Did you hear what you wanted to?

[Strk]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I didn't see Chelsea in Bosnia.

Did you point that out when Clinton was president?

why is it that just because someone dislikes Bush, you automatically think they're a Clinton fanboi or something?

(and incidently, I think she was only, like, 15-16 at the time; I know that she's close in age to me, and I definitely wasn't even out of high school at the time)

13/14.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I don't think that it's necessary for his daughters to enter the armed forces. It's voluntary. If you sign up, you should do your job.

Well, if you "believe in this war", you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up.

So, if someone believes that violent criminals should be arrested and put behind bars then they must go out and do it themselves?

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I don't think that it's necessary for his daughters to enter the armed forces. It's voluntary. If you sign up, you should do your job.

Well, if you "believe in this war", you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up.

I don't believe in the war.

However, I don't think that people who do should automatically sign up.

If you support universal healthcare, should you pay for it, or should you go to medical school and then offer free service to everyone?

You don't have to go full 100% into an idea which you support.

I wouldn't even waste your time trying to reason with extremists who espouse such nonsense. Every single time the whole "If you support the war, you should enlist!" argument comes up, it is pointed out over and over the inconsistencies with believing in something and not commiting yourself 100% to the cause.

How many people here "support" law enforcement, but aren't walking the streets in a uniform, support fire-fighters, but aren't rushing into burning buildings, support health care, but aren't going to medical or nursing school, etc? They love to cry "chicken-hawk" and "hypocrite," but when you show them their own logical hypocrisy, they either whine and flame away, or drop out of the discussion altogether.

Every time.

Oops, I just repeated your example.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

I'm far from a liberal, but I can't even be bothered to listen to him anymore.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I heard him quote bin Laden regarding WWIII. Could have done without hearing that.

WWIII is a figment of HIS imagination. Osama "been deaded" a long time. The truth is the war on terror was a slush funding program for the same cronies as the Iraq war. Look at who owns the manufacturers of airport scanning equipment. Look who own the non-US companies that win the bulk of the contracts then re-farm them out to the lowest bidder. Quite frankly its the bilking of America at its finest.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I don't think that it's necessary for his daughters to enter the armed forces. It's voluntary. If you sign up, you should do your job.

Well, if you "believe in this war", you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up.

So, if someone believes that violent criminals should be arrested and put behind bars then they must go out and do it themselves?

The "if you support the war then you must go fight" argument has been hashed out before, but that doesn't stop the usual morons to display their intellectual bankruptcy again, and again, and again.....

With that kind of logic it's zero surprise they're the ditch carp of society and losing ground every year.

 

[tommywishbone]

... a tale told by an idiot, filled with sound & fury, signifying nothing....WS


I hate our president; he makes me feel creepy and sick to my stomach.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I wouldn't even waste your time trying to reason with extremists who espouse such nonsense. Every single time the whole "If you support the war, you should enlist!" argument comes up, it is pointed out over and over the inconsistencies with believing in something and not commiting yourself 100% to the cause.

How many people here "support" law enforcement, but aren't walking the streets in a uniform, support fire-fighters, but aren't rushing into burning buildings, support health care, but aren't going to medical or nursing school, etc? They love to cry "chicken-hawk" and "hypocrite," but when you show them their own logical hypocrisy, they either whine and flame away, or drop out of the discussion altogether.

Every time.

It ranks right up there with the "Oh, you're pro-abortion? Too bad your your mom didn't get an abortion" argument.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I don't think that it's necessary for his daughters to enter the armed forces. It's voluntary. If you sign up, you should do your job.

Well, if you "believe in this war", you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up.

I don't believe in the war.

However, I don't think that people who do should automatically sign up.

If you support universal healthcare, should you pay for it, or should you go to medical school and then offer free service to everyone?

You don't have to go full 100% into an idea which you support.

I wouldn't even waste your time trying to reason with extremists who espouse such nonsense. Every single time the whole "If you support the war, you should enlist!" argument comes up, it is pointed out over and over the inconsistencies with believing in something and not commiting yourself 100% to the cause.

How many people here "support" law enforcement, but aren't walking the streets in a uniform, support fire-fighters, but aren't rushing into burning buildings, support health care, but aren't going to medical or nursing school, etc? They love to cry "chicken-hawk" and "hypocrite," but when you show them their own logical hypocrisy, they either whine and flame away, or drop out of the discussion altogether.

Every time.

How convenient. :roll:

See what I mean?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I'm far from a liberal, but I can't even be bothered to listen to him anymore.

It was just a song and dance act for the sheeple. I saw an intervies with John McCain on the CBS news this morning and some some people are claiming they only have 2500 Iraqi troops trained well enough to take over for us, but McCain said he though the number was more like 30 to 40 thousand.

Either way the 100.000 number Bush/Rummy were saying before the election was just another of their big, fat lies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: randym431
I was hoping he'd announce his twin daughters were signing up to go to Iraq. Didn't hear that from him. Guess its ok for YOUR kids to go (and die), but not for his kids.

Yeah right, could you imagine the massive expense it would be to make sure that they didn't come into harm's way? That would be money better spent on equiping our soldiers to keep them safe.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I didn't see Chelsea in Bosnia.

Did you point that out when Clinton was president?

I don't see you signing up either .. yet you want to send other peoples children off to die

If every person who supported the war joined the military we'd have 50 million+ soldiers...we don't need that.

lol... yeah, that's true, but with a 1 to 1 ratio of troops to Iraqis we should be able to squash the insurgents in no time!

But, seriosuly, to insist that some one has to send their own daughters off to war to support it, is ludicrous as CKGunslinger pointed out quite well.

I mean by that token I should be donating all my extra money to local charities. And liberals should be giving back their tax break from Bush. That's a stupid idea as is this idea that Bush should send his daughters off to war. (Now, this would be different if we had a draft, but we dont.)

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I didn't see Chelsea in Bosnia.

Did you point that out when Clinton was president?

Did the military embark on the most aggressive recruiting campaign since the last time you had a draft, fuelling rampant speculation that one might actually be instated, when Clinton was president?

Most likely since the last time we had this low of recruiting numbers was in 1999.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I didn't see Chelsea in Bosnia.

Did you point that out when Clinton was president?

I don't see you signing up either .. yet you want to send other peoples children off to die

This is a weak argument. If we applied this argument to every war we have ever been in we would be doing the goosestep right now.

 

[umbrella39]

I don't see what the big deal is with young republicans enlisting or not? When I was 18 one of the first things I did that day was enlist. Had I known there was a good chance that I would be shipped to Iraq after basic and die, I probably never would have enlisted. Period. I don't blame them for being chickenhawks and I don't blame them for supporting a war that they, themselves, would never in a million years fight in themselves.

Basic human nature and cover your own ass mentality. It is comical to watch them spin and squirm and justify why they don't. When an honest response would be, hey, I just don't want to die at age "xx" especially packed down with a hundred pounds of gear sitting in 120 degree shade in Iraq.

 

[Zedtom]

He reminds me of that strange guy down the hall at the office that has a relative at corporate who got him his job. He thinks his jokes are funny, he has a fake smile and laugh, and rumors are that he used to be a drunk and a drug user.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I don't see what the big deal is with young republicans enlisting or not? When I was 18 one of the first things I did that day was enlist. Had I known there was a good chance that I would be shipped to Iraq after basic and die, I probably never would have enlisted. Period. I don't blame them for being chickenhawks and I don't blame them for supporting a war that they, themselves, would never in a million years fight in themselves.

Basic human nature and cover your own ass mentality. It is comical to watch them spin and squirm and justify why they don't. When an honest response would be, hey, I just don't want to die at age "xx" especially packed down with a hundred pounds of gear sitting in 120 degree shade in Iraq.

Nice back-handed complement there. Or was it a sophisticated insult? I particular enjoy how you claim to know the reasoning behind all those who are not currently in service, and how no one under any circumstances would ever volunteer to fight. :roll:

You claim you don't want to die in Iraq and I'm sure several others here agree with that logic. And there's certainly no shame in that. But some of us realize that our efforts are better utilized in non-combat situations. I guarantee you that some of us have done more to help troops stay alive sitting in cubicals, writing software for UAV navigation and targeting, GPS-guided ordinances, and battlefield communication protocols than we ever could stationed in Iraq with a pack on our backs weighing more than we do. Are we "chickenhawks" for this? *shrug* If you want to think so, go ahead - it no longer bothers me as it once did.

As you have not been here very long, let me clue you in. When this whole "chickenhawk" accusation started, most reasonable people shrugged it off as the silly idea it was. Apparently, a few clued in on it as an insult they could sneak into a debate and get away with. That's when the confrontations began and attempts were made to point out the supreme and utter hypocrisy of such an accusation. It was very messy and often got out of hand.

It the end, it appears that anyone who doesn't take any and every opportunity to bash every single one of Bush's decisions by quoting meaningless talking points are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Sit silently shaking your head and you are assumed to be a coward somehow; argue back and you are confronted with "methinks he doth protest too much."

So yeah, if you want to think that "we" are sitting around, squirming under your carefully-crafted arguments and accusations, go right ahead. Just realize that you are no better than those you claim call you 'unpatriotic' and 'terrorist sympathisers" because you don't have conservative views. Both you groups are full of cowardly over-generalists who have no valid arguments and must resort of cheap name-calling tactics to make yourselves feel better.

Nice job, guys! :thumbsup:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Harvey
What I heard was a LYING POS! :|

I'm embarassed as an American that he was the better/best candidate for the office.

He wasn't. And don't blame me, I voted for the adult.

 

[Infohawk]

It's interesting how people looooved it when people were trying to claim Justice Souter's land under eminent domain. The idea of leaders / decision-makers personally dealing with the consequences of their decisions is attractive. But when it involves being the chickenhawk-in-chief, people get defensive.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Yeah, I always look back on those cool pictures of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman holding hand while storming the beaches in Normandy. And that one of Lincoln bayonetting that southern slave-owner always makes me proud. :roll:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Yeah, I always look back on those cool pictures of President Roosevelt storming the beaches in Normandy, rifle in hand. And that one of Lincoln bayonetting that southern slave-owner always makes me proud. :roll:

Wow, another comparison of this bs war to WWII and Civil War. How original. :roll:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Yeah, I always look back on those cool pictures of President Roosevelt storming the beaches in Normandy, rifle in hand. And that one of Lincoln bayonetting that southern slave-owner always makes me proud. :roll:

Wow, another comparison of this bs war to WWII and Civil War. How original. :roll:

If anything, shouldn't those be "better" examples, as they indicate vastly more "important" wars than the current Iraq situation? But yeah, wheres the fun in that kind of thinking?

DOWN WITH BUSH! BOO! HISS! (man, that does feel good!)

 

[shurato]

I caught the tail end of the speech by accident. My gag reflex immediately makes me turn the channel when I see Bush on TV.
Was he trying to get choked up and teary eyed at the end of his speech? Been taking acting lessons? I literally caught the last minute of it.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Yeah, I always look back on those cool pictures of President Roosevelt storming the beaches in Normandy, rifle in hand. And that one of Lincoln bayonetting that southern slave-owner always makes me proud. :roll:

Wow, another comparison of this bs war to WWII and Civil War. How original. :roll:

I think he's making the point that the "if you support the war, go enlist" argument are stupid at best.

I was for the war in 03 but am now against it, but anytime anyone uses that argument, it reminds me why the democrats lost the election in 04'. Stupid arguments like this don't help anyone, and they don't even make sense. You support the army by paying taxes, or sending care packages, as not everyone is fit enough to serve.

To expect all those who support a war effort to join is just plain ridiculous, so please stop using that argument, which often makes normal anti-war people look bad.

I'm sick and tired of being associated with the "Bush lied people died" and "serve if you support the war." Try using real arguments (which are often overlooked in these debates).

If you make a good argument, then follow it up with something stupid, then whoever responds will obviously focus on the stupid statement instead of the well thought out argument. (Just a hint for those of you who are smart enough to post a good argument but silly enough to follow it up with rubbish)

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Yeah, I always look back on those cool pictures of President Roosevelt storming the beaches in Normandy, rifle in hand. And that one of Lincoln bayonetting that southern slave-owner always makes me proud. :roll:

Wow, another comparison of this bs war to WWII and Civil War. How original. :roll:

I think he's making the point that the "if you support the war, go enlist" argument are stupid at best.

I was for the war in 03 but am now against it, but anytime anyone uses that argument, it reminds me why the democrats lost the election in 04'. Stupid arguments like this don't help anyone, and they don't even make sense. You support the army by paying taxes, or sending care packages, as not everyone is fit enough to serve.

To expect all those who support a war effort to join is just plain ridiculous, so please stop using that argument, which often makes normal anti-war people look bad.

I'm sick and tired of being associated with the "Bush lied people died" and "serve if you support the war." Try using real arguments (which are often overlooked in these debates).

If you make a good argument, then follow it up with something stupid, then whoever responds will obviously focus on the stupid statement instead of the well thought out argument. (Just a hint for those of you who are smart enough to post a good argument but silly enough to follow it up with rubbish)

If only your view would spread! :thumbsup: