ardowling Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Here's your sign. Whats a matter can't come back with anything better than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 I talked about a man of honor who saved his men and admitted he did it, not a man who lied about a blowjob, there is a world of difference there lawyer, you should know that. Lied under oath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Not so, he admitted that he protected his men, and recieved non-judicial punishment after an AR-32 hearing(Grand Jury) did not recommend a courts martial, there was no drumming out show me where he was forced out, but why should you continue if you have no chance to command or progress. You know this but you are spinning it to meet your story lawyer. There's your spin. You're absolutely right. There are a great many on the far left that have no reservations about misrepresenting the truth and will continually beat that drum. What about the fact that Barrack Obama hung out with an admitted terrorist? Or the fact that he couldn't produce a real birth certificate? Or the fact that he had zero executive experience before becoming President and produced no significant legislation in the time that he was a state or U.S. Senator? Obama isn't even helping to write the Health Care legislation he desperately wants to pass. Obama is a do-nothing that keeps bad company. It is unbelievable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Why didn't you reply to my response? Oh by the way torture my ass. Liberal debating tactics...avoid answering the question and distract your opponent with something that has no substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardowling Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Liberal debating tactics...avoid answering the question and distract your opponent with something that has no substance. I know and the real question is would our elected leadership give up their career (Pelosi, Ried, etc) like LTC West to save people? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 You're absolutely right. There are a great many on the far left that have no reservations about misrepresenting the truth and will continually beat that drum. What about the fact that Barrack Obama hung out with an admitted terrorist? ... By that logic, didn't Rumsfeld hang out with Saddam?? The guy was part of the political scene in IL, if you're guilty by association then our entire government should be tossed out... Or the fact that he couldn't produce a real birth certificate? I can't believe you're beating a birther drum... Do you have any idea how you get a passport?? You have to show them a birth certificate...:doh: Wow, even Rush and Hannity have backed of of this. Or the fact that he had zero executive experience before becoming President and produced no significant legislation in the time that he was a state or U.S. Senator? Obama isn't even helping to write the Health Care legislation he desperately wants to pass. Obama is a do-nothing that keeps bad company. It is unbelievable... Agreed, no executive experience. Not helping to write the HC legislation?? I thought it was kinda clear that what he wanted was for our elected officials to actually do something and work together to get a bill... he still has to sign it right? Can you point out a piece of legislation that Bush personally wrote? As far as "do nothing", more people have argued that he's doing to much. P.S. I think he's a muslim. :shhh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardowling Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 By that logic, didn't Rumsfeld hang out with Saddam?? The guy was part of the political scene in IL, if you're guilty by association then our entire government should be tossed out...I can't believe you're beating a birther drum... Do you have any idea how you get a passport?? You have to show them a birth certificate...:doh: Wow, even Rush and Hannity have backed of of this. Agreed, no executive experience. Not helping to write the HC legislation?? I thought it was kinda clear that what he wanted was for our elected officials to actually do something and work together to get a bill... he still has to sign it right? Can you point out a piece of legislation that Bush personally wrote? As far as "do nothing", more people have argued that he's doing to much. P.S. I think he's a muslim. :shhh: I noticed while you were at it you didn't answer my question, would he give up his career to save people. I think not cause its all about the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 His Demographic includes moderates (IMO). I think this is wishful thinking by those who are hoping for 8 years of Obama. Well, now I'm confused. Midnight Judges insists that I'm a died in the wool Republican, but now I'm being told that my fondest dream is to have 8 years of Obama. Will someone please clarify for me what it is I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I noticed while you were at it you didn't answer my question, would he give up his career to save people. I think not cause its all about the man. You asked me a question?? I'll go look for it. I couldn't really tell you if he would or wouldn't but he is commander and chief so...I can say that Mr West was already at the end of his career and was offered an out instead of prison. I would never call him a stupid man, he made the right choice. EDIT: You were talking to Larry I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 By that logic, didn't Rumsfeld hang out with Saddam?? The guy was part of the political scene in IL, if you're guilty by association then our entire government should be tossed out... So, you define Saddam Hussein as a terrorist then? Do you then support the invasion of Iraq, which was lead by a "terrorist?" Saddam was a head of state and at one point in time was not an enemy of the united states and a "lesser evil" next to the Iranian government. Not the same thing as Bill Ayers. Agreed, no executive experience. Not helping to write the HC legislation?? I thought it was kinda clear that what he wanted was for our elected officials to actually do something and work together to get a bill... he still has to sign it right? Can you point out a piece of legislation that Bush personally wrote? As far as "do nothing", more people have argued that he's doing to much. Bush didn't run on promising Health Care reform. And Bush, despite any of his faults, displayed far more substantive leadership than Obama. P.S. I think he's a muslim. :shhh: Weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 This thread has turned into a cluster****, so I'm going to post this military-related picture to hopefully start a derailment: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Well, now I'm confused.Midnight Judges insists that I'm a died in the wool Republican, but now I'm being told that my fondest dream is to have 8 years of Obama. Will someone please clarify for me what it is I think? I was simply disagreeing with you. I don't know how you are affiliated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 So, you define Saddam Hussein as a terrorist then? Do you then support the invasion of Iraq, which was lead by a terrorist? Saddam was a head of state and at one point in time was not an enemy of the united states and a "lesser evil" next to the Iranian government. Not the same thing as Bill Ayers. Actually I knew you'd go there. Saddam wasn't a terrorist, was he an evil man? Absolutely! The war in Iraq was illegal and Bush and crew should be brought up on charges. We invaded a democratically elected government that's hard to type without laughing, on a bunch of lies and misinformation. Lil Bush wanted payback for the attempted assassination on poppa Bush. How many lifes were lost for his family honor, all the while ignoring the real threat, Afghanistan and Osama. :doh: The lesser of evils is always our motto. It's why Mr Reagan delt with terrorists, we funded and trained Osama remember. Iran contra...etc. What is your point here? Where does getting a passport enter into this discussion? People produce all kinds of convincing, fake documents in this country. Really?? You're claiming that the president of the USA faked his BC...I didn't know you were a birther. You've lost a lot of cred with that one. Bush didn't run on promising Health Care reform. And Bush, despite any of his faults, displayed far more substantive leadership than Obama. No he ran on a made up platform, kinda like he would make up words...what's a compassionate conservative again?? Weak. Dude, you're a birther...nuff said. :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I was simply disagreeing with you. I don't know how you are affiliated. Don't let him trick you, I'm certain there's a singular issue he'd vote on if the Republicans could actually pull it off, which they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Actually I knew you'd go there. Saddam wasn't a terrorist, was he an evil man? Absolutely! The war in Iraq was illegal and Bush and crew should be brought up on charges. We invaded a democratically elected government that's hard to type without laughing, on a bunch of lies and misinformation. Lil Bush wanted payback for the attempted assassination on poppa Bush. How many lifes were lost for his family honor, all the while ignoring the real threat, Afghanistan and Osama. :doh: The lesser of evils is always our motto. It's why Mr Reagan delt with terrorists, we funded and trained Osama remember. Iran contra...etc. Talk about lack of credibility. The invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Saddam violated 18 U.N. resolutions that were open-ended in the use of military force. It is misleading when you say "we trained Osama." It leaves a very specific impression and doesn't clarify the facts. We trained Afghan "freedom fighter"s to fight the Russians, not to fly airplanes into buildings full of civilians. Arabs also migrated to Afghanistan to join the fight against the "Athiest Russians." Osama Bin Laden was among those Arabs who migrated there. He was one of many. Really?? You're claiming that the president of the USA faked his BC...I didn't know you were a birther. You've lost a lot of cred with that one. I know that any small victory you can achieve is very important to you when your arguments lack substance in so many areas. No he ran on a made up platform, kinda like he would make up words...what's a compassionate conservative again?? Specify the "made up platform." Dude, you're a birther...nuff said. :hysterical: Dude, in that one statement, you just defeated me on all counts. How did you do that? You're too good! :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 When we fund and train them they're freedom fighters but when someone else does it they're terrorists... I love it. If memory serves me right, Bush's platform was fiscal conservatism, compassionate conservatism, smaller government and limited international involvement. National debt sky rockets Tossed out the Geneva convention and tortured prisoners. Increased the size of government with the creation of new agencies like home land security. Started wars all over the place. :hysterical: EDIT: Your thread was originally about Mr West. Maybe we should leave this stuff for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 When we fund and train them they're freedom fighters but when someone else does it they're terrorists... I love it. "Freedom Fighters" is what they called themselves, which is why I put it in quotations. The clear point that I made was that they developed their own strategies and code of ethics where 9/11 type attacks are concerned. That is not something we taught them, which is not clarified in your short and misleading statement that "we trained Osama Bin Laden." If memory serves me right, Bush's platform was fiscal conservatism, compassionate conservatism, smaller government and limited international involvement. National debt sky rockets I agree that Bush did not do nearly enough to strong arm Congress' out of control spending. Of course, a necessary WOT had something to do with it. Tossed out the Geneva convention and tortured prisoners. The Geneva convention is explicitly applied only to uniformed state militaries. It has no legal application to rogue terrorist organizations. Cry me a river of tears. Increased the size of government with the creation of new agencies like home land security.Started wars all over the place. All over the place? Where? Like in New York City? Fact: No U.S. President deployed American soldiers more times than President Bill Clinton. :hysterical: I am truly happy for you that you feel you can congratulate yourself even though you have very little to contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardowling Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 You asked me a question?? I'll go look for it. I couldn't really tell you if he would or wouldn't but he is commander and chief so...I can say that Mr West was already at the end of his career and was offered an out instead of prison. I would never call him a stupid man, he made the right choice. EDIT: You were talking to Larry I think. I was but I don't think your far from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOLASKINSFAN Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Sarah Palin has been successfully ruined. I think it may be impossible for Sarah Palin to become electable again. There are still certain things I like about her though. Last I check her numbers are better than Obama's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Last I check her numbers are better than Obama's... And your point? He's President. She's selling books. Unless they're actually running against each other you can't make that comparison. She doesn't even hold a public office right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 "Freedom Fighters" is what they called themselves, which is why I put it in quotations. The clear point that I made was that they developed their own strategies and code of ethics where 9/11 type attacks are concerned. That is not something we taught them, which is not clarified in your short and misleading statement that "we trained Osama Bin Laden." I love revisionist history...:hysterical: Got any more of whatever you're smoking?? I agree that Bush did not do nearly enough to strong arm Congress' out of control spending. Of course, a necessary WOT had something to do with it. Some common ground. But strong arm congress?? They rubber stamped everything that he put in front of them. I think it was Bush who was doing the strong arming. The Geneva convention is explicitly applied only to uniformed national militaries. It has no legal application to rogue terrorist organizations. Cry me a river of tears. Convenient that we made up new labels for who we were fighting. Makes everyone sleep better at night. What about Mr West, he admitted to torturing an Iraqi policeman...don't policeman wear uniforms?? But really, we preach the moral high ground and we've failed miserably at it. Even Mr McCain said that we should never torture, maybe that's because he served and was tortured unlike Cheney who never served and Bush who served stateside and barely showed up for work.:doh: All over the place? Where? Like in New York City? Fact: No U.S. President deployed American soldiers more times than President Bill Clinton. Just because you put the word "fact" in front doesn't make it so. You really think that Clinton beat Bush in which president deployed more soldiers during their term?? lol I am truly happy for you that you feel you can congratulate yourself even though you have very little to contribute. Dude, that beer was for you. Come now, I've obviously contributed something, You've been talking to me for a few days now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Some common ground. But strong arm congress?? They rubber stamped everything that he put in front of them. I think it was Bush who was doing the strong arming. Seriously, Bush didn't veto a single bill of any sort, spending or otherwise, his first six years in office. I think that is unique. Based on votes and actions, Republicans and Bush were in absolute agreement over spending and expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Last I check her numbers are better than Obama's... Where did you hear that? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30724.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I agree that Bush did not do nearly enough to strong arm Congress' out of control spending. Of course, a necessary WOT had something to do with it. Sure, the war on terror acounted for roughly 10% of the $7 trillion in National debt racked up under Republican economic policy, otherwise known as Reaganomics. An additional 10% went to Iraq, which actually has a lot more to do with nation-building than terrorism. The vast majority of why Republicans doubled our national debt was because of their "tax cuts." I put it in quotations because all Republicans really did was borrow $5 trillion from our future selves during a time when the economy was good anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 I love revisionist history...:hysterical: Got any more of whatever you're smoking?? You have said absolutely nothing here. So, are you seriously suggesting that we trained Osama Bin Laden to launch large scale attacks on our own country? Some common ground. But strong arm congress?? They rubber stamped everything that he put in front of them. I think it was Bush who was doing the strong arming. Congress has the Constitutional power to spend government money. Congress did it in excess then and continues to do the same now. Convenient that we made up new labels for who we were fighting. Makes everyone sleep better at night. The Geneva convention is explicit about who it protects. It does not protect Al Qaeda no matter how you want to label them. What about Mr West, he admitted to torturing an Iraqi policeman...don't policeman wear uniforms?? But really, we preach the moral high ground and we've failed miserably at it. Did he "torture" Iraqi policemen? In World War II Japanese and American soldiers fighting in the Pacific Islands use to castrate each other in captivity. Your idea of torture is probably turning the heat down to 70 degrees. Again, cry me a river of tears. Even Mr McCain said that we should never torture, maybe that's because he served and was tortured Yes, he was really tortured. He was beaten and had bones broken in POW camps to prove it. unlike Cheney who never served and Bush who served stateside and barely showed up for work.:doh: You and Dan Rather both. You just won't quit. lol Just because you put the word "fact" in front doesn't make it so. You really think that Clinton beat Bush in which president deployed more soldiers during their term?? lol Clinton ordered deployment of U.S. soldiers more times than any other President (this included to Haiti, Semolia, and the former Yugoslavia). This was reported in a documentary by the New York Times expanded Discovery Channel. Clinton constantly used the military to meddle in foreign affairs. In fact, our modern day tensions with Russia are rooted in the fact that Clinton backed the other side in the Bosnia conflict. Your map references the number of places to which U.S. troops are currently stationed (over I don't know how much time? Since WW II?), not the number of troop deployments during a particular administration. Dude, that beer was for you. Come now, I've obviously contributed something, You've been talking to me for a few days now. You have contributed a little...a little. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.