Has this special ops video been posted yet?

Perhaps if certain politicians didn't aggrandize themselves at other's expense.



. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One is a politician , the other was a Navy Seal.

So you say there is no difference?

I think that was all Ansley was pointing out.

These Seals are lowering themselves in the mudslinging of politics.

Is that what they were trained for?

Were they trained to take credit? To be slapped on the back by the public? Is that this former Seal's new mission?

It appears so to some, me included.

One is a politician , the other was a Navy Seal.

So you say there is no difference?

I think that was all Ansley was pointing out.

These Seals are lowering themselves in the mudslinging of politics.

Is that what they were trained for?

Were they trained to take credit? To be slapped on the back by the public? Is that this former Seal's new mission?

It appears so to some, me included. Originally Posted by WTF

The Commander in Chief led the procession into the proverbial mud pit. The SEALs had a right to respond.

I suppose you'd rather we had things the way they were four years ago.

Dipshit.

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pile of bullshit AKA Assup! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

.

The Commander in Chief led the procession into the proverbial mud pit. The SEALs had a right to respond. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Former Seal. The Seals did not respond, one former Seal wrote a book !

Then you agree he went into a mud pit. Good, we are making progress.

Politics is a mud pit and now the former Seal is dumb enough to go into the mud pit on his own accord. For monetary gain. We have already had this discussion from here.

Did you learn that on Wikipedia, WDF?

Former Seal. The Seals did not respond, one former Seal wrote a book !

Then you agree he went into a mud pit. Good, we are making progress.

Politics is a mud pit and now the former Seal is dumb enough to go into the mud pit on his own accord. For monetary gain. We have already had this discussion from here. Originally Posted by WTF

They felt maligned by Odumbo's posturing and using their prowess and accomplishments for his political aggrandizement. Had Odumbo not gone on his "apology tour" and denigrated their service and their accomplishments during the Bush years, Odumbo may have fared better in their eyes. Had Odumbo liberally used the pronouns "they" and "we" instead of repeatedly saying "I", he would have fared better in their eyes.

Was it you that Bitchita Whineman called one of the most intelligent posters on ECCIE?

NOPE!

Well, Assup, first of all, you are obviously no judge of intelligence. And I have never cut and pasted from Wikipedia and tried to pass it off as my own thoughts to make myself sound smarter than I really am. But I'm sure you're impressed by that.

They felt maligned by Odumbo's posturing and using their prowess and accomplishments for his political aggrandizement. Had Odumbo not gone on his "apology tour" and denigrated their service and their accomplishments during the Bush years, Odumbo may have fared better in their eyes. Had Odumbo liberally used the pronouns "they" and "we" instead of repeatedly saying "I", he would have fared better in their eyes. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I think that President Obama handled it all wrong. I'm sure the lack the words "they and "we" chapped their butts to no end. Maybe I am a bit old school, because of the influences that I have had, but I don't think military should go around disrespecting a President.

Did you learn that on Wikipedia, WDF?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No but I got the quoted material from there, Do you dispute what it says and that it is in line with my point?

You are slipping old man

Had Odumbo liberally used the pronouns "they" and "we" instead of repeatedly saying "I", he would have fared better in their eyes. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

On that we agree!

I think that President Obama handled it all wrong. I'm sure the lack the words "they and "we" chapped their butts to no end. Maybe I am a bit old school, because of the influences that I have had, but I don't think military should go around disrespecting a President. Originally Posted by Ansley

They're "former" military. They have a right to speak their mind now that they are out of uniform. JFK, Carter and Kerry all used their military records to run for office. Kerry certainly didn't hold his tongue when speaking against W. The real crux is Obama denigrated their service -- 20 to 30 years of their lives -- during his apology tour. By doing so, Obama broke a bond of trust with many if not most service members while simultaneously seeking to take all of the credit for their prowess in arms. BTW, regarding "old school": study Democrat candidate for president General George McClellan. You'll discover, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Oh, and Democrat candidate General Andrew Jackson spoke most unflatteringly of President John Q. Adams.

No but I got the quoted material from there, Do you dispute what it says and that it is in line with my point?

You are slipping old man Originally Posted by WTF

As a matter of fact, I do. I don't think you read the book, and I think you have no idea what it means. I'm surprised you can even spell "Adam Smith" let alone understand his philosophy.

And you got almost your entire post from there. You cut and paste more than the quoted material, and tried to pass it off as your own. And I think you've done that more than once.

You've been exposed as a fraud and a buffoon.

As a matter of fact, I do. I don't think you read the book, and I think you have no idea what it means. I'm surprised you can even spell "Adam Smith" let alone understand his philosophy.

And you got almost your entire post from there. You cut and paste more than the quoted material, and tried to pass it off as your own. And I think you've done that more than once.

You've been exposed as a fraud and a buffoon.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was in the TMS that Smith first referred to the "invisible hand" to describe the apparent benefits to society of people behaving in their own interests. Smith writes (6th ed. p. 350



. Originally Posted by WTF

You think I tried to pass a quote off as my own? Or the highlighted notation?
WTF is wrong with you?

People vote in their own best interest. That is human nature. I used Adam Smith as a example. If you disagree with that , you do not know shit about human nature! We all act in what we precieve to be our best intrest. Except you of course! You are the exception , in your simple mind.