So Funny...

[Frank Giaramita]

I hardly ever post political related news, but this moment was just too good to let pass up. Besides, I've been waiting a while for an online stream of this.

David Letterman- 1 | Bill O' Reilly- 0 (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002750.html#002750)

"I have the feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap"--Letterman

[Jonathan Lally]

Old.

[Frank Giaramita]

Old.
This will never get old. In my opinion, it's one of the best moments in the history of late night talk shows.

[secondtolast]

Letterman got picked apart and destroyed what the hell show were you watching?

[Jonathan Lally]

This will never get old. IN my opinion, it's one of the best moments in the history of late night talk shows.

Never said it was bad, but this was posted on ONTD! the other night, I almost posted it here ;)

[ACA]

This will never get old. In my opinion, it's one of the best moments in the history of late night talk shows.

Haha.. make that a discussion, and link to clips.. I wanna see what other people think, too, this is pretty interesting.

-ACA

[Jonathan Lally]

Letterman got picked apart and destroyed what the hell show were you watching?

true, if you listen to the audience, they applaud for both sides. just because Letterman is the host doesn't mean everyone is going to side with him (although I did on this one.) There's two sides to every argument and if you listen to the audience reaction it's obvious. heh.

[JacksColdSweat]

Someone should shoot Bill O'Rielly.

[Frank Giaramita]

Letterman got picked apart and destroyed what the hell show were you watching?
Picked apart? Bill got owned during the faulty intelligence argument, the Christmas argument and the Sheehan argument. The only reason the term "Christmas" was under fire this year was because tight asses like O Reilly felt the need to blow a few isolated incidents out of proportion. I have yet to find a single person who gets insulted by the colors red and green, the term "Christmas", or a picture of Santa Claus. As opposed to just stating, "there's a few incidents where schools are forbidding children from expressing...etc.", Bill uses these examples to make the american public believe that they SHOULD be insulted by these holiday traditions. There's a difference between addressing an issue in a few isolated locations, and pushing an issue on the entire american public based on a few isolated incidents.

Unless Bill knows what it's like to lose a child in war, he has no place criticizing anything she says. While I agree calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" is completely out of line, she's gone through things 99% of the people in this world never go through... there's a time to bite your tongue and a time to pick and choose your arguments.

[IcedOpethBlind]

people misquote bill as well. it all just goes both ways.

[halifaxsb86]

i thought it was pretty even

[seans seatbelt]

Thanks for that, Frank.
And as for the "old" comment, what a great example of our society's short attention span. This happened a couple of days ago, moron.

[rufiocardtime]

Picked apart? Bill got two applauses while Letterman got about 10. Bill got owned during the faulty intelligence argument, the Christmas arguments and the Sheehan argument. The only reason the term "Christmas" was under fire this year was because tight asses like O Reilly feel the need to blow a few isolated incidents out of proportion. Unless Bill knows what it's like to lose a child in war, he has no place criticizing anything she says.


what she said has nothing to do with greiving over her sons death. in her statement she more or less sided with terrorism over america....thus...making her a moron. my heart goes out to her that she lost her son. it's truly a tragedy. but it doesn't replace the fact that she's a dummy.

yeah...i would say that letterman got pretty picked apart. the audience was sooo eager the whole time to jump onto anything that could be said against bush or oreilly.

since when is the right thing the popular thing? who applauds who... has nothing to do with letterman getting worked by oreilly.

yep. bill oreilly is the man. so is ann coulter. together, i think they could tear apart just about anybody.

[thewk]

i love shit like this.
i fucking hate o'reilly.

[robhimself]

Picked apart? Bill got owned during the faulty intelligence argument, the Christmas argument and the Sheehan argument. The only reason the term "Christmas" was under fire this year was because tight asses like O Reilly felt the need to blow a few isolated incidents out of proportion. I have yet to find a single person who gets insulted by the colors red and green, the term "Christmas", or a picture of Santa Claus. As opposed to just stating, "there's a few incidents where schools are forbidding children from expressing...etc.", Bill uses these examples to make the american public believe that they SHOULD be insulted by these holiday traditions. There's a difference between addressing an issue in a few isolated locations, and pushing an issue on the entire american public based on a few isolated incidents.

Unless Bill knows what it's like to lose a child in war, he has no place criticizing anything she says. While I agree calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" is completely out of line, she's gone through things 99% of the people in this world never go through... there's a time to bite your tongue and a time to pick and choose your arguments.

god damn that was well said.

[ParisKitty16]

Who the fuck really feels like they can't wish people a merry Christmas if they want to? Bill is filled with shit.

[Paul Tao]

what she said has nothing to do with greiving over her sons death. in her statement she more or less sided with terrorism over america....thus...making her a moron. my heart goes out to her that she lost her son. it's truly a tragedy. but it doesn't replace the fact that she's a dummy.

yeah...i would say that letterman got pretty picked apart. the audience was sooo eager the whole time to jump onto anything that could be said against bush or oreilly.

since when is the right thing the popular thing? who applauds who... has nothing to do with letterman getting worked by oreilly.

yep. bill oreilly is the man. so is ann coulter. together, i think they could tear apart just about anybody.
ann coulter may be possibly the worst person ever.

[lou<>phillips]

Someone should shoot Bill O'Rielly.

Agreed.

[Frank Giaramita]

what she said has nothing to do with greiving over her sons death. in her statement she more or less sided with terrorism over america....thus...making her a moron. my heart goes out to her that she lost her son. it's truly a tragedy. but it doesn't replace the fact that she's a dummy.

yeah...i would say that letterman got pretty picked apart. the audience was sooo eager the whole time to jump onto anything that could be said against bush or oreilly.

since when is the right thing the popular thing? who applauds who... has nothing to do with letterman getting worked by oreilly.

yep. bill oreilly is the man. so is ann coulter. together, i think they could tear apart just about anybody.

I see you're twisting words. In no way did her words imply she was siding with terrorists over America. What her words DID imply was that we had no right to be in Iraq in the first place and that these Iraqis did nothing wrong to have their homes, lives and loved ones at risk. We attacked that country based on faulty intelligence... in other words BY MISTAKE. If somebody came into your home with no justification and attacked your family, would you fight back and defend yourself, your home, and your loved ones? We have no reason to be there. End of story.

[Everiggs]

I think it's funny...O'Reilly went to my college (Marist), and they don't even mention him anymore. I'm personally a moderate, but I really feel like he needs to shut the fuck up.

[allenmertes]

if you only listened to the arguments and not the crowd reactions, o'reilly clearly won the debate. Dave's comments were jokes and insults, while bill's were legitimate points. Dave sounded like a child: "i don't believe you" and "60% of what you say is crap. I'm not saying i completely agreed with o'reilly, but his arguments were much better.

[Katie Schmitz]

Good, good stuff. Thanks for posting Frank. :)

[lou<>phillips]

Unless Bill knows what it's like to lose a child in war, he has no place criticizing anything she says. While I agree calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" is completely out of line, she's gone through things 99% of the people in this world never go through... there's a time to bite your tongue and a time to pick and choose your arguments.

What O'Reilly forgot to mention and what most people don't know is that she also blamed the war on Jews. I don't have a quote right now but I saw that in a few places. Explain to me how that's justified? I don't even care that she's speaking out against the war. Good for her. At least she got some attention. But blaming it on Jews when it was an Evangelist who sent troops to Iraq is fucking stupid. Even if Israel was the motivation, which I assure you it wasn't, there's no place in this world for antisemitism.

Fuck O'Reilly.

[Katie Schmitz]

if you only listened to the arguments and not the crowd reactions, o'reilly clearly won the debate. Dave's comments were jokes and insults, while bill's were legitimate points. Dave sounded like a child: "i don't believe you" and "60% of what you say is crap. I'm not saying i completely agreed with o'reilly, but his arguments were much better.

Kissing O'Reilly's ass doesn't make you win an argument either.

[CeeGeeCV182]

Picked apart? Bill got owned during the faulty intelligence argument, the Christmas argument and the Sheehan argument. The only reason the term "Christmas" was under fire this year was because tight asses like O Reilly felt the need to blow a few isolated incidents out of proportion. I have yet to find a single person who gets insulted by the colors red and green, the term "Christmas", or a picture of Santa Claus. As opposed to just stating, "there's a few incidents where schools are forbidding children from expressing...etc.", Bill uses these examples to make the american public believe that they SHOULD be insulted by these holiday traditions. There's a difference between addressing an issue in a few isolated locations, and pushing an issue on the entire american public based on a few isolated incidents.

Unless Bill knows what it's like to lose a child in war, he has no place criticizing anything she says. While I agree calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" is completely out of line, she's gone through things 99% of the people in this world never go through... there's a time to bite your tongue and a time to pick and choose your arguments.

liberalism is a mental disorder

[Paul Tao]

liberalism is a mental disorder
oh that was clever. you obviously have very original arguments

[Frank Giaramita]

if you only listened to the arguments and not the crowd reactions, o'reilly clearly won the debate. Dave's comments were jokes and insults, while bill's were legitimate points. Dave sounded like a child: "i don't believe you" and "60% of what you say is crap. I'm not saying i completely agreed with o'reilly, but his arguments were much better.

You know why Letterman's statement were jokes? Because he doesn't have a stick up his ass like Bill does. Bill can't sit back and have a laugh, or joke about an issue... Bill just constantly pushes issues on people and uses isolated examples to make his over-publicized claims seem justified. How could someone sitting next to this dude look him in the eye and not laugh and poke fun at him? Seriously... it would be impossible.

[Katie Schmitz]

You know why Letterman's statement were jokes? Because he doesn't have a stick up his ass like Bill does. Bill can't sit back and have a laugh, or joke about an issue... Bill just constantly pushes issues on people and uses isolated examples to make his over-publicized claims seem justified. How could someone sitting next to this dude look him in the eye and not laugh and poke fun at him? Seriously... it would be impossible.
ditto!

[rellish91]

what she said has nothing to do with greiving over her sons death. in her statement she more or less sided with terrorism over america....thus...making her a moron. my heart goes out to her that she lost her son. it's truly a tragedy. but it doesn't replace the fact that she's a dummy.

yeah...i would say that letterman got pretty picked apart. the audience was sooo eager the whole time to jump onto anything that could be said against bush or oreilly.

since when is the right thing the popular thing? who applauds who... has nothing to do with letterman getting worked by oreilly.

yep. bill oreilly is the man. so is ann coulter. together, i think they could tear apart just about anybody.
thankyou!

[anishkabob]

i hate ann coulter.

[hmmmmmm]

I wish I would have seen this. I am sure David Letterman wanted a shot in the political spotlight so he invited O' Reily. I like O' Reilly, he gets to the point, and he knows what he is talking about. I don't like stupid TV/Movie stars trying to act like they are politicians. Ya, sure its all right to have an opinion but just because you have a camera on you doesn't mean you have to blab your mouth and try to look so intelectual by letting people know how you fee about are nation(when half of them could care less). Honestly I could care less what dave Letterman thinks. I could care less what most the T.V/Movie stars say becuase ussually it is just like " Bush is dumb where is my butler?!?!" but like I said they all have there opinions, they just need to stop being so obnoxious with them.

[Frank Giaramita]

What O'Reilly forgot to mention and what most people don't know is that she also blamed the war on Jews. I don't have a quote right now but I saw that in a few places. Explain to me how that's justified? I don't even care that she's speaking out against the war. Good for her. At least she got some attention. But blaming it on Jews when it was an Evangelist who sent troops to Iraq is fucking stupid. Even if Israel was the motivation, which I assure you it wasn't, there's no place in this world for antisemitism.

Fuck O'Reilly.

I never said thatw as justified... however, I do believe that losing a son in a war that we shouldn't be in in the first place perfectly justifies some of the comments she has made.

[weezer182]

that was a good laugh

[Frank Giaramita]

Bill needs to stop taking little incidents and blowing the fuck out of them. I could have a few friends do something controversial in school tomorrow, call up Bill O Reilly's staff, and the incident would be all over his show that night, with the words "under attack", "under fire" and "uprising" incorporated at least 40-50 times in the span of 20 minutes. He needs to give it a rest and relax.

[Rohan Kohli]

Ann Coulter is the devil.

[allenmertes]

You know why Letterman's statement were jokes? Because he doesn't have a stick up his ass like Bill does. Bill can't sit back and have a laugh, or joke about an issue... Bill just constantly pushes issues on people and uses isolated examples to make his over-publicized claims seem justified. How could someone sitting next to this dude look him in the eye and not laugh and poke fun at him? Seriously... it would be impossible.

OK. All I'm saying is that just because the crowd hated O'Reilly doesn't mean that Dave won the debate- which seems the be what some people are basing their opinion upon.

[Frank Giaramita]

OK. All I'm saying is that just because the crowd hated O'Reilly doesn't mean that Dave won the debate- which seems the be what some people are basing their opinion upon.
The main issue debated was Bill himself, and the fact that he pushes crap on the American public and blows things out of proportion. If you ask me, Letterman won that debate. You don't have to politically invovled to argue that.

[Jason Tate]

i hate ann coulter.
Ann Coulter is the devil.

[Rohan Kohli]

Ann Coulter is the devil.

Way to plagiarize.

[electricpatrick]

uh. i like letterman. i always watch his show. and i hate leno.

i have NEVER watched the oreilly factor.

letterman lost the arguments. if you want to call that interview a debate, letterman got his ass handed to him. letterman has to resort to "no way, i dont know about that. you must be full of crap" throwing out there doesnt mean you win an argument. you can berate me for an hour, i can comment "you are a douchebag that doesnt know what youre talking about" and walk away. it doesnt mean i won an argument

[Jason Tate]

OK. All I'm saying is that just because the crowd hated O'Reilly doesn't mean that Dave won the debate- which seems the be what some people are basing their opinion upon.
I wish Bill would "debate" Jon Stewart. It's too bad he keeps turning down the requests.

[Jason Tate]

Way to plagiarize.
I didn't see that, haha .. great minds think alike.

[Katie Schmitz]

Ann Coulter is the devil.
:kneel:

[Katie Schmitz]

I wish Bill would "debate" Jon Stewart. It's too bad he keeps turning down the requests.
Jon would own Bill for sure.

[Frank Giaramita]

uh. i like letterman. i always watch his show. and i hate leno.

i have NEVER watched the oreilly factor.

letterman lost the arguments. if you want to call that interview a debate, letterman got his ass handed to him. letterman has to resort to "no way, i dont know about that. you must be full of crap" throwing out there doesnt mean you win an argument. you can berate me for an hour, i can comment "you are a douchebag that doesnt know what youre talking about" and walk away. it doesnt mean i won an argument

In my opinion, THOSE weren't the arguments that mattered. The argument that mattered was Bill's habits of pushing isolated crap on the entire American public, blowing stuff out of proportion and creating "issues"... Bill got his ass handed to him in that one.

[hmmmmmm]

Wow, I am watching this video now and David lettermen needs to stay out of politics. He didn't make a point. all he did was bash O'Reily and try to make the audience laugh. This proves my point of T.V/movie actor and politics. How can you say that Lettermen made a point here. O' Reily is giving facts about Christmas and Lettermen, being the idiot he was during this 11 minutes, goes out and says I don't believe you. Ya, if I was in dave's positions there I also would have also gave a 10 year olds comeback and make the crowd laugh so I could save my butt. Daves in a corner, whats he do? gives a bull crap response. Then at the end O'Reily tells him he respects Dave's opinion after Lettermen took personal shoots at him. How can you side with an immature person like David Lettermen that didnt prove 1 point and made himself look like an idiot? Just because you don't like O'Reily doesn't mean you have to side with Lettermen because there was facts coming from one person and that was O'Reily . I hate politics.

[Katie Schmitz]

In my opinion, THOSE weren't the arguments that mattered. The argument that mattered was Bill's habits of pushing isolated crap on the entire American public, blowing stuff out of proportion and creating "issues"... Bill got his ass handed to him in that one.
Bill does create issues sometimes; the Christmas one is definitely fresh in my mind. But without these "issues" he wouldn't have a show.

[electricpatrick]

In my opinion, THOSE weren't the arguments that mattered. The argument that mattered was Bill's habits of pushing isolated crap on the entire American public, blowing stuff out of proportion and creating "issues"... Bill got his ass handed to him in that one.

i have a feeling 80% of the things youre saying are crap










:)

[Jason Tate]

uh. i like letterman. i always watch his show. and i hate leno.

i have NEVER watched the oreilly factor.

letterman lost the arguments. if you want to call that interview a debate, letterman got his ass handed to him. letterman has to resort to "no way, i dont know about that. you must be full of crap" throwing out there doesnt mean you win an argument. you can berate me for an hour, i can comment "you are a douchebag that doesnt know what youre talking about" and walk away. it doesnt mean i won an argument
Well, it's hard to debate when Bill does make stuff up most of the time. He is basically immune at this point to slander/libel claims because of his history of flat out lying. There's irony twisted deep here.

Either way - things he says make my stomach turn. I can't fathom how a human being (along with Limbaugh, Coulter, and Frankin and Moore) can spend the majority of their time searching for the smallest possible reasons to point a finger at people. Both sides need to STFU half the time and focus on REAL issues instead of these sound-bites; then maybe the public would actually pay attention when a real issue needs discussion and attention instead of writing it off as more political-psycho-babble.

Jon Stewart for President.

[Katie Schmitz]

Well, it's hard to debate when Bill does make stuff up most of the time. He is basically immune at this point to slander/libel claims because of his history of flat out lying. There's irony twisted deep here.

Either way - things he says make my stomach turn. I can't fathom how a human being (along with Limbaugh, Coulter, and Frankin and Moore) can spend the majority of their time searching for the smallest possible reasons to point a finger at people. Both sides need to STFU half the time and focus on REAL issues instead of these sound-bites; then maybe the public would actually pay attention when a real issue needs discussion and attention instead of writing it off as more political-psycho-babble.

Jon Stewart for President.
I'd vote for him.

[andrewlterry]

I like Bill a lot. I like Dave a lot. However, Dave is no debater. That was good interview though.

[flip]

i'm fairly liberal, fairly well-informed, and i really don't like bill o'reilly.

with that said, it's amusing how people think that o'reilly somehow got torn a new one here. Letterman didn't particularly rip him apart on the issues, nor were his jokes that biting. I agree that O'Reilly's constant citing of small instances is annoying, however.

And Jason, what would O'Reilly gain by "debating" Stewart, when Stewart automatically has the built in defense of humor and satire whenever O'Reilly actually made a point? I love Jon Stewart, but I'm sure O'Reilly saw the Crossfire episode, I doubt those two will ever debate now.

(ps. the Crossfire episode is blown out of porportion....that's another case where people claimed that a conservative media figure got "ripped apart," despite the truth being somewhat less. That was better than this however, especially since it was on Tucker's show.)

[Frank Giaramita]

Wow, I am watching this video now and David lettermen needs to stay out of politics. He didn't make a point. all he did was bash O'Reily and try to make the audience laugh. This proves my point of T.V/movie actor and politics. How can you say that Lettermen made a point here. O' Reily is giving facts about Christmas and Lettermen, being the idiot he was during this 11 minutes, goes out and says I don't believe you. Ya, if I was in dave's positions there I also would have also gave a 10 year olds comeback and make the crowd laugh so I could save my butt. Daves in a corner, whats he do? gives a bull crap response. Then at the end O'Reily tells him he respects Dave's opinion after Lettermen took personal shoots at him. How can you side with an immature person like David Lettermen that didnt prove 1 point and made himself look like an idiot? Just because you don't like O'Reily doesn't mean you have to side with Lettermen because there was facts coming from one person and that was O'Reily . I hate politics.

Dave wasn't willing or looking to debate these issues, the issue he was looking to debate was Bill's tight ass habits of stirring crap up for no good reason. Dave won that argument by saying "You're the only person who I've seen have a problem with the word Christmas, and a few isolated examples doesn't constitute you making the issue a nationwide incident".

[Rohan Kohli]

Jon Stewart for President.

I concur.

[Jason Tate]

Wow, I am watching this video now and David lettermen needs to stay out of politics. He didn't make a point. all he did was bash O'Reily and try to make the audience laugh. This proves my point of T.V/movie actor and politics. How can you say that Lettermen made a point here. O' Reily is giving facts about Christmas and Lettermen, being the idiot he was during this 11 minutes, goes out and says I don't believe you. Ya, if I was in dave's positions there I also would have also gave a 10 year olds comeback and make the crowd laugh so I could save my butt. Daves in a corner, whats he do? gives a bull crap response. Then at the end O'Reily tells him he respects Dave's opinion after Lettermen took personal shoots at him. How can you side with an immature person like David Lettermen that didnt prove 1 point and made himself look like an idiot? Just because you don't like O'Reily doesn't mean you have to side with Lettermen because there was facts coming from one person and that was O'Reily . I hate politics.
When O'Reilly talks, I think the most civil minded people should realize he's making shit up a lot of the time. This is basically fact at this point, and I'll bring in like 400 sources if you want.

As for "debating" Letterman, it's sad that's the only "real" debate he'll accept. I know a whole bunch of "liberals" who want to go on his show (where he can just say, "SHUT UP!" 90x like he usually does) but he won't put them on. Instead he brings on liberal grad students or low level political analysts and picks them apart. It's staged television to jerk off the right wing and spur more hatred for both sides then this country needs.

[Jason Tate]

Bill does create issues sometimes; the Christmas one is definitely fresh in my mind. But without these "issues" he wouldn't have a show.
And let's be honest, this "Christmas" bullshit is basically fabricated by the right-wing Christians to force discussion on an issue that no one in their right mind cares about. There's something wrong with someone that gets pissed off if you wish them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" JUST as much as there's something wrong with the person who gets pissed off over "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Hanukkah." Let it go you fucking nut-jobs.

[flip]

As for "debating" Letterman, it's sad that's the only "real" debate he'll accept. I know a whole bunch of "liberals" who want to go on his show (where he can just say, "SHUT UP!" 90x like he usually does) but he won't put them on. Instead he brings on liberal grad students or low level political analysts and picks them apart. It's staged television to jerk off the right wing and spur more hatred for both sides then this country needs.

this is a great point.

[Jason Tate]

i'm fairly liberal, fairly well-informed, and i really don't like bill o'reilly.

with that said, it's amusing how people think that o'reilly somehow got torn a new one here. Letterman didn't particularly rip him apart on the issues, nor were his jokes that biting. I agree that O'Reilly's constant citing of small instances is annoying, however.

And Jason, what would O'Reilly gain by "debating" Stewart, when Stewart automatically has the built in defense of humor and satire whenever O'Reilly actually made a point? I love Jon Stewart, but I'm sure O'Reilly saw the Crossfire episode, I doubt those two will ever debate now.

(ps. the Crossfire episode is blown out of porportion....that's another case where people claimed that a conservative media figure got "ripped apart," despite the truth being somewhat less. That was better than this however, especially since it was on Tucker's show.)
I'm just saying O'Reilly has made a business on making sure not to debate anyone with any sort of actual proven intelligence on a national scale. Stewart would "destroy" him (in my opinion, and I'm bias as hell on this one) because Jon is a smart, smart man that uses humor to bring out the better parts of his arguments. I'd actually just like to see it ... I loved Jon's "Crossfire" thing because he was basically saying, "hey, guys, knock it off.. you're not helping anyone here, this show is hogwash and hurts people and America by creating more hate." I happen to agree with him as that's my stand on BOTH sides of the political spectrum right now. Healing is needed to bring the country together; however, both sides only seem to want to drive the gap further apart. That's not good for our country.

[Katie Schmitz]

And let's be honest, this "Christmas" bullshit is basically fabricated by the right-wing Christians to force discussion on an issue that no one in their right mind cares about. There's something wrong with someone that gets pissed off if you wish them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" JUST as much as there's something wrong with the person who gets pissed off over "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Hanukkah." Let it go you fucking nut-jobs.
I agree. I haven't come across a single person who is angered or offended by a "Merry Christmas".

[Frank Giaramita]

Letterman should've dressed up as Santa Claus for that show.

[fredrico0012]

We all know Sheehan is using her son's death for or own political agenda.

And when Letterman responded to a statement by saying you have no right to talk since you haven't lost anyone in where then O'Rielly should have responded by saying the same thing to him.

[hmmmmmm]

Dave wasn't willing or looking to debate these issues, the issue he was looking to debate was Bill's tight ass habits of stirring crap up for no good reason. Dave won that argument by saying "You're the only person who I've seen have a problem with the word Christmas, and a few isolated examples doesn't constitute you making the issue a nationwide incident".

ya, I am sorry but Bill didn't stir the whole "Christmas" issue. It was a national issue that everyone had a different opinions on(obviously). I understand what Bill is saying. Why is that after how many years of Christmas it is now "politically incorrect" to say Christmas. I mean I don't mind stores saying Happy Holidays because it covers all the major winter holidays but when you go into a store and say merry christmas and the employee can't say it back then that is just stupid. I was watching T.V. and Jim Carrey was saying Christmas over and over again and Ellen degenres couldn't say it back to him because she was under NBC contract. seriously, how can you not think it is idiotic to ban something that seems like it isn't a big deal but really is because it has to do with families and traditions. this is my opinion don't bite my head off just because I dont have the same opinion as you.

[andrewlterry]

Wow, I am watching this video now and David lettermen needs to stay out of politics. He didn't make a point. all he did was bash O'Reily and try to make the audience laugh. This proves my point of T.V/movie actor and politics. How can you say that Lettermen made a point here. O' Reily is giving facts about Christmas and Lettermen, being the idiot he was during this 11 minutes, goes out and says I don't believe you. Ya, if I was in dave's positions there I also would have also gave a 10 year olds comeback and make the crowd laugh so I could save my butt. Daves in a corner, whats he do? gives a bull crap response. Then at the end O'Reily tells him he respects Dave's opinion after Lettermen took personal shoots at him. How can you side with an immature person like David Lettermen that didnt prove 1 point and made himself look like an idiot? Just because you don't like O'Reily doesn't mean you have to side with Lettermen because there was facts coming from one person and that was O'Reily . I hate politics.
I totally agree.

[Jason Tate]

We all know Sheehan is using her son's death for or own political agenda.

And when Letterman responded to a statement by saying you have no right to talk since you haven't lost anyone in where then O'Rielly should have responded by saying the same thing to him.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I really am. Mainly because it's sad to see how if enough talk-show hosts say something (or are fed something) for long enough, it really diffuses out in the public-mind. I have to give the Republicans amazing credit for the system they've set up, they can smear someone better than any machine in the history of the world. McCain and the "illegitimate child" campaign by Bush/Rove is still masterfully in such a horrible way. The way the "right" can get key words to be read on all sorts of talk shows, radio-shows, news reports, over and over again makes me green with envy. The fact here is, we don't "all know" the motives behind Sheehan's anti-war rally. But we do know what she's told us, and I believe in many regards, she's correct in her assumptions about why we are in Iraq killing, "anything that moves*" on some nights.

And, as for your second part; Dave wasn't trying to talk about losing a child, he was simply talking about O'Reilly's over-the-top bashing of this lady who lost a son. And I can tell you exactly why Bill didn't say that - because he's a smart, crafty, man who knows that's one of the weakest arguments you could make. It's right up there with, "well, I'm rubber and you're glue."

* This quote is attributed to my best friend in the entire world, a Marine who has served two terms in Iraq (and has requested for a third). I've spent many hours talking with him about what we're doing over there, what our goals are, what the plans are, and what planning goes into who "lives or dies." he believes 100% this war is a joke, and that innocents on both sides are dying for a sick political game being played by rich men in expensive suits.

[Epilogueboy]

i kinda feel like o'reily pwned letterman on this one when he said "ill never call a terrorist who blows up women and children a freedom fighter." he really portrays the "balls to the wall" american that 99% of us all were after september 11th happened. at least one person hasnt forgoten what those heartless camel jockies did.:\

[andrewlterry]

I wish Bill would "debate" Jon Stewart. It's too bad he keeps turning down the requests.
There's no way that Bill would "lose" a debate to Stewart. However, I like Stewart a lot. I watch the Daily show more than The Factor.

[RedWineSheets]

I wish Bill would "debate" Jon Stewart. It's too bad he keeps turning down the requests.

Jon or Bill Maher would be fun.

[Jason Tate]

ya, I am sorry but Bill didn't stir the whole "Christmas" issue. It was a national issue that everyone had a different opinions on(obviously). I understand what Bill is saying. Why is that after how many years of Christmas it is now "politically incorrect" to say Christmas. I mean I don't mind stores saying Happy Holidays because it covers all the major winter holidays but when you go into a store and say merry christmas and the employee can't say it back then that is just stupid. I was watching T.V. and Jim Carrey was saying Christmas over and over again and Ellen degenres couldn't say it back to him because she was under NBC contract. seriously, how can you not think it is idiotic to ban something that seems like it isn't a big deal but really is because it has to do with families and traditions. this is my opinion don't bite my head off just because I dont have the same opinion as you.
You've shown exactly what Dave's (and Frank; I think) point was - this is a non-issue. It was blown out of proportion BY people like Bill O'Reilly. No one cared, ore really gave a flying hoot over what people said before. I say Happy Holidays some times, and Merry Christmas others, it's just whatever comes out of my mouth. I think people's asses are wound way to tightly on BOTH SIDES for not being able to fucking relax and focus on the REAL IMPORTANT meaning of the "Christmas/Holiday" season, and that's of loving each other. The words used don't mean shit to me; our respect, love, and admiration for our fellow-man should be the most important issue discussed. The truth is these "warm-fuzzy" issues don't sell books or advertisers, but "talking-points" sure do ...

[andrewlterry]

* This quote is attributed to my best friend in the entire world, a Marine who has served two terms in Iraq (and has requested for a third). I've spent many hours talking with him about what we're doing over there, what our goals are, what the plans are, and what planning goes into who "lives or dies." he believes 100% this war is a joke, and that innocents on both sides are dying for a sick political game being played by rich men in expensive suits.
Tate, I don't mean to disrespect your marine friend in any way. He's a true hero. However, I'm almost postive that his view on the war is not the general opinion of the soldiers. One of my best friends and cousin are over there and they said they are doing the right thing. But again I'm not saying that because of the 2 people i know over there, but it seems the majority of the service men and women over there support this.

[Jason Tate]

i kinda feel like o'reily pwned letterman on this one when he said "ill never call a terrorist who blows up women and children a freedom fighter." he really portrays the "balls to the wall" american that 99% of us all were after september 11th happened. at least one person hasnt forgoten what those heartless camel jockies did.:\
And the easy answer to that is .. wait, what's that have to do with this war in Iraq. The "freedom fighter" tag is attached to the Iraq civilians fighting an American takeover - only the right-wing have tried to make it seem like "nasty liberals" are calling Bin-Laden and the REAL TERRORISTS "freedom-fighters." This terminology mind-fuck is absurd. Our "revolutionaries" that fought the British were "freedom-fighters" to us, and "terrorists" to the British. I firmly believe that only those with no real grasp on history fall into these open traps people like Bill, and Coulter lay out ...

It sure sounds like something to really get all worked up over, and pissed off ... UNTIL ... you think it through and use a little common sense.

Please don't use "camel jockie" on my website, I believe it offends some of my staff, and some of my close friends. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; call Bin-Laden whatever the hell you want, but don't stereotype an entire race of people.

Why do people always forget that Jesus wasn't white.

[Jason Tate]

Tate, I don't mean to disrespect your marine friend in any way. He's a true hero. However, I'm almost postive that his view on the war is not the general opinion of the soldiers. One of my best friends and cousin are over there and they said they are doing the right thing.
According to him, it's because 95% of the Marines are people who want to flat out kill people - that's all the want to do, that's what they're brainwashed to do, and that's all they've ever wanted to do (and most of them are fucking good at it). I'll just never forget the story he told of firing out of a helicopter into buildings of a town where the US said, "ANY military aged male will be killed." It's sad to me because I'm a military aged male, if that happened in America - I'd die.

[AlkalineAshes]

The only reason Jon Stewart looks like some great debater is because on his show the whole crowd agrees with him and will laugh everytime he makes some stupid remark making fun of bush. its not hard to put down bush, it doesnt make you smart. If he is so smart I would like to see him debate someone on a differnt show without his audience and without wise ass comments.

[scorcho490]

According to him, it's because 95% of the Marines are people who want to flat out kill people - that's all the want to do, that's what they're brainwashed to do, and that's all they've ever wanted to do (and most of them are fucking good at it). I'll just never forget the story he told of firing out of a helicopter into buildings of a town where the US said, "ANY military aged male will be killed." It's sad to me because I'm a military aged male, if that happened in America - I'd die.

Someone's brainwashed...

[Jason Tate]

The only reason Jon Stewart looks like some great debater is because on his show the whole crowd agrees with him and will laugh everytime he makes some stupid remark making fun of bush. its not hard to put down bush, it doesnt make you smart. If he is so smart I would like to see him debate someone on a differnt show without his audience and without wise ass comments.
You would? I can help you out with that request!

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12

Enjoy!

[hmmmmmm]

Someone's brainwashed...

Hahahaha

[rufiocardtime]

Ann Coulter is the devil.


ann coulter would rape you and completely tear every word you say apart.

[Jason Tate]

Someone's brainwashed...
I'd love for you to say that to his face.

Don't tell me that the kid who is RE-ENLISTING to go back to Iraq is brainwashed. You want to know why he is doing it? Well, it's because of all the bullshit at home (America) that the administration is trying to pull out the people they've kept in Iraq for this long. That means a whole shit load of new-comers with NO experience are going back over to Iraq. This means our USA death-toll is probably going rise. This is something that my best friend doesn't agree with so he is making the choice to go back for a THIRD time in order to keep one newbie from having to go face Iraq for the first time.

I'm almost at a loss as what else to say to you. I feel as if you're only listening to the side of the argument you think you should agree with. Take some time, do your own fucking research, talk to people, figure out what's going on. I have people on all sides of the political spectrum I listen to so I can make an informed decision - I know where I stand because I came to those beliefs on my OWN and with much research and determination.

[hmmmmmm]

Tate, I got to say even though I don't think I have ever agreed with you in politics, you do keep it cool and don't bash anyone on here that doesn't agree with you with childish name calling. Though I dont agree with you, I do have respect for you.

[Jason Tate]

ann coulter would rape you and completely tear every word you say apart.
I firmly believe I wouldn't be allowed more then 2 sentences the entire time; that lady cuts people off and shuts off their microphones so they can't finish thoughts. I'd wear a butt-plug to prevent any "real" raping from occuring, and I'd have to let her "tear-apart" my 2 sentences while she calls me names because I'd have no other choice!

I think your response back to me showcases the kind of people who listen/worship this horrible lady. It's this bullshit (and your response) that hurts intellectual thought, civil-discourse, and an open forum of discussion on REAL issues. I just wished, hoped, for more ...

[AlkalineAshes]

i have seen the video. Jon makes claims of the show not being good for anyone and thats about it. He again uses remarks like " a puppet show is on before me". He does not admit that it would be easier to make fun of bush, rather then kerry, because of the left wing bias of comedy central. While he makes some ok points I do not see him making Tucker look like a fool, again making fun of a bowtie just to get some points with the crowd.

[dai the flu]

im not sure what the whole debate here is even about.
we shouldnt have gone to iraq. dave said it and o'reilly agreed. the intelligence was wrong and we admit that and it was a mistake to invade.
what i see o'reilly saying is,
yes it WAS a mistake, but lets move past that and focus on the issues NOW. and thats rebuilding iraq and getting them squared away to live their lives and govern themselves on their own.
yes we shouldnt be there. so lets get out of there as fast as we can.
bitching about how bush was wrong and we shouldnt be there and blah blah blah, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to fixing the situation.

[Jason Tate]

i have seen the video. Jon makes claims of the show not being good for anyone and thats about it. He again uses remarks like " a puppet show is on before me". He does not admit that it would be easier to make fun of bush, rather then kerry, because of the left wing bias of comedy central. While he makes some ok points I do not see him making Tucker look like a fool, again making fun of a bowtie just to get some points with the crowd.
If you'd seen the video then why was you're first comment about how he never has gone on another show? I guess I'm confused as to your motives/point. If you could clarify them for me, that'd be great.

[scorcho490]

I'd love for you to say that to his face.

Don't tell me that the kid who is RE-ENLISTING to go back to Iraq is brainwashed. You want to know why he is doing it? Well, it's because of all the bullshit at home that the administration is trying to pull out the people they've kept in Iraq for this long. That means a whole shit load of new-comers with NO experience are going back over to Iraq. This means our USA death-toll is probably going rise. This is something that my best friend doesn't agree with so he is making the choice to go back for a THIRD time in order to keep one newbie from having to go face Iraq for the first time.

I'm almost at a loss as what else to say to you. I feel as if you're only listening to the side of the argument you think you should agree with. Take some time, do your own fucking research, talk to people, figure out what's going on. I have people on all sides of the political spectrum I listen to so I can make an informed decision - I know where I stand because I came to those beliefs on my OWN and with much research and determination.

I never said he was the one that is brainwashed. Plus it's interesting that from one comment you think I'm listening to one side of the argument. I never said your marine friend is brainwashed and doesn't know what he is talking about. All I know is that the Iraq issue is ridiculous, and it such a mess that I don't see how anyone can be a firm supporter of either side. Plus it's just ridiculous in these forums when people throw around these little facts and hearsay, like when you said your friend thinks 95 percent of the Marines just want to kill people. Can you not see how that statement could be seen as extreme and unbelievable? And the other forum member said that his friends think that the marines agree with it. So what is the point, no one can back up anything they say.

[rufiocardtime]

I firmly believe I wouldn't be allowed more then 2 sentences the entire time; that lady cuts people off and shuts off their microphones so they can't finish thoughts. I'd wear a butt-plug to prevent any "real" raping from occuring, and I'd have to let her "tear-apart" my 2 sentences while she calls me names because I'd have no other choice!

I think your response back to me showcases the kind of people who listen/worship this horrible lady. It's this bullshit (and your response) that hurts intellectual thought, civil-discourse, and an open forum of discussion on REAL issues. I just wished, hoped, for more ...

number one. ann coulter is more intelligent than you.
number two, if you don't want interruption, if you want civil discource and real discussion...
i've never seen more terrible examples of that than bill mauer, jon stewart, and david letterman.
bill oreilly conducts himself way better than any of these guys.
the only reason i like ann coulter is because she'll use these guys conversation tactics against them and she knows how to defend her arguments.

[niveK]

i hate bill o'riley. However I think he was the better sport and i would have given the win to him. Letterman was trying to pull a stewart in the most unintelligent way possible.

[AlkalineAshes]

I didnt say he hasn't gone on another show. I said I would like to see him go one and debate. Maybe i should have clairified he had gone on that one, but he doesn't do any real debating about politics on the crossfire appearance. And as i said he uses wiseass remarks, which i admit are funny, to make it look like he is smarter then he is.

[niveK]

ann coulter would rape you and completely tear every word you say apart.

I bet she could rape him because i am 90% sure she has a penis.

[Jason Tate]

im not sure what the whole debate here is even about.
we shouldnt have gone to iraq. dave said it and o'reilly agreed. the intelligence was wrong and we admit that and it was a mistake to invade.
what i see o'reilly saying is,
yes it WAS a mistake, but lets move past that and focus on the issues NOW. and thats rebuilding iraq and getting them squared away to live their lives and govern themselves on their own.
yes we shouldnt be there. so lets get out of there as fast as we can.
bitching about how bush was wrong and we shouldnt be there and blah blah blah, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to fixing the situation.
I agree, it doesn't help the cause for anyone - however, I'm not quite sure what would be the better solution for America in the long run; should we just learn to never speak up when something goes wrong? I don't like the idea of trusting our government with no discussion from the body of the people that government represents. I think I am for the discussion. This "big stink" people are causing over Iraq I pray/hope keeps anything like this from happening in the future. Personally, I am more concerned with what we as Americans can learn from this situation, and I pray/hope that we do not look for vengeance with trigger-happy fingers in the future; and therefore, prevent these kind of mistakes from ever repeating.

As for now - rebuilding and minimizing the loss of further life is the most important. Education on both sides is second, and understanding why two tragedies occurred is third. Those three things can make the WORLD a better place.

[Jason Tate]

number one. ann coulter is more intelligent than you.
number two, if you don't want interruption, if you want civil discource and real discussion...
i've never seen more terrible examples of that than bill mauer, jon stewart, and david letterman.
bill oreilly conducts himself way better than any of these guys.
the only reason i like ann coulter is because she'll use these guys conversation tactics against them and she knows how to defend her arguments.

Number one: Probably is way fucking smarter than me in politics and debate; I simply have a very big problem with how she chooses to use her intelligence. However, I bet I'd program the fuck outta her, and I would assume I'd hold my own in history and modern business as well. Intelligence is relative. Not to be a pompous asshole, but I saw her SATs (which are in no-way shape or form a good indicator of intelligence) on a website once ... they're not that impressive.

Number two: I don't watch Mauer or Letterman, so I'll take your word on them. As I've said, I am anti-both side's penchant for drumming up more hatred and division. As for Stewart, never once have I ever seen him interrupt or shut off someone's microphone while they were talking. I've seen Coulter and OReilly do it on multiple occasions. That's really my only point.

As for Ann defending her arguments - she does a good job on it up until you start doing some research into what she's actually saying, and how she's saying it. Debate tricks are something any high-school kid with acne can teach you, I'm more interested in the truth and the impact the truth has on my country. A good argument is nothing if not founded on good principle.

[adelphi_rocks]

wow, there are a lot of new people that showed up in here......

[Jason Tate]

I didnt say he hasn't gone on another show. I said I would like to see him go one and debate. Maybe i should have clairified he had gone on that one, but he doesn't do any real debating about politics on the crossfire appearance. And as i said he uses wiseass remarks, which i admit are funny, to make it look like he is smarter then he is.
He wasn't brought on to do debating on that appearance, he was there to talk about his book. He simply called out both men on the show to, in my opinion, lighten up and start working toward helping America instead of drumming up more hate and division. That's my take on the matter, and I don't understand why anyone would see that as a bad thing.

[splitsecond]

This whole debate is pathetic. A lot of you take shit way too seriously, and are letting these celebs get to you just like they want to. Get over yourselves.

[marchfaster]

im about halfway through the video and o'reilly has made all valid points...as far as christmas goes...i think its bullshit you cant say 'merry christmas' i mean..fuck it really doesn't matter, this political correctness is getting obnoxious.

[Lachrymal]

im about halfway through the video and o'reilly has made all valid points...as far as christmas goes...i think its bullshit you cant say 'merry christmas' i mean..fuck it really doesn't matter, this political correctness is getting obnoxious.

But you can say Merry Christmas, so i'm not sure how that's a valid point?

[Sureshot182]

bill o'riley is a fanatic, and david letterman showed a lack of proffesionalism.

[marchfaster]

okay so i finished that video...and all it did is made me see how NOT insane bill o reilley is...he seemed to have some pretty logical ideas.
so.......
this is stupid? you lose.

[niveK]

But you can say Merry Christmas, so i'm not sure how that's a valid point?

It people who dont celebrate xmas cna be offended by being offered merry xmas. Most public places say 'happy holidays' in stead of 'merry christmas.' Saying 'Happy Holidays' offends o'reily.

[marchfaster]

But you can say Merry Christmas, so i'm not sure how that's a valid point?
you can, but there's such a big deal about how its all happy holidays now.
i mean..not that you legally CANT, but that everyone doesnt and just like...last year they did.

[niveK]

you can, but there's such a big deal about how its all happy holidays now.
i mean..not that you legally CANT, but that everyone doesnt and just like...last year they did.

The way I see it is Happy Holidays is an easy way to say Merry (whatever religious holiday you believe in) and Happy New Year in one convienent sentance.

[Bikeage]

Picked apart? Bill got owned during the faulty intelligence argument, the Christmas argument and the Sheehan argument. The only reason the term "Christmas" was under fire this year was because tight asses like O Reilly felt the need to blow a few isolated incidents out of proportion. I have yet to find a single person who gets insulted by the colors red and green, the term "Christmas", or a picture of Santa Claus. As opposed to just stating, "there's a few incidents where schools are forbidding children from expressing...etc.", Bill uses these examples to make the american public believe that they SHOULD be insulted by these holiday traditions. There's a difference between addressing an issue in a few isolated locations, and pushing an issue on the entire american public based on a few isolated incidents.

Unless Bill knows what it's like to lose a child in war, he has no place criticizing anything she says. While I agree calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" is completely out of line, she's gone through things 99% of the people in this world never go through... there's a time to bite your tongue and a time to pick and choose your arguments.
agreed for the most part, other than the terrorism deal...

[thesaturation]

Letterman's just a comedic Devil's advocate - and nothing more.

[itsahoax]

Picked apart? Bill got owned during the faulty intelligence argument, the Christmas argument and the Sheehan argument. The only reason the term "Christmas" was under fire this year was because tight asses like O Reilly felt the need to blow a few isolated incidents out of proportion. I have yet to find a single person who gets insulted by the colors red and green, the term "Christmas", or a picture of Santa Claus. As opposed to just stating, "there's a few incidents where schools are forbidding children from expressing...etc.", Bill uses these examples to make the american public believe that they SHOULD be insulted by these holiday traditions. There's a difference between addressing an issue in a few isolated locations, and pushing an issue on the entire american public based on a few isolated incidents.

Unless Bill knows what it's like to lose a child in war, he has no place criticizing anything she says. While I agree calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" is completely out of line, she's gone through things 99% of the people in this world never go through... there's a time to bite your tongue and a time to pick and choose your arguments.

Bill didnt get "owned" during any argument between him and Letterman. The term "christmas" was also not under fire because of people like O'Reilly. Bill was doing a service by bringing the issue to light that secular progressives in the media and everywhere are trying to diminish the tradition of christmas. When major dept stores in the nation such as sears or walmart say "happy holidays" to please a minimal group of people its ridiculous because 85% of the country claims to christian, So what are these major dept stores catering to the 1% of people that may be offended by the word christmas? Its ridiculous, Im not saying you cant say happy hanukkah or happy qwanza either because those should be included aswell. Bill was citing particular incidents of the diminishment of christmas to Dave and Dave totally blew it off, he's nothing but a clown and was trying too hard to distance himself from O'Reilly. The incidents are not "a few isolated" its a nationwide thing and its Bill's job to bring issues like this to light. On the Sheehan issue, its terrible that she lost a son but obviously doesnt support the war or her lost son in anyway. She's motivated by radical left wing opinions that are ridiculous, for her to terrorists "freedom fighters" is definately out of line, not to mimic you but Bill and everyone has a right to have an opinion on that because how is that supposed to make other families that have lost loved ones over in Iraq feel? In conclusion, Dave should stick to the jokes cause he just made a fool out of himself

[crowquill]

john stewart on crossfire = 10x better

[crayZbuzzard]

David Letterman got worked by O'Reilly. Letterman proved how smart he is by criticizing O'Reilly when he's never even watched or listened to him. Most people are ignorant and try to accuse O'Reilly of just adoring Bush but if they actually gave him a chance, they would realize that O'Reilly is just as critical of the president as anyone. O'Reilly is right, just look up the instances of liberals trying eradicate every trace of the Judeo-Christian morals and traditions this country was founded on! I would say that and capitalism are the main reasons why this country is the greatest in the world.

Don't even get me started on Cindy Sheehan. It is a tragedy that she lost her son. But she is not the only parent who lost a son in the war. Whenever she criticizes and undermines the war, she is disgracing the honor of those other soldiers who died for such a worthy cause and it only pisses off other parents. Just because she is grieving doesn't give her the right to lie. Her grief is being exploited by far left wing groups, and she is merely a pawn in the plan to denigrate Bush. Because that is the only thing the liberals can do. They can't win elections on ideas, so all they can do is try to blame the current administration for every problem this country faces. It is sad but liberals want nothing more than to see us fail in Iraq because that is the only way they think they can achieve power. They are bitter about George W. Bush winning the majority of this country's vote and they will do whatever it takes to try to get back to where they once were. It is so fucked up that the troops in Iraq must listen to members of the Democratic party referring to them as terrorists and Cindy Sheehan calling terrorists freedom fighters. That shit does two things: it ruins the morale of our troops and only encourages terrorism. That is why Cindy Sheehan is dangerous, and that's why Bill O'Reily is doing a good thing.

[FreddyKrueger]

I hardly ever post political related news, but this moment was just too good to let pass up. Besides, I've been waiting a while for an online stream of this.

David Letterman- 1 | Bill O' Reilly- 0 (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002750.html#002750)

"I have the feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap"--Letterman

you Idiots did you turn the channel right before O'Reilly asked Letterman if he's ever caught a show and Letterman said "No."

way to do your homework

[vegasbabyvegas]

This will never get old. In my opinion, it's one of the best moments in the history of late night talk shows.

agreed. that was amazing.

[Jason Tate]

David Letterman got worked by O'Reilly. Letterman proved how smart he is by criticizing O'Reilly when he's never even watched or listened to him. Most people are ignorant and try to accuse O'Reilly of just adoring Bush but if they actually gave him a chance, they would realize that O'Reilly is just as critical of the president as anyone. O'Reilly is right, just look up the instances of liberals trying eradicate every trace of the Judeo-Christian morals and traditions this country was founded on! I would say that and capitalism are the main reasons why this country is the greatest in the world.

Don't even get me started on Cindy Sheehan. It is a tragedy that she lost her son. But she is not the only parent who lost a son in the war. Whenever she criticizes and undermines the war, she is disgracing the honor of those other soldiers who died for such a worthy cause and it only pisses off other parents. Just because she is grieving doesn't give her the right to lie. Her grief is being exploited by far left wing groups, and she is merely a pawn in the plan to denigrate Bush. Because that is the only thing the liberals can do. They can't win elections on ideas, so all they can do is try to blame the current administration for every problem this country faces. It is sad but liberals want nothing more than to see us fail in Iraq because that is the only way they think they can achieve power. They are bitter about George W. Bush winning the majority of this country's vote and they will do whatever it takes to try to get back to where they once were. It is so fucked up that the troops in Iraq must listen to members of the Democratic party referring to them as terrorists and Cindy Sheehan calling terrorists freedom fighters. That shit does two things: it ruins the morale of our troops and only encourages terrorism. That is why Cindy Sheehan is dangerous, and that's why Bill O'Reily is doing a good thing.
Most history teachers would smack you. As for the Cindy Sheehan thing, I believe I already addressed this issue and would divert your attention to my previous posts. If you still have an issue with her, I'd be willing to dwell further on the matter. I am interested in writing further in regards to this post, but at this time there is far to much information I would have to pull together to express my true thoughts on the matter. Just know that I feel close to the exact opposite as you do on many of these ideas, and think there is a better way to help America and the world then focusing on any of them.

[Jason Tate]

The way I see it is Happy Holidays is an easy way to say Merry (whatever religious holiday you believe in) and Happy New Year in one convienent sentance.
That was Jon Stewart's exact point, that technically ... technically, Happy Holidays is plural, therefore the best term.

[thesego211]

I'd love for you to say that to his face.

Don't tell me that the kid who is RE-ENLISTING to go back to Iraq is brainwashed. You want to know why he is doing it? Well, it's because of all the bullshit at home (America) that the administration is trying to pull out the people they've kept in Iraq for this long. That means a whole shit load of new-comers with NO experience are going back over to Iraq. This means our USA death-toll is probably going rise. This is something that my best friend doesn't agree with so he is making the choice to go back for a THIRD time in order to keep one newbie from having to go face Iraq for the first time.

I'm almost at a loss as what else to say to you. I feel as if you're only listening to the side of the argument you think you should agree with. Take some time, do your own fucking research, talk to people, figure out what's going on. I have people on all sides of the political spectrum I listen to so I can make an informed decision - I know where I stand because I came to those beliefs on my OWN and with much research and determination.
you tell people to think for themselves, to come to their own conclusions, to "talk to people", and listen to all sides of the political spectrum. this seems very hypocritical to me. when do you ever agree with any conservative opinion? so are you telling me that you really give conservative opinions an equal chance, and it just so happens that you disagree with all of it? you think that you are enlightened and this kid is closed minded just because he doesnt agree with you? every opinion you give on this site is bashing the right, bashing the president, and still you have the balls to tell kids to open their minds to different perspectives. that seems pretty lame to me.

[Jason Tate]

you Idiots did you turn the channel right before O'Reilly asked Letterman if he's ever caught a show and Letterman said "No."

way to do your homework
Yah, that's the reason we're idiots. :rolleyes:

[thesego211]

Most history teachers would smack you.
what the fuck does that mean? elaborate, that makes no sense. i think a lot of what he said is right on. and it wasn't a history lesson, it was an opinion.

[thesego211]

Yah, that's the reason we're idiots. :rolleyes:
how many more thought provoking one liners should we expect from you tonight?

[Jason Tate]

you tell people to think for themselves, to come to their own conclusions, to "talk to people", and listen to all sides of the political spectrum. this seems very hypocritical to me. when do you ever agree with any conservative opinion? so are you telling me that you really give conservative opinions an equal chance, and it just so happens that you disagree with all of it? you think that you are enlightened and this kid is closed minded just because he doesnt agree with you? every opinion you give on this site is bashing the right, bashing the president, and still you have the balls to tell kids to open their minds to different perspectives. that seems pretty lame to me.

Just because, in the rare peek into my political mind on this website, I don't outwardly showcase some of my more conservative values, does not invalidate (or imply) that I do not have them. The topics discussed in this forum particularly are on social issues and I would consider myself very socially liberal. However, when it comes to financial issues, I tend to lean toward the conservative side of the spectrum. The unfortunate reality is that not even most conservatives these days understand what a financially conservative minded person is - because the GOP has twisted the minds of most Americans to think in black and white. Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican, Right/Wrong, Good/Bad. Black and white thinking leads to absolutes and quells the ability for a free-thinking society to grasp the concept of grey areas. We're told by these, "talk-show-celebrities" what to think and most people grab the lowest branch and hold on with all their might to almost one-issue arguments. I disagree with this line of thinking. I disagree with the idea that there can only be black and white and a happy medium can't be attained through education and understanding. Yes, I speak like an optimist with high ideals; but if we don't even give the THOUGHT of coordination a second look we have no chance at all of attaining it.

Next, I don't find myself to be one who "bashes" the right - I disagree with many of their policies and their decisions. I feel the same way about many things that take place on the, "left" - however, at this time in history what the "right" is doing to this country is having a far greater impact on the potential future of my offspring. The left's actions are (in my opinion) a lesser of two evils at this point. That is why I have decided to try and fix (as much as I can) the larger problems I see with where our country is headed before focusing on some of the nitty-gritty issues I have with the "left" and a "two-party system" in general.

I don't in the slightest think this kid is, "close-minded" - it's my very belief that he is open minded by nature that leads me to challenge him to look at the world through un-tinted goggles. I am of the belief that we are able to disagree on what I consider minor issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) and yet still attempt to achieve a greater state of living and well-being for the global community. Life should not come down to 30 second sound-bites on the evening news. Life should not be about pain and suffering ... there's a chance for America to start a trend toward cohesive understanding and acceptance. If we start the train, we can move others on board. I have a big issue with how much hate and division is being preached from some of the highest positions in this country ... that's wrong regardless of which side of the ticket you punch in November.

[Jason Tate]

how many more thought provoking one liners should we expect from you tonight?
As many as needed until you give me a reason to respond to an actual question or point with any sort of substance.

[Jason Tate]

what the fuck does that mean? elaborate, that makes no sense. i think a lot of what he said is right on. and it wasn't a history lesson, it was an opinion.
I know it was opinion; which is why I think a history lesson into what beliefs this country was founded on would serve as a wake-up call in some regards. Nothing more.

[preppyak]

This whole debate is pathetic. A lot of you take shit way too seriously, and are letting these celebs get to you just like they want to. Get over yourselves.
Wow, thanks for that add to the conversation.:shake:
David Letterman got worked by O'Reilly. Letterman proved how smart he is by criticizing O'Reilly when he's never even watched or listened to him. Most people are ignorant and try to accuse O'Reilly of just adoring Bush but if they actually gave him a chance, they would realize that O'Reilly is just as critical of the president as anyone. O'Reilly is right, just look up the instances of liberals trying eradicate every trace of the Judeo-Christian morals and traditions this country was founded on! I would say that and capitalism are the main reasons why this country is the greatest in the world.
Oh really, could you point them out for me, because I've missed them this last twenty years.

[thesego211]

Just because in the rare peek into my political mind on this website I give the public I don't outwardly showcase some of my more conservative values, does not invalidate (or imply) that I do not have them. The topics discussed in this forum particularly are on social issues and I would consider myself very socially liberal. However, when it comes to financial issues, I tend to lean toward the conservative side of the spectrum. The unfortunate reality is that not even most conservatives these days understand what a financially conservative minded person is - because the GOP has twisted the minds of most Americans to think in black and white. Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican, Right/Wrong, Good/Bad. Black and white thinking leads to absolutes and quells the ability for a free-thinking society to grasp the concept of grey areas. We're told by these, "talk-show-celebrities" what to think and most people grab the lowest branch and hold on with all their might to almost one-issue arguments. I disagree with this line of thinking. I disagree with the idea that there can only be black and white and a happy medium can't be attained through education and understanding. Yes, I speak like an optimist with high ideals; but if we don't even give the THOUGHT of coordination a second look we have no chance at all of attaining it.

Next, I don't find myself to be one who "bashes" the right - I disagree with many of their policies and their decisions. I feel the same way about many things that take place on the, "left" - however, at this time in history what the "right" is doing to this country is having a far greater impact on the potential future of my offspring. The left's actions are (in my opinion) a lesser of two evils at this point. That is why I have decided to try and fix (as much as I can) the larger problems I see with where our country is headed before focusing on some of the nitty-gritty issues I have with the "left" and a "two-party system" in general.

I don't in the slightest think this kid is, "close-minded" - it's my very belief that he is open minded by nature that leads me to challenge him to look at the world through un-tinted goggles. I am of the belief that we are able to disagree on what I consider minor issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) and yet still attempt to achieve a greater state of living and well-being for the global community. Life should not come down to 30 second sound-bites on the evening news. Life should not be about pain and suffering ... there's a chance for America to start a trend toward cohesive understanding and acceptance. If we start the train, we can move others on board. I have a big issue with how much hate and division is being preached from some of the highest positions in this country ... that's wrong regardless of which side of the ticket you punch in November.
that was really long... don't say that you don't bash the right, when every news post that you put up (i know you didnt do this one) does just that. and you mentioned something that i believe is the biggest difference between the right and left of this country. you don't believe in black and white, right and wrong? how can that be? this, to me, is the problem. how can you not believe in right and wrong? that is just absurd to me. how do you know who you are as a person if you have no concept of right and wrong? to be honest, a lot of what you just posted seemed like rambling incoherent opinions. what do you mean america should start a trend toward cohesive understanding and acceptance? does that mean that i should believe that everything is equally good? terrorists, american soldiers, they are both the same? i think that there is right and wrong in this world, and if you don't, you are kidding yourself.

[thesego211]

I know it was opinion; which is why I think a history lesson into what beliefs this country was founded on would serve as a wake-up call in some regards. Nothing more.
if you are saying that this country wasn't founded upon judeo-christian roots, then you are the one who needs a history lesson.

[9mmREGRET]

god im glad i live in texas where this kind of bullshit is kept to a minimum.

[Jason Tate]

Wow, thanks for that add to the conversation.:shake:

Oh really, could you point them out for me, because I've missed them this last twenty years.
I think we could go back a hundred or so years to the ideas of not having a national religion and see that it isn't "liberals in the last 20 years" attempting to erase "Judeo-Christian" morals. I think the idea is that this country is a chex-mix of people, all religions, all races, all beliefs. We don't give everyone the opportunity to believe, and practice freely, what they wish - we're not better off then the "heathens," or "oppressors" we try and convert on our "crusades."

The problem, in my opinion, is the continued over-sensitization of this society. Talk-show celebrities continue to boil blood, and get the public worked up over things that really most normal-minded people would just let run off the smalls of their backs. People worry and fight and pick up all these fucking issues that can be dealt with in such a better manner. And a BIG finger is being pointed at the left and their "issues" as well ... some of that shit is just as ridiculous. I feel like at this point in history everyone has a button that once pushed closes off their brain and they move like zombies toward their "issue" or the "stand" (too many -isms to name) and instead of using rational means and compromise: we get battles.

[preppyak]

you don't believe in black and white, right and wrong? how can that be? this, to me, is the problem. how can you not believe in right and wrong? that is just absurd to me. i think that there is right and wrong in this world, and if you don't, you are kidding yourself.

Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican, Right/Wrong, Good/Bad. Black and white thinking leads to absolutes and quells the ability for a free-thinking society to grasp the concept of grey areas.
Re-read what he said, he doesn't lack moral value, he dislikes absolute thinking. Politcal views themselves rely on a spectrum, so why should political issues be dwindled down to absolutes and sides?

[Pat Marquez]

My problem with Bill O'Reilly is that he doesn't realize the side of the Iraqi's. YES in their eyes they are "freedom fighters." Just how we were "freedom fighters" against GB a long long time ago. GB could have easily called us terroists as well.

Yes, at one point... Americans were terrorists too, (ha, maybe we still are) when we tried to eliminate the Indians.

I don't know.. I watch a lot of Bill O'Reilly... I think he is a nut job and just wayyyy to radical... I almost feel as if he really doesn't know what he is saying. However, Letterman will always have the upper hand as O'Reilly was on HIS show. I'd like to see Letterman on O'Reilly Factor. That would be interesting.

Of course if it was two loud mouths trying to talk over each other, I'd pass.

[adelphi_rocks]

The way I see it is Happy Holidays is an easy way to say Merry (whatever religious holiday you believe in) and Happy New Year in one convienent sentance.
yeah that's what i think too.. i mean, im really lazy, so that's what i would say, but how often do you or other people say "merry christmas" or "happy holidays"? i mean, if a friend says "merry christmas" to you and you celibrate kwanza or some shit like that, you're not going to get all pissed off and yell at them, you're going to think that it was a nice thing to do on their part and not think anymore of it. and if a greeter at a store or an ad in the store says "merry christmas" who cares? it wont ruin your day for having someone saying that to you (unless you're just a hardass, or that crazy nazi girl's dad on nip/tuck, in that case, then it wlll ruin your day) oh, and an x-mas tree in a public building is okay too, just try to imagine the tree is up for santa, not jesus. soooo, i just had taco bell, and that burrito was very filling......i think i might have to order a nachos bel grande next time..........

[Jason Tate]

that was really long... don't say that you don't bash the right, when every news post that you put up (i know you didnt do this one) does just that. and you mentioned something that i believe is the biggest difference between the right and left of this country. you don't believe in black and white, right and wrong? how can that be? this, to me, is the problem. how can you not believe in right and wrong? that is just absurd to me. how do you know who you are as a person if you have no concept of right and wrong? to be honest, a lot of what you just posted seemed like rambling incoherent opinions. what do you mean america should start a trend toward cohesive understanding and acceptance? does that mean that i should believe that everything is equally good? terrorists, american soldiers, they are both the same? i think that there is right and wrong in this world, and if you don't, you are kidding yourself.
Please give me an example of a black and white situation. I can end this entire "conversation" and hopefully open your mind just a tad with only one example, I'll let you pick. Take anything you want, and tell me why it's black and white with NO budge room at all.

I'll be waiting.

As for bashing, I think most of my news posts on political topics (I'll go back and recheck if you want) are pretty self-explanatory and are only one sentence long about something that's happened. I'm not making anything up or going out of my way to dig up dirt on anyone. We're not Drudge, and I don't want to be - I simply like the idea of discussing politics with my peers. I made cracks about Clinton's blow-job scandal all the time a few years ago, the problem is that these new "scandals" now-days are a whole lot scarier (and are causing less action).

[Jason Tate]

Re-read what he said, he doesn't lack moral value, he dislikes absolute thinking. Politcal views themselves rely on a spectrum, so why should political issues be dwindled down to absolutes and sides?
I mean, fuck, with his line of thinking we're not a democracy by pure definition.

[preppyak]

I think we could go back a hundred or so years to the ideas of not having a national religion and see that it isn't "liberals in the last 20 years" attempting to erase "Judeo-Christian" morals. I think the idea is that this country is a chex-mix of people, all religions, all races, all beliefs. We don't give everyone the opportunity to believe, and practice freely, what they wish - we're not better off then the "heathens," or "oppressors" we try and convert on our "crusades."
I agree, but especially with the view of terrorism, it being a religious intolerance for America, it only polarizes the issue further with religion. Likewise, petty issues like "god" in the pledge of Allegiance are blown into major issues that further polarize sides.


The problem, in my opinion, is the continued over-sensitization of this society. Talk-show celebrities continue to boil blood, and get the public worked up over things that really most normal-minded people would just let run off the smalls of their backs. People worry and fight and pick up all these fucking issues that can be dealt with in such a better manner. And a BIG finger is being pointed at the left and their "issues" as well ... some of that shit is just as ridiculous. I feel like at this point in history everyone has a button that once pushed closes off their brain and they move like zombies toward their "issue" or the "stand" (too many -isms to name) and instead of using rational means and compromise: we get battles.
This Letterman thing is a mistake, because though I dislike O'Reilly, he is not the man to call him out. And it becomes played, that one sound bite, and it only will make O'Reilly fight harder.

[thesego211]

Please give me an example of a black and white situation. I can end this entire "conversation" and hopefully open your mind just a tad with only one example, I'll let you pick. Take anything you want, and tell me why it's black and white with NO budge room at all.

I'll be waiting.
ok, how about the most important issue in our country today, the war on terror (and i'm not just talking about iraq). to me, there are some absolutes here: 1. in this war, america is the good guy. the islamic radicals, the terrorists, are the bad guys. 2. this is a war that america needs to win in order to survive as a nation of people who do not live in fear.
to me, this is black and white. we cannot sit back and try to "understand" these terrorists. they are animals, willing to kill innocent women and children to further their agenda. america is the good guy.

[Jason Tate]

god im glad i live in texas where this kind of bullshit is kept to a minimum.
I spit water out of my nose reading that! :appl:

[Pat Marquez]

This is why I have grown out of politics because it is an impossible topic to discuss. I'm not trying to "cop" out or anything but since I have moved into a Chicago I have found myself to be pretty moderate on my views. I can't stand extreme people... and believe it or not I think for our government to work we all have to find a happy medium.

I fucking hate this "holier than thou" attitude with a lot of celebrities and politicians. Take Newt Gingrich for example... this guy says he is all about family values but tried to divorce his wife while she was in the hospitial. There are plenty of liberals like this but Newt just sticks out to me. I can't believe he can sanely live behind this lie of a life.

[thesego211]

My problem with Bill O'Reilly is that he doesn't realize the side of the Iraqi's. YES in their eyes they are "freedom fighters." Just how we were "freedom fighters" against GB a long long time ago. GB could have easily called us terroists as well.

Yes, at one point... Americans were terrorists too, (ha, maybe we still are) when we tried to eliminate the Indians.

I don't know.. I watch a lot of Bill O'Reilly... I think he is a nut job and just wayyyy to radical... I almost feel as if he really doesn't know what he is saying. However, Letterman will always have the upper hand as O'Reilly was on HIS show. I'd like to see Letterman on O'Reilly Factor. That would be interesting.

Of course if it was two loud mouths trying to talk over each other, I'd pass.
wow, you said a lot of really stupid/ill concieved things in that post. first of all, when we fought the british, we had declared war. we fought soldiers on a battlefield, we didnt kill thousands of non combatants without and provocation. and please, the whole, "america is evil because we took the land from the indians" thing is so stupid. we had guns, they had bows and arrows. every major nation in the world is inhabited by people who were the most able to sustain life there. i'm sure you are a big darwin guy, and this is a perfect example of natural selection. i'm not trying to be cold here, but that makes sense to me.

[preppyak]

oh, and an x-mas tree in a public building is okay too, just try to imagine the tree is up for santa, not jesus.
I agree, and it actually brings up the more important part of the Christmas issue, its about Santa not Jesus. 90% of christmas decorations involve reindeer and big blow-up snowman, and mangers scenes are rarer each year. Holidays that are in essence religious holidays have become money makers.

I mean, come on, the death and resurrection of Christ represented by the easter bunny, now that is a good laugh.

soooo, i just had taco bell, and that burrito was very filling......i think i might have to order a nachos bel grande next time..........
god I love Taco Bell. Me and a friend split the Grande meal and he also got a Mexican pizza, best money I've spent in a long time.

[Pat Marquez]

wow, you said a lot of really stupid/ill concieved things in that post. first of all, when we fought the british, we had declared war. we fought soldiers on a battlefield, we didnt kill thousands of non combatants without and provocation. and please, the whole, "america is evil because we took the land from the indians" thing is so stupid. we had guns, they had bows and arrows. every major nation in the world is inhabited by people who were the most able to sustain life there. i'm sure you are a big darwin guy, and this is a perfect example of natural selection. i'm not trying to be cold here, but that makes sense to me.

Haha, what is the difference between war and a Jihad? Come on... I'm pretty sure a lot of the Middle East has declared a "Jihad" on the American people but I suppose that is not "war" in your eyes.

We didn't kill thousands of people? Man, come on... look at your history. We came to America and invaded a country that was already occupied. How can you dispute this? We DID kill thousands of people, people that couldn't defend against us.

[Pat Marquez]

This is why I can't discuss politics...

[preppyak]

and please, the whole, "america is evil because we took the land from the indians" thing is so stupid. we had guns, they had bows and arrows. every major nation in the world is inhabited by people who were the most able to sustain life there.
True.

But the fact that we made so many treaties and broke them is what makes us "evil" there. In fact, one of the justifications for Iraq, that they broke the cease-fire agreement, is something we did to Native Americans hundreds of times when it was our convenience. We see ourselves as liberators and as a great defender of freedom, which is great for our national pride, but the reality is that for all our glorified freeing, we have a past or present instance where we hurt as well.

[Pat Marquez]

This is just so ridiculous. I'm not saying anyone is better then anyone here. Every single country has "skeletons in the closet." There are some, but I can't name many countries that have a clean slate of a past.

But why wouldn't we try to change that? Why would we want to dig ourselves deeper into these holes? Haven't we learned that burning bridges is not a good thing?

[preppyak]

But why wouldn't we try to change that? Why would we want to dig ourselves deeper into these holes? Haven't we learned that burning bridges is not a good thing?
Not yet, once we burn a big enough bridge (read that as Great Britain) we will.

[thesego211]

Haha, what is the difference between war and a Jihad? Come on... I'm pretty sure a lot of the Middle East has declared a "Jihad" on the American people but I suppose that is not "war" in your eyes.

We didn't kill thousands of people? Man, come on... look at your history. We came to America and invaded a country that was already occupied. How can you dispute this? We DID kill thousands of people, people that couldn't defend against us.
we weren't even america yet you idiot.

[Pat Marquez]

Not yet, once we burn a big enough bridge (read that as Great Britain) we will.
Yeah... I guess that is what people are waiting for?

In reality, everything does and will come to end at one point in life. Why wouldn't we try to keep America around for as long as possible?

[preppyak]

we weren't even america yet you idiot.
Then we became America and did the exact same thing (see The Trail of Tears, and numerous battles for the midwest). We have never been very good at learning from our mistakes, now that I think about it. It's the same arrogance that makes us a great nation that harms us.

Yeah... I guess that is what people are waiting for?

In reality, everything does and will come to end at one point in life. Why wouldn't we try to keep America around for as long as possible?
I'm just saying that is what will bring us down, outing our last HUGE friend in Europe, because the majority of them probably aren't accepting our Myspace friend adds at the moment. I don't think we will go that far, but all it takes is a powerful president with larger intentions and a Congress that thinks in just two parties. I think someone like Kennedy could have convinced people that anything was right, he had the charisma

[Pat Marquez]

we weren't even america yet you idiot.
Haha.. you are right we weren't even America yet. Doesn't change the fact that we came to this land and still killed thousands of people.

Way to avoid the argument. No one is going to give you any credibility when you call someone a "fucking idiot." Grow up.

[thesego211]

Haha.. you are right we weren't even America yet. Doesn't change the fact that we came to this land and still killed thousands of people.

Way to avoid the argument. No one is going to give you any credibility when you call someone a "fucking idiot." Grow up.
i felt bad about that and edited it.... but that wasnt me avoiding the argument. i think its such a stupid argument to begin with, i dont even want to continue it. that happened so long ago, its just so foolish to think america is this evil country because of that.

[Pat Marquez]

i felt bad about that and edited it.... but that wasnt me avoiding the argument. i think its such a stupid argument to begin with, i dont even want to continue it. that happened so long ago, its just so foolish to think america is this evil country because of that.
Haha, feel bad? Why would you? I mean you are the only one lowering yourself here. You should feel bad for yourself because you lack the ability to have a civil discussion. Call your boss a fucking idiot when you disagree with him and see how far that gets ya in life. Tell your wife she is a fucking idiot and I guarntee you won't be having sex for a long time.

When we killed thousands of indians it was a long time ago. Doesn't mean we shouldn't forget it. We should learn from our mistakes and try to fix them with future things that we do. Oh well, I guess people will never understand.

[thesego211]

Haha, feel bad? Why would you? I mean you are the only one lowering yourself here. You should feel bad for yourself because you lack the ability to have a civil discussion. Call your boss a fucking idiot when you disagree with him and see how far that gets ya in life. Tell your wife she is a fucking idiot and I guarntee you won't be having sex for a long time.

When we killed thousands of indians it was a long time ago. Doesn't mean we shouldn't forget it. We should learn from our mistakes and try to fix them with future things that we do. Oh well, I guess people will never understand.
thanks for the life lessons dad.... i tried to apologize to you man, chill out.

[Bikeage]

i can't believe how many dumbasses there are in this thread (to be blunt)... it's astounding

[Jason Tate]

ok, how about the most important issue in our country today, the war on terror (and i'm not just talking about iraq). to me, there are some absolutes here: 1. in this war, america is the good guy. the islamic radicals, the terrorists, are the bad guys. 2. this is a war that america needs to win in order to survive as a nation of people who do not live in fear.
to me, this is black and white. we cannot sit back and try to "understand" these terrorists. they are animals, willing to kill innocent women and children to further their agenda. america is the good guy.

And, at least you picked an easy one for me. If this is a black and white issue you are saying these absolutes:

1) America is the good guy.
2) Terrorists are the bad guys.
3) Terrorists are willing to kill innocent women and children to further their agenda.
4) We must win this war on terror in order to survive as a nation not in fear.

I'll take these 4 "absolutes" one at a time in order to break down how this "black and white" thought process is actually varying shades of gray.

1) It's easy to believe we are the good guys because of how "un-patriotic" it has been made to be anything else. However we must look at one simple fact: We were not attacked for no reason at all. Furthermore, just because we are the "victims" of an attack by terrorists harbored in Afghanistan does not mean we should be going into Iraq with the mentality of, "we may have to kill a few civilians if need be." Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This is not a case of a child sitting on the side walk and a bully coming up and punching him in the face for no reason, our foreign policy for years led to 9/11. Should we be pissed about what happened? FUCK YES! And what we did in the past should not in any way give anyone the right to kill civilians on American soil. But should we allow that thirst for vengeance to blind us to the reasons we were attacked? NO! I further argue that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. As Chomsky once said, "the only way to stop terrorism, is to stop participating in it."

2) These same terrorists were not so "bad" when we were handing them their weapons. Unless you forget that we armed Osama, I don't see how you can not see the gray streaks coming into the picture. Now, to further this argument, you must be able to accept that others in this world have different beliefs then you do and that no matter how hard you try, not everyone will always agree with you. They (Osama et al.) are terrorists to us, that is an indisputable fact. But, again, they are not terrorists without reason. We were terrorists to the British. Osama was a freedom fighter (to us) against the Russians. It's a matter of perspective, time, and history - ONLY - that truly dictates the titles of those dying in battle. They are the "bad guys" - but why does the title of "bad guy" equal a death sentence in this culture? Why are the "bad guys" of other nations hung out to dry why the "bad guys" of the United States allowed to continue on destructive paths? I don't think that's right, and I think analyzing (and gray movement) our policies for flaws would lead to the betterment of all mankind (shouldn't that be our goal?).

3) This is true, they are. However, the gray area begins to creep when we look at the fact that America (and her allies) have done the same things. The fire-bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and others all showcase how it's a HUMAN nature to kill in order to further agendas and NOT just one of a particular race or religion. This is something that can, and should be changed. Humans should be able to evolve ...

4) Terrorism is an ideology, it's a belief. We cannot combat beliefs with bombs; history proves this simple fact. Fear is a state of mind. We are put into a state of fear because it's a human reaction to distress. Fight or flight is the very basic of instincts and are embedded over YEARS of evolution into our brains. It's simple. The idea is not that we need to win this war on terror in order to not be "afraid" anymore then we needed to purge the "red-scare" a few decades ago. The publics fear is more of a political weapon than an actual feeling we should be focusing on. The truth is, we're probably no safer today then we were on September 10th. The gray area here is simple: if we're fighting a "war" against an ever-changing enemy, how will we ever win? The answer is we won't, we can't. That's great for some people in this country, but I don't think that it's the best solution for the world or the majority of America. All of the "terrorists" will never die, and we'll only breed new ones if we don't look at the CORE of the creation of these terrorists.

You ended your black/white statement with, "America is the good guy," and you know what - I agree with you. I love this country, and am so happy to be here. America does some great things. We really do; however, just because we do some great things does not give us a free pass to do some not so great things as well. While we are the good guy in MANY regards, our hands are not clean of the blood of millions (yes, millions). We can always, ALWAYS, get better and move our country in steps to make the world a better place. By thinking in black and white we simple accept our "superiority status" and stop searching for ways to improve. The gray is when we realize we are not perfect, we are not infallible, and that by making ourselves better - we make the world better.

[Robb]

Dance for the freedom fighters of the world.

[dildosagginss]

I wish I would have seen this. I am sure David Letterman wanted a shot in the political spotlight so he invited O' Reily. I like O' Reilly, he gets to the point, and he knows what he is talking about. I don't like stupid TV/Movie stars trying to act like they are politicians. Ya, sure its all right to have an opinion but just because you have a camera on you doesn't mean you have to blab your mouth and try to look so intelectual by letting people know how you fee about are nation(when half of them could care less). Honestly I could care less what dave Letterman thinks. I could care less what most the T.V/Movie stars say becuase ussually it is just like " Bush is dumb where is my butler?!?!" but like I said they all have there opinions, they just need to stop being so obnoxious with them.

You should probably start caring less then...

[Jason Tate]

You should probably start caring less then...
Was the point of his statement, "celebrities should shut up about all this jabber" but "OReilly should keep on talking?" - how about they all shut the fuck up because they're all hurting America. That's my take.

[thesego211]

And, at least you picked an easy one for me. If this is a black and white issue you are saying these absolutes:

1) America is the good guy.
2) Terrorists are the bad guys.
3) Terrorists are willing to kill innocent women and children to further their agenda.
4) We must win this war on terror in order to survive as a nation not in fear.

I'll take these 4 "absolutes" one at a time in order to break down how this "black and white" thought process is actually varying shades of gray.

1) It's easy to believe we are the good guys because of how "un-patriotic" it has been made to be anything else. However we must look at one simple fact: We were not attacked for no reason at all. Furthermore, just because we are the "victims" of an attack by terrorists harbored in Afghanistan does not mean we should be going into Iraq with the mentality of, "we may have to kill a few civilians if need be." Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This is not a case of a child sitting on the side walk and a bully coming up and punching him in the face for no reason, our foreign policy for years led to 9/11. Should we be pissed about what happened? FUCK YES! And what we did in the past should not in any way give anyone the right to kill civilians on American soil. But should we allow that thirst for vengeance to blind us to the reasons we were attacked? NO! I further argue that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. As Chomsky once said, "the only way to stop terrorism, is to stop participating in it."

2) These same terrorists were not so "bad" when we were handing them their weapons. Unless you forget that we armed Osama, I don't see how you can not see the gray streaks coming into the picture. Now, to further this argument, you must be able to accept that others in this world have different beliefs then you do and that no matter how hard you try, not everyone will always agree with you. They (Osama et al.) are terrorists to us, that is an indisputable fact. But, again, they are not terrorists without reason. We were terrorists to the British. Osama was a freedom fighter (to us) against the Russians. It's a matter of perspective, time, and history - ONLY - that truly dictates the titles of those dying in battle. They are the "bad guys" - but why does the title of "bad guy" equal a death sentence in this culture? Why are the "bad guys" of other nations hung out to dry why the "bad guys" of the United States allowed to continue on destructive paths? I don't think that's right, and I think analyzing (and gray movement) our policies for flaws would lead to the betterment of all mankind (shouldn't that be our goal?).

3) This is true, they are. However, the gray area begins to creep when we look at the fact that America (and her allies) have done the same things. The fire-bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and others all showcase how it's a HUMAN nature to kill in order to further agendas and NOT just one of a particular race or religion. This is something that can, and should be changed. Humans should be able to evolve ...

4) Terrorism is an ideology, it's a belief. We cannot combat beliefs with bombs; history proves this simple fact. Fear is a state of mind. We are put into a state of fear because it's a human reaction to distress. Fight or flight is the very basic of instincts and are embedded over YEARS of evolution into our brains. It's simple. The idea is not that we need to win this war on terror in order to not be "afraid" anymore then we needed to purge the "red-scare" a few decades ago. The publics fear is more of a political weapon than an actual feeling we should be focusing on. The truth is, we're probably no safer today then we were on September 10th. The gray area here is simple: if we're fighting a "war" against an ever-changing enemy, how will we ever win? The answer is we won't, we can't. That's great for some people in this country, but I don't think that it's the best solution for the world or the majority of America. All of the "terrorists" will never die, and we'll only breed new ones if we don't look at the CORE of the creation of these terrorists.

You ended your black/white statement with, "America is the good guy," and you know what - I agree with you. I love this country, and am so happy to be here. America does some great things. We really do; however, just because we do some great things does not give us a free pass to do some not so great things as well. While we are the good guy in MANY regards, our hands are not clean of the blood of millions (yes, millions). We can always, ALWAYS, get better and move our country in steps to make the world a better place. By thinking in black and white we simple accept our "superiority status" and stop searching for ways to improve. The gray is when we realize we are not perfect, we are not infallible, and that by making ourselves better - we make the world better.
1. you completely contradicted yourself in your first point. first, you essentially said that america brought 9/11 upon itself through its "foreign policy" (i notice you didnt mention any specifics). then you say that what we do should not justify terrorists doing what they did to us. also, i love how at the end of your first point you call america "terrorists" and still have the balls to say that you love this country.
2. do you even know why we armed them? it was because it benefitted america during the cold war. it was the smart thing to do at the time, especially since they were not a threat to us then. dont drop that history on me, because i know it. it was important that the russians be stopped, so we used them to advance our own cause.
3. we bombed hiroshima/nagasaki for a few reasons, you forgot to mention them. we had defeated japan in the pacific, we killed them, destroyed their navy/air force. they refused to surrender. it was over, and they wouldn't surrender. a ground war in japan would have cost a massive amount of casualties (predicted to be far greater than the casualties from the bombings). by the way, i'm still not sure how i feel about that, but i know that it ended japan's resistance and saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of americans.
4. your idea that we "cannot win this war" is the biggest obstacle in our way. and let me ask you this, how is this ideology of islamo-fascism any different than the ideology of naziism? you know what i mean? we defeated naziism, why can't we defeat islamo-fascism? to me, they are more similar than they are different. you can spend your time trying to "understand" the terrorists, the sane people of this country will spend their time trying to defeat them. also, how can you say that america is no safer today than it was before 9/11? there have been no attacks since, and we have real legistlation to allow law enforcement to aprehend terror suspects.

[apex]

bill o'riley is a fanatic, and david letterman showed a lack of proffesionalism.

bill who yells at people on his show, cuts mics, tells them to shut up, etc?

[crayZbuzzard]

Even if 9/11 never happened, it was still a good idea to invade Iraq. They were a nation that fostered terrorists, ruled by a ruthless dictator who slaughtered his own people using biological weapons. Saddam Hussein threatened the stability of Middle East. When you've got someone as unpredictable as him so close to Israel and other American interests, and he was known to have used weapons of mass destruction in the past, adding to the fact that he sponsered terrorism, it was so obvious that we needed to remove him from power. EVERYONE in Washington agreed on those facts, including esteemed members of the Democratic Party! The world is a better place with a stable democratic Iraq. I'm sure the countless Iraqis who voted at their elections for the first time ages would agree with me.

[thesego211]

Even if 9/11 never happened, it was still a good idea to invade Iraq. They were a nation that fostered terrorists, ruled by a ruthless dictator who slaughtered his own people using biological weapons. Saddam Hussein threatened the stability of Middle East. When you've got someone as unpredictable as him so close to Israel and other American interests, and he was known to have used weapons of mass destruction in the past, adding to the fact that he sponsered terrorism, it was so obvious that we needed to remove him from power. EVERYONE in Washington agreed on those facts, including esteemed members of the Democratic Party! The world is a better place with a stable democratic Iraq. I'm sure the countless Iraqis who voted at their elections for the first time ages would agree with me.
well said. i love how the people who claim to care so much about human rights totally forget the fact that sadaam killed over a million of his own people. that little fact doesnt support their agenda. everyone in the WORLD (Britain, Germany, France, etc...) agreed that sadaam had weapons and was a danger to the rest of the world. also, i like your quote, i read that too.

[kennethagee]

liberalism is a mental disorder

did you get that straight out of an Ann Coulter book? I'm sick of political arguments these days. I'm very moderate and I put Bill O'Reily in the same boat as Coulter and Moore, they are all the same. No matter which "side" they are on, they don't help anything. Coulter has never said anything to help anything. Saying Liberals are all stupid and need to shut up doesn't help anything. Why doens't she propose some ideas that might help this county? BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY!!!!

[kennethagee]

well said. i love how the people who claim to care so much about human rights totally forget the fact that sadaam killed over a million of his own people. that little fact doesnt support their agenda. everyone in the WORLD (Britain, Germany, France, etc...) agreed that sadaam had weapons and was a danger to the rest of the world. also, i like your quote, i read that too.

Well why Iraq then? Are they the only county that violates human rights? Also, what about the fact that we violate human rights? It's bad that Saddam did, but it's okay for us to? Bush is fighting for torture, and in case you didn't know, that is a violation of human rights.

[thesego211]

Well why Iraq then? Are they the only county that violates human rights? Also, what about the fact that we violate human rights? It's bad that Saddam did, but it's okay for us to? Bush is fighting for torture, and in case you didn't know, that is a violation of human rights.
actually, he is endorsing a bill that john mcaine co-wrote to eliminate american torture. please dont talk again...

[thesego211]

did you get that straight out of an Ann Coulter book? I'm sick of political arguments these days. I'm very moderate and I put Bill O'Reily in the same boat as Coulter and Moore, they are all the same. No matter which "side" they are on, they don't help anything. Coulter has never said anything to help anything. Saying Liberals are all stupid and need to shut up doesn't help anything. Why doens't she propose some ideas that might help this county? BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY!!!!
actually, it's the title of a book by Michael Savage... a true american genius, if you ask me.

[kennethagee]

actually, he is endorsing a bill that john mcaine co-wrote to eliminate american torture. please dont talk again...

Oh please don't talk? Are you kidding me? If he endorses, that would only be due to pressure. Are you saying America doesn't commit human rights violations? Are you really that foolish? I'm not against the war, I do believe it is valuable to our interest in many ways, all the way form the start, but I also believe we are lied to about the reasons, I think thye knew there weren't any WMD's, and I think your human righst argument is shit considering the United States human rights recods, so you, dear sir, don't talk again.

[Jason Tate]

1. you completely contradicted yourself in your first point. first, you essentially said that america brought 9/11 upon itself through its "foreign policy" (i notice you didnt mention any specifics). then you say that what we do should not justify terrorists doing what they did to us. also, i love how at the end of your first point you call america "terrorists" and still have the balls to say that you love this country.
2. do you even know why we armed them? it was because it benefitted america during the cold war. it was the smart thing to do at the time, especially since they were not a threat to us then. dont drop that history on me, because i know it. it was important that the russians be stopped, so we used them to advance our own cause.
3. we bombed hiroshima/nagasaki for a few reasons, you forgot to mention them. we had defeated japan in the pacific, we killed them, destroyed their navy/air force. they refused to surrender. it was over, and they wouldn't surrender. a ground war in japan would have cost a massive amount of casualties (predicted to be far greater than the casualties from the bombings). by the way, i'm still not sure how i feel about that, but i know that it ended japan's resistance and saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of americans.
4. your idea that we "cannot win this war" is the biggest obstacle in our way. and let me ask you this, how is this ideology of islamo-fascism any different than the ideology of naziism? you know what i mean? we defeated naziism, why can't we defeat islamo-fascism? to me, they are more similar than they are different. you can spend your time trying to "understand" the terrorists, the sane people of this country will spend their time trying to defeat them. also, how can you say that america is no safer today than it was before 9/11? there have been no attacks since, and we have real legistlation to allow law enforcement to aprehend terror suspects.
:shrugs:

I'm tossing my hands up .. it's obvious what you believe, and it's obvious that you're unwilling to budge on any of the issues. With that I'll leave you with this final post of clarification, which you'll skim and write-off without giving much thought to the ideas contained within, only because of which side of the political party I supposedly represent.

1) The very point was this "supposed" contradiction. You caught on to the fact that holding almost opposing thoughts in one's mind IS possible. That's gray area by the very definition. Black and white views lead to tunnel vision and create an absence of external ideas which could benefit our long-term goals. The problem with how you view things is that you think I need "balls" to infer that America has been terroristic in nature in the past - it's not balls, it's brains and the realization that if I accept this fact, I can help fix it. Step 1: Admitting there's a problem.

2) So, you admit, in writing, that the deaths of Russians for our own cause was worthy. However, the deaths of Americans for another country's cause, is wrong. Therefore, from your own mouth, you are preaching that only American causes are worthy in this world. If that's your belief, you have a more narrow-minded view on this world than I can even hope to comprehend. Wow.

3) I believe the majority of historians today now argue that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and we (America) knew this. Documents were recently de-classified that confirm this statement - we did it as a sign of power, not to weaken Japanese resolve. You however missed the entire point of my #3 and focused on a very small portion, 'o well.

4) Did we defeat Nazism? I think there are some that would say we gave it a good blow, but did not rid of it completely. It's more dormant now then before, but it's obvious it still exists (and kills, and maims, and terrorizes at times). We defeated a large faction of it by removing Hitler; but the Nazis were an army of faces - the terrorists and Islam is not. Islam is a RELIGION; no amount of death has ever (without total eradication) been able to curb the steadfastness religion can create. These so called, "sane" people will continue to try and defeat the war on terror the same as we have tried to defeat the war on drugs; and some day the sane people may just open their eyes to the gray aspects of this "war" and look to solve the problem without a mounting body count. For the world's futures-sake, I hope it's soon. Otherwise, fuck it - let's nuke them all, right? Let God sort us all out? Doesn't seem like a very feasible option to me. Your argument of "there's been no attacks since" is quite possibly the most hilarious thing I've read all day. If another one occurs, will you then admit you were wrong - is that what it takes? or will the blame be again tossed on "liberals" for weakening America? I think I know exactly what will be said. The absence of immediate violence does not predicate the idea of no attacks in the future. We may have jumped out of the kettle and into the stove. I think the GRAY area is using a multiple front attack of ideology AND weapons (when needed) in order to combat the known terrorists. Then we stop the old "evil-doers", and stop the new "evil-doers". That's what thinking outside of absolutes offers .. two solutions - combined; therefore, we can try and achive the best of both worlds and practice unity instead of separation.

[Jason Tate]

actually, it's the title of a book by Michael Savage... a true american genius, if you ask me.
Good god.

[Pat Marquez]

Oh please don't talk? Are you kidding me? If he endorses, that would only be due to pressure. Are you saying America doesn't commit human rights violations? Are you really that foolish? I'm not against the war, I do believe it is valuable to our interest in many ways, all the way form the start, but I also believe we are lied to about the reasons, I think thye knew there weren't any WMD's, and I think your human righst argument is shit considering the United States human rights recods, so you, dear sir, don't talk again.
This who we need more of. Thank you for being open minded and mature at the same time and realizing we do not need radicals.

[Jason Tate]

Even if 9/11 never happened, it was still a good idea to invade Iraq. They were a nation that fostered terrorists, ruled by a ruthless dictator who slaughtered his own people using biological weapons. Saddam Hussein threatened the stability of Middle East. When you've got someone as unpredictable as him so close to Israel and other American interests, and he was known to have used weapons of mass destruction in the past, adding to the fact that he sponsered terrorism, it was so obvious that we needed to remove him from power. EVERYONE in Washington agreed on those facts, including esteemed members of the Democratic Party! The world is a better place with a stable democratic Iraq. I'm sure the countless Iraqis who voted at their elections for the first time ages would agree with me.
By that argument, this is only the beginning and we have some more invading.. er.. liberating to do, right? Do you support the idea that we should enter any nation that fits into the same category Iraq did when it comes to violations and human-rights issues?

I hope we have the military to do this ... by the time we're done, who's going to be left to protect us?

[Jason Tate]

actually, he is endorsing a bill that john mcaine co-wrote to eliminate american torture. please dont talk again...
It's 2006, now's a good time not to torture people. Heh, we had to wait this long for this "bill" to tell us what is right/wrong? Yikes.

[crayZbuzzard]

I have no problem with torturing terrorists to extract information that can save American lives.

[thesego211]

:shrugs:

I'm tossing my hands up .. it's obvious what you believe, and it's obvious that you're unwilling to budge on any of the issues. With that I'll leave you with this final post of clarification, which you'll skim and write-off without giving much thought to the ideas contained within, only because of which side of the political party I supposedly represent.

1) The very point was this "supposed" contradiction. You caught on to the fact that holding almost opposing thoughts in one's mind IS possible. That's gray area by the very definition. Black and white views lead to tunnel vision and create an absence of external ideas which could benefit our long-term goals. The problem with how you view things is that you think I need "balls" to infer that America has been terroristic in nature in the past - it's not balls, it's brains and the realization that if I accept this fact, I can help fix it. Step 1: Admitting there's a problem.

2) So, you admit, in writing, that the deaths of Russians for our own cause was worthy. However, the deaths of Americans for another country's cause, is wrong. Therefore, from your own mouth, you are preaching that only American causes are worthy in this world. If that's your belief, you have a more narrow-minded view on this world than I can even hope to comprehend. Wow.

3) I believe the majority of historians today now argue that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and we (America) knew this. Documents were recently de-classified that confirm this statement - we did it as a sign of power, not to weaken Japanese resolve. You however missed the entire point of my #3 and focused on a very small portion, 'o well.

4) Did we defeat Nazism? I think there are some that would say we gave it a good blow, but did not rid of it completely. It's more dormant now then before, but it's obvious it still exists (and kills, and maims, and terrorizes at times). We defeated a large faction of it by removing Hitler; but the Nazis were an army of faces - the terrorists and Islam is not. Islam is a RELIGION; no amount of death has ever (without total eradication) been able to curb the steadfastness religion can create. These so called, "sane" people will continue to try and defeat the war on terror the same as we have tried to defeat the war on drugs; and some day the sane people may just open their eyes to the gray aspects of this "war" and look to solve the problem without a mounting body count. For the world's futures-sake, I hope it's soon. Otherwise, fuck it - let's nuke them all, right? Let God sort us all out? Doesn't seem like a very feasible option to me. Your argument of "there's been no attacks since" is quite possibly the most hilarious thing I've read all day. If another one occurs, will you then admit you were wrong - is that what it takes? or will the blame be again tossed on "liberals" for weakening America? I think I know exactly what will be said. The absence of immediate violence does not predicate the idea of no attacks in the future. We may have jumped out of the kettle and into the stove. I think the GRAY area is using a multiple front attack of ideology AND weapons (when needed) in order to combat the known terrorists. Then we stop the old "evil-doers", and stop the new "evil-doers". That's what thinking outside of absolutes offers .. two solutions - combined; therefore, we can try and achive the best of both worlds and practice unity instead of separation.
cute smiley face thing... anyway, in my opinion, whats best for america is, in many cases, best for the world. your defeatist attitude is not uncommon in our country today, and there's nothing i can do to change it. i do, however, appreciate the debate. i think it's safe to say that we both have opinions and facts to back them up. i disagree with you on virtually everything you have said, but at least you believe something. anyway, goodnight, i am getting really tired of this.
p.s. america rules

[thesego211]

I have no problem with torturing terrorists to extract information that can save American lives.
i am 100% with you on that

[thesego211]

It's 2006, now's a good time not to torture people. Heh, we had to wait this long for this "bill" to tell us what is right/wrong? Yikes.
well, you don't believe in right and wrong, so you dont have to worry about it.

[Jason Tate]

did you get that straight out of an Ann Coulter book? I'm sick of political arguments these days. I'm very moderate and I put Bill O'Reily in the same boat as Coulter and Moore, they are all the same. No matter which "side" they are on, they don't help anything. Coulter has never said anything to help anything. Saying Liberals are all stupid and need to shut up doesn't help anything. Why doens't she propose some ideas that might help this county? BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY!!!!
Voice of reason has spoken. I tried saying that for 10 pages with no one listening to me ... it's amazing how people pick out of your posts what they WANT to read, instead of what you're actually saying.

[kennethagee]

:shrugs:

I'm tossing my hands up .. it's obvious what you believe, and it's obvious that you're unwilling to budge on any of the issues. With that I'll leave you with this final post of clarification, which you'll skim and write-off without giving much thought to the ideas contained within, only because of which side of the political party I supposedly represent.

1) The very point was this "supposed" contradiction. You caught on to the fact that holding almost opposing thoughts in one's mind IS possible. That's gray area by the very definition. Black and white views lead to tunnel vision and create an absence of external ideas which could benefit our long-term goals. The problem with how you view things is that you think I need "balls" to infer that America has been terroristic in nature in the past - it's not balls, it's brains and the realization that if I accept this fact, I can help fix it. Step 1: Admitting there's a problem.

2) So, you admit, in writing, that the deaths of Russians for our own cause was worthy. However, the deaths of Americans for another country's cause, is wrong. Therefore, from your own mouth, you are preaching that only American causes are worthy in this world. If that's your belief, you have a more narrow-minded view on this world than I can even hope to comprehend. Wow.

3) I believe the majority of historians today now argue that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and we (America) knew this. Documents were recently de-classified that confirm this statement - we did it as a sign of power, not to weaken Japanese resolve. You however missed the entire point of my #3 and focused on a very small portion, 'o well.

4) Did we defeat Nazism? I think there are some that would say we gave it a good blow, but did not rid of it completely. It's more dormant now then before, but it's obvious it still exists (and kills, and maims, and terrorizes at times). We defeated a large faction of it by removing Hitler; but the Nazis were an army of faces - the terrorists and Islam is not. Islam is a RELIGION; no amount of death has ever (without total eradication) been able to curb the steadfastness religion can create. These so called, "sane" people will continue to try and defeat the war on terror the same as we have tried to defeat the war on drugs; and some day the sane people may just open their eyes to the gray aspects of this "war" and look to solve the problem without a mounting body count. For the world's futures-sake, I hope it's soon. Otherwise, fuck it - let's nuke them all, right? Let God sort us all out? Doesn't seem like a very feasible option to me. Your argument of "there's been no attacks since" is quite possibly the most hilarious thing I've read all day. If another one occurs, will you then admit you were wrong - is that what it takes? or will the blame be again tossed on "liberals" for weakening America? I think I know exactly what will be said. The absence of immediate violence does not predicate the idea of no attacks in the future. We may have jumped out of the kettle and into the stove. I think the GRAY area is using a multiple front attack of ideology AND weapons (when needed) in order to combat the known terrorists. Then we stop the old "evil-doers", and stop the new "evil-doers". That's what thinking outside of absolutes offers .. two solutions - combined; therefore, we can try and achive the best of both worlds and practice unity instead of separation.

Sorry to quote off you Tate, but I didn't want to search for his. Do you think our foriegn policy had nothign to do with the terrorist? Do they just hate us for absolutely no reason? First look at the what the United States has done in the past. When the United States over threw Mossadeqh we clearly showed that democracy isn't taht important. Fighting the war in Afghanistan wasn't really the problem, just straight up leaving was the problem. This is how al queda formed in case you didn't know. While i do agree that we can, and hopefully will, win this war, I also acknowledge the fact taht flaws in U.S. policy did have consequences, though maybe unintended, that had a lot to do with what is going on right now. Every president in recent history, yes, including Clinton, had a lot to do with it. they fucked up and failed us. they didn't focus enough on the real problems in the region, and also didn't get bin laden when they could, which came back and bit us in teh ass.

[Jason Tate]

well, you don't believe in right and wrong, so you dont have to worry about it.
You are unbelivable; no wonder you worship some of the right-talkies, you use the same tactics they do on their shows. Twist words, argue straw-men, and create quick talking points that are no where NEAR what the original statement was. I'll pay-pal you 10$ if you show me where I said I don't believe in right or wrong; I think (and other members of this forum have already pointed out) I made it very clear what my stance was.

:wall_nut:

[Jason Tate]

Sorry to quote off you Tate, but I didn't want to search for his. Do you think our foriegn policy had nothign to do with the terrorist? Do they just hate us for absolutely no reason? First look at the what the United States has done in the past. When the United States over threw Mossadeqh we clearly showed that democracy isn't taht important. Fighting the war in Afghanistan wasn't really the problem, just straight up leaving was the problem. This is how al queda formed in case you didn't know. While i do agree that we can, and hopefully will, win this war, I also acknowledge the fact taht flaws in U.S. policy did have consequences, though maybe unintended, that had a lot to do with what is going on right now. Every president in recent history, yes, including Clinton, had a lot to do with it. they fucked up and failed us. they didn't focus enough on the real problems in the region, and also didn't get bin laden when they could, which came back and bit us in teh ass.
And to add to that - if we don't fix the flaws of those in the past, learn, and create new solutions (instead of the same old ones), we're never going to get a strangle hold on this problem.

[kennethagee]

i am 100% with you on that

You just said how bad Saddam was for commiting human rights violations, but now you say you are okay with us doing it? I'm not sayign I am completely against torture, I am still debating it, but do you atleast see the contradiction here? It's not okay to say all countries must do this... except for us. Does this make sense to you at all?

[Jason Tate]

cute smiley face thing... anyway, in my opinion, whats best for america is, in many cases, best for the world. your defeatist attitude is not uncommon in our country today, and there's nothing i can do to change it. i do, however, appreciate the debate. i think it's safe to say that we both have opinions and facts to back them up. i disagree with you on virtually everything you have said, but at least you believe something. anyway, goodnight, i am getting really tired of this.
p.s. america rules
Well, long live - Americana; the world's now ours for the taking! It seems to have been a good idea for everyone else that's tried to do it in the past ... the names are infamous, the results catastrophic.

[Jason Tate]

You just said how bad Saddam was for commiting human rights violations, but now you say you are okay with us doing it? I'm not sayign I am completely against torture, I am still debating it, but do you atleast see the contradiction here? It's not okay to say all countries must do this... except for us. Does this make sense to you at all?
Uh, oh, did you just find GRAY AREA in his argument! OMG, that can't be! He should be thinking in BLACK AND WHITE ONLY!

sarcasm; I hope this dude sees the irony here

[Jason Tate]

I have no problem with torturing terrorists to extract information that can save American lives.
The problem only lies in when other countries torture Americans' to save their citizens lives, right? I think that's too narrow minded and creates a vicious-cycle of torture instead of solutions. Fuck, at the very least if it's our stance we'll do, "whatever it takes" to save American lives then we should just nuke the rest of the world. If no one else is out there, we don't have shit to worry about. I don't see that as being any more extreme ...

[kennethagee]

The problem only lies in when other countries torture American's to save their citizens lives, right? I think that's too narrow minded and creates a vicious-cycle of torture instead of solutions. Fuck, at the very least if it's our stance we'll do, "whatever it takes" to save American lives then we should just nuke the rest of the world. If no one else is out there, we don't have shit to worry about. I don't see that as being any more extreme ...

Not to think when inocent people get tortured, of course, that never seems like a credible problem till they are ripping your fingernails out. It's the same with the death penalty, it's a lot easier to not worry about being in the chair for nothing when you are white and will most likely never have to worry about it.

[crayZbuzzard]

You just said how bad Saddam was for commiting human rights violations, but now you say you are okay with us doing it? I'm not sayign I am completely against torture, I am still debating it, but do you atleast see the contradiction here? It's not okay to say all countries must do this... except for us. Does this make sense to you at all?


If we torture a terrorist, it is to get information that can save the lives of our citizens or troops. Saddam Hussein tortured thousands of his people in jails and rape rooms. He wasn't combatting terrorism or doing it out of national security...he was doing it because Unlike the United States, Iraq didn't have a constitution that banned cruel and unusual punishment. They didn't have that luxury that we have. But thanks to Bush and our soldiers doing a noble thing over there, Iraqis can draw up an amendment like that if they so desire. So I see where you are going with your argument, but you cannot seriously compare our intelligence gathering methods with that of a brutal dictator's barbaric hobbies.

[Jason Tate]

If we torture a terrorist, it is to get information that can save the lives of our citizens or troops. Saddam Hussein tortured thousands of his people in jails and rape rooms. He wasn't combatting terrorism or doing it out of national security...he was doing it because Unlike the United States, Iraq didn't have a constitution that banned cruel and unusual punishment. They didn't have that luxury that we have. But thanks to Bush and our soldiers doing a noble thing over there, Iraqis can draw up an amendment like that if they so desire. So I see where you are going with your argument, but you cannot seriously compare our intelligence gathering methods with that of a brutal dictator's barbaric hobbies.
Well, of course not, because that's GRAY AREA; once again showcasing how black/white thinking creates problems. I just had to point that out.

Now, as long as we do "torture terrorists" - I understand what you're saying, I do however, have a hard time figuring out how we know which ones are terrorists and how much we can torture them before we expect the other side to do the exact same (if not worse) to our men, women, children. I don't want to be afraid to travel when I retire in 40 years.

[crayZbuzzard]

The problem only lies in when other countries torture Americans' to save their citizens lives, right? I think that's too narrow minded and creates a vicious-cycle of torture instead of solutions. Fuck, at the very least if it's our stance we'll do, "whatever it takes" to save American lives then we should just nuke the rest of the world. If no one else is out there, we don't have shit to worry about. I don't see that as being any more extreme ...



Americans aren't terrorists. We are not deliberately targeting civillian populations or innocents. The geneva convention is in place to prevent that sort of thing during war time. We wouldn't torture prisoners of war. However, the geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists or foreign combatants. So if torturing them or using somewhat brutal methods to obtain vital information is necessary, then it is perfectly legal and we have an obligation to do so.

[kennethagee]

If we torture a terrorist, it is to get information that can save the lives of our citizens or troops. Saddam Hussein tortured thousands of his people in jails and rape rooms. He wasn't combatting terrorism or doing it out of national security...he was doing it because Unlike the United States, Iraq didn't have a constitution that banned cruel and unusual punishment. They didn't have that luxury that we have. But thanks to Bush and our soldiers doing a noble thing over there, Iraqis can draw up an amendment like that if they so desire. So I see where you are going with your argument, but you cannot seriously compare our intelligence gathering methods with that of a brutal dictator's barbaric hobbies.

What you are missing is that it IS the same. Saddam tortured people whne it was in his interest, we are diong it for ours. It is better for the American people to get information from the terrorist, but you have to realize it is more complicated. I mean look at the "War on Terror". How do you combat an idea? It's just like the war on drugs, i mean how do you define waht a drug is? You can't fight terror, it is a tactic, we have used it. The atom bomb on Japan was us using violence to instill fear in the Japanese, and coerce them to do what we wanted. From our side, this was good, from theirs maybe not so good. While the war in Iraq is important, it is also important to look at our foriegn policy. You want to stop terrorist, you don't go invade countries and expect it to stop. The terroritst, and i mean the ones bombing us(there are serveral terrorist groups, not all of them even hate us), we need to start at the root of the problem. What would motivate someone to do something so horrible? I can promise you it starts somewhere, I think Syriana will give you an idea, it does a good job of showing the complication of the battle we are fighting. Torture is a tough issue also. I mean how do we fight terrorist? They dont apply to the geneva convention because they don't belong to a nation state and because they do not openly carry their arms. So, do we use the United States Judicial system? they arne't citizens here. What do we do? Almost every issue is this complicated, and these are things Bill and Anne don't talk about. You seem like a smart guy, and you are right about there being a lot of liberal crap, but make sure you aren't just reading conservative crap before you start talking.

[kennethagee]

Americans aren't terrorists. We are not deliberately targeting civillian populations or innocents. The geneva convention is in place to prevent that sort of thing during war time. We wouldn't torture prisoners of war. However, the geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists or foreign combatants. So if torturing them or using somewhat brutal methods to obtain vital information is necessary, then it is perfectly legal and we have an obligation to do so.


How can you tell if someone is a foreign combatant or if they are a civilian? Do you tihnk we don't even kill civilians?

[Jason Tate]

Americans aren't terrorists. We are not deliberately targeting civillian populations or innocents. The geneva convention is in place to prevent that sort of thing during war time. We wouldn't torture prisoners of war. However, the geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists or foreign combatants. So if torturing them or using somewhat brutal methods to obtain vital information is necessary, then it is perfectly legal and we have an obligation to do so.
Then I'm curious to why my marine friend's orders were: we will be "shooting any male of military age you see." He's in a helicopter, at night, he can't tell SHIT about what he's shooting at.

That sounds - well - fucked up to me.

[kennethagee]

Then I'm curious to why my marine friend's orders were we will be "shooting any male of military age you see." That sounds - well - fucked up to me.

Damn, yeah that is. Some people dont realize taht it's not just "America good, other people evil." We can do what we want in our interst, because hey, it's for American. what about when a county wants to do waht it thinks is right, and we don't?

[crayZbuzzard]

What you are missing is that it IS the same. Saddam tortured people whne it was in his interest, we are diong it for ours. It is better for the American people to get information from the terrorist, but you have to realize it is more complicated. I mean look at the "War on Terror". How do you combat an idea? It's just like the war on drugs, i mean how do you define waht a drug is? You can't fight terror, it is a tactic, we have used it. The atom bomb on Japan was us using violence to instill fear in the Japanese, and coerce them to do what we wanted. From our side, this was good, from theirs maybe not so good. While the war in Iraq is important, it is also important to look at our foriegn policy. You want to stop terrorist, you don't go invade countries and expect it to stop. The terroritst, and i mean the ones bombing us(there are serveral terrorist groups, not all of them even hate us), we need to start at the root of the problem. What would motivate someone to do something so horrible? I can promise you it starts somewhere, I think Syriana will give you an idea, it does a good job of showing the complication of the battle we are fighting. Torture is a tough issue also. I mean how do we fight terrorist? They dont apply to the geneva convention because they don't belong to a nation state and because they do not openly carry their arms. So, do we use the United States Judicial system? they arne't citizens here. What do we do? Almost every issue is this complicated, and these are things Bill and Anne don't talk about. You seem like a smart guy, and you are right about there being a lot of liberal crap, but make sure you aren't just reading conservative crap before you start talking.


Even if we understand the terrorists' motives and attempt to appease them, do you honestly think they will stop? I don't think they would ever stop. They live in a culture of violence. Their religion, or better yet how they interpret their religion, compels them to convert or kill anyone who is not a Muslim. I understand Islam is a religion of peace, and the majority of Muslims are practice their religion peacefully. However, everywhere you go in the world, you see that Muslims cannot cohabitate peacefully with members of other religions. If they don't get their way, radical members of their faith resort to terrorism. So, yeah I agree that the War on Terror is an ongoing fight and it will never end. And that is the same with the War on Drugs. However, we cannot stop fighting, we can't just lay down and take it, and we can't appease.

[Jason Tate]

Even if we understand the terrorists' motives and attempt to appease them, do you honestly think they will stop? I don't think they would ever stop. They live in a culture of violence. Their religion, or better yet how they interpret their religion, compels them to convert or kill anyone who is not a Muslim. I understand Islam is a religion of peace, and the majority of Muslims are practice their religion peacefully. However, everywhere you go in the world, you see that Muslims cannot cohabitate peacefully with members of other religions. If they don't get their way, radical members of their faith resort to terrorism. So, yeah I agree that the War on Terror is an ongoing fight and it will never end. And that is the same with the War on Drugs. However, we cannot stop fighting, we can't just lay down and take it, and we can't appease.
That sounds like a form of genocide to me. I'm sorry, but it just does.

And if the translation was correct, didn't Osama give us the exact things we had to do to have him stop attacking us (leaving certain places, stop supporting certain leaders)? I'll have to go hit up Google for this ...

It's not about lying down and taking it - it's about a combination of things that could lead to a better solution.

[kennethagee]

Even if we understand the terrorists' motives and attempt to appease them, do you honestly think they will stop? I don't think they would ever stop. They live in a culture of violence. Their religion, or better yet how they interpret their religion, compels them to convert or kill anyone who is not a Muslim. I understand Islam is a religion of peace, and the majority of Muslims are practice their religion peacefully. However, everywhere you go in the world, you see that Muslims cannot cohabitate peacefully with members of other religions. If they don't get their way, radical members of their faith resort to terrorism. So, yeah I agree that the War on Terror is an ongoing fight and it will never end. And that is the same with the War on Drugs. However, we cannot stop fighting, we can't just lay down and take it, and we can't appease.

I never said anything about appeasing them, you are right, that woudl be stupid as hell. We should change our foriegn policy to not feed the instability in teh region. There is a culture of violence, and we have fed it in the past. Afganistan is an example, we fueled them with weapons and training, and then left them, do you know what happened with we left? About 10 years of civil war. This is what breeds the terrorist, just like the invasion of Iraq, not matter how good, has and willl continue to breed more terrorist. It's time we stop expoiting the middle east for oil, money, and geopolitics. Expoiting the middle east in the past was great, with short term consequences. Look at the long term though. that is the main problem with a 4 year term, not saying we should shorten, we just need to get people in office who will look at the future and see what thier decisions might cause.

[hi5inferno]

This interview was great to me. I was wondering why the fuck Dave had someone like Bill O'Reilly on his show, but I saw why after just the first question. As if I didn't already have enough respect for David Letterman, he made a dumbass extremist like Bill O'Reilly look stupid on national television, and I bow down to him. Dave, you rock, keep doing what you're doing for as long as you can.
-nick-

[kennethagee]

That sounds like a form of genocide to me. I'm sorry, but it just does.

And if the translation was correct, didn't Osama give us the exact things we had to do to have him stop attacking us (leaving certain places, stop supporting certain leaders)? I'll have to go hit up Google for this ...

It's not about lying down and taking it - it's about a combination of things that could lead to a better solution.

Doubtful considering his motives. To force the United States to attack the middle east and make it look like we are attackign islam, so then all the people will overthrow their governments who he sees as puppets to the west adn then to restore the caliphate. but he may have made some demands. The worst is after the bombings in spain, al queda said attacks like this would continue in Europe unless countries withdrew their support, and they got what they wanted with a few countries. these countries should be ashamed, did they not learn from WWII?

[Jason Tate]

Doubtful considering his motives. To force the United States to attack the middle east and make it look like we are attackign islam, so then all the people will overthrow their governments who he sees as puppets to the west adn then to restore the caliphate. but he may have made some demands. The worst is after the bombings in spain, al queda said attacks like this would continue in Europe unless countries withdrew their support, and they got what they wanted with a few countries. these countries should be ashamed, did they not learn from WWII?
Yah, I was in Spain during that ... not fun at all.

[kennethagee]

Even if we understand the terrorists' motives and attempt to appease them, do you honestly think they will stop? I don't think they would ever stop. They live in a culture of violence. Their religion, or better yet how they interpret their religion, compels them to convert or kill anyone who is not a Muslim. I understand Islam is a religion of peace, and the majority of Muslims are practice their religion peacefully. However, everywhere you go in the world, you see that Muslims cannot cohabitate peacefully with members of other religions. If they don't get their way, radical members of their faith resort to terrorism. So, yeah I agree that the War on Terror is an ongoing fight and it will never end. And that is the same with the War on Drugs. However, we cannot stop fighting, we can't just lay down and take it, and we can't appease.

And i do respect you for talking about how islam is a peaceful relgion, the christians and the jews don't get along too well either, i'de say they all fight about the same. It was more than them not getting their way, they got kicked off their land! Where were they supposed to go? It was all becasue of Hitler too, it had nothing to do with them. and did you see that crazy christian nut on tv sayng that Sharon's heart attack was because god was mad that he was trying to divide his land? The extreme christians are pissed when the jews are trying to compomise. don't act like it's all on the muslims.

[apl.Tyler]

ann coulter may be possibly the worst person ever.
Ditto that one... the person who called em both amazing essentially is looking at these 2 futures: zeig heil would be the result of those two in charge.... or the repeat of the middle ages... you choose.

fuck o'reilly. he is a nut case. I suggest to people the book called "the oh really? factor"

its by a media watchdog and it proves that O'Reilly is truly full of shit on everything and that he isnt non-biased!

check it out

[kennethagee]

Yah, I was in Spain during that ... not fun at all.

Damn that would be nuts, though i am jealous you got to go there, i would love to. oh yeah, and i have to say it... OMG i'm talking to the one and only JASON TATE. haha, just had to let that out.

[Jason Tate]

I just did some research on the shit O'Reilly said in that interview (mostly xmas stuff that bugged me) - turns out Dave was right! He was lying about some of the shit he even said on his show ... what a fucking douche bag! It makes it all the more hillarious. I was like, "wow, that's fucked up; changed the silent night lyrics" - then I did the research, and yep: BILL WAS LYING!

[tjmvp9]

And i do respect you for talking about how islam is a peaceful relgion, the christians and the jews don't get along too well either, i'de say they all fight about the same. It was more than them not getting their way, they got kicked off their land! Where were they supposed to go? It was all becasue of Hitler too, it had nothing to do with them. and did you see that crazy christian nut on tv sayng that Sharon's heart attack was because god was mad that he was trying to divide his land? The extreme christians are pissed when the jews are trying to compomise. don't act like it's all on the muslims.

You make some good points. I just saw Munich tonight, and it raises similar issues. Although it is primarily concerned with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, some of the topics are more generally applicable across the board. Questions like: does it solve anything to respond to terrorist acts with more terrorism? Or does the volley of vengeance back and forth only make matters worse, creating a need on either side to respond with more force and greater hatred.

I think as an American it can be pretty tough to view the war on terror objectively. The 9/11 attacks are taken pretty personally by Americans, and I think that makes it even more difficult to see the other side of the argument.

There was an interesting article written in the New York Times Magazine about the philosopher behind many of the core ideas that drive Islamic fundamentalism. It also gave some interesting insight into their beliefs about America (and not just the typical "they hate our freedom" argument).


You can read it here:http://members.cox.net/slsturgi3/PhilosopherOfIslamicTerror.htm

[kennethagee]

I just did some research on the shit O'Reilly said in that interview (mostly xmas stuff that bugged me) - turns out Dave was right! He was lying about some of the shit he even said on his show ... what a fucking douche bag! It makes it all the more hillarious. I was like, "wow, that's fucked up" - then I did the research, and yep: BILL WAS LYING!

haha. all the people were saying that dave got owned because bill used examples and dave just said bill was full of crap. well, turns out bill got his has handed to him. i've always liked letterman over leno.

[Jason Tate]

You make some good points. I just saw Munich tonight, and it raises similar issues. Although it is primarily concerned with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, some of the topics are more generally applicable across the board. Questions like: does it solve anything to respond to terrorist acts with more terrorism? Or does the volley of vengeance back and forth only make matters worse, creating a need on either side to respond with more force and greater hatred.

I think as an American it can be pretty tough to view the war on terror objectively. The 9/11 attacks are taken pretty personally by Americans, and I think that makes it even more difficult to see the other side of the argument.

There was an interesting article written in the New York Times Magazine about the philosopher behind many of the core ideas that drive Islamic fundamentalism. It also gave some interesting insight into their beliefs about America (and not just the typical "they hate our freedom" argument).


You can read it here:http://members.cox.net/slsturgi3/PhilosopherOfIslamicTerror.htm
Good article, thanks.

[kennethagee]

You make some good points. I just saw Munich tonight, and it raises similar issues. Although it is primarily concerned with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, some of the topics are more generally applicable across the board. Questions like: does it solve anything to respond to terrorist acts with more terrorism? Or does the volley of vengeance back and forth only make matters worse, creating a need on either side to respond with more force and greater hatred.

I think as an American it can be pretty tough to view the war on terror objectively. The 9/11 attacks are taken pretty personally by Americans, and I think that makes it even more difficult to see the other side of the argument.

There was an interesting article written in the New York Times Magazine about the philosopher behind many of the core ideas that drive Islamic fundamentalism. It also gave some interesting insight into their beliefs about America (and not just the typical "they hate our freedom" argument).


You can read it here:http://members.cox.net/slsturgi3/PhilosopherOfIslamicTerror.htm

I really want to see that , i was very impressed with syriana, while some people said it was just liek michael moore, i thought they did a good job of not going to far one way or the other. anyways, i started reading taht but i'm too tired, i'll read it tomorrow, looks good so far. a book that i would recomend the most on tihs stuff would be America's secret war by George Friedman, not to be confused with Thomas Friedman. I just took a CIA congress class with an amazing teacher and that was one of our reads.

[kennethagee]

Also, this is kind of random, but the article said something about if al queda would have been able to have an alliance with Iraq. I just wanted to comment on how Iraq was, early in the war, connected with al queda, i was just thinking about how unlikely this would be. bin laden hated saddam. mostly because he was too secular, but also because he was a brutal dictator, and he saw him as being a puppet of the west.

[steve-0]

Christmas thing goes to Letterman. O'Reilly dominated everything else. Not really that funny in the first place.

[rufiocardtime]

Number one: Probably is way fucking smarter than me in politics and debate; I simply have a very big problem with how she chooses to use her intelligence. However, I bet I'd program the fuck outta her, and I would assume I'd hold my own in history and modern business as well. Intelligence is relative. Not to be a pompous asshole, but I saw her SATs (which are in no-way shape or form a good indicator of intelligence) on a website once ... they're not that impressive.

Number two: I don't watch Mauer or Letterman, so I'll take your word on them. As I've said, I am anti-both side's penchant for drumming up more hatred and division. As for Stewart, never once have I ever seen him interrupt or shut off someone's microphone while they were talking. I've seen Coulter and OReilly do it on multiple occasions. That's really my only point.

As for Ann defending her arguments - she does a good job on it up until you start doing some research into what she's actually saying, and how she's saying it. Debate tricks are something any high-school kid with acne can teach you, I'm more interested in the truth and the impact the truth has on my country. A good argument is nothing if not founded on good principle.

well let's just cut the crap...and get down to the bottom line with all this...

bill oreilly is very good at conversation, very composed, and very patient and very neutral. my problem with people cheering letterman on his bullshit remarks is that the american people are wrapped up in deception. they don't know fallacy when they hear it in a simple statement. yes...you learn about fallacy in a highschool debate class, but you could also learn about it in 10 minutes online. i've even heard you, mr. tate, bring up the classic straw man in different threads in arguments. but what letterman, and mauer, and stewart all do is use sarcasm as an argument as if it holds any sort of weight against what they are arguing. its a very childish tactic in arguing truth - but very popular amongst liberals and even people like rush limbaugh.

but the bottom line is...you feel that you have to hold onto this liberal ideology because it comes right down to your idea of God. based on everything you said, i'm gonna go ahead and assume that you really don't believe in a God because you believe in moral relativism and you do not believe in absolute moral truth. so although you are a very smart kid, it sounds like you've made a huge mistake on the most important question that man can ask: is there a God? once you can rationally establish that there is a god (which is indeed possible and is indeed the truth), you realize that there IS absolute truth and that most things ARE black and white - including morality. is it close minded? not at all. the only way we can come to this idea of absolute truth is by having an open mind to different possibilities and ask...does the supernatural exist? once you explore the evidence and the direction in which the evidence points, then you logically come to the conclusion of absolute truth. so please watch what you say about being close minded. many liberals are just as close minded as conservatives.

and although you're allowed freedom of religion in this country...you have to understand that this country was FOUNDED on the ideas buried under and within moral truth and NOT moral relativism. this foundation is what gives way to the very idea of the "freedom of religion". unfortunately (and it even becomes dangerous at times), liberals are slowly but surely trying to take away the whole basis under our constitution (and this issue has nothing to do with the separation of church and state). because quite frankly, if you can't legislate morality, then what can you legislate? and if we truly carry out the conclusion that moral relativism leads to, i feel sorry for the people that will live under it.

does that mean that conservatives hate liberals? no, i think it's quite more the frequent the other way around. (usually the argument behind this is the crazy ass people that hold banners that say "God hates ***s"...which hardly anyone believes even though it's exploited like a motherf*cker in the media as if it's common place in Christian America)

you said that you're "more interested in the truth and the impact the truth has on your country" as if people like oreilly and coulter don't. i think those guys are fighting for truth just as hard if not harder than anyone else. and the ONLY time they shut off people's microphones is when they get ridiculously emotionally and verbally out of hand to the point where civil discourse becomes nearly impossible. they don't do it to censor liberal arguments.

and founding arguments on good principle is great. unfortunately liberalism has no foundation for its principles. and within moral relativism (which is usually associated with liberalism), truth and principle is completely relative and your idea of a good principle is no better than anyone elses. the only thing you could logically base a moral principle in (in relativism) is the majority. you could use the majority's opinion as a basis for what's a sound "good" principle, but if we did that, we'd all still be living in a country with slavery. therefore, there's a TON of inconsistency with your whole philosophy.

[Russ Hockenbury]

As someone who was extremely liberal through my college years (18-22), lately I've grown tired of extremists on both ends. I'm only 23 now, but I can see the flaw in both ends of the political spectrum. The problem with each side is they tend to preach to the choir instead of truly going out and trying to convert the other.

I live in the "cultural epicenter" of Louisville. This neighborhood is home to the vast majority of artists, musicians, and free thinkers. Not surprisingly, it also has the highest concentration of democrats in the city. Ironically though, every Sunday people are out protesting the war on the street corner where all the beat poets gather for coffee. They ask for honks and of course they receive plenty. Truth be told, if they REALLY wanted to make a difference they'd take their protest to the other parts of the city that aren't so liberal. Why don't they? Perhaps they just like the sound of honking cars and agreement.

[9mmREGRET]

I spit water out of my nose reading that! :appl:

and by "this shit" i mean liberalism.

[Russ Hockenbury]

well let's just cut the crap...and get down to the bottom line with all this...

bill oreilly is very good at conversation, very composed, and very patient and very neutral. my problem with people cheering letterman on his bullshit remarks is that the american people are wrapped up in deception. they don't know fallacy when they hear it in a simple statement. yes...you learn about fallacy in a highschool debate class, but you could also learn about it in 10 minutes online. i've even heard you, mr. tate, bring up the classic straw man in different threads in arguments. but what letterman, and mauer, and stewart all do is use sarcasm as an argument as if it holds any sort of weight against what they are arguing. its a very childish tactic in arguing truth - but very popular amongst liberals and even people like rush limbaugh.

but the bottom line is...you feel that you have to hold onto this liberal ideology because it comes right down to your idea of God. based on everything you said, i'm gonna go ahead and assume that you really don't believe in a God because you believe in moral relativism and you do not believe in absolute moral truth. so although you are a very smart kid, it sounds like you've made a huge mistake on the most important question that man can ask: is there a God? once you can rationally establish that there is a god (which is indeed possible and is indeed the truth), you realize that there IS absolute truth and that most things ARE black and white - including morality. is it close minded? not at all. the only way we can come to this idea of absolute truth is by having an open mind to different possibilities and ask...does the supernatural exist? once you explore the evidence and the direction in which the evidence points, then you logically come to the conclusion of absolute truth. so please watch what you say about being close minded. many liberals are just as close minded as conservatives.

and although you're allowed freedom of religion in this country...you have to understand that this country was FOUNDED on the ideas buried under and within moral truth and NOT moral relativism. this foundation is what gives way to the very idea of the "freedom of religion". unfortunately (and it even becomes dangerous at times), liberals are slowly but surely trying to take away the whole basis under our constitution (and this issue has nothing to do with the separation of church and state). because quite frankly, if you can't legislate morality, then what can you legislate? and if we truly carry out the conclusion that moral relativism leads to, i feel sorry for the people that will live under it.

does that mean that conservatives hate liberals? no, i think it's quite more the frequent the other way around. (usually the argument behind this is the crazy ass people that hold banners that say "God hates ***s"...which hardly anyone believes even though it's exploited like a motherf*cker in the media as if it's common place in Christian America)

you said that you're "more interested in the truth and the impact the truth has on your country" as if people like oreilly and coulter don't. i think those guys are fighting for truth just as hard if not harder than anyone else. and the ONLY time they shut off people's microphones is when they get ridiculously emotionally and verbally out of hand to the point where civil discourse becomes nearly impossible. they don't do it to censor liberal arguments.

and founding arguments on good principle is great. unfortunately liberalism has no foundation for its principles. and within moral relativism (which is usually associated with liberalism), truth and principle is completely relative and your idea of a good principle is no better than anyone elses. the only thing you could logically base a moral principle in (in relativism) is the majority. you could use the majority's opinion as a basis for what's a sound "good" principle, but if we did that, we'd all still be living in a country with slavery. therefore, there's a TON of inconsistency with your whole philosophy.

You are what's wrong with America. There is NO fucking proof that there is a God. Where is it? A book? Religion in general is the greatest form of social control in the history of the world. It's what keeps society in check. It keeps the lower class low and the higher class high. Like it or not and regardless of personal beliefs, there is absolutely NO proof that God exists. Thus, the idea of faith.

Further, our society and its laws and ideals should not be based on whether or not there is a God. What evangelical, private "college" did you go to?

[rufiocardtime]

You are what's wrong with America. There is NO fucking proof that there is a God. Where is it? A book? Religion in general is the greatest form of social control in the history of the world. It's what keeps society in check. It keeps the lower class low and the higher class high. Like it or not and regardless of personal beliefs, there is absolutely NO proof that God exists. Thus, the idea of faith.

Further, our society and its laws and ideals should not be based on whether or not there is a God. What evangelical, private "college" did you go to?


look at how angry you get. you're obviously not very comfortable in your beliefs that you have to freak out on somebody that suggests an alternate view. if i had to guess why it makes you so angry ..it's because of the implications of what i just said. if there REALLY is a god (which there is)...then you wouldn't be able to be your own God anymore. the idea of God scares the sh*t out of you.

let me just ask you to prove that you are actually a real person? could you ABSOLUTELY prove it? no, you couldn't, because you can't absolutely prove anything. but you COULD beyond a shadow of a doubt "prove" it, as we say in our judicial system. you can do the same with discovering the existance of a god.

so i'll ask you, what kind of evidence COULD make you believe that there's a god? is there any? let me know and i'll be glad to offer some.

however, i'm doubting that you'd even accept all the evidence i could offer. why? because you have already closed your mind to the possibility of god's existance. therefore, no amount of evidence would ever convince you otherwise. thus, you are closed minded and you are EXACTLY what is wrong with the whole world. but i don't say that in a hypocritical way, because i say and do a lot of shitty things as well.

p.s. i don't go to church on a regular basis and i've never attended any private college or any college of a particular religious affiliation. in fact, i dropped out of college because i think it's a waste of time.

please tell me what our laws and ideals SHOULD be based on and please tell me what your personal laws and ideals are based on.

and i have another question for you: since someone OBVIOUSLY wrote the Bible to control society, please let me know who specifically wrote it, when they wrote it, and give me some sort of historical evidence that backs up your claim. thanks dude.

[Russ Hockenbury]

Someone has obviously had their freshman Philosophy class. You can't prove anything. I can't prove I'm real. You can't prove your real. However, I am more likely to "believe" that you and I are real than an unseen force in the universe. I can't prove his non-existence, just as much as you can't prove his existence. If we were getting downright technical, how could you disprove solipsism (nothing but the mind itself exists)? So yes, no one can prove anything.

What evidence do you have that there is a God? I'd REALLY be interested. I'm receptive, but knowing that you haven't stumbled upon his fortress in the sky and likely don't have documentation to support it, I don't think your evidence will be very convincing. Instead, you'll rely on stories of personal "miracles" and such. Which don't prove anything. If you have anything besides those, then by all means...shoot.

[rufiocardtime]

Someone has obviously had their freshman Philosophy class. You can't prove anything. I can't prove I'm real. You can't prove your real. However, I am more likely to "believe" that you and I are real than an unseen force in the universe. I can't prove his non-existence, just as much as you can't prove his existence. If we were getting downright technical, how could you disprove solipsism (nothing but the mind itself exists)? So yes, no one can prove anything.

What evidence do you have that there is a God? I'd REALLY be interested. I'm receptive, but knowing that you haven't stumbled upon his fortress in the sky and likely don't have documentation to support it, I don't think your evidence will be very convincing. Instead, you'll rely on stories of personal "miracles" and such. Which don't prove anything. If you have anything besides those, then by all means...shoot.

no, i've never taken a philosophy class. and no i won't try to give you personal antidotes of miracles that i've witnessed.

first of all, please answer my previous questions and please back up your original claims. or if you want to have a faster converation, AIM: emersizzle85.

i think one of the greatest discoveries of modern science is the fact that in einstein's time, we discovered that the universe is expanding. why is this essential? because it points to a BEGINNING of the universe. why is a beginning so important? well that means that it had to have started at some point. it came into "existance" at some point.

currently, every possible explanation for this existance can be reduced down to their bare minimum in 4 and ONLY 4 possibilities.

Philisophical naturalism - the worldview undergirding evolutionism - can provide 3 of the 4.

1. Solipsism: the universe is merely an illusion. This notion carries little weight in an age of scientific enlightenment. Plus, solipsists still look both ways before crossing the street.

2. The universe sprang from nothing. This proposition flies in the face of both the laws of cause and effect and enery conservation. As has been well said, "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could." The conditions that hold true in this universe prevent any possibility of matter springing out of nothing. It goes against the law of thermodynamics.

3. The universe has existed eternally. The law of entropy, which predicts that a universe that has eternally existed would have died an "eternity ago" of heat loss, devastates this hypothesis.

4. Something "supernatural" created the universe. Or as some like to say, it's the explanation found in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


Additionally to all that is the "watchmaker" argument. When you are inside a house, you can look around you and clearly realize that something MUST have designed it. It must have been created by something intelligent. This is the same condition we find ourselves in when looking at the universe and how it functions.

How's that? Do you need more?

Or do you want to make a David Letterman comment like "I have a feeling that 60% of what you say is crap" ?

[Nate_RAWKS]

Letterman has always been my favorite late night talk show host, i just love his humor.

that's all.....

[Russ Hockenbury]

4. Something "supernatural" created the universe. Or as some like to say, it's the explanation found in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


Additionally to all that is the "watchmaker" argument. When you are inside a house, you can look around you and clearly realize that something MUST have designed it. It must have been created by something intelligent. This is the same condition we find ourselves in when looking at the universe and how it functions.

How's that? Do you need more?

Or do you want to make a David Letterman comment like "I have a feeling that 60% of what you say is crap" ?


Oh my fucking Jesus (that was satirical), you did not just try to reason through the existence of God by jumping on that Intelligent Design garbage barge. Do you not see the inherent flaw in your #4 and the idea that the world is so complex that there must be a God? God explains too much without really explaining anything at all. It's like saying "just because".

In response to your original post, it is my idea that our government should work for ALL people. That is to say, those who do or do not believe in your God; regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Before jumping to your own conclusions, I am not gay nor do I have a lot of gay friends. I'd have no problem having a lot of gay friends, but in a city like Louisville, KY, they don't exactly feel all that welcome to be out and proud. I do happen to teach public school though and I see how people who think like you have sabotaged a generation with ill-advised political agendas.

If I had the answers to such questions as to when and who wrote the Bible, I really wouldn't spend my Saturdays posting on Ap.net messageboards. As much as I hate to pull out a cliche Marx quote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." is most likely the poignant statement you're looking for. If people believe there is a reward for being meek and obedient through this lifetime, they are less likely to be strong and rebel.

[rufiocardtime]

Oh my fucking Jesus (that was satirical), you did not just try to reason through the existence of God by jumping on that Intelligent Design garbage barge. Do you not see the inherent flaw in your #4 and the idea that the world is so complex that there must be a God? God explains too much without really explaining anything at all. It's like saying "just because".

In response to your original post, it is my idea that our government should work for ALL people. That is to say, those who do or do not believe in your God; regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Before jumping to your own conclusions, I am not gay nor do I have a lot of gay friends. I'd have no problem having a lot of gay friends, but in a city like Louisville, KY, they don't exactly feel all that welcome to be out and proud. I do happen to teach public school though and I see how people who think like you have sabotaged a generation with ill-advised political agendas.

If I had the answers to such questions as to when and who wrote the Bible, I really wouldn't spend my Saturdays posting on Ap.net messageboards. As much as I hate to pull out a cliche Marx quote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." is most likely the poignant statement your looking for. If people believe there is a reward for being meek and obedient through this lifetime, they are less likely to be strong and rebel.

ok. well, as i re-read what you just said about 50 times, i don't find a single argument against anything i've said. you basically took ONE of my arguments, re-wrote it, put a spin on it, and then told me that that was my argument, and then claimed that it was flawed. then you proceeded to tell me that i was ill-advised. you go on to say that you don't have a single defense to any of the claims that you've made, except you manage to pull out a quote from a communist dictator as if it holds any weight and sustains everything you've said.

which brings me all the way back to what i previously wrote, "you have already closed your mind to the possibility of god's existance. therefore, no amount of evidence would ever convince you otherwise."

p.s. plus your argument about the government working for ALL people doesn't exactly hold up. if it did, murderers would be able to kill anyone they like at anytime without punishment because they fall under the category of "ALL people"

the thing that bothers me most about this whole conversation is that you teach in a public school. how sad.

[Russ Hockenbury]

"Communist dictator"?!? Karl Marx? Marx was an idea man. His views were then bastardized into something that didn't at all reflect his ideals. In theory, socialism is an extremely attractive way of life. Thus, its roots in Utopian thought. It has never worked in practice, with the possible exception of Greenland.

[rufiocardtime]

"Communist dictator"?!? Karl Marx? Marx was an idea man. His views were then bastardized into something that didn't at all reflect his ideals. In theory, socialism is an extremely attractive way of life. Thus, its roots in Utopian thought. It has never worked in practice, with the possible exception of Greenland.


ahh. i apologize. i'm getting my 9th grade history class all hazy. he was the guy with the communist and socialist ideas that influenced communist dictators. right? that one is my mistake.

from what i can gather, socialism is a lot like friends with benefits. it looks really good on paper, in real life, it doesn't exactly "work".

[Russ Hockenbury]

Time for someone else to chime in. This two-way is losing its appeal.

[rufiocardtime]

Time for someone else to chime in. This two-way is losing its appeal.

haha wow it is so crazy how you hold truth in such very little esteem.

[osunfg]

i didnt read all freaking 15 pages of this thread, but there was 1 thing i kept thinking about: terrorists bomb women and children. hmmm, yes, yes, i see, i see. didnt we kind of do something like that in Japan, not once, but twice? i know this statement just yells unrelated and out of context, but in my mind its in the exact same boat.

[Russ Hockenbury]

haha wow it is so crazy how you hold truth in such very little esteem.

This is just becoming masturbatory. I want to hear others' thoughts. I'm reminded of an old, though very politically incorrect, quote I once saw on a Fenix TX messageboard.

"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

[rufiocardtime]

This is just becoming masturbatory. I want to hear others' thoughts. I'm reminded of an old, though very politically incorrect, quote I once saw on a Fenix TX messageboard.

"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

well you're a real person. i'm a real person. and you still have yet to make a single good argument against anything i've said. i guess you're just waiting for another angry atheist to pop in who's smarter than you?

welp. i gotta run. but i'll be back on tonight to see all the controversy.

[Russ Hockenbury]

Goddamn, you're ignorant...

What points have you made? You have made no points. At least I have come out with my personal beliefs. You haven't even done that. All you've done is criticize the beliefs of others and backed it up with one lone defense: God exists.

So far, all we've established is that neither of us can prove anything. Do you not see this as masturbatory? Oh, I forgot, you believe in the "Just Because" line of logic.

[Kyner]

This will never get old. In my opinion, it's one of the best moments in the history of late night talk shows.

John Stewart on Crossfire was better. O'Reilly is an asshole regardless of what your political affiliation is. He just bullies people on his show, unless they agree with his opinions. Then he goes around and sexually harasses women. Good guy.

[rufiocardtime]

Goddamn, you're ignorant...

What points have you made? You have made no points. At least I have come out with my personal beliefs. You haven't even done that. All you've done is criticize the beliefs of others and backed it up with one lone defense: God exists.

So far, all we've established is that neither of us can prove anything. Do you not see this as masturbatory? Oh, I forgot, you believe in the "Just Because" line of logic.

first of all, if nobody can reasonable establish anything, then there is no point in communication between anybody. but we find that things can be established, and although not proven 100%...proven to the point that the amount of faith it would take to be contrary is so slim that it's negligable and considered "true".
therefore, conversation and debate is not masturbatory and i don't really believe that you believe it is either. otherwise you wouldn't have said anything in the first place.

the line of logic i used in my argument was anything except "just because". You're just blatently ignoring the whole solid argument.

i stated that god exists. i gave you evidence of how you can tell that he exists. and you've state that god doesn't exist but given no reason why. this "you can't prove" anything argument does not fly (as i just showed you two paragraphs above). that's been your ONLY argument the whole time. which wouldn't make you an atheist, but rather an agnostic. but i think it's ironic how you have this idea of how things "ought" to be and some inherent idea of justice as if there is cruelty and unjustice in the world. how have you gotten this idea of "just" and "unjust". a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. if this whole universe is senseless from beginning to end, then why are you in such a reaction to it? you COULD give up your idea of how things ought to be by simply saying that it's nothing but a private idea of your own, but if you did that, then it would be self-defeating - because it depends on you admitting that the world really SHOULD be a certain way, and not that it simply doesn't please you. in the very act of trying to show that God doesn't exist (that the whole of reality is senseless), you are forced to assume that one part of reality (particularly your idea of the way things ought to be) is full of sense. consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple: if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning - just as if there were no light in the universe, we should never know it was dark. the term "dark" would be without meaning.

[CorporateFish]

Haha thats so great..

[Russ Hockenbury]

It's masturbatory in the sense that I'm not going to sway you and you're not going to sway me. It goes back to my original post in this thread about extremists on both sides. It gets to be a little irritating is all.

You have not given any evidence that God exists. Looking at the innerworkings of a cell (the entire idea behind Intelligent Design) and saying that it's so complex that there has to be a creator is no evidence that there is. It's essentially admitting we have no idea. I didn't create that mountain, you didn't create that mountain, therefore God created that mountain. Is that not your path of reasoning? If it isn't, please correct me.

You're obviously not ignorant. Believe what you want to believe. Yes, you are right, I am agnostic. I assure you I've been for a long time and didn't just happen to jump on the Myspace-related trend of it all. Apathy, while uncool in politics these days, seems to be the way to go when it comes to God and that's unfortunate. I like to think for myself. I seldom take things at face value. Just because someone says there is a God, doesn't mean that there is. Just because I've never seen or heard a God, doesn't mean that there isn't.

Further, it is my idea that whether or not there is a God should not play a role in our government. You're twisting my words by saying that murders and rapists fall under the blanket of "ALL" people. I may not necessarily believe in God like you, but that doesn't make me an immoral person. You know that I mean minorities of all kinds and not just the white, Christian, middle to upper class.

[kennethagee]

well let's just cut the crap...and get down to the bottom line with all this...

bill oreilly is very good at conversation, very composed, and very patient and very neutral. my problem with people cheering letterman on his bullshit remarks is that the american people are wrapped up in deception. they don't know fallacy when they hear it in a simple statement. yes...you learn about fallacy in a highschool debate class, but you could also learn about it in 10 minutes online. i've even heard you, mr. tate, bring up the classic straw man in different threads in arguments. but what letterman, and mauer, and stewart all do is use sarcasm as an argument as if it holds any sort of weight against what they are arguing. its a very childish tactic in arguing truth - but very popular amongst liberals and even people like rush limbaugh.

but the bottom line is...you feel that you have to hold onto this liberal ideology because it comes right down to your idea of God. based on everything you said, i'm gonna go ahead and assume that you really don't believe in a God because you believe in moral relativism and you do not believe in absolute moral truth. so although you are a very smart kid, it sounds like you've made a huge mistake on the most important question that man can ask: is there a God? once you can rationally establish that there is a god (which is indeed possible and is indeed the truth), you realize that there IS absolute truth and that most things ARE black and white - including morality. is it close minded? not at all. the only way we can come to this idea of absolute truth is by having an open mind to different possibilities and ask...does the supernatural exist? once you explore the evidence and the direction in which the evidence points, then you logically come to the conclusion of absolute truth. so please watch what you say about being close minded. many liberals are just as close minded as conservatives.

and although you're allowed freedom of religion in this country...you have to understand that this country was FOUNDED on the ideas buried under and within moral truth and NOT moral relativism. this foundation is what gives way to the very idea of the "freedom of religion". unfortunately (and it even becomes dangerous at times), liberals are slowly but surely trying to take away the whole basis under our constitution (and this issue has nothing to do with the separation of church and state). because quite frankly, if you can't legislate morality, then what can you legislate? and if we truly carry out the conclusion that moral relativism leads to, i feel sorry for the people that will live under it.

does that mean that conservatives hate liberals? no, i think it's quite more the frequent the other way around. (usually the argument behind this is the crazy ass people that hold banners that say "God hates ***s"...which hardly anyone believes even though it's exploited like a motherf*cker in the media as if it's common place in Christian America)

you said that you're "more interested in the truth and the impact the truth has on your country" as if people like oreilly and coulter don't. i think those guys are fighting for truth just as hard if not harder than anyone else. and the ONLY time they shut off people's microphones is when they get ridiculously emotionally and verbally out of hand to the point where civil discourse becomes nearly impossible. they don't do it to censor liberal arguments.

and founding arguments on good principle is great. unfortunately liberalism has no foundation for its principles. and within moral relativism (which is usually associated with liberalism), truth and principle is completely relative and your idea of a good principle is no better than anyone elses. the only thing you could logically base a moral principle in (in relativism) is the majority. you could use the majority's opinion as a basis for what's a sound "good" principle, but if we did that, we'd all still be living in a country with slavery. therefore, there's a TON of inconsistency with your whole philosophy.

Bill is composed? What about "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! TURN OFF HIS MIC"? I'm glad you were brainwashed as a child, it really helps everyone.

[kennethagee]

look at how angry you get. you're obviously not very comfortable in your beliefs that you have to freak out on somebody that suggests an alternate view. if i had to guess why it makes you so angry ..it's because of the implications of what i just said. if there REALLY is a god (which there is)...then you wouldn't be able to be your own God anymore. the idea of God scares the sh*t out of you.

let me just ask you to prove that you are actually a real person? could you ABSOLUTELY prove it? no, you couldn't, because you can't absolutely prove anything. but you COULD beyond a shadow of a doubt "prove" it, as we say in our judicial system. you can do the same with discovering the existance of a god.

so i'll ask you, what kind of evidence COULD make you believe that there's a god? is there any? let me know and i'll be glad to offer some.

however, i'm doubting that you'd even accept all the evidence i could offer. why? because you have already closed your mind to the possibility of god's existance. therefore, no amount of evidence would ever convince you otherwise. thus, you are closed minded and you are EXACTLY what is wrong with the whole world. but i don't say that in a hypocritical way, because i say and do a lot of shitty things as well.

p.s. i don't go to church on a regular basis and i've never attended any private college or any college of a particular religious affiliation. in fact, i dropped out of college because i think it's a waste of time.

please tell me what our laws and ideals SHOULD be based on and please tell me what your personal laws and ideals are based on.

and i have another question for you: since someone OBVIOUSLY wrote the Bible to control society, please let me know who specifically wrote it, when they wrote it, and give me some sort of historical evidence that backs up your claim. thanks dude.

Okay, since you can't prove anything, that means there must be a God. That is just plain dumb. I'm not saying there isn't a God, but yuo just admitted taht it cannot be proved, and it can't be proved, and that doesn't mean there is one, that is the dumbest argument for a god i've ever heard.

[kennethagee]

ok. well, as i re-read what you just said about 50 times, i don't find a single argument against anything i've said. you basically took ONE of my arguments, re-wrote it, put a spin on it, and then told me that that was my argument, and then claimed that it was flawed. then you proceeded to tell me that i was ill-advised. you go on to say that you don't have a single defense to any of the claims that you've made, except you manage to pull out a quote from a communist dictator as if it holds any weight and sustains everything you've said.

which brings me all the way back to what i previously wrote, "you have already closed your mind to the possibility of god's existance. therefore, no amount of evidence would ever convince you otherwise."

p.s. plus your argument about the government working for ALL people doesn't exactly hold up. if it did, murderers would be able to kill anyone they like at anytime without punishment because they fall under the category of "ALL people"

the thing that bothers me most about this whole conversation is that you teach in a public school. how sad.

Actually he showed how number 4 is flawed, and how saying there is a creater actually doesn't answer a damn thing, it just makes more questions. First who is this God, and even more, where the hell did God coem from? If God could have just started from nowhere, why couldn't the Universe have?

[kennethagee]

first of all, if nobody can reasonable establish anything, then there is no point in communication between anybody. but we find that things can be established, and although not proven 100%...proven to the point that the amount of faith it would take to be contrary is so slim that it's negligable and considered "true".
therefore, conversation and debate is not masturbatory and i don't really believe that you believe it is either. otherwise you wouldn't have said anything in the first place.

the line of logic i used in my argument was anything except "just because". You're just blatently ignoring the whole solid argument.

i stated that god exists. i gave you evidence of how you can tell that he exists. and you've state that god doesn't exist but given no reason why. this "you can't prove" anything argument does not fly (as i just showed you two paragraphs above). that's been your ONLY argument the whole time. which wouldn't make you an atheist, but rather an agnostic. but i think it's ironic how you have this idea of how things "ought" to be and some inherent idea of justice as if there is cruelty and unjustice in the world. how have you gotten this idea of "just" and "unjust". a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. if this whole universe is senseless from beginning to end, then why are you in such a reaction to it? you COULD give up your idea of how things ought to be by simply saying that it's nothing but a private idea of your own, but if you did that, then it would be self-defeating - because it depends on you admitting that the world really SHOULD be a certain way, and not that it simply doesn't please you. in the very act of trying to show that God doesn't exist (that the whole of reality is senseless), you are forced to assume that one part of reality (particularly your idea of the way things ought to be) is full of sense. consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple: if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning - just as if there were no light in the universe, we should never know it was dark. the term "dark" would be without meaning.

How ignorant are youu? Athiesm doesn't equal nihilism, and no I'm not an anthiest. Athiesm isn't too simple either, I'de say Christianity is too simple. It answer the question where did we come from with from a God. Now, this sounds lke an answer, and you know it all works well untill you take two seconds out of your life to question it. where did god come from? What you dont realize, and what makes you an idiot, is taht you think you can assume you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and therefor you political views are all right, when in fact, they aren't. Do you think all liberals are atheist or anti-christians? Also, there can be morals without God. I'm agnostic, but you knwo what? I still believe in morals, and I consider myself to have pretty high ones. Also, even through all your "argument" about how there must be a god, which was a joke by the way, even if it did ring true, why do you think it would have to be the Christian god? I mean, i know you think so because you think you are right adn everyone else is wrong, but that is crap.
Now, with that said, i can be tolerant to your ideas, but you need to get taht 'I'm right and you are wrong" shit out of your head and learn to be more open minded and tolerant of other people's views. I'll laugh someday when you are in hell with me, while the mormans are all looking down at us like the fools we are...

[tjmvp9]

I really want to see that , i was very impressed with syriana, while some people said it was just liek michael moore, i thought they did a good job of not going to far one way or the other.

I was impressed with Syriana as well, in how it presented the complexity of the conflict over oil in the Middle East, while remaining fairly objective. I applaud both Syriana and Munich for taking on tough issues, and ultimately aspiring to encourage discussion and debate, rather than ram one side of an issue down the audience's throat. Spielberg, in an interview with Roger Ebert, says, "I do know that the dialogue needs to be louder than the weapons," and I think these two movies are a good start.

anyways, i started reading taht but i'm too tired, i'll read it tomorrow, looks good so far. a book that i would recomend the most on tihs stuff would be America's secret war by George Friedman, not to be confused with Thomas Friedman. I just took a CIA congress class with an amazing teacher and that was one of our reads.

Nice, I actually just finished the Thomas Friedman book. I'll have to check the other Friedman out as well.

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

umm O'reilly pwnd letterman.

"watch it for a half an hour you'll get addicted and we'll send you a hat." genius

[rufiocardtime]

dear kennethagee,

learn to stop name calling, learn to listen, and learn what emotional intelligence is.
i've obviously done way more thought and research on the subject then you have. you haven't offered up any sort of valuable information or any valid arguments about this whole issue.

you really haven't payed attention to the logic and you haven't really listened to the arguments that i made at all. in fact, i don't think you really payed attention to what i said at all. and i really don't think you were trying to understand a damn word i said. it's obvious that after you started reading, your brain shut off and you picked out the parts that you wanted to use - you know, kind of like what people like to do with the Bible...take out bits and peices of a whole and then claim it as their own - whatever is inconvenient they dispose of.

you're right though. logically we come to number 4: a creator or creator(s). from there you keep examing the evidence and following where it points. i could keep going all day about it, but you went into this claiming that i've been brainwashed, so obviously you have the truth sir and you don't need it from me. let's hear it. let's hear the truth and let's hear a few solid arguments about why it's the truth and why i am so mislead. give me your best explanation about the existance of the universe. give me anything... historical evidence, empirical evidence, scientific evidence, or any clear logic will do. both of you guys have made a bunch of claims that neither of you have backed up AT ALL. i've made many claims and backed up all of them and you guys simply don't even read them or seek to understand what i've wrote in its entirety.

you've tried to attack me rather than the idea i presented itself. you've tried to attack the idea by clearly not following the logic which i spelled out VERY clearly. (a child could follow it with any attentiveness).

i also just wanted to add that nobody created God. if there is a God and he created the universe, with time as a clear element within the universe, then God MUST exist outside of time. causality can only exist within time. therefore, outside of time, there is no causality. nothing would "cause" God to exist. he's eternal. he always has and always will exist. nothing existed before him and nothing will exist after him.

or if you want a crazy video to watch with some incredibly muslim dude talking about the idea of God...

check it: http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=qrrszSmP_ps&search=god

i'm not muslim, but i don't care, because he still argues how you come to realize the existance of god and part of his nature through einstein's theory of relativity.

[Jason Tate]

first of all, if nobody can reasonable establish anything, then there is no point in communication between anybody. but we find that things can be established, and although not proven 100%...proven to the point that the amount of faith it would take to be contrary is so slim that it's negligable and considered "true".
therefore, conversation and debate is not masturbatory and i don't really believe that you believe it is either. otherwise you wouldn't have said anything in the first place.

the line of logic i used in my argument was anything except "just because". You're just blatently ignoring the whole solid argument.

i stated that god exists. i gave you evidence of how you can tell that he exists. and you've state that god doesn't exist but given no reason why. this "you can't prove" anything argument does not fly (as i just showed you two paragraphs above). that's been your ONLY argument the whole time. which wouldn't make you an atheist, but rather an agnostic. but i think it's ironic how you have this idea of how things "ought" to be and some inherent idea of justice as if there is cruelty and unjustice in the world. how have you gotten this idea of "just" and "unjust". a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. if this whole universe is senseless from beginning to end, then why are you in such a reaction to it? you COULD give up your idea of how things ought to be by simply saying that it's nothing but a private idea of your own, but if you did that, then it would be self-defeating - because it depends on you admitting that the world really SHOULD be a certain way, and not that it simply doesn't please you. in the very act of trying to show that God doesn't exist (that the whole of reality is senseless), you are forced to assume that one part of reality (particularly your idea of the way things ought to be) is full of sense. consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple: if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning - just as if there were no light in the universe, we should never know it was dark. the term "dark" would be without meaning.
I'm glad others ripped into you earlier, it makes it much easier to just read and not respond. If you're ever willing to look into the mathmatics and physics behind some of your arguments (and if you think you can follow me) I'll be more then willing to explain a few things to you. As for much of your "argument" - it's inherently flawed from almost every angle. The only thing I'll say right now is that I don't think your belief in your God should give you the right to decide how to run my country; furthermore, it gives you no right to run the country of other men who believe in a far different image of God.

[Jason Tate]

dear kennethagee,

learn to stop name calling, learn to listen, and learn what emotional intelligence is.
i've obviously done way more thought and research on the subject then you have. you haven't offered up any sort of valuable information or any valid arguments about this whole issue.

you really haven't payed attention to the logic and you haven't really listened to the arguments that i made at all. in fact, i don't think you really payed attention to what i said at all. and i really don't think you were trying to understand a damn word i said. it's obvious that after you started reading, your brain shut off and you picked out the parts that you wanted to use - you know, kind of like what people like to do with the Bible...take out bits and peices of a whole and then claim it as their own - whatever is inconvenient they dispose of.

you're right though. logically we come to number 4: a creator or creator(s). from there you keep examing the evidence and following where it points. i could keep going all day about it, but you went into this claiming that i've been brainwashed, so obviously you have the truth sir and you don't need it from me. let's hear it. let's hear the truth and let's hear a few solid arguments about why it's the truth and why i am so mislead. give me your best explanation about the existance of the universe. give me anything... historical evidence, empirical evidence, scientific evidence, or any clear logic will do. both of you guys have made a bunch of claims that neither of you have backed up AT ALL. i've made many claims and backed up all of them and you guys simply don't even read them or seek to understand what i've wrote in its entirety.

you've tried to attack me rather than the idea i presented itself. you've tried to attack the idea by clearly not following the logic which i spelled out VERY clearly. (a child could follow it with any attentiveness).

i also just wanted to add that nobody created God. if there is a God and he created the universe, with time as a clear element within the universe, then God MUST exist outside of time. causality can only exist within time. therefore, outside of time, there is no causality. nothing would "cause" God to exist. he's eternal. he always has and always will exist. nothing existed before him and nothing will exist after him.

or if you want a crazy video to watch with some incredibly muslim dude talking about the idea of God...

check it: http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=qrrszSmP_ps&search=god

i'm not muslim, but i don't care, because he still argues how you come to realize the existance of god and part of his nature through einstein's theory of relativity.
As someone who's studied relativity since I was in 6th grade (yes, you read that right) I am laughing my ass off at your last statement. I think you've invalidated almost every post you've ever made for me ...

Eitherway a teenager with pre-calc could make you look like a fool right now, I'm going to let it go because I'd rather have you continue viewing my website and not leave because of politics.

[Jason Tate]

umm O'reilly pwnd letterman.

"watch it for a half an hour you'll get addicted and we'll send you a hat." genius
If by "pwned" you mean, "lied" - then I suppose. Of course, I could sit here and spout off "facts" that are completely misleading if not blatant known LIES in order to attempt to drum up emotions over Christmas - but I'll leave that to Bill.

[Jason Tate]

well let's just cut the crap...and get down to the bottom line with all this...

bill oreilly is very good at conversation, very composed, and very patient and very neutral. my problem with people cheering letterman on his bullshit remarks is that the american people are wrapped up in deception. they don't know fallacy when they hear it in a simple statement. yes...you learn about fallacy in a highschool debate class, but you could also learn about it in 10 minutes online. i've even heard you, mr. tate, bring up the classic straw man in different threads in arguments. but what letterman, and mauer, and stewart all do is use sarcasm as an argument as if it holds any sort of weight against what they are arguing. its a very childish tactic in arguing truth - but very popular amongst liberals and even people like rush limbaugh.

but the bottom line is...you feel that you have to hold onto this liberal ideology because it comes right down to your idea of God. based on everything you said, i'm gonna go ahead and assume that you really don't believe in a God because you believe in moral relativism and you do not believe in absolute moral truth. so although you are a very smart kid, it sounds like you've made a huge mistake on the most important question that man can ask: is there a God? once you can rationally establish that there is a god (which is indeed possible and is indeed the truth), you realize that there IS absolute truth and that most things ARE black and white - including morality. is it close minded? not at all. the only way we can come to this idea of absolute truth is by having an open mind to different possibilities and ask...does the supernatural exist? once you explore the evidence and the direction in which the evidence points, then you logically come to the conclusion of absolute truth. so please watch what you say about being close minded. many liberals are just as close minded as conservatives.

and although you're allowed freedom of religion in this country...you have to understand that this country was FOUNDED on the ideas buried under and within moral truth and NOT moral relativism. this foundation is what gives way to the very idea of the "freedom of religion". unfortunately (and it even becomes dangerous at times), liberals are slowly but surely trying to take away the whole basis under our constitution (and this issue has nothing to do with the separation of church and state). because quite frankly, if you can't legislate morality, then what can you legislate? and if we truly carry out the conclusion that moral relativism leads to, i feel sorry for the people that will live under it.

does that mean that conservatives hate liberals? no, i think it's quite more the frequent the other way around. (usually the argument behind this is the crazy ass people that hold banners that say "God hates ***s"...which hardly anyone believes even though it's exploited like a motherf*cker in the media as if it's common place in Christian America)

you said that you're "more interested in the truth and the impact the truth has on your country" as if people like oreilly and coulter don't. i think those guys are fighting for truth just as hard if not harder than anyone else. and the ONLY time they shut off people's microphones is when they get ridiculously emotionally and verbally out of hand to the point where civil discourse becomes nearly impossible. they don't do it to censor liberal arguments.

and founding arguments on good principle is great. unfortunately liberalism has no foundation for its principles. and within moral relativism (which is usually associated with liberalism), truth and principle is completely relative and your idea of a good principle is no better than anyone elses. the only thing you could logically base a moral principle in (in relativism) is the majority. you could use the majority's opinion as a basis for what's a sound "good" principle, but if we did that, we'd all still be living in a country with slavery. therefore, there's a TON of inconsistency with your whole philosophy.
I'll just inform you right now, even though it's none of your business, that I was raised in a very Christian household (of politically liberal minds). Believing in God and believing in "morals" are so far from the same thing I can't even fathom how you'd look at them as synchronous. Your attitude is as if an atheist or agnostic or Buddhist is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. I'm sorry, but that'd ludicrous.

I have studied eastern-philosophy for almost 15 years, I have a black-belt in Kung Fu and Tang So Do; I have my Eagle Scout from the Boy Scouts of America. I was raised on values, morals, and the understanding of right and wrong (probably with more vigor then you ever were). However, I was also raised to understand the very basics of human choice, human thought, and the ability (and gift) of reason. If there are only two absolutes, there are only the rich and poor, there are only the good and bad. We can't allow this kind of thinking to strangle the evolutionary steps of the mind. It pains me to see yet another youth who clings to the idea of only two-sides; these are the ideas that have cause pain, suffering, and mass destruction in the past. I only pray there are less with your mentality so we can sidestep the pitfalls of history.

If you're interested in looking from a psychiatrist level about who understand "morals" and "right/wrong" - I recommend the book, "Bush on the Couch" - you may be shocked.

I'll leave you only with this - if everything was really, "Black/White" - there would have been no reason for Jesus to walk on this earth and flip everything people thought they knew about God on its head. I could sit here and explain how the morals are important, but are in varying shades of gray - but you only have to open up your Bible for a lesson on that ... the ability for "gray" is what allows forgiveness and is the fundamental for grace.

[rufiocardtime]

I'll just inform you right now, even though it's none of your business, that I was raised in a very Christian household (of politically liberal minds). Believing in God and believing in "morals" are so far from the same thing I can't even fathom how you'd look at them as synchronous. Your attitude is as if an atheist or agnostic or Buddhist is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. I'm sorry, but that'd ludicrous.

I have studied eastern-philosophy for almost 15 years, I have a black-belt in Kung Fu and Tang So Do; I have my Eagle Scout from the Boy Scouts of America. I was raised on values, morals, and the understanding of right and wrong (probably with more vigor then you ever were). However, I was also raised to understand the very basics of human choice, human thought, and the ability (and gift) of reason. If there are only two absolutes, there are only the rich and poor, there are only the good and bad. We can't allow this kind of thinking to strangle the evolutionary steps of the mind. It pains me to see yet another youth who clings to the idea of only two-sides; these are the ideas that have cause pain, suffering, and mass destruction in the past. I only pray there are less with your mentality so we can sidestep the pitfalls of history.

If you're interested in looking from a psychiatrist level about who understand "morals" and "right/wrong" - I recommend the book, "Bush on the Couch" - you may be shocked.

I'll leave you only with this - if everything was really, "Black/White" - there would have been no reason for Jesus to walk on this earth and flip everything people thought they knew about God on its head. I could sit here and explain how the morals are important, but are in varying shades of gray - but you only have to open up your Bible for a lesson on that... the ability for "gray" is what allows forgiveness and is the fundamental for grace.


You've GOT to be joking if you seriously think those two guys ripped into me? Did you even read what they wrote???

I've never made the claim that a belief in God gives me the right to run the country. However, neither does your disbelief in a God. Thank you for stating the obvious.

Also, I DO think that no matter what belief you ascribe to, everyone is able to distinguish between right and wrong. I've NEVER stated anything that would suggest otherwise.

Obviously you don't understand too much about orthodox Christianity. If you did, you would know that, according the Bible, God's law IS absolute (black and white) and not shades of gray. Additionally, Jesus Christ did NOT flip around the idea of God in the slightest bit. He WAS God made flesh. He fulfilled the idea of God that had always been. To describe the Lord's forgiveness in "shades of gray" is ridiculous. That would be an idea that you did not find in ANY Christian ideology and CERTAINLY not in the Bible.

"Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me shall not perish but have eternal life." There is no shades of gray in that.

Please find me any reference in the Bible that suggests the Lord speaking in "shades of gray". Anything. Please.

As for relativity, watch the video I posted in reference to what I was saying, then talk.

And I'll ask you to, please, instead of just claiming that my argument is "flawed", please use your head and your words to describe how and why it is flawed (if you truly believe that it is). While you're at it, please try not to create a bunch of fallacious arguments in the process. It would save us a lot of time in disecting every single sentence.

My one question to you is do you ascribe the notion of absolute truth in the universe?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do. It is a clear and reasonable question.

[Russ Hockenbury]

You've GOT to be joking if you seriously think those two guys ripped into me? Did you even read what they wrote???

I've never made the claim that a belief in God gives me the right to run the country. However, neither does your disbelief in a God. Thank you for stating the obvious.

Also, I DO think that no matter what belief you ascribe to, everyone is able to distinguish between right and wrong. I've NEVER stated anything that would suggest otherwise.

Obviously you don't understand too much about orthodox Christianity. If you did, you would know that, according the Bible, God's law IS absolute (black and white) and not shades of gray. Additionally, Jesus Christ did NOT flip around the idea of God in the slightest bit. He WAS God made flesh. He fulfilled the idea of God that had always been. To describe the Lord's forgiveness in "shades of gray" is ridiculous. That would be an idea that you did not find in ANY Christian ideology and CERTAINLY not in the Bible.

"Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me shall not perish but have eternal life." There is no shades of gray in that.

Please find me any reference in the Bible that suggests the Lord speaking in "shades of gray". Anything. Please.

As for relativity, watch the video I posted in reference to what I was saying, then talk.

And I'll ask you to, please, instead of just claiming that my argument is "flawed", please use your head and your words to describe how and why it is flawed (if you truly believe that it is). While you're at it, please try not to create a bunch of fallacious arguments in the process. It would save us a lot of time in disecting every single sentence.

My one question to you is do you ascribe the notion of absolute truth in the universe?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do. It is a clear and reasonable question.


You're a very sick young man.

[rufiocardtime]

You're a very sick young man.

which is exactly the kind of things people call other people when they aren't smart enough to engage in healthy debate...

i've never seen people get so worked up over dialogue... that their BEST reply is calling names like a f*cking 1st grader. why are you teaching kids in school? you seriously are NO smarter than any of them. it's like the blind leading the blind.

[kennethagee]

dear kennethagee,

learn to stop name calling, learn to listen, and learn what emotional intelligence is.
i've obviously done way more thought and research on the subject then you have. you haven't offered up any sort of valuable information or any valid arguments about this whole issue.

you really haven't payed attention to the logic and you haven't really listened to the arguments that i made at all. in fact, i don't think you really payed attention to what i said at all. and i really don't think you were trying to understand a damn word i said. it's obvious that after you started reading, your brain shut off and you picked out the parts that you wanted to use - you know, kind of like what people like to do with the Bible...take out bits and peices of a whole and then claim it as their own - whatever is inconvenient they dispose of.

you're right though. logically we come to number 4: a creator or creator(s). from there you keep examing the evidence and following where it points. i could keep going all day about it, but you went into this claiming that i've been brainwashed, so obviously you have the truth sir and you don't need it from me. let's hear it. let's hear the truth and let's hear a few solid arguments about why it's the truth and why i am so mislead. give me your best explanation about the existance of the universe. give me anything... historical evidence, empirical evidence, scientific evidence, or any clear logic will do. both of you guys have made a bunch of claims that neither of you have backed up AT ALL. i've made many claims and backed up all of them and you guys simply don't even read them or seek to understand what i've wrote in its entirety.

you've tried to attack me rather than the idea i presented itself. you've tried to attack the idea by clearly not following the logic which i spelled out VERY clearly. (a child could follow it with any attentiveness).

i also just wanted to add that nobody created God. if there is a God and he created the universe, with time as a clear element within the universe, then God MUST exist outside of time. causality can only exist within time. therefore, outside of time, there is no causality. nothing would "cause" God to exist. he's eternal. he always has and always will exist. nothing existed before him and nothing will exist after him.

or if you want a crazy video to watch with some incredibly muslim dude talking about the idea of God...

check it: http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=qrrszSmP_ps&search=god

i'm not muslim, but i don't care, because he still argues how you come to realize the existance of god and part of his nature through einstein's theory of relativity.

You are very wrong. I haven't claimed anything, I never said there was or wasn't a god, so what evidence do I need if I'm not tryign to prove anything. I'm saying the question is unsolvable. Nobody created God? Fine, believe that, I don't care, but you have no evidence of any kind to support that. You are right though, you know how the universe was created and everything. I love when people use fake logic to explain the unexplainable.

[kennethagee]

which is exactly the kind of things people call other people when they aren't smart enough to engage in healthy debate...

i've never seen people get so worked up over dialogue... that their BEST reply is calling names like a f*cking 1st grader. why are you teaching kids in school? you seriously are NO smarter than any of them. it's like the blind leading the blind.


You are right, we just aren't smart enough for you.

[kennethagee]

omg, i'm watchign this video, he actually used the watchmaker argument, that argument is terrible.

[kennethagee]

This guys arguemts aren't logical, he just makes them sound like they are. Seriously, it's like i'm watchign bowling for columbine.

[Ambulance X]

Bill kicked his ass in that debate

[rufiocardtime]

This guys arguemts aren't logical, he just makes them sound like they are.

do you listen to yourself? listen to that exact phrase. re-read it about 10 times and see if you can pick up on how ridiculous that sounds.

because the creation of the universe is - by your perspective "unexplainable" - because it cannot be proven 100%, i would really like to hear what IS explainable in the universe (anything?)...since...nothing can be proven 100%, right?

[1000shadesofred]

i dont think letterman won anything... bill oreilly is much smart and much more education in subjects like this than letterman... but also, because of that much information given to bill, he is much more corrupt... so either way i dont think letterman proved any good points, bills not so bad in my book, hes just passionate and a little corrupt