Bill O'Reilly vs. Jon Stewart (8475 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.05 on 100 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Icedragon (View user info) at 2004-09-21 15:28:38 EDT
While I was watching the TV this afternoon, hoping for something more interesting to come on than the 8th Sports Center in a row, I was IMed by a friend of mine
"Take a look at this", he said and he pasted this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132946,00.html
He told me that Jon Stewart was on the O'Reilly Factor, and that this was the transcript. I was intrigued. I thought "Jon Stewart may be the only person who can give that asshole a verbal asswhooping". A red flag came up in my head, "don't underestimate the douche-baggary of Bill O'Reilly". I decided to click the link anyway. How sorry I was.
I began to read the transcript. It started off polite, but then, O'Reilly came out punching:
O'REILLY: You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary.
STEWART: If that were so, that would be quite frightening.
O'REILLY: But it is. It's true. I mean, you've got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night, OK, and they can vote.
O'REILLY: Eighty-seven percent are intoxicated when they watch it. You didn't see that?
"Ouch", I thought. It's only 8 lines into the transcript, and we have two stereotypical insults from Bill. That must be a world record. Also, O'Reilly seems to have a problem with Daily show viewers voting. I guess it makes the votes of all 26 of his viewers seem insignificant.
I read on, seeing Jon biding his time, hopefully to lash back soon. Bill then seemed envious that Kerry was on the Daily Show.
O'REILLY: But you do have some influence. Now, how do you see that? You have influence. John Kerry bypassed me and went right over to you. You're only four blocks away. He said, "O'Reilly, I don't think so. Stewart, I'm going to go talk to you."
STEWART: Well, I have to tell you -- and again, I mean no disrespect, but the snack selection backstage, quite frankly...
John now had the upper hand. He reminded Bill, though indirectly, that he was a satirist, and not a news journalist. O'Reilly was fazed, as humor was a foreign concept to him.
STEWART: If I thought honestly that their strategy hinged upon his coming and talking to me, I would suggest that they were in some deep trouble. I don't know. I feel like, you know, we don't have an agenda of influence.
STEWART: If we have influence, it is peripheral. And I don't imagine that people who watch the show are watching it to make up their minds in terms of who they think would best prosecute the war on terror. I think they watch to see who would maybe have the best jokes on the war on terror.
I cried with joy. Jon was fully in control now. Bill was now just along for the ride. I dreamt and hoped that Bill would not recover, and Jon will flush this asshole down the no spin zone. My dreams were soon dashed to pieces.
O'REILLY: But even so, younger people tend to be a little bit more, you know...
STEWART: When you say younger, are you talking 9, 10? What are you talking here?
O'REILLY: No, I'm talking 18 to 25, you know. The people who are on your intellectual level.
Oh no! This was the equivalent of an NFL player getting hit in the helmet, and then kicked in the balls while down. My worries were right. Bill O'Reilly could sink lower, and just did. I hoped that Jon could recover, but it was not looking good.
O'REILLY: Well, you asked me why I was such a bad person, didn't you, or something like that? Wasn't that a serious question?
STEWART: Did I ask you why you were a bad person?
O'REILLY: Yeah, I think so.
STEWART: No, I wouldn't have done that.
O'REILLY: ... "scum of the earth, O'Reilly," I think that's the way you put it.
STEWART: No, I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it would have been, why do you have such je ne sai qua?
O'REILLY: Yeah, some French. We're boycotting France, so I couldn't answer...
STEWART: By the way, I couldn't agree with you more about the French thing. They are such an important country, and I think really deserve a boycott.
O'REILLY: Yeah, they do.
STEWART: Because of the influence they wield in the world.
I cracked a smile as Jon's sarcasm came to his aide, and tore that boycott bullshit to shreds.
STEWART: Do you really believe France is, in any way, worthy of a boycott?
O'REILLY: I do. I think France has really hurt the USA, to be...
STEWART: Really?
O'REILLY: Yes, I do.
STEWART: More than like Saudi Arabia? You would advocate a boycott...
O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to say more than Saudi Arabia. But I'm saying we do a lot...
STEWART: So why not boycott them?
O'REILLY: France is supposed to be our friend. Saudi Arabia is...
STEWART: Since when?
This was it. Jon had him. All he had to do was hang in there, and Bill would be defeated in his own show.
STEWART: Since the revolution they haven't been our friend.
O'REILLY: OK, when you get a guy like Kerry on...
STEWART: Yes.
O'REILLY: ... and again, he bypassed me, so I took it personally, he went over to talk to you...
STEWART: But you and I are not competitors, let's be frank about it.
O'REILLY: Well, we're on our second rerun on The Factor -- is now at 11:00.
Even I was like what the fuck man? O'Reilly felt the Daily Show was competition? But then, O'Reilly said the most egotistical thing I have heard a journalist ever say.
O'REILLY: Don't you think that these guys want to be hip, when McCain was on with you -- Bush hasn't been on with you, right? You would remember that...
STEWART: George Bush?
O'REILLY: Yeah.
STEWART: I don't recall the president stopping by the program.
O'REILLY: But McCain's been on.
STEWART: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. Kerry's been on, as we mentioned.
STEWART: Yes.
O'REILLY: I've been on. So you've had the three most powerful people beside him on.
When was the coup? I don't remember O'Reilly having any kind of power? I guess he does have the ability not only be a conservative talking head, and claim to be unbiased, but also to think he's one of the most powerful men in America, and call himself a "humble correspondent".
I finished reading the article. I thought, "that was pretty good. Not only do I hate Bill O'Reilly more than I thought humanly possible, but Jon beat him at a few points, and Bill didn't call upon his pussy powers and have Jon's microphone cut." I then went on a beer run and got my bong ready, because it would be 11:00 pm before I know it.
User Reviews
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-04 23:30:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-04 23:14:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire was one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
Submitted by gubgubkolkol (user info) at 2007-05-04 22:55:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
nice. Good commentary too.
Submitted by Number 6 <prisoner6161.at.hotmail.com> at 2004-11-04 12:43:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Worth reading just to take in all the youthful ignorance and self-hate. Yeah, Jon Stewart, you get that Bill O'Reilly- now lets go vote for Ralph Nader because Michael Moore and other rad celebrities showed us what a horrible country the USA is. If self-loathing is the new confession, this guy spends more time in the booth than Moore.
Submitted by Min <monisham.at.mac.com> at 2004-10-01 15:33:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
awesome. my boyfriend told me he saw this but it was great to see the transcript. i got special delight from your wrap up at the end. how appropriately revealing is it that the ralph reeds and o'reillys in our country get confused with sarcasm and humor. its like in the wizard of oz when the curtain is parted..
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2004-09-28 17:03:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
HAHAHAHHA.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-09-28 16:47:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i still don't understand the anti-french thing...even worse than blind anti-americanism
Submitted by Icedragon (user info) at 2004-09-28 10:38:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I heard Bill O'Reilly will be appearing on the Daily Show on the 7th of October. This I will definitly watch.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-09-25 13:39:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Matt, I hate you. Your country makes me sick.
Submitted by Sacrew (user info) at 2004-09-25 01:00:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bill O'Reilly undoubtedly posesses an inadequate penis.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2004-09-24 12:27:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I first caught Bill O'Reilly when I lived in the States. For the first few minutes I thought it was right-wing satire. Then I realised this douche was trying to be taken seriously.
Now that I'm back in the UK, I make sure to get my double dose of the O'Reilly Factor every Saturday night on Fox News.
That man makes Silvio Berlusconi look like a liberal. Funny, but in the wrong way.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-24 00:25:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah: Don't blame the republicans for the patriot act when nearly everyone in congress voted to pass it. (99-1 in the senate. Russ Feingold (D) being the only one to act against it. And the vote was 357-66 in the house.)
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-24 00:21:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fucking shit... What the hell was that double response? I'm going to shoot myself now.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-24 00:21:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1Point21Gigawatts, Republicans definitely should read the constitution too. They (democrats & republicans) do a horrible job of representing it.
Case in point: A federal law against voyeurism?!? Now we have feds knocking on peoples door for taking a peep shot of a neighbor through their window? (Watch out eric rice! You're a target.)
Fact is, there are many states that already have laws against this. Is a federal law needed for this crap? really.... Fucking bigger government is all it accomplishes.
Same thing with burning churches. These rat-bastards in congress (both republican & democrat) think "Ooooh. People are burning down churches, so I am going to stand up and look like a great guy demanding federal laws against burning down churches!" And everyone votes for it...and it passes making government bigger once again. Instead of feds looking out for criminals, they are looking for arsonists (which was already against the law, by the way).
So if you are going to burn something down....burn down a school. That isn't against federal law.
Fuck the democrats and republicans for doing this bullshit.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-24 00:21:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1Point21Gigawatts, Republicans definitely should read the constitution too. They (democrats & republicans) do a horrible job of representing it.
Case in point: A federal law against voyeurism?!? Now we have feds knocking on peoples door for taking a peep shot of a neighbor through their window? (Watch out eric rice! You're a target.)
Fact is, there are many states that already have laws against this. Is a federal law needed for this crap? really.... Fucking bigger government is all it accomplishes.
Same thing with burning churches. These rat-bastards in congress (both republican & democrat) think "Ooooh. People are burning down churches, so I am going to stand up and look like a great guy demanding federal laws against burning down churches!" And everyone votes for it...and it passes making government bigger once again. Instead of feds looking out for criminals, they are looking for arsonists (which was already against the law, by the way).
So if you are going to burn something down....burn down a school. That isn't against federal law.
Fuck the democrats and republicans for doing this bullshit.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-09-23 19:22:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:27:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
I supposed you didn't see Kerry himself FREEZE last night on Letterman? Why don't you look that up? He was absolutely stymied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-09-23 19:19:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think all you liberal democrats out there really need to read the constitution and then realize all the shit you make up in your head is something an overbearing government has forced on us for the last 75 years or so...and getting worse.
-------------
Yes, because the only right that has always existed is the right to bear arms, according to Republicans.
Submitted by CoachMagirk27 (user info) at 2004-09-23 19:08:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 because this really entertained me. No sarcasm. Jon Stewart is the awesomest. Bill O'reilly is the biggest douche ever. Great topic. Great post.
:)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2004-09-23 11:40:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This was pretty much just a cut and paste, but otherwise i would have missed it, so thanks for posting it.
1.21, you said, "Republicans never do anything but argue strawman, and create personal attacks. They stay away from the real issues at hand and end up successful through scheming, underhanded plans. I have never ONCE heard an argument from the republican side, where ISSUES and FACTS (and I'm not talking about Kerry in Vietnam or his war record, I'm talking about real fucking problems with the country NOT the candidates) were brought up and the argument made sense. NOT ONCE!"
I mostly agree with this republican politicians, and news outlets are guilty of this, but so are democrats. You have to be really blind to think that dems stick to the facts significantly more than republicans.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-09-22 14:16:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill - it appears that you and I agree to disagree. Oh well, I personally can't see the value in your side of the argument and you can't see mine. I just had a similar discussion over lunch with a coworker, and we got no where. The chasm between us (you and I and my co worker and I) is just too big.
But as for this:
"I think all you liberal democrats out there really need to read the constitution and then realize all the shit you make up in your head is something an overbearing government has forced on us for the last 75 years or so...and getting worse."
The constitution you say? Oh, you're talking about that piece of paper that George Bush soils when he takes his morning piss. Right, us Democrats will look into it, right after we read a copy of "The Patriot Act: McCarthyism Part II."
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2004-09-22 13:24:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The "conservative" way of thinking is essentially the attmepts to justify a lifestyle, when you look at the big picture.
Stabill, your fear of socialism is ridiculous. Socialism is a "bad word", mainly because of its link to the Soviets, who didn't actually practice socialism.
Personally, I think that democratic socialism is one of the best systems of government that is currently being practiced in today's world.
But as we all should know, the Cherokee Indians practiced the world's most effective governing style.
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2004-09-22 12:53:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-22 12:49:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1.21: Kerry is not my guy. Not in a million years.
I never said the U.S.A. should reduce itself to China in terms of pollution. I'm just against the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Here's a great article describing pretty much what I think as well...
http://wwwc.house.gov/smbiz/specialProjects/kyoto/whitepaper.asp
I wrote a bunch of stuff up, but found that article...and it confirmed exactly what I believed. We would lose jobs, and other nations would benefit the most while polluting the most, still... Effectively not solving anything.
And does Kerry support this? It appears so....
http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyoto_2.htm
And the funny thing people forget, is their state governments can control their environment just as much ...actually more... than the federal government can.
So if Bush cuts some federal program designed to "protect the environment"... It is basically making a smaller federal government. Does this look good? Probably not. But it's shifting the power to the states to decide if they want to pick up that burden to keep a program like that running.
I agree 100% with Bush. And on OHSA....OSHA is a mess. Just like most democrat inspired programs, it is designed with GOOD in mind but turns into a bureaucratic mess costing average people tons of money in the long run...with little good gained by it.
I can show one instance of how regulation goes "overboard", but there are many to choose from.
Someone decided "Truck drivers need to be monitored by having a federal license so they can't simply lose their license to a DUI in one state, then move to another and start back up again." Is that idea good? Probably...but give it to the government, and see what happens...next: "Well, there are Greyhound-type bus companies that travel from state to state...those guys need licenses too. Ok...now they are tacked onto the bill...which passes. Then someone else reads it as "bus drivers need permits" and now you have local bus drivers having to get the same licensing big rig haulers do. Then it goes down to anyone who drives for a living.... etc...etc.... And a bill designed originally for OTR truck drivers now applies to 1000X more people. And the funding? Originally designed for the OTR drivers now is burdensome and has to be paid by who? Everyone.
Regulations do this...over and over and over.... And the benefits we get from it are very, very little.
Let's say it saves 20 lives in a country of 290,000,000 million people to enact some BS legislation (regulation) on something. Is it worth it, to the other 289,999,980 people to pay for the programs that saved that 20 lives when it could potentially cost millions a year? No. No way. TO those 20 people and their families? Sure.... But that number is far less than the rest of the population.
It's kind of hard to explain, but something about the auto industry has shown Air bags have not saved as many people as you would think.... and it has cost alot of money by the federal government enforcing regulations, hiring people to test things, etc...etc.... When the free market would allow for the auto industry to put in airbags on their own for much less than if the federal government mandated it.
Do you want a car with an airbag? Then you'll buy a car with an airbag. The government shouldn't make that decision. The markets can.... Unless you get a democrat (usually) in charge. Then you will see the government mandating safety or some other stuff for the "overall good of society".
Well...where is this in the constitution?
I think all you liberal democrats out there really need to read the constitution and then realize all the shit you make up in your head is something an overbearing government has forced on us for the last 75 years or so...and getting worse.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-09-22 12:42:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
To be completely honest, I would rather watch 'The Daily Show' then 'The O'Reily Factor' if only because Jon Stewart seems to get such a kick out of his job and O'Reilly comes across as the sour old man who yells at kids for walking on his lawn. Plus Bill O'Reilly takes himself too seriously, and if there is one thing I don't like, it's that.
'It's come to my attention that a certain percentage of America is getting their news from this show. This show right here. People, people...DON'T DO THAT! WE MAKE STUFF UP! DON'T LISTEN TO US!'
-Jon Stewart
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-09-22 11:01:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is a continuation of the lower reply (it got cut off for being too long, damn you Uber!)
Final points: China and the environment - In my opinion, you shot yourself in the foot with your argument. Do you realize how dirty the conditions are in China? Do you know about the poor civil rights and their way of life? If we start to emulate industry the way China does it so we can keep up and not loose business, our country would end up the same, perhaps a democratic version of China. Go on the internet and look at some pictures of how disgusting that place is.
You can let china have their cheap labor and horrible environmental conditions. I'd rather listen to my "made in china" MP3 player by a nice clean lake on a healthy outdoor jog, than buy an Audiovox (sorry if you buy American) but have to breathe in filth because Audiovox is finally able to pollute the environment and pay their workers crap because in the UBS, OSHA doesn't exist.
And OSHA, you're happy about Bush "smacking them down"? What are you, CEO of GM or something? You sound evil by hating on OSHA.
Affirmative action isn't as bad as white people think. Do you seriously think that there are white people on the welfare line because a less qualified black / asian / indian / hispanic took their job? In the world I'm in, I see more underqualified women taking men's jobs. The bigger problem with affirmative action lies in education - with white HS kids struggling to meet diversity.
Flat tax: wouldn't work. The rich get richer, the poor stay poor and I stay comfortable - I have no feelings either way, but I definitely think taxation needs restructure, and I don't like the way Bush's plan screws the low income guys and gives the best breaks to the upper crust.
The reality is that the rich control Bush and Bush controls the country, i.e. the rich control the country. And by most people's standards, I'm rich just like them.
From the sounds of it, Stabkill, you're putting your vote in the wrong place. I think you'd be happier with Kerry. Peruse this if you need consolation.
www.republicansforkerry04.com
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-09-22 11:00:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill and Matt as well:
Ok, I had to leave work yesterday before I could respond to you, but you can bet your ass I had a rebuttle, and here it is.
Matt, to start off about the war in Iraq. You listed a bunch of facts aout Saddam and his UN violations and him blowing off the UN. The UN choose to do nothing about it. He blew off the UN, and in turn the US. But he hates the UN and the US, so why the fuck not? You talk about how Bush had all this intelligence saying Saddam had WMDs and even though it was wrong, he still had the intelligence. That's Bullshit. I could say that I killed a man because I had good evidence that he was raping my mother, but if he didn't rape my mother, I'm going to jail. Unless I catch him, in the act, forcibly having sex with my mom, I'm not doing shit. That's what logic is all about. Bush's excuse that Saddam was funding Al Qaeda was also bullshit.
The fact of the matter is that Bush is in Iraq to line his own pockets, and to finish his father's business there. It's not a way to start a war. He has not caught Bin Laden and all but vanished from Afghanistan. You talk about how many people Saddam has killed in his country. Are you retarded? Don't you know how many other countries are in the same position as Iraq? People are dying everyday across the world under different regimes! The difference between them and Iraq? Oil and money. Plain and simple.
The Middle East respects force and won't respect us if we back down? Fuck all that, the Iraqi's hate the fact that we are there and want us out. If they hated Saddam so much, why the hell don't they start a revolution? The colonists in America had the balls to stand up to the British, and they did it (mostly) by themselves, with a little help from the French (who we've now alienated, thanks George!).
We can't be the world's policeman, and you're whole argument is based on that. Do you realize how many American troops would have to die if we secured every dictatorship and turned it to a democracy? Everyone would be in the Army.
Now, onto Stabkills retorts for my seven points of light (thanks Bush Sr.):
1. The war: See above. You partially agree with me since you believe we handled it wrong. This, in my opinion, is enough to make you vote for Kerry, but instead you'll just make excuses for Bush's mistakes.
2. Stem Cell research. You're damn right Bush cut off Federal funding. That's not a good point, saying "well, it's just Federal funding," the point is, he is opposed to it because he is a religious freak and in the Utopian Bush Society (UBS) he would kill it completely, and probably every other scientist who screws with "God's world"
3. Putting money in the right place: You ignored my main point, which was the fact that the budget is so skewed towards defense and away from schools. You bashed Kerry for his educational spending, well, at least his goal is to spend more on education. And about Social Security. Fine, I'm a communist. I don't think it should be privatized, because people would screw it up. Making it voluntary, sure that would be great for some people, i.e. super rich people. They would opt out, they would get even more money (they would rely on their 401K's like me, but not everybody has them), and less fortunate people would end up working until they are 75 years old.
4. Church and State separate: we miscommunicated here. I was harping on the fact that Bush is a religious freak, says that he has "heard the word of God" and talks to Jesus and shit. That's scary, because I'm an atheist and I don't believe in God. If Bush is hearing voices, than I don't think it's god, I think he's paranoid schitzo. I think the leader of this country should leave his religious beleifs out of everything. He shouldn't hide behind them and start wars over it. Let the man be a missionary, if that's his lot in life.
But about private schools - parents should have to pay, end of story. I don't have children, yet I'm still paying school taxes since I own property. I have no problem paying this tax. This tax is for Public schools, which are free. Businesses, Industry, as well as home owners pay for it. I went to public school and i turned out just fine, I have no problems with the fact that my parents didn't have the option to send me to private school. They didn't have the money. Public schools are free. If we take money away from that and give it to parents who want private education, than the super poor kids will end up with super horrible public school teachers and education would be shit.
5. Abortion: Looks like we agree here. The problem is that candidates lean slightly to one side or the other, but never take a stand. However, Bush is adamantly opposed in real life, and in the UBS, he would have it completely abolished. Thankfully, this probably won't happen. But at least Kerry leans towards our side, not Bush's.
6. You seem to agree with me here, and the argument is the same as #5.
7. Freedom of Speech: I was talking more about Michael Powell and his Crooney's in the FCC, but again, it seems like you agree with me. You realize that in the UBS and perfect right-wing world, you would not have access to Howard Stern, nor Rage Against the Machine, or BIG, or Tupac, or Eminem, or Metallica, or Peter Paul and Mary (because of that "Puff" song, Focker. The republicans were superpissed when they found out that Puff wasn't just the name of the boy's magical dragon).
Bush hates the fact that I can come on the internet and do this:
MOTHERFUCKER!
COCKSUCKER!
CUNT-LICKING WHORE BITCH SLUT MOIST FRAGGLE ROCK SWIFTBOAT!
Him and Michael Powell now want to put me in jail because a 5 year old may be able to log onto Uber and read that. In the UBS, Uber would not exist. Seriously.
8. States rights: I live in NY and things are pretty damn good here, because our Repulicans rock. We have Guiliani and Bloomberg, who make good right-wing decisions. (by the way, in my Memoirs <three> piece, Giuliani becomes president in 2008). So basically, talking about moving power back to states over the federal really has no pull with me, I like things the way they are.
My post got cut off, so the rest is above ^^^^^^^^
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 23:41:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Does Koolmang hate Jon Stewart because he's a Jew?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 23:40:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-21 21:08:51 (#)
Ranking: 1
Stewart made one irrefutable point: Saudi Arabia is not our friend. It's time to stop treating them like they were.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny thing is, Bill O'Reilly agrees with this point... so what point did Stewart make that O'Reilly hasn't already?
Submitted by Fabish (user info) at 2004-09-21 22:30:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Awesome.
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2004-09-21 21:41:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Haha, whoops. I was skimming the reviews and saw you mention some bullshit about UN resolutions Iraq was violating and went with it. In a strange direction. My fuse is a little too short today, sorry.
Sometimes I don't know why we even bother with these conversations. No one ever changes their mind by the end.
Submitted by whiskey_jack (user info) at 2004-09-21 21:17:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
John Stewart kicks ass. Bill O'Reily is probably the most unliked person on television. Stupid irish bitch.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-21 21:08:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Stewart made one irrefutable point: Saudi Arabia is not our friend. It's time to stop treating them like they were.
This was an interesting post, with enough author commentary to garner a +1 and a ton of hits.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 21:06:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-09-21 20:56:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
I would like to know what your purpose in spamming this post is?
-----------------------------
spam, n.
Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
tr.v. spammed, spam·ming, spams
1. To send unsolicited e-mail to.
2. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups.
I believe you are referring to the conversation that i was having with people on this post. If anything, you should be THANKING me for giving this post so much attention and, no doubt, getting it on the Most Heated list.
But anyways, back to the subject at hand. I believe the adults and I were having a conversation.
Or maybe it was over. But the point is, i was hardly spamming this post. Spamming is repeatedly sending a pointless or repetitive off-topic message. I was CONVERSING with people.
Just to show a sign of good intentions, here's a +2 to inflate, albiet very little, the already WAY too high rating for this post.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-09-21 21:05:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jon Stewart is so fucking awesome.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-09-21 20:56:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I would like to know what your purpose in spamming this post is?
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 20:23:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:50:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
DJMattB:
Arguments about Iraq using human rights justifications are such bullshit.
-----------------------
i wasnt arguing that it was about human rights. you must have reading comprehension problems.
Submitted by dwr_budr (user info) at 2004-09-21 19:43:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bill O'Reilly is a real life douchebag.
That's all that needs to be said.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 19:05:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Durae, Matt never said anything about human rights. He even said we invaded because of WMD Iraq was CLAIMED to have had by all kinds of sources (that were all WRONG, by the way).
I mentioned myself about Iraq being changed into a democracy, which was hoped could change the entire middle east.
Do you think it's in the world's bests interests for this to happen?
It's easy to shove Saddam II into power, but hard to make a democracy thrive.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:59:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not a republican.
But people who bash conservatives simply for being "conservative" is hilarious... Because nearly all people who make the decisions to run the economy are "conservative".
Clinton was NOT a great president for his ideas...he merely followed through on great ideas that were already out there. I respect him for that.
KERRY IS NOT CLINTON.
I'd like to know where I am "wrong", Razor. Or are you going to pull a typical democrat "You're wrong because I can tell you something in the future that will fix why you are wrong" scams?
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:55:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
republicans: we'll help you a little bit, but you need to WORK (i know... a harsh word) and DO it YOURSELF.
----
Bill Clinton is a republican? Because it was Clinton that trimmed the welfare rolls and reformed welfare, wasn't it?
Republicans are all fact? In what dimension?
Matt, you're full of shit. Stabkill, you're even worse. Jesus, I want to respond point by point but I showed up to this conversation late and don't want to spend an hour on it. But you're both just spewing rubbish out of your asses.
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:50:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
DJMattB:
Arguments about Iraq using human rights justifications are such bullshit. Yeah, Iraq was a bad place and Saddam was a bad guy. However, if you knew anything about the rest of the world you would know that Iraq is not the only freakin place in the world like this.
If the US was really on a humanitarian mission, there were a hundred places in severe need to choose from. Just take a look at China. They've busted through international agreements like the Geneva convention, human rights organizations like Amnesty International have been in the UN to complain about them, but they're China. No one fucks with them. Then you've got Saudi Arabia. They're our friends too, but do we ever put any pressure on these guys to clean up their act and stop torturing people? Of course not. So with all of that "helping the victimized" bullshit out of the way it becomes obvious that there was another reason for fucking with Iraq. I've heard multiple ideas about this, all seem plausible, but who knows.
One thing is for certain: it's not because our administration was called to duty by their empathy and compassion for Iraqi people. So stop using that shallow easy ignorant argument.
The only time a government works for the good of people is when the people fucking make them.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:47:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
STEWART: No, I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it would have been, why do you have such je ne sai qua?
O'REILLY: Yeah, some French. We're boycotting France, so I couldn't answer...
------------
I really don't like Bill O'Reilly, honestly. I'll make that clear up front. However, I do like his show because it makes me feel better about myself.
However, the above quote may be one of the most embarrassing things I've ever read. O'Reilly just *DID NOT* understand what Stewart said. Neither did the transcriber, who misspelled the french.
Je ne sais quoi is part of the English language. Its origins are french, but it is absolutely in this day and age every bit as much English as words like "kindergarten" (German) and "c'est la vie" (also french).
The fact that O'Reilly had *NO CLUE* what Stewart was saying is just funny.
------------
Also, Stewart owned him hardcore.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:47:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Un-republican: Yes. But the spending, while wild, is not the end of the world and not burdening our grandchildren any more than what our grandparents did to us.
If you see inflation start to rise to severe levels, then I can agree with you on that part.
I don't agree with the Bush admin. spending, either though...but I'm not going so far as to fall for this "grandchildren" suffering bit. (Our debt was much larger than our GDP a long time ago and it didn't burden us...yet.)
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:43:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But I can blame him for mortgaging the future for the present. And I can hold him accountable for domestic recklessness. And I can make the claim, without a hint of prejudice, that he is perhaps the most un-republican republican we have ever experienced. Which is why he has outraged so many of the hardcore conservatives during his administration.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:39:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gent, you can't blame social security on Bush.
When social security was made, the average life expectancy was 58 and there were around 12 people paying into the system for every 1 person benefiting. Now, it is going to be 3-4 (and dropping) people paying for each 1 person. This isn't Bush's fault.
The system was bad, and always was bad. I would much rather have my MONEY than "social security".
I can invest my own money into much wiser investments.
Submitted by SwissCamel (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:26:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was writing about Clinton only in response to an earlier comment about democrats propensity for handouts while republicans abhor the idea. My point was that Clinton was the most recent example of a democrat who dispelled that incorrect notion. I failed to mention Kerry only because he was not part of the arguement, and neither was Bush II, for the most part.
I just can't see the thought process of being optimistic about a regime that has brought federal spending to an historic level... increased the defecit to an historical level and promised to increase federal spending over the next four years (as outlined by Bush in his convention speech which, incidentally, neglected to mention just how these increases would be bankrolled. As a republican, how could I embrace the recklessness of this administrations domestic agenda?
For you young people out there, of which I am one, I hope you plan on being rich, powerful people when your time for retirement arrives. Because the tax breaks we are seeing under this administration... the outrageous federal spending, the massive increase in the size and intrusivness of federal governement will be bankrolled by us. There will be no social security if and when we need it, and despite our dreams of grandeur, a great majority of us will need it. A vote for Bush is a vote for an inherited defecit that will fall like an anvil on our heads, years from now.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:14:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But, I think fixing an economy based on supply-side economics is easier than to fix a welfare state. Therefore Bush > Kerry. (They both suck, though.)
Ummm...easier to fix THAN a welfare state.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:09:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:03:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think Clinton followed to closely the fantasy of trickle down economics, which turned out to be one of the great economic fiascos in our history. As evidenced by the 4 year failure of Bush I. You want to talk about an inherited recession... holy shit.
And the worst part about it is that Bush II has attempted to revive the trickle down. And what a miserable situation we face in the coming years...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supply side economics isn't something I agree with, but a free market is one I can.
This means ones with no farm subsidies and other federally funded BS.
But, I think fixing an economy based on supply-side economics is easier than to fix a welfare state. Therefore Bush > Kerry. (They both suck, though.)
There needs to be a real shakeup in a positive way neither these guys can offer. Honestly, Bush in a 2nd term can still do these things while Kerry does not have that capacity.
You mention Clinton alot, but Kerry is no Clinton. He's a die-hard Massachusetts liberal.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:06:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
jesus. make me do all the work why dontcha? :)
From Department of Defense (DoD)...
"We reported that DoD processed $1.1 trillion in unsupported accounting entries to DoD Component financial data used to prepare departmental reports and DoD financial statements for FY 2000."
David K. Steensma
Acting Assistant Inspector General
for Auditing for the DoD
February 26, 2002
From Housing & Urban Development (HUD)...
"At the time we discontinued our audit work... An additional 242 adjustments totaling about $59.6 billion, were made to adjust fiscal year 1999 activity."
Susan Gaffney
HUD Inspector General
March 22, 2000
So thats 1.1 trillion missing from DoD, and 59.6 billion from HUD.
Those were just two i could find with 30 seconds of googling. And both were under Clinton's cabinet's watch, and therefore, Clinton's watch.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:04:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:01:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Kick the UN out? That would be an all-around bad idea on our part.
What would it do? Well, it would piss the rest of the world off. Why does that matter? Because they are in a position to demand that the US pay more than just interest on our debts (which we are already taking loans to pay). The EU and Japan can survive without the US buying. The US can not survive the devaulation that a "foreclosure" on the insane loans the US has taken out would cause. Given the current trade deficit, we can't afford to alienate the rest of the world. Those horrible socialist countries, with even greater subsidizing than our own, can afford to not trade with us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are hilarious. You are so far off base it isn't even funny.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:03:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think Clinton followed to closely the fantasy of trickle down economics, which turned out to be one of the great economic fiascos in our history. As evidenced by the 4 year failure of Bush I. You want to talk about an inherited recession... holy shit.
And the worst part about it is that Bush II has attempted to revive the trickle down. And what a miserable situation we face in the coming years...
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:02:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Clinton signing NAFTA was single handedly the best thing he ever did.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:01:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Kick the UN out? That would be an all-around bad idea on our part.
What would it do? Well, it would piss the rest of the world off. Why does that matter? Because they are in a position to demand that the US pay more than just interest on our debts (which we are already taking loans to pay). The EU and Japan can survive without the US buying. The US can not survive the devaulation that a "foreclosure" on the insane loans the US has taken out would cause. Given the current trade deficit, we can't afford to alienate the rest of the world. Those horrible socialist countries, with even greater subsidizing than our own, can afford to not trade with us.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-09-21 18:01:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:57:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
I bet the O'Reilly haters love al franken & michael moore.
That should just say it all right there...
----
Fuck Michael Moore in his propagandic ass. Which all of us could probably do at the same time.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:59:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My Comment probably made you smile because you know I don't hate you as a person, or even hate you at all. You know it was a crack based on your point of view, which is a crack I'm allowed to make while our country is still free.
Free enough for me to bash Republicans, their supporters, and the unnecessary war in Iraq, and not be labeled as "unpatriotic".
Oh shit... we're past that era? Well, it was good while it lasted.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:59:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
GENT: Clinton followed Reagan's policies.
I give him credit for only knowing what was good and following it, but Reagan is the one who came up with the plan.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:57:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I bet the O'Reilly haters love al franken & michael moore.
That should just say it all right there...
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:56:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What example? Where? I saw nothing that resembled any sort proof. Just fake alegations from the same doctors of spin that brought you a fake little story entitled "Whitewater".
The truth is, the Republicans are still seething that Clinton managed to do with the economy and welfare what they had been trying to do for decades. If Bill Clinton had a little (R) next to his name, he would be considered one of the great republican presidents in many, many, many years.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:53:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:49:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
DJmatt is a moron.
That is all.
---------------------
why did that make me smile?
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:51:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Clinton's administration made the biggest mess i've seen in recent years.
Billions and BILLIONS of dollars just MISSING from Department of Education, Welfare, etc.
just.... MISSING.
Just an example.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I didn't watch it Matt, but only because no one told me it was happening. If I did, you know I'da been all over it.
But I'm buying that context bullshit, O'Reilly is a known idiot, and if he says something that looks idiotic, I'm assuming he said it in an idiotic fashion.
WORD OF THE DAY: Idiot
\Id"i*ot*ed\, a. Rendered idiotic; befooled. [R.] --Tennyson.
Example- Listening to Bill O'Reilly propaganda can leave a viewer idiot.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:49:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
DJmatt is a moron.
That is all.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:45:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Unfortunatly, DJ, you are wrong about your last comment. Clinton passed the first welfare reform legislation in years, cutting benefits, shortening the length of time in which these benefits would be paid, and instituting welfare to work programs. This was with a Democratic minority as well. But republicans like the ignore these facts. If a republican president instituted half of the social and economic reforms that Bill Clinton did he would be hailed as an economic/domestic policy genius. Why do you think they CONTINUE to rail against Clinton's marriage infidelities... because they cannot dispute him on his domestic triumphs.
And people are still referring to O'Reilly as having a News program. The man editorializes every point he makes. That, my friends, is presenting opinion rather than fact.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:45:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
spooner, did you WATCH that interview?
if not, i dont think you're in the position to tell what the context was and wasn't.
a lot of difference can be made by HOW things are said, instead of the words used.
It was obvious to ME that a lot of the stuff he said, he was joking around with Jon Stewart (who i do really like), but that's only because i watch his show a lot and know his personality.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:43:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
People everywhere agree: Politicians should be elected by their activities on primetime television.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:42:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
stabkill, email me, or IM me. we should chat. :)
matt.at.djmattb241.com
AIM: DJMattB241
Yahoo: mickeymars64
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:42:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:11:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:56:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
O'Really is a dick.
-----------------------------
let me translate that:
o'rielly is right about stuff that i cant argue against, and i hate him for that.
-----------------------------
Let me translate that:
O'Reilly is a pretentious fuck who, when his opinion is challenged with facts he doesn't like, mutes his guests like a pussy, and I hate him for that. Rather than have honest debates he strongarms his guests into hypothetical situations that have no bearing on the topic at hand, or questions your patriotism.
I mean, seriously, Jon used a french phrase that is typically used in English and O'Reilly gets all uppity about the French, AS IF IT FUCKING MATTERED. No, all he was doing was trying to get his viewers to associate Jon with the french, thus causing those mindless fucks to hate him, because everyone knows the French bombed Pearl Harbor, destroyed the WTC, and peed in America's collective soup.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:42:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah: Another point to add....
Either demand the U.N. be restructured, or pull out and take all funding with us. Kick them off U.S. soil, too. Convince Japan to follow.... and guess what? The U.N. cannot support itself now.
Collapse....
Like they are good for anything in their current state anyways.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:35:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
democrats: set up funds. give out free stuff. welfare endlessly, etc.
republicans: we'll help you a little bit, but you need to WORK (i know... a harsh word) and DO it YOURSELF.
Example: Black home ownership is at a record high under the Bush administration.
Submitted by Brentos at 2004-09-21 17:31:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love O'Rielly's views on the french ... dumbass.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:26:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Republicans never do anything but argue strawman, and create personal attacks. They stay away from the real issues at hand and end up successful through scheming, underhanded plans. I have never ONCE heard an argument from the republican side, where ISSUES and FACTS (and I'm not talking about Kerry in Vietnam or his war record, I'm talking about real fucking problems with the country NOT the candidates) were brought up and the argument made sense. NOT ONCE!"
Oh my god.
That's the most rediculous thing i've ever heard. Republicans are ALL fact. Democrats are all opinion. How do you FEEL about this? How do you think they'll FEEL about that. Republicans find the facts and move on them.
Example: Saddam was in violation of, if i remember correctly, 16 U.N. resolutions. For years. USA finally (under Bush) says "look. you have until such and such a date to comply, or we will use forceful action, and trust us, you don't want forceful action."
Now... this date they set up came and passed. What was going on in Iraq? Saddam was giving inspectors the run around, continuing to ignore the UN resolutions, etc. Also, we had Russian intelligence, British intelligence, and our own CIA all telling us that they were POSITIVE that Iraq had WMDs.
-----
Let me pause here and tell you something. I'm actually in a class right now focused mainly on the middle east. If there's one thing I've learned about culture over there, it's this. They respond to FORCE. It's the whole way of life over there. Think about it. How did Saddam come to power? Force. If you say something, then back down, they will NEVER respect you. This is a fact.
-----
So here we have it: Saddam has given USA the finger over the deadline presented. Saddam reportedly, from very trustworthy sources, has WMDs. The Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists. They respond only to force. If we back down, they will consider it a victory against "the infidels" and you can expect every tall building in the country to get a plane wedged into it.
What do you do?
Wait? Say to Iraq "we know you broke the rules, and are basically testing our resolve, and we know that we've waited for MONTHS already... but... well.. we're not really sure we want to attack you as much as we said, so we're just gonna wait until you can finish paying off and giving the run-around to our inspectors, so they can declare that Iraq is actually a happy free nation where children run through the streets laughing (thank you micheal moore)"
Saddam has still killed more people than have died in this war so far. A LOT MORE.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:25:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The comment below is directed at 1.21 gigawatts... And I didn't spell check, obviously. I didn't want to bother...
Submitted by Wesley <wesbenterprise> at 2004-09-21 17:24:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think the interview was funny. It obvious that O'Reilly was jokinn about being a top three important person, and neither seemed very demeaning to the other (at least through what I can infer through the transcript), of course the actual broadcast may tell a different story.
1.22: you seem like a resonably person. I, a Republican, do not like Bush's tendancy towards big government either, but I know Kerry would not lessen it to any extent with his healthcare proposal, and give the President some leeway seeing as we had 9/11 which did not help our already falling economy that he inherited from Clinton (not that presidents have any real control over it anyway, but the tax breaks helped). FInally, you mentioned you have heard few arguements about the issues that made sense from right wingers. Well, I am sorry, but here are some very convincinn points from two very reasonable economists:
Walter Williams:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles.html
Thomas Sowell:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml
That is all
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:23:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
1. The war in Iraq: GOOD IDEA, bad way to go about doing it. We want a democracy to thrive in the middle east, but it will take years to acheive any success. In this modern era, people want instant results (most ignorant westerners who forget that these people do not understand what democracy is because there is nowhere in their society that it has existed.) We want to change the middle east for the better (future) but how the hell do you go about doing it without looking like the bad guy? Honest answer? We can't. So you either put in another brutal dictator that is more U.S. friendly or go years down the road with internal trouble. This is a situation that we cannot win without world support. But if we say "fuck it" the world will suffer, and people will blame America instead of the middle east. A typical response.
2. Stem cell research: Bush cut off FEDERAL funding, that is all. Those "stem cell lines" that research were allowed to continue on (with federal money) create alot of stories invoking spin tactics. There always has been private research and they can obtain the cells and research them as long as they want to. (Without federal money). I approve of this, as a true free market will not need federal funding. IF THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS RESEARCH TO EXIST, it will. Screw federal funding. Free market works itself out.
3. Putting the money in the right place: You mention schools, 1.21. Yes. I agree, partly. We need to restructure our public education system from the bottom up. We need to stop letting kids get by who can't read or write. THEY ACTUALLY GET DIPLOMAS NOW! This is insulting. There needs to be REAL testing, and REAL results. Get the help for people who need it before they are tossed into the work place. Social security? PRIVATIZE IT ALREADY. Cover those who have paid into it, but allow others to opt out. It's out money, should we not decide what we can do with it? Democrat answer: NO. Well, thanks Mr. John Kerry. Maybe I'll act like a democrat and just demand someone give me something because I am an AMerican god damn it. I deserve it.
4. Separation of Church and State: Of course this should remain in place. Parents who whine about this are insulting. Do they not educate their children enough in religion when they are at home? Well then they should go to a private school (religious based). Allow these people to get the money that would have gone to their local "public" school to help them still get this education. You shouldn't MAKE children HAVE to go to a public school, but it should be there to MAKE sure everyone gets a GOOD education. Separation of Chuch & State: Yes. Private schools encouraged to make up the difference for those who want otherwise? Yes.
5. Abortion: One of my biggest separations from the republicans is this issue. Abortions will still happen if it's illegal. There should be no federal spending on abortions, for sure. (Democrats disagree). But it should not be illegal. It will only allow the "rich" kids to go to other countries to get it done and the poor will be getting coat-hanger abortions in an alley. (Or paying some outrageous fee from some underground doc.) Educated children (Abstinence IS an option you should teach first, but then say "If you do intend to engage in sex...then do this...(birth control). Wacko-nutjob liberals get irate whenever you mention abstinance. It IS an option, god damn it. I'm not even religious and I support this kind of education.)
6. Gay Marriage: Psychology prevails: You are born freaking gay and there is no way to convert a gay person to be straight any more than you can convert a straight person to be gay. Marriage? Well if there is a seperation of church and state how can you be concerned about allowing gay marriage? Marriage needs to be kept out of the hands of the government. Period. It isn't the government's decision to make.
7. Freedom of Speech: Important to keep, but democrats do the very same things as the republicans do. Just because the ACLU is viewed as "liberal" doesn't mean they support freedom of speech any more than the others.
8. (I ADDED IT) STATES RIGHTS: Power needs to be shifted out of federal control back to the states on a grand scale. The FBI can be shrunk in 1/2 and they can focus on real issues instead of BS.
As far as you claim regulations are being taken away and businesses can "abuse" that...it is a typical scream from the liberal democrats that isn't typically true. Look at the Kyoto Protocol. Is this a good thing? Yes. But unfortunately, it isn't a good thing for EVERYONE because CHINA can blow off the rules because they don't apply to them. INstead, it makes the USA uncompetitive and having to pay the price for these nations that do not have to follow these rules. (The USA is hurt the worst, China is helped the most but pollutes much worse than the USA already). Does this make sense? HELL NO. Equal for all. End of story. I'm glad Bush yanked us from this BS treaty.
Less regulation is GOOD but there are still penalties for pollution. The democrats cry about this and that.... "forests being mowed down" etc...etc...It is simply yelling and screaming to support a segment of their constituants.
OSHA got smacked down during the Bush admin...I love it.
Unfortunately,this smackdown hasn't applied to the FCC & FDA.
Oh well.... Can't win em' all.
The fact that democrats support: WELFARE, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION...I can't support them.
You talk about FAIR in taxes. Do you know what fair is? A flat tax. Will that work? Nope.
Please tell me why that won't work. ;) <---- I have to give a wink because if you know what I'm talking about, you know this doesn't make democrats look good.
The view that "People make more money, and they don't need it...so they should be taxed 90% of it." is a socialist view, and the view of most liberal democrats.
It goes against capitalism, and when you create a society like that.... It will ultimately not do well. (Welfare state).
I've got libertarian views (the party sucks...disorganized as hell) with a conservative leaning.
Can you tell?
Submitted by Malachy (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:20:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I consider myself a moderate-conservative, and I like O'Reilly...but that ending was just too witty to give this anything besides a +2.
Submitted by Flak (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:17:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I would classify myself as an independent conservative with strong Libertarian leanings and would die before voting for any Democrat. With that being said, I would like to admit that I hate Bill and I think Jon's show is very funny. Bill is boring. Jon Stewart is the greater intellect, by far. I also like the show that follows -- Tough Crowd, I think???
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:11:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:56:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
O'Really is a dick.
-----------------------------
let me translate that:
o'rielly is right about stuff that i cant argue against, and i hate him for that.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:04:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I've seen The O'Reilly factor many times, and I don't like the show. It's funny how people refer to his show as a "news program". This is very disturbing. What he is presenting is opinion... very biased opinion. At some point what was once referred to as strict news was replaced by talking heads with mostly ill-informed opinion. And this is not an attack on FOX News... most all news stations are guilty of this same crime. The really bad thing is that in order to attract more viewers, it has become a contest as to who can say the more controversial thing... and in this, fact has become secondary at best.
At least Jon Stewart has the good sense to repeatedly admit that his show is a FAKE news show... satire that attacks the very nature of the issues and exposes the hypocracy that lies within the news and the personalities that supposedly report it. In this, Stewart is smarter than the most. He sees himself for what he is and for what the "Daily Show" is. Because really, the "news" that Stewart reports on is realy no different from what O'Reilly does. But only one has the good sense to admit that it isn't really news, but one man's opinion on the news.
Submitted by Vermin (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:03:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahahha, boycott France. What a fucking moron.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2004-09-21 17:01:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
An asshole and a smart-ass. Strange pairing...
Submitted by queensowntalia (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:59:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:56:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Jesus_Loves_TwEE ... most economists are conservative.
Most conservatives are looney? Well, I would have to say there are way more "looney" liberals. Those bulldykes who attend those "pro-choice" rallys....marching flamming queers who give the rest of the homosexual world a bad name.... NAMBLA, ACLU, NAACP....
I'll give you those devout religous people are looneys, but there is a fair share of liberal looneys as well.
People who make the blanket statement like yourself, and definitely hidden101, that all conservatives are (insert negative here) are ignorant.
I'm just against socialists, and you don't find too many socialist "conservatives".
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:56:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
O'Really is a dick.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:53:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Stabkill (and the other haters):
Read these two replies. If you think I'm some $9 an hour broke Democrat who's pissed about his lot in life, you are way wrong. In no way, shape or form do I want a Socialist society. It simply doesn't work.
I really think that Republicans who hide behind their "less government for us, democrats are commies!" argument should open their eyes. This is a strawman argument. Look-up what the definition of a strawman is in wikipedia or something. If anything, Bush is the most government we've seen in years.
Read these two replies: http://www.ubersite.com/m/45691#819234
This tells you where I stand on some issue with the election. You want to talk to me about bigger government? Well, taxation exists. If you think I'm a socialist simply because I think the tax structure is unfair, than you have what is called a "strawman" argument.
If you think that the restrictions Bush has lifted on Corporate Industry are less government, than your right. He's allowing them to do whatever the fuck they want, which includes polluting our enviroment. Less gov't leads to me drinking brackish water and swimming in a polluted pond? Great!
Republicans never do anything but argue strawman, and create personal attacks. They stay away from the real issues at hand and end up successful through scheming, underhanded plans. I have never ONCE heard an argument from the republican side, where ISSUES and FACTS (and I'm not talking about Kerry in Vietnam or his war record, I'm talking about real fucking problems with the country NOT the candidates) were brought up and the argument made sense. NOT ONCE!
Do that for me. Issues, arguments, facts. Not "Kerry is so and so and Bush is so and so." You tell me what you think of Bush's policies on the environment, abortion, stem cell research, education and funding, war (peace), gay marriage, taxation, and other things you think are important.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:52:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
well that makes one of you.
most people i've ever spoken to that "hate bill o'rielly" tell me that they hate him because they saw some clip on the internet that takes comments out of context and puts them into an order that makes him look foolish.
people need to learn. anyone can make a website. anyone can learn flash.
just because something is in swf or avi format does not make it fact.
(are all you people who believe the pentagon was hit by a missle listening to me?)
Submitted by Jesus_Loves_TwEE (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:51:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Man most conservitives are fucking loony...
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:48:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Correction Matt, I watch his show often and I still hate it. I don't watch it cause I like it, just because it's kind of funny.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:35:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
honestly, the only people that hate bill o'rielly are the ones who never watch his show, or have seen it only once.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:33:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
1.21: You should know that the "know it alls" are the liberal elites as well.
If I were a democrat I would fear if the republican party ever moved closer to center while your own party keeps leaning left.
Who knows what the future holds, but I sure hope to hell it isn't socialism.
Bring socialism to America (like the mini socialist state of California) and see what happens.
"This is not good business, my friend." - Jerky boys.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:27:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I supposed you didn't see Kerry himself FREEZE last night on Letterman? Why don't you look that up? He was absolutely stymied.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:10:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:10:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"I guess it makes the votes of all 26 of his viewers seem insignificant."
Bill O'Reilly is the most watched news program in prime time cable.
Sorry, try again.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:04:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It's kind of sad, but I really think that the best election coverage any more is on.............MTV.
Their big thing this year is: Get as many 18-25 year olds as possible to go vote. Vote Bush, vote Kerry, vote Nader, vote Lyndon Fucking LaRouche. Just vote. Stop being lazy, apathetic whiners and get off your collective asses and vote. Their stated goal is to get 20 million young adults to vote. Take that out of the usual 100-120 million votes cast, and that is a very powerful force.
And to top it all off, especially this year, they are doing a pretty good job of making their election specials as unbiased as they can. For God's sake, they have Walter Cronkite on presenting issues and how each party presents itself on those issues. They give equal face time to each party, and they do a simple summary of each issue at the end of the show.
What has the world come to?
Submitted by EchoBoxing (user info) at 2004-09-21 16:04:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:59:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm torn between two of my favorite kinds of people...
A conceited prick and a fun-loving jew.
Whatever shall I do?
Submitted by downerSTAIN (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:55:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That "stoned slackers" bullshit O'Reilly kept pulling really pissed me off. Now excuse me while I go smoke a joint and watch the Daily Show.
Seriously folks, O'Reilly is just a jewbag.
Submitted by Icedragon (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:49:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pringles4eva (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:45:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
1.21, i think once john gets on his home turf he'll rip him to shreds.
Definitly. I also wished Jon would keep Bill from getting away with all that bullshit, but I agree with Pringles4eva.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:46:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I was really pissed reading this artical. Stewart didn't really stand up to O'Reilly at all. He let him be condescending as hell. Steward let O'Reilly talk tons of shit, and make mass assumptions about people just like me."
5 bucks says Jon would love to do nothing more, but the last thing the execs at Comedy Centraql would want is their Flagship show in the middle of a controversy killing its viewership.
Submitted by Pringles4eva (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:45:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
1.21, i think once john gets on his home turf he'll rip him to shreds.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:45:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jon Stewart is awesome.
I don't think anyone is tuning into The Daily Show to find out where everyone stands on which issue. If they are, then they're looking at the wrong place. What The Daily Show does better than other networks is it exposes political bullshit more than others do. If you're going to take anything political from The Daily Show, it would be "Who's Bullshitting You and How."
Submitted by Pringles4eva (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:44:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
damn, that was funny. read the whole transcript at the link.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:41:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was really pissed reading this artical. Stewart didn't really stand up to O'Reilly at all. He let him be condescending as hell. Steward let O'Reilly talk tons of shit, and make mass assumptions about people just like me.
I can't wait until our generation overtakes the general population of this country and stupid knowitalls like O'Reilly (who, in a sense, truly know nothing). In 20 years, the voting patterns will shift significantly, as the conservative 55 pluses start dying of thier much deserved heart attacks.
Fuck this country makes me bitter, and I'm a fucking happy guy most of the time.
Submitted by browneyedgirl (user info) at 2004-09-21 15:30:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love both O'Reilly and Stewart.