Up yours USMC!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by lustylad

First you go on a rant against Reagan, then you complain about having "to hear all this bullshit about Reagan"? Are you schizophrenic? Or do you have trouble remembering what you said/did 5 minutes ago?




Let's go back and re-read this thread from the beginning. You're the one who dragged Reagan into the discussion way back in post #2:



If you want to bitch about someone hijacking this thread, then bitch at yourself!

.

Probably FuckZup and WTF sharing the same moniker.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Probably FuckZup and WTF sharing the same moniker.

And you and the cock whisperer lustylady share the same dicks sailor boy.


None of which changes the accounts of Reagan being on the record not once but twice misleading his service record. His unit may have filmed the Concentration Camps but he never left home soil.


lustylady may be fooled by a reporter trying to rewrite history once but nobody is fooled by Reagan doing it twice.

Which begs the question...."When did Reagan start saluting?" ....did he start doing it after he sent the Marines into Beirut and got them killed much like Obama did with four people in Benghazi?





.

[boardman]

Reagan took office in 1981, Beirut occurred in 1983. So I think the unprovoked attack by those snakes "Islamic Jihad" on the barracks of off duty marines stationed in Beirut as peacekeepers occurred well after Reagan started saluting.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by boardman

Reagan took office in 1981, Beirut occurred in 1983. So I think the unprovoked attack by those snakes "Islamic Jihad" on the barracks of off duty marines stationed in Beirut as peacekeepers occurred well after Reagan started saluting.

+1

Plus, the Beirut bombing was without historical precedent in style and scale, and the date "October 23" in no manner marked some kind of anniversary date demanding intelligent, conscientious hypervigilance.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

Reagan took office in 1981, Beirut occurred in 1983. So I think the unprovoked attack by those snakes "Islamic Jihad" on the barracks of off duty marines stationed in Beirut as peacekeepers occurred well after Reagan started saluting.

Question asked, question answered.


Let's see if Iran stationed troops in say Texas and see if there were any unprovoked attacks!

Good Lord some of the way you Reagan lovers word things....

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1

Plus, the Beirut bombing was without historical precedent in style and scale, and the date "October 23" in no manner marked some kind of anniversary date demanding intelligent, conscientious hypervigilance.

I have never been in the military but one would think that every day in a hostile environment would constitute hyper vigilance.

Which is a nice way of saying that Reagan is as responsible for Beirut as Obama is for Benghazi.



.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by slingblade

I am not thin skinned I just have never been a "fashionista" . Just as you stated about the article. Once someone starts the name calling you do not really respect anything they have to say.

The rest of your post does not make any sense. I am not the one worried about a salute from Reagan ,Bush or Obama. I just gave it back to your side like you guys always do minus the name calling. I do not admit anything I simply tried to understand it for you. LOL!
Reagan was hired actor from day one. He made a living as a pretend soldier and nothing changed when he was the POTUS. Not a bad guy just not really on top of things. He counted on people to make all the tough decisions and just kept smiling and waving. I do agree that Charisma is an important quality needed to be a leader and he did have that going for him. Dems are a little less apt to choose someone for that reason compared to Reps. Just as Reps always bring up that there women are prettier. Seems like those things are more important to you guys.

Reading your response it seems like you are making accusations and then commenting on them as though they were fact rather than just your opinion. I don't mean this as an insult but your thinking process is stereotypical for conservatives by most studies. As in you can only comprehend things from your own narrowed perspective. The term ethnocentric seems to fit quite well

So my opinion on this is open to be revisited but not by any type of insults.

slingblade you remind me of somebody and this is not a "insult"... it's just a fact.




Now... Let the Party begin!

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

slingblade you remind me of somebody and this is not a "insult"... it's just a fact.




Now... Let the Party begin!

This thread is just like the Tea party....worn out.

So you will have to start a party somewhere else.

You remind me of someone else also. I just choose to not go that " Low" LOL

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

• I have never been in the military but one would think that every day in a hostile environment would constitute hyper vigilance.
• Which is a nice way of saying that Reagan is as responsible for Beirut as Obama is for Benghazi.

The Marine guards were vigilant; even so, they were not prepared to deal with a 19 ton truck on a suicide mission crashing through fences and barricades in an attack that was unprecedented in both execution and scale. Plus, the Beirut attack occurred on a completely innocuous date, 23 October, and it was conducted by a completely unknown enemy. This was completely unlike the Benghazi attack which was executed on the anniversary of a successful, large scale, militant Islamic attack against the American homeland by an identified enemy that -- at the time of the Benghazi incident -- was flying its black flags of militancy almost literally around the corner from the undermanned, insecure embassy compound.

Fact is, the precedent set by the Beirut attack led to the creation of security protocols that Odumbo and Hildabeast willfully violated in Benghazi.

Plus, no one has yet explained what was significant about the date of "October 23" that would make it remarkable prior to the 1983 attack. Meanwhile, as a precaution, U.S. military bases worldwide have always increased their readiness posture on the anniversary of 9/11 since 2001 -- but not at the embassy compound in Benghazi in 2012 where Odumbo and Hildabeast wanted a unusually small "footprint", and where they sought political accolades that cost an United States ambassador his life.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

Question asked, question answered.


Let's see if Iran stationed troops in say Texas and see if there were any unprovoked attacks!

Good Lord some of the way you Reagan lovers word things....






.

Jest taking a page from the WTF playbook...

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1

Plus, the Beirut bombing was without historical precedent in style and scale, and the date "October 23" in no manner marked some kind of anniversary date demanding intelligent, conscientious hypervigilance.

are you justifying the death of American soldiers as means to further your ignorant and belligerent postion in the banal thread, IBIDIOT?

[JD Barleycorn]

Congress and their rules of engagement had more to do with Beirut than Reagan. The guards on duty had loaded magazines but not in their weapons. Congress thought that was too aggressive. Also, the sentries had to incessantly challenge anyone before they could fire, after they loaded their weapons. Though I left my first ship on October 13 that ship went on to Beirut and volunteers helped to dig out the bodies. So I heard a great deal about it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Congress and their rules of engagement had more to do with Beirut than Reagan. The guards on duty had loaded magazines but not in their weapons. Congress thought that was too aggressive. Also, the sentries had to incessantly challenge anyone before they could fire, after they loaded their weapons. Though I left my first ship on October 13 that ship went on to Beirut and volunteers helped to dig out the bodies. So I heard a great deal about it.

So Benghazi is not Obama's fault....

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Anything bad happen during the Obama/Clinton Admin , it is their fault. Anything bad happen during the Reagan/BushI&II years it was some other branch of governments fault!

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by WTF

So Benghazi is not Obama's fault....

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Anything bad happen during the Obama/Clinton Admin , it is their fault. Anything bad happen during the Reagan/BushI&II years it was some other branch of governments fault!

I agree. Seems like the "blame game" is like a "reindeer game" to them. different rules for different Presidents. I say it is the POTUS at the times responsibility but not always their fault. I like to bring up other Presidents as an example of the flaw in that type of thinking but it seems to be a vain effort. They are either too obsessed to see the comparison , or they simply playing the dumb card.

[lustylad]

Whoa. The people who are forever applying double standards are complaining about a double standard? How rich. Look in the mirror, you morons! Here's a pattern for you - According to fagboy, everything good that happened to the economy under Reagan's watch was either an accident, a stroke of luck (e.g. lower oil prices), would have happened anyway or someone else deserves the credit (e.g. Paul Volker). But everything good that happened to the economy under Clinton's watch was the result of skillful management and smart policies.

The truth is BOTH of them had enviable economic records. What is striking is how you don't see many Republicans wasting time trying to tear down Clinton's economic record, but you constantly see libtards 30 years later looking back and bad-mouthing Reagan's performance. They refuse to give Ronnie even an ounce of credit. That's the BIGGEST DOUBLE STANDARD out there. And why are fagboy and his fellow libtards so obsessed with rewriting the history of the Reagan years? Because they are scared to death that it validates Reaganomics and may steer voters and policy-makers away from the destructive libtard agenda of raising taxes, spending til the cows come home, and regulating the fuck out of the private sector.

And of course, the fact that the current economic recovery is the most anemic one in our entire post-WWII history has nothing to do with Odumbo's bad policies. It's all the fault of Bush and Republican obstructionism. No double standard there, right fagboy? Strong Dem economy = smart policies. Weak Dem economy = blame Repubs.

.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Whoa. The people who are forever applying double standards are complaining about a double standard? How rich. Look in the mirror, you morons! Here's a pattern for you - According to fagboy, everything good that happened to the economy under Reagan's watch was either an accident, a stroke of luck (e.g. lower oil prices), would have happened anyway or someone else deserves the credit (e.g. Paul Volker). But everything good that happened to the economy under Clinton's watch was the result of skillful management and smart policies.

The truth is BOTH of them had enviable economic records. What is striking is how you don't see many Republicans wasting time trying to tear down Clinton's economic record, but you constantly see libtards 30 years later looking back and bad-mouthing Reagan's performance. They refuse to give Ronnie even an ounce of credit. That's the BIGGEST DOUBLE STANDARD out there. And why are fagboy and his fellow libtards so obsessed with rewriting the history of the Reagan years? Because they are scared to death that it validates Reaganomics and may steer voters and policy-makers away from the destructive libtard agenda of raising taxes, spending til the cows come home, and regulating the fuck out of the private sector.

And of course, the fact that the current economic recovery is the most anemic one in our entire post-WWII history has nothing to do with Odumbo's bad policies. It's all the fault of Bush and Republican obstructionism. No double standard there, right fagboy? Strong Dem economy = smart policies. Weak Dem economy = blame Repubs.

.

I am curious as to what you think Reagan did during his time as POTUS that was so great. I'm not bashing him, I just have never gotten what he did that mesmerized you guys so much. If you want to list his accomplishments fine, if you want to call names never mind.