KipWellsFan Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 I've seen O'Reilly twice use the idea that midway through Clinton's term poverty rate was at 13.7 percent but midway through Bush's term it was at 12.7 percent. So this proves that the Bush administration has been better on poverty than Clinton right? wrong! Cause O'Reilly, a master of spin himself fails to mention the facts: According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of people living below the poverty line DROPPED from around 15 percent in 1993 to just above 11 percent by the year 2000. That's a 4 percent drop in Clinton's eight years. That number has INCREASED under George W. Bush from around 11.5 percent in 2001 to almost 13 percent by the end of 2004. Simply put, the number of people living under the poverty line has GROWN under Bush. Clinton's first term: down 2 percent. Down another 2 in his second term. Bush's first term: up 1 percent. (It's worth noting that, if you're like me and find these ups and downs rather small, the overall poverty rate has hovered within a relatively shallow margin of around 11 to 15 percent in the last 30 years.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/so...g-f_b_7597.html Not only does O'Reilly get it completely wrong and misleads the American public but he calls Clinton's argument in favour of his system of reducing poverty "unbelievable propoganda". You know Bill, that term would be well suited to your Talking Point Memo on a regular basis. Then he insults Stephanopoulis as a member of the "elite media" whatever that means and calls him a "mummy" for not challenging Clinton on it. What an absolute clown. Please people when you watch O'Reilly who I admit can be interesting sometimes, question his logic and acknowledge that you are in fact stepping into a spin zone, not into a so-called no spin zone, which in today's world seems to be merely a mirage. read here for another lie about how the Bush Administration has increased tax revenues, it's done in the same manner as the spin on poverty rates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/so...g-f_b_7597.html My rant is complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Personally, I find his obsession with sexual relations involving Ducks and Goats (2nd link) far more disturbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 >Which all remarkably follow the biggest bubble economy bursting since 1929. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 20, 2005 Author Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 04:56 PM) >Which all remarkably follow the biggest bubble economy bursting since 1929. (It's worth noting that, if you're like me and find these ups and downs rather small, the overall poverty rate has hovered within a relatively shallow margin of around 11 to 15 percent in the last 30 years.) I'm not so obsessed with the numbers but lying is lying, some conservatives should just stick to the argument "why does the government have a priority to help the poor before anyone else?", it's more honest and it makes more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 I love watching O'Reilly but I could see why someone from Canada or France wouldn't like him. I'm gonna get me a "Boycott France" bumper sticker I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 04:05 PM) I love watching O'Reilly but I could see why someone from Canada or France wouldn't like him. I'm gonna get me a "Boycott France" bumper sticker I think. Oh the Boycott France one was I think by far the best piece of B.S. that O'Reilly ever Made up. By a long shot. That one was priceless. Host Bill O'Reilly threatened Canada with a boycott like the one he advocated against France, then cited a phony statistic about the success of the French boycott. The threat came during O'Reilly's April 27 debate with Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick about Canada's harboring of two deserters from the U.S. military who have fled to Canada. From FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor: O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting. MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners. O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ... MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ... O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review." MALLICK: I think that's nonsense. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." A Google.com search revealed no mentions of "Paris Business Review," "Revue des Affaires de Paris," or any similar French name. A LexisNexis search for "Paris," "France," or "French" within five words of "business review" produced no relevant results. There is a journal called "European Business Review," which is published in England; however, over the past two years, "European Business Review" has not mentioned an American boycott of France. Furthermore, contrary to O'Reilly's claim that France has lost "billions of dollars" due to an American boycott, American imports from France have actually increased since international tensions with France began in the months prior to the start of the war in Iraq in March 2003. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in February 2004, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, up from $2.18 billion in February 2002. Edited September 20, 2005 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 It is true that they've lost money because of it. I won't buy any French products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 04:24 PM) It is true that they've lost money because of it. I won't buy any French products. And yet at the same time, I'll bet you've purchased plenty of Saudi products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 06:26 PM) And yet at the same time, I'll bet you've purchased plenty of Saudi products. Until they start drilling in Alaska, yes I will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 04:27 PM) Until they start drilling in Alaska, yes I will be. Actually a majority of the oil coming out of Alaska gets shipped to Asian countries anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) Actually a majority of the oil coming out of Alaska gets shipped to Asian countries anyway. Actually I also help my home state's cause and buy ethanol gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 O'Reilly is just further proof that Fox has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to any sort of journalistic integrity. It's fundamentalist entertainment and that's what it should be called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 04:29 PM) Actually I also help my home state's cause and buy ethanol gas. Interestingly, it actually takes more oil to make ethanol than you get back by using the ethanol as fuel. So by using ethanol containing gasoline, you're actually helping the Saudis out even more, because you're consuming more oil than you would if you were just using pure, ethanol free gasoline. The only way Ethanol makes sense is if it is used in a large city as a method of forcing pollution to be generated outside of the urban area...thus keeping the air quality in the city marginally better. Hence...Iowa. Edited September 20, 2005 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 04:30 PM) O'Reilly is just further proof that Fox has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to any sort of journalistic integrity. It's fundamentalist entertainment and that's what it should be called. I wouldn't care at all about the existence and actions of Fox News if 2 conditions were met: 1. They were not allowed to say that they were fair and balanced. I find that to clearly be false advertising. 2. There were a liberal alternative in the media. Aside from the Daily Show, there really isn't anything that leans to my direction. Therefore, the Conservative side has a whole channel that they can use to get out their talking points, while the other side of the aisle has no such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 06:32 PM) Interestingly, it actually takes more oil to make ethanol than you get back by using the ethanol as fuel. So by using ethanol containing gasoline, you're actually helping the Saudis out even more, because you're consuming more oil than you would if you were just using pure, ethanol free gasoline. The only way Ethanol makes sense is if it is used in a large city as a method of forcing pollution to be generated outside of the urban area...thus keeping the air quality in the city marginally better. Hey I live in Iowa, it's helping out my state, we have ethanol plants all over. What are we famous for??? That's right, corn. Plus it's $2.49 here compared to $2.59. And I only buy gas once a month or so since I bike on a USA made bike. But the tires were made in Italy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 06:35 PM) I wouldn't care at all about the existence and actions of Fox News if 2 conditions were met: 1. They were not allowed to say that they were fair and balanced. I find that to clearly be false advertising. 2. There were a liberal alternative in the media. Aside from the Daily Show, there really isn't anything that leans to my direction. Therefore, the Conservative side has a whole channel that they can use to get out their talking points, while the other side of the aisle has no such thing. Um excuse me but most of the media is liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 04:35 PM) Hey I live in Iowa, it's helping out my state, we have ethanol plants all over. What are we famous for??? That's right, corn. Plus it's $2.49 here compared to $2.59. And I only buy gas once a month or so since I bike on a USA made bike. But the tires were made in Italy. Well, at least I'm not the only one making heavy use of a bike. Of course, I don't even own a car, so it's not an option for me, but good work on that part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 06:37 PM) Well, at least I'm not the only one making heavy use of a bike. Of course, I don't even own a car, so it's not an option for me, but good work on that part. lol thanks. I love biking, anyways I gotta head of to a 7:00 night class. Cya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 20, 2005 Author Share Posted September 20, 2005 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 05:05 PM) I love watching O'Reilly but I could see why someone from Canada or France wouldn't like him. I'm gonna get me a "Boycott France" bumper sticker I think. Wouldn't like him? He's a lying asshole, it doesn't take a socialist to not like him, it takes someone with a conscience and curiousity. Um excuse me but most of the media is liberal. Umm excuse me, how do you know that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I don't think you can look at the poverty level and compare the relative effectiveness of a President. They get way too much credit, and blame, for the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 06:35 PM) But the tires were made in Italy. Traitor! What's wrong with Goodyear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 08:00 PM) Traitor! What's wrong with Goodyear? lol I'm sorry they came with the bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 06:53 PM) Wouldn't like him? He's a lying asshole, it doesn't take a socialist to not like him, it takes someone with a conscience and curiousity. Umm excuse me, how do you know that? I love how you like mocking me but he's very popular in America, unlike Canada. Millions of people watch him and he gets great ratings. Let's be honest here about news stations too. You know as well as I do that there is a bigger liberal media. It's obvious, I've learned it from a moderate teacher and a liberal teacher plus I've watched ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, CBS, everything. I know Fox says they're moderate and I do think they tend to be more conservative. Edited September 21, 2005 by WilliamTell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 20, 2005 -> 08:47 PM) You know as well as I do that there is a bigger liberal media. It's obvious Just what is the liberal media, what makes them liberal? Is it that they are so obsessed with stopping global warming? Or legalizing pot or gay marriage? Do they have an anti-Southern State bias? Are they anti-religious? Are they owned and ran by pro-environment businesses? Are the anchors and or editors all Democrats? I just need a good explanation as to why you think it's so obvious that the media is generally liberal? I didn't mean to mock you, sorry, but I get offended sometimes when people make comments about Canada. Oh and what do you actually think about the topic, don't you think it's unacceptable for someone in the "no spin zone" to lie? Finally, there are people that are popular like O'Reilly in Canada too. In Manitoba where we have a social democrat premier there's a right winger on the radio named Charles Adler I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the top ratings, people love listening to blowhards. p.s. O'Reilly gets the best ratings Edited September 21, 2005 by KipWellsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I didn't mean to mock you, sorry, but I get offended sometimes when people make comments about Canada. Oh man, thats good humor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.