Cialis Professional
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 124

Thread: When extremism becomes dangerous

  1. #26

    Default

    Here is a list (FROM 2004) with some of the lies O'Reilly has said:
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200412230006
    O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
    O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
    O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
    O'Reilly fabricated "Paris Business Review" as source for success of French boycott. O'Reilly falsely claimed "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review'" due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." (4/27/04)
    O'Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O'Reilly tried to "blow off" the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)
    O'Reilly confused on elementary economics. O'Reilly told a caller on his radio show, "We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails" -- indicating that he doesn't know the definition of "trade deficit" and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)
    O'Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O'Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)
    O'Reilly questioned if Kennedy would show up to Democratic convention ... as Kennedy spoke behind him. O'Reilly teased an upcoming segment of The O'Reilly Factor, broadcast live from the Democratic National Convention, by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: "When we come back, we'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up." In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O'Reilly need only have turned around to see. (7/27/04)
    O'Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
    O'Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn't create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: "Socialistic" French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are "government-controlled," but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)
    O'Reilly said that Nixon never met Chairman Mao (while criticizing Obama for meeting Chavez)
    See for your self.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6GD8eCOUE8
    More:
    "I understand working-class Americans" is one of O'Reilly's recurring lines. "I'm as lower-middle-class as they come". His father, he says, "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life." While the O'Reillys were not rich, the father was an oil company executive, and $35k then, adjusted for inflation, is $100k now. The O'Reilly children went to private schools, and O'Reilly's father put him through college.

    "I'll tell you what. I've been in combat. I've seen it, I've been close to it... and if my unit is danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. The guy better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first." Speaking metaphorically, of course -- O'Reilly was never in the military.
    http://www.nndb.com/people/434/000022368/

    He smeared American soldiers stating that Americans were responsible for atrocities against the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge.
    “In Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air, and they were unarmed, and they shot them down,” O’Reilly said referring to the Belgian town of Malmedy, which was fought over during the Battle of the Bulge. “You know that. That’s on the record, been documented. In Iwo Jima, the same thing occurred. Japanese attempted to surrender, and they were burned in their caves.”
    But O’Reilly’s historical certainty was astonishingly misplaced. First, at Malmedy, the atrocity on Dec. 17, 1944, was the other way around: about 86 surrendering U.S. soldiers were massacred by German SS panzer forces in one of the most notorious war crimes on the Western Front.
    O’Reilly had turned the U.S. soldiers from victims into war criminals, while transforming their SS murderers from war criminals to victims.
    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/060306.html

    He lied on David Letterman's show (2006) about a Wisconsin school banning "Silent Night"
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200601040009
    Even what he is saying about Dr. Tiller HAS to be a lie. There is no way on God's green earth can one doctor perform 60,000 abortions. You do the math.

    There is a lot more where this came from.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    La La Land
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    Sparks, 60,000 isn't all that much. That's one per work hour over a 30-year career. That's an awful lot of loufahs he'd go through...okay, I'll shut up. Really!

  3. #28

    Default

    Don't shut up, Izzy. That made me LOL!

    Seriously, I hate math, BUTT here are my calculations.
    If Dr. Tiller worked 40 hours a week for 30 years:
    40 hours a week per year = 2080 hours a year.
    Mulitplied by 30 years = 36400.

    So if he worked 40 hours a week for 30 years, he would only have 36,400 hours to do all those abortions...I think not.

  4. Default

    My new hero= Sparks

  5. #30

    Default

    IMO-sparks and trueurbanite you both did a really great job presenting your opinion on this controversial issue with objectivity and non-agressiveness. And Sparks-great job backing up your claims with some references. That is the way to debate! And Izzy I agree 100% with everything that you said.
    Michelle is the best

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    In Idaho passing out AK47s to the wolves
    Posts
    524

    Default

    And I agree with UGG plus I'd like to bestow 5-each cyber atta boys to sparks, trueurbanite and izzy.

    And while I'm at it 5 each to eventerbess, evergreen and you too UGG!

    And with that largess bestowed,"Good Night and Good Luck".
    We have met the enemy and they is us.
    Pogo (Walt Kelly)

  7. #32
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    The Gulf Coast - America's First Coast, America's Best Coast
    Age
    75
    Posts
    2,374

    Baseball

    I don't really want to get into an argument over this tragic event. But I do have to express my opinion here ....

    These people in the anti-choice movement call themselves "pro-life" and "Christian." Then one of them goes into a church-house, and murders a doctor in the narthex. This is not pro-life, it is anti-life. Murder is not an act of heroism, it is a horrendous crime against the laws of God and man.

    And this is not Christian. It is anti-Christian. Jesus wouldn't even let men chunk rocks at a woman caught red-handed in a sexual sin, although the Law said they should. (Everyone here who has ever read the Christian Scripture knows what I'm talking about.)

    It is anti-American, too. We are a nation of laws, and this man, seeming to act on behalf of the anti-choice movement to which he belonged, committed a lawless act. And he was egged on - perhaps the eggers-on did not mean for him to go this far, but they certainly keep harping away, saying doctors like Tiller are murderers who deserve to die - he was egged on by Bill Orally and Randall Terry and the Bishop of Rome and many many so-called "Christian Clergy."

    A friend of Dr Tiller's said on MSNBC this evening that Tiller had provided free airfare for 10 and 11 year old girls, who had become pregnant as a direct result of incestuous rape, to fly them to his clinic and give them free abortions. This is not killing babies, it is saving the lives of children.

    In all of this, I daresay Dr Tiller was the actual Christian. In spite of the danger, he remained dedicated to helping women and girls in need of legal medical services.

    There now, I've said my piece. Breanna or others may wish to attack me, insult me, condemn me for it. I will not pay any attention to them. I have thought about this issue for longer than many on MKF have been alive, and I have done so in light of my complete commitment to Jesus the Christ, my personal Lord and Saviour. And I am absolutely pro-choice.
    I pledge allegiance to Liberty and Justice for all.
    Pray for Peace.
    "We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." - Jimmy Carter
    Click here for my photos.

  8. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryStopher View Post
    A friend of Dr Tiller's said on MSNBC this evening that Tiller had provided free airfare for 10 and 11 year old girls, who had become pregnant as a direct result of incestuous rape, to fly them to his clinic and give them free abortions. This is not killing babies, it is saving the lives of children.
    Jerry, thanks so much!

    And this post raises an important question: How could anyone decree that the right to life of a 10-week-old fetus should override the right to life of a
    10-year-old girl who was made pregnant against her will and who could face lifelong health issues and/or death if forced to carry the fetus to term?

    How is that moral in any sense?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Fetalized since 1998
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Izzy, I love your post. While I don't agree with everything you said..100%...close to it, tho', ..IMO, your post is rational, no-namecalling, and putting the blame..or responsibility...clearly where it belongs..
    Keeper of the "Wing-It Pose" from 98 Nats
    Keeper of Evan's kindness
    Keeper of Adam's "As it should be"..
    Co-keeper of John Coughlin's protective nature


    "....and in fact lived every moment of her life as if a child might be watching..."

    Christine Brennan on Michelle Kwan 2/12/06

  10. Default

    Wonderful post Jerry. Thank you.

  11. #36

    Default

    A friend of Dr Tiller's said on MSNBC this evening that Tiller had provided free airfare for 10 and 11 year old girls, who had become pregnant as a direct result of incestuous rape, to fly them to his clinic and give them free abortions. This is not killing babies, it is saving the lives of children.
    Yes. She also spoke about how some mothers with dead babies in their uterus could not get their doctors to remove the baby. The doctors were forcing them to give "birth" to a dead child - no matter the risk of infection and heartbreak. Dr. Tiller would fly them to his clinic and give them care.
    She emphasized the women he helped were not just walking down the steet in Wichita and suddenly decided to abort their perfectly healthy children.
    All of this flies in the face of what some are saying about Dr. Tiller -ie: "He made millions of dollars, he did abortions just because he was a killer", etc.
    Last edited by Sparks; June 3rd, 2009 at 05:51 PM.

  12. #37

    Default

    We are at this forum because of a figure skater. And look at how we have managed to discuss and debate rationally. I think among other things it says that Michelle really does belong at the state department and perhaps has a second career as a diplomat.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    In the bright lights of the big city.
    Posts
    519

    Default

    I disagree that Dr. Tiller provided what some term a service, but I do understand that his murder was a despicable act, and one that should be condemned. In my view, Dr. Tiller did murder babies, but he did not deserve the death he met with.

    That is the debate with abortion. Some see it as freedom to choose, others see it as murder. In the end, it is between them, God and their conscience, and God will judge as He sees fit. God will judge every act of man - good and bad. People should be allowed to express their views/concerns. Violence is never an option.
    "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:18

  14. #39

    Default

    I will weigh in with how I view this issue.
    It is an organ donor situation. Say the fetus is life at whatever time. It cannot live outside the mother's uterus. Should the woman be forced to donate her uterus, even for a limited time? The donation comes with some risk, women do die from complications of pregnancy. I would hope she would donate her uterus just as I would hope a family member would donate a kidney or part of a liver, or blood. But i do not think she should be forced by law to do so.
    This is just how I see it. And from first hand experience, sometimes parents have to choose among their children as to use of resources be those resources emotional, physical and economic. Those choices should be those of the family, not the government.
    I realize this is a bit of an odd view, but it is how I see things.

  15. #40

    Default

    Bess, I think I get what you are saying.

    In the end, it is between them, God and their conscience, and God will judge as He sees fit. God will judge every act of man - good and bad. People should be allowed to express their views/concerns. Violence is never an option.
    With this I agree. That's why I mentioned in another thread that religious people can be pro-choice AND pro-life. They just don't want the government interfering in a woman's private life. It is between the person and God.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    In the bright lights of the big city.
    Posts
    519

    Default

    I do appreciate the tempered responses people have shared. Believe me (or not) when I say that I do understand the stances of many here. Izzy expresses herself so beautifully on the issue. Me, I cannot side with pro-choice, because I cannot in conscience support the termination of pregnancies. The government declaring it legal or illegal forces it to choose a side. Either way the government chooses people will feel betrayed by the law; remember, pro-life means just that for the pro-lifers, and the antithesis of life is death. Of course people are going to get passionate, but to kill another human being over it is one hundred percent wrong and evil. (Italics to stress how bad it is.)
    "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:18

  17. #42

    Default

    sparks, this thread has produced some very insightful thoughts.
    Violence is never the answer. By the grace of God, i have never been faced with some of the momentous decisions some people have had to make.
    I think the most evil are those that hijack legitimate causes and organizations and turn the unstable elements into violent people. Isn't there something about those that tempt others into sin being worse than the sinner himself?

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    La La Land
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryStopher View Post
    A friend of Dr Tiller's said on MSNBC this evening that Tiller had provided free airfare for 10 and 11 year old girls, who had become pregnant as a direct result of incestuous rape, to fly them to his clinic and give them free abortions. This is not killing babies, it is saving the lives of children.
    This is another huge component of the debate, Jerry. My mom always talks about seeing a little girl, maybe 10 years old, *very* pregnant and trying to play outside with her friends in Brooklyn. Her friends were making fun of her and telling her she was "bad."

    When we talk about abortion, and I talk about being anti-abortion but pro-choice, my mom always brings up this example. She says this baby should have been aborted early on. This girl was too young and physically too small to not be permanently traumatized. Obviously a victim of some sort of incest or pedophilia or whatever horrible thing, then forced to carry a pregnancy to term...is this double child abuse?

    It's a tough question. It's when my conscience is torn--on the one hand, the unborn baby is not at fault; on the other hand, the little girl isn't, either. The inability in my mind and my heart to resolve these conflicts is yet another reason why I remain pro-choice. I'd hate to have to make a choice, but I'd hate even more not to be able to make one.

  19. #44

    Default

    And then there is this question. The profoundly retarded 15 year old pregnant by rape from one of the nursing assistants where she was instutionalized. Her anti seizure medications would harm the fetus. Witholding them from her would cause constant seizures. Operation Rescue tried to intervene and have a court keep her off the medication so the fetus would not be harmed.
    Her parents, already faced with horrible choices and a terrible situation had to deal with Operation Rescue trying to hijack their family.

  20. Default

    The decision to abort imo, truly belongs to the pregnant female. I don't even think the parents should have a say in this. The reasons for a woman's decision to abort are her private business also. I'm so tired of huge groups of people trying to decide this particular issue when it is clearly none of their business. It's fine to be pro-life but trying to inforce pro-life law on pregnant females is getting into their private business. No woman should be called upon to justify her choice in this matter by any group of people and if she wants to discuss it with all mighty God or not- that's her choice too and only hers.
    Last edited by evergreen; June 4th, 2009 at 07:43 AM.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    In the bright lights of the big city.
    Posts
    519

    Default

    I respectfully disagree, about removing parental involvement. (Well, I disagree w/ abortion period, so this comes as no surprise.) But what is family for, if you cannot turn to them in a time of need and seek counsel and advice. This is the problem with minors who want to play grown up and have sex before they are mentally/emotionally and spiritually prepared for it. Here I speak of the careless individuals who wants freedom with zero responsibility.

    As for the groups, so long as there is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and people do it peacefully, people will continue to protest. Pro-choice and pro-lifers will have to accept this as the way it is. And I am tired of people saying that pro lifers are trying to impose their beliefs on others. That is not the case. They are trying to save lives. For them it is a crime against humanity. Imagine how the prolifer feels.
    "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:18

  22. #47

    Default

    As for parental notification, I can see both sides.
    When I was in High School one of my closest friends got too drunk and lost her virginity to someone who basically date-raped her, BUTT she "thought" she loved him. She got pregnant on the very first time. Yes, I helped her get an abortion and I don't regret it. I felt that we were saving two lives at that time. We never told her parents she was pregnant because we knew they would beat the crap out of her.
    Parents are not always the trusted souls we would like them to be.
    Now she is an educated mother of two beautiful daughters and is married to her REAL love.
    Again this is NOT a black and white, cut-and-dry issue. Too many variables are in play for women NOT to be able to have control over their own bodies and reproductive freedom, imo.

  23. Default

    That's the problem, Sparks. We are in a real world where parents are sometimes the most dangerous people a minor knows. Thank you for helping your friend.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    In the bright lights of the big city.
    Posts
    519

    Default

    I feel like a lone voice here...but everyone has been great.

    I came from a household where sex education was, "You don't have sex 'til you're married." And God forbid I should get pregnant. I would more than likely have had a shotgun wedding. However, I appreciate the values my parents instilled. My body is a temple, treasure it, etc. etc. and none of the following scenarios occurred.

    There is something very telling and sad about families where the children don't even give their parents a chance. Sparks, I was not there with your friend, but she'll never know if her parents would have beat the crap out of her because they were never the chance to exercise their judgement and to be in her confidence. I don't know ANY of the particulars of that family, but I do know that people don't always behave the way we think they will.

    Maybe I'm just too idealistic; I know my faith makes me so. I believe in a God who aids us through our darkest times. That said, are their parents who would beat their kid? Oh, yeah. How that helps? It doesn't. I'm glad to hear that your friend is able to provide a loving and stable home for her children.

    I bid you all a good night.
    "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:18

  25. Default

    What terrified teenager would want to take that chance? Let's see- to be beaten, maybe even killed in the heat of parental anger or avoiding possible assualt or death?

Similar Threads

  1. Pit Bulls: Should they be eliminated?
    By DaveSato in forum Random Chat
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: June 27th, 2005, 07:58 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 9th, 2002, 09:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
kamagra oral jelly online
keflex
buy kamagra