|
|
|
|
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 4:48:25 PM | mr get mad: if the mainstream us media was not bought and paid for, if it was square and straight, bill o would not have a show.....fox news merely exploits the fact that our media is corrupt and left slanted. years ago, in the cronkite days, there would be no need for a fox news.
peter | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 5:53:11 PM | "years ago, in the cronkite days, there would be no need for a fox news."
Amen to that! Cronkite was someone you just knew you could trust. Definitely substance over style. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 5:56:52 PM | Historically the economy has performed better under Democratic presidents. The history of the stock market vs. what kinds of presidents we had in office proves this. Also, stocks grew most when there was a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. Stock charts don't lie!!!!!!
Once I know that a Democratic president and Democratic Congress is voted in I am going to buy up a bunch of $tock$ and watch it grow while ignorant people are moaning that the economy will go downhill. 
One more reason to ignore blowhards like Bill O'Lielly and Rush Limpuke. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 10:28:59 PM | Amazing - almost every one of you has chosen to ignore the points I've made, or determine through some arcane thought process that I've conceded the argument.
Ok, so Roosevelt was a liberal for his time. That wasn't the point, and saying so fails to refute my argument. And as for Regan being a 'neo-con' hero, I'd do a little reading first. He's being lauded by more than just his constituency, you'll find.
The percentage of federal debt due to the war is less than it was after the second world war and the period after that was one of the biggest booms the economy had ever seen. The economy won't tank because of the war and that wasn't what I said. I said, the dems will BLAME it on the war. That is not the same thing at all and shows, once again, that you fail to read what is written, or read into it what you want to see. But you won't accept that comment, so I'll quit making it.
Ok, the economic argument, since you want it. Intentional devaluation - as in permitting currency devaluation to occur rather than taking adequate steps to prevent it, which is within the ability of the US Treasury, allows debt to be paid off in lower cost dollars. It also encourages foreign investment and makes it easier for that country's producers to sell their goods overseas. This is pretty basic stuff. Canada did it in the late seventies and eighties, although to some extent, the goals were different (inflation control, exporting of unemployment).
This process keeps debt in check, since a country's debt is either in the form of loans (treasury bonds, etc.) to its citizens (which have a net wealth benefit), or borrowing from foreigh countries, which generally does not have a net benefit, although it can depend on how the loans are structured and what deals are struck at the time of the loan. It's complex. It's reasonably safe to say that foreign debt is a drain on the economy in the long term, although the dollars may ultimately return to the debtor country in the form of increased purchasing by the lending entity. What is more important is the net and relative percentages of these numbers in historical terms, which is why I made the earlier point about war spending.
I can guarantee you this, the Democrats fiscal policies (outside of devaluation) will be substantially different and in such a way that the economy will tank, which they will then blame on Republican policies. Interestingly enough, designing woman made my point for me with her remarks about the stock market. To wit, democratic administrations often show good stock market results as a result of prior Republican policies (lag time for policies to take effect, etc.). Democrats claim that as a win, but when the economy goes sour, they immediately blame it on the prior administration, even when the situation occurs well into their administration. They can't have it both ways. It's the reason I would like to see two years of economics be a required subject in school - it would be far more difficult for politicians to pull the wool over our eyes if the average person understood monetary policy, along with economics in general.
And btw, designing woman - the market has been booming for the last, oh, seven or so years.....could be you're going to make the classic amateur's move and buy in at the top, after all the gains have been made during a Republican administration. Some advice for you: get a competent financial advisor before you commit your money.
As for personal attacks Charles, when someone refers to me as 'Hitler's pal', I'd say I've got a reasonable beef, that's about as low a remark as can be made - but you don't hear me whining to the mods, do you? Grow a thicker skin why don't you?
And when I comment about reading skills or lack thereof, as I've done with you and others on occasion, I'm suggesting that you pay closer attention to what you read, and not (deliberately?) misinterpret what is clearly written. I find myself constantly frustrated by what appears to be deliberate 'obtuseness' by those on your side of the debate. And when people choose to pretend that they don't 'know even the basic background of issues under discussion because that way, they can attack the other side, I question why I even bother responding.
If they truly don't know these things - for a recent example, who was saying what about wmd in the runup to the Iraq war when it's all public record and part of our recent history - I question what right they have to even be IN a discussion on that subject. To use an analogy, it's like having a kid who has never learned to multiply and divide, and putting him into an advanced trig class. He simply cannot contribute and when he attempts to enter the discussion, he wastes other's time with his lack of knowledge. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 10:43:33 PM | msquared: re your message beginning: I notice your entire post is just an attempt to discredit me
The facts are inherent, given an intelligent reading of the material. In fact, the essence of my entire commentary is that any reasonably aware human on this continent would know the facts on which my discussion was based. Perhaps your self proclaimed 'weirdness' (yes, I read your profile) prevents you from realizing this. If that is the case, I simply cannot help you.
Fact: in the runup to the Iraq war, people on both sides of the debate took positions on wmd. These were public and widely promulgated. They are, in effect, a given. In broad terms, democrats took one position, conservatives another. If you intend to intelligently participate in a forum such as this, you'd have to have this 'basic' knowledge. You pretend not to - and notice, I don't simply say you're ignorant of the truth, just pretending to be...
Of course, with this 'pretending', you can then disingenously state that I have 'conceded' the argument by not offering any facts. Nice ploy - now please give it up and use the intelligence I presume you to have before I'm forced to realize I may be wrong about that. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 10:46:37 PM | | @grog 27 - In the Cronkite days, there was a heck of a lot less airtime available and it was controlled by a liberal media. It wasn't that there was no need for a Fox News - there was no availability of airtime to permit its creation. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/21/2007 4:46:59 AM | If I said Hitler's pal then you must need some new glasses. Check the quote. You use Hitler as a point in your argument. Used him as a false analogy. You know, as a helping tool. No where ever did I say Hitlers pal. Perfect example of how people can distort another persons words. Funnier is that you're not throwing a matching hissyfit when I called you a warmonger. So that's ok with you?
Bill is similar to Limbaugh in that he's a cheerleader for the administration. He's an apologist. Not a journalist. Neither in Sean Hannity.
The term liberal media is a misnomer. To wedge in even more conservative corporate owned media outlets who will echo the White House talking points and not ask questions. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/21/2007 8:15:45 AM | | do u even watch bill oreilly, u must not i watch a good bit, i hear him critize bush quit a bit, maybe not as much as u would like ( but there would never be enough for u , i would guess). he is not an appologist for this admin. he just does not hate theme the way it seems u do.The term liberal media is a misnomer , u must be brain dead or completly clueless, you should come out in the daylight sometime it would be good for u | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/21/2007 10:03:37 AM | Liberal media. How is that a bad thing? We all know what media is, the definition of liberal, that's another matter. Liberal means many things. From Dictionary.com, note #4,5,6,7.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
People throwing 'liberal media' around as though it were derogatory. How has liberal, a word which means freedom of expression, tolerance, civil liberties, and representational government. Liberal seems as American a baseball and grandma's apple pie.
If not liberal media, what option of media would be optimal? Non-liberal media? BillO clones?
Should there be limits to freedom? | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/21/2007 12:23:09 PM | Thank you for that excellent definition of what a liberal really is. Perhaps we will wake up some ignorant people on here!!
Good job!!
Bill O'Lielly doesn't need any more clones (gag!) | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 8:24:27 AM | "hand outs to the lazy who dont want to work for a living"
Then, as a conservative, why do you support corporate welfare if you dont believe in giving handouts to the lazy?...Because supporting the rich to keep getting richer without them working harder or longer and going without the the penalties the rest of us pay is doing exackly that!...Supporting people who dont work and earn it..They just happen to be rich instead of poor...And rob far more of your money than a million poor people would | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 2:22:45 PM | @ get mad baby - my most abject apologies. Of course you never called me Hitler's pal - you said, my pal Hitler, message 81 in the thread on "Things in Afghanastan- what Main Stream Media Is Not Reporting
Posted: 10/19/2007 8 24 AM". How could I have made SUCH an error? Mea culpa!
So, here's what I have to say to you - you're a miserable piece of work, perhaps you haven't lie in an absolute sense, since the remark wasn't made on this thread, but your behaviour is entirely egregious (conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible, so you don't miss my meaning).
If this is the level of discourse you consider appropriate in what is purported to be an intelligent forum, I want nothing more to do with you - do not address me in any way, unless you can show the decency and humility to apologize for attempting to deceive everyone here.
To quote from James and the Giant Peach:
Grasshopper: This is an outrage! You are a disgrace to your Phylum, Order, Class, Genus and Spe...
Centipede: Say it in English!
Grasshopper: YOU, sir, are an ASS! | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 2:33:41 PM | Oh I have to Laugh at those that have bought whole libral medi thing. Yes corprate America that pays for the airtime of all those libral News show really loves Librals. yes they Love the ideals of Libralism. 
Wake Up O' Rielly and the other right wing talking heads are just that talking heads with an agenda. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 3:12:25 PM | Thank you.
And as for the agenda of the concervative talking heads. They're framing the argument that the media is too liberal slanted, when it's mostly corporate owned, they just want more conservative shows.
Look up conservative. You'll see it's more about tradition, which is a lack of progress.
Seems that those who are namecalling the media to be liberal, would like to see the news akin to what they have in China, where their news is hevily censored.
So, why is liberal something to be detested in media? Or, why would people want to put an end to liberal media? To put limits to freedom. | |
|
| For You Bill Oreilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 3:39:34 PM | The very word Liberal Has been demonized by the Talking heads. I for one when called a liberal say Thanks for the compliment. I'm proud to be in the Company of Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Kennedy. Yes even the right wings favorite antichrist Bill Clinton Or did Hillery take his place as the new antichrist?
A great many of these conservatives won't admit to how much their lives have been improved by liberal programs. Programs that helped them pay for College. helped then buy a Home. Helped their parents pay for health care so that the family did not have to bare the whole burden. Yes there are Liberal Programs that allow people to get the capital to start a Business. | |
|
| For You Bill Oreilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 4:02:03 PM | AMEN!! Well said. Yes, liberal programs are actually pro-business. That's right!
I also believe that providing universal health care will be the most pro business move anyone can make! Imagine, not having to spend so much on health insurance so that one can grow the business instead???!!!
Liberal and Proud of It!!
 | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 6:22:19 PM | "In the Cronkite days, there was a heck of a lot less airtime available and it was controlled by a liberal media. "
@ "gottobme";
You use the word "liberal" almost as a pejorative. Why is that? Does the idea of someone being capable of independent, critical thought really scare you that much? If so, why? Would you rather live in a world where everyone is in "agreement", not because of being right, but because they're afraid of being labelled an outcast, a traitor, or "unpatriotic"? Certainly not my idea of a free society. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 7:02:33 PM | Grog, I'm only mimicing what several of the liberal types on here have done/said to conservatives - for example, 'designing woman' on another thread pretty much called conservatives the spawn of Satan - and worse. One anal sphincter here claimed I was 'Hitler's pal', then denied it when I called him on it, even though his post is there in plain view. So we have liars and haters - they don't say much for being liberal, do they?
Thus, I'm not impressed by many of the so-called liberal intellects I've seen here - much of it has been petty, ill-informed, judgemental and plain stupid commentary from people who don't take the time to do their own research and simply ape the opinions of others, usually equally misinformed media types - and being from the media myself, I know what that's about.
I'm not afraid of independent thought, liberal OR conservative- just those who think that it only resides in the minds of those who think as they do. Damn few of the people posting here are capable of independent thinking - and it's obvious from reading their posts just who the bright ones are.
There are some good liberal ideas out there - like socialized medicine (although not as in Canada), and quite frankly, I would prefer to find a middle road between 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' as they are usually thought of so that the best of both ideologies could come forward...but I can't see that happening, not when I see the shining examples of 'liberal' thought that I've seen here.
For example, I don't think I've seen a Canadian conservative insult your country or president - but some of my fellow Canucks of a left of centre bias seem to think it perfectly ok to be incredibly rude to a people and country who are our dearest friends. Not only are they rude, they're stupid and uninformed - and if that's liberalism, then yes, it's a pejorative.
As was said, 'by their actions shall ye know them'. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/22/2007 9:40:52 PM | ...while I'm thinking of it - several people wanted to see my 'economic' argument and one person chastised me for not putting it up so that he could argue with it. Well...there it is, a few messages back...so, no comment? Or is economic theory somewhat of a mystery to the left of center types?
Just to fuel the debate for designing woman and her eccentric investment' theory, here's a quote from an article in Forbes - for those of you who aren't into business (that would be you left wing types), Forbes is one of the pre-eminent business publications in the world. Note the last sentence of the first para, a quote from Peter Cohan.
"Other economists say there is a relationship between the economy and share prices, but it works in complicated ways. There may be a substantial lag time between economic gains and share price gains. On the other hand, share prices may rise in anticipation of better economic times rather than in reaction to actual prosperity. Share prices also may rise if investors' negative expectations in a given situation are not realized. Management consultant Peter Cohan says investors have poor expectations of Democrats, so once the Democrats are in power, stocks rise in relief "when it turns out they don't screw up the economy." | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/23/2007 7:50:02 PM | designing woman, please vote for hillary....you might look good in a burkha, hell, you could design them!
peter | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/23/2007 7:52:27 PM | for the get mad baby;
ever heard michael savage? he calls liberalism a mental disorder....
peter | |
|
| |
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/23/2007 9:07:56 PM |
designing woman, please vote for hillary....you might look good in a burkha, hell, you could design them!
This look like the kind of argument a 12 year old would make...
ever heard michael savage? he calls liberalism a mental disorder....
or a Michael Savage listener, which has about the same maturity level.
Can't argue the truth, so lets argue the person. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/23/2007 10:53:22 PM |
I also believe that providing universal health care will be the most pro business move anyone can make! Imagine, not having to spend so much on health insurance so that one can grow the business instead???!!!
The only people who will benefit are the very corporations that the liberals hate.
How about giving people a choice? Why is it that everybody who doesn't believe in "forced insurance" have to pay for it?
How about the freedom of choice?
Why do liberals think they have to save everybody from themselves?
For the BEST deffination of the Democrats and the Republicans check out these.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/LeftRightLeft.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/LibsAndCons.shtml | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/23/2007 11:10:29 PM | O'Reilly is just another bought and paid for neocon scumbag like Hannity and Glenn Beck...
Big O talks about being all moral and great then tells people to "SHUT UP", as well as talks over anyone that can beat his arguments...but he's just another televangelist pervert.
He's had charges/allegations against him for sexual harassment a few times...he's the pervert.
Let me tell you...his book for kids...probably shouldn't subject them to his crap.  | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
