• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oreily Talking Points on Election

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you watch the video...do you agree with Oreilly...theres some I do agree with and some I do not...

I should add a little description...his talking points are on whether traditional america is gone for good or not.



Is traditional America gone for good? | Fox News Video
 
Last edited:
Meh, its just a doomsaying rhetoric.

The facts he presents, if true, presents a very dark picture for the USA.
 
His points that I agree with are:

1) Even though Obama got less votes than in 2008, Romney still got too few votes to beat him (less than McCain did in 2008).

2) We can "come back", meaning that a conservative candidate may win later elections. (It was Miller that said we are done.)

I disagree with there being a significant difference between those that like gov't handouts and "liberal policies", as to me they are one and the same. He seems to see some major difference.
 
Meh, its just a doomsaying rhetoric.

The facts he presents, if true, presents a very dark picture for the USA.

Not really. Elections have always been about buying the votes more than ideology. This was no exception. "Traditional" always gives way to social change.
 
Not really. Elections have always been about buying the votes more than ideology. This was no exception. "Traditional" always gives way to social change.

Perhaps traditional always gives way to social change. But the things that got me worried were the facts about the children born outside of wedlock... and all the other facts. Not his own personal hopes or his anti-secularist agenda. I am pro secularism. It is a wonderful thing, having the state separated from Church.
 
What does he mean by traditional america...does he mean whites being the majority with people being religious being the majority.
Does he mean america in the 1950s ?
I think his definition of traditional america is done..I dont think the white vote or the evangelical vote alone will ever carry a candidate.

The republicans threw away the latino vote...Reagan handed them the latino vote, he gave amnesty to illegal immigrants in the millions..of course he had nefarious reasons that was cheap labor and to dilute the workforce to put downward pressure on wages...but that alone could have made the GOP the party of Latinos...I dont think they believed the latino community would grow to what it is today...so they went the other way.
They could have owned the cuban vote in florida actually they did...when clinton had the gonzalez boy taken out of his home in the middle of the night during a raid...the gop owned the cuban community. Im stressing latino..because Oreilly said thats why obama ultimately won.
 
What exactly is "traditional" America? It seems to me that our founding fathers had some pretty progressive ideas when they framed the Constitution. Religious freedom, when most of the western world was dictated in some form or another by religion; a government ruled by the people instead of a monarch or bishop; a government where the people had the say in what happens to their own lives and welfare, instead of dictated to them by a few. Seems to me that "traditional" America was pretty progressive.
 
Uhhhh...spin, spin, spin...

Entitlements is what the 2012 election was all about. Abortion is a bad thing, yadda, yadda, yadda. America we knew and loved is dead...yadda, yadda, yadda.

Okay...

It took both conservative and liberal politicians to create a dependent nation, if that is what we have.

Points on abortion...gezzzzzzzzzz, very much lacking in so many elements that would make his points close to being true.

The America we once knew....yeah, well, as I recall when I was a young guy...most preachers claimed that rock n roll was the work of Satan. Uh huh...

If America ceases to change...then I would think something is terribly wrong. It changes because generations change views, values, traditions, etc. because shifts in virtually every social vehicle changes...like say Technology. Music changes. Transportation changes. Hell...everything changes.

The American Tradition is a generational myth.

O'Reilly is like most TV and radio pundits...a spin doctor. There's 2 equal and opposite spins to every story. O'Reilly, like most TV and radio pundits like to take given facts and manipulate them into slices of events that are narrowed down to a specific perspective...then an attempt to quantify them in order to make the claims more legitimate. Unfortunately, the viewers and listeners take these OPINIONS and COMMENTARIES as gospel. The facts are there...BUT NOT THE WHOLE STORY!
 
What exactly is "traditional" America? It seems to me that our founding fathers had some pretty progressive ideas when they framed the Constitution. Religious freedom, when most of the western world was dictated in some form or another by religion; a government ruled by the people instead of a monarch or bishop; a government where the people had the say in what happens to their own lives and welfare, instead of dictated to them by a few. Seems to me that "traditional" America was pretty progressive.

Well that was the point I was trying to make...what exactly does he consider tradtional america....

One of these days..and Ill never see it and I dont think anyone 35yrs old and above will see it either...we are going to have a country where everyone kinda gets on the same page...we like everyone else will not have everyone loving each other or likeing each other...but we all be on the same page at least...but its a good ways off...when us babyboomers are all gone in 20 yrs or so...that will be the start of the change..I think anyway...
 
What does he mean by traditional america...does he mean whites being the majority with people being religious being the majority.
Does he mean america in the 1950s ?
I think his definition of traditional america is done..I dont think the white vote or the evangelical vote alone will ever carry a candidate.

The republicans threw away the latino vote...Reagan handed them the latino vote, he gave amnesty to illegal immigrants in the millions..of course he had nefarious reasons that was cheap labor and to dilute the workforce to put downward pressure on wages...but that alone could have made the GOP the party of Latinos...I dont think they believed the latino community would grow to what it is today...so they went the other way.
They could have owned the cuban vote in florida actually they did...when clinton had the gonzalez boy taken out of his home in the middle of the night during a raid...the gop owned the cuban community. Im stressing latino..because Oreilly said thats why obama ultimately won.

Traditional America is about personal responsibility, limitted gov't (especially at the federal level) and opportunity to succeed (advance) through hard work. The idea that we are owed a living and that any job, especially an entry level position, should warrant a "middle class" standard of living is foolish. The non-disabled poor are not owed anything as a reward for failure except an opportunity to work harder and should seek private charity for help. The idea that since America is a rich country, that we should have no poor, we should simply "share" with (give to?) them on their terms is insane. Even the far worse off illegal immigrant has the balls (brains?) to find a way to earn a living here, so our own poor should emulate them not ask for (demand?) handouts.
 
Traditional America is about personal responsibility, limitted gov't (especially at the federal level) and opportunity to succeed (advance) through hard work. The idea that we are owed a living and that any job, especially an entry level position, should warrant a "middle class" standard of living is foolish. The non-disabled poor are not owed anything as a reward for failure except an opportunity to work harder and should seek private charity for help. The idea that since America is a rich country, that we should have no poor, we should simply "share" with (give to?) them on their terms is insane. Even the far worse off illegal immigrant has the balls (brains?) to find a way to earn a living here, so our own poor should emulate them not ask for (demand?) handouts.

Traditional America is all that you said...or all that you'd like it to be?
 
Forty percent of White people voted for a multicultie Greedhead poverty pimp. This shows absolute and final disillusion with the Republicans' promises of jobs and economic growth. Because of experience, people suspect that GOPers want to take the lion's share of profits from an economic boom and only offer low-wage jobs, outsourcing to sweatshops, unpaid training, and other one-sided benefits. Financial data such as stock prices and GNP are meaningless if prosperity is monopolized by a privileged and isolated class. GOPers' selfish and conceited attitude about their own value has driven the most unlikely people to permanently vote for the other side out of desperation and disgust.
 
Traditional America is about personal responsibility, limitted gov't (especially at the federal level) and opportunity to succeed (advance) through hard work. The idea that we are owed a living and that any job, especially an entry level position, should warrant a "middle class" standard of living is foolish. The non-disabled poor are not owed anything as a reward for failure except an opportunity to work harder and should seek private charity for help. The idea that since America is a rich country, that we should have no poor, we should simply "share" with (give to?) them on their terms is insane. Even the far worse off illegal immigrant has the balls (brains?) to find a way to earn a living here, so our own poor should emulate them not ask for (demand?) handouts.

I have a whole different definition of traditional america but I dont have time to write it now...my head is in a waaaay different place...I agree with some...but most I do not
 
Well that was the point I was trying to make...what exactly does he consider tradtional america....

One of these days..and Ill never see it and I dont think anyone 35yrs old and above will see it either...we are going to have a country where everyone kinda gets on the same page...we like everyone else will not have everyone loving each other or likeing each other...but we all be on the same page at least...but its a good ways off...when us babyboomers are all gone in 20 yrs or so...that will be the start of the change..I think anyway...

I have some pretty high hopes for the near future for this country too. Being 33 myself, I'm hoping to get to see it, but I don't know.
 
His points that I agree with are:

1) Even though Obama got less votes than in 2008, Romney still got too few votes to beat him (less than McCain did in 2008).

2) We can "come back", meaning that a conservative candidate may win later elections. (It was Miller that said we are done.)

I disagree with there being a significant difference between those that like gov't handouts and "liberal policies", as to me they are one and the same. He seems to see some major difference.

If those that like gov't handouts and liberal policies are the same how do you account for the fact that the red states recieve more federal money than they generate?

How do you explain the red states being the beneficiaries of income distribution? Is it okay for conservatives to be takers and not makers?
 
If those that like gov't handouts and liberal policies are the same how do you account for the fact that the red states recieve more federal money than they generate?

How do you explain the red states being the beneficiaries of income distribution? Is it okay for conservatives to be takers and not makers?

Much of that is nonsense, depending on just what is included as "redistribution". Most of these "wonder maps" include SS as receipt of gov't "welfare", but even "blue" people tend to retire in low tax, warm climate "red" states. If you do away with the "handouts" then that should make the blue states very, very happy.
 
Traditional America is about personal responsibility, limitted gov't (especially at the federal level) and opportunity to succeed (advance) through hard work. The idea that we are owed a living and that any job, especially an entry level position, should warrant a "middle class" standard of living is foolish. The non-disabled poor are not owed anything as a reward for failure except an opportunity to work harder and should seek private charity for help. The idea that since America is a rich country, that we should have no poor, we should simply "share" with (give to?) them on their terms is insane. Even the far worse off illegal immigrant has the balls (brains?) to find a way to earn a living here, so our own poor should emulate them not ask for (demand?) handouts.


Oh yes Traditional America. Let us wax nostaligic for the white man's heaven on earth.
What a crock.


great-depression-food-lines-237x300.jpg




or maybe its this traditional america:








204px-Harlem_riots_-_1964.jpg
 
Much of that is nonsense, depending on just what is included as "redistribution". Most of these "wonder maps" include SS as receipt of gov't "welfare", but even "blue" people tend to retire in low tax, warm climate "red" states. If you do away with the "handouts" then that should make the blue states very, very happy.

I hope you don't mind if I take this guys word for it over yours:

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2010/03/31/red-states-blue-states-and-the-distribution-of-federal-spending/
 
I don't know if it's gone for good, but it's certainly gone for now.


I think what most americans considered traditional america is gone for good...there is room for a revival of some of it
 

My answer to his following basic question, it really is THE question, is NO.

"True, the cost of housing, food, and other living expenses is much higher in the coastal cities, compared to the South or Midwest; but it isn’t the job of the federal government to smooth out geographical variation in real income."

This is my big complaint with the huge federal nanny state, he makes good points about agricultural subsidies, the idiotic allocation of "defense" funding and leases of federal lands for far below "market value". Very little (no?) data was disclosed as to what he considered federal "transfers", obviously the largest source of federal revenue is the FIT, so it stands to reason that much more comes from high cost/high income states, but that is in no way the fault of "conservatives" since liberals prefer a very highly progressive FIT structure.
 
That's the unclear part of O'Reilly's question - how does he define "traditional america."

From the context of O'Reilly's piece, I took it to mean "socially conservative Christian America."

The clock only moves in one direction, and the past will always remain in the past. However, social conservatism is not dead. Interestingly, it is alive and well among Hispanic Americans, who apparently are to be heavily courted by Republicans for the next presidential election.

I think what most americans considered traditional america is gone for good...there is room for a revival of some of it
 
That's the unclear part of O'Reilly's question - how does he define "traditional america."

From the context of O'Reilly's piece, I took it to mean "socially conservative Christian America."

The clock only moves in one direction, and the past will always remain in the past. However, social conservatism is not dead. Interestingly, it is alive and well among Hispanic Americans, who apparently are to be heavily courted by Republicans for the next presidential election.


Thats what I got out of it and I said that..seems his ideal is white christian america...and I submit that dominance is past also
 
Back
Top Bottom