Fahrenheit 9/11

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

29 Jun 2004, 02:16 AM
Six

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWolve

Dude, O'Reilly mentioned the screening having started late and him having to be somewhere else...

Like rehab? Or to see his dealer? O'Reilly needs to go away. He's ignorant on the topics he pretends to be informed about, spews nonsense as truth and spins everything to fit his agenda. Oh and he's a fucking hypocritical bastard.

That's all not so bad, and is pretty common of political activists, except for the fact that people actually listen to and believe the absurd things O'Reilly says.

Haven't seen the movie. Probably won't. I know enough of what's going on to know how I am going to vote. That is barring the discovery that Kerry is in fact a clone of Stalin or something.
29 Jun 2004, 02:22 AM
g0zen

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Six

I know enough of what's going on to know how I am going to vote. That is barring the discovery that Kerry is in fact a clone of Stalin or something.
29 Jun 2004, 05:00 AM
NightWolve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Six

Like rehab? Or to see his dealer? O'Reilly needs to go away. He's ignorant on the topics he pretends to be informed about, spews nonsense as truth and spins everything to fit his agenda. Oh and he's a fucking hypocritical bastard.

That's all not so bad, and is pretty common of political activists, except for the fact that people actually listen to and believe the absurd things O'Reilly says.

A quicki from your mom perhaps? But wow, I'm convinced! I'll never watch his show again!!! Personally, I think O'Reilly is pretty fair. Sometimes a little arrogant, but is educated on the issues he discusses and brings facts to the table to back 'em up. Nonsense spun as truth, huh? I take it those would be positions not to your liking. If he was so grossly wrong and nonsensical as you claim in his 8 or more years on air, I doubt there'd be any viewers. Unless of course... I KNOW!!! They're all stupid (HEY, that's Moore's favorite argument), which is really all you could've and wanted to vent out in the first place. If only they had your intelligence to see through the lies there wouldn't be a problem.

But yeah, I understand your snipe; left-wingers simply cannot tolerate his existence, as you shouldn't. He's the "enemy," by actually having some conversative views of things and being mainstream. Far left-wingers can't even tolerate the existence of the FOX News Channel altogether. I recall Howard Dean mentioning it being on his enemies list in not so much words during that underdog campaign of his that failed so miserably.

Anyway, you described my sentiments on Moore exactly. But, I wouldn't vilify him as being addicted to drugs or anything, just supersized Big Mac meals. Moore's the kind of guy that if you know what's good for ya, you'll stay out of his way if you have the misfortune of running into him at the buffet line. Capitalism sure feeds that big belly of his nicely.

I say, since he truly and dearly cares about the peoples, he should donate the proceeds of whatever's left of the movie minus costs to the victims' families of 9/11 and those that have lost loved ones in Iraq as well. He is after all profiting off those events and what followed. Eh, he advocates income-redistribution, so it should come naturally I imagine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Six

That is barring the discovery that Kerry is in fact a clone of Stalin or something.

http://www.crushkerry.com/images/top...rry_Ortega.jpg
http://cache.boston.com/globe/nation...s/day6/01b.jpg

Eh, not Stalin, but a hand shake with Communist Dictator Daniel Ortega shows some insight. But, I suspect this is a plus for you. No worries, not unlike Rumsfeld's shake to Saddam. Damn that past, always has a way of catching up with you... But hey, don't count out Nader. That ticket just got a little sweeter now that Peter Camejo is his running mate.
29 Jun 2004, 05:17 AM
MVS

I still don't understand how Moore's movies can be called "Documentaries", but I'll give it a DL and a watch.
29 Jun 2004, 05:23 AM
g0zen

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWolve

If he was so grossly wrong and nonsensical as you claim with the 8 or more years on air

How many of those were on Inside Edition, the pinnacle of broadcast journalism? Also, if you'd done your research you'd found that before the election scandal he was a virtual nobody and only made a name for himself by becoming hostile toward guests, yelling hyperbole, and generally being obnoxious. I especially like how he gives his guests the 'last word' only to follow up with a comment of his own, thus negating the entire concept of giving his guest THE LAST WORD!

As for his much vaunted integrity, anyone remember his little 'contest' with Hillary Clinton as to who would move the most copies of their book? Heh, O'Reilly had no problem reporting on the fact he had an early lead, but when that lead closed and Hillary came out ahead, eventually winning the race, I remember Bill becoming strangely quiet on the subject and then suddenly accusing the DNC of 'falsely inflating the sales', a statement he could not back up with any real facts. Or, shall we talk about how the 'unbiased' and 'independent' O'Reilly was registered for six years as a Republican in his native Nassau County? He never revealed this of course, letting the Washington Post do it for him, so he could quickly blame it on a 'clerical mistake'. Conveinant how the mistake wasn't fixed until a month AFTER the '00 election, no?

I think that's enough for now, but if you like I can go on with how he's lied about his family's social and economic background, his hometown, etc.
29 Jun 2004, 06:21 AM
NightWolve

Quote:

Originally Posted by g0zen

How many of those were on Inside Edition, the pinnacle of broadcast journalism? Also, if you'd done your research you'd found that before the election scandal he was a virtual nobody and only made a name for himself by becoming hostile toward guests, yelling hyperbole, and generally being obnoxious. I especially like how he gives his guests the 'last word' only to follow up with a comment of his own, thus negating the entire concept of giving his guest THE LAST WORD!

Dunno. He joined Fox in '96 (been there ~7 then). I didn't say he was a superstar all that time. I ran into him in '02 I think. But, why should I care about time spent at Inside Edition prior to that? Would it be relevant to me now if I don't generally see any problem with the show other than when I'm at odds with him?

Anyhow, the last word is usually that. Really, why care? Does that just totally destroy anything he's had to say cause sometimes if he feels someone is totally wrong, he responds? Please. But yeah, having a more natural setting and seeing some genuine hostility at times adds to the value of the show instead of the usual zombie like broadcasters. Just say you don't like most or all of his views. Don't gimme nitpicking shit about the show's format or if he doesn't follow it to the tee.

Quote:

As for his much vaunted integrity, anyone remember his little 'contest' with Hillary Clinton as to who would move the most copies of their book? Heh, O'Reilly had no problem reporting on the fact he had an early lead, but when that lead closed and Hillary came out ahead, eventually winning the race, I remember Bill becoming strangely quiet on the subject and then suddenly accusing the DNC of 'falsely inflating the sales', a statement he could not back up with any real facts.

Yeah, I remember that. I recall there being something suspicious, and he gave his opinion as such. I didn't care all that much. But, yeah, he's cocky. Congrats, Sherlock.

Quote:

Or, shall we talk about how the 'unbiased' and 'independent' O'Reilly was registered for six years as a Republican in his native Nassau County? He never revealed this of course, letting the Washington Post do it for him, so he could quickly blame it on a 'clerical mistake'. Conveinant how the mistake wasn't fixed until a month AFTER the '00 election, no?

He admitted the mistake and moved on. But his enemies gotta hold onto something. Big deal. This is Al Fraken's favorite one, right? Yeah, cause only registered democrats all over the media present unbiased and independent news.

Quote:

I think that's enough for now, but if you like I can go on with how he's lied about his family's social and economic background, his hometown, etc.

I think he responded to this attack before. But again, it doesn't have much relevance to the show. Certainly wouldn't trust you with the truth on his own background anyways. Even if you're right, it's not something I'm gonna hold against him now unless it's something truly egregious. What I hold against him is his views when their at odds with mine. Most of the time, they're not.
29 Jun 2004, 07:08 AM
NoFace

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWolve

He admitted the mistake and moved on. But his enemies gotta hold onto something. Big deal. This is Al Fraken's favorite one, right? Yeah, cause only registered democrats all over the media present unbiased and independent news.

I don't think anyone, Al Franken included, is trying to make the point that only democrats give unbiased and independent news. Al Franken's point was that O'Reily was dishonest about his political affliation, which he most certainly was. O'Reily wanted to be this non-partisan media figure (or at least Fox wanted him to look that way), and he was revealed to be far from it. That's a pretty big deal when you're a host on the #1 cable news channel I'd say.
29 Jun 2004, 07:13 AM
NightWolve

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoFace

I don't think anyone, Al Franken included, is trying to make the point that only democrats give unbiased and independent news. Al Franken's point was that O'Reily was dishonest about his political affliation, which he most certainly was. O'Reily wanted to be this non-partisan media figure (or at least Fox wanted him to look that way), and he was revealed to be far from it. That's a pretty big deal when you're a host on the #1 cable news channel I'd say.

Of course he's not. Fraken wouldn't care to go after others that are aligned with his views obviously. His motivations were to get any dirt and use it. Fair enough, that's how it is. Nonetheless, O'Reilly explained himself on this issue, so it's take it or leave it as far as I'm concerned.
29 Jun 2004, 01:06 PM
kabuki

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWolve

http://www.crushkerry.com/images/top...rry_Ortega.jpg

Gotta respect the child molester sunglasses.
29 Jun 2004, 02:17 PM
Six

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWolve

A quicki from your mom perhaps? But wow, I'm convinced! I'll never watch his show again!!! Personally, I think O'Reilly is pretty fair. Sometimes a little arrogant, but is educated on the issues he discusses and brings facts to the table to back 'em up. Nonsense spun as truth, huh? I take it those would be positions not to your liking. If he was so grossly wrong and nonsensical as you claim in his 8 or more years on air, I doubt there'd be any viewers. Unless of course... I KNOW!!! They're all stupid (HEY, that's Moore's favorite argument), which is really all you could've and wanted to vent out in the first place. If only they had your intelligence to see through the lies there wouldn't be a problem.

But yeah, I understand your snipe; left-wingers simply cannot tolerate his existence, as you shouldn't. He's the "enemy," by actually having some conversative views of things and being mainstream. Far left-wingers can't even tolerate the existence of the FOX News Channel altogether. I recall Howard Dean mentioning it being on his enemies list in not so much words during that underdog campaign of his that failed so miserably.

Anyway, you described my sentiments on Moore exactly. But, I wouldn't vilify him as being addicted to drugs or anything, just supersized Big Mac meals. Moore's the kind of guy that if you know what's good for ya, you'll stay out of his way if you have the misfortune of running into him at the buffet line. Capitalism sure feeds that big belly of his nicely.

I say, since he truly and dearly cares about the peoples, he should donate the proceeds of whatever's left of the movie minus costs to the victims' families of 9/11 and those that have lost loved ones in Iraq as well. He is after all profiting off those events and what followed. Eh, he advocates income-redistribution, so it should come naturally I imagine.

We just disagree. I'm not changing my view on Bill-O and neither are you. No point in carrying on ;)

Quote:

http://www.crushkerry.com/images/top...rry_Ortega.jpg
http://cache.boston.com/globe/nation...s/day6/01b.jpg

Eh, not Stalin, but a hand shake with Communist Dictator Daniel Ortega shows some insight. But, I suspect this is a plus for you. No worries, not unlike Rumsfeld's shake to Saddam. Damn that past, always has a way of catching up with you... But hey, don't count out Nader. That ticket just got a little sweeter now that Peter Camejo is his running mate.

And we trained the Taliban how to fight, and put Saddam in power, and a did number of other things in the past that look really stupid now. Such is life.

And, really, it's not GWB that I have the biggest problem with (though he did manage to screw over a number of years of hard work by the Texas government) - it's his distinguished cabinet and the other favors he put to work running his-- err, our country. Bush is just an annoying Texan wannabe with a bad fake accent and idiotic views on education. And I just want him out before one or, God forbid, more of the Supreme Court Justices die/retire. You know some of those old guys aren't going to make it another four years :\

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page