PDA

View Full Version : The liberals on here



Wally_in_Cincy
06-11-2008, 02:42 PM
How many of the libs on here are getting some kind of money from the Federal or State spigot?

Just curious.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2008, 04:48 PM
Why not investigate you own right wing nuts? They are the one always screaming about SS and such...pushing for a heartless America, that doesn't care about the old, or poor hungry children, or even our injured troops, but they take very penny they can get while they're ranting about it.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
06-11-2008, 06:54 PM
Wally,
How can you ask a question like that and expect an honest answer when the queen lib posts in another thread that her friends don't even want the money they already earned!

If they were as dedicated and compassionate as they like to claim, they might spend some of their own money on social programs, rather than mandating that everyone give it up through more taxes!

Military benefits like the GI bill or retirement is something someone earns and is entitled to receive, just as you would from any job.
Social security? I've been forced to pay into it all my life. Damn right I'm going to cash those checks when they start coming (IF they start coming)
Hell, I even take all the legal deductions when I do my income taxes. I'm betting we all do (except for someone's friends who feel they don't need that extra money) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
But I have been fortunate enough to be able to work for a living all my life, and haven't found the need to go to the government with my hand out.
Steve

nAz
06-12-2008, 01:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of the libs on here are getting some kind of money from the Federal or State spigot?

Just curious.

</div></div>

I kept my "Stimulus Payment" does that count?
I thought about returning it but then i figured they might give to some poor asss white trash from the Appalachian or Ozark Mountain Regions that could really use it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

BTW I'm not a liberal or conservative for that matter, think i fall in the middle on most things.
Im conservative when it comes to crime and liberal when it comes to some drugs and women.

hondo
06-12-2008, 05:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not investigate you own right wing nuts? They are the one always screaming about SS and such...pushing for a heartless America, that doesn't care about the old, or poor hungry children, or even our injured troops, but they take very penny they can get while they're ranting about it.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>


Tap! Tap! Tap! Exactly what I was thinking.

Qtec
06-12-2008, 02:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of the libs on here are getting some kind of money from the Federal or State spigot?

Just curious.

</div></div>
Its a pathetic Q and its irrelevant. Lets say ALL the Libs? on this board are recieving some kind of money from the Fed Budget. SO WHAT!
What are you getting at? What point do you want to make?

If any of us were running for office, these questions might be appropriate, until then, I think the financial affairs of other posters are none of your business.





Does WalMart need a handout?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State

A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes more than $1.2 billion in tax breaks, free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments around the country. In addition, taxpayers indirectly subsidize the company by paying the healthcare costs of Wal-Mart employees who don’t receive coverage on the job and instead turn to public programs such as Medicaid. </div></div> where your money goes (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/)

The hypocracy here is that you guys moan constantly about people getting money for nothing but McCain ,a multi-millionaire ,who is running for the highest office in the country [so he is not 100% disabled] gets a $66 thou a year handout for disabilities that do not impair him in running for President...and thats ok. He deserves it!

McCain doesn't have to give that money back but he should do. He doesn't need it. He wants to be CiC while at the same time he gets 60 grand a year from the taxpayer because he can't do the Mexican Wave!

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
06-12-2008, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not investigate you own right wing nuts? They are the one always screaming about SS and such...pushing for a heartless America, that doesn't care about the old, or poor hungry children, or even our injured troops, but they take very penny they can get while they're ranting about it.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

Actually conservatives and red states give much more to charity than liberals and blue states. I tried to point that out in a thread called "Makers and Takers" but you chose to ignore the point and accuse the author of being part of the Jewish "cabal" because of his last name. I guess that makes you a bigot.

Conservatives give their own money to charities, liberals expect the government to do that type of work with somebody else's money. And when liberals do donate it's more likely to be an arts fund or a school than an organization that feeds the hungry and helps the downtrodden.

Wally_in_Cincy
06-12-2008, 03:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


If they were as dedicated and compassionate as they like to claim, they might spend some of their own money on social programs, rather than mandating that everyone give it up through more taxes!
</div></div>

In their strange view of things they consider that to be compassion. Personally I don't. I regard it as thievery.

Wally_in_Cincy
06-12-2008, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
. Lets say ALL the Libs? on this board are recieving some kind of money from the Fed Budget. SO WHAT!
What are you getting at? What point do you want to make?
</div></div>

If that were the case it would mean that folks who are currently sucking on the government teat tend to be more liberal regardng the doling out of the federal hog slop.

I really did not expect honest answers but I thought I would give it a shot.

pooltchr
06-12-2008, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec

A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes more than [b</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$1.2 billion in tax breaks, free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments around the country.

<span style="color: #FF0000">It's not much of a secret. Most local and state governments offer tax incentives to large employers to intice them to locate in their area. In many cases, those incentives are offset by the greater number of local citizens who benefit from the jobs created by these companies. Those weekly paychecks find their way back into the local economies. Every additional dollar cycles through the local economy on average 6.5 times. If an employer has 100 employees making just $10 per hour, that ends up pumping about a quarter of a million dollars back into the economy. Sounds like a pretty good trade off to me. </span>

The hypocracy here is that you guys moan constantly about people getting money for nothing but McCain ,a multi-millionaire ,who is running for the highest office in the country [so he is not 100% disabled] gets a $66 thou a year handout for disabilities that do not impair him in running for President...and thats ok. He deserves it! <span style="color: #FF0000">
I'm guessing you missed the post where it was pointed out that this is not a disability payment, but the retirement benefits he EARNED during his military career. I hear all the crying about how the country doesn't take care of it's vets, and when you find a vet you don't like, all of a sudden, he should just give up his retirement. Why? Because YOU think he doesn't need it! Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. It really doesn't matter because he EARNED it.</span>

McCain doesn't have to give that money back but he should do. He doesn't need it. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Typical liberal BS! He has more than someone else, so he should give it back so someone else who hasn't earned it can have it. Life is so unf***ing fair!!!</span> He wants to be CiC while at the same time he gets 60 grand a year from the taxpayer because he can't do the Mexican Wave! <span style="color: #FF0000">No, he gets it because he did his 20 years in the military. Anyone who wanted it could have done the same thing. </span>

Q </div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Things work a little differently in this country. We actually think people should work for what they want, and be able to keep what they earn. (What percentage is the tax rate you are paying these days???)
Steve</span>

Gayle in MD
06-12-2008, 07:04 PM
That's the biggest line of bullcrap you've ever posted on here.
I really couldn't give a damn what your opinion is, I know people with honor, unlike McCain, who votes against assistance for our troops, while he's double dipping, while his millionaire wife is paying his campaign bills. You call that honor? BWA HA HA HA.

You're being taken left and right by Republican policies, in the worst kind of way, and you're too damned dumb to know it.

Bush has put this country in a hole, and you're on here yapping about liberals! Whatever Liberals do give, you can bet they don't have to have a whole congregation to witness it, every time they reach in their pockets.

Twelve billion dollars a month, down the drain, for nothing, and not a single one of you right wingnuts can come up with anything beneficial to America as a result, and all you can come up with is some neocon wingnut, whose top priority is what's best for Israeli interests, and you buy into what he's pushing...????

incredible...

But then, like McCain says, it's not important when our troops get to come home, right? Righties don't seem to give a damn about that, or the twelve billion a month, and you can bet if Georgie boy owns up to twelve, the real number is probably twenty billion a month, or more.

Our bridges are collapsing, and Bush wants to build 50 bases in Iraq! He's afraid the Muslims just might stop hating Americans, I guess. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

"Bring 'em on." What an idiot. Here's the "Shock and Awe" We are over nine trillion dollars in debt, the dollar is a joke, China and other nations are buying out our country, and gasoline is almost five dollars a gallon, all that "Shock and Awe" is just really impressive, and this is from "Conservative" policies! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Oh well, as long as none of that money falls into the hands of our troops, or our own hungry chidren, that's the main thing, right?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-12-2008, 07:17 PM
Yeah, right, he is so honorable. He votes against every single bill to assist our troops, while he's riding on his millionaire wife's coat-tails, and owns billions in Real Estate, thanks to his sugar moma, and her big daddy.

Now that's what I call an honorable man!

Hey, if you want to start worrying about money, just take a look at what kind of debt the Republicans have put us in, instead of thinking that YOU can give the rest of us here a lesson in your skewed economic philosophies.

Rule number one, don't get burried in debt! We had a surplus before we had your boy Bush. Now look where we are.

Oh, and how's that cheap gas for ya. Yeah, the right were the first to yap about all the cheap gas we were supposed to get out of this, and it never occured to any of you that sending our young people to die for cheaper gas, was SICK!

Gayle in Md.
John Dean had it right, "Without Conscience"

pooltchr
06-13-2008, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We had a surplus before we had your boy Bush. </div></div>

One of the biggest falacies from the left that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker!
Steve

Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2008, 06:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Oh well, as long as none of that money falls into the hands of our troops, or our own hungry chidren, that's the main thing, right?

Gayle in Md.

</div></div>

The only reason a child would go hungry in this country is if their parents are pathetic losers, not because of anything the Feds did or did not do.

With WIC, food stamps, free school breakfast, free school lunch, and free after school snacks, we're lucky the kids aren't overweight. Oh wait, they are.

Get a grip will ya

Gayle in MD
06-13-2008, 06:21 AM
You get a grip. Fifty percent of the children east of the Mississippi go to bed hungry, while we are paying Iraqis to stop killing our troops, and they are siging up left and right because George Bush has fixed things so that THEY don't have enough jobs to go around, either.

Aren't you proud to be involved with the party, and president, who lied us into a war, and turned torture into a cottage industry?

Get a grip. Your party had put this country in the hole, and Clinton, left a surplus, it's just that Republicans don't want to admit it. YOU'RE party is the party of waste, big government, bribes, lies and incompetence.

Gayle in Md.
If you deny till you die, you must be Republican.

Gayle in MD
06-13-2008, 06:22 AM
If you deny till you die, you must be Republican.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
06-13-2008, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not investigate you own right wing nuts? They are the one always screaming about SS and such...pushing for a heartless America, that doesn't care about the old, or poor hungry children, or even our injured troops, but they take very penny they can get while they're ranting about it.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>


Tap! Tap! Tap! Exactly what I was thinking. </div></div>
Ummmm ...

... weren't you a gubmint employee now on a gubmint pension before age 60?

SUCH CRUELTY!

LWW

Qtec
06-13-2008, 09:10 AM
If WalMart wants to move into a town and destroy local businesses why should the taxpayers help them? If you make billions in profit you don't need taxpayer cash.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'm guessing you missed the post where it was pointed out that this is not a disability payment,</div></div>

I'm guessing you missed this statement.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On Monday, Senator McCain's staff identified the retirement benefit as a "disability pension" and said that Senator McCain "was retired as disabled because of limited body movements due to injuries as a POW".

Senator McCain's arms don't fully extend. "Tortured for his country — that is how he acquired his disability," Senator McCain's campaign strategist Mark Salter said </div></div>

Q

eg8r
06-13-2008, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, and how's that cheap gas for ya. Yeah, the right were the first to yap about all the cheap gas we were supposed to get out of this</div></div>This is complete BS and a total fabrication of the truth. We had the idiot left here telling us we went to war for oil, we replied that IF that was the case then gas would be cheaper. What has really transpired is that you fools were wrong again, and Bush looks like an idiot going around the world begging for oil. You have been wrong every time and the cherry on top was the little secretary.

eg8r

eg8r
06-13-2008, 10:10 AM
This is why she is the queen sheep.

eg8r

eg8r
06-13-2008, 10:12 AM
Don't look for honest answers out of Q. He is a lefty that is so ashamed of his own country he decides to go out and blast another to hopefully cloud his eyes as to what is going on in his own homefront.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2008, 10:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Fifty percent of the children east of the Mississippi go to bed hungry, </div></div>

What in the he11 are you talking about?

Why would you say something so ridiculous?

Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2008, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of the libs on here are getting some kind of money from the Federal or State spigot?

Just curious.

</div></div>

No real answers.

Confirms my suspicion.

Let's see...

Gayle is retired

#### is retired

cheesemouse never mentions a job.

not sure about wolfdancer

at least hondo earns an honest living, or is he "30 and out" yet?

Y'all can say it's none of my business and of course you would be right. I just thought I would give it a try.

Deeman3
06-13-2008, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Fifty percent of the children east of the Mississippi go to bed hungry, </div></div>

What in the he11 are you talking about?

Why would you say something so ridiculous? </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">Wally,

If 50% of the children east of the Mississippi are going hungry, you sure can't tell by the women and kids on this side of the Big Easy as a great majority of these starving people go over 300 lbs! I challeng any of you to find any group of underprivedged persons in the country who is not, on average, 30% over the normal weight distribution charts. Unless of course, you can find a anorexia support group in there somewhere! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Geesh, people on the left will believe anything even if they could walk out and see the evidence for themselves. They may only have a couple of cars and a few cell pones and a few $300 pair of air jordans but, come on, starving? </span>

Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2008, 02:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

They may only have a couple of cars and a few cell pones and a few $300 pair of air jordans but, come on, starving? </div></div>

My church has a bus route that goes thru a trailer park and picks up several Latino kids. I had a little kid's bike in my garage and I asked the bus driver if any of the kids could use it. He said "I'll check, but even though these folks' homes don't look like much they just about all have bikes and X-box and cell phones".

I guess the definition of "poor" has changed since I nwas a kid.

I'm off to find some "starving" kids to feed. Don't wait up for me.

sack316
06-13-2008, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You get a grip. Fifty percent of the children east of the Mississippi go to bed hungry,

</div></div>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-15-hungrykids_N.htm

Article from late last year, complete with a table and data from America's Second Harvest regarding child hunger in this country. Oddly enough, no state comes anywhere close to 50%. Though I will admit that personally I think any child going hungry or being near hunger is a crying shame--- exaggeration and pointing to a specific region does little to help others listen to your point. For those who don't feel like clicking the link, of note is the states who's percentage is 20% or higher. Those states are: California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, New mexico and Utah (with new Mexico being the worst)--- a group covering both the east and western sides of the mississippi.

The study claims the data includes children who "were hungry or at risk of hunger", so I'm sure the actual percentage is lower than those numbers stated, as this particular study was done to prove a point and send a message. At any rate, it is indeed a sad state of things, and admittedly much higher than I would have anticipated.

Also of note from this was the numbers were taken from the census bureau, and the article also states that those numbers have held steady for the previous decade. So indeed we can be outraged at Bush for allowing our children to still be hungry, but then we must also have the same outrage from the Clinton years as well... when things were all so great and we had a utopian society.

Sack

Deeman3
06-13-2008, 02:59 PM
Most children who go to sleep at night hungry are because of their drug addicted, sorry excuses for parents. I thank God I had good parents. It does not take much to see how far society has slipped in the last 40 years. When we were young, kids were hungry because the food was not available, now it is not the case in most instances.

Vapros
06-13-2008, 03:15 PM
We have a white trash family in this town that is very poor. The maid is poor, the cook is poor, the gardener is poor and the chauffer is very poor. They are all very poor.

Seriously, there are kids around here that go to bed hungry, but in many cases mom or dad, or both, go to bed drunk or wired. I don't think the government can do much about it, either. There are genuine needy people and then there's the other kind. Somebody needs to do a better job of sorting them out before they make the rest of us support them. Some of you will say that's a hard attitude, and maybe it is, but poverty should not be a profession, as it has become under current social programs. I won't even say which side promotes this, but somebody does.

Deeman3
06-13-2008, 03:27 PM
Vapros,

If the waste of all the political entitlements was even halved, there would be plenty for all. Look at all the waste given to millions that don't appreciate it and abuse the system only to be given more.

One of the present candidtes says, "Every American child should be able to attend college." Which means we will pay for it, which means it will be devalued and abused, which will mean it will be ruined for the ones who actually aspire to achieve it, which will make it a political "cause", which will turn it into a mess, little value, much like our public schools.

Multiply the present aid by ten fold and the same kids will be going to bed hungry unless the government goes in a cooks dinner each night in their apartment for them.

I do feel for the kids, I just can't make their parents trade Crack for parenthood.

pooltchr
06-13-2008, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You get a grip. Fifty percent of the children east of the Mississippi go to bed hungry, while we are paying Iraqis to stop killing our troops, . </div></div>

Another one of your "facts" that has no basis in truth. Do you ever think about the things you post here, or do you think if you post it over and over and over that nobody will notice it's a lie?
Where exactly did you come up with the supporting data for this ignorant statement?
Steve

jayalley
06-13-2008, 07:43 PM
This woman is seriously disturbed.

She is like one of those toy dolls from the 1970's on which you pulled the string and a sentence came out...any sentence...without any particular relevance to a topic...and usually something that she has said many times before (ad nauseum)...you just never knew what that sentence was going to be on any particular tug of the string. Even when she can sustain a continuous thought string, she is incoherent.

However, I love to read her on this forum .... it's like watching a slow motion car wreck.

"There but for the grace of God (and quite a few extra brain cells) go I...."

Qtec
06-14-2008, 01:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
. Lets say ALL the Libs? on this board are recieving some kind of money from the Fed Budget. SO WHAT!
What are you getting at? What point do you want to make?
</div></div>

If that were the case it would mean that folks who are currently sucking on the government teat tend to be more liberal regardng the doling out of the federal hog slop.

I really did not expect honest answers but I thought I would give it a shot. </div></div>

The Federal Slop WallY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where Bush draws the line on Iraq costs: education benefits for veterans

Last updated May 13, 2008 2:32 p.m. PT

JOHN YOUNG

WACO, Texas -- In Jurassic Park, the favorite line of the theme park's mastermind is, "Spared no expense." But, of course, he did.

He staffed it with a skeletal crew. He gave barely a nod to the catastrophic potential of cloning dinosaurs. I don't know about you, but that movie reminds me of what's happened in Iraq. "Spared no expense." But, of course, we did.

For many months, U.S. personnel pleaded for body armor and for vehicles that would give them a chance against road-side bombs. The thing is, Donald Rumsfeld didn't have to give his trademark poverty-case plea, "You have to go to war with the Army you have."

This military engagement -- America's second costliest in real dollars -- has had scant cost controls. And why should it? It's been waged off-budget, and essentially on credit.

It's only when people return from battle that we become sticklers for decimal points.

Such is the case in Congress right now with debate over veterans benefits contained in a supplemental bill to fund what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too expensive? Ahem.

President Bush has threatened to use his rarely flexed veto pen against this measure if it contains a bipartisan expansion of the GI Bill of Rights and other veterans benefits.

Bush says the benefits package shouldn't be tied to supplemental military funding. And he says it costs too much: $51 billion over 10 years. That sounds expensive, yes. That is, if you stand it up beside the Tyrannosaurus that is the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan: $195 billion for not even one whole budget year.

By contrast we're talking about $2 billion a year for veterans who have laid it on the line for what's adding up as a $2 trillion enterprise.

The bipartisan "New G.I. Bill" legislation authored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., would nearly double current benefits for college, tying them to cost of living and in-state tuition rates. It also would end a $1,200 buy-in enrollment fee under current GI Bill.

Sen. John McCain has sided with the president in opposing it. Although he supports increasing education aid, McCain says this is too expensive. </div></div>

Two billion for Vets....where did the rest of the $2 trillion go? ALL of it taxpayer money remember.
The biggest leeches on the Fed Budget are the super rich.

war of greed (http://warongreed.org/dreams.php)

Be sure to watch the second video after the cartoon.

Q

mike60
06-14-2008, 03:23 AM
John McCain was offered repatriation by the NV and he refused. It is in the UCMJ
that all prisoners escape and regain their unit. McCain stayed after being offered
release. That alone disqualifies him from serious consideration for CIC.
Save all your vitrol old farts. I'm over 60 and an RA Vet. 1962-1965.
And a lifelong republican that is disgusted by the present maladministration.

Bobbyrx
06-14-2008, 07:42 AM
The rrrrrest of the story, wack job:
Because of who his father was, McCain was immediately offered a chance to return home early. The North Vietnamese wanted a mercy-showing propaganda coup for the outside world, and a message that only privilege mattered that they could use against the other POWs. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation due to the Code of Conduct of "first in, first out": he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.

hondo
06-14-2008, 09:48 AM
at least hondo earns an honest living, or is he "30 and out" yet?


Yep, he sure nuff is. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

mike60
06-14-2008, 08:54 PM
Bobbyrx, It will be news to you that in the military you do not have a choice of what to do. It is spelled out in plain language in the UCMJ (look it up wack job) that your duty as a prisoner is to return to duty by any devise or method. Offered release he
must go. Period. Let the enemy believe what they want it puts one more trained pilot
in the sky over their asses. Where is this "Code of Conduct" available to read? If you were offered release instead of staying to be tortured would you stay? Going back to duty is the honorable thing to do. Too many movies not enough experience.

Bobbyrx
06-15-2008, 09:54 PM
The Code: Consisting of six articles in simple language, the United States Military Code of Conduct orders American military personnel to resist capture at all cost and if captured; to attempt to escape, to give the enemy no information other than name, rank, serial number and date of birth, to take charge if senior, to obey orders of the seniors, to accept no favors from the enemy and to make no written or oral statements disloyal to the United States.

mike60
06-15-2008, 11:11 PM
Not to be out of hand but is there any reference to "first in-first out" in the UCMJ? A prisoner offered release must go.

Deeman3
06-16-2008, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to be out of hand but is there any reference to "first in-first out" in the UCMJ? A prisoner offered release must go. </div></div>

So now, we critique a man for standing by his fellow prisoners? I guess, by your twisted logic, he should have been tried and shot for his actions?

Many of us are sick of some of the things that have been done lately in our government. John McCain's actions in the war are certainly not one of them at least to me. Gayle will be happy to have you in her army anyway. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Bobbyrx
06-16-2008, 07:35 AM
"to accept no favors from the enemy". An early release for him was to be used as propaganda against his country and would be a favor from the enemy. The easy call would have been to leave but he made the tough call. With his injuries and who his father was, he wasn't going to fly missions again. How this decision disqualifies him from serious consideration for CIC, I don't get. So if he had left early, provided propaganda for the enemy, sat in an office somewhere while his fellow prisoners stayed and suffered all because of who his father, THIS would make him a BETTER candidate for president for you???

LWW
06-16-2008, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"to accept no favors from the enemy". An early release for him was to be used as propaganda against his country and would be a favor from the enemy. The easy call would have been to leave but he made the tough call. With his injuries and who his father was, he wasn't going to fly missions again. How this decision disqualifies him from serious consideration for CIC, I don't get. So if he had left early, provided propaganda for the enemy, sat in an office somewhere while his fellow prisoners stayed and suffered all because of who his father, THIS would make him a BETTER candidate for president for you??? </div></div>
The left doesn't understand what McCain did because they would have to a man taken the early out.

I probably would have also.

What he did took incredible courage and sense of honor.

LWW

mike60
06-16-2008, 04:42 PM
Deeman, This quote from your post shows the depth of your ignorance.

"I guess, by your twisted logic, he should have been tried and shot for his actions?"

I am a veteran of the US Army, 1962-65. I would go into hell to aid John McCain
escape his enemies. How dare you put forward that i would stand for McCain being
tried or shot. You sir are a coward or a fool or both.

nAz
06-16-2008, 06:32 PM
MIke60, Deeman please gentleman don't get off on the wrong foot here.
Deeman is a good guy and i believe him not to be a "coward or a fool or both" he is just a republican /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

hondo
06-16-2008, 08:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> .
Deeman is a good guy and i believe him not to be a "coward or a fool or both" he is just a republican /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

LOL! And that says it all.

sack316
06-16-2008, 08:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman, This quote from your post shows the depth of your ignorance.

"I guess, by your twisted logic, he should have been tried and shot for his actions?"

I am a veteran of the US Army, 1962-65. I would go into hell to aid John McCain
escape his enemies. How dare you put forward that i would stand for McCain being
tried or shot. You sir are a coward or a fool or both. </div></div>

Actually deeman didn't say that at all... hence the inclusion of the phrase "twisted logic" in his statement. He was attempting to point out a side of your logic from pervious posts, and was not insinuating that you would actually feel that way in reality.

Mike, I don't know you, but I have had the pleasure of actually knowing deeman for quite some time now... "coward" and "fool" are two of the last words I would ever use to describe the man.

Sack

Deeman3
06-17-2008, 07:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman, This quote from your post shows the depth of your ignorance.

<span style="color: #CC0000">You have little concept of the real depth of my ignorance but should understand hyperbole a bit better in reading commentary. </span>

"I guess, by your twisted logic, he should have been tried and shot for his actions?"

I am a veteran of the US Army, 1962-65. I would go into hell to aid John McCain
escape his enemies. How dare you put forward that i would stand for McCain being
tried or shot. You sir are a coward or a fool or both. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Again, I may be a coward or a fool or both but you are not the only one here who has served this great country, therefore buying exactly the same right as all Americans to comment on what we believe. Despite the code of conduct, I think McCain was a brave man who did the right thing when called. I only wish, if tested in that manner, I would have measured up as he did.

That does not mean he would be a good CIC but only that I refuse to participate in disregarding his service, his valor or his standing with his fellow soldiers when it was really tough.

You can Gayleboat him all you want over his mad ravings and such but I don't think any of us have the moral ground to say he was not a solid soldier. I'll accept that I was and am not perfect, by a long shot. </span>

Bobbyrx
06-17-2008, 10:28 AM
Deeman, I'm shocked that you don't see the logic in this. McCain refuses the gracious offer of freedom by his peace loving captors just so he can be a pain in the ass and get those daily spa treatments. That alone should disqualify him from being president, the selfish sob. Obama, on the other hand, is the real candidate. He stayed out of the military only because he was held prisoner against his will by a racist church in Chicago for 20 years. Forced to hear those sermons week after week after week after week and not be able to speak out. Forced to be married by the racist minister......Oh the agony,the indignity.........Finally he was able to gloriously break free....just in time to wrap up the primary and save us all. What a man...what a candidate (sigh)

Deeman3
06-17-2008, 10:37 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
06-17-2008, 05:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to be out of hand but is there any reference to "first in-first out" in the UCMJ? A prisoner offered release must go. </div></div>
It's in the Geneva Coventions.

LWW

mike60
06-17-2008, 06:47 PM
LWW, You are wrong, there is no mention of "first in first out" in the Geneva Conventions. The only pertinent Article, 21 is below. McCain could not be compelled to repatriate.

paragraphs 2&3 Article 21
Prisoners of war may be partially or wholly released on parole or promise, in so far as is allowed by the laws of the Power on which they depend. Such measures shall be taken particularly in cases where this may contribute to the improvement of their state of health. No prisoner of war shall be compelled to accept liberty on parole or promise.
Upon the outbreak of hostilities, each Party to the conflict shall notify the adverse Party of the laws and regulations allowing or forbidding its own nationals to accept liberty on parole or promise. Prisoners of war who are paroled or who have given their promise in conformity with the laws and regulations so notified, are bound on their personal honour scrupulously to fulfil, both towards the Power on which they depend and towards the Power which has captured them, the engagements of their paroles or promises. In such cases, the Power on which they depend is bound neither to require nor to accept from them any service incompatible with the parole or promise given.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm This is the url to read the GC.
I humbly suggest you read it, I have.

sack316
06-18-2008, 01:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW, You are wrong, there is no mention of "first in first out" in the Geneva Conventions. The only pertinent Article, 21 is below. McCain could not be compelled to repatriate.

paragraphs 2&3 Article 21
Prisoners of war may be partially or wholly released on parole or promise, in so far as is allowed by the laws of the Power on which they depend. Such measures shall be taken particularly in cases where this may contribute to the improvement of their state of health. <u>No prisoner of war shall be compelled to accept liberty on parole or promise.</u>
Upon the outbreak of hostilities, each Party to the conflict shall notify the adverse Party of the laws and regulations allowing or forbidding its own nationals to accept liberty on parole or promise. Prisoners of war who are paroled or who have given their promise in conformity with the laws and regulations so notified, are bound on their personal honour scrupulously to fulfil, both towards the Power on which they depend and towards the Power which has captured them, the engagements of their paroles or promises. In such cases, the Power on which they depend is bound neither to require nor to accept from them any service incompatible with the parole or promise given.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm This is the url to read the GC.
I humbly suggest you read it, I have. </div></div>

wouldn't the bold above be exactly what we are talking about? Which is also mentioned in the Code of the U.S. fighting force.

Sack

mike60
06-18-2008, 04:02 AM
Sack, here is the UCMJ website:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf

The only part concerned with conduct as a prisoner:
UCMJ article 105 conduct as prisoner

(b) Escape. Escape from the enemy is author-
ized by custom. An escape or escape attempt which
r e s u l t s i n c l o s e r c o n f i n e m e n t o r o t h e r m e a s u r e s
against fellow prisoners still in the hands of the
enemy is not an offense under this article.

That's it. All of it Authorized by custom. I reccomend the articles concerning
treatment of prisoners. Our hands are not clean.

Mike60 Veteran&Disgusted

Bobbyrx
06-18-2008, 08:37 AM
yes it would, along with "to accept no favors from the enemy". Be critical of McCain for his politics if you want but to be critical of his conduct while being a P.O.W., one must have another agenda........obviously

mike60
06-18-2008, 06:47 PM
To accept repatriation is no way a favor from the enemy. My agenda is to elect the best leader we can and thats all. McCain has many flaws and so do i but i'm not running for president. Obviously Bobbyrx has ESP to know my goals as we've never met. I tire easily these days so goodbye and good luck. You'll need it.

mike60 vet&napping

Gayle in MD
06-19-2008, 09:45 AM
I've never said he wasn't a good soldier, FYI, I said his service was honorable, that doesn't mean I have to respect everything he says and does for the rest of his life, and abandoning his first wife, running around on her for years until he found a rich woman, with a rich daddy, with political connections, and then dumping his invalid wife for his opportunistic fantasies of becomming president, is not my idea of honorable.

Being a former POW, does not automatically mean that a man is honorable in all actions in his life, just that he was in the wrong place at the worng time. I don't think he volunteered to be a POW. It also doesn't mean he is stable enough to run this country.

You don't like to face the fact that Republicans are warning the country about McCain's instability. It was a Republican Senator who said that his temper should make him disqualify him as a candidate for the presidency.

Also, I'm very sure about the statistics I quoted, although they are not the most recent numbers, but numbers which I read about some time ago, although they were before Bush renamed hunger as food challenged! We don't have hunger anymore.

While you and Wally are so concerned about who is on the dole, why aren't either of you concerned about the huge welfare program that Bush has going for Iraqis? Do either of you know how much that costs us a month? I didn't think so.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-19-2008, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To accept repatriation is no way a favor from the enemy. <span style="color: #FF0000">Then what do you call it, punishment? Why did they offer it to HIM and no one else. If he had gone home when offered you would be the first one calling him a coward. </span> My agenda is to elect the best leader we can and thats all. <span style="color: #FF0000">Then lets hear about who you're supporting then since your a life long Republican and don't like McCain </span> McCain has many flaws <span style="color: #FF6666"> I agree but staying a POW instead of becoming propaganda for the Communists is not one of them </span> and so do i but i'm not running for president. Obviously Bobbyrx has ESP to know my goals as we've never met. <span style="color: #FF6666">You don't need ESP to know that </span> I tire easily these days so goodbye and good luck. You'll need it.

mike60 vet&napping </div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-19-2008, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a sweeping, 200-plus page review of the administration's pre-war case for invasion, the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the American public was being fed information at odds with prevailing views, and officials were ignoring contemporary disagreements in the Intelligence Community.

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed,” Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said in a press release announcing the new report.


The full report is available as two large .pdf files here and here. Rockefeller summarized its findings as follows:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.


</div></div>
You seem to have swallowed plenty, hook, line and sinker!
Why would you trust any figures until Bush is out of office? He lied us into a war. He lies about job losses. He includes people who make hamburgers into the manufacturing figures, to make things look the way he needs tham to look. He lies about our economic situation, including what the war is costing. I trust what the Red Cross says more than what Bush's government says, especially since he removed the standards for hunger, and split them up with "Food Challanged" his new definition, avoidence tactic.

Why would anyone respect anything said by people who ignore all the damage Republicans have done to this country, and plan to go back out and vote Republican, again, after all the debt, lies, incompetence and damage they've done?

Blind Partisanship? No excuse. Forty-one hundred American soldiers are dead, over thirty thousand injusred, all because Bush lied us into an un-necessary invasion of Iraq.

Those are the facts! You are the one who refuses to face tham, and accept them. Aren't you the one who said that a lie is a lie? But not, I guess, when it sends a country to war, and over forty-one hundred die because of it.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-19-2008, 12:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've never said he wasn't a good soldier, FYI, I said his service was honorable, that doesn't mean I have to respect everything he says and does for the rest of his life, and abandoning his first wife, running around on her for years until he found a rich woman, with a rich daddy, with political connections, and then dumping his invalid wife for his opportunistic fantasies of becomming president, is not my idea of honorable.

<span style="color: #FF0000">If all this were to come out, I guess he would be finished. I wonder why the Obama camp has not brought this up or why the media who hate him have not done a special on this? Maybe he has the entire media bought up.</span>

Being a former POW, does not automatically mean that a man is honorable in all actions in his life, just that he was in the wrong place at the worng time. I don't think he volunteered to be a POW. It also doesn't mean he is stable enough to run this country.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Being a prisoner of war may not make you a hero but the manner in which you react to it and behave certainly does. </span>

You don't like to face the fact that Republicans are warning the country about McCain's instability. It was a Republican Senator who said that his temper should make him disqualify him as a candidate for the presidency.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I don't mind facing any fact. I don't really care if McCain is elected. He is not my guy. I think he better than Obama but may not even bother to vote for the first time in 30 years. I just don't see this commentary anywhere outside you and the Huffington Post type hit sites. </span>

Also, I'm very sure about the statistics I quoted, although they are not the most recent numbers, but numbers which I read about some time ago, although they were before Bush renamed hunger as food challenged! We don't have hunger anymore.

<span style="color: #FF0000">While we don't have mass hunger in the U.S. anymore, that we do have is much more based on parental behaviour than supply or money. In the cases of older folks, we do have a problem but will be largely ignored by the left as that is not their power base. </span>

While you and Wally are so concerned about who is on the dole, why aren't either of you concerned about the huge welfare program that Bush has going for Iraqis? Do either of you know how much that costs us a month? I didn't think so.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I am as angry over the waste in Iraq as I am over the waste here. Both are sorry examples of government but why should I trade one bad system for a worse one? Obama will get us out of the war but spend even more on worthless programs and tax us even more for imcome redistribution. Don't worry, I think McCain would only be marginally better.</span>



</div></div>

eg8r
06-19-2008, 01:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've never said he wasn't a good soldier, FYI, I said his service was honorable, that doesn't mean I have to respect everything he says and does for the rest of his life, and abandoning his first wife, running around on her for years until he found a rich woman, with a rich daddy, with political connections, and then dumping his invalid wife for his opportunistic fantasies of becomming president, is not my idea of honorable. </div></div>Perfect example of our resident hypocritical queen sheep. It is also a perfect example of gayleboating.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-19-2008, 01:02 PM
I see McCain is the worst possible thing that could happen to this country. I don't have to hold any hatred in my heart to think that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't mind facing any fact. I don't really care if McCain is elected. He is not my guy. I think he better than Obama but may not even bother to vote for the first time in 30 years. I just don't see this commentary anywhere outside you and the Huffington Post type hit sites.
</div></div>

If you haven't read anything, or heard any news stories about McCain's famous temper tantrums, which have even come to blows, then you aren't paying attention. It has been in a number of newspapers and articles, and was posted here, by myself, with links.

Oh, and BTW, News Articles which are linked on the Huffington Post, from News Papers are not contaminated merely because they are accessed on Huffingtonpost.

I really don't care for Ariana Huffington, to tell you the truth, but her sight offers an instant link to most of the newspapers of note in this country.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being a prisoner of war may not make you a hero but the manner in which you react to it and behave certainly does.
</div></div>

I have never critisized John McCain's service to our country. I don't happen to believe that because a man is a prisoner of war, that automatically infuses him with all things good, nor does it remove any psycholigical problems he may have had throughout his life. I also think he is a hawk, and that we cannot afford another swaggering hawk in the Whtie House at this time.

I think that Republican economics hurt the middle class people of this country, and I'd rather see people who are working their butts off to get ahead, and raise their children, and live a decent life, get a break, than seeing corporate CEO's, who are gouging Americans at every turn, get tax breaks, and subsidies, and walk away with no concern about hiding their money in the Carribbean, and using loopholes like the Enron Loophole, (heard of it, it's a Republican thing,) in order to bilk the average Joe who can barely pay his bills as it is, out of even more money.

Trickle down doesn't work. Trickle up does. We need a president who wants to put people to work, doing things for this country which need to be done, not one who wants more tax cuts for the wealthy, and the corporate fascist pigs. McCain originally voted against them, but he's all for them now. That's why he'll never get elected, that, and his own admission that he's no good with economics, and saying that it doesn't matter when our troops come home.

Gayle in Md.





Gayle in Md.

mike60
06-19-2008, 01:41 PM
Bobbyrx, Enough of your stupid blather. Real men accept the differences in opinion and respect each other for it. You stupidly assume i would call McCain a coward if he had accepted repatriation. IDIOT. He was offered because of his father. But whats
the matter with that? Any way to get the hell out of there is ok. MORON. I do like McCain, just not for president. TWIT. Staying to be tortured instead of giving the enemy propaganda is plain wrong. FOOL. You will never know my goals as you don't have the mental presence of a small dust mite. DUMMY. Since you are so fired up to know who i support for president i'll tell you, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Come on say something stupid about him. Go back under your rock.

mike60 REPUBLICAN&PISSED OFF

Deeman3
06-19-2008, 01:50 PM
I have read that he has had times when he was upset, mad and even irate. If that disqualifies a man from the presidency, then we beeter wipe our HST, LBJ and a few others.

I have no problem with Obama getting more of your money for idle programs and such. I just don't want to give him mine. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Bobbyrx
06-19-2008, 01:55 PM
Yeah you can tell by your posts how much you like McCain....lol

mike60
06-19-2008, 01:57 PM
Deeman3, The politicians want more money for less effect. Sad but true.
mike60

mike60
06-19-2008, 01:59 PM
Keep proving what i said about you.

mike60 educated&literate

Bobbyrx
06-19-2008, 02:49 PM
Les's see, you said "Real men accept the differences in opinion and respect each other for it." Then in the same post called me IDIOT,MORON,TWIT,FOOL AND DUMMY in that order, when all I have done is disagree with you. So I guess you are saying that you are not a real man?

mike60
06-19-2008, 03:01 PM
Bobbyrx, Nice try. You more than disagree. You assume and state what i think without asking me. Your little diatribe that i would call McCain a coward proves my point. Calling you names is just my way of saying i think you need educating. The fact that you think McCain was right in staying to be tortured shows a complete lack of experience in the real world. Ask McCain today if he thinks he did the right thing
and you might have a real opinion. So it is more than disagreeing with me that earns you those names, but i could be wrong. You could have a lot more defects that are yet to appear. Keep up the good work.

mike60

Bobbyrx
06-19-2008, 03:16 PM
Calling you names is just my way of saying i think you need educating. <span style="color: #FF0000">No it's just your way to behave when someone calls you on Gayleboating McCain </span> The fact that you think McCain was right in staying to be tortured shows a complete lack of experience in the real world. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Please explain what in the world that means</span>

mike60
06-19-2008, 03:53 PM
Bobbtrx, I behave this way all the time. Calling you names is just my way of defining
your crude and nonsensical pattern of blindly being a fool. That said it's just my opinion and you can untwist your panties. The real world is where rational beings know that to escape or be released is germane to being alive to fight again. Your little dreamscape where McCain is the noble warrior taking one for the team exists only in comic books or John Wayne movies. Grow up.

mike60 retired teacher

Bobbyrx
06-19-2008, 04:38 PM
The real world is where rational beings know that to escape or be released are two completely different things.....And don't worry, Gayle barely gets them twisted, and even she wouldn't bash McCain for staying a prisoner

LWW
06-19-2008, 04:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To accept repatriation is no way a favor from the enemy.
mike60 vet&napping </div></div>
Being released from a POW camp is "no way a favor from the enemy" ... did you REALLY post that?

Why do you think the enemy holds POW's? Do you think people volunteer to be captured because of the 5 star accommodations?

OMFG ... your head is so far down the MOVEON.ORG hole that you can look Gayle in the eye.

You sir just lost all credibility.

LWW

jayalley
06-19-2008, 05:05 PM
Again, please stop the phony posing as a "Republican".

LWW, bobbyrx, et al....don't let this guy fool you...he writes like a male version of little Gayle and then claims that he is a "lifelong Republican".

They call into Rush and Sean all the time and try this crap.

mike60
06-19-2008, 05:06 PM
Why do i bother? Oh well.
Bobbyrx, The real world is where " The real world is where rational beings know that to escape or be released is germane to being alive to fight again. Your little dreamscape where McCain is the noble warrior taking one for the team exists only in comic books or John Wayne movies. Grow up." means either escape or release is necessary to fight again. As for bashing it's you not McCain i'm bashing for using the
horrors visited upon McCain to further your agenda. Your belief is the question. McCain is noble for surviving and still serving our Nation. My post bashes you not McCain.

mike60 still trying&very trying

Bobbyrx
06-19-2008, 05:19 PM
"As for bashing it's you not McCain i'm bashing for using the
horrors visited upon McCain to further your agenda" <span style="color: #FF6666"> I believe all I have done is respond your first post of</span> "McCain stayed after being offered
release. That alone disqualifies him from serious consideration for CIC. <span style="color: #FF0000"> I guess thats a compliment not a bash</span>
And a lifelong republican that is disgusted by the present maladministration."
<span style="color: #FF0000">So it looks as if the agenda is yours. It's tough to tell which one of those statements is the most ridiculous
</span>

mike60
06-19-2008, 05:20 PM
LWW, I should care what you think? Not. McCains father the Admiral in charge of the whole Pacific Theater was lucky to have the NV offer his son repatriation. Just because McCain refused changes nothing. Being released is no favor it is one less
problem for the jailers. Semantics aside, fuck off. I lost friends because they were too fucked up to move. Left behind bleeding and shot to shit. And i have too listen to your bullshit. Let me say it again, FUCK OFF. I'm through with assholes like you
ruining the Republican Party and the memories of war with your rah-rah crap.
I quit this chicken outfit.
Bobbyrx, you too...
mike60 fuck off

Bobbyrx
06-19-2008, 05:27 PM
lol, my aren't we thin skinned? What do you mean. I'm a life long Democrat tired of the Clintons,Gores, Obama's bringing my beloved party down. If you can't take this little bit of heat /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

Gayle in MD
06-22-2008, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only reason a child would go hungry in this country is if their parents are pathetic losers, </div></div>

Oh, well in that case, they should surely starve!

George Bush has wasted and borrowed more money than any other president, and you''re attention is on demonizing the feeding of hungry children?

Get a Grip!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-22-2008, 08:52 AM
There is no reasonable, accurate way to calculate what people spend on helping others, or what they give to the needy. This post of yours is just an example of how it is more important to conservatives to demonize liberals, than it is to calculate all the economic damage we are presently suffering due to Republican Policies, which grow the Federal Government, go hog wild on spending, grow defense spending, run up unprecedented debt, destroy the value of the dollar, as they luxuriate their corporate fascist cronies, and destroy America's honor and economy, yet fail completely to respond to National disasters, due to the hiring of cornies, with no experience, and launching un-necessary invasions against countries that are of no immediate threat, while ignoring the region that is, and the people who attacked us on our shores.

If so called conservatives weren't so easily bought off with a promise of a tax cut, regardless of the absurd policies of Republicans, we wouldn't be i the mess we're in right now.





Gayle in Md.