# O'Reily punks Alan Grayson



## Xenophon (Oct 28, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1MKXRprOg]YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Correspondent Griff Jenkins Tracks Down Flordia Rep. Alan Grayson - 10/28/09[/ame]

What a fucking pussy, instead of answering he says 'make an appointment' which they tried ten times.

Just another gutless shit.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 28, 2009)

The commentary is funny, Grayson tried to hide in his office all day because he knew FOX was in the hallway, and like the good little stalinite he is, Grayson tried to have the police remove the reporter.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 28, 2009)

A politician is acting like a politician. Color me surprised in that case.


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 28, 2009)

lol...

What an upstanding congresscritter he is...




Maybe he had an appointment with a K Street Ho?


----------



## oreo (Oct 29, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> lol...
> 
> What an upstanding congresscritter he is...
> 
> ...





Yeah--I loved the comment to the reporter--"You're not following the rules"--you are supposed to make an appointment with my press secretary---  I didn't know the media in this country "had to follow rules" when covering a story?  The media attention was brought on by Grayson's comments--what in the heck did he expect?

*LET'S NOT FORGET WHO GRAYSON IS:*  His vote for the 787 BILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS that really isn't was bought off.  He insisted on getting 500 MILLION of our taxpayer dollars in order for him to sign off on this bill.  500 MILLION to build a new hurricane center--when they already have a new one.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 29, 2009)

If he wants to play the role of the dem Michelle Bachmann of Congress he should have told the guy to get fucked and talked some shit about FOX News.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> If he wants to play the role of the dem Michelle Bachmann of Congress he should have told the guy to get fucked and talked some shit about FOX News.


when did she do that to a reporter?
got a link?


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > If he wants to play the role of the dem Michelle Bachmann of Congress he should have told the guy to get fucked and talked some shit about FOX News.
> ...



lol ... obviously she didn't do that ... it was a joke


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


then the joke fell flat


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

He's gonn have to change his domain name after this....


congressmanwithguts.com   "with guts"?  Oh, really?


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 29, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> lol...
> 
> What an upstanding congresscritter he is...
> 
> ...



well he was their hero, supposed to  the "tough" guy! bad case of too much kos kool aid imho!


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> He's gonn have to change his domain name after this....
> 
> 
> congressmanwithguts.com   "with guts"?  Oh, really?



more like "congressmannonuts" that has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 29, 2009)

We only have Bill O'Reilly's word that they called ten times. And Bill O'Reilly's word is about as valuable as nothing.

That said, I'm offended that FOX is playing the sex card to this extent. It is obvious what a "k street whore" is, but FOX has to pretend that it is something that it isn't.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> We only have Bill O'Reilly's word that they called ten times. And Bill O'Reilly's word is about as valuable as nothing.
> 
> That said, I'm offended that FOX is playing the sex card to this extent. It is obvious what a "k street whore" is, but FOX has to pretend that it is something that it isn't.



I've never heard the term "k street whore, so it's not as obvious to folks as you think. Congressmen and women should be held to a higher standard, after all we the taxpayers pay their salary and deserve common courtesy.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> We only have Bill O'Reilly's word that they called ten times. And Bill O'Reilly's word is about as valuable as nothing.
> 
> That said, I'm offended that FOX is playing the sex card to this extent. It is obvious what a "k street whore" is, but FOX has to pretend that it is something that it isn't.



no! you got it wrong, you have O'Reilly's word and the dweeb reporter's word. Take notes! Still no appointment. There's a clue!


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 29, 2009)

O'Reilly is another draft dodging, woman berating wackjob, truth and O'Reilly are miles apart. After his phone calls to his make believe lover one wonders who could admire or post anything about this wuss.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 29, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> O'Reilly is another draft dodging, woman berating wackjob, truth and O'Reilly are miles apart. After his phone calls to his make believe lover one wonders who could admire or post anything about this wuss.



That aside Grayson pussed out big time.


----------



## paperview (Oct 29, 2009)

This thread is Falafelicious!


----------



## paperview (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > O'Reilly is another draft dodging, woman berating wackjob, truth and O'Reilly are miles apart. After his phone calls to his make believe lover one wonders who could admire or post anything about this wuss.
> ...


Perhaps. 

I'm not a big fan of ambush journalism though.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 29, 2009)

paperview said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



Me neither but in a town like DC when you put a bulls eye one your back like Grayson did you better be ready for shit like this.  If he feels that strongly about his opinions he should be game to defend them anytime.  

Remember when they tried this a lil while back on Barney Frank and he kind of tore the reporter apart?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

paperview said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



From your posts, it seems you are not a big fan of anything that shows your critters up for the lying shits that they are.


----------



## paperview (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


True, but there are times when people are not always ready to speak to a hostile camera and mike in a moments notice, ambushed at that. 
 There are times when you may be so mad, sad (personal family concerns, etc...), tweeked, frustrated...whatever, you may think it wise to not let loose - for whatever reasons.  

In my opinion, he owes them no respect after they have so vilified him. Journalism does not give you the right to stick a mike in someone's face anytime you damn well please.  It would have been nice to see him hammer them (making more big ratings for the Foxies, and a whole new round of "look what he said NOW!"), but his decision appears to have been prudent, given the circumstances, to 'no comment' the asshole.

But it would have been nice to see him say "Go fuck yourselves" and that's it.


----------



## kyzr (Oct 29, 2009)

Alan Grayson is a typical "DC Whore".  Does anyone need an explanation of what that means??


----------



## paperview (Oct 29, 2009)

kyzr said:


> Alan Grayson is a typical "DC Whore".  Does anyone need an explanation of what that means??


He's a politician. All politicians are whores.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 29, 2009)

paperview said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



No doubt that it's a low, scummy thing for O'Reilly and FOX to do.  That's a gimme but you can't let the bully make you run inside the house and hide, JMO.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



no it wasn't, it's business as usual. Now if coward scumbag who sounds so freaking tuff had made them an appointment as they requested and faced them head on in the arena (like the gladiator wannabe he wants us to think he is)  he might have come off looking like something other than a weasel skinned, talk big when I have people around to stroke my ego bullshit artist he is. I love it that said reporter kept him treed til after 7:30 PM and that the crybaby called the police whining for them to do something with that little hallway whore!


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 29, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Like I said, he pussed out big time.  But let's not pretend that this wasn't O'Reilly being O'Reilly ... The Factor has a long history of pulling these stunts.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



they sure do, they chase down bloviating cowards and make them either put up or shut up. that's what journalists are supposed to do.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



You don't think public servants should be held accountable for their actions? They tried the diplomatic approach in attempting to set up an interview, but the cowardly fuck dodged them. These fuckers work for us and we need to hold them accountable.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 29, 2009)

When does Grayson's impeachment hearing start?


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 29, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



What part of "he pussed out big time" don't you get?


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > O'Reilly is another draft dodging, woman berating wackjob, truth and O'Reilly are miles apart. After his phone calls to his make believe lover one wonders who could admire or post anything about this wuss.
> ...


This is why A15 is da man (even though he is a gay red sox fan).

The guy is a big pussy, he had a chance to stand up to FOX who he loves to trash and instead he hid in his office, actted like a penis and tried to get the cops to save him from a hostile question.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 29, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...


Hey now...isn't calling someone a pussy as bad as calling someone a whore?


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


I'll retract it if I'm ever elected to Congress.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I was referring to your comment about O'Reilly and The Factor. You made it sound as if "these stunts" were without merit.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 29, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


This one wasn't. He called someone a whore. He apologized. End of story.

There's nothing more for FOX to milk out of the situation.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Oct 29, 2009)

This was fantastic. WTG Fox News! They really did give that miserable cretin a taste of his own medicine. It's good to see someone in the Media finally doing their job. I actually remember a time when most in the MSM used to do their jobs. I remember when 60 Minutes used to be this persistent. They have now become part of the establishment like most of the MSM has at this point. So Kudos to Fox News for calling this cretin on his hate.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure Grif had a few more questions other than clarification about the "whore" comment.  Like apologies or clarifications for...

GRAYSON, SEPT. 29: The Republican health care plan is this. Die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.

GRAYSON, SEPT. 30: I call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families. I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.

GRAYSON, OCT. 21: Fox News and their Republican collaborators are the enemy of America.

....these remarks, just to name a few.

And Obama has the audacity to say Grayson was an oustanding member of Congress.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Oct 29, 2009)

Fox News really is putting the Liberal Media to shame at this point. They're actually teaching them how to be real Journalists again. Seriously,i remember a time when most of the Liberal dominated MSM used to be this persistent. They have all now just become part of the establishment at this point. What happened to 60 Minutes? Remember when they were real Journalists and showed this kind of tenacity? Why is Fox News the only Media Outlet to call this cretin on his hate? Where's the rest of the Media? The Liberal dominated MSM really does need to observe and learn from Fox News. They could be the only real Journalists left in our MSM.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 29, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> And Obama has the audacity to say Grayson was an oustanding member of Congress.


Its going to make a bitching campaign ad.

You have Barry talking about post partisan politcis, superimpose Grayson saying GoP wants you to die, Barry talking about changing the culture, Grayson again calling the GoP and FOX the enimies of America, back to Barry saying Grayson is an outstanding member of congress, finish with the Grayson whore line...finaly closing, repeat Barry praising Grayson, announcer says 'really Mr presiedent, really?...fade..


----------



## Oddball (Oct 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> This one wasn't. He called someone a whore. _*He apologized. End of story.*_
> 
> _*There's nothing more*_ for FOX _*to milk out of the situation.*_


Something in here takes me back to last Friday, but I can't put my finger on it.

Hmmmmmmm......


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 29, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> The commentary is funny, Grayson tried to hide in his office all day because he knew FOX was in the hallway, and like the good little stalinite he is, Grayson tried to have the police remove the reporter.


Grayson is definitely not afraid of Fox or anyone else, as demonstrated by his comments. Why doesn't O'liely do his own stalking?


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 29, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > The commentary is funny, Grayson tried to hide in his office all day because he knew FOX was in the hallway, and like the good little stalinite he is, Grayson tried to have the police remove the reporter.
> ...



You don't send the King to do the Knight's job.  Check.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> We only have Bill O'Reilly's word that they called ten times. And Bill O'Reilly's word is about as valuable as nothing.
> 
> That said, I'm offended that FOX is playing the sex card to this extent. It is obvious what a "k street whore" is, but FOX has to pretend that it is something that it isn't.



And you were lecturing me about insults yesterday?

Immie


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 29, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > The commentary is funny, Grayson tried to hide in his office all day because he knew FOX was in the hallway, and like the good little stalinite he is, Grayson tried to have the police remove the reporter.
> ...



If he isnt afraid of them, why would they need to stalk him to get him to speak with them?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 29, 2009)

Douchebag punks nutbag.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


PJ isnt strong on logic


----------



## CryGlennCry (Oct 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> We only have Bill O'Reilly's word that they called ten times. And Bill O'Reilly's word is about as valuable as nothing.
> 
> That said, I'm offended that FOX is playing the sex card to this extent. It is obvious what a "k street whore" is, but FOX has to pretend that it is something that it isn't.



 Exactly. 
It's just like the "lipstick on a pig" comment that they went crazy with over at FOX.
They LOVE to try and get out there that the left is as racist or misogynistic as the right.
And quite frankly, I think Congressman Grayson handled it very well.
Some little douche goes to work to harass you with asinine questions...
He's lucky he didn't get his glasses smashed.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

CryGlennCry said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > We only have Bill O'Reilly's word that they called ten times. And Bill O'Reilly's word is about as valuable as nothing.
> ...


ah, don't like the reporter, its ok to do assault & battery


----------



## CryGlennCry (Oct 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CryGlennCry said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No. Assault is obviously wrong.
 I was being hyperbolic.


----------



## rdean (Oct 29, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You mean those aren't true?  More than 40,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health care.  Yet, Republicans don't have any plan other than turn everything over to health care companies and we hope the President "fails".

Republicans are dedicated to war, they are anti middle class, pro big business, pro torture.  Anti science and anti education.  They have done nothing to help Democrats to clean up the Republican mess of the last eight years.  Instead,  they talk about secession.  Anti gay.  Anti women's rights.  Sounds to me like they come down on the same side as the Taliban on many issues where the majority of the American people disagree.

*So Republicans want Grayson to apologize for being right?  *


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

rdean said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


its not really a shock or surprise that a fucking moron like you would agree with a fucking moron like him


----------



## Zander (Oct 29, 2009)

He's a pathetic loser. Hiding in his office like a little girl!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> A politician is acting like a politician. Color me surprised in that case.


Most of them actually _don't_ act that way.

You just have a pat dismissal and excuse for everything, so long as it's a Dem.


----------



## rdean (Oct 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



When Republicans are called out and backed into a corner, they attack with "hurt feelings", "indignant outrage" and a "potty mouth".  Notice no denial?  Not once.  What could you say is not true?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


why would i waste time on a point by point denial of such complete bullshit that is unsubstantiated in the first place?


----------



## rdean (Oct 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ok, so Republicans are pro health care reform.  They want the president to succeed.  They are dedicated to peace and negotiation.  They are pro gay rights.  Pro women's rights.  Republicans are pro science and pro educaiton.

Does that sound anything like the truth?  Any of it?  Of course not.  Just writing out the words was laughable.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


strawman ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## garyd (Oct 30, 2009)

Deany (rhymes with teeny which describes your intellectual capacity to a tee) There are at least three diffrent Republican health care plans out and about any would be more likely to lower the number of people dying in America every day than this travesty that the Dems are foisting on us?

You do realize that there are about a Million americans dying every day who do have health insurance?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 30, 2009)

rdean said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



40,000 die each year due to lack of health care? I'd like to see the source for that information. I'd argue thousands die every year due to car wrecks which has nothing to do with healthcare. Looks like you got your talking points from Pelosi. How about proving your claims?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 30, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 40,000 die each year due to lack of health care? I'd like to see the source for that information. I'd argue thousands die every year due to car wrecks which has nothing to do with healthcare. Looks like you got your talking points from Pelosi. How about proving your claims?



I'm sorry, I don't remember the thread but there was one a couple weeks back that had a link to the people who did the research.  They admitted to some of the flaws in their research, such as they asked people if they had insurance in the initial interview and then tracked them from I think 1984 - 2000 and never tracked their insurance information.  So, if they died in 1997 and had health insurance they were considered to have been uninsured.  I am sure you can see the problem with that.  Not everyone seems to understand that, including Rep. Grayson.

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 30, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 40,000 die each year due to lack of health care? I'd like to see the source for that information. I'd argue thousands die every year due to car wrecks which has nothing to do with healthcare. Looks like you got your talking points from Pelosi. How about proving your claims?
> ...



Good point. Fact is no one dies simply because they have no health insurance. No hospital can refuse treatment based on ability or non-ability to pay. I think rdumbshit is once again talking out of his ass.


----------



## paperview (Oct 30, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 40,000 die each year due to lack of health care? I'd like to see the source for that information. I'd argue thousands die every year due to car wrecks which has nothing to do with healthcare. Looks like you got your talking points from Pelosi. How about proving your claims?
> ...


I would _love_ to see that link.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 30, 2009)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You can search for it as easily as I can.

I believe it was in the healthcare forum, but who knows, it may have been moved to the flame zone.

I'm not sure, but the thread may have been started by Plymco_Pilgrim.

Search for "1984" or "2000" or better yet search my posts for 1984 to narrow it down.  I don't have time to go back and read all those threads, but it is there somewhere.

edit:Here's the link to the thread see post #27:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/92424-names-of-the-dead-2.html

Immie


----------



## paperview (Oct 30, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Thank you for the link.

I see what was quoted about that study is a Michelle Malkin op-ed.  Forgive me for my _underwhelment_, but I have rarely found Malkin to be truthful in her articles.  There is always a gross amount of omission, overstated rhetoric and outright lies.

  I am going to look into it further, but to use a Malkin article as proof is as about as disingenuous as me linking a Michael Moore op-ed and expecting you to see it as fair and balanced.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 30, 2009)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Here is a link to the actual study please see "limitations" on page 5:

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

And no, Malkin is 1000 times more reliable than Michael Moore, but that is not saying a whole hell of a lot.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Oct 30, 2009)

I found this Factcheck link provided much better context Immie:

Dying from Lack of Insurance | FactCheck.org


----------



## paperview (Oct 30, 2009)

While Malkin may have been correct in slicing the numbers some, it is extremely difficult to arrive at a solid set of numbers based on hypotheticals and inability to compile truly objective stats -
there is still no doubt a great many people die from lack of health insurance.

While you and Malkin are free to undercut the study, to disregard it (as well as the other studies noted in the above link) completely is absurd.  If you folks wish to though,  I recommend a  great no-cost-no-coverage health care program you can  lock you into for the rest of your lives, if you dare.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 30, 2009)

paperview said:


> I found this Factcheck link provided much better context Immie:
> 
> Dying from Lack of Insurance | FactCheck.org





paperview said:


> While Malkin may have been correct in slicing the numbers some, it is extremely difficult to arrive at a solid set of numbers based on hypotheticals and inability to compile truly objective stats -
> there is still no doubt a great many people die from lack of health insurance.
> 
> While you and Malkin are free to undercut the study, to disregard it (as well as the other studies noted in the above link) completely is absurd.  If you folks wish to though,  I recommend a  great no-cost-no-coverage health care program you can  lock you into for the rest of your lives, if you dare.



The way I remember Grayson's comments was that these people died for no other reason than the lack of insurance.  That was a flat out lie.  People with and without insurance die every day.  People without health insurance are never turned away from life-saving health care.  Basically, he was calling members of the Medical profession murderers.  

According to your link people without health insurance may have a 25% greater chance of dying, but there are other factors to be considered as in how well they take care of themselves i.e. fitness.  



> There has been some criticism of this type of research and its ability to find a direct causal link. A 2003 commentary by Richard Kronick in Medical Care Research and Review questioned whether other factors beyond uninsurance would reduce the greater mortality for the uninsured. Kronick recreated the Franks study using more recent data and, after adjusting for various factors, also found a 25 percent greater risk of death for the uninsured. But he said: "It seems likely that if we were able to control for additional factors, such as health-related behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and risk-taking behaviors more generally), wealth, or value placed on health or health care, the estimated effect of being uninsured would be reduced further. What is uncertain is whether the reduction would bring the estimated hazard ratio all the way down to 1.0 or whether an independent effect of being uninsured would remain." (Other studies, including the Franks study, did adjust for smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity and income.)



Rep Grayson deliberately distorted the facts.  He lied for political purposes.  He lied in order to make his opponents look bad.  Politicians suck and Rep Grayson sucks with the rest of them.

Unfortunately, many people believed him and now claim that 45,000 people die every year because they do not have health insurance.  The question people really should be asking is how many of those 45,000 would not have died if they had health insurance?  It is possible that some of those who died would not have died if they had insurance.  Maybe they would have gone and had tests done that would have found their cancer before it was too late... and for that I suppose Rep Grayson would blame the insurance companies.

Immie


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 31, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Correspondent Griff Jenkins Tracks Down Flordia Rep. Alan Grayson - 10/28/09
> 
> What a fucking pussy, instead of answering he says 'make an appointment' which they tried ten times.
> 
> Just another gutless shit.



So FOX sent its goons out to track down this guy and demand that he answer questions.  Im still waiting for Bill to answer questions concerning his relationship with Andrea Mackris.  Come on, O'Reilly.  How much money was paid to Andrea?  Is she free to give away the audio tapes without facing legal repercussions?  People want to know.   I have very little respect, if any, for Bill OReilly.  He is a bully who can dish it out but is unwilling to hold himself to the same standards that he sets for others.  Hey, here is a word for Bill:  Hypocrite.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 31, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Correspondent Griff Jenkins Tracks Down Flordia Rep. Alan Grayson - 10/28/09
> ...



An imperfect person has no right to express their opinion or seek the facts.  What are you doing here hypocrite?


----------



## Bullypulpit (Oct 31, 2009)

Just two words for Billo the Clown..."Luffa much?"


----------



## rdean (Oct 31, 2009)

What a bunch of funny clowns.  You guys point to "factcheck" as "proof" that the 45,000 number is wrong.  Did anyone on the right actually read it?  What was written by "factcheck"?  What a bunch of clowns.  They said 45,000 might be on the high end, but didn't discount it.  What's worse, with statements like the one below, the count could actually be a lot higher.  Fools!

The right hates America, there can't be any other possible explanation.

Dying from Lack of Insurance | FactCheck.org

*Ayanian&#8217;s testimony to Congress, March 2009: Uninsured Americans frequently delay or forgo doctors&#8217; visits, prescription medications, and other effective treatments, even when they have serious disease or life-threatening conditions. &#8230; Because uninsured adults seek health care less often than insured adults, they are often unaware of health problems such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or early-stage cancer. Uninsured adults are also much less likely to receive vaccinations, cancer screening services such as mammography and colonoscopy, and other effective preventive services.*


----------



## Bullypulpit (Oct 31, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I found this Factcheck link provided much better context Immie:
> ...



<center><a href=http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage>New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage </a></center>

It's not a "claim"  Immie...It's a fact supported by the Harvard study cited above. Get over it.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Oct 31, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I found this Factcheck link provided much better context Immie:
> ...



New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage ​
It's not a "claim"  Immie...It's a fact supported by the Harvard study cited above. Get over it.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 31, 2009)

Bullypulpit said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



It is not a fact and they even pointed out the flaws in their study.  Maybe you should get over the fact that your latest hero is nothing but another liar in Washington.

And as rdean stated it was on the high end.  But what he refused to point out was that they also stated that there is no evidence that these 45k deaths per year were in fact related to not having insurance as your hero claimed.

They very clearly stated that some (maybe even all) of those deaths could be related to other factors like not having access to preventative medicine, but they also stated that it could be other factors as well such as the poor not having the resources to keep physically fit. 

Maybe you both should actually read the factcheck page before you start spouting Grayson Bullshit?  Grayson is a liar just like every other politician in Washington.  He is exactly the kind of lunatic that needs to keep spouting the shit he does so that we can defeat this attempt to allow the US Government to destroy the free market system along with our medical profession.

Immie


----------



## rdean (Oct 31, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bullypulpit said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Umm, actually, you need to go where the data leads.  There certainly is evidence for "cause and effect".  Since there are millions who are uninsured, it is very likely that the number could be lower or much higher.  But, after reading the statement below, what does your reasoning tell you?

*Because uninsured adults seek health care less often than insured adults, they are often unaware of health problems such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or early-stage cancer. Uninsured adults are also much less likely to receive vaccinations, cancer screening services such as mammography and colonoscopy, and other effective preventive services. *


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 31, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



Please dont try to put words into my mouth.  Perhaps you should read my post more carefully.   Imperfect people have the right to express opinions and ask questions.  I do the same.  I am bringing up the fact that Bill is a hypocrite.  It would be nice if he were to apply the same standard to himself that he applies to others.  I am not a hypocrite.


----------



## Cryptick` (Oct 31, 2009)

O'Reily is poison...


----------



## rdean (Oct 31, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Correspondent Griff Jenkins Tracks Down Flordia Rep. Alan Grayson - 10/28/09
> ...



During the trial, one of the tapes WAS released.  Bill was on his show calling her a liar and extortionist.  The tape was released where he said, "We need to go get a hotel room and get this thing over with".  Within a week, the case was settled out of court.  

Then there is the case of Shawn Hornbeck.  Shawn was an eleven year old boy grabbed off the streets and raped.  As the rapist wrapped his hands around Shawn's neck to kill him, the boy pleaded and said he would be the guy's slave if he let him live.  The rapist told Shawn that he knew where the kids family lived and would kill them if Shawn ever told or tried to escape.  For 5 years, Shawn lived with this monster until the rapist brought another child home to rape and then kill.  Shawn escaped with the new victim.

Bill said Shawn was having a "good time" and didn't have to go to school.  Bill said Shawn could have left at any time, but was having "too much fun".

Shawn's parents, on national TV, begged Bill to stop saying these things because people believe what Bill says.  They asked Bill to apologize to fix some of the damage he caused.  Instead, Bill simply said, "I'm not going to talk about this anymore", and never apologized.  

Bill, "A Bold Fresh Steaming Piece of Humanity".  No wonder Republicans like and admire him.  A man of convictions who stands behind his words.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 31, 2009)

rdean said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



Bill is a hypocrite.  Though portions of tape may have been revealed, all of the tapes have not all been released. To my knowledge, Andrea Mickris is not at liberty to release the tapes or to tell people how much money she received in the settlement.   Instead of standing firm with his original denial, Bill settled the matter out of court.  Yet, he tells other people to tell the truth and answer questions.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 1, 2009)

paperview said:


> But it would have been nice to see him say "Go fuck yourselves" and that's it.



No, he shoulda just said "loofah", "Andrea Mackris" and "falafel" continuously. Then BillO would be forced to just talk about it without showing this video.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 1, 2009)

Bill O'rly is a douchebag hypocrite and a sleazeball.


But how does this excuse the douchebag sleazeball Grayson again?


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 2, 2009)

rdean said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bullypulpit said:
> ...



And maybe you need to go back and read the study.  They said that they interviewed the respondents one time... one time only.  They did not take into account the fact that many respondents might have been uninsured as of the time of the interview but then picked up insurance after the interview.  That is a big problem with their analysis and heavily skews the results to the numbers your hero, Grayson, likes to spout.

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 2, 2009)

rdean said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



Source? Link? Video clip?


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 2, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii-c1TeWW-s]YouTube - O'Reilly blames teen victim[/ame]


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (Nov 2, 2009)

who gives a fuck.. The truth is anybody who lobbies for the fed IS a whore.  The fed is busy ripping off every person in America.. Theyre fucking you over so bad and most people have no clue...

Before her working for the fed, Linda Robertson used to work for Enron.. Another group of swell honest guys...


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




Oreilly's fan base love their hate for fellow americans above anything else so it doesn't matter what that sick asshole says.....they will not denounce him.  He blames a rape victim, they don't care.  He can even give his blessings for fellow americans to be killed by terrorists and they still don't care.  You oreilly fans are one bunch of sick puppies.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 2, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Ok .... so ... what's the problem?  Bill is not entitled to have an opinion? Oh and he did say that he hoped he was wrong.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!



This from a guy that thinks he can curve light.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!



And you point is? Oh..  that's right.. you have no point to make, just another ad hominem attack. And you have the audacity to speak about intellect. Fact is O'Reilly has every right to his opinion, there was nothing he said that was wrong or over the top.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!


nice way to show everyone what an ass you are
put away that broad brush


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!
> ...




There is nothing wrong with saying it is okay for terrorists to kill Americans?  By that standard nobody could ever say anything that is wrong.  Please learn the definition of an ad hom before complaining about them.  I pointed out the lack of intellectualism by the childish use of posting a picture of cheese.  Or do you consider that intelligent dialogue?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!
> ...



Where did I say I can curve light?  Is this another example of putting words in someone else's mouth just to make a totally useless response?  It's even funnier knowing light can be curved.  

Fyi:

"Scientists curve light" 
http://current.com/items/89353509_scientists-curve-light.htm

*


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!
> ...




Texas is not known for its intellectualism so no broad brush was used.  That isn't to say there are no intellectuals in Texas, it was only pointing out how lonestar's response reinforced the image of Texas lacking intellectualism.  Stop complaining about trivial things and learn how to admit when you are wrong instead of calling people names then scurrying away every time you make a false claim.  Do you realize it is a compliment when someone of your character calls me (or anyone else) silly names?  I'd only get concerned if you wanted to give me a pat on the back. N
ow make yourself feel better and call me another childish name.  It seems to be your only tool.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



O'Reilly didn't say it was ok for terrorist to kill Americans but even if he did he's entitled to have that opinion. And yes you made a personal attack and perhaps you should look up the definition of ad hom.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 3, 2009)

So I guess the question I asked earlier is answered.

It's OK for Grayson to act the way he does because O'Rly is a d-bag. 

I usually hold my elected officials and members on "my side" to a bit higher standard. I guess the same is not true for those on the opposite side of the aisle.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Nobody said he can't have an opinion.  You defend him by saying he said nothing that was wrong so that means you must also believe it is okay for terrorists to attack Americans.  Let's see if you give the same pathetic dance divecon gave.


"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill."
Bill O'Reilly takes aim at San Francisco - MORE NEWS AND FEATURES- msnbc.com


Maybe you can accuse me of hacking into msnbc and putting magic kool-aid into oreilly's coffee to make him say it was okay for terrorists to blow up the Coit Tower.   
You really deeply truly have to hate America to defend someone giving terrorists his blessings to attack an American city.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> So I guess the question I asked earlier is answered.
> 
> It's OK for Grayson to act the way he does because O'Rly is a d-bag.
> 
> I usually hold my elected officials and members on "my side" to a bit higher standard. I guess the same is not true for those on the opposite side of the aisle.




How is it people are upset about this while oreilly can blame rape victims and say it's okay for terrorists to attack America?

I still don't see how oreilly punked grayson.  Can anyone explain that?  Is it because oreilly asked him to come on the factor and he didn't?  Why would anyone waste their time going on that diaper rag?  After all, it's just an opinion show.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess the question I asked earlier is answered.
> ...



Grayson is an elected official. Charged with helping to craft the laws of this country and shaping our future.

O'Retard is a talking head on a cable channel. 

And you act like the two are equal in some way, and O'Rly's actions excuse Graysons.

Puh-leese.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


except you, the assbag you are, are taking it out of context to say something he DIDNT actually say


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


not only that, but he is stretching what O'Reilly said into something he didnt say


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Did grayson say anything as bad as giving his blessings for terrorists to attack america?  Millions more people listen to oreilly than grayson.  What has grayson said that is so bad? K Street whore? So what.  Blood drips from Cheney's teeth?  So what.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



It's sad that you have it completely backwards.

No one should care what O'Falafel said. But should hold elected representatives to a much higher standard.

You are the perfect example of the "my side do or die" that is wrong with politics today.

Enjoy.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Out of context?  Lol.  Is this all you have? Anyone with honest eyes can see what he said.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Grayson is not "my side" so your assumptions are way off.  So what has grayson said that is so wrong?  You seem to not be able to give examples.  This mantra of "higher standards" for elected reps is just empty grand standing.  If you'd take the time to look around you'd realize why.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



WTF? Srsly? You want to continue to prove my point?

Comparing Dick Cheney to a Vampire?

K -Street whore?

Comparing healthcare to the Holocaust?

Saying that Republicans just want people to die quickly?


The guy is a joke and a disgrace, and can't seem to do anything but make tasteless jokes when he is supposed to be a lawmaker. Not a stand-up comedian. 

And what is even further disgraceful is that you don't see that there is a need to hold elected officials to a higher standard than empty-suit pundits. But I guess that makes sense in a way, since you are defending an empty suit who got himself elected.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I didn't know he compared healthcare to the holocaust nor that he said Republicans want people to die quickly.  If it is true I would agree those are over the line but the other two things are manufactured outrage.  He didn't compare cheney to a vampire....it looked more like he was making a comment about how cheney is personally and directly responsible for all the bloodshed from his imperial agendas.  Here you are bitching about holding politicians to a higher standard of language while we are guilty of killing so many people.  Nice priorities.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Are you seriously saying you can't recognize satire when you see it? 



> O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."
> And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJm6LLq43w]YouTube - Bill O'Reilly attacks American Citizens[/ame]

Context context context.

I figured you for an idiot, and from the looks of it I was right.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> I didn't know he compared healthcare to the holocaust nor that he said Republicans want people to die quickly.  If it is true I would agree those are over the line but the other two things are manufactured outrage.  He didn't compare cheney to a vampire....it looked more like he was making a comment about how cheney is personally and directly responsible for all the bloodshed from his imperial agendas.



Are you really this clueless?

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: &#8220;By the way, I have trouble listening to what [Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he&#8217;s talking, but my response is this: he&#8217;s just angry because the president doesn&#8217;t shoot old men in the face. But by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?&#8221;



> Here you are bitching about holding politicians to a higher standard of language while we are guilty of killing so many people.  Nice priorities.



If you were capable of any sort of cognitive and logical reasoning, you would realize that elected officials need to be held to a higher standard of debate *BECAUSE* they have the responsibility in life and death matters across the globe. But I just realize that no one has ever accused you of being logical and cognitive. So maybe it's not your fault.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




I love how you had to post oreilly trying to spin what he said into mere "satire."  do you realize he was serious when he said it?  Have you ever listened to the original broadcast?  No.  Instead of the truth you hunt for a way to defend oreilly saying it's okay for terrorists to attack America.  Your "context" defense is not very original.  I'm sure divecon will be here soon to rally around your garbage because insecure people always find strength in numbers.  Like I said before, fox fans will ALWAYS find a way to worship that network.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 3, 2009)

"Like I said before, fox fans will ALWAYS find a way to worship that network." - CurveLight

...and those opposed will always look for spin.  Taking the work of O'Reily in total, it is clear that he would not endorse terrorists attacking the US or our interests for that manner.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes I listened to the original broadcast, did you? And like I said you are an idiot for not recognizing satirical humor.  He'ssaying that if San Francisco didn' twant to support the military then why should the militry lift a finger to help them


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know he compared healthcare to the holocaust nor that he said Republicans want people to die quickly.  If it is true I would agree those are over the line but the other two things are manufactured outrage.  He didn't compare cheney to a vampire....it looked more like he was making a comment about how cheney is personally and directly responsible for all the bloodshed from his imperial agendas.
> ...




Did you see when I asked a few posts ago for you to post what he said?  I was not aware about the bat comment....gee......could that be why I asked for you to post what he said?  Then you want to follow up with divecon style ad homs?  Lol!

Take your self righteous pontificating somewhere you can fool yourself enough into believing it matters.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I'm sorry. I made the mistake of thinking you were well informed. I won't do it again.

And since you are not well informed, I will just assume that all opinions coming from you are based in ignorance as well.

Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




So you listened to the original broadcast?  That means you purposefully chose to post oreilly's attempt to spin it to satire versus the original broadcast.  Is that because in the original it's clear it wasn't satirical?

San francisco never said they would "support the military" so on top of spinning oreilly you have to lie as well?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




You are some really pathetic people.  Find a way to blame everyone else when you screw up.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I though that is what you were doing? Where did I screw up? 

Oh, nevermind. More opinions based in ignorance from you. I forgot.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> "Like I said before, fox fans will ALWAYS find a way to worship that network." - CurveLight
> 
> ...and those opposed will always look for spin.  Taking the work of O'Reily in total, it is clear that he would not endorse terrorists attacking the US or our interests for that manner.




You were wrong about not being able to curve light and you are wrong about this because of silly assumptions.  I've already defended Fox in a different thread when it was accused of lying on something it didnt.  Want to make any more assumptions?  You're 0-2 right now.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The original was aired on the radio and I haven't found a transcript of it. But any reasonable American would know that O'Reilly wasn't seriously suggesting terrorist attack San Francisco, but you in your delusional mind cannot grasp logic nor reason. I pity you.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...





You screwed up when I asked you to post what grayson said and you skipped that for a few posts then try to jump on someone else when he already admitted he did not know everything grayson had said.  Smooth.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




I never said oreilly suggested terrorists to attack san francisco.  Save your pity for those who need it.  Start with those incapable of reading simple posts.  I said he said it was okay if they did.  

So you listened to the original broadcast but chose not to link it?  No need.  Like a few others absolutely incapable of admitting error or finding fault with fox you'll keep up the kiddie dance.  Have fun!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Like I said, I pity you.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You said you listened to the original broadcast.

You said you hadn't found the original transcript.  I already posted a link to the original.  Like I said, save your pity for those who deserve and need it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The only link I've seen from you in this thread is the one from MSNBC, that's hardly the original. Oh you need and deserve all the pity you can get.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Did you click on the link and actually read it?  I know you didn't because if you had you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself repeatedly.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes I read it and listened to the excerpt, hell I even posted the quote myself. But you need the entire fucking transcript to fully understand the context and that is not provided and I haven't been able to obtain it.  Look it's a free country and you're free to stay as ignorant as you choose. If you think that Bill wouldn't care if terrorist struck San Francisco then you are as stupid as you are ignorant.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



He said it 4 years ago so maybe he now realizes how wrong it was.  Don't know and it doesn't matter.  The point has always been fox fans don't give a fuck what that network puts out so long as the hate is properly directed and you are helping to prove that.  

All msm sucks and is pro government but fox makes its money off of hate filled nationalists who don't have the first fucking clue of what our Constitution represents.  Oreilly made the comments at a time when it was a daily practice for the war supporters to accuse dissenters of hating america and loving terrorists.  Go ahead and continue parading this pathetic context approach.  Why not? You already lied when you said you listened to the original broadcast.  If you had you wouldve provided a link and if you want to try and spin that to say you meant you listened to it on that day then you wouldn't need to hunt for the rest of the original for your "context" savior.   I heard the original broadcast and remember exactly where I was and what I was doing because it was so fucked up to realize the hate from the pro war crowd had reached such insane levels that oreilly knew he wouldn't be in any danger of losing fans or money.  People like you help cheer it on. Congratulations.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You're seriously stuck on stupid. As I've stated, anyone of reason knows that O"Reilly was being facetious when he made those comments. But obviously you are too fucking dense to understand it. You actually take O'Reilly literally and that makes you very stupid.


----------



## Polk (Nov 3, 2009)

Grayson's comments are "controversial" because Republicans don't like their tactics being used against them.


----------



## stevecox (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar Logic said:
			
		

> You're seriously stuck on stupid. As I've stated, anyone of reason knows that O"Reilly was being facetious when he made those comments. But obviously you are too fucking dense to understand it. You actually take O'Reilly literally and that makes you very stupid.



Maybe you didn't get the memo that only liberals are allowed to have a sense of humor.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




You still fail to understand.  At the time it was clear he was not simply being satirical and even in the spin off piece from him you posted he straight up said it was a "serious point."  For the last time, the problem is his fan base had no problem with it.  This was 4 years after 9/11 so if you really think it was just a joke then by all means, cling to whatever you desire to justify his crap.  Go ahead and say how dumb I am cause it sure helps prove your point.  Take away ad homs and most people in here would be near mute.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

stevecox said:


> Lonestar Logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe you didn't get the memo that says you aren't a mind reader and that nobody has said it's okay to even joke about terrorists attacking americans.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> Grayson's comments are "controversial" because Republicans don't like their tactics being used against them.



Iam a Republican and I don't care to a certain degree.  If he said Republicans want people to die faster then he was wrong for such a horribly dishonest broadbrush. (if divecon feels the need to chime in let me remind you Texas is not known for its intellectualism.  A hurtful truth doesn't make it untrue.) 

So far a good portion looks like manufactured outrage.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Including yourself.

Tell me what is life like when you take everything literally?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Grayson's comments are "controversial" because Republicans don't like their tactics being used against them.
> ...



If it is true then you should be able to provide proof.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Lol.....when did I commit an ad hom?  I don't take everything literally.  Is this your new oreilly defense?  Figures.  Making false accusations is nothing new when you can't discuss an issue.  Did you ever explain how you listened to the original broadcast yet couldn't provide a link for it?  Maybe you can invent an ad hom out of that and ignore it!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




You mean besides linking your posts? True, that would be an unfair extrapolation.  So let's see.....

TexasOnline: Official Portal of Texas

Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We all know Texas is known for several things such as bbq, oil, inability to defend its borders, racism, and let's not forget the love of guns and the celebration of killing unarmed people.  But intellectualism? Not even close.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Issue has been discussed, you took O'Reilly's hyperbole literally and it isn't  a false accusation. It's a fact. You have no idea what an ad hom is, do you?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Still waiting on your proof!


----------



## Polk (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Grayson's comments are "controversial" because Republicans don't like their tactics being used against them.
> ...



It's childish, and I'd agree with that. Is it really any different though from when Republicans call people who are pro-choice "baby killers"? Not really.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




So you can't explain how you listened to the original broadcast yet couldn't provide a link?  

I asked you to show where I did an ad hom and just like the above question, you keep dodging like you're training for the Running of the Bulls.  How many more times will you dodge?

Oreilly didn't backpedal on what he said until he realized it was over the line and here are some of his loyal followers making false claims to defend him no matter what.  So you find it a-okay to say (even IF in hyperbole) it's okay for terrorists to attack americans? It is obvious you have no problem with it since you've defended oreilly from every possible and ridiculous angle.  Congratulations.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




I've already provided the official Texas State homepage and the wiki link.  Neither of them show anything anywhere near Texas being known for intellectualism.  We all know it isn't.  Maybe you can post another picture of cheese?  C'mon and dazzle us! Lol.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




No and there is a clear double standard in play from the Christian Right/Neocons who use that term or say war critics hate america, hate our troops, etc.  It's also why that camp helps produce psychotic killers (adkisson Tenn. Terrorist church attack) who parrot talking heads like oreilly/hannity and have to literally fabricate attacks, like the fake carved B victim.  I absolutely hate it my Party has been infiltrated by these parasite type policies.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I've already explained why I didn't provide a link. As for the ad hom attack, I'm not in the habit of pointing out the obvious. I'm not defending Bill, I'm pointing out the fact that he was using hyperbole to make a valid point. And that point is if you don't want military recruiters around then why should you expect military help if and when it's needed. Fact is it wasn't meant to be taken literally, which you can't seem to comprehend, hence the pity I have for you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Your claim is that Texas is not known for it's intellectualism, you haven't provided any evidence that supports that claim. You have to prove that Texans have an inability to learn and reason, to think abstractly or profoundly. Or that Texans don't have the capacity for knowledge and understanding. 

Fact is the first semi-conductor was invented here as was the one-transistor Dynamic Random Access Memory or DRAM. Even the first electric typwriter was invented here in Texas as was the artificial heart, MTV, Microchips, Automated Traffic Lights, Car Radio, Heart-Lung Machines, MASH hospitals, Typewriter Correction Fluid.

When one considers where would the world be without Texans, there are some surprising answers. Many modern inventions and products that we use daily are due to the work of Texans.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Where did you explain how you listened to the original broadcast yet couldn't provide a link?  This is what....the fourth request?  Ignore it again just like your false accusation I did an ad hom.  

The citizens of San francisco never voted to ban the military recruiters from their city so how was oreilly making a valid point by saying it was okay for terrorists to blow up the Coit Tower?  It's good to see your false accusations are not limited to some random poster on a forum.  You will even falsely accuse a whole city if it can give you a whisper of hope for defending your latest laughable claim.  Don't you have any more neato pictures of cheese to post?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Are you that stupid? Wait, you don't have to answer that, it's obvious as hell. I've already told your dumbass that I couldn't find the transcript therefore NO LINK!  

By a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent, *San Francisco's voters *told military recruiters to stay out of the city's high schools.

San Fran Voters Oppose Military Recruiters' School Access


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Lol.  Do I have to provide the post number where I clearly said saying Texas not being known for its intellectualism doesn't mean there are no intellectuals there? (man, doesn't it suck when you think you have a "gotcha!" moment only to realize.....ooops! Spoke too soon!)


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Your claim is that Texas is not known for it's intellectualism, you haven't provided any evidence that supports that claim. You have to prove that Texans have an inability to learn and reason, to think abstractly or profoundly. Or that Texans don't have the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
> 
> Fact is the first semi-conductor was invented here as was the one-transistor Dynamic Random Access Memory or DRAM. Even the first electric typwriter was invented here in Texas as was the artificial heart, MTV, Microchips, Automated Traffic Lights, Car Radio, Heart-Lung Machines, MASH hospitals, Typewriter Correction Fluid.
> 
> When one considers where would the world be without Texans, there are some surprising answers. Many modern inventions and products that we use daily are due to the work of Texans.



I just have to ask, are you saying all those things were developed BY Texans as opposed to IN Texas?  You sure that it wasn't all those Californians that came to visit the beautiful Texas wasteland and didn't go home that developed all those things?  

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Actually you've shown yourself to be completely ignorant. Fact is Texas is known for it's many inventions and innovations from the artificial heart to can milk. I bet you hated to have this ol' Texas boy prove you wrong!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




You claimed you listened to the original broadcast so you should have been able to provide a link to that.  Or did you stick your ear to some time traveling speaker?  That's when I pointed out you chose to post oreilly's backpedal instead of the original.  So how did you listen to the original? We already know you didn't actually listen to it the day of the broadcast four years ago.

Did you actually read either of those links? One more time:

San

Francisco

Never

Banned

Military 

Recruiters

From

Their 

City.

They

Didn't

Even

Ban

Them

From

One

School.

You provided the evidence of that in your links...even the neocon rag doesn't support your defense.  

Maybe it will make you feel better to imply I am stupid again? Between that, your cheese pics, false accusations about me, false accusations about San Francisco, and completely obliterated attempt to defend oreilly, you sure are making a good case for why you should be accusing anyone of anything. Or. Maybe. Not.  Whaddyauthink?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Your claim is that Texas is not known for it's intellectualism, you haven't provided any evidence that supports that claim. You have to prove that Texans have an inability to learn and reason, to think abstractly or profoundly. Or that Texans don't have the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
> ...



I'm not sure if every one of these folks mentioned were native Texans or they just happen to be in Texas when their respective invention/innovation was produced. But I'm fairly certain that most were. Keep in mind that this is a country of immigrants and many people transplanted themselves here from other states. My point is that Texas has it's share of intellectuals and is known for many of the inventions/innovations I mentioned.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I was just ing you.

A statement like Texas in not known for its intellectualism is using a mighty broad brush.

It was a silly statement and I hope said in jest.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 

Person A has position X. 

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 

Person B attacks position Y. 

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. 
Fallacy: Straw Man



I never said Texans never invented anything.  Do you see your strawman fallacy?  Wait....move the cheese pics and try to look again.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Fact is San Francisco voters voted to ban military recruitment, just becuase it was a non-binding measure doesn't take away the fact that voters opposed military recruitment in their schools. Damn you are stupid!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




Texas is not known for its intellectualism.  That is not a broad brush at all and if more people got off of their politically correct high horses they would admit when they think of Texas many things come to mind.....intellectualism is not one of them.  This is no different than saying danny devito is not known for his basketball dunking skills.  It's just common knowledge.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You can call it whatever you want, fact is I kicked your ass and proved you to be the idiot that you are.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




No.  They did not vote to ban recruiters.  If that is what they voted on then the recruiters would have been banned.  So you can't provide a link to the supposed original broadcast you claimed to have listened to, can't show where I did ad homs so much I'd be near mute if they were not allowed, can't show where san francisco banned recruiters, thus removing your entire defense of oreilly's blessings for terrorists to attack an american city, and oh what's the use?  You've already demonstrated a total inability to be honest or admit when you made a mistake.  Is accusing someone of being damn stupid an ad hom? Rotfl! You should have stuck with your affinity to post pics of cheese!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



ROTFL!!!!  You kicked my ass by showing some inventions that came out of Texas?  Did you forget I never claimed no inventions came out of Texas?  Is this how you claim victory? By declaring something that was never there?  Lol!  Keep going! You are really helping prove my point with every post and every childish name you type.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Your concession is duly noted.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




So onto your list of false accusations you wish to add another one.  Why not? It's not like you have an honorable reputation in danger of being tarnished.  Is that why you don't care how many dishonest statements you make?  Must be nice to not care like that......


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You still crying? Silly troll!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




There it is!  The always classy method of calling someone a troll when you cannot defend anything you have claimed.  The only honest part of your posts in this thread are the time stamps.  Maybe you should try to focus on them?  It would be a lot better than going from posting pics of cheese to calling someone a troll.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I've answered your asinine questions already, it's not my fault you can't accept or understand the answers. So how does it feel to have this ol' Texas redneck outwit you?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Holy shit man, you just make stuff up as you go and hope nobody is paying attention.  You didn't answer anything but only contradicted yourself several times and made several false accusations.  But hey, this might be your only refuge so don't let me spoil your little fantasy world.  Have fun!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



That is ridiculous Curvelight.  Name a place you can honestly claim "intellectualism" comes to mind when you think of it.  You'll probably say, "Harvard" or "Yale" or some other Ivy League school, but you wont say a state or a country, because states and countries are too broad for such things.

People classify areas such as the NorthEast as being arrogant, DC as being corrupt and southerners as being backwards rednecks but where would you really think of an area that is "intellectual" and give a reason for believing so too, please?  

By the way, anything you come up with is just going to be stereotypical BS, much like the broad strokes you painted with earlier.

Immie

PS, I'm not from Texas.  I don't even like Texas.  Haven't lost a thing there and if I don't make it back there in this life time, I'm not going to cry about it.

PPS Sorry, Lonestar, but your state is boring.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Reading comprehension seems to be too difficult for you. Perhaps I should include more pictures and less words then you may be able to follow along. But I doubt it!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

That it? That's all you have left? Childish insults.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> That it? That's all you have left? Childish insults.



Truth hurts huh?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Does intellectualism come to mind when you think of Texas?  Simple yes or no.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I think you should answer my question first rather than avoiding it.  

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



It's all good Immie. I would agree that some parts of this state can be very boring, it all boils down to location, location, location.....


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




I'm not avoiding anything but a poor attempt at distraction.  One more time:  I said Texas is not known for its intellectualism.  That is my claim.  One way to prove that is to ask: does intellectualism come to mind when you think of Texas?  That's a simple yes or no question so why can't you answer it?  Is it because we know the answer is "no" thereby putting down your politically correct high horse?  But, to help prove even your distraction is empty I will point out I see places like Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, England, Germany, China, Japan, and Austria as being known for intellectualism.  Will you try to distract some more or will you be courteous and answer the question?


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I should not have to answer your question for a third time.

Actually, I was extremely courteous... much more so than you have been to me in this post and others in this thread and if you even had a basic understanding of the English Language, you would understand by my previous answers that I don't believe there is any place that one thinks of "intellectualism" when they think of the place, Texas or otherwise.   I sure as hell, was not attacking your points of view.  

I asked you a simple quetion which until this post you avoided.  This board is for discussion right?

You also did not complete the answer... I asked for your reasoning.

I guess you think all Greeks and Romans and the others you mentioned are more intellectual than people from other times and regions, but as I asked before... why, give your reasons.  

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




So since you personally don't relate intellectualism that means my claim about Texas is wrong?  It would seem then your answer to my question would be "no."  Which is exactly the conclusion of my claim.  You agree with my conclusion but wish to nitpick the path?  For what purpose?  

No I do not see the ancient greeks or romans as being more intellectual than than all other people.  Just like lonestar you make the mistake of rewriting my claim then pounce on your edited version.  You asked for places and I named some in no particular order.  Now you want to interrogate why I associate intellectualism with certain regions?  Okay, it's quite simple.  The same reasons many people associate chocolate with Hershey, Pennsylvania.  Do you realize Germany is a major source for Protestant theology?  That most of Western Philosophy is anchored in disciplines engendered in ancient greece?  Maybe you can impress us some more by saying how troublesome it is for someone like you to have to communicate with someone like me who doesn't even have a basic understanding of the english language.  Sparkle sparkle! Lol


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I don't believe I claimed you were wrong.  I believe I asked you why you thought such a thing and I said that you were painting with a mighty broad brush.

I'm sorry... maybe this is not a discussion board.  Maybe we should simply take the almighty Curvelight's word for everything and maybe you should post as a blog and we should simply read your omniscient writings.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




I once drove from El Paso all the way through to the eastern side of Texas into Arkansas.  I believe on total it took about 20 hours, 3 or 4 speeding tickets I never paid, 850 cups of coffee, and searching for radio stations that weren't playing mariachi or early hank williams.  But, I did have a really fun stop over in Dallas.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




So in post 169 when you said:

"That is ridiculous Curvelight.  Name a place you can honestly claim "intellectualism" comes to mind when you think of it.  You'll probably say, "Harvard" or "Yale" or some other Ivy League school, but you wont say a state or a country, because states and countries are too broad for such things."


You weren't saying I was wrong?  Okey dokey!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, I was saying I don't agree with you.

Big difference.

If I was saying that you were wrong, I would say something like, "You don't know what the fuck you are talking about." and then I would have presented facts as to why Texas is known for its intellectualism.

Big difference.

Immie

PS What part of DISCUSSION BOARD don't you understand?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




You tried to say I was wrong on the basis I would only be able to name Harvard or Yale or Ivy league schools as places associated with intellectualism because that is too broad to apply to Nations or States.  I responded by giving examples of nations known for their intellectualism.  Now you want to backpedal and claim you never said I was wrong.  Classy.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, I said I disagreed with you and gave my reasons for why I disagree with you and then I asked you to answer a question.  This is a discussion board not a board for calling people from Texas idiotic names.  If you can't handle discussion, maybe you need to go to DU.com where everyone will agree with you?

It also took you three posts I believe before you came back with your answer.

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


this one has a history of misreading posts here


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



There was no need to prove your stupidity, but thanks for sharing.


----------



## Zona (Nov 4, 2009)

You guys are funny, you think BillO punked Grayson?  LOL


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 4, 2009)

Zona said:


> You guys are funny, you think BillO punked Grayson?  LOL



Read the thread title dumbass.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




Geez dude.  Please show a single post where I called Texans even one idiotic name?  You obviously don't care about people slinging childish names because you have not criticized a single post itt that I am aware of where name calling occurred.  So what do you do?  Ignore those posts only to falsely accuse someone of name calling.  

Now you want to split hairs to try and avoid admitting you said I was wrong into just saying you "disagree?"   what's worse.....the obvious double standard or the inability to admit you made a mistake when you claimed nobody can reference a nation in connection with being known for intellectualism?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are funny, you think BillO punked Grayson?  LOL
> ...




Another beaming example of fine intellect from the lone star!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You and L_L were making idiots out of yourselves.  I simply attempted to bring the discussion back to a peaceful conversation.  Knowing L_L and how he is when he gets a wild hair up his ass, I thought that you might actually be reasonable and maybe the discussion could come back from name-calling, which you did plenty of throughtout this thread, and a decent conversation could be reignited... I suppose that thinking you were reasonable was an error on my part.

Grow some thicker skin if you can't handle people disagreeing with you.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




One mo' time.....please point to a single post where I called anyone a name.  It's so funny you are trying to lecture anyone about getting thicker skin!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> One mo' time.....please point to a single post where I called anyone a name.  It's so funny you are trying to lecture anyone about getting thicker skin!



Here is the last example: It was so difficult to find.

You have been acting like this through most of the tread.  You don't call this example, name-calling?



CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



True, you didn't call him an idiot in so few words, but basically you were calling him an idiot.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CL,

Every bit of your discussion in this thread having to do with "Texas Intellectualism" or the lack there of, was name-calling.  You were insinuating that L_L was an idiot.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CL,
> 
> Every bit of your discussion in this thread having to do with "Texas Intellectualism" or the lack there of, was name-calling.  You were insinuating that L_L was an idiot.
> 
> Immie





So you can't point to a single time when I called anyone a name?  Yet you ignore all the stupid name calling that was actually done.  Take your hypocrisy on vacation....or at least a 3-Day weekend.  Hell, maybe even a lunch break?

While you're doing that could you explain how you can say you disagree with someone but at the same time are not saying they are wrong?  How does that go? 

"I disagree with you but you are correct!" lol


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > One mo' time.....please point to a single post where I called anyone a name.  It's so funny you are trying to lecture anyone about getting thicker skin!
> ...




No I was not calling him an idiot in any form.  Your accusation is a petty attempt to justify what you know is not true.  It's funny how you complain about name calling but here you focus on the one who didn't call anyone any names.  Classy.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > One mo' time.....please point to a single post where I called anyone a name.  It's so funny you are trying to lecture anyone about getting thicker skin!
> ...




No I was not calling him an idiot in any form.  Your accusation is a petty attempt to justify what you know is not true.  It's funny how you complain about name calling but here you focus on the one who didn't call anyone any names ans completely ignore the one who did. Classy.

(since I'm lacking a basic understanding of English could anyone please help others understand there is a big difference between commenting on a post and a person. Yes, when I pointed out Immie's hypocrisy that was comment about the post and the person.)

Love ya! Thanks!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CL,
> ...



What the fuck are you?  A fifth grader?

Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that they are wrong.  It is pointing out that you don't agree with them and asking them to explain their position.  Later you can determine whether or not they are wrong.  

Your whole attack of L_L has been name calling.  Are you not intelligent enough to figure that out?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Now you are a liar.

Nor are you intelligent enough to know what the word hypocrisy means.  No where have I excused L_L's behavior.  I simply have argued enough with him to know that discussing his name calling of you with him would about as effective as banging your head up against a wall.  

I had the mistaken impression that you were intelligent enough to discuss things openly and not in the whiny way you have presented yourself through this entire conversation.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




Hahhaaa.  Dude you are a riot!  You proclaimed nobody can refer to any nation or state as being known for intellectualism.  You didn't simply ask for an explanation. You made a fucking claim that you can't back up so now you're following lonestar's footsteps and have resorted to calling people names.  Bravo!  

(it's even funnier you keep accusing me of calling people names yet you can't point to one single time I have done that.)

It's like you guys need a clubhouse arm patch or something to let other posters know when a PPA!* is in effect.  That way you will save others time by letting them know you will make claims about arguments and people but if you cannot support those claims or if you are proven wrong, you will roll on and pretend nothing has happened.  Nope.  You will not retract nor concede.


*Purple Panty Alert


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that they are wrong.  It is pointing out that you don't agree with them and asking them to explain their position.  Later you can determine whether or not they are wrong.
> 
> Immie



I thought maybe you could back up your statements about Texas not being known for its intellectualism, but it appears that about the only thing you know how to do is make unwarranted attacks of people and you are not man enough to back them up.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

immanuel said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > immanuel said:
> ...




ppa!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I've pointed to several times that you called him names.  You just don't have the intellectual or moral backbone to admit that you are as guilty as he is.

Nor do you have the intellectual ability to back up your claims. 

You are the one who made a claim that you can't back up.  It was you that claimed Texans were not known for their intellectualism.  Lonestar posted a response to that showing that Texans have made intellectual contributions, yet, you can't back up your false claims yet you still claim victory?  I asked you to back it up.  In other words, you were called out and you have most definitely failed in backing up your claims.

You must be a liberal... every liberal I have ever met believes that they have the right to make a claim and not prove it... others have to disprove it.  The burden of proof... do you know what that is?  The burden of proof falls on you, because you made the claim.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...



You have once again been reduced to personal attacks.  Is that the best you can do?

It is alright, CL, if you can't back up your claims just admit it.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




You're now referring to lonestar's strawman? Rotfl!  Did you see where I pointed out I never said Texas has never made inventions or contributions?

I have already proven my claim but maybe you will continue to be dishonest?  

One more time.......

I SAID TEXAS IS NOT KNOWN FOR ITS INTELLECTUALISM.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE ARE NO INTELLECTUAL TEXANS.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN NO INVENTIONS HAVE COME OUT OF TEXAS.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN ALL TEXANS ARE DUMB.




PPA!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You still have not backed up your opinions with one SINGLE OUNCE OF PROOF.

Do you know what proof is?

Do you know who has the burden of proof in this case?

No, I don't think you are capable of understanding that your opinion means JACK SHIT.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > immanuel said:
> ...



It's not a personal attack to point out you comfuckingpletely ignore it when you are proven wrong.  That is what makes you a PPA! member.  Don't blame me...your own arrogance and false claims have paid the club dues.  Congratulations!

You'll still be stewing over this long after I've quit caring.   Which was a while ago........


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You don't have the moral backbone to admit that you made a claim that you can never back up.  

You have not proven anything.  You still have presented nothing but opinions.  

Immie


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



It common sense Texas is not known for intellectualism.  What do people think of when they think of Texas?  Oil, bbq, rodeos.....oh wait......I've already pointed all of this out.  I've posted links to official Texas State websites and have given plenty of examples.  You've got such a personal bent on this I could give ten thousand examples and you would still claim I haven't backed up my claim.  Even though I have pointed out why nations can be linked with intellectualism after you said that cannot be done.  So I tell ya what.....I don't care if you continue to lie and say I have not supported the claim. If anyone with an ounce of self respect comes along I will be happy to give them the post numbers.  You? Lol.....and save your girly-man rep comments for your PPA! clubhouse notes.  Respect is earned.  Is not taken by force, threat, or patronizing.  Now have fun!


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

Would you like some help in learning how to prove your claims?

It is not all that hard to do.  Here are three opinion pieces that seem to agree with you and it wasn't all that difficult to find either!  Except you don't have the intellectual honesty to even try to back up your opinions.  You expect others to do it for you.

Is Texas America?



> If you want to understand George W. Bush--unlike his daddy, an unfortunate example of a truly Texas-identified citizen--you have to stretch your imagination around a weird Texas amalgam: religion, anti-intellectualism and machismo.



Opinion: George W.'s anti-intellectualism



> For George W. to wrap himself in the cowhide mantle of LBJ's anti-intellectualism certainly reinforces his Texas credentials



Texas: The End of Laissez Faire Education



> The answer to this question lies in the history of the state, in its culture, economy and way of life. There simply has been little pressure--until now--to do better. The economy did not need large numbers of well-educated people. An innate anti-intellectualism scorned education for the sake of education. The Texan Way of Life could be preserved if large numbers of blacks and Hispanics were kept out of institutions of higher education, or at least the best institutions. For those in positions of power, developing a piece of land held greater value than developing the mind.



All of those were easy to find on Google.  I'm sure if I wanted to take the time, I could find some opinions to the contrary, but I'm not that interested.



CurveLight said:


> It common sense Texas is not known for intellectualism.  What do people think of when they think of Texas?  Oil, bbq, rodeos.....oh wait......I've already pointed all of this out.  I've posted links to official Texas State websites and have given plenty of examples.  You've got such a personal bent on this I could give ten thousand examples and you would still claim I haven't backed up my claim.  Even though I have pointed out why nations can be linked with intellectualism after you said that cannot be done.  So I tell ya what.....I don't care if you continue to lie and say I have not supported the claim. If anyone with an ounce of self respect comes along I will be happy to give them the post numbers.  You? Lol.....and save your girly-man rep comments for your PPA! clubhouse notes.  Respect is earned.  Is not taken by force, threat, or patronizing.  Now have fun!



What you think is "common sense" is not proof.  For the record, you cannot use your opinion of common sense for proof of your own claim.

Give me one post number where you backed up your claims, or once again, I would have to say you are a liar.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Did anybody need a reminder Texas is not known for its intellectualism? Lol...thanks lonestar!  Now that you have demonstrated the ability to copy and paste a picture, you have Graduated!  That's right folks!  Soon he will dazzle us all with copying actual recognizable words!  Maybe he can type some of his own? Nah.....that's asking too much!



For the record, you attacked Lonestar first.  This was your second post in the thread and came after he asked you if you wanted cheese with your whine and you have not stopped whining since.

You don't call that an attack?  You don't call that name-calling?

Oh and hang on, I'm still going through the thread looking for any "proof" you might have presented.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2009)

More unwarranted attacks by CL then after these, L_L finally got tired and started pushing back... oh and wasn't it CL, that made the claim earlier in the thread that other people were always looking for others to blame?  Yes, it was... I'll post the quote if you like.



CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Finally!  Wikipedia!! Now there is a great piece of opinionated proof for you.  Doing a search on intellectual, I came up with nothing!  I did not bother to read the whole thing so maybe CL can curve some more spin our way and tell us how this backs up his statement?

I didn't see any proof in Portals of Texas either but wouldn't expect the official portal of Texas to provide proof that Texas is not known for its intellectualism.  Epic Fail, CL.



CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



edit: Ah well, I have read every post in here by CL, and not found a single ounce of proof of his claims except for the proof that I provided for him.  /shrugs

Immie


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 7, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So yer saying I screwed up because someone was ignorant?

Oooooh-kay.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 7, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yeah, you quit caring so much that you keep on hitting reply and everyone can see the steam coming out of your ears each time. Ya....right.

You were backed into a corner by Immie, and we can all see it. Which begs the question, why make your embarrassment so public?


----------

