Could an Obama Dollar Bill Help Rebrand the United States?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Weaver on September 3, 2010 at 9:31am

Nice

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Weaver on September 3, 2010 at 9:27am

Wednesday, June 11, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly

ShareE-MailPrint
To watch "The Talking Points Memo" in the Screening Room click here.

There is no question the Bush administration has some problems with the weapons of mass destruction situation. But the administration is now speaking out, they aren't hiding and that's a good thing.

President Bush and Secretary of State Powell both claim the weapons intelligence was valid. They are asking for more time. We think that is a fair request. However, the Bush haters, led by New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman and L.A. Times columnist Robert Scheer, continue to call the president a liar. Not nice and not provable at this point.

But the troubling issue here is that Krugman, Scheer and millions of other Americans don't want the coalition to find the weapons of mass destruction. They want the Bush administration to be embarrassed. Thereby, the critics are putting partisan politics above the good of the country, because America loses credibility throughout the world if the WMD thing is bogus.

Talking Points cannot respect people who want their country hurt so they can make a political point. That being said, if U.S. intelligence was wrong, CIA Director George Tenet has to go, among others, and President Bush has to explain how he was briefed. The USA simply cannot operate with doubts about its intelligence competency. This issue is far too important for all-Americans, as we all need to be protected in this age of terror.

Once again, however, a fair person gives the government time to resolve the WMD question. That's the right thing to do for all-Americans.

Failure To Deal With The Deadly Enemy
Friday, July 08, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
E-MailPrintShare
The "Talking Points Memo" this evening is about sanitizing terror, failing to deal realistically with the deadly enemy. This morning, I was having breakfast in Killarney, Ireland when the terror attack news broke. My first thought was al Qaeda (search) trying to disrupt theG-8 (search) summit in Scotland. My second thought was now maybe Europe will wise up. The terrorists are the evildoers, not the USA.

That is probably wishful thinking. Generally speaking, the European media is viciously anti-American when it comes to the war on terror. The garbage these people are throwing out to a largely clueless public is astounding. Failed leaders like Chirac (search) in France and Schroeder (search) in Germany also pound home the anti-American theme to divert attention away from their own disastrous administrations.

But now the terrorists have struck again. 9/11 (search), Madrid, today London. If all of the anti-U.S. bitterness were redirected into anti- terror bitterness, the world might defeat these savages. We all know which major countries allow terrorists to operate. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent, Pakistan and Indonesia.

Why isn't the European press condemning those countries? Why doesn't Europe admit Saddam's regime helped terrorists all day long? Why won't the world help the struggling democracy in Iraq?

These are powerful questions. And this London terror attack should get those questions on the front burner where they belong. But don't expect the elite American media to ask them.

A few days ago, Edward Wong, a reporter for the New York Times (search), described Abu al Zarqawi (search) as a "Jordanian fighter." Can you believe an American newspaper would print that? Al Zarqawi is a vicious al Qaeda killer, a man who beheads civilians and orders the murders of women and children. And the New York Times calls this guy a Jordanian fighter? That kind of sanitizing terrorism must stop! The American people, you, must demand that it stop.

The anti-American press both here and in Europe is actually helping the terrorists by diminishing their threat. "Talking Points" urges you to begin holding people accountable for their position on the terror war. Walk away from media that excuses or sanitizes these brutal acts.


USA is not the problem in this world. The terrorists are. And if you don't agree with that, you are helping killers like al Zarqawi. Enough's enough. London should be the last straw. And that's “The Memo.”

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on September 3, 2010 at 9:32am

Bill O'Reilly clearly states "The anti-American press both here and in Europe is actually helping the terrorists by diminishing their threat." You don't think that the press that excuses or sanitizes terrorist brutality is diminishing the threat? I think they were.

Thanks for proving my point, Michael. Again, he did NOT say that 'anyone that questions the President or the war is unpatriotic'. He was specifically questioning an extreme segment of the media only.... the anti-American press. If you're in the press and you ARE anti-American, I'm guessing that's pretty synonymous with lacking patriotism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erik Deckers on September 3, 2010 at 11:07am

You asked who said people who did not support the war or the president were unpatriotic. While I didn't have time to dig into more examples -- that was about 10 minutes of basic searching -- those four people have all made statements that liberals were unpatriotic. Ann Coulter wrote a book that said liberals were treasonous. Sean Hannity's book lumped us in the despots and terrorists.

If I wanted to dig into it further, I could. But, I don't want to. I just think it's hypocritical of people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter to call liberals unpatriotic for not supporting Bush, and then not supporting Obama. If they're going to paint the opposing party as unpatriotic for dissent, then they need to not be dissenters. But if they are going to be dissenters, then they need to allow the left to dissent without tarring them as treasonous or unpatriotic. But that doesn't get viewers or sell books, so they're not going to do that, and I don't actually expect them to.

Not so surprisingly, there are many people on the left who have begun calling H, L, & C (and O'Reilly) unpatriotic, and they're using H, L, &C's very same language and arguments from 4 - 8 years ago. My point is, if you hold people to a standard, don't be surprised when you're held to the very same standard with your own words.

So the Fox News crew can be dissenters and question the government all they want. They probably should. But I also think they're hypocrites for calling liberals unpatriotic and then doing the very same unpatriotic things they complained about.

As far as whether I "listen to the far left," I don't. I think the far left is just as annoying as the far right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Weaver on September 3, 2010 at 11:39am

Well I totally agree, about the holding someone to their standards. That is why I started to take a stand, and speaking out about what I think. I may be wrong in something I believe, but I think it is worse to not stand for something.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on September 3, 2010 at 10:19pm

Michael,

I think it's great. The more we speak, I believe the more we find out that the more we all agree with one another. Politicians like labels and to dump us in buckets and tell us we should hate each other.

I think we should all voice our opinions... but we should also respect the fact that many of us will differ in our opinions.

Doug

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on September 3, 2010 at 10:14pm

Erik,

You - more than anyone - talks about how important words are. Yet you made and continue to make blanket statements that both the far right AND Fox News said that "anyone who questioned the president or the war was unpatriotic". So... I tried to hold you accountable to your words. You failed to provide that evidence. You state above that you're 'holding people to a standard', but you're failing to hold yourself to the same standard.

I watch Fox News (the news... not the editorialists aside from O'Reilly) and I've never seen reporters say what you condemned them for. Hannity isn't a reporter. Coulter isn't a reporter. O'Reilly isn't a reporter. Show me where Fox News as a company is disseminating this crap and I'll stop watching it today. You can't, though, because it's simply not the case. Fox News has paid consultants from both the right and the left, the far right and the far left. On the news shows, I see both get equal time to argue their positions.

O'Reilly consistently defends the President from the far Right. He's gotten attacked about it over and over again. Do some searches for O'Reilly defends Obama - it happens on almost every other show.

If you'd watched Fox News and O'Reilly, you wouldn't be saying these things. Stop saying "Fox News" and begin holding the actual people responsible who said it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erik Deckers on September 3, 2010 at 10:42pm

Whether they're editorialists or reporters, Hannity and O'Reilly appear on the Fox News channel. Whether she's a guest or not, Ann Coulter appears on Sean Hannity's show on the Fox News channel. I'm not talking about reporters, I'm talking about the pundits who are paid by the Fox News channel. I gave you exactly that.

While Hannity and O'Reilly were employed by Fox News, they both made statements impugning the patriotism of people who didn't support George Bush. Ann Coulter appeared on Hannity and Colmes to push her book in which she labeled liberals as treasonous.

I don't watch Fox News because I don't like the shouting and arguing that passes for discussion. I don't watch CNN because of Nancy Grace. I think the political discussion on both sides have gotten shrill, loud, and f---ing pointless, and I won't watch any of it. It's not discussion, it's demagoguery.

I tried watching it back in 2004 when I was told I was a traitor, I was evil, and I was unpatriotic. So the entire political punditry on both sides, on all stations can go have sex with themselves. I'm not interested in them. They add no value to my life, add nothing to my understanding of the issues. I will, instead, read the real news from real journalists and form my own opinions. I don't need them spoonfed to me by someone who got the day's talking points from party headquarters.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on September 4, 2010 at 10:02am

We're off the original topic and now you're defending your generalism with more generalisms. You don't watch Fox News, yet you continue to criticize it. Your arguments are not credible since you don't actually watch it... you're simply 'spoonfeeding' what all the far-left people say about Fox News.

Permalink Reply by Joe Shoemaker on September 5, 2010 at 8:56pm

COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. [FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6]

COULTER: Not only attention, it is to try to discredit us, and I mean, this was more the point of my book Slander, though somewhat of this book, and that is liberals don't wanna take you on on substance. What they wanna do is say this person is crazy, this person is stupid, don't listen to this person, this person is a fascist -- danger, danger -- America, do not listen. They are afraid of public debate. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 10/6]

(Coulter on Gore: "Al Gore is nuts." Coulter on Kerry: Kerry "is as crazy as their [Democrats'] last presidential candidate [Gore] was"; "Kerry will improve the economy in the emergency services and body bag industry." Coulter on New Yorkers: "Oh God, they're so stupid in New York!")

COULTER: I think the problem Democrats have is, no one really believes they're authentic patriots and they would ever say that any war in defense of America is the right war at the right time in the right place. They wouldn't fight any place. They keep having this apocryphal idea that there's some war they would fight. On the criteria they have set out, you know, they wouldn't fight World War II. [...] And everyone knows that Democrats won't fight a war. [MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 10/6]

Permalink Reply by Joe Shoemaker on September 5, 2010 at 9:18pm

From the June 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.

Permalink Reply by Joe Shoemaker on September 5, 2010 at 9:24pm

Come on, Dougie Doug. I know you're more than moderately skilled at using the interwebs. This stuff isn't hard to find.

And for the record, I do - occasionally, and when I'm feeling masochistic and ready to remind myself of why I am a far left liberal - watch Fox and listen to Gush Phlegmball. It's disgusting and it is not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. Beck is a clown. So are O'Reilly and Hannity. To suggest that they're journalists is laughable. They're editorial cartoons.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page