1
   

8,000 desert during Iraq war

 
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 09:38 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
i'd have to more or less agree with mystery. not so sure about being "shot", though that and hanging are the traditional punishment for desertion.

since there's no draft for the last 30 years, if ya don't want to get into battle, ya probably should do a different kind of work to begin with.
Desertion just means gone for 30 days or more. It happens all the time in peace time. (8,000 per year according to the initial post)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 12:00 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, I repeatedly ignore your challenge. Most Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war. They did not come to that conclusion recklessly. Most Americans believe lying us into war should lead to impeachment. Your challenge despite arguments to and frow on the issue leads me to believe you're cherry picking your info.

If true, then your refusal to give even one example of a lie is puzzling. Please cite one of his statements and then provide some evidence that it was a lie.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 12:05 am
engineer wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I have repeatedly challenged liberals on the board to state for me one, and only one lie that Bush told, in their own words (not a link), and have received every possible response except an on-topic, civil answer with evidence. What is this lie you are referring to?

I don't consider myself a "liberal", more of a moderate Republican, but I'll take a stab. So, in my own words and without links, I believed the President lied when he said:

1) He was not briefed about the risks of Hurricane Katrina and the government did everything possible to prepare for it. I'm from New Orleans, so I get more steamed about this than most.

I doubt he said that he was not briefed about the risks of Katrina. As for doing "everything possible," that is subjective, and doesn't fall into the same category as taking a bribe and then denying it.

engineer wrote:
2) The United States does not engage in torture. Three years ago, I defended the US against this charge on other boards. I was wrong. The evidence is overwhelming that the US has done this using most commonly accepted definitions of torture. Only by distorting the definition can the President claim otherwise.
I think what he said is that the US does not engage in torture as a matter of policy. In every war there are indivuals and groups that commit abuses in the treatment of prisoners.

engineer wrote:
3) Iraq was working with terrorists, was involved in 9/11 and was a threat to the US. His defenders may claim otherwise, but the President was clearly spinning this tale before the Iraq invasion.
Bush has never stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. If you disagree you have only to provide a citation to the relevant Bush quote.

engineer wrote:
4) He does not know Jack Abramoff. Jack says otherwise.
I am not familiar with this one, but it would be helpful if you would post a citation to the relevant Bush quotation.

engineer wrote:
There are several other lies I think the President told, but that are not conclusive. I'll start with these for now.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 12:11 am
Amigo wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, I repeatedly ignore your challenge. Most Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war. They did not come to that conclusion recklessly. Most Americans believe lying us into war should lead to impeachment. Your challenge despite arguments to and frow on the issue leads me to believe you're cherry picking your info.
I'm going to start ignoring a lot of the right-wingers here. They just act as a firewall to real political conversation.

I say it's time to move forward and leave them behind intill the acknowledge the truth and start making sense. There anti-productive and a waste of time, energy and typing.

Yes, it certainly is valid debating technique to ignore those who post diferent opinions. How dare they disagree in a political debating forum! Rolling Eyes

If you do not answer those who disagree with you, then, formally, we must conclude that you simply cannot defend your opinions, no matter what your rationalization.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 12:12 pm
engineer wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
i'd have to more or less agree with mystery. not so sure about being "shot", though that and hanging are the traditional punishment for desertion.

since there's no draft for the last 30 years, if ya don't want to get into battle, ya probably should do a different kind of work to begin with.
Desertion just means gone for 30 days or more. It happens all the time in peace time. (8,000 per year according to the initial post)


couldn't say about the 8000 per year, haven't bothered to research it.

but my point was, there is no draft. it's all volunteer.

if ya know that you really don't ever want to go out and play gigs, don't join a professional band.

mystery and others will know more than i do about it, but i think that you actually do have a short limited time after you enlist to leave the military without prejudice. could be wrong about that.
0 Replies
 
mele42846
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 12:56 am
Blueflame never defends with evidence, don't tread. He is obsessed with Bush because Bush is friendly to the people who are pushing for DOMA.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 01:48 am
mele42846 wrote:
Blueflame never defends with evidence, don't tread. He is obsessed with Bush because Bush is friendly to the people who are pushing for DOMA.


blueflame has given tons of evidence in our various shared discussions. and i usually agree with him. in this case, we have a little different pov.

i have no idea what doma is. but if bush is friendly to it, i'd really want to look at it before i gave an opinion on it.

i don't equate respect for the military with respect for george bush. nobody should.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 10:34 am
DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Amendment. It is meant to counteract judicial overturning of the Defense of Marriage Acts of the many states that have them. The acts vary but for the most part specify that a marriage must be between a man and a woman.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 04:54 pm
flyboy804 wrote:
DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Amendment. It is meant to counteract judicial overturning of the Defense of Marriage Acts of the many states that have them. The acts vary but for the most part specify that a marriage must be between a man and a woman.


must be gettin' old. didn't click as DOMA.

however, if that's truly why blueflame rags on bush (not that there aren't a lot of good reasons...), i'm happy to join him.
0 Replies
 
mele42846
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 05:06 pm
You may, of course, rag on Bush because he is for DOMA. However, you should be informed that most states now have constitutional amendments which uphold The Defense of Marriage Act. You are, of course, aware, that the states do this through a referendum which allows to put the question on the ballot and then to a vote.

You may not be aware, however, that soon DOMA will be enshrined in more than 80% of the states making the NON DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE, a strictly academic exercise.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 05:17 pm
I think we should all give Bush a break. I don't think Bush has EVER lied!!

I think Bush says what Cheney TELLS him to say!! He's too stupid to do anything else, so ... I'm with Brandon! Bush has never lied!!! He's never been permitted to know anything, so how could he lie??

Anon
0 Replies
 
mele42846
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 05:19 pm
You may, of course, rag on Bush because he is for DOMA. However, you should be informed that most states now have constitutional amendments which uphold The Defense of Marriage Act. You are, of course, aware, that the states do this through a referendum which allows to put the question on the ballot and then to a vote.

You may not be aware, however, that soon DOMA will be enshrined in more than 80% of the states making the NON DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE, a strictly academic exercise.

It appears you don't know too much about DOMA. I will fill you in.

first- DOMA was signed by that great libertarian-BILL CLINTON on 9/21/1996

Second- at least 37 states( IT MAY NOW BE MORE) have DOMA as portion of their State Constitutions.

Third- There will be more states with referendums to approve DOMA on the ballots in November 2006.

Fourth-The forces arrayed against DOMA are hoping( with little legal assurance) that the USSC may overturn the DOMA state constitutional legislation. With the addition of Roberts and Alito, that is a vain hope.

I hope that this has helped you, don't tread. I am sure that you will find that Blueflame's posts are usually over the top, referenced to doubtful sources and quite unbalanced!!!
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 06:37 pm
mele42846 wrote:
You may, of course, rag on Bush because he is for DOMA. However, you should be informed that most states now have constitutional amendments which uphold The Defense of Marriage Act. You are, of course, aware, that the states do this through a referendum which allows to put the question on the ballot and then to a vote.

You may not be aware, however, that soon DOMA will be enshrined in more than 80% of the states making the NON DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE, a strictly academic exercise.

It appears you don't know too much about DOMA. I will fill you in.

nope. i just don't call it doma. i call it a lot of other things though. like discrimination. puritanical. nosey.

nice to know that you admit that roberts and alito are activist judges.



I hope that this has helped you, don't tread. I am sure that you will find that Blueflame's posts are usually over the top, referenced to doubtful sources and quite unbalanced!!!


folks can reference any source they like. i have no problem at all with blueflame's posts. and if you do, it's probably best that you take your complaint to him/her instead of sniping at BF in a post response to me.

it's just more upfront that way.
:wink:
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 07:58 pm
anon,
Bush is apparently smarter then you are.

He graduated from Yale,he was twice elected Governor of Texas,and he was twicer elected President.

Now I know you are going to give a song and dance about using his connections to accomplish all that,so let me save you the trouble.

Even if he did it that way,he was still smarter then you because he did it.

If you are so smart,why havent you used your name and connections to accomplish more then being a bitter old fool?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 08:35 pm
well, there is the thing that nepotism really sucks. unless you're the one getting nepotized...... Shocked
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 08:54 pm
I don't worry about nepotism. Being a white guy, I'll never get to work for an asian boss.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, and you just assume that I'm a racist, you're an idiot.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 09:21 pm
mysteryman wrote:
anon,
Bush is apparently smarter then you are.

He graduated from Yale,he was twice elected Governor of Texas,and he was twicer elected President.

Now I know you are going to give a song and dance about using his connections to accomplish all that,so let me save you the trouble.

Even if he did it that way,he was still smarter then you because he did it.

If you are so smart,why havent you used your name and connections to accomplish more then being a bitter old fool?


Whatever I am, it's more than you will ever be!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 09:22 pm
Not.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 09:37 pm
cjhsa wrote:
I don't worry about nepotism. Being a white guy, I'll never get to work for an asian boss.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, and you just assume that I'm a racist, you're an idiot.


Probably because the Asian person is so much smarter than you are, has so much more than you have, is willing to work so much harder than you, and your little white ego can't handle it!

I work with Asians all the time in the computer business ... for one, you can trust them!! For two, they'll work harder and longer than a white person, they understand work ethic. If you had ever been in the Orient, you would understand why! You don't know what competition is ... basically because you're white, and additionally because you're a white in America.

I was married to a little Japanese gal that was a naive little lady. She started work at Greyhound Bus as a ticket sorter. She put herself through college and became a Kaiser Foundation V.P. in Oakland. How about you CJ?? Tell me, are you even a college grad??

You give me a white person, and an asian person with lower qualifications ... I'll take the asian person and be ahead of the game in a year!!

You may not be a bigot, but you're definitely not too swift about who excels at work, production, and basic smarts!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 09:38 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Not.


CJ,

You're in no position to evaluate that!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 07:37:45