What if Glenn Beck is Actually Mentally Retarded?

[REVxERIK]

Actually, what we really need is a straight no agenda driven pure news outlet. Unfortunately, that is impossible to achieve. Any such outlet would need to be funded by someone and with funding comes an agenda. Who pays the piper, picks the tune.

it could go all pbs on our asses.

That's the plan of Mark Lloyd ("Diversity Czar") at the FCC. His role model for media is Venuezula.... wonderful. PBS.... government controlled media. Is that what you think will solve our news problem. Because I sure as hell don't. In fact, it is the worst possible outcome but it is possible that it will happen.

As we speak, plans are moving to silence talk radio. And it is quite likely to succeed.

i meant more like the pledge thing they do... you know a station sponsored by the people, so no one entity dictates the verbatim. government controlled media is not apealing to me i assure you.

 

[California Girl]

it could go all pbs on our asses.

That's the plan of Mark Lloyd ("Diversity Czar") at the FCC. His role model for media is Venuezula.... wonderful. PBS.... government controlled media. Is that what you think will solve our news problem. Because I sure as hell don't. In fact, it is the worst possible outcome but it is possible that it will happen.

As we speak, plans are moving to silence talk radio. And it is quite likely to succeed.

i meant more like the pledge thing they do... you know a station sponsored by the people, so no one entity dictates the verbatim. government controlled media is not apealing to me i assure you.

Great theory. Can't work in practice. Who funds it? The people. How? Taxes? Nope, cuz they'd go to the state - or worse, federal!! - government and then they control the agenda. I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust our politicians to tell me the time, yet alone the truth! So, no, it can't go through government. So, how? Some Not-for-profit? Nope, look what happened with ACORN etc.

We could look to the UK for an example - the BBC. Paid for via a license fee. Everyone who owns a tv set pays a fee and that fee goes to the BBC. The BBC has a lot of problems - one of which is that it is seen as a government mouthpiece at times but, generally, it is a potential way forward. As long as privately owned news is not forced out of the market, that would be okay. The problem I see, is that it is practically impossible to trust our government not to try to 'influence' that kind of set up in the US. I mean, look how badly Obama behaves at one news outlet who dares speak ill of him?

 

[REVxERIK]

That's the plan of Mark Lloyd ("Diversity Czar") at the FCC. His role model for media is Venuezula.... wonderful. PBS.... government controlled media. Is that what you think will solve our news problem. Because I sure as hell don't. In fact, it is the worst possible outcome but it is possible that it will happen.

As we speak, plans are moving to silence talk radio. And it is quite likely to succeed.

i meant more like the pledge thing they do... you know a station sponsored by the people, so no one entity dictates the verbatim. government controlled media is not apealing to me i assure you.

Great theory. Can't work in practice. Who funds it? The people. How? Taxes? Nope, cuz they'd go to the state - or worse, federal!! - government and then they control the agenda. I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust our politicians to tell me the time, yet alone the truth! So, no, it can't go through government. So, how? Some Not-for-profit? Nope, look what happened with ACORN etc.

We could look to the UK for an example - the BBC. Paid for via a license fee. Everyone who owns a tv set pays a fee and that fee goes to the BBC. The BBC has a lot of problems - one of which is that it is seen as a government mouthpiece at times but, generally, it is a potential way forward. As long as privately owned news is not forced out of the market, that would be okay. The problem I see, is that it is practically impossible to trust our government not to try to 'influence' that kind of set up in the US. I mean, look how badly Obama behaves at one news outlet who dares speak ill of him?

that reminds me i wait your response on the magic button thread. i like discussing with you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

saying "i'm going to do this" and not doing "this" is a lie

Situations change and shit happens. There have been many times I promised my kids I'd take them horseback riding, but due to factors beyond my control, like a storm blowing in or being called out to work made it impossible to keep said promises. Now does that make me a liar? You are beginning to sound more like gaybikershitforbrains with every post. (not an insult, just an observation)

your situation is different. you have a legit reason. what is his reason for it?

Ask him.

 

[REVxERIK]

Situations change and shit happens. There have been many times I promised my kids I'd take them horseback riding, but due to factors beyond my control, like a storm blowing in or being called out to work made it impossible to keep said promises. Now does that make me a liar? You are beginning to sound more like gaybikershitforbrains with every post. (not an insult, just an observation)

your situation is different. you have a legit reason. what is his reason for it?

Ask him.

of all the questions i have for o'reilly, i think that would be at the bottom.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

your situation is different. you have a legit reason. what is his reason for it?

Ask him.

of all the questions i have for o'reilly, i think that would be at the bottom.

Well you never proved he made any such promise in the first place. Until then, I regard this as an assumption on your part. Promises are generally made with good intentions, but not all promises can be kept with reasonable justification for the most part.

 

[REVxERIK]

Ask him.

of all the questions i have for o'reilly, i think that would be at the bottom.

Well you never proved he made any such promise in the first place. Until then, I regard this as an assumption on your part. Promises are generally made with good intentions, but not all promises can be kept with reasonable justification for the most part.

i'm currently searching for the quote and/or clip. patience friend

 

[California Girl]

i meant more like the pledge thing they do... you know a station sponsored by the people, so no one entity dictates the verbatim. government controlled media is not apealing to me i assure you.

Great theory. Can't work in practice. Who funds it? The people. How? Taxes? Nope, cuz they'd go to the state - or worse, federal!! - government and then they control the agenda. I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust our politicians to tell me the time, yet alone the truth! So, no, it can't go through government. So, how? Some Not-for-profit? Nope, look what happened with ACORN etc.

We could look to the UK for an example - the BBC. Paid for via a license fee. Everyone who owns a tv set pays a fee and that fee goes to the BBC. The BBC has a lot of problems - one of which is that it is seen as a government mouthpiece at times but, generally, it is a potential way forward. As long as privately owned news is not forced out of the market, that would be okay. The problem I see, is that it is practically impossible to trust our government not to try to 'influence' that kind of set up in the US. I mean, look how badly Obama behaves at one news outlet who dares speak ill of him?

that reminds me i wait your response on the magic button thread. i like discussing with you.

Yet you single me out for comment about the 'off topic' part of this thread instead of taking issue with the person responsible for it. Hmmmm. Maybe that's because you know that I will react like a grown up and the other individual will launch into an unpleasant and vitriolic tirade against you?

A simple, 'I'm sorry CG, I was wrong to target you and should have taken issue with said poster' will suffice.

 

[REVxERIK]

Ask him.

of all the questions i have for o'reilly, i think that would be at the bottom.

Well you never proved he made any such promise in the first place. Until then, I regard this as an assumption on your part. Promises are generally made with good intentions, but not all promises can be kept with reasonable justification for the most part.

"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?"


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)

I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this… What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera? Not an apology, but at least he admitted he was wrong

 

[REVxERIK]

Great theory. Can't work in practice. Who funds it? The people. How? Taxes? Nope, cuz they'd go to the state - or worse, federal!! - government and then they control the agenda. I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust our politicians to tell me the time, yet alone the truth! So, no, it can't go through government. So, how? Some Not-for-profit? Nope, look what happened with ACORN etc.

We could look to the UK for an example - the BBC. Paid for via a license fee. Everyone who owns a tv set pays a fee and that fee goes to the BBC. The BBC has a lot of problems - one of which is that it is seen as a government mouthpiece at times but, generally, it is a potential way forward. As long as privately owned news is not forced out of the market, that would be okay. The problem I see, is that it is practically impossible to trust our government not to try to 'influence' that kind of set up in the US. I mean, look how badly Obama behaves at one news outlet who dares speak ill of him?

that reminds me i wait your response on the magic button thread. i like discussing with you.

Yet you single me out for comment about the 'off topic' part of this thread instead of taking issue with the person responsible for it. Hmmmm. Maybe that's because you know that I will react like a grown up and the other individual will launch into an unpleasant and vitriolic tirade against you?

A simple, 'I'm sorry CG, I was wrong to target you and should have taken issue with said poster' will suffice.

um where have i said anything about being off topic? i was criticizing you two reverting to name calling and petty verbatim. and i already said i wasn't targeting you. please don't make things up.

 

[California Girl]

that reminds me i wait your response on the magic button thread. i like discussing with you.

Yet you single me out for comment about the 'off topic' part of this thread instead of taking issue with the person responsible for it. Hmmmm. Maybe that's because you know that I will react like a grown up and the other individual will launch into an unpleasant and vitriolic tirade against you?

A simple, 'I'm sorry CG, I was wrong to target you and should have taken issue with said poster' will suffice.

um where have i said anything about being off topic? i was criticizing you two reverting to name calling and petty verbatim. and i already said i wasn't targeting you. please don't make things up.

Well, if that don't take the cake! You complain about me name calling? Are you for real? Did you happen to notice what I was called? Oh, for Pete's sake.

Grow a spine.

 

[REVxERIK]

Yet you single me out for comment about the 'off topic' part of this thread instead of taking issue with the person responsible for it. Hmmmm. Maybe that's because you know that I will react like a grown up and the other individual will launch into an unpleasant and vitriolic tirade against you?

A simple, 'I'm sorry CG, I was wrong to target you and should have taken issue with said poster' will suffice.

um where have i said anything about being off topic? i was criticizing you two reverting to name calling and petty verbatim. and i already said i wasn't targeting you. please don't make things up.

Well, if that don't take the cake! You complain about me name calling? Are you for real? Did you happen to notice what I was called? Oh, for Pete's sake.

Grow a spine.

grow a spine? see .you're reverting back to insults when confronted with you dishonesty

 

[California Girl]

um where have i said anything about being off topic? i was criticizing you two reverting to name calling and petty verbatim. and i already said i wasn't targeting you. please don't make things up.

Well, if that don't take the cake! You complain about me name calling? Are you for real? Did you happen to notice what I was called? Oh, for Pete's sake.

Grow a spine.

grow a spine? see .you're reverting back to insults when confronted with you dishonesty

No, I'm calling you on your inability to address comment to where they belong. I did not start the childish vitriol - someone else did. Even when provoked, I behaved properly (my Mom would be soooo proud). Yet you chose to whine at me and let the poster who really behaved badly completely off the hook.

You might enjoy debating with me, but I can't return that compliment.... I can only assume that you are either too scared of him in case he turns his nasty ire on you or that you single me out because I am not of your political persuasion. I don't know which, nor do I care. Fact is, I am not dishonest - that's bullshit, and I'm not insulting you - I'm voicing an opinion. If you can't see the difference then you aren't worth the time to debate with.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

of all the questions i have for o'reilly, i think that would be at the bottom.

Well you never proved he made any such promise in the first place. Until then, I regard this as an assumption on your part. Promises are generally made with good intentions, but not all promises can be kept with reasonable justification for the most part.

"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?"


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)

I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this… What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera? Not an apology, but at least he admitted he was wrong

Interesting, your link supplied no direct quotes as a matter of fact is was a "wikiquote" site which states "You can create the Wikiquote Bill O'Reilly " and apparently you can create your own Bill O'Reilly quote.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Apparently the Confused Underfed Nerurotic Tramp Cali Girl thinks anyone that speaks out in a manner that the princess isn't accustomed to, she considers it an insult and expects an apology.

Careful.......she'll neg rep you if she doesn't like or agree with you.

As far as chemical weapons in Iraq with Saddam? Nope.......he didn't have any to use on our troops. He used all of them on the Kurds.

That's why there were stockpiles of chem suits and injection pens. They were trying to exterminate some of their own people.

And........based on what I saw when I was over there, most of them are cowards. Shit.......even the vaunted Republican Guard was a bunch of pussies. They were the ones sitting in the back sending out the convicts and conscripts as cannon fodder. You can even see the same thing in Pakistan and Afghanistan.......watch some of the Military Channel on occasion during the series Battlefield Diaries, and you'll see that most of the soldiers and police over there would rather run than fight.

Like I've said many times before...........Iraq was not the problem. Saddam was not the problem. The problem was Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban and Al Queda.

The problem was further compounded by the stupidity and greed of Bush Jr. and Cheney.

 

[DiveCon]

Lonestar_Logic. What MSNBC does not justify Fox's outright lies. Either your media outlet has integrity or it does not. Simply, it does not. Let's mov eon.

tell that to zona

 

[DiveCon]

lewrockwell is a libertarian website. these are all REAL quotes and lies regardless

but that list doesnt prove "lies"
just errors
there IS a difference ya know

March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.
Since no proof has been used for this report it is dishonesty.

March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.

a lie

May 22: O'Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if no WMDs are found by today. In his Talking Points Memo he wonders why the U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax and has gotten no leads. He states that more time is needed [contradicting what he said more than a month ago, when he said that if no WMDs were found after 2 months U.S. credibility would be "shot" and there would be big trouble]. He ends his Memo saying Bush must candidly address the situation soon.


this is no mistake, this is a lie.

but i don't expect you to admit you are wrong on this

because i'm NOT wrong
a LOT of the news reports at that time said those things
"fog of war"

not lies
same for all those reports of the super dome being a "killing zone" in the aftermath of Katrina

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[http://www.usmessageboard.com/1614994-post79.html
that reminds me i wait your response on the magic button thread. i like discussing with you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1614994-post79.html

 

[DiveCon]

but that list doesnt prove "lies"
just errors
there IS a difference ya know

March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.
Since no proof has been used for this report it is dishonesty.

March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.

a lie

May 22: O'Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if no WMDs are found by today. In his Talking Points Memo he wonders why the U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax and has gotten no leads. He states that more time is needed [contradicting what he said more than a month ago, when he said that if no WMDs were found after 2 months U.S. credibility would be "shot" and there would be big trouble]. He ends his Memo saying Bush must candidly address the situation soon.


this is no mistake, this is a lie.

but i don't expect you to admit you are wrong on this

Fact is Saddam did use water as a weapon. SADDAM water wars

At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters - with unpleasant results. "More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent,"

A rocket that can accept toxic chemicals into its warhead near a 55-gallon drum of cyclosarin-based "pesticide" is a chemical weapon, and it should be defined as such.

Oh and I guess O'Reilly lied, if you claim that changing one's opinion is lying.

I'm sure I can find more to defend these Fox reports, but unfortunately I have work to do.

yeah, that old "dual use" nonsense
they were for agricultural use, but were stored in a weapons depot

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

ABikerSailor

Yak yak yak.

Thats it You are in the dumpster.