It seems Iraq is in a melt down phase right now..again.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 0:15:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 22, 2014 21:24:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No one is suggesting "shitting" on a soldier. Berghdal is a deserter. The known facts bear this assessment out.

I'm not condoning any death threats.

EVT's right, Richard. Don't jump the gun.

Condemning Mr. Bergdahl before all the dust has settled would be like condemning George Zimmerman before the jury came back with a verdict.

If the known facts change (are added to in a way that changes them or makes them irrelevant, like he was ordered to make it look like a desertion), I'll happily change my position. Until then, all the known facts point to one inescapable conclusion.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 23, 2014 2:43:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 23, 2014 0:15:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

EVT's right, Richard. Don't jump the gun.

Condemning Mr. Bergdahl before all the dust has settled would be like condemning George Zimmerman before the jury came back with a verdict.

If the known facts change (are added to in a way that changes them or makes them irrelevant, like he was ordered to make it look like a desertion), I'll happily change my position. Until then, all the known facts point to one inescapable conclusion.

I know.

[Deleted]

To be perfectly honest... I'd LOVE for there to be an explanation that doesn't involve desertion.

Desertion is (to me) tied with Treason for the worst crimes a soldier can commit... because they both leave other soldiers suddenly unsure if all of their buddies still have their back... I mean... if one could/would do it... what about someone else?

If you just absolutely HAVE to get out of there... tell your C/O... and go up the chain. It may end you up in "the beautiful vacation resort" of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas... but Stockade time doesn't include torture in it's daily routine... AND the rest of the guys aren't left wondering.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 23, 2014 5:48:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be perfectly honest... I'd LOVE for there to be an explanation that doesn't involve desertion.

Desertion is (to me) tied with Treason for the worst crimes a soldier can commit... because they both leave other soldiers suddenly unsure if all of their buddies still have their back... I mean... if one could/would do it... what about someone else?

If you just absolutely HAVE to get out of there... tell your C/O... and go up the chain. It may end you up in "the beautiful vacation resort" of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas... but Stockade time doesn't include torture in it's daily routine... AND the rest of the guys aren't left wondering.

Treason is a wantonly malicious act against one's nation. Desertion is usually simple cowardice or apathy.

In the real world I imagine the charges depend on how much foreseeable harm occurred as a result of the desertion, which makes Bergdahl's case tricky. Some outlets have reported that soldiers died while running missions to locate him, but others have pointed out that the military would have conducted those missions anyway. The search for Bergdahl just modified their parameters. As I see it, there isn't a sufficiently foreseeable expectation of harm on Bergdahl's behalf to justify a treason charge.

If it turns out he was actively seeking out the Taliban (and supposedly there's some radio evidence to support this claim), then all bets are off.

[Deleted]

Oh, I wasn't saying THIS could be Treason... I just find them similarly despicable, from a soldier's point of view.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 1:47:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Yes. Everyone was harmed by Obamacare. Did some ALSO get help? Sure.

do you recognize that as contradictory? if not, how do you explain that people who were helped were also hurt?

For some reason the quote button wasn't causing it to jump to a quote... so I just grabbed what I wanted to comment on

There's nothing contradictory about it.

Look at it this way, I could break your arm AND give you a lollipop at the same time... The fact that I gave you a lollipop doesn't make the other fact that I broke your arm disappear... does it?

That's how Obamacare hurt everyone and yet still helped some (broke everyone's arms... but gave some of them lollipops) the two things are not mutually exclusive.

how does ObamaCare break the arms of people it helps?


The rest of it your comment that wouldn't quote, rebutting it would just (basically) be me re-typing what I have already typed... so... believe what you want.

it has nothing to do with what i "want".  i simply don't think the facts support Cheney's claim.  i think Bush was far more careless and harmful than Obama.  i think that Nixon was far more careless and harmful than Obama.  and certainly, i think that Hoover and Buchanan were.  i am astounded that you, faced with history, can continue to claim otherwise, but since you have offered little to support it, it really doesn't matter at this point.  you made your case.  i found it unconvincing.  i doubt anyone else found otherwise.

20 years from now, one of us will be right. I've got my money on "Obama was the worst president in the US History" (at least up until his term ended... who knows what/who will be next or how bad/good they will be) being in the history books.

i think this is very doubtful, and i have already said why.  history is much kinder to the janitor than the guy who makes the mess.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 5:48:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be perfectly honest... I'd LOVE for there to be an explanation that doesn't involve desertion.

Desertion is (to me) tied with Treason for the worst crimes a soldier can commit... .

we can still try Bush for desertion.  you in favor of that?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 10:02:16 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I saw Cheney on the morning news today.  He said we needed at least 20,000 American combat troops in Iraq right now.  He criticized Obama of course for not doing so.  Why doesn't Dick head on over with his duck hunting rifle and join the fray?  Or does he still have "other priorities?"*


* Cheney's explaination for his numerous draft deferments during Vietnam was that he had..... Other Priorities.

putting someone on the air that has no credibility speaks ill for whatever network you saw this on.

[EVT1]

Send the tea party- and send the open carry assholes with them so they can parade around with their rifles in a real war zone. Send the chicken hawks. Just don't send any of our troops- they have done enough over there.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 12:51:55 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Send the tea party- and send the open carry assholes with them so they can parade around with their rifles in a real war zone. Send the chicken hawks. Just don't send any of our troops- they have done enough over there.

very few wanted this war until they convinced us that there was a threat.  if they are still convinced, let them and their kids go.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 10:12:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 23, 2014 5:48:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be perfectly honest... I'd LOVE for there to be an explanation that doesn't involve desertion.

Desertion is (to me) tied with Treason for the worst crimes a soldier can commit... .

we can still try Bush for desertion.  you in favor of that?

If he deserted... absolutely. (I don't know the pertinent facts to that one to argue if he did or didn't though)

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 10:11:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 23, 2014 1:47:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's nothing contradictory about it.

Look at it this way, I could break your arm AND give you a lollipop at the same time... The fact that I gave you a lollipop doesn't make the other fact that I broke your arm disappear... does it?

That's how Obamacare hurt everyone and yet still helped some (broke everyone's arms... but gave some of them lollipops) the two things are not mutually exclusive.

how does ObamaCare break the arms of people it helps?

As many a lawyer would say: "Asked and answered." (Reply #94)

If you aren't going to bother reading the answers... why ask the questions?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 19:56:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 23, 2014 10:11:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how does ObamaCare break the arms of people it helps?

As many a lawyer would say: "Asked and answered." (Reply #94)

the Heritage Mandate?  no, that doesn't hurt EVERYONE.  just like the Reagan Mandate that hospitals treat people that have medical emergencies even if they have no ability to pay.  that hurt a LOT of people, but it helped those than could not afford emergency care.

If you aren't going to bother reading the answers... why ask the questions?

to get better answers. 

seriously, tho- occasionally i miss things, Richard.  just politely point it out, and try not to be snarky.  it is kinda....unprofessional.  know what i mean?

i am not infallible, despite rumors to the contrary.

[Deleted]

I give the best answers the first time. Always. My answers get more snarky as they get repeated. It's a character trait of mine to hate repeating myself.

As to the "Heritage Mandate" reference: Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

And yes... ObamaCare's bad precedent does hurt everyone. Refuse to see it if you like, but your failure to see it doesn't make it go away.

ETA: Focus on the lollipops and ignore the broken arms all you like.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 21:17:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I give the best answers the first time. Always. My answers get more snarky as they get repeated. It's a character trait of mine to hate repeating myself.

well, thanks.  at least i know what to expect.

As to the "Heritage Mandate" reference: Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

edit: take it up with Gingrich, then.  he said: yes.  Gingrich said he got the idea from Heritage.  Romney said he got it from Gingrich and Heritage.  Obama said he got it from Romney and Gingrich.  if Heritage wants to deny that they were the originator of the idea, that is FINE BY ME (because i never made that claim), but it is not factually correct to say that Gingrich, Romney and Obama didn't get the idea from Heritage: they did (unless you want to trust one guy who is clearly trying to defend himself against three who are not).  but nobody said that Heritage invented it, for the record.  nor did they say that they used Heritage's exact version.

this is such a weird denialism piece.  if i am a guitarist, and i use a riff, and i say i "got the idea from Jimi Hendrix", does that mean that Jimi Hendrix wrote the riff?  does it mean that he invented the electric guitar, or hammer-ons, or the distortion pedal?  NO!  that is utterly ridiculous.  the IDEA of it came to them from something someone else did.  does that mean they COPIED THE IDEA WORD FOR WORD?  no.  does it mean that the person they got it from INVENTED IT OUT OF THIN AIR?  no.  Stuart Butler's straw man argument might work for you, but it sure doesn't work for me.

in short: i never claimed it was a conservative idea, i didn't claim it was constitutional, and i didn't claim Heritage invented it.  what i claimed, am claiming, and will continue to claim is that Gingrich, Romney, and Obama got the idea from Stuart Butler, despite his protestations. 

And yes... ObamaCare's bad precedent does hurt everyone.

it is not really his precedent, imo.  this idea has been tried out at the state level for decades, getting almost no pushback in the last half century.  the only three states that have not dabbled in it are Virgina, Mississippi, and New Hampshire. 

Refuse to see it if you like, but your failure to see it doesn't make it go away.

so, you are claiming that the precedent hurts everyone.  got it.  this is not true for two reasons:

1) it is not really a precedent.
2) it helps some people.

but thanks, i see what your argument is, now.  i appreciate your patience with me.  no further questions.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 21:17:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

ETA: Focus on the lollipops and ignore the broken arms all you like.

hopefully the broken arm will get fixed by an affordable insurance policy.  the lollypop is just a parting gift. 

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 21:50:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 23, 2014 21:17:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

ETA: Focus on the lollipops and ignore the broken arms all you like.

hopefully the broken arm will get fixed by an affordable insurance policy.  the lollypop is just a parting gift. 

LOL... the "broken arms" ARE the worthless insurance policies! (well some of them are anyway... anyone that was forced to buy one under unconstitutional threat of illegitimate fine)

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 21:33:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 23, 2014 21:17:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I give the best answers the first time. Always. My answers get more snarky as they get repeated. It's a character trait of mine to hate repeating myself.

well, thanks.  at least i know what to expect.

As to the "Heritage Mandate" reference: Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

edit: take it up with Gingrich, then.  he said: yes.  Gingrich said he got the idea from Heritage.  Romney said he got it from Gingrich and Heritage.  Obama said he got it from Romney and Gingrich.  if Heritage wants to deny that they were the originator of the idea, that is FINE BY ME (because i never made that claim), but it is not factually correct to say that Gingrich, Romney and Obama didn't get the idea from Heritage: they did (unless you want to trust one guy who is clearly trying to defend himself against three who are not).  but nobody said that Heritage invented it, for the record.  nor did they say that they used Heritage's exact version.

this is such a weird denialism piece.  if i am a guitarist, and i use a riff, and i say i "got the idea from Jimi Hendrix", does that mean that Jimi Hendrix wrote the riff?  does it mean that he invented the electric guitar, or hammer-ons, or the distortion pedal?  NO!  that is utterly ridiculous.  the IDEA of it came to them from something someone else did.  does that mean they COPIED THE IDEA WORD FOR WORD?  no.  does it mean that the person they got it from INVENTED IT OUT OF THIN AIR?  no.  Stuart Butler's straw man argument might work for you, but it sure doesn't work for me.

in short: i never claimed it was a conservative idea, i didn't claim it was constitutional, and i didn't claim Heritage invented it.  what i claimed, am claiming, and will continue to claim is that Gingrich, Romney, and Obama got the idea from Stuart Butler, despite his protestations. 

And yes... ObamaCare's bad precedent does hurt everyone.

it is not really his precedent, imo.  this idea has been tried out at the state level for decades, getting almost no pushback in the last half century.  the only three states that have not dabbled in it are Virgina, Mississippi, and New Hampshire. 

Refuse to see it if you like, but your failure to see it doesn't make it go away.

so, you are claiming that the precedent hurts everyone.  got it.  this is not true for two reasons:

1) it is not really a precedent.
2) it helps some people.

but thanks, i see what your argument is, now.  i appreciate your patience with me.  no further questions.

1) It most certainly IS precedent. It's the first time it's been a FEDERAL law that citizens MUST buy a product from a PRIVATE company (granted: they can choose the company, and they can choose the version of the product... but still, they have to get SOMETHING, from SOMEWHERE... whether they want/need or can afford it... AND whether it has any actual value or not)

Please, if I am wrong, show me where a Federal mandate of PURCHASE has been required of ALL citizens before... I would love to be proven wrong here (I know I won't be... but I'd love it).

2) I never said it didn't... did you miss my broken arms and lollipops explanation, as well as the well written answer in just how it hurts everyone in post #94?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 22:38:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 23, 2014 21:50:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

hopefully the broken arm will get fixed by an affordable insurance policy.  the lollypop is just a parting gift. 

LOL... the "broken arms" ARE the worthless insurance policies! (well some of them are anyway... anyone that was forced to buy one under unconstitutional threat of illegitimate fine)

i know what you meant.  i just thought it was a funny analogy for the discussion. 

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 22:45:05 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 23, 2014 21:33:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, you are claiming that the precedent hurts everyone.  got it.  this is not true for two reasons:

1) it is not really a precedent.
2) it helps some people.

but thanks, i see what your argument is, now.  i appreciate your patience with me.  no further questions.

1) It most certainly IS precedent. It's the first time it's been a FEDERAL law that citizens MUST buy a product from a PRIVATE company (granted: they can choose the company, and they can choose the version of the product... but still, they have to get SOMETHING, from SOMEWHERE... whether they want/need or can afford it... AND whether it has any actual value or not)

whatever.  47 states already have laws like this.  it is a rather trivial precedent, which is why Gingrich liked it in the mid-90's.

Please, if I am wrong, show me where a Federal mandate of PURCHASE has been required of ALL citizens before... I would love to be proven wrong here (I know I won't be... but I'd love it).

again, 47 states had insurance mandates before ObamaCare came along.  so yeah, it sucks if you live in Virginia**, i guess.  to the rest of us, it is just a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".    but as i said, whether you see it my way or not, there is still the issue of whether or not the universal mandate means universal harm.

2) I never said it didn't... did you miss my broken arms and lollipops explanation, as well as the well written answer in just how it hurts everyone in post #94?

no, i went back and read #94, after you drew my attention to it.  i understand your point quite well.  but i disagree that this gives the government authority to force us to buy ANY product- that this principle can be distilled from the SCOTUS ruling.  so, as much as i LOVE reductio ad absurdum arguments (i really do), i can't accept that that analogy- though i can TOTALLY understand how you MIGHT think it was an AWFUL "precedent" if you DID think that.

like i said, Richard.  you answered the question.  i understand your position now.  thanks.  i appreciate your effort.

we just disagree about the scope of the precedent and it's potential "utility".

[Virgil Showlion]

Mr. Cheney has it all figured out.

[Spellbound454]

The Middle Easterners are saying that Obama is interfering because he wants a war on Muslims.

Dirty kuffar meddling in another country's business....yet again.

The current action isn't making that attitude any better.
...and I think its imperative to make the reasons for going in perfectly clear.

Local Sunnis are supporting the insurgents....they didn't like Malikis regime.....but not all Sunnis are terrorists.
...and its their country too.

Its really complicated...you can't just pick a side

[EVT1]

A strange game, the only winning move is not to play.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 24, 2014 17:07:40 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

A strange game, the only winning move is not to play.

Sounded familiar.

[after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]

Joshua (a Defense Department computer): Greetings, Professor Falken.

Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

War Games, 1983.

[Deleted]

Good movie... and I agree with the "The only winning move is not to play" premise.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 24, 2014 16:34:34 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

The Middle Easterners are saying that Obama is interfering because he wants a war on Muslims.

Dirty kuffar meddling in another country's business....yet again.

The current action isn't making that attitude any better.
...and I think its imperative to make the reasons for going in perfectly clear.

Local Sunnis are supporting the insurgents....they didn't like Malikis regime.....but not all Sunnis are terrorists.
...and its their country too.

Its really complicated...you can't just pick a side

Iraq is a lose/lose situation.  i think the analogy to War Games is quite apt.

if Cheneybush had an even remotely realistic assessment going in, they would have seen this outcome.

[Value Buy]

Jun 23, 2014 12:51:55 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Send the tea party- and send the open carry assholes with them so they can parade around with their rifles in a real war zone. Send the chicken hawks. Just don't send any of our troops- they have done enough over there.

Makes me laugh.

Just saw NBC Nightly News from Iraq. they show ISIS "troops" using the term lightly, manning American Humvees taken from deserting Iraqi military, driven by men, manned with kids, probably, 12 years of age with automatic weapons in hand.

I guess ISIS has no qualms about using kids as cannon fodder.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 24, 2014 18:45:11 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jun 23, 2014 12:51:55 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Send the tea party- and send the open carry assholes with them so they can parade around with their rifles in a real war zone. Send the chicken hawks. Just don't send any of our troops- they have done enough over there.

Makes me laugh.

Just saw NBC Nightly News from Iraq. they show ISIS "troops" using the term lightly, manning American Humvees taken from deserting Iraqi military, driven by men, manned with kids, probably, 12 years of age with automatic weapons in hand.

I guess ISIS has no qualms about using kids as cannon fodder.

A 12-year-old with an automatic weapon can still shoot you and your family dead, or so I've been led to believe.

[Value Buy]

Jun 24, 2014 22:43:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 24, 2014 18:45:11 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Makes me laugh.

Just saw NBC Nightly News from Iraq. they show ISIS "troops" using the term lightly, manning American Humvees taken from deserting Iraqi military, driven by men, manned with kids, probably, 12 years of age with automatic weapons in hand.

I guess ISIS has no qualms about using kids as cannon fodder.

A 12-year-old with an automatic weapon can still shoot you and your family dead, or so I've been led to believe.

I guess I should have been more specific in my comment.

EVT had no problem sending Tea party members to Iraq as cannon fodder.

ISIS has no problem sending children in as cannon fodder.

They are sort of two peas in the same pod in their thinking.

[b2r]

Jun 24, 2014 18:45:11 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jun 23, 2014 12:51:55 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Send the tea party- and send the open carry assholes with them so they can parade around with their rifles in a real war zone. Send the chicken hawks. Just don't send any of our troops- they have done enough over there.

Makes me laugh.

Just saw NBC Nightly News from Iraq. they show ISIS "troops" using the term lightly, manning American Humvees taken from deserting Iraqi military, driven by men, manned with kids, probably, 12 years of age with automatic weapons in hand.

I guess ISIS has no qualms about using kids as cannon fodder.

 www.arretsurimages.net/media/breve/s177/id17605/original.72292.demi.png