Gravitymaster 0 #76 August 23, 2012 Quote>I wonder what the body count in Afghanistan will be this week under Obamas >"leadership". You can wonder indeed. I get a kick out of how right wingers called people who asked such things five years ago "traitors" "America haters" etc. Whatever advances your agenda, eh? Nope. Back then we had an objective and a plan. Can you tell me what our objective is now? BTW I seem to recall most left wingers supporting the invasion of Afghanistan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #77 August 23, 2012 QuoteI wonder what the body count in Afghanistan will be this week under Obamas "leadership". Fucking disgusting use of casualties for political points. Par for the course for you, however. BTW, the casualty count will tend to go up when you're acually prosecuting a war, as Obama promised to do. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #78 August 23, 2012 Quote disgusting use of casualties for political points absolutely - just as bad when the dems did it too here in Speaker's Corner wasn't it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #79 August 23, 2012 Quoteabsolutely - just as bad when the dems did it too here in Speaker's Corner wasn't it? Yes. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #80 August 23, 2012 >Nope. Back then we had an objective and a plan. Of course. That was a good GOP war; this is a completely different bad democratic war. I think Shah was right in this case. The GOP needs to relax and tone down the overheated rhetoric. This election is theirs to lose - and they are doing a great job at that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #81 August 23, 2012 Quote Quote absolutely - just as bad when the dems did it too here in Speaker's Corner wasn't it? Yes. I'm sure if you waited on the response a little bit, someone would have chimed in why it was completely different..... But I'm grateful for your answer. I'm not a fan of it now any more than I was 4 years ago (nearly daily) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #82 August 23, 2012 Quote>Nope. Back then we had an objective and a plan. Of course. That was a good GOP war; this is a completely different bad democratic war. I think Shah was right in this case. The GOP needs to relax and tone down the overheated rhetoric. This election is theirs to lose - and they are doing a great job at that. Right, back then our main goal was to get Bin Laden. Or did you forget? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #83 August 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteI wonder what the body count in Afghanistan will be this week under Obamas "leadership". Fucking disgusting use of casualties for political points. Par for the course for you, however. BTW, the casualty count will tend to go up when you're acually prosecuting a war, as Obama promised to do. Yep and it's par for you to fail to understand the difference between then and now. We got Bin Laden, why are we still there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #84 August 23, 2012 >Right, back then our main goal was to get Bin Laden. If that were the case we would have gone into Pakistan, where he was. Our goal was to overthrow the Taliban, which was the organization that supported and enabled him - and indeed ran Afghanistan. It was also to dismantle Al-Quaeda's operational base to prevent them from mounting similar attacks in the future. But getting Bin Laden was a nice outcome anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #85 August 23, 2012 Quote>Right, back then our main goal was to get Bin Laden. If that were the case we would have gone into Pakistan, where he was. Our goal was to overthrow the Taliban, which was the organization that supported and enabled him - and indeed ran Afghanistan. It was also to dismantle Al-Quaeda's operational base to prevent them from mounting similar attacks in the future. But getting Bin Laden was a nice outcome anyway. How's that going? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #86 August 23, 2012 QuoteHow's that going? It's going as well as can be expected since we ignored the conflict in favor of dick dancing in Iraq for the first seven years. At this point, however, we might as well pull out and prepare for the invasion part II, which I predict will happen in about ten years. That will be in response to the next terrorist attack on US soil planned by the Afghans or with their support. I wish the US had the balls to devote the proper resources to Afghanistan, but it looks like we'll have the 1990s all over again over there. Thanks in large part to ignoramuses like you. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #87 August 23, 2012 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #88 August 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteHow's that going? It's going as well as can be expected since we ignored the conflict in favor of dick dancing in Iraq for the first seven years. At this point, however, we might as well pull out and prepare for the invasion part II, which I predict will happen in about ten years. That will be in response to the next terrorist attack on US soil planned by the Afghans or with their support. I wish the US had the balls to devote the proper resources to Afghanistan, but it looks like we'll have the 1990s all over again over there. Thanks in large part to ignoramuses like you. At least I can discuss something without the personal attacks. Personal attacks are an admission of a weak position. But, no surprise there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #89 August 23, 2012 Sorry. I get heating talking about Afghanistan. Everything else in the post stands, care to respond? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #90 August 23, 2012 Quotepercentages do not matter - the people that count (legislator sand especially leadership heavily funded by outside influences) share his views, including the vice-presidential nominee. As much as you want to believe - actually, it's pretty likely you do, but you really want everyone else to believe it as well, even if it's not reality. The Presidential nominee quickly condemned the remarks. He's effectively the party standard bearer. The RNC pulled $5M in funding - a significant amount of money in a smaller state race. This is the heavily funded leadership and they dropped him off the side of the boat immediately. The best mileage here really is to go after Ryan, since he shares Akin's view that rape is not sufficient reason to permit abortion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Creep0321 0 #91 August 23, 2012 Quote>I'm saying society and Democrats in general encourages it by being overly accepting. Well, in the same way that republicans in general encourage mass shootings by being overly accepting of gun ownership. But in both cases such statements tend to move the blame away from the person responsible. Legal gun ownership serves many purposes, where as abortion serves only one. (im pro choice by the way, just stating a fact and showing your weak argument.)Jack of all trades. Military Free Fall Jumpmaster. USA Static-line Jumpmaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #92 August 23, 2012 >Legal gun ownership serves many purposes, where as abortion serves only one. You think there is only one purpose that abortion serves? Here's a list of a few: -selective reduction to help ensure a healthy baby or healthy twins -ending of a pregnancy to reduce the medical risk to the potential mother -ending of a pregnancy for a potential mother who can't care for a baby -birth control (i.e. an alternative to using a condom or diaphragm for someone who simply doesn't want to be pregnant) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 274 #93 August 23, 2012 I am having the same discussion on Facebook - my response there..... Quoteand I think that guys like that do a lot of damage. Damage has been done - I am pretty sure that Ryan and Romney will be asked in debates/interviews about whether or not they share those views - and I can't wait to hear them back-peddle and bullshit their way through it. Either they will lie, attempt to avoid answering or agree with them, and either way, it will show a lot of true colors. The 'other' candidates will not suffer such consequences, as their stance on abortion is clear. yes they are throwing him under the bus - but that does nto mean they do not actually stand with his views. He's the scapegoat right now due to his comments. The legislation that they propose is exactly in line with what Akin said..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 99 #94 August 23, 2012 Quote The legislation that they propose is exactly in line with what Akin said. Please show the details to back up that claim.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 274 #95 August 24, 2012 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text Ryan co-sponsored this and many other bills. The Sanctity of Human Life act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212 which would make any abortion illegal as the 'life' would have to be preserved. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5276 A bill further limiting Women's rights extreme enough for you - shall i go on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Creep0321 0 #96 August 24, 2012 Quote>Legal gun ownership serves many purposes, where as abortion serves only one. You think there is only one purpose that abortion serves? Here's a list of a few: -selective reduction to help ensure a healthy baby or healthy twins -ending of a pregnancy to reduce the medical risk to the potential mother -ending of a pregnancy for a potential mother who can't care for a baby -birth control (i.e. an alternative to using a condom or diaphragm for someone who simply doesn't want to be pregnant) Dude, I agree with you, and as I stated I am pro choice. However your still missing the point that everyone of those scenarios results in the loss of a life. Where as say trap shooting, does not. Its a bad comparison.Jack of all trades. Military Free Fall Jumpmaster. USA Static-line Jumpmaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 99 #97 August 24, 2012 Quotehttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text Ryan co-sponsored this and many other bills. The Sanctity of Human Life act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212 which would make any abortion illegal as the 'life' would have to be preserved. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5276 A bill further limiting Women's rights extreme enough for you - shall i go on? Akin said stuff about women being able to prevent conception when raped. Is that in your links? I'll tell you what is extreme - the position that there should be no exclusions at all for abortion, that it should be available for whatever reason, whatever time during the pregnancy, including after birth if the baby inconveniently isn't dead as planned when it is born. No exclusions, that is extreme.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 274 #98 August 24, 2012 The Sanctity of human life act would make it a crime for ANY abortion. period. It would arguably make it a crime to have a miscarriage. Not, the words 'rape' aree not in the bill, but taking ANY fetal life, is in the bill, by granting personhood rights to a single cell sperm/egg combo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 August 24, 2012 QuoteI am having the same discussion on Facebook - my response there..... Quoteand I think that guys like that do a lot of damage. Damage has been done - I am pretty sure that Ryan and Romney will be asked in debates/interviews about whether or not they share those views - and I can't wait to hear them back-peddle and bullshit their way through it. Either they will lie, attempt to avoid answering or agree with them, and either way, it will show a lot of true colors. The 'other' candidates will not suffer such consequences, as their stance on abortion is clear. yes they are throwing him under the bus - but that does nto mean they do not actually stand with his views. He's the scapegoat right now due to his comments. The legislation that they propose is exactly in line with what Akin said..... You intermixing two very different statements 1) Akin's view is held by the bulk of the GOP, including its leadership. You can't support this one with evidence. 2) Akin's statements and views will do damage. This certainly is true, particularly since Ryan is on the ticket and now is a leadership figure. They're already done with their strategy- Ryan disagrees on this aspect, but will support the Romney platform as a loyal VP. As I said - you're going to continue to hope and convince others that a secretly pro choice Romney will convert to Ryan's POV, and that voters will run in fear of it. But when it comes to votes in play, I'm not sure how big a difference it will really make. It does appear that they lost that Senate seat, and that is real damage to the GOP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #100 August 24, 2012 Quotehttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text Ryan co-sponsored this and many other bills. The Sanctity of Human Life act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212 which would make any abortion illegal as the 'life' would have to be preserved. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5276 A bill further limiting Women's rights extreme enough for you - shall i go on? You are allowing yourself to be spun again. http://factcheck.org/2012/08/another-abortion-falsehood-from-obamas-truth-team/ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/23/President-Infanticide-Dem-Plank-Partial-Birth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
