Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on February 28, 2007, 09:14:15 AM
-
Because some soldiers were ballsy enough to tell the press about the callous way the Bush gang treats the cannon fodder it sends off to die, kill, maim and be maimed in a useless, pointless, illegal, corrupt, immoral, murderous, mismanaged war, now all the soldiers in Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit are being subjected to a punishment regimen – and banished to an area where they will be inaccessible to the press. So reports that well-known bastion of defeatist pink-lib Islamo-wimpism, the Army Times:
Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.
“Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training.
Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters.
They were also told they would be moving out of Building 18 to Building 14 within the next couple of weeks. Building 14 is a barracks that houses the administrative offices for the Medical Hold Unit and was renovated in 2006. It’s also located on the Walter Reed Campus, where reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel. Building 18 is located just off campus and is easy to access.
The soldiers said they were also told their first sergeant has been relieved of duty, and that all of their platoon sergeants have been moved to other positions at Walter Reed.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to find terms that would sufficiently plumb the depth and extent of the moral putrefaction that oozes out of the White House on a daily basis. Metaphors drawn from waste management, the barnyard or the most unsavoury of bodily processes fail to do justice to the moral nullity and active malice that animates every policy of this rancid, wretched crew.
While no one could possibly expect the foul, perverted, fourth-rate minds of the Bush Administration to pay even the briefest quark of concern or attention to the hundreds of thousands of innocent people they have murdered in Iraq or the millions of American citizens they have driven into deep poverty, one might think that they would at least make a show of caring what happens to the men and women they have so cynically and criminally abused in the service of their apparently limitless greed and infinite stupidity. Especially as the Bushists (and their innumerable little bootlickers out there instapunditing and powerlining and pajama paryting and blowing hot air) have made such a fetish of "supporting the troops." But as any sentient being now recognizes, they are not interested in the concept as a physical reality, but only in the mere phrase – and only so far as it can be used as a cudgel to beat their political enemies.
They literally, demonstrably, do not care what happens to the actual human beings in the U.S. armed forces. In fact, they are demonically adamant that more and more soldiers be sacrificed to their war of aggression and crony conquest, dying – or living lives blighted by pain and suffering – for the sake of the Iraqi "oil law." (Or, in the case of most of the bootlickers, for the sake of their own warped and stunted psyches, their apparent need to experience vicarious murder and domination – seeing the state as an extension of themselves – in order to assuage or cover up the various inadequacies, anxieties and craven fears that bedevil them.)
This is a remarkable state of affairs: a militarist faction that doesn't even take care of its soldiers. Once again, we see a glaring example of the blind and brutal stupidity that is the hallmark of the Bush White House. (And this stinking fish most definitely rots from the head.) The early Caesars had the good sense to keep their legions sweet, especially the Praetorian Guard; even Saddam Hussein knew enough to take good care of his Republican Guard. But the Bushists merely chew up their soldiers and spit them out, like drunks heaving after a binge.
Witness the language used by former Pentagon warlord, Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief sources of moral rot in Washington (and who, by the way, is still gainfully employed full-time at the Pentagon, working there every day with a phalanx of aides, doing God knows what – perhaps still running the place behind the scenes). The scene was one of the "rock star" press conferences where Rumsfeld used to preen before a pack of fawning media sycophants. This was in January 2003, with the invasion of Iraq looming on the horizon. Rumsfeld was rejecting the idea that conscription would be needed for the coming war – and the many other promised conflicts of the "War on Terror." As I wrote then in the Moscow Times (Jan. 17, 2003):
"So Rumsfeld swatted the [draft] question away -- but it was perhaps the very ease of the parry that undid him. Ever the corporate pedant, Rumsfeld couldn't simply dismiss the notion of a draft; he had to explain why it was such a bad idea. His reason? Because the biological material "sucked" into the last draft, during the Vietnam War, was of such "inferior" quality.
Here the contempt finally broke through the avuncular rictus. Rumsfeld explained that your quality types -- college boys, married guys, teachers and others -- took advantage of "all kinds of exemptions" to skip out on combat. "And what was left" -- not even "who," just "what" -- "was sucked into the intake, trained for a few months, then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services."
Think about that. "No value." More than 58,000 of these "intake suckers" were left dead on the battlefield; hundreds of thousands more were maimed, scarred, tormented, brutalized, broken -- but they had "no value" to the "United States armed services." No value -- just meaningless biological material to be chewed up in geopolitical games.
The Bushists' contempt for the riff-raff who fight their wars was evident from the beginning. It becomes more obvious all the time, as the ranks of the dead and wounded keep growing. This is the mindset that rules America – sick, grasping, brutal, craven, stupid and inhumane. Every day these perverts remain in power takes us another step deeper into the mire.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1052&Itemid=135
-
U really get off on this don't u....having never served and having a lothing of our armed services..why don't u shut the hell up.
-
Who cares? The American people do not are about US troops. They are disposable. ::)
-
I'd say they don't since less then 1 percent serve......etc.
-
U really get off on this don't u....having never served and having a lothing of our armed services..why don't u shut the hell up.
meltdown :)
Why aren't you willing to condemn the shabby treatment of your brothers-in-arms? Are you really more loyal to the draft-dodging elitists in the White House than to them?
-
Nope..but I'm not going to discuss it with u..u have never served..u don't really know any of these guys..u have shown time and again u could care less about the US and its soldiers so please don't patronize me. As regards meltdown..dude I can't stand u..or perhaps more correctly ur position, so its not a meltdown when i respond to ur BS.
-
it's very weird. If you support someone, shouldn't it be okay to try to protect them?
If you support the troops and want them to be safe, would you REALLY want them to stand guard in the shooting gallery of baghdad? No. You'd want them to avoid unnecessary risks. And since Iraqis want us out, so they can do their job, well, why not?
And when the repub coockslurp got up last week and said "If you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops", that was bullshit. I support my local fire dept. But if the fire chief was sending ten of them to their death every day fighting a massive tire fire they couldn't put out, and I criticized his plan for conquering the fire, does that mean i hate firefighters?
-
I'm not going to discuss it with u
By all means, feel free not to post in any of my threads. :)
-
U really get off on this don't u....having never served and having a lothing of our armed services..why don't u shut the hell up.
I agree.
-
Nope..but I'm not going to discuss it with u..u have never served..u don't really know any of these guys..u have shown time and again u could care less about the US and its soldiers so please don't patronize me. As regards meltdown..dude I can't stand u..or perhaps more correctly ur position, so its not a meltdown when i respond to ur BS.
Left wingers care about the soldiers when it's advantageous to do so. If soldiers were getting killed in some non-wartime military exercise, these same lefties would be secretly cheering.
-
I would but ur spreading abunch of BS so I feel somebody has to tell the truth.
-
I agree.
Whats up Beach..hows it going.
-
Left wingers care about the soldiers when it's advantageous to do so. If soldiers were getting killed in some non-wartime military exercise, these same lefties would be secretly cheering.
So you're saying some Liberals want soldiers to die? Reminds me of this post.
heres the thing i dont understand,, the vast majority of soldier deaths in iraq come from road bombs when your traveling between safer areas. i was in iraq working for a private company.. when we traveled we were provided with a bomb proof vest,, this vest could take a ied. problem was they are very expensive.. some soldiers dont even have the proper equipment, let alone a vest that can stop shrapnel from hitting your vital organs.. cant help but think that those war budjets that never pass might be for a reason
think about it,, soldiers without the proper equipment =more deaths.. if many can suggest that our government was responsible for 911, then i cant be too far off to think these people dont mind seeing a few extra dead soldiers to further their own cause
-
I feel somebody has to tell the truth.
A noble endeavor. However, it's going to cost you heroism points if you whine about the "BS" it exposes you to and whimper that I need to "shut the hell up". :)
Admit it... "shut the hell up" = "I'm completely out of arguments". :)
-
Whats up Beach..hows it going.
It's all good major. :) Welcome home. Thanks for your service. How is Kansas?
-
So you're saying some Liberals want soldiers to die? Reminds me of this post.
Many elitist liberals view soldiers as redneck crackers.
To answer your question: Yes
-
Many elitist liberals view soldiers as redneck crackers.
To answer your question: Yes
Well, at least you didn't shy away from answering the question.
Some soldiers are redneck crackers but I'm still not sure "many elitist liberals" actually want them to die.
-
Left wingers care about the soldiers when it's advantageous to do so. If soldiers were getting killed in some non-wartime military exercise, these same lefties would be secretly cheering.
How would you know what left wingers think?
Rib is very extreme, but not indicative of left wingers in general. Just my opinion
-
How would you know what left wingers think?
Read Ribo's posts. That was easy. :)
-
Read Ribo's posts. That was easy. :)
In fairness, I'm on the extreme left. The "lunatic fringe", if you like. :) I doubt I speak for the soccer-moms who will vote for Hillary in the primaries.
-
Read Ribo's posts. That was easy. :)
Is RIB indicative of Liberals in general?
I think not. I live in California Remember? Very Close to Berkley!
-
In fairness, I'm on the extreme left. The "lunatic fringe", if you like. :) I doubt I speak for the soccer-moms who will vote for Hillary in the primaries.
Who knew? :D
-
meltdown :)
Why aren't you willing to condemn the shabby treatment of your brothers-in-arms? Are you really more loyal to the draft-dodging elitists in the White House than to them?
Ouch! :-[
-
Is RIB indicative of Liberals in general?
I think not. I live in California Remember? Very Close to Berkley!
Not necessarily. You asked "How would you know what left wingers think?" Interpreted that to mean extreme left. Ribo is there, so is Jag, 240, a few others.
-
Not necessarily. You asked "How would you know what left wingers think?" Interpreted that to mean extreme left. Ribo is there, so is Jag, 240, a few others.
I don't interpret it that way but i can understand why you made the connection.
Jag is a Lib, Rib is more extreme, 240 is not in the same ball park as those 2, IMO.
-
I don't interpret it that way but i can understand why you made the connection.
Jag is a Lib, Rib is more extreme, 240 is not in the same ball park as those 2, IMO.
Maybe, maybe not. They all seem to agree on pretty much every political issue. Maybe I shouldn't lump Jag in there. She has some economic conservative tendencies. It's her extreme anti-American nonsense that is probably blinding me. :)
-
Maybe, maybe not. They all seem to agree on pretty much every political issue. Maybe I shouldn't lump Jag in there. She has some economic conservative tendencies. It's her extreme anti-American nonsense that is probably blinding me. :)
Here's a question: If you took all of 240 9/11 CT stuff out of it and anything he says with a CT relation outside of 9/11 what you he be?
Liberal? Libertarian, Conservative etc..?
-
Here's a question: If you took all of 240 9/11 CT stuff out of it and anything he says with a CT relation outside of 9/11 what you he be?
Liberal? Libertarian, Conservative etc..?
He's a liberal IMO. Criticizes anything Republican, including candidates and issues, defends anything Democrat, including most of the candidates. Also, I have a hard time viewing anyone who is big supporter of increased taxes as a conservative.
Some view that as an insult (being called a liberal). I don't generally use the term as a pejorative.
-
He's a liberal IMO. Criticizes anything Republican, including candidates and issues, defends anything Democrat, including most of the candidates. Also, I have a hard time viewing anyone who is big supporter of increased taxes as a conservative.
Some view that as an insult (being called a liberal). I don't generally use the term as a pejorative.
I agree with Beach that a left winger is extreme lib and right winger is neocon. Most of us fall more towards the center but there is no center wing!
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/01/walter.reed/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/01/walter.reed/index.html)
They fired him.............. political damage control lol
-
it's very weird. If you support someone, shouldn't it be okay to try to protect them?
And yet you pal-up with Ribonucleic, and do not condemn his words, even after he wishes harm upon our forces. If you want to know why people here believe you're anti-troops, then look no further.
-
And yet you pal-up with Ribonucleic, and do not condemn his words, even after he wishes harm upon our forces. If you want to know why people here believe you're anti-troops, then look no further.
I've been misunderstood for all of my life
But what they're saying girl it cuts like a knife
"The boy's no good"
Well I've finally found what I'm a looking for
But if they get their chance they'll end it for sure
Surely would
Baby I've done all I could
Now it's up to you...
::)
-
I've been misunderstood for all of my life
But what they're saying girl it cuts like a knife
"The boy's no good"
Well I've finally found what I'm a looking for
But if they get their chance they'll end it for sure
Surely would
Baby I've done all I could
Now it's up to you...
::)
Uh, okay? 240?
-
Uh, okay? 240?
He's right, 240. I'm not worth it. Why throw away your chance to gain Bruce's approval?
;D
-
He's right, 240. I'm not worth it. Why throw away your chance to gain Bruce's approval?
;D
You still here?
-
He's a liberal IMO. Criticizes anything Republican, including candidates and issues, defends anything Democrat, including most of the candidates. Also, I have a hard time viewing anyone who is big supporter of increased taxes as a conservative.
Some view that as an insult (being called a liberal). I don't generally use the term as a pejorative.
I love my party. I hold them accountable. You should have heard me ripping Clinton when he was in office. However, I see it as pathetic for some to continually balme him for everything today. The REPUBS have the power now, so they should stop acting like babies and make the policy changes needed.
See, I could care less what my rowdy ass neighbor's kids do (the dems). But my own children (the repubs) - I hold to high standards.
Anyone who claims to be a repub, then refuses to criticize them, is a drain on the party. You make other republicans look bad.
Look at it this way - when 240 says Bush did something good, people will give that statement serious credibility. When BB or Mr I says Bush did something good, you might take it with a grain of salt, as you'll realize these guys believe *almost everything* Bush does is good.
I'm an honest republican with high standards for my own party. I'm sorry if that's hard for the yes-men to swallow. I believe the war was necessary to procure oil and strategic position, but that WMD was an obvious lie. And I believe troops' lives are indeed being wasted in the cities to justify larger defense budgets. I'm okay with the US dominating the region, but I get annoyed by pricks who self-righteously brag about all the good we're doing. We are conquerers. Have the moral fortitude to admit it. Unless we wanna pay $20 for a gallon of milk and gasoline or deal with Chinese aggression, these moves are necessary. But they're not right.
I'm a real republican and I wish there were more of me.
-
*PS - In 5 years, most of you will believe what I do about 911. The amount of research I've done has accellerated my understanding of the situation. Many of you will reach that point down the road also, and some will never look at it. Aside form the 911 stuff, I believe I am in sync with many here.
-
I love my party. I hold them accountable. You should have heard me ripping Clinton when he was in office. However, I see it as pathetic for some to continually balme him for everything today. The REPUBS have the power now, so they should stop acting like babies and make the policy changes needed.
See, I could care less what my rowdy ass neighbor's kids do (the dems). But my own children (the repubs) - I hold to high standards.
Anyone who claims to be a repub, then refuses to criticize them, is a drain on the party. You make other republicans look bad.
Look at it this way - when 240 says Bush did something good, people will give that statement serious credibility. When BB or Mr I says Bush did something good, you might take it with a grain of salt, as you'll realize these guys believe *almost everything* Bush does is good.
I'm an honest republican with high standards for my own party. I'm sorry if that's hard for the yes-men to swallow. I believe the war was necessary to procure oil and strategic position, but that WMD was an obvious lie. And I believe troops' lives are indeed being wasted in the cities to justify larger defense budgets. I'm okay with the US dominating the region, but I get annoyed by pricks who self-righteously brag about all the good we're doing. We are conquerers. Have the moral fortitude to admit it. Unless we wanna pay $20 for a gallon of milk and gasoline or deal with Chinese aggression, these moves are necessary. But they're not right.
I'm a real republican and I wish there were more of me.
And yet you categorically call yourself a libertarian. ::)
-
And yet you categorically call yourself a libertarian. ::)
I do vote libertarian when I believe the man on the repub ticket isn't a true republican.
As a clinton voter, you understand, right?
-
I do vote libertarian when I believe the man on the repub ticket isn't a true republican.
As a clinton voter, you understand, right?
Oh phooey. A "true Republican" adheres to Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, which you break every day on this board. A "true Republican" supports his party through thick and thin and doesn't flush his vote down the toilet by voting for a "Libertarian," which in turn makes it more likely a Democrat will win. You are a phony baloney, disloyal "Republican." A liberal if I ever saw one.
And get your facts straight. I am a two-time Clinton voter. :)
-
Oh phooey. A "true Republican" adheres to Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, which you break every day on this board. A "true Republican" supports his party through thick and thin and doesn't flush his vote down the toilet by voting for a "Libertarian," which in turn makes it more likely a Democrat will win. You are a phony baloney, disloyal "Republican." A liberal if I ever saw one.
And get your facts straight. I am a two-time Clinton voter. :)
So a guy who voted for Clinton twice knows what a true republican is?
Supporting your party "thru thick and thin"? Is that what you call it when you support abuses? i would call that being a shitty american.
I tell you what. Let's say you work for McDonalds. You love McDonalds. but your boss is stealing. So you point it out, and he is fired and replaced with a better boss. McDonalds is now stronger, its customers are happier, and its stock is healthier.
The diff between you and me is that you would keep the thief at work and I would fire him. You accept and condone crime because of misplaced loyalty. Your loyalty SHOULD be to the grand ol party and the United States, not to this current group of pilferers. But you cannot separate the two.
-
*PS - In 5 years, most of you will believe what I do about 911. The amount of research I've done has accellerated my understanding of the situation. Many of you will reach that point down the road also, and some will never look at it. Aside form the 911 stuff, I believe I am in sync with many here.
This gets to the crux of why you continue to flood this board with 9/11 information. You honestly believe you are better researched than anyone here, and that those who don't buy into this 9/11 crap must be ignorant to the 'truth' out there.
But to be fair - no one cares if you think you have 'proof' a missile was fired into the Pentagon. Nor does anyone care that you think the BBC reported the falling of one of the WTC buildings before it actually collapsed. I know I roll my eyes every time someone pipes in with a theory about flight 93's macabre ending.
The reason normal people don't care and aren't listening is because they've either already been convinced (more than 5 years on) by the massive scrutiny the events of that day have come under, or they are smart enough to know that plotting an event like this would have been impossible. To then throw out stories like the BBC one or the Pentagon one is defunct - because anyone with a drop of common sense will tell you - if you needed to make an impression, flying two fully-loaded jets into the heart of New York was impression enough. To then bomb your own intelligence agency, crash a plane in the middle of nowhere, and then call the BBC and tell them to write and release a report some 20 minutes before an event is needlessly (and laughably) complicated. As if killing 3,000 people with hijacked jets, full of people that apparently weren't there, wasn't difficult enough in the first place.
Face it, Rob - people have made their minds up on 9/11. There was no conspiracy, and you're never going to convince anyone (over the age of about 13, anyway) that it happened the way you tell us. No one listens to your 'evidence' other than the people that already give you their support, which is why most of us simply mock you instead.
-
if you needed to make an impression, flying two fully-loaded jets into the heart of New York was impression enough.
Why two planes and not one? Why two and not 4? Please show us your polling data that shows the mental effect of 2 planes vs. 4, since you made a statement that 2 was adequate.
They attacked the military heart so people would fear the govt couldnt stop them. They attacked the financial/business heart so people would fear going to work. They crashed in rural Penn so you'd be scared in your own home.
Face it, Rob - people have made their minds up on 9/11. There was no conspiracy, and you're never going to convince anyone (over the age of about 13, anyway) that it happened the way you tell us. No one listens to your 'evidence' other than the people that already give you their support, which is why most of us simply mock you instead.
I have independent polls from reputable companies like Zogby and Scripps that show tens of millions of Americans believe it was an inside job.
What do you have, besides an opinion?
-
Why two planes and not one? Why two and not 4? Please show us your polling data that shows the mental effect of 2 planes vs. 4, since you made a statement that 2 was adequate.
They attacked the military heart so people would fear the govt couldnt stop them. They attacked the financial/business heart so people would fear going to work. They crashed in rural Penn so you'd be scared in your own home.
I have independent polls from reputable companies like Zogby and Scripps that show tens of millions of Americans believe it was an inside job.
What do you have, besides an opinion?
Hundreds of millions of people more that believe it wasn't. Don't mistake yourself for being in the majority here.
-
So a guy who voted for Clinton twice knows what a true republican is?
Supporting your party "thru thick and thin"? Is that what you call it when you support abuses? i would call that being a shitty american.
I tell you what. Let's say you work for McDonalds. You love McDonalds. but your boss is stealing. So you point it out, and he is fired and replaced with a better boss. McDonalds is now stronger, its customers are happier, and its stock is healthier.
The diff between you and me is that you would keep the thief at work and I would fire him. You accept and condone crime because of misplaced loyalty. Your loyalty SHOULD be to the grand ol party and the United States, not to this current group of pilferers. But you cannot separate the two.
Yes I know what a "true Republican" is (I had lunch with one today) and that ain't you. You are a liberal. And yes anyone who takes intentional steps to throw his vote in the garbage and help elect people of the opposing party is disloyal. Shame on you.
One of the differences between you and me is I have employees and you don't (and probably never have had them) so your hypotheticals don't make a lot of sense. You're talking out of your rear end again.
-
This gets to the crux of why you continue to flood this board with 9/11 information. You honestly believe you are better researched than anyone here, and that those who don't buy into this 9/11 crap must be ignorant to the 'truth' out there.
But to be fair - no one cares if you think you have 'proof' a missile was fired into the Pentagon. Nor does anyone care that you think the BBC reported the falling of one of the WTC buildings before it actually collapsed. I know I roll my eyes every time someone pipes in with a theory about flight 93's macabre ending.
The reason normal people don't care and aren't listening is because they've either already been convinced (more than 5 years on) by the massive scrutiny the events of that day have come under, or they are smart enough to know that plotting an event like this would have been impossible. To then throw out stories like the BBC one or the Pentagon one is defunct - because anyone with a drop of common sense will tell you - if you needed to make an impression, flying two fully-loaded jets into the heart of New York was impression enough. To then bomb your own intelligence agency, crash a plane in the middle of nowhere, and then call the BBC and tell them to write and release a report some 20 minutes before an event is needlessly (and laughably) complicated. As if killing 3,000 people with hijacked jets, full of people that apparently weren't there, wasn't difficult enough in the first place.
Face it, Rob - people have made their minds up on 9/11. There was no conspiracy, and you're never going to convince anyone (over the age of about 13, anyway) that it happened the way you tell us. No one listens to your 'evidence' other than the people that already give you their support, which is why most of us simply mock you instead.
Well said Bruce. I agree.
-
Hundreds of millions of people more that believe it wasn't. Don't mistake yourself for being in the majority here.
99% of people once believed the earth was flat.
As evidence to the contrary came to light that % got smaller.
How many people believe the earth is flat today?
-
Yes I know what a "true Republican" is (I had lunch with one today) and that ain't you. You are a liberal. And yes anyone who takes intentional steps to throw his vote in the garbage and help elect people of the opposing party is disloyal. Shame on you.
One of the differences between you and me is I have employees and you don't (and probably never have had them) so your hypotheticals don't make a lot of sense. You talking out of your rear end again.
Beach Bum,
You are a flip flopper.
You voted for Clinton twice and bush twice.
Anything you say about party loyalty is crap.
And yes, by not demanding the best from your party... and by ignoring their crimes... you are not being loyal. You are destroying them.
-
One of the differences between you and me is I have employees and you don't (and probably never have had them) so your hypotheticals don't make a lot of sense. You're talking out of your rear end again.
Seriously, would any "University professor" say things like this?
Ignorant. You're assumptive and ignorant.
-
Beach Bum,
You are a flip flopper.
You voted for Clinton twice and bush twice.
Anything you say about party loyalty is crap.
And yes, by not demanding the best from your party... and by ignoring their crimes... you are not being loyal. You are destroying them.
lol. Look Einstein, only one of us claims to be a member of political party. That would be you, you phony "Republican."
-
lol. Look Einstein, only one of us claims to be a member of political party. That would be you, you phony "Republican."
My voting record says I've voted republican since early 90s. I'm a registered republican.
Of course, a man with a phony college degree (you) would know phony when you saw it...
-
Seriously, would any "University professor" say things like this?
Ignorant. You're assumptive and ignorant.
Okay. And I value your opinion so much. ::) You've obviously never owned a business and managed employees. And if you did, I doubt it survived very long. You're not smart enough to manage employees and you have too much trouble distinguishing fact from fiction. But hey maybe you can get another mail order degree in some business-related field that will help. Maybe human resource management? That might be a good one. Just don’t pay too much.
-
Beach Bum is the ultimate yes-man according to his definition of a 'true republican'. I would love to have him reporting to me at work.
-
Beach Bum is the ultimate yes-man according to his definition of a 'true republican'. I would love to have him reporting to me at work.
Yes sir. Except I don't report to anyone. :)
-
Okay. And I value your opinion so much. ::) You've obviously never owned a business and managed employees. And if you did, I doubt it survived very long. You're not smart enough to manage employees and you have too much trouble distinguishing fact from fiction. But hey maybe you can get another mail order degree in some business-related field that will help. Maybe human resource management? That might be a good one. Just don’t pay too much.
So, as a university professor who runs a business and posts on getbig all day...
You don't understand what an MBA is (you think the "M" is for mail... it's not)
You say "you're not smart", something that most university professors don't say because they know that "smarts" are actually levels of understanding in different areas of specialization - a carpenter might be way "smarter" than a doctor at building a desk.
I worked in the corp field for a year, managing a team of 6 to 8 programmers on a DNN project with xml for an intranet web delivery system in which content reflected levels of permission and needs, plus preferences. Some were on the H visas, others interns. So yes, I do have team mgmt experience. And oddly - unlike you - when I had that job (and I taught adult ed in the evenings - ironic since you claim to do the same only on a much higher level). I didn't have time to blink, much less call people "not smart" on web boards all day. As a univ professor, you should have req'd writings each year also... tell us about your yearly publishing, will ya?
So yes, having done just about what you're claiming to be doing - I call bullshit on you. You're a fraud.
-
Not necessarily. You asked "How would you know what left wingers think?" Interpreted that to mean extreme left. Ribo is there, so is Jag, 240, a few others.
Beach Bum, don't categorize me because it's evident to me you don't have a clue what I think. You want to know where my political affiliation lays, ...read Berserkers post claiming his position. I'm in agreement with everything he said with one exception... I'm more a federalist than I am for "state's rights" I assume this discrepancy comes from being in a country where one of those "states" wants to break off and form it's own country, ...and has a lot to do with the fact that most often those invoking "state's rights" were talking more about the right to own other human beings.
And as for 240, I won't speak for him, ...but you are soooo off base with that one it's laughable.
-
And as for 240, I won't speak for him, ...but you are soooo off base with that one it's laughable.
So ironic. He was voting Clinton and talking up hilary for 8 years. Suddenly he can't get the taste of neocon taint out of his mouth. He's done more to hurt the republican party by defending sour policy than he can imagine. i think beach bum might be a left wing plant, actually.
-
Surely it's more of a pragmatic and reasoned decision to vote for the party you believe offers you the most as a voter, rather than blindly following 'your' party down whatever path they lead you.
-
Surely it's more of a pragmatic and reasoned decision to vote for the party you believe offers you the most as a voter, rather than blindly following 'your' party down whatever path they lead you.
I vote for my party's values.
When there are candidates running who don't match these values, I criticize them. Just like you'd fire a shitty employee to make your company stronger. You don't defend every clod just because "he works here".
-
I vote for my party's values.
When there are candidates running who don't match these values, I criticize them. Just like you'd fire a shitty employee to make your company stronger. You don't defend every clod just because "he works here".
Oh, okay. I was under the impression the President runs the country, and therefore if you don't like him, you should probably vote for someone else.
-
Okay. And I value your opinion so much. ::) You've obviously never owned a business and managed employees. And if you did, I doubt it survived very long. You're not smart enough to manage employees and you have too much trouble distinguishing fact from fiction. But hey maybe you can get another mail order degree in some business-related field that will help. Maybe human resource management? That might be a good one. Just don’t pay too much.
Ahem... can we get this back on track... as in discussing the actual issue rather than merely slinging monkey feces? {pssst} I'm running out of popcorn
-
Beach Bum, don't categorize me because it's evident to me you don't have a clue what I think. You want to know where my political affiliation lays, ...read Berserkers post claiming his position. I'm in agreement with everything he said with one exception... I'm more a federalist than I am for "state's rights" I assume this discrepancy comes from being in a country where one of those "states" wants to break off and form it's own country, ...and has a lot to do with the fact that most often those invoking "state's rights" were talking more about the right to own other human beings.
And as for 240, I won't speak for him, ...but you are soooo off base with that one it's laughable.
You are right that I don't know for a fact what your political persuasion is. I just have opinion (that you're a liberal), which obviously could be right or wrong. As I said in this string, you have conservative leanings when it comes to business. But that's about all I've seen. You impress me as pretty much a bleeding heart, which I don't mean as an insult. One of my closest friends is a bleeding heart liberal. Her husband is in Iraq, and she hates Bush. I have no problem with her politics, or yours. I do have a problem with all the American hating, but I don't we'll ever agree on that. :)
And you agree with 240? Shocking. :o
-
You are right that I don't know for a fact what your political persuasion is. I just have opinion (that you're a liberal), which obviously could be right or wrong. As I said in this string, you have conservative leanings when it comes to business. But that's about all I've seen. You impress me as pretty much a bleeding heart, which I don't mean as an insult. One of my closest friends is a bleeding heart liberal. Her husband is in Iraq, and she hates Bush. I have no problem with her politics, or yours. I do have a problem with all the American hating, but I don't we'll ever agree on that. :)
And you agree with 240? Shocking. :o
She's undoubtedly Left Wing. She believes a taxi driver's rights to not have seeing eye dogs in their vehicles trump that of the blind person's to have safe transport. Only the Left could use such an illogical approach.
-
Surely it's more of a pragmatic and reasoned decision to vote for the party you believe offers you the most as a voter, rather than blindly following 'your' party down whatever path they lead you.
Ding! :) That's what independents do: vote for whomever they believe is the best candidate.
On the other hand, I believe loyal, strong supporters of a particular party vote for their candidates through thick and thin, holding their nose if they need to, because the alternative is allowing a member of the "other" party into office. What is stupid and disloyal is claiming to be a Republican, while voting for a Libertarian who obviously has no shot at winning, which gives Democrats a better shot at getting into office.
-
She's undoubtedly Left Wing. She believes a taxi driver's rights to not have seeing eye dogs in their vehicles trump that of the blind person's to have safe transport. Only the Left could use such an illogical approach.
I demand you prove she is of the left.
I have a college professor friend who dropped out of school but now runs a business and can't recall his degree who posts here all day - this dude is the definition of the left. He posts all these things that make republicans look like total douchehats. He's an inside jobber.
HE is of the left. not jag.
-
Ding! :) That's what independents do: vote for whomever they believe is the best candidate.
On the other hand, I believe loyal, strong supporters of a particular party vote for their candidates through thick and thin, holding their nose if they need to, because the alternative is allowing a member of the "other" party into office. What is stupid and disloyal is claiming to be a Republican, while voting for a Libertarian who obviously has no shot at winning, which gives Democrats a better shot at getting into office.
Absolutely, vote for who brings the most table to you as an individual, not because you like the look of the Repulican's elephant.
-
I demand you prove she is of the left.
I have a college professor friend who dropped out of school but now runs a business and can't recall his degree who posts here all day - this dude is the definition of the left. He posts all these things that make republicans look like total douchehats. He's an inside jobber.
HE is of the left. not jag.
Aren't you a demanding young man today, Rob?
BB is quite a good poster and representative of conservative views, Jag is clearly a Leftist. You, on the other hand, are a Republican hating Republican, an enigma.
-
She's undoubtedly Left Wing. She believes a taxi driver's rights to not have seeing eye dogs in their vehicles trump that of the blind person's to have safe transport. Only the Left could use such an illogical approach.
Well, in her defense, sometimes she sounds like a pragmatic businesswoman. But then she will go and say something like prisoners need to be paid minimum wage. :-\
-
Well, in her defense, sometimes she sounds like a pragmatic businesswoman. But then she will go and say something like prisoners need to be paid minimum wage. :-\
I know plenty of 'business' people that are of the Left.
Big Al Goracle for one.....
http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/ (http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/)
-
BB is quite a good poster and representative of conservative views
A good third of Beach Bum's posts contain nothing but: ::)
By definition of the Getbig charter, good posts are not one emoticon.
By definition, Beach Bum is a poor poster.
Also, until 2000, Beach Bum supported Clintons' policy in Africa, his inability to catch bin laden when given the chance, his office blowjobs, and his multiple other embarassments in office. Do you now believe that "conservative views" must contain a background in cowardice and an inability to control oneself?
If you support beach Bum, you support Bill clinton.
-
A good third of Beach Bum's posts contain nothing but: ::)
By definition of the Getbig charter, good posts are not one emoticon.
By definition, Beach Bum is a poor poster.
Also, until 2000, Beach Bum supported Clintons' policy in Africa, his inability to catch bin laden when given the chance, his office blowjobs, and his multiple other embarassments in office. Do you now believe that "conservative views" must contain a background in cowardice and an inability to control oneself?
If you support beach Bum, you support Bill clinton.
Uh, I see. Perhaps I'll let BB tell me himself his views of the Clinton Administration as you have a habit of putting your own words in other's mouths.
And I see nothing wrong with having supported Bill Clinton.
-
Uh, I see. Perhaps I'll let BB tell me himself his views of the Clinton Administration as you have a habit of putting your own words in other's mouths.
And I see nothing wrong with having supported Bill Clinton.
I would LOVE to hear about his views on Clinton.
You see, BB has made it clear - you support a man, you support what he does. And that is fine. But if he did it for Clinton just as he does for Bush, then he has just shown himself to flipflop on most issues over the last decade.
And if he only parroted Bush policies but not Clinton's, then he is a hypocrite for telling me I'm a bad repuib for criticizing the man I voted for.
-
Uh, I see. Perhaps I'll let BB tell me himself his views of the Clinton Administration as you have a habit of putting your own words in other's mouths.
And I see nothing wrong with having supported Bill Clinton.
Smart man. :) Bruce if you notice, the overwhelming majority of my exchanges with 240 are nonsubstantive. I clown around with him, because I think he is a nut. He is here mainly for my entertainment. Anytime someone wants to a substantive discussion on most any issue, I'm game.
-
Smart man. :) Bruce if you notice, the overwhelming majority of my exchanges with 240 are nonsubstantive. I clown around with him, because I think he is a nut. He is here for mainly for my entertainment. Anytime someone wants to a substantive discussion on most any issue, I'm game.
I have to say I'm much the same - I like Rob, I think he's a really likeable guy and I've followed his posts here since he arrived. I do, however, find someone that buys into conspiracies so easily hard to take serious in debate.
-
I have to say I'm much the same - I like Rob, I think he's a really likeable guy and I've followed his posts here since he arrived. I do, however, find someone that buys into conspiracies so easily hard to take serious in debate.
What moves him into the "nut" category is the moon thing. I think the 911 conspiracy theory is dumb, but when you combine that with the faked moon landing (and many others conspiracies), you move into the coo coo for cocoa puffs category in my book.
-
What moves him into the "nut" category is the moon thing. I think the 911 conspiracy theory is dumb, but when you combine that with the faked moon landing (and many others conspiracies), you move into the coo coo for cocoa puffs category in my book.
1. Moon - their suits didn't swell as the PSI should have. I can't get past that. I don't give a shit about this conspiracy and only talk about it when asked.
2. OK City - TODAY, a former FBI director called for a new investigation into Ok city.
3. 9/11 - the evidence doesn't add up and FAA/Nored caught lying on the stand. yes, we need a second investigation.
4. 1993 WTC - I've listened to the tapes (they're on google) where the FBI gives them the bombs and directions. If you don't see a conspiracy there, you're blind.
-
The troops who sacrifice their lives and limbs are being told not to talk to the press.
Did I mention that Republicans suck?