Now Khan says about Trump, "Shame on him, Shame on his family" (his family?)

[Avatar4321]

Why is Trump giving this guy any time? His opponent is Hillary. not Khan. He isn't William shatner

 

[Divine Wind]

Why is Trump giving this guy any time? His opponent is Hillary. not Khan. He isn't William shatner

My guess is because he doesn't want to quit, but doesn't want to give up his Billionaire's freedoms by swearing an oath to elected office.

 

[Seawytch]

Your entire premise is flawed. "The left" doesn't dislike the military.

I am a veteran here.

Great. Thanks for serving a hitch. Still, the Democrats are much less supportive of the military than the Republicans. Sure, they'll give lip-service to "support the troops" and "tie yellow ribbons", but in the end, they'll steer their kids away from serving in the military because they dislike it, don't respect it and don't support it.

Does the Military Vote Really Lean Republican? | TIME.com
the U.S. military plainly tilts toward the GOP. That’s largely because today’s military is an all-volunteer force increasingly drawn from the Sunbelt, where the Pentagon has focused its recruiting efforts since the draft ended 40 years ago. And traits the military prizes — like aggressiveness and respect for authority — tend to be more pronounced in conservatives.

20 years is more than a "hitch", it's a career. And I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

 

[Divine Wind]

....I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Otherwise, we'd expect to see a proportional number of Democrats signing up for service.

Again, agree to disagree. Example:
McCain Can Defend U.S., But Himself?
The John McCain campaign is all excited about a statement that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, made about McCain's service in Vietnam.

Unlike other war heroes who have been shot down in battle and risked their lives behind enemy lines, such as former South Dakota Senator George McGovern, McCain has chosen to make his military service a central feature of his political campaigning. Unfortunately, McCain and his supporters are hyper-sensitive about discussion's of the Arizona senator's service as a fighter pilot and a prisoner of war.

So they go crazy whenever anyone deviates from the campaign's official story-line.

Rockefeller did that when he told the Charleston Gazette in an interview published today that, "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

To be sure, Rockefeller showed ignorance with his talk of laser-guided missiles - as opposed to the plain, old-fashioned bombs that were used in 1967.

But his point was clear. He was questioning whether McCain had ever thought seriously about the human beings on whom those bombs were dropped.

As someone who grew up in an Air Force family, I'm sensitive to discussions about issues such as this. I know that pilots ponder these questions, with a seriousness and a moral intensity that merits respect. To my mind, a pilot or any member of an Air Force crew does his duty in the same sense that an infantryman does. They follow orders. I'm much more concerned about the morality of those who give the orders - especially in a country where the military is supposed to be under civilian control - than that of the pilots.

My sense, as someone who has spent a good deal of time with McCain over the past decade - though surely less than has Rockefeller - is that the Republican contender has considered the moral questions rather more seriously than his critics may suggest.

So, from the state, I had real doubts about Rockefeller's challenge - doubts that the West Virginia senator, upon reflection, came to share. He quickly apologized for a statement he described as "an inaccurate and wrong analogy."

But I have even more doubts about the McCain campaign's response to the West Virginia senator's discussion of the military record the Arizona senator has made central to his campaign.

The campaign's answer to criticism from McCain's fellow senator was not to unleash the candidate and have him talk about his service in a thoughtful manner. It was to send a rather too frequently over-the-top supporter to launch a silly, bombastic attack on one of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's fellow senators.

"Senator Rockefeller's statement is an insult to all the men and women who are serving or have served in America's military," said Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, USMC (Ret.), a longtime McCain ally. "Had Senator Rockefeller served himself, he would appreciate and understand that most who have been to war emerge with a much deeper concern for humanity than they otherwise might. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that John McCain wasn't dropping laser-guided missiles at 35,000 feet in 1967."

The jab at the end is appropriate, but the rest of the statement is a load of embarrassingly cheap political spin.

The only thing worse was the appropriately-named Swindle's attempt to try and hold Rockefeller's choice in the Democratic race responsible for Rockefeller's words.

Barack Obama has always been respectful of McCain's service, yet Swindle spewed on about how the Illinois senator "has a responsibility to denounce Senator Rockefeller's smear against John McCain's character and military record. The question remains: Does Senator Obama have the courage to stand up and hold himself to the principles of 'new politics' he outlined in his book, The Audacity of Hope?"

No, the question is this: Does John McCain have the courage to defend himself and his record rather than sending Orson Swindle out to play politics for him?

John McCain has chosen to make his military record a campaign issue. He has done so throughout his career. He has a right to do that. But his choice does not come without responsibility. If he wants to challenge Rockefeller's assessment of that record, he should do so - aggressively, thoroughly and, ideally, with the offer of some insight into his own thinking about the fundamental questions that so many other pilots have pondered so seriously and so responsibly.

 

[Seawytch]

....I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Otherwise, we'd expect to see a proportional number of Democrats signing up for service.

Again, agree to disagree. Example:
McCain Can Defend U.S., But Himself?
The John McCain campaign is all excited about a statement that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, made about McCain's service in Vietnam.

Unlike other war heroes who have been shot down in battle and risked their lives behind enemy lines, such as former South Dakota Senator George McGovern, McCain has chosen to make his military service a central feature of his political campaigning. Unfortunately, McCain and his supporters are hyper-sensitive about discussion's of the Arizona senator's service as a fighter pilot and a prisoner of war.

So they go crazy whenever anyone deviates from the campaign's official story-line.

Rockefeller did that when he told the Charleston Gazette in an interview published today that, "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

To be sure, Rockefeller showed ignorance with his talk of laser-guided missiles - as opposed to the plain, old-fashioned bombs that were used in 1967.

But his point was clear. He was questioning whether McCain had ever thought seriously about the human beings on whom those bombs were dropped.

As someone who grew up in an Air Force family, I'm sensitive to discussions about issues such as this. I know that pilots ponder these questions, with a seriousness and a moral intensity that merits respect. To my mind, a pilot or any member of an Air Force crew does his duty in the same sense that an infantryman does. They follow orders. I'm much more concerned about the morality of those who give the orders - especially in a country where the military is supposed to be under civilian control - than that of the pilots.

My sense, as someone who has spent a good deal of time with McCain over the past decade - though surely less than has Rockefeller - is that the Republican contender has considered the moral questions rather more seriously than his critics may suggest.

So, from the state, I had real doubts about Rockefeller's challenge - doubts that the West Virginia senator, upon reflection, came to share. He quickly apologized for a statement he described as "an inaccurate and wrong analogy."

But I have even more doubts about the McCain campaign's response to the West Virginia senator's discussion of the military record the Arizona senator has made central to his campaign.

The campaign's answer to criticism from McCain's fellow senator was not to unleash the candidate and have him talk about his service in a thoughtful manner. It was to send a rather too frequently over-the-top supporter to launch a silly, bombastic attack on one of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's fellow senators.

"Senator Rockefeller's statement is an insult to all the men and women who are serving or have served in America's military," said Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, USMC (Ret.), a longtime McCain ally. "Had Senator Rockefeller served himself, he would appreciate and understand that most who have been to war emerge with a much deeper concern for humanity than they otherwise might. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that John McCain wasn't dropping laser-guided missiles at 35,000 feet in 1967."

The jab at the end is appropriate, but the rest of the statement is a load of embarrassingly cheap political spin.

The only thing worse was the appropriately-named Swindle's attempt to try and hold Rockefeller's choice in the Democratic race responsible for Rockefeller's words.

Barack Obama has always been respectful of McCain's service, yet Swindle spewed on about how the Illinois senator "has a responsibility to denounce Senator Rockefeller's smear against John McCain's character and military record. The question remains: Does Senator Obama have the courage to stand up and hold himself to the principles of 'new politics' he outlined in his book, The Audacity of Hope?"

No, the question is this: Does John McCain have the courage to defend himself and his record rather than sending Orson Swindle out to play politics for him?

John McCain has chosen to make his military record a campaign issue. He has done so throughout his career. He has a right to do that. But his choice does not come without responsibility. If he wants to challenge Rockefeller's assessment of that record, he should do so - aggressively, thoroughly and, ideally, with the offer of some insight into his own thinking about the fundamental questions that so many other pilots have pondered so seriously and so responsibly.

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You think that's an example of "the left" disliking the military? Do you not recall what the "right" said about Kerry?

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You think that's an example of "the left" disliking the military? Do you not recall what the "right" said about Kerry?

1) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't applicable.

2) "the right" didn't smear Kerry enmass. Many on "the right", including myself, disagreed with Swiftboat tactics. Don't forget, "the right", meaning the same small group of assholes, also smeared McCain.

3) Another example: The Democrats' anti-war dilemma
“Democratic leaders must make a choice today: Either embrace the character assassination tactics MoveOn.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against Al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful”.

Like the Kerry smear, not all on the Left are anti-military, but the group of anti-military on the Left is far larger than the Swiftboat assholes on the Right.

 

[P@triot]

And I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

When you constantly gut military funding - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military". When you bash the military - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military".

 

[P@triot]

Kahn is a dirt-bag prick who doesn't give a damn about his son. What he cares about is wealth, power, and Sharia Law.

The left-wing lie:
Muslims are the most amazing people - even sacrificing their lives for America.

The reality:
Of the 2.2 million men and women who make up the armed forces - a paltry 6,000 are of the muslim faith. If you do the math - that is 0.002%. But that's not the worst part. The Khan family works for a law firm which has ties to Hitlery Clinton (responsible for her taxes) and Saudia Arabia (who has close ties to Hitlery as well). In addition, Mr. Kahn supports Sharia Law.

 

[paulitician]

Americans really better wake up. This is how it all started in many Western European nations. The radicalization process began with extremist Muslims and Leftists labeling anyone who disagreed with them as 'Racists', 'Xenophobes', and so on.

This Kahn guy is more dangerous than most Americans think. England, France, Germany, Belgium, and others had too many just like him. They incite radicalization. Americans better pay closer attention. These folks are very dangerous.

You are simply a complete fucking idiot. I personally believe that scum who disparage the patriotism of military families should be shot in the face.

He's dangerous. It's exactly how the radicalization process began in Western Europe. It started with branding anyone who disagreed with extremist Muslims and Leftists, as 'Racists', 'Xenophobes', and so on. I hope Americans are paying close attention. This is how it begins.

You Trump followers are too stupid to continue living. Draw the appropriate conclusions and act accordingly.

It is how the bloodbath began in Western Europe. It started with extremist Leftists & Muslims branding those who wouldn't go along, as 'Racists, Xenophobes, Islamophobes, and so on. Western European Leftists know they're responsible for the turmoil we're currently seeing there. They realized that early on. Their dismantling of Immigration Systems all across Europe has come with a very bloody price.

Once they realized what they did, they began their aggressive campaign of shouting down anyone who dissented. I'm actually surprised Europeans haven't held Leftists accountable yet. I don't know what happened to Europeans. I guess they've been dominated by the NWO Globalists for so long, they've lost their will to fight. It's very sad.

 

[Seawytch]

And I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

When you constantly gut military funding - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military". When you bash the military - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military".

When did any of that happen?...with links.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

Kahn is a dirt-bag prick who doesn't give a damn about his son. What he cares about is wealth, power, and Sharia Law.

The left-wing lie:
Muslims are the most amazing people - even sacrificing their lives for America.

The reality:
Of the 2.2 million men and women who make up the armed forces - a paltry 6,000 are of the muslim faith. If you do the math - that is 0.002%. But that's not the worst part. The Khan family works for a law firm which has ties to Hitlery Clinton (responsible for her taxes) and Saudia Arabia (who has close ties to Hitlery as well). In addition, Mr. Kahn supports Sharia Law.

And yet 6,000 of them served when YOU did not..."patriot".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You think that's an example of "the left" disliking the military? Do you not recall what the "right" said about Kerry?

1) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't applicable.

2) "the right" didn't smear Kerry enmass. Many on "the right", including myself, disagreed with Swiftboat tactics. Don't forget, "the right", meaning the same small group of assholes, also smeared McCain.

3) Another example: The Democrats' anti-war dilemma
“Democratic leaders must make a choice today: Either embrace the character assassination tactics MoveOn.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against Al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful”.

Like the Kerry smear, not all on the Left are anti-military, but the group of anti-military on the Left is far larger than the Swiftboat assholes on the Right.

So the "right" didn't attack Kerry en masse, but one guy mentioning McCains flying record is "the left" attacking McCain en masse?

Anti war is not anti military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

And I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

When you constantly gut military funding - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military". When you bash the military - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military".

When did any of that happen?...with links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes my dear. And you know it too. You just love to play your petty little games because you can't find a rational way to defend your beloved failed ideology. During his 8 years in office - Bill Clinton cut a total of half a trillion dollars to the U.S. military.

Additionally, spending under Obama has plummeted as well. It has been cut every year since 2011 for a total of 15.9% total decrease. And hell....lets go back 40 years shall we. Jimmy Carter gutted defense spending as well. So of the last three Dumbocrat presidents, all three have have slashed defense in a major way. Then the Republican's have to come in and rebuild everything at a tremendous cost.

 

[P@triot]

Kahn is a dirt-bag prick who doesn't give a damn about his son. What he cares about is wealth, power, and Sharia Law.

The left-wing lie:
Muslims are the most amazing people - even sacrificing their lives for America.

The reality:
Of the 2.2 million men and women who make up the armed forces - a paltry 6,000 are of the muslim faith. If you do the math - that is 0.002%. But that's not the worst part. The Khan family works for a law firm which has ties to Hitlery Clinton (responsible for her taxes) and Saudia Arabia (who has close ties to Hitlery as well). In addition, Mr. Kahn supports Sharia Law.

And yet 6,000 of them served when YOU did not..."patriot".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a cute false narrative bytchy. You started that about a week ago and are still going strong with it. Tell me bytchy - what is my name? How old am I? What exactly did I do after high school? I mean - you claim to know something. Are you going to make up the answers to these questions or are you going to put your big (very big) girl pants on and admit that you are lying?

 

[Faun]

And I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

When you constantly gut military funding - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military". When you bash the military - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military".

When did any of that happen?...with links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes my dear. And you know it too. You just love to play your petty little games because you can't find a rational way to defend your beloved failed ideology. During his 8 years in office - Bill Clinton cut a total of half a trillion dollars to the U.S. military.

Additionally, spending under Obama has plummeted as well. It has been cut every year since 2011 for a total of 15.9% total decrease. And hell....lets go back 40 years shall we. Jimmy Carter gutted defense spending as well. So of the last three Dumbocrat presidents, all three have have slashed defense in a major way. Then the Republican's have to come in and rebuild everything at a tremendous cost.

Didn't Republicans control the Congress for six of Clinton's 8 years? And isn't it the Congress, and not the president, who's responsible for maintaining our military? You don't think these things through, do ya, Buttplug?

 

[Divine Wind]

So the "right" didn't attack Kerry en masse, but one guy mentioning McCains flying record is "the left" attacking McCain en masse?

Anti war is not anti military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One guy? It was more than that, but I think we can agree it was a minority just like the idiots who think Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim sleeper agent sent to destroy the US of A.

Agreed anti-war is not anti-military. However, denigrating people who choose to serve and teaching your children that serving in the military is for losers is, indeed, anti-military.

 

[P@triot]

Anti war is not anti military.

No....but bashing the military and gutting the budge for it is. Let me ask you something bytchy - when one of America's most decorated warriors (Chris Kyle) was killed, where was Barack Obama? He didn't personally attend the funeral (as he should have for a freaking legend), he didn't issue a statement (as he should have for a freaking legend), he didn't even call the family.

I mean - he had no problem calling immediate press conferences and weighing in on thug like Michael Brown - a piece of shit who committed theft, followed that up with assault, and then followed that up with resisting arrest. Couldn't wait to praise a piece of shit like that (and thank God he is dead as the people of Ferguson are exponentially safer without that miserable thug walking around pillaging like a freaking viking), but never said one damn word about Chris Kyle.

Barack Obama is clearly not "anti-war" as he can't wait to send troops overseas to die in conflict like Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. but he most definitely is "anti-military" with his words, his actions, and his attitude.

 

[P@triot]

Turns out Khizr Con had to delete his law firms website from the internet because it was exposing his true agenda. Oops....

Muslim DNC dad DELETES his website; here’s what he’s HIDING - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

 

[Faun]

Turns out Khizr Con had to delete his law firms website from the internet because it was exposing his true agenda. Oops....

Muslim DNC dad DELETES his website; here’s what he’s HIDING - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

Who says he "deleted" it? It could be down due to too many hits from idiots like you, hunting for dirt.

Meanwhile, you can find the contents of his website here -->

Home Page

.... see if you can find anything revealing his "true agenda" ....

 

[Seawytch]

And I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

When you constantly gut military funding - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military". When you bash the military - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military".

When did any of that happen?...with links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes my dear. And you know it too. You just love to play your petty little games because you can't find a rational way to defend your beloved failed ideology. During his 8 years in office - Bill Clinton cut a total of half a trillion dollars to the U.S. military.

Additionally, spending under Obama has plummeted as well. It has been cut every year since 2011 for a total of 15.9% total decrease. And hell....lets go back 40 years shall we. Jimmy Carter gutted defense spending as well. So of the last three Dumbocrat presidents, all three have have slashed defense in a major way. Then the Republican's have to come in and rebuild everything at a tremendous cost.

Links to the "gutted" military you didn't serve in, "patriot"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk