• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannitty are awesome news reporter

hipsterdufus said:
Let's hope O'Really doesn't send the troops into SanFransico.
You know O'Really single handedly brought down gas prices didn't ya?:roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd take the troops OUT of San Francisco, since the San Franciscans don't want em' anyways. Seems kind of a waste to me. Why stay where you're not welcome? And then, when San Fran comes under attack by Canada (that'd be a shocker) we'll just say, "Oh, but you didn't want us, sorry!"
 
Donkey1499 said:
Actually, I'd take the troops OUT of San Francisco, since the San Franciscans don't want em' anyways. Seems kind of a waste to me. Why stay where you're not welcome? And then, when San Fran comes under attack by Canada (that'd be a shocker) we'll just say, "Oh, but you didn't want us, sorry!"
Click to expand...

Not only would it be a shocker, it would be impossible. Canada's standing forces are at 55,000. They couldn't have sent troops for the Iraq war effort even if they had supported it. Most of their troops are designated on UN peacekeeping missions or stationed in Afghanistan. Most of their equipment is outdated ant their organization and funding is severly lacking. If they tried to invade San Francisco, they'd probably be rebuffed by the SFPD. (Guess who recently wrote a paper on Canada's post 9/11 military posture?)
 
Mikkel said:
Not only would it be a shocker, it would be impossible. Canada's standing forces are at 55,000. They couldn't have sent troops for the Iraq war effort even if they had supported it. Most of their troops are designated on UN peacekeeping missions or stationed in Afghanistan. Most of their equipment is outdated ant their organization and funding is severly lacking. If they tried to invade San Francisco, they'd probably be rebuffed by the SFPD. (Guess who recently wrote a paper on Canada's post 9/11 military posture?)
Click to expand...

But it would be funny though. Especially if Canada then went and invaded Turkey and named Chicken instead. That'd be hillario!
 
Donkey1499 said:
But it would be funny though. Especially if Canada then went and invaded Turkey and named Chicken instead. That'd be hillario!
Click to expand...

It would definately catch them by surprise. I mean, I'd be surprised.
 
If Russia attacks Turkey from the rear Greece will help.
 
Inuyasha said:
If Russia attacks Turkey from the rear Greece will help.
Click to expand...

That is the funniest military invasion joke I've ever heard (not that I've heard too many military invasion jokes).
 
I don't think I've ever heard "Canada" & "military posture" in the same sentence before...:cool:
 
Donkey1499 said:
Actually, I'd take the troops OUT of San Francisco, since the San Franciscans don't want em' anyways. Seems kind of a waste to me. Why stay where you're not welcome? And then, when San Fran comes under attack by Canada (that'd be a shocker) we'll just say, "Oh, but you didn't want us, sorry!"
Click to expand...

OK - using that line of reasoning can they also decide to not pay the defense portion of our budget? It looks like that would be a 48% tax decrease.

pieFY06.jpg


HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

hese figures are from a line-by-line analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006. The percentages are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2005, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began in the 1960s during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

“Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($427 billion), the military portion from other departments ($106 billion), anticipated “supplemental allowance” ($25 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($85 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt. Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, see box at bottom of this page.
Click to expand...
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
 
Jon Stewart slammed O'Reilly in a hilarious bit on the Daily Show Tuesday night. Aparently O'Reilly was attacking the daily show for being against Christmas.

Here's part of the transcript - but the video is much better:

STEWART: If Bill O'Reilly needs to have an enemy, needs to feel persecuted, you know what? Here's my Kwanzaa gift to him. Are you ready? All right. I'm your enemy. Make me your enemy. I, Jon Stewart, hate Christmas, Christians, Jews, morality, and I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium.
Click to expand...
 
hipsterdufus said:
Jon Stewart slammed O'Reilly in a hilarious bit on the Daily Show Tuesday night. Aparently O'Reilly was attacking the daily show for being against Christmas.

Here's part of the transcript - but the video is much better:
Click to expand...

Stewart is a funny guy, I can't help but agree with most of the things he jokingly says.:lol:
 
I noticed O' Reilly watched is mouth with Howard Stern on. Maybe he's not that dumb. I said, "maybe..."
 
Billo_Really said:
I noticed O' Reilly watched is mouth with Howard Stern on. Maybe he's not that dumb. I said, "maybe..."
Click to expand...

It ain't over yet. It's the first time I've watched O'Reilly in a Looonnng time. Howard Stern is a rotweiller but so far "fish ain't bittin'"
 
Orignally posted by Inuyasha:
It ain't over yet. It's the first time I've watched O'Reilly in a Looonnng time. Howard Stern is a rotweiller but so far "fish ain't bittin'"
Click to expand...
I don't know what they would argue about. There both makin' bank.
 
Billo_Really said:
I don't know what they would argue about. There both makin' bank.
Click to expand...

I thought it would be about porn or something like that but O'Reilly never said a word. I guess he didn't want the "phone sex" thing brought up which Howard would surely have done just to show up O'Reilly's hypocrisy. Stern was interesting though.
 
Reilly has, over and over, given the idea that the United States is a nation founded on the principles of Christianity and more protestant Christianity. He has mislead his viewers, We have the right to practice religion and any religion we choose but as you look at the founding fathers, and I was really surprised at this because I never gave it a second thought, they were far from religious men. Perhaps the WERE talking about freedom from religion as well as freedom ofreligion. I found several sites that popint to this theory but I chose just one that is an easy read.


The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety." continue.....
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
 
Oh yeah, let's all pick on the strangely tall Irishman. Who doesn't have red hair. But I bet he's got a pot o' gold under his desk (the rich bass' terd).

(ignore me. I'm high on Skittles right now....)
 
hipsterdufus said:
Jon Stewart slammed O'Reilly in a hilarious bit on the Daily Show Tuesday night. Aparently O'Reilly was attacking the daily show for being against Christmas.

Here's part of the transcript - but the video is much better:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that a "slam", but it was more like mindless babbling. Which is what Stewart is good at anyways.
 
Donkey1499 said:
I wouldn't call that a "slam", but it was more like mindless babbling. Which is what Stewart is good at anyways.
Click to expand...

no actually stewart is actually kinda cool to watch because he says funny stuff that makes sense
 
Che said:
no actually stewart is actually kinda cool to watch because he says funny stuff that makes sense
Click to expand...

If the stuff he said was funny, then I'd watch it, but it's not, therefore he's a retard in my book. And the stuff he says only makes sense to the left leaning Americans. But it's not a kind of common sense. It's just retardedness.
 
Donkey1499 said:
If the stuff he said was funny, then I'd watch it, but it's not, therefore he's a retard in my book. And the stuff he says only makes sense to the left leaning Americans. But it's not a kind of common sense. It's just retardedness.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you took time to watch other programs besides for your brain washing O'Reilly show you'd realize that the stuff he says isn't retarded but humor that comments on the hypocrisy of Bush, or the hypocrisy of America in general.

But you're right it is for the left leaning americans just like O'Reilly is for the Rght leaning Americans
 
I'm giving Bill O'Reilly some props here.

After being attacked by his own party on the whole "War on X-Mas " issue.
O'Reilly actually admitted to lying about the Plano school district banning red and green clothing.

I'd also like to hear him apologize for calling Plano facists, but that's asking too much from Mr. :spin:

On the December 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly retracted his false claim that the Plano Independent School District (Texas) banned red and green clothing. As Media Matters for America reported at the time, the legal complaint filed against the school district did not allege any ban of red and green clothing.
Click to expand...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210005
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom