A challenge to Luke Wyatt

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This is your chance though. Never say that you didn't get one. I give you 48 hours to post your case. So 1800 CST on Sunday we will see.

1800 = 6 pm

just curious why use military 24hr time?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

1800 = 6 pm

just curious why use military 24hr time?

I don't know, but at least you have explained it to "Sarg"!

[dilbert firestorm]

anyone but Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband Bill clinton. I do not want to put those 2 crooked politicians who are in it for themselves in the white house.

Donald Trump was not my choice for president. My preference was to vote for candidates who are business men or governors as they have practical real world experience as an executive officer of a state or business. Walker of Wisconsin was my guy. But he dropped out early after spending something like 100 million and so did Rick Perry of Texas. I refused to support Bush of Florida as I didn't want another Bush in the white house.

Cruz ended up being the only candidate that was acceptable to me despite the fact he was not a govenor.

after Cruz lost, I decided to go with Gary Johnson but that choice was not for long. I found out 2 weeks before the convention that Gary Johnson decided to become a marxist libertariian (yes there are out there).

I found that there are no good alternatives out there. The independent Conservative USA party doesn't have one and endorsed Ted Cruz who is now out.

I don't like trump as a person and as business man (he is however a good businessman but his methods leaves much to be desired). I understand he was playing by the rules set forth by a corrupt govt officials.

Nonetheless he says all the right things. I believe he is a progressive democrat who decided to run as a republican. I suspect that they may be too lefty for him to win in that primary.

there also the possibility that the whole thing was staged to help Hillary win. No one expected Trump would make it this far. that was the most surprising thing about him in the election.

I'm not going stay home. for better or worse, Trump is my guy and I will be voting for him with a clothes pin on my nose. (don't know if I will actually do that)

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Here is your opportunity to make your case. You whined that no one was responding to you or taking you seriously. Okay, you got it. I'm going to wait for you to make your case for voting for Hillary Clinton. What that means is no snark, no insults, and no attacking Trump. This last is important because that is how these threads go bust. So you have to make a positive case FOR supporting Hillary. No lies, no half truths, no smoke and mirrors. You can't make a claim that is not true. You may be called upon to verify everything you write. This is not a lecture without input from the audience. They will pick apart your weaknesses. I expect them to belay the snark and insults. In return I will make the case for voting for Donald Trump with the same ground rules. If someone like COG wants to make a case for Gary Johnson then they must abide by the same rules.

Frankly, I don't think you can do it and we won't hear much more from you with the convention concluded. This is your chance though. Never say that you didn't get one. I give you 48 hours to post your case. So 1800 CST on Sunday we will see.

It's not up to you to give out chances and demand formats. Your own reasons and facts will be scrutinized as well and you may be called upon to verify everything you write

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Fair enough - I am a conservative and to put it bluntly Donald Trump and Ben Carson were the least qualified of the original 17 to 19 canididates. However, since he won the nomination his rhetoric and proposals borderline resembled what Hitler wanted to accomplish.
I don't like the guys character - he doesn't have temperament nor the experience to be POTUS.
However, the biggest problem I have is the fact he's no conservative he's a liberal wolf in Sheeps clothing. He's on record basically supporting Clinton, he's been interviewed and on record stating the economy tends to do better under democrats - these are not my words but Trumps words paraphrased.
He's a liar - well so is Clinton but he wants to bring jobs back to America - ok set an example - manufacture your suits and ties in America, but he takes advantage of cheap labor.
He talks without thinking which is very dangerous - look at his recent comments : inviting Russia to hack clinton's emails ? Telling reporters he wanted to hit some of the DNC speakers ? What's the matter he can't take a little heat ?
He has put forth a reasonable amount of info here.
Finally he makes proposals that will never work -if any of you think he would build a wall and Mexico will pay for it you are as looney as trump. If you don't believe - knock on your neighbors door and say hey I am going to build this really expensive fence around my yard to keep any unwanted intruders or debris from flying in my yard, but you will pay for it- report back to me your neighbors response.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So you decided to do the attack before the defense...not exactly ethical. Are you going to present the case for Hillary or is this it?

Not ethical? Whatever.
Before you stray too far and miss the point, you need to realize every reason to vote for Clinton is a reason to not vote for trump.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that's why most of the trump voters were trump voters They couldn't stand Clinton.

I'll keep saying it.
In my opinion Clinton is the lesser of 2 evils and I can give a lot more reasons why I won't vote for trump than reasons to vote for Clinton.

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Also, I am not alone - the bush family will not be voting for him nor will mitt Romney - you can bet Ted Cruz will not cast a vote for trump. This years RNC was perhaps the worst ever with many big name republicans not even appearing - where was Palin? Where was John McMcain? No John Kasich, Rand Paul? Rubio?
The DNC has 2 prominent life long republicans who are voting for Clinton and now they have my vote.

Originally Posted by flghtr65

I will not vote for Trump.

1. I don't agree with him on immigration. I am okay with the wall. I am not okay with rounding up 12 million people and sending them back to Mexico. There needs to be some sort of pathway to citizenship for the ones that are already here. A bipartisan immigration bill was passed by the senate. The republicans in the house blocked it from getting to the floor for a vote.


2. Trump will get the USA into another costly ground war. The coalition forces have recovered 45% of the land that was controlled by ISIS since Jan. 2016. They just took control of Fallajah a key city in Iraq. Next up Masol. We don't need to send 25,000 troops over there.

3. Has no plan for health care for the individual market. If you want to replace the ACA then what is his plan? Not every citizen can get health insurance from there employer.

4. His statement several months back about South Korea and Japan should build there own nuclear weapons is another crazy idea he has. The other NATO countries don't pay their fair share, but this is not the answer.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

First, if that is all you've heard then you haven't been paying attention at all.

Second, I saw no argument for the election of Hillary Clinton yet. That little paragraph was nothing. I want a full blown presentation.
He has supplied plenty of reasons. And suddenly we find out you set the format as well as decide if his personal opinions and reasons are good enough to be counted in your "challenge". No wonder gfe is afraid to take it.
So far I have to assume that Wyatt is unable or unwilling to comply.

You aren't seeing all right. All he did was supply reasons and it looks to me he has acted in good faith with your challenge.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I see that no one wants to take up the challenge....okay. I have set a time of 1800 CST on Sunday. I have no reason, at this time, to do so but I will post my own reasons for voting for my candidate at that time or shortly afterwards. See how this works, I don't have to know what Wyatt (or his handler) might write to construct my own argument and he doesn't either. Still, I will be surprised. SS and Nurse Chapel could even help. I'm sure that they're in the room next door.

No snarks? Or is it okay to take shots while pretending to be honoring your own format?

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Of course not. You give them a thread to sell their candidate and all you get is rabid attacks on the other guy. Notice a trend here? Face it. They're intellectually bankrupt.

Other than you, this has been a pretty civil thread. You try to hype a discussion of faults into a rabid attack. You call people stupid for expressing their opinions.
The trend is you can only be you.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

One reason that people have probably not accepted the challenge is that their OPINIONS will be shouted down by the conservative Republicans who make up the majority of this forum.

With that said, here are reasons why I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump:

1. I believe she has a successful background in dealing with foreign governments. Much more so than Trump.

2. Even going back to the early 1990s when she worked on an affordable care proposal, she has shown an ability to work across the aisle.

3. I believe she is better suited to deal with others who disagree with her. I trust her to not make rash decisions.

4. Economic policy? Here I'm unsure who is the better candidate. Trump it would seem has the more impressive background but he is rated as a mediocre businessman by "The Economist". Who is best suited to bring down the national debt? I don't know. Bush wasn't successful and neither has Obama.

5. I expect Clinton to be just as effective on issues such as immigration, trade policies, ISIS and other terrorist organizations, as Trump promises to be. Clinton, again, has much more experience on these issues than Trump.

Okay. Let the bashing begin. BTW, since these are strictly OPINIONS, I do not plan to defend them.

Well expressed.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

When were you going to take your own challenge?
Your "rules" aren't realistic. I think you way underestimate the number of people who vote against trump by voting for Clinton. Maybe your lack of takers stems from the fact that there aren't many Clinton supporters on this site but lots of people voting against trump. And since you don't understand that you will continue to wrongly assume everyone you don't like is a liberal Clinton supporter
So your no attacks on trump rule won't work.

PS I truly wish I could have y'alls faces when you found out you would be advocating for trump for the next 6 months.



For gfe
Are you going to take the challenge? Of course not.

And what rabid attacks? The trend here is you calling any anti-trump rhetoric "rabid".

Another trend here is you calling someone who doesn't agree with you intellectually bankrupt. This from the guy who continues to believe one thing when all proof, way beyond the shadow of a doubt, points at something else.

The final trend is roger asking others to do something he has seldom done.

Which is answering his own or someone else's challenges.

Can't wait to see how you defend trump and explain how he will make America great again.

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

I am not the one being challenged in this thread, jack ass. So you can go fuck yourself!

But, thanks for proving my point regarding rabid attacks!!!

Well said. Poorly read.
The challenge was an open challenge, "In return I will make the case for voting for Donald Trump with the same ground rules. If someone like COG wants to make a case for Gary Johnson then they must abide by the same rules."

It's okay. The trend is in place. We know you can't answer the challenge. We know you can't show or justify why you think this thread has rabid attacks on trump or why you think I've proven your point about those attacks.

We'll talk after you wake up from nappy time..

Rabid,
adjective
1. irrationally extreme in opinion or practice: a rabid isolationist; a rabid baseball fan.


2. furious or raging; violently intense:

[LexusLover]

Church starts in about an hour.

Looks like Sunday School let out, and Munchie hit the puters!

[Munchmasterman]

[QUOTE=goodman0422;1058457605]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

And other than being in charge of the State department, how was she responsible for those deaths?


I told myself I would not disparage another person's comment here, but come on! So what you're asking is, other than being in charge of (responsible for) for those men (and their security), how is she responsible? Despite the fact that this is a truly stupid question, I will answer it any way.

Please note the following:
Duties of the Secretary of State
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries

http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

Thats how she is responsible.

As for your questions about Trump, I do not support Trump for president. I would simply like to point out, for those who support her, that Hillary is totally unqualified and has no business serving on an elementary school pta, much less serving as president. The only term she should serve is in a federal prison for obstruction of justice.

I would simply point out that for a non trump supporter you slanted your answers, not as anti Clinton, but as what looked to be at least an apologist for trump. My answers are factually correct and stand on their own merits.

As for my "stupid" question, let me rephrase it.

Other than being in charge of the State department, how was she responsible for those deaths?


Did she shoot them? Did she set off a bomb that killed them? No?
Did she kill them by remote control?

The answer to those questions is no. And for all the bullshit you supplied as an answer when you could have answered my "stupid" question was "She wasn't responsible other than being in charge."

Could she improve her performance in her job? Certainly in the email department. She had no say in an operational response to the attacks
You can't say the second group of names died because she was inadequate in her job. Was she responsible? Yes

The increased security requests for Libya should have been dealt with by staffers. Everything doesn't rise to the secretary's level. Is she responsible? Yes.
Was it a personal "ball drop"?
Multiple investigations made by republicans said no.

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1058459041]

Originally Posted by goodman0422

If anyone wants to know how Obaminable and/or HillariousNoMore are "responsible" for the death of the Ambassador and the brave men who died protecting him, along with the brave men who died attempting to save him, .....

.....then listen (and you will hear it from their mouths before Election Day) to them (one or both) explain how "they" were responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

There is no distinction.

You are correct.
President Obama is responsible for killing Osama bin laden. It is definitely an excellent achievement and rates being showcased in the election. Wouldn't you agree?

Because there is no distinction.

Thank God he doesn't bring it up a thousandth of the number of times Benghazi has been brought up.

[DSK]

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1058459041]

Originally Posted by goodman0422

If anyone wants to know how Obaminable and/or HillariousNoMore are "responsible" for the death of the Ambassador and the brave men who died protecting him, along with the brave men who died attempting to save him, .....

.....then listen (and you will hear it from their mouths before Election Day) to them (one or both) explain how "they" were responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

There is no distinction.

Excellent point. If you take responsibility for the good things that happen during your leadership, you have to take the blame when things go bad. I believe Mr. Trump will point that out to people from time to time.

[DSK]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105845967 9][QUOTE=goodman0422;1058457605]

I would simply point out that for a non trump supporter you slanted your answers, not as anti Clinton, but as what looked to be at least an apologist for trump. My answers are factually correct and stand on their own merits.

As for my "stupid" question, let me rephrase it.

Other than being in charge of the State department, how was she responsible for those deaths?


Did she shoot them? Did she set off a bomb that killed them? No?
Did she kill them by remote control?

The answer to those questions is no. And for all the bullshit you supplied as an answer when you could have answered my "stupid" question was "She wasn't responsible other than being in charge."

Could she improve her performance in her job? Certainly in the email department. She had no say in an operational response to the attacks
You can't say the second group of names died because she was inadequate in her job. Was she responsible? Yes

The increased security requests for Libya should have been dealt with by staffers. Everything doesn't rise to the secretary's level. Is she responsible? Yes.
Was it a personal "ball drop"?
Multiple investigations made by republicans said no.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are correct.
President Obama is responsible for killing Osama bin laden. It is definitely an excellent achievement and rates being showcased in the election. Wouldn't you agree?

Because there is no distinction.

Thank God he doesn't bring it up a thousandth of the number of times Benghazi has been brought up.

As Rush Limbaugh once said, "Thank God for Obama!!"

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

President Obama is responsible for killing Osama bin laden.

I believe this man is the one "responsible for killing Osama bin laden"!



Not this goofball ....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

how was she responsible for those deaths?
Did she shoot them? Did she set off a bomb that killed them? No?
Did she kill them by remote control?

Hildebeest killed them with neglect, masterdickmuncher. Hildebeest ignored 600 requests for more and better security, masterdickmuncher. Parents are tried and convicted all of the time for failure to provide proper and necessary care for their children, masterdickmuncher. Hildebeest's negligence was criminal, masterdickmuncher, and many a military officer has been court martialed for such an obvious failure of leadership.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

1800 = 6 pm

just curious why use military 24hr time?

It's not really military time but the military does use it. It's 24 hour time to prevent misunderstandings between night and day. I also included a reference to cst rather than using Zulu time.

[JD Barleycorn]

Admiral Kimmel, General Short, and their Philippine counterparts were both courts marginalized for their failures on December 7 even though they did not personally order the planes into rows, put the men on liberty, and generally sat on the status quo. They were found guilty as Hillary should been. Being a political appointee she should have been relieved of command....that's means fired.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hildebeest killed them with neglect, masterdickmuncher.

Willful neglect and dereliction of duty ... since she was repeatedly on notice of the condition (the Brits knew and withdrew) and she was under a duty to protect the personnel under her supervision.

The validity of that assessment with current events has to do with her own initiative when she ran for President before when she raised the 3 a.m. phone call in an ad. Who would "you" (the voters) want answering the phone?

If she can't protect a 1/2 dozen folks in a consulate's compound from a band of terrorists within blocks of a CIA facility and an hour or so from an off shore base after months of warnings and requests to establish a response plan and stage personnel and assets to respond .... then she's not qualified to be President. Any more than Obaminable.

The apologists want to ignore her fundamental deficiencies as an executive and leader.

The disturbing aspects of her decision making is that she apparently placed the "legacy" of Obaminable and her SOS "experiences" ahead of the lives of U.S. citizens under her supervision and responsibility. Then attempted to "cover it up' be claiming it was a spontaneous response based on a recently released video and standing their with her lips sealed when Obaminable mouthed off the same and sent his hatchet girl around to the "morning shows" to spew that shit.

Arguing about letter heads and "titles" is bullshit, and a diversion from the reality.

The hard work of locating OBL through developing contacts and questioning of suspects was done under Bush's watch, which included the emphasis on behind the scene military quick responses with contractor help. All Obaminable had to do is give the green light once OBL was confirmed at the already developed location. Giving him "credit" for the victory is like saying the janitor who threw the switch for the lights at the Super Bowl ... was responsible for the win. Utter bullshit ... and INSULTS all those prior to him who worked hard on it ... and the MEN who made the trip to apply "the Solution."

But that's what arrogant little narcissistic pricks do. Take credit when none is due.

[JD Barleycorn]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105845967 9][QUOTE=goodman0422;1058457605]

I would simply point out that for a non trump supporter you slanted your answers, not as anti Clinton, but as what looked to be at least an apologist for trump. My answers are factually correct and stand on their own merits.

As for my "stupid" question, let me rephrase it.

Other than being in charge of the State department, how was she responsible for those deaths?


Did she shoot them? Did she set off a bomb that killed them? No?
Did she kill them by remote control?

The answer to those questions is no. And for all the bullshit you supplied as an answer when you could have answered my "stupid" question was "She wasn't responsible other than being in charge."

Could she improve her performance in her job? Certainly in the email department. She had no say in an operational response to the attacks
You can't say the second group of names died because she was inadequate in her job. Was she responsible? Yes

The increased security requests for Libya should have been dealt with by staffers. Everything doesn't rise to the secretary's level. Is she responsible? Yes.
Was it a personal "ball drop"?
Multiple investigations made by republicans said no.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are correct.
President Obama is responsible for killing Osama bin laden. It is definitely an excellent achievement and rates being showcased in the election. Wouldn't you agree?

Because there is no distinction.

Thank God he doesn't bring it up a thousandth of the number of times Benghazi has been brought up.

I believe you intentionally mischaracterized the real findings. The congressional investigations found nothing that rose to a CRIMINAL level. They did find that it was a clusterfuck of incompetence under Hillary.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

It's not up to you to give out chances and demand formats. Your own reasons and facts will be scrutinized as well and you may be called upon to verify everything you write



Not ethical? Whatever.
Before you stray too far and miss the point, you need to realize every reason to vote for Clinton is a reason to not vote for trump.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that's why most of the trump voters were trump voters They couldn't stand Clinton.

I'll keep saying it.
In my opinion Clinton is the lesser of 2 evils and I can give a lot more reasons why I won't vote for trump than reasons to vote for Clinton.






You aren't seeing all right. All he did was supply reasons and it looks to me he has acted in good faith with your challenge.
No snarks? Or is it okay to take shots while pretending to be honoring your own format?


Other than you, this has been a pretty civil thread. You try to hype a discussion of faults into a rabid attack. You call people stupid for expressing their opinions.
The trend is you can only be you.

Well expressed.




Well said. Poorly read.
The challenge was an open challenge, "In return I will make the case for voting for Donald Trump with the same ground rules. If someone like COG wants to make a case for Gary Johnson then they must abide by the same rules."

It's okay. The trend is in place. We know you can't answer the challenge. We know you can't show or justify why you think this thread has rabid attacks on trump or why you think I've proven your point about those attacks.

We'll talk after you wake up from nappy time..

Rabid,
adjective
1. irrationally extreme in opinion or practice: a rabid isolationist; a rabid baseball fan.


2. furious or raging; violently intense:

Since it is my thread I do make the rules. Are you man enough to honor them? It doesn't look like it. So shut up, start your own thread, or post within the rules I set for this thread.