Equiponderate

Al Franken

2005-11-04T08:01:00.000-08:00

11/4/05

Al Franken a guest on Leno last night was trying to amuse the audience. A few quips about the president and Bill O’Reilly. The only thing that seemed to be funny, was that the other guest and the audience were laughing at him and not with him.
I would have thought with his feeble attempt to show he tells and knows the truth about issues. He would have explained, how funny it is to receive a paycheck that was issued from money stolen from needy children. Or that he and the other host on air America intended to return the money from where it had been stolen.

Hugo Frugiuele
Bushkill, Pa.

2005-10-22T17:38:00.000-07:00

Although Farakan and Kamau Kambon, may not have many followers, in a country with the population of the USA it would only take a few thousand to harm or kill thousands of white Americans. I wonder if liberals like Alan Colmes, Al Franken, and others who feel it is PC not to criticize radical blacks as they would the KKK feel as safe as they want the rest of the white population to feel. is it any wonder that anyone being approached or having a black person act or talk aggressively towards them shoot first.
How can anyone be sure the black children or someone in their family is not a believer or follower of one of these men? How can these liberals be sure a neighbor, co-worker or any black person in their vicinity is not just waiting for the time to strike? Can it be possible that is the reason many liberals and democrats do not (purposely) live in highly integrated areas as they say and sometimes demand others do. What would they be saying if a white person said the only way to solve the race problems in the world would be to exterminate all black , african or whatever the PC name of the day is from the population of the world?
iI am sure Al Sharpton Maxine Waters. JJ, and others will surely be making excuses for these statements made by Blacks.
I wonder if liberals and democrats will wait until they or someone in their family is actually attacked, harmed or killed before they say or do anything about blacks who threaten whites? Just as they said of muslims, they are not all bad or terrorists, i would like to know how anyone can pick the bad from the good ones until after the damage is done. How many white people will be prosecuted for defending themselves when they felt fear, danger or the threat thereof before it happened. who will be at fault, those who created the fear and threat or those who defended against it?
I don't wish harm on anyone, but if it comes to happen, hopefully it will be to the liberals and democrats who defend these radicals rights to say these things and condemn those who defend against it. Do they really think that liberals and democrats will be excluded when the shit hits the fan? I think not! I wonder how liberals and democrats will feel when the next black person they don't know approaches them? There is no such thing as there is just a few blacks who follow these men, as i have said it only takes a few thousand. I wonder if Alan Colmes can tell the rest of us how to decide which are the bad ones from the good ones and how to defend against immanent threat? Or should we wait until we are acutely shot, stabbed or harmed before taking action?
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46973

2005-10-08T12:06:00.000-07:00

The Bill O’Reilly rules for accepting email or letters.
#1. It must be pithy, short and to the point. I wonder how well Mr. O’Reilly could explain his opinion, theory or perception of an issue or news event if he was restricted to being pithy, short and to the point?
#2. No bloviating, which means after your opinion, theory, or perception of or on an issue or news event. You cannot explain how or why you came to that conclusion.
Now on to bloggers.
They should not get their information or opinions out faster then Mr. O’Rielly.
They should slow down their information gathering and research, as to not to have the network and cable media be 24 to 48 hours behind them. Which makes them appear to be reporting yesterday’s news.
Because their may be few bloggers who use false or fabricated information, demean and personally attack certain people, all bloggers must be restrained, censored, or just sit and wait until Mr. O’Reilly or a news agency he approves of confirms a story, or accusation, before they release their information and stories. I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly would like the same restrictions applied to him and others because of the type of reporting by
Dan Rather and others who have distorted and fabricated stories and events in order to demean certain people. Would he like to wait 2 or 3 days for his information to be confirmed by others before he release his information?
The same fault Mr. O’Reilly finds with bloggers is just as prevalent in the news media he is associated with. Why not the same restrictions for them as well as the bloggers?
Does Mr. O’Reilly realize calling someone a jerk or pinhead is only his opinion and just as demeaning as any other derogatory slander or name calling?
It is amazing to me that someone who claims to be “fair and balanced” has so many restrictions for others and none for himself.
In general I like Mr. O’Reilly and his strong opinions, his way of getting people to do the right thing and uncovering corruption in unlikely places. I would think he would feel others should be allowed the same options and privileges.

SUV's

2005-10-07T21:58:00.000-07:00

Mr. O'Reilly in reference to your poll. That SUV's that get less then 15 miles per gallon, should be taxed at a higher rate. i will try to explain this so even you can understand. The SUV that gets less then 15 miles per gallon is already paying more tax then those who get more then 15 miles per gallon. How you ask? They use more gas to go the same distance, that a higher mileage car uses. Ergo, more gallons for the same distance equals more local, state, and federal tax for the additional gas they are using. Got it?