<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More O&#8217;Reilly</title>
	<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/</link>
	<description>Kickin' ass on the lyin' side:  A never-ending battle against stupid, ugly, deceitful and corrupt right-wing water carriers...</description>
	<pubDate>Sun,  6 Jul 2008 20:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Anusoff</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5437</link>
		<author>Jack Anusoff</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5437</guid>
		<description>Beat AQ on the battlefield? 

AQ's main MO is to avoid the battlefield altogether. They're terrorists FCS (for christ's sake, well, for Allah's). 

So AQ, the perpetual boogyman is what's keeping us in Iraq? Hey, AQ is supposedly in Syria and Egypt and Jordan and Pakistan, etc etc. Are we keeping checkpoints and razing whole towns looking for 'AQ' in Iraq? No. 

So what bill is saying is that we have to stay in Iraq forever since we'll never ever ever 'beat' AQ 'on the battlefield.' 

But for him, this plays perfectly into the 'football' mentality, the way most Murkins look at war, as a sport, where there's a clear winner and loser. And that loser will never be the USA. The USA is a winner. 

Now when you tell these cooks "We won! We won! Let's leave..." 
They say, "No no, we didn't win. Not yet."

Maybe that's the angle to get at Joe Redneck. 
"We already won this war, but Republicans want to say we didn't. They want to call the military losers and punish them by making them stay in Iraq and tell them that they need to 'finish the job,' but their job is done. They won. We won. The USA won, and now Republicans aren't satisfied with that. They don't think that what our troops have accomplished constitutes a victory. They want to punish our troops for not winning yet, but clearly they won a long time ago."

For Joe Redneck it's all about winning and losing, pride and face.
Life and death are incidental. 
BTW, that's what it's all about for most Arabs, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Beat AQ on the battlefield? </p>
<p>AQ&#8217;s main MO is to avoid the battlefield altogether. They&#8217;re terrorists FCS (for christ&#8217;s sake, well, for Allah&#8217;s). </p>
<p>So AQ, the perpetual boogyman is what&#8217;s keeping us in Iraq? Hey, AQ is supposedly in Syria and Egypt and Jordan and Pakistan, etc etc. Are we keeping checkpoints and razing whole towns looking for &#8216;AQ&#8217; in Iraq? No. </p>
<p>So what bill is saying is that we have to stay in Iraq forever since we&#8217;ll never ever ever &#8216;beat&#8217; AQ &#8216;on the battlefield.&#8217; </p>
<p>But for him, this plays perfectly into the &#8216;football&#8217; mentality, the way most Murkins look at war, as a sport, where there&#8217;s a clear winner and loser. And that loser will never be the USA. The USA is a winner. </p>
<p>Now when you tell these cooks &#8220;We won! We won! Let&#8217;s leave&#8230;&#8221;<br />
They say, &#8220;No no, we didn&#8217;t win. Not yet.&#8221;</p>
<p>Maybe that&#8217;s the angle to get at Joe Redneck.<br />
&#8220;We already won this war, but Republicans want to say we didn&#8217;t. They want to call the military losers and punish them by making them stay in Iraq and tell them that they need to &#8216;finish the job,&#8217; but their job is done. They won. We won. The USA won, and now Republicans aren&#8217;t satisfied with that. They don&#8217;t think that what our troops have accomplished constitutes a victory. They want to punish our troops for not winning yet, but clearly they won a long time ago.&#8221;</p>
<p>For Joe Redneck it&#8217;s all about winning and losing, pride and face.<br />
Life and death are incidental.<br />
BTW, that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s all about for most Arabs, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dday</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5343</link>
		<author>dday</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5343</guid>
		<description>Speaking of military advertising - There's a great interview with the lead singer of Godsmack - who've lent several songs to the Navy for them to use in advertising - where he tries to weasel out of the fact that he's promoting to his fans, who are in their late teens and 20s, that it'd be really cool to go into the military and you'd get backstage and meet chicks and party party party!

Good rundown of the whole thing &lt;a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/04/arthur_magazine_vs_g.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt;  I met Jay Babcock, who conducted the interview.  The Godsmack guy literally could not reply coherently to anything he was saying.  Good stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of military advertising - There&#8217;s a great interview with the lead singer of Godsmack - who&#8217;ve lent several songs to the Navy for them to use in advertising - where he tries to weasel out of the fact that he&#8217;s promoting to his fans, who are in their late teens and 20s, that it&#8217;d be really cool to go into the military and you&#8217;d get backstage and meet chicks and party party party!</p>
<p>Good rundown of the whole thing <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/04/arthur_magazine_vs_g.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a>  I met Jay Babcock, who conducted the interview.  The Godsmack guy literally could not reply coherently to anything he was saying.  Good stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Stark</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5330</link>
		<author>Mike Stark</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5330</guid>
		<description>No - I wasn't Josh...  but I've always said the best calls are never mine.  I just document the atrocities.

In the meantime, here's to hoping that more people call in...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No - I wasn&#8217;t Josh&#8230;  but I&#8217;ve always said the best calls are never mine.  I just document the atrocities.</p>
<p>In the meantime, here&#8217;s to hoping that more people call in&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john x</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5329</link>
		<author>john x</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/more-oreilly/#comment-5329</guid>
		<description>were you josh? if so that's pretty good to get a wingnut unraveled without even taking your call. he couldn't even answer it. that's the old mike i know :p</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>were you josh? if so that&#8217;s pretty good to get a wingnut unraveled without even taking your call. he couldn&#8217;t even answer it. that&#8217;s the old mike i know :p</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
