Cut and run O'Reilly?

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ASAP means exactly what it has always meant. The plan has not changed, and neither has OR's belief in that plan.

Buahahaha!!! :laugh:

• The plan is to get Saddam's WMD's.
  
  What??? No WMD's??? Oops. Sorry.
  
• The plan is to get Saddam's nukes.
  
  What??? No nukes??? Oops. Sorry.
  
• The plan is to break up Saddam's close ties with Al Qaeda.
  
  What??? He had no ties to Al Qaeda? Sorry. But at least they're in Iraq, now, so that's a good reason to stay.
  
• The plan is to use Iraq's own oil revenues to pay for the war.
  
  What??? The revenues aren't close to covering it??? Oops. Sorry. Good thing we can spend our asses into trillions of dollars of deficit and squander our military reserves to the point where we couldn't deal with a real crisis we didn't cause, let alone fund real necessties at home like education, medical care or real security at home.
  
  At least Halliburton is making out like the bandits they are.
  
• The plan is for the Iraqi's to welcome us as liberators and shower us with flowers as we march into Baghdad.
  
  What??? They're tossing IED's, car bombs and suicide bombers? Sorry.
  
• The plan is to get rid of Saddam because he's a dictator who tortures prisoners.
  
  What??? Our guys are torturing prisoners??? Sorry. Shhh! We thought that was top secret.
  
• The plan is to get rid of Saddam and bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. What??? A sectarian civil war???
  
  What??? Our own troops are caught in the crossfire??? Oops. Sorry.

Come to think of it, I have to take back the laugh at the start of this post. The Bushwhackos are the King Midas of DREK! Everything this administration has touched has turned to sh8 at the expense of American citizens and the entirety of humanity.

 

[LumbergTech]

as much as I hate oreilly i support him when he says its time for us to get our family members the hell out of iraq

 

[judasmachine]

I think we should leave. Yes partly because I've always opposed the war, and partly because I'm starting to see the truth in belief that only a tyrant like Hussien can hold Iraq together.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."

O'Reilly has previously called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.


Audio Clip

I think I am gonna head over to the dollar store and buy a pair of flip flops to send O RLY there.

YOU'RE LYING.


He said "We should hand over the country to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible."

Not "We should get out ASAP."

There IS a difference. Handing stuff over to Iraqis as fast as humanly possible means doing what we have been trying to do buy building a government and military and HANDING OVER responsibility to them as they become capable of handling it.


What a .******. liar you are steeple. You tell us something that isn't true even though the actual quote which you lied about is right in front of us as though we are too fukking stupid to figure it out.

Excellent! someone else who saw through their spin! well done!

Please, there is no "spin" except possibly in your heads. O'Rielly has "flip-flopped" and the funny part is just in time for the elections. he is smart enough to realize that there are soon going to be some new asses to kiss.

"Fair and Balanced", LMAO. Once a whore, always a whore.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I think we should leave. Yes partly because I've always opposed the war, and partly because I'm starting to see the truth in belief that only a tyrant like Hussien can hold Iraq together.

i dont really believe that tyranny is necessary..i just think that the people have to fight for what they believe in and not have it forced upon them

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
It's interesting... Someone from "the other side" changes his position and rather than receive congratulations from the left he's bashed for it. I would think you guys would be cheering him on for "seeing the light".

The were making fun of him for "flip-flopping", not blasting his position. :roll:

O'Reilly is a hypocrite. How many times did O'Reilly accuse Kerry of flip-flopping?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
It's interesting... Someone from "the other side" changes his position and rather than receive congratulations from the left he's bashed for it. I would think you guys would be cheering him on for "seeing the light".

The were making fun of him for "flip-flopping", not blasting his position. :roll:

O'Reilly is a hypocrite. How many times did O'Reilly accuse Kerry of flip-flopping?

Well, since you know that he did say Kerry flip-flopped, why don't you tell us?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I think we should leave. Yes partly because I've always opposed the war, and partly because I'm starting to see the truth in belief that only a tyrant like Hussien can hold Iraq together.

i dont really believe that tyranny is necessary..i just think that the people have to fight for what they believe in and not have it forced upon them

I know, I've just grown really cynical.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."

O'Reilly has previously called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.


Audio Clip

I think I am gonna head over to the dollar store and buy a pair of flip flops to send O RLY there.

YOU'RE LYING.


He said "We should hand over the country to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible."

Not "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today."

There IS a difference. Handing stuff over to Iraqis as fast as humanly possible means doing what we have been trying to do buy building a government and military and HANDING OVER responsibility to them as they become capable of handling it.


What a .******. liar you are steeple. You tell us something that isn't true even though the actual quote which you lied about is right in front of us as though we are too fukking stupid to figure it out.

No, you just have selective perception, you that lost huh?

If you think I am lying good for you, convincing someone who mixes politics as it was some kind of religion is a wasted effort, as you have shown time and time again, your partisanship overides your logic once again, congrats.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."

O'Reilly has previously called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.


Audio Clip

I think I am gonna head over to the dollar store and buy a pair of flip flops to send O RLY there.

YOU'RE LYING.


He said "We should hand over the country to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible."

Not "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today."

There IS a difference. Handing stuff over to Iraqis as fast as humanly possible means doing what we have been trying to do buy building a government and military and HANDING OVER responsibility to them as they become capable of handling it.


What a .******. liar you are steeple. You tell us something that isn't true even though the actual quote which you lied about is right in front of us as though we are too fukking stupid to figure it out.

I admit that I'm guilty of just going by what the OP said, but actually, this is even funnier and more ironic. O'Reilly is arguing that we should hand over the country to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible...people who don't like him interpret that as wanting to cut and run...and people like you defend him and suggest that his opponents are lying sheeple (or possibly "steeple").

I'll let that brew for a moment...perhaps the source of my amusement will become obvious. But to save some time, here is why this situation is so funny. For the last year or so, a growing number of the "anti-war" folks, including myself, have been suggesting that we really need to focus on the job at hand in Iraq, get it done as fast as possible, so we can bring our troops home. The folks on the pro-war side (a term far more appropriate for this group than "anti-war" is for the opposing side), including O'Reilly, lash out with viscious attacks about how we just hate America and want to cut and run and let the terrorists win.

But wait, now that O'Reilly agrees with the people he spent the last year or so attacking, it's a totally logical position full of nuanced differences between it and cutting and running. How dare those lying liberals accuse O'Reilly of doing exactly what he's spent the last year accusing THEM of doing. The nerve of some people, really. Enjoying the irony is just so...wrong...

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."

O'Reilly has previously called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.


Audio Clip

I think I am gonna head over to the dollar store and buy a pair of flip flops to send O RLY there.

YOU'RE LYING.


He said "We should hand over the country to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible."

Not "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today."

There IS a difference. Handing stuff over to Iraqis as fast as humanly possible means doing what we have been trying to do buy building a government and military and HANDING OVER responsibility to them as they become capable of handling it.


What a .******. liar you are steeple. You tell us something that isn't true even though the actual quote which you lied about is right in front of us as though we are too fukking stupid to figure it out.

No, you just have selective perception, you that lost huh?

If you think I am lying good for you, convincing someone who mixes politics as it was some kind of religion is a wasted effort, as you have shown time and time again, your partisanship overides your logic once again, congrats.

LOL. So rather than explain how I am wrong, (if you really believe I am) you just decide to write a garbled sentence about how I'm too partisan (wtf) and blind to know the truth... like you?

Hahaha

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."

O'Reilly has previously called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.


Audio Clip

I think I am gonna head over to the dollar store and buy a pair of flip flops to send O RLY there.

YOU'RE LYING.


He said "We should hand over the country to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible."

Not "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today."

There IS a difference. Handing stuff over to Iraqis as fast as humanly possible means doing what we have been trying to do buy building a government and military and HANDING OVER responsibility to them as they become capable of handling it.


What a .******. liar you are steeple. You tell us something that isn't true even though the actual quote which you lied about is right in front of us as though we are too fukking stupid to figure it out.

No, you just have selective perception, you that lost huh?

If you think I am lying good for you, convincing someone who mixes politics as it was some kind of religion is a wasted effort, as you have shown time and time again, your partisanship overides your logic once again, congrats.

LOL. So rather than explain how I am wrong, (if you really believe I am) you just decide to write a garbled sentence about how I'm too partisan (wtf) and blind to know the truth... like you?

Hahaha

Favor? Could you take a break from your sputtering accusations and name-calling for a moment and show me where Steeplerot said, "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today."? As far as I can tell, those are your words, not his, making you the "******. liar". Steeple quoted O'Reilly accurately. If I missed it, apologies.

 

[Polish3d]

The title of the thread is "Cut and Run" O'Reilly, and the entire thesis of the OP was that O'Reilly was now proposing the same "cut and run" type policy that he derided others about in the past.


Again, cut and run means to simply pack up and leave immediately.

Doing the handover as soon as possible means completing the training and building up of the Iraqi govt. as soon as freaking possible and then getting the hell out.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Frackal
The title of the thread is "Cut and Run" O'Reilly, and the entire thesis of the OP was that O'Reilly was now proposing the same "cut and run" type policy that he derided others about in the past.


Again, cut and run means to simply pack up and leave immediately.

Doing the handover as soon as possible means completing the training and building up of the Iraqi govt. as soon as freaking possible and then getting the hell out.

Can you show us where Steeplerot said, "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today." or not? If not, then you are the one being dishonest. Your nasty attacks, "YOU'RE LYING." and "What a .******. liar you are steeple." were unjustified. You owe him an apology.

 

[Polish3d]

Why would it matter if Steeple suggested we should "cut and run" immediately?

The OP is about what O'Reilly said.

 

[sandorski]

Haha, what a tool.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Why would it matter if Steeple suggested we should "cut and run" immediately?

The OP is about what O'Reilly said.

You are trying to argue intent. Since the things you mention like training and creating a govt will take 20 years....you are asking us to believe that is what he means? No I think we all know he meant sooner than that, sooner as say 6-12 months.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Why would it matter if Steeple suggested we should "cut and run" immediately?

The OP is about what O'Reilly said.

:roll:

What a lame evasion. That's exactly what I was talking about, as you understand quite well. Oh well, I'm in a good mood. Let's give you one more chance to demonstrate the character and maturity to admit you overreacted:

Can you show us where Steeplerot claimed O'Reilly said, "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today." or not? If not, then you are the one being dishonest. Your nasty attacks, "YOU'RE LYING." and "What a .******. liar you are steeple." were unjustified. You owe him an apology.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Lack of sanity is thinking you can occupy someones country that you have been bombing for years and get flowers thrown upon them.

for the record, MOST of the people in Iraq DID welcome our assistance and presence. It's the fanatics amongst them who have screwed up the entire mess. NOT us, and NOT the majority of the people there.

Put as simply as you can understand--YOURE WRONG!

Did you happen to catch the Frontline report on "The Insurgents"? I would have known you were wrong before seeing that, but that was just more confirmation.

Since you have probably never heard of PBS, heres a linky just for you.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Frackal
Why would it matter if Steeple suggested we should "cut and run" immediately?

The OP is about what O'Reilly said.

:roll:

What a lame evasion. That's exactly what I was talking about, as you understand quite well. Oh well, I'm in a good mood. Let's give you one more chance to demonstrate the character and maturity to admit you overreacted:

Can you show us where Steeplerot claimed O'Reilly said, "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today." or not? If not, then you are the one being dishonest. Your nasty attacks, "YOU'RE LYING." and "What a .******. liar you are steeple." were unjustified. You owe him an apology.

This is rather obnoxious. The answers to your questions can be found in the posts I have already made.

Steeplerot said: "Cut and Run O'Reilly?" in his title. Most people understand "cut and run" to mean; leave immediately.

This is not what O'Reilly said.

He said: "hand over things as fast as humanly possible" means completing the handover to army and government forces as fast as is humanly possible.


They are two very different sets of actions, and have different importance with respect to the accusation of "flip flopping" made by Steeple.


I am not going to try to explain this to you again. If your next posts continue to ask me the same questions, I'll just refer you back to this one.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Frackal
Why would it matter if Steeple suggested we should "cut and run" immediately?

The OP is about what O'Reilly said.

You are trying to argue intent. Since the things you mention like training and creating a govt will take 20 years....you are asking us to believe that is what he means? No I think we all know he meant sooner than that, sooner as say 6-12 months.

20 years? What type of figure is that? Sure some elements of the Iraqi government and army will be still under construction 20 years from now. (Assuming it all works out.)

I doubt he meant 6-12 months. I think he meant exactly what he said without the rest of you trying to twist it:

"hand things over as fast as humanly possible."

Which means, "hand things over to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible."

The reason why it cannot be all done "today" is because we are still attempting to get the government and military to a point in which it can take care of things without the large contingent of US troops there.

O'Reilly wishes this to be accomplished "as fast as humanly possible."

That is a different set of actions from "packing up and pulling out today regardless of what shape the government/military are in."

Which is the commonly understood definition of "cut and run."



I don't see why this has to be so ludicrously over-complicated.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Frackal
This is rather obnoxious. The answers to your questions can be found in the posts I have already made.

Steeplerot said: "Cut and Run O'Reilly?" in his title. Most people understand "cut and run" to mean; leave immediately.

This is not what O'Reilly said.

He said: "hand over things as fast as humanly possible" means completing the handover to army and government forces as fast as is humanly possible.


They are two very different sets of actions, and have different importance with respect to the accusation of "flip flopping" made by Steeple.


I am not going to try to explain this to you again. If your next posts continue to ask me the same questions, I'll just refer you back to this one.

Sounds to me like you dont like the taste of your own medicine. Your hero O'Liely spun democratic calls to get out as soon as possible as "cut and run." Now, he says the same thing as the dems. Why are you defending this "flip-flopper?" I do agree with Bow, you are wrong about Steeple and your name calling and attitude is out of line.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
:roll:

What a lame evasion. That's exactly what I was talking about, as you understand quite well. Oh well, I'm in a good mood. Let's give you one more chance to demonstrate the character and maturity to admit you overreacted:

Can you show us where Steeplerot claimed O'Reilly said, "We should leave now, cut and run and leave the country as it exists today." or not? If not, then you are the one being dishonest. Your nasty attacks, "YOU'RE LYING." and "What a .******. liar you are steeple." were unjustified. You owe him an apology.

This is rather obnoxious. The answers to your questions can be found in the posts I have already made.

Didn't think so. Waaah, waaah, waaah.

Steeplerot said: "Cut and Run O'Reilly?" in his title. Most people understand "cut and run" to mean; leave immediately.

This is not what O'Reilly said.

He said: "hand over things as fast as humanly possible" means completing the handover to army and government forces as fast as is humanly possible.

And that is exactly what Steeplerot claimed O'Reilly said. The other, bogus O'Reilly quote you attributed to Steeplerot was your invention, i.e., your lie.

They are two very different sets of actions, and have different importance with respect to the accusation of "flip flopping" made by Steeple.

Yes, they are different sets of actions. As far as the "accusation" you ascribe to Steeplrot, IIRC, it is the exact same accusation leveled by Bush and his minions, including O'Reilly, at anyone on the left who suggested in any way expediting withdrawal from Iraq. Unless you are a hypocrite, I'll assume you also consider Bush and the gang to be "LYING" and "******. liar as well, true? That's why it's perfectly appropriate to lampoon O'Reilly's hypocrisy, since he's attacked others for making the same sorts of comments.

I am not going to try to explain this to you again. If your next posts continue to ask me the same questions, I'll just refer you back to this one.

And I'll continue to refer you to your own words, the bogus quote you invented. Toodles.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Frackal
This is rather obnoxious. The answers to your questions can be found in the posts I have already made.

Steeplerot said: "Cut and Run O'Reilly?" in his title. Most people understand "cut and run" to mean; leave immediately.

This is not what O'Reilly said.

He said: "hand over things as fast as humanly possible" means completing the handover to army and government forces as fast as is humanly possible.


They are two very different sets of actions, and have different importance with respect to the accusation of "flip flopping" made by Steeple.


I am not going to try to explain this to you again. If your next posts continue to ask me the same questions, I'll just refer you back to this one.

Sounds to me like you dont like the taste of your own medicine. Your hero O'Liely spun democratic calls to get out as soon as possible as "cut and run." Now, he says the same thing as the dems. Why are you defending this "flip-flopper?" I do agree with Bow, you are wrong about Steeple and your name calling and attitude is out of line.

Why would you call "O'Reilly" my hero?

 

[Polish3d]

They are two very different sets of actions, and have different importance with respect to the accusation of "flip flopping" made by Steeple.

Yes, they are different sets of actions. As far as the "accusation" you ascribe to Steeplrot, IIRC, it is the exact same accusation leveled by Bush and his minions, including O'Reilly, at anyone on the left who suggested in any way expediting withdrawal from Iraq. Unless you are a hypocrite, I'll assume you also consider Bush and the gang to be "LYING" and "******. liar as well, true? That's why it's perfectly appropriate to lampoon O'Reilly's hypocrisy, since he's attacked others for making the same sorts of comments.

.

If you can show me instances of this, (please do; I don't doubt they are out there but since you made the assertion I would like to see some examples) than yes, I will certainly acknowledge it.

I don't particularly care what O'Reilly says, I don't believe he is an unbiased or always truthful individual.

My original comment was directed at Steeplerot's distortion of what was said in this instance. Had it been Bob Jones, I still would have been mad at the fact that I can read and listen to exactly what the guy said, and yet here is Steeplerot trying to say the guy said something else as though it is not obvious that he was distorting the intent of the original quotation.