Bill O'Reilly Kicks Spongebob's Butt and MSNBC's Too

[opiatetool41]

of course your ratings are high bill,the majority of Americans are complete idiots who cannot form their own opinions so they listen to you

[zylpher2]

lolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox newslolfox

[AndroidPolitician]

I got a feeling these comments need to be approved

[ExcellentAmerican]

No, nothing of the sort. So if you want to, you can make a real comment now.

[AndroidPolitician]

Real Comment:

It's really pathetic how O'Reilly boasts about being against the "mainstream media" and being for the little guy and then talks about how good his ratings are and how his ratings are coincidentally better then the "mainstream media".

Also since when do you use ratings to gauge quality?

[TrekkieAtlantis]

McCain/Palin 08

[masudrules]

ExcellentAmerican, the reason they used Fox News as a source for the Palin being stupid story is that Fox News is the parrot of the Republican Party

[ironhardt]

masudrules, Are you serious? Every network out there ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,BBC,PBS, and that minor league channel MSNBC have been in the tank for the Democrats for the past 40 years or since their inception. FOX is the only channel that tries to be non-biased. You liberal a-holes have all the major venues and still cry about FOX. It will be a dangerous time when every single news agency is in bed with the Government. FOX NEWS HAS THE BALLS TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN OF LIBERAL LUNACY.

[masudrules]

Fox News has been in bed with this administration, and it has done so unabashedly and very frequently...anybody that disagrees with some of Bush's disastrous policies isn't necessarily a liberal, he/she is just a clear thinker...Fox News, in turn, calls these people anti-American because they don't spout the usual line about American superiority (which translates into imperialism)

It's going to be interesting to see how FNC reports now that they can no longer be the parrot of the powers that be

[QuartuvLarry]

It WOULD be interesting, if the democrats don't try to muzzle them with the patently unfair "fairness doctrine". "Schmuck" Shumer actually compared the free exchange of ideas to porno. PORNO, FOR GOD'S SAKE!

I'm sure you understand this.

[masudrules]

The fairness doctrine required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced; how is that "patently unfair"? (that is, unless you want to silence the other side...like...say...cut-his-mi­c- O'Reilly or we're-out-of-time-Hannity)

I partially agree with Schumer, talking just for the sake of talking is like mental masturbation, so it is like porno in a sense.

[QuartuvLarry]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems you disappoint.

SO! You think our free speech should be government-approved first, eh? That it is somehow a better judge of what we can and cannot say than the public? Ratings SHOULDN'T decide that? What an evil thing democracy must be to you!

[masudrules]

Ratings can decide that to an extent, but look how they've done so up until now...the most watched shows on TV, for example, are degrading, porn-related (if not porn itself) and downright vile with no intellectual or moral content...the same can be said of talk radio: full of smear tactics, anserine arguments and ignorant analysis (by the way, it cuts across the board; this applies to Rush Limbaugh as well as, say, Air America)

[QuartuvLarry]

In other words, give the people what the GOVERNMENT wants. Not what the PEOPLE want. I think there's something like that in Saudi Arabia called the morality police. Good call.

And just think turning that dial will stop you from being a victim of Rush's point of view!

[masudrules]

I'm not defending that radical point of view, but when teenagers are murdering each other in schools and universities partially because of the garbage they watch on TV, or are at each others throats all the time because of the partisanship displayed in talk radio, it's time for regulation. This situation is analogous to that in which the world's economy finds itself; it's time to abandon this laissez-faire, free-market, "what the people want", politics of the rabble ideology

[QuartuvLarry]

Teenagers listen to Rush Limbaugh?! That's a laugh! Kids don't listen to politics as a general rule, because they're only just learning about it. You wouldn't consider the leftist education system in this country having some being countered by talk radio if that were the case?

And that last sentence of yours is truly telling of the disease infecting this country. So you think that the will of the people should be undermined by the government, do you? Well I think not, and don't you even try it!

[masudrules]

I'm sorry, I forgot to add in "people"...I meant when "people" are at each other's throats, not kids...

And about my last sentence, let's not forget that the government IS the emanation of the will of the people, so in that sense, the terms "government" and "people" should be used synonymously. So the government isn't undermining the will of the people through the fairness doctrine.

[QuartuvLarry]

"the terms 'government' and 'people' should be used synonymously."

So when people protest government, that means they're protesting themselves? I see this EXACT same kind of language when communist tyrannies exert the will of the "people" to oppress the people.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-George Washington

[masudrules]

I couldn't agree more...but what's wrong with force if it's used for good? According to Max Weber, the state holds the "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force"...if this were not the case, we'd be living in total anarchy. No doubt, there have been abuses of power along the way, which is what I think you're talking about, but it stems from a sound principle of institutionalized legitimacy, a corollary of which is democracy.

[QuartuvLarry]

You'd still be legitimizing the consolidation of power the government doesn't deserve, to which gun rights becomes involved. And what do you have to defend yourself without that? REFERENDUM?! Good God! Do you realize that anarchy is an extreme RIGHT-WING idealism? Notice how many conservatives want SMALLER government. If Weber's right, we need to take away that monopoly. So tell me what's right with force if the government has it all and can so easily turn it to do evil.

[masudrules]

The government does deserve to defend it's people, in fact, it's obliged to do so...we need to take away that monopoly? And give it to whom? The people? Can't people turn it to do evil?

Anybody CAN "so easily turn it to do evil", including the government, but the latter is, as stated previously, an emanation of the will of the people, so if the people want to do evil, so will the government. You speak of the government and the people as separate entities; that's monarchy, not democracy

[QuartuvLarry]

The government is there to protect our freedoms, not to be the arbiters of "fairness" since their judgment is no better than ours. A vigilant person would see increased regulation on our freedoms for what it is: A power grab.

Maybe you don't see it because it's just one more chip. Well, it's one more before the next, and you''d better learn to see the forest through the trees.

I decide who or what I want to hear. ME! The government doesn't know better than that! Get it?

[masudrules]

I recommend you read some Rousseau, Hobbes, or Locke. You'll understand that for a governmental system to work, the people need to give up certain liberties to the state in order to gain other liberties in order to live together; Rousseau calls this the "social contract".

Their judgment is no better than ours? So when the Supreme Court (which is part of the government) makes a decision, you wouldn't accept it, because that's a "power grab"? Do you believe in any laws at all??

[QuartuvLarry]

The Constitution is to be the final authority on this. Tell me which part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifies the government's right to control free speech. Go on.

And the Supreme Court? The NON-elected justices? So, there's nothing wrong with legislating from the bench, eh?

[masudrules]

Free speech has its limits. Two examples:

1. You don't have free speech on private property.

2. The "harm principle" or the "offense principle" (i.e. pornography or hate speech)

The government has not only the right but the obligation to control these kinds of free speech. The "people", the way you meant it, (a non-institutionalized group of individuals) don't know better; the "people", as I state it, (i.e. the government as an emanation of the will of the people) does know better

[masudrules]

I wouldn't say they're not elected; they need to be confirmed by the Senate (legislative branch, i.e. the emanation of the will of the people) and then go on to form the judicial branch. If they supplant the legislative branch, as you're suggesting, yes, that would be unacceptable.

[QuartuvLarry]

You've shown a preference of the government to CONTROL the people. "Hate speech" is a nebulous concept and can be twisted -with impunity!- to mean anybody that does not agree with you. Just look how the morons have tossed around the word "racist" at people who oppose Obama, AND with very little basis on fact or provability!

The state IS separate from the people, and it's only right that it should fear the people.

How is the Senate's approval rating? Justices can't set court precedence?

[masudrules]

Any principle can be twisted; does that mean we shouldn't have principles?

How can the state be separate from the people? Don't you believe in elections??

The Senate's approval rating hasn't always been low; in fact, it was high during the Clinton years, should we go back to that? Of course justices can set court precedence, but that's not the same thing as supplanting the legislative branch, which would be unacceptable

[QuartuvLarry]

Roe v. Wade is one example of the court supplanting legislation.

And the state is separate from the people so long as it is there to service us, not the other way around. It's a sign of mass complacency when the people see no foreboding in claims by politicians who promise to "change" the people. It's not the job of the state to tell the people who to be or how to live. Hence, the "fairness" doctrine is incompatible to a free society.

[QuartuvLarry]

Besides, what right does the state have to outlaw attitudes?

[masudrules]

Attitudes can lead (and generally do lead) to actions, and if they're dangerous, the state needs to step in.

For example, if a radio station were to air a broadcast of somebody calling for the murder of people from a certain ethnic or religious background, can't the state step in to "outlaw attitudes"?

[QuartuvLarry]

And I never said open threats to any one person or group of people was acceptable. In fact, that is very line crossed where the state must step in. But before that line, little more than vigilance should be permissible.

[masudrules]

I think our disagreement and hence our argument stems from our different takes on what the role of government ought to be. While I agree that the government shouldn't be omnipresent and totalitarian, it seems I believe in more government than you do.

However, I think it's safe to say that we do agree that our political system is broken, we just envisage different scenarios for solutions, as a result of our differing criteria for what makes a good government.

[QuartuvLarry]

Indeed. However, I would not make the mistake of equating government power and force as inextricably to the will of the people, as the state IS and always SHOULD BE a separate body from the people; that it should always, always be regarded with high degree of suspicion and vigilance.

[masudrules]

I would say "HEALTHY suspicion", but ok, I can agree with that, as long as regarding the state with "a high degree of suspicion and vigilance" does not equate to paranoia, because this would make it impossible to govern and to be governed, right?

[QuartuvLarry]

Exactly. And that's why they should have as little control of the media as possible, lest they use that power to allay suspicion or even dissent.

[masudrules]

I can agree with you, but I still believe that the fairness doctrine isn't wrong in principle; because what you just stated sounds like we should think of government as bad and ill-willed by DEFINITION and from the outset, and I don't think that's a healthy environment in which one can govern or be governed. If it were up to me, I would put in some checks and balances not to allow the government to abuse its power

[QuartuvLarry]

Imagine if putting opposing viewpoints on one show, then one side one the argument; the government might see that as grounds to penalize for (I invented the term just now) "unlawful bias." And if it could come to that, it's a very short leap towards government abuse.

There's already opposing viewpoints from which various pedestals exist to prop them up. The more highly funded and hegemonic belongs to the left, i.e. MTV, Rolling Stone, the Hollywood establishment. The right has radio, cable...

[QuartuvLarry]

I said "one side one the argument" I meant that second to be "won"

[AndroidPolitician]

yeah MTV's and Hollywood's commercialism is totally left-wing....

[QuartuvLarry]

...both have internet. And while many on the right complain about the slanted coverage from various leftist news media, very much fewer of them than the left actually call for the government to step in and give their own viewpoint a free ride with such a thing as the "fairness" doctrine.

The varied media may SEEM unfairly stacked, but what little platform is available to one side is made up for by viewership/listenership/reader­ship.

[PatriotMcCain]

Fox News is good for the 1st Amendment.