Don't lie & say you are "behind the troops" when you ignore their heroism

[Plane]

<<As it is, Al Queda is about to die for lack of honor so it behaves as if it had no honor to loose.>>

Let's cut the crap, plane.  They're about to die for getting between Bush and a whole shitload of oil.

Al Queda has a bad use for that oil , it would be better for us to destroy it in place than to allow Al Queda to profit from it. AnAl Queda run government that could finance the worlds fourth largest army is a nightmare revisited with improved monsters.

But while Al Queda might possibly come into possession of the oil , we do not intend to , if we win we are still customers that buy the stuff.

[Michael Tee]

<<I guess I'm part of the 99, since I do.  Outside of the emotional involvement, 1 is supportive of the war 1 is inflicted with BDS.  It's a pretty safe assumption which camp you fall in line with>>

One who has close to zero emotional investment in the life and death of Lt. Murphy, one who has 110% emotional investment in the death of Casey Sheehan - - but it's the one with the 110% percent emotional investment, and not the one with near-zero emotional investment who's likelier to be cynically using the death for her own political ends.  nee-nee-nee-nee, nee-nee-nee-nee  (ineptly intended to be the Twilght Zone theme music)

Thanks for the laugh, sirs.  Always appreciated, as usual.

[BT]

On one hand we have a guy who makes $9 million a year

Why is it important what O'Reilly makes?

[Michael Tee]

<<Al Queda has a bad use for that oil , it would be better for us to destroy it in place than to allow Al Queda to profit from it. AnAl Queda run government that could finance the worlds fourth largest army is a nightmare revisited with improved monsters.

<<But while Al Queda might possibly come into possession of the oil , we do not intend to , if we win we are still customers that buy the stuff.>>

Well, at least you cut the crap and admitted what they're REALLY gonna die for.

(BTW, if all you wanted was to be "customers" for that oil, you already were that before the war began.  You wanna be "customers" with guns - - pointing right at the proprietor's head.)

[Christians4LessGvt]

Sirs,
you wont see this Mom of a fallen soldier on CNN
but obviously Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for the Mothers of fallen soldiers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqlBhtduVM8

[_JS]

On one hand we have a guy who makes $9 million a year

Why is it important what O'Reilly makes?

It tends to give him a vested interest in protecting his job and the people who pay him, wouldn't you think? He certainly seems more than willing to attack his competetion.

Also, I imagine the Iraq War might be a little more distant when your big decision is deciding whether to dine at Chef Ramsey's or Chef Flay's restaurants tonight. It makes the whole "protecting my freedoms" argument a little less salient.

[Michael Tee]

<<. . . but obviously Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for the Mothers of fallen soldiers>>

Did she ever claim to?  Far as I could see, she spoke for Cindy Sheehan.  And Cindy Sheehan was damned mad.  (as in madder than hell and not gonna take it any more, not as in mad-crazy)

[sirs]

<<I guess I'm part of the 99, since I do.  Outside of the emotional involvement, 1 is supportive of the war 1 is inflicted with BDS.  It's a pretty safe assumption which camp you fall in line with>>

One who has close to zero emotional investment in the life and death of Lt. Murphy, one who has 110% emotional investment in the death of Casey Sheehan - - but it's the one with the 110% percent emotional investment, and not the one with near-zero emotional investment who's likelier to be cynically using the death for her own political ends. 

OR, the one with the less emotional involvement can actually be more OBJECTIVE in their assessment, vs the one who's so saturated with so much emotion, that rational thought & objectivity is next to impossible.  See?, I can play the same Tee-rationalization game also.  Not as well, since your imagination is so much more impressive, but at least the technique is not too difficult to attempt

[Plane]

<<. . . but obviously Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for the Mothers of fallen soldiers>>

Did she ever claim to?  Far as I could see, she spoke for Cindy Sheehan.  And Cindy Sheehan was damned mad.  (as in madder than hell and not gonna take it any more, not as in mad-crazy)

She is also a poor spoksman for her child .
She is speaking her mind as she has a right.
But her son can't .

[Michael Tee]

<<OR, the one with the less emotional involvement can actually be more OBJECTIVE in their assessment, vs the one who's saturated sith so much emotion, that rational thought & objectivity is next to impossible.>> 

BWAHAHAHAHA!  O'Reilly!!  Objective in his assessment!!  YESSSS, absolutely.  Stop it, sirs, you're killing me.  LMAO.

Actually, it was O'Reilly who sounded angry and emotional to me:

<<Now, I don't want to hear CNN or NBC News say they support the troops. I don't ever want to hear that.>> (sound of O'Reilly's little foot stamping)

I think the original thought I expressed was that O'Reilly was the more likely to be CYNICALLY MISUSING Murphy's death than Cindy Sheehan was to be cynically misusing Casey's.  I don't really expect Cindy to be perfectly rational over losing a son in Bush's totally fake and bogus war, but (and here's where folks who live in the real world really have the edge over guys like you, sirs) I DO expect her to feel an unimaginable amount of genuine grief.  Lots more than Bill O'Reilly did over Murphy's loss.

[sirs]

<<OR, the one with the less emotional involvement can actually be more OBJECTIVE in their assessment, vs the one who's saturated sith so much emotion, that rational thought & objectivity is next to impossible.>> 

BWAHAHAHAHA!  O'Reilly!!  Objective in his assessment!!  YESSSS, absolutely.  Stop it, sirs, you're killing me.  LMAO.

And thank you for that completely subjective opinion. 

[Christians4LessGvt]

Did she ever claim to?

she didnt have to
the liberal media made her a hero
and basically kept her on the front pages
while other fallen soldier's mothers that support the war are basically not reported
once again
one side presented
agree or disgree
reporting only one side
is not reality

[Michael Tee]

<<And thank you for that completely subjective opinion. >>

Oooops!  I forgot!  O'Reilly, of course, is fair and balanced.  HAS to be.  After all, he works for Fox News doesn't he?

[Michael Tee]

<<she didnt have to [claim to represent all bereaved mothers of soldiers]
the liberal media made her a hero
and basically kept her on the front pages
while other fallen soldier's mothers that support the war are basically not reported
once again
one side presented
agree or disgree
reporting only one side
is not reality>>

Well, that's just the "man bites dog" principle in action.  Historically, "Gold Star Mothers" sold war bonds and supported the war effort.  Mothers NOT supporting war as usual, THAT's news.

[BT]

It tends to give him a vested interest in protecting his job and the people who pay him, wouldn't you think?

I would think that a universal attribute. Don't see what the amount of money he makes has to do with it.

Nor does where he dines have anything to do with his thought patterns.

For a guy who emphasizes a desire for a classless society you sure do emphasize class.