Thread: lol - Obama hands O'Reilly his ass

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Arrogance seems to be a very comment characteristic among Liberterians and Republicans. . .
Under estimating people is another. . .if people do not agree with you. . .they are automatically either "enemies of the States" or stupid!

But since you seem to appreciate "intelligent fact-based intelligence. . ." you may want to look at this:

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ..... it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny ... Figure 7: Share of all income earned and all taxes paid, by quintile ...
sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Who rules America???

One person,,, one vote... Numbers,,rather than the rich.

But according to Allan on 2 1/2 Men,, it is Big Pharma!!!!!

Originally Posted by GeorgeLaw

Who rules America???

One person,,, one vote... Numbers,,rather than the rich.

But according to Allan on 2 1/2 Men,, it is Big Pharma!!!!!

You are clearly demonstrating how much you value "intelligent, fact-based intelligence!"

Is it because it is difficult for you to read a JOURNAL article rather than a Newspaper article?

Yes . . . you clearly demonstrated your attachement to FACTS!

Originally Posted by GeorgeLaw

Actually she has analyzed all with income over one million,

and come to the scientifically significant conclusion,,

that 51.2% inherited it rather than worked their way up.

OR, she pulled it out the ass OR,,, is French, who won No wars in 150 yrs and are only alive because of the USA.

Never give up your strategic advantage,,, the intelligent fact-based intelligence,,,, over the willy nilly robotic leftist rant!!!!

" is French, who won No wars in 150 yrs and are only alive because of the USA." what exactly does this mean ?
There have been 53 major wars in Europe
France had been a belligerent in 49 of them; UK 43.
In 185 battles that France had fought over the past 800 years, their armies had won 132 times, lost 43 times and drawn only 10.
Giving the French military the best record of any country in Europe."
Wars won : Crimea, Italian, Chinese, African conflicts (all of them, they were many), Franco-Siamese war, Boxer rebellion, Latvian war of independence, Franco Syrian war, the 3 Rif wars, Hungarian Revolutionary war, second World War, Franco-Thai war, Korean war .
French aircrafts under Israeli use decisively defeated the Arab air forces during the 6 days war. The Kolwezi operation was a bold paratropping operation that was a large success.
As for the Gulf War, the French Daguet division lost 2 men and 30 others were wounded, while capturing an essential airfield and capturing over 3000 Iraqi personnel.
As for being only alive because of the U.S I suspect you are referring to WWII and may I remind you that the Allies freed France and were attempting to before America decided to join .

Originally Posted by Sadanie

I heard Obama state very clearly that he had no intention of redistribute wealth.

Then he lied because he's already done it.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Yes, dear. . . and where do you think O'Reilly got that "redistribution of wealth" linked to Dr. Donald Berwick???

Who knows? Who cares? O'Reilly asked a question and Obama lied when he answered.

Sometime, if you only listen to Fox News flapping jaws. . .you get only a very small piece of the puzzle. . .and (how surprising!) ONLY the piece that fit their propaganda need!

So. . .why don't you go and watch the video that began this whole "theory!"

I reject your premise that the theory of health care goods and services being expensive began with and existed only because of that video.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Isn't "redistribution of wealth" specifically involving the rich???

You're not being that specific when you say "the rich," but okay, what of it? I suppose if wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor or from the poor to the rich, then yes. But I'm nor sure how your comment matters.

You focus on one very small possibility of "wealth redistribution" through providing health care to more people who currently can't afford it. . .

Because that's what this thread is about. Please take your unrelated bullshit elsewhere.

I am bringing in the focus on the ACTUAL "wealth redistribution" that has occured in the OTHER direction under BUSH: From the middle class to the top 1%!

I feel I am perfectly on subject. . .even if does bother you!

You are perfectly...what? Perfectly is an adverb, not an adjective. I think you're looking for "perfect," and no, you're not, because this thread really isn't about Bush among other things. Bringing in comparisons and parallels when it matters is one thing, but if you're going to whine about Bush and the rich whenever you feel like it for the sake of whining and avoiding the issue, don't expect me to play along.

Originally Posted by Slon

Who knows? Who cares? O'Reilly asked a question and Obama lied when he answered.

I reject your premise that the theory of health care goods and services being expensive began with and existed only because of that video.

You're not being that specific when you say "the rich," but okay, what of it? I suppose if wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor or from the poor to the rich, then yes. But I'm nor sure how your comment matters.Because that's what this thread is about. Please take your unrelated bullshit elsewhere.

You are perfectly...what? Perfectly is an adverb, not an adjective. I think you're looking for "perfect," and no, you're not, because this thread really isn't about Bush among other things. Bringing in comparisons and parallels when it matters is one thing, but if you're going to whine about Bush and the rich whenever you feel like it for the sake of whining and avoiding the issue, don't expect me to play along.

Well I'm sure you can make the difference between adjectives and adverbes perfectly in your second language. . . you're just soooo smart! :rolleyes:

I don't think I'll miss you either! Redistribution of wealth was brought up as the "main" focus in this thread. . .If you ONLY one to speak about redistribution of wealth in the direction of the wealthy to the poor. .because you think this would be a point AGAINST Obama. . .you can limit yourself in your delusions.

I believe that every aspect of redistribution of wealth should be considered. . . It just happened that the greatest redistribution of wealth happened in the last 10 years. . .under Bush!
Don't complain to me about it! I know. . .sometime the truth is inconvenient. . .so it's better to sweep it under the rug!

Well said, Sadanie. The effort to deflect the thread to a confusion on Bill O'Reilly's part shows just how convinced the right is that Obama really did hand O'Reilly a black eye. O'Reilly came out of that interview looking like a 5th grade school yard bully being whupped by the smallest kid in the 4th grade.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Arrogance seems to be a very comment characteristic among Liberterians and Republicans. . .
Under estimating people is another. . .if people do not agree with you. . .they are automatically either "enemies of the States" or stupid!

Ironically, you seem to think that everyone that disagrees with you watches Fox news, is a Christian or is a horrible greedy self-centered jerk. You've done this two times w/o being even close to being correct. That's only two times that I've noticed. With your illogical rants I'm sure it's happened more than twice.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Ironically, you seem to think that everyone that disagrees with you watches Fox news, is a Christian or is a horrible greedy self-centered jerk. You've done this two times w/o being even close to being correct. That's only two times that I've noticed. With your illogical rants I'm sure it's happened more than twice.

?? Would the Republican Party be where it is today without Fox News as their PR branch? Are you denying that the Republican Party Right is made up of many over-the-top Christians? And that the rest are unbelievably self-centered? (There was some Republican on here earlier today that doesn't care is a million Mexicans starve to death in the desert just so he won't have to see Mexicans on his Main Street. Can one be any more self-centered than that?)

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

?? Would the Republican Party be where it is today without Fox News as their PR branch? Are you denying that the Republican Party Right is made up of many over-the-top Christians? And that the rest are unbelievably self-centered? (There was some Republican on here earlier today that doesn't care is a million Mexicans starve to death in the desert just so he won't have to see Mexicans on his Main Street. Can one be any more self-centered than that?)

Where would the failed democratic party be without low rating PR branch networks like MSNBC? Just sayin...................

Originally Posted by chassisman

Where would the failed democratic party be without low rating PR branch networks like MSNBC? Just sayin...................

At least MSNBC doesn't pretend they are fair and balanced. At least MSNBC tells the truth, even in their slogans. And, MSNC fires their lead guy, Keith Olberman, for going to far. Think that would happen at Fox News?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

At least MSNBC doesn't pretend they are fair and balanced. At least MSNBC tells the truth, even in their slogans. And, MSNC fires their lead guy, Keith Olberman, for going to far. Think that would happen at Fox News?

The ratings tell the tale. Get used to it, it's not likely to change any time soon.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Well I'm sure you can make the difference between adjectives and adverbes perfectly in your second language. . . you're just soooo smart! :rolleyes:

I don't think I'll miss you either! Redistribution of wealth was brought up as the "main" focus in this thread. . .If you ONLY one to speak about redistribution of wealth in the direction of the wealthy to the poor. .because you think this would be a point AGAINST Obama. . .you can limit yourself in your delusions.

I believe that every aspect of redistribution of wealth should be considered. . . It just happened that the greatest redistribution of wealth happened in the last 10 years. . .under Bush!
Don't complain to me about it! I know. . .sometime the truth is inconvenient. . .so it's better to sweep it under the rug!

Why do you keep saying that word? I do not think it means what you think it means (in regards to redistribution of wealth). I don't think you really understand the concept of wealth redistribution. It doesn't mean anything in regards to how much money people or what the income gap is between the lower and upper class. It's when the government confiscates money from one group of people and gives it to another (whether is in money or in goods or services). Since the top 1% of earners pay for 40% of taxes and the top 5% pay 60% (I think you can confiscates from there) of taxes you're completely and utterly so far off the mark that the ignorances displayed is laid bare for everyone to see.

Now...I would actually agree with you, that it has happened, if you were using that term in the singular context of bailouts, only. Somehow I don't think you are using it in that context.