posted on October 20, 2003 11:20:19 AM newliveinjeans
I just saw the offending word that I missed when I posted this joke. It has been removed so as not to further offend. I don't think it on Vedios list of bad words though.
posted on October 20, 2003 11:35:36 AM new
Maybe liveinjeans should start another thread to discuss "using God's name in vain". I don't see any such comment here.
Some people here believe in God. Some people do not. All are free to state their opinions, just as you have.
posted on October 20, 2003 02:46:02 PM new
bunni - Smart friends you have there. 24/7 would be a little too much of anything, though.
She even believes O'Reilly is actually "fair & balanced".....as do a great many people. Why do you think his program has grown, in viewership, in the last two or so years? People love him.
His programs are 'fair and balanced' to those of us on the right and even some conservative dems...compared to listening to all the others who ONLY give one point of view, the leftist side. And on his program there is [almost always] two guests, each one argues their side of the issue.
posted on October 20, 2003 04:14:17 PM new
Sorry, Linda, but O'Reilly isn't anywhere near fair and balanced. You get his point of view. He invites people on supposedly to "debate" or "discuss" whatever issue they are for or against. In reality, the viewer (& the guest) is treated to a long diatribe by...O'Reilly. If the guest dares to give their POV, he talks over them. If they persist, he calls them names and shouts them down. If they stick to their guns after that, O'Reilly usually ends by telling them they are just plain wrong, to "shut up," or kicking them off the show.
The viewer never gets to hear all that much from his guests, because O'Reilly just plain won't be quiet and let them talk. The only exceptions to this are the guests he has on who agree with him & who tell him how wonderful he is. Those guests are allowed to express their opinions... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on October 20, 2003 05:39:35 PM new
bunni - No reason to be sorry because we don't see him the same way.
Here's one link I'd ask you to read that I feel supports my statement of being 'fair and balanced'. I watch many shows where he says things like this. I don't always agree with him either. But I do find I agree more often than not. Come on....reading this one link won't hurt you .....please......
Now I know you're not going to start watching Fox News. My point was to say it's growing viewership is continually increasing and there's a reason for that. I believe it's because more are agreeing with the views taken there.
posted on October 20, 2003 07:45:37 PM new
Glad to see you laughing so much on these threads....so much nicer than observing 'the angry left' all the time.
I don't find it ridiculous at all to post a url so others can read O'Reilly's own words/statements in regards to how he thinks both parties are failing our nation.
posted on October 20, 2003 08:06:45 PM new
Believe me, posting O'Reilly's own words does not help your cause.
Since you love Drudge so much, what do you think of this report?
http://drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
Bush makes sure his soldiers are cared for doesn't he?
And how about this one on O'Reilly also on Drudge.
http://www.drudgereport.com/bof.htm
Think ol' Bill did not want the truth coming out about him? ROTFLMAO. Even you neo-cons, emphesis on con, hate each other.
posted on October 20, 2003 08:20:48 PM new
You appear to be turning into another helen. Making up things people have said, when they haven't.
I never said I *loved* the Drudge Report. I SAID you can usually find the 'ratings' for the different TV commentators there. And the Fox News people are usually on top of the list. How you turn that into *LOVE* I surely will never understand.
Except it probably has to do with some anger about Drudge being the one who broke Monica's dress story to the world.
I do go to the Drudge page often as they mostly post articles taken from various other news websites. Once in a great while, Drudge reports an independent story of his own.
Guess the mention of that dress got you going.
Gephardt went on Fox News and stated that he also felt the intelligence HE READ, and the intelligence people HE SPOKE with convinced HIM to vote to support this President in this war.....does that mean because he was interviewed on Fox News it all was a lie? Not fair and balanced.
I'm not going to debate every issue that Bill O'Reilly has ever made a comment on. I have said how I enjoy watching him and that I think he's fair and balanced in his reporting.
posted on October 20, 2003 08:48:06 PM new "You appear to be turning into another helen. Making up things people have said, when they haven't."
Linda, I know based on past experiences that it's useless to ask you to demonstrate how I've "made up things people have said, when they haven't." Your constant unsubstantiated insults are making you look like a real nut, Linda. Your hateful remarks to everyone but two or three posters is becoming so tiresome that nobody wants to talk to you.
posted on October 20, 2003 08:48:57 PM newYou appear to be turning into another helen.
I don't think so. Ask Helen if she is comfortable with my kind of liberalism.
I never said I *loved* the Drudge Report
You are the one who cited him.
Once in a great while, Drudge reports an independent story of his own.
Usually followed by a retraction.
Gephardt went on Fox News and stated that he also felt the intelligence HE READ, and the intelligence people HE SPOKE with convinced HIM to vote to support this President in this war.....does that mean because he was interviewed on Fox News it all was a lie? Not fair and balanced.
posted on October 20, 2003 09:10:42 PM newAsk Helen if she is comfortable with my kind of liberalism. Have I ever stated that's a concern of mine? I don't believe I have, because I could care less. I disagree with her on just about every statement that comes out of her mouth. And you having stated that you are even further left than she is....[I don't know how that's even possible] doesn't give any hope for me thinking we're going to be agreeing much on anything either.
You are the one who cited him. uggg....yes, and I've explained why I quote his home page...TWICE...what part isn't clear to you?
Usually followed by a retraction. Again, ask me if I care. You've missed the whole point.
::Gephardt went on Fox News and stated that he also felt the intelligence HE READ, and the intelligence people HE SPOKE with convinced HIM to vote to support this President in this war.....does that mean because he was interviewed on Fox News it all was a lie? Not fair and balanced.:: He READ bushes report. We all know it was false. How do you think he feels now[/i]? No WE don't ALL know any such thing.
And here I liked you so much better when you were posting all the ROFLMHO's
Did you see that position on Fox? He was interviewed on Fox News the end of last month. The 26th or maybe the 29th...can't recall. That's when he made the statements I've mentioned. He was explaining why he was voting to support the $87B dollars, most of which [$66+B] is for our military. If he is a liar, or speaks out of both sides of his mouth, that is not my fault. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe your article wasn't as recent...I don't know.
posted on October 20, 2003 09:17:41 PM new
Bear and Linda
and Linda - he may type ROFLMAO, but I'd be willing to bet he hasn't even cracked a smile in over 40 years...misery loves company, no?
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on October 20, 2003 09:18:44 PM newYou are the one who cited him. uggg....yes, and I've explained why I quote his home page...TWICE...what part isn't clear to you?
You are still the one who brought him up.
Yes we do know Bush lied about the war.
And here I liked you so much better when you were posting all the ROFLMHO's
Umm. You have to substitute H (head) for A (A). Hey, at least I can be polite and not say what (A) is.
Added the not
[ edited by miscreant on Oct 20, 2003 09:35 PM ]
posted on October 20, 2003 10:21:54 PM new
helen - maybe you might want to email Vendio to see why your ignore button doesn't appear to be working.
Yes...lies...lies...lies...the NEW left motto. Won't admit that anyone from their side told the same exact 'lies' though...oh no...that's not allowed.
H. Clinton [D]
Gephardt [D]
Tony Blair [liberal]
and our President all were in agreement on our move on Iraq. As were many others in our Congress.
And B. clinton stated where our country was on the day he left office...in regards to Saddam.
Guess that makes them all liars too. One cannot be telling lies, without all be accused of doing the same. They all had viewed the same intelligence reports. No changing that FACT.
posted on October 20, 2003 10:47:27 PM newThey all had viewed the same intelligence reports
Which turned out not to be true. And they came from the Bush administration.
posted on October 20, 2003 10:59:41 PM new
There is a HUGE difference between telling a lie.....and the possibility of an intelligence failure.
And IF you think there could have possibly been an intelligence failure, then the intelligence under the clinton administration was saying the same thing.
And you cannot overlook all the things that have been found in Iraq that were in violation of the UN sanctions. Saddam was in violation.
posted on October 20, 2003 11:01:28 PM new
Tony Blair aside, very few people in this country, Democrat or Republican, dared say much against the war. National fear & anger was still at a high point, and Bush's administration had done a great job of making it seem that Iraq was behind 9-11 (it wasn't), that they had weapons of mass destruction (they don't), and that life would end if we didn't invade the country.
And now that we've done that, Bush is busy looking around for the next country to jump. And the next, and the next... Because, face it, he needs military actions.
Remember when he was first elected? His ratings immediately began a downward slide. To use the vernacular, he sucked. By July/August of that year he had the lowest rating of any president in years. Why, in 6 months in office, he'd spent 3 months on vacation, for Pete's sake. Not to mention making a surplus disappear like magic. Then came 9-11. And, frankly, that day was the saving of his presidency. Once he managed to stop scampering about in Airforce 1, he began to talk tough. Tough talk salved the nation's feelings. He went after Osama bin Laden--which was the right thing to do. But once Osama had slipped through our fingers and it looked like the country was getting back on its feet, Bush was in trouble. Iraq beckoned. Ruled by a dictator who treated his people like dirt. Suddenly, it became imperative that Saddam be overthrown--NOW. It's the right thing to do! He's evil! He has weapons of mass destruction aimed right at us! Iraq's people will be grateful! It's amazing how our government is willing to overlook--or even aid & abet--dictators as long as it serves our purpose and then decide they must be "taken care" of all of a sudden when we no longer need or want them. Or need a good diversion, like a stage magician desperately hoping the audience won't notice the elephant standing behind the curtain. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on October 20, 2003 11:23:01 PM new
bunni - I know you're aware that I didn't vote for Bush. But I like millions of people after 9-11 thanked their lucky stars he was our president. He dealt with the whole issue extremely well.
I remember our threads right before we when into Iraq. Many were questions the why them and not XXX country.
What I have tried to make clear is that our intelligence was who was feeding this, let's call it urgent, to this president. Had the clinton administration not said that Saddam posed a threat to OUR country and to those around him, I might be more able to 'buy' into that theory. But that is not the case. I have seen clinton interviewed and I have read what he said...recently....7-03 and again recently he commented that even the day he left office we did not know if his bombing in Iraq had eliminated all, any or none OF THE WOMD we [under the clinton administration] knew they had. He based that on the fact that Saddam had not ever accounted for the womd.
So...to me...given both administrations thought Saddam untrustworthy enough to be removed, then when our latest intelligence is telling us there is an 'urgent' threat....I support his actions.
To not have done so could have meant a much different outcome to out country if the intelligence had proved to be true. And then he would have been blamed for knowing this information and not protecting American.
I still believe that in the 12-13 years Saddam played games with the UN and the US, he's had plenty of time to learn how to well hide these weapons. We've found several planes under the sand, we've found 'fluid filled' missile heads and much paper work that proves he was in violation of the UN resolutions. He's gotten good at hiding things. He's still out there and I believe until he's captured or killed, the scientists that were working on these programs won't speak up.
Also if you notice...the planes and missile heads that have been found were found ONLY because the Iraqi's have pointed out to us where they were. The money allocated $87B in part will 'buy' the hearts of the Iraqi's and I believe more will come forward on what they know.
You guys gave the UN 12 years trying to find womd...and Bush gets what 5 months? More time is needed, imo.
posted on October 20, 2003 11:32:34 PM new
bunni - I'd also like to ask you a question. You know I respect your opinions, even though we don't agree on this issue.
First to clarify...in your post you said many [rep/dem] were afraid to speak out against this war. I believe it's because the vote was taken before the elections. And I believe the voters were paying close attention to who was voting how....because they were naturally concerned after 9-11. They were watching to see who was going to 'protect' us more. It's a statistical fact that Americans trust the reps more when it comes to defence and the dems more on social issues.
But I am referring to the recent quotes I've read where Hillary and Gephardt both said they personally looked over all the intelligence, they spoke with their own security advisors who they trusted and they agreed with Bush. That's the reasons THEY gave for voting for this war. I'd be interested in your thoughts on why they would say that if it wasn't true.
posted on October 20, 2003 11:49:03 PM new
Linda, remember that the security reports being made available were eminating from the White House. It has already been shown that info was twisted to show what Bush wanted to see--even when the CIA told Bush that the "facts" being given just weren't true or accurate, they were igonored or "pooh poohed."
And the fact is, too, that the Bush administration had whipped up war fever to such a pitch that anybody, and especially those in politics, was vilified if they opposed war with Iraq. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
