I have not. I always liked him on SNL but lost a lot of respect when I saw him mini-debate O'Reilly. O'Reilly tore apart the book Liar, Liar, Liar or whatever it is called, and Franken resorted to name calling. I'm probably like you though, I wouldn't want to give him a dime of my money (you wouldn't want to give O'Reilly a dime) so when I'm short on books to read, I will pick it up at the library. But I have to finish the AC and the RJ series, first. It's not that I won't refuse to read them (Franken or Moore), its that I would rather read other fiction novels first.

I listened to, rather than read, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken. This is the best way to absorb the book. Al reads it himself.

Now, O'Reilly... I own his first book and agree with him on a great deal. Somewhere along the line, he realized that baiting people, cutting them off and resorting to name calling made for popular television and a great deal of appeal to the anti-left-wingers.

Regarding the "mini-debate," I think you have it backwards. Franken pointed out some serious flaws in the rhetoric and "credibility" of O'Reilly, and Bill resorted to trying to shout down Al and call him names. It's all in the book, in excruciating detail.

But, priorities are priorities, and FPW is much more important than any "political" book out in the market, anytime, anywhere.

[QUOTE=Scott Hajek]Regarding the "mini-debate," I think you have it backwards. Franken pointed out some serious flaws in the rhetoric and "credibility" of O'Reilly, and Bill resorted to trying to shout down Al and call him names. It's all in the book, in excruciating detail.QUOTE]

This was for the release of that book, so it would be another time. I was watching the book release on CSpan for some reason and caught Franken bad mouthing O'Reilly. He didn't do it too Billy's face, but waited for afterwards when he had his own particular crowd to do it so that O'Reilly couldn't come back at him. I just thought that it was lame to not speak up when O'Reilly is right there, but wait for him to leave to spout out the names. Thats all. If he had the guts to face him then I wouldn't have the same attitude towards Stewart Smalley.

If he had the guts to face him then I wouldn't have the same attitude towards Stewart Smalley.

He does have the guts and offered to be on the O'Reilly Factor... Bill hasn't accepted the offer, as of yet.

Sublime, Welcome to the board! Back when we had the Old Board of Blessed Memory, I asked the gang if I were the only soul around who supports President Bush. Our Lovely and Gracious Queen Sue responded, Well, maybe you're not the only one, but you're probably in the minority. So it's a real pleasure to welcome aboard an hombre who's aware WE ARE AT FUCKING WAR...Western Civilization against the dregs of a failed culture. Keep posting, man! But a word of advice--watch out for Biggles. He's a mean and tricky brawler. And that goes double for Ken Valentine.

You are not alone Bluesman.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT STAND UP AND FIGHT ARE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE REWARDED. NOT THE ONES THAT PANSY BACK IN THE CORNER AND SAY ITS OUR FAULT. THE LINE, "LOVE, NOT WAR" DOESN'T SAVE LIVES. IT ONLY BUILDS CONFIDENCE IN THE ENEMIES. DO YOU DISAGREE?

If, in World War II, American soldiers, sailors, and airmen were being patriotic for fighting against Germany, Italy, and Japan, weren't their German, Italian, and Japanese counterparts also being patriotic when they fought for their governments? Of course they were! That's why I say what you are fighting for is more important than just fighting.

Read this: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.htmlWar Is A Racket by two time Medal Of Honor winner, Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC.

GOVERNMENT IS A "NECESSARY EVIL." YES, TWO KEY WORDS. NECESSARY AND EVIL.

A difference of opinion here. To me, it's five key words; "at best a necessary evil."

I KNOW THOREAU AS MUCH AS I WANT TO. HE DIDN'T WANT A GOVERNMENT.

Like the founders of this country, Thoreau knew that government always grows to the maximum level the people can tolerate. Throughout history, governments have ALWAYS ended up becoming the very thing they were created to prevent. The United States government is no exception. So, I don't "want" government either.

HE DIDN'T PAY TAXES.

Good for him! All taxation is theft! Worse than theft, all taxation is SLAVERY!

HE THOUGHT THAT SOCIETY WOULD BE BETTER WITHOUT GOVERNMENT.

To a certain extent, I agree with him. I don't want any government. I would however, be willing to settle for a Constitutional government.

LIKE PAINE SAID, IT IS A "NECESSARY EVIL." WHY? BECAUSE CHAOS WILL PREVAIL.

Chaos is the result of too much government. As Winston Churchill said; "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law."
When you destroy all respect for the law, the result is chaos. But it doesn't last for long. Look around you; the real protection of your rights and freedom is not the police, the real protection of these things is the way the overwhelming majority of people feel about your rights -- they don't attack you because they don't want to. Criminals have always been a microscopic minority in any society, and have been quite harmless compared to governments.

I WILL ADMIT, MY THOREAU IS A LITTLE RUSTY, BUT I REMEMBER HIM BETTER THEN MANY OTHER WRITERS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, BECAUSE HIS VIEWS WERE VERY TWISTED. YOU MAY NOT THINK SO. WHAT CAN I DO?

What can you do? Stop assuming that you have all the answers, and start asking questions instead.
There is an old adage: Know your enemy. On this level, it means; try to understand where those you disagree with are coming from . . . and why!
By doing this you will learn that there may be some justice in their views, or if there isn't; how to counter them more effectively.

I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN CALL IT OUT OF CONTEXT. I QUOTED IT BECAUSE THAT PARAGRAPH SAYS EXACTLY WANT I WANT TO SAY.

Jefferson was speaking about fighting HIS OWN government. So, yes, it was out of context. England considered the founding fathers to be traitors. You did exactly the same thing Michael Moore does.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE BLAMING OUR COUNTRY FOR 911.

I'm blaming the U.S. government for creating the situation which led up to 911.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO MAKE EXCUSSES FOR THEIR ACTIONS. YOU SHOULDN'T.

As I said in another post, their actions were NOT excusable, but if you look closely into what the U.S. government has been doing with these countries, their actions may be understandable.

THEY ARE EVIL AND WANT EVERYONE THAT ISN'T JUST LIKE THEM DEAD.

And I get the impression that you want everyone who isn't like YOU dead -- so what does that make you?

THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A COUNTRY LIKE YOUR THOREAU WANTED. ONE WITHOUT A TRUE DEMOCRACY OR GOVERNMENT.

Calm down and take a deep breath -- take two deep breaths.

Thoreau wanted LESS government. He most definitely would not approve of theocracies, or monarchies, or despots. You may have overlooked the fact that Sadam Hussein was the head of a government.
You may also have missed the fact that democracy is one of the things that the men who founded this country were trying to PREVENT!
The reason they tried to prevent Democracy was eloquently stated by James Madison, "...a common passion or interest will always sway a majority, and there is no inducement to prevent them from sacrificing the weaker party. Hence it is that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal liberty and the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

WE DID NOT MAKE THEM EVIL. WE DID NOT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS. WHY IS IT OUR FAULT?

Yes "we" did, yes "we" did, and you are going to have to figure that one out for yourself.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN OUTSIDE THE US?

Yes.

DO YOU KNOW HOW THE REAL WORLD IS?

My experience is as a "civilian" traveler meeting and interacting with people from other countries as individuals. It is NOT as a member of a military. Their experience is very different. So, their perception of the world is also very different.

THESE QUESTIONS AREN'T COMING FROM ME, BUT FROM A CURIOUS BY-STANDER.

That's fine.

HE THINKS THAT YOU ARE A LIBERAL ARTS MAJOR THAT DOESN'T RESPECT OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE HE WAS TOUGHT TO BE THAT WAY. HE SEES THAT YOU LOVE QUOTES AND THAT THINK YOU CAN DANCE YOURSELF AROUND THE REAL WORLD BY USING THEM.

It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.

As for being a "liberal arts major", look up my bio.

"Tought (sic) to be that way?" Does he follow orders without thinking for himself . . . voluntarily? Or was he taught to be that way?
And of course your friend is an "expert" on the real world.

IT SEEMS THAT YOU FANCY YOURSELF SOME KIND OF ANARCHIST.

Do I now?
What kind of Anarchist? Anarchist Communist? Anarchist Capitalist? Individualist Anarchist? Pholosophical Anarchist? Anarchist Christian? Syndicalist? Nihilist?
Or some combination?

I CAN'T CONTINUE TO TALK TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE CRAZY.

I think you can't talk to me because you can't come up with a rational counter-argument. All I get from you are emotions.

YOU ARE CRAZY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BLAME THE US FIRST THEN FILL IN THE BLANKS WITH WACKY IDEOLOGY.

That's an infantile evasion. And of course anyone who disagrees with you MUST be crazy! After all, the words of a "conservative" are the words of God.

SAYING WE HAVE BECOME RUSSIA. I'M SORRY, BUT YOU ARE WAY OFF.

Perhaps you can give a counter argument.

I WON'T BE ABLE TO CONVINCE YOU DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED.

And you haven't been of course.

I DISPISE THESE PATHETIC PEOPLE WHO WANT TO FIND REASON IN WHY THESE TERRORISTS DO WHAT THEY DO.

Effects come from causes. If you don't look for the causes, your attempts to find a solution will always fail.

THAT REASON ALWAYS SEEMS TO END UP BEING THE RESIDENT REPUBLICAN.

The Democraps are no better.

AND TELL ME WHAT WAS THIS $97 MILLION THAT WE "OWED" BIN LADEN? I HAVE NEVER BEEN TOLD ABOUT THIS.

It was money that was promised him for fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. That's all I'm going to say, do a web-search.

I WENT OFF ON THIS ONE. I'M SORRY AND I HOPE THE OTHER READERS DON'T LABEL ME A JERK. I WON'T DO IT AGAIN BECAUSE I WON'T RESPOND TO MR. VALENTINE'S OTHER POSTS. I SHOULDN'T GET THIS WAY. I WILL READ WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, BUT I WON'T LET MYSELF GET LIKE THIS AGAIN.

You give in too easily.


Ken V.

That's an infantile evasion. And of course anyone who disagrees with you MUST be crazy! After all, the words of a "conservative" are the words of God.

Ken V.

Hey now.....don't lump all conservatives into one group.

I don't lump all the rest of you whackos in one group.....Thats a joke!! Please take it as such.

He does have the guts and offered to be on the O'Reilly Factor... Bill hasn't accepted the offer, as of yet.

Did not know that. I wonder why Bill doesn't want him on the show.

Someone (sublime1983, maybe?) asked for examples of lies made by Bush (again, when I say Bush, I mean the Bush admin). So here's one:

Report Confirms Medicare Cost Estimates Kept Secret

They intentionally kept the actual cost of the healthcare package a secret in order to get it passed through Congress. Remember at the time, Congress said they would only pass a bill up to a certain amount.

And how about this one:

Someone (sublime1983, maybe?) asked for examples of lies made by Bush (again, when I say Bush, I mean the Bush admin). So here's one:

Report Confirms Medicare Cost Estimates Kept Secret

They intentionally kept the actual cost of the healthcare package a secret in order to get it passed through Congress. Remember at the time, Congress said they would only pass a bill up to a certain amount.

And how about this one:

Haven't read your article yet, but will do. Anyways, I came accross this and its too long. Gotta be a two parter. Did you ever check out that site I sent you, btw?

'Our Enemy Is Not Terrorism'
>
> The U.S. Naval Institute 130th Annual Meeting and Annapolis Naval History
> Symposium (2004)
>
> Address by Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman
>
> We are at a juncture today that really is more of a threshold, even more
of
> a watershed, than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in 1941. We are
> currently in a war, but it is not a war on terrorism. In fact, that has
been
> a great confusion, and the sooner we drop that term, the better. This
would
> be like President Franklin Roosevelt saying in World War II, "We are
engaged
> in a war against kamikazes and blitzkrieg." Like them, terrorism is a
> method, a tool, a weapon that has been used against us. And part of the
> reason we suffered such a horrific attack is that we were not prepared.
> Let's not kid ourselves. Some very smart people defeated every single
> defense this country had, and defeated them easily, with confidence and
> arrogance. There are many lessons we must learn from this.
>
> We were not prepared intellectually. Those of us in the national security
> field still carried the baggage of the Cold War. We thought in concepts of
> coalition warfare and the Warsaw Pact. When we thought of terrorism, we
> thought only of state-sponsored terrorism, which is why the immediate
> reaction of many in our government agencies after 9/11 was: Which state
did
> it? Saddam, it must have been Saddam. We had failed to grasp, for a
variety
> of reasons, the new phenomenon that had emerged in the world. This was not
> state-sponsored terrorism. This was religious war.
>
> This was the emergence of a transnational enemy driven by religious fervor
> an d fanaticism. Our enemy is not terrorism. Our enemy is violent, Islamic
> fundamentalism. None of our government institutions was set up with
> receptors, or even vocabulary, to deal with this. So we left ourselves
> completely vulnerable to a concerted attack.
>
> Where are we today? I'd like to say we have fixed these problems, but we
> haven't. We have very real vulnerabilities. We have not diminished in any
> way the fervor and ideology of our enemy. We are fighting them in many
areas
> of the world, and I must say with much better awareness of the issues and
> their nature. We're fighting with better tools. But I cannot say we are
now
> safe from the kind of attack we saw on 9/11. I think we are much safer
than
> we were on 9/11; the ability of our enemies to launch a concerted,
> sophisticated attack is much less than it was then. Still, we're totally
> vulnerable to the kinds of attacks we've seen in Madrid, for instance. We
> face a very sophisticated and intelligent enemy who has been trained, in
> many cases, in our universities and gone to school on our methods, learned
> from their mistakes, and continued to use the very nature of our free
> society and its aversion to intrusion in privacy and discrimination to
their
> benefit.
>
> For example, today it is still a prohibited offense for an airline to have
> two people of the same ethnic background interviewed at one time, because
> that is discrimination. Our airline security is still full of holes. Our
> ability to carry out covert operations abroad is only marginally better
than
> it was at the time of 9/11. A huge amount of fundamental cultural and
> institutional change must be carried out in the United States before we
can
> effectively deal with the nature of the threat. Today, probably 50 or more
> states have schools that are teaching jihad, preaching, recruiting, and
> training. We have absolutely no successful programs even begun to
remediate
> against those efforts.
>
> It's very important that people understand the complexity of this threat.
We
> have had to institute new approaches to protecting our civil liberties-the
> way we authorize surveillance, the way we conduct our immigration and
> naturalization policies, and the way we issue passports. That's only the
> beginning. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize the problem, to
recognize
> that for every jihadist we kill or capture-as we carry out an aggressive
and
> positive policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere-another 50 are being trained
in
> schools and mosques around the world.
>
> This problem goes back a long way. We have been asleep. Just by chance
about
> six months ago, I picked up a book by V. S. Naipaul, one of the great
> English prose writers. I love to read his short stories and travelogues.
The
> book was titled Among the Believers (New York: Vintage, 1982) and was an
> account of his travels in Indonesia, where he found that Saudi-funded
> schools and mosques were transforming Indonesian society from a very
> relaxed, syncretist Islam to a jihadist fundamentalist fanatical society,
> all paid for with Saudi Arabian funding. Nobody paid attention. Presidents
> in four administrations put their arms around Saudi ambassadors, ignored
the
> Wahhabi jihadism, and said these are our eternal friends.

Part 2
> We have seen throughout the last 20 years a kind of head-in-the-sand
> approach to national security in the Pentagon. We were comfortable with
the
> existing concept of what the threat was, what threat analysis was, and how
> we derived our requirements, still using the same old tools we all grew up
> with. We paid no attention to the real nature of this emerging threat,
even
> though there were warning signs.
>
> Many will recall with pain what we went through in the Reagan
administration
> in 1983, when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut-241 Marines and
Navy
> c orpsmen were killed. We immediately got an intercept from NSA [National
> Security Agency], a total smoking gun from the foreign ministry of Iran,
> ordering the murder of our Marines. Nothing was done to retaliate.
Instead,
> we did exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do, which was to withdraw.
> Osama bin Laden has cited this as one of his dawning moments. The vaunted
> United States is a paper tiger; Americans are afraid of casualties; they
run
> like cowards when attacked; and they don't even bother to take their dead
> with them. This was a seminal moment for Osama.
>
> After that, we had our CIA station chief kidnapped and tortured to death.
> Nothing was done. Then, we had our Marine Colonel [William R.] Higgins
> kidnapped and publicly hanged. Nothing was done We fueled and made these
> people aware of the tremendous effectiveness of terrorism as a tool of
> jihad. It worked. They chased us out of one place after another, because
we
> would not retaliate.
>
> The Secretary of Defense at the time has said he never received those
> intercepts That's an example of one of the huge problems our commission
has
> uncovered. We have allowed the intelligence community to evolve into a
> bureaucratic archipelago of baronies in the Defense Department, the CIA,
and
> 95 other different intelligence units in our government. None of them
talked
> to one another in the same computerized system. There was no systemic
> sharing. Some will recall the Phoenix memo and the fact that there were
> people in the FBI saying, "Hey, there are young Arabs learning to fly and
> they don't want to learn how to take off or land. Maybe we should look
into
> them." It went nowhere.
>
> We had watch lists with 65,000 terrorists' names on them, created by a
very
> sophisticated system in the State Department called Tip-Off. That existed
> before 9/11, but nobody in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]
> bothered to look at it. The FAA had 12 names on its no-fly list. The State
> Department had a guy on its list named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was
> already under indictment for his role in planning the 1993 attack on the
> World Trade Center. The State Department issued him a visa. I could go on
> and on.
>
> Two big lessons glare out from what our investigations have discovered so
> far. Number one, in our government bureaucracy today there is no
> accountability. Since 9/11-the greatest failure of American defenses in
the
> history of our country, at least since the burning of Washington in
> 1814-only one person has been fired. He is a hero, in my judgment:
[retired
> Vice] Admiral John Poindexter. He got fired because of an excessive zeal
to
> catch these bastards. But he was the only one fired. Not any of the 19
> officers lost their jobs at Immigration for allowing the 19 terrorists-9
who
> presented grossly falsified passports-to enter the country. One Customs
> Service officer stopped the 20th terrorist, at risk to his own career. Do
> you think he's been promoted? Not a chance.
>
> That is the culture we've allowed to develop, except in the Navy. We've
all
> felt the pain over the last year of the number of skippers who have been
> relieved in the U.S. Navy: two on one cruiser in one year. That's a
problem
> for us. It's also something we should be mightily proud of, because it
> stands out in stark contrast to the rest of the U.S. government. In the
> United States Navy, we still have accountability. It's bred into our
culture
> And what we stand for here has to be respread into our government and our
> nation.
>
> Actions have consequences, and people must be held accountable. Customs
> officer Jose Melendez-Perez stopped the 20th terrorist, who was supposed
to
> be on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Probably because of the
> shorthanded muscle on that team, the passengers were able to overcome the
> terrorists. Melendez-Perez did this at great personal risk, because his
> colleagues and his supervisors told him, "You can't do this. This guy is
an
> Arab ethnic. You're racially profiling. You're going to get in real
trouble,
> because it's against Department of Transportation policy to racially
> profile" He said, "I don't care. This guy's a bad guy. I can see it in his
> eyes." As he sent this guy back out of the United States, the guy turned
> around to him and said, "I'll be back." You know, he is back. He's in
> Guantanamo. We captured him in Afghanistan. Do you think Melendez-Perez
got
> a promotion? Do you think he got any recognition? Do you think he is doing
> any better than the 19 of his time-serving, unaccountable colleagues?
Don't
> think any bit of it. We have no accountability, but we're going to restore
> it.
>
> The other glaring lack that has been discovered throughout the
investigation
> is in leadership. Leadership is the willingness to accept the burdens and
> the risks, the potential embarrassment, and the occasional failure of
> leading men and women. It is saying: We will do it this way. I won't let
> that guy in. I will do this and I'll take the consequences. That's what we
> stand for here. That's what the crucible of the U.S. Naval Academy has
> carried on now since 1845, and what the U.S. Naval Institute has carried
on
> for 130 years and hasn't compromised We all should be very proud of it. We
> need leadership now more than ever. We need to respread this culture,
which
> is so rare today, into the way we conduct our government business, let
alone
> our private business.
>
> Having said all this, I'm very optimistic. We have seen come forward in
this
> investigation people from every part of our bureaucracy to say they
screwed
> up and to tell what went wrong and what we've got to do to change it. We
> have an agenda for change. I think we're going to see a very fundamental
> shift in the culture of our government as a result of this. I certainly
hope
> so.
>
> This should be a true wake-up call. We cannot let this be swept under the
> rug, put on the shelf like one more of the hundreds of other commissions
> that have gone right into the memory hole. This time, I truly believe it's
> going to be different.