 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." Тук не Ви е разрешено да публикувате съобщения. Изисква се ниво на членство най-малко Мозъчна Пешка. Режим: Всеки може да публикува
16. октомври 2010, 14:56:05 Let's make it easy... http://mediamatters.org/research/200410250009 From the October 21 broadcast of the nationally syndicated The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: O'REILLY: "They said they [9-11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, featured in the ad, and her late husband] voted for Bush [in 2000], but Bush opposed the 9-11 Commission -- which he didn't, by the way. He didn't oppose it. I mean, he had questions about it because he didn't want it politicized." ------------------ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml (CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11. Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional intelligence committees. CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante reports that Mr. Bush said the investigation should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence. Therefore, he said, the congressional investigation is "the best place" to probe the events leading up to the terrorist attacks. "I have great confidence in our FBI and CIA," the President said in Berlin, adding that he feels the agencies are already improving their information sharing practices. ********************** ********************** Now.. If I read this right (dot a dold) O'Reilly said Bush did not oppose the 9/11 commission..... The news report states he did through comments made by Bush himself. So.. Did CBS get it wrong, did Bill get it wrong? N' if Bill got it wrong.. does it just prove he's human.. not a God? Was he lying or just bull..ing himself through the broadcast?? 16. октомври 2010, 19:39:07 Относно: Re:Let's make it easy... Artful Dodger: It's a simple question... it operates under the presumption we are all human (that we know of) on this world. Bill O'Reilly stated that USA servicemen killed 84 surrendering ss troops at Malmédy. Basically saying these USA servicemen commited a war crime. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200606030002 In fact. History records that ss troops murdered USA toops at Malmédy during WWII. Since the evidence in history (bodies/dog tags) is clear, then Bill O'Reilly messed up. Knowing your Hero so well, you could at least make an effort to talk and explain what he was doing. "YOU need to make your case with your OWN argument backing up your exact claim. Don't deviate." ... It is backed up by historical records. That O'Reilly said otherwise is recorded. ........No deviation, straight argument backed up by recorded evidence. Now... don't deviate yourself as you keep on doing. 16. октомври 2010, 20:01:33 Относно: Re:And who really cares about Bill O'Reilly? He's a news analyst. Променен от Mort (16. октомври 2010, 20:07:56) Artful Dodger: So... It can be said that Bill O'Reilly.. "Bill O'Reilly makes up whatever he wants to in his head and presents it as truth, all the while using the argument that he must be right because Fox News has higher ratings than MSNBC" AS Previously stated here by lizrising You replied... "I would LOVE to see you back that nonsense up with a solid argument.".. One question though.. doesn't Fox or Bill have researchers to check things? If he can.. as you say.. 'get things wrong'... how much more of his broadcasts are suspect and full of incorrect "news analysis"??? therefore.. The Bill O'Reilly factor as a news analysis prog on a news channel, along with Beck.. who seems to confuse regulation on Slave transportation with people having to pay to enter into the USA... Can get things wrong and present a false account of past and current issues. "ANY conversation would be the POTUS and his honesty/dishonesty record." You don't get to dictate here. It's called free speech  ... and I thought POTUS referred to Presidents not a President!!16. октомври 2010, 22:04:57 Относно: Re:and I thought POTUS referred to Presidents not a President!! Променен от Mort (17. октомври 2010, 16:21:42) Artful Dodger: Mmm it seems POTUS can be used both ways. http://www.potus.com/ And again, you don't get to dictate here. People wanted to talk about Bill O'Reilly being wrong. You said you would like to see/talk about it. But.. you have no answer. Some would consider that an answer in itself. 18. октомври 2010, 00:46:51 Относно: Re:and I thought POTUS referred to Presidents not a President!! Artful Dodger: I watch Fox News, and my appraisal is that anyone right of mind can see they are in the tank for the right, and MSNBC is even more in the tank for the left,both channels make my head explode, though I'm not sure if NBC has actually donated a million bucks to the DNC, like Fox donated to the RNC 18. октомври 2010, 09:34:57 Относно: Re:and I thought POTUS referred to Presidents not a President!! Artful Dodger: Considering that the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck are by some thought of as reliable commentators on current political events.. it is a point. That they do make mistakes.. and seemingly lie on certain matters just to make their point 'bigger' does put doubt into any reasonable mind on the validity of their political bantering and the message they are fronting. As to your contention that Obama is a pathological liar.. just because he says 'X' yet.. through having to put things through Congress and the Senate what he says becomes 'XY' is pretty normal in terms of how things work in the world of politics. It does not make him a liar, it makes him someone that has to get policies through both houses which are greatly affected by the lobbying system. 18. октомври 2010, 22:13:46 Относно: Re:and I thought POTUS referred to Presidents not a President!! Artful Dodger: Saying you have two children and then don't.... did they die? Was it like some of these "Who's the daddy?" progs where you are told you have two children and then find out you are not the father?? Not a good analogy... Politicians have to compromise at times.. it goes with the territory. It's not like when Bush claimed the conflict was over in Iraq, it's not like when the Republican government tried to claim Saddam had links to the Taliban. Beck said on one of his shows that people use to pay to come into the USA, quoting some old regulation. When someone checked on that regulation, it applied to the last years of importing slaves into the USA and that the government taxed $10 a head. I cannot see (unless his research crew are corrupt) how he can make that level of a mistake... btw... why is Christine O'Donnell hiding so much about her College past? 19. октомври 2010, 00:57:51 Относно: Re:and I thought POTUS referred to Presidents not a President!! (V): If I had a dollar for every Christine O'Donnell and Palin I dated back in the day........ 19. октомври 2010, 11:41:00 Относно: Re:and I thought POTUS referred to Presidents not a President!! The Col: where's my million? |
Дата и час
Приятели на линия
Любими дискусии
Дружества
Подсказка на деня
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Филип Рачунек, всички права запазени Нагоре |