Page 17 of 54 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 533

Thread: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

  1. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    07-21-14 @ 07:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    614

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    What were the names of the soldiers who died looking for him? Details about the deaths, please.
    Does this make them real now?
    the six.jpg

    The 6 U.S. Soldiers Who Died Searching for Bowe Bergdahl - TIME

  2. #162
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Fabulous View Post
    I'd like to see some evidence that his platoon is "right wing". I want party registrations, voting patterns, campaign contributions, the whole shebang.
    One of the vocal critics from Bergdahl's platoon, Cody Full, frequents twitter and rants about libtards and lower taxes.

  3. #163
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Filthy McNasty View Post
    Does this make them real now?
    Are you sure they all died looking for Bergdahl? I'd be careful.

  4. #164
    Sage



    Jack Fabulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    midwest
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,703
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    One of the vocal critics from Bergdahl's platoon, Cody Full, frequents twitter and rants about libtards and lower taxes.
    Just because he doesn't care for liberals doesn't make him "right wing" nor does it make the entire platoon "right wing". Fail.

  5. #165
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 04:46 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,873

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    One of the vocal critics from Bergdahl's platoon, Cody Full, frequents twitter and rants about libtards and lower taxes.
    What's his twitter handle?
    Edit: @CodyFNfootball

    Read what he wrote on May 26th:

    "Is there any mistreatment worse than sending the US military into a violent and unstable part of the world to conduct a search operation that is in no way connected to the defense of the United States? Feeling sorry for somebody is not a sufficient basis for sending American men and women into harm's way."

    Jeez, its like he knew Bergdahl was going to be released and concocted this story! You've cracked the case!
    Last edited by Samhain; 06-04-14 at 03:06 PM.

  6. #166
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,872

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Are you sure they all died looking for Bergdahl? I'd be careful.
    I posted a link to Time that detailed who the six were and how they died. Later, someone else posted this same link. Have you not read it?

  7. #167
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    What's his twitter handle?
    https://twitter.com/CodyFNfootball/s...22415067103232

  8. #168
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    I posted a link to Time that detailed who the six were and how they died. Later, someone else posted this same link. Have you not read it?
    Oh, I read it.

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/polit...gdahl-are-full

  9. #169
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 04:46 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,873

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    I like it how they cherry picked a single statement by one NYT source, and left out the rest:

    The soldier who spoke on condition of anonymity agreed that it was “ludicrous” to lay 100 percent of the blame for the deaths at Sergeant Bergdahl’s feet, and he acknowledged that patrols were going to get hit in Paktika during fighting season anyway.

    But, he said, the reason he and his colleagues are angry is that too often that summer, the purpose of their patrols into dangerous areas was not ordinary wartime work like reconnaissance, maintaining a security presence, or humanitarian projects, but rather “to go look for this guy.”
    Even in your rebuttal, you confirm note bene's article.

  10. #170
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    For me to read and learn you'd need to be showing me something I didn't already know. I never suggested that a signing statement is unconstitutional. I've never suggested a signing statement was unique to Obama. I never suggested a signing statement itself is illegal. I never suggested the President can't opine and acted based on his belief of what is or isn't constitutional. I suggested he doesn't get to declare law unconstitutional by fiat. Perhaps you should "read and learn" a bit from your link as well. It notes how the defense of the constitution is held by all three branches...and that jives with what I've said, but not what you've said. You suggested that people are making "False" accusations of violating the law, which can only be made based off a misguided belief that the defense of the constitution is not held by all three branches, but ONLY by the Executive and that because Obama declared this "unconstitutional" it simply is and therefore is not law. Which is ridiculous and factually untrue. The President can declare he believes something is unconstitutional and that he will not enforce it. That does NOT invalidate the law nor remove it from the books. That law is still there and he's still acting in violation of it. At which point either it can be ignored, gone along with, or challenged. The law only comes OFF THE BOOKS, and thus no longer "the law", at this point if it's overturned by the SCOTUS or repealed by the congress. The President gets to determine how to execute the Law, he doesn't get to determine what IS the law. That's a distinct difference and part of the seperation of powers. I understand you share the Presidents OPINION on the constitutionality of the law. You have that right. He has that right. Both of your OPINIONS have the same impact as to whether or not the Law is or is not "The Law" still: none. He has the ability to "reasonably interpret" the constitutionality of a law in order to execute the law. He has no power to repeal law by fiat. Which means if the law is still on the books, and he's acting counter to it, then allegations that he's violating the law are not false but accurate.
    Whether or not that violation is problematic is an ENTIRELY different thing. People violate the law in Colorado and Washington and it's largely irrelevant because nothing is done to them. Doesn't change the fact they're violating the law. There are blue laws on the books that are LAW that people violate routinely. The fact they're not enforced doesn't mean the laws not being violated, it just means for a plethora of reasons the law is not being enforced. You want to speak of naive, we can do that. To suggest that congress agrees with the unconstitutional opinion regarding this law if they don't bring action against the President is ridiculously naive and basically demonstrates someone whose either truly ignorant of politics or who is being intentually obtuse. There are a multitude of factors that go into a congress challenging the President regarding a signing statement or an action he makes as it relates to a possible violation of a law or a constitutional interpritation that range FAR beyond whether or not they think they're correct in their beleif of the situation or not.
    My contention is and always has been that the executive branch has the same authority to interpret constitutionality of the laws passed by congress as the other two branches and I provided the factual evidence and case law to prove it. You on the other hand claim that the executive branch has no authority whatsoever to interpret laws and you provided zero evidence and a lot irrelevant nonsense to prove it. So who to believe....you with your irrelevant, irrational logic and zero evidence....or the facts and logic contained in the credible sources that I posted?
    Last edited by Moot; 06-04-14 at 03:21 PM.

Page 17 of 54 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •