At this point it's just plain sickening...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I really don't give a shit about tart dolls, national guard or any of that bullsheit.

Iraq is worthless, completely useless, has led to nothing good AS A WHOLE.

Now in Afghanistan, we don't even have proper air support, haven't had that for about four years.

THIS is where the terrorists are at, directing the strikes, bullshit twats like "the military guys you know" are simply twats.

I want one name of one of them, one will do, take the most significant one, he can tell you and i'll fuck it up by telling the truth.

Do you know how to tell a liar like you? It's because you constantly lie.

Anything else you're sure about that you can't possibly actually know about?

Well, considering TFB was first on the ground in all three zones, i should know.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'd like to call up those who have heard through PM or in posts that we are in Pakistan since July, i posted that in august, got known to the MSM in late September, i've posted about raids that others have read about...

There are plenty of people here to back me up on this.

You can ask three Mods here, Common, Haya and Harvey.

It's not for no reason at all that i had trust enough for them to keep it quiet, they have.
How do you know some here aren't aq goading you into spilling info?

You'll note that i spill info when it's noted that it's public information, not before that, it takes a week or ten (somewhere in between) before it's released after that and we maintain good relationships (sometimes very good, nudge, nudge, know what i mean, wink wink?) with the press.

So basically... if you know about the hit, it was done a week ago.
It's curious how up to speed you are on the u.s. political nuances. Do you get this just from that series of tubes? Are a lot of people there aware also?
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I really don't give a shit about tart dolls, national guard or any of that bullsheit.

Iraq is worthless, completely useless, has led to nothing good AS A WHOLE.

Now in Afghanistan, we don't even have proper air support, haven't had that for about four years.

THIS is where the terrorists are at, directing the strikes, bullshit twats like "the military guys you know" are simply twats.

I want one name of one of them, one will do, take the most significant one, he can tell you and i'll fuck it up by telling the truth.

Do you know how to tell a liar like you? It's because you constantly lie.

Anything else you're sure about that you can't possibly actually know about?

Well, considering TFB was first on the ground in all three zones, i should know.

You call other military men "simply twats" without any foreknowledge of who they actually are. One thing is for sure, you're not the typical soldier i know, they all have a lot better character than you.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Obama is a socialist, which is just a communist without a full fledged dictatorship anyway.

For about the 100th time, Obama is not a socialist.

In order to believe that you would have to be exceedingly ignorant, exceedingly stupid, or exceedingly dishonest. I'll let you figure out which one fits.

The only claiming Obama isn't a socialist is YOU, I have to think you're just trying to decieve people at this point. Obama is the definition of a socialist. He wants to "spread the wealth around", is for socialized medicine, XYZ. He's a socialist, if you're so sure he isn't and you want to actually argue against the grain, then back it up with some actual evidence...

Socialism, by definition, for about the 100th time on these boards, is community ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods. Nowhere, ever has Obama articulated either one of these positions. Therefore, he is not a socialist. I am not the only person on here who argues he is not a socialist, pretty much everyone who has ever picked up a political science or economics textbook has tried to tell you that. (in vain)

These are basic, basic definitions. They have been shown to you and a few other fools over and over again. You simply deny reality when it doesn't fit what you want it to be. I'm terribly sorry the dictionary is against you and won't label Obama as a socialist, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Bump for those who didn't get to see this smacking.

That wasn't a smacking, that was eskimospy showing his ignorance, like usual.

Taking from the entire pool of taxpayers and giving to those who generate no income themselves is socialism, ie social security.

Obama wants to spread more wealth around, taking the means and production from the entire pool of tax payers via their final reward, ie $$, and wants to give it to those who produce nothing, ie the homeless with UHC.

Honestly I don't care what you call it, socialism, marxism, communism, the end result is the same, a society enslaved to the state with a dictactor locking up everyone that doesn't agree with them. This is the road Obama wants to go down, though he's too blind to see and too ignorant to know what lies at the endo f the road. USSR, NK, now Venuzuala if it isn't already too late.
Actually, Obama has recently added a qualifier to some of his fiscal policy proposals. (Wealth redistribution). The qualifier is "working" you want to participate, you have to be working. He did this after the spread the wealth thing because he didn,t want to be perceived as a socialist. I am guessing if he hadn't made the remark, he wouldn't have added the qualifier. This says a lot to me.

He will do and say anything to win.

 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Obama is a socialist, which is just a communist without a full fledged dictatorship anyway.

For about the 100th time, Obama is not a socialist.

In order to believe that you would have to be exceedingly ignorant, exceedingly stupid, or exceedingly dishonest. I'll let you figure out which one fits.

The only claiming Obama isn't a socialist is YOU, I have to think you're just trying to decieve people at this point. Obama is the definition of a socialist. He wants to "spread the wealth around", is for socialized medicine, XYZ. He's a socialist, if you're so sure he isn't and you want to actually argue against the grain, then back it up with some actual evidence...

Socialism, by definition, for about the 100th time on these boards, is community ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods. Nowhere, ever has Obama articulated either one of these positions. Therefore, he is not a socialist. I am not the only person on here who argues he is not a socialist, pretty much everyone who has ever picked up a political science or economics textbook has tried to tell you that. (in vain)

These are basic, basic definitions. They have been shown to you and a few other fools over and over again. You simply deny reality when it doesn't fit what you want it to be. I'm terribly sorry the dictionary is against you and won't label Obama as a socialist, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Bump for those who didn't get to see this smacking.

That wasn't a smacking, that was eskimospy showing his ignorance, like usual.

Taking from the entire pool of taxpayers and giving to those who generate no income themselves is socialism, ie social security.

Obama wants to spread more wealth around, taking the means and production from the entire pool of tax payers via their final reward, ie $$, and wants to give it to those who produce nothing, ie the homeless with UHC.

Honestly I don't care what you call it, socialism, marxism, communism, the end result is the same, a society enslaved to the state with a dictactor locking up everyone that doesn't agree with them. This is the road Obama wants to go down, though he's too blind to see and too ignorant to know what lies at the endo f the road. USSR, NK, now Venuzuala if it isn't already too late.
Actually, Obama has recently added a qualifier to some of his fiscal policy proposals. (Wealth redistribution). The qualifier is "working" you want to participate, you have to be working. He did this after the spread the wealth thing because he didn,t want to be perceived as a socialist. I am guessing if he hadn't made the remark, he wouldn't have added the qualifier. This says a lot to me.

He will do and say anything to win.
Without a doubt...
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,703
1
71

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Honestly I don't care what you call it, socialism, marxism, communism, the end result is the same, a society enslaved to the state with a dictactor locking up everyone that doesn't agree with them. This is the road Obama wants to go down, though he's too blind to see and too ignorant to know what lies at the endo f the road. USSR, NK, now Venuzuala if it isn't already too late.

Can you cite sources or examples for your belief that Obama wants to be a dictator who "locks up everyone who doesn't agree with him"?

Or is your only source your paranoia and fear?

 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Obama is a socialist, which is just a communist without a full fledged dictatorship anyway.

For about the 100th time, Obama is not a socialist.

In order to believe that you would have to be exceedingly ignorant, exceedingly stupid, or exceedingly dishonest. I'll let you figure out which one fits.

The only claiming Obama isn't a socialist is YOU, I have to think you're just trying to decieve people at this point. Obama is the definition of a socialist. He wants to "spread the wealth around", is for socialized medicine, XYZ. He's a socialist, if you're so sure he isn't and you want to actually argue against the grain, then back it up with some actual evidence...

Socialism, by definition, for about the 100th time on these boards, is community ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods. Nowhere, ever has Obama articulated either one of these positions. Therefore, he is not a socialist. I am not the only person on here who argues he is not a socialist, pretty much everyone who has ever picked up a political science or economics textbook has tried to tell you that. (in vain)

These are basic, basic definitions. They have been shown to you and a few other fools over and over again. You simply deny reality when it doesn't fit what you want it to be. I'm terribly sorry the dictionary is against you and won't label Obama as a socialist, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Bump for those who didn't get to see this smacking.

That wasn't a smacking, that was eskimospy showing his ignorance, like usual.

Taking from the entire pool of taxpayers and giving to those who generate no income themselves is socialism, ie social security.

Obama wants to spread more wealth around, taking the means and production from the entire pool of tax payers via their final reward, ie $$, and wants to give it to those who produce nothing, ie the homeless with UHC.

Honestly I don't care what you call it, socialism, marxism, communism, the end result is the same, a society enslaved to the state with a dictactor locking up everyone that doesn't agree with them. This is the road Obama wants to go down, though he's too blind to see and too ignorant to know what lies at the endo f the road. USSR, NK, now Venuzuala if it isn't already too late.
Actually, Obama has recently added a qualifier to some of his fiscal policy proposals. (Wealth redistribution). The qualifier is "working" you want to participate, you have to be working. He did this after the spread the wealth thing because he didn,t want to be perceived as a socialist. I am guessing if he hadn't made the remark, he wouldn't have added the qualifier. This says a lot to me.

He will do and say anything to win.
Without a doubt...
I heard that obama is eating up to five babies a day as the campaign comes to a climax!!!
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Obama is a socialist, which is just a communist without a full fledged dictatorship anyway.

For about the 100th time, Obama is not a socialist.

In order to believe that you would have to be exceedingly ignorant, exceedingly stupid, or exceedingly dishonest. I'll let you figure out which one fits.

The only claiming Obama isn't a socialist is YOU, I have to think you're just trying to decieve people at this point. Obama is the definition of a socialist. He wants to "spread the wealth around", is for socialized medicine, XYZ. He's a socialist, if you're so sure he isn't and you want to actually argue against the grain, then back it up with some actual evidence...

Socialism, by definition, for about the 100th time on these boards, is community ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods. Nowhere, ever has Obama articulated either one of these positions. Therefore, he is not a socialist. I am not the only person on here who argues he is not a socialist, pretty much everyone who has ever picked up a political science or economics textbook has tried to tell you that. (in vain)

These are basic, basic definitions. They have been shown to you and a few other fools over and over again. You simply deny reality when it doesn't fit what you want it to be. I'm terribly sorry the dictionary is against you and won't label Obama as a socialist, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Bump for those who didn't get to see this smacking.

That wasn't a smacking, that was eskimospy showing his ignorance, like usual.

Taking from the entire pool of taxpayers and giving to those who generate no income themselves is socialism, ie social security.

Obama wants to spread more wealth around, taking the means and production from the entire pool of tax payers via their final reward, ie $$, and wants to give it to those who produce nothing, ie the homeless with UHC.

Honestly I don't care what you call it, socialism, marxism, communism, the end result is the same, a society enslaved to the state with a dictactor locking up everyone that doesn't agree with them. This is the road Obama wants to go down, though he's too blind to see and too ignorant to know what lies at the endo f the road. USSR, NK, now Venuzuala if it isn't already too late.
Actually, Obama has recently added a qualifier to some of his fiscal policy proposals. (Wealth redistribution). The qualifier is "working" you want to participate, you have to be working. He did this after the spread the wealth thing because he didn,t want to be perceived as a socialist. I am guessing if he hadn't made the remark, he wouldn't have added the qualifier. This says a lot to me.

He will do and say anything to win.
Without a doubt...
I heard that obama is eating up to five babies a day as the campaign comes to a climax!!!
:shocked: Black or White?????

 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Obama is a socialist, which is just a communist without a full fledged dictatorship anyway.

For about the 100th time, Obama is not a socialist.

In order to believe that you would have to be exceedingly ignorant, exceedingly stupid, or exceedingly dishonest. I'll let you figure out which one fits.

The only claiming Obama isn't a socialist is YOU, I have to think you're just trying to decieve people at this point. Obama is the definition of a socialist. He wants to "spread the wealth around", is for socialized medicine, XYZ. He's a socialist, if you're so sure he isn't and you want to actually argue against the grain, then back it up with some actual evidence...

Socialism, by definition, for about the 100th time on these boards, is community ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods. Nowhere, ever has Obama articulated either one of these positions. Therefore, he is not a socialist. I am not the only person on here who argues he is not a socialist, pretty much everyone who has ever picked up a political science or economics textbook has tried to tell you that. (in vain)

These are basic, basic definitions. They have been shown to you and a few other fools over and over again. You simply deny reality when it doesn't fit what you want it to be. I'm terribly sorry the dictionary is against you and won't label Obama as a socialist, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Bump for those who didn't get to see this smacking.

That wasn't a smacking, that was eskimospy showing his ignorance, like usual.

Taking from the entire pool of taxpayers and giving to those who generate no income themselves is socialism, ie social security.

Obama wants to spread more wealth around, taking the means and production from the entire pool of tax payers via their final reward, ie $$, and wants to give it to those who produce nothing, ie the homeless with UHC.

Honestly I don't care what you call it, socialism, marxism, communism, the end result is the same, a society enslaved to the state with a dictactor locking up everyone that doesn't agree with them. This is the road Obama wants to go down, though he's too blind to see and too ignorant to know what lies at the endo f the road. USSR, NK, now Venuzuala if it isn't already too late.
Actually, Obama has recently added a qualifier to some of his fiscal policy proposals. (Wealth redistribution). The qualifier is "working" you want to participate, you have to be working. He did this after the spread the wealth thing because he didn,t want to be perceived as a socialist. I am guessing if he hadn't made the remark, he wouldn't have added the qualifier. This says a lot to me.

He will do and say anything to win.
Without a doubt...
I heard that obama is eating up to five babies a day as the campaign comes to a climax!!!
:shocked: Black or White?????
Anything he can get his fangs in. They don't even have to be human!!!
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Say it with me, President Barack Hussein Obama.

God I bet it just kills you to say that, you're going to have to call a black man President. I bet it kills you.

Who are you even talking to?

Project racism much?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Obama is a socialist, which is just a communist without a full fledged dictatorship anyway.

For about the 100th time, Obama is not a socialist.

In order to believe that you would have to be exceedingly ignorant, exceedingly stupid, or exceedingly dishonest. I'll let you figure out which one fits.

The only claiming Obama isn't a socialist is YOU, I have to think you're just trying to decieve people at this point. Obama is the definition of a socialist. He wants to "spread the wealth around", is for socialized medicine, XYZ. He's a socialist, if you're so sure he isn't and you want to actually argue against the grain, then back it up with some actual evidence...

Socialism, by definition, for about the 100th time on these boards, is community ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods. Nowhere, ever has Obama articulated either one of these positions. Therefore, he is not a socialist. I am not the only person on here who argues he is not a socialist, pretty much everyone who has ever picked up a political science or economics textbook has tried to tell you that. (in vain)

These are basic, basic definitions. They have been shown to you and a few other fools over and over again. You simply deny reality when it doesn't fit what you want it to be. I'm terribly sorry the dictionary is against you and won't label Obama as a socialist, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Bump for those who didn't get to see this smacking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is theTop of goole search for "socialism" I am sure that a vast majority of Americans see a little socialist in Obama, and he did indeed open his big mouth inviting the label.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Awesome. I'll pack both you and Duwelon into this reply. I like how you ignore the entire primary paragraph that explains the tenets of socialism, ie. the control of the means of production, and decide to bold some meaningless crap in a basic logical fallacy that a 3rd grader should be able to spot, seems like a case of affirming the consequent to me.

Socialists want equality.
Obama wants equality.
Therefore Obama is a socialist.

Anyone else see a tiny problem with that?

Now for you Duwelon:
Your posts are getting progressively more ridiculous. Now that you've been slapped down about socialism you've resorted to 'I don't care what you call it but Obama is going to enslave us all'. In what insane, retarded world do the arguments you are trying to make actually work? Take a step back and look at what you're writing, you're embarrassing yourself.

I know reality's not going the way you want it to, I know you're mad that Obama's winning. Here's a secret for you: you can dislike Obama for plenty of reasons that aren't completely made up bullshit. Why don't you take a minute, look up his policies, and come back with things you don't like that are actually true? I'm sure there are plenty of them.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
[snip]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is theTop of goole search for "socialism" I am sure that a vast majority of Americans see a little socialist in Obama, and he did indeed open his big mouth inviting the label.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Awesome. I'll pack both you and Duwelon into this reply. I like how you ignore the entire primary paragraph that explains the tenets of socialism, ie. the control of the means of production, and decide to bold some meaningless crap in a basic logical fallacy that a 3rd grader should be able to spot, seems like a case of affirming the consequent to me.

Socialists want equality.
Obama wants equality.
Therefore Obama is a socialist.

Anyone else see a tiny problem with that?

Now for you Duwelon:
Your posts are getting progressively more ridiculous. Now that you've been slapped down about socialism you've resorted to 'I don't care what you call it but Obama is going to enslave us all'. In what insane, retarded world do the arguments you are trying to make actually work? Take a step back and look at what you're writing, you're embarrassing yourself.

I know reality's not going the way you want it to, I know you're mad that Obama's winning. Here's a secret for you: you can dislike Obama for plenty of reasons that aren't completely made up bullshit. Why don't you take a minute, look up his policies, and come back with things you don't like that are actually true? I'm sure there are plenty of them.[/quote]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To repeat,
I am sure that a vast majority of Americans see a little socialist in Obama, and he did indeed open his big mouth inviting the label. How much of the voting public even knows what a logical fallacy is? The socialist label is sticking. It is an effective campaign tactic that is countering the 4 to 1 dollar difference that the campaigns are spending to buy your vote. How hard is that to understand?
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,627
3,014
136
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: evident
how undecideds are still undecided? i really don't geti t.

They're just not that intelligent or knowledgeable.
we are talking about the undecided voters, not those voting for McCain. :)
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'd like to call up those who have heard through PM or in posts that we are in Pakistan since July, i posted that in august, got known to the MSM in late September, i've posted about raids that others have read about...

There are plenty of people here to back me up on this.

You can ask three Mods here, Common, Haya and Harvey.

It's not for no reason at all that i had trust enough for them to keep it quiet, they have.
How do you know some here aren't aq goading you into spilling info?

You'll note that i spill info when it's noted that it's public information, not before that, it takes a week or ten (somewhere in between) before it's released after that and we maintain good relationships (sometimes very good, nudge, nudge, know what i mean, wink wink?) with the press.

So basically... if you know about the hit, it was done a week ago.
It's curious how up to speed you are on the u.s. political nuances. Do you get this just from that series of tubes? Are a lot of people there aware also?

It's a hot topic around the campfire. ;)
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I really don't give a shit about tart dolls, national guard or any of that bullsheit.

Iraq is worthless, completely useless, has led to nothing good AS A WHOLE.

Now in Afghanistan, we don't even have proper air support, haven't had that for about four years.

THIS is where the terrorists are at, directing the strikes, bullshit twats like "the military guys you know" are simply twats.

I want one name of one of them, one will do, take the most significant one, he can tell you and i'll fuck it up by telling the truth.

Do you know how to tell a liar like you? It's because you constantly lie.

Anything else you're sure about that you can't possibly actually know about?

Well, considering TFB was first on the ground in all three zones, i should know.

You call other military men "simply twats" without any foreknowledge of who they actually are. One thing is for sure, you're not the typical soldier i know, they all have a lot better character than you.

I wouldn't call them anything at all unless i knew who they are.

I'm not the typical soldier anyone knows, my character is for others to judge, my performance is impeccable and that is what saves lives and kills enemies, the stupid shit you think about soldiers is lost when you take fire or have to direct fire.

I'm not a nice guy, never claimed to be, but i am very good at what i do and to those who deserve it, who earn my respect and who i respect, they are lifelong friends.

I have quite a few.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I really don't give a shit about tart dolls, national guard or any of that bullsheit.

Iraq is worthless, completely useless, has led to nothing good AS A WHOLE.

Now in Afghanistan, we don't even have proper air support, haven't had that for about four years.

THIS is where the terrorists are at, directing the strikes, bullshit twats like "the military guys you know" are simply twats.

I want one name of one of them, one will do, take the most significant one, he can tell you and i'll fuck it up by telling the truth.

Do you know how to tell a liar like you? It's because you constantly lie.

Anything else you're sure about that you can't possibly actually know about?

I was kind of thinking the same thing. If his military experience was that extensive and he knew such information, then one of two scenarios would exist:

1) The Pentagon would want him for his extreme knowledge of war, or

2) The CIA would be breathing down his neck to see where he got his "leaked" information.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'd like to call up those who have heard through PM or in posts that we are in Pakistan since July, i posted that in august, got known to the MSM in late September, i've posted about raids that others have read about...

There are plenty of people here to back me up on this.

You can ask three Mods here, Common, Haya and Harvey.

It's not for no reason at all that i had trust enough for them to keep it quiet, they have.
How do you know some here aren't aq goading you into spilling info?

You'll note that i spill info when it's noted that it's public information, not before that, it takes a week or ten (somewhere in between) before it's released after that and we maintain good relationships (sometimes very good, nudge, nudge, know what i mean, wink wink?) with the press.

So basically... if you know about the hit, it was done a week ago.
It's curious how up to speed you are on the u.s. political nuances. Do you get this just from that series of tubes? Are a lot of people there aware also?

It's a hot topic around the campfire. ;)

Is that like a Broke back Mountain campfire you speak of?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I really don't give a shit about tart dolls, national guard or any of that bullsheit.

Iraq is worthless, completely useless, has led to nothing good AS A WHOLE.

Now in Afghanistan, we don't even have proper air support, haven't had that for about four years.

THIS is where the terrorists are at, directing the strikes, bullshit twats like "the military guys you know" are simply twats.

I want one name of one of them, one will do, take the most significant one, he can tell you and i'll fuck it up by telling the truth.

Do you know how to tell a liar like you? It's because you constantly lie.

Anything else you're sure about that you can't possibly actually know about?

I was kind of thinking the same thing. If his military experience was that extensive and he knew such information, then one of two scenarios would exist:

1) The Pentagon would want him for his extreme knowledge of war, or

2) The CIA would be breathing down his neck to see where he got his "leaked" information.

I'm in Afghanistan you twats, in the TFB.

Christ you are retarded little twats, aren't you?

I've already told this shit a million times and i'm getting tired of telling new twats the same old shit, go the fuck away.

If you cannot search, there are people on here that can verify that what i said eventually reached the press, it's not strange since i was there.

I'd confirm it with an intelligence officer, or even two with palehorse who could confirm or deny anything i say.

You think there is a reason he confirms what i say?

And yeah, the CIA breathing down SAS's neck... if we think they need to know, we'll tell them.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'd like to call up those who have heard through PM or in posts that we are in Pakistan since July, i posted that in august, got known to the MSM in late September, i've posted about raids that others have read about...

There are plenty of people here to back me up on this.

You can ask three Mods here, Common, Haya and Harvey.

It's not for no reason at all that i had trust enough for them to keep it quiet, they have.
How do you know some here aren't aq goading you into spilling info?

You'll note that i spill info when it's noted that it's public information, not before that, it takes a week or ten (somewhere in between) before it's released after that and we maintain good relationships (sometimes very good, nudge, nudge, know what i mean, wink wink?) with the press.

So basically... if you know about the hit, it was done a week ago.
It's curious how up to speed you are on the u.s. political nuances. Do you get this just from that series of tubes? Are a lot of people there aware also?

It's a hot topic around the campfire. ;)

Is that like a Broke back Mountain campfire you speak of?

Isn't that cute, you're trying to say that i am gay.

I guess that when you have lost all else, like honesty, courtesy and respect for the troops in Afghanistan, then that is what you dwelve into.

I'm sorry but your come on's don't work, i'm a father of two and completely straight.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Isn't that cute, you're trying to say that i am gay.

I guess that when you have lost all else, like honesty, courtesy and respect for the troops in Afghanistan, then that is what you dwelve into.

I'm sorry but your come on's don't work, i'm a father of two and completely straight.
Well, the way you call everyone "cup cake" did bring up some concerns.

I have plenty of support for our troops in Afghanistan. I've served in the active duty military. If you're truly in the military, maybe you'll receive one of the care/support packages that I've personally stuffed as part of my volunteer activities.