Originally Posted By DDMAN26 This seems to be the most balanced view of Iraq that you will find. 2,000 dead in Iraq... Thursday, October 27, 2005 By Bill O'Reilly 2,000 dead in Iraq. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." The Iraq War doesn't have two sides. It has 18 sides. The action is so complicated, it's almost impossible to get a handle on it. So let's walk through Iraq carefully. Without a doubt, the sacrifice Americans are making in Iraq is noble. The USA is truly trying to give the Iraqi people a chance at freedom after decades of oppression, courtesy of Hitler lite, Saddam Hussein. We are now finding out that many who opposed the removal of Saddam were allegedly being bribed by him. Yesterday, British anti-American guy George Galloway was accused by the U.S. Senate of accepting a huge amount of money from Saddam. Four high-ranking Frenchmen have been implicated in the oil-for-food scandal. And the evidence indicates Saddam bribed members of the Putin government in Russia. Remember, if the United Nations would have moved against Saddam, the U.S. and Britain would have been spared this ordeal. <<i>For the rest of the story please follow the link</i>> <Br> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173671,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173671,00.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dave <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,173671,00.html
Originally Posted By JohnS1 O' Reilly is a smart man. Too bad so many people casually link him with Hannity, Rush, etc. without really listening to what he has to say. But of course, he is too logical, so nothing he suggests will ever work.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I agree John. I think O’Reilly has a lot of good balanced ideas, unlike the deranged ideologues Hannity and Rush. To bad he is lumped in with them so often.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The left insist O'Reilly is the devil when O'Reilly is actually a moderate, or center right. Saw him in Portland a few weeks ago... very good speaker.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice My views on the Hannity / O'Reilly are fairly well known here, I believe, even though I don't post all that often in WE... I agree with all three of you above me (though I would add "FAR" to the 'left' that Beau's referring to...) I really wish that Hannity would just shut up and go away, but I'm often right there with O'Reilly's opinions. Rush isn't even worth commenting on. *L*
Originally Posted By Spree The very fact that Rush is commented on as not woth commenting on says a lot
Originally Posted By Beaumandy wonderingalice, can you tell me something Rush has said in the last year that you find to be innacurate?
Originally Posted By ecdc "Then how do you know he isn't worth commenting on?" The way you listen to Franken? Both sides listen to those who will validate them and have them nodding along as they drive to work or listen to the radio. It's sad that the need to be right has replaced reasoned discourse.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice I've caught enough snippets of his ridiculousness in the past. And his rantings were rendered even more utterly worthless following the revelation of his lovely admission to prescription drug abuse. To those who will now say that the preachers are okay to preach and not follow their own advice as long as what they're preaching is considered 'good and moral' ... "LALALALALA! I can't hear the bull!" *LOL*
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Reilly isn't as hard-right or wacked out as Hannity or Limbaugh, no doubt. I think the reason he often gets lumped in with them is that a). he does lean right, just not as far and (more important) b). he has an unfortunate tendency to be just as full of himself and smarmy as the other two, and just as dismissive, even contemptuous, of opposing viewpoints. Stephen Colbert's persona on the "Colbert Report" is kind of an amalgam of several pundits, but obviously O'Reilly was the primary source. His satire of the self-satisfied pundit (who can be either right-wing or left, obviously) is better than I expected - it's on right after the Daily Show.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << I've caught enough snippets of his ridiculousness in the past. >> Like What?? And while your at it, could you tell me what " extreme right winger means? As far as O'Reilly goes, he is the same guy he was years ago when the left always called him a " radical right winger ". So what happened?? Try people actually listened to what he said and can see that the sterotype is wrong. Same goes for Rush.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice Like What... Honestly, it's been too long ago to even recall. I wasn't the one who used the term "extreme right winger," but I'll give it a go (aside from just handing you a mirror... ;-) They're against pro-choice; against personal freedoms unless it has to do with the rich getting richer; they pass judgement on those who dare to be different; they're intolerant bigots of the same 'different' people. They believe they're the only moral people out here. They have no middle of the road; it's their way or the highway. They may or may not claim to be "compassionate," but if they do, they don't walk the talk. Hmmmmmm... I could probably come up with more, but since I'm a middle-of-the-roader, I don't 'count' anyway. *Shrug* O'Reilly (who I do listen to, but not religiously)... What I like about him is that he tells it like it is when it comes to crime and punishment (for lack of a better term). If someone's a dirtbag at any level, he calls them on it... From government officials down to New Orleans looters. But (and maybe I just missed it)... I've never seen him go off on the judgemental, off-the-point rants that Hannity relishes so well. Just my opinion.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy wondering Alice, whould you consider today's liberal to be what the majority of the country considers mainstream? Thanks for taking a shot at that extreme right winger question. Most people don't have the guts to try and put it into words because the moonbat factor comes in.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They're against pro-choice; against personal freedoms unless it has to do with the rich getting richer; they pass judgement on those who dare to be different; they're intolerant bigots of the same 'different' people. They believe they're the only moral people out here. They have no middle of the road; it's their way or the highway. They may or may not claim to be "compassionate," but if they do, they don't walk the talk.<< A perfect description.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice Thanks Kar2oonMan... You're very welcome, Beaumandy... I tried. It doesn't scare me, I guess because I'm not a far left moonbat ;-) Honestly, I think that the majority of the country probably feels the same way I do. I don't mean that to sound flighty or egotistical, but in my experiences - in the workplace, public, etc. - I haven't come across many people who are "all or nothing" on either side. Maybe they don't speak up because fence-riders are oftentimes considered "wishy-washy," but I prefer to believe that we simply attempt to find the best of both sides and logically, that has to be in the middle. I tend to step away from the madness and follow my heart... I may not have a lot of political savvy (which is why I don't jump in on a lot of topics), but I always attempt to follow the Golden Rule. I don't envy the decision makers... I may not always agree with them, but I always recognize the difficulty inherent in their positions. And I do follow politics when it comes to Presidential elections and those who represent the State of Nevada in an attempt to elect the one (in either party) who will best represent what I believe. I voted for Bush this time for lack of a decent opponent. And I always maintain hope for 2008... no matter the party (though I basically feel it's a disruptive pipe dream for the Ralph Naders and Ross Perots to bother running. *L* ...I'll probably get smacked for that... Yeah, yeah... It's what makes America great, but sheesh! ;-) "Elections are like a box of chocolates..." *L*
