NFL kneelers

[Pogo]

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

In a parallel universe we also lost Eisenhower's and Nixon's Vietnam war.

Musta been four wars.

(/WAYTHEFUCK off topic)

You don't know that Johnson was the President who got us into Vietnam? Seriously? Kennedy made the treaties and sent the first troops, Johnson escalated it. I can't believe you don't know that. Incredible. Johnson also was the one who engaged in limited warfare where we didn't try to win.

Wow, you are one dumb, ignorant hillbilly ...

Eisenhower. Too uninvolved to control Dulles.

Look it up.

No shit. But you said that Eisenhower was as much to blame as Kennedy and Johnson, which is just retarded. It really was Johnson's war the way it was fought. Eisenhower was only involved in sending in training troops.

I don't have any issue with what either Eisenhower or Kennedy or what they did. Nixon was handed a tough situation given that when he got the war was when the press and the country turned against it. He then went on to botch it further. He should have either won the war or left immediately.

But it was clearly Johnson's war. Johnson sent in the first US troops to actually fight (Eisenhower, Kennedy only sent in troops to train), Johnson escalated it to be a major war. Johnson set the rules of engagement that the troops were prohibited from winning the war. It was Johnson's war

I didn't post the word "blame" at all, troll-boi-girl-thing. You just pulled that out of your ass.

What I did do was correct a partisan hack poster who cherrypicked two POTUSes from his Emmanuel Goldstein political party and whitewashed two others from his own, and let him know that he wasn't going to get away with that historical revision any more than he was going to get away with the Lost Cause revision or --- to actually return to the actual TOPIC --- than he was going to get away with the racial fingerpointing about NFL players resisting forced marches.

And you just helped me do it although it was already done before you popped up attention whoring going ME ME ME.

Now then, will there be anything else today or would you like to go wash your ass?

 

[kaz]

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

In a parallel universe we also lost Eisenhower's and Nixon's Vietnam war.

Musta been four wars.

(/WAYTHEFUCK off topic)

You don't know that Johnson was the President who got us into Vietnam? Seriously? Kennedy made the treaties and sent the first troops, Johnson escalated it. I can't believe you don't know that. Incredible. Johnson also was the one who engaged in limited warfare where we didn't try to win.

Wow, you are one dumb, ignorant hillbilly ...

Eisenhower. Too uninvolved to control Dulles.

Look it up.

No shit. But you said that Eisenhower was as much to blame as Kennedy and Johnson, which is just retarded. It really was Johnson's war the way it was fought. Eisenhower was only involved in sending in training troops.

I don't have any issue with what either Eisenhower or Kennedy or what they did. Nixon was handed a tough situation given that when he got the war was when the press and the country turned against it. He then went on to botch it further. He should have either won the war or left immediately.

But it was clearly Johnson's war. Johnson sent in the first US troops to actually fight (Eisenhower, Kennedy only sent in troops to train), Johnson escalated it to be a major war. Johnson set the rules of engagement that the troops were prohibited from winning the war. It was Johnson's war

I didn't post the word "blame" at all, troll-boi-girl-thing. You just pulled that out of your ass.

What I did do was correct a partisan hack poster who cherrypicked two POTUSes from his Emmanuel Goldstein political party and whitewashed two others from his own, and let him know that he wasn't going to get away with that historical revision any more than he was going to get away with the Lost Cause revision or --- to actually return to the actual TOPIC --- than he was going to get away with the racial fingerpointing about NFL players resisting forced marches.

And you just helped me do it although it was already done before you popped up attention whoring going ME ME ME.

Now then, will there be anything else today or would you like to go wash your ass?

You said that the war was as much Nixon/Eisenhower as Kennedy/Johnson. The war was all Johnson, so no, it wasn't. The war wasn't as much Eisenhower/Kennedy/Nixon as it was Johnson. Johnson created the monster.

I see you're still struggling with your sexual identity

 

[Correll]

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

 

[Correll]

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

The Iraqi Government claimed they did live up to it and the results once we invaded and killed 4000 plus US service members and 30,000 Iraqi citizens showed they were indeed correct.

 

[Correll]

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

The Iraqi Government claimed they did live up to it and the results once we invaded and killed 4000 plus US service members and 30,000 Iraqi citizens showed they were indeed correct.

Claiming it, does not make it so.


They did not live up to those provisions. That ended the Armistice. Fighting resumed.

Legally speaking, completely justified.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

Though, going with this logic, the states of the south agreed to the Constitution when they joined the union, thus when they tried to leave the Unions was clear to stop them, legally speaking.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

The Iraqi Government claimed they did live up to it and the results once we invaded and killed 4000 plus US service members and 30,000 Iraqi citizens showed they were indeed correct.

Claiming it, does not make it so.


They did not live up to those provisions. That ended the Armistice. Fighting resumed.

Legally speaking, completely justified.

But after we invaded and killed 4000 plus US service members and 30,000 Iraqi citizens we found out they were telling the truth.

 

[Correll]

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

Though, going with this logic, the states of the south agreed to the Constitution when they joined the union, thus when they tried to leave the Unions was clear to stop them, legally speaking.

Nothing in the Constitution clearly stated that once they willingly joined that they gave up the right to leave if they ever choose to.

 

[Correll]

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

The Iraqi Government claimed they did live up to it and the results once we invaded and killed 4000 plus US service members and 30,000 Iraqi citizens showed they were indeed correct.

Claiming it, does not make it so.


They did not live up to those provisions. That ended the Armistice. Fighting resumed.

Legally speaking, completely justified.

But after we invaded and killed 4000 plus US service members and 30,000 Iraqi citizens we found out they were telling the truth.

Which makes their actions really stupid, but does not change the fact that their actions ended the Armistice and thus legally justified any resumptions of fighting.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

Though, going with this logic, the states of the south agreed to the Constitution when they joined the union, thus when they tried to leave the Unions was clear to stop them, legally speaking.

Nothing in the Constitution clearly stated that once they willingly joined that they gave up the right to leave if they ever choose to.

Nothing in the Armistice clearly stated that if they did not do what we told them to do we could invade their country and remove their government and kill 30,000 of their citizens.

 

[Correll]

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

Though, going with this logic, the states of the south agreed to the Constitution when they joined the union, thus when they tried to leave the Unions was clear to stop them, legally speaking.

Nothing in the Constitution clearly stated that once they willingly joined that they gave up the right to leave if they ever choose to.

Nothing in the Armistice clearly stated that if they did not do what we told them to do we could invade their country and remove their government and kill 30,000 of their citizens.

I haven't seen a full transcript of the armistice, but by it's very nature a cease fire that is based on provisions, if the provisions are not met, would no longer be valid.


A broken deal is no longer a deal.

 

[Pogo]

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

Though, going with this logic, the states of the south agreed to the Constitution when they joined the union, thus when they tried to leave the Unions was clear to stop them, legally speaking.

This is STILL totally off the topic but just for clarification the southern "states" never really tried to secede --- it was a tiny aristocracy of the rich, which had virtual control over those states' actions, who did that, much to the opposition and protest of their own populations --- needless to say acting in their own interests rather than those of their constituents.

Ironically the concept of a tiny aristocracy was exactly what the Liberals who founded this country opposed by doing that, so in one sense the greater exercise can be seen as a reiteration of the principles of the Constitution.

Again though this has zero to do with the game of football or why it should endure forced fake-patriotism charades injected into it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

Law is not a matter of public opinion.

Ok then, by what law did we have the right to invade Iraq, remove their leadership and cause the deaths of more than 30,000 of their citizens?

Seems to me the only law that applies is the law of "might makes right".

Perhaps you have another law

The Persian Gulf was was ended with an Armistice, with had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government.


THe Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.

Though, going with this logic, the states of the south agreed to the Constitution when they joined the union, thus when they tried to leave the Unions was clear to stop them, legally speaking.

This is STILL totally off the topic but just for clarification the southern "states" never really tried to secede --- it was a tiny aristocracy of the rich, which had virtual control over those states' actions, who did that, much to the opposition and protest of their own populations --- needless to say acting in their own interests rather than those of their constituents.

Ironically the concept of a tiny aristocracy was exactly what the Liberals who founded this country opposed by doing that, so in one sense the greater exercise can be seen as a reiteration of the principles of the Constitution.

Again though this has zero to do with the game of football or why it should endure forced fake-patriotism charades injected into it.

Just having some fun with Correll, it is funny as hell to watch the gymnastics to "legally" justify our actions invading Iraq yet not the actions of the Union.

 

[oreo]

I don't buy that all NFL customers are offended. If Trump would have kept his f....ing mouth shut this wouldn't be going on today. Trump pulls this crap all of the time to distract you from what is really going on. And let's face it, a Trump supporter is easily distracted by anything Trump tweets or says. You bit into it again. What President in the past ever inserted a negative opinon into the most popular game in this country? Now you can't even enjoy your Sunday football. Trump is all about division, not unity and reconciliation. He'll do or say anything to keep his ANGRY base of support fired up and in lockstep with him.

If Trump thinks you're spending too much time and or it's taking too much attention away from him & his White House T.V. reality show--look the hell out. He's all about ratings. How many times have you heard him bring up T.V ratings in the last 2 years?-- What past President ever talked about T.V. ratings on a Presidential platform? You might want to actually read this article.
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

Click this link on this thread for an explanation of it, along with a video from a sports announcer out of Dallas, Texas and his take on all of this, plus a lot more.
NFL kneelers

Strawman. No one said "all" NFL customers are offended. It's the idiotic polar extreme that leftists constantly go to. It's a football game. Businesses don't want to offend any of their customers. You just like going to a football game and turning into a hate America moment. Of course you do, you're a leftist.

As for the rest, it's just more of your butt hurt hate Trump bull shit. This is about players disrespecting the country. But of course everything to you is about your agonizing butt hurt searing you hate Trump pain. Let it out, guy, let it out.

About right now everyone that is a Patriot of this country should be hating Trump. He's a traitor. You supported and voted for the Russian manchurian candidate. He has not earned the respect nor the right to comment on others patriotism.

There's lot of evidence to prove that, that I just gave you, at this link. Since you're a Trump tard you just don't want to read an article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOXNEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice on Natiional T.V. Nor do you want review the classified information that Trump has already given to Vladimir Putin. There is a reason that this administration has a turn over rate that beats Der Weinersnitchel. All you need to do is click this link and it will take you right to the post on this thread, which (by clicking other links on that post) will redirect you to other posts on this board that proves he's a traiter, and that Vladimir Putin has him by the cohones. They don't play football in Russia.
NFL kneelers

While Donald Trump was running for president in late 2015 and early 2016, his company was pursuing a plan to develop a massive Trump Tower in Moscow, according to several people familiar with the proposal and new records reviewed by Trump Organization lawyers.

Trump’s business sought deal on a Trump Tower in Moscow while he ran for president

Gary Johnson is the Russian Manchurian candidate? WTF are you talking about? I don't think so.

As for the rest of your Trump butt hurt, let it out, let it out ...



And leftists claiming to be the ones who appreciate the military is your most stupid crap yet

Name another President that wrote in his book, that his personal Viet Nam was avoding sexually transmitted diseases. Only one has done that, and it's the Ass Clown that sits in the Oval office while lashing out at others, in his early morning tweety news feeds-- That's not respecting of the military-in fact quite a slap in the face to anyone that wears a military uniform and to those that sacrified their lives. This is a red state link so it's safe for you to read it.
Trump's Vulgar Admission: Avoiding STDs was "my personal Vietnam" with "few uninfected" women

You have elected a traitor to this country, and there's plenty of proof of that.

For what happened in the Oval office with the Russians and classified information click this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

The collusion evidence. Here you can read one article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOX NEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice On National T.V.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

And for how Vladimir Putin actually did change the outcome of the election go to this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

(3 different links to 3 different posts on this board.) When you get through it, make certain to come back on here to tell me of how PROUD you are to have this Russian Manchurian (patriotic) candidate as your President-

Gotcha, if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit

There's nothing bullshit about Trump moving his lips in sync with words. Those video tapes never go away--- Niether do the books he wrote.

For those that are interested in seeing how patriotic this Russian Manchurian Ass Clown President really is, click this link to redirect to the post on this thread..
NFL kneelers

 

[kaz]

Strawman. No one said "all" NFL customers are offended. It's the idiotic polar extreme that leftists constantly go to. It's a football game. Businesses don't want to offend any of their customers. You just like going to a football game and turning into a hate America moment. Of course you do, you're a leftist.

As for the rest, it's just more of your butt hurt hate Trump bull shit. This is about players disrespecting the country. But of course everything to you is about your agonizing butt hurt searing you hate Trump pain. Let it out, guy, let it out.

About right now everyone that is a Patriot of this country should be hating Trump. He's a traitor. You supported and voted for the Russian manchurian candidate. He has not earned the respect nor the right to comment on others patriotism.

There's lot of evidence to prove that, that I just gave you, at this link. Since you're a Trump tard you just don't want to read an article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOXNEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice on Natiional T.V. Nor do you want review the classified information that Trump has already given to Vladimir Putin. There is a reason that this administration has a turn over rate that beats Der Weinersnitchel. All you need to do is click this link and it will take you right to the post on this thread, which (by clicking other links on that post) will redirect you to other posts on this board that proves he's a traiter, and that Vladimir Putin has him by the cohones. They don't play football in Russia.
NFL kneelers

While Donald Trump was running for president in late 2015 and early 2016, his company was pursuing a plan to develop a massive Trump Tower in Moscow, according to several people familiar with the proposal and new records reviewed by Trump Organization lawyers.

Trump’s business sought deal on a Trump Tower in Moscow while he ran for president

Gary Johnson is the Russian Manchurian candidate? WTF are you talking about? I don't think so.

As for the rest of your Trump butt hurt, let it out, let it out ...



And leftists claiming to be the ones who appreciate the military is your most stupid crap yet

Name another President that wrote in his book, that his personal Viet Nam was avoding sexually transmitted diseases. Only one has done that, and it's the Ass Clown that sits in the Oval office while lashing out at others, in his early morning tweety news feeds-- That's not respecting of the military-in fact quite a slap in the face to anyone that wears a military uniform and to those that sacrified their lives. This is a red state link so it's safe for you to read it.
Trump's Vulgar Admission: Avoiding STDs was "my personal Vietnam" with "few uninfected" women

You have elected a traitor to this country, and there's plenty of proof of that.

For what happened in the Oval office with the Russians and classified information click this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

The collusion evidence. Here you can read one article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOX NEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice On National T.V.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

And for how Vladimir Putin actually did change the outcome of the election go to this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

(3 different links to 3 different posts on this board.) When you get through it, make certain to come back on here to tell me of how PROUD you are to have this Russian Manchurian (patriotic) candidate as your President-

Gotcha, if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit

There's nothing bullshit about Trump moving his lips in sync with words. Those video tapes never go away--- Niether do the books he wrote.

For those that are interested in seeing how patriotic this Russian Manchurian Ass Clown President really is, click this link to redirect to the post on this thread..
NFL kneelers

Another leftist goes to the playground!

 

[Redfish]

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

In a parallel universe we also lost Eisenhower's and Nixon's Vietnam war.

Musta been four wars.

(/WAYTHEFUCK off topic)

Kennedy started it, Johnson escalated it, and Nixon ended it by declaring defeat. They are all to blame. and 58,000 americans died for NOTHING

 

[Redfish]

Kneeling is so dumb.

Rather than kneeling and pissing off all of your customers, hold signs up for the issue you are supporting.

and do it on your own time, not while you are being paid to play a game.

And let that game BE a game without the intrusions of fake-patriotism puppet shows.

why is it fake? No one in the stands is required to stand--------but they do. What exactly do you find offensive about patriotism? Why is it wrong to show respect for your country and pledge your loyalty to it?

Why do you find it necessary to edit what I just posted and thereby LIE?

then what exactly did you mean by "fake patriotism puppet shows" ?

 

[Redfish]

90% of the people demanding the removal of statues in NOLA do not even know who these people were, what they did, or what the believed. BTW, now that the statues are down, crime is still rampant and the mayor and city council remain incompetent.

just to show the ignorance of this, they wanted to take down Andrew Jackson in Jackson square. They didn't know that he had nothing to do with the civil war and was a hero of the revolutionary war against King George. But he was an old white guy so "take him down". downright stupid.

Haha. Links?

Is that Civil War submarine still there btw?

don't think so. where was it?

Used to be right in front of the Cabildo.

gone

Was there a massive butthurt protest when it was taken out?

Then again I don't think it was put there by the UDC. But actually I'm not sure.

In a related story the same UDC put up (in 1917) a plaque on the building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee commemorating the founding in that building of the (original) Ku Klux Klan heralding the names of its founders. When that building was sold in the 1990s the new owner had the plaque taken off, turned backward and put back up so that it shows a blank surface.

Was that "erasing history"? Same thing -- property owner didn't want that shit on his property. He described it as the town of Pulaski "turning its back on" that history, and if anyone's curious why there's a blank plaque, there's a story to explain it.

And you know what --- nobody complained about that plaque reversal except some Klanners who went there annually as a worship ritual. And you know what --- fuck them.

In a related related story, the site where the second, revival, much-bigger Klan was founded, Stone Mountain in Georgia, was supposed to be decorated by an infamous sculptor who was a staunch white supremacist and klansman (and asshole). His project never completed, but he did get another project completed that is somewhat famous. It's called "Mount Rushmore".

Fun facts.

one fact that you failed to mention, the vast majority of KKK members were democrats.