CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Are the rats deserting the sinking ship?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are the rats deserting the sinking ship?

post #1 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:16pm
Thread Starter 
Could be. Or perhaps it's just snowing in Hell today...


Quote:
WASHINGTON – Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.

"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."
Reply
post #2 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:21pm
Is he going to resign? I seem to remember him saying that if the US didn't find weapons within six months he'd resign. That was more than six months ago, too.
Reply
post #3 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:25pm
Thread Starter 
If so, I'd like to find a link to that. Here I come, Google...
Reply
post #4 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:28pm
He said he'd apologize. I wish he'd get his fat ego filled face off of my TV forever.
Reply
post #5 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:28pm
Quote:
"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."
All Americans? Whoa. That ain't "let it blow over" commentary. I'm surprised, and I'm anxious to see what comes of it, but right now is probably the best time the 'pubs have to let this get aired, look bad, and the recoup cool before the election, especially if the pull out Osama.
Reply
post #6 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:28pm
Thread Starter 
Closest I could find is this. No mention of resignation, though...

Quote:
For example, O'Reilly was on Good Morning America on March 18 saying that he'd apologize to the nation if we don't find WMD in Iraq. Here's the exact quote, with the best parts bolded for emphasis:

"Here's, here's the bottom line on this for every American and everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right? But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt," O'Reilly said.
Reply
post #7 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:29pm
Wow. First he admits his book has not sold anywhere near as many copies as Hillary's book (and Franken's book), now this?
Reply
post #8 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:30pm
Sean Hannity is a conservative.

O'Reilly is not.

Also, he has been for 2 or 3 months now saying the same thing. Just on his own show, not Good Morning America.

And he has also, repeadtedly, drawn the difference between the lack of us finding WMD and the existance of WMD.

God, I never thought I would be defending Bill O'Reilly.
Reply
post #9 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:41pm
Thread Starter 
Just curious, do you guys, like, masturbate or something when you try to ruin threads, or do you do it because you're physically incable of achieving sexual release?
Reply
post #10 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:42pm
The old "just because no one's definitely captured or even spotted a UFO doesn't mean they don't exist" argument, I see.

It's not just that no one has found the weapons, no one has found an inventory, or a support structure, or any sign that weapons were recently rushed out of a warehouse, or the facility where they were made, or anything else to indicate there are weapons to find.

If O'Reilly's promise to resign is just rumour, so be it. It's not like it's the only rumour ever to spread.
Reply
post #11 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:42pm
MooMoo
02-10-2004 11:37 AM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


ClownPuncher
02-10-2004 11:39 AM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


Jacob Singer
voted for Kodos

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Flowery Branch
Posts: 8391
Just curious, do you guys, like, masturbate or something when you try to ruin threads, or do you do it because you're physically incable of achieving sexual release?



It feels so good, Jacob.
Reply
post #12 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:44pm
Thread Starter 
I suppose you're right, Andre. I've resisted so far, but it's just gotten to the point of absurdity.
Reply
post #13 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:46pm
It takes a little bit to get over the impulse to read their shit anyway, but after a while you realize that you are ignoring them for a reason, a good reason.
Reply
post #14 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:53pm
I love watching the Zone. Though it's been a while since I have. Glad to see he can admit that the BA has some serious issues. Way ta be the man Bill!
Reply
post #15 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Singer
I've resisted so far, but it's just gotten to the point of absurdity.
I've been having a hard time keeping myself in check around here lately. The ignore function is looking better every day.
Reply
post #16 of 65
2/10/04 at 4:57pm
Look, I'm not selling anything... but they simply come here to piss us off.
Reply
post #17 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:01pm
I doubt you pissed him off. He probably doesn't want to waste the time it takes to scroll past your posts.
Reply
post #18 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:04pm
dre's right. they're just here to disrupt the site.
Reply
post #19 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:05pm
Thread Starter 
I do give some credit to O'Reilly for actually apologizing, though. These bombastic television and radio pundits seldom do anything remotely like that, unless it's just a thinly diguised backhanded attack.
Reply
post #20 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:06pm
I was totally against the ignore, but I've started with CP & MooMoo & I must say it works great. When you get rid of them, you actually see a coherent thread. A world of difference.
Reply
post #21 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:11pm
Perhaps some conservatives have started realising that Bush is a corrupt, self-serving moron that's bad for the country and the Republican party, instead of blindly following him and doing backflips to spin every wrong decision he takes.
Reply
post #22 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:11pm
This is pretty serious O'Reilly news due to him having been an unreptant liar in the past.

And PLEASE use the Ignore function in this forum, guys. You'll be surprised at how clean and orderly threads get when you don't have to deal with troll BS.
Reply
post #23 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:13pm
My only problem is I still see all the posts from respected Chewers replying to them. In other words, they still disrupt threads.
Reply
post #24 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:14pm
Sphinx, people will catch on.
Reply
post #25 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:15pm
Thread Starter 
I'm ignoring them now. No more responses from me.
Reply
post #26 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:19pm
I had a discussion with a girl this afternoon. Basically, one of our professors said that Americans tend to be centrist-to-conservative, and that conservatism was gaining popularity as we see the fruits of Liberalism being born. She asked me why the elections didn't reflect this supposed conservative majority. Ond of the things we got around to was the fact that many of us simply can't find anyone worth casting a vote for. It would take an act of God to get me to vote for a Democrat, but at the same time, there are almost no Republicans I would get behind, either.

Anyway, I'm happy that Bill is taking the high road, admitting he was wrong, and questioning the Bush administration. Still, for many, many people, this is just an airing of grievences before they line up and vote like good little Republicans, because the only other choice is seeing a Democrate take the White House.

Bloody party system.
Reply
post #27 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by thomas.galvin
I had a discussion with a girl this afternoon. Basically, one of our professors said that Americans tend to be centrist-to-conservative, and that conservatism was gaining popularity as we see the fruits of Liberalism being born. She asked me why the elections didn't reflect this supposed conservative majority. Ond of the things we got around to was the fact that many of us simply can't find anyone worth casting a vote for. It would take an act of God to get me to vote for a Democrat, but at the same time, there are almost no Republicans I would get behind, either.

Anyway, I'm happy that Bill is taking the high road, admitting he was wrong, and questioning the Bush administration. Still, for many, many people, this is just an airing of grievences before they line up and vote like good little Republicans, because the only other choice is seeing a Democrate take the White House.

Bloody party system.
The only difference between Republicans and Democrates in the political sense is that one group hides behind the Bible.
Reply
post #28 of 65
2/10/04 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally posted by thomas.galvin
I had a discussion with a girl this afternoon. Basically, one of our professors said that Americans tend to be centrist-to-conservative, and that conservatism was gaining popularity as we see the fruits of Liberalism being born. She asked me why the elections didn't reflect this supposed conservative majority. Ond of the things we got around to was the fact that many of us simply can't find anyone worth casting a vote for. It would take an act of God to get me to vote for a Democrat, but at the same time, there are almost no Republicans I would get behind, either.

Anyway, I'm happy that Bill is taking the high road, admitting he was wrong, and questioning the Bush administration. Still, for many, many people, this is just an airing of grievences before they line up and vote like good little Republicans, because the only other choice is seeing a Democrate take the White House.

Bloody party system.
If you're that snoballed into thinking that any one party is that much worse than the other, then the "two" party system magic trick has already worked on you.
Reply
post #29 of 65
2/10/04 at 6:13pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Boomstick
The only difference between Republicans and Democrates in the political sense is that one group hides behind the Bible.
Actually Dems have started doing that now too.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0813-3550r.htm
Reply
post #30 of 65
2/10/04 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Boomstick
The only difference between Republicans and Democrates in the political sense is that one group hides behind the Bible.
Uh, no.
Reply
post #31 of 65
2/10/04 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Micah Robinson
If you're that snoballed into thinking that any one party is that much worse than the other, then the "two" party system magic trick has already worked on you.
The Republicans will at leat throw me the occasional bone; tax cuts, gun rights, abortion laws, or something. So, they are better than the Democrats, though not by far. Actually, it's the abortion thing more than anything else: that's a deal-breaker for me, and I can't remember the last time I ran into a pro-life Dem. candidate.
Reply
post #32 of 65
2/10/04 at 8:32pm
Republicans want babies born so they have someone to shoot later.
Reply
post #33 of 65
2/10/04 at 8:37pm
I assume you can explain that.
Reply
post #34 of 65
2/10/04 at 8:47pm
It's good to see O'Reilly actually taking it further than just an apology. Although I'd hate it if the CIA got the blame dumped on them.
Reply
post #35 of 65
2/11/04 at 2:52am
Wow...wow. I didn't see this coming in anyway.
Reply
post #36 of 65
2/11/04 at 3:05am
Quote:
Originally posted by Smirk
I assume you can explain that.
Just a joke based on the rightie's love for fetuses, guns and executions. AKa the trifecta of HUH?!?!?


You can't kill fetuses! Killing is wrong!

But we will defend breathlessly the ability of anyone to own devices whose only purpose is to kill!

And if you use these devices whose only purpoose is to kill in their intended way - we'll kill you!
Reply
post #37 of 65
2/11/04 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally posted by MooMoo
Ah yes, use the ignore function against all the rational patriotic born in america conservatives.

Maybe if I close my eyes and pretend I'm invisible, I won't get nuked or gassed by the muslim fundamentalists after Kerry gets elected...
here's hoping lorne michaels is a regular chewer and replaces that no good hack jimmy fallon with you, cause you sure are one entertaining character, mm.

fellow chewers, don't ignore this guy: just consider how serious he is when he posts his shit - it's comedy gold!
Reply
post #38 of 65
2/11/04 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
Just a joke based on the rightie's love for fetuses, guns and executions. AKa the trifecta of HUH?!?!?
If you're ever bored, look up the definitions of "kill" and "murder." They are, strangly enough, different.
Reply
post #39 of 65
2/11/04 at 5:09pm
You morality comes from the dictionary? Thought it was another book.
Reply
post #40 of 65
2/11/04 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
You morality comes from the dictionary? Thought it was another book.
Murder is, by definition, always unjustified. Killing can be justified, for example, in situations of legal retribution or self-defense. This is the biblical view of things, but I figured the discussion would go better if we were using terms consistantly.
Reply
post #41 of 65
2/11/04 at 7:34pm
Quote:
Originally posted by thomas.galvin
Murder is, by definition, always unjustified. Killing can be justified, for example, in situations of legal retribution or self-defense. This is the biblical view of things, but I figured the discussion would go better if we were using terms consistantly.
Now you're confusing me Thomas. You said in another thread recently (yesterday?) that you supported this war. How does your Christian context explain away the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis? If we use your definition of 'justifiable killing'? (legal retribution or self-defense - neither of which apply to people who are sitting in the homes with their families before being blown to gruel by one corner of a carpet-bombing?)

That's murder to me, bud.
Reply
post #42 of 65
2/11/04 at 10:15pm
Hey, someone used the lame and irrelevant WWII comparison!
Reply
post #43 of 65
2/12/04 at 6:33am
cosmo, the germans and japanese did strike first. iraq didn't and nor did it have the means to do it, like somebody wanted us to believe.

i don't wanna get into the discussion over killing vs. murdering. i'm just saying that the comparison to WW2 doesn't work very well with the latest bush crusade, regardless of the similarities between hitler and hussein.
Reply
post #44 of 65
2/12/04 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmoline
Then I guess FDR was a mass murderer. We should have left Hitler alone rather than risk killing innocent Germans, eh?
You preemptively carpet-bombed an already crippled country on false grounds. That couldn't actually be any more different from World War II. Wouldn't you agree?

My question was specifically designed for Thomas, who is an Evangelical Christian. I'm interested in what he has to say about the deaths of thousands when he supports this war.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmoline
It's real easy to pontificate about the evils of war when your nation hasn't had the guts to take a stand in one... well, ever. Other than fighting the English, that is.
Wow. You boiled down 800 years of Irish history and Opression into 2 sentences. That is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. You are clearly an expert. I'm going to get that put on a mug.
Reply
post #45 of 65
2/12/04 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Connors
You preemptively carpet-bombed an already crippled country on false grounds. That couldn't actually be any more different from World War II. Wouldn't you agree?
I do see Iraq as different than WWII. For one, we used precision guided munitions instead of carpet bombing a country (despite your protestations to the contrary). For another, we didn't deliberately target civilians. In WWII we destroyed 10% of Tokyo and killed 100,000 people in one night. That's nowhere near the number of people killed in Iraq over the course of the entire war (or percentage of Baghdad).
Reply
post #46 of 65
2/12/04 at 11:51am
Another big distinction is that we had been attacked in WW2, whereas Iraq hadn't fired so much as a shot at us and had no intention of doing so.
Reply
post #47 of 65
2/12/04 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally posted by Micah Robinson
Another big distinction is that we had been attacked in WW2, whereas Iraq hadn't fired so much as a shot at us and had no intention of doing so.
That's debatable. You don't count their attacks and attempted attacks between Gulf War I and Gulf War II, I do.
Reply
post #48 of 65
2/12/04 at 1:44pm
*shakes his head in astonishment before realising he should be used to it at this stage*
Reply
post #49 of 65
2/12/04 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Connors
Now you're confusing me Thomas. You said in another thread recently (yesterday?) that you supported this war. How does your Christian context explain away the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis? If we use your definition of 'justifiable killing'?
I provided examples of justifiable killing, not an exhaustive list. Biblically, killing done in the course of a just war, while quite possibly regrettable, is not necessarily evil. In short, I believe that God used America to execute His judgement on Saddam Hussein. The innocents that died are tragic, but largely unavoidable. Also, remember that the weaponry we use today makes that loos of life much lower than if we used traditional carpet bombing.

Jesus spoke about this, at least tangentially. He said that the kingdom of God was like a field; the sons of God are the wheat stalks, and the sons of the Devil are the weeds. The master instructs the servants not to root out the weeds, lest they also root out the wheat. Generally, I believe that God chooses to to allow evil men to go unpunished for the sake of the righteous around them. There are clear Biblical examples, though, of God passing and executing judgement, and sometimes using human armies to cary out that judgement. The theological terminology used is the "cup of sin fowing over."
Reply
post #50 of 65
2/12/04 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by thomas.galvin
In short, I believe that God used America to execute His judgement on Saddam Hussein.
Oh, come on.

That's one of the most dangerous statements I've ever read.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Are the rats deserting the sinking ship?