Chris Aable's Blog

10:54:16 pm, Categories: Announcements [A]

#1 03-20-2007, 12:56 PM
losangeles4same

Thank you, Sunsara Taylor, for standing up against Bill O'Reilly once again.
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly cannot be readily dismissed, as he is one of the cheif propagandist at the unfair, imbalanced and unashamed Fox Noise Channel.
Having said that, I wish to publicly thank you, Sunsara Taylor, for standing up against Bill O'Reilly once again. He has an "already always listening" so he turned a deaf ear to the fact that you were quoting other sources. He later attributed things to you that you did not say, but merely quoted other sources. Since he has read some of my emails on his show before, below you'll find a brief mail I just sent him:
Thanks again for standing up to him.
----- Original Message -----
To: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:22 AM
Subject: Badgering your TV and Radio guests doesn't make them wrong, nor you right.

Your loud and insistent badgering of your guests to name names of tortured Iraqis is pure fallacy. We know millions of people were tortured in Nazi Germany and probably many slaves in our own Civil War. But I know of no one who can name the victim's names. Just because someone cannot name the names of the tortured doesn't mean it didn't happen. No wonder I've met so many who also call your show a "mental train wreck".

Chris Aable
Beverly Hills, CA

Note: The below is being added after the above posting because the Sunsara Taylor / Bill O'Reilly transcripts are now on line to show the real facts from other sources:

Sunsara Taylor and O'Reilly argued the number of Iraqis dead, he citing the UN figure of 59,000 and she using the 600,000 figure from The Lancet ("considered to be one of the 'core' general medical journals, the others being the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal. The Lancet's impact factor is currently ranked #3 among general medical journals." from Wikipedia.) O'Reilly scoffed and dismissed it as "far left," his answer to anything that proves him wrong. Taylor could have backed up her figure with the October 2006 confirmation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which says

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion
.
At another point, discussing whether or not the US has used torture on prisoners, O'Reilly demanded that she name names. Unlike a beleagured reverend who got caught off guard on the Radio Factor earlier, Taylor had names and details. When she couldn't produce documents, however, O'Reilly dismissed her claims. She paraphrased John Yoo, saying

"John Yoo, one of the top lawyers in the Bush administration, said in a public debate that George Bush has the right to torture somebody, including, I quote, by crushing the testicles of their small child in front of them. I quote you, from a public debate, this is George Bush's lawyer!"

Information Clearinghouse has the story, pertinent point being

"Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

Note her words, as this is brought up and totally twisted later on with KP.

Throwing out another one of his notorious straw-man fallacies, O'Reilly demanded to know "what small child was that," badgering her for a name or other specifics, when clearly she had not said it happened, only that Bush's attorney had stated that it could if Bush ordered it - which should horrify any red-blooded American. O'Reilly, unconcerned at this declaration of power, continued to sweep it under the rug.

__________________
"Build bridges, not walls. The later requires the worse within us, the former requires the best within us."
- Chris Aable, M.A., Psychology & Sociology www.self-evolution.org

#2 03-20-2007, 08:06 PM
Atlas_Collins

Quote:
Originally Posted by losangeles4same
Unfortunately, O'Reilly cannot be readily dismissed, as he is one of the cheif propagandist at the unfair, imbalanced and unashamed Fox Noise Channel.
Having said that, I wish to publicly Thank you, Sunsara Taylor, for standing up against Bill O'Reilly once again. He has an "already always listening" so he turned a deaf ear to the fact that you were quoting other sources.

Could you re-quote those sources - I think I missed them.

Thanks

#3 03-20-2007, 08:21 PM
snoopdog's Avatar

All she did is spout recycled brainwashed lies and garbage.
Reply With Quote
snoopdog

#4 03-20-2007, 08:41 PM
losangeles4same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas_Collins View Post
Could you re-quote those sources - I think I missed them.

Thanks
Interesting. Are we going to repeat Bill O'Reilly's "You can't remember names-game-so-it must-NOT-be-true?" Well for starters, she named George Bush and Donal Rumsfeld, who stated that the army does use torture. She also cited a colonel who worked at the prison who testified under oath that she witness torture. Oh, and then there's that little matter of pictures of naked prisoners and attack dogs that have been posted the world over. It appears you and Bill O'Reilly both missed her sources, even though she stated her sources over and over again, in between his constant interruptions and name-calling. I am sure many of us are sorry if the truth hurts so bad that he has to yell it down, but just as a person cannot grow from honestly admitting their faults and failures, neither can a nation. Otherwise all we're left with is the self-satisfying but empty promise of denial.

#5 03-20-2007, 08:47 PM
losangeles4same

Quote:
All she did is spout recycled brainwashed lies and garbage.
Speaking of "spout"ing - do you often report on what people said without really knowing....because the "recycled brainwashed lies and garbage" that you allude to were nothing more than her citations of Bush, Rumsfeld, and a colonel in our own U.S. Army. She never mentioned any "liberal" sources nor a single source from outside of our own government.

#6 03-20-2007, 09:54 PM
houstonpatriot

Quote:
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly cannot be readily dismissed, as he is one of the cheif propagandist at the unfair, imbalanced and unashamed Fox Noise Channel.
Having said that, I wish to publicly thank you, Sunsara Taylor, for standing up against Bill O'Reilly once again. He has an "already always listening" so he turned a deaf ear to the fact that you were quoting other sources. He later attributed things to you that you did not say, but merely quoted other sources. Since he has read some of my emails on his show before, below you'll find a brief mail I just sent him:
Thanks again for standing up to him.
You are joking right? All I saw was her yelling out facts she didn't have proof of! IE:600,000 Iraq citizens have been killed. Where can I find docs on this? Why is it when liberal’s debate they yell get all excited? Can't you guys just have a normal debate with facts? Since she was talking about Iraq deaths where was all this hatred when UN Sanctions were killing around 4,700 infants under the age of 5 a month from "severe lack of medicine and other necessary requirements."
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9711/26/iraq.wed/
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/congiraqreport.htm
Does anyone know why there were Sanctions put on Iraq back in 1990?

I would love to have a peaceful debate about the Iraq situtation!

#7 03-20-2007, 10:06 PM
losangeles4same

Quote:
Can't you guys just have a normal debate with facts?
Unless you are as biased as your user name seems to suggest, we were having a normal debate about facts. Patriotism is all well and good, but not so when it's "my country right or wrong". That's the kind of blind patriotism that lets our leaders get away with almost anything. More to the point the debate is about WHO Sunsara Taylor's sources were, not the numbers killed. But as Sunsara Taylor CLEARLY pointed out several times while Bill O'Reilly was trying to yell her down, several thousand civilian deaths are several thousand too many. One innocent child's death is one too many, no matter what country they are from. Bill could not fully apprehend that over his defensive, predisposed mindset, nor can you apparently, because you are trying to change the subject and reduce the debate back down to 3rd-grade level with phrases such as "are you joking". The real question is: "Did you listen to the show carefully, and if you did, were you able to grasp both sides of their debate?" O'Reilly, who has condemn the U.N. fact-finding for years, suddenly wants to be on their side when he can use their "facts" to make a fallacious argument of "your another" - in response to Sunsara Taylor's FACT that even 53,000 thousand is 53,000 too many, O'Reilly points the finger at Saddam's murders again and again !! Amazing, because Saddam often used the same erroneous logic when justifying his murders by pointing at America's atrocities with Indians and slaves. As O'Reilly likes to brag about, he's just a "simple guy"....too bad because we live in a complex world and he pretends to know almost everything about it. By O'Reilly's logic, when someone gets busted for murder, they can always point his finger at Charles Manon? In repeatedly using his "your another" fallacy, O'Reilly unwittingly puts us in the same category with Saddam - ya, right, two wrongs make a right.

#8 03-20-2007, 10:51 PM
houstonpatriot

Quote:
your screen name alone suggests you have a predisposed bias to any fact that disagrees with your blind patriotism.
See already I haven't been on 30 minutes and you already jump to judgement without knowing the facts and attack my screen name and what it suggest! You are just like Sunsara attacking people without having your facts right! FYI I live in Houston and I am a New England Patriots Fan.

WOW! You changed your oppinion on here:

"More to the point the debate is about WHO her sources were, not the numbers killed. But as she CLEARLY pointed out several times, when Bill O'Reilly was trying to yell her down, several thousand civilian deaths are several thousand too many. Bill could not hear that over his defensive, predisposed mindset, nor can you apparently. What does O'Reilly say in response? He points the finger at Saddam and in doing so he unwittingly puts us in the same category - ya, right, two wrongs make a right"

Is that how it is on here you can go back and change history on what you said? Bill was trying to ask questions and she wouldn't even let him finish asking before she just start ranting. Bill even started off his question by saying " where am I wrong" Now let me get to your changed opinion

#9 03-20-2007, 11:16 PM
houstonpatriot

Quote:
Unless you are as biased as your user name seems to suggest, we were having a normal debate about facts. Patriotism is all well and good, but not so when it's "my country right or wrong". That's the kind of blind patriotism that lets our leaders get away with almost anything. More to the point the debate is about WHO Sunsara Taylor's sources were, not the numbers killed. But as Sunsara Taylor CLEARLY pointed out several times while Bill O'Reilly was trying to yell her down, several thousand civilian deaths are several thousand too many. One innocent child's death is one too many, no matter what country they are from. Bill could not fully apprehend that over his defensive, predisposed mindset, nor can you apparently, because you are trying to change the subject and reduce the debate back down to 3rd-grade level with phrases such as "are you joking". The real question is: "Did you listen to the show carefully, and if you did, were you able to grasp both sides of their debate?" O'Reilly, who has condemn the U.N. fact-finding for years, suddenly wants to be on their side when he can use their "facts" to make a fallacious argument of "your another" - in response to Sunsara Taylor's FACT that even 53,000 thousand is 53,000 too many, O'Reilly points the finger at Saddam's murders again and again !! Amazing, because Saddam often used the same erroneous logic when justifying his murders by pointing at America's atrocities with Indians and slaves. As O'Reilly likes to brag about, he's just a "simple guy"....too bad because we live in a complex world and he pretends to know almost everything about it. By O'Reilly's logic, when someone gets busted for murder, they can always point his finger at Charles Manon? In repeatedly using his "your another" fallacy, O'Reilly unwittingly puts us in the same category with Saddam - ya, right, two wrongs make a right.
I'm not really a Bill Fan the point I am making is that she said 600,000 have been killed blowing it way out of Proportion! Please bring documents to back your Slander thats all! Like most liberals they grab numbers and throw it out there and see if it grows legs(not knowing all the facts)! To me Bill seem relaxed and layed back and Sunsara was off to the races. I agree 53,000 is way too many! Remember those 53,000 deaths could have been avoided if saddam would have taken his money and 2 sadistic sons with him and went into asylum. Remember President Bush gave saddam and his sons 48 hours to get out of Iraq. By the way I won't edit my opinion like you just did!

#10 03-21-2007, 12:09 AM
snoopdog's Avatar

Quote:
Speaking of "spout"ing - do you often report on what people said without really knowing....because the "recycled brainwashed lies and garbage" that you allude to were nothing more than her citations of Bush, Rumsfeld, and a colonel in our own U.S. Army. She never mentioned any "liberal" sources nor a single source from outside of our own government.
Dude have some more kool aid, all she did is spout the same mindless rant over and over.

#11 03-21-2007, 12:22 AM
losangeles4same

Quote:
Dude have some more kool aid, all she did is spout the same mindless rant over and over.
Mimicking Bill O'Reilly's ad hominem attack on everyone who disagrees with him by calling them Kool-aid drinkers? That undigested label has never worked, because its a false analogy. Disagreeing with his many lies, such as "Iraq is going to be a cakewalk", does not make them suicidal cult followers. What is suicide is going into Iraq and thinking we won't get shot at from all sides - if you think it's such a noble cause - why don't you take a few sips of Bush's "Kool-aid" and go on over there and fight for "freedom"?

Mindless rant over and over? Well, if you say so, but she was quoting Rumsfeld, Bush and the Army Colonel over and over - if you want to simplify that as a "mindless" rant, then you are by default pointing that judgmental finger of yours unwittingly at the people who Sunsara was quoting.

"Build bridges, not walls. The later requires the worse within us, the former requires the best within us."
- Chris Aable, M.A., Psychology & Sociology www.self-evolution.org

#12 03-21-2007, 12:49 AM
losangeles4same

Quote:
Remember President Bush gave saddam and his sons 48 hours to get out of Iraq. By the way I won't edit my opinion like you just did!
Firstly, if "Saddam and his sons" were the real reason-of-the month for getting thousands of our own and theirs butchered, then we should have taken them out and left everyone else alone. Saddam has been gone for a long time, and yet the body count on all sides continues to run riot.

Secondly, I agree that both "liberals" and "conservatives" inflate and conflate numbers all the time - so? Pointing your fingers away from the initial debate again ? Bill O'Reilly does a great job of spinning numbers. Not only with his rare and sudden respect for UN figures that support his biases and contradict figures of the International Red Cross and several Human Rights Watch Groups who were there on the grounds, but O'Reilly does it every time he touts his show as "high quality programming" just because he has a couple of million viewers - That's like saying McDonald's is "high quality" food just because millions of obese people love it.

Thirdly - I edit my opinion? Wow.....you got me there - I actually think twice about some things I have said or written - what a concept.

#13 03-21-2007, 01:02 AM
losangeles4same

Quote:
See already I haven't been on 30 minutes and you already jump to judgement without knowing the facts and attack my screen name and what it suggest!
Wow.....based on your own statements, which is all I attacked, you and O'Reilly seem to have more in common than initially assumed. NOWHERE did I jump to judgment nor have drawn any conclusions about you personally. I quote myself, with caps for all the words you apparently either missed or currently are refusing to apprehend (?):

UNLESS you are as biased as your user name SEEMS to SUGGEST, we were having a normal debate about facts.

The words "unless" "seems" and "suggests" all suggest wonder, puzzlement and are inherently inquisitive and thus suggest further study and elaboration. Your statements keep speaking for themselves. I'm very careful about the words I chose and attack statements on their own merit. It would be a nicer world if people would attempt to read words as carefully.
Last edited by losangeles4same : 03-21-2007 at 01:08 AM. Reason: Oops...I edited I would be a nicer world to It would be a nicer world - wo is me...I edit - what is the world coming to ?

#14 03-21-2007, 01:39 AM
snoopdog's Avatar

Quote:
Mimicking Bill O'Reilly's ad hominem attack on everyone who disagrees with him by calling them Kool-aid drinkers? That undigested label has never worked, because its a false analogy. Disagreeing with his many lies, such as "Iraq is going to be a cakewalk", does not make them suicidal cult followers. What is suicide is going into Iraq and thinking we won't get shot at from all sides - if you think it's such a noble cause - why don't you take a few sips of Bush's "Kool-aid" and go on over there and fight for "freedom"?

Mindless rant over and over? Well, if you say so, but she was quoting Rumsfeld, Bush and the Army Colonel over and over - if you want to simplify that as a "mindless" rant, then you are by default pointing that judgmental finger of yours unwittingly at the people who Sunsara was quoting.
She did not quote anyone but some kooks. Why do you need to lie?

#15 03-21-2007, 02:00 AM
losangeles4same

Quote:
She did not quote anyone but some kooks. Why do you need to lie?
Did we see the same show last night? Because, firstly, if we did ...you have just told a lie, ironically by stating I have lied. Since you are the only one between us who seems to have heard the entire show and you have a monopoly on the facts of last nights episode, then tell the world, who exactly were these "kooks" who you now assert Sunsara Taylor quoted? That's a question - and since you love truth and the facts - you are free to do some real homework and look up the answer. I'm sure you can send us all a transcript?

Secondly, this debate is about torture, civilian deaths and O'Reilly's dismissal of them. It seems to keep going over your head, but Sunsara Taylor did in fact state that she was quoting Bush, Rumsfeld and the Colonel who testified under oath about torture. More telling, both Rumsfeld and the CIA itself has admitted that they tortured people who had not yet been found guilty of anything other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. We saw documentary film evidence of Rumsfeld stating that water-boarding is approved on the news just today. Although you probably won't find that on Fox News. I know from his own words that O'Reilly doesn't consider water-boarding torture - but I'm sure he would reinvent that lie if it was his family that were being nearly drowned to death until they admit to something they may or may not have done. I for one don't dehumanize even O'Reilly by calling him a "kook" just because we don't see eye-to-eye. People are more complex than that and we all say and do stupid and brilliant things sometimes. But that's a point you and O'Reilly seem to miss - people who subscribe to logic and rationality address behavior and statements on their own merit- not a person in total with some 3rd-grade name-calling. Are you sure you're not letting your fear and your pro-war bias get in the way of your humanity and compassion ? The good news is that most of us can subscribe to rationally and logic, and see it in others even when we disagree.
Last edited by losangeles4same : 03-21-2007 at 02:08 AM.

#16 03-21-2007, 04:56 AM
dhgunit

Quote:
UNLESS you are as biased as your user name SEEMS to SUGGEST
First of all, how does the name "houstonpatriot" show that he is biased? Do you have any idea how dumb that is? Basically, that shows how you feel about patriotism. But I guess you are right, patriots usually want the USA to succeed in its foreign policy.

Do you know what Sunsara is? A far-left liberal, and hopefully we won't even have to debate that. How can she say that "most of the country agrees with us"? That is not accurate at all, and by her using George Bush's poll numbers as an example is silly. I am not happy with Bush's job performance right now. That doesn't mean I agree with Sunsara. I am a moderate. The middle. The entire country isn't Berkeley, CA or Boston, MA. Maybe the majority in those locations agree with her, but there is an area of the country between California and Massachusetts.

Also, explain to me how this war is illegal? I still don't get that one. Sunsara said that was a fact when Bill said those were her opinions. If it is a fact, it is an incorrect one.

#17 03-21-2007, 09:00 AM
losangeles4same

Quote:
First of all, how does the name "houstonpatriot" show that he is biased? Do you have any idea how dumb that is? Basically, that shows how you feel about patriotism. But I guess you are right, patriots usually want the USA to succeed in its foreign policy. Do you know what Sunsara is? A far-left liberal, and hopefully we won't even have to debate that. How can she say that "most of the country agrees with us"? That is not accurate at all, and by her using George Bush's poll numbers as an example is silly. I am not happy with Bush's job performance right now. That doesn't mean I agree with Sunsara. I am a moderate. The middle. The entire country isn't Berkeley, CA or Boston, MA. Maybe the majority in those locations agree with her, but there is an area of the country between California and Massachusetts.
For someone who claims to be "moderate" you have not adopted a moderate tone in your posting, in any sense of the word.
I clearly explained what blind patriotism is - agreeing with the leadership without question, right or wrong. I see no evidence that "houstonpatriot" questions the current leadership - even when it involves something as horrific as torture and 53,000 thousand deaths, or much more by many other estimates. To the contrary, he defends this, and you defend his defense by asking "how dumb that is?", which is hardly moderate. I trust that most of us can keep a mirror held to ourselves and realize that history is full of people who subscribe to "patriotic" nationalism while their leaders invade territories where they are not wanted. The majority of "patriotic Germans" during World War Two and us Americans breaking just about every treaty with the American Indians just being two of many examples.
While it it is more than obvious that the "entire country isn't Berkely, CA or Boston, MA" Bush nevertheless suffers from one of the lowest approval ratings in history. Cheney and Rove even more so...and that's not "Berkeley" nor "Boston" speaking, so your so-called "moderate" bias is blatantly showing it's true colors, as does O'Reilly's every time he proclaims himself "moderate". If that's so, then why do so many self-proclaimed "conservatives" defend him all the time? As a psychologist, I'm pretty sure a lot of the same self-proclaimed "conservatives" enjoyed your so-called "moderate" post as well.

"To peace, love and understanding - concepts that would have saved thousands of American (and other) lives had they been adopted back in 2003."
Chris Aable

#18 03-21-2007, 11:02 PM
dhgunit

Quote:
For someone who claiims to be "moderate" you have not adopted a moderate tone in your posting, in any sense of the word.
I clearly explained what blind patriotism is - agreeing with the leadership without guestion, right or wrong.
Who here agrees with the leadership without question? I was for going to war with Iraq when this started. The facts at the time dictated that we do something. Whether you like it or not, we had every right to invade Iraq. Otherwise, what is the point of the UN?

Looking back, and hindsight is 20/20, we should not have gone to Iraq. I wish we weren't there right now, but does that mean we should just up and leave? I hate being there, but if we leave there will be a slaughter and everything we have tryed to accomplish will be for nothing. What if we stay there for 3 more years and Iraq is actually on its way to being a stable democracy by then?

Or are you like most far-left liberals and think that any war for whatever reason is a bad war? Would you support it knowing that Iraq would be a free country in the next 10 years?

Quote:
To the contrary, he defends this, and you defend his defense by asking "how dumb that is?", which is hardly moderate.
Can you read? Obviously anyone that disagrees with your far-left ideas is a hard-core conservative, correct? Read where I said "how dumb is that". That was in response to you saying he is biased because his name is "houstonpatriot". Yes, that is dumb....very dumb.

Quote:
While it it is more than obvious that the "entire country isn't Berekely, CA or Boston, MA" Bush nevertheless suffers from one of the lowest approval ratings in history. Cheney and Rove even more so...and that's not "Berkeley" nor "Boston" speaking, so your so-called "moderate" bias is blantanly showing it's true colors
Showing my true colors? Do you even read posts or do you just skim? Read again:

Quote:
I am not happy with Bush's job performance right now.
So....how do you think I would vote regarding Bush's job performance? Bush's poll numbers are low because he is a bad president, one of the worst in history. A lot of that has with his inability to speak well, a lot is the division in this country stemming from the hatred for the man from the left.

I can't wait for him to get out of office so we can start fresh. As I said, I am a moderate so I will be looking at candidates from both parties. Is there a chance you will be voting Republican?

I can tell you right now that I will not vote for Gore or Clinton, so if they win the democrat ticket, I will go Republican. I really like Obama though. I would pick him over Guiliani and Romney. On the Republican side I kinda would like to see Chuck Hagel get into this thing.

Quote:
as does O'Reilly's everytime he proclaims himself "moderate". If that's so, then why do so many self-proclaimed "conservatives" defend him all the time? As a psychologist, I'm pretty sure a lot of the same self-proclaimed "conservatives" enjoyed your so-called "moderate" post as well.
O'Reilly isn't a moderate, we all know that. I call myself a moderate because I have about liberal beliefs and conservative beliefs. But on each side my beliefs are very strong. If you want to know a few of my liberal beliefs:

I am 100% for the legalization of marijuana. It is a personal choice and doesn't hurt anyone. It would solve many problems if it was legalized.

I am pro-choice, although that doesn't mean I am pro-abortion. There is a difference. Some restrictions may apply!! (partial-birth)

The Patriot Act is terrible and is invasive to Americans. Call the Judge and present evidence of terrorist activities by Abumabu Muhammed and get a warrant.

#19 03-21-2007, 11:12 PM
May

If anyone's still looking for more information about the number of people killed since the US invaded without UN sanction four years ago, see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html

#20 03-21-2007, 11:23 PM
dhgunit

May,Lets be realistic here. That is an estimate, and on the high end of the range. Is it possible? Yes, but not likely.

Quote:
This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.
Uhh....yeah...

#21 03-21-2007, 11:25 PM
dhgunit

If most people in the US agree with you guys, why do you only have 100 members on these forums? If this is such a worthy cause, like you claim....where is the support?

#22 03-21-2007, 11:33 PM
May

Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.

Let me ask you though... how many thousands of deaths are you okay with?

It's not just the returning soldiers who are responsible, it's every one of us here.

#23 03-21-2007, 11:59 PM
dhgunit

May,

You know very well that you cannot put a number on "what I am okay with".

I am not okay with one. Yet we lost 3,000 of our fellow Americans on 9/11. How many innocent Americans have died in terrorist attacks since? I am willing to accept that number, which is ZERO.

Would we be in Iraq right now if 9/11 had not happened? I would say no....

Now I am going to ask you a dumb question like you asked me. Pick one: A dead American or a dead Iraqi.

It can't and shouldn't have to be done.

#24 03-22-2007, 01:50 AM
Wegroeg

Quote:
She made a fool of herself.
All she did is spout recycled brainwashed lies and garbage.
Totally agree with your assessment.
This woman is a perfect example of the kind of zealot that Michael Savage so eloquently described in his best seller, "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder". Her extreme hate agenda has apparently distorted her clear thinking and ability to intelligently enunciate her/the WCW position.

As for all the negative comments against Bill O'Reilly, recall that: 1.) FOX Cable News Channel has three times the listeners of CNN, MSNBC and the other Network News channels combined; 2.) The O'Reilly Factor is the most watched opinion/commentary program on FOX, and; 3.) Bill O'Reillys' ‘arena’ is known as the "NO SPIN ZONE", and, as he should and did, he cut the legs out from under her shrieking/spinning/nonsensical/illogical diatribe. CUDOS to Bill for stopping her before she made an even bigger fool of herself.

If this person is the best example that WCW has to offer, then I suspect that she and the rest of her hateful ilk will soon be flushed out to sea along with the Air America crowd.

#25 03-22-2007, 02:35 AM
losangeles4same

Quote:
This woman is a perfect example of the kind of zealot that Michael Savage so elquently described
Your statement is one of the most extreme ironies I've witnessed in years. Calling someone who was yelled down on the O'Reilly propaganda show a "zealot" while idolzing Michael Savage all in the same stroke? Amazing, because even most Republicans and Republican politicians I know keep their distance from Michael Savage. Your posting would be laughable if it weren't so sad and hateful, and I'm stating that as a trained psychologist. Speaking of "spout"ing - do you often report on what people said without really knowing who they were REALLY QUOTING?....because the "recycled brainwashed lies and garbage" that you allude to were nothing more than Sunsara's citations of Bush and Rumsfeld IN THEIR OWN WORDS. When O'Reilly refused to hear that, Sunsara had to remind him of the colonel in our own U.S. Army who testified UNDER OATH about the torture, the main topic of most of the debate. Sunsara never mentioned any "liberal" sources nor a single source from outside of our own government. Cam you name any others she quoted ?

"Build bridges, not walls. The later requires the worse within us, the former requires the best within us."

#26 03-22-2007, 02:43 AM
dhgunit

why are you running away from my question LA

Quote:
If most people in the US agree with you guys, why do you only have 100 members on these forums? If this is such a worthy cause, like you claim....where is the support?
Explain this torture side of your argument. Show me the law where it gives us the right to torture. I know you guys love to compare our country to nazis, and that is where O'Reilly inserts his "lunatic" claim and rightfully so.

Find me a extremist right web-site and I will go preach to them too. But you guys will never accomplish what you want with this radical non-sense.

You have a legitimate beef. Our war should be debated, but if you aren't going to use common sense you will just look like "lunatics".

#27 03-22-2007, 05:46 AM
losangeles4same

Default Who's running from what question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhgunit View Post
why are you running away from my question LA?
Running from what question ? If its aimed at me, you're either very confused or can't apprehend a thread of postings very well. I NEVER stated ANY of the things you attributed to me in your questions. Then, hypocritically, you totally ignored my question. I never stated that this is a popular website nor forum. But then again, popularity doesn't make anything right or wrong, nor fact or fiction. "

"Most people believe in Astrology and UFO's - belief alone doesn't make it fact. History has given plenty of evidence that often UNpopular beliefs and ideas are later proven correct and factual." - Chris Aable

And I completely agree with you that torture is not on the U.S. Law books. But the world has seen the evidence of it at Abu Grabe in the form of pictures of naked prisoners and attack dogs, in news reels of Rumsfeld stating that he approves of water-boarding and members of the CIA admitting that it does happen. You don't get away from that Michael Savage show enough to watch the news footage of our own "leaders" in their own words ? When confronted with the evidence, Bill O'Reilly states "I don't consider water-boarding torture". I think he would change his tune quite a bit if it were he or his family being held under water until they almost drown or until they give their torturers the answers they want.

#28 03-22-2007, 08:32 AM
losangeles4same

"SHE" made a fool out of herself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopdog View Post
She made a fool of herself."
Care to back up your claim or is name-calling all you have ? Here are the facts, and if you don't feel a bit foolish after reading them, then you're just as unashamed as Bill O'Reilly is and continues to be. In psychology we call that a pathology - which is curable, but all evidence indicates that so far Bill O'Reilly doesn't want to be cured. Perhaps he enjoys being his own worse enemy by making it so easy to expose his many lies?

Taylor argued the facts passionately, calling the war illegal and citing Nuremberg. She and O'Reilly argued the number of Iraqis dead, he citing the UN figure of 59,000 and she using the 600,000 figure from The Lancet ("considered to be one of the 'core' general medical journals, the others being the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal. The Lancet's impact factor is currently ranked #3 among general medical journals." from Wikipedia.) O'Reilly scoffed and dismissed it as "far left," his answer to anything that proves him wrong. Taylor could have backed up her figure with the October 2006 confirmation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which says