Awesome. My favorite part is this: 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: Become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims you to be … Wait, I thought only Republicans question other people’s patriotism…
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. I take issue with that and some of what could perhaps be implications from that. I don’t see how any logical analysis of Cindy Sheehan can see anything other than a woman who is not dealing with the death of her son in a healthy manner. Just read her writings. She has taken to blaming Bush for everything up to and including the death of her son. Those supporting her are preying on an emotionally vulnerable (And possibly unstable) woman. I don’t see how you or anyone at this blog can possibly support what is surrounding Sheehan. To me, it is sheer, craven villainy to push this woman farther and farther off the edge. She needs therapy, she needs help, she doesn’t need to be used as a tool for vicious anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American agenda because they cannot get any attention otherwise.
OHNOES, my favorite Tool song has these lines in the chorus: All you know about me is what I’ve sold you, Dumb fuck. I sold out long before you ever heard my name. Cindy Sheehan knew exactly what she was doing long before she went to Crawford. Long before you saw her on CNN. Right around the time your favorite bloggers told you to hate her. I would advise that you not pretend to know any more about her than what has come from her mouth.
Cindy Sheehan aside, Bill O’Reilly looked like a junk yard dog up against a refined greyhound. Regardless of points of view, he acted like a screaming, bullying, juvenile idiot. He caters. relentlessly, to the lowest common denominator and, though I used to watch him semi-regularly until a couple years ago, I can barely stand to even look at him anymore – even when I agree with him. Yes, Phil Donohue has gone further to the left in his old age. But you can have intelligent, socratic debate with him. That loud, back alley, “I’ll fight you with one hand behind my back and a cigarette in the other,” style Bill likes to use was totally inappropriate considering who his guest was. Bill’s credibility shrinks by the day. He’s just classless!
Cindy Sheehan knew exactly what she was doing long before she went to Crawford. Long before you saw her on CNN. Right around the time your favorite bloggers told you to hate her. I would advise that you not pretend to know any more about her than what has come from her mouth I don’t… oh, pfft, never mind. Not worth my time. I’ve read quite a bit of what she has written and said. I’ve made my conclusions off of that, and I’m sticking to them unless someone can prove to me that she speaks of sound mind. Bill O’Reilly looked like a junk yard dog up against a refined greyhound. Oh, please. Donahue provoked O’Reilly by pulling the idiotic “sending kids to die at war”/chickenhawk meme. He dove into snide, emotional drivel. O’Reilly is a loudmouth Irish guy. Donahue was shooting to tick O’Reilly off. You don’t hold a Socratic debate by purposely being foolish to irritate the opponent.
You don’t hold a Socratic debate with Bill O’Reilly, period. “Fool’s errand” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Oh, please. Donahue provoked O’Reilly by pulling the idiotic “sending kids to die at war”/chickenhawk meme. He dove into snide, emotional drivel. O’Reilly is a loudmouth Irish guy. Donahue was shooting to tick O’Reilly off. You don’t hold a Socratic debate by purposely being foolish to irritate the opponent. When has Bill O’Reilly ever needed to be provoked into acting like a loud, ignorant ass clown? Donohue is an Irish guy too. Bill O’Reilly is a big fan of personal responsibility and, most certainly, is responsible for his own temper. He needs to save his “I’m gonna kick you off my show” hoodlum style for the “gangsta rappers” he is so obsessed with. He acts like some of them used to act before they got rich. I’d say he is just a white, suited up version of 50 Cents – forever in need of a “beef” with someone in order to keep his “street cred.”
OHNOES said: I’ve read quite a bit of what she has written and said. I’ve made my conclusions off of that, and I’m sticking to them unless someone can prove to me that she speaks of sound mind. You’re making smoke come out of my irony meter, ohnoes. Cut it out.
Donahue provoked O’Reilly by pulling the idiotic “sending kids to die at war”/chickenhawk meme. He dove into snide, emotional drivel . Ah yes, that over-emotional “I don’t like people being unnecessarily killed” line. What a WIMP! OHNOES, what’s it like being a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders?
You don’t hold a Socratic debate with Bill O’Reilly, period. “Fool’s errand” doesn’t even begin to describe it. Agreed, if not being a bit dodgy. I can see how you’re all so frightened of the big, mean, yelling O’Reilly to not even see that Donahue was being a nitwit… but, whatever floats your boat. Jill, you missed the “You wouldn’t send your children to this war, Bill.” Clearly, Donahue supports Sheehan’s “America’s elite army of kids barely above the age of 12.” theorem. And, Jill, you seem smart, I’d think you’d at least be more mature than to play the tired “chickenhawk” tripe, but if this is the sort of political debate you aspire to… *Shakes head*
I just happen to believe in walking your talk. That is, if you believe in something enough to send other people to die for it, you should be the first one signing up. That said, of course I believe that everyone has a right to their opinions. I just call hypocrisy where I see it.
I just happen to believe in walking your talk. That is, if you believe in something enough to send other people to die for it, you should be the first one signing up. Which is, in and of itself, a childish way to debate at best. A way of simply telling every pro-war commentator to “Shut up” because you conveniently take a stance that is best served by doing nothing. Allow me to continue using your logic. If you so oppose the Iraq war, why are you not out there protecting the innocent Iraqis? If you support the Katrina relief efforts, then why the hell are you not out there with a kayak delivering food, dropping sandbags, picking up survivors? If you think Cindy Sheehan deserves support, then join her stinking bus tour. She only drew a crowd of 29-ish in DC. Give her your support, Jill! She clearly needs it! If you truly care about advancing womens’ rights worldwide, then why are you not joining a global tour seeking to remove regimes which are cruel to women or lobbying to change their policy! Do your part Jill, or risk being called HYPOCRITE.
Also, since George W. Bush and his cabinet clearly support the war, but they are also, for a large part, chickenhawks, do you then support election of solely military veterans to decide American miliatry policy? Should the control of the army then be turned over to the army itself rather than the civilian President, simply because he hasn’t signed up to enlist and thus would be a hypocrite to… do ANYTHING with the army other than serving them pancake breakfasts?
Don’t forget Congress, too. Congress is tasked with supporting military actions, but none of them enlist. So, for them to fill out their duties to fit your infantile string of logic without being HYPOCRITES, they must ALL be soldiers, right?
If you truly care about advancing womens’ rights worldwide, then why are you not joining a global tour seeking to remove regimes which are cruel to women or lobbying to change their policy! That’s why I’m going to law school, actually. Read my profile on this blog: I want to focus on international/public interest law so that I can eventually center my work on improving access to family planning tools for low-income women and for women in developing nations. Do your part Jill, or risk being called HYPOCRITE. Yeah, done and done. That said, though, I think that vehemently supporting a war falls into a different categoy than having other political opinions (and I’m not saying that you vehemently support this war; I don’t know if you do or not). There’s a big difference between supporting something like women’s rights (or LGBT rights, or black rights, or greater funding for education, or whatever) and sending other people to die while you sit at home and go on and on about “freedom.”
Don’t forget Congress, too. Congress is tasked with supporting military actions, but none of them enlist. So, for them to fill out their duties to fit your infantile string of logic without being HYPOCRITES, they must ALL be soldiers, right? How many of their kids are soldiers?
Breaking News: Politicians Often Hypocrites Don’t forget Congress, too. Congress is tasked with supporting military actions, but none of them enlist. So, for them to fill out their duties to fit your infantile string of logic without being HYPOCRITES You’re shocking me, OHNOES. Next thing I know, you’ll be telling me super models use cocaine. You are just full of wacky.
How many of their kids are soldiers? None. Our army only takes people older than 18. They don’t take kids. I think that vehemently supporting a war falls into a different categoy than having other political opinions (and I’m not saying that you vehemently support this war; I don’t know if you do or not). I support the war so long as we get a good ending, Iraq with a functional democracy and some degree of self-sufficiency in the far future. I don’t, however, think the arbitrary distinction you make between supporting a war and other policy issues, snide remarks about freedom aside, really holds water.