17
   

Cruz 13 minute standing ovation in Arlington Tx

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 03:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Perhaps I chose to intepret the thrust of the exchange, but her possibly becoming the next CIC is a meaningless response to the assertion that she hates the military. Don't you agree?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 03:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Perhaps I chose to intepret the thrust of the exchange, but her possibly becoming the next CIC is a meaningless response to the assertion that she hates the military. Don't you agree?


Frankly, I think the assertion that she hates the military is an absurdity, Finn.

But given that it was made despite it being absurd...I would agree that the possibility of her becoming the next CIC is a meaningless response to the absurdity.

Simply calling it an absurdity would have been much better...in my opinion.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 03:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Considering that I believe "hate" is a very strong word, I would agree that there is no reason to believe Hillary hates the military. (Even less reason to believe that the Tea Party hates America, and hey, who offered that observation? Why it was Max!)

I don't think she has high (or even medium) regard for the military, but that's not the same as hating it.

Your opinion is duly noted (appreciate the honesty on the fact that Max's reply was meaningless though), but clearly I had additional fish to fry.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 04:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn:
Quote:
The devastating way that you surgically dissect the argument of someone with which you disagree is a sight to behold.


Do you think this was any better, Finn?

http://able2know.org/topic/224764-6#top

Post: # 5,475,922 [8th post from the top]
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 06:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
we know that Bill Clinton gutted the force, and that Hillary was one of his main advisors at the time. this is
not reassuring.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 07:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
we know that Bill Clinton gutted the force, and that Hillary was one of his main advisors at the time. this is not reassuring.


There's no nice way to say this, Hawk - you are ******* nuts. [I left off the exclamation mark to soften the blow]

The ******* US already has a military that is as large/larger than the next six/eight/ten countries combined.

What do you need that for? So that Tuvalu doesn't invade the US and enslave all you sheeple.

You have this gigantic US Communist Military where how many millions of people are on the dole from birth to the grave. You have them invading countries around the globe stealing, raping and torturing when they aren't murdering people.

What is wrong with you people?
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 09:31 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
The ******* US already has a military that is as large/larger than the next six/eight/ten countries combined.


That is why we are still free, you are riding on our coat tails.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 09:35 pm
@coldjoint,
You sheeple are really the most gullible people on the planet. You've got this tiny cadre of war criminals and terrorists that scare you into providing your tax dollars to murder, then steal the wealth from the world's poor and innocent.

You're not free, you're caged donors forking over your cash to criminals.

But you are damn good at memorizing the propaganda.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 09:42 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
then steal the wealth from the world's poor and innocent.


I guess you do not know that the carbon tax bullshit is designed to redistribute wealth(worldwide) as is our new healthcare in this country. You need to catch up on things.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 09:45 pm
@coldjoint,
You have the attention span of a typical USian, that of a gnat.

There are far too many coldjoints in your brain. Your synapses just aren't firing.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 10:59 pm
@JTT,
No you are simply losing, the articles you present no hard facts just supposition and propaganda.
And why the insults?I guess your argument can not stand on its own.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 05:47 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

we know that Bill Clinton gutted the force, and that Hillary was one of his main advisors at the time. this is
not reassuring.


Time for another "C'mon" here, Hawk!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 07:08 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

we know that Bill Clinton gutted the force, and that Hillary was one of his main advisors at the time. this is
not reassuring.

How do you know this? Is it something you dreamed about?

National Defense spending - 1993 - 291 billion (GWBush last budget year)
National Defense spending - 2001 - 304 billion (Clinton last budget year)
LvB
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 07:30 am
@JTT,
Well he does have the memory of a goldfish.

"Your synapses just aren't firing. " YEARS and years of alcohol abuse.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 08:41 am
@LvB,
Anything about the criminal activity at Amkon?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 05:10 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

we know that Bill Clinton gutted the force, and that Hillary was one of his main advisors at the time. this is
not reassuring.

How do you know this? Is it something you dreamed about?

National Defense spending - 1993 - 291 billion (GWBush last budget year)
National Defense spending - 2001 - 304 billion (Clinton last budget year)


http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/07/img/defense_budgets1.jpg

parado, you are getting to be as bad as Firefly on the dishonesty front. Clinton used the military a ton but was constantly looking for a "peace dividend" to fund his pet social projects.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 05:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
You were the one that used the term "gutted." I don't see anything "gutted" in that graph. Reagan and Bush cut the military more than Clinton did.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 06:22 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

You were the one that used the term "gutted." I don't see anything "gutted" in that graph. Reagan and Bush cut the military more than Clinton did.
Reagan spent far more than others, Bush cut fat, Clinton cut into the gut....he gutted, he cut where there should have been no cut, he damaged, the others did not.

do you really want to argue the meaning of words with me? you will lose, because you are wrong, I think purposefully wrong just as Firefly does because when you can't win with truth you have no problem moving into deceit. you practice what has sadly become common, and highly destructive, you practice abuse of language.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 06:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
What do you intellectually dishonest people get out of all of your hours of toil arguing? Help me to understand.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2013 08:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
Oh.. I see. Clinton gutted the military because you SAY he did. Never mind the actual facts of the bigger cuts that came under Reagan and Bush, we should take your word for it. Even though the military spending Clinton left office was almost identical to when he took office.

I don't think I am the one abusing language here hawkeye as the graph of military spending clearly shows.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 12:33:52