*snickering*

I could add about 2 more things to hate about her, but you hit the nail. Don’t forget the magazine too that has her model perfect on every single cover. Could anyone be anymore narcissistic? And the WORSE thing to me is her constant use of her spirituality and God and yet she lives in such a way that goes against every major religion in the world’s teachings and beliefs.

There is a 5 question quiz on Billo’s website that will tell you your culture warrior status. So you won’t have to mess around with those messy fortune cookies anymore. Dear God, have we come to this?

ncorrect Puritan1648.. notice I quoted the timestamp of 10:59 AM.

…I see….

Pardon me if I observe that it’s a waste of time competing for the moral high ground with the Left…who think that they have houses and hotels on it, and feel empowered to charge us rent even when our litte shoe token doesn’t even land on it on our way ’round the board.

There’s a lot of moral authority in a B-52….

Puritan1648 on October 29, 2006 at 10:59 AM

I agree, except you’re preaching to the choir. The problem is we are the conservative side of the blogosphere, not your mainstream American who supported the war, and now hates the President because the media has told them he lied, etc. It’s the old ‘United We Stand, Divided We Fall’. All I can say is read my previous comments. Of course the far left (which is now mainstream in the Democratic Party) won’t ever come around, but we regain credibility and authority. Right now we’ve got a public who has run in droves from Bush mainly because of the WMD issue, and a trickle ever since over repeated lies from the media about the economy, etc. I can’t keep repeating myself and trying to explain it, either you get the impact revealing the WMDs would have or you don’t. It would give us the right to tell the UN and the libs to stick it up their ass next time they want to obstruct us. We were unstoppable heading in to Iraq and now we look like a bunch of whiney pussies. Whatever, as I said, you get what I was saying earlier or you don’t.. not worth repeating.

A lot of that “opposition” to the war in polls, as some have observed, isn’t opposition to war, but opposition to what they perceive as going on in this war.

The Bush administration, to the limits of operational security, needs to “sell” this war. We have WWII going on without the advantages of WWII: a national chief executive who knows how to lay things out to people and a popular culture which will keep the situation in people’s faces.

* As I wrote earlier, WMDs were and are irrelevant.

* The 9/11 is murky to Oprah-moms, but isn’t to anyone who doesn’t rely on newspaper clippings to make her geopolitical decisions. It’s ultimately irrelevant, as well, as Saddam and Iraq as he had it set up deserved what they got, regardless of 9/11.

* Civilians are killed, but in a war wherein ordnance has gotten so “smart” that it can go into specific windows of a building, when “smart” munitions are used. O’Reilly is also right: we don’t “bomb cities”, a’ la Hamburg and Tokyo.

* Finally, Halliburton is getting rich. So are all the other defense contractors…and their employees…as Sea/Land (and Lady Bird Johnson, a big stockholder) profitted in Vietnam, Ford and Willies and McDonald/Douglas and Boeing did in WWII and contracors/shippers/dockside prostitutes did in WWI, the War with Spain, the War ‘Tween the States, back to “Uncle Sam” Wilson profitting selling pork in the War of 1812. Without the beans and bullets, you don’t have a war…and nobody’s givin’ ‘em away.

That said, the bumper-sticker sedition spouted by Mrs. Mom on Oprah was still nauseating. I’d be curious to know what she objects to most: the Bush Administration, war in general, the US defending itself in this case, the US defending itself in any case, or some combination of the above.

“Hey, given the geopolitical realities that we find ourselves faced with since 9/11, we’re going to need a base of operations in the middle east where we don’t need “flyover” permission. Our best take on Islamic Extremism is that it’s going to get worse and not better, so it would behoove us to start a war which will force the “sleepers” to break cover and head to Iraq. There we can kill them by the thousands instead of waiting for suicide bombers to hit the local mulitplex. And by the way, It’s gonna be a long hard slog.”

I would’ve been fine with that but I suspect MANY Americans wouldn’t. The reason that O’Reilly couldn’t “slam” the woman is because almost everything she said was RIGHT from her severly limited perspective!

1. There were no weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq.

REASON WHY: George Bush is at fault for considering the wishes of stupid liberals in the run up to war and wasting 14 months dillydallying at the America Hating United Nations, giving Iraq time to secrete the weapons in Syria. ( which is exactly what one of his Generals said was done.)

2. Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11

REASON THIS IS TRUE: While I find the number of contacts between Saddam and emissaries of Al Queda (sic) to be proof of a relationship between the two forces, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION cowed by liberals in the press, has gone out of it’s way since the day we went to war, to say that there was “NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Now, you people may not like that but that’s the truth. As I said it wouldn’t make a difference to ME whether he was at the meetings or not, for the aforementioned reasons.

3. Innocent Civilians have been killed.

REASON WHY: We are fighting a war and in war people die. It is only because of the Bush Admins cowtowing to liberals that the admiision of deaths in war is somehow “damning”. They could reasonably point out that we were the death toll in Iraq is a small number (yes every one is important, *sigh*), compared to any other war we’ve ever undertaken...

The deaths in Iraq are relatively few compared with other wars in U.S. history, and they pale dramatically in comparison with the losses in the two world wars, when the United States saw a combined total of more than half a million fall. The Iraq death total also falls far short of the worst nine years of the Vietnam War, from 1964 to 1973, when more than 58,000 U.S. troops did not return, an average of more than 6,400 deaths a year.

But Bush, cowed by liberal WHINING, punks out everytime and admits that the lowest death toll in the history of the earth when two countries are invaded, is “terrible”.

4. Halliburton is getting richer.

REASON WHY: Halliburton and it’s subsidary Beckdale are two of the three companies on Earth with the size, scope and manpower to rebuild a COUNTRY . Indepenant bids from your local contractor would be laughably stupid, but that doesn’t obviate the fact that, Halliburton’s gettin’ richer!

So in the end, O’Reilly really had nothing to “whack” this woman with since, objectively speaking, she is RIGHT. Her “rightness” is only mitigated by you who see the bigger picture of what Victory in Iraq represents geopolitically. I wouldn’t expect a housewife on the Oprah show to possess that kind of understanding in the first place. And there is no reason that she should since the Bush Administration REFUSED to tell the American people how this all fits together!

Like they say. “They’re at it again.” In January I had recorded some thoughts about the exchange between Bill O’Reilly and David Letterman…in which I think both sides would agree, the following sums things up accurately. O…

In 20/20 hindsight, we know it would have been far better if the Jews had fought back.

…they did…in the ghetto in Warsaw and in other places…Lodz, I think? Anyway, with next to nothing to fight with against aerial bombardment, artillery and the SS, they held out for almost a month (April 19 to May 16, 1943). Casualties were lopsided (300 German/allied dead v. 13000 ghetto combattants), but the survivors were shipped off to their original intended destinations (Treblinka, for one) anyway.

They were dead meat anyway…better to die on your feet, as they say….

Please not too many comments in one thread!!!

I wasn’t aware that they were rationed. What is the allotment? One, two or maybe even three on a thread? Inquiring minds want to know.

In 20/20 hindsight, we know it would have been far better if the Jews had fought back. They probably still would have lost, but perhaps they would have gained allies. Perhaps their superior moral position would have given them strength. It doesn’t matter. If my only choices were to die in impotence or to die in a staunch defense, I would take the latter any day.

The same argument is for liberty…it has not value unless it’s challenged.

You must, if anything, believe even more in G-d. He gave you the tools and the strength to persevere, not just in easy times, but even in these dire days.

So how can we possibly win, when it only takes 20 to take down the World Trade Center? We don’t have to just “get serious” in this war — we have to get downright brutal. Can you imagine what the leftists would say if they realized we had to kill 120 million people, all of whom are innocent freedom fighters?

This is going to be a generational war, and the odds are way against us. G-d help us all.

IF the democrats had been HELPING wage war ON the terrorists instead of helping terrorists fight against their own Country for the last few years, Iraq would probably BE a different place than it is today. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is EXACTLY what they have been doing, it is perfectly demonstrated in the terrorist tape that CNN ran in their latest attempt at subversion, and the American people should not tolerate it.

Imagine, if the day following D-Day, one of the news channels had started running footage on the TV’s in American’s homes of a German machine gun nest straffing the beaches at Normandy killing American soldiers, in an attempt to subvert the war effort. Why, the U.S. would have rounded them all up and tried them for treason, and rightly so.

Ha ! Well it is Halloween. “The Moonbat time of year”

How true. If you closed your eyes and were told to picture a leftie moonbat she would be the vision.

The stakes in this War are vital, and it should be called:

Human Freedom versus Theocratic Tyranny.

If “theocratic” has too many syllables for them, then:

Human Freedom versus Intolerant Tyranny.

What part of “intolerant” don’t they grasp?

Or are they still too afraid to read the Koran -and maybe find out that this “Holy” book (to use Condi Rice’s word for it) ACTIVELY considers women worth only half of a man, that stoning adulteresses to death (and beheading men) is part of the “religion”? Or that gays should be killed? That ALL infidels on Earth need to be forced into slavery to Islam or killed off? Are they afraid to find out that the Koran is not like the Beautitudes or Psalms or Songs of Solomon or Book of Micah? And that it contains scores of bizarre insults to anyone who would not accept Mohammad’s “prophet” status and a psycholigcally-suspect continual current of pleading by the “prophet” that he is “not insane”?

My advice to those in denial about the nature of Islam:

READ THE KORAN- Spread the Dread!

Headlines alone won’t cut it. (Even with scissors.)

shooter on October 29, 2006 at 12:18 PM

Well, it seems I may included in the afforementioned inditement. I would like to enter a plea of guilty with an explaination. It was in the wee hours and I was responding to comments. I admit I may havce gotten off track. I would like to offer a whole hearted “I am sorry” possibly for not abiding by good message board etiquette, although I have seen in numurous instances “debates” here with more postings than I . Thank you for the correction in this matter. Sincerely,Vince Spataro