mr_genius Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) R-A-T-I-N-G-S. This guy is a jackass. Thank you, and have a nice day. You think he's the best, don't lie Remember when he was on the best show ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) You think he's the best, don't lie Remember when he was on the best show ever They still use the sound effect from that show when we score runs at home. That show rocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 haha, this is funny. "Good Lord these black people can handle a knife and fork!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I think it just show's how out of touch someone like O'Reilly is. Most of the time he just come's off more dumb than racist or hateful. His show is for cranky old guy's who still want it to be 1955 or people who like to have phone sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) Is there a restaurant called "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles"? I've been there tons of times. It's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) I used to hate O'Reilly back when his show first started on Fox News, now I like him to an extent, I think he's funny at times. Stockholm Syndrome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 This outrage, just like the outrage of Limbaugh calling soldiers who fought that are critical of the war effort "fake soldiers" is stupid and just meant to hide the failings of the people in power. Just like General Betray Us outrage actually hid the actual news for a good three days. It's all stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:16 PM) This outrage, just like the outrage of Limbaugh calling soldiers who fought that are critical of the war effort "fake soldiers" is stupid and just meant to hide the failings of the people in power. Just like General Betray Us outrage actually hid the actual news for a good three days. It's all stupid. Dude, the outrage over that ad covered up the actual news for well over 3 days. The ad ran on like hte 9th or 10th of September, and the House was voting to condemn it last week. It's still coming up. The "outrage" over Mr. Limbaugh's comments are, as far as I'm concerned, a totally fair response to that manufactured outrage. It's actually probably a worthy look at how biased the media is; compare the coverage that Moveon's ad gets to the coverage Limbaugh's latest statement gets, and let's see which side winds up getting the coverage. (Somehow, I doubt that the condemning Limbaugh bill which will be introduced in the Senate on Monday will go anywhere, but we'll see) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 05:37 PM) Dude, the outrage over that ad covered up the actual news for well over 3 days. The ad ran on like hte 9th or 10th of September, and the House was voting to condemn it last week. It's still coming up. The "outrage" over Mr. Limbaugh's comments are, as far as I'm concerned, a totally fair response to that manufactured outrage. It's actually probably a worthy look at how biased the media is; compare the coverage that Moveon's ad gets to the coverage Limbaugh's latest statement gets, and let's see which side winds up getting the coverage. (Somehow, I doubt that the condemning Limbaugh bill which will be introduced in the Senate on Monday will go anywhere, but we'll see) It's because Limbaugh's comments were 100% out of context. I've said this before, Limbaugh is entertainment, not news, and I rarely listen to him because he's too much of an apologist for the Re-pube-licans. Because I heard about this yesterday, I went to his site because I knew there would be a response. When you listen to the whole thing, it was DEFINITELY out of context. You absolutely cannot compare Limbaugh's comments in the same realm as a printed ad that was clearly meant to do nothing but degrade and call out a 4-star general who disagrees with George Soros and moveon.org idealogy. If you all are using mediamatters.org (another Soros backed site) as your outlet to find outrage against Rush Limbaugh, GMAFB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 OMG Kap, you're totally right. The outrage isn't justifiable. Because what Limbaugh said wasn't AN AD. In a NEWSPAPER! Quelle horror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 03:11 PM) Is there a restaurant called "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 05:10 PM) OMG Kap, you're totally right. The outrage isn't justifiable. Because what Limbaugh said wasn't AN AD. In a NEWSPAPER! Quelle horror! Unless you are only going by Media Matters, you should know he was referring to the likes of Jessie Macbeth and the other antiwar 'vets' the liberal media hyped as 'heros' that turned out to be fake. That kind of cherry picking is low, even for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 You're right, that outrage isn't nearly as justifiable as something about AN AD. In a NEWSPAPER! Oh, who will think of the children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 12:37 PM) The "outrage" over Mr. Limbaugh's comments are, as far as I'm concerned, a totally fair response to that manufactured outrage. It's actually probably a worthy look at how biased the media is; compare the coverage that Moveon's ad gets to the coverage Limbaugh's latest statement gets, and let's see which side winds up getting the coverage. (Somehow, I doubt that the condemning Limbaugh bill which will be introduced in the Senate on Monday will go anywhere, but we'll see) So are you admitting that the Rush Limbaugh show and the New York Times have basically dropped to the same levels? It just shows the state of that once respected newspaper.... they should now be held to the same standards as a political shock jock. Edited September 30, 2007 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 02:55 PM) So are you admitting that the Rush Limbaugh show and the New York Times have basically dropped to the same levels? It just shows the state of that once respected newspaper.... they should now be held to the same standards as a political shock jock. And there is naturally, no difference between the paid advertisements in the NY Times and the actual written content of the NY times or the NY Times's opinion sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 04:55 PM) So are you admitting that the Rush Limbaugh show and the New York Times have basically dropped to the same levels? It just shows the state of that once respected newspaper.... they should now be held to the same standards as a political shock jock. I thought one was a paid for advertisement produced by moveon.org and Rush was himself talking?? I guess I'm confused now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) I thought one was a paid for advertisement produced by moveon.org and Rush was himself talking?? I guess I'm confused now. You are 100% correct on both parts, and should not be confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 09:48 PM) You're right, that outrage isn't nearly as justifiable as something about AN AD. In a NEWSPAPER! Oh, who will think of the children? That's not the point and you know it. Nice twisting of a f***ed up situation, though. I'm actually sort of shocked at you on this one, Rex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 My point was all of this outrage is stupid. Your seemed to insinuate that there was some merit in Congress taking four days of time to argue about an ad in a newspaper, as opposed to Rush Limbaugh insulting people who have served in the military, or Bill O'Reilly making stupid conversation about how African-Americans behave in restaurants. It's all stupid and none of it is worth our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) I thought one was a paid for advertisement produced by moveon.org and Rush was himself talking?? I guess I'm confused now. It was a political ad that the New York Times gave a massive discount to because they agreed with the politics of thus mentioned ad. That is an illegal campaign contribution. The times even admitted this after they got caught. Edited October 1, 2007 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 10:06 PM) It was a political ad that the New York Times gave a massive discount to because they agreed with the politics of thus mentioned ad. That is an illegal campaign contribution. The times even admitted this after they got caught. None of the articles I found gave that explanation, do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Tex, you lead a sheltered life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 03:06 AM) It was a political ad that the New York Times gave a massive discount to because they agreed with the politics of thus mentioned ad. That is an illegal campaign contribution. The times even admitted this after they got caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/26mov...amp;oref=slogin huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 QUOTE(bmags @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 12:35 AM) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/26mov...amp;oref=slogin huh? Oh yes, of course. my bad. They will admit that moveon.org got a price break that it shouldn't have, but they are using the standard excuse of "laziness and a simple billing error". I should have known better to credit them with any type of transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 01:12 AM) Oh yes, of course. my bad. They will admit that moveon.org got a price break that it shouldn't have, but they are using the standard excuse of "laziness and a simple billing error". I should have known better to credit them with any type of transparency. . Advertising is not an editorial decision. Do you think the editors look at the Macy's ad each week? So you're comparing a decision a sales rep made to Rush's comments? So Rush is equal to a sales rep for the NYT? OK, maybe we can agree on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts