Ceasefire.....

#27
#27
allvol123 said:
Like to blame everything on the US don't you. Why would you live in a country you hate so much.
Click to expand...

umm
a) i was born here
b) i don't hate this country, but i heartily dislike and disagree with those in power
c) i love the fact that you can tell other members there is no substance to their argument and then break out the tired "if you hate it so much why are you here thing" there is no substance there either brother
 
#29
#29
emainvol said:
umm
a) i was born here
b) i don't hate this country, but i heartily dislike and disagree with those in power
c) i love the fact that you can tell other members there is no substance to their argument and then break out the tired "if you hate it so much why are you here thing" there is no substance there either brother
Click to expand...

As for C) I was asking you a question. Your comment makes no sense in regard to this.

B) who is your preferred leader?
 
#30
#30
i am sorry then, lemme make it easier on you to understand, your question = irrelevant

My preferred leader? I would prefer almost anyone. Gen. Wesley Clark comes to mind
 
#31
#31
emainvol said:
i am sorry then, lemme make it easier on you to understand, your question = irrelevant

My preferred leader? I would prefer almost anyone. Gen. Wesley Clark comes to mind
Click to expand...

What would this man Wesley Clark do or what has he done, that allows him to have so much of your faith?
 
#32
#32
something to do with that high ranking General thing, i dunno, something just tells me a man with military experience, with NATO no less, would make better decisions concerning foreign policy than someone who, before he was elected president, had dealt with Juan Gonzalez
 
#33
#33
emainvol said:
something to do with that high ranking General thing, i dunno, something just tells me a man with military experience, with NATO no less, would make better decisions concerning foreign policy than someone who, before he was elected president, had dealt with Juan Gonzalez
Click to expand...

So that is your qualification, high ranking general? hmmm, So I am sure there are better Generals than Wesley Clark, so why him specifically?
 
#34
#34
allvol123 said:
So that is your qualification, high ranking general? hmmm, So I am sure there are better Generals than Wesley Clark, so why him specifically?
Click to expand...

It's one more qualification than Bush had when he was running for President. That man was a failure at everything he attempted. Current Presidency included.
 
#35
#35
OWB said:
It's one more qualification than Bush had when he was running for President. That man was a failure at everything he attempted. Current Presidency included.
Click to expand...

Guess that goes for Clinton also. Oh no, I forgot he is very successful at disgracing his marriage.
 
#36
#36
allvol123 said:
Guess that goes for Clinton also. Oh no, I forgot he is very successful at disgracing his marriage.
Click to expand...

Don't ever talk to me about substance again if this is all you got. That's like the third time I've read that response from you.

Millions of people cheat and get divorced every year. It's not a big deal anymore. Marriage is becoming a joke.
 
#37
#37
OWB said:
Don't ever talk to me about substance again if this is all you got. That's like the third time I've read that response from you.

Millions of people cheat and get divorced every year. It's not a big deal anymore. Marriage is becoming a joke.
Click to expand...

So millions doing it makes it ok. People like Clinton are the joke.

What are you talking about substance abuse?
 
#38
#38
recruiter-year.jpg
 
#39
#39
allvol123 said:
So that is your qualification, high ranking general? hmmm, So I am sure there are better Generals than Wesley Clark, so why him specifically?
Click to expand...

and i am sure there have been better presidents than george w. bush, so why are you so high on him? if you will read the ENTIRE post, i gave two major reasons, military and foreign policy experience. yes that is MILITARY AND FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE (i figure if i capitalize it you may actually bother to read it.)
 
#41
#41
allvol123 said:
What would this man Wesley Clark do or what has he done, that allows him to have so much of your faith?
Click to expand...

Seen combat. Put stars on his shoulders. Commanded troops and a large amount I might add. Lead peacekeeping operations. Commanded NATO forces. Handled a hostile region with Muslims in it I might add.

What has Bush and Cheney done to get so much of yours? Deferments and sweet deals in National Guard units don't count.
 
#42
#42
Why is it that every time you question Bush and his policies the only rebuttal is "and Clinton was better?"

Where did Clinton come into this discussion on current events and current presidency? Why are rebuttals so dependent on the past? Can Bush apologists NOT come up with actual defenses that involve...BUSH?
 
#43
#43
I think people just get so hung up in the our guy vs. your guy stuff that it degenerates to "Bush Lies" vs. "Clinton Lies". The reason the rebuttals hearken back to Clinton is that these are the same types of attacks levied on Clinton . . . only back then the Clinton supporters all went back to Reagan and Bush. It's an endless cycle.
 
#44
#44
Here's a challenge....argue without mentioning a previous President. I know it's hard for many but try to focus on the current President, Congress, party leaders, etc. It gets rediculous when people start digging up old issues. I'll toss Andrew Jackson in there just to muck the dicsussion up a little....
 
#45
#45
CSpindizzy said:
Here's a challenge....argue without mentioning a previous President. I know it's hard for many but try to focus on the current President, Congress, party leaders, etc. It gets rediculous when people start digging up old issues. I'll toss Andrew Jackson in there just to muck the dicsussion up a little....
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point, but you must have a basis point for your arguments. Sometimes that point is what someone in the past has done. When argued maturely and with "substance" (as someone so eloquently and hypocritically put it) bringing up the past is not an altogether bad thing
 
#46
#46
emainvol said:
Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point, but you must have a basis point for your arguments. Sometimes that point is what someone in the past has done. When argued maturely and with "substance" (as someone so eloquently and hypocritically put it) bringing up the past is not an altogether bad thing
Click to expand...

It is also relevant since virtually all events in the domain of politics have a historical basis - decisions/actions made in previous administrations have consequences today just as decisions/actions today will shape the world in which future administations operate.
 
#47
#47
CSpindizzy said:
Seen combat. Put stars on his shoulders. Commanded troops and a large amount I might add. Lead peacekeeping operations. Commanded NATO forces. Handled a hostile region with Muslims in it I might add.

What has Bush and Cheney done to get so much of yours? Deferments and sweet deals in National Guard units don't count.
Click to expand...

So, now successful military leaders make good presidents??? I must have missed a lot in history class.
 
#48
#48
Did I say they make good Presidents? Go back and look at the post and then the response. Try not to read wrongly into the posts.
 
#49
#49
CSpindizzy said:
Did I say they make good Presidents? Go back and look at the post and then the response. Try not to read wrongly into the posts.
Click to expand...

Well, provided support for someone's argument that Wesley Clark would be their preferred president, certainly lends itself to the argument that you believe that he would be a good president. Either that, or you should take you own advice and look at the context of what you are responding to.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top