Michael Moore on the O'Reilly factor...
 

tomorrow night at 8PM EST/7PM CST, This should be "sweet"...Gotta watch this episode.

I love Mike but I refuse to even turn my TV to Faux. Bill will probably cut off his microphone anyway.

Actually last time they got along and Bill O. agreed with MM on several things. It was by no means caustic. So, we shall see this time around.

That's because O'Lielly knows that Moore could verbally beat the **** out of him. ;)

Anyone see Dean poking at Hannity last night? I almost died.

Hannity went over to him, shoved a mic in his face, and Dean said "Go see 'Outfoxed,' you'll see why people like you say what you say." Then he laughed at Hannity and walked off.

Hannity then tried to accost Janeane Garofalo and Same Seder but they blew him off and said ont heir show that "he wears more pancake make-up than Lucille Ball in the 40s." :laugh:

On MSNBC, Tweety Matthews was being a real ass, a real GOP whore, and Wes Clark told him "Can't you lay off the script for once and really play hardball?" Then Tweety tried to suggest that CLinton did nothing for the women of this country and the crowd booed him and someone yelled "ASSHOLE!"

AND - Ann Coulter was fired from USA Today because they called her columns "unfunny" and "unreadable."

These people don't understand that that **** won't fly around these parts.

Chris Matthews is a tool. But he's right about Clinton. I've been saying it since 1996: Clinton set the women's movement back at least a couple of decades, and the stupid-ass running NOW at the time went right along with him.

LOL - poor Annnie C. I do not agree with her, but I did agree with the general comment that what the hell did USA think they were gonna get when they hired her :shrug: AND - I loved her comment that "I guess people in hotels and airports around the world will not get to read me" :laugh:

Here is AC's rejected column - Personally - I think it is funny, but others will now I know

USA Today
Put The Speakers In A Cage
July 26, 2004
Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/072604p.htm

Jason, this is funny to you?

We are becoming so coarse and vicious in our rhetoric. Doesn't that bother you?

(I fully realize I neeed to duck now as all the charges of hypocrisy get lobbed at me. To you I say peemptively: "STICK IT!" :) )

Anne Coulter is trash.

Oh great...
 

now O'Reilly will also have Ben Ass-crack (Or is it Affleck???) on tonite...Hey Ben, Does ya ass hurt from the beating J-ho gave ya? (If there's anything J-Ho knows, Then that would be ASS) :lol:

I guess it boils down to me thinking she is being funny - she is using it as emphasis - it sells her point. I think the same thing about MM. When I DARED awhile back to assert I thought his style was offensive, people attacked me for expressing my opinion - they thought I was attacking him. I still think MM is mostly offensive in his presentation - but I get he uses that emotion to sell his point, which few would listen to it he played it straight. I think Ann C is doing that as well - she knows her rehtoric sells. So, I just chalk it up to humor and am done with it. I try to look for the real message underneath the advertising.

He's only giving him 8 minutes. :shrug: I'd rather watch Ron Reagan speak on stem cell research and Obama's speech. I've yet to see Obama.

Ben was very articulate on the issues with Larry King last night. He, Pat Kennedy and Al Sharpton frustrated the hell out of Tucker Carlson.

Poor Tucker - I LOVE when Carville calls him "son" :laugh:

I see a huge difference. She comes from a position of bile, hacking everything in her path. Moore is trying to right something he perceives as wrong and resorts to some belittling and sarcasm to accomplish it. He's far more honorable, though.

To quote "Gypsy" - "ya gotta have a gimmick - if you wanna get ahead" - they do somewhat come from different places, I agree. But, the gimmick and their effective use of it is what I am talking about.

And that, my friends, was worth the price of admission. :blob1:

:lol: Yes it was.

This place is insane.

I'm sitting in the way back on the balcony (nosebleeds :lol: ), near the kiddies. :laugh: They looked at my laptop like it was a bomb and inspected it three times. :lol:

Peter, Paul, and Mary blew me away. Miss Mary can truly sing. Braun is speaking tonight, I AM SO PUMPED! It's a bit dull right now, they just went through all the governors and lieutenant governors. I thought the lieutenant governor from New Mexico was going to have a stroke in front of the crowd. The only thing I'm pissed about is that they're making everyone with peace scarves take them off. How absurd.

I'll write more later tonight when I get back to my room. :wavey:

I will be...
 

making use of the mute button again tonite it seems, Though I will love the upcoming episode of the "O'Really" Factor (On Faux News-"Unfair & Truly unbalanced...You decide ya schitz") with Michael "Mickey Mouse fan #1" Moore, Man I cannot wait to see how instantaneous combustion works when both these guys explode into flames.

Alfred E. Newman in 2004..."Crime doesn't pay...As does politics", 'what, me worry'

Glad you think so. A couple of months ago I mentioned getting one of their albums & it seemed that not many Ledgies cared for them.

- Jake

What a non event :eek: Basically, it was a dog and pony show. I mean Ben Affleck was better :laugh:

I've seen...
 

better scraps from my cats than "O'Really" & "Almond Joy Moore" gave, I agree a dog & pony show...

At least Ben Ass-crack came off as respectable.

My fav. was when MM said the Iraqi people shopuld have revolted on their own. While I agree with him in theory, it is a rather incredible thing to say considering the iron fist SH ruled with.

But, MM rallied with the persistent "would you send your kid to fight to free Fajullah." BO's ( :laugh: ) countered with I'd send myself seemed a little staged. Just boring IMO and it was just pregnant with such possibilities!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not watching. Was it taped or live?

It wasnt...
 

live, But it was taped during the DNC in Boston. It was (According to "O'Really" at least) unedited.

Trust me, Ya didnt miss much...

They did, however, shoot MM at the most unflattering angle possible. He looked like Jabba the Hutt. So, there was that :laugh:

What do you expect from the other half of the War Party? Hey, have you taken a walk way over to the protesters yet? Can't find them? I wonder why.

When it comes to free speech, the Democrats have the leg up, don't they? :rolleyes:

Jason, history is filled with instances of popular risings against tyrannical regimes. It is quite plausible indeed, especially for a population that not long ago was fairly well educated.

Overall, the exchange was an aggravating "I know you are but what am I?" schoolyard bout. We can't resolve anything in this country anymore, people. No matter how wrong Bush or Clinton may be about their particular foibles (and I daresay Bush's have been exponentially more serious) half the population is going to stick by its man. It's truly incredible. And I have to add, quite sad. Sometimes I just laugh at all this. Then I realize how serious it is. Not one person I know who is voting for Kerry is happy about it. Not one. Those I know who are voting for Bush are unwavering, terribly misguided but unwavering.

Only a repeat of the 60s and early 70s is going to wake up the Democrats, it seems.

True - but that was then and this is now. Those people did not watch in horror as their dictator gassed an entire population of a village, etc. I suspect that probably had a large chilling effect on any uprising.

In any event, MM's point was not the point being discussed - he and BO were spinning a little (surprise :laugh: ). We did not liberate Iraq to liberate Iraq and get rid of a bad guy - no matter what BO, W, or anyone else says now. We removed SH because history and the intelligence from many sources indicated SH had WMD and was a threat and SH did not lift a finger to disprove this as he was legally required to do. I, and many like me, think that after 9/11, which was done by other people, we could no longer afford to allow the possibility of the madman SH having these weapons - again, for 11 years he never satisfied his legal burden of proving he got rid of them. That Iraq was liberated in the process is a good, but ancillary boon.

I know I know - you all do not believe the intelligence. But, your disbelief does not obviate the fact that the rest of the world, though the UN, did and they did for all 11 years of SH stall tactics. AND - after 9/11, the UN was fed up with it and called for SH to have one last chance and to face serious consequences (which everyone knew meant war) if he did not comply.

Note: my comments above do not excuse W and his administration for spinning and lying about the intelligence to make his case for immediate war - that was horrible and he should be in jail for it. It also does not excuse going to war with ill prepared troops, not enough troops, and no exit strategy. The reasons for war and the execution of it are two sep. things to me. In other words, like Clinton, I would have supported the military removal of SH after the end of the last round of inspections, which, after the usual and initial SH non-compliance, were going fairly well according to Blix. I would have waited. I think that the two or three months required to wait would have been a wise incident of tempering action with wisdom. But, W simply could not wait for a variety of reasons (failure to capture OBL, struggling economy at home, etc.). So, I conclude W needs to be removed because of his impatience and his huge other mistakes (Iraqi resistance, etc.). Again, if I had an employee who made that big of an honest (benefit of the doubt not a conclusion) mistake, I would fire them immediately no matter how good their intentions. So, I say the same for W.

Hogwash...

It is that kind of reply that makes you and MM sound incredible. But, people assert it just the same. Then again, you never agree with anything any politician says save Paul Wellstone, think America is to blame for the majority of the world's problems, and easily exonerate those countries that commit bad acts. So . . . . . . . :wavey: (humor intended)

Again, when someone disporves what I said about SH and the UN and the WMD - I will gladly and with hat in hand genuflect. But, no one has done that. All they retort is I am am enabler who spews untrue right wing talking points, blah blah blah. That is not an intelligent or responsive answer IMO. I certainly see that people could say - ya know I just think the intelligence was flimsy and despite the world acting on it for 11 years, I think we should have investigated more - I think the lives of our soldiers is too dear not to have done so. I agree with that and said so earlier. But, this whole W had no reason whatsoever to even cosider going to war with Iraq and he went there just to get their oil is just not supported by the facts IMO. But, people assert it as factual anyway. So . . . . . I think it all comes down to how much of a gamble were we as a nation will to put up with after we were attacked on 9/11. I know SH did not attacfk us. Anyone who says so is wrong according to the facts we have. BUT, SH by his own noncompliance was a variable - he was a risk - could we afford to risk it with SH - well that is a personal choice everyone has to make.

Jason, hogwash. At least you found a guy you can vote for whose view is as clouded as yours -- John Kerry. He probably needs volunteers.

And by the way, America is to blame for a lot of the political problems in the world. I gave you a free pass yesterday and backed off from the statement that the Japanese have every right to hate us. And I do agree with your assessment. But it's important to keep in mind that he Japanese were isolationists and wanted nothing to do with the rest of the world until US President Millard Fillmore (aren't you glad we don't use names like Millard anymore?) decided that an isolationist Japan was unacceptable and therefore sent a flotilla of warships into Tokyo Bay in 1853 to shock the Japanese into submission. The flotilla's commander, Matthew Perry, paraded through Tokyo demanding to meet with the country's highest officials. Can you imagine a flotilla of foreign vessels sailing up the Potomac River and then demanding to meet with Dubya?

Long memories, Jason. The Japanese were threatened and they decided they needed to get serious about defending themselves, which led to their expansionist policy, which led to the attack on Pearl Harbor about a century later. Long memories. We would do well to remember that the rest of the world doesn't forget things the way we do.

Once again, no real argument stating facts - just more blind assertion unsupported by the facts :cool:

Let me get this straight, you are arguing that the US' actions in 1853 caused the Japanese to align with Hitler (please explain that one :laugh: ) and to launch a premeditated and unprovoked attack about 90 years later. I mean talk about your preemptive strikes :laugh: I am unsure I am buying that as a valid cause for their attack - but you can all you want :wavey:

To feed the conspiracy theorists, however, here is some fodder:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/

BTW - I am not arguing with you that America has done some crummy things. I am just saying their are two sides to every story and asserting one side is not always the best way IMO :shrug:

That's what I thought. :)

No, Jason, you seem to be having trouble catching my meaning lately. I have to repost things for you to get them. Merely, I was pointing out that Japan was isolationist until an American show of force persuaded the Japanese, who weren't about to kowtow to what they perceived as Western imperialists, to build up their defenses, which led to expansionism. The attack on Pearl Harbor followed that.

Laugh all you want, Jason, but what I have posted here wouldn't be so funny to the Japanese back in the 1930s. Certain Japanese thinkers were calling for a war with the US long before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Do you think they would have if they had been left alone to begin with? I don't justify the brutality and blind, warmongering nationalism of the Japan of yesteryear, just as I don't justify al Qaida's attacks on innocents. I am merely pointing out that usually there is cause and effect to the conflicts the US gets sucked into.

And on the war on Iraq, I am just so sick of arguing the point. It was a stupid war under false pretenses. Your argument is corrupt, but you refuse to accept it. It's corrupt because it doesn't make sense to attack a country based on an imaginary risk. More than 1,000 Americans are dead as a result of this corrupt pro-war argument. Let's please just move on from that particular argument.

I know!!! It was remarkable... :nod:

Agree to disagree - that is just not us :laugh:

Hell no. ;)

he asked if he would SACRIFICE his child......what the hell kind of a question is that? he's not gonna go an say "ok son i'm signing you up for the army" its not up to him what his child will do in terms of military service. he can't speak for his child and thats exactly what he said.

With all due respect, that is spinning the intent of the question :cool: MM was not asking BO to sign his child up or to speak for the child, which I agree with you just like any other parent, BO had no right to do. MM was asking BO if he believed in the point he was making to justify the war in Iraq so much that he would be okay with his child going there and getting killed. In other words, was getting rid of SH solely just to get rid of a bad person (they changed the justification of the war once no WMD were found) worth the life of YOUR child or worth sending your child into battle in a heated rush. I think that is a different issue than, BO, please sign up your child :shrug:

I think MM's point was, as expressed in F-9/11, that no member of Congress, even the ones that voted for the war, has a child over there (even though one has a nephew in Afgan - HELLO CARNE AND DISSENTION :laugh: ) - His point is and was if you people are so gung ho about this war that they do not care that the sole justification (WMD) was incorrect and think it is of such importance that they invoke the name of God for its validation, why aren't they sending their children to fight to remove such a ruthless dictator? Why are they asking others from predominantly lower income families and, I think, predominantly African American families to send their kids into harm's way in a voluntary army? I mean W and Cheney have children, why aren't they there helping their parents out by fighting in Iraq? It is a compelling argument - at least to me. I mean anyone can send a thousand other peoples' children to their deaths as an "armchair quarterback." I think they would think about it a little more if their own children or, to a lesser extent, other family members had to go :shrug: