Text 13364, 172 rader
Skriven 2008-03-22 15:03:32 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt
Ärende: Re: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
==========================================
 
RW>JB> Doesn't help that Bush's military records for that time period were
RW>JB> just so coincidently "destroyed".
 
RW> It's in the past and has nothing to do with his Presidency. See earlier
RW> message.
 
So if Bush had mowed somebody down in his car while drunk, or raped somebody,
or beat somebody to death, in his past, that would be okay too? Just because
it's in his past?  If he were a liberal, I doubt you'd go so easy on him.
 
 
 
RW>JB> If he would do something like that, who's to say he wouldn't have
RW>JB> been the same sort of man once he took office?
 
RW> His most recent record...it shows that the man has made a change for the
RW> better in his life.
 
With all the criminal acts he's committed as president, then yeah, he
definitely made a change from his old ways.
 
 
RW>JB> Not praise him for being the president during 9/11 or anything.
 
RW> I tremble and my knees buckle every time I think of what it would be like
RW> with AlGore at the helm at that time. He'd do absolutely nothing, except
RW> kiss the ass of Bin Laden and we'd be at the mercy of the terrorists
RW> until we elected someone with the guts to tell the libs to fuck off and
RW> get the job done right.
 
Just like how we're not at the mercy of terrorists now?  We lost a bunch of our
rights, the very thing Bush said we're fighting to protect in the first place,
not to mention thousands of lives lost, and terrorist groups taking a hold in
Iraq now that we're screwing it up.  And yet Osama is still out there.
 
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"
 
 
RW> If liberals had any brains, they'd be conservatives.
 
Yawn, heard it before.  Also heard "independents are democrats in denial".
 
 
RW> I've seen him proved wrong, once...he took it with a grain of salt and
RW> offered an apology. He's not the ogre you paint him to be.
 
In ten years of episodes, there's no way you can convince me he's only been
proved wrong once.  You're making him out as next to God.  No journalist, and
certainly no blowhard discussion show host, has a track record that good.
 
 
RW>JB> They weren't even criticizing him in the incident I showed.
RW>JB> Somebody merely wrote in to say he got the Malmedy thing backwards.
RW>JB> Then he pulled out an O'Reilly bald-faced lie and said he had been
RW>JB> talking about something totally different.
 
RW> Without the entire segment of that episode, what you have here is merely
RW> hearsay...which is unbelievable.
 
Hearsay would be me telling you without you being able to see for yourself. If
you watched what I showed you, regardless of what channel it aired on or what
site it's hosted on, you'd have seen not only the letter from the guest but
O'Reilly's response to it.  There is no context and there is no unbelievability
about it, except for you alone.  It's easy for a guy like O'Reilly to get away
with things like this when he's got such loyal fans who will deny any
wrongdoing, regardless of proof.
 
 
RW>JB> Which was obviously crap, cause there was videotape proof of it. As
RW>JB> well as transcripts, before they edited them.
 
RW> Oh, so they edited them and now they don't relate to the actual episode.
RW> Yeah, right.
 
Since most of his fans think he's the next best thing since sliced bread, they
would never take the time to officially confirm or deny whether the transcript
was modified in the one example I gave.  Even if faced with a blatant pile of
irrefutable evidence, they would simply not acknowledge it. O'Reilly would be
proud, he taught his flock well.
 
 
 
RW> If the do, they're probably not watching politically biased material. If
RW> they do, then they're probably doing research into the bias of liberals.
 
You may be half right, most conservatives I've met do tend to shy away from any
political material on the internet, since it has such a high chance of being
accurate.  Who needs facts when they've got Fox News.  Fair and balanced!
 
An interesting thing to note is that anything I've ever seen which has to try
and convince its public that it has fair and/or balanaced reporting, always
ends up not being.  A local evening news show here tries to do the same thing. 
And guess what channel it airs on?  Our local Fox affiliate, of all places.
 
 
 
RW> Everythink in my 'bookmarks' is not liberal and is not politially
RW> oriented...there are better things to do on the internet than look for
RW> more crap from liberals.
 
Then I'm pleased that you'd take so much time to respond to my liberal crap!
 
 
 
RW>JB> Internet users tend to be more technology-inclined, as are liberals.
 
RW> LOL! Bullshit.
 
How many technology bills do you see Republicans trying to pass compared to
Democrats?  I mean, I could start listing Republican-backed bills, but most of
them have our buddy Ted Steven's name on them.
 
 
RW>JB> Of course there was bias in it, that's why people watch him.
 
RW> You mean sickos watch it.
 
You might hurt my feelings one day with such generalizations.
 
 
RW> The difference is that O'Reilly is believable, while Olbermann is not.
 
Different strokes, different folks, etc.
 
 
RW> Fox News is always truthful, which can't be said of the liberals news
RW> channels...wish I could, but that's impossible.
 
If Fox News' daily business is your idea of truthful, I'd hate to see them when
they're fibbing.
 
 
RW>JB> You're never going to believe me though so I give up.
 
RW> Great, you're just wasting bandwidth on it anyway.
 
It's a liberal plot to deprive you of bandwidth!
 
 
RW> This is why the NYT, among other liberal biased reasons, is losing
RW> money...as a liberal, you should be supporting that paper.
 
Are you buying all of O'Reilly's books?
 
 
RW> With RSS, you don't get the complete news as it's reported in those
RW> papers.
 
You do when you click the link to the full story, which is what one pretty much
has to do for most anything RSS-related.  Very few put out the full item in the
feed for bandwidth reasons.  I only know of a couple I subscribe to that do,
and they aren't political.
 
 
 
RW> Biden looks like a pimp and comes off sounding like an ass...Mitt Romney
RW> would make a better President than any of them.
 
Mitt Romney was just the Republican prettyboy.  Unless a chiseled jaw alone is
going to solve our problems, we're better off he dropped out.  I honestly am
surprised you guys let McCain surpass him though. I guess the religious right,
the one you say doesn't exist, hated the Mormon side of him a little too much.
 
 
RW> I make it to the lists because my demeanor isn't acceptable to the
RW> Fido Whankers and idiots.
 
What percentage of Fidonet would that be, would you estimate?

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)