bill oreilly book

It is humorous how so many posts in this thread spread misinformation and hatred in the supposed stand against propaganda and hatred.

When allegations are made, back them up. Otherwise it is just passing off opinions without support as fact in the act of speaking derogatory about people and groups. That is the most fundamental construction block of prejudice.

Also note, that even suppporting those opinions with some facts is not good enough because this is a forum. If anyone wishes to make a case then present it for discussion rather than just blurting out that people spew hatred or that certain groups do this or that...

 

Me,I was spoutin' the opposite of what's true---but I suppose anyone that's been around for a while could tell that.Let's hope so.

 

ignore, misread

 

That's right. Progressive is almost by definition the opposite of Republican.

 

And I agree: the true purpose of the Republican Party is to protect the interests of the very rich. Everything else they say is hogwash -- just empty promises to get poor and ignorant people to vote for them. Look at their actions, not their words.

 

again, assertions without support.

The assertions assume that something is true and repeat it.

I disagree.

Now, we have competing opinions.

Will there be quotes, links, and support or simple condescension to refute?

 

You need more experience ,methinks.Why don't you tell us what you think the republicans stand for--their basic political stance regarding rich,poor,unions,government,health care,the earth's environment ----but first do some research on how they vote relative to these issues.I'll listen.

 

I am aware of the issues. So, I need no more experience what so ever. Try arguing my premises rather than attacking me. Rather than tell me what I need to learn remember that you are the one making the assertions.

You are the one making the derogatory claims. You need to back them up. Back up with proof that the votes mean what you say they do. That is the problem. You see some things aying someone voted for one thing or voted for another and assert that it implies something without proving it. It is just throwing out of opinions as if they are fact.

You are starting with the end result as a given and using it to prove the end result. So, if you say that bills which restrict things with respect to the environment are automatically the right thing to do then voting against them is anti-environmental. But that is not correct. The proof must be made that the bill was the correct thing to do to say that voting against it is wrong.

Just parroting groups who say that so and so voted against environmental bills, etc. does not do anything. So, if you wish to engage in a debate start by stopping working on assumptions.

 

Every single time Republicans talk about cutting spending, it turns out they mean cutting spending that helps poor people, like food stamps, Medicare, and early education. They never mean cutting spending that helps rich people, like corporate welfare, the farm bill, NASA, subsidies for coal and oil, the Defense Dept. Can you point out a case where I'm wrong?

And yet, to balance the budget, spending is spending. Why single out poor people?

 

No, it does not.

Show me where they have wanted to cut food stamps. I did a quick net search and found nothing of the sort.

I have seen quotes speculating that medicare would be hurt by a Republican plan but the same is out there for the Democrat plan...

I will also so that the problem with government spending in education is not the value but the efficiency with which it is spent...

Such as?

I am sorry but corporations do not qualify for welfare. Say what you actually mean, please, rather than political jargon.

One of the biggest criticisms of farm subsidies (which supposedly only help rich people...) is that it drives down the price of food and hurts small time farmers. So, how many poor people who have difficulty buying their food if the price of their food is raised considerably by cutting the subsidies? People like to gloss over that important fact.

Well, it is one thing to argue that NASA is not important but it is another thing entirely to argue that funding NASA helps rich people.

Oil subsideis
We pay far less for gas than practically any where else. This is especially true when comparing to Europe. So, how much would it hurt those poor families where Dad has to get up and drive 20 miles to work every day (this is especially true in rural areas where there is no public transportation...) and can barely pay for gas as it is if the price were to raise?

Coal subsidies?
I am from eastern Kentucky on the border with West Virginia and the reduction in the use of coal due to laws and such has had a devastating economic effect on the area. But, no one gives a damn about poor white people who work hard for a living outside the big cities. There has been no great effort to replace the coal and steel manufacturing that has been killed. The Democrats are far more interested in making their little green world friends happy than seeing that the poor hard working people of the area have jobs to feed their families. No jobs means more people to put on their payroll and depend for them to get their money.

I am a civilian DoD employee.
I do not have a lot of money. I am not on a salary. I calibrate electronics equipment for a naval base and get paid by the hour. I was born poor and now have a lot more money than when I grew up but I am no where near what anyone would call rich by a long shot. I drive a 10 year old car and do not have a house. So, there you go. Funding the DoD keeps my job going. It is an important one because there are a lot of groups out there that wish ill on the US and have the means to do it.

I just did. Several times over.

That question might mean something if that were what has been happening.

 

Personally,I'm not going to continue this--I suppose you'll say something like "if you can't back up what you say with stats,votes,ect"---Yeah-blah blah.I just don't want to take the time frankly, to go thru legislative votes,speeches made, and positions taken over the decades I have been alive to try and convince you that I know what I'm talking about.I just really don't care.So therefore you win.Have a nice day.

 

I have been alive for decades also. I even remember watching Ford be sworn into office.

So, have a nice day also.

 

hey ive only been alive for two....can i get some credibility here jeez

 

LOL. I'm sorry man but you made a complete dumbass out of yourself. :cheers2:

 

I found this item within 30 seconds of looking:

 

True, but you missed something from the same source:

Boston.com

Those projections are the elimination of those who are double dipping into the system. It seems that prior to this it was possible to double qualify for assistance based upon the same problem. Those families/individuals could still pick and choose between noncash assistance and food. An easy choice, IMO.

The estimation on the number of children who use schools and lunches listed in the article was just a guess that those children would no longer qualify under the other available eligibility requirements for school lunches. Those children who qualify for food stamps automatically qualify for school breakfast and lunch programs. So, the article assumed that a lot of children would lose it if their family were removed for 'double dipping'. however, there is a lunch/breakfast qualification independent of the food stamp program based upon household size and income. So, the needy children would still qualify for food stamps anyway.

Media sources like to make stories and run with them.


However, the money decrease is correct, I was mistaken there.

It should be mentioned that everything except security (DoD and Homeland) was axed good in that budget. It was a massively cut budget in 2005.

 

Bill oreilly is in Politics and he have his various views on Various issues.Recently i read a book named:The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill
O'Reilly is the paradigm of idosyncrasy in television journalism.Reading the book i agree with Marvin Kitman that Bill O' Reilly-- a non-conformist in a business that demands conformity as the price of success and a man who has risen to the top by not playing by the rules of broadcast news.

 

its funny how ya boy obama said a whole bunch of s**t to win the election then when he got in office did whatever he wanted.

and its funny how he is planning to raise taxes on the middle class just to cover the only promises he is keeping and those promises are to the big businesses.

its funny how you people argue one thing and the person you are following is doing the very thing that you are arguing against,

look at his ratings fall, people are slowly realizing that he was is and always will be a bad choice.

Next election duffy's gonna get clobbered.

 

Typical..... when the going gets tough,

Retreat!!!:toetap05:

 

Anybody read "Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly"? lol.