Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Myyco.com Shop: Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Redstorm]
    #4549646 -

Redstorm said:
I don't see how you can stand up for him.

He has lied in the face of truth sooooo many times.



O'Reilly used to be an intelligent and interesting commentator. He is now a robotic Right-Wing shill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4549834 -

a few comments on this thread... first, i think the way fox went after that broad was really shitty and indicative of how that side works. there is a respectful way to say you dont agree with her, but of course they had to tear down her character. regardless of what anyone says, she lost her son. anyone here have kids?? imagine losing one, especially in a war you are against. now i see all the usual right wing suspects calling her a cunt and a bitch...ok.. well all these people attacking her, oreilly, coulter, hannity etc..you know the knee jerk right wing nutjobs. none of them have lost a child in this war. in fact none of them served, ever. same for the righties on this board, pontificating about defending this country, blah blah blah..however they dont have the balls to defend the country themselves. probably what makes a right winger like that, a small cock. id maybe even feel better about this war if the repubs would be fighting it themselves. i saw all these rich kids, frat boys in the college repubs...none of them would even dream of giving their lives for this country, yet they talk a big game. what even pisses me off worse about the war is that they dont tell you the real reasons behind it. i mean fuck you could have read the wolfowitz doctrine and figured out why bush wanted iraq. this war was for oil. bottom line. the neocons see communist china as a huge threat, their economy is booming and the chinese are consuming oil at a much higher rate. this war was about the future, aquiring precious resources. of course the neocons hid this. they are liars. maybe securing iraq's oil for our future is a valid goal for some....we all know there is NO way we could have sold this war to the population without lying and fear mongering.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #4549842 -

The sad thing is, the poor kid probably went to war to get away from his mom.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #4549976 -

KingOftheThing said:
same for the righties on this board, pontificating about defending this country, blah blah blah..however they dont have the balls to defend the country themselves.



The only people who are somewhat supportive of the war in Iraq on the Shroomery seem to be JesusChrist (if I remember correctly), zappaisgod ,and Phred (although Phred is not as gung-ho as zappaisgod it seems). Zappaisgod is in his 40's or 50's I believe. Phred isn't even an American citizen and he is older. I have no idea what age or nationality JesusChrist is.

So, it appears as if most of the Iraq war supporters on the Shroomery are incapable of signing up to fight. So, they don't have the opportunity to "defend America".

I thought seriously about joining the military, but decided against it because I wouldn't want to participate in the Iraq war. I made that decision not because of fear, but because I don't think we should be in that country. I think our troops should be home defending our borders and not engaging in foreign adventures or propping up allies.

I would defend my country if my country was under threat. Some dictator halfway across the world in some small country that is crippled by economic sanctions doesn't sound very threatening to me. I would love to take some potshots at some Muslim extremists because I think they are scum, but I can't participate in an enterprise that I disagree with.

Edited by RandalFlagg (08/18/05 03:24 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4550013 -

"I have no idea what age or nationality JesusChrist is. "


hehehehehe oh you don't huh?


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: kaiowas]
    #4550039 -

kaiowas said:
"I have no idea what age or nationality JesusChrist is. "


hehehehehe oh you don't huh?



Is he a 35 year old Jewish carpenter from the Middle East?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: BrAiN]
    #4550383 -

If you wannt bitch about your country, FINE.

Bitching about O'Reilly is bitching about my country? Absolutely amazing. Now I see how we got duped into war. Again!

BTW, I am one of the few here to have joined and served during the Viet Nam era, so I will say whatever the fuck I want to.

Being for one's counrty does not mean being a puppet of large corporations nor closing one's eyes and swallowing swill.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Swami]
    #4550914 -

Quote:
BTW, I am one of the few here to have joined and served during the Viet Nam era, so I will say whatever the fuck I want to.



Hmmm. Does this mean that if you hadn't been in the military during the time before the US pulled out of Viet Nam, you wouldn't say whatever the fuck you want to? If not, why not?

O'Reilly's comment as phrased is substantially less inflammatory than Cindy Sheehan's various rants over the years have been. And he just made the one questionable comment -- Sheehan has made dozens.

The fact is, by behaving the way she does, Sheehan leaves herself open for criticism by people who disagree with her statements. Commenting on statements made by a dissenter is not anywhere close to the same thing as stifling dissent. Sheehan has every right to make the statements she does -- and those who disagree with her have every right to make the statements they do. The fact that she had a son who died in combat doesn't add to (or detract from) the objective worth of her statements. Similarly, the fact that most of her critics don't have sons who died in combat doesn't detract from (or add to) the objective worth of their statements.

The woman has made -- on several occasions -- some pretty harsh statements about everyone from Bush to Jews to the US government in general. We shouldn't be surprised when others send some harsh comments back her way.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Swami]
    #4550979 -

This o'reilly comment is unimpressive.


Blah blah blah, yakkity smakkity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Phred]
    #4551671 -

Hmmm. Does this mean that if you hadn't been in the military during the time before the US pulled out of Viet Nam, you wouldn't say whatever the fuck you want to? If not, why not?

No, it is just a fact to attempt to quell the "You're anti-American for believing in Free Speech," rhetoric that permeates this forum. And the notorious "You don't support or believe in your counrty," accusations (must have learned this heinous tactic from Bill) which frequently comes from people who have done much less to support their country.

Also to you naysayers out their, please give up your pot and stop supporting terrorism!  :mad:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Swami]
    #4551739 -

Quote:
No, it is just a fact to attempt to quell the "You're anti-American for believing in Free Speech," rhetoric that permeates this forum.



LOL. No such "rhetoric" "permeates" this forum.

What so many Lefties fail to recognize is that criticizing people for what they say does not equate to criticizing them for "believing in free speech", it is criticizing them for what they say. Objecting to the seemingly endless kneejerk parroted Leftie talking points is not "stifling dissent", it is exercising free speech.

People here are free to say any number of idiotic things. That doesn't make the things they say any less idiotic, nor does pointing out idiocy make the pointer-outer an advocate of abolition of free speech.

Cindy Sheehan is perfectly free to spout her demented rants and Bill O'Reilly is every bit as free to tell his viewers he finds her statements to border on treasonous speech. This does not mean (despite your oh-so-catchy thread title) that O'Reilly thinks using one's rights per se makes someone guilty of treason.

Quote:
And the notorious "You don't support or believe in your counrty," accusations (must have learned this heinous tactic from Bill) which frequently comes from people who have done much less to support their country.



Are you saying people in this forum have accused you of not supporting or believing in your country?

If so, do you believe the fact you did a hitch in the miltary over three decades ago automatically makes you forevermore immune to such accusations? That you can now say anything you want and get a free pass on it -- because you once served in the military?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Phred]
    #4551835 -

Phred, you really are failing in your "logic".

If I were writing this from Iraq today how would that be different than yesterday or last week or last year or last decade?

Date = Patriotism?

Served in 1973 - *yawn* invalid: ancient history
Served in 2005 - true American

Is John McCain STILL a war hero? That was 30 years ago, so his sacrifice means nothing today, eh?

Those guys that died in WWII? Who cares? That was 60 years ago.  :rolleyes:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Phred]
    #4551846 -

Then you go on to pretend that O'Reilly's comments have little impact? As a dominator of the airwaves, he has a responsibility to truth, and yet abuses his position to manipulate. That is deplorable.

Once upon a time, news men like Cronkite, had honor and ethics.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Swami]
    #4551928 -

Swami said:
No, it is just a fact to attempt to quell the "You're anti-American for believing in Free Speech," rhetoric that permeates this forum.




No such rhetoric permeates this forum
Quote:
And the notorious "You don't support or believe in your counrty," accusations (must have learned this heinous tactic from Bill) which frequently comes from people who have done much less to support their country.



Let us examine this particular nonsense.  Swami seems to believe that no one who endlessly harps about the hideousness of the USA could ever be called into question.  Just as an easy example, I question Ward Churchill's patriotism.  As far as I know all he has done is speak, which is his right.  I nonetheless think he is a complete unpatriotic asshole with shit for brains and phony credentials who wouldn't be able to make a living outside of the asshat worshipping culture of academe.  I have the right to say that.  I also question Richard "shoe bomber" Reid's patriotism.  So do our courts.  Now his fellow prisoners can.  Personally.  Questioning these people's patriotism is clearly appropriate.  Although the poor, addled Sheehan woman doesn't reach these levels at all, she has nonetheless put herself out there for whatever fileting anyone wishes to inflict.  Tough shit Cindy.  Get help.

There are legitimate criticisms of the government.  There are also legitimate criticisms of the critics.  There is an endless tree of legitimacy here.  Tell me again who is trying to squelch dissent?  Surely not the Swami

Also to you naysayers out their, please give up your pot and stop supporting terrorism!  :mad:




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Swami]
    #4553042 -

Bill O'Reilly's current column chastising Cindy Sheehan. It's very amusing.

Quote:
Thirty-five years ago this summer, the USA was exploding in protest over the Vietnam War. And today, the radical left wants to revisit those awful days by replicating the anti-war movement over the Iraq conflict. The question is - will they succeed?
As you know, the radicals have latched on to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in Iraq. Mrs. Sheehan strikes me as a decent woman who has no clue with whom she is currently swimming. Sensing a chance to humiliate President Bush, the Michael Moore crowd has rallied around Mrs. Sheehan, who has become the anti-Iraq war poster person. But it's sad to watch this woman being used by organizations that not only oppose the Iraq war, but believe the USA is a fundamentally flawed nation. Cindy Sheehan's byline now leads the Michael Moore website. Is she really that bitter?

It is one thing to object to a war; it is quite another to throw in with people who are consistently hateful towards traditional America. Cindy Sheehan now calls President Bush a murderer, and the USA an "imperialistic" country. But the woman has paid a price for her political leanings. Her husband filed for divorce last week, and some reports cited his wife's radicalism as one of the reasons.

I don't believe Cindy and her radical left pals will succeed in dividing the country this time around. It is true that most Americans now believe the Bush administration is fumbling the war, and that may well be true. Certainly, the continued violence in Iraq is troubling, and it is an open question as to whether the Iraqi people themselves will fight hard enough to win freedom, and that is the crux of this matter.

The communists prevailed in Vietnam because they had a stronger will to win than the U.S.-supported South Vietnamese. At great sacrifice, America gave the South a chance to be free. They did not step up. The result was decades of totalitarianism that continues to this day, and millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians murdered by the communists. Funny how the radicals never mention that, or the decades of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein.

President Bush has made two major mistakes in Iraq. The first is keeping Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld, understandably, is simply exhausted. He needs to be replaced by a battle-hardened commander who will bring a fresh perspective to the conflict.

Second, Mr. Bush must define the danger he sees if the USA "cuts and runs." The WMD controversy and poor post-Saddam planning does matter now. Terrorists want to kill us, and a victory in Iraq will embolden them and deliver huge momentum to their jihad. Why isn't the President on TV everyday saying this? If America cuts and runs in Iraq, the place will devolve into another terror state where Al Qaeda will have free reign.

No one in their right mind would want Michael Moore or George Soros or Cindy Sheehan calling shots in the war on terror. If Mrs. Sheehan had any perspective at all, she would also protest outside the homes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Tony Blair, all people who understand that cutting and running will lead to disaster for the USA. But in my opinion Mrs. Sheehan isn't interested in the big picture, she just wants to embarrass Mr. Bush.

The question is, will Americans buy what Cindy Sheehan is selling, or, instead, focus on what is really going on here? Unlike Vietnam, we are now fighting a war against people who want to come to our country and destroy it. These people are the driving force behind the "insurrection" in Iraq. They have chosen this battlefield because America made a mistake by underestimating the difficulty of imposing democracy in a culture that does not revere it.

Once again, that mistake is history. What President Bush must do now is clarify the stakes in Iraq and rally Americans to support the global war on terror. If Mr. Bush does not do that, America will be in big trouble.



She's a bad person. Suggests her divorce has to do with her activism over what she says(stress of her son's death) to push his own political agenda. Compares her to Jane Fonda. Michael Moore reference. Notes Saddam's decades of terror, but I assume was under the influence of a heavy narcotic and forgot to end the sentence with, "with approval of the US and the UK."

That's the gist of it. The usual from Republicans.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Swami]
    #4553717 -

Swami said:
If you wannt bitch about your country, FINE.

Bitching about O'Reilly is bitching about my country? Absolutely amazing. Now I see how we got duped into war. Again!

BTW, I am one of the few here to have joined and served during the Viet Nam era, so I will say whatever the fuck I want to.

Being for one's counrty does not mean being a puppet of large corporations nor closing one's eyes and swallowing swill.



I'm not talking about you bitching about O'Reilly. Don't flatter yourself. I'm talking about people like that professor from Colorado state who talks shit about how we Americans deserved what we got on sept 11th

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous [Re: Swami]
    #4554009 -

First Amendment doesn't guarantee free speech. It just guarantees a law won't conflict it.

Edited by trick (08/19/05 01:34 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Myyco.com Shop: Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Sheehan threatens to run against Pelosi RandalFlagg 1,152 10 08/10/07 01:02 PM
by ledfut
* Cindy Sheehan, What a Tool.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
QuantumMeltdown 4,393 75 08/21/05 03:16 PM
by bukkake
* Cindy Sheehan arrested TheHateCamel 886 13 02/04/06 06:14 AM
by DirtMcgirt
* Cindy Sheehan makes challenge to Pelosi official. LaineRB 473 1 04/29/08 04:28 PM
by prototypical_man
* republicans=anti-progress 1stimer 1,394 7 09/18/02 04:00 PM
by Phluck
* Leftist think tank
( 1 2 3 4 all )
nugsarenice 7,257 76 06/01/02 05:20 PM
by Great_Cthulhu
* Bill O'Reilly Interviews Rosie O'Donald mjshroomer 2,029 12 03/28/03 03:44 PM
by mjshroomer
* Cindy Sheehan draws a minimal crowd Redstorm 740 11 12/05/05 07:51 PM
by Redstorm

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,264 topic views. 2 members, 64 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.