"Timing Is Just Too Perfect"

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Didn't you make a universal claim that those who defended him before are now attacking him because he is supposedly involved in a conspiracy? You're wrong!

Turns out I may be wrong. Initially over the weekend conservatives were attacking him. Now that Rush has given the "conservative" defense of what he did, there seems to be some confusion as too what they should say about it. Just goes to prove my point which was that conservatives are fickle.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ekim the Inbred remains an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.

Here is a simple sentence for a simple hank.You got nothing...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ekim008

Here is a simple sentence for a simple hank.You got nothing...

Ekim the Inbred, your "simpleton" sentence -- with its improper grammar -- fully illustrates you are an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.

[Yssup Rider]

You REALLY got NOTHING, IBCrying.

How have you managed to show your face in public since the election? I figured you'd have soaked yourself in gasoline and set fire to yourself at the Applebee's.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You REALLY got NOTHING, IBCrying.

How have you managed to show your face in public since the election? I figured you'd have soaked yourself in gasoline and set fire to yourself at the Applebee's.

So self-immolation is how you deal with minor controversies, Assup? Is there anything we can do to provoke or facilitate your break-down, Assup? We're all here ready to help.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Turns out I may be wrong. Initially over the weekend conservatives were attacking him. Now that Rush has given the "conservative" defense of what he did, there seems to be some confusion as too what they should say about it. Just goes to prove my point which was that conservatives are fickle.

You are wrong because like most lefty-loons you ignorantly applied a "universal" to the right. Point of fact: many conservatives in this country did not care for Petraeus' or his COIN theory of operations.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Good job Hank. All it takes is one right thinking American...

To whip 1/2 dozen Ozombies and a mike...LOL

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So self-immolation is how you deal with minor controversies, Assup? Is there anything we can do to provoke or facilitate your break-down, Assup? We're all here ready to help.

You're just dying to do it, aren't you?

Come on, pussy!

Do it! Im here!

DO IT NOW!



LMAO@the bitterest motherfucker on ECCIE!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're just dying to do it, aren't you?

Come on, pussy!

Do it! Im here!

DO IT NOW!



LMAO@the bitterest motherfucker on ECCIE!

Do you need a match, Assup? Just ask.

[tttalinky]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So self-immolation is how you deal with minor controversies, Assup? Is there anything we can do to provoke or facilitate your break-down, Assup? We're all here ready to help.

+1
Obamacare will help take care of his condition!

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are wrong because like most lefty-loons you ignorantly applied a "universal" to the right. Point of fact: many conservatives in this country did not care for Petraeus' or his COIN theory of operations.

Amazing. In all my 38 years I have never been accused of being a lefty. Point of fact at no time in this banter have I made a personal attack on you. I have only stated that you failed to answer my initial charge. I then admitted my initial charge may have been in error. To which point you reply with a personal attack.

If you wish to take my statements to be a universal charge I can do nothing to change that. Yes my statement was generalized for brevity but not meant as a universal. I do not believe that all conservatives or liberals or any other group can be catergized universally. I was pointing out that the gerneral line from the conservative voices initially attacked petraus. Now things are changing.

This all boils down to conservatives in general believe that what we do in our private lives should be attached to our public lives. What happens in our bedrooms or what we do to our own bodies is no one else's business. I do not think he should resign unless be chooses to.

Point of fact. What we have is a difference of opinion. I have the right to mine just as you have the right to yours. Opinions can not be wrong no matter how much you may want them to be. Resorting to name calling does not benifit your argument it weakens it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Amazing. In all my 38 years I have never been accused of being a lefty. Point of fact at no time in this banter have I made a personal attack on you. I have only stated that you failed to answer my initial charge. I then admitted my initial charge may have been in error. To which point you reply with a personal attack.

If you wish to take my statements to be a universal charge I can do nothing to change that. Yes my statement was generalized for brevity but not meant as a universal. I do not believe that all conservatives or liberals or any other group can be catergized universally. I was pointing out that the gerneral line from the conservative voices initially attacked petraus. Now things are changing.

This all boils down to conservatives in general believe that what we do in our private lives should be attached to our public lives. What happens in our bedrooms or what we do to our own bodies is no one else's business. I do not think he should resign unless be chooses to.

Point of fact. What we have is a difference of opinion. I have the right to mine just as you have the right to yours. Opinions can not be wrong no matter how much you may want them to be. Resorting to name calling does not benifit your argument it weakens it.

Many conservatives were against Patraeus and his COIN operations before the latest incident, and still stand against him today: they are not “fickle” as you state. There are two problems with Patraeus' personal affair that transcend any moral impropriety related to sex. First, he was having an affair in violation of the UCMJ while subordinates were being punished and discharged for "sexual disobedience" (e.g., check the MSM, there is a high incidence of female soldiers being discharged after becoming pregnant in a combat zone). Second, Patraeus was this nation’s chief intelligence officer. Since the Biblical times – when Delilah learned the secret of Samson’s strength through “pillow talk” – such liaisons have been seen as dangerously compromising. Mati Hari stands as yet another example, and Britain’s history is rife with such incidents.

[fetishfreak]

I have found nothing to indicate the affair occurred while he was still in the military. I have read the affair started when he was at the CIA. This would mean he is no longer subject to the UCMJ. Even still, the UCMJ articles on sexual behavior have always been selectively enforced. Typically the articles are enforced in conjunction with other articles. E.g. An affair is discovered and an order issued to stop would result in prosecution under adultery failure to obey and (sodomy if it can be proven). I never saw adultery used as the only violation for anything other than a captains mast. That was only to get it on record for future use.

[ChoomCzar]

Why didn't Petraeus just resign without admitting to the affair? I find it suspicious that he would disclose the affair and cite it as the reason for resigning....when in the military, you are accutely aware that when an affair pops up, Mission 1 is to protect your spouse from the public humiliation.....did Petraeus feel compelled to disclose it because someone was leveraging the fact against him?.....Also, disclosing the affair not only brought humiliation down on his fat ugly wife of 38 years, but ruined his reputation as well and left him disgraced....of course, liberals are shameless and find this all funny......

Certainly, as a civilian, Petraeus has more protections against testifying....he personally went to Benghazi and investigated, yet he blamed the video too....LOL!



Also, why has the General Allen investigation become public? There's a lot of shit going on, and none of it can be good for Bath House Barry.....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

I have found nothing to indicate the affair occurred while he was still in the military. I have read the affair started when he was at the CIA. This would mean he is no longer subject to the UCMJ. Even still, the UCMJ articles on sexual behavior have always been selectively enforced. Typically the articles are enforced in conjunction with other articles. E.g. An affair is discovered and an order issued to stop would result in prosecution under adultery failure to obey and (sodomy if it can be proven). I never saw adultery used as the only violation for anything other than a captains mast. That was only to get it on record for future use.

You are correct. Previous post based on news of "six year relationship", but "The actual affair began about two months after Petraeus took over at the CIA in September 2011, according to one Petraeus friend." http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/us/pet...ion/index.html

Pregnant women were being discharged because they were in violation of orders to abstain from sexual relations. Pregnancy tended to be a dead give away they'd had sexual relations (sometimes, there were instances of rape). An outcry from women and the MSM forced the military to begin looking for and dealing with the men involved as well.