O'Reilly Gets Owned Again

[LuvRPgrl]

The percentage of the GDP that Bush's budget is, is not as high as the spending of some other administrations.

I make more money than some ULTRA rich people from the 1800's made, does that mean Im "richer" than they were? no.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

He's A) Christian B) A capitalist C) A Republican.

Max you've GOT to put down the crack pipe sometimes before you post nonsense.

W's no Socialist, he's a tool.

 

[Max Power]

publicly funded education is socialist? i thought all americans had a "right" to an education.

It certainly is a socialist program. One of many.

what expenditures did bush approve in the 9 months prior to 9/11

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/browse.html

question about clinton finances.....did they book the actual or future cost savings of closing the military bases and corrosponding military savings?

I don't belive so, no.

 

[Max Power]

1. Christianity does not advocate slavery.

Yes it does.

2. The only part of the Constitution I'm missing is the part you read into it that ISN'T THERE.

The establishment clause certainly is there.

 

[Max Power]

I knew right after I hit the post button...oh shit! now I will have to deal with Mr.Congeniality non other than Clay the magnificient...well shit clay how should I know...just a guess... and left it up to Max to explain...however he said I was not civil enough even though he told me "STFU" on a previous post..
So may I suggest you ask max...he seems to claim to have all the answers...!

No, I simply don't like it when people put words in my mouth. You claimed that I don't understand freedom of religion, and I told you that if you can't provide any posts where I demonstrated this lack of understanding, THEN you should "stfu."

Got it?
(Probably not)

 

[Max Power]

He's A) Christian

So?

B) A capitalist

To an extent. He's also quite the socialist.

C) A Republican.

So? He's still a socialist.

 

[Max Power]

The percentage of the GDP that Bush's budget is, is not as high as the spending of some other administrations.

I make more money than some ULTRA rich people from the 1800's made, does that mean Im "richer" than they were? no.

Not as many as you'd think.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And again:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006

considering he wasnt "owned" the first time, how can you own him "again"?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's obviously referring to the same story that's a year old. More stretching. And there's a big difference between the color of napkins, and prohibitting what colors a student can wear.

I also noticed in the lead post in this thread that "opposing" wearing green and red became "banned" wearing green and red. They certainly are NOT the same thing.

I think Maxi would however, if given conflicting reports, immediately assume Oreilly to be lying and anyone else to be telling the truth. sad

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I also noticed in the lead post in this thread that "opposing" wearing green and red became "banned" wearing green and red. They certainly are NOT the same thing.

I think Maxi would however, if given conflicting reports, immediately assume Oreilly to be lying and anyone else to be telling the truth. sad

Luv, O'Reilly's been busted multiple times for this particular topic. He actually been using a very Michael Moore-esque technique, where he's probably never outright lying, but being dishonest all over the place. Does that mean his subject material isn't necessarily true? No, but it certainly does very little to help the cause, besides misinforming people.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Luv, O'Reilly's been busted multiple times for this particular topic. He actually been using a very Michael Moore-esque technique, where he's probably never outright lying, but being dishonest all over the place. Does that mean his subject material isn't necessarily true? No, but it certainly does very little to help the cause, besides misinforming people.

Im not a fan of Bill O, something about him does and always has smacked me as phoney. I think he is in it mostly for the money, but I do enjoy it when he pisses off liberals.

I could care less if he is owned, but the "owner" here, wasnt accurate with some of their own material.

 

[Gunny]

Yes it does.

You would be incorrect.


The establishment clause certainly is there.

The establishment clause and the left-wing rendition thereof are two completely different animals.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Clay, give him some time to find his resources.

Often I will say something based on information I have gathered over a long period of time and dont have the resources at my fingertips. When asked for links or proof, if I dont produce them within, err, say, 15 seconds, the opponent declares victory. It really is a sign they are scared, kinda like not wanting the other team to show up when you know if they do, your in for an asskicking , not your specifically clay, just give him time.

it was my best guess...research not completed...however most found were Jewish....starting with the ACLU president Nadine Strossen and working down state by state.. (Nadines father was one half Jewish holcaust survivor) Her husband is also Jewish..and a professor at Columbia University...Eli M. Noam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Strossen


working on research using www.answers.com searching list of jewish attorneys aclu..jewish-american political figures...also using wikipedia links...very interesting!

 

[Annie]

Clay, give him some time to find his resources.

Often I will say something based on information I have gathered over a long period of time and dont have the resources at my fingertips. When asked for links or proof, if I dont produce them within, err, say, 15 seconds, the opponent declares victory. It really is a sign they are scared, kinda like not wanting the other team to show up when you know if they do, your in for an asskicking , not your specifically clay, just give him time.

What is the point of using a closed thread onto another thread? You want this one shut down also?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Clay, give him some time to find his resources.

Often I will say something based on information I have gathered over a long period of time and dont have the resources at my fingertips. When asked for links or proof, if I dont produce them within, err, say, 15 seconds, the opponent declares victory. It really is a sign they are scared, kinda like not wanting the other team to show up when you know if they do, your in for an asskicking , not your specifically clay, just give him time.

If you aren't capable of backing up what you say, then don't say it. I'm sick of people dropping knowledge like it is fact, and then when asked for proof they don't have any. Like we should all assume that anything anyone on the internet says is true automatically. Perhaps if you had a history of constantly being honest, I could cut you some slack. I promise we won't die waiting the day or two it takes for you to find whatever proof you want and then posting. It's very easy.

Make sure you're clear on what I'm declaring victory on. It's not the issue - it's the particular debate. We can debate about the sky being blue, but if you tell me the sky is blue because blueberries emit blue light and color the sky, well, you've lost the debate.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes it does.


The establishment clause certainly is there.

Ok, well Max, I have to hand it to you. At least you respond. PM onlly responds to 25% of posts that refute his assertation and prove them wrong. Psycho, maybe, MAYBE 1%.

Christian DOCTRINE does not support Slavery as practiced in the USA.

This is one of the many ways that anti conservative, anti Christian forces distort the truth by stating a half truth, or using terms that are emotionally laden. They actually get some of the niave to believe them. That is also why the young are so often prey to this, and as people get older, they more often than not turn conservative repubs.

Slavery in the OT is in not way shape or form similiar to the slavery of the US pre 1860.

There is not clause of seperation specifically stated in the COTUS. Only a reading of such nonsense by those who wish to CHANGE the COTUS in ways not prescribed by the writers and signers.

I do see your graph ends right about when Bush's revenues will be jumping because the stimulus to the economy by his tax cuts does take time.

Lets see those stats up to date. I also see that a Dem had the highest percentage by far. I also see the numbers went up dramatically as soon as Clinton was in. I think he only tappered them off cuz his approval ratings had dipped to around 36% by then, and he started governing towards the middle, instituting welfare reform, at the insistence of repubs, and gave up on the idea of universal govt health care.

Now, one last thing, when people say conservatives control the senate and house, its a LIE. ALL repubs are not conservatives. Some vote as liberal as some dems. By maintaining a slim majority as REPUBS, they do not maintain ANY majority as conservatives.

This forces Bush to spend more than he would like.

He would like to streamline SS
I dont think he wanted to spend the money they did on prescription drugs, but with such a strong lobby, the AARP, if he didnt, his approval ratings would be even lower, then you liberals who complain or criticize he spends too much, would then be pointing your fingers at his approval ratings.

Even with the amount they did authorize, Kennedy is still going around complaining it wasnt enough and criticizing Bush.

You lying hypocritical liberals should be blasting Kennedy instead of Bush for too much spending...oh, but then that would be like "TELLING THE TRUTH" for once, OUCH!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If you aren't capable of backing up what you say, then don't say it. I'm sick of people dropping knowledge like it is fact, and then when asked for proof they don't have any. Like we should all assume that anything anyone on the internet says is true automatically. Perhaps if you had a history of constantly being honest, I could cut you some slack. I promise we won't die waiting the day or two it takes for you to find whatever proof you want and then posting. It's very easy.

Make sure you're clear on what I'm declaring victory on. It's not the issue - it's the particular debate. We can debate about the sky being blue, but if you tell me the sky is blue because blueberries emit blue light and color the sky, well, you've lost the debate.

Give time my son.

I have built up a network of trustworthy sources that HAVE NEVER GIVEN ME FALSE INFORMATION ONCE.

I often hear info on the radio and dont have time to find it online before I post it.

If you can go do a google on my nic, you can find any postings,, anywhere I have ever done. If you can find one, two or three posts where I have posted information that is blatantly wrong, and I mean INFORMATION, then you have a gripe.

I even got into it with one guy about Kerry and Kennedy not giving back their tax cuts. He called me a liar. I wound up proving it, but it took a LONG time to find the right info. I had heard that fact on the radio. I simply dont have time to research every little bit of info. Sometimes you just have to trust people. And learn which people to trust.

When some have the habit of twisting things, like Christianity supports slavery, and you know DAMN well that the person is distorting things to make Christianity look bad, then you dont use them as a credible source.

Now, if you can find that pattern from me or the person who stated the ACLU is mostly non practicing Jews, then you have a legitimate beef.

My experiene has been the same as his, that most ACLU lawyers are non practicing Jews, but that is antedotal. I will give him time to produce his figures.

By the way, I asked my 10 year old daughter about her science class. They are learning about photosynthesis. I asked if they ever talk about non science stuff.

She said, yea, sometimes. The teacher (miss page) will talk about her personal life, or political stuff.

I asked if she always brings it up to talk about it in terms of science or is it just a periphrial discussion (I had to explain to her what that is)

she said, both. Sometimes we wind up talking about the "thing" as part of our science class, and other times we just talk about other things and dont talk about science at all for the rest of the class.

things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What is the point of using a closed thread onto another thread? You want this one shut down also?

Im not sure what you are talking about. Maybe I missed a closed thread somewhere?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If you aren't capable of backing up what you say, then don't say it. I'm sick of people dropping knowledge like it is fact, and then when asked for proof they don't have any. Like we should all assume that anything anyone on the internet says is true automatically. Perhaps if you had a history of constantly being honest, I could cut you some slack. I promise we won't die waiting the day or two it takes for you to find whatever proof you want and then posting. It's very easy.

Make sure you're clear on what I'm declaring victory on. It's not the issue - it's the particular debate. We can debate about the sky being blue, but if you tell me the sky is blue because blueberries emit blue light and color the sky, well, you've lost the debate.

Hey!, I said "not you(r) specifically clay" meaning I wasnt referring to your post. Just that it happens in general. Cheers! and Merry Christmas.

If you took it otherwise, I apologize, but I will repeat. I was NOT referring to you. OK?

I didnt see you declare victory. I have seen others do it.
I saw you getting tired of statements without supporting evidence provided. I understand, but I was trying to show you, since you are much more open minded than many here, probably including me, that there is a REASON sometimes we dont always provide evidence, and if asked, sometimes there is a legitimate REASON it takes time.

Also, I travel alot, relatively speaking. I leave the country for up to two weeks. Prior to leaving, I dont have time to post so much, and while Im gone, no posting, sometimes some see this as a defeat on an issue. But its not, just circumstances.

I hope this helps you understand SOME peoples CIRCUMSTANCES.

again, I apologize for any misunderstandings.

 

[Annie]

Give time my son.

I have built up a network of trustworthy sources that HAVE NEVER GIVEN ME FALSE INFORMATION ONCE.

I often hear info on the radio and dont have time to find it online before I post it.

If you can go do a google on my nic, you can find any postings,, anywhere I have ever done. If you can find one, two or three posts where I have posted information that is blatantly wrong, and I mean INFORMATION, then you have a gripe.

I even got into it with one guy about Kerry and Kennedy not giving back their tax cuts. He called me a liar. I wound up proving it, but it took a LONG time to find the right info. I had heard that fact on the radio. I simply dont have time to research every little bit of info. Sometimes you just have to trust people. And learn which people to trust.

When some have the habit of twisting things, like Christianity supports slavery, and you know DAMN well that the person is distorting things to make Christianity look bad, then you dont use them as a credible source.

Now, if you can find that pattern from me or the person who stated the ACLU is mostly non practicing Jews, then you have a legitimate beef.

My experiene has been the same as his, that most ACLU lawyers are non practicing Jews, but that is antedotal. I will give him time to produce his figures.

By the way, I asked my 10 year old daughter about her science class. They are learning about photosynthesis. I asked if they ever talk about non science stuff.

She said, yea, sometimes. The teacher (miss page) will talk about her personal life, or political stuff.

I asked if she always brings it up to talk about it in terms of science or is it just a periphrial discussion (I had to explain to her what that is)

she said, both. Sometimes we wind up talking about the "thing" as part of our science class, and other times we just talk about other things and dont talk about science at all for the rest of the class.

things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Are you saying that you're like Wikipedia? Have you considered buying this site from Jim? Sounds like you 'own' it in your mind. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?