O'Reilly on "assassins who work for Media Matters and Move On"
Bill O'Reilly repeated his previous attacks on Media Matters and MoveOn.org, calling the two organizations "the most vicious element in our society today" and referring to their employees as "assassins." He also stated that that the Democratic Party is "afraid of its fringe element," which "is centered around an outfit called Media Matters," and continued to falsely assert a connection between the philanthropist George Soros and Media Matters. In fact, Media Matters has never received funding from Soros, either directly or indirectly.
During the September 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly once again attacked Media Matters for America and MoveOn.org, calling the two organizations "the most vicious element in our society today" and referring to their staff as "assassins." O'Reilly stated: "All right, now let's get into a serious situation. Look, we have two political parties in this country, and that's always served us fairly well. We need a third. We absolutely need a third political party here. But one of the political parties is now basically afraid of its fringe element and that's the Democratic Party. Now, the fringe element is centered around an outfit called Media Matters."
Later, discussing his perception that there is a connection between the philanthropist George Soros and Media Matters, O'Reilly claimed that Soros and progressive financier Peter Lewis "have poured $5 million, at least, into this MoveOn outfit. All right, now what this outfit is, is they are fanatical left-wingers who if you don't agree with them they will attack you. Now, there are offshoots of these. They use an outfit called Media Matters to do their sliming for them in the media," through The New York Times and NBC News. O'Reilly asserted, "Elements at both of those places take Media Matters and MoveOn stuff and put it on the air and in their newspaper, legitimizing it." Then, referencing the flowchart he concocted and introduced during the April 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly added: "Now, this is very well organized. Now, we gave you this about a couple months ago, a chart that showed all the money, and that's big, big money. The assassins who work for Media Matters and MoveOn are very well paid. They make six figures. They are doing it for money."
As Media Matters has documented (here, here, and here), O'Reilly has repeatedly -- and falsely -- asserted that Media Matters has received funding from Soros. For instance, O'Reilly opened a segment during the April 23 edition of The O'Reilly Factor by displaying the "chart" purporting to depict Soros' "complicated political operation." O'Reilly claimed that "Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process" by funding Media Matters, which "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people." Similarly, during the April 26 edition of his Fox News program, O'Reilly asserted that "the vile Media Matters outfit is denying receiving funding from any of George Soros' outfits," and claiming, "Well, that is a total lie." As evidence, O'Reilly noted that the Tides Foundation donated more than $1 million to Media Matters in 2005, "[a]nd just by coincidence Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated more than a million dollars to Tides in 2005." He added: "Figure it out." In fact, Media Matters has never received funding from Soros, either directly or indirectly.
From the September 5 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: All right, thanks to Shania Twain for that nice jazzy lead-in.
There is a Democratic congressman in Washington state being attacked by his own for giving an honest appraisal -- his honest appraisal -- of Iraq. And that is what we're going to deal with the first hour. It's interesting how vicious this MoveOn outfit and all their other acolytes actually is. And, you know, I've said it before, but when I get this kind of a thing dropped in my lap, I have to report it to you because it is -- what's happening in America is now the far left is blackmailing the Democratic Party. They are basically saying, "Look, if you don't go along with our far-left opinion, we're going to attack you." We saw it with [Sen.] Joseph Liebermann [I-CT], we're seeing it with this Congressman [Brian] Baird [D] now in Washington state.
Now, that's blackmail in a loose sense. They're basically threatening them. Now, you can call it whatever you want -- extortion. You know, "We don't want money, but we want approval. And you'd better tell the America people exactly what we tell you to say. You'd better say exactly what we tell you, or we're going to get you." All right. Now, you usually get this from the opposite parties.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right, now let's get into a serious situation. Look, we have two political parties in this country, and that's always served us fairly well. We need a third. We absolutely need a third political party here. But one of the political parties is now basically afraid of its fringe element and that's the Democratic Party.
Now, the fringe element is centered around an outfit called Media Matters. Now, this outfit was put together by billionaire George Soros and billionaire Peter Lewis, two loons. Now, these loons -- I mean, if you look at Soros and Lewis, what they want for the country -- and I wrote about it in Culture Warrior -- I mean, they want a totally different country. OK? And they want open borders, they want one world government, they want legalized narcotics, they want -- you know, I mean, it's just crazy.
They've -- together, they've poured $5 million, at least, into this MoveOn outfit. All right, now what this outfit is, is they are fanatical left-wingers who if you don't agree with them they will attack you. Now, there are offshoots of these. They use an outfit called Media Matters to do their sliming for them in the media. And they use the Daily Kos to do sliming there. We've talked about all the Democratic candidates going to the Kos convention. And then, if it wasn't bad enough that they're on the Internet doing this stuff and they have the money to actually make commercials to slime people as they're doing to this congressman, Brian Baird, in Washington.
They have two primary mainstream media outfits to get their defamation out. That's The New York Times and NBC News. Elements at both of those places take Media Matters and MoveOn stuff and put it on the air and in their newspaper, legitimizing it. Now, this is very well organized. Now, we gave you this about a couple months ago, a chart that showed all the money, and that's big, big money. The assassins who work for Media Matters and for MoveOn are very well paid. They make six figures. They are doing it for money. All right, and they are the most vicious element in our society today.
There is no corresponding level of this kind of vitriol on the right. Now, the worst one we came up with was some website out of California, the right-wing thing, and we had them in and they're bad but they're not that bad. I mean, I'm not justifying them. I don't like them. Now, are they suing us, by the way? I think they're suing us now. They're not suing us now?
LIS WIEHL (co-host): They're not.
O'REILLY: They were but they're not. But whatever. I mean, look, I don't care, but to compare them to MoveOn and the money that they have is crazy.
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
"The assassins who work for Media Matters and for MoveOn are very well paid. They make six figures. They are doing it for money. All right, and they are the most vicious element in our society today. "
Oh Boy I want to work for media matters too! Boy imagine getting paid six figures and all I have to do is listen to Bill O'rielly and report verbatim what he says on his TV and radio show. Now that's a sweet gig!
Mr O'Reilly,
I know that your own personal operatives and those of FOX Noise rumage through sites like this one looking for all that 'liberal' hate speech that 99% of the time simply repost your own words to show the useless piece of crap that you really are!
Please, quote me on your pathetic excuse for a show, I implore you!
In fact I beg you to keep mentioning MMFA and MoveOn and those of us that post here often on your show, and to 'call out' us 'liberals' all our 'hate speech' as this will only lead to a few of your listeners (at a time) to look these sites up, it will only open up more of their eyes and soon you will eventually disappear (with no help of the Bush regime)
Billy, you have absolutely NO credibility at all, but of course you already know this already!
Six figures?!?
Hey Lynn, I am a MMFA tipster and I never saw a nickel.
Mr. Brock, kindly pay up ;-)
Brock doesn't make the payments. We receive our big bags of unmarked bills directly from kingpin Soros in a riverside bar down near Dock 13.
You fool! You've just given O'Reilly all he needs to connect the dots! DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU'VE DONE?!?!?!?
Too late...I've reported this info to Wing-Nut headquarters ;-)
BUG OUT! He's on to us! BUG OUT!
How can you be an ultra-conservative and a MMFA tipster at the same time?
you're kidding right?
ultra-conservative?
You gonna start with you B.S. again TruthSeeker [seriously dude change that moniker!]? All those Liberal posters telling you what a jerk you were for wrongly accusing me of a variety of lies wasn't enough?
FYI...I'm hardly an "Ultra" Conservative, Moderate would be a better description.
And yes I was a tipster:
A tip from reader Jeter2 contributed to this item. Thanks, and keep them coming.
CBS' Storm, Schieffer cropped Michelle Obama quote, claimed "it may be up to the wives to criticize" Clinton
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220016
Now stop embarrassing yourself.
Jeter , Truthseeker seems to want to engage in personal attacks and saying things that do not exist like he did to me in the other thread. People like that are not serious.
Jeter's more of a centerist and as such he'll never get a paying media job. Sad but true.
If Jeter's an ultra conservative then Bill O'Reilly is an ultra liberal.
A more apt analogy would be if Jeter is an ultra liberal, which of course he isnt, then O'falafel is a moderate.
Jeter's no Ultra Right Winger. If conservatives were more like Jeter instead of the scoundrels in the White House we wouldn't be in so much trouble.
Thanks SunDog.
I'm sorry my original post sparked a stupid response from Truthseeker and has led this section of thread off topic. So unnecessary. But some here like Truthseeker & his Troll buddy WZWriter seem to thrive only on attacking others. Pretty pathetic posters IMO. Glad they belong to your side ;-)
Side? I'm on the side of justice, truth and all that crap. ;) And I attack some posters on purpose too. But only when I think they are inherently dishonest and have been around enough to show that they are just sabateurs of rational arguments. You know who you are! I'll just say starts with the letter T. ommy. oops. Folks don't tick me off by disagreeing with me like you do. I like talking about stuff if you can't tell already. Don't like liars and when someone puts a straw man out there I just about want to pick it up and knock em upside the head with it.
"The assassins who work for Media Matters ... are the most vicious element in our society today." (BilldO)
OOh, Jeter, I think as a tipster, you've got sort of a dangerous, bad boy thing going. Especially as a fish-out-of-water ,maverick moderate conservative double agent.
*HBL suggestively tapping toes under stall partition*
*HBL suggestively tapping toes under stall partition*
"Let's go Beach" said Jeter flashing his police badge under the stall.
Again that's Flashing his badge Beach. I know how your mind works ;-)
"Let's go Beach"
Down to headquarters?
:-O
Don't you mean :-0<==8 ?
Flashing?
Reminds me of an old Rodney Dangerfield joke.
A flasher wanted to retire but his wife wanted him to stick it out for another year.
YO JEETAH
You betta move off da MediAmattersFormerIcA turf. Roughin' up da mic O'Reilly is Gofatha Brock's job. ; )
be careful with those tips RINO's gonna give you the boot.
MY THANK TO BILL - Oh Really -
For he has helped Media Matters more than any other supporter.
Bill's ugly attacks have propelled Media Matters to the forefront more effectively that expensive advertising could have done.
Bill has enabled Media Matters to become famous for exposing himself and other dishonest brokers of information.
Bill's ego is such that he thinks his attacks do great damage. Please don't tell Bill, but he has empowered Media Matters with more credibility and respect than otherwise possible.
Thank you very much Bill. Please keep self-destructing and sending people here to discover the truth.
Exactly Sam
BUSHLIES -
Thank You! "BushLies" is a great one. Very appropriate. How about DamnBushLies! Please excuse me for getting off topic.
Sam I Am
not only do u get six figures you a;so get free ninja assasin training and who dosent want that
He funny...
"There is no corresponding level of this kind of vitriol on the right."
Read your own transcripts, dude.
"There is no corresponding level of this kind of vitriol on the right."
That's right. The vitriol on the right is a thousand times greater than anything on the left.
And let's not forget this gem of wisdom:
But one of the political parties is now basically afraid of its fringe element and that's the Democratic Party.
The only people I see sucking their thumbs and crying mommy whenever their fringe speaks is the republicans. Can you say Larry Craig, anyone? <snicker!>
O'Reilly wrote a novel called "Those Who Trespass: A Love Story" ; )
He also displayed an inability to tell the difference between a loofa and a falafel...
:-)
Not to mention his inept phone sex attempt where he apparantly couldnt tell the difference between a girlfriend and someone you have chained in the basement.
Isn't that what Hitler thought of the partisans in WW2 ? I would like to see this windbag do some humanitarian work for the less fortunate citizen's of his city.
"There is no corresponding level of this kind of vitriol on the right. Now, the worst one we came up with was some website out of California, the right-wing thing, and we had them in and they're bad but they're not that bad."
Is he serious with this statement? Does he even listen to his own show? Does he ever listen to just about ANY talk radio? Is he delisional? Methinks so really. Come on Bill O, I know you're not that smart, but you're smarter than this really. Mr. No Spin Zone, spinning like a top. Heck, just listen to any broadcast of the following: Rush, Boortz, Savage, Dr. Laura, Hannity, yourself, and so on and so forth.
Is this guy actually being attacked by the democratic party, or are people disagreeing with him and saying why they think he is wrong. There is a difference, and the big difference I see is that democrats attack the ideas, and not so much the people behind said ideas, whereas with the republicans, it's been about attacking the messenger, and not the message. So what was this guy being attacked about?
MagLover. Of course he's serious! Afterall, they are patriots and we hate America. How do we impact him? Well, not via Fixed News that's for sure! But we can insist other outlets stop treating them as legitimate can't we? He attacks NBC, and they give him airtime on Today Show nevertheless. The dems are finally treating them as a partisan outlet, now the rest of the media needs to as well. Hitting back is a virtue.
I would normally agree that most (not all) dems attack ideas instead of people. However, it's damn hard not to trash fools like Malkin, Hannity and the like. It's just near impossible to let them get away with the crap they spew.
Fleet, sorry to go off topic but I saw this quote about Malkin from Geraldo:
"Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life," he says. "She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people.
"It's good she's in D.C. and I'm in New York," Rivera sneers. "I'd spit on her if I saw her."
And isnt his current rant a fine example of 1) not addressing any idea 2) instead claiming the other side is vicious without any specifics.
O'Reilly: "...if you don't agree with them they [Media Matters] will attack you."
Yeah, like when Crate & Barrel and Best Buy refused to say "Merry Christmas" to their customers and then Media Matters called them "stupid" and "insane".
Oh... wait a minute...
Yeah, or the people in the US who have the gall and the audacity to NOT want religion pushed into their government. Imagine those "bad" old SPs trying to take over the US...
What a sad sot O'Reilly is.
What a sad sot O'Reilly is.
You've just attacked him! It's TRUE!!! MMFA attacks them!
Your vicious attack on Magnolia proves this is an O'Reilly Certified(tm) hate site, filled with hate as is Olbermann.
DAMMIT! Busted!
There was a right wing blogger who was arrested by the FBI not long ago. Didn't he contribute to that right wing site O'Reilly had on? <tee hee!>
Chad Castagana.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
If a Democrat makes money they are hypocrites, Right ?. Al Gore points to the obvious and he becomes the story, not the story, John Edwards gets a $400.00 hair cut so the have>havenots is now a myth?
A lazy intellect, a narrow mind, and a willingness to make it up as he goes, no matter how embarrassing while Fox stil has him as the cornerstone of their cable "news" channel, and he would dare to point to Media Matters, or MoveOn for hypocracy! Well of course he will, he has no consciense to restrain him, and a whole network encouraging him!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"There is no corresponding level of this kind of vitriol on the right."
I guess he forgot the actual assassins on the Christian right who kill doctors.
Do we know the last known case of when a member of the christian right killed a doctor?
There actually haven't been that many. Here are a few links for you:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/arsons.asp
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/butyric_acid.asp
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/anthrax.html
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_extreme.asp
Thanks!!!!!!!
In 1998 Dr. Slepian was killed by James Kopp. In 2006 David McMenemy attempted a suicide bombing of a clinic. In May, 2007 A Virginia Beach clinis was purposely set on fire.
Just a few examples.
How do we know McEnemy was a member of the Christian Right?
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/09/13/news/local/doc45079f6b868d5752348661.txt
Actually, I don't know if he was a member of the Christian Right, but by attempting to burn down a clinis that he thought performed abortions he is following the preachings of the Christian Right.
The Christian Right preaches the burning down of abortion clinics? Do you care to be more specific?
That would be burning down with fire Tommy. Shush now, the adults are talking.
Try reading anything put out by the "Army of God" or the "American Coalition of Life Activists". Although these are two very extreme groups, they originated from more mainstream types.
Thank you for specifying they are extremist groups and not mainstream Christian preachings.
Yes mainstream Christian preachings like thou shalt go out among the liberals and pretend not to understand what is said there. And thou shalt confuse and distract the Nonbelievers with the sacred Straw Man Argumentation as brought forth among us by the Prophet Rove. Great to see ya back Tommy.
Wow, thanks.
Oh, and if you're with the "adults", then I will happily sit at the kids table......where conversation is far more enlightening.
Oh I'm sorry Tommy, I didn't know which Tommy was here today. Have you read the crowd pretty well and decided on a personna? I guess since I made fun of you it will be 'Dignified, Slightly Injured and Unsure of why Someone Would Pick on Him Tommy.' You know it's a form a lying don't you?
Thank you for specifying they are extremist groups and not mainstream Christian preachings.
The Christian Right has nothing to do with "mainstream Christian preachings."
Speeaking of the Christian Right, I see where D. James Kennedy has breathed his last and is probably sharing a room in Hell with Jerry Falwell.....
Sharing a room with Falwell WOULD be Hell.
Anthrax, anyone?
No thanks. Already ate.
Yes, ma'am. We know of the last murder. We also know of the ongoing violence and intimidation.
[link to www.religioustolerance.org]
September 11, 2006 David McMenemy attempted a suicide bombing of a women's clinic in Davenport, Iowa after scouting targets throughout the Midwest. It was later revealed that the targeted clinic did not perform or make referrals for abortions.
April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device. [13]
May 9, 2007 An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
These are not murders but they are acts of terrorism. The last assassination of an American doctor in was 1998.
Canada. July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unindentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
Or just stake a leisurely stroll over to the Army of God website if you doubt the intentions of the Christian Right. I don't recomend it.
But when the last murder occurred is not the point. O'Reilly said that this level of vitriol doesn't exist on the right. It absolutely does exist and it's way more than mere vitriol.
The difference is that the Republican Party pays no attention to and isn't influenced by these fringe elements. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is pretty much run by the far left. There are very few moderates left in the Democratic Party.
And you believe that because?
Just look at how Lieberman got kicked out of the Democratic Party because he had a conservative point of view on one issue.
He wasn't kicked out of the party. He lost the primary. It's called democracy.
Iraq is one of the most important issues. Because you don't agree with Dems, you label them extremists.
The Democratic Party should've given money to Lieberman to help him win re-election. You don't just abandon your incumbents because you disagree with them on one issue. Just look at what the Republicans did for Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Republican.
Chaffee was his party's choice to run in the general election. Once again, you're twisting the truth.
Only because the RNC helped him out by giving him money, running ads for him, and even using their get out the vote program for him.
I don't know where you get your "facts", RH, because as usual, you're dead wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong, RH, but didn't the Republicans do that because they felt Chafee (though a liberal Republican) was their best chance to retain a majority?
Did this choice disappoint you? I would think that you would hate their efforts because of your moniker, but you seem very proud of this decision, why?
I was just pointing out that the Republican Party is a bigger tent party than the Democratic Party. But to answer your question, I think that the Republicans were incredibly stupid for doing that. They ended up wasting all the money they put in because Chafee ended up losing anyway. He voted with the Dems most of the time in the Senate, and he wasn't worth helping. The Republicans should've simply focused on Missouri, Montana, and Virginia. But the difference between Chafee and Lieberman is that Lieberman is liberal on most issues and conservative on the Iraq issue, and Chafee is liberal on just about every issue and has no reason to call himself a Republican.
Yes, a big tent except for homosexuals.
Why did they turn on Larry Craig? They kicked him out of the party for one issue!
I was just pointing out that the Republican Party is a bigger tent party than the Democratic Party. Rino
Rino you post the funniest things.
Invading Iraq is conservative??????? by which awful dictionary definition?
The Dick Cheney of 1992 would argue that invading and occupying Iraq would lead us into a quagmire.
Bigger tent? Sorry, RINO, two points happen when you post that.
1) Your very nickname suggests you don't like that (the bigger tent), so why post it as a source of pride?
2) If it is the bigger tent, why are there more Dems who support the war than Repubs who are against it? Why do all of your presidential candidates fall in line when elections come (Romney's "change of heart" or "epiphanies" on gay marriage and abortion are just one example).
What issues do the Republicans hold more diverse views on than the Democrats?
Sorry, but there's a lot more Republicans who oppose the war than Democrats who support the war. There are no Democrats in the Senate who support the war. Lieberman isn't a Democrat anymore. The Republican Presidential candidates disagree on a number of issues including immigration, abortion, gun control, the war, and the size of government. The Democratic candidates are in lock step on pretty much every single issue. I can't think of any major differences among any of the Democratic front runners. Some of them want to withdraw from Iraq sooner than others, but they all want to begin withdrawing troops now. And the Republican FRONT RUNNER is even pro choice. The Democrats would never have a pro lifer as their front runner. it would never happen.
Sorry, but you are wrong in your reasoning, simply because you cherry picked information. All the Republican front runners are for the war, which is a diaster. (Ron Paul is not a front runner.) Doesn't that mean that they can't think independently, but must mindlessly support a military action no matter what?
And you still haven't answered why the Reupubs turned on Larry Craig, *for one issue,* the exact criticims you make of Dems.
I think you are a rank hypocrite, anyway, to be against what you call liberal Republicans, and then accuse the other side of being intolerant of difference.
I'm sure Lieberman had plenty of money.
You are wrong. The Iraq war was the most important issue in the election, and Lieberman continually undermined the Democrats.
Regardless, there were a number of us in 2000 who already were unhappy with the choice of Lieberman as veep candidate because he didn't match our views then.
But if that's the best that Rino can come up with, then it proves he's wrong.
"You don't just abandon your incumbents because you disagree with them on one issue"
Lieberman left the Democrat party when he lost the Democratic primary (because voters --not politicians-- disagreed with him). Even still, many Democrats sided with Lieberman the Independent and/or didn't give Lamont the support he deserved.
"the Democrat party"
That should say "Democratic". Had I been a wingnut, "Democrat" would have been intentional.
we are missing the funniest thing he said .the republican party isnt innfluenced by the religious right . i think Teryy Shiavos husband might disagree
Yeah you do if it is an issue that you feel is completely wrong. Now I'm leaning toward Obama in the upcoming elections although I haven't made up my mind yet, nevertheless if he comes out tomorrow and says staying in Iraq would be a wonderful thing and that we should also bomb Iran while we're at it. Well I'd drop him like he was hot.
You don't just abandon your incumbents because you disagree with them on one issue.
The Republican Party does it all the time, RH. They vote out moderate Republicans because they're "not Republican enough".
But, you should know about that. After all, they call moderate Republicans "Republicans In Name Only" and you call yourself Rino Hunter.
So you're in effect condemning the Democrats for ONE INSTANCE of what you and your fellow Republicans do all the time.
Snap!
Boom!
Had no idea that is what Rino meant. What a frickin hypocrite he is!
"They vote out moderate Republicans because they're "not Republican enough"
Can you give me an example? And RINO's are liberal Republicans, not moderate Republicans. I don't have any problem with moderate Republicans like Guliani.
Who are these liberal Republicans of which you speak?
How is Guiliani not a liberal Republican?
Maybe Romney is a liberal Republican?
Joe Lieberman? He's a DINO, so that makes him a liberal Republican perhaps?
Hillary? She's pretty conservative on national security and is corporate friendly, maybe she is a liberal Republican?
Huckabee? He's an economic populist, an economic liberal. Does that make him a liberal Republican?
What are the neccessary and sufficient conditions that make one a liberal Republican? I don't think I've ever seen one, do they look like unicorns?
I would say that liberal Republicans are Republicans who vote with the Democrats more often than they do with their own party. Lincoln Chafee was certainly one, and I would say that Arlen Specter is as well. I would say that Guiliani is a moderate because he's conservative on economic issues and national security issues and liberal on social issues.
And yo have actually broken down the votes, right, to prove this assertion, or once again are you making thins up?
http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#RI
Lincoln Chafee has a 35% lifetime ranking from the ACU and Specter has a 45% lifetime rating. That means that Chafee voted liberal 65% of the time and Specter voted liberal 55% of the time.
That means they didn't vote with conservative values, not that they voted with their party, correct? I went to the main page to see how the votes were ranked. Correct me if I am wrong.
By the way, you still haven't admitted you are absolutely wrong on the abortion issue. You apparently have a hard time with facts.
Why do you still refuse to believe the information in the link that I posted which said that MOST late term abortions are done for convenience reasons rather than health reasons?
Umm Rino- let me join my fellow Americans here by kindly reminding you, this IS a democracy. Elected representatives are supposed are in government to represent their constituents.
If they don't represent voters, they don't get reelected when voters actually exercise their right and responsibility.
Lieberman was NOT representing the majority of his constituents in Ct. He is no longer a Democrat.
But rather than accept the fact that he wasn't representing Democrats and LOST in the primary, he switched over to run as an Independent, where the Republicans poured money into seeing him elected back to the Senate. Democracy at work again.. I guess.
Bill O is plain nuts. He has distorted and fictionalized the work of Media Matters to such a degree that it's plain the main needs help. He is delusional.
As far as "Move On" they are also exercising their right in a democracy to mobilize voters and support candiadates who reperesnt the views of the majority of voters who subscribe to Move On. They are a benign, intelligent, grass roots progressive organization.
Again this is what our democracy is all about. Bill O (and you? are afraid of democracy and voters?!
Need I say more?
Lieberman is a jerk! Like Ed Koch in his fourth attempt in running for mayor, he LOST his party's PRIMARY. Instead of doing the decent thing and move aside, He thought he was more important than his country and with more help from the RNC than Chaffee got, he somehow won as an independent.
We continue to suffer from his actions since he accepted Al Gore's nomination for Vice-President in 2000.
Go away Joe, Go Away, the country can't afford you!
Lieberman was not kicked out of the Democratic Party. He was defeated in the Democratic Party's primary in Connecticut. The Democratic voters chose another candidate to represent them in the general election.
It was Lieberman who ran against his party's primary winner to win the general election as an Independent.
You trying to twist the truth to suit your purpose.
RH has bought into the media spin that Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic party for not being in lock-step, for disagreeing on one tiny issue.
I heard Joe-mentum just a few days ago on one of the radio shows (Hewitt)? making this same point. Within one minute of spewing this BS, he declared the Iraq war as the defining issue of the '08 race. Yep, one tiny little disagreement (meaning being on the opposite side)over the most important political issue of the day.
I was wondering if anybody fell for this stuff.
And the Larry Craig fiasco isn't some knee jerk reaction driven by right wing extremists?
Good point. Democrats sure didn't drive him out of office.
Craig was convicted of a crime. When Republicans are convicted of crimes they are sent on their way. When Democrats are convicted of crimes they are re-elected and given spots on committees.
No one is KICKED out of a party. He LOST the primary election not because he had a conservative opinion but because he felt it necessary to insult those who disagreed with him which was most of his base. Supporting the war is one thing, criticising those who disagree when that is most of your base loses you elections. This has been explained to you before.
Because he's completely off the deep end.
Perhaps you missed Rino's comment on August 26: "Hannity is pretty thoughtful and pretty mainstream." Naturally, anyone who thinks that Hannity is mainstream is too divorced from reality to know what a moderate in the Democratic Party is.
Now, if Rino has come to his senses and disavowed his remark, then of course I'll retract my statement. Until then we can hold it up as our Exhibit A as grounds to ignore his every subsequent statement.
Thanks. That sums it up.
Rhino has also stated something like "what would be the use of religion if everyone went to heaven?"
It makes sense to me. There's no point of being a Christian and trying to live a good life if everyone eventually goes to heaven anyway. You might as well just live for yourself and do what feels good.
Yes, I'm sure it makes sense to you, just like your support of Hannity.
But to us, you sound like the extremist.
So saying that not everybody goes to heaven is extemist? Wow, you are a funny man indeed.
Saying that there would be no point of religion if everyone went to heaven is extremist, as is your ridiculous post that Hannity is mainstream.
So what exactly would the point of religion be if everbody went to heaven anyway? Have any serious thoughts on the issue, funny man?
Why, maybe to help people understand and deal with life? To help people get in touch with something greater than themselves?
Of course, that is besides the point. I think you are an extremist, especially in your support for Hannity.
aOOOOOga! aOOOOOga! General quarters! Off topic alert! Man you battle stations! aOOOOga! aOOOOga!
Snoppy your on a roll today.
Way too funny.
I like this off-topic digression...Hypothetically, what if there is no such place as Heaven? What would be the point of religion then?
Saying that no human being can say who and who isn't going to heaven since no human being will make that choice is TRUE.
RINO, How about doing the right thing just because it's the right thing to do. Are you saying that you ONLY do the right thing because you'd be punished if you didn't? I read another biography on Ben Franklin a couple years ago; many know that Franklin was actually a Deist although he attended church sometimes. He however thought that religion was a good tool for controlling people who were incapable of controlling themselves because they wouldn't behave appropriately with out the promise of a reward. That kind of sounds like you. I'm a big fan of old Ben but I thought that was somewhat elitist of him wanting to use the religion to control the ignorant masses.
"It makes sense to me. There's no point of being a Christian and trying to live a good life if everyone eventually goes to heaven anyway. You might as well just live for yourself and do what feels good." RINO
Wow Rino, as a fellow Christian I want to think that you don't mean what you are saying. Although I believe there is a heaven, shouldn't you as a Christian follow what Christ teaches out of love to him and others? So even if there is no heaven (lets just assume there isn't) shouldn't you do good (follow Christ teachings) because in the end it will make a good difference in your life and in the life of others? At the very least you would die knowing that you tried your best to help those in need, to love those with whom you disagree, to reach out to the poor, to serve others... to live a good life.
People like yourself basically think that anybody to the right of Fidel Castro is a conservative, so you have very little credibility on this issue either.
Oh really? And your proof is?
You seem to think that because you think liberals are extremist, they really are.
We make our own reality. And Rino just chooses a more peculiar reality than the rest of us.
He lives in that right-wing Fantasyland, where Rush speaks the truth, Reagan was a great leader, and the GOP is the friend of the working man.
NOT!!!!!
Rhino just said--I'm not making this up--"I just hear it [a fact in dispute] over and over again on the news. And the number seems about right to me."
Seriously, he said this.
People like YOU think anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is an ultra liberal and you DEFINITLY have ZERO credibility on this issue. Anyone who thinks Hannity is mainstream has his political spectrum skewed beyond any reason.
And anybody who thinks that Alan Colmes is a moderate is probably further to the left than Fidel Castro.
No, but you can make up your own definitions all you want. Apparently you think that if you call someone an extremist, they are.
Rino,
It's definitely one of the hot button issues of the upcoming campaign......"Are you for or against abortion clinic bombings"?
Pays no attention only in that these groups are not included in the GWOT.
Anyway, are you trying to say violent radicals control the Democratic Party? Or are you confusing Democrats who hold steadfast to their principles and values with radicals?
I didn't mean to imply that they are controlled by violent people, just extremists.
And you believe this because?
Because he WISHES it were true. It fits that delusional fantasy he has made up in his head that takes the place of ACTUAL reality
So you are indeed confusing liberal values and principles with extremism.
How is supporting abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy while making tax payers pay for it not extreme? How is raising taxes on working folks not extreme? How is getting rid of vital national security programs like the Patriot Act and NSA Surveillance not extreme?
As usual, you are full of crap. Most liberals don't support abortion for all 9 months; most want to raise taxes on the rich, not the poor; most don't want to get rid of national security programs, but want them to operate under the rule of law and respect the constitution.
You are just bomb throwing by labellng those you don't agree with extremist. When you don't have an argument, then just name call.
By the way, I can also compose my own list:
How is attacking a country against international law, and lying about it, not extremist; how is gutting the right to habeus corpus, which extends back over 700 years, not extremist; how is gutting the right constitutional protection against government intrusion not extremist?
Etc. Now do you care to answer O'Reilley's ridiculous rant, or do you just want to bomb throw?
Abortion on demand through nine months of pregnancy. C'mon Rino. Are you just intentionally trying to make people waste time or do you really think anyone in the Democratic Party has EVER advocated abortion on demand through nine months. Seriously. Please answer that one question before you make fun of me or whatever.
When has Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards EVER voted for a restriction on abortion? That's right, NEVER. They all voted for partial birth abortion which occurs in the late stages of pregnancy and voted against parental consent laws which are supported by 85% of the American people.
Nice try. Partial ban abortion can only be performed when there is a medical emergency, not "on demand" as you claimed. No Democrat has every supported the right for a woman to abort her baby after the 2 trimester simply because she wanted to.
That's only because the Republicans and a few moderate Democrats voted to ban the procedure unless the life of the mother was in danger. Before that a woman could get a partial birth abortion for ANY reason.
You are absolute wrong. Please provide proof for what you are claiming; you won't be able to.
Roe vs. Wade specifically outlawed abortion during the third trimester. You could not get an abortion for any reason.
You are making things up.
"Roe vs. Wade specifically outlawed abortion during the third trimester"
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're just embarrasing yourself now. Roe v. Wade didn't ban any types of abortions. It simply made it illegal to ban abortion during the first trimester. The decision let the states decide whether abortion should be legal in the 3rd trimester and to a lesser extent the 2nd trimester.
Yes, you are correct. My apologies. The state decides on the third trimester.
But you still haven't backed up your ludicrous claim that "Before that a woman could get a partial birth abortion for ANY reason" You are lying right through your teeth.
No woman could get an abortion in the third trimester. No state laws allowed it.
I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim.
[link to en.wikipedia.org] prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[33] Some prominent self-described pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements
God you lie! Your argument is that a woman can get an abortion for all 9 months, any time she wants. Please provide proof of this.
You are lying right through your teeth.
I just provided proof. You must not be able to read. The fact is that completely healthy women with completely healthy babies got partial birth abortions at the end of their pregnancy. Read the quote again.
You are lying. Your quote states "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."
20 weeks is not 9 months. You stated the Dems suuport "abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy." You tried to dragging the partial birth abortion to prove your point.
You have not provided any proof to back up your ludicrous claim. But this is the type of arguments I have come to expect from fundementalists--grand statements backed up by dishonest arguments.
Still waiting Rhino. When have the Dems supported abortion through all 9 months?
Waiting...
Still waiting, Rhino...
Still waiting, Rhino. You argued that a woman could decide she didn't want her baby at 8 moths and 2 weeks, could go into an abortion clinic, and get a partial birth abortion. And that the Dems supported this, and only because of a recent bill passed in 2003, did this practice become outlawed.
Prove it.
Still waiting...
You don't have to wait any more. I already proved it. I know that you're a funny man but you don't need to be quite this funny. The article stated that women can get an abortion for any reason 20 weeks OR MORE after pregnancy. Did you miss the OR MORE part?
>>The article stated that women can get an abortion for any reason 20 weeks OR MORE after pregnancy.
God you lie right through your teeth. Or more can mean 21 weeks, as you know. It can mean 22 weeks, which is still within the second trimester.
No state allows abortion on demand in the third trimester. You know this. If you had proof, you would show it. Given the amount of anti-abortion sites, there would be tons of info proving this.
No Dem has ever advocated abortion through all 9 months.
You can't prove this because you made a false claim.
You are wrong.
You lied.
Let me help you out. You already know what i am posting, but let me post it for others:
Elective induced abortion can be legally obtained in the United States up until the viability of the fetus. That is, until the 24th week of pregnancy. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare in this country, and are performed only for the preservation of the life or health of the pregnant woman. This is different in some other countries, where population laws support abortions at any time before the birth.
link
I also found, in about 5 minutes, that the supreme court ruled you cannot have an elective abortion if the fetus is viable, which it defines as the 24th week.
The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetu albeit with artificial aid. viabliity iis usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health. becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb
link
So I was pretty much right about the trimester argument above. While the Supreme court does not use trimesters, it does outlaw abortions after 24 weeks, within the second trimester, exactly as I argued.
the Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health"
Which means that a woman get still get a late term abortion for any reason. A health exception makes it possible to get an abortion for any reason. A woman could simply say that she has a headache and get an abortion. Or she could say that she'll be depressed if she has the baby, and that would be a good enough reason. With a health exception late term abortions are always permissible. It's a giant size loophole that anybody can get through. The 2003 ban on partial birth abortion closed that giant loophole that the Democrats were using to achieve their goal of abortion on demand throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy.
You are so full of it. When the health of a woman is at stake cannot possibly mean she has a headache. You are thrashing around and have been thouroughly debunked. The health of the mother argument was ALWAYS what it was about. No one wants a woman to have to lose a kidney or ruin her liver like can happen with toximia or severe diabetes. THAT is what is being talked about not headaches. Is this strawman BS all you have? You are just spewing propagandistic nonsense. The Democratic Party has NEVER endorsed letting a woman get an abortion for the entire nine months of pregnancy for any reason as you stated it was an outright lie. You cannot support it you have not come anywhere near supporting it. This is what you do. LIE about Dems demonize dems and then get all upset of anyone insults you. THIS is insulting. STOP LYING ABOUT THE LEFT.
Sorry, but the Democratic candidates all support abortion on demand. None of them have ever supported a restriction on abortion, and most even support TAX PAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS! Talk about an extreme position. And they also voted against parental consent laws which are supported by 85% of the American people. It's not a straw man at all. They're simply extreme on the abortion issue. And depression has often been used as an excuse for women to get late term abortions. A woman could simply come in and say that she's depressed and get a late term abortion. Nobody wants to prosecute the abortion industry and before 2003 they got away with letting perfectly healthy women get abortions any time they wanted to.
Sorry, but as usual, you are wrong.
You argued that Dems support abortion up until 9 months.
You are wrong.
You are not trying to switch the argument to other areas of abortion, which you think of as extreme. (Big deal. I think your positions are extreme. That is an an opinion, not a fact.)
The partial birth abortion does nothing to stop late term abortions that are performed for health reasons. It simply outlawed that procedure.
By the way, you haven't provided any proof that a woman has used depression as a reason to have third trimester abortion.
And what about your statement that a woman could use a headache as an excuse.
Face it, Rino, you have no proof but are too self-righteous to admit you are wrong.
>>Nobody wants to prosecute the abortion industry and before 2003 they got away with letting perfectly healthy women get abortions any time they wanted to.
You continue to lie about this issue. No, as I posted with facts, women could not get an abortion "any time she wanted to." That was outlawed by the Supreme Court.
And no, the partial birth abortion ban didn't change whether or not a woman could get an abortion (for health reasons) the third trimester. The 2003 law only outlawed one type of procedure and changed nothing else.
God you lie. Have you no self respect?
A woman cannot use a headache as an excuse. A headache wouldn't ruin her health or her life.
The partial ban abortion ban only eliminates one type of abortion procedure in the third trimester. If a woman's health were at risk, the doctors could simply choose another procedure.
You just love to make things up. And then you wonder why people don't respect fundemamentalists, since they form a belief and then play loose with the facts (otherwise known as lying) to support their beliefs.
The link I provided earlier showed that before 2003 most partial abortions occured when the woman was completely healthy. Why do you keep denying this?
Your post makes no sense, as you know. You are just posting anything at this point rather than admit you are wrong.
I am not denying that partial birth abortions are not performed on healthy woman. Read my post.
You claimed that Dems supported abortion through all 9 months.
You are wrong. Admit it.
Are you denying that at least SOME partial birth abortions occured during the 9th month of pregnancy.
Care to comment, Rino Hunter? You wrote that I, FMP, am embarrassing myself, yet you insisted that elective abortion was an option for all 9 months of pregnancy.
You were WRONG.
Let's see if you self-righteousness and snugness allows you to admit it.
Well done. The best response to regressive speech is more speech. Particularly factual, supported speech.
Despite the fact that Liberals do not support abortions in the third trimester (congratulations on seeing it that way I might add), President Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban despite the fact that the clause for the life of the mother was included. This, of course, has been documented by MMFA. I have no idea why a moderate, centrist president like Clinton would veto such a thing but I strongly wish he wouldn't have. And yet most around here support that decision for some reason, despite being completely against third trimester abortions, as you say.
So while you think a fetus' life is sacrosanct, a mother's life is worthless and can be discarded?
I have no idea why anyone would support THAT.
There was an exception for the life of the mother in the 2003 ban on partial birth abortion. Apparently you missed that.
There was an exception for the life of the mother in the 2003 ban on partial birth abortion. Apparently you missed that.
Apparently you missed your own post where you decried someone's support of such an exemption. Try and keep up with your own rantings, okay? Hard enough trying to make sense of Bible thumpin' extremists like yourself if you won't hold your end up.
You think that the mother should be sacrificed to save a fetus? Nice. I think that's an ugly position to hold, but you're welcome to hold it.
"Apparently you missed your own post where you decried someone's support of such an exemption."
Wrong. I did no such thing. I believe that there should be an exception made for the life of the mother. I don't want "women to die" as you claim. I just don't think that there should be an exception for the HEALTH of the mother because it's too big of a loophole. HEALTH can mean pretty much anything and makes the ban meaningless.
Bittermarv: That is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote and you know it.
It is not a matter of being for or against third trimester abortions, though I would say most around here are against that. The law forbids it. You simply cannot decide to have an abortion if you want to after 24 weeks.
Partial ban abortions are done in the third trimester because a woman's health or her life is at risk. Partial ban abortions are often the best way to perform an abortion at this stage. Politicians should not be making political decisions about what procedure a doctor should use. The decision that an elective abortion after 24 weeks is illegal has already been made. The partial birth abortion debate was simply bad theater, something the anti-abortion crowed pushed for.
The findings were that there are alternatives to the partial birth procedure, and that is why the ban was ultimately signed into law. It was not proven by the advocates that the procedure was ever, in fact, "medically necessary".
I also have to correct one of my prior statements that the partial birth abortion procedure was a third trimester procedure. In fact, the partial birth procedure was generally used between the 18th and 26th week of pregnancy, the second trimester according to the Wikipedia summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Because the HEALTH of the mother was not taken into account. Would we demand a woman carry her pregnancy to term if it meant losing a kidney? Ruining her liver and shortening her life by ten years? The LIFE of the mother may have been protected but not her health. Lets cut to the bottom line. I support limiting an abortion to the first two trimesters IF the serious health concerns of the woman are protected. I am not talking about headaches but serious health concerns I think most on the left feel the same way. Are we really that far apart on this issue?
Solon, my understanding is that the "health" clause was not included because it was too vague and could be misused in certain cases for circumstances it was not intended for, minor health issues.
But this is really irrelevent anyway because the medical community failed to prove that the procedure was ever medically necessary anyway. Alternatives, such as killing the fetus with an injection prior to removal in this fashion, were always alternatives.
The opposition to this ban was strictly a political move to not give the appearance of further restricting ANY abortion rights, in my view. And this ban does not restrict abortion rights at all. It merely outlaws one certain procedure that was never medically necessary in the first place.
Well that was the argument. You cannot establish that the motive for the veto was different than what Clinton said it was. The HEALTH of the mother needs protection. Now they COULD have made the health issue more specific or in SOME way made it legal to take into account. As I said for ME to support it I would want language that went beyond ONLY the life of the mother. Serious health issues also need be taken into account. I cannot believe there is not SOME way to do that and I would have as much evidence to say the reason the GOP did NOT allow that is THEY were pandering to their base and wanted a veto more than an effective bill that would satisfy most Americans. I cant know that any more than YOU can know that Clinton was making a strictly political move. In fact it doesnt even make sense because this procedure was and IS highly unpopular.
Still waiting, Rino. You are on these boards. Care to admit how wrong you were, how you were lying through your teeth?
>>Yes, you are correct. My apologies. The state decides on the third trimester.
I shouldn't have apologized. Yes, i was correct. The Supreme Court outlawed abortions during the third trimester (see my post below).
Regardless, the apology was a great demonstration of a civil debate. We don't really see that around here from regressives much, and certainly not from RINO in this discussion.
"Regressives" being such a civil term and everything...:-)
Exactly. The bitter one doesn't have much room to talk about civility.
What a nerve, rino. You say horrible junk like, "liberals love partial birth abortions" and whine straight faced about another's lack of civility.
Check yourself, boy.
Still waiting, Rhino...
You have time to try to drag me into a religious debate about heaven, but you don't have time to post a link backing up your ludicrous claim?
This is one of the problems I have with fundementalists such as yourself, they way they play loose and fast with facts.
Oh my God Rino, you're hilarious. or scary. I can't tell if you're serious or not. When has any Republican voted to put a restriction on pulling teeth out of old ladies as you pass them in the street huh? Never that's when. So I stand by my statement that the official position of the republic party is to pull the teeth out of old ladies' heads as you pass them in the street. You're a riot dude.
It's truly amazing that righties are always talking about "personal freedom" and "getting the government off our backs", yet that have no problem at all with government forcing itself into one of the most intimate decisions a woman will ever have to make - whether or not to carry a fetus to full-term. It's a decision that should be made by the woman, after discussing it with her partner and clergyman (if any). The government should not be involved in this decision at all.
PS to Jeter: I have just posted someting substantial, and not just an insult or an attack. Please keep your promise of a few weeks ago and go away....
My philisophy is that people should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't hurt other people or society as a whole. Abortion kills innocent human beings, which is why I oppose it.
A fetus is not a human being.
You are against war, too, right?
Iraqis ain't human bein's! It's in the Bible!
The Bible says that war is justified in certain situations, so no, I'm not against all war. War is sometimes necessary in order to bring peace in the end. The Bible also makes it clear that fetuses are indeed human beings. Medical science also makes that clear as well. A baby's heart starts beating after three weeks of pregnancy. But then of course something with a heart beat can't actually be a human being. That would just make too much sense to be true.
Medical science does not claim what you state it does. Using the bible is not an argument. I don't accept it as authority.
Paul's Letters to the Nebraskans; Let me state in no uncertain terms that once a woman conceives, she is carrying a person who is no different from you or me. She should be made to carry it to term no matter how ridiculous her situation. And as for the one in five people who are miscarried naturally that's just God killin folks. They should be mourned in funerals just as grand as anyone elses because as I've said they're EXACTLY like full-term people. Thus Jesus said unto me. Really he did. We were staying up late. That's why no one else heard it. Love, Paul.
You are too funny!
Part deux: Paul's letter to the Iowans, coming next week.
War is sometimes necessary in order to bring peace in the end
Then this war is clearly justified!
Oh, wait, you said "peace" and not "piece." We sure got it in the end on this war.
But then of course something with a heart beat can't actually be a human being. That would just make too much sense to be true.
So dogs, cats, frogs, elephants, and whatever else with a heartbeat are human?
A fetus can have a heartbeat and not be a viable human.
Look, it's okay for you to believe whatever you want. Just keep it over there in your reality, and stop trying to pretend it's anything remotely like common sense or truth.
Abortion kills innocent human beings, which is why I oppose it.
Many people don't see it that way - they just see a group of cells. If you truly believe in freedom, you'd be pro-choice to allow women the freedom to choose their path.
"Many people don't see it that way - they just see a group of cells"
Which is why we should vote on the issue and let the people decide. Those of us who see it that way will vote for candidates with our point of view, and those who see it differently will vote for candidates with their point of view. We then battle it out through the arena of ideas. It's called democracy. That's true choice.
So we should vote on closing down McDonalds and other fast food restaurants; and then vote on not selling fatty foods; and then Americans would have less to choose from, but that would be a choice in your opinion?
And if they had put slavery up for a vote back in 1861, it might still be legal.
50 years ago, people would have voted to continue school segregation and keeping interracial marriage illegal.
Just because something is popular does not make it right.
If abortion were voted upon it would most certainly remain legal in some form. Of course, I agree with your final statement entirely.
The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion. That's why we should get to vote on it, You're just afraid of what the results would be, because you know that most people favor more restrictions on abortion.
The polls vary on this, but I don't think the polls show that most want to outright ban abortion, your position.
By the way, you were lying through your teeth about Dems wanting aborition for all 9 months. Elective abortions are illegal after 24 weeks. You were lying through your teeth. Care to comment on this?
The article that I linked to earlier showed that most partial birth abortions occur for convenience reasons and not for health reasons. These abortions occur when the woman is having the baby which is generally in the 9th month of pregnancy. You can debate yourself all you want on this, but I have some things I need to work on, and I'm tired of typing. Have a good day!
>>These abortions occur when the woman is having the baby which is generally in the 9th month of pregnancy.
Wow, you reallly are bizarre. These abortions occurr when a woman is having her baby? That is the first time I ever heard of such a bizarre claim. So the woman is in labor and she is having an abortion?
You just love to make things up.
You claimed that Democrats support abortion through all 9 months. This is plain false, because, as I pointed out, elective abortions are illegal after the second trimester. You tried to dance around this point every way you could: parsing words, insult (I couldn't read, I didn't know what I was talking about), selectively quoting, etc. But in the end
You were wrong.
You were very smug and self-righteous, but your ludicrous claim that Democrats are extremist because they support abortions through all 9 months (until the 2003 partial birth abortion ban was passed, according to you) is absolutely false.
Care to admit that like a good Christian before you leave the boards? Or will your self-righteousness not allow you to do that?
"Wow, you reallly are bizarre. These abortions occurr when a woman is having her baby"
Yes, you really don't know anything about this procedure if you don't even know that. Partial birth abortions occur when the fetus is partially delivered. When the fetus is half way out of the mother's womb it is stabbed in the head with a pair of scissors and has the blood sucked out of it's head. It's a lovely procedure that all the compassionate liberals love. It occurs when the mother is giving birth. It's basically infanticide.
Why don't you post a link to the video that you regressives breathlessly pass around like a hot snuff flick.
God you are full of crap. Your description of partial birth abortions may be correct, but that doesn't mean they occur in the 9th month when the woman is delivering her baby. That is why your claim is so ludicrous. The woman would have to be induced to have the baby.
As I've said, you just love to make things up.
It can happen in either the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
Which contradicts what you said earlier, that "These abortions occur when the woman is having the baby which is generally in the 9th month of pregnancy."
Women don't have their baby in the second trimester.
And, as wikpdia points out, most partial birth abortions occur in the second trimester, not in the third.
you are wrong, Rino. You just make things up.
You claimed the Dems support abortion through all 9 months. Rather than admit you are wrong you keep posting nonsense here, any nonsense at all.
Just admit you are wrong.
It seems that I was wrong about one aspect of the Roe v. Wade decision, and for that I'm sorry. But it's still clear to me that most Democrats still want no restrictions on abortion. The front runners have a 100% record from Naral. They would never vote against Naral's position, and Naral wants absolutely no restrictions on abortion.
No it doesnt that is a lie. You have NOTHING as per usual. You came nowhere NEAR backing up your ludicrous statement also as per usual.
Wino, now you're just lying. Your argument was thoroughly refuted. Simply admit you were wrong and move on to the next weak argument. Jeez, you guys!
Which is why we should vote on the issue and let the people decide.
The people have. They voted for their elected representatives to pass laws. They voted for Presidents to enforce them. And the Presidents they voted for put people on the Supreme Court and other courts to interpret the laws.
Again, sure you know anything about democracy, Rino?
Well WZ it's a little heavier than a bunch of cells. My wife and I went through multiple miscarriages of fetuses that we had seen on ultrasounds. A good question to the righties might be, 'Should we have been allowed to conceive again based on the fact that there was a good chance of another miscarriage?' After all, we'd be putting a human in serious jeapordy. Since we did end up having another 'person' die on us when we knew the risks, should we have been charged with manslaughter? The issue is just way more complicated than they're willing to admit. But calling it just a bunch of cells overlooks the fact that while it should be legal and safe, abortion still really sucks.
George Bush kills innocent human beings, What are you doing to oppose that? ( and these human beings have already been born)
You support the death penalty?
More executed under Gov. Bush than any US gov.
You support preemptive attack wars?
How many innocent civilians do you think have died in Iraq?
Look it up...
Democratic tax hikes on working folks is an outright Republican lie. Progressive taxation is about the core progressive principle of fairness. Those who benefit most from the commons owe the most to the commons. Simple. Fair. And those who benefit the most from our commonwealth are going to see their unfair tax pass expire under a Democratic president.
Late term abortion? Another bald faced lie. Put up the numbers of lefty support for it.
Patriot Act and warrantless wire taps? To support them as they exist is extreme. These things can be made to conform to Constitutionally gauranteed civil liberties and still protect the innocent.
Working folks who vote for Democrats strictly because they believe they will escape the long stretched outreach of the high taxers within the Democratic party are naive, at best.
Anytime taxes are disproportionately raised to soak one "class" of citizens you don't like, the citizens in the "classes" you think you're protecting are affected in one "fee or tax hike form" or another. To believe otherwise is only diluting yourself.
>>To believe otherwise is only diluting yourself.
How does one "dilute" themselves? Do I put myself in salt water?
Stickler.......fine. Should be deluding.
You call others "stickler" for insisting on the right word? Who was that over in the "tout" topic yesterday?
How about just admitting a mistake politely instead of getting pissy? Geezus.
C'mon Funny, there are better things to pick on Tommy about than spelling errors. Besides it was a great Freudian slip. ;)
Anytime taxes are disproportionately raised to soak one "class" of citizens you don't like, the citizens in the "classes" you think you're protecting are affected in one "fee or tax hike form" or another. To believe otherwise is only diluting yourself.
Actually, the last six years have demonstrated the exact opposite. Lowering taxes on the richest few percent has resulted in higher property taxes and reduced services such as fire and police throughout the country.
Sorry, I should have included spending by happy spender Democrats......thanks for catching.
Which is not an argument. You haven't made an argument. (By the way, saying that "If you don't believe X, then you are deluding yourself" is also not an argument.)
Except that your assertion, up until recently, was wrong, and actually still is, since republicans ran Congress and the White House for 6+ years, and Bush and his party reigned over an all time spending high. Remember, when a democrat was in the White House last how we had a surplus of money in the treasury, and we had a balanced budget. You know, things like that. Ah, how we forget.
Can't deny what you're saying, the Republicans are no better - you're absolutely right.
We need tax cutters and spending reducers.
WE need people who can govern with good common sense and a HEART.
Absofriggenlutely
Who says I don't like "one class of citizens"? That's dihonest framing. I'm not upset at people who work hard and make a good living. I'm not into that conflict thingy. I'm into fairness as stated earlier.
Now the assumption that taxes are an affliction is pure right-wing dogma. When public funds are collected and put to work for the benefit of the public that is how this country was built.
Please explain that, "fee or tax hike form" or another, phrase. I just do not understand its meaning.
Round,
I mean that you cannot think that raising taxes on the "rich" to a disproportionate level stops there..........that it doesn't affect lower income people as well. It most certainly does, in one form or another. Either job reductions or some such other way for those "rich" folks to pass on these higher taxes. To believe they just pay more and more with no ramifications is just naive.
This is why I am a proponent of the fair tax.
Which should be called a "regressive" tax if we were fair about it.
" It most certainly does, in one form or another. Either job reductions or some such other way for those "rich" folks to pass on these higher taxes. "
And that phrase is just put out there with such ease. As if passing the burden of paying their own way (like a responsible citizen) down to working people through punitve measures, in one form or another, is the most natural, acceptable way. Basically, the ease with which that belief is repeated from right winger to right winger to left winger exposes the problem. It says it's OK for wealthy people to take your money to cover their expenses.
It ain't
Corporations and the rich folks who own them disproportionately prosper from public investments. Public education, public universities, roads, zoning laws, subsidies, police, courts, banks etc are all monstrous public handouts already being paid upward to wealthy folks. That's fine. It just proves markets are not free, they are bought and paid for by the public. We have a right to expect returns on our investments.
Why on earth would one argue to give these beneficiaries of disproportionate public support (who take our money to ensure high profits for themselves and don't have the decency to provide healthcare or a living wage), why argue to give them a bigger break? And why insist that passsing on costs that we already are paying for is the natural order?
That's a sickness called conservatism.
Just because you believe that as some sort of religious dogma does not make it true. The 50's were a golden age for the economy, the middle class grew exponentially and the top rate was stratospheric.
Working folks and minorities who vote Republican are the most naive of all. As JC Watts' own father once said, "A black man voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
JC's Dad was so smart but then JC got a little money and that was then end of that. He had to side with the Party that would help him selfishly hold on to every red cent so that maybe one day JC`s dog could inherit 12 million dollars.
Democrats want to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. About 70% of the American people invest in the stock market, and tax increases on dividends and capital gains hurts a MAJORITY of the American people. It hurts middle income people. And SOME Democrats want to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut and not just the tax cut for upper income people. That would increase taxes for lower and middle income people.
>>Democrats want to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. About 70% of the American people invest in the stock market
But most of these 70% of people have a very small amount in the stock market, so a raise in taxes on it would not amount to anything, or probably nothing at all. (Dems may way to raise the percentage on money earned over 100,000 dollars, for example). On the other hand, rich people often have a huge amount of taxes in the stock market, so they would pay a lot of taxes.
So no, it would not hurt the lower and middle classes.
Is that the best you can do? I am still waiting for you to prove your ludicrous claim above about partial ban abortions. You are lying through your teeth. If you have time to make up arguments about taxes, you surely have time to provide me a link backing up your ludicrous claim.
It may not be a lot of money compared to what the rich put in, but it still probably seems like a lot of money to them. And yes, a tax hike in dividends and capital gains does indeed hurt about 70% of the American people. Liberals like to claim that it's only the "elite" who invest in the stock market, but that simply isn't true. This is the year 2007, not the 1940's.
You are blowing smoke. There may have been no rise on the taxes below a certain amount. You haven't answered that argument. It doesn't matter if 70% of the people are invested in the stock market. If you only have 100 dollars invested in it, it means nothing.
As usual, you don't provide any links to back up your claims. The Dems proposal would hurt the poor and middle class, you assert, without providing any proof, without even backing up your claim that 70% of them are invested in the stock market.
I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that any woman could get a partial ban abortion for any reason.
You just love to make things up, don't you?
When your life is built around faith, making things up is your way of living.
In order to invest in a mutual fund like the S&P 500 you have to put at least $3,000 dollars in. The number you put out there is just ridiculous. And no, I don't have a link for the 70% number right now. It's harder to find than I thought it would be. I just hear it over and over again on the news. And the number seems about right to me. It's a fact that the investment class is growing rapidly.
>>just hear it over and over again on the news. And the number seems about right to me.
Finally we are getting somewhere. This is the whole problem with your thinking. You just hear something again and again, and it sounds good to you, so you repeat it! You see nothing wrong with that?
No, my numbers aren't ludicrous. You suddenly switched your argument to mutual funds--not the stock market!
You still haven't proven your argument that the Dems are extremist for wanting to tax the poor. Remember, that was your original inflammatory statement, which you haven't come close to backing up.
Damn, Funny. You a bad mofo!
I second that. Funnymanpants sweet badasssss song! I'm almost feeling sorry for Rinohunter, except that I don't think he even realizes what's happened to him.
The lack of self-awareness in those who can say that nothing justifies taking a life(even one that isn't born yet), and moments later state that war is justifiable... just fascinating.
So you believe that war is never justifed? Wow, if you were President it's doubtful that we would even have a country left.
RINO, do you ever actually THINK about what you write?
No, my numbers aren't ludicrous. You suddenly switched your argument to mutual funds--not the stock market!
To be fair, mutual funds are funds made up of a variety of stocks. You buy shares in the fund, and the money is then used to invest in the stock market. It's a great way for people to diversify their investments, and is also a useful way of having someone invest your money in companies in certain segments, that are more aggressive, more cautious, or even those that invest in companies that follow a certain philosophy.
And it's probably where most of the people who are in the market get into it, and it's done via retirement plans generally. But those people aren't hurt by the capital gains taxes that RINO is whining about because the idea is to hold onto those investments well after such taxes aren't an issue anymore.
Your argument is SO ludicrous. You NEVER know what you are talking about. It doesnt matter how much it costs to join a mutual fund since very few working people DIRECTLY invest in them. The ONLY way to get anywhere NEAR 70% is to add those workers who have their PENSIONS invested in funds like that or the stock market like MY railroad retirement is. So if you thought that means 70% of Americans couged up thousands of dollars to invest in mutual funds you have lost all touch with reality.
Bogus. The programs that benifit the middle classes that wont be cut or that can be maintained would benifit that 70% far in excess of the small amount of money they would lose.
"Democrats want to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. About 70% of the American people invest in the stock market, and tax increases on dividends and capital gains hurts a MAJORITY of the American people. It hurts middle income people. And SOME Democrats want to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut and not just the tax cut for upper income people. That would increase taxes for lower and middle income people."
Can you back up that number? 70% I don't even have to look that up to say that you pulled that one out of your nether regions. That would mean that there are currently 210 million people in the US who would be impacted by the so called hike in capital gains taxes and dividends, and saying that they want to raise them is disingenuous at best. What they want to do is put the rates back where they were before Bush cut them way down.
Of course we want to get rid of the Bush tax cut, because what has it helped? My taxes, and I consider myself very middle class, have gone UP since the time of the so called tax cuts, and it has been proven time and again that the vast majority of said cuts went to the ultra wealthy is the US, you know, the population who doesn't need them.
You can keep on making things up, and we'll keep not believing you. It's really that easy.
"What they want to do is put the rates back where they were before Bush cut them way down"
Which would in effect be a tax increase. They would be paying more in taxes then they are now. It would also hurt the economy as people wouldn't invest as much money in the stock market, as they wouldn't get to keep as much of the money that they make. And the statistics show that people in all income levels benefited from Bush's tax cuts. The lower and middle classes actually received a larger reduction in their MARGINAL TAX RATES than did the rich.
What studies? You love to just makes statement without backing up what you say.
But of course, that isn't the issue. I know you would love to argue trickle down economic theory, because it is a very broad argument, and one easy to prove (or disprove) by simply quoting think tanks. You argued specifically that Dems wanted to raise taxes on the poor. You have also argued that the Dems tax proposals are "extremist."
You haven't showed this at all.
If you are right then the poor and everyone would be much better off if all taxes were eliminated because everyone pays some taxes of one kind or another. you only want to consider the cost and then ignore the benefits. I would much prefer to pay that extra $100 per year on my investments and have that medical care or other benefit. Maintaining a reasonable balance between the rich and poor in and of itself has a positive effect on the economy. Many people argue that the Great Depression was caused by wealth being so concentrated that the economy suffered. the 50's were a period of broad based prosperity and there were very graduated tax structure at that time.
What do you think fair taxes would be? Since 1980 the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, do you think this is a good thing? Corporate taxes have declined steadily under Republican leadership. Do you think this is fair? George W. Bush has not only borrowed more money than any other President, he has borrowed more money than ALL other Presidents. Do you think this is fiscally responsible? Do you actually think that the Republicans are fiscally responsible?
I'm sure if you include 401K plans and the like, you might get close to that 70% number.
Of course, anyone using their 401K plan as intended wouldn't be impacted by short term capital gain taxes.
But Rino, Repbublicans seem content to run us into debt to the point where the middle class will be bled dry just paying interest. It's like someone taking your credit card and charging 100 times more than you're going to make in a year on it to pay for something you don't need. Like an occupation of a country that isn't a threat to us or something. The GOP is good at pointing out small programs that might waste .ooo1% of the budget while ignoring BILLIONS going down the drain every day in their own woefully flawed spending.
I agree with you fully on that. The Republicans have been bad on spending issues. We need politicians who vote to cut taxes AND cut spending. The Republicans have messed up on the latter part.
RINO, what do you think a fair tax burden would be?
Bogus, funnymanpants correctly states why. It is ludicrous that my LABOR should be taxed at a higher rate then capital gains and dividends. That is a direct subsidy to the wealthy as Licoln once said
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
"How is supporting abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy while making tax payers pay for it not extreme? How is raising taxes on working folks not extreme? How is getting rid of vital national security programs like the Patriot Act and NSA Surveillance not extreme?"
RINO---
Are you serious? I am about as left as they come, and so are many of my friends, but I don't know anyone, and I dare say you couldn't possibly find anyone, who would support your so-called "abortion on demand for all 9 months" of a woman's pregnancy, that's just blatantly false, and well, wrong. I don't know anyone who has had an abortion who didn't think long and hard about the decision that they were making to end their pregnancy (I only know a few women who have had them, but those decisions that they made were the hardest decisions they ever made in their lives, and guess what? They're ultra-liberal as well). I also don't know one person who has had the government pay for their abortion, they did it themselves, or through their insurance coverage. If you're talking about low income people, which you are undoubtedly and I'm sure your next line will be that they use abortion for birth control, stop making it so hard for them to GET birth control, and start educating people at a young age about sex, and also, hey I know, let's get a health plan together that will cover everybody. Aside from that, the money spent out of my taxes for helping the poor in this country is so small, that I'm more than happy to "contribute" to that cause.
Who is talking about raising taxes on the middle class? Certainly nobody from the democratic side of things. They are talking about putting back into place higher tax rates for our nation's highest earners, so that they do pay their fair share of taxes into the system. Right now, most well to do people are paying less tax, as a percentage of their income, than most middle or lower class people in this country. There are lots of rich folks out there who didn't pay ANY taxes last year.
Show me how the Patriot Act has protected America since 9.11. You can't. You know why? Because it's done nothing but erode our rights and freedoms. As someone else said, there is NOBODY on the left or in the democratic party who wants to get rid of these programs at all. What they do want is for our government to, you know, follow the laws that have been set up by our Constitution. So by your assertion, you're A-OK with having things in place that violate your rights and break the laws that we hold so dear for our freedom.
You set up the strawman argument with almost every post that you put on here, and the thing is, it's so easy to knock them down. Your posts have no basis in fact, and indeed they're based in right wing world fiction.
The democratic party is controlled by moderates. Clinton - moderate. Obama - moderate. Edwards - moderate. Dean - moderate. None that are running for President are nearly liberal enough for myself, except Kucinich.
How is getting rid of vital national security programs like the Patriot Act and NSA Surveillance not extreme?j
Now, Rino, I know you have a different viewpoint from most of us, but it's not necessary to LIE about us.
We believe these programs have their good points. That's why we believe that if you have a warrant, and even one that you obtain after the fact, you should be able to listen in on suspect communications.
We believe that a lot of the things that the Patriot Act provides are good things, such as mandating that the various agencies actually share information with one another.
We just don't like stuff that isn't constitutional. Do you like stuff that isn't constitutional? Is that what you're advocating? Throwing away parts of the Bill of Rights?
What part of the Patriot Act in it's current form has been declared unconstitutional by a court?
So nothing about anything else I said? You're comfortable just parking yourself on your previous lie and sticking to it?
You don't see how indiscriminitely listening in on anyone's conversation for any reason at any time might be construed as unconstitutional? Seriously? Even Bush has halted many of those programs.
Thanks, but I'm not interested in living in your police state. Pack it up and go live under your beloved Castro if that's the kind of crap you want.
So how exactly has the Patriot Act and the NSA program affected your life personally? How are we living in a police state? My civil liberties haven't been violated in any way, and liberals can never come up with examples of how their civil liberties are being violated because of these programs. I don't have a problem with the government listening into conversations between terrorists overseas and those in the US who are talking to them. If you call someone in Iraq or Pakistan that has a record of terrorism, the government better be listening to your conversation.
Do you have a problem with them listening in on your conversations with family and friends?
How do you know they haven't?
You can't prove your liberties haven't been violated anymore than I can prove mine have been violated. That's how it works, we don't know. Aren't intended to know.
Now, Republicans will piss and moan about government intrusion, corruption, incompotence and waste but will not bat an eye when uncle Sam wants to spy on you.
Why is that? Why do Republicans trust government with their private lives and physical safety yet balk at government controls on the market or tax investments?
So it's only when my rights have been clearly knowingly violated that I should be outraged? Part of the problem here is that this horrible administration is doing this stuff behind our backs! If Clinton had done anything like this, you'd have crapped yourself with anger.
Your statement ... amazing. People who think the way you do don't deserve our Constitution.
YOU DONT KNOW THAT. Since it is secret. According to the Patriot act the FBI WITHOUT A WARRANT can come into your house and search it and NEVER TELL YOU. They can make the library give up the records of books you took out WITHOUT A WARRANT and its against the LAW for the librarians to tell you. So you cannot POSSIBLY know if your civil liberties have been violated if a warrantless wiretap tapped YOU how would you know. Do you EVER make a statement that isnt a bald baseless assertion drug directly out of your ass?
I have a suggestion. Write down 15 or 20 of your most strongly held political beliefs and WHY you believe them. Then wait a day or two read what you write. Then fact-check yourself using first sources, not Fox News; that means looking up information in places like the GAO and in non-partisan sources. I'll bet you a dollar that if you do this that you'll be surprised.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero today stated that a section of the updated USA PATRIOT ACT "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers," and struck down the provision in the law allowing the government to secretly obtain personal records, the Associated Press reports.
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Judge_rules_part_of_Patriot_Act_0906.html
You should really try to get out more.
Thanks for that.
I do enjoy, though, that regressives seem to think that the standard for what's right and wrong is whether you've been "convicted" or "overturned" or whatever.
Except in this case. We'll probably hear something about how this was an activist court and blah blah blah.
what court of law has found bin Laden or al Queada guilty of 911?
RHINNY, I find it very hilariously funny that YOU A REPUBLICAN ZELOUT ( a fanatical partisan per Webster’s ). is calling anyone an extremist.
Who is this Webster you speak of? I think I wanna avoid his dictionary.
JUST SOME LIGHT SPELLING TEASING! =)
Blue Dog Democrats are a group of 47 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives.
Hmmm. Sounds like there are more than you think, Rino!
Rino,
Da! You are the fringe element.
You are SO delusional. Exactly how well is Dennis Kucinich, the only Dem running for president anywhere NEAR as far left as I am doing? The GOP is FAR more influenced by the far right then the Dems are the far left. I LEFT the Democratic party because I felt that Liberals are taken for granted and are given virtually no real voice in the Democratic party. People like Kucinich and Fiengold are considered fringe they arent running the party. You just state as fact anything you WISH were true dont you?
I think any rational person will admit the existence of vitriolic hate from both extremes, from the right and the left. However, to extrapolate these extreme examples to make any case for, or against, one's position is reckless and unfair.
The extrapolation is yours. I made no such connection, I was simply offering a refutation to BO's blanket statement.
I was not specifically referring to you, my statement was a general comment on the topic of extreme points of view and their relevance.
Yeah, OK. It's hard when threads blow up like this to keep track of who is responding to whom.
Round,
It seems to me that some particularly those on the right want to pretend that the hateful rhetoric has equally come from both the left and the right and that simply isn’t true. That’s actually misinformation. The right Wing extremist started the nastiness and now some on the left will RESPOND in kind to the name calling now. The left ignored the hate speech coming from the right wing extremists for years because they called themselves taking the high road I guess and many alleged that if you ignored the right wing hatemongers that they would go away. We ignored them and they didn't go away they actually become best selling authors and highly rated talk show hosts who show up on real news shows to provide commentary. There is no equivalence in the vitriol on the left. There are now left sided counterparts to Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh,.............
I agree. Sometimes it's not worth responding to TopicMan, so I said OK to him.
But your right on in a big way.
What I have seen lately is a harder-edged breed of liberal, one unafraid to trade barbs but one still rooted firmly in reality.
They are my role models
Had you in mind when I wrote that ; )
I do not agree with Media Matters on everything, and I do not get attacked. Well I do get called a "troll" . ;-)
Why does O'Reilly continue this argument? Just to hear himself talk?
His vacation definitely wasn't a cleansing experience. Perhaps the resort didn't provide the loofas he requested.
Hey wait a minute. Why DOES Bill keep doing this? He knows that he's giving MM better publicity than they could possibly buy. I think either they're bribing him on the sly or, I guess, he's actually insane. Maybe if some kindhearted people would just send him a nice gift like, I don't know, a loufa or something he could try to relax a little bit.
Loofa? How do you spell loufa? Maybe I'll give Bill a call and see if he knows. I hear he's real good on the phone.
If I'm not mistaken, O'Reilly spells it F-A-L-A-F-A-L.
(Heh. I don't think I know how to spell that, either. =)
"There is no corresponding level of this kind of vitriol on the right."
Speaking of which, did O'Reilly have any comment at all on Ted Nugent's public wet dream about firing a machine gun up Hillary Clinton's privates while a crowd cheered? Hannity defended him but I didn't see O'Reilly comment on this sort of rightwing vitriol.
O'Reilly was off last week and his replaced John Kasich had Nugent on the phone and called it an outrage. Kasich deserves Kudos!! They called it hate speech and it was.
The case of Representative Brian Baird goes far beyond "far-left fringe" organizations. The harshest criticism is coming from the people of his own district. Hundreds of his constituents recently pounced on him at a town hall meeting. But O'Reilly doesn't want you to know that it's the people who voted for Baird that are the most enraged for not getting representative leadership from their representative. He wants to bore us with the same old Soros conspiracy baloney.
Man! What are you trying to say? That his constituents should just let him go along on his own way when he's not representing their views? Jeesh, come on now. He's only supposed to do what his undoubtedly large corporate funders tell him to do. Listen to the people... What do you think this is; a representative democracy?
Seems like a lot to ask for these days, doesn't it?
The only "assassination" I saw was Imus. Your call whether it was a good or bad one. I think MMfA is trying it again on Tucker, but dont' think that one will be successful.
But as far as O'Reilly and the other rightwing talking heads go, their exagerrations and unreasonableness being exposed don't make them the target of an "assassination" by any means.
Imus was not assasinated but allthough a racist I could see why some would think that specically how Dodd, Lieberman, McCain loved the man and always went on his show despite the racism.
I don't know about that. Apparently, and from articles from Imus' employer, he was let go, and fired because his sponsors pulled their dollars from his show. The FREE MARKET in full effect.
I don't think who was on Imus's show has any bearing on whether he was targeted for "discontinuence" by MMfA.
Damn. That MMFA sure be powerful! Loogout!
Dear Mediamatters,
I tried listening to this audio clip but my ears started bleeding as a result of the simultaneous aural assault by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Come on, this is just cruel.
The double O'Reilly-Limbaugh audio should be considered torture - but of course, we in the US don't "offically" torture...
They get paid six figures--if you count the pennies...
"All right, and they are the most vicious element in our society today."
Wow, Bill. Murderers, pedophiles, drug kingpins, war profiteers and the like. But MMFA tops those folks. In Bill O'Reilly's world, attacks on him (justifiable attacks I might add), supercede any problems "the folks" may be going through. Thanks for looking out for the little guy Bore O'Leilly.
Loofa Boy is really becoming unhinged from reality. He just gets funnier everyday. Just like Limbaugh, who's show is real comedy now. If this is the best that the Reich Wingbat media can do, then they're in big trouble!
there is an interesting expose' on O'Reilly having the tables turned on him by Mike Stark. I found it on the website "Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly". Great stuff.
"Now, the worst one we came up with was some website out of California, the right-wing thing, and we had them in and they're bad but they're not that bad."
Gee, what could this site have done to get the label of being bad, but not quite as bad as MMFA? Did they post and transcribe verbatim a video clip or is O'Reilly comparing apples to oranges? Anyone know what site he's talking about?
It was red state, the site that had a blogger arrested by the FBI for sending fake anthrax powder to democratic representatives.
Who knew that taking over the Democratic party would be so easy? All it took was five million dollars.
The Scaifes bought the wrong party. They put out $17 million in 1993 and to this day haven't been able to eliminate the "death tax".
QUOTE
____________
Brock doesn't make the payments. We receive our big bags of unmarked bills directly from kingpin Soros in a riverside bar down near Dock 13.
- christopher howard
___________
But do you "play football" with your bricks of cash like our patriotic rebuilders in Iraq?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindleExcellent, though depressing, article. Thanks for the link.
BillO thinks of himself as a serious journalist. Its funny and pathetic all at the same time.
BillO World - a place where you just make it up as you go.
Once again, has anyone kept a list of the names which MMFA and the posters have been called by the RightNUTS. As you know, my personal favorite is VERMIN....it can mean sooo many things. Nazis, Gay-Nazis, vermin etc.etc. and now ASSASSINS. I get chills everytime I hear these compliments.
I didn't read all of the above comments but has anyone asked why O'Rielly does what he does ...could it be MONEY.
Bill O is kind of a blowhard, and I'm not a real fan. This topic is a good example of BO's exaggerated sense of himself - I mean, MMFA is not much of a threat. Afterall, any group that wets itself because 80-year-old media dinosaur like Kinsolver says thing they don't like is pretty whimpy.
However, MMFA is pretty much tied at the hips with George ("The Nutcase") Soros:
David Brock Group Backpedals on Soros FundingBy Marc MoranoCNSNews.com Senior Staff WriterMarch 03, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, Soros and his Open Society Institute pour millions of dollars into the coffers of MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance. In turn, these organizations funnel some of that money to Media Matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I should think that you guys would not mind the link between Brock, MMFA and your benefactor...
Your first link is from a clearly biased, regressive website. I could slap some crap up on my website and then provide a link to it, but it wouldn't make it true.
But it's main reason for saying that MMFA receives money from Soros is because they didn't say that they didn't received money from a Soros funded group.
I haven't taken any money from space aliens. Now, I don't normally state this when people ask me where I work. So does that mean I work for space aliens?
I just want to post, for the record, that the notion that I am some kind fringe-nik " is ludicrous... I must admit the threads here at MM occasionally get a bit side-tracked (is that fringe?). Mr. O cannot admit that average rational thinking people see through his deliberate deceptions. And that they (we) have a right to be angry at his style of journalism.
What I find a more vicious element in our society are the ideological, narrow minded pseudo-journalists who (and I can hear Mr. O right now in the backround on tv as I write this) spin and force their guests into answering twisted, baiting (do you still beat your wife type) questions and not only that, will not even let them finish answering the questions.
Mr. O, you are a Harvard graduate get a grip and grow up. Shame on you.
Call me a hater if you wish O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter and the like; You Bad Faithed Paricipants in our National Dialog. You Sensationalist Tabloid "journalists". You Narrow Minded Vicious Malcontents of the Press.
Your brand of journalism is Shameless AND Shameful.
AND I have to confess: I have no idea who George Soros is.
AND I have to confess: I have no idea who George Soros is.
Why, he's the Boogey Man! Ask any regressive. They'll tell you.
In Bill's world, "vicious" = "thinks Bill O'Reilly is full of crap."
Which is of course ~70% of America.
When I think of "vicious", I think more "wants to drop bombs on people". I think most Americans agree.
Sometime very soon Obermann is going to pass falafel boy in ratings of the coveted 18-54 viewer group. I expect that to be quite a show. LOL
O'Reilley- Fanatical Fabricator
Why does he even have an audience?
The Rush Limbaugh Show in the background was a nice touch. Was it intentional?