TiVo Community Forum banner
461 - 480 of 661 Posts

· All About Footwork
Joined
·
29,907 Posts
Hardly mentioned by Oliver is the fact that one side is illegally occupying the land of the other side. That's always been - to me - the one fact that settles the matter of who's to blame.
 

· I am Groot!
Joined
·
59,014 Posts
Discussion Starter · #462 ·
Hardly mentioned by Oliver is the fact that one side is illegally occupying the land of the other side. That's always been - to me - the one fact that settles the matter of who's to blame.
Of course which is which depends on how far back you go...
 

· All About Footwork
Joined
·
29,907 Posts
Of course which is which depends on how far back you go...
LOL...I can go back to the end of times, there was never an Israel there until 1948. Pretty much the entire world agrees that the "occupied" territories are an illegal occupation! :D

Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).
 

· tabasco rules
Joined
·
16,716 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).
exactly! just get everyone to agree, and you've solved middle-east peace! ;)
 

· Happily Vaccinated!
Joined
·
63,555 Posts
LOL...I can go back to the end of times, there was never an Israel there until 1948. Pretty much the entire world agrees that the "occupied" territories are an illegal occupation! :D

Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).
The one argument I'd make (and this is bordering on politics) is that there has really never been an independent Palestinian state. At least not for a long time anyway. The Israelis, The British, the Ottoman Turks (who ruled for a LONG time), but who really has a claim? Any and all of the above? None of the above? By using that criteria, European ancestors in the Americas are ALL hear illegally as well. So this is not such a cut and dried argument. But as you say, they should at least be able to participate. In some respects, Israelis of Palestinian descent may have more actual democratic rights than Arabs in other countries do. There are Palestinians elected to the Knesset for example.
 

· All About Footwork
Joined
·
29,907 Posts
Egypt wasn't independent from England until 1922 (I would correct that to 1956) so the independent state argument is pretty thin :p

I don't get hung up on the name Palestine because I never thought it belonged to only Moslems who lived there. It belonged to everyone who lived there, regardless of which religion they chose. The main residents were all Semites who converted to different religions.
 

· I am Groot!
Joined
·
59,014 Posts
Discussion Starter · #470 ·

· Happily Vaccinated!
Joined
·
63,555 Posts
Consider me one of the complainers. This was a much better episode and an example of the type of thing John does best. When he takes on a subject that's not all over the news, but something interesting to consider, makes fun of those engaged in said topic and then parodies the topic to show how foolish the people who engage in that topic really are. I really enjoyed this episode. And the Clooney pieces were fun too!
 

· Well-Known Raconteur
Joined
·
18,434 Posts
Good episode. Topical, yet funny. And a subject that should be of interest to most of us who watch JO (local news).

The Venus Veil was great. That pitchperson did a really good job. It's amazing how much bullcrap the local TV stations will let air. Seriously, how does anyone not question that ad, at some point along the line? (Rhetorical question, I know. Money).

Invented 80 years ago in Germany. :D
 

· Happily Vaccinated!
Joined
·
63,555 Posts
Good episode. Topical, yet funny. And a subject that should be of interest to most of us who watch JO (local news).

The Venus Veil was great. That pitchperson did a really good job. It's amazing how much bullcrap the local TV stations will let air. Seriously, how does anyone not question that ad, at some point along the line? (Rhetorical question, I know. Money).

Invented 80 years ago in Germany. :D
As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying. They probably have a prepared set of questions and the guest could say something totally off topic and they would just go through their list. I also think many of them are just not that bright, just a "pretty face for TV". Or, of course, their corporate overlords just tell them not to ask any provocative questions. I'm sure it's some of both.

It's why I only watch the local news for the weather (as I find them more accurate than watching Weather Channel.)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,262 Posts
The "Main Story"mon local news networks was good (I was surprised how cheap it is to book a placement), but as we've seen many times before on LWT when a line is repeated verbatim on multiple local news stations across the country, Local is not local, and scripts are provided buy the corporate owner (I think LWT did a segment on that awhile ago)

edit: that was easy to find on YouTube
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,262 Posts
As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying. They probably have a prepared set of questions and the guest could say something totally off topic and they would just go through their list. I also think many of them are just not that bright, just a "pretty face for TV". Or, of course, their corporate overlords just tell them not to ask any provocative questions. I'm sure it's some of both.

It's why I only watch the local news for the weather (as I find them more accurate than watching Weather Channel.)
Didn't John say that these "spots" were scripted by the company paying the local channel (that would include the questions asked)?
 

· Cat God
Joined
·
17,533 Posts
As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying.
The point was that this is paid advertising which is why the host isn't questioning the guest. They are being paid to follow the script.

It's also why customers in fast food ads don't question the quality of the food. ;)
 
461 - 480 of 661 Posts
Top