| 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.  | |
|
| |
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/24/2007 2:22:13 AM |
Neocon? Is that like Mr. Smith from the Matrix? Anti Neo?
Newsflash, it's not the "Democrat" party either. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/24/2007 3:05:09 PM | Hillary??? You gotta be kidding me. She won't bring about universal health care, an issue that is important to me. Dennis Kucinich is more like it for me!!
Bill O'Lielly, Rush Limpuke and Ann (unprintable) Coulter are some of the worst brainwashers out there. I can see from some of the posts on here that too many people are being duped and fooled by these idiots. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 12:41:41 AM | Universal Health Care wont work in the US on a federal level, talk to anyone from England that actually pays attention. Even in the movie Sicko if you actually listen to the people with Socialized Medicine one or two say "It wont work in the US".
And it wont...its too expensive and there are far too many people that would abuse it.
If you open up the pharmaceuticals companies to competition, create a Free Market in medicine, open up Competition between doctors...then you get affordable health care, you can also get hospitals that are run by charities again, that did things for the good of people...not because some federal law requires them to do so.
I suggest listening to -Dr.- Ron Paul on the medical issue, the gentleman has been a Dr for 50 years and has delivered more than 4000 babies, many for free b/c he didn't accept Medicare or Medicaid, he covered those expenses out of his own pocket for people.
If we drive our nation to Economic death...socialized medicine will do us no good. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 2:12:29 AM |
Universal Health Care wont work in the US on a federal level, talk to anyone from England that actually pays attention. Even in the movie Sicko if you actually listen to the people with Socialized Medicine one or two say "It wont work in the US".
I believe they said "It won't happen" in the US.
Not that it wouldn't work, but simply that their was too much vested interest in the system continuing to be broken. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 9:01:14 AM | Well my English friend says it wont work b/c there are simply too many people here, and in the movie a guy in france basically says the same... as well as fairly common sense considering that we have 300,000,000+ people and about 20,000,000-+ illegals in our country...it just -wont work- here.
How on earth could we pay for it? We're already almost $10,000,000,000,000 in debt...
Free market is the way to go, Ron Paul has it right... | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 9:14:36 AM |
Well my English friend says it wont work b/c there are simply too many people here, and in the movie a guy in france basically says the same... as well as fairly common sense considering that we have 300,000,000+ people and about 20,000,000-+ illegals in our country...it just -wont work- here.
More people means more tax revenues.
How on earth could we pay for it? We're already almost $10,000,000,000,000 in debt...
The US system is more expensive per capita for the government than Canadas or UK. The free market in this case doesn't work.
Before you respond. Ask yourself this....
What the hell does this have to do with Bill O'Reilly? Maybe this discussion belongs in another thread? | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 9:43:32 AM | You jumped in on my reply to someone else...
Taxes arent plain and simple profit for the US....there is a Federal Reserve system that takes up 90%+ of the funds gathered by the (illegal) IRS. War is paid for by Corporate Tax, Roads are paid for by gas tax, Education is paid for by property tax...primarily, there are some differences in the taxation and where its applied.
After its all said and done Americans pay 50-60% of what they make to Taxes...we've had enough, we dont need more Taxes to pay for some mass free Social Healthcare that will cause major waiting times for healthcare services and such.
It may work in some states, some local communities, but it wont work in the federal level. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 11:07:52 AM | There is much to criticize Bill O about, there's even a whole wiki page to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly
He's a propagandist. Working to help push through the administration's policies.
Remember his boycott of French goods starting in 2003.
In March 2003, O'Reilly called for a boycott of French products and services sold in the United States, due to President Jacques Chirac's stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Goes to show that he was eager to invade Iraq.
Bill also has the habit of name calling. Which is not a decent way to debate or even to interact. One can see that his fans have picked up his nasty habit. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 1:17:41 PM | "name calling" by Bill O being picked up by fans and being 'nasty'.
Let's see, we have remarks about Limpuke, etc. from designing woman - who qualifies as one of the most hateful people I've ever seen post here. And she isn't the only dem doing that...so where do they pick it up from. Or is that sort of nastiness an inborn trait for these people?
What is it about conservative commentators that drives you people to such excesses of emotion? I've read some of Ann Coulter's work, and Al Franken, her liberal alter ego - Ann is by far the better writer and shows far more empathy for others, including her opponents, than does Franken - who in one of his books, basically wished alcoholism on President Bush. And how many brutal remarks have I heard about Limbaugh's addiction to (pay attention to the next word here) legal pain killers? The man is only human - at least in his addiction, he hasn't killed anybody, as has Ted Kennedy with his drinking and driving.
I thought democrats were supposed to be caring people? Don't see much of that tho, on here or out there. I'd love to be proven wrong though. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 6:56:25 PM | Hateful????? Some of the conservatives who remark on here are worse, calling liberals all kinds of stupid names.
I hate conservatism precisely because I am a caring person. I want this country to be strong and healthy, and conservatism is not doing that for us. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 7:02:30 PM | | We haven't had a truly Conservative country in about 100 years. Real conservative society is run with voluntary charity for health care and genuine kindness, not forced taxation and free care thats open to abuse by people that don't assist society but simply leech from it. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/25/2007 10:18:54 PM | | O’Reilly substitutes defamation for engagement. He and others on CNN/FOX have practiced that for years. Old tactics, downplay the opposition as not patriotic enough. They're an intellectual step backwards because of all the angst they generate and the hate they spew. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/26/2007 7:36:21 AM |
According to a seminal work entitled ' 'Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), "households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."
You have neglected to mention a rather important part of what the book states. The findings arrived at by Brooks (which have been heavily disputed, but that's another argument) are not based on conservatives and liberals, but on religious conservatives and non-religious liberals. The results may have been far different if the groups were non-religious conservatives and religious liberals, or just conservatives and liberals.
Therefore, the book does not present enough evidence to be able to make a blanket statement that conservatives are more generous than liberals. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/26/2007 9:42:43 AM | | ^^^ Damn! A person can't take an obscure, unconfirmed statistic that supports his stance without being challenged around here. No wonder Bill O isn't revered here... | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/26/2007 10:48:22 AM | ["households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."]
I'll agree with that. Liberal are too busy trying to take away from those with a successful life via taxes, and whining about their own self-imposed problems to think about others. That is a general broad statement and it to apply only to whiners. There are probably "good" liberals who put their money where their mouth is. Even that crazy Jimmy Carter does some good, a la Habitat for Humanity (hey - he's a Christian!). Brad Pitt & his squeeze, libbies I assume, are out there DOING. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/26/2007 11:15:30 AM | Conservatives are busy whining about taxes, and use charities as tax writeoffs.  | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/26/2007 1:01:46 PM | msquared says; "The results may have been far different if the groups were non-religious conservatives and religious liberals, or just conservatives and liberals."
An excellent point msquared..as far as it goes. The book does address just this point, although not in nearly as much depth. Non-religious conservatives do happen to donate more to charity than non-religious liberals.
Another point here is that the religious do tend more towards conservatism - or perhaps conservatives tend more towards religion, not sure which tail is wagging which dog here.
Just to further the point, since conservatives have been labelled, here and elsewhere, as lacking in compassion, are some further quotes from both the book and from reviews of it. Have fun and you liberals out there, don't gnash your teeth too much over this, ok?
[Brooks] points out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood. (they would be the bleeding heart liberals we hear about?)
"Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money." (so they won't spend their money, but expect us to fund everything for them, even causes we don't believe in, then call us callous? Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal)
Brooks writes: "Although they usually give less to charity, they [liberals] have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice." (nothing I could say here could possibly be cynical enough to express my thoughts about this. designing lady, perhaps you might comment on this, since you have so much to say about nasty mean-hearted conservatives?)
I trust that we've heard the last from designing woman on just how nasty and uncaring we conservatives are? And dearie? I'm sure that liberals also take the tax deductions for charitable giving, so don't try to claim conservatives are hypocritical for doing it. Give it up - you're point has been fully and completely disproven. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/26/2007 1:58:26 PM | Historically, when government spending is low and taxes are low, private charitable giving is always high. For example, the 19th century saw the largest outpouring of private charity in America's history. But as government spending and taxes increased, charity spending decreased.
The fact that charity giving is so high from wealthy people when taxes are low is one of the main reasons for saying we don't need to tax the wealthy highly.
Plus the simple fact that if someone works hard for their money, the government shouldn't have a right to take 50% of that money. Most "rich" are people making $250,000 or more. They shouldn't have to give half of that to taxes, IMO. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/27/2007 1:01:39 AM |
Historically, when government spending is low and taxes are low, private charitable giving is always high. For example, the 19th century saw the largest outpouring of private charity in America's history. But as government spending and taxes increased, charity spending decreased.
The fact that charity giving is so high from wealthy people when taxes are low is one of the main reasons for saying we don't need to tax the wealthy highly.
Plus the simple fact that if someone works hard for their money, the government shouldn't have a right to take 50% of that money. Most "rich" are people making $250,000 or more. They shouldn't have to give half of that to taxes, IMO.
Excellent post!
This is the beauty of Ron Paul's tax and health care ideas! Charity was great and Medical Care was available to so many people b/c it was run with Charity. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/27/2007 6:40:12 PM | I wont Peter, unfortunately he's the only candidate that is any different from any of the others.
Hillary, Obama, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson...all members of the Council of Foreign Relations, which all support a universal government of the world, and especially support a North American Union, a binding of Canada, Mexico, and US through Laws, Borders, Currency, and Economy.
I cannot support that.
All of the above are also all pro-preemptive nuclear war, and they are -all- anti-Second Amendment. Giuliani and Thompson have also supported Firearm Confiscation laws, and any pro-second amendment legislation they have voted FOR has given the Federal Government blanket control over firearms owners, which I find dangerous.
Ron Paul supports State power, abolishment of the IRS and escape from the Federal Reserve...those, along with virtually everything else that he supports are things that I support.
He supports personal liberty...people need to understand that personal liberty, aka Freedom, is hard work and requires Personal Responsibility...I don't believe in government hand outs. Entitlements create slavery and dependence through supporting laziness. Charity goes further than taxation for the benefits of mankind. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 1/29/2008 5:54:49 PM | Bill O'Reilly is a great american.
He knows that there are no Vets's homeless. If there are any they can go to his house, or he would prefer to take them to John Edward's house.
When O'Reilly's guest, radio host Ed Schultz, said of Edwards that "he's got tremendous conviction," O'Reilly replied jovially, "We're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So if you find anybody, let us know. ... If you know where one is ... you call me immediately and we will make sure that man does not do it."
The few Vet's that may be homeless should go get a job.
 | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 1/30/2008 5:28:44 AM | The few Vet's that may be homeless should go get a job.
maybe all the pecies of crap that are on welfare should go get a job first, i find it a little insulting that they serve are country and the only advice or help that u have for them is to go get a job, they had one, it was defending us. but about the edwards thing, i think that oreiily just pointing out the fact that edwards is a jackass, hes running around talking about the 2 americas, well i guess edwards is right about that there are 2, theres him and then 95% of the rest of us. i guess we should know better then to listen to a trial lawyer shouldnt we? edwards is a joke, so heres his story , became a lawyer, sue people , become a billonaire, then tell people that the system is stacked against them,that is absurd.would that not make him part of the problem and not the soultion? | |
|
Home
login 
