I said most Daily Show viewers are ignorant because most of them are; young, college-aged, looking to heckle what they see as establishment or serious topics that are much more complex than the simplication and one-liner treatments they get on Colbert and TDS. Colleges are very influential, liberalism-dominant establishments too. If you think all viewers of O'Reilly are mindless followers then at least I might come off as somewhat reasonable.

Amending to that, you referenced a blatantly biased source of 'statistics' from a man whose very much biased himself. He wouldn't have posted it if it didn't make Fox look bad and you know it. Why don't you just start grabbing accounts from OutFoxed! You don't see that in your analysis?

Most journalists are human and they bleed their inherent beliefs into their stories. Let's also note that when a journalist is hired, he must adhere to the editor, who imposes a belief system based on his/her own. In this case, more Democrats/Liberalists run high positions of influence in the media and it kind of showers right on down. For the record, many top ranking Democrats actually voted for the war(s) in the first place so I'd hardly pin it on 'the administration.'

Whatever O'Reilly said to a guest is wholly irrelevant - so why does it really matter? Also, I never said "that's been years ago", you must have misquoted me.

How ironic, yourself.

But, you see, I didn't make an evaluation on O'Reilly's veiwers.  I'll leave the hasty generalizations to you.  In the mean time, can you prove that the article's assertions are wrong, as opposed to your ad hominem attack on the messenger?

Your trickle-down liberal media bias myth isn't proven by you simply stating how it could happen.  As for the war vote, the administration, and not Congress, who was also dominated by Republicans, drummed for the war.  It's quite easy and acceptable to pin it on who deserves the blame.

I don't get this:  "Whatever O'Reilly said to a guest is wholly irrelevant - so why does it really matter?"  It seems to matter enough to you to still defend O'Reilly's actions to Glick, which isn't some rare occasion for him, and you proclaimed earlier that he 'challenges all of his guests'.  You did comment that it was years ago and that it is time to move on because it is 2007... perhaps O'Reilly viewers should do the same.  If you want to watch him, then fine---let him tell you what movies to avoid and what people to castigate too.  I'm not out to change your mind, but I find it laughable that he is your source for a movie review.  Even if he is right on some occasion, other than this one regarding Bourne Ultimatum, I know him to be a sham, and that's the end of it.

I don't know to what irony you were attempting to redirect at me.  I need to go get ready and see Halloween, after I find out what Noam Chomsky thinks of it.

Wow, I go to sleep for eight hours and I miss all the fun.

So anyhow, uh... what Ryu said!  That should pretty much cover it at this point.  I've gotta get to work.

Checking out his guest tonight, I'm interested in watching that interview.  Thankfully, I have DVR and can fast-forward past everything else.

Well, glad I saw that interview---fallacious and wrong as always, O'Reilly did a terrible job.

*removes any comment made*

Sometimes my brain gets bravado confused with needless criticism and negative statements.  Therefore, I retract this entire post based on the fact that this is one fray I don't need to jump into.

Just wanted to share that badass cue that's featured in both Supremacy and Ultimatum, but not featured in any of the two soundtrack releases.  I dubbed it "Chase," because in Supremacy, it plays during the jeep chase in Goa -- and in Ultimatum, they use part of it (at 2:15) when Bourne is chasing down Paz in Waterloo Station.  The clean rip is attributed to the fact that it also serves as the end credits for Supremacy:

Chase:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/angie_liu … c.&.view=l