• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill O'Reilly

The letter is nice... and it makes my point. His wife's life is devastated. He's gone. So whose life is made better for her destroyed life... and how many more wives, children, sons, and daughters won't be coming home thus destroying lives...or how many will be coming home damaged in huge ways... for a long time-- a lot of great good would need to come out of this war to make even one of these tragedies worth it-- and there are thousands on our side-- and hundreds of thousands on the other. Where are the lives made better for all this suffering and all this cost and for whom is it worth it. Who will benefit in exchange for the horrific suffering of the survivors. Every mother who loses a child in this war suffers an agony I could not inflict on another human being-- and so it behooves me to ask my government to show where the lives are better for the suffering of this man's wife, mother, and loved ones-- and the thousands like them?

We know that Cheney has benefited from this war... and that a lot of selfish people have benefitted from this presidency--but lets look at the lives destroyed utterly-- would you sacrifice your kid-- your life for those kinds of benefits? I thought not. Neither would those who are gaining. When those who benefit from a war or a president are the ones to lose their lives and loved ones in those wars-- there will be a lot fewer wars.

Women don't have the choice about which country their leaders will go to war with and which country will have religious men doing what their invisible gods tell them or which lands the wars will be fought on or whose kids will be killed or need mothering for life because of some nebulous ideal that doesn't make anything better for anyone any where. It's sick and sad and horrific. And it's way, way worse in Iraq. We didn't make it better there, and we sure haven't made our own lot better here. This president has shamed us in the eyes of the world and opened many peoples eyes to the egocentric cancer of folks like Bill O and the right wing loyalists who can't think beyond their own egos. What a scary group of people the bush loyalists are-- it makes you understand how Hitler could rise to power... everybody thinks they're on the good guys side, right?
I am utterly amazed at how such large scale concrete suffering can be endorsed and paid for with lies and platitudes and nothingness and semantics. It's almost as bad as religion. Let the people who benefit from this war--fund it and fight it-- If you want to bring democracy to Iraq, let them vote rather they want us there or not. They don't. So why are we there. How many more destroyed lives are you willing to offer up for whatever good you imagine?
 
articulett said:
The letter is nice... and it makes my point. His wife's life is devastated. He's gone. So whose life is made better for her destroyed life... and how many more wives, children, sons, and daughters won't be coming home thus destroying lives...or how many will be coming home damaged in huge ways... for a long time-- a lot of great good would need to come out of this war to make even one of these tragedies worth it-- and there are thousands on our side-- and hundreds of thousands on the other. Where are the lives made better for all this suffering and all this cost and for whom is it worth it. Who will benefit in exchange for the horrific suffering of the survivors. Every mother who loses a child in this war suffers an agony I could not inflict on another human being-- and so it behooves me to ask my government to show where the lives are better for the suffering of this man's wife, mother, and loved ones-- and the thousands like them?

We know that Cheney has benefited from this war... and that a lot of selfish people have benefitted from this presidency--but lets look at the lives destroyed utterly-- would you sacrifice your kid-- your life for those kinds of benefits? I thought not. Neither would those who are gaining. When those who benefit from a war or a president are the ones to lose their lives and loved ones in those wars-- there will be a lot fewer wars.

Women don't have the choice about which country their leaders will go to war with and which country will have religious men doing what their invisible gods tell them or which lands the wars will be fought on or whose kids will be killed or need mothering for life because of some nebulous ideal that doesn't make anything better for anyone any where. It's sick and sad and horrific. And it's way, way worse in Iraq. We didn't make it better there, and we sure haven't made our own lot better here. This president has shamed us in the eyes of the world and opened many peoples eyes to the egocentric cancer of folks like Bill O and the right wing loyalists who can't think beyond their own egos. What a scary group of people the bush loyalists are-- it makes you understand how Hitler could rise to power... everybody thinks they're on the good guys side, right?
I am utterly amazed at how such large scale concrete suffering can be endorsed and paid for with lies and platitudes and nothingness and semantics. It's almost as bad as religion. Let the people who benefit from this war--fund it and fight it-- If you want to bring democracy to Iraq, let them vote rather they want us there or not. They don't. So why are we there. How many more destroyed lives are you willing to offer up for whatever good you imagine?
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that your entire post is based on using this guy's letter as an example for your position -- which he specifically requested at the beginning of the letter not to do.

Your estimate on the death toll is a bit high. As far as wars go, this is a tame one. The estimated body count is 80-88 thousand (link). Not that this makes it too much better.

There actually is a strategic advantage to having a resource-rich centralized ally in the middle east. It may be morally wrong to force them to comply with our best interest, but it does potentially serve America in the long-term analysis. This war may or may not be "daddy's war," but the fact is that it does have the potential of long-term betterment.

And personally, though I'm not a big fan of Bush, I see comparing him to Hitler as absolutely disgusting. George Bush is self-serving, religiously inclined, short on intelligence (as far as presidents go, at the very least), and more willing to fight than to use diplomacy, but he isn't trying to commit genocide, and the primary enemy that he has made is not racially determined, but rather based on their intentions (specifically, to destroy the United States). Adolf Hitler was an evil man. George Bush is an idiot. There is a big difference.
 
Cicero said:
JFK blah blah blah
Click to expand...

You know, you really should stop referring to Kerry as "JFK." JFK commonly refers to John F. Kennedy, another liberal Democrat combat veteran. You don't want to confuse people when you're smearing Democrats, now, do you?
 
Cleon said:
You know, you really should stop referring to Kerry as "JFK." JFK commonly refers to John F. Kennedy, another liberal Democrat combat veteran. You don't want to confuse people when you're smearing Democrats, now, do you?
Click to expand...

Oh, it doesn't matter, does it? Hating combat veterans is more important than being clear on which one you hate... right?
 
m_huber said:
I personally don't see how either of these positions are true. Right wing conservatives put yellow ribbons on their cars and send care packages to Iraq, and left wing conservatives put yellow ribbons on their cars and send care packages to Iraq. The politicians on either side use the military to gain the support of whatever crowd they are talking to. Good politicians support the troops, but not politicians who are good. Soldiers do things that are unspeakable, but we still want to support them, because they only do those things because a "wicked and evil" government put them in a bad position. So the troops are good, politicians are bad, and stereotypes are in vogue.

Nevertheless, to hear Bill O'Reilly deny the very existence of homeless veterans is sickening. That is what is at issue here (note the thread title).
Click to expand...

Do you care that O'Reilly does not "deny the existence" of homeless veterans? He questions the canard about hordes of homeless vets living under bridges, noting that this latest fabrication by the mythmakers who gave us the "three million homeless Americans" who amazingly vanished upon Bill Clinton's moving into the White House hardly accords with reality.
 
articulett said:
The letter is nice... and it makes my point. His wife's life is devastated. He's gone. So whose life is made better for her destroyed life... and how many more wives, children, sons, and daughters won't be coming home thus destroying lives...or how many will be coming home damaged in huge ways... for a long time-- a lot of great good would need to come out of this war to make even one of these tragedies worth it-- and there are thousands on our side-- and hundreds of thousands on the other. Where are the lives made better for all this suffering and all this cost and for whom is it worth it. Who will benefit in exchange for the horrific suffering of the survivors. Every mother who loses a child in this war suffers an agony I could not inflict on another human being-- and so it behooves me to ask my government to show where the lives are better for the suffering of this man's wife, mother, and loved ones-- and the thousands like them?

We know that Cheney has benefited from this war... and that a lot of selfish people have benefitted from this presidency--but lets look at the lives destroyed utterly-- would you sacrifice your kid-- your life for those kinds of benefits? I thought not. Neither would those who are gaining. When those who benefit from a war or a president are the ones to lose their lives and loved ones in those wars-- there will be a lot fewer wars.

Women don't have the choice about which country their leaders will go to war with and which country will have religious men doing what their invisible gods tell them or which lands the wars will be fought on or whose kids will be killed or need mothering for life because of some nebulous ideal that doesn't make anything better for anyone any where. It's sick and sad and horrific. And it's way, way worse in Iraq. We didn't make it better there, and we sure haven't made our own lot better here. This president has shamed us in the eyes of the world and opened many peoples eyes to the egocentric cancer of folks like Bill O and the right wing loyalists who can't think beyond their own egos. What a scary group of people the bush loyalists are-- it makes you understand how Hitler could rise to power... everybody thinks they're on the good guys side, right?
I am utterly amazed at how such large scale concrete suffering can be endorsed and paid for with lies and platitudes and nothingness and semantics. It's almost as bad as religion. Let the people who benefit from this war--fund it and fight it-- If you want to bring democracy to Iraq, let them vote rather they want us there or not. They don't. So why are we there. How many more destroyed lives are you willing to offer up for whatever good you imagine?
Click to expand...

We "know" that Cheney has "benefited" from this war? Really? What do we "know" that can stand serious scrutiny?
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
You know, you really should stop referring to Kerry as "JFK." JFK commonly refers to John F. Kennedy, another liberal Democrat combat veteran. You don't want to confuse people when you're smearing Democrats, now, do you?
Click to expand...

It was bothering me too, but I consume enough Conservative media to know that it's within the playbook of people like Ann Coulter to refer exclusively to "B. Hussein Obama", so calling Kerry "JFK" lies in insipidly ironic (since JFK is considered the "last great Democrat" by many Conservatives) or is an idication of how desperate they are to come up with a cutsie nickname they are. This week less hot Ann Coulter knockoff Laura Ingram had the balls to compare Kerry with Shaggy from Scooby Doo. The woman must utterly lack an irony organ... though, in her defense, unlike the "woman" she strives to look like, she does lack an Adam's Apple.
 
Cleon said:
You know, you really should stop referring to Kerry as "JFK." JFK commonly refers to John F. Kennedy, another liberal Democrat combat veteran. You don't want to confuse people when you're smearing Democrats, now, do you?
Click to expand...

Board moderators must have powers far beyond those of mortal men. You used the quote feature and yet managed to change what I actually said to "blah blah blah."

Kennedy used his PT boat service in WWII as a fodder for his political purposes. Any other JG losing their boat and a crew member from carelessness would have resulted in a court martial. But Kennedy's daddy pulled strings to get him decorated.

Contrast that to:

George McGovern, 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate, flew over 25 missions commanding a B-24 Liberator in WWII. He never once mentioned his service during his campaign. I thought that was real class and character. My political ideology runs 180 degrees opposite McGovern, but I admire him for not making political capital out of something so common during WWII.

When JFK the first, and JFK the second, decided to put their military service in the fore front of their political candidacy they are inviting scrutiny.
 
articulett said:
The letter is nice... and it makes my point. His wife's life is devastated. He's gone. So whose life is made better for her destroyed life... and how many more wives, children, sons, and daughters won't be coming home thus destroying lives...or how many will be coming home damaged in huge ways... for a long time-- a lot of great good would need to come out of this war to make even one of these tragedies worth it-- better here.
Click to expand...


Did you skip over this paragraph?

...I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq...

Could you not even consider his last wishes before jumping in with your Code Pink talking points?
 
Cicero said:
Did you skip over this paragraph?

...I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq...

Could you not even consider his last wishes before jumping in with your Code Pink talking points?
Click to expand...
Pot and kettle. Maybe you should buy a mirror, and then look up the word "hypocrite."
 
JoeEllison said:
Pot and kettle. Maybe you should buy a mirror, and then look up the word "hypocrite."
Click to expand...

While originality is not your forte, banality certainly is. You were the one who chimed in with your "right wingers" hate veterans based on O'Reilly's comment about bridges and homeless Iraq/Afghanistan vets. Where did I mention the Iraq War in this thread at all?

Go Chargers!
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
As reprehensive as I found that ad, you are misstating it. The headline was "Will General Petreus Betray Us." That's not quite the same as you straw man.

Two wrongs make one "right" though I suppose.
Click to expand...

What? Next time you attempt to be arbiter of truth, you might want to have at least a simulacrum of the facts.

https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

So I guess now that you know the real headline, you must be recoiling with reprehension for the ad?

Go Chargers!
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Do you care that O'Reilly does not "deny the existence" of homeless veterans? He questions the canard about hordes of homeless vets living under bridges, noting that this latest fabrication by the mythmakers
Click to expand...

So, your spin aside, he does deny it, as do you.
 
Cleon said:
So, your spin aside, he does deny it, as do you.
Click to expand...


Sorry to hear that the remedial reading course didn't help.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks skepticgirl... I just got back to this thread... not that evidence will count for pomeroo when it goes against his "faith".
 
Cicero said:
JFK is allowed to smear veterans because he received decorations for his service in Vietnam (which he supposedly threw over the White House fence in 1971) and, therefore, is inoculated against any criticism? This is some stacked deck libs enjoy dealing from the bottom of.
Click to expand...

Feel free to criticize Kerry's actions and policies. but make sure you criticize actual events like his protesting the war and so on. Do NOT criticize his medals and military honors. Such should be off limits and then it DOES become smearing.
Of course the left is somewhat fickle in their support for veterans. Only those who tow the liberal line are given a pass while those, like General Petraeus, are shown gratitude for their service with Moveon.org headline, "General Betray Us."
Click to expand...

I disagreed with Moveon'e placement of that ad. Very poor taste IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom