Ann Coulter*

[Flame On]

Holy cr@p I watched too and wished her physical violence! Not bad for such a loonie, wimp,leftie like me Someone up there described her as a skank, that seems too kind to me Nazi stormtrooper skank would be better. O'reilly, marginally better than her, but obviously a liar. Sammie and the like can say what they want about the CBC; which I disagree with, but he said stuff which was outright lies. Like the french economy was decemated and that some business review magazine showed it. Doesn't even exist.
Oh and don't give Ann Coulter a bit of credit, she thoroughly thought that Canada was envolved in the Vietnam campaign, It wasn't some "advisor" technicality or such.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame On@Jan 28 2005, 07:14 PM
Holy cr@p I watched too and wished her physical violence! Not bad for such a loonie, wimp,leftie like me Someone up there described her as a skank, that seems too kind to me Nazi stormtrooper skank would be better. O'reilly, marginally better than her, but obviously a liar. Sammie and the like can say what they want about the CBC; which I disagree with, but he said stuff which was outright lies. Like the french economy was decemated and that some business review magazine showed it. Doesn't even exist.
Oh and don't give Ann Coulter a bit of credit, she thoroughly thought that Canada was envolved in the Vietnam campaign, It wasn't some "advisor" technicality or such.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. The segment was about Globe and Mail columnist Heather Malick going on that show and O'Reilly giving her the gears. Basically he said "if Canada continues to disagree with, we'll bury you economically, just like we did France".

She replied with something like "I don't know about that, it's a pretty strong relationship and we both need each other".

"No no no the American people will boycott", O'Reilly replied, "just like we did France, we wreaked havoc on their economy to the tune of billions of dollars, as was reported in the Paris Business Review".

Like Flame On said, the Paris Business Review doesn't even exist. He made it up. Then it was revealed that trade between France and the US had actually increased. O'Reilly fabricated it all. He was lying.

[Flame On]

Did you see recently, Ted Turner called out Fox as a political propaganda machine for Bush. Good on him, even if he does have a vested interest. Although in the States they say CNN is liberal, from where I sit it's decidedly right.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 28 2005, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 28 2005, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Jan 28 2005, 02:53 AM
I am not saying that Clouter is not an idiot because she is, but from the program it appeared as though CBC was trying to state that every single individual who is right wing in nature is a wing-nut such as Clouter. CBC trys to make it seem as though Fox News is really right wing with their bias (which I admit they appear to be) but then they try and appear as the neutral observer which is not the case. They have their own agenda which they are trying to push forwards and that is quite evident. They seem to be insulting Fox for their practices but then at the same time committing the same offense.

CBC definitely has a left-wing bias but I don't get the "they were trying to make every right-winger look like a right-wing nut" idea. They picked on the two most obvious, far-right nuts. Not moderates, not merely conservatives, but two lunatics, and they let their own words prove the point.

They didn't make, or try to make, Bernard Goldberg look like a nut. [/b][/quote]
But they picked two nuts who get LOTS OF AIR TIME on the highest rated cable news station.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 28 2005, 09:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 28 2005, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Jan 28 2005, 07:14 PM
Holy cr@p I watched too and wished her physical violence! Not bad for such a loonie, wimp,leftie like me Someone up there described her as a skank, that seems too kind to me Nazi stormtrooper skank would be better. O'reilly, marginally better than her, but obviously a liar. Sammie and the like can say what they want about the CBC; which I disagree with, but he said stuff which was outright lies. Like the french economy was decemated and that some business review magazine showed it. Doesn't even exist.
Oh and don't give Ann Coulter a bit of credit, she thoroughly thought that Canada was envolved in the Vietnam campaign, It wasn't some "advisor" technicality or such.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. The segment was about Globe and Mail columnist Heather Malick going on that show and O'Reilly giving her the gears. Basically he said "if Canada continues to disagree with, we'll bury you economically, just like we did France".

She replied with something like "I don't know about that, it's a pretty strong relationship and we both need each other".

"No no no the American people will boycott", O'Reilly replied, "just like we did France, we wreaked havoc on their economy to the tune of billions of dollars, as was reported in the Paris Business Review".

Like Flame On said, the Paris Business Review doesn't even exist. He made it up. Then it was revealed that trade between France and the US had actually increased. O'Reilly fabricated it all. He was lying. [/b][/quote]
Heather Malick should have brought up Klien's old statement about the "freezing in the dark" [in this case it would be the USA and not eastern Canada]. I am really getting sick of these rightwing posers who will say anything to be the center of controversy. The old saying is if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it and that was what the CBC show was about for me.The CBC stated that in a poll Fox viewers believed that Sadam was behind 911, weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq[the skank actually argued that point] and one other falsity which I can't remember. I think it was in George Sen.'s reign when the U.S. media was unleashed from their responsibility to be truthful.

[The Goon]

I look at Ann Coulter in a particular way.

A few years back, the WWE re-defined what they do as "sports entertainment." I think of Ann Coulter as "news entertainment." Not someone you take seriously, but entertaining to watch in a mindless sort of way.

I also put Michael Moore in that category.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Goon, the problem is as with Moore and with WWF people think that it is real. But the CBC program when I was watching it really made it appear as though these where who the real right wingers were, and that they lied, while the left was always the honest party. I don't mind CBC having a bias, but what I do mind was with them trying at the end to give the impression that they had an unbiased report. Sorry but that is what they were trying to do.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 28 2005, 11:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 28 2005, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Jan 28 2005, 02:53 AM
I am not saying that Clouter is not an idiot because she is, but from the program it appeared as though CBC was trying to state that every single individual who is right wing in nature is a wing-nut such as Clouter. CBC trys to make it seem as though Fox News is really right wing with their bias (which I admit they appear to be) but then they try and appear as the neutral observer which is not the case. They have their own agenda which they are trying to push forwards and that is quite evident. They seem to be insulting Fox for their practices but then at the same time committing the same offense.

CBC definitely has a left-wing bias but I don't get the "they were trying to make every right-winger look like a right-wing nut" idea. They picked on the two most obvious, far-right nuts. Not moderates, not merely conservatives, but two lunatics, and they let their own words prove the point.

They didn't make, or try to make, Bernard Goldberg look like a nut.[/b][/quote]
I think you ended up backing up and confirming what that "Mean" guy said. Do you want to try again? ^_^

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 29 2005, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 29 2005, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

CBC definitely has a left-wing bias but I don't get the "they were trying to make every right-winger look like a right-wing nut" idea. They picked on the two most obvious, far-right nuts. Not moderates, not merely conservatives, but two lunatics, and they let their own words prove the point.

They didn't make, or try to make, Bernard Goldberg look like a nut.

I think you ended up backing up and confirming what that "Mean" guy said. Do you want to try again? ^_^ [/b][/quote]
What?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 29 2005, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 29 2005, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think you ended up backing up and confirming what that "Mean" guy said. Do you want to try again? ^_^

What? [/b][/quote]
Did I aim too high and it passed over your head? :yes:

[RougeUnderoos]

What Mr. Mustard said was "it appeared as though CBC was trying to state that every single individual who is right wing in nature is a wing-nut such as Clouter."

And I said:

"They didn't make, or try to make, Bernard Goldberg look like a nut."

Nice and simple.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jan 29 2005, 05:59 PM
What Mr. Mustard said was "it appeared as though CBC was trying to state that every single individual who is right wing in nature is a wing-nut such as Clouter."

And I said:

"They didn't make, or try to make, Bernard Goldberg look like a nut."

Nice and simple.

And where is Bernard Goldberg on the left/right wing pendulum?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

They did feature Bernard Goldberg on the show, for a brief time, but for the most part they found three wackos and they made a show about them, and slapped the label of conservative media is these guys. They mentioned Rather briefly, but then they all but dismissed that by stating that what was in the letters likely was true.

Sorry, but I do consider that bias, especially after they just jumped on O'Reilly (who I consider to be a comedian more than a pundit) for making up something. I know they are different, but they are only slightly different.

They didn't show anyone from the left who would be a bit more radical, they showed Al Franken crying after he had been personally victimized. I don't normally agree with Coulter/hag, but that did seem to be a bit of drama. That was really what they showed of the left, the victim.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 29 2005, 09:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 29 2005, 09:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Jan 29 2005, 05:59 PM
What Mr. Mustard said was "it appeared as though CBC was trying to state that every single individual who is right wing in nature is a wing-nut such as Clouter."

And I said:

"They didn't make, or try to make, Bernard Goldberg look like a nut."

Nice and simple.

And where is Bernard Goldberg on the left/right wing pendulum? [/b][/quote]
What? I thought you watched the show?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Jan 29 2005, 10:52 PM
They did feature Bernard Goldberg on the show, for a brief time, but for the most part they found three wackos and they made a show about them, and slapped the label of conservative media is these guys. They mentioned Rather briefly, but then they all but dismissed that by stating that what was in the letters likely was true.

Sorry, but I do consider that bias, especially after they just jumped on O'Reilly (who I consider to be a comedian more than a pundit) for making up something. I know they are different, but they are only slightly different.

They didn't show anyone from the left who would be a bit more radical, they showed Al Franken crying after he had been personally victimized. I don't normally agree with Coulter/hag, but that did seem to be a bit of drama. That was really what they showed of the left, the victim.

You know what, I read one of Franken's books and tend to agree with him on a lot of things, but those tears... that was just pathetic.

I thought Golberg got fair airtime. If they were doing what you think they were doing (making all righties look crazy) would they have put him on at all? I disagree with him (surprise surprise) but he got his point across, nobody berated him, and they didn't make him look foolish. He looked certainly as dignified as Dan Rather.

I've agreed that CBC has a left-wing bias but come on, do you really think it's as pronounced and vicious as the FOX bias? Peter Mansbridge is the CBC's answer to Bill O'Reilly. Can they be compared? Have you ever seen Mansbridge behave like that?

Who does the CBC regularly feature that could be compared to Coulter? Maybe Don Cherry, but he's on the hockey show. Naomi Klein? She's a famous leftie but I don't know how often she gets on. She doesn't make childish/stupid jokes about the United States though if she does get on, I know that. Nor has she ever challenged their right to exist.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 30 2005, 01:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 30 2005, 01:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

And where is Bernard Goldberg on the left/right wing pendulum?

What? I thought you watched the show?[/b][/quote]
Whether I watched the whole program or not is not at issue. I can usually figure out the slant of a story in the first minute and if the program is biased drivel I'm off to the next channel. This happens often when I'm stupid enough to click onto the CBC.

Now tell me, was poor Bernard a left wing wing-nut or just a little bit on the right wing side?

Do you ever discuss an issue or are you just looklng for perceived weaknesses to attack? What's the matter, not very confident in your position in this discussion?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 30 2005, 01:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 30 2005, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What? I thought you watched the show?

Whether I watched the whole program or not is not at issue. I can usually figure out the slant of a story in the first minute and if the program is biased drivel I'm off to the next channel. This happens often when I'm stupid enough to click onto the CBC.

Now tell me, was poor Bernard a left wing wing-nut or just a little bit on the right wing side?

Do you ever discuss an issue or are you just looklng for perceived weaknesses to attack? What's the matter, not very confident in your position in this discussion? [/b][/quote]


Look!

You might want to look into that "first minute" rule you are working with. It doesn't seem to be serving you very well.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 30 2005, 08:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 30 2005, 08:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What? I thought you watched the show?

Whether I watched the whole program or not is not at issue. I can usually figure out the slant of a story in the first minute and if the program is biased drivel I'm off to the next channel. This happens often when I'm stupid enough to click onto the CBC.

Now tell me, was poor Bernard a left wing wing-nut or just a little bit on the right wing side? [/b][/quote]
Amazing, you can pick up the 'slant' of a story in a minute? You must be fantastic at picking out books then, just see what the cover looks like.

Since CBC is 'biased drivel', could you clue us in on what the 'next channel' is that you click to? I'm sure its a neutral, down the middle news organization, so please do enlighten us.

Do you ever discuss an issue or are you just looklng for perceived weaknesses to attack? What's the matter, not very confident in your position in this discussion?

Scanning the thread, it seems this is the first instance of either of you whining outside of the issue. What are you talking about?

If you're going to have indepth discussions about a news program, it probably helps if you watch it.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 30 2005, 03:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 30 2005, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Whether I watched the whole program or not is not at issue. I can usually figure out the slant of a story in the first minute and if the program is biased drivel I'm off to the next channel. This happens often when I'm stupid enough to click onto the CBC.

Now tell me, was poor Bernard a left wing wing-nut or just a little bit on the right wing side?

Do you ever discuss an issue or are you just looklng for perceived weaknesses to attack? What's the matter, not very confident in your position in this discussion?

Look!

You might want to look into that "first minute" rule you are working with. It doesn't seem to be serving you very well.[/b][/quote]
Ssssoooo . . . tell me, how much have you watched Bill O'Reilly, Bernard Goldberg, and Ann Coulter do their schtick on the Fox News Channel?

[Agamemnon]

I think this is on again, right now, channel 15 (5pm) Sunday.