Archive for June 5th, 2006

Reading O’Reilly

I used to watch O’Reilly all the time. Now I haven’t watched him in a year or so.

First, there was his attempt to prove he was not a racist by his lead “exposure” that some white kids in Georgia held their own senior prom.

Long before somebody put the label “interrogrator” on it, I had common sense. So I can always tell what kind of response O’Reilly got from his fans. He is energetic when he is on a story that his viewers like. He looks like a stormcloud when he gets heavy flak from his own people.

When he did a commentary on that Great Expose the next week, he looked like a hurricane in a bad mood. He read a couple of the attacks on him for attacking these teenagers.

“There’s all black, why not all white?”

“You really HATE the South, don’t you?”

And so on.

I finally quit watching, though, when O’Reilly became sort of a bad-tempered old school marm. All he talked about was Catholic mores, how if you don’t drink alcohol the way heroes like him don’t you won’t be alcoholics, and a list of similar bitches I simply cannot remember.

He also sticks carefully to pet guests.

If a liberal is willing to go on his show, O’Reilly is the perfect respectable conservative.

The week after he spent his whole time yelling at David Duke and David still managed to destroy everything he said, he came on like a stormcloud.

Against the NATIONALLY Accepted Villain of both Poltiical Correctness and respectable cosnervatism, he got slammed by his viewers. I don’t think he read one single comment.

I haven’t checked, but I assume that O’Reilly is still just a bad-tempered version of Larry King.

4 Comments

Latent and “DUHH!”

I admitted my admiration of the “latent homosexual” tactic that liberals use to silence all oppositiont to Gay Lib.

The beauty of this tactic is that you can’t argue with it.

If someone is a “latent” homosexual” it means he doesn’t KNOW he is a homosexual. By definition, he is hte last person on earth who can defend himself from the chrage.

You can’t argue that you aren’t a LATENT anything.

Another neat and similar gambit is hte “DUHH!” tactic. This is a product of the inbred intellectual hothouse antis live in. The anti simply says “DUHH!” or, in the standard anti language, which is synonymous iwth “DUHH!” they say, “I don’t understand what you are talking about.”

Now if you are a New York City provincial or any other kind of provincial who thinks that his is the Only Truly Sophisticated World, anyone you don’t understand is a rube. In fact, anybody who doesn’t repeat what you are used to hearing is, by definition, a rube.

And, like “latent,” there is no way to answer this argument.

How can you argue with someone about whether THEY understand what you are talking about? If you accept the assumption that if they don’t understand, then YOU are doing something wrong, it all falls into place.

You cannot argue that you are not a “latent” anything. You cannot argue that someone else understands what you are saying, no matter how simple it is.

Which means antis never have to absorb new ideas.

People who are comfortable with new ideas don’t develop tactics like that.

3 Comments

Latent and “DUHH!”

I admitted my admiration of the “latent homosexual” tactic that liberals use to silence all oppositiont to Gay Lib.

The beauty of this tactic is that you can’t argue with it.

If someone is a “latent” homosexual” it means he doesn’t KNOW he is a homosexual. By definition, he is hte last person on earth who can defend himself from the chrage.

You can’t argue that you aren’t a LATENT anything.

Another neat and similar gambit is hte “DUHH!” tactic. This is a product of the inbred intellectual hothouse antis live in. The anti simply says “DUHH!” or, in the standard anti language, which is synonymous iwth “DUHH!” they say, “I don’t understand what you are talking about.”

Now if you are a New York City provincial or any other kind of provincial who thinks that his is the Only Truly Sophisticated World, anyone you don’t understand is a rube. In fact, anybody who doesn’t repeat what you are used to hearing is, by definition, a rube.

And, like “latent,” there is no way to answer this argument.

How can you argue with someone about whether THEY understand what you are talking about? If you accept the assumption that if they don’t understand, then YOU are doing something wrong, it all falls into place.

You cannot argue that you are not a “latent” anything. You cannot argue that someone else understands what you are saying, no matter how simple it is.

Which means antis never have to absorb new ideas.

People who are comfortable with new ideas don’t develop tactics like that.

1 Comment