• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine recruiting station under attack... again

Would you like to prove that one, or are you eventually going to admit you're lying and misrepresenting character to try to pass an argument that isn't logically sound because you have nothing else to contribute other than snide remarks trying to say I'm a communist when you have no proof of such and accusation? No? Still want to continue with your intellectual dishonesty? K, noted.

Nope, the argument is logically sound. I don't give a crap who your hero is. It's not an American patriot, that's certain, and that's all that matters.

So you can't produce an official declaration of war from Congress. Ok, noted.

I could if I could recall the number of the resolution authorizing the president to use force to remove Hussein from Iraq.

As I told you, the Constitution doesn't define what form a "declaration of war" has to take.

You'll get over it. The Constitution is supposed to be read carefully.

I do that.

I've read it, I probably understand it well more than you'll ever understand it.

Then you can explain why you can't understand that the Constitution doesn't specify the format of the declaration of war.

You can do that, can't you?

I could, if I was interested enough to bother.

Needless to say, you've lost your argument because you don't have one anymore. It's been shot out from beneath you.

That's why I'm on the side of small government, and you're on the side of large, intrusive, militaristic government (BTW, those are all the hallmarks of fascism, so does that make your hero Mussolini? HAHAHHA)

No, I don't like mussels, only lobsters and other arthropods.
 
You have only proven you have zero idea what soveriegnty means. We aren't the sovereigns of Iraq, thus we have no rightful say.

The sovereigns of Iraq weren't allowed to say anything.

Get the point?


No, if you're going to get Americans killed I damned well expect actual information. One guy being in a place is coincidence, you have to establish that it's being used as a hideout for a larger number than 1 else you don't get to risk the lives of Americans.

Go ahead and expect all you want.

What you see is all you're going to get.

Never let your stomach get bigger than your eyes.

Maybe that should be a lesson to us to quit messing in other people's business. We helped that party get in charge, Saddam came out of that. That's what happens when you monkey in things we have no business monkeying in.

Hmmm....you don't see me disagreeing there.

I'm all for terminating any and all forms of foreign aid, too, including those forms you support.

Whatever they may be.

No, it proves 1 terrorist was in Iraq at some point, that's it. Not that there is a national policy of hiding terrorists (plural). You don't know what you're talking about.

You have the freedom in this country to believe anything you want to.

Apparently you're under no obligation to provide proof before getting American soldiers killed.

You have proof. It's not like I made the decision to invade, lordy no. I'm merely arguing the case as it was presented in 2003.

IMO the failure of Hussein to abide by the cease-fire agreement was sufficient cause in our interests to remove him. I'm a zero-tolerance kind of guy when it comes to snipers and other cowardly acts.

Bad data justifies restructuring and review of policy and chain of command. Actions taken on bad data are mistakes.

Yeah. Look who won the last election. Reams of bad data, and a bad mistake now in the White House.

Aye, you did. You said that Saddam violated UN sanction and that was a justification, but then you claim the UN is useless and we have to enforce their mandates. One way or the other, waffling to get your way isn't the intellectually honest way to make a point.

No. I said Iraq violate the cease-fire agreement, that wasn't a "UN sanction". I said nothing about any silly sanctions, those are stupid and never work and are only resorted to by fools and cowards unwilling to accept responsibility for really needs doing. Nor did I say the US had to enforce the UN "mandates". Far as I'm concerned, that cease-fire agreement, which was only being enforced by the US, was Iraq's agreement with US. The UN isn't a relevant political body. It's a toilet. A clogged toilet.

We shouldn't be involved in other people's business if it doesn't concern us. We're no different than any other sovereign state.

Hussein was making noises, his attacks on our aircraft concerned us, it was time to remove him.

Let's not pretend Iraq was some innocent victim here.

The UN has no real power and no sovereignty, it's a pointless organization and isn't run in any manner which could be a functioning government.

Then quit kissing it's butt.

We had no rightful reason to destroy, and now we occupy for how long?

I figure....been there for five years....another fifteen.

That's one of the main reasons I opposed invading Iraq. I'm smart enough to look not only down the road, but over the cliff at the end of it, too.

How much longer? That government we created is not going to last in the image in which we crafted it for long.

Depends. With people like you tearing it down, how could it?

Under our direction and "guidance", yes. Saddam also allowed the Iraqi people to vote...voting itself doesn't indicate rightful and free government.

Oh, that's rich. Creamy, too. You do stand-up in the evenings, don't you?

Oh? We've succeeded (past tense) in establishing a self sufficient Iraq? So you're saying we can pull out in total or that you have no idea what self-sufficient means.

They think they're self-sufficient. They could be, it's a hard thing to measure, isn't it. They're talking about asking us to leave. I'm all for leaving when they ask us to. You think we should stay past that time?

It's half assed imperialism.

Nope. Not allowed. You can't have half-assed imperialism until you can actually show it was an imperialist act. Since it wasn't imperialist, you can't show it to be so, and thus it can't be half-assed.

That's semantics.

Yeah, it's what you get when you're caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.
 
Young prospective marine: So, like, is this where I can sign up to piss off these stupid Hippies outside?

Marine Recruiter: Yes, son. Yes it is. Every time someone signs up, a dirty hippie loses it's stink.

Young Newly Recruited Marine: Cool. I hate hippies.

Recruiter: Welcome to the Marines.




Just my own view of what this is doing.
 
So I guess you didn't sign the sheet that says in effect "this contract is binding and supersedes all other agreements verbal and otherwise, entered into prior to signing this contract", also known as the "You got screwed by your recruiter too, clause"?

For some reason, my recruiter never lied to me. I told him what I wanted...which happened to fill out the hardest to fill spot on his quota list, and I never had a problem.





+1



I read the contract. the whole contract. I always do. The fact that he thinks they screwed him because he failed at due diligence is rather humorous.
 
+1



I read the contract. the whole contract. I always do. The fact that he thinks they screwed him because he failed at due diligence is rather humorous.


Still lying about what others have said eh? Get a grip.
 
Still lying about what others have said eh? Get a grip.




You call stop-loss slavery, I call it in your contract. you failed to read yours apparently. I read mine, so it was no surprise....


Consider that a life lesson my friend. :2wave:
 
So I guess you didn't sign the sheet that says in effect "this contract is binding and supersedes all other agreements verbal and otherwise, entered into prior to signing this contract", also known as the "You got screwed by your recruiter too, clause"?

For some reason, my recruiter never lied to me. I told him what I wanted...which happened to fill out the hardest to fill spot on his quota list, and I never had a problem.


Well, I never said he screwed me and he technically didn't lie...he just chose not to speak of the Stop Loss but at the time I wouldn't have cared anyways and if we had still been in Iraq when my enlistment ended SL wouldn't have mattered cause I wouldve re-upped anyways.

He was honest about everything else and even suggested I start running prior to basic...which came in very handy during AIT because I tried out, and qualified for the Army Ten Miler race in DC. That was a good/rough time. The captain who took us up let us go out the night before the race so after about 3 months of hard training what do we do? Get drunk, go to bed late, and the Cap woke us up with jelly donuts for breakfast! Lol. The first two miles we just burped beer and jelly...after that it was all good.
 
You call stop-loss slavery, I call it in your contract. you failed to read yours apparently. I read mine, so it was no surprise....


Consider that a life lesson my friend. :2wave:



First you lied by claiming I disparaged our troops when I did no such thing. Then you lied by claiming I said I got screwed by my recruiter when I never said that. Like I pointed out, all you have are hollow words. Apparently that isn't shady enough so you have to lie on top of it. Then you have the arrogance of preaching about "lessons." Lol...what a joke.
 
Regardless of all of the Iraq War arguments flying around here, I think it's obvious that the people who did this should be held accountable for their actions. Freedom of speech is one thing, but there is no excuse for vandalism. That being said, I think that some of the vitriol coming from the right calling these people "anti-American" or "hippy scum" and assuming that there are liberals out there who are secretly "spanking their monkeys" because they are happy about this is absurd. You are no better than the extremist hyper-partisan liberals that you attack.
 
First you lied by claiming I disparaged our troops when I did no such thing.


You disparaged them by taking your ignorance to the contract you failed to read and applied it to all the troops.


Then you lied by claiming I said I got screwed by my recruiter when I never said that.

So you signed up for slavery knowingly? which is it?


Like I pointed out, all you have are hollow words. Apparently that isn't shady enough so you have to lie on top of it. Then you have the arrogance of preaching about "lessons." Lol...what a joke.


Yes, the life lesson, always read the whole contract. whining about it later makes one look ignorant. Take it or leave it.



I didn't realize they whined so much in the Army. :lol::2wave:
 
Regardless of all of the Iraq War arguments flying around here, I think it's obvious that the people who did this should be held accountable for their actions. Freedom of speech is one thing, but there is no excuse for vandalism. That being said, I think that some of the vitriol coming from the right calling these people "anti-American" or "hippy scum" and assuming that there are liberals out there who are secretly "spanking their monkeys" because they are happy about this is absurd. You are no better than the extremist hyper-partisan liberals that you attack.





So you think it was possibly angry republicans that did this, not a fringe element from the fringe groups World Can't Wait and Code Pink? o_O
 
Last edited:
Regardless of all of the Iraq War arguments flying around here, I think it's obvious that the people who did this should be held accountable for their actions. Freedom of speech is one thing, but there is no excuse for vandalism. That being said, I think that some of the vitriol coming from the right calling these people "anti-American" or "hippy scum" and assuming that there are liberals out there who are secretly "spanking their monkeys" because they are happy about this is absurd. You are no better than the extremist hyper-partisan liberals that you attack.



But Iraq and how our military is currently being used is at the center of the vandalism.

Some reactions to this vandalism also shows some absurd positions. Those whining about this the most imply breaking some windows and splashing red paint is the crime of the century. But bombing the hell out of people who never attacked us is a beacon of morality.
 
But Iraq and how our military is currently being used is at the center of the vandalism.

Some reactions to this vandalism also shows some absurd positions. Those whining about this the most imply breaking some windows and splashing red paint is the crime of the century. But bombing the hell out of people who never attacked us is a beacon of morality.




Do you consider that murder?


Note we spend billions avoiding civilian casualties. Your suggestion that we "bomb the hell out of people" is disparaging the troops.


excusing vandalism, noted.
 
Last edited:
So you think it was possibly angry republicans that did this, not a fringe element from the fringe groups World Can't Wait and Code Pink? o_O

I never said that. It's obvious that it was anti-war people. I think it's stupid to assume that there are liberals out there who are "spanking their monkey" because of this. Not one single person on this board has applauded what they have done and there are some pretty extreme liberals on this board. I also wouldn't call the actions un-American. Against the law? Absolutely. But not un-American. And what the **** do hippies have to do with it? Is it just because it was in Berkeley?
 
So you think it was possibly angry republicans that did this, not a fringe element from the fringe groups World Can't Wait and Code Pink? o_O

Well now I sorta feel bad cause I had no idea you couldn't read. There was never any speculation it wasn't liberals.
 
But Iraq and how our military is currently being used is at the center of the vandalism.

Some reactions to this vandalism also shows some absurd positions. Those whining about this the most imply breaking some windows and splashing red paint is the crime of the century. But bombing the hell out of people who never attacked us is a beacon of morality.

You can't really compare the two. The people in the military follow their orders because that is their job. If you take issue with the war, attack the politicians who ordered them there in the first place. And who ever said that war was the beacon of morality?
 
I never said that. It's obvious that it was anti-war people. I think it's stupid to assume that there are liberals out there who are "spanking their monkey" because of this. Not one single person on this board has applauded what they have done and there are some pretty extreme liberals on this board. I also wouldn't call the actions un-American. Against the law? Absolutely. But not un-American. And what the **** do hippies have to do with it? Is it just because it was in Berkeley?


Well it is Berkeley. :lol:



No most liberals abhor this behavior, I am sure. I misunderstood you. However while no one is applauding it, there is at least one excusing it.

But anyway, I see your point, I disagree about it not being "un-american", I quite frankly think it is. we probably wont come to a consensus on that aspect though.
 
Well it is Berkeley. :lol:



No most liberals abhor this behavior, I am sure. I misunderstood you. However while no one is applauding it, there is at least one excusing it.

But anyway, I see your point, I disagree about it not being "un-american", I quite frankly think it is. we probably wont come to a consensus on that aspect though.

Well, personally I think it's stupid and completely misguided to attack a recruiting station as if they put us in the war. The recruiters are just doing their job. Nobody is forcing people to enlist. Then again, how can one expect the people who would vandalize a recruiting station as sign of protest to have a level head?
 
Well, personally I think it's stupid and completely misguided to attack a recruiting station as if they put us in the war. The recruiters are just doing their job. Nobody is forcing people to enlist. Then again, how can one expect the people who would vandalize a recruiting station as sign of protest to have a level head?




It is an act of cowardice as well, to sneak through the night and attack a building under cover of darkness.
 
Do you consider that murder?


Note we spend billions avoiding civilian casualties. Your suggestion that we "bomb the hell out of people" is disparaging the troops.


excusing vandalism, noted.


I never excused the vandalism so why try to add another lie to the list? I also never said we don't do our best to avoid civilian casualties. Yet another lie. I also never disparaged our troops. I simply pointed out the self righteous hypocrisy of those who condemn this one act of vandalism but laud bombing places that never attacked us. Go ahead and lie some more because that seems to be your only available resource
 
It is an act of cowardice as well, to sneak through the night and attack a building under cover of darkness.

Well, they wouldn't want to have to worry about getting their asses kicked.

:lol:
 
I never excused the vandalism so why try to add another lie to the list?

This is my opinion. not a lie.


I also never said we don't do our best to avoid civilian casualties. Yet another lie.

"bomb the hell out of people"

not a lie

I also never disparaged our troops.

"bomb the hell out of people"

I simply pointed out the self righteous hypocrisy of those who condemn this one act of vandalism but laud bombing places that never attacked us. Go ahead and lie some more because that seems to be your only available resource


"bomb the hell out of people"

what do you mean by this?
not a lie.


who "lauds" it? oh wait, are you doing what you accuse me of? classic! :lol:




FAIL
 
Well it is Berkeley. :lol:



No most liberals abhor this behavior, I am sure. I misunderstood you. However while no one is applauding it, there is at least one excusing it.

But anyway, I see your point, I disagree about it not being "un-american", I quite frankly think it is. we probably wont come to a consensus on that aspect though.

By all means show us one post where this got excused. I know that can't be me because pages ago I condemned it. But hey, you've proven yourself as an unapologetic liar so why wouldn't you continue to lie?
 
This is my opinion. not a lie.




"bomb the hell out of people"

not a lie



"bomb the hell out of people"




"bomb the hell out of people"

what do you mean by this?
not a lie.


who "lauds" it? oh wait, are you doing what you accuse me of? classic! :lol:




FAIL


What a joke. Why would anyone waste time on a liar? People like you don't have an honest bone in your body because your petty personal agendas motivate you to try and twist anything someone else says just to try and slide in another jab. You have no interest in sincere dialogue because your only purpose here is to overcompensate for lacking self esteem. You make yourself feel better by demonizing anyone who threatens to reveal your shadow.
 
Back
Top Bottom