Give me another few minutes to give a detailed accounting and timeline of Bill O'Reiley's "peabody" LIE.
O'Reilly is someone I don't watch. Whatever I've heard of his rhetoric, it's been when he's appeared on other programs than his own. I like some of what he says, but (like yourself, Whomod) he comes across as overly angry and inflammatory, and that makes it difficult to take his side. Among friends who are Republican, Democrat or politically somewhere in between, I've described the guy as "a bulldog".
Quote: Originally posted by whomod:
But of course It's Franken and not O'Reiley as well who are irrational hate mongers, eh??
You can't box categorize me with Bill O'Reilly. Like I said, he's not someone I listen to.
Quote: Originally posted by whomod:
As for your status as a Green. Yes, I do beleive you are lying. You cited reasons for voting Green. Guess what? Bush embodies NONE of those reasons. It'd be like me being a Jew put off by the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians so I decide to renounce Judaism and become a Nazi. And the reasons you give for being a Bush supporter? Because you're put off by the left's 'hatred' of him?? LOL!
It's the old right-wing ploy of declaring yourself something other than Republican in order to present yourself as impartial while all the time shilling for the far right wing. Larry Elder does it all the time all the while declaring himself an impartial Libertarian.
Whomod, that's the single most bitter and slanderous thing you've ever said to me on these boards.
Your "logic" of my alleged inconsistency with how I can be a moderate-to-conservative Republican and still vote for Nader is your own vicious, speculative and antagonistic opinion.
As I said, I voted for Nader, not the Green Party. Nader's four decades of integrity, and focus on the real issues in 2000, compelled me to vote for him over the opposition. And I voted for the alternative Perot offered in the two elections before him, although with decreasing enthusiasm in 1996. (as I said at more length above.)
Maybe my decision to vote for Nader doesn't make sense to you, but it certainly did and does to me, and I've explained my decision at length. I was voting for addressing of the real issues.
Your calling me a liar is out of line, and goes beyond respectful debate, and into the realm of dementia.
And that is a VERY restrained response on my part, to your absurd and deeply personal attack on me. And unfounded attack, I might add.
And for the 1 billionth time, I didn't vote for Bush. I disagree with him on any number of issues, especially tax cuts and North Korea.
And if the liberal Bush-bashers could more respectfully stick to the visible things Bush has done wrong (as opposed to making wild and slanderous conspiracy theories, and stating them as if they were fact), I'd be more inclined to agree with Bush's critics.
But the blatant attempts to slander Bush and his administration with all kinds of bitter accusations and wild conspiracies...
blaming a bad economy an ongoing recession that Bush , in fact, inherited, from Clinton, a recession that had been going on for a year before Bush even took office.
the "blood for oil" nonsense,
the "fighting the war for his father" nonsense (never mind that he never looked twice at Iraq before 9-11 and was elected and maintained a policy till 9-11 that bordered on isolationism).
And when I really began to turn to Bush's side was when liberals said Bush knew in advance about 9-11 and let it happen.
Let the center of U.S. commerce crash to the ground, taking 1/6th of the U.S. economy, and plunging a struggling economy into recession?!?
God, it's infuriating, and as slanderous and unpatriotic as it gets.
Plus the mocking and ridiculing of Bush as an idiot from the day he took office (the same ridicule the liberal media poured on Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle, only far more bitter).
This was the first bit of character assassination I saw as unfair from the day he took office, and when I began defending Bush against unfair allegations.
... just makes clear liberals' white-hot hatred of Bush, their abandonment of logic, and libers' eagerness to believe anything negative said about Bush, without evidence. And drives myself and millions of other more moderate Republicans to Bush's side, when if the criticism were more fair, we might side with Bush's critics.
There are issues where I oppose Bush's policy, as I just said in my post above, and more briefly here in this post( regarding North Korea, tax cuts, etc.).
But I certainly side with Bush against these slanderous allegations.
I don't want news that favors Bush. I just want news that isn't part of the Democrat propaganda front.
So that when the news media criticize Bush for something, I can BELIEVE it, instead of seeing it as another blatant, misrepresentative and partisan attack on Bush.
I don't think wanting FACTS, instead of slantedly sympathetic liberal propaganda, that while sympathetic in its slant to gays and the homeless, simultaneously and maliciously has a focus on demonizing Republicans, blaming THEM for the problems facing AIDS victims and the homeless, when in truth (despite liberal reporting that demonizes Republicans) no amount of Republican spending would keep drug addicts from snorting their rent money, and no amount of AIDS benefit spending will prevent gays and prostitutes from having promiscuous and unprotected sex, and spreading it to their partners.
(Again, in Bias, Goldberg gives detailed examples, in the "homeless" and "AIDS" chapters of his book regarding slanted republican-bashing liberal reporting).
All your venom and slander just makes the point that the liberal hatred of Bush is based in emotion and venom, and not facts.
