Which news anchor is least likely to lie to viewers?
Let's Ask America
2012/09/10 23:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
283 votes
|
|
12% | |||
|
848 votes
|
|
37% | |||
|
291 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
869 votes
|
|
38% | |||
Top Opinion
-
FanOreilly 2012/09/21 18:22:06
This post should be the top opinion, not a portrait of the biggest liar in media.
Given time, though, we can make it free again.
LMAO...
I don't like anti-war protesters either. Especially when I returned from Vietnam.
My best friend was killed over there during the Tet Offensive in 1968 (I was there for that also) and it was as if they were spitting on him and me and the vets that did serve, Baby killers and murderers and all.
I lost friends in Nam too and had cousins who thankfully survived.
Then there were the "peace loving" North Korean communists that "peacefully" invaded South Korea and "peacefully" handled the South Korean people.
Then there was the communist insurgency from North Vietnam into the south and how they "peacefully" handled the people in that southern region.
America has always been the nasty, warmongering nation that it always has been. I mean, Saddam was really just misunderstood when he invaded Kuwait. All those lies that had been spread about him and his sons slaughtering his own people (including "rape rooms") much less the Kuwaitis. How terrible we are to go in an attack those peaceloving people.
I lost a lot more friends in one day than you lost during the entire war so don't bother telling me about it. I also had to hump their bodies back to the choppers so that they could be processed back through G&R; (Graves and Registration). You didn't.
Yeah, we are ALWAYS the bad guys with OUR wars of aggression against the "peace loving" people of the world. What a terrible nation and people we are. Maybe if we were more like German...
Then there were the "peace loving" North Korean communists that "peacefully" invaded South Korea and "peacefully" handled the South Korean people.
Then there was the communist insurgency from North Vietnam into the south and how they "peacefully" handled the people in that southern region.
America has always been the nasty, warmongering nation that it always has been. I mean, Saddam was really just misunderstood when he invaded Kuwait. All those lies that had been spread about him and his sons slaughtering his own people (including "rape rooms") much less the Kuwaitis. How terrible we are to go in an attack those peaceloving people.
I lost a lot more friends in one day than you lost during the entire war so don't bother telling me about it. I also had to hump their bodies back to the choppers so that they could be processed back through G&R; (Graves and Registration). You didn't.
Yeah, we are ALWAYS the bad guys with OUR wars of aggression against the "peace loving" people of the world. What a terrible nation and people we are. Maybe if we were more like Germany and Japan (circa the 1930's and 1940's) and Iraq and Iran and North Korea and Vietnam the world would have been at peace. What a loss. If we could only be as loving and nurturing as the Taliban the world would be a different place. Such is life.
http://www.kansascity.com/201...
Shooting of 14-year-old Pakistan girl activist sparks outrage
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Many schools in Pakistan's Swat Valley closed their doors in protest Wednesday and the country's army chief vowed to fight on against militants as anger erupted across the nation over the Taliban attack on a 14-year-old activist famed for promoting girls' education.
A Taliban gunman walked up to a bus taking schoolchildren and shot her in the head and neck. Another girl on the bus was also wounded.
Yes, there is much wisdom in what you say.
There is right in what you say too. Too bad you only have one pov.
We were always so good to Native Americans. We've done nothing much about genocide in several African countries. There are MANY injustices in the world that we pay no attention to. If Osama bin Laden weren't believed to be in Afghanistan, do you believe for one minute that we would have lifted a finger against the Taliban? I don't. 10 years later we've lost many good people, the Taliban is coming back strong, and we haven't made many friends in that part of the world.
The point of "peace-loving" is that we SAY it, but we don't mean it. The truth is that the US has rarely gone 20 years without being in a "hot" conflcit somewhere, some FULLY justified or necessary (like WWII), others not so much. "Peace-loving" to us means "Do it our way or else." Other countries in the world don't see it that way.
We could discuss this all day. I agree we can't sit back and let evil people win. BUT the human race -- especially YOUR sex -- is NOT peace-loving. That's a myth, pure and simple. Have a nice day.
I don't have only one pov but mine is the correct pov.
WWII was justified? Yes, it was. So were all of the other conflicts. Tyranny should be obliterated and freedom should prevail. It is always the type such as you that complain about my SEX until your SEX needs defending. As they used to say on some bumper stickers years ago, "Next time you need help, call a hippie." I can say, "Next time you are being attacked by a man, call a woman for help." Yes, we are aggressive and stronger and that may irritate you but when you need us, we are there. When out country needs us, we are there. Do you really think that because our SEX is male that we actually WANT to go to war?
{ I agree we can't sit back and let evil people win. BUT the human race -- especially YOUR sex -- is NOT peace-loving. }
That's just it...we do NOT want evil people to win. We did allow it to happen in Vietnam, politically expedient loss, just bring them home and now if Afgh...
I don't have only one pov but mine is the correct pov.
WWII was justified? Yes, it was. So were all of the other conflicts. Tyranny should be obliterated and freedom should prevail. It is always the type such as you that complain about my SEX until your SEX needs defending. As they used to say on some bumper stickers years ago, "Next time you need help, call a hippie." I can say, "Next time you are being attacked by a man, call a woman for help." Yes, we are aggressive and stronger and that may irritate you but when you need us, we are there. When out country needs us, we are there. Do you really think that because our SEX is male that we actually WANT to go to war?
{ I agree we can't sit back and let evil people win. BUT the human race -- especially YOUR sex -- is NOT peace-loving. }
That's just it...we do NOT want evil people to win. We did allow it to happen in Vietnam, politically expedient loss, just bring them home and now if Afghanistan with the set withdrawal date and their "rules of engagement" for targeting the enemy. We were given rules of engagement in Vietnam, too but we ignored them. They would only get us killed. Most of those rules were made up by people sitting back in D.C. who were worried about political consequences.
Can't those African nations suffering genocide so anything about it themselves? Their floundering economies? The filth and oppression they live in? God forbid we should send them weapons to defend them selves - then the liberal call us warmongers and urge diplomacy. I've found that diplomatic solutions can come about more quickly when one uses a rifle.
ROFLMAO...
Fuk Bill O'Lielly...
---Bill O'Reilly is so much better than rachel mad cow.
And that is what I responded to...
:)
First mistake, not siting any sources that people are lying for Obama. Yes, I know it happens, I'm not on the side of the left. However, you made a claim without backing it.
Second mistake, backing Bill O'Reilly, a man known as one of the biggest liars on FOX news. He even lies about his past shows.
Evidence:
Third mistake, repeating the lies of those shows. Obama's policies are slower than he promised, yes, but they are working. We have Job Growth rather than Job Loss. The Economy is slowly turning around. Bad business practices are being virtually outlawed, like outsourcing, rather than rewarded with tax cuts like they were before. Kids are gaining the funding they need to go to college and get the education needed to take the jobs that are opening up. I don't see very many failures, certainly not as many as is being reported by FOX news.
Has he failed? Yes, in some respects. For one, our troops aren't home yet and he's getting us involved in more battles in Libya. However, for this failure at least, Romney would be worse. Not only is Romney clueless about foreign policy as evidenced by his own speeches, but he wants more war and wants to destroy the middle class, again both are evidenced in his own speeches.
Removing all of the liberal and conservative bias, Obama is still the lesser of two evils by a significant margin.
1. 16 Trillion(and growing)dollar NATIONAL deficit. 6 Trillion increase in the last 3 years
2. Over 8% unemployment
3. 39 Million dollar Food stamps (masssive increase)
That's right, you can. Bill O'Reilly doesn't. He attacks working economic policies by lying.
Obama isn't perfect. He had no idea what kind of mess Bush was leaving him until he entered office. He's doing the best he can with the cards he has. However, it has always been true that presidents have more flexibility in their second term because they don't have to worry about a third term election. they can focus more on the things that matter. Obama's policies are very slow-acting and anything fast-acting that he has attempted to push through has been filibustered by the right wing, whether they believe in it or not. In fact, the right has said, unequivocally, that they don't care about Obama's policies, their goal is to get him out of the white house as soon as possible.
However, none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is who the least lying news anchor is. It has been proven, in the video I gave and in many others, that Bill O'Reilly is not that person.
Oh, I'm sorry. I must be LYING to you. Because all opposing views are lies, right? You can't possibly be wrong, so everyone else is just lying to you. That's got to be it.
Join the real world. Obama is no saint, but he's done significantly better than Bush and is significantly better than Romney. He is still the lesser of two evils, by a wide margin. And if the republicans would stop focusing on getting him out of office and focus more on actually fixing the problems we're facing, you might just see that.
Back on topic. Do you deny that Bill O'Reilly lies to his audience?
Obama believes in redistribution of wealth = communism. Obama tries to lie about his "share the wealth", "Marxist" philosophies, but his lectures on tape and his book spell it out quite clearly.
No, he didn't lie. he was WRONG. There is a difference. He didn't know what he was truly up against during his campaign to become president. Once he entered office, he got a good look at what was really going on and had to change tactics.
That's how life works.
[Obama believes in redistribution of wealth = communism. Obama tries to lie about his "share the wealth", "Marxist" philosophies, but his lectures on tape and his book spell it out quite clearly.]
Redistribution of wealth is not communism. Communism is a separation of classes, the well off and the workers. It is a false equality.
Obama is for helping everyone by using the ill-goten gains of the elite to help those who cannot help themselves. That is not communist, nor marxist. Neither term applies and are merely scare tactics from the far right.
Back on topic. Do you deny that Bill O'Reilly lies to his audience?