Skip to comments.Bill O'Reilly to Glenn Beck: I thought you were Paranoid, but you were RIGHT!
Posted on 05/24/2010 10:41:16 AM PDT by therightscoop
Watch it here:
They are both anti-birthers.
You’re not paranoid if they’re really after you.
BOR is a clown.
Worse! They are insulting about it.
I never did trust OReilly, but now I will never fully trust Beck either. Both are either phonies or cowards.
Has anyone figured out why BOR referring to Governor Palin as a Blowfish is funny ?
I disagree with the BOR and GB haters. Without them, the communists would have already taken over. I may not agree with everything they say, but compared to the rest of MSM, they are at least putting out info to slow down (and hopefully derail) the train.
BOR is a spinning pinhead.
From SNL skit:
“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you!”
BOR annoys me from time to time with his arrogance and i may not agree with everything he spouts but he does help get through a lot of the MSM chatter
It is only going to take one crack being opened and the truth exposed and the Fuhrer’s house of lies will fall. God willing, all the traitors will fall with him including the RATs and RINOs in this Congress.
Being paranoid only means you know they are after you.
Oh I think Beck is dead on target as the Progressives see this as the last stand so to speak in changing this nation into the nanny state and Obama has been being groomed for this role he is now playing for a long time as nothing happens by accident. An example, Bill Clinton he was a nobody in a rural state but the powers that be saw him as a tool and placed him in the right positions but he didnt live up to their expectations so along comes Obama who is doing their bidding, right on cue.
Everybody will let you down on something.
I gave up on Beck when he spent a whole hour talking about how misguided our military spending is, comparing it to some of the Left wing programs.
Glen, the military is one of the very few legitimate mandates our government has when it comes to spending.
How I hate it when our side tries to set an example for wholesome spending, advocating just the cuts the left have wedged us into accepting.
Horse s—t logic...
The military is the last thing the left wants to spend money on, and the first thing they want to cut spending for. And now Beck is one of them on that topic. Crimeny (made up word, but I like i), no wonder we get our asses handed to us constantly.
Congressman McClintock's Response to President Calderon (delivered on House floor)
FR Posted May 20, 2010 by calif_reaganite
Response to President Calderon
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
May 20, 2010
I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today. The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderons behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.
It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.
It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law. Unlike Mexicos immigration law -- which is brutally exclusionary -- the purpose of Americas law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans. Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.
A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
That is how we have built one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.
The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions in Mexico. That is the broader meaning of our nations motto, e pluribus unum from many people, one people, the American people.
But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of E Pluribus Unum. It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles. In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws. It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so.
And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats in this Congress. Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no drivers license, no passport, and who doesnt speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.
And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws I reply that we dont need to reform them we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does. Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.
Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each others domestic debates.
Didn’t the Clintons go to some annual Progressives’ retreat for several years before he came out to run for President?
I like GB but I cannot stand BOR.
Well the reason we get our butts handed to us is we allow the same old people drive the train, time for a crew change.
Even paranoids have real enemies.........H. Kissinger
I agree with you. People expect perfection. Real life isn't like that. Beck is obnoxious at times, but his courage to face the unthinkable and his plodding determination to figure it all out and share his findings should not be dismissed.
BOR is a clown.
BOR has Southen Poverty Law Center hacks on his show and treats them as members of a legitimate organization, instead of the race baiting, rabble rousing parasites they are.
He is one of the useful idiots. It's amazing so many people watch him...but then again, quite a few people voted for Obama and didn't see through him either...at least at first.
When I consider how many Americans are weak thinkers it can be discouraging.
Awesome! Thank you for posting!
That’s part of it to be sure, but it’s just so self-defeatist for folks on our side to enable the Left to do what it does.
Here’s why I have so much of a problem with what Beck did there.
If you get it right 90% of the time, you are enabling the Left 10% of the time. Not really all that bad a record to be sure. But what here’s what happens.
On every single important issue, we have some wing-nut or another enabling the Left on an issue that is a clear as can be. And then people on the Left, and even people who are confused in the middle think, “See even so and so knows we’re (or the Left is) right here.” It’s called chaos. It’s called chaos for a reason. Helping to create chaos on important issues, allows the Left to have it’s policies stand unrefuted by the Right.
There’s always some idiot that’s pretty sound on the Right, to buttress their (the Left’s) argument. And then those that are on solid ground on the Right, are marginalized. You might just as well say defeated. Nobody’s going to listen, because the ‘idiot stick of the day’ just buttressed the Left’s premise.
Bill Krystol has made an art form out of this type of thing. MeCain has honed it to perfection.
The Left wants to cut the military and Beck agrees. The Left wants to have abortion on demand. Laura Bush agrees. Obama wanted to close GitMo, and MeCain agrees. Obama wanted carbon mandates, and MeCain agreed with that too. The Left wanted to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs, and Bush agreed.
The Left always has someone on our side they can play like a fiddle against us. With the exception of Lieberman (once in a while), we have no such pool of people we can draw on from the Left to get our agenda through. That’s why we continue to lose ground.
And so it goes, the Left getting Carte Blanche and we getting bupkiss for all our efforts.
So Glen, this why you deserve the triple raspberry treatment for those idiotic comments.
I don’t expect us to be unified on the small things, but the military..., good heavens man, buy a clue.
O’Reilly has to have a serious search & find his spine.
It has been missing for a number of years now.
There is the person who should be running with Palin in 2012.
He is very smart—he just needs to find some charisma.
There is the person who should be running with Palin in 2012.
He is very smart—he just needs to find some charisma.
I’m not going to quibble with those sources (state they are wrong), because they may be on solid ground about the “origins” of the word and what it was substituted for initially, but I do believe their view may be somewhat off base in contemporary terms.
I can think of a bunch of profane words that can be used for exclamation, that aren’t substituted for Christ.
With that being said, if the word ‘profane’ only applies to sacrilegious terms, then I should have used another word in this response.
I’ve never thought of Christ when using the term criminy. It’s wide use in some circles has probably led it away from being the substitute these sources attributed it to. As such, I don’t think it’s legitimate to say it’s sacrilegious or a substitute for Christ any longer.
Is the root word in part Christ? Or is the root word in part crime? I’ve thought of it as a crime that some things happen, purely in the realm of what ought to be.
Thanks Albion Wilde.
Cong Tom McClintock.
Tom is one of the PROVEN good guys.
IF BOR were just half as “smart” as he constantly tells us he is, he would have come to this conclusion long before we were saddled with this regime.
If you ask me, a Harvard Degree is just a little less impressive than a bucket of spit.
I only wonder how different Cali would be had he been governor. SIGH.
“Ive never thought of Christ when using the term criminy. Its wide use in some circles has probably led it away from being the substitute these sources attributed it to. As such, I dont think its legitimate to say its sacrilegious or a substitute for Christ any longer. “
There is a website claimng the word is a reference to Christ, with absolutely no foundation for laying claim to same.
I say bullshiite.
I really don't care for either of these commentators. I don't listen or watch either of their shows. With that said, they are vital for attracting an audience that needs their opinions. The squishy middle. Like my 77 year old mom. They are getting to a lot of people who "don't get it". Mark Levin is THE best conservative commentator, but he's beyond what those two offer to the newbies and generic audience. Honestly, I'm glad they're doing this job. We need to bring everyone into the meaning of the constitution. They found a market, and hopefully those watchers will graduate to more conservative constitutional outlets.
Kind of like "darn," eh? Or "heck?"
hey, I’ll take it. We need every voice we can get to scream it from the rooftops. THIS IS A COMMUNIST COUP!
People mean well, but they wind up looking rather lame when they make some claims. I don’t mean Albalon Wilde, as he did look it up. But the one you mention, that one sounds bogus.
Some battles are better left unfought, because it makes you look loopy so that when something important comes along, you’re opinion is discounted.
I have always been interested in the meaning of words. I read NR cover to cover from age 14(1968)
Yes, Americans are not taught to think independently. We like our sports and the good life. When we see that our country is being run by people who hate America and do not mind if we as a country are bankrupt, 55% of us catch on and are not happy. Hopefully, that will be enough to make a difference.
I suspect it has always been the case that a large number of Americans have been uninvolved and either incapable or unprepared to deal with complex and critically important issues.
One of the things that seems different from the past though, is that liberals are much more bold in lying. I post on a site with a number of liberals, and some are just blatant and unrepentant liars. And I don't mean they just say something I don't like or disagree with, they write things that are demonstrably false.
From your mouth to God's ears! I pray the truth will all be out in the open soon!
You are absolutely, unequivocally correct. I think it started in the 80s but in 1991 I realised something was terribly wrong and we had a propaganda organ instead of news when Bill Clinton's ethical problems were not reported. However, Bob Dole's saying cigarettes were not addictive was harped upon for days, etc.
I’ve never read one cover to cover, and I didn’t really hear much about it until I was in my mid-to late thirties. Good for you. It is a good magazine, if you’re actually referring to (national review). If not, I’m sorry I missed to connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.