News slant

[Bingo]

Before the old board went down I opined that while Bill O'Reilly is clearly leaning right in his beliefs, that he is a more fair media person than some of the extremes on both sides ...

saw this interview today on FoxNews

O'Reilly Interview (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128700,00.html)

I point it out because I think it's a good example of at least keeping planted on political matters. I'm fairly certain that O'Reilly will be voting for Bush, but to interview the guy that says Kerry saved his life in the Swift boat controvery isn't the best way to support your own side and thrust a blind eye to anything that shakes your side.

Other right wing media are chasing the "Kerry lied" angle with little to counterbalance these beliefs.

[troutman]

FAIR does not think O'Reilly is "fair":

http://www.fair.org/ohreally.html

But it is fair for others to say that FAIR is not "fair". ;)

[RougeUnderoos]

Yer never going to convince me that O'Reilly isn't on the far right, but I'll give him props for conducting that interview and doing it fairly.

That Thomas Jefferson quote is interesting. Not too long ago I stumbled across a screen-shot of Bill and the graphic beside him said roughly "once the war starts the people who don't agree with it can shut up".

Anyway, it seems Bill is smart enough to get away from "Kerry's military service sucked" business. I mean come on, we know for a fact he was at least actually there, on a swift boat, firing a gun. The guy the right is backing was, at best, protecting Texas from the VC airforce.

The two candidates simply can't be compared when it comes to military service. I don't know why they would want to keep bringing it up. I even saw some fatheaded pundit on CNN after a night of the DNC and he said Kerry's military career was a political move and that the wounds he got "weren't that bad". Really reaching, in other words.

[kermitology]

When Bill Clinton was on The Daily Show, he made a comment about how Kerry should be saying something about these ads. If you can get a chance to check out the interview it's really good, Clinton hammers himself, Bush, and Cheney for not going to Vietnam. And supporting these accusations that bash Kerry's service should be fought head on, because they're sleazy.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 12 2004, 05:42 PM
Yer never going to convince me that O'Reilly isn't on the far right, but I'll give him props for conducting that interview and doing it fairly.

That Thomas Jefferson quote is interesting. Not too long ago I stumbled across a screen-shot of Bill and the graphic beside him said roughly "once the war starts the people who don't agree with it can shut up".

Anyway, it seems Bill is smart enough to get away from "Kerry's military service sucked" business. I mean come on, we know for a fact he was at least actually there, on a swift boat, firing a gun. The guy the right is backing was, at best, protecting Texas from the VC airforce.

The two candidates simply can't be compared when it comes to military service. I don't know why they would want to keep bringing it up. I even saw some fatheaded pundit on CNN after a night of the DNC and he said Kerry's military career was a political move and that the wounds he got "weren't that bad". Really reaching, in other words.
I agree.

I don't see where John Kerry wrote up a false report of his action and recommended himself for a medal. Other people wrote the action reports. Other people wrote the medal recommendations.

Its silly and hopefully counterproductive to even be going after him on that. Its a non-starter and looks vindictive and foolish.

O'Reilly handled it fairly but there's no doubt he's a right wing table thumper too. He's not as fanatical as I thought given he was beating up Ann Coulter a month ago.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

War hero Dick Cheney was ripping Kerry today in a speech, basically saying he doesn't know what war is like.

Kerry fired back with "Bush and Cheney went out of their way to avoid combat duty..."

Good stuff.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 12 2004, 06:21 PM
War hero Dick Cheney was ripping Kerry today in a speech, basically saying he doesn't know what war is like.

Kerry fired back with "Bush and Cheney went out of their way to avoid combat duty..."

Good stuff.
Remember Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention, paraphrased with a line something like: "I went out of my way to avoid Vietnam. Cheney and Bush did too. In fact there's only one candidate in this election who stood up and said "I want to go" and that's John Kerry."

Funny how Clinton included himself in that less than illustrious group.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Clinton took his lumps about his dodging, so I guess it's no harm in admitting it now.

Cheney hasn't taken too many lumps yet, but somebody should be hammering him for his old "I had other priorities in the '60s" comment. I'm sure everyone would have rather been somewhere else, Dickie.

[Bingo]

For the record I think I said O'Reilly was right leaning twice in the original post ... so telling me so again seems somewhat a waste of time.

I'm just showing an example of him stepping away from that theme, something he's done in the past, but rarely gets credit for.

I agree on some of what he says, disagree with the rest, but find him entertaining for the most part.

I do think his ratings and his boisterous persona make him a greater target than he likely deserves.

[RougeUnderoos]

Ha ha no doubt. I just re-read it and I don't know why but I thought you were saying he was close to the center or something.

Anyway, I do get your point.

In other news... I read that book Lying Liars and the Bla Bla Bla over the last couple days and boy-o does O'Reilly get skewered. Pretty tame compared to what he has to say about Limbaugh, but Bill takes his knocks. Anne Coulter gets worked pretty good as well. Good book, lotsa laughs, but early on Franken says something about a right-wing book and "it's the kind of thing people pick up to read to re-enforce the opinions they already have" or something like that and that slightly tainted it for me the rest of the way. Come on Al, that's what you are doing.

[theikon]

Bill O'Reily is a moronic, attention seeeking, jackass crusader.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by theikon@Aug 12 2004, 02:00 PM
Bill O'Reily is a moronic, attention seeeking, jackass crusader.
Well then I guess I'm a mindless moronic dimwitt, huh?

Or ... people have differing tastes and opinions.

Who in their right mind would go on a crusade for a jackass? Do they have a team bus or do they ride mules? Are they trying to convert jackasses into regular people or convert regular people into jackasses?

Aren't all television personalities somewhat guilty of attention seeking?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Personally, I think Bill O'Reilly is a tool. He's way too far on the right. His "No Spin Zone" is nothing but spin, HIS spin, and when he has a guest on that has the goods O'Reilly shouts him down in an attempt to discredit the person. It's kind of sad to watch.

The guy that I really like and think is extremely fair is Bill Maher. I think he absolutely buries people the good old fashioned way, using common sense and coming with an informed argument. Bill O'Reilly does neither and keeps his head firmly planted up the Repulican party's sphincter. He's no where near as far up it as someone like Ann Coulter, but he's lodged in there pretty tight. To me he's the ying to the yang of Al Franken, who's head is up the Democratic party's sphincter.

I really don't understand how people can be so biased toward a party and not focus on issues. The Repubicans are right on some issues. The Democrats are right on others. What is wrong with taking the best of both parties and coming up with a platform that works? That's what McCain was trying to do.

[theikon]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 12 2004, 08:24 PM
Personally, I think Bill O'Reilly is a tool. He's way too far on the right. His "No Spin Zone" is nothing but spin, HIS spin, and when he has a guest on that has the goods O'Reilly shouts him down in an attempt to discredit the person. It's kind of sad to watch.

[QUOTE]

Thanks Lanny.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 12 2004, 02:24 PM
Personally, I think Bill O'Reilly is a tool. He's way too far on the right. His "No Spin Zone" is nothing but spin, HIS spin, and when he has a guest on that has the goods O'Reilly shouts him down in an attempt to discredit the person. It's kind of sad to watch.

The guy that I really like and think is extremely fair is Bill Maher. I think he absolutely buries people the good old fashioned way, using common sense and coming with an informed argument. Bill O'Reilly does neither and keeps his head firmly planted up the Repulican party's sphincter. He's no where near as far up it as someone like Ann Coulter, but he's lodged in there pretty tight. To me he's the ying to the yang of Al Franken, who's head is up the Democratic party's sphincter.

I really don't understand how people can be so biased toward a party and not focus on issues. The Repubicans are right on some issues. The Democrats are right on others. What is wrong with taking the best of both parties and coming up with a platform that works? That's what McCain was trying to do.
I would bet, Lanny, and believe me you're welcome to your opinion on this, but I believe if you and I set out to find examples of ...

1. O'Reilly criticizing Bush or the Republicans
2. O'Reilly giving credit to the Democrats or Kerry
3. Maher criticizing Kerry or the Democrats
4. Maher giving credit to the Republicans or Bush

...

the equation would read 1+2 > 3+4

I, of course, dont' know that, but that's what I would gather from reading both of these guys for the past several years.

Didn't you call yourself somewhat right leaning the other day? Not sure how a person could be right leaning and be a Maher fan.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 12 2004, 09:16 PM
I would bet, Lanny, and believe me you're welcome to your opinion on this, but I believe if you and I set out to find examples of ...

1. O'Reilly criticizing Bush or the Republicans
2. O'Reilly giving credit to the Democrats or Kerry
3. Maher criticizing Kerry or the Democrats
4. Maher giving credit to the Republicans or Bush

...

the equation would read 1+2 > 3+4

I, of course, dont' know that, but that's what I would gather from reading both of these guys for the past several years.

Didn't you call yourself somewhat right leaning the other day? Not sure how a person could be right leaning and be a Maher fan.
I doubt that, Bingo. Maher has given credit to Bush on a number of subjects, and hammered Kerry on a number of subjects as well. He is non-partisan in his bashing and likes to stick to issues, not party lines. That is one of the reasons why I like him, as he is fair because he doesn't focus on party, but focuses on issues/events. He selects an issue and hammers both sides for their mis-handling of it. And when it comes to discussing an issue he comes prepared to make an argument and is very effective at doing so. Bill O'Reilly? I've seen him go into discussions without doing more than basic research and end up going off the deep end on many occassions, screaming over top of someone who had pinned him into a corner.

I'm not hammering you for liking Bill O'Reilly. I'm just stating a fact that O'Reilly is very very right wing. Almost everyone in the political spectrum, save those wearing brown shirts, are left of Bill O'Reilly, so it makes sense that you would look at someone who thinks Bill O'Reilly was a complete ass and think that the person in question was left of center. The guy is a Republican puppet and leans so far right that he uses the passenger side door mirror as a rear view mirror. Let us not forget that this is the same Bill O'Reilly who was into tabloid TV long before Jerry Springer came onto the scene.

Now me? If you examined issues (I know, this is where the political conversation grounds to a halt as people don't bother talking about issues, they prefer to talk about personalities) you would see that I am right wing on most issues (very right wing on some) and center on the rest. Maybe we should bring up a few issues and see where we stand on them. Then we can see where people really stand in the political world.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Here's an example of Bill O'Reilly meeting someone out of his league, or who has facts to back them.

Bill O' Reilly freaking out on MSNBC (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/russert-20040807.mp4)

Anyone who uses the "left wing" label as much as he does finds himself far away from that definition, in my experience. And a good illustration to back Lanny's salient point that the guy runs when presented with fact.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 12 2004, 05:44 PM
I'm not hammering you for liking Bill O'Reilly. I'm just stating a fact that O'Reilly is very very right wing. Almost everyone in the political spectrum, save those wearing brown shirts, are left of Bill O'Reilly, so it makes sense that you would look at someone who thinks Bill O'Reilly was a complete ass and think that the person in question was left of center. The guy is a Republican puppet and leans so far right that he uses the passenger side door mirror as a rear view mirror. Let us not forget that this is the same Bill O'Reilly who was into tabloid TV long before Jerry Springer came onto the scene.

See I'm not so sure you have the ability to call something like that "fact". You have an opinion ... as do I.

O'Reilly is certainly right wing.
Maher is certainly left wing.

To argue either is pointless.

I tend to think that O'Reilly's style has people painting him further right than he actually is, but clearly I won't convince you of that, which is fine.

I find both men entertaining and read or listen to all I can from both and I honestly feel that Maher is further left than O'Reilly is right, but that's just my opinion I suppose.

I think part of the problem in ranking ideological polarity is that a person tends to take offence more emotionally than they agree. I think a left leaning person listening to Maher would just think "that's true" when he rips the right or favours the left but then let it pass from memory while raging every time O'Reilly steps right of center.

I certainly don't agree with every stance or angle that O'Reilly trumpets on a daily basis, but I do enjoy his style. Maybe with both of us having Irish Catholic backgrounds that tend to cut the crap in our discussion style I just schtick

[Bingo]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 13 2004, 12:19 AM
Here's an example of Bill O'Reilly meeting someone out of his league, or who has facts to back them.

Bill O' Reilly freaking out on MSNBC (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/russert-20040807.mp4)

Anyone who uses the "left wing" label as much as he does finds himself far away from that definition, in my experience. And a good illustration to back Lanny's salient point that the guy runs when presented with fact.
Funny ...

I read that transcript earlier this week and forwarded to Cowperson suggesting the same ... that O'Reilly didn't do very well in this one. Cow replied that he thought he mopped the floor with the little weasel.

All a matter of view I guess.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bingo+Aug 13 2004, 04:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Aug 13 2004, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 13 2004, 12:19 AM
Here's an example of Bill O'Reilly meeting someone out of his league, or who has facts to back them.

Bill O' Reilly freaking out on MSNBC (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/russert-20040807.mp4)

Anyone who uses the "left wing" label as much as he does finds himself far away from that definition, in my experience. And a good illustration to back Lanny's salient point that the guy runs when presented with fact.
Funny ...

I read that transcript earlier this week and forwarded to Cowperson suggesting the same ... that O'Reilly didn't do very well in this one. Cow replied that he thought he mopped the floor with the little weasel.

All a matter of view I guess. [/b][/quote]
Might have had something to do with the fact I saw it live, a visual of an overbearing O'Reilly leaning over a smallish, bookish, professorialish Krugman who appeared to spend most of his time rolling his eyes and leaning away from O'Reilly.

Looking over the transcript after the fact didn't change my thoughts on it . . . . but I still had that visual going.

And Bingo will tell you I'm not an O'Reilly fan given I keep gonging him whenever Bingo sends me his latest rants.

Lastly, we might find our favourite commentators "fair and reasoned" only because we agree with what they say. Hence Lanny latching on to Maher and Bingo onto O'Reilly. They might be preaching to the choir.

Cowperson

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 13 2004, 10:20 AM
Lastly, we might find our favourite commentators "fair and reasoned" only because we agree with what they say. Hence Lanny latching on to Maher and Bingo onto O'Reilly. They might be preaching to the choir.

I'd agree with that to a point ...

I think I've sent you examples of things O'Reilly says that I don't agree with, but even at that I find him entertaining. I think I see eye to eye with him when it comes to world matters and diplomacy, but he tends to go his own route on some of the social issues and economic matters.

I think another wrinkle in this is whether you like the person in question or not. O'Reilly and I tend to approach things somewhat firm, so that may play to me.

Maher is a very good speaker and an entertaining guy but I have to admit I wrote him off as jerk a while back when he went on Larry King the day after Bob Hope died. He basically made a mockery of the guy saying he slept around and never saw his kids, etc. May be true but it's a very pathetic time to rip the man. Same show he called the only innocent person in the Kobe case (his wife) a whore for wearing that new diamond ring.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 13 2004, 10:20 AM
Might have had something to do with the fact I saw it live, a visual of an overbearing O'Reilly leaning over a smallish, bookish, professorialish Krugman who appeared to spend most of his time rolling his eyes and leaning away from O'Reilly.



I think O'Reilly "winning" that debate between himself and Krugman had alot to do with O'Reilly being a big irish brute and intimidating the smaller nerdy Krugman.

It was an interesting debate nevertheless. Russert let them go back and forth pretty good.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Funny. How Lanny describes Maher is pretty much how I see O' Reilly. He hammers Bush OFTEN. He's certainly a conservative person, but he's got a serious adversion to stupid government no matter who is in the White House and he let's it be known. I don't care for O'Reilly because I find him a little too pompous for my taste, big turn off for me. Same reason I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.

Maher, on the other hand, is clearly a liberal person. However, he is not afraid of opposing viewpoints and is happy to let them be presented. I've gained respect for Bill Maher for a couple of reasons.

The first was his hammering of DNP chairman Terry McAuliffe on his show for bringing up the 2000 election insinuating it was rigged and calling Bush an unelected President. Maher went OFF. Such a pet peeve of mine too. He made McAulliffe look like a 16 year old. It was great.

Secondly, he's never hesitant to invite people on his show who he KNOWS he will not win a debate with. Case in point, Ted Nugent. Ted was a frequent guest on his show and whenever Maher trotted out his anti-hunting stance Ted would hammer him in the debate. Maher continued to invite Ted...certainly he is colorful and good for ratings, but I thinik he also invited him repeatedly because he liked the guy and respected his views.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 13 2004, 04:39 PM

...I think I see eye to eye with him when it comes to world matters and diplomacy, but he tends to go his own route on some of the social issues and economic matters.

I think another wrinkle in this is whether you like the person in question or not. O'Reilly and I tend to approach things somewhat firm, so that may play to me.

Maher is a very good speaker and an entertaining guy but I have to admit I wrote him off as jerk a while back when he went on Larry King the day after Bob Hope died. He basically made a mockery of the guy saying he slept around and never saw his kids, etc. May be true but it's a very pathetic time to rip the man. Same show he called the only innocent person in the Kobe case (his wife) a whore for wearing that new diamond ring.
...I think I see eye to eye with him when it comes to world matters and diplomacy...

Diplomacy? That is a word that O'Reilly does not have in his vocabulary IMO. If a good game of rock scissors paper can't resolve the problem then the military should go in and blow the crap out of who ever stands between "America" and the way "it" sees things. O'Reilly has zero clue about diplomacy and foreign policy and is an embarassment to watch when he bullies a foreign national in the "Spin Zone".

O'Reilly and I tend to approach things somewhat firm, so that may play to me.

I have no problem with firm. Firm is good. Don't take any crap from people is the way I like things. But you have to know when to call horsefeathers and dig your heels in. O'Reilly digs his heels in from the get go (as do most of the wacko right) and never considers the otherside. O'Reilly is an ass when it comes to discussing the middle east and the issues that are surround the problem because he refuses to take the time and learn what the root causes are, and bothers to walk a mile in the shoes (sandles) of an Arab. He's a bigot and is the perfect example of the ugly American IMO.

Maher is a very good speaker and an entertaining guy but I have to admit I wrote him off as jerk a while back when he went on Larry King the day after Bob Hope died. He basically made a mockery of the guy saying he slept around and never saw his kids, etc.

Maher is indeed a very good speaker. O'Reilly could take a lesson from Maher when it comes to public speaking, especially in how to handle guests on his show. Maher at least argues the point in question and does not shout the guest down. Maher was indeed guilty of bad timing in the Hope incident, but I would like to kow if Marher shared this information on his own, or if King promted him for his opinion.

To say that Maher is a jerk and then stand up for O'Reilly doesn't make much sense to me though. You want to talk about being a pompus ass, how about the time O'Reilly told the son of a victim of 9/11 to shut up (repeatedly) and terminated the interview prematurely because he disagreed with his politics?

Same show he called the only innocent person in the Kobe case (his wife) a whore for wearing that new diamond ring.

Seems to me that you're the one sounding like the bleeding heart liberal on this one (you left leaning commie). Hate to say it, but Maher is right on the money. Bryant's wife took a rather LARGE gift from her hubby to keep her yap shut in regards to their marrige problems. She was bought off to be a good little wife and let her "man" bone some bimbo, while still dishing it out at home too. I think that makes her a whore. Bryant's wife essentially took hush money to sit back and accepct her husband's infidelity. If that were you, and you caught your wife screwing some guy on the side (beating him up) would you accept a "gift" in return for your acceptance/obedience? I would hope not. I would hope that you would believe in the sanctity of marriage and would see that as a violation to union you had with your spouse, one that no amount of money should be able to repair?

It's funny, but here I am (the left leaning commie, according to some on this site) defending the sanctity of marriage and base moral values, those same values that the "Republicans" (a party that I am supposedly not even closely aligned with) are the defenders of. WTF??? How is it possible that a "left leaning commie" is in favor of famnily and moral values???

;)

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 13 2004, 07:02 PM
Maher, on the other hand, is clearly a liberal person.
See, I disagree. I think Maher floats, which is why I like him so much. There are issues where he is right of center and issues where he is left of center. I see him as a floater and a true independent. I see Al Franken as a left winger liberal, one who balances off the right wing conservative nature of Bill O'Reilly. When you compare all three, O'Reilly is definitely right, Franken is definitely left, and Mareh is definitely center. If you talk about issues (no one seems to do that any more for some reason) Maher floats from side to side of the dividing line IMO.

[Bingo]

You know what Lanny ... as per usual there doesn't seem to be any point in having a discussion with you.

Your absolute need to go off on extreme tangents and blow everything out of proportion makes it nearly impossible to go any further.

I really don't like Maher, but I gave him a lot of credit for what he does well, and avoided trashing the guy to make a point with you, as you're a fan.

You just mounted a soap box and spun hyperbole after hyperbole about O'Reilly with very little by way of fact or consequence introduced to the topic.

You want to talk about being a pompus ass, how about the time O'Reilly told the son of a victim of 9/11 to shut up (repeatedly) and terminated the interview prematurely because he disagreed with his politics?

Disagreed with his politics? You make it sound like he voted for a democratic mayor in Hoboken. The guy basically blames the death of his father and 3000 other Americans on the United States. I'd be the first to agree O'Reilly went too far, as he does from time to time, but don't make the guy out to be a victim's son with a slight ideology difference.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Up on a soapbox? WTF? And what extreme tangent? Hardly Bingo. Just pointing out the inconsistencies in your story. You painted O'Reilly to be an honest fellow who would not stoop to the levels of a jerk like Maher. I just wanted to point out that he indeed would and has done that. But then you say there was no factual basis. So how about this? Here's the conversation that I was refering to in the above post.

My Webpage (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/foreign/glick.html)

Seems to me that O'Reilly had nothing but an axe to grind with this guy and did nothing but set him up. Glick was ambushed by a professional sleaseball in his best tabloid TV way (really, it should have been on Inside Edition). I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise when Glick hardly got to say anything at all. But that is not just conjecture, that is right there in black in and white.

Is this factual enough for you? Because there are a lot more instances of O'Reilly losing it or out right skewing the facts. None of this is hyperbole but is well documented fact, not only from Fox's own site, but all those others that have "picked" on O'Reilly for being an outrageous buffoon and crossing the line. I'm sure that many other instances can be brought up in short order if you desire to have more fact or consequence introduced to the topic.

BINGO: Edited to remove text and replace with link.

[Bingo]

Two things ...

1) When did I call him honest? He may or may not be honest ... how am I to tell. If you look back you will see that all I ever said was that he was portrayed as further right than many unjustly for the main part. That's it. I said he was right leaning. I said he was bombastic, and that he got carried away. Where am I inconsistent?

2) I've known you for what? 8 years? You know exactly what I'm talking about when I say soap box. You feel the need to belittle and grandstand in almost every discussion you've ever been in. This string was no different.

What did posting the interview do other than possibly get my site sued? Nothing in it refutes my two comments that you were referring to.

a - he did get carried away
b - the guy blames the US for 911

Where did I say anything different?

But that's my whole point? I like that he gets carried away. I like that he's emotional and falls over the edge when combatting someone that I too think is a pinhead. It's not like he's beating up on Mother Teresa here ...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Sorry about the interview Bingo, I didn't think that posting that portion of the transcript as a potential lawsuit. I thought that was a fair use of a quote. Apologies if you think that was too much of quote.

Fair enough on O'Reilly. You like him, I take him with a grain of salt the size of Rhode Island. I don't like the tabloid feel to his show. I guess if he didn't try and pass himself off as doing real journalism, being un-biased (we're all biased) and providing no spin I'd probably like him more. It was definitely not belittling nor grandstanding to point out the fact that he is thought of as a scumbag. There are plenty of sites and opinions that will support that. Just because I say it does not make it grand standing, just like when you say it does not make it right (as opposed to left).

As for beating up Mother Theresa, I think he did that on Inside Edition (the one where he won the Pulitzer).

:lol:

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 13 2004, 05:45 PM
Fair enough on O'Reilly. You like him, I take him with a grain of salt the size of Rhode Island. I don't like the tabloid feel to his show. I guess if he didn't try and pass himself off as doing real journalism, being un-biased (we're all biased) and providing no spin I'd probably like him more. It was definitely not belittling nor grandstanding to point out the fact that he is thought of as a scumbag. There are plenty of sites and opinions that will support that. Just because I say it does not make it grand standing, just like when you say it does not make it right (as opposed to left).

No worries man ... I don't want you to agree with me if you don't ... just don't make a circus parade out of it.

Plenty of people hate O'Reilly, I understand that, but his show is the highest rated show of it's type in the United States, so it's not like it's just me and a few Alaskans that find him interesting enough to watch.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

O'Reilly has a nose for this crap. It sells. Sort of like Springer. Rolling Stone takes a look behind the program, how it works, and how he chooses his programs. An excerpt

... a tale of two U.S. soldiers who fled to Canada rather than serve in Iraq. Next to stories about abused kids, nothing pushes O'Reilly's buttons like stories about lily-livered, spineless, cowardly, anti-American lowlifes like these two deserters. He brings on a guest to "discuss" the "issue": Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick, who has dared to call the two deserters "fine American men." O'Reilly is not happy. And from the top of the "interview," he strikes that special note of scathing, keening contempt that might be described as the keynote of the entire Fox News Channel, an operation whose professed reason for being is to counterbalance the supposed liberal bias of all other media outlets. Thus the mood of bunkered aggrievement, which animates even the network's ostensibly "objective" news shows and which O'Reilly has raised to the level of an art form.

After verbally abusing Mallick as "anti-American," a "socialist" and someone who writes "stuff that's not true," O'Reilly takes the gloves off. "Now," he says, "if your government harbors these two deserters . . . there will be a boycott of your country, which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting." (He's referring to a boycott that O'Reilly called for after France declined to join the Bush administration in Iraq.)

"I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place," says Mallick. "We are your biggest trading partner -- "

"No," O'Reilly cuts in, "it will take place, madam. In France -- "

"I don't think that your French boycott has done too well -- "

At which point O'Reilly executes his signature move -- the bellowing, bullying, peremptory interruption. "They've lost billions of dollars in France, according to the Paris Business Review!" he thunders.

In short, amazing TV -- the modern media equivalent of witnessing a Christian torn apart by lions, with a touch of opera buffo thrown in. (Boycott Canada?) It mattered not that most of what O'Reilly said bears no relation to the truth. The Paris Business Review doesn't exist, and the "billions" of dollars France supposedly lost reflect figures dating to the 2001 recession, predating by two years O'Reilly's call for a ban on buying French goods (since then, French exports to America have actually gone up).

The story is interesting, and presents a bit of a biography on him, as well.

O'Reilly Article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6417561&pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1092434607625&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872)

[Claeren]

When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time) he did a long bit on a CNN show (Larry King i am guessing?) where he did question/answer for a LONG time.

A few people asked why he doesn't run for office because they think he would make a great politician and he went off on long tangents saying his views don't match any party and that he couldn't sellout to the Republicans or Democrats and that he saw them as both corrupt. He said he felt that the Democrats were only better because they didn't have the same war monger tendencies of the Republicans but that he was so far 'Libertarian' (as he put it) that he was completely out of touch politically with any major political party and 99.9% of Americans.

Essentially he said he felt his place was to be the real media and help others see the inconsistancies of logic and to get people to ask the hard questions about what is REALLY important in normal peoples lives, something he was sad to say would be much harder without his show.

Not sure if that qualifies as left? Obviously anything with an academic (as opposed to traditionalist and reactionary) approch is left comparative to right but beyond that... ?

Claeren.

[calf]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 06:20 AM
When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time) he did a long bit on a CNN show (Larry King i am guessing?) where he did question/answer for a LONG time.

Didn't he get driven off the air for suggesting the 9/11 terrorists weren't cowards? Everyone on Politically Incorrect were calling the guys cowards, but he was adament, saying flying a plane into a building is not cowardly. That's just how I recall it.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by calf+Aug 14 2004, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calf @ Aug 14 2004, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 06:20 AM
When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time) he did a long bit on a CNN show (Larry King i am guessing?) where he did question/answer for a LONG time.

Didn't he get driven off the air for suggesting the 9/11 terrorists weren't cowards? Everyone on Politically Incorrect were calling the guys cowards, but he was adament, saying flying a plane into a building is not cowardly. That's just how I recall it. [/b][/quote]
You are right. That was the issue. Not opposition per se to the Iraq conflict.

When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time)

So . . . . anyone who supported the conflict in Iraq was/is a racist bigot? <_<

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 14 2004, 06:06 PM

So . . . . anyone who supported the conflict in Iraq was/is a racist bigot? <_<
You siad it, not me. :lol:

Say, did anyone catch Bill Maher last evening? He ripped Kerry pretty good about his comments from the past week and poked quite a bit of fun at the Democrats for having no spine. For a guy that doesn't like to take a run at the Democrats he sure was doing a tap dance on their heads. He ripped the Republicans for the usual stuff as well, but was pretty hard on the Democrats for most of the show (even when interviewing Hart).

[Claeren]

Anyone who believed Bush's justification for war was FAR more likely to be a racist/bigot. EVERY justification he used (BEFORE the war, he has shifted to different justifications post-war) was countered EASILY by millions of intelligent, open-minded people around the world, the only way you could believe it was if you had a predisposition towards war against the Arab world. And the only way you think that is a good idea is if you are in the arms industry (unlikely) or think we have some inherent right to do so (Which is a racist notion, IMHO). If Iraqi's 'looked like us' i guarantee the case for war would have been a LOT tougher to make and the press would have been more diligent in covering BOTH sides of the issues (Something the Washington Post and NY Times have apologized publicly for recently.). For god sakes, the US government doesn't even bother keeping track of innocent casualties (The telling part) which are believed to be in the 12,000-15,000 range at THIS point in the conflict (The sad part). How many Arab lives do you think Bill O'Reilly or George Bush would trade for a SINGLE "true"(??) American life? I REALLY don't want to know....

In general he was questioning the targeting of Iraq and the Arab world, and the presumption they were an easy target. Comparing suicide attacks (Horrible but with courage) to Bill Clinton (Interestingly?) shooting missiles periodically from the other side of the world (Easy and cowardly). Either way he was pushed off the air by people who figured you can't criticize Americans, ESPECIALLY compared to Arab's. Missing completely one of HIS points that killing innocents with rogue missiles that can't possibly be doing any real damage to America's enemy's is just as bad, if not worse, then a targeted attack, taking your own life, against a pillar of American capitalism (In terms of the measure of innocent life). I think there are STRONG anti-racist/bigoted notions throughout his arguments, or in other words, the beliefs of those supporting war in the region.

I do apologize for being over the top though, i often post on another board, a very political, American dominated one, that is more colourful and over the top then this one. I have to be careful to post here first and there after... ;)

Claeren.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 01:42 PM
Anyone who believed Bush's justification for war was FAR more likely to be a racist/bigot. EVERY justification he used (BEFORE the war, he has shifted to different justifications post-war) was countered EASILY by millions of intelligent, open-minded people around the world, the only way you could believe it was if you had a predisposition towards war against the Arab world. And the only way you think that is a good idea is if you are in the arms industry (unlikely) or think we have some inherent right to do so (Which is a racist notion, IMHO). If Iraqi's 'looked like us' i guarantee the case for war would have been a LOT tougher to make and the press would have been more diligent in covering BOTH sides of the issues (Something the Washington Post and NY Times have apologized publicly for recently.). For god sakes, the US government doesn't even bother keeping track of innocent casualties (The telling part) which are believed to be in the 12,000-15,000 range at THIS point in the conflict (The sad part). How many Arab lives do you think Bill O'Reilly or George Bush would trade for a SINGLE "true"(??) American life? I REALLY don't want to know....


What I find really interesting about leftist ideas these days is the overwhelming hint of intolerance that has long been an accusation against the right. Almost a flip flop.

Have you listened to yourself?

a )Anyone who believed Bush's justification for war was FAR more likely to be a racist/bigot

b )countered EASILY by millions of intelligent, open-minded people around the world

c )the only way you could believe it was if you had a predisposition towards war against the Arab world

I have a different opinion on matter than you, but I would never tell you that you're opinion is wrong, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that you were ...

a ) racist
b ) stupid
c ) a peacenik

which is what you basically did to me - as I disagree with you.

I'd advise a toning down of your stances on issues like this. ... People that disagree with you don't necessarily have to be murderous racist hillbillies. To think so is to be as discrimanatory as you make others out to be.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 13 2004, 11:29 PM
O'Reilly has a nose for this crap. It sells. Sort of like Springer. Rolling Stone takes a look behind the program, how it works, and how he chooses his programs. An excerpt


One has to be very careful of the source on both sides of the fence ... I know I take a lot of care myself.

A left wing magazine (Rolling Stone is certainly one, though not in a political nature) ripping O'Reilly to shreads doesn't hold a lot of water to me - just like Newsmax destroying Janine Garafolo is almost predictable.

Things in the US are so polar these days that it's getting harder and harder to find a true middle point without a clear bias in writing.

[Claeren]

hhmm...

- "FAR more" does not mean everyone.

- There are billions of people out there, all i am saying is that there were millions that had a strong argument against Bush's post 9/11 policies and they, until recently, were not properly represented in AMERICAN media. The reason the American media had that predisposition? A strong emotional and illogical response premised, in my opinion, upon again, bigoted and racist notions of the world.

-As was stated earlier about O'Reilly, people on the right, IMHO, seem to have a habit of having a plan and are looking for a reason to put it into action. The reasoning is second to the action (Intertwined with the very definition of the "right" on the spectrum). There is, in my experience, a common feeling in the States that Arab's "only understand force" and that "America has a right to do what it need to do". Both, in my opinion, are premised upon elitist and subconsciously (or not) racist notions of the world.


I honestly commend you, being on the right and while maintaining the ideals and values of that position being able to separate race and revenge against an entire people, from what you perceive the issues to be. But i stand by my original assertion that the far right wing America, the same that Bill O'Reilly represents, and the same that pushed Bill Mahar off the air are in fact less likely to be able to do so, and are in fact far more likely to be racist or bigoted. I am SURE we have different ideas of what constitutes racism though so... whole can of worms there....

Sorry though, i did not mean to suggest that you fit into that category, just that many AMERICANS on the right of their spectrum do….

Of course you have argued/will argue/could argue that makes ME bigoted, but this is all for the sake of conversation and how does one make ANY assertion in a conversaton without making some sort of presumption.....

Claeren.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 08:52 PM
hhmm...

- "FAR more" does not mean everyone.

- There are billions of people out there, all i am saying is that there were millions that had a strong argument against Bush's post 9/11 policies and they, until recently, were not properly represented in AMERICAN media. The reason the American media had that predisposition? A strong emotional and illogical response premised, in my opinion, upon again, bigoted and racist notions of the world.

-As was stated earlier about O'Reilly, people on the right, IMHO, seem to have a habit of having a plan and are looking for a reason to put it into action. The reasoning is second to the action (Intertwined with the very definition of the "right" on the spectrum). There is, in my experience, a common feeling in the States that Arab's "only understand force" and that "America has a right to do what it need to do". Both, in my opinion, are premised upon elitist and subconsciously (or not) racist notions of the world.


I honestly commend you, being on the right and while maintaining the ideals and values of that position being able to separate race and revenge against an entire people, from what you perceive the issues to be. But i stand by my original assertion that the far right wing America, the same that Bill O'Reilly represents, and the same that pushed Bill Mahar off the air are in fact less likely to be able to do so, and are in fact far more likely to be racist or bigoted. I am SURE we have different ideas of what constitutes racism though so... whole can of worms there....

Sorry though, i did not mean to suggest that you fit into that category, just that many AMERICANS on the right of their spectrum do….

Of course you have argued/will argue/could argue that makes ME bigoted, but this is all for the sake of conversation and how does one make ANY assertion in a conversaton without making some sort of presumption.....

Claeren.
And of course, the average Iraqi male is a renaissance man on racism and bigotry compared to the average American male.

Meanwhile, the average network affiiliate in the USA sounds like a propoganda organ for the Ku Klux Klan in comparison to the mild underpinnings of Al Jazeera or any other Arab media. :lol:

I guess it was a real struggle for the Americans to drop bombs on the lilly white Serbians a few years back. Certainly the American media were yelling from the rooftops: "Hold on, them is WHITE folks!! Somebody WORTHWHILE might get hurt!!" Shades of the railroad gang in Blazing Saddles!!

And just think of the moral difficulty in having an itchy trigger finger on thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at the Russians and East Bloc communists during the Cold War. Good grief, white folks might have gotten killed!!

You guys on the left sure got lots of stuff going on. I just can't figure out why they didn't wipe out the Hottentots first.

By the way, I do agree with the premise that the overwhelming majority of bigots will be found on the far right wing.

But I think Americans are equal opportunity killers. :ph34r:

If that helps.

Cowperson

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 02:52 PM
hhmm...

- "FAR more" does not mean everyone.

- There are billions of people out there, all i am saying is that there were millions that had a strong argument against Bush's post 9/11 policies and they, until recently, were not properly represented in AMERICAN media. The reason the American media had that predisposition? A strong emotional and illogical response premised, in my opinion, upon again, bigoted and racist notions of the world.

-As was stated earlier about O'Reilly, people on the right, IMHO, seem to have a habit of having a plan and are looking for a reason to put it into action. The reasoning is second to the action (Intertwined with the very definition of the "right" on the spectrum). There is, in my experience, a common feeling in the States that Arab's "only understand force" and that "America has a right to do what it need to do". Both, in my opinion, are premised upon elitist and subconsciously (or not) racist notions of the world.


I honestly commend you, being on the right and while maintaining the ideals and values of that position being able to separate race and revenge against an entire people, from what you perceive the issues to be. But i stand by my original assertion that the far right wing America, the same that Bill O'Reilly represents, and the same that pushed Bill Mahar off the air are in fact less likely to be able to do so, and are in fact far more likely to be racist or bigoted. I am SURE we have different ideas of what constitutes racism though so... whole can of worms there....

Sorry though, i did not mean to suggest that you fit into that category, just that many AMERICANS on the right of their spectrum do….

Of course you have argued/will argue/could argue that makes ME bigoted, but this is all for the sake of conversation and how does one make ANY assertion in a conversaton without making some sort of presumption.....

Claeren.
To be honest I don't appreciate the extreme on either side of the equation ... far left or far right. They're both nuts.

You, however seem to take the far worst of the right side and use them to paint a pretty broad stroke against people with differing views than you.

Trust me. It's very possible to be pro removing a brutal dictator from power while still not wearing a sheet over one's head. I do it every day. I have sheets, I just don't wear them except the time I went as a ghost for Halloween.

I'm not racist. I'm not sexist. I'm not elitist. I am however a person that believes in confronting problems head on, something that I feel is done much more often by politicians on the right side of the equation.

Trying to use the extreme on the right to prove a leftist point is dangerous. Only a matter of time until that extreme left gets pulled out of the closet.

[Claeren]

lol...

So what your saying is that they are racist, so it is okay for us to be racist... ?

I dunno.... To me, Western world dominance over the world has always been most successfully legitimized when premised upon taking the moral high ground, whether illusionary or not (depending on circumstance). The cold war was a tit-for-tat escalating situation, but there is simply no connection between terror attacks against America and Iraq, no escalation, just preemptive war.

I guess you believe (as is your right) G.W.Bush actually believed Iraq was a big threat to America worthy of a $300 billion dollar resource allocation in the war on terror, but i don't. SO many aspects of this entire war, and by default the entire American right wing agenda, fall WELL beyond the moral high ground and the entire international community (and increasingly Americans) know it.

Essentially, this war has now positioned the western world in direct conflict that never before existed, effectively legitimizing all terror efforts by a (in this case Arab/middle eastern) minority in the minds of (in this case Arab/middle eastern) majority against America. Basically everything Bush does internationally is messy, it p*sses off people it doesn't need to, involves people that never wanted to be, and touches people negatively in far to many ways. It has set the precedent that America plays dirty and i don't see that how that helps humanity in any way....

Bringing it back on topic, all of that is because people rushed into something and were sucked into something they shouldn't have been, and how did that happen? People on the right like O'Reilly playing on peoples fears, fears that are based in no small part on the racist roots of fear of the unknown and self elitism. You are saying i am left wing because i think Bush and the AMERICAN-right are buffoons? All i am saying is that they should have acted TRULY right wing. Being fiscally responsible, allocating their limited resources properly, and trying whenever possible to maintain the rights and freedoms of the (American in particular) individual. NONE of which seem very high on the Rights agenda....

In fact i COULD ALMOST go so far as to say that the fear borne of ingrained racism and ignorance are the only things left of the American right, on the American right.... yeah... :blink:

Claeren.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Bingo+Aug 14 2004, 11:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Aug 14 2004, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 02:52 PM
hhmm...

- "FAR more" does not mean everyone.

- There are billions of people out there, all i am saying is that there were millions that had a strong argument against Bush's post 9/11 policies and they, until recently, were not properly represented in AMERICAN media. The reason the American media had that predisposition? A strong emotional and illogical response premised, in my opinion, upon again, bigoted and racist notions of the world.

-As was stated earlier about O'Reilly, people on the right, IMHO, seem to have a habit of having a plan and are looking for a reason to put it into action. The reasoning is second to the action (Intertwined with the very definition of the "right" on the spectrum). There is, in my experience, a common feeling in the States that Arab's "only understand force" and that "America has a right to do what it need to do". Both, in my opinion, are premised upon elitist and subconsciously (or not) racist notions of the world.


I honestly commend you, being on the right and while maintaining the ideals and values of that position being able to separate race and revenge against an entire people, from what you perceive the issues to be. But i stand by my original assertion that the far right wing America, the same that Bill O'Reilly represents, and the same that pushed Bill Mahar off the air are in fact less likely to be able to do so, and are in fact far more likely to be racist or bigoted. I am SURE we have different ideas of what constitutes racism though so... whole can of worms there....

Sorry though, i did not mean to suggest that you fit into that category, just that many AMERICANS on the right of their spectrum do….

Of course you have argued/will argue/could argue that makes ME bigoted, but this is all for the sake of conversation and how does one make ANY assertion in a conversaton without making some sort of presumption.....

Claeren.
To be honest I don't appreciate the extreme on either side of the equation ... far left or far right. They're both nuts.

You, however seem to take the far worst of the right side and use them to paint a pretty broad stroke against people with differing views than you.

Trust me. It's very possible to be pro removing a brutal dictator from power while still not wearing a sheet over one's head. I do it every day. I have sheets, I just don't wear them except the time I went as a ghost for Halloween.

I'm not racist. I'm not sexist. I'm not elitist. I am however a person that believes in confronting problems head on, something that I feel is done much more often by politicians on the right side of the equation.

Trying to use the extreme on the right to prove a leftist point is dangerous. Only a matter of time until that extreme left gets pulled out of the closet. [/b][/quote]
For sure!

I agree! But all i am arguing is against the rashness and ignorance i feel is present in the American right wing, in particular in their handling of post 9/11 period. There are 300 billion other ways to have taken on this problem "head on", as you say. All i am saying is that the way they chose, the way the people rallied around, reeks of racist undertones. hhmm... let me put it this way, is it not easier to sell a bunch of lies to people if they want to believe you in the first place and if they have no interest in second guessing you? What i am saying is that the reason people were so willing not to ask questions was because they didn't care about people in Iraq. To them, (I am generalizing here) they are just a bunch more Arabs, people they need to fear/destroy/control/punish. To me that is based on a underlying racist world view.

YOU obviously see the world in a broader light and i respect that. But you are not in any way the typical Rightwing-American-everyman whose sole source of international news is the Bible and the O'Reilly Factor. (No offence - i am stereotyping i know, but polls and study's on American habits support STRONGLY what i am saying in that sentence.)

Claeren.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Bingo+Aug 15 2004, 05:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Aug 15 2004, 05:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 13 2004, 11:29 PM
O'Reilly has a nose for this crap. It sells. Sort of like Springer. Rolling Stone takes a look behind the program, how it works, and how he chooses his programs. An excerpt


One has to be very careful of the source on both sides of the fence ... I know I take a lot of care myself.

A left wing magazine (Rolling Stone is certainly one, though not in a political nature) ripping O'Reilly to shreads doesn't hold a lot of water to me - just like Newsmax destroying Janine Garafolo is almost predictable.

Things in the US are so polar these days that it's getting harder and harder to find a true middle point without a clear bias in writing. [/b][/quote]
As much I agree with you, I think it's hard, if not impossible, to take a look at O'Reilly and not bring up a lot of what has painted his history. He's been a loud and obnoxious since day 1, and I don't see how that would change from a "middle of the road" source. I also don't know where a true "centrist" point of view lies anymore, what one is, and if it exists - almost anything written has bias (especially anonymous wire pieces)

I thought the article was pretty fair, and even-handed as it mentioned that he is just giving FOX what they want from him.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Claeren+Aug 15 2004, 08:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Claeren @ Aug 15 2004, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 14 2004, 11:14 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 02:52 PM
hhmm...

- "FAR more" does not mean everyone.

- There are billions of people out there, all i am saying is that there were millions that had a strong argument against Bush's post 9/11 policies and they, until recently, were not properly represented in AMERICAN media. The reason the American media had that predisposition? A strong emotional and illogical response premised, in my opinion, upon again, bigoted and racist notions of the world.

-As was stated earlier about O'Reilly, people on the right, IMHO, seem to have a habit of having a plan and are looking for a reason to put it into action. The reasoning is second to the action (Intertwined with the very definition of the "right" on the spectrum). There is, in my experience, a common feeling in the States that Arab's "only understand force" and that "America has a right to do what it need to do". Both, in my opinion, are premised upon elitist and subconsciously (or not) racist notions of the world.


I honestly commend you, being on the right and while maintaining the ideals and values of that position being able to separate race and revenge against an entire people, from what you perceive the issues to be. But i stand by my original assertion that the far right wing America, the same that Bill O'Reilly represents, and the same that pushed Bill Mahar off the air are in fact less likely to be able to do so, and are in fact far more likely to be racist or bigoted. I am SURE we have different ideas of what constitutes racism though so... whole can of worms there....

Sorry though, i did not mean to suggest that you fit into that category, just that many AMERICANS on the right of their spectrum do….

Of course you have argued/will argue/could argue that makes ME bigoted, but this is all for the sake of conversation and how does one make ANY assertion in a conversaton without making some sort of presumption.....

Claeren.
To be honest I don't appreciate the extreme on either side of the equation ... far left or far right. They're both nuts.

You, however seem to take the far worst of the right side and use them to paint a pretty broad stroke against people with differing views than you.

Trust me. It's very possible to be pro removing a brutal dictator from power while still not wearing a sheet over one's head. I do it every day. I have sheets, I just don't wear them except the time I went as a ghost for Halloween.

I'm not racist. I'm not sexist. I'm not elitist. I am however a person that believes in confronting problems head on, something that I feel is done much more often by politicians on the right side of the equation.

Trying to use the extreme on the right to prove a leftist point is dangerous. Only a matter of time until that extreme left gets pulled out of the closet.
For sure!

I agree! But all i am arguing is against the rashness and ignorance i feel is present in the American right wing, in particular in their handling of post 9/11 period. There are 300 billion other ways to have taken on this problem "head on", as you say. All i am saying is that the way they chose, the way the people rallied around, reeks of racist undertones. hhmm... let me put it this way, is it not easier to sell a bunch of lies to people if they want to believe you in the first place and if they have no interest in second guessing you? What i am saying is that the reason people were so willing not to ask questions was because they didn't care about people in Iraq. To them, (I am generalizing here) they are just a bunch more Arabs, people they need to fear/destroy/control/punish. To me that is based on a underlying racist world view.

YOU obviously see the world in a broader light and i respect that. But you are not in any way the typical Rightwing-American-everyman whose sole source of international news is the Bible and the O'Reilly Factor. (No offence - i am stereotyping i know, but polls and study's on American habits support STRONGLY what i am saying in that sentence.)

Claeren. [/b][/quote]
This kind of racist rhetoric is not unusual. To this day, one would be hard-pressed to ignore the overt racism against Japan and subsequent decision to bomb Hiroshima.

An additional factor, often overlooked, is revealed by Truman’s first public announcement about the bombing of Hiroshima, when he pointed out that the Japanese had been "repaid many fold" for their attack on Pearl Harbor. Revenge (and racism) may well have played a subtle part in Truman’s willingness to go ahead with the atomic bombing of Japan. Throughout the war, many Americans viewed the Japanese as an inferior and barbarous race, deserving of annihilation. (On the home front, it should be noted, Japanese aliens and Americans of Japanese descent were singled out for confinement in "relocation camps" for the duration of the war.) Truman was a savvy politician with an innate sense of fairness, but he was not immune from wartime emotions and prejudice.

"Now is the time to exterminate the Yellow Peril for all time… Let the rats squeal."
—Congressman Charles A. Plumley, August 1945


One of the lingering questions of the war is about why nuclear bombs were not used in the German theatre, despite the fact they were actively trying to develop the weapons.

View on racism and the use of the bomb (http://www.vw.cc.va.us/vwhansd/HIS122/Hiroshima.html)

[Bingo]

I honestly don't see a race issue in this at all.

Clearly there are racist people in all countries of the world - that will never change. There are Americans and Canadians that are anti-East Indian or Anti-Muslim because their parents were, and their parents before that.

But the bottom line in this is that they shot first.

From embassy bombings to the Cole to the first WTC attack to 911 ... it became clear to many (not all) that there was a serious issue in that part of the world, one that wasn't about to go away if you just turned your back and hoped it would (see Clinton).

I'm not a huge George Bush fan but I was really glad he was in the chair when 911 happened and not Al Gore. If Kerry wins the chair and continues an action based stance towrards the problems of the world I'll be on board with the Democratic party.

If he pulls out and just blows into a Sax with Hollywood friends then I think the world becomes a very, very dangerous place again.

Extremists of any colour - Islamic terrorists, IRA, militia in the US ... have to be confronted. Serious change has to happen in that region of the world or the whole thing will just go around and around again.

Should Bush have gone into Iraq? A very good debate in the light of the fact that no WMD were found. If they were there wouldn't be an argument.

If you believe the 911 Commission however, Bush was told that WMD were there, and I for one would have done the same thing. bin Laden, Hussein both hated the United States. If Iraq had these weapons (which they were actually proven to have at one point) it was only a matter of time until something bad could happen, and he just couldn't take that chance.

I just wish they had a plan to clean things up when the toppling was done. That was a huge mistake, one they are still trying to remedy.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 11:25 PM

. But you are not in any way the typical Rightwing-American-everyman whose sole source of international news is the Bible and the O'Reilly Factor. (No offence - i am stereotyping i know, but polls and study's on American habits support STRONGLY what i am saying in that sentence.)

Claeren.
Prove it.

I'm so sick of being stereotyped by non-Americans.

If you're a conservative American, you're viewed as a bible thumping illiterate who doesn't know a lick about anything outside of the US and spends 12 hours a day listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching FOX news.

It's a big load of BS.

I guess it's cool to not like Americans these days. It, frankly, makes me sick watching people in other countries embrace that kind of stereotyping.

[I_H8_Crawford]

I suscribe to Maddox:

Bill O'Reilly is a big... (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly)

:lol:

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 14 2004, 08:58 PM
I guess it's cool to not like Americans these days. It, frankly, makes me sick watching people in other countries embrace that kind of stereotyping.
Well, some of your administration's descisions are what fuel alot of this growing anti-Americanism. After September 11th, America had the sympathy and empathy of many people around the world. But now, the opposite is true as anti-Americanism is on the rise. A percieved imperial war with Iraq, justified using evidence that has yet to be revealed a year later doesn't help. Bush's foreign policy of "**** you, we can do whatever we want" doesn't help matters either.

However, what alot of these anti-American people fail to grasp is that very, very few Americans are the imperialist, arrogant, exploiting individuals that they believe all Americans to be. Alot of the anti-Americanism comes from uneducated and uninformed viewpoints. Lots of people thinking America is out to take over the world (propoganda) or are high on their soapbox looking down at America, type of thing.

Personally, I don't agree with much of anything the Bush admin has done at all and I didn't support the war in Iraq but that doesn't mean I hate America or Americans.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts on the issue of anti-Americanism...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Great post FATW.

You're clearly able to do what most people in the world are incapable of. The Greeks seem to share your thoughts. Kudos to you and the Greeks. :D

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 14 2004, 09:22 PM
Great post FATW.

You're clearly able to do what most people in the world are incapable of. The Greeks seem to share your thoughts. Kudos to you and the Greeks. :D
Heheh, thanks. You're one of the last people i'd expect to say that about one of my posts. The anti-Americanism definitely bothers me too, even though i'm not from America. Criticize away if you want, but at least make sure you got your facts straight first.

Anyways, let the Maher vs. O'Reilly debate continue...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Aug 15 2004, 03:17 AM
However, what alot of these anti-American people fail to grasp is that very, very few Americans are the imperialist, arrogant, exploiting individuals that they believe all Americans to be. Alot of the anti-Americanism comes from uneducated and uninformed viewpoints. Lots of people thinking America is out to take over the world (propoganda) or are high on their soapbox looking down at America, type of thing.

Personally, I don't agree with much of anything the Bush admin has done at all and I didn't support the war in Iraq but that doesn't mean I hate America or Americans.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts on the issue of anti-Americanism...
As a foreigner in a foreign land allow me to comment on the subject of "Americans".

I really like Americans for the most part. They are kind, gracious people that are a fun to be around. They are also extremely paranoid, self-rightous, uninformed (nee uneducated) and place themselves above the crowd. That's right, they are a swell bunch of people, but they have a massive superiority complex and allow it to prevent them from seeing the world as it is and understanding WHY the majority of the world hates them. Most Americans feel that it is because "the rest of the world envies the US". That the US is so superior to other parts of the world that the foreigners are driven insane by their envy off all things that America has. Every other person on the planet, who is not American, wants to be American and wants to embrace the American dream! This is a core value of the average American and one that is consistently trotted out when the discussion of motivations it brought up. Now to me, that is just more proof of the idiocy of the average American and the over-inflated image they have of their own country.

The average American just doesn't get it. They just don't understand that there are cultural differences that affect motivations. Money and material gain is not the driving factor for many cultures. Having a McDonalds on every corner does not mean you have it good. Values differ from country to country and what Americans hold as having great value likely does not hold true in Iraq or Afghanistan or Angola or Kenya or Luxembourg. Each country is different, the people are different and the culture is different. But this is a very difficult concept for the average American to understand. They believe that everyone wants to emulate America and wants to be just like them. The fact of the matter is that this is what all Americans WISH the world do, that way they would indeed be the master of all and not have to worry about looking like dolts because they don't understand another culture and have no motivation to learn about another culture.

There perfect examples are on America's own soil. In Florida the Cubans are viewed as a problem. The hope is that Castro will die and all the Cubans will go flocking back to their god forsaken island and Florida will be rid of the scourage. The only thing that America has embraced from the Cuban culture is the sandwich. Beyond that they are viewed as third class citizens that are not worth the time of day. In Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California the Mexicans (nee Spanish) are the problem. All the ills these states are the problems of the damn Mexicans. If they could only ship the lazy bas**rds back where they came from the country would be better for it. They've even bas**rdized Mexican food and tried to take credit for that (Tex-Mex) away from the Mexicans (tongue in cheek here). And lets not forget the Cajuns of Louisiana, who have been oppressed for decades. These aren't really race issues, but cultural issues.

America, for all it has to offer the world and all the great things it does, it culturally ######ed. They don't know much about other countries and I feel that that scares them. They yak on and on about other countries wanting to be like America, but this is where they are dead wrong and what is a prime motivator for the immediate dislike for the country itself. Foreign nations are each unique. They have their own ways of doing things, their own culture and traditions, and their own lifestyle that they have become accustomed to. No one likes having someone come into their home and be told that their decorating is ugly, the music they listen to is horrible and that they dress funny. The comment I keep hearing is that the people in the Middle East live like they are from the stoneage. Hey, maybe they do, but they do so because they choose to. They have decided that this is culturally the way to live. But Americans can't accept this because it is foreign to them and they fear differences. They want to be comfortable where ever they go, and that means having indoor plumbing they know how to use, having housing that is in the American tradition, having food that is familiar (that McDonalds on every corner is so comforting to them) and have everyone speak english.

America is confused by many as being multi-cultural. This is as far from the truth as you can get. America is exactly what it advertises itself to be. A mixing pot. Everyone is tossed into the soup and the differences melt away and the broth envolps you until you become part of a homogenous liquid that America. Differences are not embraced except in areas where the like minded live together. Canada and many of the European nations are truely multi-cultural, embracing (begrudgingly at times) the differences between races, but not the United States. The US is a meat grinder that does its best to get its citizens to conform to that national standard. That standard is believing that you live in the greatest country in the world, that you are cradle of invention and that you are better than anyone else.

That's the way I see it as someone who has lived in quite a few different locations in the United States. I love the country (it really is beautiful) and the people can be awesome (I have a lot of friends down here that I would give my life defending), but I sometimes wish that America would take a big step back, take a look at itself, get educated about the rest of the world and try to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes. I think the world would be a much better (and safer) place to be.