Unfair and unbalanced

Apart from their different political perspectives do you really see any difference between Dan Rather and Bill O'Reilly????

OMG, yes there is a huge difference between Rather and O'Reilly. O'Reilly is an opinion hawker, Rather is a journalist. If anyone can remember back to the Anna Nicole Smith tragedy, all the networks opened every broadcast with that story....Rather reported it, but he refused to start with that story. That might have been the turning point when news became just celebrity worship and Americans decided they would rather watch TMZ than all that boring crap about real serious and boring stuff.

Oh, the humanity.

Four question marks - impressive, and dramatic. I salute you sir. Yeah, I see a difference between Rather and O'Reilly - a whole panoramic high definition bunch of difference. But I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you. You are amusing to trade light superficial banter with, but retrograde and parochial to the point of uselessness for substantive discussion.

You were characteristically ass-backward trying to make a snarky point that there was a difference between Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats (hint: there isn't any substantive difference - the defining characteristic of both Thurmond and the Dixicrats was opposition to civil rights), so you certainly can't be expected to see the obvious differences between Rather and O'Reilly. Differences that are equally as self evident as the equivalency between Thurmond and the racist Dixiecrat assholes who seceded from the DemocratIC party. All of which - along with the time it took me to write this response - is lost on you.

glitterbag wrote:

OMG, yes there is a huge difference between Rather and O'Reilly. O'Reilly is an opinion hawker, Rather is a journalist. If anyone can remember back to the Anna Nicole Smith tragedy, all the networks opened every broadcast with that story....Rather reported it, but he refused to start with that story. That might have been the turning point when news became just celebrity worship and Americans decided they would rather watch TMZ than all that boring crap about real serious and boring stuff.

Oh, the humanity.

Yes! I see it now! Of course you and the other fuckwit are right, and not only that - visionary, with such a refined and urbane sense of irony. Rather and O'Reilly are virtually interchangeable! Thank you for enlightening me! I shall endeavor from hereon to be worthy to even stand and silently witness your illuminating observations.

What are you talking about Rabel?

Ronald Reagan was a popular two term governor of California before he ran for the presidency. And George Jr. was the governor of Texas and had family connections. No one would have said that either of these men didn't have a chance.

I promise you Trump doesn't have a chance.

I promise you Trump doesn't have a chance.

If the popular vote was what elected presidents Bush wouldent have been elected in 2000. Or 2004 because he wouldent have been president.

Games have rules, and good sports dont complain about the rules when they lose.

So you see government as a game. I think I am beginning to partly understand your views. Not that I agree.

maxdancona wrote:

What are you talking about Rabel?

Ronald Reagan was a popular two term governor of California before he ran for the presidency. And George Jr. was the governor of Texas and had family connections. No one would have said that either of these men didn't have a chance.

I promise you Trump doesn't have a chance.

I'm not even sure a Republican has a chance, based on the manner of electing a President with an Electoral College. Live in a blue state, and a Republican voter is just wasting a vote, in my opinion.

When the universal draft ended, I believe we started to evolve into a population where many believe that one should be entitled to all the goodies of life, barring a yacht.