He screams at this woman who is trying to rationally talk to him about people who can't afford health care. He mocks her and lambasts her with insults regarding countries that have poor health care programs. He finally loses it and squeals at her, screaming "GET OFF MY PHONE!" The audio of him screaming comes in at 3:15, but he shouts at this woman the whole time. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh... are these the people that the GOP support and honor?? The Republicans may never recover with these foul mouthed assholes.

Discuss.

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

It's just business. The audience likes it and they do it. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't do it. Simple. Olbermann says the same non sense on TV every-night and stays on. People like it and watch it. I don't see why people have to argue about it. You might find this disturbing, where as others might find Olbermanns man crush on Obama disturbing. Same shit, different side.

___________________
Vernato

Correction: Glenn Beck is a little bitch.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano It's just business. The audience likes it and they do it. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't do it. Simple. Olbermann says the same non sense on TV every-night and stays on. People like it and watch it. I don't see why people have to argue about it. You might find this disturbing, where as others might find Olbermanns man crush on Obama disturbing. Same shit, different side.

I have never heard Keith Olbermann scream, verbally abuse, or insult somebody. Keith Olbermann at least lets the guests on his show get their point across before he responds, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck simply cut the person off or threaten to kick them off their show if they don't like what their guest is saying. It's NOT the same, Keith Olbermann and his fucking weird ass dyke co-host Rachel Maddow can be massive douches quite often, but they never verbally abuse callers/guests.

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

haha good video, besides the screaming he owned her and made good points about the flaws in other countries' socialized healthcare!

About Olberman and Maddow, i do watch sometimes when i feel like raising my blood pressure, and the reason why they dont shout at their guests is because they NEVER have a guest on their shows with opposing views! Its pathetic and boring, they have guests that completely agree with them and there is absolutely no debate or disagreement!

Last edited by sponger on Jul-17-2009 at 01:00

He's also a liar.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton He's also a liar.

wow, what a pussy.. He gets Pwned hard on "The View" then claims he is too sick to make it on his TV show that night...too embarassed to show his face after having his credibility destroyed. Then he takes the time to call the Napolitano show with a an obvious "sick" accent. His effort to fake a stuffy nose and hoarse throat in this video is laughable and blatantly obvious..especially when he sounded perfectly normal in the video from a few hours earlier.

He, and many others, have gathered a great wealth of knowledge about what is going on (negatively) in this country and simply don't know how to educate others about it in a positive way. Instead of being polite and discussing the issues like a rational human being, for some reason, they feel that it is much easier to simply lose their patience with someone who doesn't have the knowledge that they do. This simply discredits anything that they have to say, whether they are right or wrong, because the bottom line is, they are acting like tool bags.

So in this specific instance, even though he is correct about the negatives that the socialist health care plan is going to bring us, he lost my respect as a potential listener to his show. And quite honestly, I hope he loses more listeners after a stunt like that. That's simply not the right way to approach this and will only hurt the chances of people waking up and realizing the harm that these socialist policies will bring us. Most people simply aren't educated enough to know how Obama's health care plans are going to effect us but when you have Obama bringing his plans across the table as a rational human being and then have Beck give his input in the manor that he did in this video, who the heck would the average person obviously side with?

quote:

Originally posted by sponger About Olberman and Maddow, i do watch sometimes when i feel like raising my blood pressure, and the reason why they dont shout at their guests is because they NEVER have a guest on their shows with opposing views!

actually, i think they never yell because they make arguments with logic. On the other hand, i notice people like hannity and beck use too much emotion in their arguments. That's just a casual observation. I'm not saying Billy-O and Beck don't have some solid arguments at times. My point is that liberal commentators tend to make arguments based on logic, whereas Hannity and the like make arguments with too much passion and emotion. Solid arguments don't consist of "i don't think it should be that way" and "france does it that way."

I am actually enormously against the health care bills that are being proposed, but i don't like the arguments against it being put forth by fox. i.e., i hate the proposal to tax my employer provided health care to pay for people who didn't work hard in their developmental years to get good jobs. I'm all for universal healthcare, but not at the cost of taxing the shit out of me, and making american business less competitive. Why don't we reduce our defense budget (and work to consolidate our military more closely with the canadians and western europeans), stop providing aid to foreign countries, and eliminate the useless DEA operations in Columbia, Honduras, Mexico, and other latin american countries. We could save trillions over several years by these steps. How about raising petroleum taxes so that the burden is shared more evenly. I could think of many ways to do it that spread the burden more equally. After all, it is a benefit that will accrue mostly to people who won't pay for the cost. That's the kind of distributive injustice i hate.

I will always be a liberal with respect to social policies, however, i have noticed a drastic shift towards being a stanch fiscal conservative. Nevertheless, i still support universal health care (who really says they believe people shouldn't have health care), just not at the sole expense of the top 10%. Social burdens should be shared among the population, perhaps not equally (that's a little unfair to ask), but certainly everyone should bear the burden of policies enacted for the benefit of society.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Jul-17-2009 at 05:35

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Social burdens should be shared among the population, perhaps not equally (that's a little unfair to ask), but certainly everyone should bear the burden of policies enacted for the benefit of society.

People should also have the ability to opt out of "social policies" if they choose. I have no problem with universal healthcare for those that want to take part and are willing to bear the cost, but it should not be forcibly imposed on everyone. Give people the ability to opt out and receive nothing from the system. I really wish they'd do that for social insecurity. I'd gladly forgo the thousands I've already paid into it if they'd let me out now.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt People should also have the ability to opt out of "social policies" if they choose. I have no problem with universal healthcare for those that want to take part and are willing to bear the cost, but it should not be forcibly imposed on everyone. Give people the ability to opt out and receive nothing from the system. I really wish they'd do that for social insecurity. I'd gladly forgo the thousands I've already paid into it if they'd let me out now.

i get your point, and it would absolutely help my situation because i am technically in the top 10% of wage earning americans, but the point of some of these social policies is to spread the cost and make the benefits more equally distributive. If people could just opt out, all the rich would opt out and there would be no program left to administer. See it for what it is, an equalization method. I have no problem with small amounts of this, but not large redistributive efforts that provide disincentives for certain economic behavoirs and perverse incentives for laziness.