# Blame Bush now?



## RetiredGySgt

Gen Pace is being replaced on October 2nd as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I know the Democrats and the Liberals all claim that Bush has fired this General or that one... I suggest you READ the article and then start the spin on how it is still Bush thats doing it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070615/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq


----------



## maineman

if the guy had been any good at his job, he would have kept it.  pure and simple.

at least Team Bush saw the handwriting on the wall and did not renominate him.  He was the Harriet Meirs in the pantheon of CJCS's.


----------



## maineman

and YOUR panties are all in a bunch because he was the first jarhead to hold the post and _couldn't_ hold it.  ah well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

That is an assumption on your part and one NOT supported by the facts. All I am pointing out is that Generals are NOT removed for disagreeing with Bush. In fact this one is being let go because the Dems do NOT like him. He is not, as most were not, fired, his tour expires in October and he won't be reappointed, JUST as the other Officers that the left have claimed were fired were "let go".

Of course you won't acknowledge the point, par for the course. Instead you try to change the subject because you know the POINT is bad for your party. And what do Liberals do when they can not refute facts? They attack the messenger in the hopes they can obfusicate the real point.


----------



## maineman

I never suggested for a minute that he was fired for disagreeing with Bush. I suggested that he was not renominated, even though the initial plan was to do so, because it was clear that congress, if not the rest of the administration, felt he was incompetent.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

It doesn't matter which officer holds the job. 

Bush broke something that's impossible to fix. The military in particular bought the story hook, line, and sinker, and now they're STILL in denial. It'd be funny if we didn't have so many dead kids.


----------



## Shogun

I wouldn't say IMPOSSIBLE...


we just dont seem to have much luck moving the fragile china by tossing a grenade into the room.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> It doesn't matter which officer holds the job.
> 
> Bush broke something that's impossible to fix. The military in particular bought the story hook, line, and sinker, and now they're STILL in denial. It'd be funny if we didn't have so many dead kids.



Unsubstantiated rhetoric.  The military does as the CinC orders it to.  It doesn't matter whether or not it buys what.  

To the contrary, I would say military personnel are head and shoulders above the whiney-ass civilians I see every day.  We still possess the belief that if you give us a shitty job, we'll get it done so long as we're allowed to do what is necessary to accomplish the task.  Unlike the whiney, snot-nosed left-wingnuts who, the very second the going gets the least bit difficult, toss in the towel and declare the situation "unwinnable."


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> I never suggested for a minute that he was fired for disagreeing with Bush. I suggested that he was not renominated, even though the initial plan was to do so, because it was clear that congress, if not the rest of the administration, felt he was incompetent.



He wasn't renominated because he isn't a kiss-ass roll-over political proxy in uniform.


----------



## Annie

GunnyL said:


> He wasn't renominated because he isn't a kiss-ass roll-over political proxy in uniform.



My understanding, Bush failed to renominate, knowing the dems would make an issue. Pox on both.


----------



## Gunny

Kathianne said:


> My understanding, Bush failed to renominate, knowing the dems would make an issue. Pox on both.



Traditionally, Commandant of the Marine Corps and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps are terminal posts.  You have to go back 50+ years to find a CMC or SgtMaj of the MC that served more than 4 years.  

The CMC is a member of the JCS.

I'm not sure how that factors in with Gen Pace since he is Chairman, JCS, but Gen Conway is CMC.

If what you say is true, that is a completely different issue and doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Corps is probably th emost overall conservative of branches of the armed forces.  Liberal Marine officers DON'T wear 4 stars.  From what I ever say, they never even made it one.


----------



## Superlative

GunnyL said:


> Unlike the whiney, snot-nosed left-wingnuts who, the very second the going gets the least bit difficult, toss in the towel and declare the situation "unwinnable."



The very second?

How long are Dems supposed to wait for there to be signs that this is winnable??

The second the going gets the least bit difficult? 

If the going was ever good, that would be something different, but the last time the going was "OK" Saddam was running things. 

Is there a law for distribution of oil yet?

a constitutional review processs?

OK, OK, there is ONE PLAN. 

*Now we're arming the fuckin Sunni's? *


The very people that we've been fighting. 

But its OK, they promise to - only fight al Qaeda.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

This is the kind of plan id expect from the same people who started a war with no strategy or clue. 

And you complain about Dems, at least they wanted to hold the Iraqi's to benchmarks, some kind of timeline, or actual plan. 

But that idea wasnt good enough, so we'll just give the insurgents weapons.

*good idea*.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Traditionally, Commandant of the Marine Corps and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps are terminal posts.  You have to go back 50+ years to find a CMC or SgtMaj of the MC that served more than 4 years.
> 
> The CMC is a member of the JCS.
> 
> I'm not sure how that factors in with Gen Pace since he is Chairman, JCS, but Gen Conway is CMC.
> 
> If what you say is true, that is a completely different issue and doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Corps is probably th emost overall conservative of branches of the armed forces.  Liberal Marine officers DON'T wear 4 stars.  From what I ever say, they never even made it one.



democrats would not make an issue about his confirmation based upon his political leanings.  I doubt that there have been ANY CJCS who have been what anyone could possibly call "liberal".  Democrats and republicans have been routinely confirming the nominations of CJCS appointees since 1942.  I know of NONE who were not confirmed.  Republicans should not try to make this "political".  From discussions with one former marine classmate as early as thanksgiving of last year, his contacts on active duty did not have exactly glowing praise for Pace, and I must say, from my limited experience watching him behind the podium, he seemed ill-equipped for the scrutiny and media attention incumbent with that position... and the fact of a failed execution of a flawed strategy in Iraq unfortunately falls on him first.  

A commanding officer of a navy ship, in the dead of night, asleep in his bunk underway when his officer of the deck on the bridge makes a grievous error and has a collision or runs aground, always loses his command.


----------



## Truthmatters

There is a vast differance between giving up in a winable fight and ceasing to throw our kids lives away in an situation which has no solution.

I am not willing to leave the blood of our bravest in Iraq for 30 years until the various groups of the Iraqi "might" stop wanting to kill each other.

Continuing this war in the "hope" that they will change their hate for each other is folly and will destroy this country.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

You know, I've been on tons of boards like these and have yet to see one active member who openly claims to be a commissioned officer. Just one. So far, it's been nothing but a bunch of enlistee and noncom slobs with endless buddy-rah-rah horsehockey. It gets tiresome. 

Are there ANY officers out there who can provide some REAL perspective? Please???


----------



## maineman

The Man @ Lunch said:


> You know, I've been on tons of boards like these and have yet to see one active member who openly claims to be a commissioned officer. Just one. So far, it's been nothing but a bunch of enlistee and noncom slobs with endless buddy-rah-rah horsehockey. It gets tiresome.
> 
> Are there ANY officers out there who can provide some REAL perspective? Please???



you tawkin' to me?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Man @ Lunch said:


> You know, I've been on tons of boards like these and have yet to see one active member who openly claims to be a commissioned officer. Just one. So far, it's been nothing but a bunch of enlistee and noncom slobs with endless buddy-rah-rah horsehockey. It gets tiresome.
> 
> Are there ANY officers out there who can provide some REAL perspective? Please???



Commissioned Officers have no special knowledge and are not any better then Non Commissioned Officers. Find me ONE Officer that can run his command without Non Commissioned Officers. Officers at the Higher levels decide Strategy, but guess who does the bulk of actual work? Want to know the capabilities and limitations of a Unit? Don't ask a Colonol, ask a Sergeant.

Want to know WHY we go somewhere, ask an officer, want to know what we will do when we get there, ask a NonCommissioned Officer.

There is a very appropriate joke for this.... What is the difference between a 2nd Lt and a LCpl?


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> There is a vast differance between giving up in a winable fight and ceasing to throw our kids lives away in an situation which has no solution.
> 
> I am not willing to leave the blood of our bravest in Iraq for 30 years until the various groups of the Iraqi "might" stop wanting to kill each other.
> 
> Continuing this war in the "hope" that they will change their hate for each other is folly and will destroy this country.



You're not really willing to do much but sit on your ass and criticize, and perpetuate lies.  It is THAT, and those like you that are a far graver threat to this country than any war.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> You know, I've been on tons of boards like these and have yet to see one active member who openly claims to be a commissioned officer. Just one. So far, it's been nothing but a bunch of enlistee and noncom slobs with endless buddy-rah-rah horsehockey. It gets tiresome.
> 
> Are there ANY officers out there who can provide some REAL perspective? Please???



Noncom slobs?  Obviously your knowledge of the military is as ignorant as your remark.  

You're just typical of uneducated, no-experienced civilians who talk out their asses about something they gained the vast majority of their knowledge on watching Hogan's Heroes reruns.


----------



## Truthmatters

So the roughly 70% of America that realises that the Iraq war is not in Americas best interest are a threat to America?


Gunny you cant even admitt that Valerie Plame was OUR agent when our own CIA, The president, the congress and the rest of the entire world Knows this as fact.

What hope do you have to understand the differance between a lie and the truth?


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> So the roughly 70&#37; of America that realises that the Iraq war is not in Americas best interest are a threat to America?
> 
> 
> Gunny you cant even admitt that Valerie Plame was OUR agent when our own CIA, The president, the congress and the rest of the entire world Knows this as fact.
> 
> What hope do you have to understand the differance between a lie and the truth?



What 70% of Americans?  The ones you dreamed up?  Or the ones in one of your rigged polls?  Or perhaps just your dishonest protrayal of what their opinions?

That so-called 70% disapproved of the way the war was being conducted ... not the war itself.

One Plame has nothing to do with this thread.  Two, it is not I that defines "covert."  The law does.  You and your ilk refuse to even acknowledge the fact that Plame's so-called "cover" did not meet the criteria of the law.

You're 0-2 attempting to push your dishonest arguments.  Going to try for 3?


----------



## Truthmatters

my Ilk?

Just who is my Ilk when it comes to the truths you chose not to believe, the CIA, the president, the congress and the entire thinking world?

How do you prove to someone that America wants the Iraq war to end who wont believe polls and elections?


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> my Ilk?
> 
> Just who is my Ilk when it comes to the truths you chose not to believe, the CIA, the president, the congress and the entire thinking world?
> 
> How do you prove to someone that America wants the Iraq war to end who wont believe polls and elections?



Your ilk:  dishonest left-wing extremists perpetuating lies and half-truthes to support and cover up for the lack of any real political idealism based on anything positive.

I corrected your dishonest portrayal of poll that concerned _conduct of _the war, not the war itself.


----------



## Truthmatters

What kind of message do you think the last election was sending to the elected officails of our country?


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> What kind of message do you think the last election was sending to the elected officails of our country?



The message sent in the last election is that conservatives will not support Republicans put in office to accomplish something they do not accomplish.  

While you and your ilk claim some mandate, the fact is, it was a housecleaning, and the message you lefties should get is that conservatives can make or break.

The Dem's had a PERFECT opportunity to step up to the plate, rise above petty partisan politics and govern this Nation.  Instead, all we've gotten is a continuation of where they left off in the 90s.  For which they will pay, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

The difference between you and me is I was critical of the Republicans for not doing as they promised the entire time they held the majority.  You on the other hand will just blindly support the name with a (D) next to it.

When you lefties start holding your own as accountable as you do Republicans, as conservatives did their own, we might just get some common sense and actual government back in the driver's seat.

As far as the war goes ... for the third time ... the majority did not oppose the war itself, they opposed the way it was being conducted.  Quit trying to revise history.


----------



## Truthmatters

http://tinyurl.com/2g5rma


This article tells us why the McCain campaign is sinking.

Guess what they attribute his inability to gain supporters to?


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> http://tinyurl.com/2g5rma
> 
> 
> This article tells us why the McCain campaign is sinking.
> 
> Guess what they attribute his inability to gain supporters to?



I'm just wondering how many different topics you are going to introduce into this one thread.


----------



## red states rule

Truthmatters said:


> There is a vast differance between giving up in a winable fight and ceasing to throw our kids lives away in an situation which has no solution.
> 
> I am not willing to leave the blood of our bravest in Iraq for 30 years until the various groups of the Iraqi "might" stop wanting to kill each other.
> 
> Continuing this war in the "hope" that they will change their hate for each other is folly and will destroy this country.



Libs need to make sure they can get their points across to the voters


----------



## CSM

The Man @ Lunch said:


> You know, I've been on tons of boards like these and have yet to see one active member who openly claims to be a commissioned officer. Just one. So far, it's been nothing but a bunch of enlistee and noncom slobs with endless buddy-rah-rah horsehockey. It gets tiresome.
> 
> Are there ANY officers out there who can provide some REAL perspective? Please???



Ya know, no matter how long the military has existed, there have been those who are just plain ignorant or just plain too lazy to find out how it works. It gets tiresome. 

The "enlistees and noncom slobs" have a lot of comeraderie but it sure isn't horse-hockey. I guess you would rather we have a military as divided as the civilians in our country...that way we would be sure to see it dissolved?

Your post is arrogant and hypocritical and displays your lack of knowledge regarding military affairs. What you imply in our post is that you don't like what you hear from enlisted and noncoms. You think officers will tell you what you WANT to hear and that it will support our position. I am sure if you dig hard enough you will find such officers...Wesley Clark comes to mind. Of course, those types of generals are just your cup of tea and have NO political ambitions!


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

CSM said:


> The "enlistees and noncom slobs" have a lot of comeraderie but it sure isn't horse-hockey. I guess you would rather we have a military as divided as the civilians in our country...that way we would be sure to see it dissolved?


We should have a military of well-educated (in addition to well-trained) men and women who know how to think for themselves. "We just follow orders" hasn't worked since Nuremburg.





> Your post is arrogant and hypocritical and displays your lack of knowledge regarding military affairs. What you imply in our post is that you don't like what you hear from enlisted and noncoms. You think officers will tell you what you WANT to hear and that it will support our position. I am sure if you dig hard enough you will find such officers...Wesley Clark comes to mind. Of course, those types of generals are just your cup of tea and have NO political ambitions!


The biggest problem I see with noncoms who post on these types of boards is that they think no GOP Commander in Chief can do any wrong. This one has done them dirt plenty of times over, and yet they still maintain that battered wife relationship. And yet their arrogance and hypocrisy continues full steam.

BTW, I supported Clark in the primaries.


----------



## CSM

The Man @ Lunch said:


> We should have a military of well-educated (in addition to well-trained) men and women who know how to think for themselves.
> 
> What makes you think military personnel are ill educated and unable to think for themselves?
> 
> "We just follow orders" hasn't worked since Nuremburg.
> 
> Hmm...didn't see that topic anywhere in this thread...not even a hint of it until now.
> 
> The biggest problem I see with noncoms who post on these types of boards is that they think no GOP Commander in Chief can do any wrong.  How do you know that is what they think? How many noncoms do you know personally? This one has done them dirt plenty of times over, and yet they still maintain that battered wife relationship. Yeah, those military types should just go on strike dammit! Better yet they should just execute the coup and get a commander they like! And yet their arrogance and hypocrisy continues full steam. "Arrogance and hypocrisy..." abounds but it isn't by the military enlisted
> BTW, I supported Clark in the primaries.  Now that is a shocker![/QUOTE]
> 
> Obvioulsy (again) you know nothing of the military.


----------



## Annie

CSM said:


> The Man @ Lunch said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have a military of well-educated (in addition to well-trained) men and women who know how to think for themselves.
> 
> What makes you think military personnel are ill educated and unable to think for themselves?
> 
> "We just follow orders" hasn't worked since Nuremburg.
> 
> Hmm...didn't see that topic anywhere in this thread...not even a hint of it until now.
> 
> The biggest problem I see with noncoms who post on these types of boards is that they think no GOP Commander in Chief can do any wrong.  How do you know that is what they think? How many noncoms do you know personally? This one has done them dirt plenty of times over, and yet they still maintain that battered wife relationship. Yeah, those military types should just go on strike dammit! Better yet they should just execute the coup and get a commander they like! And yet their arrogance and hypocrisy continues full steam. "Arrogance and hypocrisy..." abounds but it isn't by the military enlisted
> BTW, I supported Clark in the primaries.  Now that is a shocker![/QUOTE]
> 
> Obvioulsy (again) you know nothing of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with his ignorance of the military. Perhaps he and most certainly others that respect the military, would gain alot of perspective reading this
> 
> Coms and noncoms, heroes all!
Click to expand...


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

CSM said:


> The Man @ Lunch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with noncoms who post on these types of boards is that they think no GOP Commander in Chief can do any wrong. This one has done them dirt plenty of times over, and yet they still maintain that battered wife relationship. Yeah, those military types should just go on strike dammit! Better yet they should just execute the coup and get a commander they like! ...
> 
> Obvioulsy (again) you know nothing of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you're the one whose military knowledge is lacking. Your oath was to defend the Constitution *first*, and obey the CiC second. Remember that? Obviously not (or you're one of those who remembers only what suits your purpose _when _it happens to suit your purpose).
> 
> Since the CiC has acted outside the Constitution, he should according to your oath be arrested and tried. Ideally at Gitmo.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

Kathianne said:


> I agree with his ignorance of the military.


You can't actually respond to the argument, so you just disingenuously accuse the opposition of ignorance. Reminds me of the sullen teenager telling mom and dad: "You don't UNDERSTAND me!"

At least teenagers grow out of it, eventually.


----------



## Annie

The Man @ Lunch said:


> You can't actually respond to the argument, so you just disingenuously accuse the opposition of ignorance. Reminds me of the sullen teenager telling mom and dad: "You don't UNDERSTAND me!"
> 
> At least teenagers grow out of it, eventually.



You. base. that. on. what?


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

Kathianne said:


> You. base. that. on. what?


On the obvious reality that, if you really thought someone was totally ignorant, you'd at least make some attempt to educate them. You didn't.

Much easier just to say "they don't get it" and pretend you "won."


----------



## CSM

The Man @ Lunch said:


> CSM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you're the one whose military knowledge is lacking. Your oath was to defend the Constitution *first*, and obey the CiC second. Remember that? Obviously not (or you're one of those who remembers only what suits your purpose _when _it happens to suit your purpose).
> 
> Since the CiC has acted outside the Constitution, he should according to your oath be arrested and tried. Ideally at Gitmo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes more than your assertions to prove the CiC acted outside the Constitution...or do you think justice is soley the perview of public opinion?
> 
> So I can now safely assume that you know nothing not only of military affairs but that you also care nothing for the US justice system....
> 
> That's ok, you are not alone. There are plenty of radical Islamics with your view....
Click to expand...


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

CSM said:


> It takes more than your assertions to prove the CiC acted outside the Constitution...or do you think justice is soley the perview of public opinion?


You act as though I'm the first ever to have suggested such a thing.  

(The fact that there's no such word as "perview" doesn't help your cause much, either...)


----------



## Annie

The Man @ Lunch said:


> On the obvious reality that, if you really thought someone was totally ignorant, you'd at least make some attempt to educate them. You didn't.
> 
> Much easier just to say "they don't get it" and pretend you "won."



Considering when I actually 'win', I rarely call it, wrong.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> We should have a military of well-educated (in addition to well-trained) men and women who know how to think for themselves. "We just follow orders" hasn't worked since Nuremburg.The biggest problem I see with noncoms who post on these types of boards is that they think no GOP Commander in Chief can do any wrong. This one has done them dirt plenty of times over, and yet they still maintain that battered wife relationship. And yet their arrogance and hypocrisy continues full steam.
> 
> BTW, I supported Clark in the primaries.



Perhaps instead of jumping to conclusions/reacting preconceived notions you might try doing a little homework and seeing who says what before letting your mouth flat outrun your mind?

I, for one, have been quite outspoken in my displeasure with how Bush has conducted Iraq since the invasion phase ended and the occupation phase began, and I have been both critical and outspoken in my "uneducated, noncom, slob" opinion in regard to invading in the first place.

Your elitist mind obviously cannot grasp the fact that most of us "noncom slobs" serve the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and we swear to protect and defend the Consitution of the United States.  NOT a political party.

I served under Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton and I gave not one of them any less than the other.  

Now if you can'[t understand why military-types would be more entusiastic toward a CinC that will confront an enemy rather than CinC's who brought us the Iranian Hostage Crisis and Somalia, you just aren't thinking clearly.

So when you jump to your conclusions next time, feel free to temper it with the fact that we serve the ideal, not the individual, but I for one am a LOT more willing to follow a man with balls into battle than I am one who is paralyzed through indecision or just doesn't have the stones to stand up to the plate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Man @ Lunch said:


> CSM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you're the one whose military knowledge is lacking. Your oath was to defend the Constitution *first*, and obey the CiC second. Remember that? Obviously not (or you're one of those who remembers only what suits your purpose _when _it happens to suit your purpose).
> 
> Since the CiC has acted outside the Constitution, he should according to your oath be arrested and tried. Ideally at Gitmo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blatant LIE. Not a half truth nor is it supported by the FACTS. The president has done Nothing Unconstitutional in the conduct of, including starting, the "war". Congress could easily stop funding it if it were something a majority wanted to do. If the President acted Unconstitutional why hasn't he been Impeached?
> 
> More to the point SPECIFY what he has done in regards starting and maintaining the "war" that is Unconstitutional. Be specific.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> CSM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you're the one whose military knowledge is lacking. Your oath was to defend the Constitution *first*, and obey the CiC second. Remember that? Obviously not (or you're one of those who remembers only what suits your purpose _when _it happens to suit your purpose).
> 
> Since the CiC has acted outside the Constitution, he should according to your oath be arrested and tried. Ideally at Gitmo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are being intellectually dishonest.  Here is the oath:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere in that oath appears the context you have attempted to interject into it.  That swearing to support and defend the Consitution APPEARS before following the orders of the President sets some sort of echelon of precedence is just pure BS.
> 
> Regardless, it is irrelevant since the President has not ordered the military to do anything that is unconstitutional.  But you can trot out your accusation if it makes you happy.  I haven't had target practice in awhile.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthmatters

You vow to protect the constitution, if the CIC gives you an order which is unconstitutional what do you do?


----------



## Truthmatters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

It will be interesting to see if they do try to try him again?


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> You vow to protect the constitution, if the CIC gives you an order which is unconstitutional what do you do?



Another civilian with no idea how the military functions.  A clearly unconstitutional order wouldn't have a chance in Hell of making it down to the company level.  

Now if I was the Service Secretary or JCS, I would immediately point out that his order was unconstitutional, and could not be carried out as given.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthmatters said:


> You vow to protect the constitution, if the CIC gives you an order which is unconstitutional what do you do?



If? If what? Be specific, what Unconstitutional ORDER or ORDERS did Bush give? and since Presidents almost never order privates around, the order had to go through a Myriad of generals, staff officers, and every serving member of the military involved in "carrying" out the illegal order. It would have to be in writing SOMEWHERE. Unless you are going to claim the president secretly met with just ONE officer, gave the order or orders on the sly and then slipped out unnoticed.

Of course this would still require that the person receiving said illegal order must have passed it on. Again involving a myriad of military personnel that failed to realize they were following an illegal order.

Be specific, who was the fall guy that surrepticiously met with the president and then passed out the "secret" illegal orders? What was the order or orders?

IF? If isn't gonna cut it. make the claim or shut up.


----------



## CSM

The Man @ Lunch said:


> You act as though I'm the first ever to have suggested such a thing.
> 
> (The fact that there's no such word as "perview" doesn't help your cause much, either...)



Thanks for correcting my spelling; I will return the favor every chance I get!

You are deftly tap dancing around the subject and doing a great job of avoiding direct confrontation.  Such postings make for less than boring discussion however.

What specific charges have been brought against Bush through legal processes that substantiate your assertions? On what basis do you find the current military enlisted and noncoms untrained and uneducated?  What supporting evidence do you have for any of the allegations you have made in this thread?


----------



## red states rule

CSM said:


> Thanks for correcting my spelling; I will return the favor every chance I get!
> 
> You are deftly tap dancing around the subject and doing a great job of avoiding direct confrontation.  Such postings make for less than boring discussion however.
> 
> What specific charges have been brought against Bush through legal processes that substantiate your assertions? On what basis do you find the current military enlisted and noncoms untrained and uneducated?  What supporting evidence do you have for any of the allegations you have made in this thread?



To the left, the crime Pres Bush committed was he defeated them in two Presidential elections

The Man @ Lunch learned the troops were uneducated from John Kerry via his "botched joke"


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> Now if you can't understand why military-types would be more entusiastic toward a CinC that will confront an enemy rather than CinC's who brought us the Iranian Hostage Crisis and Somalia, you just aren't thinking clearly.


Neither are you, apparently. It was Daddy Bush who brought us Somalia, right after he lost the election. 

(In all fairness, though, the Iran embassy issue was by far the biggest mistake that a CinC ever made. Just for the record.)


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

CSM said:


> What specific charges have been brought against Bush through legal processes that substantiate your assertions?


The current Congress has rightly been more concerned about bringing the troops home than about impeaching the criminal. The previous congress, of course, was never anything beyond a rubber stamp for him. 

Thank God the American people are tired of such an attitude.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Neither are you, apparently. It was Daddy Bush who brought us Somalia, right after he lost the election.
> 
> (In all fairness, though, the Iran embassy issue was by far the biggest mistake that a CinC ever made. Just for the record.)



I'm thinking QUITE clearly.  Bush may have DEPLOYED US troops to Somalia, but it most certainly was NOT Bush that pulled the rug out from under them.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis WAS indeed a big mistake.  I'm not too sure about the biggest.  Johnson putting combat troops on the ground in Vietnam comes to mind.  The Bay of Pigs.  Nixon having the DNC bugged for an election he carried all but two states in.

There are some pretty good contenders.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> The current Congress has rightly been more concerned about bringing the troops home than about impeaching the criminal. The previous congress, of course, was never anything beyond a rubber stamp for him.
> 
> Thank God the American people are tired of such an attitude.



The current Congress could care less about bring the troops home.  All they care about is opposing Republicans.  

I beg to differ on the "rubber stamp."  The former Congress has so much infighting going on with RINO's and conservatives, they didn't accomplish too much, and they let the minority party intimidate them at will.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> Nowhere in that oath appears the context you have attempted to interject into it.  That swearing to support and defend the Consitution APPEARS before following the orders of the President sets some sort of echelon of precedence is just pure BS.


So instead, am I to understand that you place the President above the Constitution?  A guy named Nixon thought that once, I seem to recall. 

*Now *who's letting his mouth flat outrun his mind?


----------



## red states rule

The Man @ Lunch said:


> The current Congress has rightly been more concerned about bringing the troops home than about impeaching the criminal. The previous congress, of course, was never anything beyond a rubber stamp for him.
> 
> Thank God the American people are tired of such an attitude.



Funny how for two years Dems said more troops were needed and Pres Bush refused

Then when Pres Bush wantes to send more troops to Iraq - Dems are suddenly opposed


----------



## Bullypulpit

maineman said:


> if the guy had been any good at his job, he would have kept it.  pure and simple.
> 
> at least Team Bush saw the handwriting on the wall and did not renominate him.  He was the Harriet Meirs in the pantheon of CJCS's.



I think he was actually thrown under the bus because they didn't want him grilled about the administration's Iraq policy in Iraq and it's failure.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Funny how for two years Dems said more troops were needed and Pres Bush refused
> 
> Then when Pres Bush wantes to send more troops to Iraq - Dems are suddenly opposed



isn't it funny how 150 years ago, black people were property, and now they are not.  The point being:  things change.  A LOT has happened in those two years to convince democrats that pouring more troops into Iraq is a losing proposition.  I have said that all along... other democrats took longer to see the light.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> isn't it funny how 150 years ago, black people were property, and now they are not.  The point being:  things change.  A LOT has happened in those two years to convince democrats that pouring more troops into Iraq is a losing proposition.  I have said that all along... other democrats took longer to see the light.



Things change eh?

Dems are for anything up to very moment Pres Bush agrees with them - then they switch sides

I guess Dems were ready to vote for the troop increase before they voted against it


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Things change eh?
> 
> Dems are for anything up to very moment Pres Bush agrees with them - then they switch sides
> 
> I guess Dems were ready to vote for the troop increase before they voted against it



are you suggesting that things have not been changing in Iraq?

Your "analysis" of the behavior and motivations of the democratic party is flawed, infantile and silly.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that things have not been changing in Iraq?
> 
> Your "analysis" of the behavior and motivations of the democratic party is flawed, infantile and silly.



Dems do not give a shit about the troops - only opposing Pres Bush


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> Your "analysis" of the behavior and motivations of the democratic party is flawed, infantile and silly.





red states rule said:


> Dems do not give a shit about the troops - only opposing Pres Bush



*I rest my case*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> *I rest my case*



Glad to see you admit the Dems go not give a shit about the troops, only about their war on Bush

The voters see the truth as well. Dems approval numbers are lower in yet another poll this morning


----------



## Shogun

*yawn*


it's a good thing that only lefties get fucked with by the powers that be for that kind of worthless post, rsr...  I would feed you another day of your own worthless posts but we've seen how easy it is to run screaming like a little girl to the calvary.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> *yawn*
> 
> 
> it's a good thing that only lefties get fucked with by the powers that be for that kind of worthless post, rsr...  I would feed you another day of your own worthless posts but we've seen how easy it is to run screaming like a little girl to the calvary.



When have Dems ever cared about the troops?

Dems have called them uneducated, terrorists, Nazis, and compared them to Pol Pot


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> When have Dems ever cared about the troops?
> 
> Dems have called them uneducated, terrorists, Nazis, and compared them to Pol Pot



when have you ever cared to do anything but generalize dems?

you have stereotyped dems at every opportunity despite knowing damn well that your opinion is about as whoafully stupid as any dem that does generalize the military as nazis.

I guess it is easy just being the village idiot as long as you've got some authority to run screaming to, eh?


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> when have you ever cared to do anything but generalize dems?
> 
> you have stereotyped dems at every opportunity despite knowing damn well that your opinion is about as whoafully stupid as any dem that does generalize the military as nazis.
> 
> I guess it is easy just being the village idiot as long as you've got some authority to run screaming to, eh?



Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin made the above statements

Not generalizing - they said those things about the troops - it is a fact


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin made the above statements
> 
> Not generalizing - they said those things about the troops - it is a fact



if you can support those specific examples with more than the daily masterbation manifesto from your usual wack ass right wing websites then so be it..

now, lets see you be a man and admit that not all dems want to trash the military.

lets see if you can manage a little objectivity.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> if you can support those specific examples with more than the daily masterbation manifesto from your usual wack ass right wing websites then so be it..
> 
> now, lets see you be a man and admit that not all dems want to trash the military.
> 
> lets see if you can manage a little objectivity.



But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not.  John Kerry


"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime  Pol Pot or others  that had no concern for human beings," Dick Durbin

--"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management"  Ted Kennedy


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not.  John Kerry
> 
> 
> "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime  Pol Pot or others  that had no concern for human beings," Dick Durbin
> 
> --"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management"  Ted Kennedy





YOU assume the worst in what they were actually saying.

but, I digress since you will see what you want to see just like those who were listening for the devil in an Eagles record heard what they wanted to hear.


*By all means, lets see you for once step up and admit that not ALL DEMS are interested in trashing the military.  *


----------



## maineman

did you miss this:

now, lets see you be a man and admit that *not all dems *want to trash the military.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> YOU assume the worst in what they were actually saying.
> 
> but, I digress since you will see what you want to see just like those who were listening for the devil in an Eagles record heard what they wanted to hear.
> 
> 
> *By all means, lets see you for once step up and admit that not ALL DEMS are interested in trashing the military.  *



Yea, we should never judge a lib by what they say or do

That is such a low down dirty trick


----------



## red states rule

I left this one out in the previous post


"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq"  John Kerry


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Yea, we should never judge a lib by what they say or do
> 
> That is such a low down dirty trick



you are not merely judging their words.

you are assuming the worst in their motivation for saying as much just so you can GENERALIZE ALL DEMS.


now, are you going to hop around all day or are you going to be a man and step up to the DIRECT challenge of admitting that not all dems are as bad as you would otherwise be insisting upon?


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> you are not merely judging their words.
> 
> you are assuming the worst in their motivation for saying as much just so you can GENERALIZE ALL DEMS.
> 
> 
> now, are you going to hop around all day or are you going to be a man and step up to the DIRECT challenge of admitting that not all dems are as bad as you would otherwise be insisting upon?



Of course not all libs are bad

 99% of all liberals give the rest a bad name


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Of course not all libs are bad
> 
> 99% of all liberals give the rest a bad name



so, first off, you think that LIBERLAS = DEMS, eh?

moreso, you think only 1% of dems are not commie pinko fags, eh?


way to, uh, be a man about objectivity, dude!

I didn't figure you had it in you..  I guess this is why it works so well to have some calvary to run screaming to when your usual tripe comes back at you, eh?


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> so, first off, you think that LIBERLAS = DEMS, eh?
> 
> moreso, you think only 1% of dems are not commie pinko fags, eh?
> 
> 
> way to, uh, be a man about objectivity, dude!
> 
> I didn't figure you had it in you..  I guess this is why it works so well to have some calvary to run screaming to when your usual tripe comes back at you, eh?



Witht he exception of Sen Lieberman, where is all the support for the troops from the left?

At a anti war rally?


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Witht he exception of Sen Lieberman, where is all the support for the troops from the left?
> 
> At a anti war rally?



do you think that Jim Webb is a pussy commie pinko fag?

support for the troops is not mutually exclusive with criticising the WAR.


but hey, who really expected you to have a pair of balls large enough to at least hint that your typical daily tripe is more of an act than a ken mehlman lifestyle.

like I said.. good thing you can go running like a siren to the calvary, eh?


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> do you think that Jim Webb is a pussy commie pinko fag?
> 
> support for the troops is not mutually exclusive with criticising the WAR.
> 
> 
> but hey, who really expected you to have a pair of balls large enough to at least hint that your typical daily tripe is more of an act than a ken mehlman lifestyle.
> 
> like I said.. good thing you can go running like a siren to the calvary, eh?



He is for the Dems surrender bill - enough said


----------



## maineman

Jim Webb, USNA 68 , Marine, Vietnam vet, Navy Cross winner, Secretary of the Navy for Reagan, US Senator

RSR is not qualified to lick his boots.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Jim Webb, USNA 68 , Marine, Vietnam vet, Navy Cross winner, Secretary of the Navy for Reagan, US Senator
> 
> RSR is not qualified to lick his boots.



and supporter of the Dems surrender bill - you left that part out


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> He is for the Dems surrender bill - enough said



again, criticism of the WAR =\ trashing the military


I bet you wouldnt suggest such a thing to his face..

it would probably take more balls than you cant seem to muster today to tell Jim Webb that he doesn't support the military because he is critical of the iraq fiasco.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> again, criticism of the WAR =\ trashing the military
> 
> 
> I bet you wouldnt suggest such a thing to his face..
> 
> it would probably take more balls than you cant seem to muster today to tell Jim Webb that he doesn't support the military because he is critical of the iraq fiasco.



Dems have done a great job of trashing the military - they need no help from anyone else


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Witht he exception of Sen Lieberman, where is all the support for the troops from the left?
> 
> At a anti war rally?



I cant wait for Prezzy Bush to declare Iraq to be in a state of Civil War, then proclaim that the US should not be involved. 

And Bush will slooowwlyy back out of the room.


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Dems have done a great job of trashing the military - they need no help from anyone else



....and you fall back on transparent stereotyping because we both know that your act doesn't equip you to handle the fact of dems like Jim Webb.


it's cool, dude..

it's not as if anyone really expected you to behave otherwise.

again, at least you can go running like a little girl to ole wyatt when a liberal acts like RSR for a day.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> ....and you fall back on transparent stereotyping because we both know that your act doesn't equip you to handle the fact of dems like Jim Webb.
> 
> 
> it's cool, dude..
> 
> it's not as if anyone really expected you to behave otherwise.
> 
> again, at least you can go running like a little girl to ole wyatt when a liberal acts like RSR for a day.



I have posted the waord of Dems trashing the troops - you ignore them.

Which is what libs do when they are busted

Webb is just another liberal appeaser who would has put his party ahead of his country


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> I have posted the waord of Dems trashing the troops - you ignore them.
> 
> Which is what libs do when they are busted
> 
> Webb is just another liberal appeaser who would has put his party ahead of his country



do you think republicans have never said shit that could be broadly generalized to include you?  

Im sure you agree with ole Strom Thurmans opinion on integration then, right?

hell, ive never seen you stand up and say otherwise so that must mean you are a card carrying klansman looking for a few crosses to burn and some blacks to lynch, right dude?

we can both generalize.  the difference is that I know that my generaliztion doesnt apply to all republicans wheras you seem to hide behind talking shit to dems in order to avoid anything that even REMOTELY looks like objective, interesting dialog.


like I said.. 


it's not as if anyone REALLY figured you'd jmp out of your rut.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> do you think republicans have never said shit that could be broadly generalized to include you?
> 
> Im sure you agree with ole Strom Thurmans opinion on integration then, right?
> 
> hell, ive never seen you stand up and say otherwise so that must mean you are a card carrying klansman looking for a few crosses to burn and some blacks to lynch, right dude?
> 
> we can both generalize.  the difference is that I know that my generaliztion doesnt apply to all republicans wheras you seem to hide behind talking shit to dems in order to avoid anything that even REMOTELY looks like objective, interesting dialog.
> 
> 
> like I said..
> 
> 
> it's not as if anyone REALLY figured you'd jmp out of your rut.



It seems another lib is having another meltdown

I notice you are not commenting on the quotes from the libs who trashed the troops - you did ask for proof - I posted it - and you have ignored it


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> I have posted the waord of Dems trashing the troops - you ignore them.
> 
> But have you actually posted one word of Dems actually bashing the troops without foundation?
> Or is it all just you throwing around your partisan rhetoric which amounts to nothing.
> 
> Which is what libs do when they are busted
> 
> Of course Libs ignore you, you're insane.
> 
> Webb is just another liberal appeaser who would has put his party ahead of his country.
> 
> And you havent put your party ahead of anything? you havent chosen the side of Partisan politics over adressing the real issues rationally?


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> It seems another lib is having another meltdown
> 
> I notice you are not commenting on the quotes from the libs who trashed the troops - you did ask for proof - I posted it - and you have ignored it



and I noticed that you still don't have the balls to admit that not all dems (beyond your lame ass 1%) are out to trash the troops while expressing criticism of the iraq clusterfuck.


it's cool, dude... 


go run to the local sheriff and give him a high five and a sly wink.. i kinda figured that screaming like a bitch to the teammate would be easier on your gonads than admitting that your generalizations bring nothing to this messageboard.

must be nice to wear the same team jersey of those who should be dusting this board of mites like you.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


>



Once again, just for you

But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. John Kerry


"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime  Pol Pot or others  that had no concern for human beings," Dick Durbin

--"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management" Ted Kennedy


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> and I noticed that you still don't have the balls to admit that not all dems (beyond your lame ass 1%) are out to trash the troops while expressing criticism of the iraq clusterfuck.
> 
> 
> it's cool, dude...
> 
> 
> go run to the local sheriff and give him a high five and a sly wink.. i kinda figured that screaming like a bitch to the teammate would be easier on your gonads than admitting that your generalizations bring nothing to this messageboard.
> 
> must be nice to wear the same team jersey of those who should be dusting this board of mites like you.



Where is all the outrage from the left over their comments?

Hint- there is none


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Where is all the outrage from the left over their comments?
> 
> Hint- there is none





and you still havent said anything about Stroms comments so I GUESS, by your standard, it means that you are a minority hating southerner who tells blacks not to let the sun go down while they are still in your nice white hometown...


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> and you still havent said anything about Stroms comments so I GUESS, by your standard, it means that you are a minority hating southerner who tells blacks not to let the sun go down while they are still in your nice white hometown...



If you want racism look at your own party - as your Chairmans comment posted above shows


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> If you want racism look at your own party - as your Chairmans comment posted above shows



hey, isnt t fun to generalize, dude?


strom was a racist and a republican so that must mean that YOU are a racist too, eh?

isnt that how your daily bullshit machine works?


myawwww... does him not wike it when him gets a taste of hims own medicine?


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Once again, just for you
> 
> But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, *and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children,* you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. John Kerry
> 
> You think they should be?
> 
> 
> "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was *an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control*, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime  Pol Pot or others  that had no concern for human beings," Dick Durbin
> 
> What did the Americans do? care to elaborate? did this comment have merit and foundation?
> 
> --"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management" Ted Kennedy
> 
> So the US doesnt torture?



hhhmmmmmmm????


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> hhhmmmmmmm????



I see we have another defender of the sliming of the troops by the left


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> I see we have another defender of the sliming of the troops by the left



I see we have another dodge by RSR cause he cant defend himself.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> I see we have another dodge by RSR cause he cant defend himself.



No dodge

I have posted where Dems have slimed and insulted the troops and you are giving them a pass like any loyal liberal would


----------



## Superlative

cut and post rules said:


> No dodge
> 
> I have posted where Dems have slimed and insulted the troops and you are giving them a pass like any loyal liberal would




*No Im asking you to further defend your claims.*



> Originally Posted by *cut and paste rules *
> Once again, just for you
> 
> But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. John Kerry
> 
> You think they should be?
> 
> 
> "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime &#8212; Pol Pot or others &#8212; that had no concern for human beings," Dick Durbin
> 
> What did the Americans do? care to elaborate? did this comment have merit and foundation?
> 
> --"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management" Ted Kennedy
> 
> So the US doesnt torture?



But you cant, can you parrot?


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> *No Im asking you to further defend your claims.*
> 
> 
> 
> But you cant, can you parrot?



If you want to defend the sliming and the insulting of the troops - go ahead

They are protecting your right to do so at this very minute


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> I see we have another defender of the sliming of the troops by the left



I see we have another round of evasiveness from the local trollboy...


whatsa matter, dude?  sean hannity got your tongue?


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> If you want to defend the sliming and the insulting of the troops - go ahead
> 
> They are protecting your right to do so at this very minute



poor guy...


you have the credibility of a slug betting that he can take a salt bath.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> poor guy...
> 
> 
> you have the credibility of a slug betting that he can take a salt bath.



That is usually what libs do when they can't counter the facts - attack the messenger


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> That is usually what libs do when they can't counter the facts - attack the messenger




oh, you mean like stereotyping dems?


I guess stereotyping would come easy to you, eh Stromula?


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> oh, you mean like stereotyping dems?
> 
> 
> I guess stereotyping would come easy to you, eh Stromula?



It is not stereotyping when it is true

You help make my case everytime you post


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> If you want to defend the sliming and the insulting of the troops - go ahead
> 
> They are protecting your right to do so at this very minute



Care to defend the troops?




> On May 30sth, US troops shot and killed two Iraqi women one of whom was pregnant. Nabiha Nisaif Jassim and her cousin Saliha Mohammed Hassan were in a car going to Samarra General hospital where Nabiha was about to give birth. US troops said their car failed to stop in a prohibited zone despite warnings. But new information from an Iraqi human rights investigator contradicts the military's version of events. And the brother of the pregnant woman, Redam Nisaif Jassim, who was driving the car has also said that he did not see or hear any warnings by the military.



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/1424235



> Eight soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division will be court-martialed on murder charges stemming from their service in Iraq, including two who face a death sentence for allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl and killing her and her family....



http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/18/162854/12




> Aug. 16, 2004 &#8211;Hundreds of claims alleging that US troops have stolen money and property during raids on Iraqi homes have been filed at the Iraqi Assistance Center in Baghdad, one of 60 such claims offices established across Iraq. Since American personnel are immune to charges from Iraqi courts, it is up to the US military itself to investigate and prosecute such cases.



http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/832


 I have given 3 examples, (equal # to your own) of instances of wrong doing by the troops. 

By the generalizing standards of RSR in regards to Dems "Sliming the troops", these examples should be enough evidence for someone like RSR o encompass ALL of the american military to be expected to repeat these acts. 

But they dont, and they arent. 

*Not ALL Dems are sliming the troops, but when Dems do, sometimes they have a reason. *

Which you RSR have conveniently avoided addressing.



red states rule said:


> *It is not stereotyping when it is true*
> 
> You help make my case everytime you post


----------



## red states rule

Troops help Iraqis secure neighborhood 
by SOPnewswire

Posted January 10, 2007


BAGHDAD  The ramp drops, the sun rises and the troops emerge. The missions vary and everyone has a different, but equally important job. The troops on the ground in Baghdad work every job from quick reaction force to humanitarian missions.

The mission for Soldiers with Company B, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, changes daily. Everyone has a different job in the company  from driver to gunner to dismounted infantry.

Even when they are not on an official mission they wait next to their Styker vehicles for the call to duty out on the streets securing neighborhoods and assisting the Iraqi security forces at need.

http://www.thesop.org/index.php?id=3823


Minnesota troops help Iraqis open water treatment plant
Associated Press

Last update: October 11, 2006  11:30 AM

A new water treatment plant has opened in Iraqwith help from Minnesota National Guard troops.

The soldiers last week helped the Iraqi people open a water treatment plant with a reverse osmosis system, and also a city park in the community of Al Batha.

The water table in Al Batha is high, and salt rises to the surface, making it undrinkable. Water from the Euphrates River also is undrinkable due to contamination.

The request for help came from the newly formed city council.

Lt. Col. Larry Herke is chief of staff for the 1st Brigade combat team, 34th Infantry Division. He says the new water system will mean a healthier community and also decrease the amount of time Iraqis travel to get clean water.

The plant was paid for by the Iraqi people but the troops provided resources and knowledge.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/735764.htlm


Georgia Guard Troops Help Ailing Iraqi Teen
By U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Britt Smith

Soldiers from the 48th Brigade Combat Team arranged for an ailing Iraqi teen to be evaluated at a combat support hospital and then transfered to Baghdad for additional treatment.
CAMP ADDER, AN NASIRIYAH, Iraq, Jan. 6, 2006 - In the middle of a country where medical care is tough to come by, a new bond was recently forged between Georgia's Army National Guard soldiers and local Iraqi citizens. Ibitisam Hameed Kassar, a 17-year-old Iraqi girl from the An Nasiriyah area, was born with a rare blood vessel disorder called pulmonary hypertension.


"It gives the Iraqi people a new perspective about Americans. We are the final stop for many of them with regard to medical care." U.S. Army 1st Lt. Fernando Mendez

This rare condition causes severe shortness of breath as well as fatigue, chest pain and dizziness. Ibitisam lives in an area of Iraq where physical ability to work is necessary for all aspects of life, school included. Her condition made it difficult, if not impossible, to walk to school or to work the small plot of land her family calls home. As a result she has spent the majority of her young life inside her home, unable to do much more than smile and keep her mother company during the day.

Hope for any treatment was remote and unlikely, that is until the 48th Brigade Combat Team showed up a few months ago.

The 48th Brigade's civil affairs team heard about her plight and arranged for her to be seen at the Camp Adder base hospital staffed by the 10th Combat Support Hospital out of Fort Sill, Okalahoma.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20060106223444nnnn.nb/topstory.html


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> Jim Webb, USNA 68 , Marine, Vietnam vet, Navy Cross winner, Secretary of the Navy for Reagan, US Senator
> 
> *RSR is not qualified to lick his boots.*





red states rule said:


> and supporter of the Dems surrender bill - you left that part out



No...I didn't leave it out... I have told you enough times that the democrat's funding bill that contained troop withdrawal deadlines was NOT a "surrender bill".  I have told you enough times that 57% of the American public supported that bill and were PISSED that Bush vetoed it.  I have told you enough time that I am all for taking the fight to Islamic extremism.  I have told you enough times that I disagree only with the invasion of Iraq, not the war on terror.....because I truly believe that the war in Iraq is hurting our efforts to defeat Islamic extremism.  You can disagree with me, and you obviously do, even though you are unable to articulate your disagreement with anything other than petty insults...but when you denigrate my patriotism, or the patriotism of real American heroes like Jim Webb, I am going to call you on it. 

I AM glad you tacitly admitted that you are not, in fact, qualified to lick his boots.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> No...I didn't leave it out... I have told you enough times that the democrat's funding bill that contained troop withdrawal deadlines was NOT a "surrender bill".  I have told you enough times that 57&#37; of the American public supported that bill and were PISSED that Bush vetoed it.  I have told you enough time that I am all for taking the fight to Islamic extremism.  I have told you enough times that I disagree only with the invasion of Iraq, not the war on terror.....because I truly believe that the war in Iraq is hurting our efforts to defeat Islamic extremism.  You can disagree with me, and you obviously do, even though you are unable to articulate your disagreement with anything other than petty insults...but when you denigrate my patriotism, or the patriotism of real American heroes like Jim Webb, I am going to call you on it.
> 
> I AM glad you tacitly admitted that you are not, in fact, qualified to lick his boots.




Libs are going to try and bring back the surrender bill - that should lower their approval numbers even more

Why should I lick Webb's boots - you are doing such a good job already. You are one of the biggest liberal boot lickers and liberal ass kissers around


----------



## Superlative

Support the troops ??

What about the wounded RSR? 

whos is to blame for their poor care?? 





> President Bush, former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and members of Congress have promised the best care during their regular visits to the hospital's spit-polished amputee unit, Ward 57.
> 
> *"We owe them all we can give them," Bush said during his last visit, a few days before Christmas. "Not only for when they're in harm's way, but when they come home to help them adjust if they have wounds, or help them adjust after their time in service."*
> 
> On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.
> 
> Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.
> 
> *"We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it,"* said Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. "We don't know what to do. *The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling.....*"
> 
> .....Yet at a deeper level, *the soldiers say they feel alone and frustrated. Seventy-five percent of the troops polled by Walter Reed last March said their experience was "stressful."* Suicide attempts and unintentional overdoses from prescription drugs and alcohol, which is sold on post, are part of the narrative here........
> 
> ........."They've been behind from Day One," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who headed the House Government Reform Committee, which investigated problems at Walter Reed and other Army facilities. *"Even the stuff they've fixed has only been patched."*
> 
> Among the public, Davis said, *"there's vast appreciation for soldiers, but there's a lack of focus on what happens to them" when they return. "It's awful."*


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs are going to try and bring back the surrender bill - that should lower their approval numbers even more
> 
> Why should I lick Webb's boots - you are doing such a good job already. You are one of the biggest liberal boot lickers and liberal ass kissers around



given the fact that a significant majority of americans support the democrat's funding bill with troop withdrawal deadlines, it would seem you are wrong about that.

I admire Jim Webb and have since I was a plebe.  I don't lick his boots.  You, on the other hand are a chickenhawk who, in my opinion, has not earned the right to disrespect an American hero like Webb.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Support the troops ??
> 
> What about the wounded RSR?
> 
> whos is to blame for their poor care??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html



Another example of government run health care - something the libs want for all of us


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> given the fact that a significant majority of americans support the democrat's funding bill with troop withdrawal deadlines, it would seem you are wrong about that.
> 
> I admire Jim Webb and have since I was a plebe.  I don't lick his boots.  You, on the other hand are a chickenhawk who, in my opinion, has not earned the right to disrespect an American hero like Webb.



But you sure kiss his ass

If Webb would become Pope - you could get away kissing only his ring


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Another example of government run health care - something the libs want for all of us



are you suggesting that when soldiers are wounded on the battlefield, that the Army make them cover the costs of their own care through their own private insurer?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that when soldiers are wounded on the battlefield, that the Army make them cover the costs of their own care through their own private insurer?



Walter Reed was a governemnt run health care facility - just want libs want for all of Amercia

If a private firm can do the job better then the US government (which would not surprise me) let the firm run it


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> But you sure kiss his ass
> 
> If Webb would become Pope - you could get away kissing only his ring




is this what passes for a joke in your jr high playground?

damn, dude.. 


have you even left the stage where you throw rocks at the pretty girl on the playground yet?


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Walter Reed was a governemnt run health care facility - just want libs want for all of Amercia
> 
> If a private firm can do the job better then the US government (which would not surprise me) let the firm run it





yea.. why not let a wal-mart of hospitols give veterans discount health services if people like RSR thinks they could save a buck..

thats real supportive of you, rsr...


make sure you pretend to support the troops while casting them off to the Shop-n-Save of medical care...


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> yea.. why not let a wal-mart of hospitols give veterans discount health services if people like RSR thinks they could save a buck..
> 
> thats real supportive of you, rsr...
> 
> 
> make sure you pretend to support the troops while casting them off to the Shop-n-Save of medical care...



In most cases. a private firm can do the job better then government


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Superlative said:


> Support the troops ??
> 
> What about the wounded RSR?
> 
> whos is to blame for their poor care??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html



Last I checked the Military runs its healthcare and when your out the VA takes over. Neither being run by the President. The problems are institutional and span a lot of administrations. Blaming Bush is a joke in this case.


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> In most cases. a private firm can do the job better then government




yea.. your haliburton solution lately proves as much.


----------



## Superlative

RetiredGySgt said:


> Last I checked the Military runs its healthcare and when your out the VA takes over. Neither being run by the President. The problems are institutional and span a lot of administrations. Blaming Bush is a joke in this case.



the quote was from the article, and Bush did say, 



> "We owe them all we can give them," Bush said during his last visit, a few days before Christmas. "Not only for when they're in harm's way, but when they come home to help them adjust if they have wounds, or help them adjust after their time in service."



Ill blame Bush any time he makes a claim and doesnt follow through while his adminsitration is in power. 

Or is Bush not responsible or accountable for anything?

When a soldier is wounded, and Bush says dont worry, you will be taken care of, you dont think its Bush's problem?

as you said 



> "Military runs its healthcare and when your out the VA takes over"



Then Bush should not make promises to wounded soldiers. 

And all those in the adminstration should not be touting the "Support Our Troops" slogan, if they do not intend to support the wounded as well.


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> the quote was from the article, and Bush did say,
> 
> 
> 
> Ill blame Bush any time he makes a claim and doesnt follow through while his adminsitration is in power.
> 
> Or is Bush not responsible or accountable for anything?
> 
> When a soldier is wounded, and Bush says dont worry, you will be taken care of, you dont think its Bush's problem?
> 
> as you said
> 
> 
> 
> Then Bush should not make promises to wounded soldiers.
> 
> And all those in the adminstration should not be touting the "Support Our Troops" slogan, if they do not intend to support the wounded as well.



Ok, you are I assume getting ready to address the promises made by the democrats getting elected last fall, promising to create transparency in office, and getting rid of earmarks?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You need to see a shrink and take all your Liberal buddies with you. Unreasoning hatred is so unbecoming. What next? Is high gas prices Bush's doing too? Maybe the California energy crisis is his fault too?

Last I checked The PRESIDENT did do something about Walter Reed and ordered a review and inspection of ALL facilities. Is he now a magician, able to wave a magic wand and fix problems he doesn't even know about?

You are aware of course that the real problems at Reed were not military, they were the civilian Government employees that LIBERALS have over the years made nearly impossible to fire, not doing their job.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kathianne said:


> Ok, you are I assume getting ready to address the promises made by the democrats getting elected last fall, promising to create transparency in office, and getting rid of earmarks?



No, don't bring that up. You will have truthmatters in here explaining how they get a pass because last year they were not in power and are much to busy investigating things for the 8th or 9th time, this time with the right spin on what the verdict should be.


----------



## Annie

RetiredGySgt said:


> No, don't bring that up. You will have truthmatters in here explaining how they get a pass because last year they were not in power and are much to busy investigating things for the 8th or 9th time, this time with the right spin on what the verdict should be.



Whoops, my mistake.


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> Ok, you are I assume getting ready to address the promises made by the democrats getting elected last fall, promising to create transparency in office, and getting rid of earmarks?



Anyone one who makes promises and does not follow through should be scrutinized and held to account. 

Even Democrats. 


As for the original purpose of this post, it was in regards to RSR saying ALL Democrats slime the troops,  I was simply illustrating how well the system "supports the troops" upon return. 

Dems want out of a losing occupation, and that (to RSR) means they dont "support the troops". 

But when a soldier is wounded and returns home, they must deal with beaurocratic Bullshit. In sub-par facilities.

Even though the President promised otherwise. 

Which is not very supportive.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

RetiredGySgt said:


> You need to see a shrink and take all your Liberal buddies with you. Unreasoning hatred is so unbecoming. What next? Is high gas prices Bush's doing too? Maybe the California energy crisis is his fault too?
> ...
> You are aware of course that the real problems at Reed were not military, they were the civilian Government employees that LIBERALS have over the years made nearly impossible to fire, not doing their job.


If George W were caught naked in a motel room with a dead prostitute, shot through her head with a .357 magnum bullet, and Georgie had a 357 revolver in his hand, smoking from the barrel, people like you and RSR would STILL try to blame it on the "liberals."  

Give it up, already. The only people left whom you're fooling are yourselves.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> So instead, am I to understand that you place the President above the Constitution?  A guy named Nixon thought that once, I seem to recall.
> 
> *Now *who's letting his mouth flat outrun his mind?



That would STILL be YOU.  I haven't stated anything of the sort, and disagreeing with YOUR designer interpretation to suit your argument most certainly does not state anything of the sort.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> But you sure kiss his ass
> 
> If Webb would become Pope - you could get away kissing only his ring



oh, please.... give me a thread and post number where I have EVER kissed Webb's ass about anything ever.  I'll wait.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Superlative said:


> Anyone one who makes promises and does not follow through should be scrutinized and held to account.
> 
> Even Democrats.
> 
> 
> As for the original purpose of this post, it was in regards to RSR saying ALL Democrats slime the troops,  I was simply illustrating how well the system "supports the troops" upon return.
> 
> Dems want out of a losing occupation, and that (to RSR) means they dont "support the troops".
> 
> But when a soldier is wounded and returns home, they must deal with beaurocratic Bullshit. In sub-par facilities.
> 
> Even though the President promised otherwise.
> 
> Which is not very supportive.



Already addressed. Bush ordered the Military to investigate and fix the problems. But of course that is not good enough for you, should he go do th job of the local civilian Government employees thast couldn't be fired for NOT doing their jobs?

What EXACTLY is he to do? Ohh wait I remember, even if he did have a magic wand, waved it and fixed a system that has existed for YEARS you would still bitch he didn't do it fast enough.

HE HAS DONE what he needs to. That you won't or can't acknowledge that speaks to your partisan bullshit and unreasoning hatred.


----------



## Gunny

RetiredGySgt said:


> Already addressed. Bush ordered the Military to investigate and fix the problems. But of course that is not good enough for you, should he go do th job of the local civilian Government employees thast couldn't be fired for NOT doing their jobs?
> 
> What EXACTLY is he to do? Ohh wait I remember, even if he did have a magic wand, waved it and fixed a system that has existed for YEARS you would still bitch he didn't do it fast enough.
> 
> HE HAS DONE what he needs to. That you won't or can't acknowledge that speaks to your partisan bullshit and unreasoning hatred.



Is that magic wand issue, or something unauthorized he picked up at Saigon Sam's?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GunnyL said:


> Is that magic wand issue, or something unauthorized he picked up at Saigon Sam's?



He keeps it in the bag with his mind control ray and his Idiot Savant Cap and Gown. Right next to the foot locker with the plans for seizing the Government and declaring himself Dictator for life, in there are also the original orders and plans for how he and Cheney arranged, directed and covered up the secret Government agents that flew those planes into the pentagon, the World trade center and into a field in Pennsylvania. Ohh and he keeps the nintendo control pad Cheney used to control the planes in there too.


----------



## Gunny

RetiredGySgt said:


> He keeps it in the bag with his mind control ray and his Idiot Savant Cap and Gown. Right next to the foot locker with the plans for seizing the Government and declaring himself Dictator for life, in there are also the original orders and plans for how he and Cheney arranged, directed and covered up the secret Government agents that flew those planes into the pentagon, the World trade center and into a field in Pennsylvania. Ohh and he keeps the nintendo control pad Cheney used to control the planes in there too.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> oh, please.... give me a thread and post number where I have EVER kissed Webb's ass about anything ever.  I'll wait.



As long as the ass is attached to a lib - you pucker up on command


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> As long as the ass is attached to a lib - you pucker up on command



so...no thread and post number for that?  just more unsubastantiated liberal bashing?  why am I not surprised?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so...no thread and post number for that?  just more unsubastantiated liberal bashing?  why am I not surprised?



any post where you defend Dems who slander the troops and make racist remarks prove the point


----------



## maineman

you claimed I kissed Webb's ass....either show me where or retract it.

simple as that.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you claimed I kissed Webb's ass....either show me where or retract it.
> 
> simple as that.



not only his ass - but any ass attached to another liberal


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> not only his ass - but any ass attached to another liberal



so you make a wild ass claim and then never retract it?

I guess that is because you can't really think clearly with Bush's DICK in your mouth, and Cheney's up your ASS, eh?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so you make a wild ass claim and then never retract it?
> 
> I guess that is because you can't really think clearly with Bush's DICK in your mouth, and Cheney's up your ASS, eh?



You have said thise things before - I chalk it up to the usual rants of a pissed off liberal


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You have said thise things before - I chalk it up to the usual rants of a pissed off liberal



and I will continue to claim that you routinely suck the president's cock if you continue to falsely claim that I kiss Webb's ass.  pretty simple, really.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and I will continue to claim that you routinely suck the president's cock if you continue to falsely claim that I kiss Webb's ass.  pretty simple, really.



Nothing like the tolerance of a lib first thing in the morning


----------



## maineman

I am quite tolerant.  I completely tolerate your gay, slavish behavior with the president. I merely stand up for my own reputation and when people slander me, I point out the error of their thinking.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am quite tolerant.  I completely tolerate your gay, slavish behavior with the president. I merely stand up for my own reputation and when people slander me, I point out the error of their thinking.



How can you stand up for something you do not have?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> How can I stand up for something you do not have?



that sentence makes no sense.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that sentence makes no sense.



neither do your rants


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> Is that magic wand issue, or something unauthorized he picked up at Saigon Sam's?


Thank you and RGS both for proving my point about mindless buddy-rahrah threads. 

You're both sounding more ridiculous with every new post. Keep it up and you'll be on RSR's level in a matter of weeks.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Thank you and RGS both for proving my point about mindless buddy-rahrah threads.
> 
> You're both sounding more ridiculous with every new post. Keep it up and you'll be on RSR's level in a matter of weeks.



Buddy rah-rah threads?  How about a little levity?  Sorry if I'm not completely dead serious and all anal like you 24-7.  

As far as sounding ridiculous, I note that you did NOT respond to my response to your baseless accusation because it shows you to be one to assume with nothing to substantiate the assumption.

Instead, you choose to get all pissy about this.  There's no rule that says you are required to respond to ANYTHING on the periphery of your argument.  

I'll respond to what you say to me, but don't presume to go telling me how to respond to someone else.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> As far as sounding ridiculous, I note that you did NOT respond to my response to your baseless accusation because it shows you to be one to assume with nothing to substantiate the assumption.


If I (or maineman, or Shogun, or any number of others here) posted that 2 plus 2 equaled 4, you would call it a baseless accusation. Therefore, replying to such a response would be pointless.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> If I (or maineman, or Shogun, or any number of others here) posted that 2 plus 2 equaled 4, you would call it a baseless accusation. Therefore, replying to such a response would be pointless.



A baseless assumption.  Do you see MM and I having any major problems?  It's called mutual respect.  He earned his.  I earned mine.  Are you going to earn yours, or just demand it?

You've done nothing but assume incorrectly up to this point.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> A baseless assumption.  Do you see MM and I having any major problems?  It's called mutual respect.  He earned his.  I earned mine.  Are you going to earn yours, or just demand it?
> 
> You've done nothing but assume incorrectly up to this point.


Whether you respect the messenger has *absolutely nothing *to do with the truth of the message that 2+2=4 (or any other message). 

I haven't lied here, and I don't intend to start. If that's not enough to earn your respect, so be it. There is no one in cyberspace around whose opinion my life revolves. (shrug)


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Whether you respect the messenger has *absolutely nothing *to do with the truth of the message that 2+2=4 (or any other message).
> 
> I haven't lied here, and I don't intend to start. If that's not enough to earn your respect, so be it. There is no one in cyberspace around whose opinion my life revolves. (shrug)



I have not accused you of lying.  I have said you were incorrect, probably more than once.  Your instantly stereotyping me as someone who would oppose you or anyone else simply for holding a liberal viewpoint would be one such example.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I have not accused you of lying.  I have said you were incorrect, probably more than once.  *Your instantly stereotyping me as someone who would oppose you or anyone else simply for holding a liberal viewpoint would be one such example.*



Amen.  I am a witness.  

Gunny is far from stereotypical of anything other than an intelligent, thinking marine. (which, itself, might be considered a _non sequitur _in some circles!)


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> Amen.  I am a witness.
> 
> Gunny is far from stereotypical of anything other than an intelligent, thinking marine. (which, itself, might be considered a _non sequitur _in some circles!)




Thanks ... I think.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Thanks ... I think.



it was meant as a solid compliment to YOU... 

and a tiny little dig at jarheads in general.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> it was meant as a solid compliment to YOU...
> 
> and a tiny little dig at jarheads in general.



I wouldn't have repped you if I didn't think it was funny.  I expect nothing less of a squid officer than to get that sideways shot in whenever possible.


----------



## maineman

that's commander squid, to you!


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> that's commander squid, to you!



aye, aye, Commander squid, sir.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> aye, aye, Commander squid, sir.



carry on.  smoke if you got 'em.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> carry on.  smoke if you got 'em.



Attention on the 1MC... the smoking lamp is now lit.


----------



## Bullypulpit

GunnyL said:


> Attention on the 1MC... the smoking lamp is now lit.



Wow...haven't even thought about that in a loooong time. The nic-fits during unreps were a bitch.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

maineman said:


> Amen.  I am a witness.
> 
> Gunny is far from stereotypical of anything other than an intelligent, thinking marine. (which, itself, might be considered a _non sequitur _in some circles!)



Actually, I think you mean "oxymoron."  But I get the point.

Back to the topic, though, I've already stated that there's evidence from numerous sources to at least suggest, if not prove, that the CiC has repeatedly acted in violation of the Constitution. All I've seen from Gunny is a summary dismissal of all of it as baseless. Much as one would expect from a stereotypical marine, but hardly an intelligent, thinking one.


----------



## CSM

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Actually, I think you mean "oxymoron."  But I get the point.
> 
> Back to the topic, though, I've already stated that there's evidence from numerous sources to at least suggest, if not prove, that the CiC has repeatedly acted in violation of the Constitution. All I've seen from Gunny is a summary dismissal of all of it as baseless. Much as one would expect from a stereotypical marine, but hardly an intelligent, thinking one.



I've seen a lot of speculation but no hard evidence. Suggestion and speculation make for pretty weak prosecution.


----------



## CSM

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Actually, I think you mean "oxymoron."  But I get the point.
> 
> Back to the topic, though, I've already stated that there's evidence from numerous sources to at least suggest, if not prove, that the CiC has repeatedly acted in violation of the Constitution. All I've seen from Gunny is a summary dismissal of all of it as baseless. Much as one would expect from a stereotypical marine, but hardly an intelligent, thinking one.



So I presume fromn your statement that the stereotypical Marine is not intelligent and does not think ....


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Actually, I think you mean "oxymoron."  But I get the point.
> 
> Back to the topic, though, I've already stated that there's evidence from numerous sources to at least suggest, if not prove, that the CiC has repeatedly acted in violation of the Constitution. All I've seen from Gunny is a summary dismissal of all of it as baseless. Much as one would expect from a stereotypical marine, but hardly an intelligent, thinking one.



You have stated that there is evidence; yet, I SEE none.  You criticize me for dismissing your opinion as a matter of fact?  Sorry dude, but THAT just ain't the way the game is played.


----------



## Gunny

CSM said:


> So I presume fromn your statement that the stereotypical Marine is not intelligent and does not think ....



Nah ... we just mindlessly destroy and kill shit.  Hasn't he already made an elitist snob statement that us lowlife enlisted folk don't know what we're talking about?


----------



## red states rule

CSM said:


> So I presume fromn your statement that the stereotypical Marine is not intelligent and does not think ....



He should try telling that face to face with a Marine and see if he could walk away afterwards


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> He should try telling that face to face with a Marine and see if he could walk away afterwards



Tsk tsk ... even YOU think the same thing.  

I don't need him face to face.  That would be downright unfair what with my ability to mindlessly destroy and kill; especially women, children and crippled old men.

Right here will do.  He's made his statement.  Now he can back it up.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

excuse me gunny, perhaps I misheard you, but did you just say that marines, mindlessly kill and destroy women, children and old men?.




GunnyL said:


> Tsk tsk ... even YOU think the same thing.
> 
> I don't need him face to face.  That would be downright unfair what with my ability to mindlessly destroy and kill; especially women, children and crippled old men.
> 
> Right here will do.  He's made his statement.  Now he can back it up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

actsnoblemartin said:


> excuse me gunny, perhaps I misheard you, but did you just say that marines, mindlessly kill and destroy women, children and old men?.



Are you dense? He was being Fasecious ( can't spell that word). It is what Marine bashers claim all the time. It is why when some moron asks or accuse me of killing babies I reply that killing babies is to hard, they are small and hard to hit, requiring you to close with and bayonet them. Much easier to kill older children women and old people, they are bigger and easier to hit. Plus they tend to panic and do things that make shooting them easier. Then you just let the babies starve, no wasted energy or effort.

Anyone STUPID enough to think Marines do not think or are mindless drones has not got a clue how the military works nor the training and requirements one needs to be successful as a combat Marine. Anyone that thinks enlisted marines are somehow inferior to Commissioned Officers is also ignorant of the modern military.


----------



## CSM

actsnoblemartin said:


> excuse me gunny, perhaps I misheard you, but did you just say that marines, mindlessly kill and destroy women, children and old men?.



Marines don't do it mindlessly...that's the Army. Marines think about it first.

It's self depracating, morbid humor.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Oh, sorry.   



CSM said:


> Marines don't do it mindlessly...that's the Army. Marines think about it first.
> 
> It's self depracating, morbid humor.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Excerpted from a list of "Armed Services Rules" sent to me by my sister while my brother-in-law was deployed to Iraq...

<blockquote>Marine Corps Rules:

1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

2. Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

3. Have a plan.

4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.

5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with

  a "4."

7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is
  expensive.

8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral &
  diagonal preferred.)

9.  Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

10. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or
   tactics. They will only remember who lived.

13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating your intention to
   shoot...</blockquote>

While these 'rules' were presented as tongue-in-cheek, they seem to be reasonably sound. Rules to live by, so to speak.

And Gunny...Ace Frehley...Oh my. (shaking head in sadness and dismay)


----------



## red states rule

Now I understand why the left wants to bring the troops home from Iraq so badly

They want to put them on trial for war crimes


----------



## maineman

...another insulting, stupid thread ender.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> ...another insulting, stupid thread ender.



From what I have seen and heard - that is the goal of the kook left


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> From what I have seen and heard - that is the goal of the kook left



and the kook right wants to slaughter abortion doctors and blow up federal buildings in Oklahoma.....

any mainstream democrats suggesting we should bring our troops home from Iraq for the purpose of trying them for war crimes?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and the kook right wants to slaughter abortion doctors and blow up federal buildings in Oklahoma.....
> 
> any mainstream democrats suggesting we should bring our troops home from Iraq for the purpose of trying them for war crimes?



Libs are still pushing for surrender.  Libs never learn from their past mistakes


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Now I understand why the left wants to bring the troops home from Iraq so badly
> 
> They want to put them on trial for war crimes



to which I asked:

*any mainstream democrats suggesting we should bring our troops home from Iraq for the purpose of trying them for war crimes?*
RSR:  as always, unresponsive.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> to which I asked:
> 
> *any mainstream democrats suggesting we should bring our troops home from Iraq for the purpose of trying them for war crimes?*
> RSR:  as always, unresponsive.




Lets see, your beloved Dems have called them uneducated, terrorists, cold blooded killers, compared them Nazis and Pol Pot

Do I need to, once again, remind you who made those comments?

Look at the bunch who are pushing for surrender


----------



## maineman

so..the answer to my question is: none?

why not just say so?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so..the answer to my question is: none?
> 
> why not just say so?



Since your beloved Dems have accused them of crimes - they do not want them put on trial?

Or is it more of the typical support the left shows the troops?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Since your beloved Dems have accused them of crimes - they do not want them put on trial?
> 
> Or is it more of the typical support the left shows the troops?



you said the reason democrats wanted to bring the troops home was to try them for war crimes.  care to back away from that statement?  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you said the reason democrats wanted to bring the troops home was to try them for war crimes.  care to back away from that statement?  yes or no?



Since your Dems have accused them of crimes, since they want to surrendder so badly - since they have put their political future in the US losing in Iraq - what other reason would they have?


----------



## maineman

prove your slanderous allegation or back away from it.

quit spinning.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> prove your slanderous allegation or back away from it.
> 
> quit spinning.



Not spinning

To be slanderous, the comment must be known to be wrong

So my statement is NOT slanderous


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Not spinning
> 
> To be slanderous, the comment must be known to be wrong
> 
> So my statement is NOT slanderous



then provide me with the quotes from democrats that explicitly state that the reason we want to bring the troops home from Iraq is to try them for war crimes.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> then provide me with the quotes from democrats that explicitly state that the reason we want to bring the troops home from Iraq is to try them for war crimes.



I have provided quotes from Dems smearing, indulting, and accusing the troops of crimes - and you spin and dismiss them


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have provided quotes from Dems smearing, indulting, and accusing the troops of crimes - and you spin and dismiss them




you said that democrats wanted to bring the troops home so badly because we want to put them on trial for war crimes.  Either back that slanderous statement up with quotes that prove it, or retract it.  your choice.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you said that democrats wanted to bring the troops home so badly because we want to put them on trial for war crimes.  Either back that slanderous statement up with quotes that prove it, or retract it.  your choice.



So now truth to a loyal Dem is slanderous?


----------



## maineman

If you have a quote from a democrat who says that we want to bring our troops home from Iraq so that we can charge them with war crimes, please present it.  barring that, I have not seen ANY "truth" from you on this issue.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> If you have a quote from a democrat who says that we want to bring our troops home from Iraq so that we can charge them with war crimes, please present it.  barring that, I have not seen ANY "truth" from you on this issue.



It will prove to be their motive. Much like they want to shut down political speech, the contempt the left has for the military is well known


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It will prove to be their motive. Much like they want to shut down political speech, the contempt the left has for the military is well known



so...your baseless crystal ball opinion about the future allows you to slander democrats in the present and accuse them of wanting to bring our troops home just so they can try them for war crimes?  And you have no quotes from any democrat saying that?  And you don't ahave the balls to admit that you overstated your case and substituted partisan opinion for fact?  

Have I got that right?


----------



## Bullypulpit

red states rule said:


> Now I understand why the left wants to bring the troops home from Iraq so badly
> 
> They want to put them on trial for war crimes



Just what nether region of your arse did you pull that from? And, I know it's useless to ask, Do you have anything to support that assertion, beyond some right wing-nut talking heads pronouncements?


----------



## trobinett

Never have I seen such a group of ass holes intent on blaming those that represent THEM so engrossed in blaming others for THEIR decisions.

FUCK YOU, and the shallow world you live in.


----------



## maineman

trobinett said:


> Never have I seen such a group of ass holes intent on blaming those that represent THEM so engrossed in blaming others for THEIR decisions.
> 
> FUCK YOU, and the shallow world you live in.




the pronouns used above were a bit cryptic so I am not entirely sure of the real meaning, but I will say, that, although I may BLAME some of those who represent me (Snowe and Collins) for their votes regarding Iraq - and my congressman (Allen) did NOT, I voted for Allen and for the opponents of both Snowe and Collins at every opportunity.  

_Vis a vis _my votes for congressional representation, my individual conscience is clear and I am not at all upset with anyone I voted for (unless, of course, if you count the opponents of Snowe and Collins who did not run very effective campaigns).


----------



## red states rule

trobinett said:


> Never have I seen such a group of ass holes intent on blaming those that represent THEM so engrossed in blaming others for THEIR decisions.
> 
> FUCK YOU, and the shallow world you live in.



Libs will never join the rest of us in fighting the war on terror

They are to busy fighting their war on Bush


----------



## maineman

yawn....

another day, more stupid neocon slogans from the bushbot.

THINK!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> yawn....
> 
> another day, more stupid neocon slogans from the bushbot.
> 
> THINK!



Another day and MM employs another liberal debate tactic. When confronted with facts - attack the messenger


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs will never join the rest of us in fighting the war on terror
> 
> They are to busy fighting their war on Bush



here is a little english lesson:

the above statement does not qualify as a "fact".

it is, instead, your "opinion"

and as I have said on numerous occasions, I am more than willing and ready to go after the folks that attacked us.  I think that radical islamic extremists are our most dangerous enemy in the whole world.  

So when 300 of them can have an outdoor graduation ceremony in broad daylight with TV cameras recording the event in a country that we have KNOWN since 9/11 has harbored those very enemies that attacked us...and we are supposedly "occupying" that country.... while we have 150K troops in another country that was run, not by radical islamic extremists, but by secular sunni baathists, IMHO, we are not fighting our true enemies as effectively as we ought to be.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> here is a little english lesson:
> 
> the above statement does not qualify as a "fact".
> 
> it is, instead, your "opinion"
> 
> and as I have said on numerous occasions, I am more than willing and ready to go after the folks that attacked us.  I think that radical islamic extremists are our most dangerous enemy in the whole world.
> 
> So when 300 of them can have an outdoor graduation ceremony in broad daylight with TV cameras recording the event in a country that we have KNOWN since 9/11 has harbored those very enemies that attacked us...and we are supposedly "occupying" that country.... while we have 150K troops in another country that was run, not by radical islamic extremists, but by secular sunni baathists, IMHO, we are not fighting our true enemies as effectively as we ought to be.




What have Dems done to fight terrorism

they want to surrender in Iarq

they want to protect the rights of terrorists

they leak classified documents on the methods used to track terrorists

they would rather hold hearings then work with the administration to fight terrorism

they whine about terrorists being held at GITMO

and they cry over what methods are used to get information to prevent more terrorists attacks


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> here is a little english lesson:
> 
> the above statement does not qualify as a "fact".
> 
> it is, instead, your "opinion"
> 
> and as I have said on numerous occasions, I am more than willing and ready to go after the folks that attacked us.  I think that radical islamic extremists are our most dangerous enemy in the whole world.
> 
> So when 300 of them can have an outdoor graduation ceremony in broad daylight with TV cameras recording the event in a country that we have KNOWN since 9/11 has harbored those very enemies that attacked us...and we are supposedly "occupying" that country.... while we have 150K troops in another country that was run, not by radical islamic extremists, but by secular sunni baathists, IMHO, we are not fighting our true enemies as effectively as we ought to be.




I noticed that you sort of ignored the point of this post...

but then, you always do.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I noticed that you sort of ignored the point of this post...
> 
> but then, you always do.



but you and your buds on the kook left, the real enemy is Pres Bush and anyone who supports him


----------



## maineman

"and as I have said on numerous occasions, I am more than willing and ready to go after the folks that attacked us. I think that radical islamic extremists are our most dangerous enemy in the whole world. 

So when 300 of them can have an outdoor graduation ceremony in broad daylight with TV cameras recording the event in a country that we have KNOWN since 9/11 has harbored those very enemies that attacked us...and we are supposedly "occupying" that country.... while we have 150K troops in another country that was run, not by radical islamic extremists, but by secular sunni baathists, IMHO, we are not fighting our true enemies as effectively as we ought to be."

*care to comment on this?*


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> but you and your buds on the kook left, the real enemy is Pres Bush and anyone who supports him



that is nothing but a slanderous lie that you toss out to avoid defending your assinine positions.  I have told you time and again, I understand - certainly better than you do - who our real enemies are.  They most dangerous enemies we faced were NEVER *secular sunni socialist pan arab baathists*.

edit:  I just realized, you probably don't even know what that bolded phrase means!


----------



## red states rule

Soldiers Voices
Listen to what the armed forces have to say about Iraq.

By Buzz Patterson

Operation Arrowhead Ripper, as the latest American offensive is called, has successfully swept into al Qaeda-infested Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad, killing and capturing hundreds of terrorists. The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan time and time again have resulted in significant, but often untold military successes. Realities on the ground often go unnoticed or under-appreciated. 

 Every day, the enemy changesonly now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from societyand they are becoming our enemy. Terrorists cut the heads off of American citizens on the Internetand there is no outrage but an American soldier kills an Iraqi in the midst of battle, and there are investigations, and sometimes soldiers are even jailedfor doing their jobIt is absolutely sickening to me to think our country has come to this. Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, U.S. Army

 Some of the American public have no idea how much freedom costs and who the people are that pay that awful price. I think sometimes people just see us as nameless and faceless and not really as humansA good portion of us are actually scared that when we come home, for those of us who make it back, that there will be protesters waiting for us and that is scary.-Specialist Jason Gilson, U.S. Army

 What angers and hurts me as a soldier is that they parade their anti-war views in the face of my brothers and sisters who are recovering from the same battlefield that I fought on and am still fighting on as I type this e-mail. Is there no honor or dignity left in the antiwar movement? Do they have no shame? Do they have no integrity? Do they have no heart? Do they have no soul? I can answer that with a simple no! How can they say they support the troops but protest where they try to recover from war? You interviewed one gentleman, and I use that term loosely, who stated If I was injured I would want someone to speak for me like this. Well let me tell him something, we do not want you to speak for us and we do not need you to speak for us! Sergeant Mark Leach, U.S. Army

for the complete article and read more from the troops

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTI4MTk0OGQ3MTc2ZGVkYmE0NTc5ZDhkM2JhY2E0ODQ


----------



## maineman

spam spam spam spam.... never an intelligent response....just post an article that has little to no relevance to the actual discussion and that is about all you're "good" for.

I wish you knew how disappointing that was.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> spam spam spam spam.... never an intelligent response....just post an article that has little to no relevance to the actual discussion and that is about all you're "good" for.
> 
> I wish you knew how disappointing that was.



Oh I know how any good news from Iraq affects you MM - that is why I posted it

I do believe the troops were talking about you


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> "and as I have said on numerous occasions, I am more than willing and ready to go after the folks that attacked us. I think that radical islamic extremists are our most dangerous enemy in the whole world.
> 
> So when 300 of them can have an outdoor graduation ceremony in broad daylight with TV cameras recording the event in a country that we have KNOWN since 9/11 has harbored those very enemies that attacked us...and we are supposedly "occupying" that country.... while we have 150K troops in another country that was run, not by radical islamic extremists, but by secular sunni baathists, IMHO, we are not fighting our true enemies as effectively as we ought to be."



*I say again:  care to comment on this? Or will you just admit that spamming other people's words is really all you're good for?*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> *I say again:  care to comment on this? Or will you just admit that spamming other people's words is really all you're good for?*



Hey if you upset about the troops positive comments - ignore them as you have done in the past


----------



## maineman

positive comments from our troops do not upset me.  negative ones do.  do negative ones where troops complain about the folly of their mission upset you?  Or do you ignore them like you ignore the things that I say?

You really are incapable of carrying on an intelligent DISCUSSION whereby you say something in your own words...I respond to it in mine.... you ask me a question in your own words...I respond in mine and offer another question back at you and you respond in your own words...and we actually converse...with one another... about issues.... not just post the words of others or attacks on "libs" or "dems".

Wouldn't you be willing to try that at least once?


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

CSM said:


> So I presume fromn your statement that the stereotypical Marine is not intelligent and does not think ....



Don't imply that I came up with that stereotype: it existed long before either of us was born. 

But in case you don't fit that stereotype, think about this: How do you think a stereotype BECOMES a stereotype?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I dont think marines are dumb, I think they are smart, and some brilliant.



The Man @ Lunch said:


> Don't imply that I came up with that stereotype: it existed long before either of us was born.
> 
> But in case you don't fit that stereotype, think about this: How do you think a stereotype BECOMES a stereotype?


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

actsnoblemartin said:


> I dont think marines are dumb, I think they are smart, and some brilliant.


A Marine would probably have to be at least a little bit smart to get to be an officer, I'm sure. 

FWIW, I can tell you that I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants on various other forums.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

in any profession, do you not have stupid people?, and smart people. Perhaps, more in some then in others.



The Man @ Lunch said:


> A Marine would probably have to be at least a little bit smart to get to be an officer, I'm sure.
> 
> FWIW, I can tell you that I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants on various other forums.


----------



## red states rule

The Man @ Lunch said:


> A Marine would probably have to be at least a little bit smart to get to be an officer, I'm sure.
> 
> FWIW, I can tell you that I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants on various other forums.



Leave it to a lib to slime the troops


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Leave it to a lib to slime the troops



Leave it to RSR to fly by and drop nonsensicle Conservative talking points.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Leave it to RSR to fly by and drop nonsensicle Conservative talking points.



FWIW, I can tell you that I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants on various other forums

and you call this a complement?


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> FWIW, I can tell you that *I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants* on various other forums
> 
> and you call this a complement?





*Leave it to a RSR to slime the troops*

Mistake and retraction. 

I should have read farther up. 

But RSR could have saved me the trouble if he had Quoted Man@Lunch correctly.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> *Leave it to a RSR to slime the troops*



Libs will acuse others of doing what they already do in a lame attempt to change the subject


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Libs will acuse others of doing what they already do in a lame attempt to change the subject



Isnt that what you just did?

You slimed the troops and changed the subject?


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Isnt that what you just did?
> 
> You slimed the troops and changed the subject?



No, I called you on your snide remark you made to RGS


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> No, I called you on your snide remark you made to RGS



*MY* snide remarks?

Do you pay *ANY* attention when you post?


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> A Marine would probably have to be at least a little bit smart to get to be an officer, I'm sure.
> 
> FWIW, I can tell you that I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants on various other forums.



I've seen some unbelievably uneducated civilians who think they're the bomb when it comes to smarts.


----------



## Gunny

Superlative said:


> *Leave it to a RSR to slime the troops*



RSR didn't say that.  Out to Lunch did.


----------



## Annie

The Man @ Lunch said:


> A Marine would probably have to be at least a little bit smart to get to be an officer, I'm sure.
> 
> FWIW, I can tell you that I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants on various other forums.



Great catch Gunny!


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> FWIW, I can tell you that I've seen some unbelievably dense gunnery sergeants on various other forums
> 
> and you call this a complement?



My apologies, But maybe RSR should learn to use the quote box. 

Then there would be less possibility for confusion regarding his statements.


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> My apologies, But maybe RSR should learn to use the quote box.
> 
> Then there would be less possibility for confusion regarding his statements.



You've never made a mistake? I have.


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> You've never made a mistake? I have.



I have made mistakes, and I have copped to it. 

You have repped me for it as I recall. 

When I am wrong, I will admit it without hesitation.


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> I have made mistakes, and I have copped to it.
> 
> You have repped me for it as I recall.
> 
> When I am wrong, I will admit it without hesitation.



Me too, even today.  Happens too often for my taste, I do not like crow.

On the other hand, while I can be critical of mistakes or what I consider bad style, (I have been riding RSR quite a bit recently), I do try not to jump on someone's occasional or even frequent mistakes, if it does not seem intentional. Larkin and not quoting previous is getting me frustrated, wish he would take lessons. 

RSR to the best of my knowledge is usually very good, sometimes too good at quoting others.


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> RSR to the best of my knowledge is usually very good, sometimes too good at quoting others.



That would be his best attribute. 

Unfortunately.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> I've seen some unbelievably uneducated civilians who think they're the bomb when it comes to smarts.


Me, too: most of those think that Bush is the bomb.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> I have made mistakes, and I have copped to it.
> 
> You have repped me for it as I recall.
> 
> When I am wrong, I will admit it without hesitation.



That is a full time job for you


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> That is a full time job for you



What is?


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> What is?



When you are wrong, you admit it


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> When you are wrong, you admit it



Why thank you for noticing RSR, how very kind. 

Too bad you are unable to do the same.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Why thank you for noticing RSR, how very kind.
> 
> Too bad you are unable to do the same.



Zzzzzzzzz

Yawn


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Zzzzzzzzz
> 
> Yawn



Comfy footy pajamas are easy to fall asleep in. 

Dont drool on the keyboard.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Comfy footy pajamas are easy to fall asleep in.
> 
> Dont drool on the keyboard.



You are about as interesting as a 10 pound bag of fertilizer


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> You are about as interesting as a 10 pound bag of fertilizer



Yeah well, you eat fertilizer for breakfast. 

Ha. 

poopeater.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Yeah well, you eat fertilizer for breakfast.
> 
> Ha.
> 
> poopeater.



Nothing like a warm and fuzzy lib first thing in the morning

With your attitude this thread will be moved to the arena


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Nothing like a warm and fuzzy lib first thing in the morning
> 
> With your attitude this thread will be moved to the arena



Dont most of your threads end up there?

at least the ones you "attempt" to participate in.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Me, too: most of those think that Bush is the bomb.



Dude, you REALLY need to work on your snappy comebacks.

I'll just point out that there is a lot of space between "Bush is the bomb" and "Bush lied about any and everything;" which, IMO, is where most rational people fall.

You seem to be quite caught up in your "black or white only" stereotypes.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Dont most of your threads end up there?
> 
> at least the ones you "attempt" to participate in.



Only when snippy libs come in with their personal attacks and insults


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> Dude, you REALLY need to work on your snappy comebacks.
> 
> I'll just point out that there is a lot of space between "Bush is the bomb" and "Bush lied about any and everything;" which, IMO, is where most rational people fall.
> 
> You seem to be quite caught up in your "black or white only" stereotypes.


So you agree that "most rational people" believe that "Bush lied about any and everything??"


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> So you agree that "most rational people" believe that "Bush lied about any and everything??"



To the contrary ... I think anyone who squeals "Bush lied" any time some nutcase comes up with some bullshit accusation to be an idiot.


----------



## Rosotar

GunnyL said:


> Dude, you REALLY need to work on your snappy comebacks.
> 
> I'll just point out that there is a lot of space between "Bush is the bomb" and "Bush lied about any and everything;" which, IMO, is where most rational people fall.
> 
> You seem to be quite caught up in your "black or white only" stereotypes.



I would also submit that there's a big space between Bush lied about "anything" and Bush lied about "everything."

It seems you're the one dealing in black and whites Gunny.


----------



## Gunny

Rosotar said:


> I would also submit that there's a big space between Bush lied about "anything" and Bush lied about "everything."
> 
> It seems you're the one dealing in black and whites Gunny.



I don't deal in blacks and whites.   I've never ONCE said Bush never lied.  What I've said everytime someone posts a "Bush lied" thread is "prove it."  And without adding one's own "what he meant was ..." you just simply can't.

I don't what part of "I'm not a Bush fan" you lefties don't get.  He was the preferred alternative to the absolute morons the Dem's ran against him.  And if a Republican wins again, the Dems will only have themselves to blame for running two more morons.

Just because I don't believe every BS accusation that comes down the pike doesn't mean I'm in lockstep right behind him.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> I don't what part of "I'm not a Bush fan" you lefties don't get.  He was the preferred alternative to the absolute morons the Dem's ran against him.


To call anyone a moron in comparison to _Bush_ is so far beyond the pale that I'm just plain speechless.


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> To call anyone a moron in comparison to _Bush_ is so far beyond the pale that I'm just plain speechless.



You sir, are a damned liar.

Now you want to keep this up, or play nice?  Choice is yours.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Geez, why is this board turning into the america insult people board


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> You sir, are a damned liar.
> 
> Now you want to keep this up, or play nice?  Choice is yours.



I am sorry, gunny..but I do not see the "lie" here.

From my perspective, if you look in the dictionary under the word "moron". there should be a picture of George W. Bush.

Kerry may have been a terrible campaigner, but he was hardly a moron.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am sorry, gunny..but I do not see the "lie" here.
> 
> From my perspective, if you look in the dictionary under the word "moron". there should be a picture of George W. Bush.
> 
> Kerry may have been a terrible campaigner, but he was hardly a moron.



You can't see anything, or admit to anything, that is not approved by the DNC

Pres Bush's grades were slightly better then Kerry's


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You can't see anything, or admit to anything, that is not approved by the DNC
> 
> Pres Bush's grades were slightly better then Kerry's



Kerry took his law degree and made a successful career out of being a lawyer.

Bush took his MBA and was a terrible businessman who failed at everything he touched.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Kerry took his law degree and made a successful career out of being a lawyer.
> 
> Bush took his MBA and was a terrible businessman who failed at everything he touched.



His grades were lower - and Kerry married his money

Is that what you call successful?

(and smeared his fellow Viet Nam vets)


----------



## actsnoblemartin

kerry took a dump on all vietnam by lying about what happened, and married for his money. Bush barely got a degree, and daddy bailed him out of every fuck up in his life.

Both suck.



red states rule said:


> His grades were lower - and Kerry married his money
> 
> Is that what you call successful?
> 
> (and smeared his fellow Viet Nam vets)


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> kerry took a dump on all vietnam by lying about what happened, and married for his money. Bush barely got a degree, and daddy bailed him out of every fuck up in his life.
> 
> Both suck.



But Kerry sucks more


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> I am sorry, gunny..but I do not see the "lie" here.
> 
> From my perspective, if you look in the dictionary under the word "moron". there should be a picture of George W. Bush.
> 
> Kerry may have been a terrible campaigner, but he was hardly a moron.



The lie is out to lunch continuing to imply I'm in lockstep with Bush, when he can't see there isn't much of a better partisan hack around than him.

And Bush is not a moron.  That's absurd.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

im not saying he is a moron, he is just not the best at business. Do i think he is stupid, no i honestly dont, im just frustrated with him.

Fair enough?



GunnyL said:


> The lie is out to lunch continuing to imply I'm in lockstep with Bush, when he can't see there isn't much of a better partisan hack around than him.
> 
> And Bush is not a moron.  That's absurd.


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> im not saying he is a moron, he is just not the best at business. Do i think he is stupid, no i honestly dont, im just frustrated with him.
> 
> Fair enough?



What conservative is not frustrated with him?


----------



## Gunny

actsnoblemartin said:


> im not saying he is a moron, he is just not the best at business. Do i think he is stupid, no i honestly dont, im just frustrated with him.
> 
> Fair enough?



I didn't say he was good or bad at business.  I really don't care.  He's a politician.  He's been a better President than either Kerry or Gore would have been, a point libs ignore, choosing instead to attempt to obfuscate that fact by dogging out Bush on a continual basis.

There have been plenty of Presidents worse than Bush.  It's just that none of them had to withstand such an ongoing attack from the left and the media every second of the way.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> I didn't say he was good or bad at business.  I really don't care.  He's a politician.  He's been a better President than either Kerry or Gore would have been, a point libs ignore, choosing instead to attempt to obfuscate that fact by dogging out Bush on a continual basis.
> 
> There have been plenty of Presidents worse than Bush.  It's just that none of them had to withstand such an ongoing attack from the left and the media every second of the way.





There have been plenty of Presidents worse than Bush - like Pres Peanut Carter for one


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I agree with you. 



GunnyL said:


> I didn't say he was good or bad at business.  I really don't care.  He's a politician.  He's been a better President than either Kerry or Gore would have been, a point libs ignore, choosing instead to attempt to obfuscate that fact by dogging out Bush on a continual basis.
> 
> There have been plenty of Presidents worse than Bush.  It's just that none of them had to withstand such an ongoing attack from the left and the media every second of the way.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I didn't say he was good or bad at business.  I really don't care.  He's a politician.  He's been a better President than either Kerry or Gore would have been, *a point libs ignore*, choosing instead to attempt to obfuscate that fact by dogging out Bush on a continual basis.
> 
> There have been plenty of Presidents worse than Bush.  It's just that none of them had to withstand such an ongoing attack from the left and the media every second of the way.



how does one "ignore" an opinion?  I think that both Kerry and Bush would have made a better president that Bush.  Perhaps, you'll ignore THAT opinion.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how does one "ignore" an opinion?  I think that both Kerry and Bush would have made a better president that Bush.  Perhaps, you'll ignore THAT opinion.



How?

By raising taxes, government run health care, and appeasing terrorists?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> How?
> 
> By raising taxes, government run health care, and appeasing terrorists?




::yawn::


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> ::yawn::



that is the effect Kerry and Gore had on alot of people


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> that is the effect Kerry and Gore had on alot of people



so when Gore won the popular vote, what effect was THAT indicative of?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so when Gore won the popular vote, what effect was THAT indicative of?



Presidents are NOT elected by the popular vote

I thought such a well educated liberal like you would know that


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Presidents are NOT elected by the popular vote
> 
> I thought such a well educated liberal like you would know that



I understand that...but you were the one who said that ::yawn:: was the effect that Gore had on the electorate...and HE won more votes than Bush did...so I guess you are admitting that ::yawn:: is the effect that Bush had on voters as well?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I understand that...but you were the one who said that ::yawn:: was the effect that Gore had on the electorate...and HE won more votes than Bush did...so I guess you are admitting that ::yawn:: is the effect that Bush had on voters as well?



Gore could not shake the Clinton legacy and his constant liberal double talk


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Gore could not shake the Clinton legacy and his constant liberal double talk




but he DID get more Americans to vote for him.

::yawn:: for Bush!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> but he DID get more Americans to vote for him.
> 
> ::yawn:: for Bush!



but not where they counted

Gore did not even carry his home state


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> but not where they counted
> 
> Gore did not even carry his home state



I say again:  

::yawn::


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I say again:
> 
> ::yawn::




that is exactly how the folks in Gore's home state felt about him as they voted


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Since the Inception of the Constitution ( was that 1787? ) the Presodent has NEVER been elected by popular vote. And Gore and his people believed before the election it would turn out opposite of what happened, they believed THEY would win the electoral votes but not the popular vote and reminded everyone the week before the election that the law was electoral and we should all respect that.

Of course when he lost he changed his tune.


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> Since the Inception of the Constitution ( was that 1787? ) the Presodent has NEVER been elected by popular vote. And Gore and his people believed before the election it would turn out opposite of what happened, they believed THEY would win the electoral votes but not the popular vote and reminded everyone the week before the election that the law was electoral and we should all respect that.
> 
> Of course when he lost he changed his tune.



You would think the man who invented the internet, would be smarter then that


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> You sir, are a damned liar.
> 
> Now you want to keep this up, or play nice?  Choice is yours.



And you, sir, need to read the rules again: 


			
				Scooter said:
			
		

> Derogatory statements directed at other members as well as direct or indirect personal attacks are permitted with the stipulation that you generally look like a fool when resorting to these tactics within a serious conversation on real issues. If you're comfortable playing the fool, feel free to do so.
> 
> If someone really gets to you and you feel the need to vent, please do so within the confines of the Taunting Arena. *If you dont have thick skin and the ability to take abuse, it is better to walk away *from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments.



Now you want to meet me in the taunting arena, or you want to start acting like a Marine (who's supposed to have thick skin in the first place) and show a modicum of class?


----------



## MontanaJack

RetiredGySgt said:


> Since the Inception of the Constitution ( was that 1787? ) the Presodent has NEVER been elected by popular vote. *And Gore and his people believed before the election it would turn out opposite of what happened, they believed THEY would win the electoral votes but not the popular vote and reminded everyone the week before the election that the law was electoral and we should all respect that.*
> Of course when he lost he changed his tune.



This is the first I've heard this load of shit.

Prove it.

It is the electoral votes that matter at any rate.  In fact, it is the Bushies whose ass you love the taste of, who thought that Bush was going to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, and they had plans to make certain that did not stand.  And that, is Unamerican.  Reminding people that it's the electoral votes that count, isn't.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Since the Inception of the Constitution ( was that 1787? ) the Presodent has NEVER been elected by popular vote. And Gore and his people believed before the election it would turn out opposite of what happened, they believed THEY would win the electoral votes but not the popular vote and reminded everyone the week before the election that the law was electoral and we should all respect that.
> 
> Of course when he lost he changed his tune.



are you suggesting that Al Gore changed his tune to state that the electoral college was not the law and that we should DISrespect it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Gore made every attempt to thwart the State of Florida from participating in the electoral college, his whole plan was to keep the certification from happening by th required deadline, thus preventing ANY of Floridas votes counting. He then would have a majority of votes in what was left of the electoral college and believed that would make him President,


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> And you, sir, need to read the rules again:
> 
> 
> Now you want to meet me in the taunting arena, or you want to start acting like a Marine (who's supposed to have thick skin in the first place) and show a modicum of class?



I have no need to read the rules again.  I know what they are.  I expect nothing less of a troll such as yourself to try and twist it otherwise.  Calling you a liar when you are lying is having thin skin?  Quite a stretch that one.

How would YOU know what a Gunnery Sergeant is supposed to act like?  Last I checked, Gunnery Sergeants calling liars liars is pretty much SOP.  I'm not running for any office, nor am I about to win any awards for diplomacy.

I have plenty of class, just none to waste on a worthless troll.  Prove yourself otherwise and I will treat you accordingly.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> how does one "ignore" an opinion?  I think that both Kerry and Bush would have made a better president that Bush.  Perhaps, you'll ignore THAT opinion.



I assume you mean "both Kerry and GORE?" I won't ignore it.  I disagree with it.  That's MY opinion.  

We've agreed to disagree more than once.  No big deal.


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> Gore could not shake the Clinton legacy and his constant liberal double talk



I disagree.  Gore could not escape his OWN legacy of being about as interesting as white flour and water.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> I have no need to read the rules again.  I know what they are.  I expect nothing less of a troll such as yourself to try and twist it otherwise.  Calling you a liar when you are lying is having thin skin?  Quite a stretch that one.


It's still a derogatory statement. Say whatever you want about my own statements: when you start making comments about me you cross the line. So state the rules - seems pretty simple to me.





> How would YOU know what a Gunnery Sergeant is supposed to act like?  Last I checked, Gunnery Sergeants calling liars liars is pretty much SOP.


I know A LOT about how a Marine is supposed to act (which is what I said in the first place). A long time ago, I spent over a year in a civilian job working for the Corps, in which I stayed on base and spent tons of time, day and night, with Marines of all ranks. *They *never shot their mouths off, and they knew how to think before they acted. Ooh-rah!





> I'm not running for any office, nor am I about to win any awards for diplomacy.


Most reputable boards expect their mods to be at least more diplomatic than average.





> I have plenty of class, just none to waste on a worthless troll.  Prove yourself otherwise and I will treat you accordingly.


Since you obviously have your mind made up, I see no point in this particular ping pong match: I'm done with it. See you on another topic if you can handle it.

As Scooter says, "If you're comfortable playing the fool feel free to do so."


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> It's still a derogatory statement. Say whatever you want about my own statements: when you start making comments about me you cross the line. So state the rules - seems pretty simple to me.I know A LOT about how a Marine is supposed to act (which is what I said in the first place). A long time ago, I spent over a year in a civilian job working for the Corps, in which I stayed on base and spent tons of time, day and night, with Marines of all ranks. *They *never shot their mouths off, and they knew how to think before they acted. Ooh-rah!Most reputable boards expect their mods to be at least more diplomatic than average.Since you obviously have your mind made up, I see no point in this particular ping pong match: I'm done with it. See you on another topic if you can handle it.
> 
> As Scooter says, "If you're comfortable playing the fool feel free to do so."



I was just WAITING for that response.  You expect mods to be diplomatic; yet, you obviously have no problem insulting them.

Wow.  A whole year with Marines?   GMAFB.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> Wow.  A whole year with Marines?   GMAFB.



A year was plenty of time to get to know them. I even got to be friends with some. 

Shortly after I was there, some of them tried to mess with me by threatening to give me a high & tight flattop. I called their bluff and pretended I thought it was a cool idea. It was worth looking weird for a few months, because I definitely had their respect afterwards.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gore made every attempt to thwart the State of Florida from participating in the electoral college, his whole plan was to keep the certification from happening by th required deadline, thus preventing ANY of Floridas votes counting. He then would have a majority of votes in what was left of the electoral college and believed that would make him President,



why don't you answer a question once in a while instead of this fucking tap dance you always do?

you and RSR...two peas in a pod.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gore made every attempt to thwart the State of Florida from participating in the electoral college, his whole plan was to keep the certification from happening by th required deadline, thus preventing ANY of Floridas votes counting. He then would have a majority of votes in what was left of the electoral college and believed that would make him President,



and if you could provide some proof as to your allegation about Gore's motives, I would appreciate it.... which should be easy for you.... I mean, you learned all there was to learn about the UN in Lebanon in just a few mouse clicks this morning!


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> A year was plenty of time to get to know them. I even got to be friends with some.
> 
> Shortly after I was there, some of them tried to mess with me by threatening to give me a high & tight flattop. I called their bluff and pretended I thought it was a cool idea. It was worth looking weird for a few months, because I definitely had their respect afterwards.



Looking weird?  Probably the handsomest you've been in your life.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Looking weird?  Probably the handsomest you've been in your life.



I agree completely.... high and tight - totally buzzed actually - is how I wear it now, and my wife loves it!


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> I agree completely.... high and tight - totally buzzed actually - is how I wear it now, and my wife loves it!



Mine's shaved.  Got the moustache and gotee thing going.  About ten times as sinister looking as I was with just the moustache while I was still in.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Mine's shaved.  Got the moustache and gotee thing going.  About ten times as sinister looking as I was with just the moustache while I was still in.



moustache and goatee here too....all grey....we could be twins!


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> moustache and goatee here too....all grey....we could be twins!



Not yet.  I only have about 4 grey hairs. 

Besides, eveyone knows you squids wear highwaters.  I'd rather be shot.


----------



## Shattered

GunnyL said:


> Mine's shaved.  Got the moustache and gotee thing going.  About ten times as sinister looking as I was with just the moustache while I was still in.



Only 10 times?


----------



## Gunny

Shattered said:


> Only 10 times?



 

"At least"


----------



## Shattered

GunnyL said:


> "At least"



May wanna change that "about", then..


----------



## Gunny

Shattered said:


> May wanna change that "about", then..



Just what're you trying to say?


----------



## Shattered

GunnyL said:


> Just what're you trying to say?



Does the phrase "pumped up Bad Santa" ring a bell?


----------



## Gunny

Shattered said:


> Does the phrase "pumped up Bad Santa" ring a bell?



And I thought I was all in "handsome" mode for that.


----------



## Shattered

GunnyL said:


> And I thought I was all in "handsome" mode for that.



Whoops.  Your bad.


----------



## Gunny

Shattered said:


> Whoops.  Your bad.



Wench.


----------



## Shattered

GunnyL said:


> Wench.



LMAO!!  Well, at least you capitalized it.


----------



## Gunny

Shattered said:


> LMAO!!  Well, at least you capitalized it.




Only cuz it's the first word in the sentence.


----------



## Shattered

GunnyL said:


> Only cuz it's the first word in the sentence.



Ass.


----------



## maineman

you two need to get a room.


----------



## Shattered

maineman said:


> you two need to get a room.



As do and RSR - but we're not catty enough to point it out.


----------



## maineman

Shattered said:


> As do and RSR - but we're not catty enough to point it out.



rsr and I need to get a RING, not a room.

but hey...I don't mind watching you two get it on with cyber flirting...it's all good!


----------



## Shattered

maineman said:


> rsr and I need to get a RING, not a room.
> 
> but hey...I don't mind watching you two get it on with cyber flirting...it's all good!



While I'm sure to you it's a foreign concept for people to not constantly bash the shit out of each other, it IS ok.. You CAN try it sometime.. Odds are pretty good you're not going to get struck by lightning if you laugh sometimes.  Tho, if you actually crack a smile, and your head splits in two, I can't help you.


----------



## maineman

Shattered said:


> While I'm sure to you it's a foreign concept for people to not constantly bash the shit out of each other, it IS ok.. You CAN try it sometime.. Odds are pretty good you're not going to get struck by lightning if you laugh sometimes.  Tho, if you actually crack a smile, and your head splits in two, I can't help you.



when I suggested you two should get a room, I was laughing...

I really DO have a sense of humor.


----------



## Shattered

maineman said:


> when I suggested you two should get a room, I was laughing...
> 
> I really DO have a sense of humor.



Oh.  Must be that Military sense of humor that nobody else gets..  The deadpan  look, the serious voice, while you're chuckling inside...


----------



## maineman

Shattered said:


> Oh.  Must be that Military sense of humor that nobody else gets..  The deadpan  look, the serious voice, while you're chuckling inside...



you may be right....ma'am


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> Looking weird?  Probably the handsomest you've been in your life.


Perhaps, but it was definitely not worth the time and expense of getting it maintained every freakin' week.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why don't you answer a question once in a while instead of this fucking tap dance you always do?
> 
> you and RSR...two peas in a pod.



I also liked how Gore showed his love for the military - by tossing out the votes of those in the military


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I also liked how Gore showed his love for the military - by tossing out the votes of those in the military



I actually like the way Gore volunteered to go to Vietnam instead of using his daddy's clout to put him in some champagne national guard unit.

And Gore didn't want to toss out MILITARY votes, he wanted to toss out ALL votes that had been cast after the deadline date set by law.  I voted by absentee ballot every election from 1972 through 1994 and I NEVER failed to get my ballot requested from my home of record, filled out and I personally made sure that the ships postal clerk postmarked it well before the date required.  If you don't care enough to be a good citizen and follow the rules, whether you are military or just some rich american travelling through europe, why should you be treated any differently?


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> I actually like the way Gore volunteered to go to Vietnam instead of using his daddy's clout to put him in some champagne national guard unit.
> 
> And Gore didn't want to toss out MILITARY votes, he wanted to toss out ALL votes that had been cast after the deadline date set by law.  I voted by absentee ballot every election from 1972 through 1994 and I NEVER failed to get my ballot requested from my home of record, filled out and I personally made sure that the ships postal clerk postmarked it well before the date required.  If you don't care enough to be a good citizen and follow the rules, whether you are military or just some rich american travelling through europe, why should you be treated any differently?



Good.  I like it when people follow simple and clear rules.  What are your thoughts on the &#8220;Butterfly Ballots&#8221; of Florida?  I looked at one and it did not look difficult to understand.  People who were given those unusual ballots should have taken the time to carefully read and follow the instructions.  Don&#8217;t you agree?


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> Good.  I like it when people follow simple and clear rules.  What are your thoughts on the Butterfly Ballots of Florida?  I looked at one and it did not look difficult to understand.  People who were given those unusual ballots should have taken the time to carefully read and follow the instructions.  Dont you agree?



I do agree completely.  It is the responsibility of the voter to cast a correct ballot in a timely fashion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Good.  I like it when people follow simple and clear rules.  What are your thoughts on the Butterfly Ballots of Florida?  I looked at one and it did not look difficult to understand.  People who were given those unusual ballots should have taken the time to carefully read and follow the instructions.  Dont you agree?



Those ballots were neither unique or new, they had been used numerous times before, in those counties as well as else where in the US. More to the point, those Counties were run by Democrats. Democrats designed, approved and used those ballots. The exact format was designed and approved in 2 of the 3 counties by a completely Democratic County office, in  the third there was a minority presence of republicans also.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Those ballots were neither unique or new, they had been used numerous times before, in those counties as well as else where in the US. More to the point, those Counties were run by Democrats. Democrats designed, approved and used those ballots. The exact format was designed and approved in 2 of the 3 counties by a completely Democratic County office, in  the third there was a minority presence of republicans also.



and 3000 jews in Palm Beach MEANT to vote for Hitler-loving fascist, Pat Buchanan!  LOL


----------



## red states rule

and when the liberal media paid for their own recount and came to the conclusion Pres Bush actually did win Florida - the kook left still screamed who the election was stolen


----------



## maineman

and the kook right will still want to slaughter abortion doctors and blow up federal buildings.

I have NEVER said the election of 2000 was stolen and know of no mainstream democrat who thought so either.

I do not think that the supreme court should have even heard the case, but what should I expect when seven of nine are appointed by republicans


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and the kook right will still want to slaughter abortion doctors and blow up federal buildings.
> 
> I have NEVER said the election of 2000 was stolen and know of no mainstream democrat who thought so either.
> 
> I do not think that the supreme court should have even heard the case, but what should I expect when seven of nine are appointed by republicans



Oh grow up.  Your party has been screaming how both Florida and Ohio were stolen

For you to state such a bold face lie proves what a total blind political hack you really are

Gore wanted a selective recount that was heavy with Dem voters


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Oh grow up.  Your party has been screaming how both Florida and Ohio were stolen
> 
> For you to state such a bold face lie proves what a total blind political hack you really are
> 
> Gore wanted a selective recount that was heavy with Dem voters



please bring a quote from a legitimate democratic official that says that Florida or Ohio were "stolen"

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> please bring a quote from a legitimate democratic official that says that Florida or Ohio were "stolen"
> 
> I'll wait.



That is like asking for a source that says the sky is blue

Go see my assistant Helen Wait

If you want a link go to Helen Wait


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> That is like asking for a source that says the sky is blue
> 
> Go see my assistant Helen Wait
> 
> If you want a link go to Helen Wait



so...like I thought....no quotes, just bullshit.

typical.

hack


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so...like I thought....no quotes, just bullshit.
> 
> typical.
> 
> hack



No fact

Dems even ran on the stolen election in the 02 midterms

the DNC Chairman promised Jeb Bush would pay for the stolen FL election

you refuse to accept facts - something you are damn good at


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> No fact
> 
> Dems even ran on the stolen election in the 02 midterms
> 
> the DNC Chairman promised Jeb Bush would pay for the stolen FL election
> 
> you refuse to accept facts - something you are damn good at



no quotes...more bullshit.

hack.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no quotes...more bullshit.
> 
> hack.



Living down to all my expectations - typical response from a lib who has been busted and is owned in a debate


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Living down to all my expectations - typical response from a lib who has been busted and is owned in a debate



you make claims that people said things, but can produce no proof.

Did you hear that George Bush said that fuckng pigs up the ass was a patriotic thing to do?

YOu didn't?  He said it. I say so. 

See how that works?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you make claims that people said things, but can produce no proof.
> 
> Did you hear that George Bush said that fuckng pigs up the ass was a patriotic thing to do?
> 
> YOu didn't?  He said it. I say so.
> 
> See how that works?



For you to even post Dems have not said the elections were stolen is laughable

Are you so full of shit you are now hoping for mass amnesia to get your rant by the rest of the board?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> For you to even post Dems have not said the elections were stolen is laughable
> 
> Are you so full of shit you are now hoping for mass amnesia to get your rant by the rest of the board?



and still no quotes.

imagine that!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and still no quotes.
> 
> imagine that!



you are showing what a total fool you are - please keep it up


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> you are showing what a total fool you are - please keep it up



the only way you can make me look at all bad on this is to produce a quote from a democratic official that states that the election was STOLEN in Florida or Ohio.

Short of that, you are just blowing smoke like you always do.

and even if you WERE able to produce such a quote, I can tell you quite positively, that rank and file democrats have NEVER felt that Bush STOLE the election in 2000 or in 2004.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> the only way you can make me look at all bad on this is to produce a quote from a democratic official that states that the election was STOLEN in Florida or Ohio.
> 
> Short of that, you are just blowing smoke like you always do.
> 
> and even if you WERE able to produce such a quote, I can tell you quite positively, that rank and file democrats have NEVER felt that Bush STOLE the election in 2000 or in 2004.



You have to be kidding? Your either drunk, delusional or mentally challanged. RIGHT on this board we have had RANK and FILE democrats claim Bush stole the election in 2000 and then that the evil right wing conspiracy used the new voting machines to steal the 2004 election.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DU underground..... Moveon.org, Micheal Moore... ring any bells yet? Then there are the claims that the Supreme Court elected Bush in 2000, illegally I might add. All have appeared right here on this board.

Care4all is a democrat, lets ask her if she thinks the election was stolen in 2000 and that the 2004 election was rigged, shall we?

Or Truthmatters?

How about some of your liberal allies that don't admit they are democrats, like Edward?

I am sure others here can list more of the left , even admitted democrats that have said EXACTLY what you claim was never said.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have to be kidding? Your either drunk, delusional or mentally challanged. RIGHT on this board we have had RANK and FILE democrats claim Bush stole the election in 2000 and then that the evil right wing conspiracy used the new voting machines to steal the 2004 election.



If I find seven republicans who claim that Al Gore is actually an alien from another galaxy, can I then claim that rank and file republicans think that?

There are left fringe folks who believe a lot of stuff that the vast majority of the democratic party does not.

Do the rank and file of your party, for example, believe in killing abortion doctors?


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

Well, here it is: July 4, 2007, and we're still surrounded by halfwits who demand that we bow down to King George. Don't you think the time to get rid of him is long past due? 

I'm genuinely embarrassed when I have to think that people like RSR are actually among my fellow Americans.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am sure others here can list more of the left , even admitted democrats that have said EXACTLY what you claim was never said.



I clamed that no democratic officials have ever said that the election was STOLEN...and I claimed that the vast majority of rank and file democrats believe no such thing.  I swear....you have the reading comprehension skills of a six year old.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> the only way you can make me look at all bad on this is to produce a quote from a democratic official that states that the election was STOLEN in Florida or Ohio.
> 
> Short of that, you are just blowing smoke like you always do.
> 
> and even if you WERE able to produce such a quote, I can tell you quite positively, that rank and file democrats have NEVER felt that Bush STOLE the election in 2000 or in 2004.



I'm rather curious as to who exactly you attribute the "Bush stole the election" statement?  The Ohio one is irrelevant since Kerry conceded before anyone started making accusations.  

If you look on this board alone, it's all over it.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Those ballots were neither unique or new, they had been used numerous times before, in those counties as well as else where in the US. More to the point, those Counties were run by Democrats. Democrats designed, approved and used those ballots. The exact format was designed and approved in 2 of the 3 counties by a completely Democratic County office, in  the third there was a minority presence of republicans also.



Please. I did not what to make a big debate out of it.  So I might have made a mistake or two when describing the butterfly ballot.  Whether it was unusual or not, whether it was approved by the authorities - I dont care.  I just wanted to see how consistent MM is with regard to filling out and submitting votes.  He showed intellectual honesty and consistency.  5 thumbs up.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> If I find seven republicans who claim that Al Gore is actually an alien from another galaxy, can I then claim that rank and file republicans think that?
> 
> There are left fringe folks who believe a lot of stuff that the vast majority of the democratic party does not.
> 
> Do the rank and file of your party, for example, believe in killing abortion doctors?



It is fun to see MM try and duck as the facts hit him from all directions


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Well, here it is: July 4, 2007, and we're still surrounded by halfwits who demand that we bow down to King George. Don't you think the time to get rid of him is long past due?
> 
> I'm genuinely embarrassed when I have to think that people like RSR are actually among my fellow Americans.



Who's said anything about bowing down?  You.  

Did you not get all pissy with me, to include a lecture on what you think my conduct should be?  Yet WHAT is the purpose to this post?

To belittle and insult.  There is no legitimate point in it anywhere.


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> It is fun to see MM try and duck as the facts hit him from all directions



If you and out to lunch could keep the rhetoric down to a dull roar, I'm genuinely interested in a response from MM.  I see what he's trying to say, but I would like some clarification.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> If you and out to lunch could keep the rhetoric down to a dull roar, I'm genuinely interested in a response from MM.  I see what he's trying to say, but I would like some clarification.



I would be interested in MM response as well - if I suffered from insomnia

For him to say no mainstream Dem said the 2000 (or 2004) election was stolen is laughable


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> I would be interested in MM response as well - if I suffered from insomnia
> 
> For him to say no mainstream Dem said the 2000 (or 2004) election was stolen is laughable



Okay.  Prove it.  If I read what he wrote correctly, he's no official representative of the DNC, nor the average rank and file Democrat accused Bush of stealing the election.

I DO know the accusations have been hot and heavy since that time, ON MESSAGE BOARDS.  For better or worse, we are hardly "mainstream."    This is for all intents and purposes, a form of political activism.

So, if you can prove MM's statement incorrect, do so.  If not, we can await further explanation from MM.  Contributing a dozon-or-so "Dems suck becuase they're Dems" doesn't answer the question.


----------



## red states rule

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/DemocratsShame2001.htm

watch the Dems step up and whine about how Fl was stolen in 2000


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/DemocratsShame2001.htm
> 
> watch the Dems step up and whine about how Fl was stolen in 2000



That'd be real nice except I don't use speakers.  They're annoying.  Nothing in print for all us un-edumicated knuckle-draggers?


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> That'd be real nice except I don't use speakers.  They're annoying.  Nothing in print for all us un-edumicated knuckle-draggers?



On that video no

On Ohio, Harry Reid all but said Ohio was stolen

MATTHEWS:  Do you think he was treated unfairly in the count or was it just in the campaign?  Do you think he got a good count in Ohio, for example at the end of that election?  

REID:  Well, I think the Ohio count was bad, but he is a good American.  He realized that it was time to end the election and not drag this on.  I think some votes could have been changed in the state of Ohio, but John Kerry did the right thing.  He just pulled the plug.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16826322/


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> On that video no
> 
> On Ohio, Harry Reid all but said Ohio was stolen
> 
> MATTHEWS:  Do you think he was treated unfairly in the count or was it just in the campaign?  Do you think he got a good count in Ohio, for example at the end of that election?
> 
> REID:  Well, I think the Ohio count was bad, but he is a good American.  He realized that it was time to end the election and not drag this on.  I think some votes could have been changed in the state of Ohio, but John Kerry did the right thing.  He just pulled the plug.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16826322/



"All but said" doesn't muster up.  Reid said the same thing I did ... Ohio is irrelevant because Kerry conceded.  I've seen almost no one even TRY to argue that one except extremists; which, tends to support MMs statement.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> "All but said" doesn't muster up.  Reid said the same thing I did ... Ohio is irrelevant because Kerry conceded.  I've seen almost no one even TRY to argue that one except extremists; which, tends to support MMs statement.



OK, fair enough 

But it is well know the Dems in DC were ranting how the election was stolen. The video of Dems trying to prevent the Electoral College being certified is priceless.

They made all the usual baseless charges, and Al had to stand there and watch


----------



## red states rule

"They thought the election was over, the Republicans did. By the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida"

Bill Clinton


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> "They thought the election was over, the Republicans did. By the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida"
> 
> Bill Clinton



Was Clinton a representative of the DNC when he made that statement?  I don't recall his making any statements until after he was out of office.

It is my opinion that Gore, and some gungo-ho supporters of his DID try to backdoor the election, and I think the precedent he set by challenging will never amount to anything more good than harmful.

However, sans evidence, I'm not really prepared to indict all Democrats or liberals for the actions of one man and a handful of minions.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> Was Clinton a representative of the DNC when he made that statement?  I don't recall his making any statements until after he was out of office.
> 
> It is my opinion that Gore, and some gungo-ho supporters of his DID try to backdoor the election, and I think the precedent he set by challenging will never amount to anything more good than harmful.
> 
> However, sans evidence, I'm not really prepared to indict all Democrats or liberals for the actions of one man and a handful of minions.



Clinton had the longest Farewell Tour on Jan 20, 2001 of any outgoing President. He would not leave the stage as Pres Bush was taking over

His comment speaks for it itself


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> Clinton had the longest Farewell Tour on Jan 20, 2001 of any outgoing President. He would not leave the stage as Pres Bush was taking over
> 
> His comment speaks for it itself



I understand what his comments say.  Now put them in the context of him being an official of the DNC.  Being President does not make one an official of the DNC.

So I repeat the question:  WHEN did he make the comment?

And how long he held the stage on his farewell is irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> I understand what his comments say.  Now put them in the context of him being an official of the DNC.  Being President does not make one an official of the DNC.
> 
> So I repeat the question:  WHEN did he make the comment?
> 
> And how long he held the stage on his farewell is irrelevant to the topic.



Jan 9, 2001

He was still President

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_2_37/ai_72300446


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> Jan 9, 2001
> 
> He was still President
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_2_37/ai_72300446



Okay, well, now you can pull out the relevant statement and post it.  I'm not reading 6 pages of Clinton to find a one-liner.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I'm rather curious as to who exactly you attribute the "Bush stole the election" statement?  The Ohio one is irrelevant since Kerry conceded before anyone started making accusations.
> 
> If you look on this board alone, it's all over it.



I was unaware that democratic party officials routinely posted all over here.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> I was unaware that democratic party officials routinely posted all over here.



You need to read the rest of my posts.  I believe I already pointed that out to RSR.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> You need to read the rest of my posts.  I believe I already pointed that out to RSR.




mea culpa


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DU is not rank and file democrats?


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> mea culpa



A class act.  You and RSR are worlds apart.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> You need to read the rest of my posts.  I believe I already pointed that out to RSR.


But does it really matter what *anyone *points out to RSR?


----------



## Gunny

The Man @ Lunch said:


> But does it really matter what *anyone *points out to RSR?



You are neither required to read what he posts, nor respond to him.  To answer your question, no it doesn't.  There should be something in that answer for you to take with you. 

As far as this particular little discussion goes, MM made a statement; which, I asked for clarification on, and RSR has provided some evidence to counter the statement.

I find the topic interesting.  Who actually DID/IS making the claim Bush stole the election in 2000?  Is it Dems to include the DNC?  Or just extremists and the media?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> DU is not rank and file democrats?



no.  It is not.  It is a site that caters to the extreme left wing of the democratic party.

Is Operation Rescue rank and file republicans?


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

GunnyL said:


> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But does it really matter what anyone points out to RSR?
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question, no it doesn't. There should be something in that answer for you to take with you.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I appreciate the candid answer. Thanks, Marine. 
 



> Who actually DID/IS making the claim Bush stole the election in 2000? Is it Dems to include the DNC?


I'm not aware of anyone who can speak for the Democratic party in an official capacity saying, publicly or on record, that Bush stole the election. Which doesn't mean that he didn't, of course.


----------



## Superlative

GunnyL said:


> I find the topic interesting.  *Who actually DID/IS making the claim Bush stole the election in 2000? * Is it Dems to include the DNC?  Or just extremists and the media?



From what ive heard of this, which is very little, is that Fox News reported that Bush won the election, at like 2:16 am, (before the counts were in)  or something like that, and within 20 minutes every other News station reported the same thing. 

Some how, some way, this, in the eyes of the public meant Bush had won.

Before the votes were tallied. 

Hence the stealing of the election?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Moveon.Org is not a recognized part of the Democratic Party machine? And still waiting to know how it is DU has no membes of the rank and file democrats posting there.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

RetiredGySgt said:


> Moveon.Org is not a recognized part of the Democratic Party machine?


Moveon.org is just a PAC. If you want to call it part of the "Democratic Party machine," you also have to call the Rutherford Foundation part of the Republican Party machine. 



			
				RetardedGySgt said:
			
		

> And still waiting to know how it is DU has no membes of the rank and file democrats posting there.


Even if they do, there's a huge difference between posting anonymously and speaking officially on behalf of your employer.


----------



## Gunny

Superlative said:


> From what ive heard of this, which is very little, is that Fox News reported that Bush won the election, at like 2:16 am, (before the counts were in)  or something like that, and within 20 minutes every other News station reported the same thing.
> 
> Some how, some way, this, in the eyes of the public meant Bush had won.
> 
> Before the votes were tallied.
> 
> Hence the stealing of the election?



This addresses a completely separate issue that has annoyed me in every election.  The polls should open and close at the same time, regardless local time.  One state's results should not be reported until every state's results have been tallied.

I think that would do MUCH to minimize confusion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Superlative said:


> From what ive heard of this, which is very little, is that Fox News reported that Bush won the election, at like 2:16 am, (before the counts were in)  or something like that, and within 20 minutes every other News station reported the same thing.
> 
> Some how, some way, this, in the eyes of the public meant Bush had won.
> 
> Before the votes were tallied.
> 
> Hence the stealing of the election?



The problem with this claim is hours before around 10PM 2 of the 3 networks declared Gore the winner. They retracted that and in the case of one of the networks the reporters on screen were ready to burst out in tears when they did.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Moveon.org is just a PAC. If you want to call it part of the "Democratic Party machine," you also have to call the Rutherford Foundation part of the Republican Party machine.
> 
> Even if they do, there's a huge difference between posting anonymously and speaking officially on behalf of your employer.



Maineman has declared that few democrats ever claimed the election was stolen. This is simple NOT true.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Maineman has declared that few democrats ever claimed the election was stolen. This is simple NOT true.



Would the DNC web site serve as a good source for an official statement from the Democrats, as a whole, with respect to the 2000 election?  Ill check it out and see if I can find an official position.


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

RetiredGySgt said:


> Maineman has declared that few democrats ever claimed the election was stolen. This is simple NOT true.


If you're talking about "average Joe" citizens who just happen to be registered Democrats and nothing else, then I'd agree with you. However, I thought Mr. Maine was referring only to those who represented the party itself, in some official way.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

He identified TWO groups. The acknowledged Leaders AND Rank and File Democrats. You won't find many references directly from any leaders, they are much to savy to make that mistake, but they have and continue to allow organizations like DU and Moveon.Org do that for them.

BUT rank and file HAVE made the claim that the election was stolen. To claim otherwise is either an outright lie or a delusional state of denial.


----------



## red states rule

The Man @ Lunch said:


> If you're talking about "average Joe" citizens who just happen to be registered Democrats and nothing else, then I'd agree with you. However, I thought Mr. Maine was referring only to those who represented the party itself, in some official way.



Then there is Terry McAuliffe, who promised Jeb Bush would lose in 2002 due to Fl being stolen

Does the head of the DNC count?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

red states rule said:


> Then there is Terry McAuliffe, who promised Jeb Bush would lose in 2002 due to Fl being stolen
> 
> Does the head of the DNC count?



Doesn't count, he isn't in charge anymore and besides you haven't provided a suitably liberal source for that statement.


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> Doesn't count, he isn't in charge anymore and besides you haven't provided a suitably liberal source for that statement.



It does count - he was the head of the DNC

Here is one source - there are many

He was all over the liberal media bellowing how the Bush brothers would pay for the 2000 election


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/25/72308.shtml


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You are not paying attention, unless you link to a Liberal source any link you provide is just propaganda put out by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

And you better be careful, Maineman will be back soon and as usual will resort to name calling , cursing and come up with some inane question totally irrelevant to the issue, failing that he will just character assassinate you.


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are not paying attention, unless you link to a Liberal source any link you provide is just propaganda put out by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
> 
> And you better be careful, Maineman will be back soon and as usual will resort to name calling , cursing and come up with some inane question totally irrelevant to the issue, failing that he will just character assassinate you.



So what else is new about MM?

I loved it when Bill Clinton went to Fl when the polls showed Jeb was up by only 4 points

Bill hit the state days before the election and stood by McBride

Jeb won by double digits


----------



## Superlative

GunnyL said:


> This addresses a completely separate issue that has annoyed me in every election.  The polls should open and close at the same time, regardless local time.  One state's results should not be reported until every state's results have been tallied.
> 
> I think that would do MUCH to minimize confusion.



It was also said that some 20,000 Democrat votes in Florida were not counted. 

http://digg.com/videos/educational/Banned_BBC_Documentary_Bush_Stole_2004_Elections_2
And a bunch of other stuff. 

<embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=741182&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmail%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3D182587%26fr%3D&imUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252Fvideo%252Fplay%253Fei%253DUTF-8%2526vid%253D182587&imTitle=BBC%2BNews%2BProves%2BBush%2BStole%2Bthe%2B2000%2BPresidential%2BElection&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/search?p=&profileUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?yid=&creatorValue=cXJ4eA%3D%3D&vid=182587' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/billpress.column/index.html



> How Bush-Cheney stole the 2000 election was a matter of obvious historical fact, confirmed by post-facto mainstream media reports of a Gore win, and detailed by numerous investigators such as *Greg Palast* in his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Voters complained about old machines and paper ballots.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html
was_the_2004_election_stolen


----------



## Gunny

Superlative said:


> It was also said that some 20,000 Democrat votes in Florida were not counted.
> 
> http://digg.com/videos/educational/Banned_BBC_Documentary_Bush_Stole_2004_Elections_2
> And a bunch of other stuff.
> 
> <embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=741182&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmail%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3D182587%26fr%3D&imUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252Fvideo%252Fplay%253Fei%253DUTF-8%2526vid%253D182587&imTitle=BBC%2BNews%2BProves%2BBush%2BStole%2Bthe%2B2000%2BPresidential%2BElection&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/search?p=&profileUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?yid=&creatorValue=cXJ4eA%3D%3D&vid=182587' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>
> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/billpress.column/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html
> was_the_2004_election_stolen



See, I disagree with that.  I voted in FL the first time I voted.  In Miami to be exact.  The punchcard/butterfly ballot is pretty self-expalantory and simple.  It states clearly to punch a hole through the place provided next to the name you wanted to vote for.  If you aren't smart enough to do that, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.

However, this brings into play the argument whether the vote is the most important thing, or following the procedure that ensures your vote is counted.  The rules and regs state what will and will not be accepted.  I think that's fair, and simple enough.

IMO, if you don't meet the procedural requirements, your vote doesn't count.  That's the rules.  It's BEEN the rules.  Why all of a sudden for this particular election following standard procedure suddenly became "disenfranchising voters" is clearly a statement in and of itself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I love this source....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html

Perhaps those of you that believe this nonsense can explain the 2006 election?


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> It was also said that some 20,000 Democrat votes in Florida were not counted.
> 
> http://digg.com/videos/educational/Banned_BBC_Documentary_Bush_Stole_2004_Elections_2
> And a bunch of other stuff.
> 
> <embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=741182&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmail%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3D182587%26fr%3D&imUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252Fvideo%252Fplay%253Fei%253DUTF-8%2526vid%253D182587&imTitle=BBC%2BNews%2BProves%2BBush%2BStole%2Bthe%2B2000%2BPresidential%2BElection&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/search?p=&profileUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?yid=&creatorValue=cXJ4eA%3D%3D&vid=182587' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>
> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/billpress.column/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html
> was_the_2004_election_stolen






Sorry to bust your bubble.............


Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount

April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday. 

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month. 

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore. 

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked." 

Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported. 

The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid. 

for the complete article
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/index.html


----------



## Superlative

Hey all this, was in response to this. 




GunnyL said:


> I find the topic interesting.  *Who actually DID/IS making the claim Bush stole the election in 2000? * Is it Dems to include the DNC?  Or just extremists and the media?





I could really care less.

Butterfly shmutterfly.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Hey all this, was in response to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could really care less.
> 
> Butterfly shmutterfly.



I don't blame you. The ballot was designed by Dems and approved by Dems


----------



## trobinett

We ARE talking about history here, right?

Just exactly how do YOU propose to change HISTORY?

Work on THAT, and do get back to me.


----------



## red states rule

trobinett said:


> We ARE talking about history here, right?
> 
> Just exactly how do YOU propose to change HISTORY?
> 
> Work on THAT, and do get back to me.



I am not trying to change history - just calling libs on their attempt to rewrite it


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

red states rule said:


> Then there is Terry McAuliffe, who promised Jeb Bush would lose in 2002 due to Fl being stolen
> 
> Does the head of the DNC count?



Depends on whether you can supply the quote from a real news source (and on whether Terry's office tried to retract it later).


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Depends on whether you can supply the quote from a real news source (and on whether Terry's office tried to retract it later).



Told ya....

Any crackpot that says anything about Bush, Cheney or republicans in General... fine upstanding americans doing their patriotic duty of course. Anyone pointing out any problem with Dems and liberals, all liars and cads.


----------



## red states rule

The Man @ Lunch said:


> Depends on whether you can supply the quote from a real news source (and on whether Terry's office tried to retract it later).



Yea, what does printing his exact quote prove?


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> Told ya....
> 
> Any crackpot that says anything about Bush, Cheney or republicans in General... fine upstanding americans doing their patriotic duty of course. Anyone pointing out any problem with Dems and liberals, all liars and cads.



That is the libs definition of patriotism these days


----------



## The Man @ Lunch

red states rule said:


> Yea, what does printing his exact quote prove?



That you don't think you deserve a free pass for whatever crap you happen to be spitting out any given half hour.

You're no conservative, BTW.


----------



## red states rule

The Man @ Lunch said:


> That you don't think you deserve a free pass for whatever crap you happen to be spitting out any given half hour.
> 
> You're no conservative, BTW.



Therre are some libs who continue to live in a constant state of denial

MM said no MSM Dem or Dem leader said the 2000 election was stolen - I proved him wrong

You seem to have a problem with that as well


----------

