House Passes Rest for our Troops

[Ninja]

The point is, these regulations would make the president accountable.

That sounds like code for "make his approval rating drop even more." Am I wrong? If so, I apologize. If not, why not just say that from the get go? Politics is dirty. I wouldn't blame you.

 

[dilloduck]

Learn 2 Read.

It was bascically asserted that no one who actually served in the military could support this bill.

That was false. Many people who served in the military supported this bill.

U learn to read---it was asserted that a vast majority of those who served in the military would be opposed to this bill.

 

[Gunny]

I really love how people who have no idea what it's like to be in the military, nor to run it, like to run their sucks about those who do.


I going to put more weight on what MOAA say, than on what some anonymous message board poster here claims.

The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) - the nations largest and most influention association of military officers - endorsed Senator Webb's troop protection amendment. Which is the senate equivalent of this House bill.





I’m taking MOAA’s word, over yours, dude.

I'm supposed to be surprised that rather than argue a point you choose to attack my credibility? Seems that's all you're capable of.

I am completely aware that you would take anybody who says what you want to hear's word over mine. Nothing new here.

I'm going to take factual history's word rather than someone's opinion you can dredge up.

When we are totally committed to war, we win. When we half-ass we don't. Etched in stone, unalterable FACT.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I'm supposed to be surprised that rather than argue a point you choose to attack my credibility? Seems that's all you're capable of.

I am completely aware that you would take anybody who says what you want to hear's word over mine. Nothing new here.

I'm going to take factual history's word rather than someone's opinion you can dredge up.

When we are totally committed to war, we win. When we half-ass we don't. Etched in stone, unalterable FACT.

On message boards, you can expect to be held accountable for your words. If you don't want to be accountable for them, don't write them....

You suggested that anybody who hadn't actually served in the military couldn' t possibly understand the folly of this bill, or support it.

Your statement was factually wrong. Demonstrably wrong.

The nation's largest association of Military Officers supported the senate version of this bill. The bill itself was written by a decorated Vietnam Vet, and former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense. And the senate version was co-sponsored by the republican party's most prominent Vietnam War vet (Hagel)

 

[Gunny]

On message boards, you can expect to be held accountable for your words. If you don't want to be accountable for them, don't write them....

You suggested that anybody who hadn't actually served in the military couldn' t possibly understand the folly of this bill, or support it.

Your statement was factually wrong. Demonstrably wrong.

The nation's largest association of Military Officers supported the senate version of this bill. The bill itself was written by a decorated Vietnam Vet, and former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense. And the senate version was co-sponsored by the republican party's most prominent Vietnam War vet (Hagel)

I have no problem being held accountable for my words. I DO have a problem with people who take those words out of context in lame attempts to make intellectually dishonest arguments due to a lack of any real debate skills.

I suggest nothing. I stated that people like yourself, who have never served, always are the ones trying to blow smoke the asses of those who have.

No statement I made is factually or demonstrably wrong. The fact that the people you cite support it does not make me factually wrong. I means I hold a different opinion than some officers association.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I have no problem being held accountable for my words. I DO have a problem with people who take those words out of context in lame attempts to make intellectually dishonest arguments due to a lack of any real debate skills.

I suggest nothing. I stated that people like yourself, who have never served, always are the ones trying to blow smoke the asses of those who have.

No statement I made is factually or demonstrably wrong.

If that's your half-hearted attempt to acknowledge, that indeed the nation's largest and foremost Military Officers association, supported the Senate version of this bill, thanks.

 

[Gunny]

If that's your half-hearted attempt to acknowledge, that indeed the nation's largest and foremost Military Officers association, supported the Senate version of this bill, thanks.

I never stated nor implied that it did not support the bill.

 

[Paulie]

I suspect even a nuclear strike on this country wouldn't convince people like you that we are in a war. You would hem and haw and claim we could never "prove" who did it and demand we do nothing,

That's the problem with people like you. You don't care to see some sort of PROOF before we commit our entire military. The government's word is bond, right?

We've been spoonfed "threats" from boogymen and organizations that WE created, and we're pumped so full of fear from the media that people like YOU just eat it up and say "well, let's nuke 'em back!".

Who benefits more from a nuclear attack in an American city? Some shadowy "terrorist" organization that knows if they even dare do such a thing they probably WILL be nuked back? What's in it for them?

I already KNOW how countless people in government benefit from shit like that, but i've failed to see how it has benefitted the terror organizations even one IOTA.

To take away our freedoms that they "hate us for"? The only freedoms that have been taken away from us are the ones that the ******* government ITSELF is allowing to be taken away.

Enlighten me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's the problem with people like you. You don't care to see some sort of PROOF before we commit our entire military. The government's word is bond, right?

We've been spoonfed "threats" from boogymen and organizations that WE created, and we're pumped so full of fear from the media that people like YOU just eat it up and say "well, let's nuke 'em back!".

Who benefits more from a nuclear attack in an American city? Some shadowy "terrorist" organization that knows if they even dare do such a thing they probably WILL be nuked back? What's in it for them?

I already KNOW how countless people in government benefit from shit like that, but i've failed to see how it has benefitted the terror organizations even one IOTA.

To take away our freedoms that they "hate us for"? The only freedoms that have been taken away from us are the ones that the ******* government ITSELF is allowing to be taken away.

Enlighten me.

As I said, people like you wouldn't react to any attack. As to all these "freedoms" we have lost... list them.

 

[maineman]

I think he is talking about constitutional rights and protections which have been eroded. I think that if my telephone calls can be listened to without any law enforcement agency receiving a warrant to do so, my constitutional protections have been eroded.

Do I really need to mention all of the constitutional rights that were eroded in the case of US citizen Padilla?

And again....BushCo saying that Al Qaeda hates us because of our freedoms is yet another example of misleading America with rhetoric aimed at the least common denominator. Such pandering to ignorance in order to garner the support of the ignorant is insulting to me.

 

[Paulie]

As I said, people like you wouldn't react to any attack.

Oh, I would react. The only difference is, I'm not stupid enough to fall for the propaganda. I won't be bowing down and begging the government to protect me from the awful terrorists, while i argue on a message board that it's those damn liberals that allowed it to happen.

I'll be one step ahead of people like you.

As to all these "freedoms" we have lost... list them.

What's the point RGS? You don't see things the way i see them, and you probably never will. We could argue about politics until rapture, and you and I would never budge from our positions. All this arguing does is cause division.

I'm sure there's plenty of people who can compile that list on here. And you already know exactly what would be on the list. You just don't want to believe it's true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, I would react. The only difference is, I'm not stupid enough to fall for the propaganda. I won't be bowing down and begging the government to protect me from the awful terrorists, while i argue on a message board that it's those damn liberals that allowed it to happen.

I'll be one step ahead of people like you.



What's the point RGS? You don't see things the way i see them, and you probably never will. We could argue about politics until rapture, and you and I would never budge from our positions. All this arguing does is cause division.

I'm sure there's plenty of people who can compile that list on here. And you already know exactly what would be on the list. You just don't want to believe it's true.

In other words, you got nothing.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Oh, I would react. The only difference is, I'm not stupid enough to fall for the propaganda. I won't be bowing down and begging the government to protect me from the awful terrorists, while i argue on a message board that it's those damn liberals that allowed it to happen.

How does one protect ones self from a bio-chemical or nuclear attack from a terrorist? By all means explain. If you happened to have invented a terrorist proof jacket let me know because I'd be interested in buying one.

 

[JeffWartman]

In other words, you got nothing.

No, he's just not so mindless as to believe the government blindly every time they want to go to war.

 

[Paulie]

In other words, you got nothing.

In YOUR world, probably not RGS.

Sleep tight.

 

[Annie]

In YOUR world, probably not RGS.

Sleep tight.

and in your world, you have 'what'?

 

[Paulie]

and in your world, you have 'what'?

Still following me around like a puppy, huh Kathianne?

 

[Annie]

Still following me around like a puppy, huh Kathianne?

Hardly.

You might wish to check out this search though?: narcissism dmv site

 

[Paulie]

Hardly.

You might wish to check out this search though?: narcissism dmv site

Please.

I wrote off discussing things with you weeks ago, when I realized that i can barely ever understand your posts with your fragmented and run-on sentences. And i've had a few people agree with me on that.

Somehow you always seem to gravitate towards my posts, though. I'm sure you're a cool person in real life, but I don't get much enjoyment out of message board discussion with you. Please don't take it personally.

 

[Annie]

Please.

I wrote off discussing things with you weeks ago, when I realized that i can barely ever understand your posts with your fragmented and run-on sentences. And i've had a few people agree with me on that.

Somehow you always seem to gravitate towards my posts, though. I'm sure you're a cool person in real life, but I don't get much enjoyment out of message board discussion with you. Please don't take it personally.

I take nothing you say personally. However you seriously remind me of another lametard from last election cycle.

Yeah, here it is:

tpahl