Hillary Clinton: How Bergdahl disappeared 'doesn't matter'

[Skylar]

Smiling....even when I do all the work for you Kaz, you still run from your own topic.

And are now 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised: 'black bakers and the KKK. And still, nothing.

Keep running.

You don't do any work. You write up a bunch of pompous, vacuous bullshit with so many shallow fallacies it isn't interesting to unwind

I ran you off your silly little claims. Though you may be right on one point, as that hardly required any effort at all.

I even provided you with the thread title that matched your description. And still you lay quivering and inert like a pig in mud, 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised; black bakers and the KKK.

Odd that. Its almost like you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Which begs the question: if you didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, why bring it up at all?

Are you that pompous in real life?

Are you so easily routed in real life? I mean, Black bakers and the KKK is the topic you brought up. But now you're running with your tail between your legs, terrified to discuss your own topic.

That was easy.

OK, gay boy, I know you love talking about emotions, but you suck at it. I guess being a fag, sucking comes naturally to you.

I am curious, does that ever work? I mean has it worked since you were eight?

Oh, I'm eager to talk about those black bakers and the KKK. Here, I'll even spoon feed you the thread;

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Smiling.....this is where you run again, isn't it?

 

[kaz]

You don't do any work. You write up a bunch of pompous, vacuous bullshit with so many shallow fallacies it isn't interesting to unwind

I ran you off your silly little claims. Though you may be right on one point, as that hardly required any effort at all.

I even provided you with the thread title that matched your description. And still you lay quivering and inert like a pig in mud, 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised; black bakers and the KKK.

Odd that. Its almost like you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Which begs the question: if you didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, why bring it up at all?

Are you that pompous in real life?

Are you so easily routed in real life? I mean, Black bakers and the KKK is the topic you brought up. But now you're running with your tail between your legs, terrified to discuss your own topic.

That was easy.

OK, gay boy, I know you love talking about emotions, but you suck at it. I guess being a fag, sucking comes naturally to you.

I am curious, does that ever work? I mean has it worked since you were eight?

Oh, I'm eager to talk about those black bakers and the KKK. Here, I'll even spoon feed you the thread;

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Smiling.....this is where you run again, isn't it?

Still zero content, you are consistent

 

[Skylar]

I ran you off your silly little claims. Though you may be right on one point, as that hardly required any effort at all.

I even provided you with the thread title that matched your description. And still you lay quivering and inert like a pig in mud, 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised; black bakers and the KKK.

Odd that. Its almost like you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Which begs the question: if you didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, why bring it up at all?

Are you that pompous in real life?

Are you so easily routed in real life? I mean, Black bakers and the KKK is the topic you brought up. But now you're running with your tail between your legs, terrified to discuss your own topic.

That was easy.

OK, gay boy, I know you love talking about emotions, but you suck at it. I guess being a fag, sucking comes naturally to you.

I am curious, does that ever work? I mean has it worked since you were eight?

Oh, I'm eager to talk about those black bakers and the KKK. Here, I'll even spoon feed you the thread;

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Smiling.....this is where you run again, isn't it?

Still zero content, you are consistent

Smiling...its your topic. Its one of the very threads you cited as evidence.

If you consider both your topics and your evidence to have 'zero content', then surely you can understand why I wouldn't have a much higher opinion of them.

Once again, you're invited to discuss your OWN topic: black bakers and the KKK. And you'll run just as surely. As you've got nothing.

Keep running.

 

[kaz]

Are you that pompous in real life?

Are you so easily routed in real life? I mean, Black bakers and the KKK is the topic you brought up. But now you're running with your tail between your legs, terrified to discuss your own topic.

That was easy.

OK, gay boy, I know you love talking about emotions, but you suck at it. I guess being a fag, sucking comes naturally to you.

I am curious, does that ever work? I mean has it worked since you were eight?

Oh, I'm eager to talk about those black bakers and the KKK. Here, I'll even spoon feed you the thread;

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Smiling.....this is where you run again, isn't it?

Still zero content, you are consistent

Smiling...its your topic. Its one of the very threads you cited as evidence.

If you consider both your topics and your evidence to have 'zero content', then surely you can understand why I wouldn't have a much higher opinion of them.

Once again, you're invited to discuss your OWN topic: black bakers and the KKK. And you'll run just as surely. As you've got nothing.

Keep running.

Once again, you don't answer a question and it's me running, lol

 

[Skylar]

Are you so easily routed in real life? I mean, Black bakers and the KKK is the topic you brought up. But now you're running with your tail between your legs, terrified to discuss your own topic.

That was easy.

OK, gay boy, I know you love talking about emotions, but you suck at it. I guess being a fag, sucking comes naturally to you.

I am curious, does that ever work? I mean has it worked since you were eight?

Oh, I'm eager to talk about those black bakers and the KKK. Here, I'll even spoon feed you the thread;

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Smiling.....this is where you run again, isn't it?

Still zero content, you are consistent

Smiling...its your topic. Its one of the very threads you cited as evidence.

If you consider both your topics and your evidence to have 'zero content', then surely you can understand why I wouldn't have a much higher opinion of them.

Once again, you're invited to discuss your OWN topic: black bakers and the KKK. And you'll run just as surely. As you've got nothing.

Keep running.

Once again, you don't answer a question and it's me running, lol

I'm inviting you to discuss your own topic; Black bakers and the KKK. And you starkly refuse, running from your own claims. I've even provided a link to the your own evidence. And still, nothing.

If you're going to ignore your own posts and toss them on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can't blame me for treating them the same way.

 

[Redfish]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter WashingtonExaminer.com

march 25 2015
In a comment that now seems akin to her "what difference does it make" dismissal of the Benghazi, Libya, terror slayings of U.S. officials, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that how U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl ended up in Taliban hands "doesn't matter."

Clinton was interviewed last June after President Obama traded five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, who on Wednesday was charged with desertion.

Obama was criticized by many after the trade, with some suspecting that Bergdahl sympathized with the Taliban.

But in the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended Obama in comments that she may have to answer for on the campaign trail.

"If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation," said Clinton.

It doesn't matter?" Sawyer asked.

"It doesn't matter," Clinton said. "We bring our people home."

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

 

[kaz]

OK, gay boy, I know you love talking about emotions, but you suck at it. I guess being a fag, sucking comes naturally to you.

I am curious, does that ever work? I mean has it worked since you were eight?

Oh, I'm eager to talk about those black bakers and the KKK. Here, I'll even spoon feed you the thread;

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Smiling.....this is where you run again, isn't it?

Still zero content, you are consistent

Smiling...its your topic. Its one of the very threads you cited as evidence.

If you consider both your topics and your evidence to have 'zero content', then surely you can understand why I wouldn't have a much higher opinion of them.

Once again, you're invited to discuss your OWN topic: black bakers and the KKK. And you'll run just as surely. As you've got nothing.

Keep running.

Once again, you don't answer a question and it's me running, lol

I'm inviting you to discuss your own topic; Black bakers and the KKK. And you starkly refuse, running from your own claims. I've even provided a link to the your own evidence. And still, nothing.

If you're going to ignore your own posts and toss them on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can't blame me for treating them the same way.

Your hypocrisy speaks for itself. You endlessly say Miriam said it, end of discussion. She was the one there, end of discussion. She's the patron saint of honesty, to be believed above the Virgin Mary. Yet the British government? When they say and repeat their statement Joe the Liar didn't know what their evidence was, they stand by it? Oh, they are liars, you know it. Miriam is a virgin above question no matter how incompetently she did her job and evasive her statement was. The government and intelligence of our closest ally? Liars. Oh, and of course W knew they were liars and lied based on that. How do you know? Because you know, that's why.

And here we go again. Well, Christians can't discriminate against a gay, they have to photograph their wedding, bake them cakes, whatever they want. Perfectly Constitutional, in fact the Constitution demands it, equal treatment you know. Oh, a black baker and the KKK? No, of course they can tell the KKK member who wants to buy a cake to fuck off. Why? Cause, they are racists. But Skylar, if they weren't convicted of a crime, how do you suddenly remove the Constitutional rights you used to force a Christian to bake a cake for a queer? It's hate kaz, the Constitution doesn't matter.

You're a water carrier for Democrats, every stereotypical position on everything. That's your team

 

[Liminal]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter WashingtonExaminer.com

march 25 2015
In a comment that now seems akin to her "what difference does it make" dismissal of the Benghazi, Libya, terror slayings of U.S. officials, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that how U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl ended up in Taliban hands "doesn't matter."

Clinton was interviewed last June after President Obama traded five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, who on Wednesday was charged with desertion.

Obama was criticized by many after the trade, with some suspecting that Bergdahl sympathized with the Taliban.

But in the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended Obama in comments that she may have to answer for on the campaign trail.

"If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation," said Clinton.

It doesn't matter?" Sawyer asked.

"It doesn't matter," Clinton said. "We bring our people home."

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I'm eager to talk about those black bakers and the KKK. Here, I'll even spoon feed you the thread;

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Smiling.....this is where you run again, isn't it?

Still zero content, you are consistent

Smiling...its your topic. Its one of the very threads you cited as evidence.

If you consider both your topics and your evidence to have 'zero content', then surely you can understand why I wouldn't have a much higher opinion of them.

Once again, you're invited to discuss your OWN topic: black bakers and the KKK. And you'll run just as surely. As you've got nothing.

Keep running.

Once again, you don't answer a question and it's me running, lol

I'm inviting you to discuss your own topic; Black bakers and the KKK. And you starkly refuse, running from your own claims. I've even provided a link to the your own evidence. And still, nothing.

If you're going to ignore your own posts and toss them on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can't blame me for treating them the same way.

Your hypocrisy speaks for itself. You endlessly say Miriam said it, end of discussion. She was the one there, end of discussion. She's the patron saint of honesty, to be believed above the Virgin Mary. Yet the British government? When they say and repeat their statement Joe the Liar didn't know what their evidence was, they stand by it? Oh, they are liars, you know it. Miriam is a virgin above question no matter how incompetently she did her job and evasive her statement was. The government and intelligence of our closest ally? Liars. Oh, and of course W knew they were liars and lied based on that. How do you know? Because you know, that's why.

Yawning....red herrings. A bit desperate to change the topic, are you?

And here we go again. Well, Christians can't discriminate against a gay, they have to photograph their wedding, bake them cakes, whatever they want. Perfectly Constitutional, in fact the Constitution demands it, equal treatment you know. Oh, a black baker and the KKK? No, of course they can tell the KKK member who wants to buy a cake to fuck off. Why? Cause, they are racists.

So which 'black baker' are you referring to? Which KKK member are you referring to? You said that it was all over the board for days, I've even posted one of the threads you claimed to be referencing. Here it is again, just so you don't have to exert the smallest amount of effort to back your claims:

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Surely this involves ACTUAL people, no? Who are you talking about?

Laughing....keep running.

 

[Skylar]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter WashingtonExaminer.com

march 25 2015
In a comment that now seems akin to her "what difference does it make" dismissal of the Benghazi, Libya, terror slayings of U.S. officials, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that how U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl ended up in Taliban hands "doesn't matter."

Clinton was interviewed last June after President Obama traded five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, who on Wednesday was charged with desertion.

Obama was criticized by many after the trade, with some suspecting that Bergdahl sympathized with the Taliban.

But in the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended Obama in comments that she may have to answer for on the campaign trail.

"If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation," said Clinton.

It doesn't matter?" Sawyer asked.

"It doesn't matter," Clinton said. "We bring our people home."

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

 

[Redfish]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

Its a valid comparison. Both the marine and Bergdahl were US soldiers captured by an enemy. Why does obozo trade 5 terrorist leaders for the traitor and do nothing about the marine?

You, my little friend, are full of shit.

 

[Redfish]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

 

[Liminal]

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

Its a valid comparison. Both the marine and Bergdahl were US soldiers captured by an enemy. Why does obozo trade 5 terrorist leaders for the traitor and do nothing about the marine?

You, my little friend, are full of shit.

No, you're still wrong, those two situations bear no similarity whatsoever.

 

[Liminal]

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

Dogshit like you would have left him there.

 

[Skylar]

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The issue is that your comparison was blithering nonsense. The 'marine' wasn't a marine, nor had been since 2005. He wasn't abducted from the field of battle, he was arrested on a TOURIST visa for spying.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was activity duty on a tour overseas when he was abducted and held.

As for your 'bad deal', the 'Taliban 5' are still in Qatar. There is no evidence that they're engaged in any terrorist activity since release. Worse, we have no authority to hold someone without charges or trial for 10 years as we did we these 5. They were never recognized as prisoners of war, they were never charged with any crime, they were never convicted of any crime, nor are we even fighting in Afghanistan.

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

 

[kaz]

Still zero content, you are consistent

Smiling...its your topic. Its one of the very threads you cited as evidence.

If you consider both your topics and your evidence to have 'zero content', then surely you can understand why I wouldn't have a much higher opinion of them.

Once again, you're invited to discuss your OWN topic: black bakers and the KKK. And you'll run just as surely. As you've got nothing.

Keep running.

Once again, you don't answer a question and it's me running, lol

I'm inviting you to discuss your own topic; Black bakers and the KKK. And you starkly refuse, running from your own claims. I've even provided a link to the your own evidence. And still, nothing.

If you're going to ignore your own posts and toss them on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can't blame me for treating them the same way.

Your hypocrisy speaks for itself. You endlessly say Miriam said it, end of discussion. She was the one there, end of discussion. She's the patron saint of honesty, to be believed above the Virgin Mary. Yet the British government? When they say and repeat their statement Joe the Liar didn't know what their evidence was, they stand by it? Oh, they are liars, you know it. Miriam is a virgin above question no matter how incompetently she did her job and evasive her statement was. The government and intelligence of our closest ally? Liars. Oh, and of course W knew they were liars and lied based on that. How do you know? Because you know, that's why.

Yawning....red herrings. A bit desperate to change the topic, are you?

And here we go again. Well, Christians can't discriminate against a gay, they have to photograph their wedding, bake them cakes, whatever they want. Perfectly Constitutional, in fact the Constitution demands it, equal treatment you know. Oh, a black baker and the KKK? No, of course they can tell the KKK member who wants to buy a cake to fuck off. Why? Cause, they are racists.

So which 'black baker' are you referring to? Which KKK member are you referring to? You said that it was all over the board for days, I've even posted one of the threads you claimed to be referencing. Here it is again, just so you don't have to exert the smallest amount of effort to back your claims:

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Surely this involves ACTUAL people, no? Who are you talking about?

Laughing....keep running.

No content, huh? That is so you

 

[Redfish]

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

Its a valid comparison. Both the marine and Bergdahl were US soldiers captured by an enemy. Why does obozo trade 5 terrorist leaders for the traitor and do nothing about the marine?

You, my little friend, are full of shit.

No, you're still wrong, those two situations bear no similarity whatsoever.

american citizens held by an enemy. Yes, I understand the military issue. But the fact remains that obama made a terrible deal for a deserter and has done nothing for other americans held captive.

 

[Skylar]

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

Dogshit like you would have left him there.

Smiling...its your topic. Its one of the very threads you cited as evidence.

If you consider both your topics and your evidence to have 'zero content', then surely you can understand why I wouldn't have a much higher opinion of them.

Once again, you're invited to discuss your OWN topic: black bakers and the KKK. And you'll run just as surely. As you've got nothing.

Keep running.

Once again, you don't answer a question and it's me running, lol

I'm inviting you to discuss your own topic; Black bakers and the KKK. And you starkly refuse, running from your own claims. I've even provided a link to the your own evidence. And still, nothing.

If you're going to ignore your own posts and toss them on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can't blame me for treating them the same way.

Your hypocrisy speaks for itself. You endlessly say Miriam said it, end of discussion. She was the one there, end of discussion. She's the patron saint of honesty, to be believed above the Virgin Mary. Yet the British government? When they say and repeat their statement Joe the Liar didn't know what their evidence was, they stand by it? Oh, they are liars, you know it. Miriam is a virgin above question no matter how incompetently she did her job and evasive her statement was. The government and intelligence of our closest ally? Liars. Oh, and of course W knew they were liars and lied based on that. How do you know? Because you know, that's why.

Yawning....red herrings. A bit desperate to change the topic, are you?

And here we go again. Well, Christians can't discriminate against a gay, they have to photograph their wedding, bake them cakes, whatever they want. Perfectly Constitutional, in fact the Constitution demands it, equal treatment you know. Oh, a black baker and the KKK? No, of course they can tell the KKK member who wants to buy a cake to fuck off. Why? Cause, they are racists.

So which 'black baker' are you referring to? Which KKK member are you referring to? You said that it was all over the board for days, I've even posted one of the threads you claimed to be referencing. Here it is again, just so you don't have to exert the smallest amount of effort to back your claims:

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Surely this involves ACTUAL people, no? Who are you talking about?

Laughing....keep running.

No content, huh? That is so you

Laughing.....did I offer you a trick question by asking WHO you were talking about in your references to 'black bakers and the KKK'?

Here's the thread again.

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Surely your claims about 'black bakers' and 'the KKK" involve actual people. You wouldn't be stupid enough to cite fictional characters and made up court cases....

......would you?

 

[Redfish]

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The issue is that your comparison was blithering nonsense. The 'marine' wasn't a marine, nor had been since 2005. He wasn't abducted from the field of battle, he was arrested on a TOURIST visa for spying.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was activity duty on a tour overseas when he was abducted and held.

As for your 'bad deal', the 'Taliban 5' are still in Qatar. There is no evidence that they're engaged in any terrorist activity since release. Worse, we have no authority to hold someone without charges or trial for 10 years as we did we these 5. They were never recognized as prisoners of war, they were never charged with any crime, they were never convicted of any crime, nor are we even fighting in Afghanistan.

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

So you want to release all of the gitmo prisoners? so does obama. why hasn't he done it? Just declare all of them innocent and let them go. Then apologize to the taliban, al qaeda, and ISIS and send them each 5 billion dollars. You libs have no idea how this world really works.

The entire world is laughing at us and the fool that you put in the whitehouse.

 

[kaz]

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

More of the disingenuous crap that shows yet again how you don't want to go down a different road than the Republicans, you just want to be the one behind the steering wheel.

It was OK for W to invade because of WMDs, but wait, it wasn't OK because sure they could build them but they hadn't "stockpiled" enough of them, so W is a liar and we are in an illegal war, but wait, you got a Blue guy in office, so now it's OK again, we can finish W's timeline in Iraq and actually expand nation building in Afghanistan, which you are against because we shouldn't be nation building, oh, and we have to stop getting into these wars, well except invading Iraq (which was done first by Clinton), Kosovo, attacking Libya, bombing The Sudan and Afghanistan, those were OK, we had a blue guy in office.

If we are in a just war, we should be no holds barred winning it and saying we have to put terrorists on trial is ridiculous. If we are not in a war, our troops should not be over there fighting. Democrats are in a war, but they aren't, so when it comes to being full of crap to protect Obama from the brain dead Bergdahl deal, you're first in line to do it. What's the price, your integrity? Pshaw, that's no price, your integrity is far, far back in the rear view mirror