Cool News
Cable Calamity!! FACTOR REPORT!! O’Reilly Vs. Colbert!!
I am – Hercules!!
A treasure-trove of truthiness!!
Tonight at 8 p.m. ET/5 p.m. PT, brand-name satirist Stephen Colbert appears on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” for the first time.
Tonight at 11:30 p.m., former local-news pretty-boy turned bullying fact-challenged blowhard Bill O’Reilly appears on Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” for the first time.
If you couldn't care less, here’s why millions of others are highly anticipatory, courtesy Wikipedia:
On October 17, 2005, The Colbert Report premiered on Comedy Central. The show, hosted by Stephen Colbert, is a satirical spoof of The O'Reilly Factor, spoofing both its format and the mannerisms and ideology of O'Reilly, whom Colbert calls Papa Bear. Colbert makes no secret of his spoofing O'Reilly: upon hearing the news that O'Reilly said he likes The Colbert Report, Stephen declared on-air that "I like you too. In fact, if it wasn't for you, this show wouldn't exist." Many of Stephen Colbert's attitudes, actions, or program segments are directly inspired by O'Reilly's show. Colbert calls the character based on Bill O'Reilly a misinformed high-status idiot.
“The O’Reilly Factor”: 8 p.m. ET/5 p.m. PT. Thursday. Fox News Channel.
“The Colbert Report”: 11:30 p.m. Thursday. Comedy Central.
Outfoxed!!
The Truth (With Jokes)!!
-
+ Expand All
-
Or not.
-
...both programs do a hell of a job at nailing the hypocrisies that contantly spill out of the current administration and occasionally those that oppose it. Bringing O'Reilly ON, however, is a needless move that gives the idiot more power than he deserves...the very thing that got him his own show to begin with.
-
Gee, Herc, you wouldn't be showing us all how you really feel about things, would you? Not when you actually write "former local-news pretty-boy turned bullying fact-challenged blowhard" (regarding O'Reilly) or by then plugging BOTH "Outfoxed" and the Franken book? Seems to me that a "fair" news piece would have ALSO put in a link for O'Reilly's latest book, or the Fox News Channel website or for Comedy Central and the Colbert Report since this news story actually is about THEM -- and not a brain dead intellectual carrot like Franken or your possible personal gripe with Fox News as a whole.Of course, if that's the case, I guess the last laugh really is on Fox News haters. This week there's a great ad running in the Hollywood trades which congratulates Larry King for being ranked as "one of the top rated news shows on TV" (I believe he came in at #7). The joke being that the ad shows a list of the Top 15 rated news shows (with King's placement circled in red) and guess what? The Number One slot belongs to O'Reilly (by a truly commanding lead) while every other slot ALSO belongs to a Fox News Channel show. In short, King was the ONLY non-Fox show to even place in the top 15. So eat crow, CNN and MSNBC.But honestly there's no point in getting all political about this. This is simply a trade-off of Colbert doing O'Reilly's show and O'Reilly doing Colbert's, and it's obvious both are doing this in good spirits and for fun and out of some respect for each other. So it should simply be viewed in that light, minus any heavy-handed spin doctoring. It's nothing more than a ratings/media attention bit that both men figure they can benefit from, the TV equivalent of a comic book crossover stunt solely created to get you to finally pick up the "other" book...
-
O'Reilly was on the daily show a while bck, and Stewart was far more civil with him than he could have been. it didn't give him any power, O'Reilly got a few laughs, but they stuck to topics that weren't really too ripe for huge disagreements. I am really looking forward to Colbert and O'Reilly. if you watch Colbert when he has conservatives on his show in general, he does his schtick of semi-agreeing with them, then taking their arguments one step further into an absurd realm it really makes someone like me (as liberal as they come) have a laugh as the neo-cons squirm and try to wriggle their way out of the fact that their arguments are usually so paper thin that taking them a tiny step further makes them sound completely idiotic. I love it! bring on O'Reilly, Colbert is going to make him look like the fool that he is, and the headlines the next day will confirm as much. he might be THINKING it's just free publicity for him, but in his position, bad publicity is gonna do more harm than good.
-
popularity as a barometer for quality?
I submit to you, Britney Spears and the movie Titanic...both popular, both horrendous...the fact that O'Reilly has such a commanding lead in the ratings does not make me eat crow, it makes me want to eat a bullet...let Herc show his bias if he wants, loud and proud. this is an entertainment website. let's not try to bring the FCC equal time rule into play here, your name has the word "poop" in it, for fuck's sake... -
...that a Talkbaker with the name "Poops" was defending O'Reilly? Yes, O'Reilly is the leading Shit on Televison.
-
Taking the liberal arguments one step further ends at the same place 90% of the time, especially when it comes to social programs. If people don't have the ability/desire to better their current situation through work or a change in their circumstances, just have the government take money from a productive citizen and redistribute it. Really deep.
-
The FCC wouldn't think twice about allowing "poop" these days. That would be mild at best given what they now do let through. From Wikipedia discussing George Carlin's infamous "7 Words you can't say on TV: "Several of the words on Carlin's original list have since been used on broadcast television to varying degrees. The word "tits" was uttered on the first episode of The Trials of Rosie O'Neill in 1990, sparking some controversy. The word "piss" (usually used in the context of the phrase "piss off", both as a verb — "This is going to piss somebody off" — and as an expletive) has been commonplace since the late 1990s although generally limited to dramatic programming. The word "shit" has been heard on rare occasions, such as an episode of Chicago Hope."As for Brittany Spears and TITANIC, I couldn't care one way or the other about her per se. Not every singer, actor, performer (however you want to designate someone) is someone I'd personally be following or rooting for. The way I look at it, if someone works hard or even has some dumb luck fall their way that allows them to be a success, so be it. I don't begrudge anyone that. Least Brittany put in the long hours to make her records or whip her body into shape to do her shows, etc...I mean, why begrudge someone like Brittany her success or fame versus a lottery winner who really DID suddenly become rich off sheer dumb luck?On the other hand I would say TITANIC was a solid film and defend it as such. I think Cameron made an exceptional movie there. It sometimes gets shit from select geeks on this site (maybe because at its heart it was a love story and geeks simply don't want to celebrate a non-sci fi/horror genre film like that) but I think 1.8 BILLION dollars in ticket sales and 11 Oscars, tying the record with BEN HUR for the most awarded movie in history, ultimately DO help prove that time will be on the side of Cameron as judging his film to be "great." If you think otherwise, in Harry's future Q & A with Cameron, feel free to submit the question: "Hey, Jim, don't you think TITANIC is HUGELY overrated and you just got lucky with teen girls seeing it over and over again for Leo and that it's really a shitty film, poorly written and poorly directed, and you should actually be ashamed for having even made it? Didn't you feel guilty cashing the checks from that one?" Yeah, I'd love to see Cameron's response to a typical geek stance like THAT...
-
The abortion fiasco is a good example of that. It appears most liberals are unable to grasp the concept of separation of powers, and think every minute problem in society can be solved by judicial activism. So, since they can't convince the public to support some of their idiotic positions and elect politicians to enact their legislation, they fall back on the judicial system. Never mind the precedent this sets in allowing black robed tyrants to legislate from the bench, and how this affects future litigation. Thinking that far ahead would be too deep. Better to just forum shop till an ACLU approved judicial whore will ignore the constitution and just enact legislation from the bench. Again, really deep.
-
you can't believe that I was implying the FCC would censor "poop". I was implying that someone with poop in their name is hardly qualified to judge what is fair for a website to display.and I think you missed my point AGAIN, with Britney and Titanic. you mentioned the lottery winner as a reference to Britney's hard work and talent. I'm not judging that. I'm talking about TASTE. I'm talking about playing to the common denominator. I'm talking about New Kids on the Block, boy band factories that churn out groups strictly for profit. I'm taling about reality TV, who wants to marry my midget dad, who wants to eat maggots for money. that is the shit I'm talking about! we accept mediocrity because it's popular, and it's popular because we accept and devour it. it's disheartening, that's all. O'Reilly is less abotu mediocrity and more about selfishness and egoism, but he, that wasn't the reason I mentioned britney and titanic, I mentioned them (and now reality TV and NKOTB) because you implied that O'reilly's popularity was something to be proud of, while I do not agree.as for Titanic specifically, I know how much it made, I know it won Oscars, but that just further proves my point (which, as I said, I think you kind of missed). Crash won an Oscar as well, remember? Titanic is a pile of overwrought shite. the popularity of Celene Dion's song is as disheartening as the popularity of the movie itself. was it the worst movie ever? not by a long shot. was it the filmic equivalent of Britney Spears? yes indeedy. love sent from above, down on my knees, begging you please. we've heard it all before. and we've seen Titanic a hundred times before, but without the boat breaking...Rose and Jack? Romeo and Juliet? we can't scrape out of our subconscious the remnants of art that is greater than our own, all we can hope to do is go in a direction that is innovative enough that it says something new. if you think Titanic did that, then give me your e-mail, I'll paypal you $100 for one hit of whatever you're smoking.
-
thanks for the examples of the conservative demagoguery I was talking about. Colbert should book you! "ACLU approved judicial whores"...lol, that was good for a chuckle, thank you sir. especially since it was this current administration that chose to ignore the constitution most recently, if memory serves...
-
for choosing to make a satirical point with his first post, rather than resorting to a cliche'd "First!"
-
anyone and everyone who cares about what goes on in the world around them should watch. and just because FOX NEWS is popular, doesn't make it a fair news source, or even a reliable one. Swift Boat Uber Alles!
-
wikiality yo
-
No one expected Colbert's gimmick to work in the long term, let alone surpass the Daily Show as far as must-see television. He's the greatest active performer, by a LARGE margin, based on how great of a show he puts on daily. He should have been Time's Person of the Year. And given that the show exists to mock the ideology and style of O'Reilly, getting him to be a guest of the show is a testament to his power.
And thanks for the vacuous points on welfare, vikingkitty. Given the rapidly increasing concentration of wealth amongst the highest class, it is good that they have staunch protectors to save them. Oh, and let's ignore the thousands of ways in which welfare, universal health care, and the like would economically benefit everyone (from crime/prison reduction, having more able consumers, etc. etc). -
A few notes on the abortion thing. A. Harping on seperation of powers as you are, you better not have voted for Bush or you're the biggest hypocrite EVER. Bush tried to expand presidential power, secrecy, and avoid congressional oversight and legal culpability in so many fucking ways...he's done more damage to seperation of powers than anything in the last century, easily! B. The only recent egregious act of judicial activism was Bush v. Gore, where the Supereme Court intervened in an election governed by Florida state law for no justifiable reason. C. Roe vs. Wade isn't judicial activism unless you want to pretend that the Constution doesn't provide a basis for privacy matters, and only the craziest of ultra-conservative legal scholars make that claim. Do you really think citizens should have zero privacy rights from the government? It is in the constitution, and enforcing it isn't any kind of activism. But please, don't let me interrupt your nonsensical rantings about "black robed tyrants" and the like.
-
Funniest thing I've seen in months. Takei fucking rules.
-
They have absolutely no basis in fact for most of their absurd claims, but can consistently be counted on to label those that don't follow their idiotic reasoning as "neanderthals" and the like. As for those of use who have actually read the constitution and taken some courses in law know, opinions can differ as to what the framers of the constitution really intended in some situations (does the constitution limit the government, or does it provide a guideline of the limited rights enjoyed by citizens?). Regardless, there should be no debate as to judicial activism. The attempts by the judicial branch to engage in legislative from the bench (see Roe v. Wade) is disturbing, simply for the precedents they set. Since this activism currently tends to favor liberal decisions (since they are usually the easiest decisions to reach politically and require the least amount of actual work), leftists don't seem to mind rights being invented whole cloth by judges. But should a judge ever make a decision based on his political beliefs and having no basis in law which favors a historically conservative viewpoint, I'm sure he'll be crucified by liberals and their cohorts.
-
and is a sci-fi/fantasy whore as well. He loves him some LOTR. He voices some of the most hillarious characters on Adult Swim. He's good at what he does and is funny as hell. He and Jon Stewart are two of the most witty and intelligent guys on TV right now.
For refrence I give you the fact that Colbert nailed the dipshits that are on Good Morning America and The Today Show.
After an uncontested official went on his show and actually had a sense of humor, went along with Colbert on saying things that, if he wasn't uncontested, would normally get you in trouble, those two shows reported on it. They said that it was going to screw the guy in the elections and it was making officials that went on the show look like boobs (mind you, most political officials look like boobs on their own with no help from TDS or TCR.) They slammed the Report and Stephen.
So...he fired back and showcased all the idiotic bullshit that they were showing. He pointed out what he was doing, which was actually not only funny, but pretty smart.
Also, every person showcased on his "Know a District" was either elected or re-elected. So, going on the Report wasn't such a bad idea after all, eh Matt Lauer?
BTW: Everyone should go out and buy America: The Audio Book. Some of the funniest (and sadly true in many ways) shit you'll ever listen to.
-
Sorry but you are wrong in this circumstance. When the Colbert Report first aired O'Reilly mentioned that he was very aware of the satirical humor being aimed at him and used it to reference the "left" and their hatred of him. Saying that they will do anything to tarnish his strength and character or something to that effect. As for Colbert speaking in front of the president...usually people are forced to edit their material to fluff like Lewis Black talked about on his Carnegie Hall cd. I guess Colbert was too awesome to cut his schtick. This should be awesome.
-
The conservatives thought Colbert was one of them... Hm. I kind of doubt that. Unless there's evidence of that. People know its a comedy show. By the way, Colbert has admitted that the way his "character" spoke on The Daily Show is based on Stone Philips, which I noticed before he admitted it. Though his Colbert Report character is a little different.
-
So taking a couple law courses makes you an expert on constitutional law? What, did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night or something?
-
The thought that conservatives don't get irony. I dunno about that. My example... I often work on the road so I spend lunch hours in my car. I like to listen to the news on a local AM station, but after the news Rush Limbaugh comes on. So, I sometimes find myself listening to him. He's mostly a blowhard and I often disagree with the guy, but I sometimes find him interesting. His show seems to be a constant example of liberals not "getting" irony. I've heard him do sarcastic segments, full of deadpan humor, and then I'll see some liberals completely missing his point and thinking he's serious. Jokes that if told by Stewart and Colbert would be hailed as ingenious satire. I'd say neither side has a sense of humor about themselves when really mocked about their key issues.
-
yeah
-
...which is strange because he's actually a moderate. He didn't endorse Bush, he's against the death penalty, he thinks Iraq was a mistake, etc, etc. But I don't think most people who hate him have ever watched his show for any particular set of time. His views are alot more nuanced than someone like Colbert's would ever be. I think its Bill's style and all the merchandise that really upset people.
-
Well, as with any big political pundit, there are more people hating them and not listening to them then there are people actually listening. I probably lean more to the conservative side of things, but I personally find O'Reilly to be obnoxious, and his "why won't he debate me? is he afraid?" schtick is the height of arrogance.
-
Just wanted to point out that in addition to those swear words mentioned, The show NYPD Blue made considerable use of the words "prick" and "asshole" through their entire run, and in the last year or two, it wasn't uncommon to hear the word "bullshit". Apparently, it's less offensive to say shit if it's coupled with "bull". You'll not the opposite effect when "ass" can be used with little complaint, but add "hole" to it and it's offensive.
-
I agree 100%. Consider the popularity of Jerry Springer in the 90s. Or even Oprah today. Or American Idol. Or so called "reality television." Popularity is a poor barometer for quality.
And - you can NEVER underestimate the poor taste of the television viewing public. -
In addition to Bill's somewhat grating style and merchandise, I think a lot of his critics hate him just because he is the commentator most associated with Fox News. A lot of his critics still haven't grasped the fact that he is not and doesn't pretend to be a news reporter; he offers his analysis of the news.
-
Jan 18, 2007 11:24:34 AM CST
his ear IS pretty freaky. you can't not look at it. eww
by spice-orange
What i dont understand is way Americans hate Americans so much. terrorists don't have to do anything to us, just call someone a liberal or a conservative and everyone gets their panties in a bunch. who cares? how about you get something FUCKING DONE in this country for a change? i don't care what you believe in, but stop talking and start doing. political jackasses. sugary shows like Daily and Colbert- while funny- just keep up the talking and fighting and ignore the fact that nothing happens anymore in politics. Politics have turned into Hollywood celebrity with old people, old money, worse clothes, and more corporate sponsors. Its pathetic and i hate how the american public gets so wrapped up in it. who CARES if your dem or rep? what does that even MEAN anymore? it means nothing! why label? the parties don't stand for anything anymore anyways- all they want is your vote, and they'll say anything to get it. once they are in, let the free swag and limo rides begin. well, until they have to run for office again... which they start campaigning for the day after they win office. PATHETIC. And you wonder why other countries hate us? they can't even get schools, water and food to their people, while we rattle on back and forth about non-issues and political races that are more than a year away. retarded. we haven't done a signal productive thing in America since the civil rights movement, and that was forced on the government by the PEOPLE. I can't wait until this policial la-la land crumbles so we can get some real leaders in office and start working for a change.
-
TV pundits is that they claim to be "fair and balanced" just like the rest of Fox News. Look, everyone knows that Fox slants conservative, just like Olberman slants liberal, lets all just fess up to it and stop being disingenuous. I don't have a problem if you have an opinion, but be honest as to where you're coming from. If you're not even honest about your political leanings, then how the hell can we trust anything you say (not that O'Reilly is terribly trustworthy--hell, I've seen the guy pull statistics from his website as evidence that "America" agrees with him).
-
Lets have lunch, youre buying. Youre one of the few people that makes sense around here. Go to the O Reilly boards on IMDB and you would think this guy was Hitleresque. Its ridiculous already. Sure, O Reilly bloviates a bit, we all do. The guy doesnt do straight news like Rather did. Personally, I think theres nothing wrong with the guy. I LOVE the exposes he is always doing on these INSANE judges who are giving child rapists little or NO jail time (see Vermont) WHO ELSE IS DOING THIS???!!! Anyone??? As the father of a 4 year old girl my wife and I appreciate it. There is nothing wrong with Fox News. It tilts to the right, and there is nothing wrong with that, CNN and MSNBC tilt left. The only person on Fox I really have issue with is Hannity because he is an unabashed shill for the Republican Party. O Reilly it seems is criticzing the war and the right on an almost nightly basis these days! These whiners and moaners who say Bill is just a hack, hes evil, blah blah blah, obviously dont watch the show....anyway, just my 2 cents.
Oh yeah, Herc, how about a ****spoiler**** alert before you write this statting that you are an unabahed liberal with an agenda the next time you write a column like this, eh?....thanks. -
is due to a tumor he had when he was a child. They scooped out everything, leaving it with less cartilige (sp?) and leaving him deaf in that ear. Although it does allow him to do niffty tricks with it (Do a search on YouTube for Colbert Ear Trick)
If you notice earlier photos and such, he would pose with his right ear hidden or out of the shot. He's gotten more okay with it I suppose.
I personally think Colbert is sex in a suit, and would gladly nibble his so called "wonky" ear as long as he would allow me to.
-
Just how many Americans ACTUALLY truly believe the stuff that Fox News shits out? Do people see through Murdoch's beguiling musk or do they trust in 'America's newsroom'?
-
People who bitch, complain and generally deride successful Hollywood films, music, and everything else in pop culture as being uninspired, re-hashed bullshit are being self-righteous. Take a look at any top-ten list of favorite films or songs of anyone spouting how much Titanic sucks or how horrible Brittany Spears' music is. I'll bet you'll see more than a few re-told stories. Yes, there are fresher takes on some stories than others, but you can always say Shakespeare, Greek tragedians and cultures lost to recorded history did it first. If you're pompous enough, you can even say they did it better. At the end of the day, we all want stories and songs that affect us. That's why Star Wars will always be a good movie. That's why Titanic worked so well. Brittany, and her army of recording engineers, make more than a few people actually feel something they like to feel. I've been down the road of pompous, "Your Favorite Band Sucks" wankery. Buy, like assholes, everybody has an opinion.
-
I sometimes cactch the viewer-mail segment at the end of his show while flipping. One day, Bill O'Reilly presented an e-mail from a "liberal" in Florida, going on and on about how he hated America and hoped the terrorists would win. Then O'Reilly said, "This isn't an actual e-mail. I made it up. I just wanted to prove that I know how you liberals think. So, beware: I'm watching you." WTF?! My jaw hit the floor! I was hoping Jon Stewart would say something about it the next day, but he didn't. ....So I asked Bill himself about it that weekend, when he came to my place for his weekly ball-licking appointment. He said, "Let's not talk about that now, Billy. I just love the salty taste of a goat-man's scrotum." ....Well, okay, that never happened, but it proves that I know how he thinks.
-
i respect alot of Republicans. I'm not one of them but my best bud in college was and he went on to work in the justice department. He's a very informative person. But OREILLY is dangerous because he speaks half truths that are colored with a little ignorance. He is dangerous because people believe it's true when it's not. People like him and Rush Limbraugh are idiots and allow idiots like George Bush to be elected when I thought McCAin was the better REpublican candidate. But what do i know I'm just a democrat.
-
i respect alot of Republicans. I'm not one of them but my best bud in college was and he went on to work in the justice department. He's a very informative person. But OREILLY is dangerous because he speaks half truths that are colored with a little ignorance. He is dangerous because people believe it's true when it's not. People like him and Rush Limbraugh are idiots and allow idiots like George Bush to be elected when I thought McCAin was the better REpublican candidate. But what do i know I'm just a democrat.
-
sadly, most people that watch Fox News on a regular basis seem to swallow everything hook, line and sinker. at least from the few people i know that watch it. i try not to associate with those people too much.
-
Deserve Fox.
-
"Conservatives don't understand irony at all. Like a cop that watches The Simpsons or a republican that like The Matrix." Please use your incredible critical thinking skills to explain how a cop watching The Simpsons demonstrates a lack of understanding of irony. I guess you are saying that a cop who watches the Simpsons doesn't know they are making fun of cops? Is that it? You understand that some people can laugh at themselves right? Honestly, you and ZombieSolutions’ stereotypical attacks and generalizations on conservatives say far more about your intelligence level than anyone else’s.
-
... I'd rather talk to the organ grinder.
-
Liberals vs conservatives: Electric Boogaloo.
-
Thank you for bringing it full circle and shining the spotlight on the one REAL truth here succinctly. That was one of the core points I was trying to make way back at the start of things here, before this whole thing degenerated into yet another typical AICN "Cons suck! Libs suck!" talkback...
-
after the way Colbert and O'Reilly were described in the article, it obviously shows Herc's (and by extension, this site's) liberal bias. how would having O'Reilly's book help? you poor, downtrodden conservative readers of this site would just complain about the text. there will always be somethingface it, the site is way liberal. deal with it, or start your own conservative nerd movie site. hell, I'd check it out jsut out of curiosity. www.welfaresucksmovies.com ?
-
"the only recent egregious act of judicial activism was Bush v. Gore, where the Supereme Court intervened in an election governed by Florida state law for no justifiable reason." Judicial activism is a phony concept. Judges are forced to make law. When conservatives or liberals get angry at a judicial opinion, they claim the opinion is "activism." Don't be fooled by the shallow label slapped upon court decisions. As to there being no "justifciation" for the Supreme Ct taking Bush v. Gore, a 7-2 majority agreed that the count was unconstitutional, so you're arguing with well over half the Supreme Court. The disagreement over what the remedy for the constitutional violation is what produced the narrow split. Even then, there is good evidence to support a Bush victory even in the counties that were contested by Gore. "Roe vs. Wade isn't judicial activism unless you want to pretend that the Constution doesn't provide a basis for privacy matters" Bzzt. Wrong. That may be the only way *you* are able to comprehend the problem, but there's a variety of different interpretations on abortion in regards to privacy. I'm sure you learned that in law school. I know I did. Go peddle your logical fallacies elsewhere. Telling people they either agree with ROe or hate privacy ironically echoes "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."
-
unfortunetly, most of hollywood and the press is liberal, and being that this is a site based on the movie industry, most of your comments are liberal. So as such, there will be very few pro-bill peeps.
Bill is too smart to go on the colbert report and get smashed, so i look forward to seeing how he handles the situation and makes all you fuckwads eat your own words. -
see you on Friday...great screen name for a neocon by the way...was "Fthepoor123" unavailable?
-
is always a good time. making a parody watchable every day is admirable... hey, someone ripped off my name and put 666 on it!
-
Frank Rich writes in "Greatest Story Ever Sold," an analysis of the lies that got us into Iraq, that Comedy Central's the Daily Show and later the Colbert Report was the only broadcast source that consistently looked beyond the superficial spin of the White House. Three years on I'm afraid that is still pretty much true. Bill O'Reilly and Bush's other broadcast enablers have hurt America and continue to do so.
Paragon complex, I believe "could care less" is an ironic statement of Yiddish origin. Therefore the correct form is "could care less." It's like saying, "If I tried really hard, it is conceivable that I could in fact care less." -
so right about the daily show.
so wrong about linguistics, sorry to say.
http://tinyurl.com/3a2ja4
-
nah i just didnt feel like thinking up a better name for a site that i don't really comment on.
I like colbert and stewart.... and i dont mind debating. i just dont like going to a site i come to for sweet movie news, and then getting some liberal comments pushed down my throat. -
I thought they could barely conceal their disdain for one another...I prefer Colbert to Jon Stewart personality-wise, but frankly think both of their shows suck. Also, please stop calling conservatives and "neo-cons" stupid, it's just annoying. "Neoconservativism" actually has a fairly substantial intellectual history, so you trolls need to just go blow yourselves. I'm guessing you couldn't even provide a proper definition for term "neoconservativism" anyways, but just choose to throw around the phrase "neocon" like some dirty word with the rest of the idiots on youtube and the internet--high schoolers and deadbeats, in other words.
-
Jan 18, 2007 8:19:46 PM CST
Olbermann sounds like a flapping vagina when he speaks
by phillipmarlowe
Cannot stand him. I'll take O'Reilly anyday over half the crap on TV.
-
Don't talk about constitutional matters unless you've at least read the damn cases.
-
it's being 'normal'. The problem I find with conservatives is that they take the conservative role-playing to the extreme. By that I mean whatever conservatives are 'supposed' to like, every conservative will proclaim to like, and everything conservatives are supposed to dislike they will claim to dislike. Ergo, if you are conservative, you must like O'Reilly, because he's a conservative mouthpiece. But truly, Bill O'Reilly is a massive, ignorant douchebag, just like Michael Moore is a massive, ignorant douchebag. If Liberals can agree, as they often do, that Moore is an utter douchebag without it threatening their ideological beliefs, surely you guys can admit that O'Reilly is a douchebag too.
-
I'll give you that neocon is thrown around by some without actually knowing what it means, but you've got to admit that liberal is thrown out way more by the right. I mean, you could make a pretty good drinking game of doing a shot every time Rush or Hannity use the word liberal on their show, and get wasted before the first commercial break. Watch the first act of Schindler's list, and replace the word Jew with liberal, and you'll be pretty close to how talk radio, or an unintelligent right winger sounds (not that I'm saying all right ringers are unintelligent).
-
and popular opinion - from someone who has read the cases. Judicial activism certainly does exist and has always been with our courts. Lochner's a famous example. Consider Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion after the Constitution was manhandled by the majority: "I think that the word liberty in the 14th Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law." Spoken like a true conservative! A less famous case was U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno. In that case Congress had passed a law saying that households consisting of unrelated members were ineligible for food stamps. The court, using a standard of review that states that the court must defer to legislative determinations so long as there is a legitimate purpose for the law, found the law unconstitutional. Anyhow... for fun (and scary) reading try Kelo v. City of New London.
Justice O'Connor: What if there's a Motel 6 but the city thinks a Ritz-Carlton will generate more taxes? Is that OK?
Attorney: Yes.
The Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
O'Connor wrote a wonderful dissent to the majority opinion in the case. -
Colbert was doing his shtick, and O'Reily was actually kind of digging it.
Ho hum.
I guess if Stewart went there, that might be more interesting.
But what do I know? I own the Matrix Trilogy on DVD! -
"I daresay Franken and Olbermann and Colbert and Stewart are every bit the fact-challenged blowhards that O'Reilly is." Yeah, but they're trying to be funny. O'Reilly is being serious. Still, I think we have a lot to agree about. The whole culture of pundits bitching at each other is pathetic. I find Colbert great because he mocks the whole concept of it, so I'll be interested to see how he interacts with O'Reilly.
-
but this does not make Al Franken or Stephen Colbert any less funny, nor does it make former pretty-boy O'Reilly any less of a bullying fact-challenged blowhard.
-
thanks Herc.did you hear about Ted Nugent at the Texas Gov. rally? wearing a confederate flag tank top and making fun of anyone tha doesn't speak english. niiiice.and why is colbert on o'reilly up against the office? fuck that, I can't miss the office.
-
I'm really bored with Leftist BS.
Yak. Yak. Yak.
Neither side will change its mind. Liberals will always hate America, capitalism, and people who don't cheer for Islamofascists.
I really would like the whining liberals put their money where there mouth is and really fight to turn the country into Western Europe.
I mean really fight for it.
With Intelligence.
With Weapons.
With Heart.
With Blood.
With Guts.
With Determination.
When you’re ready to quit talking, let us know.
We'll be waiting.
We know you don’t have any of the items listed above.
But we do.
-
Thank God for Colbert.
-
he was basically worthless on both shows, what a wasted opportunity. i actually think i lost respect for him after tonight, because if this is what his shows all about, and hes been waiting for this day, it certanly didnt show. wasted opportunity.
-
Best post ever.
Anyway, I don't mind bill o, olby gets on my nerves, and hannity is awful I mean really awful. -
I don't watch much tv and even less tv news, but I do watch Fox News at the gym now and then. Last time they had 3 people talking about global warming, a conservative, a liberal and the show's regular science expert - 2 of the 3 were arguing for global warming. They weren't demonized or shouted down, everyone got to speak and both sides were heard. When was the last time a conservative viewpoint was allowed to be broadcast on GMA or any of the network news shows? As for bias, opinion people like O'Reilly and Hannity (who co-hosts with liberal Colmes) are not pretending to be unbiased newsreaders, unlike Katie or Dan Rather. I would bet most pathological Fox haters have never watched the channel, outside of clips on liberal shows or youtube talking about how awful it is.
-
There arent that many conservatives here...there are, however, a bunch of brain dead follow by the nose fuckwit neocons...I wish these motherfuckers would go get their asses shot off in Iraq and give the REAL patriots a break long enough to come hjome and get a breather...and yes, bitches, Im a combat vet. Tower of power, CIB E5 airborne death machine...been there, done that, and was lucky enough to make it home. All jokes aside, I just wish we could get some Reagen era CONSERVATIVES (remember those guys...the ones that, even though they were sometimes wrong, actually loved america more than their corporate FUCKBUDDIES) up in th house. Whatever happened to the Weinberger doctrine?
-
Blindly sucking down rhetoric doesn't make one a patriot...loving and defending the constitution makes one a patriot, and that means holding elected officials accountable for unconstitutional acts, and questioning the motives of those who behave and govern in a way that runs counter to the democratic process. Chew on that for a minute.
-
"just have the government take money from a productive citizen and redistribute it."
You mean like paying companies like General Dynamics and Halliburton BILLIONS of MY tax dollars for work that could be done through a competitive bid process (Ohhh...that would mean doing away with no bid contracts...GWs friends wouldn't want that) for ALOT less? As well as the BILLIONS of MY tax dollars that are going to the OIL INDUSTRY? You are truly a fuckstick..any chance you're going to take a trip to Iraq any time soon? -
You're a maggot. You talk about guts guns blah blah blah...didja see that shit in a comic book? TYPICAL neocon war monger...its amazing. Dont you at least want to TRY and think for yourself?
-
neoconsnakeplissken is a joke...look at the name and what he wrote...come on guys, use your noodles...
-
In its first week too! That was classic Colbert. Hotpocket?h -
These days, they aren't. Conservatives... aren't. Liberals... aren't. There's nothing conservative about much of anything the Bush administration has done. However you might feel about what they've done, conservative it is not. Similarly, you throw a rock into a room full of Democratic Congressmen/women - the chances of you hitting an actual liberal are minute. Feinstein a liberal? On what planet? A real conservative would have impeached Bush the moment it became clear that we were getting all our foreign policy cleared by theocrats with end-of-days wet dreams - ain't a goddamn thing conservative about that. People need to look up what these words actually mean, and how those meanings relate to the history of America, because Liberal and Conservative are terms that are raped on a daily basis by most of the people using them.
-
How does the normal basement dwelling, racist, gun replica polishing (hahaha!) sum up? "Something something something Dark Side... Something something something complete." We've all heard it before, but as with anything conservative, we won't have to hear it again come twenty years later.
-
A comment this stupid deserves to be repeated.
-
Actually, it's fact.
http://tinyurl.com/y9msmm
"The oil industry is soaking up billions of dollars in tax breaks, government funding, and indirect subsidies that pay for oil related environmental damage.
Even as they reap these benefits, they are spending millions on slick lobbying campaigns and political contributions to put the brakes on California's growing electric and clean vehicle industry.
These are the conclusions of two reports released last month by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG)."
I know, I know. Reality can be so annoying. -
The Dems are also in the process of approving a bill to repeal a shit load of money in tax breaks that the GOP Congress had passed before. The figures they are throwing out are $14billion over a decade. Also, didn't you hear about the slip up in royalty payments that the gov't did? I forget the exact number, but because of some loophole, the US gov't missed out on a lot of greenbacks. This would help even out that mistake. Now what to do with this money? Aaah, perhaps use it to fund alternative fuel and conservation projects?
-
I'm proud of you for having gone to law school, but on that basis you should really have made at least a single warrant or actual argument. You're right that most cries of judicial activism are phony, but my claim was that if you're looking for something close to judicial activism in recent times, Bush v. Gore is the best place to turn to. Your only response to this is "well, the original vote was 7-2", which is an appeal to popularity and not a valid argument. I don't care if the case was 9-0, the decision the justices made rested upon an unjustfied "Equal Protection" argument about how all ballots should be treated equally. This is absurd - there's no legal precedent, especially since the ENTIRE system of voting in this country is based on differing standards. The legal imperative is to have everyone's vote actually counted, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court prevented from happening. Whether or not Gore actually would have won the election is irrelevant to the question of the judicial activism in play - why the hell would you bring this up? What kind of crappy law program did you drop out of? On the Roe v. Wade issue, you say I'm making a fallacy but make no counter argument. Are you denying that a basis for privacy exists in the bill of rights et cetera, or that abortion is a privacy issue? The decision seems pretty clear - if there is no compelling state interest (aka, shortly after conception), then them trying to regulate it is an abject privacy violation. What's your counterstandard?
-
The fact that in Bush v. Gore the vote about the timing question was 5-4 in lieu of the earlier 7-2 (as you pointed out) shows that the judges had inconsistent views as to what their own constitutional standard would be, and how difficult it woudl be to satisfy. Which is hardly shocking, since they MADE IT UP.
-
Valebont, I'm not saying that court's don't exceed their powers or hand down terrible decisions (-the white lung case being a fine example of SC justices being social darwinist douchebags-) but the term "judicial activism" is a fraud. It's vague, overly broad, and is putting stupid fantasies in the minds of the general public such as the belief that judges should never make up law when the plain fact of the matter is that judges are forced to make law. Politicians on both ends of the spectrum regularly throw the term around to the point that the term is hollow and meaningless.
-
"Your only response to this is 'well, the original vote was 7-2', which is an appeal to popularity and not a valid argument." Bzzt. Wrong again. Is the Supreme Court a typical sample pool? NO. It's not as if I picked a random group, or something. It's the *SUPREME COURT.* You said that there was no constitutional basis to take the case, and I pointed out that 7 Supreme Court Justices disagree with your assertion. It's not about you versus 7 normal folk, it's the fact that 7 SCJs think you are wrong. The numbers being on my side is true, but it's no "appeal to the majority." Take some logic classes. When you're wrong, you're wrong. Don't try and cover it up by falsely pinning a logical fallacy on me. "Whether or not Gore actually would have won the election is irrelevant to the question of the judicial activism in play - why the hell would you bring this up?" Because people claim that the Supreme Court changed the outcome of the election. That isn't fact, yet some treat it as such. "What kind of crappy law program did you drop out of? " Are you in high school? I'll gladly compare brains with you if you wish, but I think it's a waste of time if you're just some kid smacking wildly away at computer keys. "On the Roe v. Wade issue, you say I'm making a fallacy but make no counter argument. " And...? "Are you denying that a basis for privacy exists in the bill of rights et cetera, or that abortion is a privacy issue?" I'm saying exactly what I said. You're drawing a line in the sand like an ignorant hard-liner without recognizing that some people can be in favor of privacy and opposed to abortion to some degree. "The decision seems pretty clear" Brilliant opinion. It's clear, therefore it's right? Or is it clear therefore infallible? Clarity is supposed to mean what, exactly? I don't have to oppose abortion to recognize that there are flaws in Roe, or that there are various opinions on the subject.
- if there is no compelling state interest (aka, shortly after conception), then them trying to regulate it is an abject privacy violation. What's your counterstandard? -
You do agree though that the oil companies have received billions of dollars in tax breaks.And I agree, as I mentioned above, that they royally (ha-ha) screwed up their royalty lease payments. And how can you assume that KaraIsAnIdiot doesn't earn his money? Do you?
-
http://www.acslaw.org/node
/3909
Justices Breyer and Scalia talk about the Constitution and judicial "activism." It's over an hour long, though, but worth it.
Also, Wiseblood, I remember talking with you about religion...I'm still not impressed with your arguments. Peace. -
So you concede my substantive points about how the basis for Bush v. Gore was based on nothing. The only argument you stick with is the "if 7 Supreme Court justices believe something, it must be true" position. Which, uh.....ok. I know they aren't random people off of the street, but if one is making a case for a court decision being WRONG, then the come back "well, the people who made the decision thought it was right", is circular at best. Roe v. Wade - ok, so I've put forth and explained a position, but you haven't explicated any of the "problems" you see with it. Do you think it should be overturned? if so, on what grounds? Unless you answer those questions, you really have nothing to say on that front.
-
I watched both, and both were hilarious!
-
another stupid liberal vs conservative trash talking session. FACT: Both Democrates and Republican will say anything to stay in power. FACT: Both are crumbling America into a partisan wasteland of ignorance and bickering. FACT: Both parties need huge reform and to build bridges with each other.
-
You should totally re-register with the Libertarian party. There's considerably less stupidity, and you have the added bonus of being able to just sit back and let the two major parties lie, belittle, and whine their way out of public favor. It also becomes FAR more enjoyable when some idiot brands you a "liberal/conservative blowhard"... and believe me, people will call you both. Assumptions. Gotta love 'em.
-
That's not totally true. The federal government can force states and local governments to do whatever they damn well please by witholding federal funding that states absolutely need in order to function (remember, most of the revenue generated by the state must be sent to the feds, who then send back to the state whatever they feel like sending back). It's a blatant perversion/manipulation of the concepts expressed in the constitution - but it exists nonetheless... as do many, many, MANY other actively exercised loopholes just like it.
-
Most Americans are now clueless to this fact and apt to surrender in the face of terrorist action, as the recent election results show.
-
I'm glad he's decided to escalate things in Iraq and finish this fight once and for all. Sadly, most Americans have become so deluded by the mainstream media, the anti-Christian Hollywood entertainment complex, the ACLU, tofu cuisine and the partisan far-left internet sites like MoveOn and the like that they won't recognize this fact. It sucks to be a patriot these days. A special slap-down to anti-Christian academics and corporate puppeteers who force us all to say Happy Holidays.
-
Right outta the Right Wing Catechism Book there friend. Dubya will not be vindicated but rather go down as the absolutely dumbest bastard to ever hold that office...c'mon, IRAQ?!! What was he thinking? Wasn't Afghanistan enough (read your history)? Has the tubby lady cleared her throat there must less started to sing? Creating enemies faster than you can kill them is not a mathematical equation this nation should've ever embarked upon. "The terrorist will follow us home!" Snicker, even my dog can't fathom the practical logic behind that one. ** "If you're an act, then what does that make me?" Ha-ha, priceless Mr. Colbert...priceless! Now there's truthiness for ya.
-
Thanks for well reasoned points!
1) Gore v. Harris was not tampering with state election law - the FSC made the right call on this, given that any ballots which were factually deemed to have been miscounted means that those specific voters were being disenfranchised, and Florida's constitution places the political capacity of the citizen paramount, and thus more important than Harris' discretion. The fact that counties count votes differently is a universal phenomenon, so for the SCOTUS to decide that this prevalent condition should be used as excuse to halt tabulation - clear voter disenfranchisement - is absurd.
2) Sure the word "privacy" doesn't appear, but do you think the 9th amendment means? It wasn't placed there for no reason - it was meant to protect citizens from the government from finding work arounds to deny citizens human rights - what the Founders saw as having a higher authority than the Constitution. And the 4th amendment makes it crystal clear that the right to privacy, especially with regards to one's own body, ranks amongst those basic human rights.
3. That's more a point of information than anything, but it bears mentioning that of the SC members who decided Lawrence v. Texas, only Sandra Day was ever a politician (I think). And you'd have to provide some real compelling evidence that most of the court decisions made in that area were politically motivated. Maybe "bad legal theory" from an Originalist position, which I would argue is hermeneutically suspect.
4. Maybe you're not aware, but part of Bowers v. Hardwick's decision was based upon prevailing public moral opinion. Thus, the shifting opinion on AIDS and homosexuals in the intervening 17 years very much changes the circumstances of the earlier decision; now the state's interest to restrict personal liberty in that case has far less legal justification. -
The court, according to the court (Marbury v. Madison), has the power of judicial review of legislative enactments and, perhaps, executive decisions beyond political questions. Consider the military detainees... Ex parte Milligan was a Civil War case during Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court determined that a US citizen, enemy combatant, held on US soil had the right to be heard in an Article III court and not before a military tribunal as Lincoln desired. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was decided in 2004. The defendant was an American citizen enemy combatant being held under US jurisdiction seeking application of the Writ. Same as Milligan. Same as Johnny Walker Lindh. HOWEVER, the court had a hard time seeing that. You know who wrote a dissent together? Justices SCALIA AND STEVENS!!! The court does not always act on the basis of law and precedent. When the court fails to do so, it avoids objective reasoning for personal or political conviction and ideology. The entire period of the Civil Rights movement was an important period of judicial activism. GreatOne2 made a good point about Lawrence v. Texas. Bowers v. Hardwick wasn't even an old decision. The basis for review concerning legislation that discriminates against a group on the basis of sexual orientation is and always has been that of rational basis scrutiny. This means wide judicial deference to legislative enactments. All Texas should have had to do was say that sodomy spreads AIDS. Doesn't matter that vaginal intercourse does also. As long as the enactment serves the public health (even if poorly) the court must step aside. In not stepping aside, the court abuses its power.
-
Your point in 2) is well made and recalls Griswold v. Connecticut. From the majority opinion... "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?" Of course not. Stewart was being absurd. Griswold suffers the same flaw as Lochner but the court erred on the "right" side of public opinion. And, while we're on it, Gonzales v. Raich was wrongly decided as well.
-
"So you concede my substantive points about how the basis for Bush v. Gore was based on nothing." No I didn't. "The only argument you stick with is the "if 7 Supreme Court justices believe something, it must be true" position." For brevity sake, yes, something like that. Quick and precisely, I'm highly suspicious of your claim that there was no reason to pick up the Gore case when 7 SCJs disagree with you. "I know they aren't random people off of the street, but if one is making a case for a court decision being WRONG, then the come back "well, the people who made the decision thought it was right", is circular at best. " Do me a favor, and differentiate between being "wrong" meaning coming to an incorrect outcome, and improperly taking a case. I'll respond when your post is less ambiguous. "ok, so I've put forth and explained a position, but you haven't explicated any of the 'problems' you see with it. " Nor do I have to. I'm not interested in starting up Roe v. Wade on the AICN Forum. That being said, I have no tolerance for loggerheads on EITHER side of the abortion issue who stubbornly say "Abortion isn't legal cuz it isn't moral" or "If you hate abortion you hate privacy." There's a wide range of beliefs and legal approaches to the topic-none of which I feel particularly compelled to advance or play devil's advocate for, for the sake of talkbacker edification- that are marginalized by stupid linedrawing. Go to Germany and see for yourself if you're in disbelief. "Unless you answer those questions, you really have nothing to say on that front" Don't be an idiot. I don't have to put forth my own views on abortion to say that you're argument is flawed.
-
"Ther is no specific mention of "privacy" in the Constitution, and therefore it is properly left to the states. " That's one theory. However, there is a good argument to be made in Griswold v. CT that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments act as a shield over the right of privacy. Although yes, generally speaking it is best to assume that when rights are enumerated, any words left out of a doctrine are to be constructed as purposefully left out. Though once again, I stress that Judicial activism is a phony catch-all concept. There's a lot of way to describe a bad decision, but "judicial activism" is rather cheap and meaningless.
Scrivener: "You should totally re-register with the Libertarian party. There's considerably less stupidity" In the Libertarian party there is *less* stupidity? Did you check that for typos? Are you talking about social libertarians or economic libertarians? Either way, gross... -
It's not always a bad thing. We legislate morality all the time, but clearly lines have to be drawn somewhere. Don't knock "moral legislation" sheerly due to the fact that it is morally motivated.
-
Colbert ON O'Reilly was fairly unfunny.
Colbert was playing too nice.
O'Reilly ON Colbert was funny, because Colbert could say whatever he wanted.
Still too tame though. I was hoping for something more like when O'Reilyl goes on Letterman or something. -
You're wrong on this. Judges have to make law. Go ask a federal judge if they are forced to make law, and any honest judge will tell you the truth. THEY HAVE TO MAKE LAW. Not everything is codified, and even when there is a statute, it isn't always clear, there isn't always a right answer, SO THE JUDGE TAKES A STAND AND CREATES LAW! How do you think we get things passed through the house and senate? Say a bill comes up protecting pregnant women from assault and rasining the penalty. Both political parties are loathe to put in strict language; dems want to strike the word "life" as it pertains to a fetus, republicans want the bill to say the fetus is a person, and the bill passes when the two parties compromise on the language and make it ambiguous. Eventually, someone kills a pregnant lady, and it goes to the court and the judge has this compromised phrasing in his statute. Is the fetus a person, or is it simply a condition for raising the penalty of killing a pregnant woman? There's no precedent, the language is purposefully vague, So what does the judge do? THE JUDGE MAKES LAW. The judge takes a stand, his own belief and opinion, her own JUDGMENT on the matter, and poof! Law is made. It happens all the time. When people scream "Judicial Activism!" odds are they are complaining about something judges do regularly, yet this time they actually care about the issue for their own purposes. So come up with a more accurate phrasing. Say "unconstitutional" or "unnecessary overextension of power" if that truly does apply, or whatever the case may be, but "judicial activism" is a phony concept. Judges make law. Don't be shocked. Don't act so surprised. They are expected to do so.
-
The prize for worst president currently rests on Jimmy Carter's mantlepiece, where it will likely stay forever. Besides being a jew-hating twerp who never met a dictator he didn't love, the latest fiasco is his written support for an SS prison guard and proven nazi war criminal. He is not only a disgrace as an ex-president who pockets millions in Saudi money and writes error-riddled anti-Israeli books, he's also a disgrace as a human being.
-
The population is barely at replacement levels now, the last thing the US needs is a lower birthrate. Countries like China, France, England, Canada and especially Russia are so far below replacement levels there may be no time left to turn it around.
-
Are you claiming that Hamdi is a case of judicial activism because of Milligan? Rather bizarre, given the outcome of the Hamdi case. What kind of activism are you referring to? The plurality decision which had conservatives fighting conservatives liberals against liberals and moderates against moderates should have clued you in on the idea that this issue is rather vague to begin with. And you seem to assume that Hamdi and Milligan are on an equal par. What applies to Milligan and what applies to Hamdi is EXACTLY what the whole damn case was about. You take for granted that Hamdi should be afford the process afforded Milligan, but that's the whole frikkin' question. One thing that the dissenters AND the controlling plurality in Hamdi agreed on was that the SC had long since changed notions as to what degree of power militray tribunals have over detainees. It flows. It changes. It's speculative at times. And some people feel the urge to label it "judicial activism." Let's quit using this stupid term.
-
I heard all this monstrous stuff about O'Reilly (which I realize now comes from ignorant idiots who froth when their absurd ideas are challenged), but when I saw him he seemed pretty reasonable. He can seem like a bit of a dick, which makes him great when he's right and just smacks down idiots, and annoying when I disagree with him (pretty much how I feel about Michael Moore, though I've seen him straight-out lie a lot more than I've seen O'Reilly, though I've just seen more of Moore so far so that might be the reason). He's not even that conservative (though I've seen him admit that he plays up the conservative angle for his show, but leans more libertarian if anything). Most of the venom seems to come from idiots who can't stand the idea that somebody can expose them as idiots by making reasonable arguments.
I DID see when O'Reilly "debated" Moore and Moore made one of the worst arguments I've ever seen against the Iraq war when he asked O'Reilly if he'd "sacrifice his own son." What world does Moore live in where one has the option of sacrificing their own son to do something? Certainly not the U.S. - that would be up to O'Reilly's son, I'd wager. And what was extra annoying was that O'Reilly seemed to grasp how incredibly stupid and fallacious that question was, yet didn't really point that out. When I heard people say that Moore "defeated O'Reilly" with that comment, it just made me realize that they were morons who know nothing about logic and just latch on to any ridiculous statement that seems to support their own uninformed views. Sad. -
"as a generally worded language allows a judge to either broadly or narrowly interpret the intent of the legislation." Exactly, though more than just broadly... legislative compromise leaves the judge to decide what the law should be according to her particular tastes, in effect making the judge create law. This happens quite regularly, and is not limited to intentionally ambiguous legislation by any means. Statutes are often messy and vague, so judges are left to interpret the law and create law as the situation may call for. I have no problem acknowledging unconstitutional usurpation of power by the courts, or the court acting contrary to the Constitution, but the term "judicial activism" needs to be eradicated from political language, as it has become a bloated, unwieldly catchall phrase that has tarnished difficult decisions where the legislature failed to put forth a bright line for the courts to follow. Courts don't typically have the luxury of saying "sorry guys, we can't rule on this because there's no clear message from Congress." It doesn't work that way, and it's entirely impractical to expect it to work that way. The term lets slimy politicians slander other slimy politicans, scare the ignorant, and slander the names of judges and their respective ideologies. That criticism goes to conservatives and liberals, populists and libertarians alike. Unfortunately, stupid people vote, and stupid people believe that their favorite politicians brand of "judicial activism" really exists. It's a pernicious phrase that needs to go. I'm not particularly hot on the penumbra theory either, though I do have difficulty believing that the FFs didn't think privacy needed to be protected to some extent. While I find that the Roe decision, and to a lesser extent the Griswold decision were taking liberties with the idea of privacy protection, I do think that privacy has marginal protection under the Constitution, and usually the state will afford privacy in its own statutes, though it be not required.
-
I agree with good old Melnick666 here. King GWB is not the worst by a long shot. He is the worst by a REALLLLLLY REALLLLLY REALLLLY UNBELIAVABLY EXTRA SUPER DUPER long shot. I would even say he is the best at certain things. Like sucking, being a terrible president (although in his defense he doesn't really try to be a good president, he tries to be a king), being an insane meglomaniacal dictaor wannabe, and lying.
-
Concerning Milligan and Hamdi... read Stevens/Scalia dissent. Their basic contention is that a distinction between Milligan and Hamdi didn't need to be drawn. Obviously they were alone on the bench; however, I find the fact that two men diametrically opposed on so many issues (and absolutely brilliant jurists among those currently sitting) saw an elegant legal solution that makes good judicial sense. I guess my main beef is that the case is wrongly decided. As far as evolution of military tribunals go... not really. At least not in the courts.
Concerning judge-made law, sure it exists. Just as the legislature forfeits authority to control the president, our legislative branch regularly refuses to do their job while law-making. Legislators are politicians and intentionally choose ambiguous phrasing hoping that judges will do their job for them. However, there is a difference between sending a law back for changes and trying to use an opinion to write a way around a future legislative enactment. Consider Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Carhart.
I agree judicial activism is a sloppy and overused term; however, it is often appropriate when surveying cases concerning abortion, homosexuality, &c. Members of the court have a social agenda from which they cannot divorce themselves. Now, it may be that they don't see it, but Justice Thomas does. AND Justice Thomas would also be an activist if anyone else agreed with him. In any event, I'm thinking about going to talk to Justice Breyer tomorrow and ask him if he recognizes judicial activism in the court or at any point in the history of the court. Don't care much for Breyer, but I went to see Thomas and it was more interesting than I thought it might be. My favorite part was when he was asked about the increasing power of the executive branch and he responded, "Trust your government." Nice. -
Let’s see, last time I checked,
1) The stock market is at an all-time high, thus
2) Retirement accounts are at last recovering.
3) Unemployment is at a 25-year low,
4) Taxes are at 20-year lows,
5) Federal revenues are at all-time highs,
6) The Federal deficit is down almost 50%,
7) Real estate values have soared,
8) Inflation is at a 20-year low,
9) There have been no successful attacks since 9/11,
10) Al Queda is being taken apart, one body at a time.
11) U.S. and British Intelligence have thwarted a number of attacks.
12) The terrorists are flocking to Iraq to be killed, instead of boarding planes for this country.
If any of your writers were as honest they dare you to be, they would admit that, if the president who had accomplished this in the face of such difficulty had a “D” after his name instead of an “R”, they would be singing his praises to the heavens. But no, the country is falling apart. Only if a Democrat takes the White House will everything instantly be perfect again. -
Insert, you just can't let go of the 'Bush lied' storyline no matter how much reality intrudes. Remember the NYT headline right before the election about how the US gov't left an untranslated copy of Iraq's detailed nuclear plans on a website, plans that would be incredibly dangerous in the hands of the Iranians. Really? That sounds like a WMD-in-waiting to me, all he had to do was wait out the sanctions that you were so desperate to end and he was back in business. Sitting on billions in oil and with his hands free to put the band back together. Awesome!
The threat posed by Saddam's Iraq was not exactly dismissed by Democrats as recently as 2003. For example:
John Kerry, October 9, 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
One more from John Kerry, January 23, 2003:
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real... -
"Concerning Milligan and Hamdi... read Stevens/Scalia dissent. Their basic contention is that a distinction between Milligan and Hamdi didn't need to be drawn." So... because Scalia and Stevens believe that the rest of the court is drawing false or meaningless distinction, therefore Judicial activism? This is *exactly* why the term should be discarded. Truly, I mean no offense to either of those Justices, but just because they disagree with the majority doesn't mean there is "judicial activism."... I don't even recall, but do the *dissenters* even feel this is judicial activism? Once again, that term is just slapped on any controversial decision that doesn't suit one's personal ideology or preference or interpretation. "I find the fact that two men diametrically opposed on so many issues (and absolutely brilliant jurists among those currently sitting) saw an elegant legal solution that makes good judicial sense. " So what? Did you not take notice that Rehnquist and Breyer were in agreement with the controlling plurality decision? I'm not even sure what to make of your implication that opposites agreeing on something is supposed to lend credibility to the case for judicial activism, but you can at least acknowledge that political opposites were united on both ends of this decision. "I agree judicial activism is a sloppy and overused term" Then use more precise and accurate terminology. "Judicial activism" and it's evil sister "legislate from the bench" are sloppy and misleading and have outlived their usefulness.
-
...Neutron, why don't you post some more of Hillary's speech to Congress on Oct. 10, 2002? Y’know, like: “While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998. If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition. If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” Why didn’t you post this part? “My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.” Clearly she recognized the need to thwart Saddam’s designs but not using war as the first option and not if that war is intended as starter for a wider war of pre-emption. The “lying” of the president is in his manipulation (ruined Colin Powel’s credibility forever) of the more current analysis of Saddam’s WMD capability. He has been caught in numerous lies concerning the war since then. The bottom line is that he and his staff only looked so far as to defeating the standing Iraqi army…not what came after. Incompetence coupled with hubris and an enormous dose of arrogance is what we got. The stupidity is that he ignored how tough it was going to be in Afghanistan over the long haul and how badly it would stretch our military commitment. This is equally stupid as Hitler invading the Soviets before he had conquered Britain…a two front war. As for Carter, who here has done more for humanitarian causes and worldwide vote monitoring than he? Please, step up and start listing your comparable credentials.
-
Let’s see; terrorist favor soft targets so why aren’t they attacking US civilians in the US NOW instead of our incredibly well armed and capable military in Iraq? Has alQuida suddenly gotten stupid (I hope so)? Many of the suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by, in essence, paid mercenaries, who are only doing it for money to feed their families. Are there currently Muslims in the US that can be recruited in such a way? Did the suicide bombers in London come from Iraq? No, they were home-grown. Yeah, I can just pictures waves of Jihadi’s sitting on a US bound plane discussing how they are going to uncover their weapons cache sites that they buried here in the first Gulf War. No wait, maybe they’ll start a credit card account at Southern States Feed n’ Supply to get their ammonia nitrate fertilizer. Quite sure Hugo Chavez gave ‘em all Citgo credit cards to buy the diesel fuel. I’m sorry, it’s just a ridiculous notion but “They’ll Follow Us Home!!” sure looks good on a bumper sticker. Sigh, another mindless right-wing catechism.
-
...with you also o’ GreatOne2. Got any more mindless cliché’s to throw about? Wow, never heard that one before. How thoughtfull of you to grace me with that...did you sit up half the night thinking it up? Are you happy that you've levied an insult at someone at AICN? Big man indeed...nice bucket of internet courage you've pulled up there my friend. So you take your geopolitical cues from Henry Kissinger? I personally believe every word out of his mouth and his intentions have always been so noble and a genuine benefit to humanity as a whole. And, of course, Kissinger was being entirely objective when he made that statement. Don't you think the fall of the Shah, given the near-Saddam like way he ran his country, was going to happen anyway? Reagan or Carter admin, it was going to happen. I suppose you might consider the bungling by Reagan in Lebanon (how many Marines killed?) the right way for us to handle events in the Middle East and Carter should've followed that path in Iran, yes? One debacle (Desert 1) was enough, thank you. I'm guessing you'd rather we had engaged in a pre-emptive invasion of Iran to free the hostages. Must our nation always seem to be stuck between admin's who either want to initiate WWIII or completely back down from any threat? Carter was a bungler of foreign affairs, no doubt (I never said otherwise), but to lay the entire blame of the rise of radical Islam at his feet is ridiculous and could only be uttered by the most partisan of individuals. Give me a break buddy and I’m quite sure you’d call Jimmy Carter an asshole to his face. Do you have any capacity for civil discussion? Please continue to insult away and you and I can personally make W’s dream of “uniting” Americans come even closer to reality. Cheers…
-
Ok Morgoth, you got me, I didn't post everyone's entire speech. It's a talkback, not a graduate thesis. Without exception, everyone in the world in a position to know better than you or I believed that Saddam had the WMDs, but it may yet turn out that all he had were the plans, the people, the structure, the desire, the intent and soon enough the billions of oil dollars to put all the pieces back together. You didn't forget that he used WMDs already, and that UNSCOM oversaw the destruction of most but not all of his VX nerve gas, sarin, etc. Of course you didn't. So while he may not have had his WMDs lined up and labelled when the coalition freed Iraq, he had them before, he used them before, and he had every intention to have and use them again. Unlike you, I'm glad he and his sons are dead.
Now 'unilateralism' - that's a big word, let's break it down. 'Uni' for a start, that means one. As in a single country attacking, as opposed to the 30 or so that were involved. Forget the rest of the word, actually, your point is moot right out of the gate.
Carter's vote monitoring included the rigged election in Venezuela, and I'm sure he supported Saddam's 99.7% victory as wholeheartedly as did CNN.
Hey Vog, use both hands for a change and do a google search on replacement levels. You need an average of 2.1 babies per woman to keep the population growing. While the US is barely hanging on, much of Europe is aging at an alarming rate. Here's a link for you in case the zipper got stuck: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
-
I'm sorry, I didn't say enough about what a jew-hating scumbag Carter is. Did I mention he hates the jews and Israel? He hates them so much he wrote a personal note of support for an SS prison guard convicted of murdering jewish prisoners for the nazis; now that's conviction. He just wrote a book about how awful Israel is, to 'open debate', only he refused to debate anyone. He said Alan Dershowitz doesn't know anything about the situation so he can't be bothered debating him. This is laughable on its face, as Dershowitz has written at least two books on the subject and has spent far more time in the region than Carter ever has or will.
Whatever good Carter has done is outweighed by a large margin by his unconscionable support of murderous tyrants and the hateful anti-US bile that spews out his mouth every time he leaves the country. It's amazing what millions of Saudi money will buy, an ex-president even. -
The President is never attributable to any ups and downs of the economy. Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom in the 90's and Bush is not responsible for any downturns during his tenure or upturns. And while the deficit was at a four year low, it is projected to worsen in 2007 by the Congressional Budget Office. What's even funnier is that the White House projects it to be $53 billion WORSE than the CB Office. So from the economic side of it, you have no proof that things are better with Bush.I do agree with you that the Democrats won't make it better since they are all in the same boat with the Republicans.
-
bold
-
test
-
test
-
...now...
-
testingonetwothree
-
twentyfourcharactersfour
-
twentyfourcharactersfourandthenlet'sseethemagicplease
-
boldisgreatboldisgreatbo so let's see some damn bold!
-
sonowlet'stryagainplease ok?
-
okay, let's try once moretimeforashitloadwords...when will it work?
-
okay, let's try once moretimeforashitloadwords...when will it work?
-
We must be highly careful
bouthowthefirstlineturnsIt's all about the line turns. Gotta make sure the first line doesn't turn wrong, and the second is all one piece so it's forced to turn mid-code. -
so let's do this what damn.timehereweagainbastards.so when does it happen?
-
test........................and now bold?
-
Like so.
looknospaceslooknospacesGotcha? -
Like so.looknospaceslooknospacesGo tcha?
-
test123123123111111111111111bold
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts