bettingforfun, i'm familiar with it. i just said i didn't see it because i wasn;t alive. which is consistent with my first comment. it really shouldn't be that hard to understand what i've typed here. in any case, i'm not sure how what happened in vietnam makes treating military people today like garbage any better. maybe you can explain that to me.
Let me cut through the bull$hit for you then. You are trying to make this a right vs left thing. The point is simple, the left does the same things you accuse the right of doing. I will find the hypocrisy in your arguments every time. Just like I did here.
Whenever someone starts a sentence by saying "I never thought I would see the day", referring to the other party, it leaves you wide open. Are you telling me you have never seen the left spew hatred, threats and insults towards the military? Your hero Michael Moore is one of the more disgusting. I will make a list if you need one.
Because you weren't born during the example I made doesn't change the fact that your "I never thought I would see the day" statement holds any water. Above you have an example, Michael Moore, a left wing hack that you never thought you would "see the day" with his hatred and insults spewed towards our military. Unless you were born less than a few weeks ago you just "saw the day".
I regards to your Partisan Mattbrot Principle I had to change the name so it would reflect the true nature of your partisan arguments. For crying out loud Mattbrot himself couldn't point out the non-partisan in the principle. I have yet to see a real non partisan independent on this forum yet. It ain't Mattbrot.
why do you insist on saying this? this is an attack on my character and I do not appreciate this.
bettingforfun, i'm familiar with it. i just said i didn't see it because i wasn;t alive. which is consistent with my first comment. it really shouldn't be that hard to understand what i've typed here. in any case, i'm not sure how what happened in vietnam makes treating military people today like garbage any better. maybe you can explain that to me.
Let me cut through the bull$hit for you then. You are trying to make this a right vs left thing. The point is simple, the left does the same things you accuse the right of doing. I will find the hypocrisy in your arguments every time. Just like I did here.
Whenever someone starts a sentence by saying "I never thought I would see the day", referring to the other party, it leaves you wide open. Are you telling me you have never seen the left spew hatred, threats and insults towards the military? Your hero Michael Moore is one of the more disgusting. I will make a list if you need one.
Because you weren't born during the example I made doesn't change the fact that your "I never thought I would see the day" statement holds any water. Above you have an example, Michael Moore, a left wing hack that you never thought you would "see the day" with his hatred and insults spewed towards our military. Unless you were born less than a few weeks ago you just "saw the day".
I regards to your Partisan Mattbrot Principle I had to change the name so it would reflect the true nature of your partisan arguments. For crying out loud Mattbrot himself couldn't point out the non-partisan in the principle. I have yet to see a real non partisan independent on this forum yet. It ain't Mattbrot.
why do you insist on saying this? this is an attack on my character and I do not appreciate this.
ok, i guess we're back to the issue bowlslit was asking about.
why is it ok for the left to put down our troops but not the right? I
am assuming you will say no one should do that. That being said then why
just key on the right when they do it and not the left?
i guess it depends on what the particular criticism is. i certainly think it's ok to put down what our troops are being used for. i think it's ok to put down our troops if they are killing innocent people or are friggin around with prisoners like that guantanamo situation. i don't think it's ok to put down troops generally because our politicians have them fight wars just to enrich defense firms. so, it depends on the specific criticism.
however, i do not think it's ok to advocate to leave someone in the hands of al qaeda or whomever had berghdal to die when it had not been proven that he committed any crime.
i'm going to put esplanade's sharpton/holder/etc rant in the prior michael moore post category and just let those collect dust as this thread goes on.
ok, i guess we're back to the issue bowlslit was asking about.
why is it ok for the left to put down our troops but not the right? I
am assuming you will say no one should do that. That being said then why
just key on the right when they do it and not the left?
i guess it depends on what the particular criticism is. i certainly think it's ok to put down what our troops are being used for. i think it's ok to put down our troops if they are killing innocent people or are friggin around with prisoners like that guantanamo situation. i don't think it's ok to put down troops generally because our politicians have them fight wars just to enrich defense firms. so, it depends on the specific criticism.
however, i do not think it's ok to advocate to leave someone in the hands of al qaeda or whomever had berghdal to die when it had not been proven that he committed any crime.
i'm going to put esplanade's sharpton/holder/etc rant in the prior michael moore post category and just let those collect dust as this thread goes on.
also, unlike mattbrot, DL and certain others, i am not a nonpartisan independent and never claimed to be.
to be partisan is to be a supporter of a particular group or cause. i am partisan towards the group that thinks big government loving, fiscally liberal, christian taliban rightwingers are the worst. not sure we have a name yet though.
also, unlike mattbrot, DL and certain others, i am not a nonpartisan independent and never claimed to be.
to be partisan is to be a supporter of a particular group or cause. i am partisan towards the group that thinks big government loving, fiscally liberal, christian taliban rightwingers are the worst. not sure we have a name yet though.
You have to realize that this was taking care of 2 problems at once for Obama. If he can legitimately (and I use the word legitimately lightly) get rid of the worst people in GITMO, he can close it, which he has had a serious boner to do since he was elected.
Getting Bergdhal back was important, I do not think it was a good deal, but negotiations had been taking place for a while to get him back, there was some hope, then the commander in Afghanistan got shitecanned and all progress was essentially lost. Obama swooped in with a quick deal that was not even vetted through the proper channels. This was a white-house deal with the CIA or DIA and command on the ground was purposefully left out. Possibly because they would have thought it a bad deal.
IT was a bad deal, but about par for the quagmire that GITMO has become.
Bergdhal should be tried under UCMJ (as he will be), and receive proper punishment. The guy is an idiot, but I have no information other than anecdotal speculation from his platoon members that he offered support to the enemy.
This is going to go away with little fanfare.
If you want to get mad at Obama for something, sure you can get mad at him for the crappy deal, but if you haven't noticed presidents don't have a great record with this stuff. Something legitimate to get mad about could be the inability for Obama or the justice dept to help get Sgt. Tamorisi out of a Mexican jail.
You have to realize that this was taking care of 2 problems at once for Obama. If he can legitimately (and I use the word legitimately lightly) get rid of the worst people in GITMO, he can close it, which he has had a serious boner to do since he was elected.
Getting Bergdhal back was important, I do not think it was a good deal, but negotiations had been taking place for a while to get him back, there was some hope, then the commander in Afghanistan got shitecanned and all progress was essentially lost. Obama swooped in with a quick deal that was not even vetted through the proper channels. This was a white-house deal with the CIA or DIA and command on the ground was purposefully left out. Possibly because they would have thought it a bad deal.
IT was a bad deal, but about par for the quagmire that GITMO has become.
Bergdhal should be tried under UCMJ (as he will be), and receive proper punishment. The guy is an idiot, but I have no information other than anecdotal speculation from his platoon members that he offered support to the enemy.
This is going to go away with little fanfare.
If you want to get mad at Obama for something, sure you can get mad at him for the crappy deal, but if you haven't noticed presidents don't have a great record with this stuff. Something legitimate to get mad about could be the inability for Obama or the justice dept to help get Sgt. Tamorisi out of a Mexican jail.
I believe the platoon members, They have no reason to lie. It is taking an extremely long time for the investigation. The White House 'more than likely' is putting pressure on the Army to have a resolution that fits their narrative of "he served with honor and distinction". What a joke not to mention again the flowery ceremony O had at the White House for the Islamic parents of Bergdahl.
I believe the platoon members, They have no reason to lie. It is taking an extremely long time for the investigation. The White House 'more than likely' is putting pressure on the Army to have a resolution that fits their narrative of "he served with honor and distinction". What a joke not to mention again the flowery ceremony O had at the White House for the Islamic parents of Bergdahl.
also, unlike mattbrot, DL and certain others, i am not a nonpartisan independent and never claimed to be.
to be partisan is to be a supporter of a particular group or cause. i am partisan towards the group that thinks big government loving, fiscally liberal, christian taliban rightwingers are the worst. not sure we have a name yet though.
You can join the non-non partisan club like mine. I am for those that want to protect babies, you are for those that want to protect death row inmates.
also, unlike mattbrot, DL and certain others, i am not a nonpartisan independent and never claimed to be.
to be partisan is to be a supporter of a particular group or cause. i am partisan towards the group that thinks big government loving, fiscally liberal, christian taliban rightwingers are the worst. not sure we have a name yet though.
You can join the non-non partisan club like mine. I am for those that want to protect babies, you are for those that want to protect death row inmates.
You can join the non-non partisan club like mine. I am for those that want to protect babies, you are for those that want to protect death row inmates.
You can join the non-non partisan club like mine. I am for those that want to protect babies, you are for those that want to protect death row inmates.
i was just trying to understand what you meant by people who protect death row inmates. i didn't understand how that was relevant to this discussion. like the michael moore comment and then the al sharpton comment and now a death row and abortion comment.
i was just trying to understand what you meant by people who protect death row inmates. i didn't understand how that was relevant to this discussion. like the michael moore comment and then the al sharpton comment and now a death row and abortion comment.
i was just trying to understand what you meant by people who protect death row inmates. i didn't understand how that was relevant to this discussion. like the michael moore comment and then the al sharpton comment and now a death row and abortion comment.
i was just trying to understand what you meant by people who protect death row inmates. i didn't understand how that was relevant to this discussion. like the michael moore comment and then the al sharpton comment and now a death row and abortion comment.
also, unlike mattbrot, DL and certain others, i am not a nonpartisan independent and never claimed to be.
to be partisan is to be a supporter of a particular group or cause. i am partisan towards the group that thinks big government loving, fiscally liberal, christian taliban rightwingers are the worst. not sure we have a name yet though.
Nicely done.
Slip an off topic comment then hit the brakes and do 180 when you realized you can't win the off topic debate.
also, unlike mattbrot, DL and certain others, i am not a nonpartisan independent and never claimed to be.
to be partisan is to be a supporter of a particular group or cause. i am partisan towards the group that thinks big government loving, fiscally liberal, christian taliban rightwingers are the worst. not sure we have a name yet though.
Nicely done.
Slip an off topic comment then hit the brakes and do 180 when you realized you can't win the off topic debate.
Slip an off topic comment then hit the brakes and do 180 when you realized you can't win the off topic debate.
that wasn't me slipping in an off topic comment, it was a direct response to bettingforfun who called me a partisan a couple of posts before and i was confirming that was accurate (unlike DL and mattbrot who are are non-partisan independents )
Slip an off topic comment then hit the brakes and do 180 when you realized you can't win the off topic debate.
that wasn't me slipping in an off topic comment, it was a direct response to bettingforfun who called me a partisan a couple of posts before and i was confirming that was accurate (unlike DL and mattbrot who are are non-partisan independents )
and i'd be happy to discuss any other issues that aren't ridiculous in the context of my philosophy (which is almost always contrary to big government loving rightwingers) that you want to bring up in this "debate", to use that word very loosely. so what are we talking about now? berghdal, abortion, the death penalty?
and i'd be happy to discuss any other issues that aren't ridiculous in the context of my philosophy (which is almost always contrary to big government loving rightwingers) that you want to bring up in this "debate", to use that word very loosely. so what are we talking about now? berghdal, abortion, the death penalty?
i saw this thread morre as you asking people's opinions on the berghdal situation and not so much a debate. but anyway, whatever the berghdal decision is probably won't change my opinion much.
when he's a prisoner of terrorists, he's still innocent until proven guilty and considering that, i think we should try and rescue him. i think rick was alluding to this. we have a mechanism for determining if our people commit crimes. if it turns out he did commit a crime, that's something we should determine and we also have our own penalties for that kind of thing. we should be the ones to punish him.
however, if it turns out he was a deserter and it was a particularly bad one, i would agree that would affect whether the deal we made to bring him back was a good one or not. in other words, the worse a criminal he turns out to be, the less you probably want to give up for him. but again, you can't relly know that until you bring him home and subject him to our criminal system and due process. until then, we can't assume he's guilty because the media says so and just let him rot in a terrorist cell. in my opinion.
i saw this thread morre as you asking people's opinions on the berghdal situation and not so much a debate. but anyway, whatever the berghdal decision is probably won't change my opinion much.
when he's a prisoner of terrorists, he's still innocent until proven guilty and considering that, i think we should try and rescue him. i think rick was alluding to this. we have a mechanism for determining if our people commit crimes. if it turns out he did commit a crime, that's something we should determine and we also have our own penalties for that kind of thing. we should be the ones to punish him.
however, if it turns out he was a deserter and it was a particularly bad one, i would agree that would affect whether the deal we made to bring him back was a good one or not. in other words, the worse a criminal he turns out to be, the less you probably want to give up for him. but again, you can't relly know that until you bring him home and subject him to our criminal system and due process. until then, we can't assume he's guilty because the media says so and just let him rot in a terrorist cell. in my opinion.
You have to realize that this was taking care of 2 problems at once for Obama. If he can legitimately (and I use the word legitimately lightly) get rid of the worst people in GITMO, he can close it, which he has had a serious boner to do since he was elected.
Getting Bergdhal back was important, I do not think it was a good deal, but negotiations had been taking place for a while to get him back, there was some hope, then the commander in Afghanistan got shitecanned and all progress was essentially lost. Obama swooped in with a quick deal that was not even vetted through the proper channels. This was a white-house deal with the CIA or DIA and command on the ground was purposefully left out. Possibly because they would have thought it a bad deal.
IT was a bad deal, but about par for the quagmire that GITMO has become.
Bergdhal should be tried under UCMJ (as he will be), and receive proper punishment. The guy is an idiot, but I have no information other than anecdotal speculation from his platoon members that he offered support to the enemy.
This is going to go away with little fanfare.
If you want to get mad at Obama for something, sure you can get mad at him for the crappy deal, but if you haven't noticed presidents don't have a great record with this stuff. Something legitimate to get mad about could be the inability for Obama or the justice dept to help get Sgt. Tamorisi out of a Mexican jail.
Everytime you I try to get out (and call you out for ridiculous posts), you pull me back in.
You have to realize that this was taking care of 2 problems at once for Obama. If he can legitimately (and I use the word legitimately lightly) get rid of the worst people in GITMO, he can close it, which he has had a serious boner to do since he was elected.
Getting Bergdhal back was important, I do not think it was a good deal, but negotiations had been taking place for a while to get him back, there was some hope, then the commander in Afghanistan got shitecanned and all progress was essentially lost. Obama swooped in with a quick deal that was not even vetted through the proper channels. This was a white-house deal with the CIA or DIA and command on the ground was purposefully left out. Possibly because they would have thought it a bad deal.
IT was a bad deal, but about par for the quagmire that GITMO has become.
Bergdhal should be tried under UCMJ (as he will be), and receive proper punishment. The guy is an idiot, but I have no information other than anecdotal speculation from his platoon members that he offered support to the enemy.
This is going to go away with little fanfare.
If you want to get mad at Obama for something, sure you can get mad at him for the crappy deal, but if you haven't noticed presidents don't have a great record with this stuff. Something legitimate to get mad about could be the inability for Obama or the justice dept to help get Sgt. Tamorisi out of a Mexican jail.
Everytime you I try to get out (and call you out for ridiculous posts), you pull me back in.
i saw this thread morre as you asking people's opinions on the berghdal situation and not so much a debate. but anyway, whatever the berghdal decision is probably won't change my opinion much.
when he's a prisoner of terrorists, he's still innocent until proven guilty and considering that, i think we should try and rescue him. i think rick was alluding to this. we have a mechanism for determining if our people commit crimes. if it turns out he did commit a crime, that's something we should determine and we also have our own penalties for that kind of thing. we should be the ones to punish him.
however, if it turns out he was a deserter and it was a particularly bad one, i would agree that would affect whether the deal we made to bring him back was a good one or not. in other words, the worse a criminal he turns out to be, the less you probably want to give up for him. but again, you can't relly know that until you bring him home and subject him to our criminal system and due process. until then, we can't assume he's guilty because the media says so and just let him rot in a terrorist cell. in my opinion.
There is one very big, positive reason for getting him back. It shows that we don't want to leave anyone behind.
Very difficult for Bergdahl to get out from under...platoon mates saying they heard Taliban radio traffic proclaiming an American was looking for a translator within the organization.
i saw this thread morre as you asking people's opinions on the berghdal situation and not so much a debate. but anyway, whatever the berghdal decision is probably won't change my opinion much.
when he's a prisoner of terrorists, he's still innocent until proven guilty and considering that, i think we should try and rescue him. i think rick was alluding to this. we have a mechanism for determining if our people commit crimes. if it turns out he did commit a crime, that's something we should determine and we also have our own penalties for that kind of thing. we should be the ones to punish him.
however, if it turns out he was a deserter and it was a particularly bad one, i would agree that would affect whether the deal we made to bring him back was a good one or not. in other words, the worse a criminal he turns out to be, the less you probably want to give up for him. but again, you can't relly know that until you bring him home and subject him to our criminal system and due process. until then, we can't assume he's guilty because the media says so and just let him rot in a terrorist cell. in my opinion.
There is one very big, positive reason for getting him back. It shows that we don't want to leave anyone behind.
Very difficult for Bergdahl to get out from under...platoon mates saying they heard Taliban radio traffic proclaiming an American was looking for a translator within the organization.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.