|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 31, 2009 15:15:05 GMT -5
The problem with Bill O'Reilly and others like him is that their mindsets force them into ridiculous shit like this. They maintain that everyone has to be extreme, that there is no room for compromise, and their viewpoints are the only ones that are valid. This leads to the rather hilarious outcome of stupid stuff like this, because, otherwise they might be forced into finding out that they speak from their asses. Also, it leads to the notion that anyone with a more complex point of view than, say, "We need to get Saddam!" or, "Global Warming is unproven!" is considered the polar opposite. Say, "I love terrorism!" or "We should all regress to the stone age in panic to reduce carbon emissions!" |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 31, 2009 17:02:42 GMT -5
The problem with Bill O'Reilly and others like him is that their mindsets force them into ridiculous shit like this. They maintain that everyone has to be extreme, that there is no room for compromise, and their viewpoints are the only ones that are valid. This leads to the rather hilarious outcome of stupid stuff like this, because, otherwise they might be forced into finding out that they speak from their asses. Also, it leads to the notion that anyone with a more complex point of view than, say, "We need to get Saddam!" or, "Global Warming is unproven!" is considered the polar opposite. Say, "I love terrorism!" or "We should all regress to the stone age in panic to reduce carbon emissions!" I thought Bill-O said he believed in anthropogenic climate change...I know that lunatic Glenn Beck is a denier though. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 31, 2009 18:37:43 GMT -5
The problem with Bill O'Reilly and others like him is that their mindsets force them into ridiculous shit like this. They maintain that everyone has to be extreme, that there is no room for compromise, and their viewpoints are the only ones that are valid. This leads to the rather hilarious outcome of stupid stuff like this, because, otherwise they might be forced into finding out that they speak from their asses. Also, it leads to the notion that anyone with a more complex point of view than, say, "We need to get Saddam!" or, "Global Warming is unproven!" is considered the polar opposite. Say, "I love terrorism!" or "We should all regress to the stone age in panic to reduce carbon emissions!" I think that the cult of the moderate actually decreases the band of acceptable debate. You can support either the invasion of Iraq or the escalation of Afganistan, but not oppose both wars because that would be 'immoderate', for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 1, 2009 7:45:41 GMT -5
O'Reilly is evidently boycotting Spain, provided they continue with their plans to go after our war crimin...Heroes.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 1, 2009 10:06:58 GMT -5
O'Reilly is evidently boycotting Spain, provided they continue with their plans to go after our war crimin...Heroes. Careful there, it sounds like you don't support our troops  |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 1, 2009 12:10:59 GMT -5
O'Reilly is evidently boycotting Spain, provided they continue with their plans to go after our war crimin...Heroes. Careful there, it sounds like you don't support our troops I. HOPE. THEY. FAIL. (kidding, of course, but it seemed like a good time to whip out that chestnut) |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 1, 2009 13:27:27 GMT -5
I am sure this will go over as well as his boycott of France and his new boycott of Spain.
Seriously, if O'Lielly said he was boycotting me, I would probably brag.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 1, 2009 16:15:11 GMT -5
That would be great for tourism.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 1, 2009 17:56:26 GMT -5
O'Reilly is evidently boycotting Spain, provided they continue with their plans to go after our war crimin...Heroes. Careful there, it sounds like you don't support our troops Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Question: how come at the end of every sentence vaguely mentioning some form of semi-millitary action you jhave to talk about the 'courage' or bravery' of the troops? We get it, you think they're pretty neat. And how come the Iraqi resistence, which has fought the most powerful army ever, alone, for seven years never gets the same treatment? Or how about the Iraq civilians? They don't even get guns! |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 2, 2009 0:56:02 GMT -5
Careful there, it sounds like you don't support our troops Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Question: how come at the end of every sentence vaguely mentioning some form of semi-millitary action you jhave to talk about the 'courage' or bravery' of the troops? We get it, you think they're pretty neat. And how come the Iraqi resistence, which has fought the most powerful army ever, alone, for seven years never gets the same treatment? Or how about the Iraq civilians? They don't even get guns! I dunno, I'd like to see whoever wins that can get Iraq back on it's feet and work as a part of the world without dehumanizing it's own populace The courage and bravery thing is debateable, i think everyone that went there is brave and has courage, i sure the hell wouldn't go. the whole calling everyone a hero fad though irks me to no end Mainly because blowing up everyone by way of suicide bombing or without any care in the world if it takes out the enemy or a marketplace of civilians they're supposedly fighting for is neither brave, nor have to require much courage. It's the act of a fundamentalist group that doesn't give two licks about anything except 'kill the americans' and 'virgins in heaven' |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 2, 2009 1:21:18 GMT -5
Careful there, it sounds like you don't support our troops Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Question: how come at the end of every sentence vaguely mentioning some form of semi-millitary action you jhave to talk about the 'courage' or bravery' of the troops? We get it, you think they're pretty neat. And how come the Iraqi resistence, which has fought the most powerful army ever, alone, for seven years never gets the same treatment? Or how about the Iraq civilians? They don't even get guns! Personally, I support the Iraqi civilians. I hated this war since its beginning. However, what I don't support is mass murder from the U.S. military or al-Qaeda in Iraq (formerly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was thankfully blown to bits). It's just as cowardly to bomb civilian targets from 500 feet in the air as it is to detonate a bomb in the middle of a marketplace because you think you'll get a bunch of dark-eyed girls in Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 13:22:30 GMT -5
Careful there, it sounds like you don't support our troops Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Question: how come at the end of every sentence vaguely mentioning some form of semi-millitary action you jhave to talk about the 'courage' or bravery' of the troops? We get it, you think they're pretty neat. And how come the Iraqi resistence, which has fought the most powerful army ever, alone, for seven years never gets the same treatment? Or how about the Iraq civilians? They don't even get guns! Yes, fred many people do. Why, because we are not fighting the majority of Iraq or Afghanistan civilians. Why do insurgence not get the same accolades as US troops, because US troops don't go into crowded market places and blow our selfs up. |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 2, 2009 14:22:04 GMT -5
Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Question: how come at the end of every sentence vaguely mentioning some form of semi-millitary action you jhave to talk about the 'courage' or bravery' of the troops? We get it, you think they're pretty neat. And how come the Iraqi resistence, which has fought the most powerful army ever, alone, for seven years never gets the same treatment? Or how about the Iraq civilians? They don't even get guns! Yes, fred many people do. Why, because we are not fighting the majority of Iraq or Afghanistan civilians. Why do insurgence not get the same accolades as US troops, because US troops don't go into crowded market places and blow our selfs up. That's a touch simplified, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 2, 2009 14:22:29 GMT -5
.... Why do insurgence not get the same accolades as US troops, because US troops don't go into crowded market places and blow our selfs up. Well of course not. That's what the missiles and jets and tanks are for. I mean, it's not as if the US military has been squeamish about attacking areas with large numbers of non-combatants. terrorism is a tactic, not a hobby. Terrorists do it because conventual tactics would not work. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 2, 2009 14:41:57 GMT -5
Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Well that's kind of loaded because what does "winning" even mean? Personally I simply want Iraq to be peaceful, for the killing to stop and the Iraqis able to determine their own future. That is at least obstensibly the goal of the US occupation. OF course I think that military force not only isnt' going to accomplish that goal but in fact undermines it. So the US troops win the battle and LOSE the war. I guess my problem is I am not any particular side. I don't like to see Americans nor Iraqis killed. I think both suffer too much. I do want to see less deaths in one group or another but not at the expense of the other side. I realize many will say that is unrealistic. But I can't help but notice that the philosophy of kill them before they kill us just hasn't worked. As for what the apparent ned to mention that the troops are "brave" , I think that has a number reasons. For one, any criticism of the war or Bush was met with accusations of hating the troops that now many cover themselves reflexivly, even if only facetiously. For another, American troops are brave. They face possible death all the time. Of course the Iraqi insurgents are also brave. In fact they are even more likely to die then the American troops. Just because some has qualities we may find admirable (like bravery) does not mean we have to approve of their actions. |
|
