaimer after the intro, but, from memory it goes...
The Daily Show is not a news programme, it's topics are not fact checked, and it's opinions are not fully thought through etc
:P

[Scuba Steve]

COBALT said:

but he also won't talk about his testimony before Congress in 1971, and NO ONE in the press has bothered to talk about it either - in spite of how inflamatory and utterly demoralizing it was.

Do you mean his testimony before the US Congress about the brutal and inhumane war attrocities like the My Lai Massacre in which over 300 vietnamese were needlessly slaughtered, including innocent women and children, which was one of likely many abuses by the American Military? The testimony that, along with the testimony of thousands of other soldiers who witnessed these attrocities, help bring it to public light and help to pull us out of Vietnam? That testimony? Was that the one you were thinking of?

[Linguica]

fodders said:

and it's opinions are not fully thought through

Hahaha what sort of disclaimer is that?!

[Sharessa]

COBALT:

You obviously don't even know any liberals, because I'm about as liberal as you can get and I have many liberal friends, and none of those apply to any of us. Well except the hating Bush thing, but there is just mounds and mounds of reasons not to like him. To me, it looks like he and his minions are trying to turn America into a fascist theocracy. And yes, he DID do something to me personaly. Due to the crashing economy, my mom lost her job and couldn't find another one for over two years. We were almost to the point of living on the streets. I'm not saying the economical collapse was entirely his fault or possibly even his fault at all, but he's just making it worse. Like supporting outsourcing. This takes jobs away from Americans and gives them to foreigners! How the Hell is that helping the country? How the Hell is that even PATRIOTIC? That seems like a words that dubya throws around all the time, yet to me he seems to be DESTROYIGN our country. That's hardly patriotic. Anyway, the jobs he has created are decidedly lower paying and worse than the ones we had 4 years ago. People are beign forced to work for less than they ever considered working for 4 years ago. Poverty is on the rise.

About the Vietnam War, you act like everything is black and white. Like someone who was against the war must hate every veteran. Well really, it was a very fucked up war that we should have had NO involvement whatsoever in. Many atrocities happened. The government kept sending in troops to get slaughtered despite the fact they knew it was hopeless. The people who have fought and died for our country truly ARE heroes though. Many of them, especialy during Vietnam, were sent to war against their will and yet tey still fought for their country. The common soldier is not to blame for war, the ones in charge are. Anyone who hates or publicly denounces our fighting men and women for participating in war is ignorant, an asshole, and (I assure you) the vast minority. Though I don't really think Kerry is the best candidate there could be, he DID fight for our country and save men's lives during Vietnam. Of course, he was very regretful of the whole debacle that was Vietnam, especialy since he had to see the carnage first hand. The fact that he fought for our country and later wanted to end the war should come as no surprise. He wanted to stop OUR PEOPLE from getting killed.

At any rate, I shall vote for Kerry this year despite the fact that he has a rather weak platform and I really don't like the Democrats. But he is the best choice if we want to get Bush out of office where he is currently destroying our country. Hell, the soicalists are even endorsing Kerry this year.

[netnomad312]

COBALT said:

He hasn't given you any indication he has any substance behind those "ideas" of his. That's why he's rhetorical.

I listened to the debate tonight - that stuff was pretty damn clear. Whereas Bush kept saying the same damn thing about ten times, as if we were all hard of hearing.

COBALT said:

Finally, one thing I do like about the president is that he doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve. Remember Clinton's big "lets go to the church and make sure the press sees us do it" antics with Hillary and Chelsea in tow make sure they're seen going into church? Do you think if he was asked by the press if he believed in God he would answer as honestly as Bush did? That's a vulnerable thing to do, but I guarantee Clinton would figure out a way to dodge it.

And I suppose you believe that Bush's way is any better? On the contrary, this guy invokes God whenever it's convenient for him. He has it in his head that he had some kind of duty given to him by God himeslf to rid the world of [insertrandomterroristhere].

COBALT said:

People don't "cling" to Bush because he uses the "G-word". They like him because he's honest. He's not shoveling BS at you. Now, you may think he is, but then again you've somehow missed all of Kerry's enormous pile, so maybe you're listening with the wrong ear.

Or are you? Seriously, what's to be gained by saying the other is "listening with the wrong ear?" We're listening with different ears, yes. And nobody with an opinion can truly listen to things like this 100% objectively.

COBALT said:

What's my life like? I'll tell you one thing: I take this war seriously. I have plenty of friends who are currently deployed. Their families need support. Some are married. Some even have kids. Where do you think they get the support they need? From their community. We don't spend a lot of time chastising what the president is doing, because it means demoralizing them.

No... this is perhaps the biggest misconception Bush supporters have. You guys have to stop believing that all the soldiers follow Bush. It's just not true - look at all the generals who stand behind Kerry, not to mention the bunch of soldiers who probably also agree with Kerry but won't speak up (because, OMG, they'll be going against their comrades and/or look like pussies).

At any rate, I was referring more to your economic/social status. It's a personal question and you don't have to answer... but when you said that "their lives weren't affected," that implies to me that you just can't see them. Trust me, they're there.

COBALT said:

Finally...

I hate to remind you but the war started the moment the first plane hit the first tower. Bush didn't START a war. He's trying to finish it. Therefore peace isn't possible until we win, because refusing to fight isn't going to stop anything. The war will continue whether we like it or not.

That event did not start a war either. You make it sound like this was the first act of terrorism ever. There have been other terrorist attacks... who's to say that some other country wasn't involved in those? But we didn't go pointing fingers (especially toward someone who the commission said had NOTHING to do with said terrorist attack (Iraq)) and rushing off to war every time some nutcase blew up a building.

COBALT said:

...and if your candidate isn't willing to do what it takes to kill these thugs then this war is going to go on, and on, and on....

Did you by chance listen to the debate tonight? Kerry stated specifically that he IS willing to do what it takes... just as long as we do it right. But of course our favorite I-see-things-in-black-and-white Bush fans just chalk this up to a "flip flop" as they so cleverly call it; apparantly you're either G.I. Joe or you're a pussy, and you can't be anywhere in between. How asinine...

COBALT said:

The men and women in our millitary are willing to go fight a terrorist that wants you and everything you stand for dead. If it weren't for them our days would be numbered and the freedom we enjoy to have these little debates would be gone.

You actually believe that? I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry that you actually believe all this hype - that every terrorist in the world is hell-bent on killing every single one of us. It's a totally ignorant view of the world... but it's simple, and simple has been what's worked for this administration for so long. "We, good. Them, bad." It doesn't get any simpler.

[Bucket]

I'm supposing this will turn into the "Presidential Debate Thread" sometime soon, so I have to ask: what were everyone's impressions of it? I can't say myself, I was at work...

My liberal/swing friends tell me Kerry "wiped the floor" with Bush. My Republican brother was impressed with Bush's determinism(along with bringing up Kerry's "flip-flopping") and the post coverage commended Bush's improvement in his mastery of English.

Make of that what you will.

[Captain Red]

COBALT said:
Every liberal I know have several things in common:

1. They hate the president...as if he personally did something to them so horrible he deserves their contempt - to the point they compare him to hitler, and call his wife a whore. Nice. So their strategy for voting in a new president is "anyone but Bush", so they're willing to elect a completely foolish, rhetorical, and completely out of touch elitist like John Kerry who didn't even bother to do his job as a Senator. They don't know a thing about him, or really like him, or really care. He's just NOT BUSH.

Every Conservitive I know have several things in common:

1. They hate the Kerry... as if he personally did something to them so horrible he deserves their contempt - to the point they compare him to Stalin , and call his wife a whore. Nice. So their strategy for voting in a new president is "anyone but Kerry", so they're willing to elect a completely foolish, rhetorical, and completely out of touch elitist like Gorge Bush who didn't even bother to do his job as a Governor. They don't know a thing about him, or really like him, or really care. He's just NOT KERRY.

I won't even respond to point number 2 as it's more or less a reworded version of number 1. So I'll run my point home: Of corse there's anger and name calling, And I might add that it's more or less the same from BOTH SIDES.

Seriously, I live on the other side of the Atlantic ocean and I know all about the fucking Flip-Flop rubbish the republican campaign seems to think is there 'ace in the whole'. Whatever guys.
As much as I hate platatudes, this is one I feel needs to be said (though I've enhanced it by making it bold, underlining it, and threw in some prophanity and name calling):

STICK TO THE FUCKING ISSUES YOU RETARDED MORONS

COBALT said:
3. They have personal convictions about being anti-war, but for some reason they have no plan on what would be the alternative except idiodic and ignorant ideals like "let the UN do it!" - they just know war is bad, and we shouldn't be doing it.

I'm not so much anti-war as I'm anti-"let's use a terrorist attack to justify an invasion of a country that isn't a threat to us, nor had anything to do with said terrorist attack". I'm a bit wired that way, but I'm under the impression that if you just realised that a sizeable chunk of the planet hates you're guts, I don't go invent a bunch of reasons to invade a country that, Although run but a absolute bastard of a ruler, is pretty much content to sit on it's hands, as it's been doing for the last ten years. To me, that might give a lot of irrational people just the excuse they need to requite more irrational people, who really aren't interested in hearing how you didn't mean to gun down a wedding, drop poorly aimed cluster bombs allover there homes or attach electrodes to the go-nads of unarmed prisoners.

before you lot say anything else, yes, bad shit happen in wars, yes, I'm sure Saddam was 1000 times worse, and yes, I realised the US military dose not condone the acts witnessed at *that* prison. But we are talking about very desperate people who are only going to hear what there angry cleric / corrupt news source tells them. I mean, if this was an Enemy at the gates, Iraq will nuke us all to buggery if we don't act now Now NOW!! kind of deal, then yes, that would be justified but it wasn't. So it's not.

[david_a]

Numbermind said:

I'm supposing this will turn into the "Presidential Debate Thread" sometime soon, so I have to ask: what were everyone's impressions of it? I can't say myself, I was at work...

I thought it was a tie. Bush held up fairly well and seemed much more in touch with the world than I would have expected, and Kerry came off as being very strong and forceful. Bush did repeat the "mixed messages" line a bit too often, but Kerry passed up some attacks and sounded like some kind of protocol nut at times.

Overall neither of them made any significant blunders. I guess you could argue that a tie was good for Kerry, since the domestic debates will be much tougher for Bush so it's likely that Kerry will come out ahead overall.

[fodders]

david_a said:

... Bush did repeat the "mixed messages" line a bit too often, but Kerry passed up some attacks and sounded like some kind of protocol nut at times.

That's 'cos the moron said "maxed missages" at the start, so had to say mixed messages 3 times to prove he can say it right :P

[fodders]

Linguica said:

Hahaha what sort of disclaimer is that?!

Just watched this weeks show and the disclaimer actually says.

The show you are about to watch is a news parody. Its stories are not fact checked. Its reporters are not journalists. And its opinions are not fully thought through.