PDA

View Full Version : [Video] Bill O'Reilly Bashes Ron Paul As Does Coulter, Uses Poll Of 54 Voters To Do It




Immortal Technique
06-14-2011, 07:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRFVFb21C3M

Airing Date June.14, 2011

The National Journal poll shows Ron Paul in the lead with 66.38% of the vote.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/


Bill you are an embarrassment.

Travlyr
06-14-2011, 07:52 PM
Bill you are an embarrassment.

A total disgrace of the American media.

headhawg7
06-14-2011, 07:57 PM
This is why I don't watch the flagship Fox network. After what they did to paul in 2008 I will never watch their network again. They are nothing more than tools for neo-cons dressed in conservative/libertarian clothing.

kahless
06-14-2011, 07:59 PM
With every day that passes I hate Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly more and more. O'Reilly has proven time and time again to be a Progressive. Oddly there are more Beck hate threads rather than against this man whom has more influence than any other host. (he has the highest ratings in all of cable news.)

As far as Coulter I remember a time where I used to defend what she was saying. I see her now more and more becoming the defender of big government as long it is presented by the Republican establishment. There is no reason at all for government to be involved in marriage and families. NONE!

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 08:00 PM
Ann Coulter wants to get some attention.

Wren
06-14-2011, 08:05 PM
First the ignore you [✔], then they laugh at you [✔], then they fight you [✔], then you win [ pending ].

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 08:05 PM
I just watched the whole thing. I don't know why you guys are so upset. It was funny. If you want to know what desperation looks like, watch O'Reilly trying to attack Ron Paul.

And Stossel wasn't that bad. I give him a B.

Warrior_of_Freedom
06-14-2011, 08:06 PM
Bill O'Reilly, please kiss my ass. (and go to college)

Fredom101
06-14-2011, 08:07 PM
Wow. Haven't watched Bill O in a while. That was disgraceful. First he pretended like RP was an idiot for even knowing who Keynes was, then he pretended like RP was an idiot for wanting to end the fed! Fuckin insane.

specsaregood
06-14-2011, 08:08 PM
The National Journal poll cited by Bill now shows Ron Paul in the lead with 66.38% of the vote.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/

Bill you are an embarrassment.

I haven't watched the video, but I don't think they are citing an online poll. They are probably citing the survey of "insiders" they released in an article last night. It is basically saying the establishment doesn't like Dr. Paul.....wow amazing.

kahless
06-14-2011, 08:10 PM
The idiot viewer will automatically believe Ron Paul is a kook. People I run into that casually pay attention to politics watch shows like this to formulate an opinion dependent on a combination of their favorite hosts view.

MRoCkEd
06-14-2011, 08:10 PM
I just watched the whole thing. I don't know why you guys are so upset. It was funny. If you want to know what desperation looks like, watch O'Reilly trying to attack Ron Paul.

And Stossel wasn't that bad. I give him a B.
I know, but it's not that funny when you realize we want to win a Republican primary, and this is the most-watched news program. The day Ron Paul can win is the day Bill O'Reilly treats him seriously.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 08:11 PM
The idiot viewer will automatically believe Ron Paul is a kook. People I run into that casually pay attention to politics watch shows like this to formulate an opinion dependent on a combination of their favorite hosts view.

it increases RP's name recognition. people can change their minds with information if they don't have a solid reason to hate RP. i think it's a net positive.

Kregisen
06-14-2011, 08:16 PM
He's asking what Keynesian is? He probably thought it was referring to Obama being Kenyan like all those people on that youtube video

headhawg7
06-14-2011, 08:16 PM
The idiot viewer will automatically believe Ron Paul is a kook. People I run into that casually pay attention to politics watch shows like this to formulate an opinion dependent on a combination of their favorite hosts view.

I totally agree and just mentioned the same thing in another post.

Immortal Technique
06-14-2011, 08:18 PM
I haven't watched the video, but I don't think they are citing an online poll. They are probably citing the survey of "insiders" they released in an article last night. It is basically saying the establishment doesn't like Dr. Paul.....wow amazing.

no it was that same snap poll cnn used where ron had %0, i present this in the video.Bill lists off the same poll percentages.

AGRP
06-14-2011, 08:23 PM
It's Bill's job to behave like a moron.

Brett85
06-14-2011, 08:24 PM
Now I see why people here hate Fox so much.

Bruno
06-14-2011, 08:24 PM
They doth protest too much

TheBlackPeterSchiff
06-14-2011, 08:30 PM
Fuck Bill.

Billay
06-14-2011, 08:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c_gJRHwgqI

MJU1983
06-14-2011, 08:34 PM
Not sure if he still reads this email address but I sent one anyway, also attached the picture from the main page of the poll/CNN Screen Shot as well as a printout showing Ron Paul having 68% of the National Journal dot com vote.

To: oreilly@foxnews.com

Bill,

When you don't present accurate information or complete facts to your viewers you are being untruthful. The "poll" you quoted saying Ron Paul getting 0% of the vote after the debate was a poll among 54 Republican National Journal Political Insiders. The actual National Journal online poll has Ron Paul WINNING. Also, look at the numbers - they don't even total 100%! Do those numbers actually make sense to you? You have just stooped to CNN's level...

Ranger29860
06-14-2011, 08:36 PM
Omg

MJU1983
06-14-2011, 08:37 PM
First the ignore you [✔], then they laugh at you [✔], then they fight you [✔], then you win [ pending ].

:)

I hope so!

Kregisen
06-14-2011, 08:38 PM
they don't even total 100%! Do those numbers actually make sense to you? You have just stooped to CNN's level...

any poll with x amount of options will always add up to 100% +/- x because of rounding. This poll has 7 options so they will add up anywhere from 93-107% and it's at 96....

you just ruined a great email to o'rielly with a silly comment at the end lol. Think before you type!!!

cubical
06-14-2011, 08:52 PM
Stossel calmly owned O'Riley on every comment O'Riley threw at him regarding Paul and a free market. What is the proper word to describe O'Riley? He's not a neocon, but just seems stubborn and ignorant at times. He didn't know who Kaynes is? This is the biggest problem facing our country right now and he is the most watched new guy on TV and he doesn't know Keynes??? Unreal. And LOL at the poll. I wish Stossell had brought up the online polls.

Coulter was on the Peter Schiff show this morning and she was simply terrible. She sounds like an awful person to be around.

Please someone on here with a billion dollars start your own Libertarian news station.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 08:55 PM
Coulter was on the Peter Schiff show this morning and she was simply terrible. She sounds like an awful person to be around.

I thought Schiff was even worse. Why didn't you support me in the Senate election? I would've preferred to hear Ann Coulter's thoughts on the debate, whatever they might be, over yet another Schiff-centered interview.

MJU1983
06-14-2011, 09:08 PM
any poll with x amount of options will always add up to 100% +/- x because of rounding. This poll has 7 options so they will add up anywhere from 93-107% and it's at 96....

you just ruined a great email to o'rielly with a silly comment at the end lol. Think before you type!!!

I see your point but the math to me still doesn't make sense when you have only 54 votes. If Ron Paul got 0 votes then there are 6 options left divisible by 54.

If 27 out of the 54 picked Romney, the vote is 50%. If 28 out of 54 picked Romney the vote % is 51.85 rounded up to 52?

For Bachmann, she got 21% of the 54 votes. 11/54 = 20.37% and 12/54 = 22.22% (repeating). Neither number rounds to 21%.

Down the line, Tim P got 9% of the 54 votes. That would be 5 votes or 9.25% rounding down to 9%.

Gingrich got 7% of the 54 votes. That would be 4 votes or 7.40% rounding down to 7%.

Cain and Santorum both got 4% of the 54 votes. That would be 2 votes or 3.70% (round to 4%?) because 3 votes is 5.555% repeating.

Recap:
Romney - 27 or 28 votes
Bachmann - 11 or 12 votes
Tim P - 5 votes
Gingrich - 4 votes
Cain Santorum - 4 or 6 votes total

None of it adds up to 54 people.

I don't know, to me it doesn't seem like a silly comment.

PeacePlan
06-14-2011, 09:08 PM
Poor Bill he does not even know what Ron was talking about because Bill does not know that we even use Keynesian economics to run our monetary system.

It is a problem that so many people are as ignorant as Bill is. I suspect about 95% of the voters have no idea also when Ron talks about the economy?

cubical
06-14-2011, 09:14 PM
I thought Schiff was even worse. Why didn't you support me in the Senate election? I would've preferred to hear Ann Coulter's thoughts on the debate, whatever they might be, over yet another Schiff-centered interview.

I partially agree. I think Schiff was saying it as sort of a joke, but it kept going for too long.

Coulter seemed to be on the attack from the beginning though. And to dismiss Schiff's idea that most liberals vote from their heart, like it was a liberal thing to say or that it was just ignorant, was uncalled for. Mainly because I believe Schiff is right. Coulter seems to be the same as the people she demonizes, simply she is rooting for the other team.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
06-14-2011, 09:16 PM
Stossel has to be the worst defender ever.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 09:18 PM
Stossel has to be the worst defender ever.

When you say those words this comes to mind. Sanford trying to defend McCain.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEw0TNrUd8

Agorism
06-14-2011, 09:18 PM
One of the problems with the Iran debate is the danger that the Federal government poses.

Some gun slinger like McCain could get the office and start blowing people up.

TCE
06-14-2011, 09:21 PM
Stossel has to be the worst defender ever.

I disagree. Watch some of his early debate sessions, he got destroyed. He has improved leaps and bounds. All O'Reilly did was so, "yeah, okay" and act disinterested every time Stossel said anything. It is impossible to win an argument against someone who acts so immature. O'Reilly makes one good point, though, Ron phrases things in a way that the average person can't/won't understand. Virtually no one knows what Sound Money is. Virtually no one knows what effect the Fed has on the economy. The panelists were right, Ron definitely didn't win and can't if he keeps over complicating things. His statement should be: "our dollar has lost so much value from all of these bailouts and the Fed printing money. We have to stop it and I'm the only one talking about it."

Sola_Fide
06-14-2011, 09:31 PM
O'Reilly came off as a complete idiot in that whole bit. Acting like he was "dumb" really was not a good strategy.

harikaried
06-14-2011, 09:33 PM
Ann Coutler had an interesting comment about government controlling marriage:

How would issues like adoption and divorce work?

I assume the connection of marriage to adoption is that government requires the parents to be married? Why does that requirement exist in the first place? Don't the adoption centers do any due diligence of their own?

For divorce, the issue is having laws that determine who gets what as opposed to the individuals agreeing to get married in the first place?

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 09:34 PM
Ann Coutler had an interesting comment about government controlling marriage:

How would issues like adoption and divorce work?

How did they work before the government got involved?

Feeding the Abscess
06-14-2011, 09:37 PM
With every day that passes I hate Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly more and more. O'Reilly has proven time and time again to be a Progressive. Oddly there are more Beck hate threads rather than against this man whom has more influence than any other host. (he has the highest ratings in all of cable news.)

As far as Coulter I remember a time where I used to defend what she was saying. I see her now more and more becoming the defender of big government as long it is presented by the Republican establishment. There is no reason at all for government to be involved in marriage and families. NONE!

Everybody here knows O'Reilly is a moron, there's no need for threads to point it out. Not everybody knows Beck is a clown, that's the difference.

Cleaner44
06-14-2011, 09:49 PM
Maybe we should all vote for an idiot on all of these online polls. Pick the most obscure candidate and see how they spin that... LOL.

TCE
06-14-2011, 09:50 PM
Ann Coutler had an interesting comment about government controlling marriage:

How would issues like adoption and divorce work?

I assume the connection of marriage to adoption is that government requires the parents to be married? Why does that requirement exist in the first place? Don't the adoption centers do any due diligence of their own?

For divorce, the issue is having laws that determine who gets what as opposed to the individuals agreeing to get married in the first place?

You would still deal with the adoption agency and they would have the final say, same as it is now. There would be less red tape, sure, but not much of a noticeable difference. From what I've heard, adoption agencies now favor married couples, so that likely wouldn't change.

For divorce, that could all still be settled between the two people. It's pretty simple, Person A and Person B no longer agree to be wed, alright, no problem there. On the property issue, if there is a dispute, it would go to the state court to be decided. I'm not seeing much difference on that end, either. From your post, you seem to have a decent grasp of it already, so I'm probably repeating what you already know.

Coulter's concern seems to be the social conservative one, that gay marriage will likely occur. "And oh no! If that happens, men will marry goats, women will marry toasters! The world will end!" Yeah...not quite. Marriages would likely be handled by churches and other religious institutions as they always have.

TCE
06-14-2011, 09:51 PM
Maybe we should all vote for an idiot on all of these online polls. Pick the most obscure candidate and see how they spin that... LOL.

That could be fun. They don't pay attention when we spam for Ron, so may as well go with the candidate the media hates the most other than Ron or Johnson. That'll confuse some people.

parocks
06-14-2011, 10:09 PM
I think the media is pretty pissed off at Ron Paul Supporters. They would like to have a poll that might mean something - to be an accurate reflection of something other than the ability of Ron Paul supporters to be amused by going from website to website voting for Ron Paul.

They're saying "we can do it too". That they used a poll of 54 people to do it, I dunno.

parocks
06-14-2011, 10:37 PM
What would be I think most fun, would be to use this as an opportunity to develop teamwork and coordination.

Perhaps at a certain time, we announce what we want the results to be.
Perhaps it's something reasonable -
25 Romney
15 Paul
15 Bachmann
15 Gingrich
10 Cain
10 Santorum
10 Pawlenty

Something reasonable, something that the media will buy. We want the media to think that the results aren't being skewed by Ron Paul Supporters.
It will likely be harder to do, but we very much could develop a narrative - delivering poll results to the media that the media will find to their liking.

They would like to see Romney win. Fine. Give them Romney win. They want Ron Paul low. Fine, Give them Ron Paul low. You think they'd want to see a Bachmann bounce? Yeah, somewhat, they'd believe it.

We set the numbers, we get them to buy that the numbers are legit, get them reliant on the quality of their polls, and the utility of their polls, then you slowly ease to
where you want. Add 1 to Paul, subtract 1 from Romney each time. Give other candidates bumps for good stuff and drop candidates for gaffes, but you'll want everyone believing your story.

They might enjoy our narrative that much that they'll embrace Ron Paul for making their lives easier instead of being pissed off at Ron Paul supporters for ruining their poll.

This would take a lot of skill and coordination to accomplish properly. If we do this, it's like training, we'd be developing our skill, developing our coordination. Working to develop a highly skilled, well coordinated organization.

freshjiva
06-14-2011, 10:59 PM
As much as Bill O'Reilly is a complete waste of time, I believe Ron Paul needs to take home a lesson from all of this: DUMB DOWN YOUR MESSAGE!

I agree wholeheartedly that he needs to completely avoid using words like "Keynesian bubble" or "sound money" or even "liquidation of debt" because it will do nothing but create a bunch of blank stares in millions of people who are clueless about this stuff.

He could've answered the question regarding bringing jobs back home to America simply by saying, "Stop the government from spending money we don't have, cut taxes, lift destructive regulations that hinder production, and strengthen our Dollar."

That is something the people can and will understand. We're dealing with a nation of zombies here, and so they need to be educated with care.

Don Lapre
06-14-2011, 11:06 PM
While nearly all - BIG - media outlets treat Ron Paul shamefully, FAUX NEWS is perhaps the most shameful of all.

Because FAUX passes itself off as THE conservative outpost in a land of leftist news outlets.
And fucktards like O'Really? pass themselves off as conservatives.

Fact is, if conservatism is defined by strict adherence to the Constitution, Ron Paul's voting record shows him to be THE most conservative candidate - by far.

Sadly, a lot of the 'conservative' voting base is influenced by what little fuckpuddles like O'Really? have to say.


It's predictable and it's just the way it's gonna roll for Ron.

Fermli
06-14-2011, 11:09 PM
I think the media is pretty pissed off at Ron Paul Supporters. They would like to have a poll that might mean something - to be an accurate reflection of something other than the ability of Ron Paul supporters to be amused by going from website to website voting for Ron Paul.

They're saying "we can do it too". That they used a poll of 54 people to do it, I dunno.

polls are bullshit and contribute nothing to the discussion. The govt shouldn't be doing stuff just because the majority of americans want it. Amazes me how often polls are discussed in the media instead of ideas.

Legend1104
06-14-2011, 11:09 PM
As much as Bill O'Reilly is a complete waste of time, I believe Ron Paul needs to take home a lesson from all of this: DUMB DOWN YOUR MESSAGE!

I agree wholeheartedly that he needs to completely avoid using words like "Keynesian bubble" or "sound money" or even "liquidation of debt" because it will do nothing but create a bunch of blank stares in millions of people who are clueless about this stuff.

He could've answered the question regarding bringing jobs back home to America simply by saying, "Stop the government from spending money we don't have, cut taxes, lift destructive regulations that hinder production, and strengthen our Dollar."

That is something the people can and will understand. We're dealing with a nation of zombies here, and so they need to be educated with care.

Part of this is true, but I have one objection. I remember when I watched the debates for 2008. I thought Ron Paul was an idiot and kook then, but I heard his economics answers and thought, "Well, he does know a lot about economics." I think a lot of people that are watching don't really understand economics or how alot of these problems are caused. Later when I wanted to understand what was going on, I went back to Ron Paul. I think when people here him they think, "I don't know what he is saying but it sounds smart." Therefore, many of them are so brainless that they will think it has to be right because it is so crazy hard to understand.

Don Lapre
06-14-2011, 11:34 PM
I thought Ron did a very good job, overall.


The only negative was this:

When you go into a debate like that, you are making a visual presentation to the American people.
And in this day-and-age, that presentation can be pretty important.

So who the hell let Ron Paul go out on stage wearing a suit that looked like @ss warmed over?

Come freakin' ON, man.


HORRIBLE.

FreedomProsperityPeace
06-14-2011, 11:44 PM
^ LOL! I don't know, I think that's his image now: the doctor who wears ill-fitting suits because he's so wrapped up in complicated economics, history, and constitutional issues. It could work for him. He's not going to out-Romney Romney, in tailored suits looking like a freakin' Ken Doll.

If anything, looking too good, in too fancy a suit, could work against a candidate in this environment. Most Americans can't afford a suit like that. It also makes him look like a banker, or an elitist Wall Street guy, or a rich politician. In fact, that would be a good way to attack him in a campaign ad. :cool:

Kregisen
06-15-2011, 01:03 AM
I see your point but the math to me still doesn't make sense when you have only 54 votes. If Ron Paul got 0 votes then there are 6 options left divisible by 54.

If 27 out of the 54 picked Romney, the vote is 50%. If 28 out of 54 picked Romney the vote % is 51.85 rounded up to 52?

For Bachmann, she got 21% of the 54 votes. 11/54 = 20.37% and 12/54 = 22.22% (repeating). Neither number rounds to 21%.

Down the line, Tim P got 9% of the 54 votes. That would be 5 votes or 9.25% rounding down to 9%.

Gingrich got 7% of the 54 votes. That would be 4 votes or 7.40% rounding down to 7%.

Cain and Santorum both got 4% of the 54 votes. That would be 2 votes or 3.70% (round to 4%?) because 3 votes is 5.555% repeating.

Recap:
Romney - 27 or 28 votes
Bachmann - 11 or 12 votes
Tim P - 5 votes
Gingrich - 4 votes
Cain Santorum - 4 or 6 votes total

None of it adds up to 54 people.

I don't know, to me it doesn't seem like a silly comment.

OK I see what you mean now....you didn't explain that before. Hmm interesting how they got 21% for Bachmann when no number would round to 21%...that is strange.

Kregisen
06-15-2011, 01:05 AM
You would still deal with the adoption agency and they would have the final say, same as it is now. There would be less red tape, sure, but not much of a noticeable difference. From what I've heard, adoption agencies now favor married couples, so that likely wouldn't change.

For divorce, that could all still be settled between the two people. It's pretty simple, Person A and Person B no longer agree to be wed, alright, no problem there. On the property issue, if there is a dispute, it would go to the state court to be decided. I'm not seeing much difference on that end, either. From your post, you seem to have a decent grasp of it already, so I'm probably repeating what you already know.

Coulter's concern seems to be the social conservative one, that gay marriage will likely occur. "And oh no! If that happens, men will marry goats, women will marry toasters! The world will end!" Yeah...not quite. Marriages would likely be handled by churches and other religious institutions as they always have.


Well that's an interesting question....how would you prove in a court you two were married if the government wasn't handing out marriage licenses? I guess a church could hand out certificates that both people sign or something but I don't know.

Either way though, even if there were issues with getting the government out all the way, the least you can do is still get it out of marriage and only issue civil unions, while leaving marriage to churches.

JackieDan
06-15-2011, 01:12 AM
CNN did the same thing..

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-15-2011, 01:25 AM
Well that's an interesting question....how would you prove in a court you two were married if the government wasn't handing out marriage licenses? I guess a church could hand out certificates that both people sign or something but I don't know.

Either way though, even if there were issues with getting the government out all the way, the least you can do is still get it out of marriage and only issue civil unions, while leaving marriage to churches.

How do you prove anything in which the Government is not involved...Oh, I know -- A CONTRACT. It just goes to show how far our society has de-evolved from a market economy to a Corporatist/Socialist one. It's like people forgot the most basic methods to conduct trade and resolve disputes. Really boggles the mind.

HarryBrowneLives
06-15-2011, 01:28 AM
We should have our own Media Members Only poll on our front page and ask them who they want to win their poll:) Bastards! Or ... just pick somebody at random every time and have a John Huntsman Day, or a Rick Santorum Day. I like that better. Plus, it helps keep all the rank and file activists, money, attention, and votes split up more which helps us.

steph3n
06-15-2011, 01:46 AM
How do you prove anything in which the Government is not involved...Oh, I know -- A CONTRACT. It just goes to show how far our society has de-evolved from a market economy to a Corporatist/Socialist one. It's like people forgot the most basic methods to conduct trade and resolve disputes. Really boggles the mind.
State marriage licenses, and the divorce courts(no doubt they'd still be around!), and the systems of 'licensing' marriage are basically the government operated puppy mill.

TIMB0B
06-15-2011, 01:59 AM
Part of this is true, but I have one objection. I remember when I watched the debates for 2008. I thought Ron Paul was an idiot and kook then, but I heard his economics answers and thought, "Well, he does know a lot about economics." I think a lot of people that are watching don't really understand economics or how alot of these problems are caused. Later when I wanted to understand what was going on, I went back to Ron Paul. I think when people here him they think, "I don't know what he is saying but it sounds smart." Therefore, many of them are so brainless that they will think it has to be right because it is so crazy hard to understand.

+1

The fact of the matter is he got more applause than the others, and I believe it's because of what you eluded to with "I don't know what he is saying but it sounds smart." What Ron Paul does that none of the other candidates do is he skips the rhetoric, defines the problems, and offers real solutions. The others simply regurgitate talking points but rarely provide any substance, and I think that's why RP received more applause than the others.

Johnnymac
06-15-2011, 02:09 AM
i stopped at the 2 minute mark that's just a bunch of bull shit

Humanae Libertas
06-15-2011, 02:33 AM
Bill O'Reilly, please kiss my ass. (and go to college)

Surprisingly, he did go to college -- 3 private-elite colleges and got 3 degrees, one in History and actually taught during his early years; And this jackass knows nothing about Keynesian economics? So much for his "education".

steph3n
06-15-2011, 02:39 AM
Surprisingly, he did go to college -- 3 private-elite colleges and got 3 degrees, one in History and actually taught during his early years; And this jackass knows nothing about Keynesian economics? So much for his "education".
Sometimes people feign ignorance to influence the sheep that this guy is a kook or over their head, when really he knows exactly what it is about and wants to mislead.

anaconda
06-15-2011, 02:46 AM
Somebody got to Ann or offered her a bunch of money.

steph3n
06-15-2011, 02:51 AM
Somebody got to Ann or offered her a bunch of money.

Na,she was never sincere anyway, she is just an entertainer, worse than Beck in that regard.

anaconda
06-15-2011, 02:51 AM
Ha! I get it! This is WILD. O'reilly is pretending he knows nothing about Keynes..to the extent that he can't even pronounce his name. But I am extremely confident the Bill has heard of Keynes and actually does know how to pronounce his name. This is nutty. The PTB are really fucking scared to pull this kind of transparent dumb stuff. Wow. Just wow...

steph3n
06-15-2011, 02:55 AM
Ha! I get it! This is WILD. O'reilly is pretending he knows nothing about Keynes..to the extent that he can't even pronounce his name. But I am extremely confident the Bill has heard of Keynes and actually does know how to pronounce his name. This is nutty. The PTB are really fucking scared to pull this kind of transparent dumb stuff. Wow. Just wow...

I fully agree and said pretty much the same thing +r

MaxPower
06-15-2011, 04:11 AM
So, Bill O'Reilly, the most-watched political commentator in America, does not know what economic theory underlies many of the federal government's central policies, does not know who its founder was, does not know how to pronounce the name of said theory, and does not know what it stipulates- yet he is willing to treat others who do know as though they are the ones who should look ridiculous. He speaks of a poll of 54 Republican bigwigs as though it were a public survey (note the "not even Ron Paul thought he won" line, as though the voting were open to the general public); and this is the quality of political coverage that the average American gets. Is it really any wonder our man isn't leading the race?

ConvertedRepublican
06-15-2011, 04:22 AM
Ha! I get it! This is WILD. O'reilly is pretending he knows nothing about Keynes..to the extent that he can't even pronounce his name. But I am extremely confident the Bill has heard of Keynes and actually does know how to pronounce his name. This is nutty. The PTB are really fucking scared to pull this kind of transparent dumb stuff. Wow. Just wow...

You hit it.
Pundits in MSM play pretend to 'relate' to the 'average' listener/viewer. Once you realize this, watching them is impossible. It's like watching bad acting.

demolama
06-15-2011, 04:41 AM
How do you prove anything in which the Government is not involved...Oh, I know -- A CONTRACT. It just goes to show how far our society has de-evolved from a market economy to a Corporatist/Socialist one. It's like people forgot the most basic methods to conduct trade and resolve disputes. Really boggles the mind.

The Jewish Ketubah is a contract that has been around for well over a thousand years. It is the signing of it that the two become married. Not the ceremony that succeeds it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah

By secularizing a lot of the church functions they just changed authority from the church to the state. It was the state that utilized force in the name of the church. Churches alone could not use force without the state.

Paulatized
06-15-2011, 04:52 AM
Ha! I get it! This is WILD. O'reilly is pretending he knows nothing about Keynes..to the extent that he can't even pronounce his name. But I am extremely confident the Bill has heard of Keynes and actually does know how to pronounce his name. This is nutty. The PTB are really fucking scared to pull this kind of transparent dumb stuff. Wow. Just wow...

I totally agree, I posted this earlier on another thread:


You will never convince me that O'Riley doesn't know about Keynesian Economics. He was just acting like an idiot to set up a mockery of RP. He makes me sick, really, seriously. Disagree with arguments fine, but to mock such an honorable man... He must have a lot to loose.

pacelli
06-15-2011, 05:39 AM
So much for people thinking Ann Coulter is on our side based on her fucking "tweet" during the debate.

Thought we've been down this road 4 years ago: Never trust the media.. not even 4 years later.

MisterTickle
06-15-2011, 06:15 AM
I like Stossel. I always seem him defends Ron and Rand. He needs a cookie.

wgadget
06-15-2011, 06:24 AM
Isn't it weird that they gave so much show-time to a guy that got ZERO percent in the fake WHO-WON-THE-DEBATE poll?

wgadget
06-15-2011, 06:26 AM
So was Ron Paul one of the 54 tards who voted?

Billo is NOT making sense. I bet he went home and downed a few beers after that performance.

wgadget
06-15-2011, 06:28 AM
Wasn't there just a big article (cover page) in Time about Austrian economics rising?

Or something?

Doesn't Billo even try to keep up with the issues of the day?

Geez.

speciallyblend
06-15-2011, 06:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA43ETEU1Vghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA43ETEU1Vg

Napoleon's Shadow
06-15-2011, 08:04 AM
Abiggest LOSER poll from O'Reilly. We need someone other than Ron to be leading. In true Orwellian fashion, he excludes the two candidates he's pushing, so we can't go against his predetermined conclusion. Pick the poll on the left.

hxxp://www.billoreilly.com/poll-center

Working Poor
06-15-2011, 08:19 AM
the GOP cannot win the election without Ron Paul or his supporters. They are F^cked without Ron and us ha ha!

Feeding the Abscess
06-15-2011, 08:21 AM
What's funny is that O'Rly actually said during the episode that he's libertarian. No, no, seriously - when priming Stossel before a commercial break, he said he was bringing Stossel on to translate Ron Paul, from one libertarian to another.

What a loser.

enjerth
06-15-2011, 10:25 AM
I'm on board with the poll irregularity. The only way the numbers there make sense is if you can split a vote, Romney with 27.5, Bachmann with 11.5, 5, 4, 1 and 1. I don't think there's any other way to come up with those numbers without some smoke and mirrors.

This leaves 4 votes, 7%, unaccounted for. Were they for Paul?

AuH20
06-15-2011, 10:28 AM
Surprisingly, he did go to college -- 3 private-elite colleges and got 3 degrees, one in History and actually taught during his early years; And this jackass knows nothing about Keynesian economics? So much for his "education".

Bill and I went to the same high school. Obviously, he's much older. Anyway you have to understand that O'Reilly is a Catholic 'JFK type' democrat with some conservative leanings.

FSP-Rebel
06-15-2011, 10:34 AM
Abiggest LOSER poll from O'Reilly. We need someone other than Ron to be leading. In true Orwellian fashion, he excludes the two candidates he's pushing, so we can't go against his predetermined conclusion. Pick the poll on the left.

hxxp://www.billoreilly.com/poll-center
Might need a new thread for help on that, unless there already is somewhere. We're getting smoked right now.

Travlyr
06-15-2011, 10:38 AM
Will they make the claim that 0% does not qualify him to be in any more presidential debates? Is that their strategy?

lew
06-15-2011, 12:14 PM
What's funny is that O'Rly actually said during the episode that he's libertarian. No, no, seriously - when priming Stossel before a commercial break, he said he was bringing Stossel on to translate Ron Paul, from one libertarian to another.

What a loser.

No. He was saying that Stossel, a libertarian, would explain what Paul, a libertarian, was saying.

lew
06-15-2011, 12:15 PM
Yes, there were a lot of negative comments about Paul in that video.

But at the same time, Stossel was allowed to explain perfectly about Keynesianism and why Paul is right. Overall, the video wasn't bad at all.

georgiaboy
06-15-2011, 12:17 PM
Isn't it weird that they gave so much show-time to a guy that got ZERO percent in the fake WHO-WON-THE-DEBATE poll?

yes, very weird.

Napoleon's Shadow
06-15-2011, 06:58 PM
This is begging for a remix?

evadmurd
06-17-2011, 09:27 PM
O'Reilly = D%#K Head.