Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

The End Is Near


FredCDobbs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Helenwheels -

 

You were much nicer in your other incarnations. And you know as well as I do that Lonesome Rhodes was based on Arthur Godfrey - long before Rush's time.

 

Listen to me - I'm older than you (I'm 55); respect your elders!

 

Nice to see you make it back here once in a while.

 

Ralph

(a happy poster on his way over to IMDB boards to see what they're saying today about Brokeback Mountain - are they still at it)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do catch Brit Hume and the All Star panel a few times a week. When Mort Kondrake talks I miss what he's saying because I stare at his hair and try and figure out if it's a toupee. I like Krauthammer's nonchalant way of leaning back in the wheelchair while giving his two cents. I like that they have their opinions but don't need to grandstand or steal each other's spotlight. Most of the yelling on the other shows comes from guests not answering and dodging questions, or trying to filibuster.

 

My favorite is William F. Buckley. Always the gentleman, respectable and has an incredible vocabulary. His collection of memoirs Miles Gone By is great reading. Also, David Horowitz, an ex-commie who saw the light and can speak from his experiences and knowing personally the "who's who" of subversive radicals and their tactics. Tammy Bruce is also a favorite ... a liberal lesbian who gets it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like William Buckley also. One of the last of a dying breed of truly articulate men(and I don't mean simply using a lot of big words,I mean using the English language in a precise way,always the proper word or phrase to express exactly what he means.Tony Blankley also does that).I miss that in public speakers,it must be the dumbing down of the educational system.That kind of public speaking was par for the course in days past.I loved reading the journals of Queen Victoria partly because she had that precision of language and expression.

 

 

 

I keep meaning to read David Horowitz's book-it seems no one could know better the fallacies of the other side,than someone who once believed them. Thanks for the idea-I'll go to the library and check it out today.

 

 

 

I haven't heard of Tammy Bruce before,I'll look into that.

 

 

 

LOL@ Mort Kondracke's hair!

 

 

 

Melanie2_ani.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, I've not seen Letterman lately, so I can't comment on his political commentary one way or the other.

 

In truth, about the only late-night talk show I ever watch is Jon Stewart, and that is because he is always, 100% of the time, good for a laugh. And thus worth staying up for.

 

I don't watch Jon every day, but at least a couple of times a week. Not to 'get my news'. But simply to have a good laugh and end the day on a good note.

 

And Melanie, I was *not* implying that *you* got your news from TV. In fact, quite the opposite because you said as much earlier in the thread.

 

But I believe the comment was made that there *are* people out there who DO get their news from the TV talkshow hosts (and I consider Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Michael Moore and all those guys in the same category as Jon Stewart and the talkshow hosts - none of them knows much in the end, excpet for their own opinions. Which in the main, are not based in actual, UNBIASED fact.). And my feeling is that if anyone's main source of news in Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else who is just making jokes or who clearly has an agenda, then they are pretty dumb. Or in the alternative, they don't WANT to know the truth. They only want to hear the rhetoric that they are likely to agree with.

 

Which in my opinion, is very closed-minded and sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting where this thread has gone, and I didnt' know there were IMDb boards!

 

As to Jon Stewart, I've liked his standup, and I like Denis Leary, and I like Lenny Bruce. I also like George Burns and Bob Newhart and Totie Fields. That's what we're all getting at, isn't it?

 

Our likes, our dislikes and our ability to state them, freely, or as freely as the owners of this site let us (which is pretty darned freely, anyone who was a poster at A&E will know whereof I speak). We started this, I think, by stating how VERY unhappy we were with TCM showing Anime Alley and then some unfortunate user names were created and some of us, okay me, old people took umbrage and there you have it.

 

So we've come full circle.

 

Let me tell you a story. I started in the world of Internet message boards in Jan. 1998. Not so very long ago. I began on the Fox and Friends board, which is a morning news show, fair and balanced it calls itself, and so was the group on the board. THEN, somewhere along the line, anti-organized religion, anti-Republican views were.not.tolerated. Not at ALL! Name calling, put-downs, you name it, all in the name of a morning news show! Oh, and IF you said you thought the female host didn't look good that day? Look out, you were asking for a verbal beating.

 

Bottom line, who cares? This is the Internet and we're all anonymous message board posters. Would we talk like this to each other if we met? Who knows, maybe yes, maybe no.

 

Oh, and before anyone thinks I've had a lobotomy, I'm all for calling whatever show and whatever actor anything I like, this is still America. But heck, if I can make peace with Leo, well at least for today, can't we just...hah, bet you thought I was going to say get along?...be as nasty as we want towards any of the shows or actors or news anchors we want without everyone acting as if we insulted them personally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people on either side of the spectrum that can't tolerate views contrary to their own. Our perspectives are only as good as our knowledge is, on any given subject. When people ape others' opinions or plug into a collective mindset, that's when they start making accusations and/or name calling. They've reached the end of what they know and have to compensate for not being able to go the distance. I find it odd that if someone here says they don't like, say, Tyrone Power (which I don't), people are more accepting of that opinion, though they may disagree ... but say you don't like a Jon Stewart (though I do) and your opinion sparks outrage for some.

 

I agree, people do make certain celebrities extensions of themselves and take criticism of them personally. It's fine if a celebrity or whoever is wrongfully accused of something to point out an indiscretion, to be fair, but some think if you don't like their favorite celebrities for any reason, it's the equivalent of drowning a litter of puppies. And God forbid you respond to those accusations and victimize the accuser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm not a Jon Stewart fan, I wouldn't go as far as calling him a 'puke' as someone did a few pages ago.

I have always watched the Academy Awards and I will be watching when Jon Stewart is the host next month.

Who knows? He might be very witty, and we could use some of that lately.

I just hope that he is better than Chris Rock was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pktrekgirl,

 

There is a difference between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly has been a journalist for over 30 years and only deals in facts. Stewart's a comedian. Bill's an analyst and yes, he has an opinion, but that's based on analysis of the facts. Stewart's show is entertainment, O'Reilly's is journalism. He has guests to represent both sides of issues so that you're allowed to make up your own decision based on the discourse. He has people who research the stories and he verifies their research before airing a story. Stewart just goes off the cuff and either writes his jokes based on headlines, or has someone else write them for him. I think you should watch a week of O'Reilly before condemning him. He really has no agenda and equally criticizes the left and the right. Leftwingers who never watched him accuse him of being a Republican, and Rightwingers write in accusing him of being a liberal. You might not agree with him, but I think you'll see his facts are unbiased, although he forms an opinion based on them. There's nothing wrong with that, when the facts are real and not contrived or distorted. There's only one truth and you can't get to it using loaded dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tammy Bruce? The Lesbian for Life babe? nes pas? She is quite an interesting speaker and thinker. Far more insightful than Ann Coulter but far less interesting than Camille Paglia. Bill O'Reilly has only one agenda....Bill O'Reilly. Really his campaign to save Christmas was the most bizarre thing I've seen in years...and that whole "Save Christmas" obsession that the right wing zanies were on is just a rehash of Henry Ford's Jew hating campaign of the 20 and 30s. Actually Jon Stewart is a more relaiable source for news than most of what is on cable.

 

Something funny NPR reporter Libby Lewis was reporting on the investigation of Louis Libbey...hmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should look into the many instances where the ACLU has tried to shake down schools districts for using the word Christmas as in "Christmas Break", for having a Christmas tree, and for even using red and green napkins and plates at "winter" parties because somehow they translate into Christianity in their warped minds. Schools are now forced to calling them "winter break," the "friendship tree," and they have to use white neutral napkins and plates. The ACLU is responsible for the banning of Christian holiday symbols in New York schools, yet it's ok for those schools to display the menorah and Islamic star and crescent. Fair? There are dozens of these rulings, so it's far from one man's obsession. It's seems like an obsession because the mainstream press doesn't report this, and O'Reilly's one of the few who does. The ACLU goes to these school districts where 99% of the kids celebrate Christmas, and say how unfair that holdiay and its symbols are to the other 1%. They threaten to sue the schools and to bill the school for their legal expenses, which is extortion. The schools end up capitulating because they can't afford to pay for their own legal fees, nevermind the ACLU's expenses on top of that. Then other school districts nearby follow suit so that the ACLU doesn't come after them next. Yeah it is bizarre, but all the more so because it's true.

 

As for the Henry Ford Jew hating campaign analogy ... ah, yeah ... ok ... you uh, have a good night there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I strongly disagree that Bill O'Reilly deals in "facts".

 

He deals in SELECTIVE facts that support his positions. And disregards facts that do not.

 

And to me, that's a million times worse than the silliness Jon Stewart dishes out on his show.

 

At least with Jon's show, it's clear that he is blowing things out of proportion with the aim of making cynical jokes and making people laugh. He doesn't pretend that he is giving a factual account that people should actually believe as gospel truth - it's clear that he's just taking selective facts and making jokes out of them - to get laughs. Nothing more. Just like Leno and Letterman...only with a cable vocabulary.

 

O'Reilly is much more destructive. He takes selective facts and represents them as the whole story - the entire truth. And people believe him and think what he says is gospel truth. He manipulates facts to paint the picture that he wants to paint. And to me, that is flat-out irresponsible journalism. Not to mention a major contributing factor to the growing divide in this country.

 

In my mind, being a divisive liar whose goal is to destroy any hope of reconciliation we have in this country is alot worse than being a cynical comedian.

 

But hey...that's just me.

 

If I could have one wish for this country, I would wish that guys like O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh...and yes, Michael Moore and Al Franken would simply disappear. Because I believe these so-called 'journalists' to be THE most destructive and divisive force in this country. A force that is tearing us apart and destroying this country.

 

These people are not patriots. They are selfish, money and attention-hungry, egotistical jerks who would rather be worshiped by a bunch of dittoheads (or whatever each calls their fanbase) than bring about the healing that this country so desperately needs.

 

Jon makes me laugh. Dennis Miller, although he is more conservative, made me laugh.

 

O'Reilly, and even *more so* Ann Coulter make me want to vomit.

 

I mean, what kind of a patriot who has the best interests of this country in mind would write a book entitled "How to Talk to a Liberal - If You Must".

 

I mean, heaven forbid a conservative might listen to the other side of the story, right? I mean, why should a democratic society be about sharing ideas and building bridges, when it can be about drawing battle lines and feeding hatred for anyone who does not agree with you?

 

When did this become a war? When did it become about winning sides and loosing sides? As if it's a battle that is won or lost and the winner takes the spoils (translated, the right to weild power and lord it over the opposition)?

 

See, I'm of the firm belief that these irresponsible journalist types, from BOTH sides, have contributed to the WAR we now find ourselves involved in. And once it *became* a war, EVERYONE - every single citizen of this country - *lost*. We just don't realize it yet.

 

And meanwhile, those so-called 'journalists' are laughing their way to the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how maybe personality can be a factor in your not liking the people you mention, but having read or listened to them, I really can't comment on what facts you find selective without examples. In general, I wouldn't say that they're dealing in selective facts. But I think people's energy would be better spent at criticizing the real destructive elements in this country, the mainstream media and politicians. Whatever you think of O'Reilly, he's nowhere near as destructive as a Dan Rather who uses forged documents to impugn a president's integrity to sway an election; or a major newspapers like the L.A. Times and Boston Globe doctoring photos of the war to make the military look bad; Bill Clinton, enough said; Howard Dean calling conservatives racists; AP reporters faking news; CNN having an agreement with Saddam's regime not to report on him negatively, so that they wouldn't be kicked out of Baghdad; the ACLU for persecuting Christianity while they defend **** for free; the people who call terrorists "freedom fighters"; professors who say that those who died on 9/11 deserved it; judges legislating from the bench and giving child rapists slaps on the wrists, ending in the **** and killing of their final victims ... and lots more. You might not like Ann Coulter, but after this short list, is it any wonder why she doesn't like what liberals are doing? These things are a lot more destructive than op-ed talk show host's just opining on things.

 

Message was edited by:

MattHelm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the proof for all of these charges you made.

 

I mean, from a source OTHER than Bill O'Reilly and Fox News.

 

But you know what? Believe what you want to believe. Believe O'Reilly and Coulter if you like. Help these jerks to fuel the hatred that is growing in this country every single day, instead of helping to bring about healing. Help them in their quest to prove themselves 'right', at a cost of moving us in the direction of full-scale revolt and unrest. Help them to destroy families that are now divided because of politics. Mothers and daughters and sisters and brothers who are no longer on speaking terms because of a stupid election between two politicians, neither of whom gives a DAMN about anyone but themselves and their friends.

 

Oh, and before you go painting me as a bleeding heart liberal, you should know that I voted for Reagan twice. And for John McCain in the primaries of 2000. And if Colin Powell ever ran for president, I'd be the first one to sign up to help with his campaign.

 

But I also voted for Bill Clinton twice. And don't regret it in the slightest.

 

My voting record proves out that I am squarely a moderate. And the stuff I am saying about O'Reilly and Coulter applies just as much to Michael Moore, in my book.

 

People LISTEN to these guys, because they represent the extremes in a country that is becoming more polarized by the nanosecond.

 

But it is destroying us.

 

THEY are destroying us.

 

We could go on all day with this foolishness. I could point out about a million instances that illustrate how FoxNews is biased and crooked as well, and about how they aggressively perpetrated the myth that there WAS WMD when there wasn't. And how they willingly participated in cover-ups of wrongdoing within the administration. But what good would come of it? You'd just find some way of making it all the liberals fault again. I mean, isn't EVERYTHING the liberals fault, after all? Ann Coulter certainly thinks so, and makes no bones about it. She is a bitter hatemonger, and it is rubbing off on her supporters at alarming rates. And the sad thing is that she seems downright pleased about the division and hatred she is causing. When really, she ought to be ashamed of herself and her petty selfishness and arrogance. All of these guys, on both sides, are nothing but pot-stirrers. And if any of them had an inkling of decency, they'd knock off the hatemongering and use their considerable energies to figure out a way to heal the divide in this country.

 

Clearly from your response, you'd rather argue about petty politics that don't mean ANYTHING than bring about healing and reconciliation between the *citizens* of this country. The citizens who I believe to be the victims of the war that these guys have brought about. In your post, you started right in on how the liberals are all to blame, and how Coulter and company are thus justified in their hate-mongering. When my comments were directed at a discussion of the fact that ALL of this hate-mongering is wrong - *regardless* of ideology. You are arguing about trees, when I'm trying to tell you that the whole forest is sick.

 

What I'm saying is that they are ALL wrong - because they have let ideology become more important than a UNITED United States. And what I'm saying is that ANYONE who goes down that road with these so-called journalist hate-mongers - on EITHER side - is part of the problem. Not a part of the solution. They are using us as pawns in their petty little power struggle - and we are playing right into their collective hands.

 

But what good is being 'right' if it brings about the destruction of an entire nation? And in these circumstances, what does 'right' mean anyway, but the ability to inflict one's will on the opposition, regardless of actual moral certitude?

 

You want to argue about petty politics and who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. But in my view, they are ALL wrong. *Because they are destroying us.*

 

And a perfect example is this very conversation.

 

So you know what? I'm taking my own advice and bowing out of this thread. I didn't join this board to argue about politics in any event. I joined it to talk about classic film.

 

Just consider this: It doesn't pay to 'win' if there is nothing left of this country and it's spirit that's worth winning. It is not a victory (for the citizens, anyway) to come to power in the United States if while waging the campaign to get there, you are responsible for the 'UNITED' part of that term being almost completely eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pktrekgirl,

 

No offense intended. I know what you're saying about all the hatemongering. But while the examples that I listed may have been covered by Fox or others, they originated as stories in local papers where the incidents happened and are not the invention of any one person. There are sites that link these paper's stories so that people can see what the mainstream press is ignoring.

 

I'm sorry but without specific examples of your allegations, there can be no true discourse and only generalizations which in itself is hatemongering. The only fault I can find with Republicans is that they're not doing anything to secure our borders, and they spend like Democrats. I think if Fox News was as crooked as you claim, someone besides yourself would have had proof to blow the whistle on them a long time ago. The instances I mentioned about CNN, AP, LA Times, Boston Globe, all were admitted and apologized for by them and/or retractions were issued, so the proof is just a google search away. See also: Newsweek's retraction on its phony Gitmo **** on the Koran story.

 

You can't blame O'Reilly, Coulter, or anyone left or right, for dividing families because these mothers, daughters and sons put politics before their love for one another. Sorry, but that's absurd. Those people are responsible for their own behavior and would behave that way over any difference of opinion whether it's politics or whatever. The opinionative pundits aren't destroying us, people are choosing to destroy themselves. I don't dislike someone just because they disagree with me, and can't understand how people are consumed by their ideology to the point they get emotional over it. I enjoy exchanging ideas, but when people start getting rabid, that's scary. I came here to talk film too, but as I've said, I never started the political talk, just joined in on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Beth in "Little Women" said,"Birds in their little nests agree...". I apologise to all for my part in any political discussion,and hereby also bow out.I broke my own rule about discussing social issues here. I'm really sorry.This is a place where lovers of classic movies gather and share(now what are classic movies,I suppose we can civilly argue:)),and I'd hate to see it become another place where politics intrudes its divisive self.I've contributed to that,and I remorsefully apologise.

 

 

 

 

Melanie2_ani.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...