Bill O'Reilly talking points memo..
jlew24asu
Posts: 10,118
lets try this againt. I think he makes very good points here.
Both liberals and conservatives are furious and are pounding each other in vicious ways.
The John Kerry controversy has set off a firestorm on the right. The initial voting on BillOReilly.com — our poll question asks whether Kerry intentionally meant to demean the military — shows a deep-seated resentment towards the senator for his perceived anti-military bias.
On the left, the hatred of President Bush has reached hysterical proportions. Hyper-liberals hate him because of his aggressive anti-terror strategies, Iraq and his faith-based point-of-view.
In the middle are Americans who are not ideologues, who simply want the best plan, the best people and the best outcome for their country.
It is here where next Tuesday's election will be decided.
Talking Points believes that most of these people will not vote at all. They're not going to show up. That's because many Americans are deeply conflicted and some are downright disgusted.
On the one hand, we have not secured Iraq after three and a half years and hope is not a policy.
It's not the fault of our military, it's the Iraqi people who are the problem. They are simply not doing enough to stop the bad guys in their midst.
After the Taliban was defeated, the Afghanis didn't start killing each other, did they? But in Iraq the death squads are destroying any semblance of freedom.
So what do we do? Leave Iraq to Iran and the terrorists? We might have to, but that would mean another very vicious battlefield somewhere down the road.
So Americans are faced with one party that hasn't defeated the enemy in Iraq and another party that has no anti-terror strategy and is dominated by far-left zealots like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi — people who believe the USA is the problem in the world.
Faced with those two choices, Talking Points believes there will be a low turnout on Tuesday with many independents and apathetics staying home. That scenario would help the Republicans, who need all the help they can get.
But no matter what happens next Tuesday, one thing is very clear: America is a divided nation and our enemies know it.
And that's The Memo.
Both liberals and conservatives are furious and are pounding each other in vicious ways.
The John Kerry controversy has set off a firestorm on the right. The initial voting on BillOReilly.com — our poll question asks whether Kerry intentionally meant to demean the military — shows a deep-seated resentment towards the senator for his perceived anti-military bias.
On the left, the hatred of President Bush has reached hysterical proportions. Hyper-liberals hate him because of his aggressive anti-terror strategies, Iraq and his faith-based point-of-view.
In the middle are Americans who are not ideologues, who simply want the best plan, the best people and the best outcome for their country.
It is here where next Tuesday's election will be decided.
Talking Points believes that most of these people will not vote at all. They're not going to show up. That's because many Americans are deeply conflicted and some are downright disgusted.
On the one hand, we have not secured Iraq after three and a half years and hope is not a policy.
It's not the fault of our military, it's the Iraqi people who are the problem. They are simply not doing enough to stop the bad guys in their midst.
After the Taliban was defeated, the Afghanis didn't start killing each other, did they? But in Iraq the death squads are destroying any semblance of freedom.
So what do we do? Leave Iraq to Iran and the terrorists? We might have to, but that would mean another very vicious battlefield somewhere down the road.
So Americans are faced with one party that hasn't defeated the enemy in Iraq and another party that has no anti-terror strategy and is dominated by far-left zealots like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi — people who believe the USA is the problem in the world.
Faced with those two choices, Talking Points believes there will be a low turnout on Tuesday with many independents and apathetics staying home. That scenario would help the Republicans, who need all the help they can get.
But no matter what happens next Tuesday, one thing is very clear: America is a divided nation and our enemies know it.
And that's The Memo.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
This is part of the 70% I agree with O'Reilly on. How can anybody dispute this is beyond me. Personally, O'Reilly is a pompass conservative. But when he's right, he's right. Same goes for any pompass liberal.0
-
This shows a total lack of understanding of the current situation.It's not the fault of our military, it's the Iraqi people who are the problem. They are simply not doing enough to stop the bad guys in their midst.
Afghanistan is not Iraq. Also, the Taliban has not been completely eliminated because Cheney was so eager to invade Iraq.After the Taliban was defeated, the Afghanis didn't start killing each other, did they? But in Iraq the death squads are destroying any semblance of freedom.
Hmm, it seems that they aren't aloneSo Americans are faced with one party that hasn't defeated the enemy in Iraq and another party that has no anti-terror strategy and is dominated by far-left zealots like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi — people who believe the USA is the problem in the world.0 -
John Budge wrote:This shows a total lack of understanding of the current situation.
you didnt seem to add why you think that.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:l
I think he makes very good points here.
On the left, the hatred of President Bush has reached hysterical proportions. Hyper-liberals hate him because of his aggressive anti-terror strategies, Iraq and his faith-based point-of-view.
It's not the fault of our military, it's the Iraqi people who are the problem. They are simply not doing enough to stop the bad guys in their midst.
well, yeah, that makes sense...a president that has values that half of america does not hold. he is president of the united states of america...not the right hand of god...not the president of the christian contingent in america...he should be pushing policies that benefit and are pallatable for the whole instead of the few.
no, it's not the military's fault...it's not the iraqi people that are the problem either...they didn't ask for this!!! they had it shoved down their throats like an RPG, literally!
what good points came from this? i just decided to choose the moronic ones...the only thing that he said that is true is that the u.s. is a divided nation...thanks, mr. bush!I'll dig a tunnel
from my window to yours0 -
I just can't seem to listen to any O'Riley says. I agree he is a pompus jerk, and this keeps me from hearing him. I don't care if he is 100% correct, I don't want to listen. If any of you said the same things, I would be like: Heck yea, right on. But O'Riley says it, and I am completely turned off. This may be wrong, but true."F**K you, I have laundry to do" -ed0
-
humanlight wrote:I just can't seem to listen to any O'Riley says. I agree he is a pompus jerk, and this keeps me from hearing him. I don't care if he is 100% correct, I don't want to listen. If any of you said the same things, I would be like: Heck yea, right on. But O'Riley says it, and I am completely turned off. This may be wrong, but true.
at least you admit being ignorant.0 -
trappedinmyradio wrote:well, yeah, that makes sense...a president that has values that half of america does not hold. he is president of the united states of america...not the right hand of god...not the president of the christian contingent in america...he should be pushing policies that benefit and are pallatable for the whole instead of the few.
no, it's not the military's fault...it's not the iraqi people that are the problem either...they didn't ask for this!!! they had it shoved down their throats like an RPG, literally!
what good points came from this? i just decided to choose the moronic ones...the only thing that he said that is true is that the u.s. is a divided nation...thanks, mr. bush!
why cant the iraqi people be held responsible for themselves? they are people too.
and if a far left liberal took office, wouldnt that seperate our country too?0 -
through all this ... did he forget you got a president who lied to go to war, a president who appoints cronies to important positions (see FEMA), one who has broken laws, etc...
he is right, it isn't the fault of the military ... the military asked for more troops and a better plan ... well, guess who's fault that is? ... and afghanistan is a cluster fuck - without NATO troops in their the yanks would be toast ... no one is winning that war either ... and in the meantime ... many people are suffering for all the wrong reasons ...
bill o'reilly has been caught so many times lying and distorting truths ... he has no credibility ...0 -
jlew24asu wrote:why cant the iraqi people be held responsible for themselves? they are people too.
and if a far left liberal took office, wouldnt that seperate our country too?
see the portion of my response which points out that the iraqi people didn't ask for this...that's why they shouldn't have to step up and be responsible for this mess!
i did not suggest that a far-left liberal take office - the people that know me here know me to be quite middle runner - but, if that were to happen, then, yes, the country would be divided...do me a favor and try to ask questions which are not rhetorical in nature...they're boring and they just waste time...I'll dig a tunnel
from my window to yours0 -
There's nothing Bill O'Reilly says that can't be found elsewhere. Not listening to him because he's an arrogant jack-ass doesn't mean you're ignorant.jlew24asu wrote:at least you admit being ignorant.
And he's full of shit anyway. I'm not quite sure what a hyper-liberal is, but considering Bush's approval ratings they must make up about 65% of the country. Of course, with O'Reilly, it's never "the left" - It's "far left zealots." I'm not sure why. My guess is, since the "left" in this country are generally considered reasonable people - they're supposed party makes up about half our government, and may take the majority - their arguments must be framed in such a way as to make them unpalatable. Calling them all Communists - oh, I'm sorry, "far left zealots" - makes them scarier. Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi? Yeah, they're a couple of reds all right.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:at least you admit being ignorant.
I am far from ignorant, but I know my biases. It is like if a friend lies to you, oh we'll say at least 3 times a week. Eventually, you just stop listening. You get your advice and news elsewhere. Same here for me. Bill is just not someone I trust to give me the news. I am done listening to what he has to say."F**K you, I have laundry to do" -ed0 -
Fiscal conservatives are fed up with him because of our ballooning debt and wasteful pork-barrel spending that has reached levels undreamed of by any previous administration.jlew24asu wrote:On the left, the hatred of President Bush has reached hysterical proportions. Hyper-liberals hate him because of his aggressive anti-terror strategies, Iraq and his faith-based point-of-view.
Religious conservatives are pissed off because he's failed to accomplish any of the objectives that he spent so much time trumpeting about when he was campaigning in their churches.
People born after the 12th century are disappointed in him for abandoning habeus corpus.
I could go on, but you get the idea ... it seems everyone has a reason to hate George W. Bush!"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 19630 -
RainDog wrote:There's nothing Bill O'Reilly says that can't be found elsewhere. Not listening to him because he's an arrogant jack-ass doesn't mean you're ignorant.
And he's full of shit anyway. I'm not quite sure what a hyper-liberal is, but considering Bush's approval ratings they must make up about 65% of the country. Of course, with O'Reilly, it's never "the left" - It's "far left zealots." I'm not sure why. My guess is, since the "left" in this country are generally considered reasonable people - they're supposed party makes up about half our government, and may take the majority - their arguments must be framed in such a way as to make them unpalatable. Calling them all Communists - oh, I'm sorry, "far left zealots" - makes them scarier. Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi? Yeah, they're a couple of reds all right.
Thanks man! I knew you had my back! He he he."F**K you, I have laundry to do" -ed0 -
Bill is the "Culture Warrior"!!
Not to mention a self centered blow hard who characterizes anyone who is Anti Iraq war as a "blame America" strawman.
In fact, Bill O loves his strawmen so much...he may just sexually harass one of them using a vibrator and a loofah. Only time will tell."Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago"- Stephen Colbert0 -
RainDog wrote:There's nothing Bill O'Reilly says that can't be found elsewhere. Not listening to him because he's an arrogant jack-ass doesn't mean you're ignorant.
thats not true. O'Reilly doesnt just report the news. he has guests on his show, usually someone with opposing points of view, to debate opinions.0 -
There are certainly plenty of other media outlets where one can be exposed to multiple points of view. There's no reason at all to watch O'Reilly unless you happen to be entertained by his antics.jlew24asu wrote:thats not true. O'Reilly doesnt just report the news. he has guests on his show, usually someone with opposing points of view, to debate opinions."Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 19630 -
Of course it's true. Unless you mean to say that every single person in the world who doesn't watch Bill O'Reilly is somehow ignorant by definition.jlew24asu wrote:thats not true. O'Reilly doesnt just report the news. he has guests on his show, usually someone with opposing points of view, to debate opinions.
Who are you, the right wing John Kerry?0 -
hippiemom wrote:There are certainly plenty of other media outlets where one can be exposed to multiple points of view. There's no reason at all to watch O'Reilly unless you happen to be entertained by his antics.
fair enough but I believe it has some very good things to say, mostly regarding family values. sure he is can be called a hypocrite for his sexual harrasement shit but he believes family values, specifically regarding children, is very important. I also do not agree with alot he says, for the record
he also is more of a traditionalist, who believes america is inheritly good, and tries to find the good in a situation, which is often written off blind super far right bias.0 -
RainDog wrote:Of course it's true. Unless you mean to say that every single person in the world who doesn't watch Bill O'Reilly is somehow ignorant by definition.
Who are you, the right wing John Kerry?
yes I do think its ignorant to completely block out anything he has to say based that he works for fox news and is a right wing fanatic0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help