Micheal Moore

[Steely Dan]

Have you ever listened to any of them?

 

Limpbaugh has admitted to being a water carrier. He doesn't care what the Republicans do he'll defend it.

 

Explain Limpbaugh asking a caller to take the "Bone out of their nose".

[Gene Frenkle]

Explain Limpbaugh asking a caller to take the "Bone out of their nose".

He was all hopped up on Oxycontin Hillbilly Heroin after an especially successful round of doctor shopping?

[JK2000]

Limpbaugh has admitted to being a water carrier. He doesn't care what the Republicans do he'll defend it.

 

Explain Limpbaugh asking a caller to take the "Bone out of their nose".

 

I wonder if he'll have the nerve to try and protect Palin's daughter after trashing Chelsea in the 90's?

 

The first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea.

[UConn James]

"It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level....It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed." –House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Aug. 31, 2005

 

You talk about statements taken out of context...

 

Sure, it sounds a little cold when you single that out, but I can't say I disagree with Hastert from a macrocosm view. Notable geologists agree that they built the city in a terrible place (in a bowl and with not much land to blunt the force of storms) and an especially terrible place going forward re: recent weather patterns. Having to spend hundreds of billions every few years after hurricanes hit is fiscally irresponsible. Sucks, of course, but there it is.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

You talk about statements taken out of context...

 

Sure, it sounds a little cold when you single that out, but I can't say I disagree with Hastert from a macrocosm view. Notable geologists agree that they built the city in a terrible place (in a bowl and with not much land to blunt the force of storms) and an especially terrible place going forward re: recent weather patterns. Having to spend hundreds of billions every few years after hurricanes hit is fiscally irresponsible. Sucks, of course, but there it is.

 

Yep. Mother nature is usually going to have her way. But you know, New Orleans is so unique, you'd love to think there might be a way to build a super strong technologically advanced levy system that would work. It's wrong that the rest of the country has to bail them out every few years. In Florida, the tourists pay for so much, that there is no state or local tax. Wonder if New Orleans could be made to be the same way. If you want to visit, you're going to pay for part of the upkeep. If you don't want to visit there, GREAT, you don't pay for a thing.

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't think I can cut and paste or quote all these long posts without making a 3 page post or crashing the sever. There is some good info here I wasn't aware of however. If the O'Reilly death threat thing is accurate, then that pisses me off. Here's the problem though: I do believe O'Reilly gets death threats, because, let's face it how could he not? I have no idea where they come from, and probably neither does he. Him saying that he knows for certain that they come from Al Queda, and not some 14 year old, is retarded.

 

I have seen O'Reilly make a much bigger deal out of things than they really are. I attribute this mostly to getting ratings. He knows how the TV game is played and he does quite well with it. While easy targets, wailing away on child molesters has gotten some good legislation passed that keeps them away from kids. The fact is that they are most likely, of all criminals, to repeat their offense. You can say that they can't help it and that it's a mental health issue, but I will say so so f'ing what? There's a time for compassion and there's a time for "F you". O'Reilly understands that common sense rationale, and pounds on anybody who doesn't. Almost every state has Jessica's law now, in no small part due to fear of O'Reilly's audience.

 

What important work has Moore done? And, even if you agree with his nonsense, what, if any, has he accomplished towards those ends? Are guns still legal? Did Bush get impeached? Did anything bad happen to Corporate America? Do we have free health insurance? He has accomplished nothing except take your, not my, money. I did get one of his books for a birthday present from my hippie cousin though, I read it, it was ludicrous, and I started checking out every "source" he listed = pure BS or massive distortion. After the first 100, and since he was batting .050, I decided to stop wasting time. They are both into self-aggrandizement, but Moore doesn't get anything positive accomplished, EVER! If you are a committed Democrat, you must realize that he cost Gore the election. Is that positive? Is that going to get your issues passed, or even spoken about?

 

On the other hand, and while he can can be as crazy as a schit-house rat, O'Reilly has exposed some important, non-easy target things, especially hypocrisy, on both sides of the aisle. The list is way to long to have here. And, he has exposed where the far-left gets its real support. They aren't "mainstream", as in, millions of people send in money, etc.(If they were, they wouldn't have to try to convince people that they were, we'd already know ) They are: supported by one billionaire, George Soros, who is attempting to force his own little will on the rest of us, paying people to help him, and acting like a lot of people agree with him. MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Micheal Moore, etc. aren't legions of community conscious volunteers who have a similar political will to see this country bettered. Instead, they are a few Soros-paid automatons that are mainly in this for the paycheck. Edit: or they are Stalinists/Fascists who are under the impression that if they help bring about a "one-world-government" there will be something in it for them = power. Either way, this whole thing stinks to high heaven, I am a lot smarter and wiser than these people, and therefore I don't need them making decisions for me in any facet of my life.

 

The fundamental difference between O'Reilly and Moore, and I don't get how you guys don't see it, is: O'Reilly has to have a larger scope. He has to. Moore makes his money on telling people in his crowd what they want to hear, largely because he is paid to by Soros. O'Reilly makes his money on getting after everybody, not just Democrats. He picks on the far-left, as he should IMO, because they are such easy targets, but he also hits the far-right-->especially religious fanatics. He has to do an hour every night, where Moore only has to do a 2 hour movie, once every two years. By definition, O'Reilly has to expand his scope and target more people than just the left, or he will run out of new things to talk about = lose ratings.

 

There is also another reason why there's no way he can be as bad as Moore: balance. Watch O'Reilly's show, you will see the entire leadership of the Democratic party, consistently. When has Moore ever given a Republican, Libertarian, or even a Moderate in either party a voice in any of his work? Never.

[OCinBuffalo]

What????, nice insults, so at your pace, I would use the analogy of a thoroughbred susceptible to broken legs. So you pointed me to some website about facts on both of them even if it is the University of Penn. Didn't see anything on their front page and any article on the two of them is going to be balanced by the writer. It may be well written because it is Penn, but it is still going to bias.. And I am not talking just Republican, FOX, MSNBC, CNN although that bias is schizoid, whatever gets the best ratings... everyone has a bias Dems, GOP, interests groups, universities and but not acknowledging those bias, especially someone like O'Reilly denegrates you arguement.

 

I only pay credence to facts if confirmed by a number of them on both sides. Even then they could be subject to group think and just plain wrong not slanted.

But when side claims something as fact I know it to be either made up or only with an ounce of truth and a lot of chutzpah .

 

Comparing O'Reilly's full of itness to Moore's is stupid. They both are full of crap, just wish you could admit it.

I agree with the bold, isn't that what I said? It sucks having to watch the same news 3 times just so you can figure out what actually happened, but it beats the alternative.

 

O'Reilly has his watchdogs, just as he is the watchdog of others. They rarely find anything that sticks to him, while he finds stuff that sticks to them every week. Now, why is that? Simple, the truth is the truth, and no amount of MSNBC trying to manufacture a phony war against O'Reilly in an effort to increase their crappy ratings is going to change that.

 

I will grant you that there's a lot of crap going on here. But, I will tell you that O'Reilly is far and away held to a higher standard than Moore, and therefore he has to operate at that standard, therefore there's no way they are the same.