"Chavez did not elaborate, but said some broadcasters and newspapers are conspiring to spark unrest..."

Yeah, cause shutting down one station sure as hell made things super-peaceful.

and yes......chavez is also now trying to censure cnn........hey maybe this guy aint so bad afterall.....

according to bloomberg news........the information minister from venezuela has asked for an investigation about lies about chavez and the demonstrations last week as well as something about possible alqaida conncections.....they even have said that the 1981 attempt to kill the pope when they ran scenes from......constituted an effort to incite people against chavez......someone will have to explain how that one works to me, but the point is........just by looking at the people that libs put on pedastals is enough to reject them in any election......chavez, castro, kerry, edwards.......

"just by looking at the people that libs put on pedastals is enough to reject them in any election......chavez, castro, kerry, edwards......."


Don't forget the dismembered fetuses who cannot vote Dem now. The main reason they want the illegals here is to replace all the voters they killed.

If they really did try to have him killed then obviously he should shut the station down.

"if"

DOGMAN

Sarvkov is Niceville?

"Information Minister Willian Lara on Monday accused Globovision of encouraging an attempt on Chavez's life by broadcasting the chorus of a salsa tune -- "Have faith, this doesn't end here" -- along with footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II."

Yeah, I'm sure these rightwingers around here wouldn't have any problem if CBS did this to Bush.

"Sarvkov is Niceville?"

Yes. No matter who many times he's banned, he keeps sneaking in with a different ID. The guy needs to get a life.

Didn't Chavez try to overthrow the govt himself in the early 1990s when he was just a loser Colonel? Now he talks about democratically elected govts as if he were Thomas Jefferson or something. Give me a break.

Because we don't support our CIA murdering Chavez or helping to overthrow the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation then we libs are guilty of putting people on "pedestals."
Gee, I wonder where the outrage from all these righties was when the wealthy ran Venezuela as a feudal nation??
Their selective outrage feels good to them because it takes attention away from the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation and the disaster that has resulted. It is just too funny to watch righties worry about Chavez while King Bush conducts his illegal war for profit. Oh, but they will say...."gotta fighte em over there so we don't have to fight em over here"....never being smart enough to question the logic of that stupid statement.

He can shut down CNN Clinton news network

"Sarvkov is Niceville?"

Yes. No matter who many times he's banned, he keeps sneaking in with a different ID. The guy needs to get a life."

Baby Jesus will shut him down once He figures out Gnubsy's clever plan.

Gnubsy has Him fooled at the moment, you know, breaking rules that any good atheist wouldn't think of dishonoring.

"Yeah, I'm sure these rightwingers around here wouldn't have any problem if CBS did this to Bush."


You have no problem with Chavez doing it. So are you accusing them of being like you?

You're right.

Close CNN, the liers are killing troops

He can shut down CNN Clinton news network

Posted by jjdj1187 at 2007-05-30 10:06 AM | Reply


in that case we may have to reevaluate this chavez guy....

]
and danni weighs in with her.....beaten down by 'the man' rhetoric and its the wealthy....blah blah blah.....damn girl,....there has to be a boat or two making its way for your shangrila of socialism........thought about getting a ticket and you wont have to be so UNHAPPY LIVING HERE......( see other site.)....
and just look at the crawfishin goin on with the lefties when a hero of theirs shows who he really is.........and they accuse us of hypocracy......
sometimes this shit is just TOO EASY.....yuk yuk

Bill, I think you need to speak for yourself, yet again. For someone that posts from midnight until 920 PM (over 19 hours), getting a life has new meaning. With your onsensical whining.....go bother Lisa. She adores the attention.


Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-29 12:08 AM


Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-29 09:20 PM









BTW, GO GATORS!

Sorry, cannot use the N word here.

()onsensical.

Hey Niceville, you obsessive psycho, a few one liners during the course of a day when I check in on Drudge does not amount to posting for 19 hours.

Actually, any good atheist would be embarrassed to be found breaking the rules of a Membership once he had been thrown out.

They generally have more integrity than that, and are less willing to be widely known as a hypocrite and liar.

Much less the embarrassment of actually NEEDING to post here, lol!

He's such a nice man.... and he can spot the devil just like that.

"Now he talks about democratically elected govts as if he were Thomas Jefferson or something. "

Yeah, but unlike Jefferson, Chavez doesn't own slaves.

Chavez doesn't own slaves.

No, but Nicey does have that after-school job as his Cabana Boy.

Chavez is paranoid. The Russians are the same way, accusing any foreigner they don't like of being spies for the west. Same goes for Iran.

Chavez has taken advantage of a real event, an attempted coup, to blow things out of proportion, kind of like Bush with 9/11, a real event is used to gain political power at the expense of individual freedom.

You Liberals are inconsistent, you criticize Bush and yet applaud Chavez for doing similar things. It seems to me Liberals are not so concerned about individual rights, they just want to be the ones in charge of denying them, like in the "good old days" of FDR and the Japanese concentration camps.

It's funny how the Left which embraces Chavez, also regularly supports censorship in our media -- and would fully support the shitting sown talk radio, FOX news if they could.

It's funny how the Left which embraces Chavez, also regularly supports censorship in our media -- and would fully support the shutting down talk radio, FOX news if they could.

Yes Bowa, these are the wonderful people that brought such nice things as the "fairness doctrine." They would support shtting down Fox News, but I am sure they would get mad if the NYT was shut down for treason.

"Chavez is paranoid."

Yeah, he didn't really get kidnapped by the military and held for 2 days. It was just a dream.

If someone commits treason or other crimes via their broadcasted network, why not aggressively prosecute those involved and leave it at that? Why take over the TV station and replace it with one run by the government? The people who committed the so-called threatening acts could just go work at another station, so how does this adequately address the problem?

Joe, I think you hit the nail right on the head here. I doubt Liberals will understand the concept you are trying to express though, the rule of law.

"Yeah, he didn't really get kidnapped by the military and held for 2 days. It was just a dream."

So he is psychologically traumatized by what happened to him, ok, fine.

You see, this is why Rudy Giulliana should not be president, as we saw in the debate, he is alwo traumatized and would do all kinds of crazy things while in power, just like Chavez. He needs profesional help.

"The people who committed the so-called threatening acts could just go work at another station, so how does this adequately address the problem?"

Because every other station is now on notice that he'll shut them down if they piss him off. So they will not only avoid hiring trouble makers, they'll be purging their own ranks of anyone who could be perceived as offensive to Chavez.

Chavez knows what he's doing. Anyone who says "its just one station" is pretending that these things happen in a vacuum. They don't. Chavez put the media on notice to get with the program or find another line of work.

""You Liberals are inconsistent, you criticize Bush and yet applaud Chavez for doing similar things.""

Er...when did Chavez involve himself in a coup in the United STates???
Us libs are sick and tired of right wing presidents using the CIA to overthrow governments, murder, kidnap, etc. in S. America. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, it is none of our business and it is none of the Bush adminstration's business either.

"The people who committed the so-called threatening acts could just go work at another station, so how does this adequately address the problem?"

Yeah, why didn't Chavez think of that. Those RCTV employees can just go across the street, take over another station, install new management, change the editorial policy to RCTV's, etc.

Er...when did Chavez involve himself in a coup in the United STates???
Us libs are sick and tired of right wing presidents using the CIA to overthrow governments, murder, kidnap, etc. in S. America. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, it is none of our business and it is none of the Bush adminstration's business either.

Posted by danni at 2007-05-30 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag


apologize apologize...apologize......

fact is....you would be thrilled if chavez were here shutting down fox and any other media outlet that got in his way.....

and yet just read your indictments of bush and haliburton....and whats the difference? thats easy.....the confalulted vision of a world that is a people based on thier needs...or whatever that socialist manifesto says.......and lets see...just how are those socialists lands of honey doing these days......I must have missed the news when it talked about how happy all those cubans are and they just got lost on a good swim when they keep getting picked up outside of miami.

"Those RCTV employees can just go across the street, take over another station, install new management"

Blah, blah, blah. They could apply for jobs somewhere else, just like when any company you work for gets shut down. The point was that the response doesn't fit the crime, and probably has more to do with government censorship than addressing the incident.

If there was a 911 payback for every time the u.s. has fucked another country causing deaths, ruination, etc, through purely self-serving covert activities, the country would be left in smoldering ruins and that would be the right's legacy.

"If there was a 911 payback for every time the u.s. has fucked another country causing deaths, ruination, etc, through purely self-serving covert activities, the country would be left in smoldering ruins and that would be the right's legacy."

You can say that about all but the poorest countries.

""I must have missed the news when it talked about how happy all those cubans are and they just got lost on a good swim when they keep getting picked up outside of miami.""

Oh, and those millions of Mexicans....are they oppressed by Socialists???? How abot the Haitians???
No BL, yu love to pretend Cubans are fleeing Communism but it is pretty obvious that they are exactly the same as refugees from any other poor country...they just want jobs.

"You can say that about all but the poorest countries."

But at least some of us don't need to live in a patriotic dream world where the US is always good and generous and never does anything evil. Or that even when we do something evil it is somehow justified.

"But at least some of us don't need to live in a patriotic dream world where the US is always good and generous and never does anything evil. Or that even when we do something evil it is somehow justified."

No, but some live in a dream world where the US is always wrong and anyone who oppposes the US, no matter how bad their own behavior or how selfish their motives, is a hero.

I find both groups delusional. But being an American, and not into self loathing or suicide, I have to say it is easier to get along with the group who wants to pretend that everything we do is just great. At least they don't act as advocates for people who would murder me over my ethnicity, given the chance.

"""You can say that about all but the poorest countries. """

Can't argue that. Then folks should be informed enough to just not act so surprised, stupid and naive when someone leaves a turd at the front door: you want to piss in someones bowl of soup, you just might get it behind the head.

I find both groups delusional. But being an American, and not into self loathing or suicide, I have to say it is easier to get along with the group who wants to pretend that everything we do is just great. At least they don't act as advocates for people who would murder me over my ethnicity, given the chance.

Posted by Sully

well put sully. no extreme is good.

panch, once again, ur a piece of shit for advocating that the deaths of innocent civilians is justified because of covert shit done by our gov.

on top of that, you justify the shutting down of media centers by chavez because the 'tv stations MUST be a mouthpiece for the cia'. chavez is really just a fair ruler who is simply squashing foreign control in his country. all those people protesting are simply confused by the US CIA, right?

""But being an American, and not into self loathing or suicide, I have to say it is easier to get along with the group who wants to pretend that everything we do is just great.""

I would just have to say that I find it easier to deal with those who are willing to confront the truth and act accordingly. Dealing with dilusional people, even if they seem easy to get along with, seems a bit dangerous to me.

but in the sentiment of sully, panch, your points are slightly, slightly valid. but you then go to the extreme, and don't look at the entire picture objectively because you believe so strongly in these convictions that the CIA has disrupted the world and is the root cause for anything bad that happens.

we aren't 100% innocent for the shit our gov has done in the past.... but we SURE AS HELL aren't 100% guilty for every bad thing that happens in the world. INCLUDING psycho dictators that want to squash freedom of expression in their countries.

come on man, look at the situation for what it is. its a power hungry man who is rooting out and political opposition. now the cia may deserve some blame for the man being paranoid, but that doesn't justify the squashing of freedom of expression.

danni, i think its great that there are people like you looking for the 'truth' and trying to find the bad things in our country that otherwise may go unnoticed. it makes for a good balance... but at the same time i think you fail to recognize the good in this country and what it has done for the world.

its good to see the bad and make it public etc, in order to 'act accordingly', as you put it. but its also important to see the good and be able to 'act accordingly' and make it even better and more prevalent.

"all those people protesting are simply confused by the US CIA, right?"

So what? The oligarchy has its base of supporters. The oligarchy has ruled Venezuela for decades, and isn't going to give up its power and privileges without a fight, as it has amply demonstrated.

"" but at the same time i think you fail to recognize the good in this country and what it has done for the world.""

I know what you mean but we do happen to be in a war sold on lies with people dying, crony capitalists profiteering, outsourcing of American jobs, illegal immigration...etc. etc. So, it becomes a little difficult for me to concern myself with the inner workings of a S. American nation with a democratically elected leader. Many on the right focus on the shortcomings of Chavez while ignoring the criminal behavior of our own elected?? officials. I think we should get our own house in order before we go overthrowing democratically elected leaders, especially when the news we receive about Venezuela is so full of propaganda. Honestly, most Americans do not really even have a way of knowing what the truth is about Chavez or Venezuela. We only know what we are told by media owned by people who are very much opposed to any form of socialism and thus Chavez.
Funny thing, Daniel Orgega is back in spite of the millions our CIA spent opposing him.

but danni, weren't you one of the ones voicing your opinion and 'converning yourself with the inner workings of a s american nation', in support of chavez when he nationalized the oil companies and others? me and other (happen to be) righties here saw the direction this was going. now that our fears have been proven correct, and we were right all along that these were bad moves, you claim that we shouldn't bother concerning ourselves with it.

i understand your paranoia about the media, but the overall picture gets through: chavez is shutting down opposing political opinions and turning his country FROM a democracy to one of tyranny.

do you understand how much our 'crony capitalists profiteering', which goes along with our unstoppable purchasing power/consumerism, has been a benefit to third world nations? do you see how our outsourcing has been a huge befit to developing nations? (see india and china). bottom line is you don't think capatilism is the best form of society, i think, like democracy, that its the worst... aside from all the rest.

other than that, your post is pretty fairly put.

"I would just have to say that I find it easier to deal with those who are willing to confront the truth and act accordingly. Dealing with dilusional people, even if they seem easy to get along with, seems a bit dangerous to me."

Most people are delluded on some level.

Shut all the damn stations down, they are nothing but propaganda machines on for the repo neocons.

shut em down, prevent the spread of the neocons.

"shitting sown talk radio, FOX news"

Is this a typo or an example of truth will out in spite of yourself?

Is it really a tv station or is it a mouthpiece for those fucks at the cia and rightwing nuts pulling their strings that organized the coup, the assassination, etc?

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-05-30 11:50 AM

Gee, I think the good people at Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders and Committee to Protect Journalists would be shocked to find out that RCTV and Globovision were run by the CIA!! Do you think that would change their denunciations of Chavez' stifling free speech through his taking over the last two television stations with national coverage left in Venezuela?

Why are Canucks sooo angry?

"""chavez is really just a fair ruler who is simply squashing foreign control in his country. all those people protesting are simply confused by the US CIA, right?"""

Yes and possibly. Remember the "celebration" you saw in iraq when those "thousands of iraqis" tore down SH's statue? It's make believe to get good photo ops for reuters or AP, nothing less than bullshit. Take a good look at the last 20 years in venezuela, the climb to power via popular vote and motions on the part of Chavez to reclaim what is rightfully his country's. If you look at the opposition, it is funded and organized among others by your gov't's covert actions serving (of course) the best interests of american oil companies and other multinationals.


"""we aren't 100% innocent for the shit our gov has done in the past.... but we SURE AS HELL aren't 100% guilty for every bad thing that happens in the world. INCLUDING psycho dictators that want to squash freedom of expression in their countries."""

the point is: most americans are unaware of what their gov't does and seems surprised when the shit hits the fan. what makes this worse is that they gobble up the shit they are served by mainstream media, which broadcasts a very controlled message. Controlled by who? I'll let you guess.

The simple fact that you tag chavez as a dictator speaks volumes on your own take on reality: the u.s. is right, the media i'm exposed to is the truth. In a international poll a few months ago, bush was identified as the most dangerous terrorist or disruptive element on the planet. To most, he is the psycho dictator, who has proven his mental illness by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in an unprovoked, undefendable war.

"""come on man, look at the situation for what it is. its a power hungry man who is rooting out and political opposition. now the cia may deserve some blame for the man being paranoid, but that doesn't justify the squashing of freedom of expression."""

Again, I invite you to take a good, long hard look at the last 10-20 years of history in venezuela, especially the years leading up to the chavez revolution, the u.s. backed coup, his re-election, and his subsequent efforts to take back what belongs to his countrymen.

Viewed from the outside, it's more the u.s. that is behaving erratically, boderline psychotic when dealing with smaller players.

"I challenge you to actually read this:"

Nice try, Pancho, but these idiots aren't interested in facts. The liberals see an attack on Chavez as a "freebie" to prove their "objectivity", while the rightwingers have never seen a rightwing coup they didn't like, if it is against a leftwing government.

And Righto provides a perfect example of liberals, i.e., self-appointed human rights groups, trying to prove they are "objective", "independent", "non-partisan", etc. I'm not sure who is worse, rightwingers who openly applaud rightwing coups, or liberals like Dodd, Obama, and Clinton trying to embellish their hawkish credentials by carrying water for the right.

"but to actually take over the stations instead of prosecuting the people in charge"

Yeah, like it was just a few "bad apples" rather than the entire media outlet itself.

Yeah, like it was just a few "bad apples" rather than the entire media outlet itself.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-30 03:25 PM | Reply


Dan Rather and Mary Mapes worked there too?

Its funny how you "righties" can go from supporting the bombing of Al Jazeera to knocking chavez for shutting down a news station. How about some consistency? As long as the news station isn't calling for our death its ok right?

That being said, we all should be troubled by this.

The liberals see an attack on Chavez as a "freebie" to prove their "objectivity"

Is that the latest commondreamszmaghuffington.etc "progressive" talking point?

It is really interesting to see how much the denunciation of Chavez from the left for seizing these stations really chaps your ass.

Why is Bush AGAIN butting into the business of yet another country????

Why can't Bush MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS -- unless of course Bushie has an underlying motive for wanting to help that tv station promote insurrection and unrest throughout Venezuela.

"Its funny how you "righties" can go from supporting the bombing of Al Jazeera to knocking chavez for shutting down a news station"

Not so much funny, as entirely predictable. Their newly professed love of freedom of the press is just heart rending.

"It is really interesting to see how much the denunciation of Chavez from the left for seizing these stations really chaps your ass."

Chavez does seem to have a devoted following that sees him as a minor diety. Several members of this religion's clergy post here. They don't acknowledge that he's human and therefore prone to certain mistakes or lapses in moral judgement. And if you accuse him of intentional wrongdoing, forget it.

Therefore, intimidation of the press by a national leader is now a good thing.

From my link at 3:50 p.m.

In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chvez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the [BUSH-BACKED] April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chvez's democratically elected government.

During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisin and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

The film documents the networks' participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup-hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chavez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace.

On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramrez Prez, told a Venevisin reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much.

As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chvez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), "[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chavez."

"Do you blame Chavez for not renewing RCTV's license???"

Yes. He's not punishing specific people for their actions related to the illegal coup.

Rather, he's shutting down the whole station. Why? Because it sends a clear message to the rest of the media that he can take away their soapbox at any time. Collective punishment is always meant to intimidate.

""Therefore, intimidation of the press by a national leader is now a good thing.""

It is certainly no worse that demonization of a democratically elected president because of the fear that his socialistic ideas will spread to other nations...Mexico comes to mind.
Funny thing, if Chavez's socialism were to infect Mexico it could have a major effect on illegal immigration here because the poor peasants would be in a position to share in the wealth that Mexico has for the first time.
I think it is funny watching the righties jump up and down, upset with illegal immigrants while the rich aristocracy hoards the wealth of Mexico and you guys defend that right because property rights are so important that you are even willing to allow your own country to be invaded rather than demand that Mexico compromise those rights and share the wealth.
I haven't noticed too awful many poor Venezuelans invading the US but I sure see a lot of Mexicans.

"Chavez does seem to have a devoted following that sees him as a minor diety. "

I don't see him as a minor deity, Sully. I'm just setting out the facts against a sea of disinformation. If you don't think George Bush would've done as much, if not more, after being kidnapped by the American military, you're really naive. No corporation has the right to use the public airwaves to attempt to shred their nation's constitution.

Censorship is never a good thing, however, that said, it's his country and they do not have our constitution. Makes me happy to be living here rather than there.

However, there are those here that are proponents for Chavez. I wonder if they would enjoy living in his 'free' country.

""No corporation has the right to use the public airwaves to attempt to shred their nation's constitution.""

Unless it is Haliburton or Blackwater.

"Rather, he's shutting down the whole station. "

He refused to renew their license, as any democracy is entitled to. Using the public airwaves is a privilege, not a right.

""I wonder if they would enjoy living in his 'free' country.""

Really you would have to indicate how we would live...as part of the moneyed elite pre-Chavez or as part of the peasant majority pre-Chavez or
as a member of either group post Chavez.
The majority of Venezuelans think they are better off under Chavez. Those who used to enjoy the benefits of the oil money don't like Chavez. Pretty obvious class war down there.

"If you don't think George Bush would've done as much, if not more, after being kidnapped by the American military, you're really naive."

I think certain individuals would be in jail for life, if not executed. I don't think Bush would ever shut down CBS, for example. He wouldn't allowed anyway. He doesn't have the power here that Chavez has at home.

"I haven't noticed too awful many poor Venezuelans invading the US but I sure see a lot of Mexicans."

Danni - buy a map. Poor people can walk into the US from Mexico. Furthermore, when South Americans enter Mexico in an attempt to reach the US, the Mexicans arrest and deport them. Mexico has a zero tolerance policy towards illegal immigration. Look it up.

"Chavez's socialism were to infect Mexico it could have a major effect on illegal immigration here because the poor peasants would be in a position to share in the wealth that Mexico has for the first time."

Mexico is among the most corrupt countries on the planet. Collectivist governments fail due to corruption. Granting Mexican politicians greater control over the Mexican economy would result in a consolodation of wealth, not a distribution of it. I can't think of a worst candidate than Mexico for this type of government. It would be a disaster.

"I don't think Bush would ever shut down CBS, for example"

After being kidnapped in a coup attempt? Is this the same George "patriot act/gitmo" Bush we're talking about? Yeah, his respect for civil liberties is legendary. You're naive.

"I think certain individuals would be in jail for life, if not executed."

So if Chavez had executed members of RCTV it would've been okay, but not renewing their license makes him a dictator !?!?!

Give me a break. If Chavez had jailed or executed members of the media people like you would've been squealing like stuck pigs.

"Yeah, like it was just a few "bad apples" rather than the entire media outlet itself."

Sure Bill. When a media outlet decides to become a service outlet for a coup, the guys holding the teleprompters and boom mics are just as responsible as the network president, right?

If they don't like the policies of their corporation, they're free to find employment elsewhere, Joe. Isn't that what you always say to American workers?

Wars are not only fought on battle fields.

Wars are also fought in the media.

Chaves is just trying to stop the Venezuelan MSM into turning into wot the American MSM already has.

ie a corporate means of effectively maintaining the status quo by disseminating propaganda, stifling debate, and generally molding the debate by ignoring or under-reporting significant news in order to bring you the sound bytes du jour wrapped around info-tainment fluff pieces, human interest stories and ads disguised as news.

Now in Venezuela the RCTV were actually trying to bring about a coup but they were doing it in a effort to make Venezuela another nation run by crony capitolism.

Chavez was right to shut them down.

Be Well.

I never said they were stuck working there, I said they weren't as professionally or legally responsible for the network becoming an outlet for the coup. This was in response to your argument that the "people in charge" weren't the only bad apples and that taking over the network was the only proper solution. Try to stay on topic.

Maybe you ought to learn something in law school about media law and the obligation of corporations to act in the public interest in exchange for their use of the public airwaves.

Spud wishes somebody would bring down the propagandists at FOX like this.

Be Well.

CBS should be closed down for airing the false story in order to effect the outcome of an election.
Sincerely,
The Hugo Bunch

This has been an interestig thread.


Applying the standard used in the US, a 'free press' is the best check we have against a government running amok. A 'free press' holds government accountable.

Abolishment of a news entity by the government here would cause the Lefties to go apeshit - unless of course the news entity was even remotely conservative, and then they'd cheer.

Yet, when good ol' Hugo shuts down an entire media outlet, he's showered with applause from the left.

It's very strange.

In fact, the whole love affair the left has with Chavez is strange.

Maybe you ought to learn something in law school about media law and the obligation of corporations to act in the public interest in exchange for their use of the public airwaves.

Posted by Bill_OReilly

Who gets to define public interest?

"Maybe you ought to learn something in law school about media law and the obligation of corporations to act in the public interest in exchange"

Sorry Bill, I learn about American laws since that's where I'll be practicing. What do you know about Venezuelan law? Are you stating an American principle or one of theirs?

Further, I've said all along that if what this station did was against the law, those involved should be prosecuted. You playing dumb and pretending that's impossible, and that the only proper solution is to take over the network, is hilarious to watch.

Once we have a Democrat in the White House, the government should appropriate and nationalize ALL private oil companies stationed in the US.

Sincerely,

The Hugobunch

This thread really needs Professorbates to weigh in.

Some try to compare chavez's shutting of the station with bush shutting down cbs. What they fail or refuse to understand is that the situation is not the same. There was a coup, backed by the station, that goes without question. There are interests at home and abroad (read: u.s. and multinationals) that want to destabilize the country, that want a return to the raping and pillaging of the country's ressources. Considering the turbulent atmosphere, you should not act surprised if some measures, such as shutting down a virulent and disruptive media outlet that is an obvious mouthpiece, serving the interests of the elite and foreigners.

The people have spoken, and they want chavez. It's nice to see a leader not kow towing to big business and actually representing the interests of the people. Might seem a little bit of a foreign concept to most of us.

"Are you stating an American principle or one of theirs?"

I'm stating a principle that is common to most democratic countries. In virtually every law, corporations that use the public airwaves are required to act in the public interest. Sorry your myopic little mind can't get a handle on that.

Spud wishes somebody would bring down the propagandists at FOX like this.

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud at 2007-05-30 04:45 PM

Leave it to Spud to say what BillO, Chris and Danni were afraid to say.

So much for freedom of the press, if you don't like someone's political agenda, shut them down.

Nice.

"and that the only proper solution is to take over the network, is hilarious to watch."

Give me a break. If Chavez had actually jailed these "journalists", you and the rest of the rightwing would be screaming until you choked.

Don't put words in my mouth, Righto. I don't agree with Spud. There's no justification for shutting down Fox.

"""Who gets to define public interest?"""

The public: they voted, the elite and multinationals lost.

Wot the old soviet Pravda was to truth last century
FOX news is to truth this century.

ROC thinks the MSM is on his side.

Especially FOX.

Wotta moron.

Be Well.

So much for freedom of the press, if you don't like someone's political agenda, shut them down.

Code word: "The Fairness Doctrine"

Wot the old soviet Pravda was to truth last century
FOX news is to truth this century.

ROC thinks the MSM is on his side.

Especially FOX.

Wotta moron.


You're calling ROC a maroon and in the very same breath are drawing complete equivalence between Fox and Pravda?


Too funny!

"CBS should be closed down..."

Karl Rove should be investigated for getting that "document" to Rather in the first place.

Be Well.

Karl Rove should be investigated for getting that "document" to Rather in the first place.


Wait a minute...

I thought the talking point was that the 'document' was never 'proven' to be fake. Now, it's a Rove plant?

Sheesh.

You libs sure have a hard time keeping your spin straight.

"You're calling ROC a maroon and in the very same breath are drawing complete equivalence between Fox and Pravda?"

Jeff, he took a breath :)

But it was only half a breath, Loony.

"Karl Rove should be investigated for getting that "document" to Rather in the first place."

If that "document" came from Rove, Rather deserved to lose his job for trusting him as a source in the first place.

"But it was only half a breath, Loony"

Really? He does think as if he doesn't get enough air.

OH! come on now, Spud! It's only a joke. (pre-empting the tsunami of criticism expected)

Be well.

"Give me a break. If Chavez had actually jailed these "journalists", you and the rest of the rightwing would be screaming until you choked."

Not if what they did was a crime. I have no problem with people being punished for their crimes. That you would use such a straw man is utterly ridiculous, though not unexpected.

All you seem to have in this thread is "if Bush did this, if Chavez did that." It appears as though you're incapable of addressing this particular issue on its own merits. Why is that?

The bottom line is that jailing the journalisits for any crimes they committed would be a lot more appropriate of a response than the government taking over the entire network, especially given the other interesting motivations Chavez may have had for shutting down the station, including his disdain for their soap operas he claimed "promoted capitalism." But go ahead and be deliberately ignorant, it's all you can do to keep cheerleading for a socialist you worship.

"You're calling ROC a maroon and in the very same breath are drawing complete equivalence between Fox and Pravda?"

Yes, Jeff, Spud is.

FOX certainly uses more sophisticated propaganda methods than Pravda did in theior day but at the end of the day it's still all just propaganda.

As someone who at that time was trying to plant hard line anti-Soviet rhetoric into western newspapers I have first hand knowledge why the editors were often reluctant to print it. Smart people explained to me that most of the media was leaning to the left and did not want to go too tough on the socialist experiment. In addition, some editors believed that it is not a good idea to make Soviet bear mad since it has plenty of nukes and it is better not to get on it's nerves and try to avoid dangerous confrontations.

Suddenly, things changed dramatically. "Pravda" is out of business and the new Russian mainstream media became quite civilized, never mind the yellow press. Needless to say that many articles are still very critical of US but the language used by Russian journalists is pretty professional and no longer resembles the one from communist times.

The irony is that in this zero sum game, there are some of the western newspapers that picked up the old Soviet style and use the tone and expressions closely resembling Pravda vocabulary. The leader in this Soviet-American linguistic exchange is obviously the Washington Post. Read the articles on Russia and if you had any nostalgia for agitprop be my guest.

Tater,

THAT is your 'proof'?


Um, OK.

I guess Fox is no different than Pravda. It's all 'tow the party line' with absolutely ZERO opposition viewpoint allowed. Ever.

I take it you've never watched Fox.

"It appears as though you're incapable of addressing this particular issue on its own merits. Why is that?"

You're full of shit, Joe. I've addressed every issue that has been raised in detail. You just keep raising the same stupid non-points over and over. At least Sully and RightoCenter can make arguments. You're just a screechy little windbag.

"drawing complete equivalence between Fox and Pravda"

You're talking to someone who spends hours comparing Bush to Hitler. Hell, he even calls Rob a Nazi. Analogies aren't exactly his strong point.

"You libs sure have a hard time keeping your spin straight."

That aint liberal spin, Jeff.

Nothing that Spud writes is liberal spin.

It's all just Spud's opinion.

The fact that this document ended up on Rathers desk and ended up being a huge coup for the right does tend to make one think it was no mere coincidence that it was disputed so quickly and taken up as a cause by the right so swiftly. In hindsight, to Spud anyway, it looks orchestrated.

Spud has no proof for any of this, of course.

Spud just imagines if someone did dig up a connection between Karl and the document that everybody would just sorta smack their foreheads collectively altogether and say "Of course, it makes nothing but sense!"

Be Well.

Bill-

They aren't non-points, you just refuse to answer them and turn to insults. That's fine, but don't go to step 4 and pretend you've won anything.

BillO-

Sorry, we have discussed this enough that I should have known better.

Spud, I don't watch Fox, and really never have...CNN and MSNBC are streamed to my computer at work if I need to watch the MSM, but mostly I read the NYT, LAT, WSJ and the Economist.

Don't let that get in the way of your endless streams of inanity, however.

"I've addressed every issue that has been raised in detail."

Hilarious. All you've done is talk about "if Bush shut down CBS," "if Chavez jailed the journalists" - anything but what he actually did. According to you, that's "addressing the issues in detail." If detail includes deflecting, then your arguments have been loaded with details.

You're talking to someone who spends hours comparing Bush to Hitler. Hell, he even calls Rob a Nazi. Analogies aren't exactly his strong point.


Agreed.

However, in fairness he really is a smart guy and does occasionally put together some pretty strong posts.

The starchy one has a tendency to over-exaggerate and over-state his position IMO. It's easy to fixate on that and thus filter out some of his better material.

Spud,

Actually, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the infamous 'document' DID come from Rove.

Even if that speculation was true, that's only half of the battle. The other half being Rather using it as evidence without properly vetting it. Had he and his team done their jobs correctly, the memo never would have made it to the screen.

oh and Tater....


For the most part, the media in the US sucks, big time.


That goes for Fox, talk radio, the other TV networks and much of print media.

"Analogies aren't exactly his strong point."

Analogies, similes, metaphors, fables, parables and politics are all fortes of Spud's.

btw, Spud luffed the "complete equivilance" shit!

Too Funny.

If I can find one way in which the analogy is not completely perfect then Spud argument is shit!

Spud clue to Jeffbot and Wob and Joebot.

No analogy is perfect.

In case yer a little hard of thinking Spud'll repeat that.

No analogy is perfect.

Get that?

To say that something is like something else is not to say that is that something else.

Spud don't know which is dumber.

Yer ridiculous absolutist arguments and yer falsely constructed either/or scenarios.

ie Yer either with us or agin' us.
Yer either for the terrorists or yer for the US.
Yer either for Israel or yer a Hamas Hugger.
(That last one's fer GZ obviously)

Are you really all that simple in the head?

Seriously?

Sad. :(

Be Well.

"Yer either for the terrorists or yer for the US."

Not sure if that was directed at me due to the silly language you use, but if it was, I'd love to see proof that I've ever made that argument.

JJ, if a Dem president declared that he was going to take Fox off the air, you're right--the lefties would applaud. They're all for free speech, as long as they agree with it.

Nothing that Spud writes is liberal spin.

It's all just Spud's opinion.

Posted by dethspud at 2007-05-30 05:34 PM

Then you must be writing a bunch of those liberal talking points, and everyone else is picking up on them.

Who knew that the reach of the Pomme de Mort was so vast?

:^)

No analogy is perfect.

No shit.

However, some work a hell of a lot better than others. Analogizing Pravda with Fox doesn't work well. There are more differences than similarities.

I didn't think I needed to spell that out.


Are you really all that simple in the head?

Seriously?


Not at all.

In fairness to you, I can see how my 'exactly the same' comment threw you into your little tirade.

I'll assume responsibility for this one - it was MY poor choice of words that caused you to go in the direction that you went.

My bad.

Stop whining, Joe. I've addressed every point. You just don't like the answers.

JJ, if a Dem president declared that he was going to take Fox off the air, you're right--the lefties would applaud. They're all for free speech, as long as they agree with it.

Posted by rightisright


Agreed RiR.

However, let's not lump BillO into that group (I am not suggesting you were). He stated that he sees no legitimate reason as to why Fox should be taken off the air.

Gee that's funny Bill. I recall posting at 11:29AM today, then you disappearing for hours and never responding. I guess that constitutes "addressing every point" to you.

I'll give you a recap of my argument and let's see if you can respond honestly, without deflecting to "if Bush did this," or "if Chavez did that:"

Jailing the journalists for any crimes they committed would be a more appropriate response than shutting down the entire network, especially given the fact that you've argued that it's against the law to use the airwaves for something "against the public interest." Given the other motives Chavez may have had for shutting down the station, including his disdain for their soap operas he claimed "promoted capitalism."

Respond to the argument that he should have jailed them.

Respond to the fact that he disliked their programming due to its political nature and wants to replace it with his own.

He stated that he sees no legitimate reason as to why Fox should be taken off the air.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-30 05:50 PM

And he's right. Notwithstanding BillO's staunch defense of Chavez (which I think springs from his leftist upbringing by UCLA's PoliSci Department) he has never advocated taking any station off the air because of their political commentary, but supports the denial of RCTV's license because of their involvement in the coup attempt.

"Respond to the argument that he should have jailed them."

Bill, I should have added to this - respond to it without saying something like "if he did that you'd be whining too." I want to know why replacing the network with a government-run one is a better response to their coup support than prosecuting them. If you've already made such a response, please direct me to it.

"For the most part, the media in the US sucks, big time."

Yes, but it sucks deliberately.

That's Spud's point.

There is a purpose to the inanity.

Political Culture sucks... both sides of the aisles.
Media Culture sucks... on all channels and stations
Corporate Culture sucks... tax dollars out of your pocket.

Why?

Because they are all the same culture.

Example.

Newt Gingrich.

Speaks in front of Amway (Jeff may remember this example from the other day)
accepts $100,000 speakers fee fer talking to the Amway folk. Within a very short period of time Newt sticks in an earmark for a tax break to Amway saving them 200+ Million dollars. The media largely shuts up about all of this.

Corporate America is happy.
Beltway America is happy.
MSM gets to keep playing the game.
Get the Access they need to compete.
Get's the corporate nod they need to stay in business.

The American Taxpayer gets screwed.

Laws are written at the behest of the folk who can keep cutting those big cheques, based on the big breaks they get, and a corporately beholden media plays along slowly diluting the product and making it more entertainment than news until you are where you are today.

And who's gonna tell that story, Jeff?

The Pols?
The Corporations?
The MSM?

No, that's the kinda thinking you can only only find in blogworld.

It's the last non-corporate media source.

It's the true Vox Populi.

Vox Humana.

If Spud is try to anger folk it's only because Spud sees danger in the somnolent, devil-may-care attitude he finds in blogworld some days.

We do not have all the time in the world.

Blogworld is more important than it knows.

Be Well.

PS: Understand this is not an isolated phenomenon in the US. It's happening globally.

"Sorry, we have discussed this enough that I should have known better."

Thanks, Righto. Just to reiterate, I see no reasons to refuse a renewal of Fox's broadcast license. When they participate in a coup, I'll be the first to scream for their heads.

What some people don't realize is that the media in most other countries are actually far more partisan than the American media, and openly so, and don't hide behind a "fair and balanced slogan". I would have no problem with Fox replacing their slogan with "The Voice of Conservative America". Identifying their partisan allegiances would bring clarity, and end this ridiculous debate about media bias.

" I want to know why replacing the network with a government-run one is a better response to their coup support than prosecuting them"

Yawn....how many times do I have to answer that question? Let's try it another way. A corporation that systematically violates the public trust should have its charter revoked (or in this case, its license). Its useless to complain that there are a just a few bad apples. You need to include the ownership, the management, and most of the staff. As you know, corporations have the legal status of "persons". As long as they insist on that status, they have no basis to argue that "the person" shouldn't be punished, but only a "few bad apples". The revocation of the charter or license is actually a less severe punishment than imprisoning people.

Now that's the last time I'm going to repeat this argument for the reading impaired.

"but is Congressionally funded, non-profit organization that makes hundreds of grants a year to organizations that promote transparency in government and democracy. How is that a bad thing?"

You mean funding opposition media that is fomenting coups is a good thing? I'm sure you're willing to settle for the propaganda that NED dishes out, but I would take their self-serving press releases with a grain of salt.

Identifying their partisan allegiances would bring clarity, and end this ridiculous debate about media bias.
Can you show any examples of Fox bias in its news reporting? Not commentary shows, but in its reporting.

Why is it a rediculous debate when the public acknowledges and recognizes a media bias?

rediculous
ridiculous

"Can you show any examples of Fox bias in its news reporting? "

None at all, Box-itch. There is no bias in Fox reporting. Fox has never had bias in its reporting. Fox reporting has always been fair and balanced.

Also, Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy.

Spud-

there's a purpose to the inanity

I know that, but when you lash out, old-timers like Jeff and I will poke back.

Political Culture sucks... both sides of the aisles.
Media Culture sucks... on all channels and stations
Corporate Culture sucks... tax dollars out of your pocket.

I have always agreed with you on this point, and I think Jeff does as well.

Laws are written at the behest of the folk who can keep cutting those big cheques, based on the big breaks they get...

Agreed, and it has always been that way.

and a corporately beholden media plays along slowly diluting the product and making it more entertainment than news until you are where you are today.

This is where we disagree, because there are plenty of bright young journalists coming out of Columbia, Northwestern, Berkeley, Harvard who are waiting to make their make as investigative reporters ala Woodward and Bernstein. I think that the Left thinks that the MSM is not tough enough and the right thinks that the MSM is not fair in its reporting bias.

I agree that "blogworld" is an important news source, but it is limited by the GIGO factor.

I'm sure you're willing to settle for the propaganda that NED dishes out, but I would take their self-serving press releases with a grain of salt.

I'm not looking at their press-releases, I am looking at their charter and the lists of grants, like these in South America:

American Center for International Labor Solidarity
$637,327
To strengthen unions' capacity to involve workers in the practice of democracy at their workplaces and in broader economic and political arenas. Economic and technical support will be provided for strategic development of contract proposals, negotiations, and support actions for unions.

The Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
$140,000
To promote and defend human rights in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. CEJIL will continue to present and litigate cases before the Inter-American System (IAS)

Asociacin Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (Civil Association for Equality and Justice)
$58,575
To strengthen the capacity of Argentine civil society organizations working in the villas miserias, or shantytowns, of Buenos Aires.

Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (Center for Legal and Social Studies) (CELS)
$71,460
To strengthen the capacity of human rights organizations in the interior of Argentina.

Fundacin para la Libertad de Prensa (Foundation for Press Freedom) (FLIP)
$86,367
To promote respect for freedom of the press in Colombia. FLIP will maintain its alert network for the protection of journalists, informing national journalists, civil society, and the international community of incidents of attacks against journalists.

Fundacin Social (Social Foundation)
$38,013
To assist local NGOs in promoting the political, economic, and social rights of the internally displaced people.

Fundacin Q'ellkaj (Q'ellkaj Foundation)
$86,408
To increase participation and inclusion of rural indigenous communities and youth leaders in local government.

MesoAmerican Centre for Sustainable Human Rights Action (CEMAS)
$79,970
To promote political participation of community youth through educational workshops on human rights and leadership.

Comisin Andina de Juristas (Andean Commission of Jurists) (CAJ)
$76,477
To improve transparency in the judicial branch.

Accin Campesina (Farmers in Action)
$58,240
To promote farmers' rights at the national and local levels through policy reform at the local level.

"Back atcha, I would take with a huge grain of salt anything out of Znet."

:)

"and a corporately beholden media plays along slowly diluting the product and making it more entertainment than news until you are where you are today."

I don't see why you would disagree with that, Righto. Entertainment and news are becoming virtually indistinguishable, unless you consider "news" about Britney Spears, or missing white girls in Aruba to be news.

Two agrees and one disgree?

From ROC?!

Woo Hoo!

ROC, you realise that anytime you or Jeff agree with Spud that means Spud has to go back and question his original position all over again! :(

Thanx fer that :)

...there are plenty of bright young journalists coming out of Columbia, Northwestern, Berkeley, Harvard who are waiting to make their make as investigative reporters ala Woodward and Bernstein. I think that the Left thinks that the MSM is not tough enough and the right thinks that the MSM is not fair in its reporting bias

"the GIGO factor"

"Garbage In, Garbage Out"?

or...

"Garbage In, Gospel Out"?

Spud really hopes you weren't saying you...

"Got It Going On"

Be Well.

LOL

The founding fathers saw the need for an informed populace if democracy was to work.

This latest batch see the need for a under-informed, dumbed down populace, who can be led easily by the nose to certain issues and just as easily led away from others.

Just as the populations economic "needs" are created by commercials, somtimes.

Their political "needs" are likewise manufactured.

Not Good.

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud at 2007-05-30 07:00 PM

Which is the point of this thread. With the seizure of Globovision, Chavez will control 11 of 12 TV signals with national coverage, comprising over 85% of the television spectrum in Venezuela. The government controls 36 television stations (directly or indirectly) and over 200 radio stations.

Don't you think that kind of direct control by any head of state is dangerous?

I don't know where you get your numbers, but over 95% of the media is in private hands, which means, for all practical purposes, opposition hands.

p.s. RCTV can still broadcast on satellite and cable.

"With the seizure of Globovision,"

When did they seize Globovision? They haven't even seized RCTV, just declined to renew their license.

When did they seize Globovision? They haven't even seized RCTV, just declined to renew their license.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-30 07:51 PM

Semantics. RCTV can't survive without its broadcast license, no one is going to buy ads to reach 3% of an audience.

"RCTV can't survive without its broadcast license, no one is going to buy ads to reach 3% of an audience."

Maybe they should've thought of that when they conspired in a coup. Poor babies.

The U.S. Neocons are at it again...

Just caught Hannity and Colmes on Fox news and they had on a scumbag from -- where else -- the Neocon-infested American Enterprise Institute.

This jerk said that the Venezuelan military better be warned that if they tried to "stop the Venezuelan people (aka the mob down there now protesting in the streets) from expressing their voices being heard that the Venezuelan military "would be held responsible."

THEN the Neocon scumbag DENIED to Colmes that the U.S. had any part in the 2002 coup against Chavez even though Chavez has the coup attempt caught on video and testimony that the U.S. was behind the coup.

HERE WE GO AGAIN -- just like Ron Paul warned against doing -- BUTTING INTO EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.

Bush wants Venezuela's oil and will start a civil war in that country to get it if he has to.

BUSH = HITLER. The Neocons are working this non-renewal of license into a big riot so they have an excuse to go in there with our military and take out - literally -- Chavez and take over the oil.

Tater --

And who's gonna tell that story, Jeff?

The Pols?
The Corporations?
The MSM?

No, that's the kinda thinking you can only only find in blogworld.

Yeah, the only place the real truth gets told is on the blogs but does anyone who counts and could make changes really read the blogs and listen? or care?

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-30 06:12 PM | Reply

Excellent response you made in that post.

Thanks, Chris. And thanks for those excellent links.

"Yeah, the only place the real truth gets told is on the blogs but does anyone who counts and could make changes really read the blogs and listen? or care?"

CChris you would be very suprised to find out who reads the blogs.

The powers that be in the MSM are kinda forced to pay attention to blogworld now because the national dialogue such as it is, exists largely online these days.

If people are talking big on a given subject and the MSM fail to pick up it doesn't kill the debate it adds fuel to the fire.

Makes a nice change.

Those who would and do shape public will through the traditional MSM can only shape the dialogue in blogworld with the use of astro-turfers.

And even there they are limited by the democratic nature of the place and the size.

The beauty of blogworld is, of course, that it's so friggin' big.

Unlike in Robert Rules of order it's always yer turn to speak.

The "great equalizer" Spud is call it somedays.

Mostly Spud just calls it blogworld.

In China under Mao, even the highest officials wanted to know wot was being written about them on the walls outside.

Blogworld is the "writing on the wall"

Be Well.

Maybe you ought to learn something in law school about media law and the obligation of corporations to act in the public interest in exchange for their use of the public airwaves.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-30 04:43 PM

This was Bill's defense of RCTV not having their license renewed. Unbelievably stupid!!!!!!!!!!! Just head back to Nazi Germany Billy Boy...Goebbels would love you. I don't think I've ever witnessed more stupid stuff than what some of you believe and defend than I've seen in this thread.

Ding! Rideon gets the prize for first use of Nazi name calling today. Your prize: A copy of Mein Kampf. Enjoy!

It fit the bill in your case.......

Why are thousands of Venezeulan citizens marching for Free Speech Bill?

Why are thousands marching in support of the government?

They aren't, but the police are torn between shooting at the Free Speech marchers as some of them side with the students.

So I answered your question. Answer mine...do you know how to answer a question by not simply posing a question?

I've answered all of your stupid questions, Rideon. I'm not going to waste the time reposting just for you. Read the thread for yourself.

Same answer to you Andrea. There are 160 comments on this thread you posted, and you finally show up and want me to repost answers I've done repeatedly? Forget it. Read the thread.

Typical, I asked why thousands are protesting for Free Speech. You don't/won't answer. No problem.

I already addressed that earlier in the thread. Read the thread and stop whining.

I've already read enough of your drivel. You can't even answer a straight forward question. You can only ask another question. But, it's all you've got so no problem.

Can you show any examples of Fox bias in its news reporting? Not commentary shows, but in its reporting.

SLICKSTERWILLY

Sure. Unlike the network affiliates, FOX NEWS local news broadcasts always include a prerecorded 'commentary' that is always on the side of the right.

And that 'commentary' is broadcast by ALL Fox affiliates.

Tell me now how THEY'RE not biased?

NONE of the other local news shows do it.

AllAmerican, you are bothered that Fox News leans right.
How do you feel about MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS all lean very heavy left?

Of course that doesn't bother you because they say mostly what you agree with.

Bill Oreally,

Hop a plane soon and you can go down there to defend your gay lover Chavez. Hope you take some lube cause Chavez like to poke the brown eye.

I'm tired of hearing you communist Pieces of Shit defend this worthless dick sucker!

Newsflash: Chavez poll ratings down 20%.
Time to impeach the bastard. Time to have an investigation into anything and everything he's done.

Its time for little Castro to go.

"As you know, corporations have the legal status of "persons". As long as they insist on that status, they have no basis to argue that "the person" shouldn't be punished, but only a "few bad apples"."

You keep repeating American legal principles and pretending that Venezuela has adopted them. Are they bound by America's Supreme Court rulings? That's news to me. Show me where Venezuela treats corporations as people.

I'm sure you would applaud a coup against him.

Oh there's screechy Joe again. I'm done repeating my answers for you. If you disagree you disagree. End of story.

Now getting back to the intelligent posters...Andrea, yes, that assassination video would be grounds for revoking their license, along with their participation in the coup attempt.

You've never answered anything about Venezuela treating corporations as persons, so there's nothing to repeat. If you're afraid to answer, just say so, but don't lie and say you've already answered it.

Dummy, I was talking about the general principle of corporate rights and responsibilities, whether it be in the U.S. or Velenzuela. The questions are the same: should a corporation as an entity be punished for law breaking, or only a "few bad apples".

You see, dummy, your point that the corporation shouldn't be punished but only a "few bad apples" should be is a general question that can apply to any country. But you don't even realize the logic and reach of your own questions.

"Dummy, I was talking about the general principle of corporate rights and responsibilities"

And I'm asking if your application of the American principle of "corporations as persons" to Venezuela was appropriate.

And I never said the corporation shouldn't be punished in some way. It just seems interesting that instead of fining the corporation and jailing the employees involved, they went as far as taking over the #1 opposition media station and replacing it with one run by the government. Of course, if you don't see the obvious red flags there, I'm not going to keep pointing them out to you.

It's not surprising that a good corporate apologist looks in horror that a corporate entity should be punished, rather than a few scapegoats. You don't understand that corporations are more than a sum of its parts. There is an entire corporate culture involved. I take it you never worked in a corporation, otherwise you might understand this.

"looks in horror that a corporate entity should be punished"

I just said above that the corporation should have been fined and those involved jailed.

The bottom line here is that you're willing to give Chavez the benefit of the doubt, and assume the fact that he had previously criticized RCTV's programming as "promoting capitalism" had nothing to do with his takeover of their station, because you like Chavez. You are dismissing the obvious simply because what Chavez did was legal. I don't like Chavez and am not willing to give him that benefit of the doubt, or dismiss the obvious. That's where the discussion ends.

Doesn't matter what he said. RCTV had their license not renewed because of their violation of media laws put in place long before Chavez became President. It was legal and just. Deal with it.

"Doesn't matter what he said"

I know that doesn't matter, to you. Just like the big coincidence that Iraq is where all the oil is doesn't matter to Bush supporters. You have faith in Chavez's good intentions and therefore don't care about the big coincidence that he didn't like the capitalist message preached by RCTV. He was only punishing them for treason and the fact that he didn't like their speech had absolutely nothing to do with his takeover. How silly of anyone else to think otherwise.

"I just said above that the corporation should have been fined and those involved jailed."

Yes, but like a good corporate apologist you can't stand the idea of a corporation having its charter revoked or license revoked. Is there any situation in which you would apply the corporate death sentence, or do you only like capital punishment for people?

"you can't stand the idea of a corporation having its charter revoked or license revoked"

Sure I can. That's fine with me in many situations, but when a socialist leader who didn't like the message within the perfectly legitimate programming decides to replace a network with a government-run one, it raises red flags for me. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, but the manner in which he went about it (including not just letting some other private network to use that station) brings up some questions. But like a good socialist, you pooh-pooh the questions and pretend like anyone asking them is foolish.

" didn't like the message within the perfectly legitimate programming "

But it wasn't perfectly legitimate programming. It was sedition, pure and simple.

By the liberal logic, CBS should no longer exist, after Rathergate. Hypocrites

"But it wasn't perfectly legitimate programming."

I'm talking about the soap operas and other shows that Chavez trashed as "promoting capitalism." I'm saying that their coup support gave Chavez a reason to terminate their license, but the fact that he had other reasons to take over their station remains. You continue to ignore the possibility that he is trying to eliminate opposition media and instead give Chavez the benefit of the doubt, assuming that all his motives are legitimate.

That's fine, just don't pretend to be any smarter than the idiots who think our motives for being in Iraq are legitimate. The red flags are just as obvious, but when someone worships a leader there's no convincing them.

"By the liberal logic, CBS should no longer exist, after Rathergate. Hypocrites"

Funny, I don't recall George Bush being kidnapped by the American military. Refresh my memory.

"I'm talking about the soap operas and other shows that Chavez trashed as "promoting capitalism."

That wasn't the reason their license was not renewed. The government enumerated the numerous violations of Venezuelan media law over the years and showing soap operas or promoting capitalism wasn't one of them.

"That wasn't the reason their license was not renewed"

Like I said, you trust their government. Of course they aren't going to give "promoting capitalism" in their official reasons for taking over the station - that doesn't mean we can't point out the obvious fact that it may have been a motivation. Did the American government officially list "oil" as a reason for invading Iraq? No? Is it okay for people to say that it may have been a motivation?

No, Joe, I trust the facts. I've seen the video broadcast by RCTV. I know what they did and when they did it.

Care to answer the rest of my post?

Why were thousands of students in Venezuela protesting for Free Speech O'Reilly? Are you simply afraid an attempt to answer the question?

During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisin and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

so is this TV shutting down action a conspiracy of sorts or a result of some conspiracy, Billy O?:>)

"Care to answer the rest of my post?"

No. You've wasted enough of my time with moronic non-points.

On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramrez Prez, told a Venevisin reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

Why were thousands of students in Venezuela protesting for Free Speech O'Reilly? Are you simply afraid an attempt to answer the question?

Posted by ride_on at 2007-05-31 12:56 PM

This same question has been pending for you since last night O'Reilly, what's the matter you don't support the students cry for Free Speech in Venezuela?

I answered your question, dummy. I'm not going to repeat it simply because you're too lazy to read my posts.

You didn't answer it. Too much for you I guess.

Since you won't answer the question O'Reilly are we to assume that you do NOT support the students in Venezuela, as they march in the name of Free Speech in their country?

O'Reilly is against the thousands of Venezuelan students who march for Free Speech...YES or NO Billy Boy!

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?

Like I thought, you can't/won't answer the key question that is pertinent to this thread. Your wife beating question is just a tad bit old O'Reilly.

Fish Holds Genetic Link From Fins to Feet

Seems to me there are lots of things that didn't evolve.

Liberals!

Posted by ride_on


Is GW a liberal ~ ride on? yes or no?

:>)

Ding! Rideon gets the prize for first use of Nazi name calling today. Your prize: A copy of Mein Kampf. Enjoy!

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-30 10:07 PM

No, that would be Chris (what a surprise) only minutes earlier:

BUSH = HITLER.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-05-30 09:44 PM

Having read the dialogue between Ride and BillO, one thing about the coup linkage with RCTV bothers me, and that is the 5 year delay in shutting them down: If Chavez was soooo furious that they were coup plotters, why didn't he shut them down immediately, which is the point that BillO repeatedly makes in his (IMO lame) comparison to Bush and CBS.

This latest bluster by Chavez that if Globo doesn't toe the line he will not renew their license is what we trial lawyers call an "admission against interest". He isn't accusing Globo of conspiring in the coup, but holds forth an "ad" which purportedly makes threats, if you squint really hard, against his life as his latest rationale.

Hassn't Bill Maher done similar things on his show against Cheney? Would Bush be in his rights to yank HBO's license under a similar scenario?

Once again, I think if Bush did that, all the libs would have an embolism.

Hassn't Bill Maher done similar things on his show against Cheney? Would Bush be in his rights to yank HBO's license under a similar scenario?

Once again, I think if Bush did that, all the libs would have an embolism.

Posted by Rightocenter



Well, Bill Maher called the 19 goat loving ARABs who supposedly rammed remote controlled 767's into the WTC "courageous" not "cowards" as GW called them & got himself booted off the TV airways back after GW stole the first election...if you recall:>)

O'Reilly is against the thousands of Venezuelan students who march for Free Speech...YES or NO Billy Boy!

"If Chavez was soooo furious that they were coup plotters, why didn't he shut them down immediately,"

Guess he's not a dictator after all.

You people want to have it both ways. If Chavez had shut them down, and imprisoned "journalists" you would be screaming until you're blue in the face. He doesn't shut them down, and only fails to renew their license when it came up for renewal, and your screaming until you're blue in the face.

Thousands of Venezuelan students are screaming and marching for Free Speech. Is O'Reilly for them or against them? Since O'Reilly won't answer, feel free to say if you believe he is for or against them.

....and your screaming until you're blue in the face.

OReillyO

perhaps caused by too much Collidial Silver, Billy o?:>)

"but holds forth an "ad" which purportedly makes threats, if you squint really hard, against his life as his latest rationale."

Please, in the midst of a discussion of Chavez, they air an ad that shows the attempted assassination of the Pope accompanied with the lyrics, "have faith, this will end". That's treason. You would be howling with outrage if CBS did that.

Hey RideOn, fuck off ankle biter. I'm willing to discuss this with intelligent posters like RightoCenter and Andrea, but not with little trolls like yourself.

Do you support the thousands of students in Venezuela who are marching for Free Speech Bill O'Reilly?

You can't even answer a question O'Reilly....is that why you tell me to f off?

"Hassn't Bill Maher done similar things on his show against Cheney? "

That's a terrible analogy and you know it. Was Cheney kidnapped? Was Bill Maher's network engaged in a nonstop campaign for the overthrow of the U.S. government?

If Chavez had shut them down, and imprisoned "journalists" you would be screaming until you're blue in the face. He doesn't shut them down, and only fails to renew their license when it came up for renewal, and your screaming until you're blue in the face.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-31 01:35 PM

If they had been tried in the courts in Venezuela and evidence shown that they had been active participants in the coup, probably not.

Didn't happen, which makes this action seem like stifling of dissenting opinions.

Lincoln never did that, for sure rightocenter!

Looks like Nancy thinks that Chavez is full of shit as well:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress said non renewal of the broadcast license for private television station RCTV undermines one of the pillars of democracy, and called upon Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez to reconsider this decision.

"The decision made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez not to renew the RCTV license to silence criticism is exactly the kind of measures that raise concerns about his leadership," said Pelosi in a press release, Reuters reported.

She added that Chvez' move runs counter to freedom of expression -one of the "pillars of democracy." According to Pelosi, Chvez was poorly advised to make this decision.

"He should reconsider this poorly advised move."

"If they had been tried in the courts in Venezuela and evidence shown that they had been active participants in the coup, probably not."

The law that predates Chavez does not require that for a license to be not renewed.

Nancy Pelosi is a gutless, corporate liberal. No surprise there. Like I said before, the liberals behavior on this issue is even more cowardly than that of the right.

Oops, that great defender of Venezuelan elections, the Carter Center, thinks Chavez fucked up:

Atlanta's Carter Center expressed Thursday concern about the possibility of escalating violence in Venezuela after the end of operations of private TV channel Radio Caracas Televisin (RCTV) and urged demonstrators, the government and the media to sit down and talk, AFP reported.

"It concerns the Carter Center that non-renewal of broadcast concessions for political reasons may result in self-censorship and have an adverse effect on freedom of expression in Venezuela," said Thursday the agency in a press release.
...
The Carter Center urged the government to observe "the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression, freedom to dissent and peaceful protest." The right to dissent, particularly in the media, "should be defended strenuously by any democratic government."

"Lincoln never did that, for sure rightocenter!"

That's right, Bani. He only suspended habeas corpus.

Let's update BillO's Pantheon of Gutless, Corporate Liberals:

Ted Kennedy
Obama Barack
Hillary Cliton
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Jimmy Carter

Don't forget the traditionally liberal organizations that are only using this to show that they are "balanced":

Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International
Reporters without Borders
Committee to Protect Journalists
Carter Center

Plus, what about the thousands of Venezuelan students that are protesting and marching for Free Speech, are the corporate shills too Bill O'Reilly? Give it up dumbass.

"Oops, that great defender of Venezuelan elections, the Carter Center, thinks Chavez fucked up:"

Were you quoting Carter when he called the Venezuelan elections fair and free? I didn't think so.

"Let's update BillO's Pantheon of Gutless, Corporate Liberals:"

That's about right. If you think you're making points, you're talking to the wrong guy. I have nothing but contempt for that spineless Nancy Pelosi, who caved into to George Bush on Iraq.

I hear a squeaking sound in the background from some ankle biter who hasn't contributed anything to this thread. Who might it be?

Bill answer a question...don't just ALWAYS pose a question back. It confirms how absolutely weak your position is on your hero.

Are those thousands of Venezuelan students marching for Free Speech gutless corporate shills Bill? Or, are they the saviors of their country?

The government enumerated the numerous violations of Venezuelan media law over the years and showing soap operas or promoting capitalism wasn't one of them.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-31 12:35 PM

Like I said, you trust their government. Of course they aren't going to give "promoting capitalism" in their official reasons for taking over the station - that doesn't mean we can't point out the obvious fact that it may have been a motivation. Did the American government officially list "oil" as a reason for invading Iraq? No? Is it okay for people to say that it may have been a motivation?

Posted by JOE at 2007-05-31 12:41 PM



Still waiting for an answer Billy. Is it okay to question the official list of motives for an action taken by a governmental entity? Do you always give this much credence to claims made by governments, or only those run by socialists?

Joe, get a life, ankle biter. I've already answered all your questions. I'm done with you. Watch the documentary "The Revolution will not be televised" and then get back to me.

"I've already answered all your questions"

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true. The posts I put up above prove you are dodging me. Answering the questions takes a lot less effort than watching a documentary. You first.

"The posts I put up above prove you are dodging me"

In your dreams, ankle biter. Who would bother dodging you? LOL.

This station closing is a good enough reason to invade and occupy Venezuela.
We will save the Venezuelans from themselves and help them solve their problem of excess oil profits.

"Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true"

Repeating your questions over and over don't make them intelligent.

Tell me why this:


The government enumerated the numerous violations of Venezuelan media law over the years and showing soap operas or promoting capitalism wasn't one of them.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-31 12:35 PM

Like I said, you trust their government. Of course they aren't going to give "promoting capitalism" in their official reasons for taking over the station - that doesn't mean we can't point out the obvious fact that it may have been a motivation. Did the American government officially list "oil" as a reason for invading Iraq? No? Is it okay for people to say that it may have been a motivation?

Posted by JOE at 2007-05-31 12:41 PM


was an unintelligent question.

This station closing is a good enough reason to invade and occupy Venezuela.
We will save the Venezuelans from themselves and help them solve their problem of excess oil profits.

Posted by danni at 2007-05-31 03:12 PM

not funi flag!:>)

I'm done with you, Joe. You've wasted too much of my time already. Go troll on some other thread.

That isn't trolling Bill. It's asking you to answer a question that was part of a back-and-forth. If you can't answer it, just say so, don't pretend like you're above doing so.

Joe's modus operandi:

If you disagree with him, rather than saying we agree to disagree, he'll accuse you of not answering the question, over and over and over, etc. That's what a troll does.

Agreeing to disagree is fine, if the conversation has come to a logical end. There's no "agreeing to disagree" about why you believe everything Chavez says about why he took over a TV station, and why you aren't willing to ask questions. Nobody disagrees about that, you just won't answer. No disagreement here - I suspect if you'd just admit that you like socialists and want to believe what they say, we could agree on that.

Joe's modus operandi:

If you disagree with him, rather than saying "we agree to disagree," he'll accuse you of not answering the question, over and over and over, etc. That's what a troll does.

Bill's classic formula:

This is classic Bill formula.

Step 1: Make a bullshit argument
Step 2: Refuse to explain it or answer any questions
Step 3: Accuse those that call you out on it of being "uneducated" or "trolls"
Step 4: Pretend you've won.

Bill, you are stuck on Step 3. Do you need help claiming victory, or are you saving that for later?

Joe's modus operandi:

If you disagree with him, rather than saying "we agree to disagree," he'll accuse you of not answering the question, over and over and over, etc. That's what a troll does.

I disagree with Bill that Pelosi, Kennedy, Carter, HRW, Amnesty Intl. et al. are "sell outs" or "corporate liberals" just because they aren't supporting Chavez in his actions.

The foundation of any democracy is a free press that can say (but not necessarily do) anything that they want. I agree with RoC that Chavez should have taken the coup participants and put them on trial, but the fact that he didn't do it for the RCTV executives is troubling, at best.

Chavez is a very media saavy politician, but make no mistake that if he felt that someone was involved in the coup, they would be behind bars, or worse, shortly thereafter.

"but make no mistake that if he felt that someone was involved in the coup, they would be behind bars, or worse, shortly thereafter."

Obviously you're wrong, since he didn't put them behind bars. If he had, you rightwingers would be squealing like stuck pigs, just like you're doing now. You guys want to have it both ways. If Chavez doesn't jail his opponents, he's a dictator, if he does, he's a dictator.

If he had, you rightwingers would be squealing like stuck pigs, just like you're doing now. You guys want to have it both ways. If Chavez doesn't jail his opponents, he's a dictator, if he does, he's a dictator.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-31 04:22 PM

Bill, Leftcoast has been posting here (albeit sporadically) for a long time, and he is as much a rightwinger as you are.

That being said, I agree with this premise:

If Chavez doesn't jail his opponents, he's a dictator, if he does, he's a dictator.

At least we can agree that he is a dictator.

:^)

whereas bush isn't a certified dictator yet?

I stand corrected, Righto. My memories of leftcoastlawer was that he was a rightwinger, but a review of his posts shows that is not the case.

Bill gets called a rightwinger & a socialist...& communist!


What are you Bill?

Answer the Question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bani gets an FF.

Everyone knows that Bill is disavowed Left-Hegelian.

Geez, get it straight.

"Answer the Question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

LOL. Pretty funny, Bani.

If you had paid attention during your political theory classes in Bunche Hall, you would have remembered that the pre-eminent "disavowed Left-Hegelian" was...

Wait for it...

Karl Marx.

I just knew that my M.A. in PoliSci would be good for something one day.

"disavowed Left-Hegelian."

Disavowed Left-Hegelian? Seems you're confusing me with another poster around here.

Speaking only for myself, I love Chavez.

I hope he lives forever, that he eventually imprisons all who disagree with him, and that he Castrolizes (I made it up) his country and plunders all its wealth for himself and his rich pals.

Venezuela believed that when he said he was going to take Venezuela back from the evil gringo companies who were "exploiting" the country, that he would be satisfied with a few oil rigs and some factories that the Venezuelans can't run themselves. Now that he's taking over banks, insurance companies, chemical companies, and now TV stations, the Venezuelan citizenry get to live with the consequences of what they've done.

I hope he steals it all.

Disavowed Left-Hegelian? Seems you're confusing me with another poster around here.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-31 05:07 PM

Moi? I'm not confusing you with a simple Marxist, if that is what you mean.

LOL

I hope he steals it all.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-31 07:12 PM

Be careful of what you wish for...

RiR-

I just Castrolized my vintage Porsche the other day, it prefers it over Pennzoil.

Oh, I forgot about Castrol Oil.

How about Castroted? As in, perfectly fine with me if Venezuela is castroted by their socialist leadership?

I actually think that Castrolized is perfect, given the fact that Venezuela is awash in the stuff.

RightisRight said...bla bla bla...

"A marketing research group, Datos, reports that the real income of the poorest Venezuelans, 58 percent of the country, have risen 130 percent under President Hugo Chavez. Although inflation is running at 19.3 percent that is lower than the 52 percent average in the early 1990s before Chavez took office."

Globovision will become Chavezvision!


I wonder when Glover and the other Chavez lovers will be moving to Venezuela. Just wondering???

"A marketing research group, Datos, reports that the real income of the poorest Venezuelans, 58 percent of the country, have risen 130 percent under President Hugo Chavez. Although inflation is running at 19.3 percent that is lower than the 52 percent average in the early 1990s before Chavez took office."

Posted by Bill_OReilly
* * * *

Of course. That's what always happens. The dictator nationalizes the industries, and distributes revenues to the poor who are supportive of him. Their incomes rise, until there are no more revenues to distribute--foreign and private capital leave immediately, as we've already seen, and soon enough there's nothing else left to plunder and steal.
In Cuba it was able to last a little longer, because of the massive aid the Soviets poured in. Now that even has disappeared, and Cuba has assumed its rightful place as one of the poorest countries in the world.
Imagine that. A beautiful island in the main shipping lanes, 90 miles away from the richest country on planet earth, and our prisoners on Guantanamo Bay are better fed than almost anyone else on the wretched island.
Coming soon, to a Caracas neighborhood near you.

" soon enough there's nothing else left to plunder and steal. "

The people who did all the plundering and stealing was the oligarchy. Poor babies, now they actually have to share Venezuelan's oil wealth with the people. Boo hoo.

Uh huh. We'll see how much Chavez is able to do when oil prices go back down--they always do--and there's no other banks to loot, no more foreign pockets to pick.

Gotta hand it to you though Reilly. Just when I thought all the Marxists were dead and gone, you come through. "Workers of the world . . . !" Ah, you know the rest.