O'Reilly: Man with TB acted on "secular-progressive" values, "put[ting] his own welfare above everything and everybody else"
On the June 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing the recent news that attorney Andrew Speaker traveled by airline while infected with an antibiotic-resistant strain of tuberculosis, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that the "the story comes down to ... philosophy of life." O'Reilly explained: "Traditional-values people put others on a par with themselves. ... Secular progressives put themselves above all others. That philosophy says, 'Me first, then I'll worry about you.' As a nation, the USA has been successful embracing the traditional point of view. But today, that's being challenged. And this TB case is a great example." He added: "Did Speaker put his own welfare above everything and everybody else? You bet he did."
Later in the broadcast, discussing with Focus on the Family chairman James C. Dobson recent comments about drugs and sex made by panelists at the Conference on World Affairs to a group of students at Boulder High School in Boulder, Colorado, O'Reilly again generalized about the beliefs of so-called "secular progressives." He said: "Secular progressives are going to basically tell children to use drugs, to have indiscriminate sex, do what you want when you're 14 years old, never mind what your parents think."
Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, here and here) numerous examples of O'Reilly's attacks on what he calls "secular progressives," as well as dubious claims about who qualifies as such. For instance, on the November 27, 2006, broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "secular progressives" want "out-of-wedlock birth in the USA" to be "at record highs." Additionally, on the November 18, 2005, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asserted that the "war" on Christmas is part of the "secular-progressive agenda" that also includes the "legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, [and] gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."
From the June 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK, so Speaker says he wasn't fully aware of his condition. His wife says he thought he was going to die. Add it up.
So what the story comes down to is philosophy of life. Traditional-values people put others on a par with themselves. That's a Judeo-Christian tenet. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Secular progressives put themselves above all others. That philosophy says, "Me first, then I'll worry about you." As a nation, the USA has been successful embracing the traditional point of view. But today, that's being challenged. And this TB case is a great example.
Are Andrew Speaker and his wife bad people? Probably not. Did Speaker put his own welfare above everything and everybody else? You bet he did.
So what do you think about that? What would you have done? Stayed in Italy in a strange place to avoid infecting strangers or high-tail it out of there? Interesting question, isn't it? And that's the Memo.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right, so your -- your organization, it would be, you know, the corruption of minors and the encouragement of minors to break the law. It's going to be a tough stretch. I don't know if the attorney general of Colorado is going to want to go in on that.
Is there anything else, though, that you can do, your organization can do, to mobilize people, because I think this is so bad and so over the top, and this is sending a message to the whole country that, look, it's out in the open now. Secular progressives are going to basically tell children to use drugs, to have indiscriminate sex, do what you want when you're 14 years old, never mind what your parents think. And I think this is -- becomes a culture war battle front and center for the entire country. So what can your organization do?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
O'Reilly's attempt to conflate this guy's recklessness with his secular-progressive demonization is a stretch, even for Bill who uses any and every opportunity to promote his Culture Warrior book and it's stated demons.
Weak.
Tommy, I'll go one step further--BO has it 190* backwards. The ones who prove over and over to care about no one but themselves would be [Drumroll] Conservatives. For him to try to paint Liberals in any other way is total fabrication void of facts in which to base this moronic opinion.
The facts are, we don't know if this guy is a lib or a con--except BO assures us the he MUST be secular progressive (codeword for Liberal) because he did something that could endanger others. A good Conservative would never do such a thing! Someone help me stop laughing.
I think it has been proven here and repeated enough that caring about people, generosity, decency and honor has no specific ideological affiliation, one way or another.
Your attempts to paint conservatives with an equally broad brush as O'Reilly's regarding secular progressives, is equally devoid of logic.
Give me a few hours and I can certainly back it up.
I mistakenly hit the 9 instead of the 8 above, sorry, should have read 180*
And for every instance you'd post to support your side I could post one to support the other. Believing that either side is all one way is just silly and bars you from serious discussion on anything.
Excuse me, Ehull, but I never said ALL conservatives, scroll up and read what I wrote. However, even if I did believe that, it doesn't "bar" me from anything, except perhaps your personal web site. Until I stumble on that, I'll continue to post here--thank you.
Concerning matching each other post for post, that seemed to be some sort of challenge. If it is, I gladly accept! You go first.
I have to agree with that statement tommy. I think real conservatives care about people as much as liberals and we mostly disagree on the HOW's of the equation. That being said I dont see this administration as being true conservatives more like radical statists.
I think that is true to a point. I can't possibly believe that Cheney and/or Bush care about all people. They care about white people and rich people. But if caring about the poor and caring about minorities were a crime, there certainly would not be enough evidence to convict either one of them.
This isn't about one particular Republican or Democrat, or conservative or liberal - of course you could fine one to support your assertion, so could I.
The point is one's political ideology has no bearing on that person's character or decency.
Then why does your side continually try to paint my side as being the cause of all ills in our society?
I don't what "side" you're referring to, but I am beholden to, nor responsible for, any "side" except my own. So for me to answer that with any authority would be inappropriate.
Read the Right wing blogs, listen to talk radio, listen to the constant whining from the President on down to the Repub congresspeople that it's all Bill Clinton's fault, it's Liberalism, it's a mental disorder, it's secular progressives. While we try to get some sort of equality for all, peace love and understanding, we're fighting to get it all the way.
it seems it is tommy's job to paint things as black vs. white only, it is much easier to confuse people that way. a specialty of authoritarian types. they can't think beyond their selfishness so ASSume nobody else can, and if someone can then they are the 'enemy'. that type of insecure paranoid personality always makes enemies. never realizing their worst enemy is their own pathology...
I dont disagree but I also dont think they are really conservatives
But if caring about the poor and caring about minorities were a crime
That is absolutely hilarious! On the other hand, if caring about the elderly and unborn were a crime there certainly would not be enough evidence to convict any liberal or "secular progressive".
There's no evidence that we don't care about the elderly. The Democrats were the ones who defeated Bush's attempt to destroy their financial security blanket.
There's no evidence we don't care about fetuses either. We just care more about protecting the privacy rights of women who have already been born, protecting their rights to control their own bodies, than we do about protecting the rights of fetuses to force a woman to be an incubator against her will!
Pro-lifers care more about a fetus than they do about the woman who would be forced to carry that fetus to term! I'm more than willing to accept the badge of honor that I care more about the woman than I do the fetus she might carry.
Correct Tommy,
The traits you mentioned have no party affiliation. I know plenty of greedy liberals, as well as generous ones; likewise with conservatives.
I agree to a point, but there is a difference in world-views between liberals and conservatives. Liberals generally view the role of government as facilitating the common good for all. Conservatives generally believe that the primary goal of government is to facilitate people's private goals and interests by allowing unregulated competition and the so called "free market" to dictate the social order.
I think the people that are being argued about here, i.e. BO and the like, would love the fact that this is what the fight has become about (us and them). I have seen greedy "conservatives" and "liberals." I have seen both groups care about NOTHING but their agenda. Real conservative beliefs may disagree with real (modern) liberal beliefs, but I don't see that their values disagree. Real conservatives don't want others to be unhappy, they have a different belief about what practices will elevate society to its acme. When you allow certain individuals to embody the values of an entire group there can be no rapprochement. BO is a boob, he is not the avatar of conservatism. He is a fool with a TV show who exists to get everyone riled up. Don't let people like him dictate the conversation.
I agree completely.
Neither side is innocent of creating an "us vs. them" mentality. Pigeon-holing is a real simple way of doing that and Billo's been trying to do that everywhere.
I've read Culture Warrior. Besides masturbating his own ego and his readers', Bill spends page after page trying to define some vast opposition to all that is decent and, for any educated person, he fails. But his book isn't for educated people. It's for poorly educated people. It's for people that will buy into his "us vs. them" framework with no questions asked because they feel strongly about abortion or parents' rights or religion or a meritocracy.
Why shouldn't they? These are important issues. But Bill boils them down to black and white, yes or no. He tries to come off as some kind of out-of-the-mainstream intellectual through robust vocabulary and sloppy logic. But he would be laughed out of any first year political science or sociology seminar.
"Us vs. them" is a social disease. The Big Giant Head exploits it, not because of a culture war, but to create one. He wants to lead one side. Because if people follow him in the culture war, they'll buy his stuff. Cause they're already dumb enough to believe what's on his show.
wow, by reading your previous posts id never though itd say this but...Thank you and i totally agree with you on that one :)
THERICK, I know it feels good to paint all conservatives as selfish and less-outwardly-concerned than progressives. Trust me, I wanted to post the very same thing. Lord knows there are plenty of convincing examples. But there are certainly many caring individuals on the right, just as there are many self-centered pricks on the left.
That being said, I can give three very compelling issues where the prevailing progressive tenet is one of selflessness and sacrifice for the greater good, and the conservative consensus on the same issue is considerably less righteous.
1. The environment: It's a hell of a lot easier to throw a can away than to recycle it. The original "tree-huggers" most likely ended up paying more for wood and paper products as a result of logging resrtictions. Getting your vehicle to pass stricter emissions standards costs money and time. Since the time of Teddy Roosevelt, the environment has always been a prominent issue for progressives, even though the issue has very little tangible personal benefit.
2. Taxes: This is an obvious one. Conservatives generally favor lower taxes (i.e., more money in their pockets). Progressives tend to favor higher taxes and more goverment sponsored programs (less money in their pockets). We could argue all day about limited government and Reaganomics, but the point here is simple: lower taxes almost always mean "lower for everyone." So, regardless of the progressive position on corporate welfare and capital gains tax cuts, when progressives oppose tax cuts, they are opposing putting money back in their pockets so that government can function as designed.
3. Iraq: This one could be argued at length. Conservatives will tell you that our reasons for war were just, the fears were real, and the progress is palpable. Certainly if all three of these conditions were true, the conservatives might have the moral high ground when it comes to Iraq. The problem is, it's looking more and more each day that none of these is true. So it makes you wonder why there are still people supporting the current Iraq policy. Republicans still support the President on Iraq by a 54% to 40% margin by the latest polling. No matter what side of the aisle you're on, most now agree that the decision to go to war was hasty, at best. Even if progressives believed the White House rhetoric of "if we leave, they'll follow us home," they would still be going against their best interests in seeking to end the war. What is more selfish, taking on terrorists who come to America, or sending teenagers to die fighting them far away? I would have to say the latter, and when 54% of Republicans favor Bush's Iraq policy compared to 4% of Democrats and 19% of Independents, who is really being selfish here? There may be a few Repubs who genuinely wish to see a stable Iraq for the Iraqi people. But the rest of the war-mongers are split among the oil-grubbers, the blind authority-followers, the fear-stricken, the idiotically patriotic, and the ill-informed.
"lower taxes almost always mean "lower for everyone"
You should explain that to your liberal friends who continually falsely claim that Bush's tax cuts were only for the rich.
Having seen the breakdowns of the tax cuts, they WERE almost all for the rich. No matter how much you argue about it, it's still true.
"lower taxes almost always mean "lower for everyone"
You should explain that to your liberal friends who continually falsely claim that Bush's tax cuts were only for the rich.
Hmmm...you might want to have a look at this:
Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich
Nice obective site there. Citizens for "Tax Justice." (Code word for socialism) The fact is that the poor and middle class actually received a larger PERCENTAGE REDUCTION in their marginal rates. They obviously didn't get as much total money back, because they the rich pay way more in taxes to begin with. Bush's tax cuts actually made the system more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a higher overall percentage of taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1941.html
Nice obective site there. Citizens for "Tax Justice." (Code word for socialism)
What is it with you guys? Every time someone presents evidence that what you say is not quite true they become a socialist, communist, terrorist or Gawd knows what else. Question for you: is there any inaccuracy in the presentation of the data by the site linked to? Then people can go to both sites and make up their own mind. No one needs your spin to help them decide.
Tax justice, code word for Socialism? That's why very few here give credence to your point of view. Your patently dishonest framing of topics is the mark of a genuinely empty vessel. You can't debate on the facts so you toss in childish epithets for justice and fairness in an effort to emotionally distract your opponent.
Under Bush's conservative economic policy the rich have gotten richer (that in and of itself is fine, hooray for the wealthy!) while the poor have been left behind. Tax code or no, that dynamic is not Progressive by any stretch.
"You can't debate on the facts"
Wrong. You're the one who can't beat me on the actual issue, so you have to throw around personal insults and not even address what I actually said. You didn't even attempt to refute the link that I put up. But then again, maybe that's because it isn't refutable. Bush's tax cuts have made the system MORE PROGRESSIVE. That's an undeniable fact, and the fact that you didn't even try to refute it shows that you have nothing on this issue.
I will leave Roundhouse to respond to the personal attack. Let me just say that I checked the link and equivocating on the term "progressive" or "wealthy" does not clarify anything. It is nothing but rhetoric.
According to an analysis by the Brookings Institution, 36.7% of the 2001 tax cuts will go to the top 1% of income earners. Only 1.1% will go to the bottom 20% of income earners; 5.9% to the next 20%; and 9.2% to the middle 20% of income earners. (William Gale and Samara Potter, "The Bush Tax Cut: One Year Later," The Brookings Institution, Policy Brief No. 101.)
Looked at another way, the after-tax income of the bottom 20% will be a mere 0.8% greater (roughly, $100 at the top of the bracket) while for the top 1% it will be 6.3% greater (roughly, $25,000 at the bottom of the bracket). In short, the tax cuts make an already unequal income distribution less equal. It is nothing short of a redistribution of wealth and doesn't qualify as progressive by any stretch of the imagination.
Finally tax cuts must be paid for somehow, either through tax increases elsewhere or through reductions in government programs, William Gale, Peter Orszag and Isaac Shapiro have conducted an innovative analysis of the "net effects" of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. They simulate two scenarios in which individuals receive the tax cuts but then pay for them either through increased taxes elsewhere or through spending cuts. Under either scenario--equal-dollar per person financing or progressive financing--they conclude that "Once the financing is included, the 2001 and 2003 'tax cuts' are best seen as net tax cuts for about 20-25 percent of households, financed by next tax increases or benefit reductions for 75-80 percent of households."
Credit Matt Vidal for some of what is written above. Nothing in your link supports the argument that Bush made the tax system more "progressive" outside of the outrageous rhetorical claim that it has.
Stop blubbering. Your link was a biased rightwing think tank, so don't tell me about a lack objectivity, dig? You come here and equate liberalism and conservatism with communism and socialism, whatever. Spare me the indignity, go suck an egg you dishonest prig.
How very 40's of you. "Socialism" they scream!! That's bad, right? You don't even know what it means- typical knucklehead conservative. You just know you're heeeeeeros say "it's baaaaaad". Then you clowsn make up some gobbledegook nonsense word like "Islamolibohomasexshulsocialisticcomm'nisterris'st", as if it means something.
What about the information presented was INCORRECT, or non-factual?
Once again, Loofah and his ilk show that they know absolutely NOTHING about which they speak, and spew nothing more than propoganda designed to upset and divide people.
And you buy it, hook, line, and sinker. Wake up.
Sheesh.
I think you have all missed my point. Of course Bush's tax cuts benefited the rich MORE. That doesn't mean they didn't ALSO benefit the rest of us personally. The personal benefit was just smaller for the have-nots.
The point is also that "personal" benefits are not always best for the country. Like when Bush wanted to give everyone $100 due to increased gas prices. Even though we would all be $100 richer, we also knew that was an idiotic policy that would accomplish nothing.
I think you have all missed my point.
Yeah but...no one was really responding to anything you said except RINO; who used your remarks as an occassion to recycle one of his lame right wing talking points. I think we all understand what RINO is saying and also understand that he is just plain wrong.
"BO assures us the he MUST be secular progressive (codeword for Liberal)"
Not really. O'Reilly has always made the distinction between liberals and secular progressives. Secular progressives are only those on the very far left. He's said that liberals can be traditionalists as well. He doesn't even categorize Hillary Clinton as being a secular progressive. He only categorizes those on the very far left as being secular progressives such as George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean.
Traditional Progressive values are traditional American values.
You’re bias is showing again. What do you know about the religious beliefs or practices of Pelosi, Soros, or Dean? NOTHING I’m sure. Nevertheless as usual you hate them because you hate people with political beliefs that are different from your own, so therefore these people must be evil. Pelosi grew up in my hometown of Baltimore, her dad and one of her many brothers were both mayors of the city. Her family the Delasandros where a large family of devout Italian Catholics.
"Nevertheless as usual you hate them because you hate people with political beliefs"
What? I never said anything of the sort. I was simply describing O'Reilly's view, not mine. Also, I don't "hate" anybody. I didn't even hate Bill Clinton. I actually like him personally. I think he's the kind of guy that you could go out and chase girls with and have a few beers. You don't know what you're talking about.
I bought b.o.'s first book on cassette at a second hand stoe for a dollar (over priced by 99 cents). It was info out of "how to win friends and influence people", "think and grow rich" and "the power of positive thinking". It was all old info. b.o. is Joe Pine all over again. What a spin bag.
I have to disagree with you on this one, DJ.
Joe Pine may have been a theatrical, pro-wrestling-inspired foaming-at-the-mouth conservative who knew that his over-the-top, more-heat-than-light tirades were likely to garner him ratings, but he was also a marine who lost a leg in combat.
O'Lielly, on the other hand, is simply a delusional, cowardly, sociopathic chicken hawk who is perplexed that he hasn't received medals & citations for his service in the War on Christmas.
You are right about the differences. (what happened to Pine?) They both over power the guests they don't agree with with their concept of they way things ought to be in their minds with name calling, fake facts and antiquated puritanical precepts.
I believe that Pyne (a heavy smoker) died back in the seventies from cancer.
I used to watch his show when I was a kid too. It did have the added advantage of allowing members of his studio audience to step up to a mic & confront him on his hard right views, which made for some fascinating screaming matches. As mean & unfair as Pyne could be, you always knew that it was largely shtick. You could imagine him hanging out & knocking back a few with the gusts that he had just denounced. I don't ever remember him ever being nearly as emotionally out of control as O'Lielly.
By the way
You can see a few of Joe Pyne's old shows on You Tube.
Weak Tommy,
Forget Bill's term "secular-progressive" and focus on his definition. Bills definition of this type of behavior is generally true and appropriate to describe this TB idiot. Anyone deliberately putting innocent people's health at risk and disregarding orders from CDC is not only arrogant and self-centered but, should be thrown in jail for reckless endangerment of the public's health. If this means he is also considered a "secular-progressive" then, so be it. Debate the term/category later but, don't loose sight of the crime.
"If this means he is also considered a "secular-progressive" then, so be it."
Only by Loofah and his band of non-thinking reactionary robots. All the rest of us think he's just a selfish a-hole.
Well of course.
When they get older, the girls anyway, they can "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
I think I heard a number of democratic presidential candidates put forward that platform. I like the way you clarified it. :-)
Actually, I think it was tax the wealthy children, tax the wealthy witches, tax capitalism, and raise taxes on wealthy lesbians. :)
Hahaha... You nailed it.
You two still falling for the lower taxes GOP stuff, eh? ;0D
I know, but it's better than what I used to fall for - that whole higher taxes means better government thing. Can you imagine anyone believing that load of baloney anymore?
I'd never heard that one.
Me niether. Have to take his word on it, I guess.
Then help me "Higher taxes means.............?"
a) higher taxes
b) higher taxes
c) higher taxes
d) republicans are in control
I hate to admit it but, sometimes higher taxes mean the Democrats are in control, and trying to clean up another Republican mess.
Higher taxes means you don't make enough to benefit from Republican tax cuts.
Another good one!
On the one hand you guys scream the rich dodge their tax burden, on the other the tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. You can't have it both ways.
Regardless, the rich paw the lion's share of taxes in this country and that fact is indisputable.
exactly what does that mean, they paw the lions share? ;)
Should have been "pay". thanks for the typo catch
"On the one hand you guys scream the rich dodge their tax burden, on the other the tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. You can't have it both ways."
Yes we can "have it both ways." These concepts are not mutually exclusive. Think about it: If i'm only required to pay 1% in taxes, I can still dodge my taxes.
Another way of looking at it - which is not in conflict with KevinO's point - is that the rich reap an unequal benefit from public infrastructure (schools to educate workers, highways and railroads and ports to ship goods, federally funded research that develops new technologies, etc). A progressive tax system is a fair way of making contributions be commensurate with the returns one realises.
This position has the added virtue of being settled economic policy, supported by the overwhelming majority of both parties.
Nothing wrong with a progressive system.And I don't know any rich people paying 1% in federal tax. Neither do you. Plenty of poor people pay 0%, however.
Right, sure. The richest 1%, yeah, they pay all thier taxes, every single cent. Of course none of them would abuse the system to find loopholes, off-shore accounts, and just good ole fashioned cooked books to avoid tax responsibilites, OH NO. They'd never do that.
You'd better wake up.
The rich also create most of jobs in this country. Like the business my stepdad started from scratch which now employs 100's. But I suppose he got ahead by exploiting his employees and by unfairly benefitting from out infrastructure.
Funny thing though, seems like all the people that worked for him had the same opportunity, while using that same infrastructure. But they CHOSE a different path.
That sounds like your blaming them for not doing as well as your stepdad. Believing that all of them made the same bad choice is just silly and bars you from serious discussion on anything.
In fairness, I repeated this back to you only to display how offensive and insulting that type of personal statement can be.
I own a company which builds new houses. I make much more than my employees, and I'm glad to pay a much higher percentage in taxes. I can afford to. I have many conservative friends who believe down to their soul that our employees should pay a higher percentage of their income because (as they state) "why should I pay more just because I earn more?"
EHULL:
You parents paid for ALL your food, clothing and shelter, in your formative years.
Corporations indeed supply JOBS.
Just as your parents providing you with the fundamentals of living, so a corporation might provide the wages that enable that living.
Yet, in BOTH cases, the providing of that source of support does NOT mean that the provider can act any way they want. Your parents cannot beat you, cannot abuse you, cannot place you in harm's way, or threaten your health by their actions. Corporations EXACTLY THE SAME ... but Rightwingers think whoever provides a paycheck should be exempt from any scrutiny of their behavior, and how it affects others in the community, and their own workers.
It's a pure ARISTOCRATIC view, that the ELITES should hold sway over all aspects of the lives of their "lessors", and that nobody has any right to demand accountability, fairness, or responsibility from the guy who "signs the checks". We should just bow down, thank them profusely, kiss their asses, and ask, "Please, sir, may I have another?"
Balderdash! Corporate sadists, bandits, and egomaniacal greedheads deserve NO slack, just because they can say they "provide jobs". They are ACCOUNTABLE ... at least, unless GOPers are in office. Then, the laws are not enforced.
And plenty of rich people pay zero tax as well.
Regarding "choosing" another path, if all those opportunities are available to us all, why don't we all do it? Financial success is not just a product of wise decisions. There's a whole lot of luck involved.
If bill gates had been born in uganda, he almost certainly would not have been a success. If you agree with that, then you must also accept that if he'd been born a poor black woman in mississippi that he would not have had the same opportunities to capitalize on his ideas.
The same thing, luck, applies to everyone, easlily as much all our other attributes. There are smart, industrious poor people, and there are dumb, lazy rich people. It depends on what cards life dealt life dealt you.
But I suppose he got ahead by exploiting his employees and by unfairly benefitting from out infrastructure.
YES! That is exactly what secular progressives will tell you. Because that is exactly what they believe. So, your step-dad is an evil hate monger because he built a successful business. And it's funny reading how therick, tex and kevino all tell you that.
Why don't you address the point? All you have to do is demonstrate how the business owner doesn't reap and unequal benefit from the public infrastructure as Val pointed out.
So, the owner has to buy all the equiptment, buidings, hire all the people and pay for their medical and other benefits. Are you saying the owner should NOT get a proportionately higher benefit from HIS/HER expenditure? The employee only commits time to the job, the owner has to comitt time AND finances to the job. The owner should get more reward for his/her input. When the employee starts buying the equiptment they use then they should get properly rewarded for it. Not until that happens should they make equal to or more than the owner.
Did the owner of this business build the roads that brought the equipment to his business? Does he pay for and maintain a private army to protect his finical interests and property if attacked by another country? Did he set up and fund a private legal system that he and his business partners use to enforce his contracts? Did he privately fund the education and training of every employee in his company? Does he maintain his own power grid and sewage system which he uses for his business?
Just wondering?
YES! He pays taxes, just like the employee, which paid for each of those.
This conversation is getting sideways. Nobody has said that entrepneurs ought to make the same as their employees, the topic is proportional tax rates or tax breaks.
Specifically, this is about who enjoys the greater benefit from our infrastructure, the business owner or the employee? I'm all for small business operaters catching a break, I think Edwards mentioned in the Democratic get together called a debate, that businesses that pay above the minimum should catch a break. To my mind that is fair, it benefits both labor and managenment. Universal health care could ease another burden.
Let's not forget, though, that employer and employee are morally bound to one another to do right by one another.
Thats not what I really ask but regardless, my point I am making is that the owner of this business utilizes more of the PUBLICLY FUNDED infrastructure than his employees. He therefore benefits more from this infrastructure and should pay accordingly (which is a higher percent than his employees pay in taxes). It is his patriotic duty to pay his fair (proportional) share of taxes for the privilege to freely operate a business in this great country (that offers a PUBLICLY FUNDED infrastructure and military that his business benefits from). It is in his LONG TERM financial interest to do so.
I've said before that I support a 'flat tax' system on profit--across the board. Would you agree this is the best idea to make sure everyone pays "their fair share"?
The way you're saying it, it sounds like if someone rode a bicycle on dirt paths to and from work they should be exempt from some taxes since they're not using that part of the infrastructure (although it's always there when they need it and want to use it).
It seems logical to me that if you own more stuff or have a big expensive house, you would have to be reasonably responsible to pay for a security system that will protect your property and wealth. It would be crazy if we required a middle class guy living in a two bedroom house to pay for a security system to protect another guy living in a huge house in a wealthy neighborhood. Yet this is essentially the Bush tax model.
The top reason why I support progressive taxation is the fact that the interest of the wealthy are directly protected by a publicly funded military (especially wealthy corporations). The terrorist did not, and probably will not attack, a dirt path or a low income neighborhood. Why would they? There is a reason why they attacked the twin towers. Because they represent american economic power. Corporations should pay a higher proportion of taxes to fund a military that will mostly protect their interest (directly or indirectly). It is hard to run a corporation in a country that is constantly under attack or whose borders are not safe from attack.
On another note, it is sick and unpatriotic for anyone, especially wealth corporations, to even consider, yet alone demand, tax cuts during war time. I challenge you to find a country or civilization who ever demanded tax cuts to its wealthiest citizens during war time (please provide a link if you find one).
The top reason why I support progressive taxation is the fact that the interest of the wealthy are directly protected by a publicly funded military (especially wealthy corporations).
So, you are in favor of a tax system that taxes unfairly? Tell me something, how many "wealthy corporate execs" died on 9/11? Are you saying that no one had an "interest" in the workers who died? Also, are you saying that my small home with it's meager contents are not valuable enough to protect, that I am not resposible to pay for protection of it?? That sounds like a typical mindset from the many liberals I know, that everyone should provide everything for me and I don't need to do or pay for anything.
I challenge you to find a country or civilization who ever demanded tax cuts to its wealthiest citizens during war time (please provide a link if you find one).
I'm not going to waste my time looking for something I don't care about. But if you want to spend your time looking, give me an example of where the rich are expected to support all the rest in a country.
If the super wealthy are not willing to do their patriotic duty and pay their fair and proportional amount of taxes (especially during wartime), I would be open to them paying no taxes if they gave up all access to the public funded military, justice system, infrastructure, public education system, etc.
Let them pay for their own roads (since they would have to give up their driving license because the roads are publicly funded). Let them organize their own army to protect their assets and property. Let them create their own private justice system so they can maintain and enforce their contracts with each other. Let them fund their own fire department and police department. Let them educate their own workforce (since they would not be able to hire anyone who was educated with public funds). Let them fund their own drugs when they are sick (since they would not be able to use any drug that was developed with public funds). Etc.
If the super wealthy were truly autonomous and never benefited from government, then maybe I could support no taxes for them. But until then, they need to pay their share because they are the ones utilizing and benefiting the most from the publicly funded infrastructure and military.
your step-dad is an evil hate monger because he built a successful business. And it's funny reading how therick, tex and kevino all tell you that.
Oh. I didn't realize that anyone said those things about said step-dad.
Let's read the thread again together and find out for sure, shall we?
Please explain "from scratch." What is "the scratch." where did it come from? How did he have access to "the scratch"? etc.
Do taxes pay for "the scratch?"
Then help me "Higher taxes means.............?"
That's not the question. The question is, what do "lower taxes" under a Republican administration mean?
Then help me "Higher taxes means.............?"
That's not the question. The question is, what do "lower taxes" under a Republican administration mean?
bigger deficits and an ever growing national debt
rapidly devaluing dollar
higher state and local taxes as federal funds for state and local services dry up
higher taxes in our future, and for our children, and our children's children
all of the above
Higher taxes also means solvent government. the trick is to use the money you collect, wisely.
Well that is what you get for thinking. I suggest your aquire the requisite equipment necessary to perform the task before attempting it again. It MIGHT stop you from making such an absolutly stupid statement
You crack me up! Despite our political at-odds constantly, you have a great sense of humor and I never fail to read one of your posts.......good one buddy.
I bought a tee-shirt that has that exact quote on it for my brother from a feminist book store. He's a semi-conservative ex-marine, it's hilarious when he wears it to family function.
This issue had nothing to do with O'Reillys "Secular Progressive" crap. I am sure he was hoping the TB Patient was of Hispanic origin so he could spew his anti Immigrant crap like he did with the DWI Case a few weeks ago. O'Reilly is a total piece of trash and I for one am tired of seeing his lying face on TV.
So you also have trouble finding the remote? ;-)
His presence nonetheless reduces choices acceptable to human beings. So, I remain free to oppose his lying and bigotry, even though I am quite capable of operating the remote - and I DO!
(Both oppose his lying and bigotry on my TV schedule, and use the remote to ensure that I never watch him.)
I think it gave him a chance to go hug and kiss that other creep ( Dobson )
My question is when are these two gentleman going to start acting like Christians and promote peace, love, understaing and forgiveness.
What is it that needs their forgiveness?
According to the tenets of Bill's faith, we're all in need of forgiveness. Unless you're going to equate BO with JC.
I'm sure you're support for O'Really would stop short of that.
That is not BO's philosophy. It is JCs.
Indeed we all do need forgiveness.
AA,
Perhaps I missspoke. What I meant was when are they going to promote forgiveness meaning when are they going to say they have forgiven people for the "sins" they feel people (in general) are committing towards them. I think we are supposed to forgive those who sin against us, right?
Sorry if I wrote sloppily
Did Speaker put his own welfare above everything and everybody else? You bet he did. [O'Reilly]
True.
However, O'Reilly's reasoning is faulty. This was an individual, and to lump him into to either a *traditional* or *secular-progressive* group because of his behavior is just Billy-Boy playing a game of disingenuous politics.
Does anyone even know anything about Mr. Speaker's ideology? All I know is that he's a lawyer, and lawyers come in both Liberal & Conservatives suits.
It's irrelevant (as you suggest). Even if this guy is a 'card carrying liberal' (whatever that is)... O'Reilly is a liar and a fool.
First, does anybody know the guy's politics or religious bend? And secondly, to generalize ala BO'R, it seems that ultra-Christian "values," when used as a lobbying weapon or electorate stick, is as "holier-than-thou" and selfish as any of the Factor's definitions. At least a "secular progressive" would project "live and let live."
Interesting point. However it seems to me that "Christian values" are what they are. I don't understand how "ultra Christian values" differ?
It also seems to me that Christian values are made up of basically two parts. Love God and love your neighbor. To make an observation that one seems to disregard one's neighbor by indiscriminately allowing others to be infected by TB does indeed run counter to Christian values. Christians are called to hate the sin and not the sinner. It seems to me that is what BO is attempting to do in his usual bloviating manner.
To say "live and let live" is an oxymoron because the issue in question is whether by following that philosophy you can cause a great deal of harm and possibly death as in this case. Obviously you cannot "live and let live" in this case because doing so may cause others not to, even if you are a secular/progressive.
...and, of course, as we've seen (GWB is an excellent example)... calling oneself 'Christian' automatically makes one so. Hiding behind a label for ill-gotten gains and walking the walk are two entirely different things.
Like my daddy always said, if ya gotta tell someone you are, you probably aren't.
.. and your daddy is? ;-)
There are many Christians who will self-identify themselves as such. To do so does not make one a liar. One can be a Christian and still a sinner. In fact most Christians will tell you they are sinners.
Most christians will tell you if asked. Those that run around saying they are so without being asked are usually not.
How do you know?
Personal experience. And my daddy's retelling of his personal experience.
This is only a small point. I think I know what you are getting at. You are saying, based on you and your daddy's experience, that self professed Christians are not bad Christians but not Christians at all. It seems to me you need some sort of psychic ability to discern that self professed Christians are really non-Christians. My hats off to you and your daddy.
Okay I'm being a bit sarcastic and a little argumentative. It was a toss away line on your part and did not really make any sense. I'll forgive you. ;-)
Well, I did grow up in a small town so it was quite easy to discern who actually lived up to their professed notions. What you are noting would be more applicable for the big city folks!
Don't worry, Snoopy,you made perfect sense to those of us who aren't here just to be argumentative..
I dont disagree with your argument. I think Ricks point does make sense. There is a famous quote where man was dicussing a famous mans dinner party conversation. He said the more he talked about his honor the faster we counted the silverware. There is a point there.
Exactly right. The honest man doesn't NEED to tell you how honest he is, his conduct shows it to everyone. Same thing with humble man.
Just 'cuz you SAY you are, doesn't MEAN you are. "Fair And Balanced" leaps to mind.
I believe JC himself told us so. Something about praying in silence and not proclaiming your piety, etc., etc., etc.
rjc - This whole point got started by someone comparing Christianity to Secular/Progressives.
Do you know who is it that is going around proclaiming themselves as a Christian without being asked?
There are areas in this country where people recommend that you can hire a certain roofer, plumber, grass cutter, etc. because he's a "good Christian".
I've had contractors sell themselves to me by proclaiming themselves to be "good Christians".
I've actually had town representatives point me towards the "good Christians" whenever I call about the garbage not being picked up.
I know it's not indicative of all Christians, but in the last 9 years, 100 % of the time, someone has pronounced their being a good Christian", or steered me into the path of a "good Christian", I was ignored or screwed.
Worry,
That is so sad. They are indeed sinners:
Lk. 13.25-27 21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Ps. 6.8
That's why the term "good Christian" should not be used. If Jesus himself asked people not to call him good, but the Father only, why are modern Christians so obsessed with separating the sheep from the goats? I believe that job belongs to the Almighty.
As Emerson said "your actions speak so loudly, I can't hear a word you are saying."
I had a HS graduating classmate, whom I had not seen in 17 years, give me a spiel about the business he was in. He referred to his faith and the faith of his upline in The Lord more than once as a way of reassuring me and himself that the business was legitimate and worthy of his praise.
The pitch was for Quixtar, which I didn't find out until the next day was the internet reincarnation of Amway. He never mentioned Amway during the whole pitch and specifically cautioned me not to Google "Quixtar". Too bad for him and his loyal Amway cult members that this is the information age. Never had I ever felt so betrayed and angry that I had waisted 2 hours of my life paying attention to someone.
That happened to me also. I went back and met the guy with my girlfiend in a fast food dining area. When I found out it was amway regurgitated I loudly called the guy a liar.
That is how it is back here in w. ky. (I grew up in So. Calif. and am NOT a christian and am proud of it) This is the grease, sugar, bleached white flour and bible belt. I have been back here 26 years and have delt with business owners, farmers and rual folks all over w. ky. as a factory rep. I am also a graphic artist and sell my work to galleries all over the world. The nearest one to me is Louisville. None around here as this is NOT a demographic interested in quality as a whole. This is Chinas marketplace. Seriously. There is a big store here that sells nothing but junk made in china. There are no places that sell quality handmade items. This county is also the drug capital of w. ky. Theives, con artists, drug adicts, charlatans are everywhere. ky was (5 years ago) second only to W. Va. as far as people letting their teeth rot right out of their heads. This is a very backward place. Corruption is rampant. I mind my own business so am not bothered too much by any of this nonsense. I was selling my work to galleries all over the world, The Japanese TV corp. , QVC TV but my neighbors across the street thought I was a drug dealer cause I was from Calif. This place makes Mayberry look like a think tank.
Howdy from Lexington, KY.
[link to www.paducaharts.com]
Hey. Have you been to Completely Ky? You are in the real world over there.
Never been, I'm new here, I ain't from around here. I have been to Hayden, KY. It should keep hidin'.
I really like Kentucky, though. Can't say why, I just really do. Lexington is a bit of an Eden. Maybe my perspective would change if I saw what you have seen.
Living in 9 states for 3 1/2 years dealing with all kinds of people established OK. to have the friendliest people over all. Other salespeople have confirmed that. Have not been to all states so this is a preliminary assessment. ky. is the land of fast women and beautiful horses. I love the country though.
I actually do. There is a born-again Christian guy in my book group who told my other friend that my friend needed to work on his relationship with God. Totally unsolicited
Happens all the time. They say "...and I'm a Christian." and sit there and wait for you to say "Oh, so am I!". If you don't, well, it's a black mark in the book for YOU. "Golly, I sure have some souls to save!"
Happens all the time, guy. That's the way some of your crowd rolls, sorry to tell you.
While I agree with your assessment of what Bill was saying, he is wrong on two levels: for one, he is a raving hypocrite with his christian value crap, both from his actions in his personal life, and his stated world-views. Second, he is assuming that a Christian upbringing or affiliation is required in order to realize that randomly infecting people with TB is wrong.
It is offensively ignorant to assume that you need to believe in a certain religion, or any religion, to care about others and not commit horribly selfish acts like knowingly exposing others to TB.
Speaking as a Christian, I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Some of my best friends have no organized religion in their lives and do not speak of their own personal faith at all, yet they are some of the kindest and most generous people I know. On the other hand, I have known some devoutly "religious" people in my life and their selfishness and cold hearted nature are astounding.
People should be judged by the quality of their character, not the amount of religion in their lives or their propensity to visit places of worship.
dead on, tommy!
Except he left out the part about those kind generous people being tormented for eternity in Hell.Other than that...
Snoopy,
Even those who have self-professed as Christians? ;-)
Great post Tommy.
The founding fathers could not have said it better.
"I have known some devoutly "religious" people in my life and their selfishness and cold hearted nature are astounding."
Sounds like my friend's ex-wife. Yes, Jen, I know you are reading this and I'm talking about you!
Nice post.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16
A truly Christian concept for all our secular friends.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16
I know Bill O'Reilly, and GWBush by their fruits. If I cared, my conclusion would be that they are Satan's henchmen.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16
"A truly Christian concept for all our secular friends. " -AA
One not need to be religious to understand the meaning of that verse. I am atheist and find it somewhat offensive when people tell me that I am "immoral" or lack "value". I also have compassion for those of faith because I have a VERY diverse group of friends and have grown to respect their religious views. I have a girlfriend who is Mormon, a good friend who is Evangelical, as well as many other friends of diverse religious backgrounds. Diversity is what makes America so great, and I cherish this value very much in my life...
I agree. Diversity is one of our greatest strengths.
It's a shame that reasoned views on religion and how it relates to a person's character, like this one from Tommy, do not gather widespread attention, book sales and TV ratings like the vitriolic invective we get from Bill O'Reilly.
Tommy could not have said it better than myself.
Faith and Character are not inclusive. Character is determined not by how many times you pray a night or attend church, but on the actions you take in life.
Good one Tommy, exactly so.
Judge someone by the content of their character and actions, not the groups that they claim ownership in.
I agree Tommy. Having grown up in the church I can honestly say I have met some really mean people in the church. I mean life long church going you can't tell them they are not going to heaven folks. On the other hand my mother was a devout church goer and good Christian lady. She did not talk about it, but e lived her Chriatianity every day of her life and it showed by her example.
I am looking forward to seeing b.o.'s "no spin zone" chastity belt. b.o. knows who buys his bread and butters it. He is a faker, a charlatan and was born about 350 years too late. His ideas are anti-progress and there is a chapter on him in an Abnormal Psychology book I have. He his a sick, twisted perverse individual. The only reason I watch him is for a laugh. I don't watch the show when one of his looney tune right wing sycophants host the show. He is like a train wreck, I just have to see it. I am a rubber necker.
One day someone's going to cut Billo off on his commute and he'll rail on the guy as a 'secular-progressive' on his Talking Points for putting himself before the Big Giant Head.
Secular progressives put themselves above all others. That philosophy says, "Me first, then I'll worry about you."
So I guess things like the evironment, poverty ,and universal health care only effect the "secular progressives". Well, at least that explains some things.
Well, Bill, I do put myself above you and other brainless twits who are self-proclaimed know-it-alls on what liberals and progressive stand for.
And that is a conservative value of Bill's, misrepresenting the value systems of anybody he disagrees with.
This is not guess work on my part but an observation. That is what Bill does with viral persistence: misrepresent what it means to be a progressive/liberal.
His attack on the Colorado HS that had some "SP" speakers is a reliable gage of Bill's honesty.
He has none.
Which sort of disqualifies him as an expert on anything.
Bill's "philosophical" arguments are barren, stagnant pestiferous bogs of bile and regurgitated hate.
Bill should be hosting a hand puppet show in El Segundo, and no more than that.
Randy
First, does anybody know the guy's politics or religious bend?
Who cares? I don't care at all what this guy believes politically because it has no relevance to his decision to travel with TB. Bill is a headline skimmer who looks to find stories or angles to support his conclusion of a culture war. what he doesn't realize is that he is one of the people who is making it all worse. Instead of searching out our differences, I would love to see people come together and say what ideas and values they share.
By making it worse, Bill sells more books!
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html
Secular progressive or christian conservative? Hmmm?
Interesting story. It looks to me like the headline and article misrepresents what the speaker actually intends.
As I read it, the man, (I forget his name,) was not calling for America to be attacked. He only said if it were attacked, then people would appreciate more of what Mr. Bush is trying to do. He simply set up a hypothetical in order to make a point about Mr. Bush's popularity.
I personally don't like that argument because it is open to misinterpretation as evidenced by this article.
No, I don't think the guy was really wishing there would be an attack, and, although I sometimes wonder if there's some truth to the LIHOP theory, I don't even believe someone with as black a heart as Cheney's would actually let an attack happen.
I feel like if someone on the left even said something remotely similar, there would be media drumbeat about it for days. That being said, I don't like "turnabout's fair play." Just report what the guy said.
As far as it goes, though, I doubt that he's right. I think if there were another attack, people might turn on Bush even more - maybe even cutting the ranks of the "dead-ender" 28%.
I hope we never find out what would happen.
That's kinda why I posted it, to see how many who've said Dems wish for an attack on America will now come out and condemn one of their own. My bet? 0.
Snoopy,
Sorry but I don't know of anyone who has said any particular Democrats wish for another attack on America.
Do you have any links or references?
You mean like Ann Coulter's implied suggestions?
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/ann_coulter/
Coulter is the queen (king?) of misrepresenting liberal ideology, liberal beliefs, liberal everything.
We are traitors, America haters and terrorist sympathizers for daring to agree with ex-generals who have declared Iraq a disaster, for refusing to bow at the altar of Ronald "Cold War Ender" Reagan, and for forming an opinion based on objective reality.
The more I read her vacuous barbs the more I believe it is an act.
Archie Bunker in drag.
Randy
I believe cheney would (if he could) kill all blacks, mexicans and poor whites in America if it would bring baby bush's poll numbers up to 70% favorable. This guy is evil personified.
Careful what you wish for. If we were attacked again under Bush's watch, I doubt very much it would play to his favor. In addition to that, to even suggest that an attack is whats needed to rally behind this president is irresponsible and stupid. Could you imagine if some Dem said we need another attack on our soil to show that Bush is an incompetent leader? How do you think that would go? (by the way, "careful what you wish for" wasn't meant for you AA.)
Yikes! And will Billy Boy be talking about THIS in his talking points memo? Fair and balanced my a$$.
Great link Snoopy,
Very funny and caused me to stop for a second to think about it.
According to this logic
GWB is working to insure security in this country ---> people don't like what he's doing ----> therefore we need to be attacked again ---> than people will appreciate GWB's work to insure we are not attacked again???
a + b = z squared + a? Ok my brain is now frozen. Is this the GOP's 2008 strategy? Create an environment where every intelligent person is driven insane by their illogic?
Honestly when I first heard about this TB guy it got me riled up and I thought he was a moron. After hearing both sides of the story, I can see his point of view (even though I think he still should have stayed out of the public). The CDC is to blame if anyone needs to get called on this, they basically told him he had a very low risk of infecting anyone else. BO is just being twit as usual.
I can completely understand why this guy did what he did, but I think he made some bad decisions that may have unnecessarily put a lot of people in harms way.
On a sort of related note, this whole fiasco does show how our border security is a big joke. We can't keep in dangers or keep them out.
Wasn't it BilldO that also tried to exploit the Virginia Tech shooter story by painting him as having "liberal values"?
As I remember, the related posts here were more convincing in connecting him to conservative thought.
Besides, those other passengers shouldn't have felt "entitled" to having a nanny airline provide a disease-free environment.Pull up those immune system bootstraps and show somw rugged individualism.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/03/brit-hume-uses-the-racist-phrase-spearchucker-to-describe-john-glenn/
Secular progressive or christian conservative?
I did a triple-take when I heard Hume use the word "spear-chucker". I still can't believe it. I thought perhaps Juan Williams might allude to it, but he didn't. Makes you wonder what the water-cooler conversations between Hume and Gibson are like.
Do you think you meant to say a partisan spear carrier?
A spear carrier is a nickname for a minor acting part. It generally pertains to a character that appears in several scenes, but mostly in the background. The term has its roots in Greek Tragedy; as plays such as Antigone and Oedipus the King concerned the tragic fate of nobles, several nondescript soldiers or guards were required to appear in the background.
Actually, what I meant to say is "do you think HE meant to say . . ."
I'm not defending Brit. I just think his using the wrong word is hilarious.
Hume chose the word pretty carefully, so it appears (watch the video). I give Hume the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean it in a racial way, but the word has had such racial overtones over the years that I was shocked he pulled it out of his vocabulary. It was particularly insensitive given the fact that Juan Williams was sitting directly across from him.
Taking a quick look, it seems to me Hume was saying it in the same vein as calling someone a "bomb thrower" or "attack dog". Obviously there was no racism behind it.
Score one for the PC police.
Right wing pundants get a pass. Hmmm?
John Glenn is White.
Had Hume been referring to an African-American there could be reason to question his use of "spear-chucker"
He likely meant "spear carrier". Of course I fail to see why a chucker vs a carrier is all that much different if you really think about it. I realize the Urban Dictionary has a definition...but spears have been used since prehistoric times.
Hume is over 50...folks over 50 sometimes have to search for a word. And they still get it wrong.
How would you have taken it if he had said "but not somebody normally you would think capable of being a nosy... ahh... ahh... hookbeak, who could, who could really go face first into an investigation?" How would you have taken it if he had said "but not somebody normally you would think capable of being a... ahh... ahh... w*tback, who could, who could really swim his way through an investigation?"
He didn't call Glenn a "bomb thrower" or "attack dog," he called him a "spearchucker." And obviously, he doesn't think John Glenn is African American, but I wouldn't use that term to describe anyone, not a javelin thrower, nor a traditional indigenous person actually throwing, you know, spears.
It's an offensive expression that pretty much everyone I know, or can think of, just wouldn't use. Nothing "PC" about it (as if that term had any meaning). Is Hume a racist, more so than anyone, I mean? I don't know the man, so I can't say. But it sure is an interesting word choice.
I didn't say "racism was behind it". I said it is shocking that Hume would insensitively pull a racially-charged term like that one out of his vocabulary.
It's a very racially-charged word. I've heard plenty of people use it, and ONLY as a very derogatory way of addressing blacks. Back in the 50s and 60s, that is, when people didn't know any better. Some might refer longingly to those times as the good 'ol, pre-"PC police" days.
I think you are right. Hume meant to say "porch monkey". Just kidding, but how does one make that kind of mistake? Seriously? This isn't the same as omitting a word or mispronouncing something. "Spear-chucker" is undeniably racist for as long as I can remember.
I do hereby offficially anoint Bill O'Reilly as a "CIRCULAR POSSESSIVE". Everything he says is a roundabout way of promoting only what he declares to be true (and to promote his giveaway book..he gives away quite a few)). He continues to talk in circles to prove his own point thus the title of Grand CP is bestowed upon him..
Congrats Bill, this dispenses all that Al Franken has said about you. You cannot be a liar because you must first say something that someone other thatn yourself believes.
P.S. Will the Foxie police come to get me?
Funny. I must've subliminally read your comment about police when I replied above.
I think you make a good point. The trouble with bloviating every night on TV is that it is easy for your staff to forget what you said last week.
Nobody but old people and MMFA watch BO anyway. He provides fodder for MMFA so for that we can all be grateful.
---"He provides fodder for MMFA so for that we can all be grateful."---
Yeah, much in the same way diseases provide fodder for the very grateful doctors. Brilliant.
I wonder if Ted Baxters (aka Bill O'Reilly) problems with sexual harassment makes him a secular progressive. Ted clearly wasn't thinking of anyone but himself.
Not true, Moe. BilldO was thinking about those women. A lot. But creepy kinda thinking.
Moe,
The problem is he was thinking too much about someone else. However I do believe that person's lawyer made a lot of money because of it.
O'Reilly's own arrogance was his downfall. It appears from the Mackris Transcripts that O'Reilly thought he could bully and intimidate anyone from speaking out against him regarding harrassment, etc. Mackris simply outsmarted Bill by recording everything he said (much in the same way MMFA outsmarts Bill).
Considering O'Reilly's demonstrated sexism, it must really chap his hide to have been outsmarted by Mackris and a gay man (Brock).
The 2006 elections really pushed O'Reilly over the edge.
So I guess the individual Speaker contracted TB from must have also had "secular-progressive values". And the guy before that, and the guy before that, and....
"Secular progressives are going to basically tell children to use drugs, to have indiscriminate sex, do what you want when you're 14 years old, never mind what your parents think."
Finally, I agree with O'Really on something.
I've always taught my kids to do what they think is best, not what I think.
And I didn't tell them to do drugs and have sex until they were 16.
Really? I encouraged my child to get high at age 12, and experience as much sex as possible starting at 14. She's now 27, and has thanked me profusely for encouraging these activities, and intends on passing on these precious values to her children. When my grandson turns 8, we'll have a party for him, and crack open his first beer. Can't wait.
I'll never forget my cousin's tenth birthday, when we had him sacrifice his first virgin. And tell me those aren't hard to find nowadays!
That could have been my other daughter. Congrats!
There once was some Bull named O'Lielly
A piece of crap piled so highly
A culture warrior of deception
That has no conception
Of the truth he abuses so viley
LOL. My turn!...
O'Reilly instills his opinionsIn the weak, feeble minds of his minionsHis gospel he spewsFrom his desk at Fox NewsBut backstage are his loofa dominions
Arggh, that's not how it previewed!!!
Fallafel Boy instills his opinions
In the weak, feeble minds of his minions
His gospel he spews
From his desk at Fox News
But backstage are his loofa dominions
Ah, forget it. LOL
Most excellent limericks, Julia and Pete. Perhaps a limerick book is in order with Media Matters as a sponsor?
Not only that but he hates falafels and Christmas!
I have to agree with Tommy's point on this one. For O'Reilly's argument to have a shred of credibility, he'd have to demonstrate that Secular Progressives are inherently more selfish by nature, and that Christians are inherently less selfish by nature. If you did an honest assessment, I think you'd find plenty of good people and plenty of a**holes in both groups.
As usual, O'Reilly's full of crap, and so is Dobson.
Labelling is an interesting art form. Let's see: I'm a Christian (try to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus as set forth in the Gospels) Also a secular progressive (convinced that there must be a separation of church and state to protect freedom of religion) Also a liberal (in that "we the people" do have responsibility for the "least among us" as well as our seniors by collectively providing for them). I'm also a conservative because I accept that each person must assume responsibility for their actions, and also a "fiscal conservative" because I accept that what is spent should reflect the common good and be spent wisely.
Hmm...it seems that when someone uses a label to brand someone else, they mean something different than how that person would use it. How can we communicate if we don't have a common understanding of what these labels even mean?
Mary, you are so correct. Most people are much more multi dimensional than the talking heads like O'lielly would have people beleive. It's too bad that some people are so black and white in their thinking that they can't discern the difference. But it's part of the politics of fear that the current administration and the corporate media is pushing for their own agenda, which is accumulating power and wealth for themselves.
That's some of that dangerous liberal talk! No wait, it's conservative, because you want to conserve our country from fascism.
It's more of the righties usual subjective BS. Sure this one is more absurd than most but it demonstrates the pattern. It's easier to prop up failing right wing leaders with an endless stream of "us vs them" culture war silliness.
I can see why you are confused. You selectively apply a label to a particular situation even if it contradicts your previous example. It seems to me that you are both all and none of the above. That makes you a liberal. ;-)
To whom are you speaking? And can you explain what contradiction you are referring to?
Ah, so AA, all "liberals" to you, are completely full of it.
Gee, I'm so shocked that you hold that view, really.
I know there's a lot of competition here with other absurd things falafel man has said. But this is the absolute pits. Using a unique, tragic incident for an ideologically driven commentary is pathetic and downright sick. No exaggeration: this is the sign of an unbelievably simplistic, diseased mind.
I appreciate and admire the work MMFA does and enjoy the posts. But somehow even responding to such garbage reduces our--mine included--collective humanity and intelligence.
But remember, this WebSite is getting in the stomach of these Talk Show Comedians. They take MMFA seriously because it is cutting into their wallets. And their advertisers are hearing about it also. I know that I write them and refer them to MMFA.
These Bums are about money. Sadly, their listeners believe their crap.
You've got that right, brudder. I hate even giving O'Lielly 15 seconds of thought regarding his moronic wailings. I will now abstain from any more postings this day, wasted on this piece of human dung. Well, unless I have a good limerick.
I might be convinced to "write" another song... ;)
Snoopy, Do it........do it....do it!
Well, if you have time, do it. It's just selfish on my part to encourage you.
Do it, Snoopy, do it.
OK, talked me into it! Hope y'all are Neil Diamond fans!
O'Reilly lies, perverts truth most the time
And gets away with it
Media Matters, records his rants,
But Bill keeps lying about
what's being played back
Well I'm not sure how he was born and raised
But nowadays, I'm lost between two shores
He may have crawled out from under a rock,
Or maybe not, but I'm convinced he's a media whore!
A media whore!
A prostitute!
And no one can believe
what comes out of his chute
"They lie!" He cried
"I am," he said
"A respected journalist, and I report only the facts!"
What a load of crap
Did you ever read about a jerk who dreamed of bein' a jerk
And then became one
Well except for the names and a few other changes
If you talk about O'Reilly, the story's the same one
Bill's got an emptiness deep inside
that he projects, to his audience base
And they lap it up like a dog in heat
that found some red meat and they can't just leave it alone!
A media whore!
A prostitute!
And no one can believe
what comes out of his chute
"They lie!" He cried
"I am," he said
"A respected journalist, and I report only the facts!"
What a load of crap
Good job. What Stones
Haven't seen anyone mention little Billie's concern last week that the white male christian power structure was being threatened. The small population that makes up this power structure seems to be the only ones he can look at as worthy of a respectful positive comment, and as intelectual/ideological equals. I'd wonder if any other positive statement towards other populations from him, wasn't condesending at the same time.
Two words for BO:
Cuckoo, Cuckoo
I think O'Reilly's comment about Andrew Speaker having secular progressive values was completely illogical. We know nothing about the guy's politics. For all we know he's a conservative Republican. Any thinking person would know that anyone -- liberal or conservative -- can do bad things! Why would a secular progressive (O'Reilly means liberal as in Democrat) be more apt to put people at risk anyway? I thought O'Reilly looks down at liberals in part because he believes they are too controlling in wanting to help others, and that he admires Republicans and Libertarians that believe more in independence and survival of the fittest. I would say Speaker falls more into the latter category anyway.
My 14 year old is a great kid with an open, informed mind and high self awareness. She has been raised to think, reason and defend herself from evil. What about YOUR kids, BillO? Little ones, aren't they? So you think your kids will have a free ride insulated from drugs, sex and outside influences??? Just because they are Pure And Wholesome Catholic Republicans??? HAHAHAHAHAHA! It's so cute that you are that stupid. Good luck, BillO. You'll need it!!
O'Reilly must have had a mole planted at our SUPER SECRET SP meeting, because right after we sang our official SUPER SECRET SP anthem . . . "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME ME ME!!!" . . . we discussed how we could best spread TB throughout the world . . . in a SUPER SECRET way. DAMN!
O'Reilly: "Secular progressives are going to basically tell children to use drugs, to have indiscriminate sex, do what you want when you're 14 years old, never mind what your parents think."
He must be confusing progressives with Mr. Foley, the Republican Congressman who was soliciting underage pages a while back.
Did you ever notice that when a Republican/Conservative attempts to describe aDemocrat, progressive, Liberal or anyone who opposes him, that he always...................ALWAYS describes himself/Republican?!
funny... look back at your own diatribes about secular progressives, Bill... you've criticized us for social programs to help the poor and sick and homeless... essentially, you've chided us for caring too much... how does that square with what you're saying? and what does political leanings have to do with this guy anyway? we all think he's an arse - liberal and consternative alike...
Jesus, this guy can say anything and his viewers will eat it up...
Additionally, on the November 18, 2005, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asserted that the "war" on Christmas is part of the "secular-progressive agenda" that also includes the "legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, [and] gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."
Well, mmfa couldn't have proven the headline as true any better when they used this comment to say BOR is wrong. They stated secular progressive's stances on each subject and each stance is exactly what secular progressive believe. That makes the headline true and BOR correct that this lawyer is only concerned with himself and not with the well being of others...just like secular progressives!
Your post makes no sense. Please explain your point better. If you are referring to the article above, please cite the passages you find relevant.
Judging from your post's utter lack of any coherence, it may be necessary for you to take a remedial English class at (I'm guessing) the 4th or 5th grade level.
Don't think about it too hard, Open Mind ... it's sort of like saying that people who want the trains to run on time are WW2-era Italian Fascists. I mean, that's what the Fascists think right? So people who want the trains to be punctual must have exactly the same beliefs as five-decade-old Italian fascists.
Typical B.O. logic: This person B.O. doesn't like gets the same "secular progressive" label as these other people B.O. labeled as "secular progressive" because he didn't like them. See? Now don't you agree that all "secular progressives" are teh eeevil?
Don't you all see that this is just his way to spin his "I am a culture warrior" again. His statements and his discussion with Dodson prove such.
I don't know.
Putting the group ahead of the individual sounds socialistic or communist to me.
That's the kind of garbage they preach in Red China.
O'Reilly ought to know the rights of the individual are sacred in the USA.
Bill O'rally REALLY needs to be aware of words meanings before he starts labeling people.
I would be considered a "secular" person, I am NOT anti-religious I just don't hold to a particular religion anymore and I AM progressive, not set in the past as Bill O or the rest of his conservative cronies.
So really Bill...calling someone a Secular Progressive is NOT an insult. But it does show your ignorance.