One could attempt to twist such, if honesty had no bearing on their reasoning. But no matter how one tries to twist it, I never said what what he accused me of. Interpretation. I would have said it directly if I meant it. I don't think anyone would argue that I don't speak my mind. See sentence above.
Thank you, I appreciate the honesty and compliment. I must say, it's a refreshing change from all the haterizing going on (but I love that too!)
I don't take it personally. Really, I do not. The turnover down here comes and goes. I've taken as much if not more from others over the last (almost) two years. If I took it personally, I'd have moved on a long time ago. My skin's as thick as some of your heads I like the jibs and jabs myself. In both receiving and giving. There's not a person in this thread who has given or received some jabs to/from me. And some here have landed some good ones, I will admit! Right now, I'm taking an ass whippin' through sheer numbers, but it doesn't phase me. I'm enjoying the hypocrisy shared by some. That alone, almost makes it all worth while! It does get heated sometimes, but as I've told others in the past, every day is a new day here. And literally it is. Tomorrow may bring a new twist of events, new posters, new issues and new ideas. It's all good
It will be a good one! I don't start many threads because I'm usually countering the anti-America/pro-terrorist BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) threads, but when I do start them, they usually wind the moonbats up, like this one did I bet even ol' Edz will come in and just blurt out another complete lie, just to make it interesting!
O'Reilly is a very dangerous idiot because he is blind to any negative publicity for the Iraq war and is a total neocon supporter. He is a neocon. He supports neocons. He works for a neocon. This clip shows O'Reilly for the true idiot that he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctlmholr45c Phil Donahue calls him on Haliburton and he just shuts off, he just don't want to hear it LOL.
Its not Bill O'Reilly thats the problem. The real problem is the lack of laws to prevent mass media moguls to influence elections. Change the laws and the Bill O'Reillys will dissapear
True mate but you know (just like I do) that that will never happen. The media are so big and infuential these days and far too many people believe the blind blitherings of people like O'Reilly that it's a major concern for all of us. Seeing that fool pretending that he's concerned about events in Iraq makes my blood boil, he's a blinkered fool spreading his shit upon the public and he needs his neocon arse kicking hard. I am trying to think of the UKs equivalent of O'Reilly I know we have some idiots here like Andrew Marr but do we have any as blinkered as O'Reilly??
What he does on Fox is illegal in the UK. He makes my blood boil too but when he retires somebody else will be hired to do the same job. I would love to see someone slap that smug face of his
The problem with the media is, they are on your side and you are not even aware of it. The NYT has tried in vain to influence elections with October surprises. The media succeeded this time with the Foley scandal. Give them some credit. Even though neither of you are American, they are working well in your favor. CNN deliberately airing terrorist propaganda. AP making up ficticious names of non-existent Iraqi police officers, the AP hiring Iraqi terrorists for their own reporting. Time reporting fake quran stories. Trust me, they are in your corner. They want the terrorists to win. It's just Fox you take issue with, because they don't want them to win. Nothing wrong with a viewpoint other than your own, right? Far be it from me to defend the treasonous media outlets that want nothing more than a terrorist win in Iraq, but good gawd, they are on your side. How much more ungrateful could you be?
The media is like this forum. For every view, there's an equally opposite view applied. Instead of multiple perspectives, you have a war between two factions.
The media is makes what sells. That's why we've had the circus around Litvenko. That's why there's so much buzz for small incidents in Iraq while hundreds of people can die in Darfur without a frontpage news.
Yes, sensationalism is a rather limiting perspective. News could offer the rather boring and objective habit of giving as many accurate views as possible. But talking about things under a universal target of standards, rather than desired viewership... isn't the goal.
Hehe.. not in your view(nor in my either), but it's healthy to understand the sell-factor. Especially when there's a trend to reporting very much on the same topic.