# Why Chuck?  Why?



## Andrew Green (Jan 30, 2007)

Chuck Norris, on Fox News, making a fool of himself 

[yt]MAPZFqFZy6A[/yt]


----------



## Carol (Jan 30, 2007)

Your title says it all, Andrew


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Oh my God Andrew you realize you just called Chuck a fool&#8230;&#8230; Oh this can&#8217;t be good.

I will now go barricade myself in a closet and hope Chuck does not find me just for posting here :uhyeah:.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 31, 2007)

Do I really need to start posting Chuck Noris "facts"?

Although after this, it is remaining harder to remain a "believer"


----------



## donald (Jan 31, 2007)

Well my problem is I don't have sound on the computer that I use. Now I have to ask. What did Mr.Norris say, or do that was so "foolish" ? 

1stJohn1:9


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 31, 2007)

donald said:


> Well my problem is I don't have sound on the computer that I use. Now I have to ask. What did Mr.Norris say, or do that was so "foolish" ?
> 
> 1stJohn1:9


Same here. (Actually, because I'm deaf, I have no need for speakers). I'd like to know also.... :idunno:

- Ceicei


----------



## Carol (Jan 31, 2007)

In a nutshell...Chuck Norris seemed to be sitting in for Sean Hannity on the Hannity and Colmes show.  

An Iraqi-American musician was being interviewed...a young fellow that has written songs about Iraq and Iraqi life. The entire interview isn't shown but its implied that he has also has songs about American involvment in Iraq.  I was actually fascinated by this young man.  He communicates well, he's very polite, when he's asked a question, he answers it without pushing an agenda or hyping himself, and comes across as a person that's reasonably well-educated.

He's asked about life in Iraq

Chuck Norris says "Well, life is better now, right?"  And the fellow says well...no, its really not, because now they have to worry about neighbors killing neighbors.  While the young fellow makes it clear that he did not want to make excuses for Hussein or support Hussein, he said things were more stable.

And...Chuck Norris would NOT let the subject drop!  He started going on about how there was a risk of being pulled out of your home and killed, imprisoned, or raped....and the young fellow said for someone like himself, it was better then than it is now.  

Chuck Norris continued on the line of questioning until he got to a line that just ripped my guts out. 

Chuck touched on religious persecution, and the young fellow said he was Catholic, and tha there are other families in Iraq that share his line of Catholicism...and that Saddam Hussein, again he stated that he wasn't excusing him, but said Hussein pretty much left Catholics alone but now Catholics are being persecuted in the Shi'a-Sunni mess that has come about.

I don't personally know if Chuck Norris is a partisan Republican or in support of the war and I don't mind if he is...or isn't.  I also understand where he was on a show where he is expected to play a conservative role just like a stand-in for Alan Colmes is expected to play a liberal role.

The impact on me was the overall picture.  The fellow that was being interviewed was absolutely captivating.   I'm not saying that because of my personal feelings on the Iraq war...I'm saying that because the young musician really was THAT fascinating to listen to.

But to have the young man countered by the line of questioning, the tone of voice, the insistance to not deviate from the "Whaddaya mean things aren't better now..." mantra instead of digging deeper in to what the young fellow was saying...the result was very, very sad.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 31, 2007)

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, he beat the horse till long after it was dead.  Seemed incapable of seeing the musicians point that maybe things where more stable under Sudam then they are now.

Then he beat the horse some more, getting more and more off base as he went.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 31, 2007)

It's hard to say, but he might have been instructed to ask 'upon these lines' etc. To stay in line with what Hannity wanted asked? I really don't know how much is 'ask these 5 questions, pursue these 3' etc.

I'm pretty much completely Repub (*poke*) and I found myself wanting him to ask the kid more along the lines of what the kid was telling him. Ie. feed off of the information and get the real scoop, not any slant on it, simply how things were. Perhaps even get an opinion of what the kid thought would help change things for a more stable Iraq.

Honestly though, I think that he was given a set of questions and that's pretty much it. I'm not sure he's ever been an interviewer type before, or what his leeway was for following where the interviewee took him.

I did get though, that while Sadam was evil incarnate in some areas, for that kid, things would be worse for him now if he was there.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 31, 2007)

Sorry, my biased friends. 

I see nothing wrong with what Chuck had to say. I thought he conducted the interview in a fair manner, and gave the young "rapper" a chance to state his position, despite any opinions that he may hold. I think that he did a much better job then Hannity usually does, who usually doesn't give people he disagrees with the opportunity to state a point without being interupted and harrassed.


----------



## tellner (Jan 31, 2007)

Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of that crowd of smug, self-righteous, mean, tiny souled bullies need ten or twelve good hard kicks in the nadgers with steel-toed boots. If you're feeling merciful. Otherwise what they need is to spend a few hours in a situation where someone else has control of the mike and they have to take what they love to dish out.


----------



## Carol (Jan 31, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Sorry, my biased friends.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with what Chuck had to say.




Don't know if I see it so much as wrong.  More like disappointing.

And don't let my blue state fool you.   Politically, I'm agnostic.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 31, 2007)

tellner said:


> Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of that crowd of smug, self-righteous, mean, tiny souled bullies need ten or twelve good hard kicks in the nadgers with steel-toed boots. If you're feeling merciful. Otherwise what they need is to spend a few hours in a situation where someone else has control of the mike and they have to take what they love to dish out.



Thats right  Lets just supress anyone who has a voice we don't agree with, why should they be allowed to speak? Down with dissent and free speech! Those guys need a good dose of communist supression. That should cure up things.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 31, 2007)

More to the topic, I think the questions were appropriate and pointed. The guy handled himself quite well. There are issues in Iraq, and I think he was rather eloquent in pointing them out. That being said, I don't think Chuck should pursue a career in broadcasting LOL. Bring back Hannity! hehehe

Dealing with the specific, I think its a good point that things were a bit more controlled under Saddam, but you tend to get that in a rigid dictatorship.


----------



## searcher (Jan 31, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Oh my God Andrew you realize you just called Chuck a fool Oh this cant be good.
> 
> I will now go barricade myself in a closet and hope Chuck does not find me just for posting here :uhyeah:.


 

I heard he already killed three counties in Texas just to vent his anger.:shrug:

It is so sad to see Chuck losing his mind as he ages.


----------



## tellner (Jan 31, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Thats right  Lets just supress anyone who has a voice we don't agree with, why should they be allowed to speak? Down with dissent and free speech! Those guys need a good dose of communist supression. That should cure up things.



Cute. Not.

All I'm suggesting is that these vile little people with their monstrous egos get, what would it be, about a tenth of a percent of the cruelty that they dish out on a yearly basis. Did I ever say censorship? No. Did I ever say they shouldn't be allowed to spew their venom and vent their intolerable spleen to the True Believers? Of course not. But they really need the sort of comeuppance that all pompous bullies desperately deserve. And the one who caused an innocent woman to commit suicide by hounding her to death? No pit is too deep for that evil excuse for a human being.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 31, 2007)

I'm with Tellner on this one. I think that Hannity is a total prick. When he interviews, he jumps all over people who don't agree with him. He's egotistical, and insulting. **** him.

In light of this, however, I think that Chuck did a good job. I would vote having him in there as a pundent rather then Hannity on any given day. He was more articulate, and much more fair in his manner of handling the interview. Hell, he actually let his interviewee talk, and clarify his opinion.

So, I am not so sure what was "wrong" here, other then a more conservative opinion. The fact that it is fox news, and the fact that Chuck appears to have a more conservative bias seems to bother some. It doesn't bother me, because I agree with a lot of conservative views (now, "neocon" is a different story!). Many would consider me a conservative, even though I consider myself more of an independent (or agnostic like Carol  ).  

So I don't mind conservative opinions by any means. It is just nice to here a conservative pundant who isn't an A-hole for a change.


----------



## Carol (Jan 31, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So, I am not so sure what was "wrong" here, other then a more conservative opinion.


 
Didja ever come across someone seemed like they were asking the same question over and over and over again until they got the answer they wanted?  That's how it came across to me...ugh!  

From a man...not just a man...but CHUCK   with 30 years of movie and TV work...I expected him to have a lot more stature than he did.

And now I have to take some Advil because he just roundhouse kicked the air hard enough to cause a low pressure cell over New Hampshire and the atmospheric change is starting to make my head hurt ......


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 31, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Didja ever come across someone seemed like they were asking the same question over and over and over again until they got the answer they wanted? That's how it came across to me...ugh!
> 
> From a man...not just a man...but CHUCK  with 30 years of movie and TV work...I expected him to have a lot more stature than he did.
> 
> And now I have to take some Advil because he just roundhouse kicked the air hard enough to cause a low pressure cell over New Hampshire and the atmospheric change is starting to make my head hurt ......


 
lol. Yea, I guess I can see what you are saying.

I guess I just didn't have that high expectations for him either. I mean seriously... did you WATCH the movie "Delta Force" :lol2:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 31, 2007)

Conservatives, when they are truly conservatives are fine.  That, was not.  That was asking pointed questions based on assumptions rather then fact about the state of Iraq before and after the invasion.  That was beating a dead horse.

Chuck is not a broadcaster, he was filling in, and probably had someone else do his prep work.  That person is also a idiot.

Where did that "Liberal is a bad word" thread go?  I think we need a "Conservative is a bad word" thread as well.  Or maybe just combine the two and have a "Politics is a bad word" thread.

I'd consider myself pretty liberal on some things, and pretty conservative on other things.  Yet both sides seem more interested in towing a idealized party line then looking at reality right now.


----------



## Carol (Jan 31, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Yet both sides seem more interested in towing a idealized party line then looking at reality right now.


 
Yeah but if you start voting I'm going to REALLY raise hell.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 31, 2007)

Fortunately as  a Canadian I can't vote in any election you can


----------



## zDom (Feb 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> ... both sides seem more interested in towing a idealized party line then looking at reality right now.



I completely agree with this statement. Well said.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I'd consider myself pretty liberal on some things, and pretty conservative on other things.  Yet both sides seem more interested in towing a idealized party line then looking at reality right now.



I've said it before here and will probably say it again, but most party politics these days is not really about the ideology of the poltical view but about maintaining and increasing the party power itself.


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 1, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I don't personally know if Chuck Norris is a partisan Republican or in support of the war and I don't mind if he is...or isn't. I also understand where he was on a show where he is expected to play a conservative role just like a stand-in for Alan Colmes is expected to play a liberal role.


 
I think this is a very important point. It really doesn't matter what Chuck actually thinks. He is being told what agenda to push by fox news. What the young rapper had to say didn't matter to fox news in the slightest.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Yet both sides seem more interested in towing a idealized party line then looking at reality right now.



Like them or not, the thing is they are only going to debate with people who's opinions fall within the *permissible spectrum* of public opinion.  So there is always a perceived left, right, and varying degrees in between, but really they are all in the same sandbox.  They don't invite opinion from those outside of their sandbox.


----------



## crushing (Feb 1, 2007)




----------



## Cruentus (Feb 1, 2007)

Oh my god Andrew.... look out!


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 1, 2007)

Duck, Andrew, duck!  (or better yet, RUN!)  Chuck has the attack of PMS.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 1, 2007)

I thought that because Chuck is so masculine, that bleeding from the...huh....hoonanner idunno: ) was like Cryptonite for the Chuck?

[Children....hoonanner means ears. YEEES. Ears.... :uhoh: ]


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I thought that because Chuck is so masculine, that bleeding from the...huh....hoonanner idunno: ) was like Cryptonite for the Chuck?
> 
> [Children....hoonanner means ears. YEEES. Ears.... :uhoh: ]



Him?  Nah, more like catnip than kryptonite.  He generally treats ladies well so men better watch for the cat.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I thought that because Chuck is so masculine, that bleeding from the...huh....hoonanner idunno: ) was like Cryptonite for the Chuck?
> 
> [Children....hoonanner means ears. YEEES. Ears.... :uhoh: ]


 
Actually never mind... I just read this:



> When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it won't be because he is gay. It will be because he has run out of women.


and



> Chuck Norris can't finish a "color by numbers" because his markers are filled with the blood of his victims. Unfortunately, all blood is dark red.


So it is obvious that blood of any and all kinds cannot stop the Chuck... :rofl:


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 1, 2007)

crushing said:


>



I dunno, there looks to be so much starch in that Gi I'm not sure even Chuck could move to quickly.  He may be stuck, but then with Chuck Norris it's hard to tell if he is frozen or just stopping for a minute to let everyone else catch up out of courtesy.


----------



## searcher (Feb 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So it is obvious that blood of any and all kinds cannot stop the Chuck...


 

Chuck can't be stopped by blood because he would kill the blood for trying to stop him.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I don't personally know if Chuck Norris is a partisan Republican or in support of the war and I don't mind if he is...or isn't.


 
Is....he has a regular column  here.


----------



## Carol (Feb 2, 2007)

elder999 said:


> Is....he has a regular column here.


 
:asian:


----------



## Marginal (Feb 2, 2007)

Perhaps they could have The Ultimate Warrior fill in next time...


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 3, 2007)

To be completly honest I dont see nothing that a few months attendance at a "how to interview people" course would not solve. The young man in question on the whole conducted himself pretty well, but to be honest, how long did he say he had been in Iraq? 3 months, I doubt he had the full picture.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 3, 2007)

Well, let's face it...it is Fox News.  They have their viewpoint, and their "Guest Host" is simply expressing it.


----------



## donald (Feb 3, 2007)

I think that it may have been more "stable" under the late Saddam. Do we forget the "stability" of the former USSR?  The same things were being said about the state of life there. After the collapse of the Communist regime. In essence everyone has, and is entitled to thier opinion. Especially when they are in the thick of it. The fact is that until someone emerges in Iraq as a respected leader. The days over there are going to remain ugly. I for one believe that we need to get out with honour. Get ourselves stable in the region. Decide on who the leadership is over there. Bring them to the table, and ask them. Alright what do you need us to do before we leave? Give these "talks" about 3mos.. At the end of OUR time table. Hand them the reigns, and pull out just as quickly as possible. We don't expect another nation to come onto our soil, and direct us through our problems. Why should we try to do that to another. 

1stJohn1:9


----------



## grydth (Feb 5, 2007)

It truly does pay to read a thread before responding....... for awhile I thought you guys were all bashing Chuck Barris, the creator of the Gong Show...... now I see it's only Chuck Norris that you are after.......carry on.......


----------

