bush wasn't elected, man! no way. he only got the most votes in the way we count them in this country. he didn't win. nah...
Posted by: Lisa at April 8, 2003 03:06 PMmary-k's second paragraph... about how he makes you question the things you do.. is something i relate to very much. i even like your example. eminem is scum. it never bothered me before, but the more i was forced to think about it, the more i saw horrible he is for kids. adults can do whatever they want, but there are way too many 8 year old eminem fans out there.
but really, bill's a good guy. i personally appreciate everything he does with using his celebrity to better this world a bit.
why do we always end up talking about bill over here? josh wants to kiss him, that's why!
Posted by: Lisa at April 8, 2003 03:04 PMbtw. my fav. anti-war chant is the whole 'war/blood for oil' nonsense. i have, a number of times, refuted that ignorance here on the site. and, when you ask these idiots why we didnt take "the oil" in 1991 from both iraq and kuwait, they never seem to have answer, tho they KNOW this is all about oil. (insert nonsense about EXXON, Mobil, and texaco running things here)...there have been some bad wars (vietname), but this isnt one of them. like the idiots who mad the civilian body counter thing you can put on your site...like i posted before, wheres husseins body counter?! you could very easily say hes responsible for up to 2 million deaths since his reign of terror began, but these people seem to neglect that very important point...then, i have seen people who have iraqi flags on their sites and it says "free iraq, impeach bush." this screms ignorance of world affairs and just ignorance in general. say it along with me, "im an idiot with no clue as to what is really going on, and im surprised i havent killed myself with the toaster yet." too many idiots out there with no facts to back up their "opinions," and when questioned, they can provide no answers. well, besides one or more of the following: 'bush is evil,' 'its all about oil,' 'bush wasnt elected,' 'this is payback for his daddys sake,' 'blah blah blah, new world order,' 'blah blah blah israel,' and so on...and on....and on....and on....
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at April 8, 2003 12:56 AMjust to say one thing real quick before i read it all. i saw the part about nuclear, and i have to say, it is rather scary that he pronounces it "nuculeer." i mean, come on, hes the leader of the free world, its not a hard word. its not about any accent or whatever...i just think hes a very poor public speaker. which might not be such a bad thing in the end-i mean, it doesnt make him a bad person or a bad president, but still...nuclear is not a difficult word to pronounce! overall tho, hes doing a halfway decent job...tho, i have to agree with many in their concerns over his domestic policy. he seems to be doing very little at home...but, that might be just how some of us see it, and it could all be totally out of his hands. the economy, its not like he can do a whole lot there, so you cant really blame him...a number of school districts around the country are running out of money completely, but that is probably mainly due to congress' constant irresponsible spending, and not due to anything bush is doing. i guess when things seem bad, its easy to blame the president tho.
anyhow, i lied, i said i was gonna say one quick thing :)
can someone explain to me protestors minds in general? why do they do what they do? why do they make life hell for normal people trying to live their daily lives...why do they even do anything they do? do they think were gonna suddenly pull out of iraq, because some people with weird hair and nose rings who cant stop beating on bongos want us to? i dont understand what they think they ever accomplish with that stuff. in seattle, when the world bank met (i think it was the world bank?) and protestors caused millions of dollars of damage...you see that sort of thing all the time. the only people who dont think protestors are insane loons are the other protestors themselves! bugs me. ok, im really shutting up this time!
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at April 8, 2003 12:48 AMoh, good grief. i can't TAKE IT ANYMORE.
i hate it when people get slammed for something they posted on their damn website. (especially when they had good points in the first place) i guess that's why i'm so sick of everyone talking about the war. of course, if there were no comments sections on the web, there would be no effing ignorant people posting negativity left and right. /constructive/ criticism, people of the internet, CONSTRUCTIVE! it's normal to have a /fact-based/ debate. but an unleashing of passionate... bullshit? i guess i'm in favor of that old adage, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
i worship bill o'reilly as a journalist and i would willingly vouch for his professional reputation. a racist? HA. he's a great man and an exemplary human being. /said in that typical patriotic hoarse voice, while chewing on a cigar. he brings the honest truth out of any situation and does it in a professional, clean way. he's a stellar journalist. and whether people want to admit it or not, he challenges all of our beliefs. i'm no old-fashioned girl, but he really does make me think about things like, "why do i keep listening to eminem?". he makes me question what goes on in the world, and provides a morally strong backbone to guide my opinions. this explains why i am not the most popular person in the world.
grr. i do not understand how anyone can not appreciate how the president has held this country together after the events of 9-11, and provides GREAT reasons that this kind of action could not be put off any longer. not that i'm a particularly religious individual (i abhor organized religion), but i also appreciate that he involves prayer and a higher deity in his personal life. it's pretty pathetic that i see people attacking him just because of his dialect. does the way he pronounces "nuclear" /really/ affect his decision making skills? i don't think so.
could i have these views because my father-in-law is probably going to be suspended from his job as a police officer because our city has to save face? because he kindly asked a lone anti-war protester to stop obstructing a sidewalk and causing danger to traffic? because the protestor complained that my father-in-law probably only reprimanded him because of a differing opinion? i think we're all too damned sensitive about this whole thing. the fact of the matter is, there is NOTHING anyone can do now; it's a harsh reality of war that people die, whether deserving or not. but it's happened. there are plenty of things to be thankful for. whether anyone admits it or not, there ARE iraqis who are happy we are there. it's the lesser of two evils: do we let saddam keep killing his own people by the thousands, and letting the rest live in fear and pain? should we leave ourselves open for more attacks and the hate (artificial /or/ real) that we've gotten for decades? or do we save millions, patch up old wounds, and spare only a relative few? it's a horrible question to have to ask yourself, but i'm sure that the government (at least this time) had good interests in mind.
you want to talk jilted media? for all the anti-war sentiment i've heard, there's an amazing amount of complaining- the media caters to negativity. i guess everyone just needs something to complain about. it's the popular thing to be against this war. i'm not for the image of the u.s. acting as some "big brother" or superpower to the rest of the world, but i sure believe our troops are doing a good job over there. i see progress through every bias of the media.
le sigh. sorry, i couldn't hold it in anymore. they're my views, and damnit, i'm sticking to them. at least until someone gives me some good, solid facts to make me believe otherwise.
Posted by: miss mary-k at April 7, 2003 11:54 PMActually, it came out when he was debating an issue with someone. It wasn't a planned thing. "Gee, I think I'll say wetback today."
As someone who is mexican, I have some authority here. Hearing Bill call some scumbags "wetbacks" meant so little to me, that I didn't even notice. I watch this show everyday, and the first I heard of this was when I saw the petition Josh posted in the past (the one I showed him, like I do every link!). Those people are overly sensitive. Overly sensitive and ridiculous! I understand that some issues are touchy, and talking about them should be something you're careful about. But, he was speaking about some guys who were bringing people into the country...to cause harm! I think so, anyway. I don't even remember specifically now. Hearing that word wasn't something that bothered me. Me! A mexican person! It's not a big deal. Seriously.
Posted by: Lisa at April 7, 2003 01:34 PMI'm sure O'Riely is not a racist also, but I also know he's a fairly smart man, and I don't think he used the term so much to be racist as he did to get a reaction. He's that kind of guy I find which makes it hard for me to believe he did it completely harmlessly...but I could be wrong.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at April 7, 2003 11:48 AMoh, i never said racism doesnt exist. but its not the HUGE problem some make itout to be. i.e. jesse jackson, al sharpton, and people like them. oh, and danny glover who calls the president racist because he governed texas! lets see whathappens if a black woman becomes governor and the executitions stay high...then what will oh wise my glover have to say. hell probably still call it racism.
so, sure- racist exists...but its not that bad a problem for anyone. not in 2003. maybe in 1953...but 2003? no.
as for oreilly, i honestly dont think he meant the word in a negative light. you dont have to be stupid to make an error in using the wrong word. from what i see, hes a good guy...hes honest, straight forward. i really dont think hes racist at all. one wrong word (which, again, i believe he used by accident, not to provoke anything) hardly qualifies any of us as racist. if it did, im sure most of us would be guilty! i think he meant nothing by it tho. it doesnt matter...in the end, that IS the definition (minus the negative connotation given over the years.) I wonder if this made any sense, since I just woke up. Sense since. Nice.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at April 7, 2003 10:40 AMO'Riely is not a stupid man. He knew the other meaning to the word he used...so to use it anyway was an attempt to provoke a reaction. He could have simply said "mexican immigrant" or "illegal alien" or any other term with no alternate offencive meaning...but he didnt.. Most of the reason I stoped watching him was because he was so obsessed with provoking reactions it almost turned into a circus watching and listening to him...but that was then...perhaps it's different now.
As for everyone being on the same playing field in the US and there being no racism, I would have to disagree. There is still a great deal of racism and double standards in the country. One such major policy is affirmative action. It puts whites on a lesser chance in certain situations and rewards those of other skin color not because of their credintials, but because of their "actual" skin color.
I don't really agree with that, but it was a policy put into place because prodominately white business owners were hireing mostly whites or non ethnics in the country, and apparently something had to be done...
I encountered a lot of racism in my visits to the US, but thats for a whole other article I guess.....
I can honestly say the US population does not love in harmony like you make it out to seem (although you might not mean that, it's how you present the case)
As for that persons article on their site, it was kind of a cheap shot to blast you like that without ever engaging in any reasonable form of debates here.....instead they chose to form their one sided opinion on complete bias "facts" (and I hope you read this idiot)
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at April 7, 2003 09:11 AMincase youre about to freak, im kidding. i dont need thirty bucks worth of pez stuff, im just teasing. im still going to be nice and sign your comments. im not a bad person!
no but seriously, where is the penguin? i want him!!
Posted by: Lisa at April 7, 2003 06:43 AMi see so much stuff i paid for. how nice! send it back, sucka. where's my penguin? :(
Posted by: Lisa at April 7, 2003 06:42 AM
Pictures of My Room (in case you cared to see)
I was messing with the digital camera, and I took some pictures of my room.
Here is a page with the rest of the pictures of my room with some descriptions of what you're seeing exactly.
This my 100th entry since I installed Movable Type. It wasn't that long ago actually. Just had to share that piece of info. with ya.
By the way, check out this genius. First off, I never once said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. There is some evidence, but it's small and might not mean a thing. I haven't once posted that I think he was involved in any way with the attacks on that date. Also, you can surely tell this person is a die hard democrat, calling O'Reilly a racist (like others) without any basis in fact. He said wetback- sure, there is a semi colon and it says offensive, but the point is- it's not ALWAYS offensive. I posted the definition of the word...which is the correct word that O'Reilly wanted to use. The term wetback has become a negative term for many people, but for many people it is what it is- a person who illegally enters the U.S. from Mexico, usually via the Rio Grande River. Any rational person would agree that O'Reilly meant no racist connotation when he used the word. If this person can get on TV for an hour a day and be on the radio for 3 or 4 hours a day, and make a perfect decision with every word, I'd like to see it...but, my guess is, they wouldn't get ten words out before they said something that sounded bad but in reality wasn't meant that way. I, myself, probably couldn't get ten words out without making an error in wording. 99% of us couldn't! So, to claim O'Reilly is a racist by using one word that SOME see as a negative (hence the eventual defition of the word for some), is ludicrous. You cannot claim racism like that...I'm sure this Janet person has said a number of things that could be misinterpreted as racism. Maybe not tho, since she screams racism from one word!
In regards to the racism in America part of her post...that's insane. Racism is NOT a huge problem in this country. Most people, no matter what their skin color or background or what have you, are on the same playing field. Racism isn't running rampant like Janet would probably have you believe (even many black leaders believe this is bogus. Larry Elder for one!) It seems that "Janet" agrees with Danny Glover in thinking that Bush is a racist for being governor of Texas, where many people are executed. I think I have said it before, but I'll say it again for the semi-slow ones out there- Bush is NOT a police officer, a lawyer, a judge, or any part of any jury. He was the governor...so, calling him racist for being the governor of a state where juries convicted people and judges and attorneys played part in assigning executions, that's a giant leap in logic, as I'm sure most of you would agree.
To claim Fox News (and in particular, O'Reilly) distorts the truth and hides the facts is just crazy as well. Name one person on TV who is more straight forward and honest than Bill. You cannot do it...you can claim he spins, but that's nonsense you cannot back up with facts.
You can see from the start of the post that this person clearly is no match when it comes to the ol' intellect. They start off by personally insulting me and they claim I have been sheltered in my parents home all my life- tho, I'm not sure how she would gather this, since she clearly doesn't know me. (I love people who make such uninformed guesses!) Then, she claims that I must be insane or stupid or whatever she's thinking BECAUSE I am a viewer of Fox News. You take what you want from that- I call it ignorance. Next, she'll claim if you read a certain newspaper, you're an idiot! If we listen to dear Janet, then guess what? The majority of Americans who watch cable news are morons (since most of us watch Fox.) Gosh...and to think, I thought I was learned! Golly. She then goes on to critique my view of drugs. Naive view? I simply stated that addiction, in it's popular usage, doesn't exist...BECAUSE (as I explained in the post she links), YOU- that's right, YOU must do drugs YOURSELF. Drugs are rarely forced into a person's veins or lungs or whatever! Well, maybe Janet thinks they are, but I assure you, they are not. And, I mentioned that to do the drugs, YOU have to CHOICE to pick up a needle or a pipe and put it to YOUR mouth or YOUR vein and use YOUR muscles to suck smoke into YOUR lungs. This all stuff YOU do without the help of others, and you do it with your own free will. If I am mistaken about any of that, and drugs have legs and run into your body, then I will glady apologize for my statements, until then...the statements stay put.
Well, now that I have completely refuted more nonsense from people who insult your person and not your point of view, anyone else want to link me and babble nonsense you can't back up with facts? I'll gladly turn your argument upside down too.
Posted by Josh at April 7, 2003 12:41 AM