O'Reilly rippin mad

C

Connecticut Stud

New member
we have troops dying in iraq daily

we have a lower than low minimum wage

we have a shoddy environmental plan

we have little investment in renewable energy...

whats oreilly worried about??

So that's where we are. And every poll showed that Americans wanted change in Iraq and that's why the Democrats won.

Now the unintended consequence of the power shift in D.C. is that some Democrats will try to impose a secular-progressive agenda on the country.
First, there will be an attempt to raise taxes — Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel will lead that.

Second, new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will encourage investigations of the Bush administration, seeking to create a scandal which would help the Democrat presidential nominee in 2008.

But that could backfire on the Democrats as most Americans do not want Mr. Bush attacked. They want to see if the Democrats can do better. They do not want to see their government ripped apart in a time of war.




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228340,00.html

with everything going on in the world, its a shame he's too concerned abou secularism... not to mention that many of the dems elected are blue dog dems. and social conservatives.

More LIES from O'reilly

where's he get his 'most americans' from??

im just curious, b/c i would think that level headed americans would want someone punished if crimes were committed no??


Whats more important to O'Reilly Secular San fran values
or troops dying?
 
Whats more important to O'Reilly Secular San fran values
or troops dying?
//

I think it is obvious, Mr. OReillly is most important to Mr. OReilly.
 
Well, I think he makes a valid point. Just look at the threads on the board since the election, it seems as if the Liberals saw this as some progressive mandate by the public, and the polls as well as initiatives and candidates elected, reflect anything BUT! Just because a few Democrats won a 2-3% race, doesn't mean America has rejected Conservative values in favor of Liberalism, but this is exactly how Liberals will spin the results.

It is difficult for pinheads to ever focus on more than one thing at a time, I understand this, but try really hard to understand, the results of the election are based on several things, the least of which is a strong public desire to move toward secular liberalism. Not a single Conservative who stayed home in disgust with the Republican party, intended for their action to be interpreted as an endorsement of Liberal values.

Let me assure you, if the overall public sentiment, was to move toward a secular non-traditional ideology, we would see pinhead candidates running on issues like taking God out of the pledge, and we don't see this. If the sentiments on the War Against Christians were significant, we would hear pinhead candidates railing on and on about this, and we don't hear that. Instead, we have pro-life conservative Democrats, beating pro-life conservative Republicans by a few percentage points in key races, mainly over the issue of Iraq. Instead of the Democrat presidential candidate speaking out against the evils of the religious right, we have him standing in a black church choir, trying to look like a respectable Christian, citing Biblical scriptures to bolster his socialist ideas. Hardly an indication that America wants to move toward secularism and away from religious moral values.
 
put down the kool aid dixie.

I haven't heard any democrat here say this election was a mandate for secularism.

Its about Iraq and incompetence, stupid.
 
"Just because a few Democrats won a 2-3% race"

30 plus in the House. 6 in the Senate. 6 new governorships.

Can I say that again? 30 plus in the House. 6 in the Senate. 6 new governorships.

From the party that you continually said would suffer severe backlash on Tuesday because of Bolton, Schiavo & Howard Dean.

You're quite the prognosticator, Dix. Oh, and stem cell research won, while an anti-choice initiative lost. Sure, you've still got gay marriage...you can have it. I would love for the GOP to be marginalized as the party of the Iraq War & "protecting" America from gay marriage. Stick with that...
 
Onceler said:
"Just because a few Democrats won a 2-3% race"

30 plus in the House. 6 in the Senate. 6 new governorships.

Can I say that again? 30 plus in the House. 6 in the Senate. 6 new governorships.

From the party that you continually said would suffer severe backlash on Tuesday because of Bolton, Schiavo & Howard Dean.

You're quite the prognosticator, Dix. Oh, and stem cell research won, while an anti-choice initiative lost. Sure, you've still got gay marriage...you can have it. I would love for the GOP to be marginalized as the party of the Iraq War & "protecting" America from gay marriage. Stick with that...
Click to expand...


Yes... 30+6+6 all winning with about 2-3% of the vote! There was no Liberal Landslide! Your guys, mostly hand-picked conservative Democrats, won their races by a few percentage points, and this is NOT a Liberal mandate.
 
Dixie said:
Yes... 30+6+6 all winning with about 2-3% of the vote! There was no Liberal Landslide! Your guys, mostly hand-picked conservative Democrats, won their races by a few percentage points, and this is NOT a Liberal mandate.
Click to expand...


Um, excuse me, but Bush claimed a mandate when he LOST the popular vote by over 2 million votes (and I have little doubt that you supported that claim).

America has spoken, Dix. A decisive, lasting victory for the Democratic party...
 
Dixie said:
Yes... 30+6+6 all winning with about 2-3% of the vote! There was no Liberal Landslide! Your guys, mostly hand-picked conservative Democrats, won their races by a few percentage points, and this is NOT a Liberal mandate.
Click to expand...

if they are conservative democrats why are you worried about secular values passing?? lol

dixie why do you hate gay people so much?? would the world be a worse place if gays married??

would crime go up?? air quality go down?? homelessness go up??

do you have any valid reason other than your disdain of people like me?
 
Connecticut Stud said:
we have troops dying in iraq daily
Click to expand...

And we have Tens of thousands of troops NOT-dying. And we have MILLIONS of Iraqis enjoying their first tastes of Democracy....

we have a lower than low minimum wage
Click to expand...

What is lower-than-low? Raising the minimum wage will hurt our economy. Minimum wage should be decided by the market - NOT by legislation. If people don't like how much they are making, nothing is keeping them from getting a 2nd, or 3rd job if need be. Nowhere in our constitution are citizens guaranteed an EASY life.

we have a shoddy environmental plan
Click to expand...

What is the plan? What makes it shoddy?

we have little investment in renewable energy...
Click to expand...

Again, Market should dictate - NOT Laws which will further burden the average joe. Maybe that's why you want the minimum wage increased - so Big Power Companies can further STICK IT to the working man in the form of higher rates, as they blow their wads on magic-energy, eh? I live in a place so chock-full of idiot liberals, they've classified HYDRO-ELECTRIC power as 'non-renewable'. Ain't that something?

And every poll showed that Americans wanted change in Iraq and that's why the Democrats won.
Click to expand...

That's nothing new - Hell, I bet every IRAQI wants 'change' in Iraq. The US finally grew enough sack to HELP them achieve Change in Iraq...Here's a little word-to-the-wise: "Change for the sake of Change is pointless."

There is NO amount of 'change' in Iraq which will lead to Islamoterrorist's decision to STOP killing all those who don't believe in Islam.

Now the unintended consequence of the power shift in D.C. is that some Democrats will try to impose a secular-progressive agenda on the country.
First, there will be an attempt to raise taxes — Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel will lead that.

Second, new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will encourage investigations of the Bush administration, seeking to create a scandal which would help the Democrat presidential nominee in 2008.

But that could backfire on the Democrats as most Americans do not want Mr. Bush attacked. They want to see if the Democrats can do better. They do not want to see their government ripped apart in a time of war.
Click to expand...

He's RIGHT ON with those words.

with everything going on in the world, its a shame he's too concerned abou secularism... not to mention that many of the dems elected are blue dog dems. and social conservatives.
Click to expand...

With everything going on in the world you bring up bad-for-the-nation policies like Minimum Wage increases, Business-oppressive Ultra-Left-leaning Environmental Policies based on bad science (*cough*global-warming*cough*)?

I hope most of the Democrats elected to office are NOT the Pelosi-Dean-Kerry-Kennedy democrats. I pray they are more towards the Lieberman-style of Democrat.

More LIES from O'reilly

where's he get his 'most americans' from??

im just curious, b/c i would think that level headed americans would want someone punished if crimes were committed no??


Whats more important to O'Reilly Secular San fran values
or troops dying?
Click to expand...

O'Reilly has NEVER Lied on TV. I bet you think Bush 'lied', too, eh?

lol :)

For the record - I'd rather have our troops dying to further democracy than to have SanFransico values (misnomer - that city does not have ANY values but HATE, oppression of Free speech, and selfishness) spread into our Federal Government.
 
Dixie said:
Well, I think he makes a valid point.
Click to expand...

Of course you do BILLO!!!

Dixie said:
Just look at the threads on the board since the election, it seems as if the Liberals saw this as some progressive mandate by the public, and the polls as well as initiatives and candidates elected, reflect anything BUT! Just because a few Democrats won a 2-3% race, doesn't mean America has rejected Conservative values in favor of Liberalism, but this is exactly how Liberals will spin the results.
Click to expand...

Care to be any more specific than just making rash unsubstantiated, abstract and highly dubious claims, BILLO? What threads exactly are you referring to? Please be specific.

Dixie said:
It is difficult for pinheads to ever focus on more than one thing at a time, I understand this, but try really hard to understand, the results of the election are based on several things, the least of which is a strong public desire to move toward secular liberalism. Not a single Conservative who stayed home in disgust with the Republican party, intended for their action to be interpreted as an endorsement of Liberal values.
Click to expand...

Please show one thread that indicates that anyone on this board besides yourself has even used the words "secular liberalism" here. In fact, BILLO, show even one post besides those posted by you that use those words. And just how do you know what people who stayed home stayed home for. How can you in your arrogance presume to speak for every other conservative in America and their motives. Are you now GAWD as well as BILLO???

Dixie said:
Let me assure you, if the overall public sentiment, was to move toward a secular non-traditional ideology, we would see pinhead candidates running on issues like taking God out of the pledge, and we don't see this. If the sentiments on the War Against Christians were significant, we would hear pinhead candidates railing on and on about this, and we don't hear that. Instead, we have pro-life conservative Democrats, beating pro-life conservative Republicans by a few percentage points in key races, mainly over the issue of Iraq. Instead of the Democrat presidential candidate speaking out against the evils of the religious right, we have him standing in a black church choir, trying to look like a respectable Christian, citing Biblical scriptures to bolster his socialist ideas. Hardly an indication that America wants to move toward secularism and away from religious moral values.
Click to expand...

Speaking of being unable to think of more than one thing at a time. Do you ever get tired, BILLO of erecting straw men so that you can shoot them down. Of all those issues that you refer to none of them have happened as you so astutely note because there is no such movement and there is no such thing. You are spinning like a top BILLO, I think you need to seek some kind of professional help. In your case I'd look for a Catholic priest, I hear a few of them are still doing exorcisms. Get rid of the beast that has engulfed you, BILLO before the bed starts jumping around. I fear that is not too far off.

Begin talking to close friends today, there must be someone on the North Shore that can help you.

:eek:
 
Onceler said:
Um, excuse me, but Bush claimed a mandate when he LOST the popular vote by over 2 million votes...
Click to expand...


Yes, and look how well that strategy turned out for him! Like I said, and like Damo said, the Dumbocrats seem to be poised to make the same idiotic mistake, of thinking they've figured out America!

I really don't have much of a problem with the big Demo win yesterday, other than having to turn Nancy Pelosi off my TV, and the sticky stuff all over the floor here, it hasn't bothered me one bit. I just find it remarkable, how fast Liberals are, to just completely write off conservative ideals, as if this election had anything to do with Liberal/Conservative philosophy.

The people "spoke" but not on principles of Liberalism and Conservatism, they spoke largely on Iraq policy, and have given complaining Democrats the opportunity to present their plans and ideas regarding Iraq. I would suspect, in two years, if there is no change in Iraq or it gets worse, the Democrats will probably lose. If you want to pretend this election was some sort of demise of religious conservative values, and new dawning of liberal enlightenment, you are a complete idiot and fool. Of course, that is nothing new, is it?
 
dmp said:
What's that point have to do with anything? The United States has a vested interest in helping nations draft consitutions allowing for and requiring the principles of Democracy.
Click to expand...

the point is that bush spent countless billions in dollars and thousands of dead soldiers, in doing exactly what he spoke out against (which was nationbuilding) in the 2000 election..

btw you new here?? welcome to the site.
 
Dixie, don't make the mistake of confusing evangelical religious values with traditional conservative values. Despite your claim that threads & posts all over this board are indicating an interpretation of the election as some sort of endorsement of a far-left agenda, I can't find a one. I don't hear any national Democrats talking that way, either. Pelosi has talked about minimum wage, college tuitions, congressional reform, changing the course in Iraq and stem cell research (sorry - you're out of step with the majority of America on that one). The latter is the ONLY issue that relates at all to the kind of values you are talking about.

You can't make up your mind. For so long, the Democratic party was veering of the left-wing cliff, destined for permanant minority status under crazy Howard Dean. You were wrong. I see the Democratic party heading in a direction that is in line with mainstream America - fiscally responsible, but not beholden to the loony evangelical right wing on social issues. The agenda that Pelosi is talking about - wages, corruption, college tuition, Iraq - has great appeal to the middle of America.

It's you that wants to paint this in the most extreme way possible. You're practically begging Democrats to interpret the election in a way that they currently are NOT. I can understand that. You're concerned that Pelosi is a lot smarter than you think, and that Democrats - if they play their cards right - could be in for another 40-year run.
 
Connecticut Stud said:
the point is that bush spent countless billions in dollars and thousands of dead soldiers, in doing exactly what he spoke out against (which was nationbuilding) in the 2000 election..
Click to expand...


Not exactly. Our Government - Executive and Legislative - authorized removing Saddam from power due to Saddam's COUNTLESS violations of the cease-fire agreement he signed, and over Saddam's failure to comply with UN-mandates regarding WMD. Iraq harbored terrorist organizations and supported attacks against innocents as a policy.

Nation building is NOT what the US and other brave countries have done. What the US and other nations have done is remove a threat to the world's stability, and are in the process of helping the citizens build their OWN country. As-is, we're just there trying to provide security for them while they do it.

btw you new here?? welcome to the site.
Click to expand...


Thanks. :)
 
dmp said:
Not exactly. Our Government - Executive and Legislative - authorized removing Saddam from power due to Saddam's COUNTLESS violations of the cease-fire agreement he signed, and over Saddam's failure to comply with UN-mandates regarding WMD. Iraq harbored terrorist organizations and supported attacks against innocents as a policy.

Nation building is NOT what the US and other brave countries have done. What the US and other nations have done is remove a threat to the world's stability, and are in the process of helping the citizens build their OWN country. As-is, we're just there trying to provide security for them while they do it.




Thanks. :)
Click to expand...


how was he not in compliance?? we had WMD inspectors there telling us that there were no WMD's.. Bush didn't even let them finish their investigation before he went holyroller and bombed the hell out of them

and 'shock and awe' aren't words id use to describe blowing up peoples homes cities, and children.

but not suprised judging by his 'christian values'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top