Not sucking down the party Kool aid.Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Looks like "Oindependents" drank the kool-aid ... ur'a bitchimp you know... the "O"ccult types.
(REPEAT POINT)First, if you feel like I'm rehashing my "talking points," it is because you are repeating your talking points over and over again. So, if you're seeing a response for a third time, it's because you said the same thing three times. If you do not want me to see me repeat a point, quit repeating a point that I've already rebutted.
Every time you rehash your talking points, and this is about the third time you have posted the same long rant I can see your stress points rising.
That is twice, which one do you want me too? Will you repeat this again? Originally Posted by i'va biggen
No, this isn't a case where "I think" my side one. This is a case where I KNOW that my side won. Your actions, as well as those who are arguing on your side of the argument, shows that your side of the argument is getting destroyed.
think you have won is misleading, you are delusional.
LOL if you think so, dream on. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Your argument is both a strawman and a red herring, it's a strawman because it deliberately distorts reality and assumes that we are arguing that alternative distorted reality. You're not addressing the actual reality on the ground there. It's a red herring, because it's designed to draw away from the actual argument.
(REPEAT POINT + STRAW MAN + RED HERRING)
then you think the fact of no legal immunity for the troops is not valid?
As I said before and still feel that way. Without legal immunity for our troops was a sticking point that Obama would not sign without. It was a point the Iraq's used to insure the pullout of the Americans. They were in the position they wanted .they had excluded the Sunni, and Kurd's from the government, and had it their way till IsIs showed up.
(REPEAT POINT + STRAW MAN + RED HERRING) Originally Posted by i'va biggen
And you're wondering why I'm telling you that you lost. People who lose an argument consistently pull the "opinion" card without providing facts, or staying on point. It's easier for them to dismiss the facts as "opinion," because labeling it as an "opinion" puts the fact on the same level as the belief in an alternate universe where unicorns exist.
Opinions vary.
LOL OK I'm ready, however it is just your opinion, and for your opinion there are many many more opinions that think you are full of shit, and there was ni justification for them. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
You repeated the error that my side of the argument "didn't" prove your side of the argument wrong. You repeated that factually challenged statement, I repeated my rebuttal to it. If you have issues with me repeating my rebuttals, quit repeating yours.
(REPEAT POINT)
Other than repeating is there any new ground, or do you forget what was written?
Same shit different paragraph. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Not sucking down the party Kool aid.Considering that you rehashed the same propaganda that I've argued against elsewhere on the Internet over the past decade, you can't say that you're not sucking down the party Kool aid. It's blatantly obvious that you're intoxicated on the extreme leftwing Kool-Aid.Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Other than youtube you area lost sniffy.You, and the other debaters on your side of the argument, are the ones that are lost. That's what happens when you guys make the effort to track down your lost minds.You are fucked. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
This has nothing to do with what you quoted from what I said.
Yesterday General Petraeus called for a more inclusive Iraq government, not air strikes. General Petraeus has backed up what H. Clinton said about Malicki not including the other sects in the government.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ira...litias-n135311 Originally Posted by flghtr65
(STRAW MAN)If you paid attention to what you're reading, and understood what it was that you are reading, you'd know that my bringing that point up was to prove another point wrong. I stated that we should do this "however long it takes" to complete the campaign objectives. Someone erroneously said that we could not afford to do that. They implied that we would run out of both hard currency and credit in order to do what I say we should be able to do.
I hate to tell you but the debt slowed in 2003-2007 due to a phony housing boom....one we are still paying for...thus the bigger deficits now. Originally Posted by WTF
herface evidently wants us to cut taxes , get involved in more wars in the middle east and loosen credit standards to the point where even his poor Muslim war buddies can buy a house over here on credit. Originally Posted by WTFYou're generalizing something that you obviously don't understand.
We spend 3.4% of our GDP on Military spending and that does not include VA spending and research.There are approximately 40,000 US troops in Germany. The US military is currently drawing down its troops in Europe, and putting more emphasis on rotating troops through there from the US... to include rotatingreserve troops. There are approximately 51,000 US troops in Japan. There are approximately 29,000 US troops in South Korea.
Germany spends 1.4 % of their GDP on Defense, Japan 1%, South Korea 2.8%.
You're either a liar , idiot or both if you think those countries are not piggybacking off our Defense spending to get ahead economically. Originally Posted by WTF
(REPEAT POINT)Since you keep ignoring this question, I'll highlight it for easy viewing:
Like I said policing the world and nation building are losing long term proposition...you are to blind to see that because your life has been spent begging for tax payers money. You cloak that in the form of security for a nation full of chicken shits to scared to challenge your premises.
(REPEAT POINT) Originally Posted by WTF
When you have a hate filled heart....grandstanding is all you hear.You describe your performance on this thread, and on the other threads, to the "t." You consistently fail to provide the facts. Your assessment of what's going on around world is 180° off mark. If that assessment were anything like your marksmanship, I'd hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target of front of you.
Love all Americans nevergaveitathought, not just your kindOriginally Posted by WTF
Move to Iraq and help them with your own money and life....quit asking others to fight your fight. Originally Posted by WTFWith the disrespect that you're giving to the veterans on this thread, and to veterans in general, you don't have a leg to stand on telling other people not to ask us to fight their fight.
The more appropriate question would be, what part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand? Originally Posted by bigtexWrong. That's not a more appropriate question, it's an attempt to dodge a question that I asked you.
Apparently FAUX News very own Megyn Kelly disagrees with yours, along with The Shrub's, Dick Cheney's and Rummy's Originally Posted by bigtexDid you even bother watching the video that the article talked about? Because I've watched it, and nowhere in an interview does it show that Megyn Kelly disagrees with my argument, or that of the Bush administration.
distorted, inaccurate, and highly partisan version of the facts leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. Originally Posted by bigtexThe only distorted, inaccurate, and highly partisan version of events leading up to the extremely successful, and well advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, are arguments that are being advanced by those on your side of the argument and you.
The fact is, it should have never happened and without the WMD issue being front and center, there would have been no reason to invade. Originally Posted by bigtexWrong, what you stated isn't a fact. Again:
As Trendy would say:Facts are what you are getting from my side of the argument. Facts are not what you are getting from your sources of information. If you bothered to watch the video that I post in response to your propaganda piece, you'd see a major difference in context and message.
FACT JACK! Originally Posted by bigtex
I must admit that you (herfacechair) talk a good game but at the end of the day, you're full of as much shit as the Eccie Political Forum's Notorious Idiot Family, led by the Patriarch, Lexi Liar himself. Originally Posted by bigtexLike I told the others on your side of the argument, until you prove our side of the argument "wrong," quotations used strongly, you have no legs to stand on accusing my side of the argument of being "full of shit," quotation marks used strongly.
Propaganda Piece:First, the headline is misleading. The headline reflects the propagandist's opinion, based on cherry picked information. The propagandist is making an inference from the interview that the interview doesn't support.
Megyn Kelly to Dick Cheney: Wrong, sir
By KENDALL BREITMAN | 6/19/14 6:35 AM EDT
FOX News' Megyn Kelly had some tough questions for former Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday night, after he and his daughter, Liz, offered a scathing review of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
"In your op-ed [in the Wall Street Journal], you write as follows: 'Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," Kelly said on her show "The Kelly File." "But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well sir."
Kelly then began listing shortcomings of the Bush administration, pointing out Cheney's statements that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the U.S. forces would be considered liberators and that Iraqi insurgency was "in the throes" in 2005.
Leave it to The Patriarch of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errrr Clan, to distort and twist actual words to his own twisted version of the facts. Originally Posted by bigtexbigtex, you're accusing others of doing exactly what I've seen you do. You consistently twist events to fit your narrative. The articles that you reference also twist events to fit their narrative... which happens to be your narrative.
According to the Politico article, Megyn's exact words were: "history has proven you (meaning Darth Cheney) got it wrong." There is no other way to interpret those words other than Darth Cheney got it wrong.According to the Politico article? I have a better idea, what about the actual interview?
But as usual, LexiLiar has his own interpretation in his never ending attempt to distort the facts leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. Originally Posted by bigtex
I did not have to be there. I had the actual printed words. Originally Posted by bigtexYou have cherry picked printed words. Those words are taken out of context. Now, when you put those words back with the rest of the words that were spoken, you see the real context that they were spoken in.
While on the subject LexiLiar, why don't you share with us your interpretation of the actual printed words in the following question asked by Megyn Kelly.What she actually says, in context:
"History has proven you (meaning Darth Cheney) got it wrong."
I know what my interpretation is.Originally Posted by bigtex
And while your giving us your interpretation on the Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, why don't you share with us your interpretation of Glen Beck's latest take on the subject.Glenn Beck is wrong.
Let's try these printed words on for size! Shall we?
<SNIP> And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free. I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn't force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right. We shouldn't have.<SNIP>
Once again, I know what my interpretation is!Originally Posted by bigtex
Looks like LexiLiar's struck out twice tonight! To make matters worse, he never took the bat off of his shoulder! Let's give LLIdiot a hand.You have a false sense of victory. You quoted a propaganda piece that cherry picked quotes, and that spun an actual event to reflect something that wasn't reflected in the actual interview. Anybody watching the interview that you referenced would see that Megyn Kelly was actually given the Cheney's a chance to provide a counter argument to statements that were being made by the Bush detractors.Originally Posted by bigtex
After repeatedly debating this subject with LexiLiar since the spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is apparent to me that LLIdiot actually believes : Originally Posted by bigtexThe only thing that you prove with this statement is that you're willing to regurgitate propaganda that sounds good to your ego. You're emotionally driven to disagree with major conservative initiatives. You're willing to do it at all costs, regardless of whether it's good or not.
1) The Shrub and Darth Cheney both walk on water. Originally Posted by bigtexThat's not what he's saying. You, like the others that I've debated with over the past decade, are emotionally driven by your hatred for the Bush administration and for anything conservative. Based on that emotion, you willingly become ignorant of the real facts and real issues.
2) The loss of 4500+ American soldiers in Iraq, at a cost of almost $1 trillion was merely the cost of "doing bidness." Originally Posted by bigtexAgain, that's not what's being argued. What's being argued is that we're engaged in a greater war. This war has been waged against us, as part of a Western civilization family, for centuries. We're dealing with an entity that wants to destroy us, to destroy any way of doing things that's not consistent with the radical view of Islam, and to establish global Islamic law.
3) As long as a Republican President authorizes a similar invasion, he would do it again, in a heartbeat.That's not what's being argued either. Our side of the argument is saying that we will be willing to take military action to respond to an asymmetrical threat to our long-term security. It doesn't matter what political party the president is.
4) If a Democratic President authorizes a similar invasion, he would be the first to criticize the decision. Originally Posted by bigtex
That is utter bullshit.The real reason for entering Iraq was asymmetrical in nature. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to have a military capable of attacking United States to be a threat. With Al Qaeda proving that it was willing to strike within the United States, and with a dictator not coming clean with this the WMD programs, we were in an asymmetrical situation that's comparable to being in the room full of easily flammable liquids with a man playing with matches. We had to go into Iraq, which was a perfect next stop in the war terror.
Bush had NO FUCKING BUSINESS in Iraq. Period. He lied, Thousands died. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
i'va biggen: Wow, damn I got a stalker .Who knew it, creepy.How many times are you going to repeat over and over the same thing? This is at least 3-4 I am not going back to count. Seeing you cannot move on after each point has been addressed and bring anything new to the discussion I'm not going through all this again. So now you can claim victory, and your mother will put a gold star next to your name on the fridge.
Get over yourself. Even though I don't post here frequently, I do follow the arguments that go on go on. I don't follow a person specifically, but I follow the trend of the arguments. I do this partly to study the opposition. I knew how you'd behave even before I posted on this thread to debate you.
i'va biggen: Typical you answer my questions or else you lose..LOL typical right wing talking point.
My questions are simple, straightforward, and have everything to do with the crux of the argument. The correct answer to those questions destroys the argument that you, and those on your side of the argument, are trying to advance on this thread.
The failure of your side of the argument to answer my questions, per the parameters I set, without the game playing that your side exercise throughout this thread, is evident that you guys are avoiding the questions. You guys would avoid answering the questions when you know that the correct answer harms your arguments.
Asking logical, simple, straightforward questions that challenge the illogic of the opposite side of the argument is an effective strategy. Your side of the argument's failure to answer my questions speaks volumes about the fact that your side of the argument doesn't have confidence in their own arguments.
i'va biggen: Typical right wing BS if anyone disagrees with your radical BS they are automatically a liberal. If you have been following me for so long then you would know I am a independent.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be...
Let's visit what you said on this thread before:
"Another shining example of the right wing mantra of it is always someone else's fault" -i'va biggen:
"Typical stupid right wing ploy" - i'va biggen:
"Both you and JD are both right wingers is why you are on the same side of the discussion" - i'va biggen:
"and start your anti democratic rants are typical right wing tactics." - i'va biggen:
"AKA: republican talking points, or drinking the kool aid." - i'va biggen:
Right wingers will defend anything. - i'va biggen:
You've shown a trend where you argued against the conservatives on this thread. If your independent, you'd also be arguing against the people that my side is arguing against. You would've taken a clearly neutral ground where you would've "agreed" to many points on both sides of the argument.
On this thread, as well as on other threads, you've consistently argued the same way that others, that have identified themselves as liberal, have argued. The above quotes clearly show that you are a left-winger.
My position isn't radical, it's center-right. If you had the opinion that I'm a radical when it comes to my beliefs, then it's because you're a radical left-winger.
i'va biggen: One know it all to another???
Wrong. I base my arguments on the facts. These facts are based on both my first-hand experience, as well as on extensive research I've done in this topic. You're basing your arguments on propaganda, and on erroneous information that makes your ego feel good. You're arguing without the support of the facts; therefore, your arguing as a "know it all." I'm arguing as a subject matter expert on this topic. There is no similarity and credibility between the two of us.
i'va biggen: Which one do you want me to?
How about sticking to the argument instead of tap dancing and pulling shit out of your ass constantly?
i'va biggen: Ditto cabbage head.
No similarities in our positions. Your side of the argument, including you, advance baseless, fact deficient, propaganda. My side of the argument is carrying out counter propaganda against your side of the argument. We're doing that with the facts. Your side of the argument argues against what your side of the argument considers as "inconvenient facts."
First, if you feel like I'm rehashing my "talking points," it is because you are repeating your talking points over and over again. So, if you're seeing a response for a third time, it's because you said the same thing three times. If you do not want me to see me repeat a point, quit repeating a point that I've already rebutted.
Second, I take great pleasure in taking your arguments apart. My repeating a counter rebuttal to your rebuttal is part of that pleasure. Your responses don't make me stress out, it's just more fun for me as I have more comments to dismantle.
i'va biggen: Yah I know I saw the mission accomplished sign. (REPEAT POINT)
A lot of people equate that mission accomplished sign as Bush declaring the war over. The vast majority those people have never been in the Navy. That, "Mission Accomplished," sign was something the ship was saying to the world. In order not to use the ships funds, they requested that the White House generate a sign for them.
If you actually listen to the speech that George Bush made on the flight deck, he only declared major combat operations over. And in that same speech, he laid out the fact that we would be facing continued dangers in that country. He also mentioned a timeline for withdrawal, and that was when the country was a strong democracy able to secure itself.
We did precisely that before the timeline of withdrawal called for us to leave.
And get this... prior to my being in the Army, I was in the Navy. I know what I'm talking about here.
Regardless of differences between the two parties, you are arguing the talking points of those that support the Democratic Party. I've argued with people like you over the past decade. There is no difference between your argument, and that of those who actually identified themselves as liberals.
i'va biggen: As the anti democratic anti liberal that you side advanses. There are no differences between the two parties they both suck. (REPEAT POINT)
Actually, there are glaring differences between the two parties. You, as well as others that have argued on your side of the argument, are arguing the talking points advanced by the extreme leftwing of the Democratic Party.
If you're criticizing the Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party, then there's a good chance that you're even further left of the extreme leftwing of the Democratic Party. This makes you a left winger still, but one that's closer to socialism or communism.
There's a good chance that if they both "suck" in your opinion, it's because they're not as far left on the political spectrum as you are.
i'va biggen: You have failed to answer or prove my point was wrong.
I've thoroughly proven your arguments here wrong. All you have to do is look at the posts I've made in response to you. You've neither advanced a real counterargument to my arguments, nor have you provided supporting arguments to the arguments that you are advancing.
You're either repeating yourself, or you're retreating towards a different topic.
No, this isn't a case where "I think" my side one. This is a case where I KNOW that my side won. Your actions, as well as those who are arguing on your side of the argument, shows that your side of the argument is getting destroyed.
First, my questions are being ignored. The reason they're being ignored is that the correct answer to those questions harms the position of your side of the argument.
Second, you're consistently typing responses within a quote, instead of generating a separate post addressing individual quotes from the post that you are responding to. The replies that I'm addressing here, are weaker than the replies that you've previously given in your previous posts.
Third, your side shifts to slightly different topics when confronted with the facts.
Fourth, your side of the argument is using red herrings, strawmen, and other inductive fallacies. You would not be needing those if you are winning this fight. Those are the tools that the losing side of the argument uses.
It's blatantly obvious that my side of the argument is destroying your side of the argument.
Your argument is both a strawman and a red herring, it's a strawman because it deliberately distorts reality and assumes that we are arguing that alternative distorted reality. You're not addressing the actual reality on the ground there. It's a red herring, because it's designed to draw away from the actual argument.
Again:
First, the Iraqis were willing to give us a SOFA agreement. Had the Obama administration been willing to work with the Iraqis, using channels that would've gotten his an SOFA agreement, we would've had that SOFA agreement.
The Iraqis, and the US military, wanted thousands of US troops to remain behind to train and continue to train the Iraqi forces. We were in a position of strength in that negotiation.
Your question assumes a different reality than the one that was actually taken place on the ground.
Second, you're going to have collateral damage in a firefight. When there is property damage, there was compensation process. The Iraqis that had property destroyed as a result of a firefight, or as a result of negligence on the US military's part, were able to file a claim. Once an investigation proved that collateral damage happened as a result of a firefight where the rules of engagement were disregarded, or as a result of negligence, the Iraqi with a property damage grievance was able to get compensated.
A SOFA agreement would've allowed the US military to hold US service members accountable for negligent homicide on the battlefield. This would be applicable if the rules of engagement were violated, as a result of negligence, or as a result of deliberate acts of murder.
Third, we strictly abided by our rules of engagement. These rules of engagement called for engaging only the enemy. The vast majority of the Iraqi population understood that we strictly followed these rules of engagement. In fact, one of our interpreters related a discussion that he had with one of the local Iraqis.
These local Iraqis understood that if the coalition member shot you, it was because you were shooting at them. He contrasted that with what the terrorists would do. They'd Kill you regardless of whether you were there intended target or not.
The current administration had no desire to work with the Iraqi government to extend our SOFA agreement.
Had this administration worked with the Iraqis in getting SOFA, the military leadership deployed to the green zone, and the US ambassador, would've made sure that Al Malaki would've continued to have an inclusive government.
i'va biggen: Your side is famous for drivel.
Don't mistake the facts as "drivel." Your side of the argument, including you, consistently advance drivel. Your arguments are pure rubbish.
i'va biggen: Well we all have our crosses to bear. I have been calling people like you out on their BS for a while, but I will not invest ten years on it. got better things to do.
Don't mistake the facts as BS. I've been calling you out on your BS on this thread, just as I have called out others on their BS for the past decade. I don't see this as a cross to bear, but as a fun packed roller coaster that I ride. I see this as entertainment. I love dismantling your arguments, as well as that of your side of the argument.
I love seeing your reactions, as well as the reactions of those that I argue with this thread. It's the enjoyment that I get from dismantling your BS that contributes greatly to me doing this.
One point that I made by saying that I've been doing this for 10 years, is that I will continue to dismantle the BS that you, and your side of the argument advances for the next 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, etc. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying your side of the argument, and this pleasure never gets tiring.
i'va biggen: I am not responsible for anyone but myself.
It doesn't matter. You're advancing the same baseless rubbish that the others on your side of the argument have been advancing. By arguing with the others on your side of the argument, you make yourself a member of a collective debate target. I will address you guys individually, or as a group.
Bottom line, nobody on your side of the argument has advanced a fact-based argument to justify our changing our positions. Nothing that you guys have said would give any critical thinker any reason to think that you guys have "won," quotations used strongly.
i'va biggen: Ego is not involved This is not a contest, and I don't think I'm wrong. Do you have a ego problem too?
If this isn't a contest, and if you're not going to invest another 10 years in "doing this," then what are you still doing arguing on this thread? Your actions on this thread proves that you're driven by ego. Your ego prevents you from thinking that you're wrong.
It doesn't matter that you don't think that you're wrong, based on what you have said on this thread, I know for a fact that you're wrong. I've consistently advanced a reasoned, logical, fact-based argument proving you wrong.
It's not my problem if you're letting us know, based on your replies on this thread, that you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. The others on your side of the argument are also showing, through their replies, that they're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
And you're wondering why I'm telling you that you lost. People who lose an argument consistently pull the "opinion" card without providing facts, or staying on point. It's easier for them to dismiss the facts as "opinion," because labeling it as an "opinion" puts the fact on the same level as the belief in an alternate universe where unicorns exist.
When the opposition escapes into the "it's an opinion" argument, they're trying to diminish the fact that they're wrong where the other side is right. When it's just an opinion, either one could be right and either one could be wrong.
Unfortunately for you, we're not arguing a grey topic. We're not arguing a topic were either side could be right or either side could be wrong. We are arguing a black and white topic, where one side is right and the other side is wrong. I've seen enough facts to prove my arguments right, and these facts are the main reason that I hold the same argument now that I held prior to the Iraqi invasion.
The justifications that I provided are valid justifications. These justifications were heard before the invasion of Iraq, these justifications showed up repeatedly in my extensive research. The justifications became glaringly obvious when I combat deployed to Iraq.
i'va biggen: Really? interesting.
Yes, "really." Both first-hand experience, and my extensive research, support my argument here. When I was in Iraq, there was no possible way that I would've seen any reality in your side of the arguments position, even if I wanted to "drink the Kool-Aid" in order to see things from your perspective.
The facts simply don't support your side of the argument.
i'va biggen: AKA: republican talking points, or drinking the kool aid.
Wrong, these are facts based on my first-hand observations as well as on my extensive research. Now, if you were this passionate in attacking the left, then those on my side of the argument would easily be able to see you as being an "independent."
The fact that you're showing biase against the right, while showing an absence of that same bias against the left, speaks volumes to the fact that you're a left winger.
You repeated the error that my side of the argument "didn't" prove your side of the argument wrong. You repeated that factually challenged statement, I repeated my rebuttal to it. If you have issues with me repeating my rebuttals, quit repeating yours.
i'va biggen: Yada Yada Yada.
I already know that your retarded. You don't need to open your mouth and prove it to us. Don't fall out the back of the short yellow school bus.
i'va biggen: Works both ways, if you remember it was you who started .
You posted on this thread before I did. I simply jumped in here and rebutted those that I disagreed with. If you never posted a reply here on this thread, I wouldn't be rebutting you on this thread.
i'va biggen: I only had one point that I presented about the OP.
You've presented multiple points on this thread, and when confronted with the facts that destroyed your argument, you presented multiple other points.
i'va biggen: Stunning, and when did you destroy my point? There were others ?
I destroyed every major point that you advanced on this thread. Go back and read every post that I've posted on this thread to see those facts. Yes, you advanced other points. This post is an example of me addressing you point by point. Notice how I am addressing different topic areas when I addressed your different points.
i'va biggen: that is none of your fucking business , and anyone bragging about it on a hooker board...Well I will keep that to myself.
You're going to keep that to yourself because you know for fact that you either didn't serve, or you do have military experience but not the kind that gives you relevance in this argument.
Destroying the arguments advanced by people like you isn't the only pastime that I have. Another pastime that I have is busting valor thieves. I call out people that either claim to have served when they never had served, or people who have served but who are embellishing their service.
Let's just say that I'm one of those who'll defend valor against those who will steal it.
Your comments on this thread argue against you being in the military. If you ever served, you either served completely in the US, or you were mostly in a garrison environment overseas or in the US. You don't sound like an Iraq War Veteran.
Your defensive reply in response to a simple question that I asked you speaks strongly of you being a phony veteran. I've lost count of how many times a person, I knew for a fact was a phony, tell me that his service is not my business.
If you served, then that response is strongly indicative of your not having the military experience that'd give you any standing on this thread.
You responded to somebody else's question on whether you served not. The moment you answered that question, it became my business. Why didn't you tell the other person that it wasn't his business?
The reason that I can see is that it was easy to simply answer "yes" or "no" to the question of whether you served and not. But, start asking the hard questions that other veterans will be able to easily answer? We start having problems. It's like the phony Green Berets that announce that they are "Special forces," but all of the sudden say it's "classified" when you ask them details.
It's "classified" or "non of your business" is a phony or embellisher's way of justifying not being able answer specific questions... questions that those with actual experience would easily be able to answer.
Most of the questions that I've asked you wouldn't provide me that data I need to obtain basic information on your real military service down. For that, I'd need one of two specific pieces of information that I didn't ask here... three if you served prior to a certain time.
Even most of those in our ranks, who are either liberals or oppose the war, would disagree with many of the arguments that you advanced on this thread.
Based on your arguments, and based on your reply to my question, you still don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Also, my putting my credentials on the table isn't me "bragging on a whore board." It's me letting you know that 1, I know what I'm talking about and 2, I'm far more qualified to talk about this topic than you are.
Reading your replies to me, as well as the replies of the others that I'm arguing with here, is exactly like listening to Baghdad Bob in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9aW1atFLMM#t=25
i'va biggen: Right wingers will defend anything.
Wrong, We'll defend our position, we're not going to defend "everything" under the sun.
Considering that you rehashed the same propaganda that I've argued against elsewhere on the Internet over the past decade, you can't say that you're not sucking down the party Kool aid. It's blatantly obvious that you're intoxicated on the extreme leftwing Kool-Aid.
You, and the other debaters on your side of the argument, are the ones that are lost. That's what happens when you guys make the effort to track down your lost minds. Originally Posted by herfacechair
L'il eva, flighty, WTFagboy, big kotex, assup ridee...herface is a Defense Department welfare queen. Nothing he nor Dick Cheney have said will ever change the fact that nation building if a long term losing proposition for the building country as a whole. It does redistribute wealth from many to a few. herface is part of that few wanting the charity and taxes of others to pay for people like you chickenshitness.
Look! Up in the sky!
Originally Posted by lustylad