If Bill Mahar doesn't straighten up, I'm going Conservative

[Knothead]

look out, it's a rant...

Okay, OuT, okay Daveleau, (and anybody else) gather 'round and have a laugh at my expense:

I admit, I'm not real media-savvy these days ( I tend to ignore TV, and newspapers. If it weren't for Theophylact, I wouldn't have ANY NEWS input at all! hehehe)

Take your mouse off that "back" button. NOW!

Anyway, you guys have gotten me real interested in Ann Coulter, and I was bored, and flippin' around the TV wasteland, and noticed this "Bill Mahar Real Time" or something show, (with Ann Coulter and Arianna Huffington. Irresistable.) and I innocently tuned in.

What a wash job!! It was disgusting! They had:

Bill Mahar, the host, who can be funny on his own terms, but this guy makes me look like the biggest gasbag Conservative you ever saw. I cannot believe he actually thinks some of the dumb stuff he was bleating....

Ann Coulter, who actually tried to shout some actual FACTS into the discussion...she also knows enough not to throw heavy items at people she disagrees with, and in fact, she scores viewer points when she smiles and laughs. Girl knows how to "work" the camera...

Calif. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, another Conservative, who sat next to Coulter. Also tried to bring hards FACTS into this singularly 1-sided discussion. He's not the camera-friendly person Coulter is, unfortunately...

Orlando Jones, what on earth was he doing there? Another funny guy, but the same liberal cliche-funny-haha jazz. Somebody please inform this guy people are getting tired of it. Well maybe they're not, but I sure am.

So what I saw was like this: Mahar gets to run the whole deal, (his big desk separates him from the others) and the camera automatically cuts to him whenever he interrupted Coulter or Rohrabacher.

Mahar makes an (IMO) ridiculous statement, which Coulter and/or Rohrabacher tries to field.

It is immediately apparent that Coulter and Rohrabacher are attempting to cite hard facts, whereas Mahar and Jones are simply interrupting and throwing funny (and fact-free) jibes.

Rohrabacher got buried right away. Poor guy tends to yield when loudmouthed dumbasses cut him off. Too bad, he tried to make some points, but Orlando Jones had yet another stupid Hollywood cliche joke to cut him off with. Buh-bye Dana.

Coulter, OTOH, did a pretty good job of staying in there, which wasn't easy, since the audience was a bunch of Mahar fans who applauded whatever interruption Mahar cracked. But give her some due, she laughed along with them, then continued her own spiel. She actually was very media-savvy.

Here's the main observation: This so-called "discussion" show is absolutely and very obviously constructed to "squelch" any non-liberal viewpoint.

And I know it's been said here lots of times, but good lord, I can't remember ever seeing anything on TV this one-sided and just plain stupid! Do people actually watch TV, expecting to gain insight? What we saw was, some very smart people assembled who were chopped into pieces.... okay fine, but it wasn't even entertaining! It was an insult!

Look, liberals, knock it off....because these conservatives are learning to deal with your stupidity and work with it...

Does the name "Darwin" mean anything to you? These conservative pundits are adapting, and mutating into debate/life forms who will eat your brains on live TV!!

Yum, yum, I can scarcely wait. I promise to turn on the idiot box again next year, and I fully expect to see Ann Coulter with her own dang show...

"With our guest, Bill 'Mr. Liberal Retard' Mahar...."

Pleh.

[ben-the-slacker]

Time to turn on that tv and tune in to Fox and Oreilly.

[MTAtech]

Coulter generally is loose with the facts and does a lot of liberal bashing. She believes that if one repeats a lie enough it will be accepted as fact.

This is what Al Franken said about Coulter:

"Coulter says that after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion contrary to a New York Times' position, the New York Times then responded with an editorial about Thomas called 'The Youngest, Cruelest Justice.' Coulter goes on to say that Thomas is called 'a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race trader,' 'black snake,' 'chicken and biscuit-eating Uncle Tom,' 'house Negro' and 'handkerchief head.'

"Now how many here," Franken asked the audience, "can guess that the New York Times did *not* call Clarence Thomas a 'chicken and biscuit-eating Uncle Tom' or a 'colored lawn jockey?' " The house lights came up and we saw the entire audience guffawing and holding up their hands.

"Right. Ann Coulter defends herself with a footnote that shows where these names for Clarence Thomas really came from, so she can say she's being honest. But what this really shows is her contempt for her readers. She thinks because of the way she writes that people are going to believe the New York Times has actually referred to a United States Supreme Court Justice as a 'handkerchief head.' "

[M_Six]

Coutler throws her share of non-factual BS around, too. But you've struck an excellent point, Knot. The issues are rarely decided based on in-depth discussion and serious critical thought. Issues and elections are very often just an indicator of which side had the best sound bites. And for ages now that side has been the Republicans.

I'm watching Ol' Ralphie Nader. If he decides to run again, it's all over but the crying. He gave the election to Bush last time and he'll do it again if he runs this time.

[Bill in SD, CA]

Welcome to conservatiism Knot! Well .... almost.

Dennis Miller would tear Maher a new one IMO but Maher wouldn't have the guts to have him on the show for fear of being shown up.

Fox has him on Hannity and Colmes on Fridays at the end of the show. Well worth watching.

Bill

[daveleau]

Knot,
This is exactly why there are books like How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and Found Inner Peace by Stein. Actually, in looking for intelligent arguments, I have to agree that liberals very rarely stand their ground with facts and go toe to toe with conservatives. Typically, the surroundings for liberal platforms are either devoid of dissenting opinion, or they try to put down an opinion in an emotion-based way, not with facts. That is why the country is tipping to the right. It only takes so much for 20-somethings to come out of the fog-like stupor that the ultra-left professors are indoctorinating our children with. If liberals would knock it off and look at facts and figure things out to make good arguments they'd be...well they'd be Conservatives.

Knot, I understand that your ideas are based on more than what I alluded to above. I know the liberals have some good ideas. I am just glad to see that a your eyes are opening to the ways of the liberal argument.

[sharder8]

Ah, Kn-o-o-t-t-t-t!!!

Don't join the Conservatives!!!

Join me and become a Non-Partisan!!!

Then you can pick on both sides!!!

Harder

[Knothead]

lol, you guys! Well, I'm not ready to throw my "bleeding heart" into the trash, but if anything has happened here, this has brought the basic difference between Conservatives and Liberals into extremely sharp focus, to wit:

Conservatives, in general, tend to base their thinking on brainwork and hard facts.

Liberals, OTOH, tend to base their thinking on intuitive thought, and their "feeling" on how things should be.

Overly simplistic? You bet! But doggone, when you look at this difference in this light, it sure goes a long way in explaining why these two camps can't have a decent argument. There is no allowance on either side for the basis of their opponent's thought process.

The Conservative argues that political directives and agendas must be based on existing facts. The Liberal argues that progress can be made only by creating a reality in which these facts can change.

Again, very simplistic, but it's process that I'm on about here. (And a side note to arguers of any persuasion, the constant interrupting and cutting off of the other person's communication is rude, stupid, and indicative of an unpolished, fearful mind. Shut up and listen, Bill and Orlando, et al.)

Some random lengths:

(MTAtech) "Now how many here," Franken asked the audience, "can guess that the New York Times did *not* call Clarence Thomas a 'chicken and biscuit-eating Uncle Tom' or a 'colored lawn jockey?' " The house lights came up and we saw the entire audience guffawing and holding up their hands.

Anybody notice that Franken DID NOT say, "Anybody read the article and note that the NYTimes didn't say that?" No. Franken merely inferred that Coulter fibbed, and the audience (sympathetic to Franken,) ran with it.

(M_Six)The issues are rarely decided based on in-depth discussion and serious critical thought. Issues and elections are very often just an indicator of which side had the best sound bites. And for ages now that side has been the Republicans.

Right on, M_Six. Why do we put up with it? My guess is, we're a bunch of sheep. Either that, or just too tired and shagged-out at the end of the day to be willing to work at changing this present deplorable state of affairs in what we're pleased to call a "media". Sad.

(Daveleau) If liberals would knock it off and look at facts and figure things out to make good arguments they'd be...well they'd be Conservatives.

Heh, that gave me a giggle, then I realized the almost zen-like nature of that statement. Perfectly true! Like, 'if pigs had wings, they'd be birds'...ya know?

(SHarder)Don't join the Conservatives!!!
Join me and become a Non-Partisan!!!
Then you can pick on both sides!!!

HAHAHAHA!! Move over Steve, here I come!

[Phideaux]

Originally posted by Knothead
Conservatives, in general, tend to base their thinking on brainwork and hard facts.

Conservatives base their arguments on lies they create. They feel if they keep repeating the same lie over and over eventually people accept them as truths.

Bill Mahr is a comedian. Just like Rush, and O'really and all the idiots over a the Facist News Network FOX, aka the New York Post TV.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Phideaux


Conservatives base their arguments on lies they create. They feel if they keep repeating the same lie over and over eventually people accept them as truths.

Bill Mahr is a comedian. Just like Rush, and O'really and all the idiots over a the Facist News Network FOX, aka the New York Post TV.

You just described the Liberal politicians and press to a "T". FOX is the only news network willing to put both sides of the argument their shows without resorting to the name calling and "right wing" bashing you see on the Liberal "news" shows.