Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Obermann - O'Reilly Survey

Topic: Obermann - O'Reilly Survey

1–21 out of 21 messages
Author Message
Iron Eagle Posted – 11/30/2007 10:45:08 AM | show profile
I did a poll of folks from the nieghborhood and came up with this data:

Most think O'Reilly was on Hollywood Squares and recognize Olberman as the football guy. I guess being on a major network has it's upside.
rockyroad Posted – 11/30/2007 10:46:47 AM | show profile
Bet your neighbors also think that Paris Hilton is Secretary of State. Maybe you need to move out of the hood to a place where people are a bit more educated.
Iron Eagle Posted – 11/30/2007 11:21:40 AM | show profile
'Bet your neighbors also think that Paris Hilton is Secretary of State.'

No, that would be most Americans.
JIMBO99 Posted – 11/30/2007 11:58:05 AM | show profile
Hey Dog..
Was that your Canadian neighbors?
Iron Eagle Posted – 11/30/2007 12:00:33 PM | show profile
Jimbo - Canadains actually read books. A best seller in the US is eighty-five!
Iron Eagle Posted – 11/30/2007 12:41:31 PM | show profile
The rants of an insane nazi board troll. Frank we may despise you but one thing's for sure - we'll never respect you either.
hollisterco Posted – 11/30/2007 12:44:35 PM | show profile
Overbite and the Big "O"
Don't pick on Mr. Crime you guys! At least he is aware of who these guys are. His comments are proof that most of the people in this country just aren't paying attention to the things that really matter. They are more concerned with stuff like: what Hollywood-crap movie they're going to see tonight.
What store should they shop in today, what new cell phone or i-pod should they buy? They are too distracted with other things, they really could care less about who is in charge, and who's is reporting the facts as opposed to crap - like Keith Overbite does. The sad part about it is that most, if any, of these morons that vote, vote Democrat!
Iron Eagle Posted – 11/30/2007 2:03:45 PM | show profile
They will vote with their brains this time not with their emotions.

Yes, Americans fell hard for Fear Factor! What a great show with Bush, Cheney, Ascroft and Guliani acting as the American Taliban.
newfrickinshow Posted – 11/30/2007 2:31:58 PM | show profile
Not true
it just depends on where you live. The relatively uneducated masses in New York City tend to vote democrat, while the relateively uneducated masses in Alabama tend to vote republican. In 2000 I was apathetic about politics. In 20002, I didn't really follow politics. I admit I never liked George W. Bush, but I supported him after 9/11. Until he started doing everything imaginable wrong.

My mistrust started around the time we were talking about going into Iraq 'because they attacked us,' despite intelligence agency after intelligence agency throughout the world telling us they weren't involves. Bush told Saddam to let the weapons inspectors in or we'll attack. So Saddam let them in. Bush then gave Saddam a list of demands that he had to follow or we'd attacked. And Saddam agreed. Bush responded by saying we're going to attack them anyways. It had nothing to do with the New York Times, Air America Radio, Keith Olbermann, or some other source of 'liberal propaganda.'

My story of why I grew to hate the Bush administration. My friend has served in the military until he was released due to physical reasons. He eventually got a minor in history from Oklahoma State and played for the OSU Cowboys around 30 years ago. After that he spent time working for oil companies as a geologist and spent time as a trucker. His dad was a drill sargeant in the army, who volunteered to go into Germany during World War 2 with the men he trained. He was eventually captured and sent to a German prison camp until the war ended and was released, returning home with a deep and passionate hatred of the French. On top of that he intends to encourage his son to join the military after high school. He's also a former member and regular contributor to the Republican National Committee and card-carrying member of the NRA. Simply put, he was beyond red. He was practically crimson.

But he stopped sending money after Bush had selected his cabinet. The RNC sent him a letter asking why he had stopped sending in money. With the little space he was provided, my friend wrote three words. "Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft." He received a letter back after awhile. Not from the RNC, but from the Department of Homeland, informing him that he was being investigated for potential terrorist connections.

Republican self-righteous, ethnocentric, stubborn, petulance, and dead certainty have done more damage to this country than any other outside source could ever have done in the guise of a 'war on terror.' A 'war' that cannot be won. Terrorism is a strategy, an idea, a concept. It is intangible and can NEVER be defeated. Dwight Eisenhower said of Joseph McCarthy "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them." Terrorism is the new communism, the Department of Homeland Security is the new HUAC, and George W Bush is the new McCarthy. And both times, the mindless followers on the right stepped in behind without thinking.
Olbypocrisy Posted – 11/30/2007 2:37:57 PM | show profile
What proof do you have of this news?
He received a letter back after awhile. Not from the RNC, but from the Department of Homeland, informing him that he was being investigated for potential terrorist connections
newfrickinshow Posted – 11/30/2007 7:55:28 PM | show profile
Yes he is!
Bush is running in 2008. Only this time, he's calling himself Rudolph Giulianni.

"What proof do you have of this news?" No hard evidence, he got pissed and threw the letter away. The only evidence he still has is the testimony of his neighbors. Turns out government officials went about the neighborhood asking questions about him. Which I admit is hearsay and probably wouldn't hold up in court if it came to that.
Iron Eagle Posted – 11/30/2007 9:27:58 PM | show profile
This just in Frank Bozo has hung himself in McDonalds. Don't send flowers or sympathy cards - just smiley faces.
newfrickinshow Posted – 12/1/2007 7:53:57 AM | show profile
no,
but he's as stupid, incompitent, and self-assured for no reason as Curious George. (I just wish that in 2000 the man in the yellow hat had thrown the monkey's dumbass back from whence he came.) His chief of police was corrupt as days in July are long, the firefighters of New York City hate him for incompetence and insensitivity before and after 9/11, and he's as honest and trustworthy as France is a humble nation of brave pro-american warriors.

By the way, if you don't know what 'Curious George' is, that may because it's a book. Series of books actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curious_George
newfrickinshow Posted – 12/1/2007 8:19:17 AM | show profile
I've spent around 5 years
fighting George W McCarthy's brand of fuck-up fatigue, and I can already feel St. Rudy of 9/11's brand trying to settle in around me. I swear, the GOP right now is like the common cold virus. It's constantly evolving and coming up with new forms in order to overcome your bodies natural bio-chemical defenses. The party has a new form every four or eight years. Both with the same purpose, to live at the expense of their host.

The GOP scam- They run on the platform that government doesn't work. If they do something and it works, it's because of strong leadership. If they do something that doesn't work, it's because government doesn't work. A beautifully ochestraed win-win scenario.

I sometimes wonder if George Bush is expanding government power and repeatedly screwing up on purpose just to prove that government doesn't work. "So what if it gets a few thousand american soldiers killed, they're employees of the evil government and therefore socialist pricks. I served in the National Guard, a STATE run organization. On top of that, I didn't even show up for a good portion of it, so that makes me not a socialist prick. Free market mercenary soldiers are the true patriots." I've spent nights lying in bed, unable to sleep, trying to rationalize the mind of George W McCarthy. This is the kind of stuff I come up with once in a while.
newfrickinshow Posted – 12/1/2007 2:15:00 PM | show profile
Difference is...
...the 'for no good reason' thing. Rudy and W are both shipdits who have no business even running for president. Fred Thompson doesn't even seem to be that interested, it's like he's only running because he lost a bet or something. Tom Tancredo and Duncan hunter are just nuts.
Mitt Romney seems to shift his alliance depending on what'll garner him the most power. He was conservative enough to get elected governor of Massachusetts, and we all know what a right-wing bastion that state is.
I have respect for McCain, but have a few problems with his foreign policy. That and I sincerely wish he hadn't retracted his "agents of intolerance" statement about Roberston and Falwell. I gained a lot of respect for him when he said it, and lost more when he apologized.
I'm starting to warm up to Huckabee, as he's not a total nut. I've always liked Ron Paul, not because of his politics, but because of his general head-out-of-ass factor.

The dems generally have something going for them the GOP have long since abandoned. Intelligence, compassion, the New Testament, the ability to learn, and the willingness to listen to other points of view.
Iron Eagle Posted – 12/1/2007 2:40:23 PM | show profile
The nation craves change and Guliani and the other Ratpuke nutballs offer nothing more than pandering to the lowest of the low - the Christian right. These people are absolute poison no different than the Taliban.
newfrickinshow Posted – 12/1/2007 3:29:00 PM | show profile
Hey, we're agreeing
I'd prefer Dodd over most of the Democratic field.
Iron Eagle Posted – 12/1/2007 3:45:37 PM | show profile
Dodd is the best candidate across the board!
Latin1 Posted – 12/21/2007 7:23:45 AM | show profile
...as for the war, people on the left forgot this;

Democrats voted for the war, using the same intelligence reports.

Also when the Democrats won a majority in the last election...the Democrats STILL voted to continue funding the war and also many were behind the Patriot Act.

Now that Democrats are the majority in Congress, Congress has the lower public ratings than Bush.

...a small fact people on the left forget.
stvj57 Posted – 12/25/2007 10:57:29 PM | show profile
newfrick said,
My mistrust started around the time we were talking about going into Iraq 'because they attacked us,'

just show me where anyone in the current administration said that iraq attacked us or that they had any direct part in 911.

the left started that statement. the left is the one that came up with the idea that we should not be in iraq because they did not attack us. they used that term so much that they started to get people to say that our government was saying or had said that iraq had been directly involved in 911. our government had investigated the possibility. our government had found al qaeda operatives to be in iraq prior to 911 but had never stated there was a direct connection.

this is just another sample of the msm pushing liberal views and not correcting the facts when they are exposed, and the left continuing to try to push people into their beliefs using false info.

just like the statement that their were no weapons of mass destuction found in iraq. there was all kinds of evidence of weapons of mass destruction found, just none that the left would conceed or the government could point to unconditionally or with out the left shooting them down to protect their views.

there were very high consentrations of chemicals found in the tigress river when we first got close to bagdad. so much so people were suspecting saddam was trying to poison our troops. there have been very high quantities of "pesticides" found in iraq of different chemical make ups, in different areas, that if combined would be able to be classified as wmd's. while we never found the actual chemical cocktail that could be classified as weapons catagory, we did find ingredients that could be used for that purpose. if we would have found some chemicals that are used to make meth on someones property, then found some other chemicals used to make meth on another property of the same owner we would be trying to say that person was making meth. what is the difference? the difference is the left will not admit to anything that may prove them wrong or the government correct.
Iron Eagle Posted – 12/25/2007 11:25:44 PM | show profile
Keith - you are great - Merry Christmas and 2008 is your year to conquer!
1–21 out of 21 messages