destruction Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 VideoO'REILLY: In the past Miss [Cindy] Sheehan has criticized Israel, saying it is occupying Palestine, has called Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters," has accused Americans of killing people ever since we stepped on this continent, has threatened Hillary Clinton with the loss her job unless she calls for a pullout of US troops from Iraq and has called the US action against Afghanistan a failure. Quite a resume and with us now is Phil Donahue, who supports Miss Sheehan's "dissent."So, I'm assuming you don't - you don't support all her positions that I just chronicled. DONAHUE: Let's understand what's happening here. Once again we have a woman who got to be just a little too famous for the people who support this war, a minority of the American population, by the way, and so the effort to marginalize this woman is underway and you're helping out. O'REILLY: I'm the leader of the pack! DONAHUE: You're suggesting ... O'REILLY: I'm the leader of the pack! DONAHUE: First of all, Cindy Sheehan is one tough mother and nothing you say or anyone else is gonna slow her down. O'REILLY: That's fine. She has a right to ... DONAHUE: You can't hurt her. She's already taken the biggest punch in the nose that a woman can take. O'REILLY: How?! DONAHUE: She lost a son. O'REILLY: Oh. OK. DONAHUE: She's lost a child. O'REILLY: But look - I'm not puttin' words in her mouth ... DONAHUE: And by the way, she is going to be at the center of one of the largest rallies since the Vietnam War. Proud, patriotic Americans who will show up in Washington this week for one of the most massive, largest demonstrations - protest demonstrations ... O'REILLY: OK. And we'll cover it. DONAHUE: ... right outside the President's window. O'REILLY: And we'll cover it. DONAHUE: And FOX is in the business of saying that this woman is somehow saying un-American things - hyperbole. O'REILLY (getting angry): No. No. No. No. DONAHUE: Listen to what she's saying. O'REILLY (checking his notes): Nobody said she said anything un-American. We say that her positions are radical. And they are radical! DONAHUE: Let me tell you what's radical. (getting a little angry himself) What's radical is to send more Americans to die in this war, which is a monumental blunder by a President ... O'REILLY (under his breath): Alright. DONAHUE: ... who swaggered us into it with - by the way - the at least tacit approval of the Democratic Party. O'REILLY (shifts in his chair, upset): You know what's radical ... DONAHUE: There's a lot of sin to go around here! O'REILLY (angry, wags finger at Donahue): What's radical for this - DONAHUE (won't let O'Reilly finish sentence): Do you want to send more people to this war? O'REILY: Hey listen ... DONAHUE: Is that your postiion? O'REILLY: If we cut and run outta there, like you wanna do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now. DONAHUE (forcefully): We're going to cut and run anyway, Bill. O'REILLY: Well, that's your opinion. I don't think we are. DONAHUE: It's not my opinion. American military leaders have said we're gonna draw down beginning next year. The reason they've said that ... O'REILLY(angry now): There's a difference between drawin' down and cuttin' and runnin'! DONAHUE: Alright.... O'REILLY (angry, jabs finger at Donahue): You're a cut and run guy and I don't want my family in danger because of you ... DONAHUE: You wanna stay the course, don't ya'? O'REILLY: Look. DONAHUE: You don't ... O'REILLY (getting angrier): Here's what I want to do. I want to give the Iraqis a chance to train their army so they can defeat these people who are tryin' to turn it into a terror state. DONAHUE (calmly): Bill O'REILLY: That's what I want to do! Go! DONAHUE: Bill. This - Iraq was not a terrorist state. O'REILLY (exasperated): Oh, no! DONAHUE: I hope I don't patronize you for saying ... O'REILLY (dismissive hand gesture) : Saddam was a swell guy!! DONAUME: Saddam ... O'REILLY (loudly, sarcastically): He was just a great guy!! DONAHUE (louder): Saddam - Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard!! O'REILLY: He wasn't anybody's ... DONAHUE: Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand in the 80s. O'REILLY: Alright. Well that's great. DONAHUE: You saw the pictures! (reasonable tone of voice) Now listen - listen. You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill. O'REILLY (very angry, pointing): My nephew just enlisted in the Army. You don't know what the hell you're talkin' about!!! DONAHUE: Very good. Very good. Congratulations! You should be proud .. O'REILLY (starts to lose it, shouting, pointing finger, hand shaking): And he's a patriot, so don't denigrate his service or I'll boot you right off the set!!! DONAHUE: I'm not ... I'm not ... O'REILLY (very, very loud): That boy made a decision to serve his country!!! Do not denigrate him or you're outta here!!! DONAHUE (calmly): I'm not Jeremy Glick, Billy. O'REILLY: That's right!! DONAHUE: You can't intimidate me!! O'REILLY: You're a little bit more intelligent that he is!! DONAHUE: I'm not somebody you can come and just spew all your ... O'REILLY: Don't tell me I wouldn't send my kids. DONAHUE: Loud doesn't mean right! O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted. You don't know what you're talkin' about!! DONAHUE: Your nephew is not your kid. You are like ... O'REILLY: He's my blood! DONAHUE: You are part of a loud group of people who wanna prove they're tough ... O'REILLY (shifts angrily in his chair, under his breath): Aw fer ... DONAHUE: ... and send other people's kids to war to make the case. O'REILLY (very loud): You have no clue ... DONAHUE: This .. O'REILLY: ... about how to fight a war on terror or how to defend your country. You are clueless! So is Miss Sheehan and for Miss Sheehan to say that the insurgents have a right to kill Americans and you're shakin' her hand! You oughta just walk away. DONHUE (quieter): How many more young men and women are you gonna send to have their arms and legs blown off ... O'REILY: Hey, this is a war on terror! DONAHUE: ... so that you can be tough (points his finger at O'Reilly) and point at people in a kind of cowardly way.. O'REILLY (disgusted, under his breath): Oh, yeah. DONHUE: Take people like Jeremy Glick who comes on to - in memory of his parents ... O'REILLY: Oh bull. DONAHUE: ... and you go off on him. O'REILLY: Jeremy Glick accu ... DONAHUE: ... like a big bully. O'REILLY: Hey! DOAHUE: Billy, you hafta be - you hafta feel sorry ... O'REILLY: Mr. Donahue, with all due respect ... DONAHUE: Have you apologized to him for that? O'REILLY: Baloney! DONAHUE: Do you know ... O'REILLY: Jeremy Glick came on this program ... DONAHUE: Do you know what I'm talking about? O'REILLY: ... and accused the President of the United States ... DONAHUE (sarcastically): Oh, and you had to .. O'REILLY: ... of orchestrating 9/11. That's what he did. Right after 9/11!! Do you know what the pain that brought the families who lost people in 9/11? DONAHUE: This war ... O'REILLY: You buy into left-wing propaganda ... DONAHUE: This war .. O'REILLY: ... and you're a mouthpiece for it. (shifts in seat, clenched mouth) Go ahead. DONAHUE: This war is not fair to the American troops. This war is unconstitutional. This war turned its back on the people who framed the most fabulous document in the history of civilization. I speak of the United States Constitution. O'REILLY: Alright. Why ... DONAHUE: This ... By the way ... O'REILLY: Why isn't the Democratic party speaking that way? DONAHUE: I'm sorry that it isn't. I am. But let's understand something ... O'REILLY: Are we all ... DONAHUE: Excuse me. O'REILLY: Are well so misguided ... DONAHUE: Excuse me. Twenty-one Democrats in the Senate voted against this war as well as Jeffords, an Independent, and- may the Lord shine His blessings down upon Lincoln Chaffee ... O'REILLY: Alright. I'm gonna say something and I'm gonna ... DONAHUE (louder, refuses to be stopped): I'm almost finished, Billy!! O'REILLY: I'm gonna give ya' the last word. DONAHUE: I'm almost finished! O'REILLY: Alright. DONAHUE: Lincoln Chaffee, the only Republican in the Senate to vote against this war. We should be building statues to all these people. October 2002 ... O'REILLY: Alright; DONAHUE: ... they stood up to as President and they knew that, first of all, only Congress can declare war. Why is that unimportant to you, Billy? O'REILLY: Listen. It's not - I'm not ... DONAHUE: Become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims you to be ... O'REILLY: The loud voice ... DONAHUE: ... and stand behind the Constitution and insist that we never go to war again without the approval and the consent of the United States Congress. O'REILLY: Alright . That's why we have the Congress. If they want to take action, they can take action. Now I'm gonna say somethin' then I'll give you the last word. The Iraq War is not something I embrace. DONAHUE makes surprised sound. O'REILLY: It absolutely could be a tactical error. DONAHUE: Well you should ... O'REILLY (louder): Just listen. DONAHUE: It's hard to know this. O'REILLY (louder): Listen ta' me .. DONAHUE: It's hard to know this. O'REILLY: ... and I'll give you the last word. Not something they embrace. Could be a tactical error and we have not waged it the way I had hoped we would wage it. DONAHUE: But, what? O'REILLY: But ,,, DONAHUE: You want to send more kids ... O'REILLY: The war on terror ... DONAHUE: ... to die. O'REILLY: We're in a war on terror. Our cause is noble. DONAHUE: It has nothing to do with the war on terror. O'REILLY (louder again): Yes, it does. And if you don't understand geopolitics, if you don't understand Iraq would be a terrorist state if we pulled outta there... DONAHUE (loudly): It's a mistake. O'REILLY: ... then you don't know anything. Go ahead. DONAHUE: It was poorly planned ... O'REILLY: Go ahead. DONAHUE: ... and poorly executed but Bill O'Reilly wants to send more kids to fight and die. We've already had two thou - almost thousand - (gestures for O'Reilly to hold off) - just let me have the last word. In the last year two things have doubled. The number of dead American troops in Iraq has doubled and you know what else doubled, Billy? The price of Halliburton stock. O'REILLY (upset): Alright. DONAHUE: From $33 to $66. That doesn't shame you? That doesn't make you wonder ... O'REILLY: I'm not upset by Halliburton stock. DONAHUE: ... whether this is an enterprise that is worth the support of the American people. We need you at this rally on Saturday, Billy.. O'REILLY: OK. I'm not gonna be at your rally. DONAHUE: We need you out there in front of it to protest. O'REILLY: I'm not gonna be at your rally. DONAHUE: There is no democracy without dissent. O'REILLY: I'm not gonna protest. DONHUE: You should be proud of people who stand up and dissent. O'REILLY: I am. I respect your ... DONAHUE: A lot of fine men died to give me that freedom. O'REILLY: You got. You got it. I respect your dissent. I think you're way off in your analysis of the war on terror. DONAHUE: You want to send more people to die? Is that your position? O'REILLY: I wanna win the war in Iraq. DONABHUE: Win. What does "win" mean? O'REILLY: Means ... DONAHUE: Tell me what "win" means? O'REILLY: Means those people have a chance at democracy. DOPNAHUE: How long's that gonna take. O'REILLY: I gotta go. I gotta go. DONAHUE: How long's that gonna take? O'REILLY: Those people deserve a chance at freedom.WHAM!!! Point Donohue!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headpusher Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 VideoWHAM!!! Point Donohue!!wheres the ownage? nice try ignoramus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headpusher Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 speaking of ownage..real ownage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringent Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 The substance of what Donahue said was much more sensible. I love how O'Reilly tried desperately to use his nephew being in the military as a springboard to begin yet another pointless verbal tirade. What a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 The substance of what Donahue said was much more sensible. I love how O'Reilly tried desperately to use his nephew being in the military as a springboard to begin yet another pointless verbal tirade. What a moron.Phil exposed himself as a completely clueless as to how to fight this war on terror. Justifying the unjustifiable carnage commited by terrorist is not a plan. ps, O'Reilly was right to defend his nephew. Attn dumbfucks: Soldiers do not go to war to die. They go to fight! Football players do not play ball to get hurt!Race car drivers do not race to crash and die!Soldiers do not go to war to die, they go to defend and fight! SPIN BABY SPIN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted September 30 Author Report Share Posted September 30 speaking of ownage..real ownageDumb.Are you going to enlist to fight this war? Don't use your nurse job as an excuse for not going. You support this war, you must enlist and fight it.Phil exposed himself as a completely clueless as to how to fight this war on terror. Justifying the unjustifiable carnage commited by terrorist is not a plan. ps, O'Reilly was right to defend his nephew. Attn dumbfucks: Soldiers do not go to war to die. They go to fight! Football players do not play ball to get hurt!Race car drivers do not race to crash and die!Soldiers do not go to war to die, they go to defend and fight! SPIN BABY SPIN! Are you going to re-enlist and fight this war? Would you let your kids fight this war? Would you let Obby go off to war to fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted September 30 Author Report Share Posted September 30 The substance of what Donahue said was much more sensible. I love how O'Reilly tried desperately to use his nephew being in the military as a springboard to begin yet another pointless verbal tirade. What a moron.I agree.O'Reilly had the transcript changed. You have seen the full transcript.Here is the original unedited version which matches the video I given. DONAHUE: You can't hurt her. She's already taken the biggest punch in the nose that a woman can take. O'REILLY: How?! DONAHUE: She lost a son. O'REILLY: Oh. OK. DONAHUE: She's lost a child. Here is the edited down version.. DONAHUE: You can't hurt her. She's already taken the biggest punch in the nose that a woman can take. She's lost a son. O'REILLY: OK. DONAHUE: She's lost a child. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170195,00.htmlFox claimed it was edited for clarity, yeah right, read the top of the edited down version: "This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," September 23, 2005, that has been edited for clarity."O'Reilly claims his transcripts on his shows are never edited. Riiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhhttttttttt!!!! Anything to make O'Reilly the winner when he KNOWS he got his ass handed to him to make him out to be the winner. I can imagine what he said in his follow up (gloating in false victory). It does not surprise me O'Reilly ordered the editing to hide how much of a jackass he made of himself. It's too late. Why bother when everyone and their uncles watched the carnage live? If O'Reilly, the sexual deviant, the same O'Reilly who got sued 60 million dollars for sexual harassment handed Donahue his ass (as he claims) why did he have the transcript changed? You gotta love how Donohue layeth the smacketh-down on O'Lielly's candy ass when he accused Cindy Sheehan of having no strategy to fight the war on terror. Really, how does opposing a war mean you need a strategy to fight the war on terror? Billy made no sense.I wonder if there any way we could find out if O'Reilly's nephew actually joined and is going, etc. I'm willing to bet that O'Reilly was so enraged with Donahue that he just blurted something out like that out of the blue. O'Reilly is known for lying and spinning and misrepresenting the facts so often, would he do it with this?Lying about a family member going to war, just to help you win a vocal argument. Disgraceful.If he did have a nephew going off to war, he would bring him on the show to tell us how much of a "real american hero" he is. Even if this was true and if that same nephew came on the show and told billy how much of a mistake the war is, it would be a PR disaster for Bill. He's GOT to be lying about this. And about Halliburton stock. It would not surprise me he had stock in them.As for Donohue.... PRICELESS!! HA!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 And about Halliburton stock. If would not surprise me he had stock in them.As for Donohue.... PRICELESS!! HA!!a ha!H A L L I B U R T O N !!!!!! Love it!!!!Look pencil dick, for once, y don't u try to debate conservatism vs. liberalism and see which one wins? You can't! Today's liberal democrats can't and that is clearly illustrated in the spin and deflection you marinate in. Can't win @ the election box? Americans aren't agreeing w/ you and not electing you (your kind) so for you guys, it's off to PLAN B, politics of personal destruction, spin and propaganda! Love it! Keep up the great work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted September 30 Author Report Share Posted September 30 a ha!H A L L I B U R T O N !!!!!! Love it!!!!Look pencil dick, for once, y don't u try to debate conservatism vs. liberalism and see which one wins? You can't! Today's liberal democrats can't and that is clearly illustrated in the spin and deflection you marinate in. Can't win @ the election box? Americans aren't agreeing w/ you and not electing you (your kind) so for you guys, it's off to PLAN B, politics of personal destruction, spin and propaganda! Love it! Keep up the great work.You support a lame duck president yet I'm the pencil dick. Bush Job Approval rating...Latest Fox News Poll:Approve. 45%DISAPPROVE 47%Gallup/CNN/USA Today:Approve 45%DISAPPROVE 50%AP/IpsosApprove 40%DISAPPROVE 57%CBS/NYTApprove 41%DISAPPROVE 53%NBC/WSJApprove 40%DISAPPROVE 55%ABC/WPApprove 42%Disapprove 57%http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htmKeep living in the past. What happened in the election does not mean he has 100% support (obviously you think he does. A contirdiction because it is clear based on this board among those who oppose him shows he does NOT. Wake up to reality. The elections are over. Fast foreward to 2005.Bush will lose control of congress (or at least the senate) in '06 and the GOP will lose the white house in '08. Mark my words because between November this year and in '08, I'll be the one to say "I told you so"....Fucking 31 year old pedophile. Keep hanging out in politicalteen.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 You support a lame duck president yet I'm the pencil dick. Bush Job Approval rating...Latest Fox News Poll:Approve. 45%DISAPPROVE 47%Gallup/CNN/USA Today:Approve 45%DISAPPROVE 50%AP/IpsosApprove 40%DISAPPROVE 57%CBS/NYTApprove 41%DISAPPROVE 53%NBC/WSJApprove 40%DISAPPROVE 55%ABC/WPApprove 42%Disapprove 57%http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htmKeep living in the past. What happened in the election does not mean he has 100% support (obviously you think he does. A contirdiction because it is clear based on this board among those who oppose him shows he does NOT. Wake up to reality. The elections are over. Fast foreward to 2005.Bush will lose control of congress (or at least the senate) in '06 and the GOP will lose the white house in '08. Mark my words because between November this year and in '08, I'll be the one to say "I told you so"....Fucking 31 year old pedophile. Keep hanging out in politicalteen.com.Are you twitching again Scooter? You probably thought Bush would lose in 2000.Repz would lose in 2002Bush would lose in 2004and now you're at it again? WANNA BET?PS..Pedophile? Is that all you've got? Truth be told Scooter,,,,,,,,Tu sabes muy bien que te parto la cara! LOL This is fun.......I wonder how brave you are in person? You say you're 41? I bet it's more like 14! I'll bet money you never even had stinky finger?Like I've told you before Scooter, YOU NEED SOME PUSSY! BAD!!!It's Friday son,,,shouldn't you be out dancing somewhere? That's how you release stress right? Go dance! Bring it PUSSYBITCH! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringent Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 Phil exposed himself as a completely clueless as to how to fight this war on terror. Justifying the unjustifiable carnage commited by terrorist is not a plan. ps, O'Reilly was right to defend his nephew. Attn dumbfucks: Soldiers do not go to war to die. They go to fight! Football players do not play ball to get hurt!Race car drivers do not race to crash and die!Soldiers do not go to war to die, they go to defend and fight! SPIN BABY SPIN! That's semantically appealing, but not very meaningful. O'Reilly is right to defend his nephew, but nowhere in the interview does Donahue even attempt to insult or denegrate the nephew's efforts, so there was no need for O'Reilly to get on the defensive. Any half-minded viewer can tell that, by the time O'Reilly started shouting at Donahue about his nephew, O'Reilly was just frustrated, and was grasping at straws. That's what he usually does when he has a guest who's always willing to call him on his rhetoric. Secondly, your point about soldiers not going to war to die, but to fight, is pretty interesting, but also not very meaningful. Soldiers (at least those who are well-trained) understand very well the risk of death that is associated with going to war. With this war, the soldiers at this point realize that, unlike previous wartime efforts since Vietnam, this effort is one where an unusually high rate of American soldiers are dying -- not just dying in traditional war-time combat, but literally being picked off like targets. This time around, the risk of death is unusually high. Therefore, Donahue is right in drawing the distinction about this particular war effort, and the way American soldiers' lives have literally been wasted in what is turning out to be nothing more than a shamble of a war. Also, you might want to try conveying your point unlike an emotional child. This isn't a pissing contest, so need for the garbage. Plus, that nonsense discredits whatever halfway decent point you may have been trying to convey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headpusher Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 That's semantically appealing, but not very meaningful. O'Reilly is right to defend his nephew, but nowhere in the interview does Donahue even attempt to insult or denegrate the nephew's efforts, so there was no need for O'Reilly to get on the defensive. Any half-minded viewer can tell that, by the time O'Reilly started shouting at Donahue about his nephew, O'Reilly was just frustrated, and was grasping at straws. That's what he usually does when he has a guest who's always willing to call him on his rhetoric. Secondly, your point about soldiers not going to war to die, but to fight, is pretty interesting, but also not very meaningful. Soldiers (at least those who are well-trained) understand very well the risk of death that is associated with going to war. The soldiers at this point realize that, unlike previous wartime efforts since Vietnam, this effort is one where an unusually high rate of American soldiers are dying -- not just dying in traditional war-time combat, but literally being picked off like targets. Therefore, Donahue is right in drawing the distinction about this particular war effort, and the way American soldiers' lives have literally been wasted in what is turning out to be nothing more than a shamble of a war. Also, you might want to try conveying your point unlike an emotional child. This isn't a pissing contest, so need for the garbage. Plus, that nonsense discredits whatever halfway decent point you may have been trying to convey.your avatar is hilarious.. what was that wrestler's name?? Akeem or some shit.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 That's semantically appealing, but not very meaningful. O'Reilly is right to defent his nephew, but nowhere in the interview does Donahue even attempt to insult or denegrate the nephew's efforts, so there was no need for O'Reilly to get on the defensive. Any half-minded viewer can tell that, by the time O'Reilly started shouting at Donahue about his nephew, O'Reilly was just frustrated, and was grasping at straws. Secondly, your point about soldiers not going to war to die, but to fight, is pretty interesting, but also not very meaningful. Soldiers (at least those who are well-trained) understand very well the risk of death that is associated with going to war. The soldiers at this point realize that, unlike previous wartime efforts since Vietnam, this effort is one where an unusually high rate of American soldiers are dying -- not just dying in traditional war-time combat, but literally being picked off like targets. Therefore, Donahue is right in drawing the distinction about this particular war effort, and the way American soldiers' lives have literally been wasted in what is turning out to be nothing more than a shamble of a war. Also, you might want to try conveying your point unlike an emotional child. This isn't a pissing contest, so need for the garbage. Plus, that nonsense discredits whatever halfway decent point you may have been trying to convey.Opinion noted,,,,but no, I disagree! I thought Phil did himself and his cause no good w/ that interview. Your opinion on high American deaths is absurd. At the height of the Vietnam conflict, we were losing 500 soldiers/week. almost 60 thousand dead.All this while fighting a war w/ all sorts of rules of what cities we could/could not bomb, cease-fires rules (Tet), etc....Not to mention the VC, farmer by day, soldier by night. It was a nobel war which was discombobulated by politicians in DC. We killed over 1 million N.Vietnamese and VC and still lost the fight to stop the spread of communsim in S.E. Asia. We need determined leadership to finish this shit. We're(America) is the best hope that region has. You can look at this through a soda straw if you wish, but there's a much bigger picture and much more at stake which the critics chose to ignore and obviously have no plan to deal with. It's about the future, not about today! Anyway, 2000 dead Americans (One of those being my cousin killed by an RPG in Camp Anaconda) and large amount of those deaths NON-COMBAT deaths are not what I consider a high death rate in a war against an enemy that wear no uniform and hides among the civilians. A war which the critics claimed would take 10,000 American soldiers lives just to take Baghdad.Point being, the critics have yet to be right and now want their advise to be taken as gospel? Um??? How 'bout,,,,,NO! PS,,,,If you think I'm childish, wait until you read the posts from folks who agree w/ your opinion. I ain't got shit on them. There's a saying my mother always told me as a child:"Dime con quien andas, y te dire quien eres"Trans: "Tell me who you hang out with and I'll tell you what kind of person you are."So, you might wanna clean up your own house before you try telling me to clean mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringent Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 Opinion noted,,,,but no, I disagree! I thought Phil did himself and his cause no good w/ that interview. Your opinion on high American deaths is absurd. At the height of the Vietnam conflict, we were losing 500 soldiers/week. almost 60 thousand dead.All this while fighting a war w/ all sorts of rules of what cities we could/could not bomb, cease-fires rules (Tet), etc....It was a nobel war discombobulated by politicians in DC. Anyway, 2000 dead Americans (One of those being my cousin killed by an RPG in Camp Anaconda) and large amount of those deaths NON-COMBAT deaths are not what I consider a high death rate in a war against an enemy that wear no uniform and hides among the civilians. A way which the critics claimed would take 10,000 American soldiers lives just to take Baghdad.Point being, the critics have yet to be right and now want their advise to be taken as gospel? Um??? How 'bout,,,,,NO! PS,,,,If you think I'm childish, wait until you read the posts from folks who agree w/ your opinion. I ain't got shit on them. There's a saying my mother always told me as a child:"Dime con quien andas, y te dire quien eres"Trans: "Tell me who you hang out with and I'll tell you what kind of person you are."So, you might wanna clean up your own house before you try telling me to clean mine.So, in your view, the death toll isn't really that high in this war effort, given the nature of the enemy, and since soldiers aren't dying in the traditionally combative sense. What does that justify? What does that prove? Nothing. The mere fact that soldiers are dying in non-combative situations is even more of a reason not to send them into that location. Soldiers are still dying unnecessarily, and they're continuously being sent into a situation where a significant number of soldiers are meeting a fate that was outside of anything the soldiers ever imagined. Many soldiers in Vietnam were also killed by individuals hiding amidst the populus, but the fact that more soldiers were lost in Vietnam than in Iraq means nothing. This isn't some quantitative game where we're comparing numbers to see how severe or less-severe a particular war effort is. We're looking at a current situation where soldiers are being sent into a specific location under the pretense of a "war" to instill democracy into a culture that won't be changing any time soon, even after a stronger American presence is established. Donahue, by the end of the interview, very interestingly points out the stupidity in what O'Reilly is suggesting. Donahue asks, very appropriately, "how do you win this war?" O'Reilly then offers a pointless explanation about how "these people" are entitled to democracy. That sounds nice. However, introducing an American sense of democracy and central government into a geographic location where both social and economic culture is (and has always been) deeply-rooted in a totalitarian way of life is not a realistic goal that can be accomplished. The political structure in Iraq is a deeply-rooted part of its culture, and is not merely some structure under which two sides in the country are divided into neat categories of pro and anti-regime. It's not just an oppressive structure; it's a way of life that the people there have been living for generations. Even if American soldiers are somehow succesful in their "mission," how do you go about changing the deeply-rooted fundamentals of a culture, not just an oppressive regime? This war, from the outset, had very little to do with the actual freedom of the people in Iraq, and that can be noticed very clearly in the way the effort is currently being implemented. This isn't a war that can be "won" in the traditional sense, and to even suggest that is ignorant. Lastly, your comment about "cleaning up my own house" just shows how limited your thinking is in this situation. This war is not some situation where Republicans and Democrats / Liberals are necessarily on directly opposite sides of the spectrum. Peoples' sentiments regarding this war are not clearly divided based on their political allegiances or ideals. This war is something that affects many individuals in different ways, irrespective of their political allegiances. The fact that other people who have a liberal voice on this board are insulting or jeering at you has little, if nothing to do with me. They are not my voice, and I'm not their's. Many individuals, regardless of who they "keep company" with, are deeply affected by this war in many ways, whether it be because of their politics, their ideals or values,their notion of separation of powers, their notion of executive power, their notions of democracy, their family members being in the war, their notions of whether this war should have been started, etc. Don't bother with any of that useless nonsense about me "cleaning up my own house." Those same pointless generalizations are exactly why these discussions turn into stupid political ideal pissing contests. This isn't as simple as "us against you" or "liberals against conservatives," so there's no need to even go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 So, in your view, the death toll isn't really that high in this war effort, since soldiers aren't dying in the traditionally combative sense. What does that justify? What does that prove? Nothing. The mere fact that soldiers are dying in non-combative situations is even more of a reason not to send them into that location. Soldiers are still dying unnecessarily, and they're continuously being sent into a situation where a significant number of soldiers are meeting a fate that was outside of anything the soldiers ever imagined. Many soldiers in Vietnam were also killed by individuals hiding amidst the populus, but the fact that more soldiers were lost in Vietnam than in Iraq means nothing. This isn't some quantitative game where we're comparing numbers to see how severe or less-severe a particular war effort is. We're looking at a current situation where soldiers are being sent into a specific location under the pretense of a "war" to instill democracy into a culture that won't be changing any time soon, even after a stronger American presence is established. Donahue, by the end of the interview, very interestingly points out the stupidity in what O'Reilly is suggesting. Donahue asks, very appropriately, "how do you win this war?" O'Reilly then offers a pointless explanation about how "these people" are entitled to democracy. That sounds nice. However, introducing an American sense of democracy and central government into a geographic location where both social and economic culture is (and has always been) deeply-rooted in a totalitarian way of life is not a realistic goal that can be accomplished. The political structure in Iraq is a deeply-rooted part of its culture, and is not merely some structure under which two sides in the country are divided into neat categories of pro and anti-regime. It's not just an oppressive structure; it's a way of life that the people there have been living for generations. Even if American soldiers are somehow succesful in their "mission," how do you go about changing the deeply-rooted fundamentals of a culture, not just an oppressive regime? This war, from the outset, had very little to do with the actual freedom of the people in Iraq, and that can be noticed very clearly in the way the effort is currently being implemented. This isn't a war that can be "won" in the traditional sense, and to even suggest that is ignorant. Lastly, your comment about "cleaning up my own house" just shows how limited your thinking is in this situation. This war is not some situation where Republicans and Democrats / Liberals are necessary on directly opposite sides of the spectrum. Peoples' sentiments regarding this war are not clearly divided based on their political allegiances or ideals. This war is something that affects many individuals in different ways, irrespective of their political allegiances. The fact that other people who have a liberal voice on this board are insulting or jeering at you has little, if nothing to do with me. They are not my voice, and I'm not their's. Many individuals, regardless of who they "keep company" with, are deeply affected by this war in many ways, whether it be because of their politics, their ideals or values,their notion of separation of powers, their notion of executive power, their notions of democracy, their family members being in the war, their notions of whether this war should have been started, etc. Don't bother with any of that useless nonsense about me "cleaning up my own house." Those same pointless generalizations are exactly why these discussions turn into stupid political ideal pissing contests. This isn't as simple as "us against you" or "liberals against conservatives," so need to even go there.Damn, I think I like you!I completely disagree w/ you view of this war but you seem to be a thinker. I have no problem w/ that and can even respect that. Same cannot be said for others, but..............Anyway, this war on terror was always said to be a very, very, very long struggle and a test of wills. Taking Baghdad and winning the WAR are 2 very different things. This war will unfortunately last longer than my lifetime, but is a war which must be fought head on (IMHO). I've yet to hear a better idea for fighting this war which landed on our doorstep on 9/11. I'm all ear if anyone has a better idea which has yet to have been tried and failed. I'm all ears! Second, I completely REJECT you defeatist premise about this being too tough and impossible. We're not fighting this cause it's easy, rather because the long term onsequences of not fighting it now greatly outweigh the short term consequences of the present. 3rd, our soldiers are kicking ass! I still have buddies there! I lost my cousin there! I served in the region in Gulf War 1. You don't hear of our successes or what we thwart or how many enemy we kill, etc.....You only get one side of this and that's something which bothers me. There is something called the FOG OF WAR and that must be understood. Micromanaging a war will lead to another Vietnam. Things MUST be taken in context and w/ the proper perspective. NEVER, EVER judge a war based on body counts! NEVER! We have a mission. A tough mission which is moving forward, day by day. One should not fight a war w/ the mindset of what would happen if we fail, rather IMAGINE what we will accomplish when we succeed! GET IT? Nothing of any worth or value has ever been easy to accomplish! We do it because it's tough! It's fucking hard! Harder and more difficult than any of us can possibly imagine. But we do it because it's vital to our future. So, ENOUGH w/ the defeatism and whining! If anyone has a problem w/ it, then offer an alternative, if not, sit down and shut up! Terrorism is not just going to go away. We can sit here slap our faces, pound our chest and cry "mea culpa", but that's not a solution! It's counter productive and part of problem, not part of the solution! As for the Vietnam stuff, you brought it up. That's another sore spot for me. My father is a 22 yrs. Army veteran who served 2 tours in that war as an infantry soldier w/ all the scars and disabilities to show for it. I took a course on S.E. Asia and studied that war dating back to the withdrawl of the French. You brought it up, not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringent Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 NEVER, EVER judge a war based on body counts! NEVER! We have a mission. A tough mission which is moving forward, day by day. One should not fight a war w/ the mindset of what would happen if we fail, rather IMAGINE what we will accomplish when we succeed! At no point in my response did I even attempt to judge this war based on the body count. As I've stated previously, I'm not preoccupied with the "number" of deaths. There have undoubtedly been many pointless American deaths since the beginning of this effort, and that remains true, whether the count is lower or higher than it was in Vietnam. Secondly, your response is more or less where our difference of opinion lies. The "mission" of this war is not a realistic one, and as I've pointed out earlier, not one that can necessarily be accomplished in a realistic way. It has very little to do with the freedom of the Iraqi people. You brought it [Vietnam] up, not me.Yes, I realize that. However, I didn't bring it up to compare the body count in that war to the body count in the current effort. That was something that you brought up. I brought Vietnam up to cite that, since that war, this current effort in Iraq is the only one where many soldiers are dying unnecessarily. I stated that soldiers are dying at a considerable rate, not that the rate was any higher or lower than it was in Vietnam. In my response, any rational individual can see very clearly that I'm not judging this war based on the body count. I'm judging it based on its supposed premise and purpose, and whether that purpose, when considered in light of the many pointless American deaths so far, is actually worth even pursuing.Also, as a side note, this current war effort in Iraq did not "land in our laps" due to 9/11. The inconsistencies surrounding the facts supporting Bush's (and his administration's) decision to go to war with Iraq as a natural corollary to the Afghanistanian bombing is where much of the public distrust in Bush lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 HOLY SHIT!!! A real discussion - it can't be! No, no it can't be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 At no point in my response did I even attempt to judge this war based on the body count. As I've stated previously, I'm not preoccupied with the "number" of deaths. There have undoubtedly been many pointless American deaths since the beginning of this effort, and that remains true, whether the count is lower or higher than it was in Vietnam. Secondly, your response is more or less where our difference of opinion lies. The "mission" of this war is not a realistic one, and as I've pointed out earlier, not one that can necessarily be accomplished in a realistic way. It has very little to do with the freedom of the Iraqi people. Yes, I realize that. However, I didn't bring it up to compare the body count in that war to the body count in the current effort. That was something that you brought up. I brought Vietnam up to cite that, since that war, this current effort in Iraq is the only one where soldiers are dying unnecessarily. In my response, any rational individual can see very clearly that I'm not judging this war based on the body count. I'm judging it based on its overall premise and purpose, and whether that purpose, when considered in light of the many pointless American deaths so far, is actually worth even pursuing.I guess we can agree to disagree.You don't seem to see the threat as I do. The threat of terrorsim is one I would like to see fought rather than tolerated. You don't see it the same way so I understand your confusion w/ the mission. I just have to respectfully disagree. Also, you've yet to outline an alternative to this threat (one that has not been tried and failed). Tolerating/managing the threat is not a solution either. I want this threat eliminated or minimized to the point of irrelevance. I've gotta go now. Time to pick up my daughter from school. Maybe being a parent and wanting a better future for my 2 children influences my opinion on this war? Regardless, I think history will be on my side and all those who view the threat the same way I do. At the end of the day, history will judge us all. I just can't live w/ the consequences of doing nothing (being that I've yet to hear an alternative) being that I've brought 2 children into this world. I'm standing up for what I believe. I've lived in that part of the world (total of almost 2 yrs between Bahrain and Kuwait on multiple detachments which include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE and Israel) and understand what we face. I know exactly what our soldiers face. Part of me wants to be there but injuries I have limit me. We'll never convince each other so, we can agree to disagree.Have a nice wknd! Sayonra! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringent Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 I guess we can agree to disagree.You don't seem to see the threat as I do. The threat of terrorsim is one I would like to see fought rather than tolerated. You don't see it the same way so I understand your confusion w/ the mission. I just have to respectfully disagree. I don't think my different opinion is necessarily due to any "confusion" regarding the "mission in Iraq." That mission was made to be confusing from the get go. I think it has more to do with the way Bush and his administration went about conveying the threat of terrorism to the general public. We can go back and forth and debate whether the threat of terrorism from Iraq was as strong as it was touted to be, whether weapons of mass destruction actually existed, whether Iraq was indeed a terrorist state that was directly linked to this war that "fell in our lap due to 9/11," and whether this threat was immediate enough to warrant Bush going to war without the approval of the Congressional body. Personally, I don't believe the facts supporting the war effort in Iraq were conclusive enough to declare war on that country and send American soldiers into a meat grinder that will continue to grind uncontrollably while an American presence is there. I also personally believe that Bush did not carefully and thoughtfully think through the ramifications of declaring war under the overly-broad guise of eliminating a terrorist threat and "freeing the Iraqi people." With respect to what a possible alternative would have been: I don't believe that going to war was necessarily an issue of tolerating or not tolerating a dangerous threat, becauase there was no solid proof that Sadam or his regime posed a danger that was immediate enough to warrant an invasion of this magnitude. I think the appeal of unseating Sadam Hussein and his regime was very intriguing to the general public during the post 9/11 period, and many people (both conservatives and liberals) jumped on this noble bandwagon. Many were naturally still in fear, and it was very easy to play on the public's sentiments at that time. However, personally, I don't think the invasion was warranted, or even necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 I don't think my different opinion is necessarily due to any "confusion" regarding the "mission in Iraq." That mission was made to be confusing from the get go. I think it has more to do with the way Bush and his administration went about conveying the threat of terrorism to the general public. We can go back and forth and debate whether the threat of terrorism from Iraq was as strong as it was touted to be, whether weapons of mass destruction actually existed, whether Iraq was indeed a terrorist state that was directly linked to this war that "fell in our lap due to 9/11," and whether this threat was immediate enough to warrant Bush going to war without the approval of the Congressional body. Personally, I don't believe the facts supporting the war effort in Iraq were conclusive enough to declare war on that country and send American soldiers into a meat grinder that will continue to grind uncontrollably while an American presence is there. I also personally believe that Bush did not carefully and thoughtfully think through the ramifications of declaring war under the overly-broad guise of eliminating a terrorist threat and "freeing the Iraqi people." With respect to what a possible alternative would have been: I don't believe that going to war was necessarily an issue of tolerating or not tolerating a dangerous threat, becauase there was no solid proof that Sadam or his regime posed a danger that was immediate enough to warrant an invasion of this magnitude. I think the appeal of unseating Sadam Hussein and his regime was very intriguing to the general public during the post 9/11 period, and many people (both conservatives and liberals) jumped on this noble bandwagon. Many were naturally still in fear, and it was very easy to play on the public's sentiments at that time. However, personally, I don't think the invasion was warranted, or even necessary.Just got home and decided to check in. "That mission was made to be confusing from the get go. I think it has more to do with the way Bush and his administration went about conveying the threat of terrorism to the general public" Here's where we're due to lock horns. Bush didn't say anything that had not already been said by the previous admin. and congressmen and widely accepted by by all. It would be dishonest to not reference this fact. "WMD's, terrorist state" etc.. Again, all widely accepted as fact during the previous admin, hence Bush never said anything that had not already been declared by Clinton."Personally, I don't believe the facts supporting the war effort in Iraq were conclusive enough to declare war on that country and send American soldiers into a meat grinder" Not believing is one thing and that your perogative which I respect. I can only assume you felt this strongly when it was repeatidly declared in the 90's by Clinton?As for the meat grinder? You're saying invading Iraq was a known meat grinder? Did we not take that country in a few weeks w/ a handful of casualties? You're off base w/ that one. The insurgency is a whole other ball of wax, but liberating Iraq was a huge success and done in record time which no one imagined. Let's not mix apples w/ oranges. That would be dishonest and counterproductive to the debate. "whether this threat was immediate enough to warrant Bush going to war without the approval of the Congressional body. Personally, I don't believe the facts supporting the war effort in Iraq were conclusive enough to declare war on that country and send American soldiers into a meat grinder that will continue to grind uncontrollably while an American presence is there" Congress was practically completely on board. I don't know where you're coming from on that one? "Facts supporting the war in Iraq"? It was about the UN resolutions and failure to comply. 9/11 may have been the catalyst but the legality for invading was CRYSTAL CLEAR. The conviction of the UN is a whole other story which recent investigations have revealed were motivated by corruption and money. Note: That's not my view, it documented facts which were unclear at the time, yet now clearly explain what is partially responsible for igniting the anti-war movement and renders it's core argument baseless and w/out foundation. Funny how America is painted as the greedy money hungry ones and the UN culprits are conveniently ignored. Anyway.............."I also personally believe that Bush did not carefully and thoughtfully think through the ramifications of declaring war under the overly-broad guise of eliminating a terrorist threat and "freeing the Iraqi people." How so? He took his sweet time. Well over 1 yr. multiple debates in congress and speeches at the UN. Congress cowardly voted to authorize the president the power to enforce what they were unwilling to. Bush LED! Congress hid under their desks! That's EXACTLY what leaders are elected to do, LEAD! As for the comment about "overly-broad guise to eliminating a terrorist threat and freeing the Iraqi people", those were just bi-products of removing a dictator which failed to comply w/ mulitple UN resolutions. I hope you understand that and don't confuse that w/ what you now believe happened. Bold? Sure! Noble? You bet! History will judge that decsion. It's definitely WAY TOO SOON to tell. "With respect to what a possible alternative would have been: I don't believe that going to war was necessarily an issue of tolerating or not tolerating a dangerous threat, becauase there was no solid proof that Sadam or his regime posed a danger that was immediate enough to warrant an invasion of this magnitude. I think the appeal of unseating Sadam Hussein and his regime was very intriguing to the general public during the post 9/11 period, and many people (both conservatives and liberals) jumped on this noble bandwagon. Many were naturally still in fear, and it was very easy to play on the public's sentiments at that time. However, personally, I don't think the invasion was warranted, or even necessary.[/" Let me get this straight...You're implying Bush, the president of the United States of America was just a war monger who used the tragic events of 9/11 to bamboozle congress, America and the world into war because........................? Just cause he could? He was bored? Payback for daddy? Halliburton? Steal Oil? Just curious? I hope I'm not losing you here? I took you as a thinker and that scenario is teetering on fallacious. I hope I'm wrong. But I digress................You were saying "w/ respect to an alternative", right? I don't think I got one from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headpusher Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 Just got home and decided to check in. "That mission was made to be confusing from the get go. I think it has more to do with the way Bush and his administration went about conveying the threat of terrorism to the general public" Here's where we're due to lock horns. Bush didn't say anything that had not already been said by the previous admin. and congressmen and widely accepted by by all. It would be dishonest to not reference this fact. "WMD's, terrorist state" etc.. Again, all widely accepted as fact during the previous admin, hence Bush never said anything that had not already been declared by Clinton."Personally, I don't believe the facts supporting the war effort in Iraq were conclusive enough to declare war on that country and send American soldiers into a meat grinder" Not believing is one thing and that your perogative which I respect. I can only assume you felt this strongly when it was repeatidly declared in the 90's by Clinton?As for the meat grinder? You're saying invading Iraq was a known meat grinder? Did we not take that country in a few weeks w/ a handful of casualties? You're off base w/ that one. The insurgency is a whole other ball of wax, but liberating Iraq was a huge success and done in record time which no one imagined. Let's not mix apples w/ oranges. That would be dishonest and counterproductive to the debate. "whether this threat was immediate enough to warrant Bush going to war without the approval of the Congressional body. Personally, I don't believe the facts supporting the war effort in Iraq were conclusive enough to declare war on that country and send American soldiers into a meat grinder that will continue to grind uncontrollably while an American presence is there" Congress was practically completely on board. I don't know where you're coming from on that one? "Facts supporting the war in Iraq"? It was about the UN resolutions and failure to comply. 9/11 may have been the catalyst but the legality for invading was CRYSTAL CLEAR. The conviction of the UN is a whole other story which recent investigations have revealed were motivated by corruption and money. Note: That's not my view, it documented facts which were unclear at the time, yet now clearly explain what is partially responsible for igniting the anti-war movement and renders it's core argument baseless and w/out foundation. Funny how America is painted as the greedy money hungry ones and the UN culprits are conveniently ignored. Anyway.............."I also personally believe that Bush did not carefully and thoughtfully think through the ramifications of declaring war under the overly-broad guise of eliminating a terrorist threat and "freeing the Iraqi people." How so? He took his sweet time. Well over 1 yr. multiple debates in congress and speeches at the UN. Congress cowardly voted to authorize the president the power to enforce what they were unwilling to. Bush LED! Congress hid under their desks! That's EXACTLY what leaders are elected to do, LEAD! As for the comment about "overly-broad guise to eliminating a terrorist threat and freeing the Iraqi people", those were just bi-products of removing a dictator which failed to comply w/ mulitple UN resolutions. I hope you understand that and don't confuse that w/ what you now believe happened. Bold? Sure! Noble? You bet! History will judge that decsion. It's definitely WAY TOO SOON to tell. "With respect to what a possible alternative would have been: I don't believe that going to war was necessarily an issue of tolerating or not tolerating a dangerous threat, becauase there was no solid proof that Sadam or his regime posed a danger that was immediate enough to warrant an invasion of this magnitude. I think the appeal of unseating Sadam Hussein and his regime was very intriguing to the general public during the post 9/11 period, and many people (both conservatives and liberals) jumped on this noble bandwagon. Many were naturally still in fear, and it was very easy to play on the public's sentiments at that time. However, personally, I don't think the invasion was warranted, or even necessary.[/" Let me get this straight...You're implying Bush, the president of the United States of America was just a war monger who used the tragic events of 9/11 to bamboozle congress, America and the world into war because........................? Just cause he could? He was bored? Payback for daddy? Halliburton? Steal Oil? Just curious? I hope I'm not losing you here? I took you as a thinker and that scenario is teetering on fallacious. I hope I'm wrong. But I digress................You were saying "w/ respect to an alternative", right? I don't think I got one from you?the guy is just a well articulated destructiondo not be fooled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 the guy is just a well articulated destructiondo not be fooledI'm far from being fooled, just trying to take the high road and pick his brain. Destruction is another case althogther. There's nothing I can do or say to him that he does not already know. It appears his outbursts are a cry for help. He hates himself and uses these boards to vent w/ his limited grasp of the facts.Someone lend Desctruction and Frenchcunt 1 dollar so they can buy themselve a clue and maybe they might enjoy life for a change. Both have attacked my mom? Go figure...here's one for those 2 wastes of sperm....Yo MAMMY SUCKS DICK ON CREDIT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 HOLY SHIT!!! A real discussion - it can't be! No, no it can't be! i think hell froze over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted October 1 Author Report Share Posted October 1 This is fun.......I wonder how brave you are in person? I'd say it to your face.You say you're 41? I bet it's more like 14! Correction imbecile. I'm 47. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted October 1 Author Report Share Posted October 1 This is fun.......I wonder how brave you are in person? I'd say it to your face.You say you're 41? I bet it's more like 14! Correction imbecile. I'm 47 and you say you're 31? You act more like 13. Go back to politicalteen.com. It's more your speed, pedo.Now my questions again since you choose to avoid them.... Are you going to re-enlist and fight this war? Would you let your kids fight this war? Would you let Obby go off to war to fight? You know, since you support this war, you must sign up or shut up.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.