Very interesting and I'm definately more interested in Obama now.
This is part 1 of 4, with the others coming out Monday, Tues and Wed. accordingly.
I'll post them as they become available.
Clovis
O'Reilly has such a poor grasp of the issues it's amazing.
Fledz
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
O'Reilly is a ing tool and people like him should be shot on sight
fixed
Seriously though, still to this day it amazes me that people can be so blind and ignorant to what goes on around them.
Dj Smitty20
I can't stand O'Reilly, but it's pretty clear that even he believes the war on terror has been badly managed following the invasion of Afghanistan (which I initially supported way back in 2001).
It's also evident that Obama knows what he's talking about and I cannot wait to see him in the debates. I think it's going to be glorious to see him take on McCain on the issue of defence. And they call him inept on this issue? Absolutely not.
I look forward to the rest of the interview and I congratulate Obama for agreeing to be interviewed on an unabashedly anti-Democratic party news network! :p
Fledz
Look at the bright side, this might swing more people to Obama's side.
Lebezniatnikov
I'm still a little disappointed in that interview. Obama had a huge opportunity to knock that SURGE! question out of the park, but it was like he laid down a bunt instead. All he had to say was
"Look Bill, the SURGE! was a military success, and I've never denied that. But why did John McCain and George Bush support the SURGE! in the first place? He supported it because it was supposed to create political space for reconciliation and consolidation to happen. And it hasn't. So to call it a complete success is to ignore the reason the SURGE! was called for in the first place, and I think that's being disingenuous with the American voters and soldiers who paid for it."
Instead you get a "I think it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, and I've said that before, but it diverted resources away from more important efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
True, but doesn't get to the crux of why that question is not a good one.
josh4
That was provocative. In a way its ironic that O'Reilly is the one taking politicians to task like this in journalistic fashion, considering the image he has. Still though, its not uncommon for O'Reilly to act one way on his show and act another way when hes talking to people face to face.
The only way to change some people's opinions about you is to sit down with them and hammer over these issues to make sure there is nothing left to their imagination about what you actually think. The fact he is doing that speaks levels about the person he is.
quote:
Unlike anyone before him, there isn't a demographic Obama can't draw meaningful amounts of support from, including Conservative Evangelicals, especially younger ones, if he can just get them in a room. http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20...huffpost/124095
CHRles
I thought Obama did very well in the interview. He's just going from strength to strength in my opinion. He's on top of all the major issues both domestically and abroad.
The question is whether America at large will recognize Obama's strengths or will people continue to talk about some pretty woman who belongs on a reality TV show rather then as the Vice President of the US.
josh4
quote:
Originally posted by CHRles
I thought Obama did very well in the interview. He's just going from strength to strength in my opinion. He's on top of all the major issues both domestically and abroad.
The question is whether America at large will recognize Obama's strengths or will people continue to talk about some pretty woman who belongs on a reality TV show rather then as the Vice President of the US.
lol "Meet The Palin's" i totally see it
josh4
Fir3start3r
Thanks Josh, was going to do that today :p
mndeg
"fox news is not hateful"
hahahahahahahahaha
I can't say I really believe in a trickle down economy, somehow saying that the richer the rich get, the richer the poor get.
Completely untrue. I believe that's why in Japan they capped CEO salary to something like 50x of lowest wage earner.
When you can run a company into the ground and still earn 100m a year something is wrong.
