Stories by Fox News Channel's O'Reilly draw attention after Til...

[Marie]

its ME wrote:

Marie,
You wrote to "it happens" about something he didn't write:
Your ignoratn @ss wrote:
"translate you are preemptive and he is rational."
What, "it happens," wrote was:
"I am preemptive and he is reactive."
Try getting your Sh_t together before making a fool of yourself again!!!

Uh - am I supposed to take you seriously?

[its ME]

Marie,

Do you not know anything?

You wrote of our Founding Fathers while responding to Rovian:
"I disagree. Not all of the Founding Fathers were military vets, but they certainly were patriots."

Rovian did not say in order to be a PATRIOT one had to be a military vet.

Speaking to Patriot Rovian wrote:

"As a veteran your 'handle' is insulting to me and all others vets, it is a lie and you need to change it."

So you might try to make your responses, in the future, relavent or related to that which you are responding. You certainly didn't do that in this case.

You can try to find fault with Rovian all you want, but he was right, correct, spot-on, accurate, errorless, faultless, and I am insulted as well with him using the name.

wordnetweb defines the word Patriot as:
"one who loves and defends his or her country"

It is true the word defends doesn't mean literally to fight for.

But the word, "Defends," does mean to:
"argue or speak in defense of;" or, "be on the defensive; act against an attack"

"protect against a challenge or attack; "Hold that position behind the trees!"
"Hold the bridge against the enemy's attacks"

"fight: fight against or resist strongly;"
"champion: protect or fight for as a champion"

AND ALL OF THAT RELATES TO BEING A PATRIOT OF OUR COUNTRY.

That guy, from Wichita, who calls himself Patriot has never missed an opportunity to tear-down what has built this country. He finds fault with "everything" real patriots hold dear. There is nothing about him that is patriotic.
Treasonous is a more befitting word.

I know that when Rovian has wrote, That Guy calling himself Patriot, is offensive to him and other vets.
Here's one of the OTHER vets raising my hand.

Then that guy who says he's a patriot wrote to Rovian:
"I think it is rather unbecoming for you to categorize patriots in the manner that you have."

How dare you! You arrogant pompous @ss.
Have you no shame?

[Marie]

its ME wrote:

Marie,
Do you not know anything?
You wrote of our Founding Fathers while responding to Rovian:
"I disagree. Not all of the Founding Fathers were military vets, but they certainly were patriots."
Rovian did not say in order to be a PATRIOT one had to be a military vet.
Speaking to Patriot Rovian wrote:
"As a veteran your 'handle' is insulting to me and all others vets, it is a lie and you need to change it."
So you might try to make your responses, in the future, relavent or related to that which you are responding. You certainly didn't do that in this case.
You can try to find fault with Rovian all you want, but he was right, correct, spot-on, accurate, errorless, faultless, and I am insulted as well with him using the name.
wordnetweb defines the word Patriot as:
"one who loves and defends his or her country"
It is true the word defends doesn't mean literally to fight for.
But the word, "Defends," does mean to:
"argue or speak in defense of;" or, "be on the defensive; act against an attack"
"protect against a challenge or attack; "Hold that position behind the trees!"
"Hold the bridge against the enemy's attacks"
"fight: fight against or resist strongly;"
"champion: protect or fight for as a champion"
AND ALL OF THAT RELATES TO BEING A PATRIOT OF OUR COUNTRY.
That guy, from Wichita, who calls himself Patriot has never missed an opportunity to tear-down what has built this country. He finds fault with "everything" real patriots hold dear. There is nothing about him that is patriotic.
Treasonous is a more befitting word.
I know that when Rovian has wrote, That Guy calling himself Patriot, is offensive to him and other vets.
Here's one of the OTHER vets raising my hand.
Then that guy who says he's a patriot wrote to Rovian:
"I think it is rather unbecoming for you to categorize patriots in the manner that you have."
How dare you! You arrogant pompous @ss.
Have you no shame?

Hi Tom. How ya doin?

[Marie]

Lessee if I got anything here for ya. Okie dokie ... here we go ...
how 'bout this -

http://www.frogstar.com/files/wav/bullwink.wa...

[Marie]

Ayehhh - those Rocky & Bullwinkle ones, they never work.

[Marie]

OKh alrighty then ... here Tom - here is something I KNOW you will just LOVE:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml...

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

its ME wrote:

To the Marxist who claims to be Patriot,
You wrote:
"Yet. However, worldwide terrorism has increased."
NO IT HAS NOT!!!! You are flat out lying.
Proof? Evidence? Back-up? Source? Support?
Put up or shut up!!

http://indiablogs.searchindia.com/2009/05/01/...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/dailyUpdat...

http://www.jamestown.org/single/... [tt_news]=34960

While it can be said that terrorist attacks have decreased in 2008, it is because of a spike in 2006-2007 in the number of attacks. The level is still above earlier numbers. More chilling is the perspective by many that the number of Islamic terrorist cells are increasing in numbers.....

[its ME]

WOW that was great information.

Interesting how what you call a terrorist attack is what most of us refer to as part of the Iraq war.

Christian Science Monitor wrote that more then half of all terrorist attacks last year were in Iraq. That is how the enemy played their "war" game.

Part of their "war" strategy was to turn the public opinion of Iraqi citizens to believe it's better to have security then the freedom America promised them.

This from the Christian Science Monitor:
(The link you provided)
"More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, said a counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data haven't been made public. Roughly 85 percent of the US citizens who died from terrorism during the year died in Iraq. The figures cover only noncombatants and thus don't include combat deaths of US, Iraqi and other coalition soldiers.

"There's no question that the level of terrorist attacks in Iraq was up substantially," said the official, who's familiar with the methods used by the National Counterterrorism Center to track terrorist trends. The center is part of the US intelligence community."

What some call terrorism others call acts of "war."

And the truth is, if Americans had done what the enemy was doing during the Iraq "war," we would have been called "war" criminals NOT TERRORISTS, and YOU would have been among those making that accusation.

And the link you provided from Indiablogs, shows the US State Dept numbers for terrorist attacks.

In 2006 and 2007 ----- 14,500 each year.
In 2008 ---------- 11,770

Your own link indicates a reduction of almost 3,000 terrorist attacks.

You originally wrote: "Yet. However, worldwide terrorism has increased."

When you said that I responded with;
"NO IT HAS NOT!!!! You are flat out lying.

I am grateful you proved I was correct.

I guess you didn't find the best links for your argument, eh?

***To friends of this guy from Wichita, I didn't use anything in my comments that wasn't provided by the guy himself. So, if you feel compelled to respond - you might think about persuading him to stop lying.

OOOOPS!
Perhaps lying is not PC enough for some of his friends. The word you like would be, SPINNING.

[Marie]

its ME wrote:

WOW that was great information.
Interesting how what you call a terrorist attack is what most of us refer to as part of the Iraq war.
Christian Science Monitor wrote that more then half of all terrorist attacks last year were in Iraq. That is how the enemy played their "war" game.
Part of their "war" strategy was to turn the public opinion of Iraqi citizens to believe it's better to have security then the freedom America promised them.
This from the Christian Science Monitor:
(The link you provided)
"More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, said a counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data haven't been made public. Roughly 85 percent of the US citizens who died from terrorism during the year died in Iraq. The figures cover only noncombatants and thus don't include combat deaths of US, Iraqi and other coalition soldiers.
"There's no question that the level of terrorist attacks in Iraq was up substantially," said the official, who's familiar with the methods used by the National Counterterrorism Center to track terrorist trends. The center is part of the US intelligence community."
What some call terrorism others call acts of "war."
And the truth is, if Americans had done what the enemy was doing during the Iraq "war," we would have been called "war" criminals NOT TERRORISTS, and YOU would have been among those making that accusation.
And the link you provided from Indiablogs, shows the US State Dept numbers for terrorist attacks.
In 2006 and 2007 ----- 14,500 each year.
In 2008 ---------- 11,770
Your own link indicates a reduction of almost 3,000 terrorist attacks.
You originally wrote: "Yet. However, worldwide terrorism has increased."
When you said that I responded with;
"NO IT HAS NOT!!!! You are flat out lying.
I am grateful you proved I was correct.
I guess you didn't find the best links for your argument, eh?
***To friends of this guy from Wichita, I didn't use anything in my comments that wasn't provided by the guy himself. So, if you feel compelled to respond - you might think about persuading him to stop lying.
OOOOPS!
Perhaps lying is not PC enough for some of his friends. The word you like would be, SPINNING.

Yeah - that's the ticket.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

its ME wrote:

WOW that was great information.
Interesting how what you call a terrorist attack is what most of us refer to as part of the Iraq war.
Christian Science Monitor wrote that more then half of all terrorist attacks last year were in Iraq. That is how the enemy played their "war" game.
Part of their "war" strategy was to turn the public opinion of Iraqi citizens to believe it's better to have security then the freedom America promised them.
This from the Christian Science Monitor:
(The link you provided)
"More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, said a counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data haven't been made public. Roughly 85 percent of the US citizens who died from terrorism during the year died in Iraq. The figures cover only noncombatants and thus don't include combat deaths of US, Iraqi and other coalition soldiers.
"There's no question that the level of terrorist attacks in Iraq was up substantially," said the official, who's familiar with the methods used by the National Counterterrorism Center to track terrorist trends. The center is part of the US intelligence community."
What some call terrorism others call acts of "war."
And the truth is, if Americans had done what the enemy was doing during the Iraq "war," we would have been called "war" criminals NOT TERRORISTS, and YOU would have been among those making that accusation.
And the link you provided from Indiablogs, shows the US State Dept numbers for terrorist attacks.
In 2006 and 2007 ----- 14,500 each year.
In 2008 ---------- 11,770
Your own link indicates a reduction of almost 3,000 terrorist attacks.
You originally wrote: "Yet. However, worldwide terrorism has increased."
When you said that I responded with;
"NO IT HAS NOT!!!! You are flat out lying.
I am grateful you proved I was correct.
I guess you didn't find the best links for your argument, eh?
***To friends of this guy from Wichita, I didn't use anything in my comments that wasn't provided by the guy himself. So, if you feel compelled to respond - you might think about persuading him to stop lying.
OOOOPS!
Perhaps lying is not PC enough for some of his friends. The word you like would be, SPINNING.

Good try/spin! However the number of terrorist attacks have increased since the onset of the Iraq invasion. They have decreased from 2007 to 2008 but the number is still elevated.

That is the same argument that the climate deniers use. Since world temperatures decreased from 2007 to 2008 global warming has been disproved. However, they do not admit that the temperatures are still above the 50 year average.

Terrorism is still a festering sore.