Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 3:49:51 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

Terrorists and al qeada are not "law enforcement" issues they're Military issues. 



Which the military was never designed or able to deal with effectively.


Good point.The dems were mocked as pussies for wanting to use law enforcement, to bring these guys to justice.
As if using the army was somehow better or more "kick-ass!".

It`s like using the army, to go after the mob.It`s just stupid.

You can`t use the army against these guys,because they don`t have an army.You use agents and spys,Intel and cruse missiles,not battalions of soldiers or tanks.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 4:44:07 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toothlessNsmelly

What on Earth do you think a commercial jet loaded w/ keorsene is exactly?
And exactly where do you get your metalurgical info? You and many other conspiracy groupies are completely misinformed about the properties of structural steel. I would not idiotically presume to know whether the events of 9/11 were conspiratorial. That's not the issue here, the issue is all these monkeys on the net purporting to know all about explosives and their effects on structural steel. I've yet to hear even one accurate statement in that regard. And yes, I have considerable expertise in high rise building technology, and considerable knowledge of the explosives industry. Structural steel, fyi, fails at a relatively low temperature, it does not need to 'vaporize' in order to fail structurally, it doesn't even need to get that hot, nor would any steel vaporize save in the immediate viscinity of the explosion and even then only very thin sections would not survive a blast of the sort that was witnessed by us all. Heavy timber is actually more fire resistive than all but the heaviest sections of steel due to an insulating barrier of ash that develops in a fire. This is all common knowledge to anyone in the industry but forgive me for throwing out inconvenient fact.


HALF RIGHT.

What brought down the WTC towers was the crooked NYC building inspectors, shitty construction standards, excessive cost cutting, skimping on supplies, etc.

Do you think the flaws at the Citicorp Tower were a fluke?

Or that The Towering Inferno wasn't a cautionary tale?



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to toothlessNsmelly)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 4:53:31 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		Terrorists didn't have anything to do with it then... according to you.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
HALF RIGHT.

What brought down the WTC towers was the crooked NYC building inspectors, shitty construction standards, excessive cost cutting, skimping on supplies, etc.

Do you think the flaws at the Citicorp Tower were a fluke?

Or that The Towering Inferno wasn't a cautionary tale?




_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 4:55:49 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Terrorists didn't have anything to do with it then... according to you.



That's stupid of you to even suggest.

I suppose I should be glad you're playing dumb and intentionally misreading/misunderstanding my statements, rather than just fabricating defamatory quotations and libelously mis-attributing them to me...

The Hijackers started the fire, of course.

That's what the HALF RIGHT comment meant.

After the passengers obeyed the US Government instructions and co-operated with the hijackers, permitting their attack, unlike the people on Flt 93. Who did *not* obey the US Government instructions, and killed their hijackers.

Do us a favor, and if that's the quality of the comments you have today, don't waste our time.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 12/8/2007 4:59:35 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 5:07:12 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		Nobody's forcing you to read them, farglebargle.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Do us a favor, and if that's the quality of the comments you have today, don't waste our time.




_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 5:16:16 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: toothlessNsmelly

What on Earth do you think a commercial jet loaded w/ keorsene is exactly?

And exactly where do you get your metalurgical info? You and many other conspiracy groupies are completely misinformed about the properties of structural steel. I would not idiotically presume to know whether the events of 9/11 were conspiratorial. That's not the issue here, the issue is all these monkeys on the net purporting to know all about explosives and their effects on structural steel. I've yet to hear even one accurate statement in that regard. And yes, I have considerable expertise in high rise building technology, and considerable knowledge of the explosives industry. Structural steel, fyi, fails at a relatively low temperature, it does not need to 'vaporize' in order to fail structurally, it doesn't even need to get that hot, nor would any steel vaporize save in the immediate viscinity of the explosion and even then only very thin sections would not survive a blast of the sort that was witnessed by us all. Heavy timber is actually more fire resistive than all but the heaviest sections of steel due to an insulating barrier of ash that develops in a fire. This is all common knowledge to anyone in the industry but forgive me for throwing out inconvenient fact.


HALF RIGHT.

What brought down the WTC towers was the crooked NYC building inspectors, shitty construction standards, excessive cost cutting, skimping on supplies, etc.

Do you think the flaws at the Citicorp Tower were a fluke?

Or that The Towering Inferno wasn't a cautionary tale?





Not true, Fargle.

The WTC was designed to withstand a full-size jet crash ,but not one that had full fuel tanks,going at full speed ,with the throttle pinned.

The fuel and other combustibles that burned,weakened the tempered steel,and then the steel failed.

You would have to build the whole thing like a fortress,to withstand hours and hours of high heat or a jet flying at full tilt.

Just look at what a jet did to the Pentagon,which was made from poured concrete and steel.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 5:16:40 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Nobody's forcing you to read them, farglebargle.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Do us a favor, and if that's the quality of the comments you have today, don't waste our time.





No, but to be honest, you're not even up to your own usual game. It's just sad watching you try to justify things by invoking the moral and ethical standards of a pre-schooler.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 12/8/2007 5:17:20 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 5:31:09 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		It's sad to watch you sink to hurling attempted insults in the stead of intelligent debate. Were my posts nearly as bad as you pretend then you could safely ignore them... yet you choose to hurl mudballs.



quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
No, but to be honest, you're not even up to your own usual game. It's just sad watching you try to justify things by invoking the moral and ethical standards of a pre-schooler.




_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 5:45:25 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
The WTC was designed to withstand a full-size jet crash ,but not one that had full fuel tanks,going at full speed ,with the throttle pinned.


"As Designed" and "As Built" in the NYC construction trades are 2 VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 5:46:27 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

It's sad to watch you sink to hurling attempted insults in the stead of intelligent debate. Were my posts nearly as bad as you pretend then you could safely ignore them... yet you choose to hurl mudballs.



quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
No, but to be honest, you're not even up to your own usual game. It's just sad watching you try to justify things by invoking the moral and ethical standards of a pre-schooler.





Go answer my direct challenge in the CIA thread.

Money Talks, Bullshit Walks.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 5:55:45 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
The WTC was designed to withstand a full-size jet crash ,but not one that had full fuel tanks,going at full speed ,with the throttle pinned.


"As Designed" and "As Built" in the NYC construction trades are 2 VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.




And I will say this one more time and it will be lost again, Sammy Gravano ran all the cement in New York during the 70s when it was 'as built'  you can look it up, the government has stipulated it....... so......your everyday AFSCME assumptions are right out the window.............

This does not address that inferior materials were de riguer in every phase of that buildings construction, I will leave that to the physicists.......but I know nobody out here has shown me an underwriters laboratory test of the slump of a girder mixed with rotting jimmy hoffa...........or pop cans or garbage or whatnot........


I can only assume that it is somewhat less than optimal.

TheTeflonBuilderDom


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 8:35:46 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Let me see if I can get this back on track. The US was built on certain principles. The founders were Men of certain principles. Proud Americans have certain principles. Principles are needed for a society to thrive. When you sacrifice principles, you sacrifice the foundation ideals are built upon. How many Americans have already died in so many wars, conflicts, and as pioneers of this country?

O'Reilly says to hell with principles. Saving lives right now are more important. There has to be lines somewhere, taking things to extremes that are hypotheticals, do not show where these lines are. Information gained so far may have helped to stop certain plans that were in the works, but at what cost to the integrity of the country. Would you rather be someone that is alive, and have no honor, or die with honor? People that are alive with no honor, are walking corpses, and they are black holes that suck other people down with them.

I would rather have less security, and more liberties. I would rather have a greater chance of dying, and be able to say I am a proud American, and the reasons I am proud. I would like to say that and others recognize it is just not some chauvinism, but that it is sincere and filled with integrity. Either the constitution means something or it does not. Rationalizing doing something against the laws, or rules, is still doing something against the laws and rules. Were the Japanese justified in how the treated WWII prisoners, because of how they viewed them? What about any country that has viewed something or someone as a threat, and done heinous things in response? To do the same thing, we validate all of those.

Is there truly no one left with principles and integrity?



_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 9:21:20 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Orion, I have to say that there was never a time America was some super moral good guys.  As I pointed out on other threads Washington had his armies slaughtering Indians (not a single one of them was awarded habeous corpus) in the War for Ohio, taking official hostages, mutilating victims, ect..  We have been magnamimous in victory a bit more than the historical average.  Was the trail of tears better than simply killing all of the Cherokee?  It's debatable, I suppose but certainly neither was moral or good.

If you are of the opinion that if the USA is not perfect it should not exist, It certainly should not exist.  Nor should any human institution, as not a single one of them has ever been perfect.  It's just not a valid way of operating in life IMHO.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 9:35:27 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		You are missing the point. Our common principles are outlined in the constitution. People use the word moral, and believe that it is a single set of rules. I could be a thief, liar, cheat and have an entire moral code based on that, and I am following my morals. You can list the inconsistancies, and that is fine, but the exceptions you lis, do not invalidate the rule, and prove all the more that we need to stick with principles. From a philosophical point, I could debate each of the things you listed, from many different sides, and it would be morally correct, but that is not the point. If you fail to get the point, ask follow up questions.

I am suggesting that we strive to maintain our principles at any cost. Does this mean we always will? Of course not, but if the bar is set higher, then people will attempt to jump higher. If they are given excuses not to jump, then they will not try.

If you believe my entire take in life, is contained in the posts on these boards, you need to get out more. Maybe I will offer everyone here a copy of my book in a couple of years, and then you can understand more of what I am saying.


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Orion, I have to say that there was never a time America was some super moral good guys.  As I pointed out on other threads Washington had his armies slaughtering Indians (not a single one of them was awarded habeous corpus) in the War for Ohio, taking official hostages, mutilating victims, ect..  We have been magnamimous in victory a bit more than the historical average.  Was the trail of tears better than simply killing all of the Cherokee?  It's debatable, I suppose but certainly neither was moral or good.

If you are of the opinion that if the USA is not perfect it should not exist, It certainly should not exist.  Nor should any human institution, as not a single one of them has ever been perfect.  It's just not a valid way of operating in life IMHO.


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 9:43:13 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Ok The word "morals" was incorectly used.  I think you miss my point.  If we adhered allways to the contstitonal principles we would not exist.  Washington and Jefferson did not live to the principles you are ascribing to them.  Frankly they would have opossed the geneva conventions, as they both regularly engaged in activites considered attrocities under them.  You should take off the rose colored glasses you seem to be viewing our History through. 

I am not commenting on your entire life, for Pete's sake.  I thought we had a common understanding that we are talking about Political views. 

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 9:51:58 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Sure we would exist. The constitution has been interpreted differently many times. Also, rather than break the principle, you create an amendment. Rose colored glasses, cmail me and I will tell you about them. Politcs is life, it should be based upon your virtues, morals and ethics, the same thing your life should be based on. Again I state the exceptions, do not disprove the rule. Maybe you should allow your head some sunshine, and I will remove my rose colored glasses.


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Ok The word "morals" was incorectly used.  I think you miss my point.  If we adhered allways to the contstitonal principles we would not exist.  Washington and Jefferson did not live to the principles you are ascribing to them.  Frankly they would have opossed the geneva conventions, as they both regularly engaged in activites considered attrocities under them.  You should take off the rose colored glasses you seem to be viewing our History through. 

I am not commenting on your entire life, for Pete's sake.  I thought we had a common understanding that we are talking about Political views. 


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 10:06:52 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Orion there was no amendment saying it was ok to Scalp Indians with no Habeus Corpus.

There was no amendment saying it was ok to send the marines to Libya to slaughter villages and take hostages to change the region.

The reality of our history is one act of unlawful violence after another.

I don't know why you think I don't go outside.  I live in Alaska because I love the outdoors.  But that is obviously something you are fixated on instead of actuall debate.

Surviving and caring for those I love are part of my ethical/moral virtues.  And I do extend those to my nation.  I see no purpose in harsher than waterboarding interogation, and would expect it to be the exception, not the rule.  But I do want unpleasant interrogation methods used on People reasonably connected to terror groups.  I do not want them tried in open court.  I do think we need a system of oversight, similar to the Senate select commitee, to handle these issues and unprecedented threats.  There does need to be oversight, and it is currently inadequate.  Got that.  There is currently Inadequate oversight, and it need to be fixed.  But there is a real problem that we have to deal with. 

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 10:07:16 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		In history I always liked "Black Jack" Pershing.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 10:36:45 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IdiotMale

Phil Donahue is a joke.


Nice handle,...fitting too.

(in reply to IdiotMale)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles - 12/8/2007 11:11:09 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Petronius

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

You can't "fight nice" with al qeada.
They've proven that over and over again.
Also, they are not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
Forget torturing them, they can be shot as spies *under* the Geneva Conventions.
I'm waiting for the firing squads in GTMO!
Why are we letting them live for so long?
And "water boarding" isn't "torture!" We used to do that to each other on "Hell Night" at sea! Grow a pair!
Strapping those goat ropers down to a dental chair and trying out some new drills would be "torture".
To hear some people talk these days if those savages were served breakfast 10 minutes late that would be "torture."
I can't understand why people think we have to be "nice" to terrorists but it's "ok" if they're "not nice" to us.
That's cognitive dissonance.
They think that we should treat these savages as if they were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions but when al qeada cuts our guys heads off that's "ok?"
We need to get out of the Geneva Conventions as well as a lot of other "global" or "world" orgs.
They do us absolutely no good! "Put these handcuffs on and step into the ring."
Nice guys finish last in war.


And if there was a real war on terrorism popeye would be locked up tomorrow for terrorist organizing. It's interesting that people like popeye were the biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism in the USA when Ronald Reagan was training Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, arming them, funding them, and calling them "freedom fighters."

We also see again how people like popeye need to fake what the laws are in order to justify their own lawless behavior.

Being "nice" to terrorists? It's a concept that stops some people from going out and putting a bullet in the head of people like popeye. Popeye is sure as hell a lot closer to being a terrorist under U.S. law than some secretary or driver in al Qaeda.



Petronius, you really like to twist things around and put words in people's mouths don't you?
I think I'll call you "Twisty."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Petronius)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: O'Reilly sacrificing principles Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109