Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bill O' Reily, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter = Tabloid Politics (3996 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.26 on 40 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <murphydog5.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2004-01-24 22:33:16 EST
Who are these people? Moore started as a film-maker. Franken a comedian. O' Reily an anchor on Inside Edition. And Savage (not his real last name, but it's SIZZELING to his purpose) was in to herbal medicine. HERBAL MEDICINE!
Somehow these people are some of the most influential political commentaries in the USA. They write best-selling books, host radio and television programs, and make documentaries. Yet none are political scientists. They're just some guys who, at some point in their career, decided to use their prior success as a platform to promote their political ideas.
After reading Moore's book, 'Dude, Where's My Country,' this is how I felt: :(. BUSH IS A FUCKING LIAR WHO PUT OUR BOYS AND GIRLS IN THAT COUNTRY TO MAKE HIS SPECIAL INTEREST PEOPLE FILTHY RICH; HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT US, ALL HE CARES ABOUT IS LINING HIS AND HIS FRIEND'S POCKETS WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
After 'O Reily's, I'm all like: FUCK THE LEFT! THEY LIE AND STEAL AND MANIPULATE AND CORRUPT THE RIGHT'S VALUES! THEY'RE A BUNCH OF SECULIAR BABY-KILLING TAX-HIKING LUNATICS WHO ARE DEFINITELY NOT LOOKING OUT FOR ME.
Both of these books included an extensive bibliography and, with their wide-spread success, I doubt that the information published has too many errors. Some, but I think it's safe to say the majority of the information is correct (save for Coulter). So I got to thinking... these books are POLAR opposites. Both use juuuuuuuuuuuuust the right facts to build whatever case they're propagating. Maybe propagating is a bit bold... but ho-hum wishy-washy politics don't SHOCK people and, therefore, don't incite too many buyers. For practical proof on SHOCKING people to get attention and reaction, read anything written by Kaelic. These bitches need to bring home the bread too so who can blame them.
What concerns me is this: Most people identify with one of two political parties. These people, if they're at all-- wait a minute. Let me rephrase. Most people couldn't give a hoot about politics. These people, if they vote (god help us) usually vote Republican because they only thing they care about is their money and Republicans advocate tax-cuts (see Bush's SOTU address for more details). Ok, but many of us dig politics. But, once again, unfortunately most of us only see through the lens of our respective parties and disregard the other side.
Yesterday I was taking a shower and humming to myself and an idea popped in my mind. What if Ryan Phillipe were naked in the shower with me, covered in soap, and totally checking me out! Another, more relevant, idea popped in my head. What if I were the president of the United States and one person from each side of the party were to write a book ALL ABOUT ME. They would use facts, sure... but the "left" book would capitalize on my achievements - volunteer work for outdoor school, high GPA in school, generally nice to people unless they post stupid shit on Ubersite, etc. And the person with the "right" persuasion would equally capitalize on my weaknesses. Duh... right? Well, what if people only read one book?
Take my sister, for example, or my father or my mother... hell, ok, take my whole fucking family. They're ALL Republicans and most of them, having hardly anything to do with politics, read one of these tabloid books from a RW author maybe once every other year, you know... just stay "on top" of their political game and feel like they're EDUCATED voters. One second-- HAHAHAH. Ok, I'm back. This scares the fuck out of me.
I think it's time we take politics seriously and start thinking for ourselves in lieu of letting some tabloid author feed us his/her opinions. Listen to NPR. NPR is financed by tax-payers (you brits have a television tax, right?) and answers to NO big-business. From my experience, they are the network that's FAIR AND BALANCED.
I'm going to leave it at that. I stink and I've got to take a shower and dream of soapy celebrities.
Murphy
User Reviews
Submitted by Quetzallan (user info) at 2004-07-01 19:34:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's fun to watch them rip each other to shreds though. random side note/story: My grandmother was Ann Coulter's kindergarden teacher, and according to her Ann was so shy her mother had to carry her into the classroom every day.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-26 14:04:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Murphy started off making a good argument, but left it unfinished. NPR is unbiased????? What NPR are you listening to? NPR is extremely biased liberal trash.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-06-05 11:10:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jim (user info) at 2004-06-05 08:29:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Murphy is another in a long line of uncommitted drones. Willing to criticize both the left and the right! It is easy with no opinion! Murphy approaches politics like a hermophidite, avoilable for both points of view but unable ot make a decision with passion. I support our gonvernment involvement and believe that our involvement is neccesary. I believe this with a PASSION!
---
Holy crap.
Submitted by DenDen (user info) at 2004-06-05 10:48:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Jim (user info) at 2004-06-05 08:29:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Murphy is another in a long line of uncommitted drones. Willing to criticize both the left and the right! It is easy with no opinion! Murphy approaches politics like a hermophidite, avoilable for both points of view but unable ot make a decision with passion. I support our gonvernment involvement and believe that our involvement is neccesary. I believe this with a PASSION!
Submitted by Jim (user info) at 2004-06-05 08:24:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-01-29 08:10:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If I was a chick, Yidele would make me wet.
Instead, I like to think.
Is the opposite to misogyny MR.soginy?
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-01-29 06:59:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
according to what? according to my opinion, of course. Far be it from me asserting any "ultimate" truths, but the very idea that you, in your purile funk or your family in their republican feeding frenzy, "create your own reality" is a mad, bad & demoralizing idea( in addition to being wrong).
This has, of course, been discused to death, but the scribblings of various spin doctors, whether republican, democrat or purple people eater are just that - scriblings. They do not a reality make. Mindless marching automata willing to be programmed by such people do.
Where you are correct
You are right to worry. The world is full of folks who readily accept predigested ideas as their own & insist on forcing that worldview on others, notably the far right, the far left & the far, far gone.
You are right in that politics is a deadly serious matter, too important to be left to politicians
You are right in realizing that one should try to get a maximaly balanced viewpoint, hopefully by exposing oneself to various sources of information & opinions.
Where you are incorrect
In all of those mentioned above you are right. Where you are wrong is in the assumption that exposing yourself to patent mindwash such as the "works" of one O'reilly, or NPR will bring you anything of value. O'reilly is the political equivalent of PETA. There is no reason in those porcine eyes of his, only blind, irrational hatred. There is nothing like a true left in american politics, there are no popular politicians nor organizations which champion the cause of the common man; there is no balance - what there is, compared to the rest of the world, is an almost fascist far right & a token centre-right. I believe it was Chomsky who said that there is really only one party in the US - the republicrats - and the dems are merely their left wing. In this context, NPR finds itself to the right of the american centre right, consequently they are hardly balanced ( not to mention the fact that they are sponsored by your government. No independent opinion was ever forged under government "sponsorship")
You do not create your own reality. The reality you are forced to live in is not under your control. You can influence certain aspect of it, you can choose to better yourself or to spend your life in a drunken stupor, but the rules of existance are not determined by you. No more are they determined by your republican family. The political reality we all share is not changed by the will of individuals but by huge socio-economic forces of which they, the supposed decision makers, you & I & everyone else are puppets.
Why there is hope for you
You are bitter, disillusioned, alienated, angry and young. Those are all very positive things to be when one wants to be intellectualy independent. Nothing of any intellectual value is ever found in conformity.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-01-28 16:44:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I had insomnia last night, so I read half of "Dude, where's my country?". Man, Mike has the most ANNOYING writing style *in the WORLD* with his *accentuations*, etc*
*and those FUCKING footnotes.
Entertaining enough, though.
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-28 03:25:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wrong according to what, my friend yidele? Or, what do you know that's right for you to accuse me of being wrong? Politics is touchy... I'm curious.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-01-27 19:05:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
He's not; if you hum a few bars will he fake it?
Aaand as regards the rest of your tired tirade, You have every reason to feel threatened; you are still wrong tho'. By all means, seek more sources - in the end you'll be sure to realize that morons have an easier life. Everything is sharper in monochrome.
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-25 22:20:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
<clearing throat...>
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-01-25 22:04:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-01-25 21:46:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude, I hope you're a chick.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-01-25 21:46:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude, I hope you're a chick.
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-25 20:50:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stupid "dems" - Clinton blowjob reference... yes, you are the one-sided idiot this post was dedicated to. Fucking "LIB-ER-ALS" DESTROYING OUR VALUES!!! RAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!
Idiot.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-01-25 12:24:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes Loki, now people can CHOOSE to support NPR instead of the government taking a pistol, putting it into our ribs, and barking at us in lovely authoritarian fashion "Cough it up." Boy does that suck.
You're right about Nader though - if not for Nader, Gore would have one, end of story. Voter fraud has nothing to do with it though, only that some people are too dumb to be allowed to vote and should be totally disenfranchised (have you seen that b.fly ballot? It's pretty straightforward). It's really not the republicans fault that the Dems are too dumb to vote for the guy they want instead of Pat Buchanan.
Any chance the people of the South know what their own interests are BETTER than creative loafing? That they may be economically disadvantaged, but prefer that to a President getting a blowjob under his desk in the Oval Office? These are people whose votes can't be bought. A sad commentary on just about every purchased-and-paid-for democrat. Gotta go. It suddenly stinks in here.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-01-25 12:17:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The republicans pulled much of the funding for NPR. Now people like me get hit up for money twice a year to pay for their programming. For a contribution of a mere $75 I got this nifty coffee mug.
Yes the spin is pretty bad. I just read an article in Creative Loafing of all places about the political climate in some of the poorest places in the south. In many cases they vote republican seemingly despite their best interests.
We're somewhat stuck with the two party system. Whenever a new party tries to make a stand, all they end up doing is siphoning off votes from the party that most closely represents their interests having the opposite effect on the election. I blame Nader for Bush being in the Whitehouse, oh yes I do. Well that and voter fraud.
good times
intrigued by Kerry - still not sure
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-01-25 12:03:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm talking about NPR Guapo! Don't you know? If you don't, do you really belong in this conversation?
Submitted by El_Guapo (user info) at 2004-01-25 11:25:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
""Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-01-25 11:08:46 (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh let's see - the book reviewer (I forget the chick's name) was recently chastised for CARRYING WATER FOR AL FRANKEN and the network apologized to the person being interviewed, Bill O'Reilly coincidentally. Then you have Bill Moyers, who says that all the people waving the flag scare him, and that he's afraid of patriotism and the symbolism of the flag.
You see, NPR is a publicly funded haven for those who wouldn't last through seven minutes of real, cutthroat airtime on a major talk radio network. And it seems that's a recipe that gets the liberals a'droolin'. And don't give me the old "Well, nobody will give them a chance on regular radio." Bullcrap. Liberal talk shows get CRAP ratings because nobody is really interested in hearing them. End of story. Jim Hightower - ejected. Mario Cuomo - rejected. Hell, Al Gore's new network couldn't even get the word "liberal" in the description! Maybe you're just a good American - one who's so busy they can't take a magnifying glass to these sorts of things. Since I can do it all - engineering and political professional that I am, I keep these things covered for you.""
what in the holy fuck are you talking about. sadly, you're one of those blind followers Murph is talking about.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-01-25 11:08:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh let's see - the book reviewer (I forget the chick's name) was recently chastised for CARRYING WATER FOR AL FRANKEN and the network apologized to the person being interviewed, Bill O'Reilly coincidentally. Then you have Bill Moyers, who says that all the people waving the flag scare him, and that he's afraid of patriotism and the symbolism of the flag.
You see, NPR is a publicly funded haven for those who wouldn't last through seven minutes of real, cutthroat airtime on a major talk radio network. And it seems that's a recipe that gets the liberals a'droolin'. And don't give me the old "Well, nobody will give them a chance on regular radio." Bullcrap. Liberal talk shows get CRAP ratings because nobody is really interested in hearing them. End of story. Jim Hightower - ejected. Mario Cuomo - rejected. Hell, Al Gore's new network couldn't even get the word "liberal" in the description! Maybe you're just a good American - one who's so busy they can't take a magnifying glass to these sorts of things. Since I can do it all - engineering and political professional that I am, I keep these things covered for you.
Submitted by The.Masked.Assailant (user info) at 2004-01-25 10:24:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
weak
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-01-25 10:12:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-01-25 10:09:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh yes.
Submitted by amusediniraq (user info) at 2004-01-25 06:25:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree about the political party mess. I recently finished a couple of books about the early nation. After Washington's farewell address and decision not to run for a third term Adams, and Jefferson (the major players) along with Pickerny and Hamilton didn't overtly "campaigne" for themselves. Parties were frowned upon. It was looked upon as too ambitious and not benevolent. Now, you can be sure that the sage of Montichello directed his campaignes behind the scenes but stump speeches and rhetoric, were not performed. An example we could learn from. You are correct in the observation that the system is now pretty much a choice between lesser evils. My biggest advice is, if you are going to be political- it should be on a local level first. Your city council, school board and state governments really have the biggest impact on your daily lives. Keep an eye on the issues and watch the national scene but the biggest impact on most lives is at a much lower level. Unless of course you are in federal prison or the military.....
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-25 04:40:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Or, more simply for simple people, you're a fucking idiot. Is that more digestable for you?
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-25 04:39:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Domenad - how about...hang on here... thinking for yourself for a change. I just listened to an hour of "right-wing" drivel about Bush. The program is funded by the public. Tell me, my insightful friend, what incentive NPR has to be so... as you say (even though this started with the BBC and has nothing to do with right/left AMERICAN politics) "left?" I'm curious...
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-01-25 01:38:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hahah! NPR is home to some of the most leftist, anti-american pundits you could ever hope to find (Bill Moyers, anyone? What an absolute, sanctimonious ass!)
+2 for interesting take.
-infinity for being a dumbass about NPR
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-01-25 00:25:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the reason that most people won't read a book with a negative view of the person they agree with, or is of the same political party they are, is that the negative books seem to be so skewed and out of context (Bowling for Columbine).
Of course the positive books totally overlook (most of them) any shortcomings of the same person.
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:55:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I wish our politics weren't bipartisan. Maybe tri or quad or something. I don't know why our seats are not representative of ALL the political parties, only R and D. Loki, bart, Razor, can you guys shed some light on this?
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:53:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah... we homos. We're TERRIBLE, huh? I'm getting a gang together over the internet to single-handedly DESTROY the very "values" this nation was founded upon. Bush is just pandering to the Christians and they take orders from God. God tells them to simultaniously love thy neighbor and men laying with men as they do with women is an ABMONIATION. Once again... whatever. Personally, don't we have so many more BIG BIG things to worry about than what gay people are doing?
Or maybe <cue 007 music> if you take your eyes off of us, we'll creep under the prude fabric of America and destroy your family! :)
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:52:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In the States there are key differences between the two parties, but when there are only two parties, they could both move to either side of the spectrum and you and everyone else must vote for one of them, the lesser of two evils.
In Canada we've the Liberals, New Democrats, Parti Quebecois, Conservative Party of Canada (the new union of the Progressive Conservatives and the more recently formed Canadian Alliance, which was an offshoot of the old Reform Party) as the major groups.
It gives you a pretty broad covering of the spectrum, so no matter what your stance you have someone to vote for. And those are just the major seat-holding parties. Like anywhere else we have Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Independents and everything in between.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:48:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:46:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Go God, WOOO! Boo homosexuals, BOOOOO!"
- G. W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's actually about the jist of it. Anyone else catch that guy who was fast asleep? Hilarious.
*Only 15 year old who willingly watched the State of the Union... after the Penguins game was over.*
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:48:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Loosely, yes am I am, Hair. But why not feed your collective perception with information from a wide spectrum? That's more what I'm getting at. I'm a Democrat but I don't think Republicans are all bad. Aside from the politicians, I think most people try to be good. My family doesn't realize how unfair they are being... they think they know the *TRUTH*. Whatever...
My vote is split between Dean, Edwards, and Kerry. I can't believe Kerry's position following NH and IA. Dean is a bit hot-tempered, learning from the ho-hum Gore/Bush debate in 2000. There was a good rage video during that time called "testify." Download it if you can, anyone interested, to see why, IMO, Dean is taking such a bold position.
I'm really keeping my eye on Kerry though... his answers to questions in the NH debate seemed, to me, to be the most thorough and well-spoken.
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:46:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Go God, WOOO! Boo homosexuals, BOOOOO!"
- G. W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2004
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:40:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Personally, when it comes to politics, I only trust cold hard facts written coming from people with credibility. Everyone who writes a ploitical book has their own agenda, very few people say "Here are all the stats, both for and against the issue. Make of it what you will, I'll be over here not telling you how to think." In fact, I don't think anybody does that...
Like the guy from Bush's cabinet, former secretary of somethingorother, who unveiled a memo from Bush's first day in office detailing his plans for post-Saddam Iraq, proving he'd been thinking about it before he had any intelligence on the matter whatsoever. Yeah it's great we got Saddam out of power and everything, but this just proves Bush acts on what he BELIEVES is right instead of what actually IS right.
And for the record, I'm not a registered democrat, or a registered republican, or even registered. I'm 15.
John Edwards for pres. www.johnedwards2004.com
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:40:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
So, are you saying "perception is reality"?
Submitted by hairsphincter <3540> at 2004-01-24 22:39:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by sublime (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:38:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i concur with tom concurring with you.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:36:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I concur
Submitted by squattail (user info) at 2004-01-24 22:34:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is super*