Bill OReilly

[B_Dust]

Was O'Douche Bag in a sex scandal a while ago? In which he made sexually aggressive calls to a woman and claimed he had a large penis. Then the story disappeared.

I heard he joined a site about big dicks and openly expresses his urge to use his schlong on the wet pussy of Morgan Webb. Oh wait, that is me. Whoops.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Shelby
I missed it. But I did see Donahue and he was as bad or worse than O'Reilly - attempting to patronize by saying, 'Cmon Billy...".

Donahue came with the same old hollow rhetoric heard spouted from any radical left-wing idiot. Same old "would you send your kids" or "thousands have died in this foolish war... we have to pull out now." What he wouldn't do is address the valid issues of the chaos that would engulf the nation and probably the region, having a disastrous impact on the global economy. None of the typical liberal loonies ever can. Correcting one mistake should not mean stepping into a bigger mistake. I thought Donahue had the intelligence to at least present a well thought out, supported argument, but I gave him too much credit.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Dust
Was O'Douche Bag in a sex scandal a while ago? In which he made sexually aggressive calls to a woman and claimed he had a large penis. Then the story disappeared.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15240,00.html

 

[Shelby]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Oct 21 2005, 07:28 AM
... the same old hollow rhetoric heard spouted from any radical left-wing idiot. Same old "would you send your kids" or "thousands have died in this foolish war... we have to pull out now." What he wouldn't do is address the valid issues of the chaos that would engulf the nation and probably the region, having a disastrous impact on the global economy. None of the typical liberal loonies ever can. Correcting one mistake should not mean stepping into a bigger mistake...

[post=353888]Quoted post[/post]​

That's about the most succinct indictment of the left's position I've encountered.

 

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Shelby+Oct 21 2005, 11:25 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shelby &#064; Oct 21 2005, 11:25 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick@Oct 21 2005, 07:28 AM
... the same old hollow rhetoric heard spouted from any radical left-wing idiot. Same old "would you send your kids" or "thousands have died in this foolish war... we have to pull out now." What he wouldn&#39;t do is address the valid issues of the chaos that would engulf the nation and probably the region, having a disastrous impact on the global economy. None of the typical liberal loonies ever can. Correcting one mistake should not mean stepping into a bigger mistake...

[post=353888]Quoted post[/post]​

That&#39;s about the most succinct indictment of the left&#39;s position I&#39;ve encountered.

[post=353933]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Just for curiosity&#39;s sake - how long in your opinions will it be OK for the US to be engaged in Iraq? 10 years? 20? As long as it takes? And what if that&#39;s forever?

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by Matthew+Oct 21 2005, 02:38 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Matthew &#064; Oct 21 2005, 02:38 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Shelby@Oct 21 2005, 11:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick

@Oct 21 2005, 07:28 AM
... the same old hollow rhetoric heard spouted from any radical left-wing idiot. Same old "would you send your kids" or "thousands have died in this foolish war... we have to pull out now." What he wouldn&#39;t do is address the valid issues of the chaos that would engulf the nation and probably the region, having a disastrous impact on the global economy. None of the typical liberal loonies ever can. Correcting one mistake should not mean stepping into a bigger mistake...

[post=353888]Quoted post[/post]​

That&#39;s about the most succinct indictment of the left&#39;s position I&#39;ve encountered.

[post=353933]Quoted post[/post]​

Just for curiosity&#39;s sake - how long in your opinions will it be OK for the US to be engaged in Iraq? 10 years? 20? As long as it takes? And what if that&#39;s forever?

[post=353937]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

We&#39;re still in Germany. Still in Korea. Still in Okinawa for that matter. What&#39;s the difference? I&#39;m sure they weren&#39;t tickled to death to have us there in the beginning, either.

 

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Pecker@Oct 21 2005, 12:31 PM
We&#39;re still in Germany. Still in Korea. Still in Okinawa for that matter. What&#39;s the difference? I&#39;m sure they weren&#39;t tickled to death to have us there in the beginning, either.

[post=353960]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, one difference is that we&#39;re not engaged in combat.

Not that I&#39;m supporting our presence in any of those places.

So forever is OK?

 

[Shelby]

Until the moderate majority is better able to defend itself against fundamentalists.

 

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Shelby@Oct 21 2005, 01:35 PM
Until the moderate majority is better able to defend itself against fundamentalists.

[post=353988]Quoted post[/post]​

Since we have no idea if/when that will happen, I take it you would be comfortable with our military fighting there for decades if necessary?

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

Well, at least steps are being taken to help us get closer to the "as long as it takes" goal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4365066.stm Granted, I realize that the results haven&#39;t been revealed yet and there&#39;s a possibility that this one will be reject, but at least they are working on getting a Constitution in place.

While I&#39;m not a big fan of our current occupation there now, we can&#39;t exactly "just pull out" right now either. We have to make sure that they can stand on their own two feet first.

another good article, if anyone is interested: Milestone, but not the end

 

[Matthew]

I guess I was expecting a more vigorous answer to my questions, considering how sure some seem to be that &#39;pulling out&#39; is ridiculous. Obviously I was leading to the point that the alternative is somewhat problematic too, to say the least. Our conservative wing here doesn&#39;t seem to want to look very closely at that, nor does the Bush administration, which may explain some of why public support for the war and for Bush himself are dropping.

On the other hand, I know that sometimes people just don&#39;t feel like responding. I definitely take a pass on engaging with some of the right-wing nuttiness that I read here. At times it&#39;s not worth getting into a debate, particularly with people whose minds I will never change and who will never change mine.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Shelby@Oct 21 2005, 04:35 PM
Until the moderate majority is better able to defend itself against fundamentalists.

[post=353988]Quoted post[/post]​

Hmm, I have heard that phrase used in reference to our current situation right here at home in the good ole US of A...

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

Originally posted by Dust@Oct 20 2005, 10:52 PM
Was O&#39;Douche Bag in a sex scandal a while ago? In which he made sexually aggressive calls to a woman and claimed he had a large penis. Then the story disappeared.

I heard he joined a site about big dicks and openly expresses his urge to use his schlong on the wet pussy of Morgan Webb. Oh wait, that is me. Whoops.

[post=353730]Quoted post[/post]​

yeah, and besides....even O&#39;Reilly has better taste than that.

Matt - I myself am not into the vigorous answers. I don&#39;t try to change people&#39;s minds or opinions, only let them see my point of view so they don&#39;t think I&#39;m some blind idiot. I personally get sick of "getting into it" with some on discussions b/c most people are there just to change other&#39;s minds. It&#39;s just not for me.

Obviously, us staying there is also problematic since it&#39;s leading to more violence and a civil war. It&#39;s sucks...no one likes war. We have to pick the lessor of the 2 evils and unfortunately, with this war it&#39;s hard to know which one that is for sure. So we attempt to do the "moral" thing....and even that is subject to interpretation. It&#39;s just a "no-win" situation right now.

 

[Matthew]

Hi TAG, for the record I wasn&#39;t addressing you (or actually any one person) in particular. I respect your point of view. Compared to some others, it&#39;s more nuanced, like reality is.

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Oct 22 2005, 05:10 PM
yeah, and besides....even O&#39;Reilly has better taste than that.

Matt - I myself am not into the vigorous answers.  I don&#39;t try to change people&#39;s minds or opinions, only let them see my point of view so they don&#39;t think I&#39;m some blind idiot.  I personally get sick of "getting into it" with some on discussions b/c most people are there just to change other&#39;s minds.  It&#39;s just not for me. 

Obviously, us staying there is also problematic since it&#39;s leading to more violence and a civil war.  It&#39;s sucks...no one likes war.  We have to pick the lessor of the 2 evils and unfortunately, with this war it&#39;s hard to know which one that is for sure.  So we attempt to do the "moral" thing....and even that is subject to interpretation.  It&#39;s just a "no-win" situation right now.

[post=354317]Quoted post[/post]​