Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Hidden booby traps don't work on this idiot. I have purposely altered some numbers from time to time (not too much) and no one ever takes the bait. If I say that 75,000 children are expected this next YEAR rather than this next MONTH (which was reported) no one disagreed with me. They indicated that they don't have much knowledge of the topic.
Later I have to come back (like this) and quietly correct the numbers.
You're new here, FuckZup (what I call YR) is like the idiot cousin that comes to every family reunion. He tries to feel up his cousins, drinks too much, and tells lies that everyone (except the most innocent) knows are lies.
Oh, I've had FuckZup on ignore now for over a year. The only time I get to see what he spews is when someone reflects it in a quote. Hasn't gotten any better.
I started posting here in 2010/2011... I'm not exactly new here. I remember seeing you argue in the Kansas forums in 2011.
The ploys that the posters that we're arguing with in here use are no different from the ploys used by posters on the other message boards over the past decade that I've debated online. It's like they're playing by the same playbook, as if they have a very similar psychological makeup.
The booby-traps that I've used here have worked against the opposition here in one form or another. It worked wonders on one of the posters here, but they've worked on the others on here too. The booby-traps I use go beyond just using the wrong word, misspelled word, or other basic grammar errors.
The booby-traps also include more complex tactics like using specific concepts in an argument. Everyone in the opposition on this thread have pretty much behaved the way I expected them to behave based on specific, deliberate, tactics and concepts that I've used in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Exactly how many times does it have to be explained that Bush did NOT go to war illegally. He had prior authorization from the treaty signed by Hussein and he went to the Congress (when he didn't have to) and they voted for war.
As for ill fated and ill advised, how people did we lose FIGHTING the war and how many did we lose trying to keep the peace. The democrats (that's you) supported the war and opposed the peace. Isn't that strange.
As long as these people are driven by ignorance, arrogance, and emotion-based hate, you're going to continue to have to explain to them that Bush didn't go to war illegally. You pointed out a cold hard fact that most people miss. The mainstream media barely covers it, and liberal lapdogs continued to choose to be ignorant of the facts.
The cease-fire that we had with Iraq wasn't a declaration of peace. It was a postponement of the war. It put the war on hold. The moment Saddam violated his end of the agreement was the moment we had every right to go in and invade Iraq. We gave diplomacy a chance, twice, before going in.
To them, "ill-fated," and "ill-advised," is something that they disagree with. I use quotation here strongly as mostly the ignorant and stupid will argue that this war was "ill-fated," and "ill-advised." Anybody that knows non-revised history, as well as geopolitical and geostrategic events today, would know that going into Iraq, after going into Afghanistan, was a mark of genius.
Our invasion of Iraq created a situation that turned the Middle East into a checkerboard pattern of democratic countries. It was this checkerboard pattern that facilitated the beginning of the Arab spring. What was required was action from the White House to amplify the positive effect of that movement while minimizing the negative effect.
That was supposed to be the next phase of major democratization of northern Africa and Middle East. Some parts of that movement have achieved success without the US help. Others are floundering because of lack of action from the US.
The US government was supposed to remain engaged in that area politically and economically. Instead, they chose disengagement.
It's blatantly obvious that the opposition on this thread is clueless about real history.
Check this out, especially the last two:
"Consequently, like our Vietnam War veteran brothers and sisters before us, we're looking at dismay at how the lack of political will in DC is undoing our accomplishments in Iraq." -- herfacechair, June 15, 2014
"It was up to the politicians in Washington DC, specifically the current administration, to continue to build on what we started over there." -- herfacechair, June 15, 2014
"The current crisis in Iraq stemmed from the current administration's failure to capitalize on the initial crisis in Syria." -- herfacechair, June 15, 2014
"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad--there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle--the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," -- Hillary Rosdham Clinton, August 2014
Didn't you mean to say that W "cut and run" and "did not fulfill his obligations."
From Wiki:
"In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."
That was a nonissue the Democrats tried to blow out of proportion during an election year.
Far too many people don't understand what's entailed in a reserve component as far as participation is concerned. When George Bush was in the military, you were required to serve six years. Those six years could be active duty or a combination of active duty and ready reserves. They could also be a combination that included inactive reserves.
What many people associate with as one weekend a month and two weeks a summer is called the "selective reserve." In the Army, it's called a Troop Program Unit. That schedule isn't definite. The unit commander can authorize an absence from drilling.
If a reservist, because of civilian employment or other civilian commitment, ends up in the location in another geographic area for an indefinite period, that reservist is allowed to transfer to another unit. George Bush tried to do that.
As for the flight physical. There are specific duties within the military that require a physical. If you don't accomplish the physical, you won't be allowed to continue the duties for which the physical is acquired.
There are many service-members that start off with a drilling program that don't end up with the same drilling program that they start off with. Many reservists, because of civilian commitments, end up having to transfer to another unit, the individual ready reserves, or to the inactive reserves.
George Bush's civilian commitments made it impractical for him to continue drilling at his primary unit. If he didn't clear his actions with his chain of command, he wouldn't have received an honorable discharge. That fact shows that he was cleared from participating the traditional one weekend a month/two weeks a summer requirement.
Normally, nonparticipants process for transfer to the individual ready reserves, inactive reserves, or are simply discharged.
If a service member is a scrub, and didn't participate through foul intent, they wouldn't receive an honorable discharge. The honorable discharge that George Bush got strongly indicates that he kept his chain command appraised of his civilian situation, and he was exempted/excused from attending drill.
The only thing that you'd be able to hold against him is that he didn't earn a good retirement year for that time he didn't drill, or do something else to earn retirement points to cover for not going to drill.
So the one week a month, two weeks during the summer, schedule isn't a rigid regimen. Because of George Bush's requirement, they gave him an honorable discharge and transferred him to the inactive reserves. He was still meeting his obligation.
This wasn't a "cut and run" situation. This was a situation where legitimate civilian requirements made it hard for him to drill at his original unit.
"Unless sooner released by the appropriate/proper authority." That's a concept that exists with regards to military orders/enlistments/contracts.
This is a non-argument.
If you reply to this post, the requirement to answer my previous "yes"/ "no" questions to you also applies.
Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, many many times........Biden claimed it to be the administration's greatest achievement....now, as Iraq crumbles, Obama doesn't want to claim ownership to "ending the war in Iraq".......
As usual you are making shit up because you are desperate no balls. I did not state any of the bullshit and you know it . Again you lied
Calling you STUPID, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, is in no manner a "lie". And it's noticeable how you continue to deflect from your earlier, stupid contention that the U.S. was "out of Iraq" -- even after the U.S.S. Bush deployed -- and that no U.S. pilots would be making airstrikes, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
Calling you STUPID, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, is in no manner a "lie". And it's noticeable how you continue to deflect from your earlier, stupid contention that the U.S. was "out of Iraq" -- even after the U.S.S. Bush deployed -- and that no U.S. pilots would be making airstrikes, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
