Pages: 1 2

 

2006-07-01 09:51:26
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6802

Horseman 77 wrote:

So its ok to fight over Trade rights, comodities and resources that sustain life in any civilization?
Cool we all knew that anyway. Otherwise.....
When did I say that?

Horseman 77 wrote:

When the USA entered WWII almost no one knew of germany's atrocity's and after all it was japan who attacked us. With the limited knowledge the individual possessed on the topics many if not all would have been justified avoiding service Ala Canada  like their 1960s brethren. luckily for all few did. As for Vietnam, I guess most people don't care as much about Asians. I can not judge them.


Totaly knocked flat and run down, left in middle of public street with his pants down around his ankles and a Knobby dildo in his butt with no lube on video with a live link to internet .

                                       Bubalo owned     Case 38 g.  Woooot.
How so?  You still have yet to address the core difference between WWII and Vietnam, that being that it was South Korea that failed to follow through on the agreement, and therefore can be blamed for starting the war (i.e. it would not be entirely unfair to characterise the US as the aggressor), whilst in WWII Germany was the aggressor.  Come to think of it, why did I even bother argueing whether the US was more closely linked with France/Britain than Germany?  It's entirely immaterial.
2006-07-01 10:34:35
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7078
yes your argument is immaterial.
2006-07-01 13:09:43
MoChief
Member
+67|6842

kr@cker wrote:

having the decency to not protest at funerals of KIA or Walter Reid, are you listening code pinkies and sheehan whores?

and Ikarti, you would love a nice retreat to Leavenworth
What?  I would have replied earlier but I had to clean up the puke off my keyboard.  Here we have a good bit of 'truthiness' in action.  kr@acker aparently would like to believe that protests at funerals of military kia are from Democrats.  However, the mo-fos doing this are conservative and likely Republican.

Read:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbc … 2/51025001


Yeah, the truth felt like it should be one thing.  But then the facts entered the argument.  Damn those facts.  Go find another piece of news to blame on the Dems.... preferably one based on truth.
2006-07-01 13:17:38
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7012|PNW

MoChief wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

having the decency to not protest at funerals of KIA or Walter Reid, are you listening code pinkies and sheehan whores?

and Ikarti, you would love a nice retreat to Leavenworth
What?  I would have replied earlier but I had to clean up the puke off my keyboard.  Here we have a good bit of 'truthiness' in action.  kr@acker aparently would like to believe that protests at funerals of military kia are from Democrats.  However, the mo-fos doing this are conservative and likely Republican.

Read:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbc … 2/51025001


Yeah, the truth felt like it should be one thing.  But then the facts entered the argument.  Damn those facts.  Go find another piece of news to blame on the Dems.... preferably one based on truth.
Of course, I don't think anybody truly believes that the US mindset is divided into two, individually indivisible fronts (despite our seemingly unbreakable two-party political system), so it is quite difficult to point blame at all conservatives or all liberals for the words and actions of their respective whackos (some of which reject any concept of political affiliation).

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-07-01 13:19:01)

2006-07-01 13:32:17
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6790|Southeastern USA

MoChief wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

having the decency to not protest at funerals of KIA or Walter Reid, are you listening code pinkies and sheehan whores?

and Ikarti, you would love a nice retreat to Leavenworth
What?  I would have replied earlier but I had to clean up the puke off my keyboard.  Here we have a good bit of 'truthiness' in action.  kr@acker aparently would like to believe that protests at funerals of military kia are from Democrats.  However, the mo-fos doing this are conservative and likely Republican.

Read:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbc … 2/51025001


Yeah, the truth felt like it should be one thing.  But then the facts entered the argument.  Damn those facts.  Go find another piece of news to blame on the Dems.... preferably one based on truth.
yes, yes, we've been over these people before, this is a minor group of a hundred or so people who are all related, try this one for what everyone, lib-con-demo-repub-green whatever think of these people...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gubiP3mP … ch=hannity

they are a cult and nothing more

now why would I think dems are protesting at walter reid or other funerals??
try these

http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilock … _code.html
http://conprotantor.blogspot.com/2005/0 … alter.html 
http://andisworld.typepad.com/welcome_t … a_coz.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRepor … 0825a.html
http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=648 <---this one is written by code pink itself, look around their website for more of their hatred and disrespect, enjoy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1552161/posts  <---this one has some great pics, gunslinger, alexander, horse, yerded would probably like....

like this one
https://img221.imageshack.us/img221/952/whynotroot6ib.jpg
the sign on the right says "how about rooting for our side for a change you liberal moron"

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-01 16:07:02)

2006-07-01 13:45:30
d3v1ldr1v3r13
Satan's disciple on Earth.
+160|6926|Hell's prison

Konfusion0 wrote:

[1FR]S3v3N wrote:

not to bring religion into this but this is what i do, say a prayer for my brothers/sisters in arms, those who've payed the price, and flame anti-military idiots who hide behind the 1st Amendment, (by anti-military i mean people like: http://www.thetravisty.com/Oh_Shit!/wmv … nerals.htm.  not to mention make a donation to http://www.lbeh.org/
holy f***ing shit, If I've ever seen a fanatic crazy religious woman...no offence to any religion, but that is ridiculous... +1 for making me see how crazy the world/people can be...
I actually met this woman in a controlled meeting once, she said and I quote "Soldiers (I think she means troops in general) are a tool of Satan and need to be cleansed of the earth." 

I then stood up calmly and said to her, "Lady, its taken every ounce of control I have not to kill you right now so I will just say this, If one of my friends fall in combat, and I am at his funeral, if you are within a mile of it, you better hope im in uniform."  I left the room, I couldnt hear another minute of this bitches ranting, and her husbands.  These people are not the word of God, they are the word of Satan manipulating God's word.  And talking to my Father in Law, who is a preacher, he knows this, as well as everyone in his parish, that this is Satans word manipulating God's.

Anyone caught at a military funeral to protest in Arkansas, is automatically arrested and held for 24 hours, the maximum time you can be held without being charged.  GA, I wouldnt protest a funeral, especially not a military funeral, apparently there is a law that anyone doing a protest against a funeral is punishable by death, I cant confirm though.  But I promise the people will shoot you if you protest a military funeral there.

Last edited by d3v1ldr1v3r13 (2006-07-01 13:47:20)

2006-07-01 14:25:04
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6790|Southeastern USA
here's some wacky funeral hi-jinks, more of sheehan trivializing her own son's sacrifice and such

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/ … -snag.html
http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/12/protesting-101/ <-----they can't stop fighting each other long enough to pose a valid point
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/06 … -funerals/ <---this whole sight is just funny ("beating them with their own sickle and hammer"-lol), this particular page deals with the phelps bunch, they have great t-shirts too, I got the "100% infidel" one
http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewfor … 52f19f7ce5  <---various links to counterprotesting code pink, the phelps cult, the ACLU, and moveon.org, though I haven't looked at this one much, somethings probably going to come back to bite me


damn, now that the phelps cult (they are not actually associated with any baptist organization) popped up, it's damn near impossible to look up any of the funeral protesters other than code pink, moveon.org was actually smart enough to delete alot of it's funeral protest propaganda

and are you really going to try to deny that the left hasn't been the haven of those that have been literally spitting on war veterans since (I'm not old enough to remember farther back) the vietnam war?

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-01 14:27:24)

2006-07-01 19:48:48
MoChief
Member
+67|6842
Cr@cker...

I don't know anybody that has literally spit on a veteran since the Vietnam war.  Shame on them if they have.  As for figuratively spitting on Veterans, I'd look at the conservative side of the political spectrum.  If you look at funding issues lately, I found many instances where democrats proposed increases in VA funding only to be outvoted by Republicans to deny that increased funding.

Here's just one link:
http://veterans.senate.gov/ranking_memb … amp;id=508

Why, if the right is so concerned with veteran's, would they oppose this funding?  Sounds like the left is 'on side' with veterans on this issue.

With respect to soldiers... why do they get sold down the river for Abu Ghraib incidents?  Yeah, soldiers tortured the Iraqis.  It was our freakin' policy.  If this administration really gave a crap about the actual people in the military, it would have gone in with the proper troop level, supervision, and leadership to prevent such an atrocity.

As for actually participating in the military?  Hmm, George was in US Tex nat'l guard.  Left early. 

Cheney.  Oh, many deferments.  Too busy

Rove... deferment.  Wolfowitz?  No.  Rumsfeld? ok... he served. 

The point is.... I will not go along with a 'Repubs are better for vets than Dems' line.  It's crap.
2006-07-01 20:44:58
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6802

Horseman 77 wrote:

yes your argument is immaterial.
The one you started about allies is, mine, that the US was not the aggressor in WWII but could have been described as such in Vietnam, is not.  The fact that you have you to respond says alot.
2006-07-01 20:52:34
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6790|Southeastern USA
your one link doesn't work
here's my one link
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html
please note, increased military spending = conservative admins

and who was it that wanted Lindy Englund to pay so bad? I've already addressed this issue, and think it was crap, but for that matter it was just one tiny instance of such action, I can't believe you're actually trying this argument, and for the record, I didn't say "quit protesting dems" I said "code pinkies and sheehans", you inference that I meant dems only lends weight to my side of the discussion, as it is an acknowledgement that dems are indeed known for not supporting our military, active or otherwise

and then you want to start comparing service records? that's laughable, let's just go with most recent presidents to keep it short and sweet, Clinton-dodged the draft and ran off overseas to smoke dope and, OMG!, protest a war
Bush-you were more likely to fly in vietnam as a member of the Nat Guard than as USAF, scroll to the bottom of this link for some numbers on his flight record, note the huge differences between flight points required and flight points earned, he could probably teach us all a thing or three in a J-10 on Wake

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/ … 0920.shtml

there is a law of averages, sure you could go through and pick a few people out who didn't serve, but on the whole military = conservative, or why else do you suppose the DNC sent out busloads of lawyers to discount military absentee ballots in the 2000 race?

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-01 20:53:15)

2006-07-01 22:28:50
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6770|Global Command
kr@cker, I told you, a fact to a Liberal is like kryptonite to Superman, or a penis to a lesbian, or freedom of speach to a despot.
2006-07-01 22:31:25
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6790|Southeastern USA
odd how lesbians have the opposite effect on my penis
2006-07-01 22:33:12
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6770|Global Command
I prefer my chicks to like sausage. Gay is gay.
As long as their naked though, I'm there.
2006-07-02 23:18:24
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6930|Tampa Bay Florida

Psycho wrote:

To the extreme protesters the only right action when being drafted was to run to Canada (cowards).
Because they don't want to die for a relatively small country in southeast Asia, and which posed not a single threat to any Americans beyond US soil?  I would read some Catch-22 if I were you.  Not wanting to put your life on the line if it's not in self-defense is completely acceptable and understandable behavior.

And it IS possible to support the troops but not the cause.  Or rather, the way it's being managed.  I believe in the cause, I don't believe in the way the War on Terror is being managed

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-07-02 23:19:50)

2006-07-03 07:14:59
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7082|Cologne, Germany

Spearhead wrote:

Psycho wrote:

To the extreme protesters the only right action when being drafted was to run to Canada (cowards).
Because they don't want to die for a relatively small country in southeast Asia, and which posed not a single threat to any Americans beyond US soil?  I would read some Catch-22 if I were you.  Not wanting to put your life on the line if it's not in self-defense is completely acceptable and understandable behavior.

And it IS possible to support the troops but not the cause.  Or rather, the way it's being managed.  I believe in the cause, I don't believe in the way the War on Terror is being managed
+1

I happen to agree with our involvement in Afghanistan, but even if I didn't I would still not wish my fellow countrymen any harm.
2006-07-03 09:07:51
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6999|MA, USA

Ikarti wrote:

The military will never punish its own like they deserve.
Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about what they are talking about.  Anyone who has been in the military knows most officers would throw a troop under the bus in a half a second rather than risking his career defending one; even if he knew the troop didn't actually do anything wrong.  This is why I don't beleive all the horrible things I hear without knowing all the facts: Apart from it being wholly ignorant to do so, I can see some officer reminding his reviewer to put a bullet on his OER indicating that he was first in line in bringing the nasty troops to justice.

Ikarti wrote:

Especially when you've got Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and the marines and that Navy guy who dragged that Iraqi out of his house and shot him and tried to make it look like "insurgents" did it. Abu Ghraib for example. Ringleader got 10 years, Lynndie England got 2, others got like 6 months.
Haditha:  You don't  know all the facts, so your judgement is premature.  Abu Ghraib: You think that 2 years for putting a leash on a prisoner is lenient?  Exactly what crime did Lynndie England commit that you believe justifies a harsher sentance?  Not familiar with the Navy guy you are talking about, but suspect it is another snap judgement with no facts.  Care to prove me wrong?

Ikarti wrote:

If I supported the military I'd find that behavior incredibly shameful, and I'd want to see real justice done for tarnishing the reputation.  But at this point it looks like tarnishing reputation is one of the things the military does well.
If you supported the military, facts would mean more to you than politics.  No worries, however, we all know you don't support the military.  Too bad that the Military has no choice but to continue to support you.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-03 09:10:39)

2006-07-03 09:11:14
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6790|Southeastern USA
you see, in this country we have this thing called "innnocent until proven guilty" it applies to the military as well
2006-07-03 10:46:50
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6797
I just have to say that I never seriously conject as Gator would allege. LoLs.

(P.S. See "Mechanical Accuracy", page 3 on the bottom)

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 11:39:59)

2006-07-03 10:52:19
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7078

Bubbalo wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

yes your argument is immaterial.
The one you started about allies is, mine, that the US was not the aggressor in WWII but could have been described as such in Vietnam, is not.  The fact that you have you to respond says alot.
The fact that I have not responded is do largely to moving into my new home

" you still live with your mommy "

The point was the common soldier is rarely if ever kept informed with the overall big picture intelligence and long range strategies.

Yet they do fight.

Lucky for places like Australia as the Japanese unchecked in china Raped any woman as a " cultural habit " and used the locals as live medical lab rats.

Its absurd but what they did to China makes the German medical experiments look ever so tame.

Yet the Japaneses are seen by uneducated little tykes like you as

" forward thinking enlightened and spiritually deep...after we slapped them down for keeps "

I have shown you that the US Navy attacked German naval vessels on site prior to a declaration of war in 1942

In Vietnam The USA was trying only to keep the North Vietnamese out of south Vietnam, We never invaded the North.

When we left they overran south Vietnam, a blood bath ensued.

South Vietnamese risked their lives by the tens of thousands taking to the open seas in any craft sea worthy or not to try and escape their wrath.

These people were referred to as " Boat people " in the 1970s and immigrated to anyplace that would take them USA Canada etc.

I guess The plight of the " Boat people " is just one more piece of history that you are totally ignorant of.

Your argument is immaterial. You are a sheltered child or a schizophrenic or a pathological liar. Which one ?
2006-07-03 10:54:23
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7078
You can gleen some of your information from some one who was there and saw it all first hand and made his own evaluations ( Gunslinger )

or you take  little hints and tidbits from a small boy typing away on his mommy's computer.

casting about learned statements like this...

Bubbalo wrote:

The point was that the US could strike the USSR with nukes, the USSR could not strike the US.
or this

Ikarti wrote:

I think .50 cal should be ok as long as its only used on US troops.
The sad part is,that really isn't their best quotes.

but if you see one Flush twice and light a match, for all of us !
2006-07-03 12:02:52
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6790|Southeastern USA
do you keep that on a desktop notepad so you can copy and paste?

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard