[quote]magick wrote:
Why is it necessary to continually remind people that Obama’s middle name is Hussein?[/quote]
Because “muzzlims iz tha badz” plays well with the base. And Hussein sounds bad.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
However, I can’t ever remember seeing you even so much as criticize Obama for anything. Ever. [/quote]
He/she* was pretty confident that Bam was going to get smoked in 2012… Which considering he was an incumbent, is one of the heaviest criticisms one can have of a POTUS. Incumbents dont’ lose often.
*not meaning to insult, just realized I’ve always assumed you were a dude muffsa and I haven’t the slightest clue. [/quote]
Haven’t you ever seen The Lion King?
If he were female, he would have called himself Sarabi.
Sheesh. 
As to that, who was Nala’s father? Male lions typically kill and eat any cubs that aren’t sired by themselves, so…
Mufasa? Your thoughts?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
and see how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth… [/quote]
And that is 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread. [/quote]
Where? [/quote]
I’m done with the hijack… If you don’t want to read the conversation, I can’t explain it further. [/quote]
You accused me with certainty of playing the race card, yet you’re unable to explain it further?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
and see how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth… [/quote]
And that is 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread. [/quote]
Where? [/quote]
I’m done with the hijack… If you don’t want to read the conversation, I can’t explain it further. [/quote]
That’s fine. You’re wrong this time my friend. It didn’t happen. Not in this thread anyway.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
and see how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth… [/quote]
And that is 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread. [/quote]
Where? [/quote]
I’m done with the hijack… If you don’t want to read the conversation, I can’t explain it further. [/quote]
You accused me with certainty of playing the race card, yet you’re unable to explain it further? [/quote]
Says the guy that completely avoided the point with flag waving nonsense, certainly, and without question, intended to bully/shame him into silence.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
and see how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth… [/quote]
And that is 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread. [/quote]
Where? [/quote]
I’m done with the hijack… If you don’t want to read the conversation, I can’t explain it further. [/quote]
That’s fine. You’re wrong this time my friend. It didn’t happen. Not in this thread anyway. [/quote]
lmao… Right, because Biz actually responded to aggv’s question?
Oh right, he didn’t.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
and see how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth… [/quote]
And that is 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread. [/quote]
Where? [/quote]
I’m done with the hijack… If you don’t want to read the conversation, I can’t explain it further. [/quote]
That’s fine. You’re wrong this time my friend. It didn’t happen. Not in this thread anyway. [/quote]
lmao… Right, because Biz actually responded to aggv’s question?
Oh right, he didn’t. [/quote]
Listen to yourself man. Yes Bismark did not respond to aggv’s question. Not responding to his question =/= the implication that aggv is a racist or a bigot or whatever…
Aggv: See how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth…
Beans: 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread.
Usmc: Where?
Beans: I’m done arguing about this.
Usmc: Okay, but you’re wrong it didn’t happen.
Beans: lmao… Right, because Biz actually responded to aggv’s question?
Oh right, he didn’t.
Usmc: WTF does Bismark’s lack of a response to a question have to do with Bismark labeling (In this case not labeling or implying at all) Aggv as a racist?
I mean, are you serious?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
and see how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth… [/quote]
And that is 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread. [/quote]
Where? [/quote]
I’m done with the hijack… If you don’t want to read the conversation, I can’t explain it further. [/quote]
You accused me with certainty of playing the race card, yet you’re unable to explain it further? [/quote]
Says the guy that completely avoided the point with flag waving nonsense, certainly, and without question, intended to bully/shame him into silence.
[/quote]
Lol, he was directly responding to being called an Obama apologist.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why are you comparing the U.S. to Israel Bismark?[/quote]
It’s an interesting comparison in that Israeli counter-terrorism policy is often held to be the ideal. To be clear, I’m vehemently opposed to the deal that the administration made.[/quote]
You did make an interesting point. I’m a bit fuzzy on your rationale for being opposed to the deal because I don’t remember what you said. Give a quick recap on your reasons?
I think we were along similar lines but I do not recall.
[/quote]
First, engaging in prisoner swaps with terrorists (which the Afghan Taliban are, regardless of their removal from State’s foreign terrorist organization list) increases the incentives for rebel groups to engage in terrorism. Counterterrorism strategies should aim to deprive terrorism of its political utility.
Second, the costs to benefit ratio of trading five high level commanders for an NCO does not justify the prisoner exchange.
Lastly, there are the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture. He naively deserted his post and likely aided and abetted the enemy. Good men are dead because of him.
[/quote]
Wow.
We actually agree!
[/quote]
A cost benefit analysis is not something that should be done when American lives are at stake, imo.
For fuck sakes Beans, Aggv didn’t even see the implication you’re convinced happened here:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
and see how long it takes to be labeled the most awful racist bigot on earth… [/quote]
And that is 100% what was implied about you earlier in the thread. [/quote]
Not by me though! And I certainly never implied he or you were anything close to traitors lol. But I know you were just venting.[/quote]
[u]What exactly is being implied about me?[/u]
I stated that there is a double standard in the treatment of W. vs bho
[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, are you serious?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, he was directly responding to being called an Obama apologist. [/quote]
Right, and totally ignored the substantive part of his post, because Aggr had a valid point. So rather than acknowledge that the Israel stat isn’t comparable, and totally irrelevant without the context, he through out some self indulgent flag waving nonsense with the direct intention of implying Aggr’s lack of “good faith” consideration of Obama, aggr’s inferiority and foolishly thought attacking his character invalidated his point.
And now he’s in full on denial tail spin. He knew damn well what he was doing. I wouldn’t mind the cheap “you’re not da turez patriotz if you dont’ support da prez” flag worship nonsense" if he actually spoke to the substance of the post.
EDIT: I mean the fact we’re even talking about it, and you won’t let it go, pretty much proves my point.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For fuck sakes Beans, Aggv didn’t even see the implication you’re convinced happened here:
[/quote]
It was subtle. And I don’t hold Biz’s intellect in low enough regard to not fully see and understand intent.
This will be my lost post on the topic.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, are you serious?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, he was directly responding to being called an Obama apologist. [/quote]
Right, and totally ignored the substantive part of his post, because Aggr had a valid point. So rather than acknowledge that the Israel stat isn’t comparable, and totally irrelevant without the context, he through out some self indulgent flag waving nonsense with the direct intention of implying Aggr’s lack of “good faith” consideration of Obama, aggr’s inferiority and foolishly thought attacking his character invalidated his point.
And now he’s in full on denial tail spin. He knew damn well what he was doing. I wouldn’t mind the cheap “you’re not da turez patriotz if you dont’ support da prez” flag worship nonsense" if he actually spoke to the substance of the post.
EDIT: I mean the fact we’re even talking about it, and you won’t let it go, pretty much proves my point. [/quote]
The underlined part is not what you said. You said the implication was that Aggv was a racist / bigot. It was never implied.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For fuck sakes Beans, Aggv didn’t even see the implication you’re convinced happened here:
[/quote]
It was subtle. And I don’t hold Biz’s intellect in low enough regard to not fully see and understand intent.
This will be my lost post on the topic.
[/quote]
Fine. This is stupid to talk about and I’m not the conjecture police anyway. Feel free to spin words like everyone else on PWI. It’s a free country.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why are you comparing the U.S. to Israel Bismark?[/quote]
It’s an interesting comparison in that Israeli counter-terrorism policy is often held to be the ideal. To be clear, I’m vehemently opposed to the deal that the administration made.[/quote]
You did make an interesting point. I’m a bit fuzzy on your rationale for being opposed to the deal because I don’t remember what you said. Give a quick recap on your reasons?
I think we were along similar lines but I do not recall.
[/quote]
First, engaging in prisoner swaps with terrorists (which the Afghan Taliban are, regardless of their removal from State’s foreign terrorist organization list) increases the incentives for rebel groups to engage in terrorism. Counterterrorism strategies should aim to deprive terrorism of its political utility.
Second, the costs to benefit ratio of trading five high level commanders for an NCO does not justify the prisoner exchange.
Lastly, there are the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture. He naively deserted his post and likely aided and abetted the enemy. Good men are dead because of him.
[/quote]
Ok, that’s about what I thought and I agreed with all those reasons in the first Bergdahl thread as well. I still agree with the first point very thoroughly, and I would add that trying an ‘end around’ Congress on that adds even more impact to the political incentive–not only does doing so incentivize them on the grounds that you stated but it also shows them that our political process itself is vulnerable to breakdown because the two branches are at odds and one is trying to bypass the other (if that makes sense, still before coffee has hit my system).
Mikey is persuading me away from that 2nd point. I agree with him now, if we are going to not leave Americans behind, then a cost/benefit analysis is not something that should enter into the equation…IF it’s about “not leaving men behind” i.e. a principle we hold as Americans rather than a political question. Washington’s quote that Mikey posted is absolutely accurate. We should have a loyalty to our soldiers that goes beyond political or even geopolitical expediency, because we’re Americans and it should mean something dammit.
My primary remaining problem with accepting Mikey’s position is pointed at in your 3rd reason. I am not persuaded, yet, that a deserter who ACTIVELY seeks out the enemy and seeks to JOIN them should be considered a soldier. I am inclined to consider them an enemy now, based on obvious actions taken by them. This is no longer a simple leaving your post (which is serious and awful enough by itself, deserving the fullest punishment).
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
My primary remaining problem with accepting Mikey’s position is pointed at in your 3rd reason. I am not persuaded, yet, that a deserter who ACTIVELY seeks out the enemy and seeks to JOIN them should be considered a soldier. I am inclined to consider them an enemy now, based on obvious actions taken by them. This is no longer a simple leaving your post (which is serious and awful enough by itself, deserving the fullest punishment).[/quote]
I will say that I agree with this in spirit, but aren’t people still innocent until proven guilty? Unless there is irrefutable evidence that Bergdahl is a traitor I feel as an American citizen and a soldier (be it a real one or not) he should get the benefit of due process.
If the principle of never leaving a man behind applies. Than the principle of due process should also apply.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why are you comparing the U.S. to Israel Bismark?[/quote]
It’s an interesting comparison in that Israeli counter-terrorism policy is often held to be the ideal. To be clear, I’m vehemently opposed to the deal that the administration made.[/quote]
You did make an interesting point. I’m a bit fuzzy on your rationale for being opposed to the deal because I don’t remember what you said. Give a quick recap on your reasons?
I think we were along similar lines but I do not recall.
[/quote]
First, engaging in prisoner swaps with terrorists (which the Afghan Taliban are, regardless of their removal from State’s foreign terrorist organization list) increases the incentives for rebel groups to engage in terrorism. Counterterrorism strategies should aim to deprive terrorism of its political utility.
Second, the costs to benefit ratio of trading five high level commanders for an NCO does not justify the prisoner exchange.
Lastly, there are the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture. He naively deserted his post and likely aided and abetted the enemy. Good men are dead because of him.
[/quote]
Wow.
We actually agree!
[/quote]
A cost benefit analysis is not something that should be done when American lives are at stake, imo. [/quote]
That sounds good in principle, but doesn’t wash in reality.
Would the US government pay the same ransom for a US senator as they would an unknown private who deserted? No, nor should they.
In reality there has to be some calculation of worth, unless we’re just going to pay whatever the terrorists ask for.
[/quote]
I believe it’s a terrible idea to give the government the power to decide worth. A Senator should not be worth more than some unknown private. He / she isn’t unknown to everyone and I’d argue that private is giving more to this country than some Senator collecting a pay check and voting along party line.
If we aren’t a country of Principle than what are we?