Bill O'Reilly is a Neo-con sellout who used to be legit decades ago and pointed his fingers in the direction of the warmongering, globalist pricks in charge. Now, Ron Paul will tell you exactly what the neo-cons are about. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl5JhMQ-8s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl5JhMQ-8s[/ame]
When all conservatives can think of is "good looks" - they think Palin, Bachmann and now Perry with his big hair because they are pretty are herewith intelligent. Obama will make toast of any candidate the Republicans put up against him in the general election debates - it will be fun to watch them squirm. Considering how Reps/cons want to take the country back to when it was racist, and don't mind vocalizing their hate-filled views (crying "yeah" to letting an uninsured person in an accident die), why would they want to call America exceptional, unless they think being like a third world country is exceptional.
Wow. Lets just throw out some random nonsense instead of an actual reply shall we? You have no point here. Are you debating or are you more interested in writing fiction? From the quote I see above the latter seems more prevalent to you. Also Obama has done so poorly that the very idea that Obama will win the election is laughable. Delude yourself all you want, but at the end of the day, party bickering aside, the facts will win. Right now the facts have Obama in a choke hold. He isn't going to win. Equally I'll enjoy all of you Obama puppets squirming when you realize the rest of the nation does not support your radicalism. Again....nonsense. What is the point of posting in here if you can't express an idea backed up by real facts. Your post is a shameless waste of thread space that a real debater could have taken up with a real point, from either party line. On Topic: Bill O'Reliiy is a political personality. He reports his views. The only difference between him and a blogger is that he has a corporation that's got his back. That's it. Whether he is greedy or anything else lies solely in the realm of his business, and none of my concern. If I don't believe what he says: I simply wont watch him.
If someone is going to be held in high esteem for being charitable, then it is up to the person doing the touting to provide some evidence. It isn't a matter of questioning O'Reilly's generosity, rather the poster's honesty. It is apparent that you were not able to understand the meaning of the request, why you make such an unnecessary retort. The fact that O'Reilly is bemoaning the fact that he may have to go from $10M to $6M in salary (not considering all the other money he makes on the side) and finding it oppressive makes it hard to believe that he may be generous.
Maybe you aren't familiar with this Forum, so your response is naive at best. When some of the conservatives here make threads about who is more "beautiful" and Libs not being as attractive as their GOP opponents, you get an idea of what is important to them. Jumping in the middle of a conversation and offering your two-cents without having the whole picture makes a person look silly. Considering the fact that the Republicans in Congress have obstructed much of what he has tried to do, and that most of the people finding fault with him are the same ones that support that "no" party - it is no surprise that some polls show Obama as to blame for the economy not recovering. I think that is coming to an end, Obama has decided to quit trying to include the Reps they aren't going to agree to anything, and the people are beginning to find out whose fault it really is. Right now, the facts show that the GOP is struggling with a bunch of clowns that keep flip-flopping and can't decide what they really stand for. Most people will go with the devil they know as opposed to the devil they don't know - and even if Obama is not doing so well in the polls, he is doing better than the Reps in Congress and certainly better than the hopeful clowns. Whahhhhhhh! Someone call a wambulance - I just took precious bandwidth that kept you from making your blathering a bit longer. Maybe someone needs to go back and read the rules of the Forum instead of spouting off nonsense. Anyone can express their opinion. If you don't like this thread - there is a rule against bashing it, you just don't post there. Same concept you apply to O'Reilly's program - so it shouldn't be so hard for you to get the picture.
Ah the typical radical liberal response - duck, cover, and spout more nonsense while running away. LOL win.
He is a liar - and he looks like a greedy fat-necked pig. The plan is just to go back to the tax rates we had for years before corporate puppet Bush enacted the tax cuts. How was O'Reilly doing then - he wasn't suffering was he? Certainly the nation wasn't suffering, was it? Obama is not any better - he let this thing hang until he was up for re-election - now he is using it to get re-elected when he could have let the tas cuts expire over a year ago. He's a liar too. None of them care a rat's ass about the nation.
I guess O'Reilly has gotten so used to his millions ($10M) from Faux News, that he believes going down to $6M would be oppressive! And he is a greedy fat-necked pig. At the time I agreed with Obama, because Republicans were refusing to extend unemployment benefits unless Obama agreed to the tax cuts. Now, seeing how Republicans in Congress don't give a darn about the country, just about the rich continuing to receive their tax cuts, I wish Obama had called their bluff. I would rather be paying more in taxes than to have Obama continue to extend a hand of bi-partisanship. They are not interested in bi-partisanship, nor are they interested in the welfare of the country. All they care about is getting back in control so they can continue to screw the middle-class and the poor and continue to coddle their base, the rich.
I would say the one spouting nonsense about "running away" is the one running away. Not even quoting the person one is addressing, but trying to remain inconspicuous about who one is addressing is a sure sign of chicken, the typical conservative response.
I think Billo was just looking for some sympathy. He forgets most of the people that watch him pay a bigger rate than he does.
LOL Such delightful ignorance. By all means, back up your BS You've already been proven to be a laughing stock when you weren't even smart enough to know how much money he gives to charity so please, embarrass yourself some more.
You have some other reason Billo the clown would consider $6M oppressive? Do you think he'll have to visit the food bank? Bwahahahaha! For all any one knows his claim to charity may be "spin zone" just like his show "no spin zone" which is anything but. And, the article below shows how much his racist heart is in his giving! Now who is the ignorant one here? Maybe you need to take a harder look at your hero - the racist bum! Who gives a crap how much he gives or doesn't give - the fact that he is telling people he will quit his job if he has to go from $10M to $6M is oppressive is enough to turn anyone's stomach, unless of course one is an ignoramus in love with the creep. And most people who give to charity don't bash the recipients - yeah, keep elevating your hero, see who is laughing at who now! Bwahahahaha - thanks for the laugh. Extra! Update June 2003 O'Reilly's Racist Slurs--in Context By Peter Hart In April 2003, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly hosted a fundraiser for Best Friends, a charity benefiting inner-city schoolchildren. As reported in the Washington Post (4/15/03), O'Reilly was trying to fill the time before a singing group connected with the charity, called the Best Men, was set to perform, and quipped: "Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps." According to the Post report, some of the conservatives in the audience were aghast at the seemingly racist crack. But if anyone was shocked by O'Reilly's apparent racism, they haven't been paying much attention. Two months before O'Reilly's "hubcaps" remark, he used a racist slur on the air. Searching for a word to describe someone who assists immigrants crossing the border, O'Reilly came up with "wetback" (2/6/03). The incident was explained away by Fox officials as an unfortunate gaffe (New York Times, 2/10/03), but the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call (1/5/03) had O'Reilly using the same racist term in a speech earlier in the year: "O'Reilly criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Service for not doing its job and not keeping out 'the wetbacks.'" O'Reilly denied making the comment (Washington Post, 2/17/02), but the reporter stands by his account. Though he calls his show a "no-spin zone," O'Reilly's response (CNBC, 4/26/03) to the "wetback" incident was a blatant, if feeble, exercise in spin--and an attempt to blame his guest: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1147
WOW...delusional much. I mean, come on..... 1) think HOLLYWOOD lib's when you think of obsessed with looks and 2) think the Obababama apology tour and the liberal war on the concept or even the use of the term "American exceptionalism" (except when politically advantageous)! 3) "back when it was racist" = when democrats wanted it that way. And they still do. The only way dem's hold on to power is by keeping the country divided. Hell, playing the race card is their bread & butter.
Do you loose site of your own ignorant statements? You said: Now, try and back that lie up chuckles. I will embarrass the hell out of you if you do just like I did on your charity lie
Even that 35% isnt real, actuall total federal tax rate on average is about 25% . And I would say its both, greedy and dumb .
Part of the write off for the rich is tax cuts for solar energy upgrades and other hippy dippy bs that Obama likes. And charitable deductions to churches and liberal causes. NPR for instance is proud to say that only 12% of their money comes from the federal government. The rest is by way of donations from rich libs.
The fallacy is only including one tax when making your assessment. When everything is said and done especially in new york its far far closer to 50% for both state and federal for high income earners. Thats why they have left in droves.
Even without bush tax cuts it would be around 48% Others states are between 42 and 50 %. Again its clear o reilly was once more making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. The tax rate he had when he started would suddenly push him to stop? The couple of % on several million will not make a difference.
I think it changes the fact that the rich are not keeping the additional 10% that doesn't go to the government. And in fact by diversifying "good works" to include the private sector it prevents the government from having too much power.
This is what Obama wants you people to believe to support his cause to increase taxes on those evil rich people. It's been proven incorrect time and TIME AGAIN but yet you libs continue to run with it. The rich pay the majority of the federal income taxes while almost half the nation pays no income taxes. Please read that 200 more times so you don't continue to make an ass of yourself on this forum.
So if it is his proposal which he has gone around and drummed up support for, how does that get him off the hook? Of course he does nothing of the sort, he critizes Obama's policies, and they should be criticized. What an incredibly weak argument you bring, that Obama's support is falling because someone is making people "hate" him. I guess in your reasoning it would be impossible that people oppose his policies. And who makes you the judge of how much someone should make and how much you think you should have of it? The marginal rate for the highest earners is 35% are you claiming otherwise? They already pay the 15% capital gains which is higher than the middle and lower classes pay. And Reagan never increased them anywhere near how much he cut and the raises were because of compromise with the Democrats, you DO believes Presidents should compromise with their opposition don't you? Why do you ignore the fact that there were LOTS more deductions and credits when rates were that high?
