Showing posts with label O'Reilly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label O'Reilly. Show all posts

Friday, September 18, 2009

O'Reilly flip-flops, endorses public option - DWTF?!

Ummm... alrighty then. Good for Bill O'Reilly! (Gee, I bet you never thought I'd say that).


Partial Trancript
September 16, 2009 | The O'Reilly Factor

O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?

OWCHARENKO (Heritage Foundation - conservative think tank): Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.


Wednesday, March 7, 2007

O'Reilly comments on Libby...And gets it right!

I'm still sort of dumbstruck that I have nothing major to criticize in this "Talking Points Memo" from Bill O'Reilly. I wonder: Am I going soft?...



March 7, 2007 | FOXNews

Outside of the partisans on both sides, most Americans don't care about Scooter Libby and don't know what he did. So the question becomes should you care? And the answer is yes.

Here's what happened in layman's terms:

President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address that according to British government Saddam Hussein tried to get uranium for nuclear weapons from Africa. Now that was true. But it was also true that Saddam failed to get the uranium.

A guy named Joseph Wilson who investigated the uranium deal for U.S. intelligence then wrote an article saying that the president over-hyped the Africa story. Subsequently Mr. Wilson allied himself with the anti-Bush left.

Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, apparently didn't like what Wilson was doing and told some reporters that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA. In some cases, it's crime to out a CIA employee.

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak, a FOX News contributor as well, wrote about Ms. Plame's CIA job and the investigation began into who leaked the information to Novak and other journalists.

Mr. Libby told a grand jury he did not provide info about Ms. Plame. But today a jury decided that he lied. Thus Scooter Libby was convicted of four felonies — basically obstruction of justice and lying under oath. So that's the deal.

"The Factor" didn't cover Libby very much because I had no idea what happened. Unlike the left-wing press, including elements of The New York Times and NBC News, who convicted Libby even before the trial began, we avoid speculation and try to be fair in our analysis. When we don't know something, we tell you.

Partisans on the right were also at fault. Some of them acquitted Libby before the trial even started.

The entire case reminded me of Ken Starr and Paula Jones. President Clinton got into trouble for failing to tell the truth under oath as you know, just as Libby has. Interesting to see how the left in both cases handled it. Right?

Now all Americans should demand those holding political power tell the truth about everything. The jury says Scooter Libby lied under oath — that's unacceptable.

Talking Points is tried of the partisan nonsense and also tired of powerful people not following the rules the regular folks have to follow.

Scooter Libby has paid a huge price for his deceit. He played the revenge game against Wilson and it all went bad. Which reminds me of an old Chinese proverb: When seeking revenge, bring two shovels.

And that's The Memo.

Saturday, December 9, 2006

Banning Xmas: Linchpin of the entire liberal agenda

No Holy Night
By Brad Reed
December 8, 2006 | The American Prospect

With Democrats about to assume control of both houses of Congress, we liberals will have an unprecedented opportunity to vanquish Christmas once and for all.
For the past twelve years, the Republicans have successfully shelved our anti-Christmas agenda, forcing us to wage a covert insurgency against the sacred holiday through lawsuits and Internet postings. Essentially, our approach has been to sue anyone who says "Merry Christmas" and then make fun of them with our vicious left-wing smear blogs. As FOX News pundit and Christmas Warrior Bill O'Reilly put it, "The ACLU goes around the country suing everybody and intimidating people... and in tandem, you use your left-wing smear websites to go after anyone who stands up for Christmas." (O'Reilly has kept up the good fight this year, claiming Wal-Mart as a scalp when the mega-chain announced it was reverting from "Happy Holidays" to "Merry Christmas" in its labels.)

Indeed, our vast anti-yuletide conspiracy has been so successful that conservative pundit John Gibson wrote a factually-stringent and exhaustively-researched exposé about it called The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Holiday is Worse Than You Thought. "Christmas is under attack in such a sustained and strategized manner that there is, no doubt, a war on Christmas," wrote Gibson, who then detailed the horrors of retailers who forced their employees to wish customers "Happy Holidays." Gibson pinned the blame for such atrocities on "a cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wracked Christians" whose attacks on Christmas are to be the start of "a revolution against Christianity" itself.

Remember, we liberals have managed this much influence in opposition to the country's most popular holiday while being completely shut out of power in Washington. Imagine what we can do now that Democrats own the whole legislative branch.

Though an outright ban of Christmas would likely run afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion, there are several laws Democrats could enact to make celebrating Christmas more difficult, if not altogether impossible. Here are some modest proposals: 1.) A 1,000 percent sales tax on wrapping paper and mistletoe, revenues from which will fund a commune of gay Wiccan avant garde cellists. 2.) We ban the sale of all Christmas records except for Terry Bradshaw Sings Christmas Songs for the Whole Family and the non-religious holiday music composed by the gay Wiccan cellists. We also ban television networks from showing such beloved classics as It's a Wonderful Life and The Christmas Story. The only holiday movies allowed on the air will be The Santa Clause 3 and Jingle All the Way . 3.) To get some bipartisan support from Republicans (in addition to the support of the Governator for suggestion number 2), we pass a bill allowing the timber industry cut down every evergreen tree in the country. We can also placate energy lobbyists by purchasing lumps of coal in bulk to give as presents to underprivileged children.

Taken together, these proposals could sound Christmas's death knell. The only question is whether the newly-elected Democratic majority has the political will to enact them. Some might argue that eliminating Christmas would be a tremendous waste of both the public's time and good will, and that Democrats should instead focus on implementing policies to raise the minimum wage or let the government negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. You know, things that might help people.

This argument is, to put it politely, a stinking pile of rubbish. What many liberals and progressives don't seem to understand is that banning Christmas is the linchpin of our entire agenda. As Mr. O'Reilly once astutely noted, the war on Christmas is "part of the secular-progressive agenda to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square" and pave the way for "secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, [and] gay marriage." When the man is right, he's right.

I for one understand that Christmas is the only thing standing between me and my lifelong dream of euthanizing my relatives, grabbing their inheritance, buying lots of drugs, getting a sex change, and marrying a lesbian. If Nancy Pelosi is as dedicated to her San Francisco values as the conservative media say she is, then she should put ending Christmas and subsidizing my lifestyle at the top of her legislative agenda. After all, if Speaker Pelosi decided to forsake destroying Christmas in favor other policies, it could signal that the right-wing punditocracy has been exaggerating the left's ambitions to abolish religion from the public square all along. And, really, what are the chances of that?