There are more ex military and combat veterans that are elected democrats than republicans. John Kerry had combat experience in Vietnam Bush dodged war big time.
@thecaliforniaknight I was replying to your comment. Not his video. And he never compared people running for office and their past military experience, Since we are on the topic, how many years was President Obama in the military?
--it sounds as though you Believe Republicans and Democrats Both aren't illegitimate...good to know: means we need to work harder, to expose the Left-Right Scam
[here's a thought for you: WikiLeaks]
Those look like some good men, and they're all nice photo's...but Propoganda needs to be called out at All levels
I have only pride for the US military (my military). But let's not forget the IDF. They are also extremely ethical and they are also following rules of engagement that tend to get more of their own killed. God bless Israel and God bless the USA.
Brain dead morons. Durbin should NOT have apologized. He was right, you dumb bastards are not. I served, I believe in the principles of America which instruct me to be better than that which wants to destroy me.
RWers are the "dispicable bunch". Bite me bitches.
Well all I see is democrats pointing out the republican mess and not doing much about it. Instead Dems want to ruin peoples healthcare-when 9/10 people polled are very happy with their healthcare. So thats why their corrupt bill isnt being passed.
So it's the Democratic Leadership that hates the Military? It was a republican leader who started two wars, under supplied the soldiers with faulty equipment. Then they cut funding for the VA hospitals and sweep under the carpet veterans dealing with PTSD and other chronic ailments. Obama inherited this mess!! Conservatives are not only UNfit to lead but completely off base and criminally stupid for what they support and don't support. Hypocrisy never works despite what cons would believe.
You make valid points on the blunders of the republican party. But you are basically a team picker. You chose to stand up for democrats. What good things have democrats done for the American people recently? The only reason Dems were elected was because the people wanted the wars to end. The democrats are full majority and could end both wars instantly. Instead they are wasting trillions and we are still at war. They cant get anything done.
I would never presume I know enough about a war crime bush blunder like Iraq and Afghanistan to say what Obama and the Democrats should or should not do to fix the mess. When Bush I pulled out of Iraq the first time it led to mass civilian slaughter while American Soldiers watched. It takes time to fix Republican messes. No one does anything well with whacks screaming in their ear. Republicans know this which only makes them more deserving of the wrath of the American People.
God, so many of you are so stupid--it's incredible! Fact: Gore and Kerry were honored vets--Bush Jr, Rumsfeld, and Cheney NEVER served, unless you want to count Bush in the reserves, in which he often failed to show. Being a War Hawk doesn't make you a Patriot, it makes you an idiot for thinking that simply going to war will solve all of the problems we face. This moron here can't seem to understand the difference between not suppporting our military and not supporting the Republicans!!
obviously, its not a war, its policing.. when you have to worry about bistandards, its police force, not a war. WAR KILLS.. PERIOD.. it KILLS ANYONE ON THE ENEMY SIDE.. THUS IT MAKES THEM AN ENEMY. when you cant fire on civilians, your a police officer.. Nothing more.
Obama and the Democrats in America want to disarm all Americans with their so-called "Gun Control" for the safety "of the children" of course, (except for their own bodyguards and their military) so Americans who disagree with their policies can then be shot dead if need be, in the streets like peaceful citizens are brutalized all over the world by their corrupt and brutal dictatorships. Never vote for a Democrat, they are the "Enemy Within".
Jes, you are so out of touch w/ actual policy. Dems don't want to get rid of all guns, just the ones used in crimes--like the AK 47s that aren't used for hunting or protection in the home, but that have been proven to be directly connected to the rise in drug violence in northern Mexico. Do you ever actually read, or simply spread right-winged rhetoric not based on any fact at all??
"Dems don't want to get rid of all guns, just the ones used in crimes"
--Actually, you're wrong. First, what's the point in having law-abiding citizens apply to own firearms, register their firearms, and prevent them from buying certain firearms when it's the criminals you're really after? And second, Janet Reno herself, as echoed by a leader of a gun control group, that registration & waiting periods are only the first step to confiscation of firearms & the banning of firearms ownership.
The Brady Bill, which you are referring to, was created by a Republican, not a Democrat. Learn some history. I guess you are fine w/ the criminally insane purchasing guns? Great! Another member for your party
"was created by a Republican, not a Democrat. Learn some history"
--Only after he was shot. And I'm going to bet his wife had more to do with it than he did. Plus, he wasn't an elected politician. So how about you learn some history, too?
"I guess you are fine w/ the criminally insane purchasing guns"
--Please show me exactly what I wrote that would make you believe that. I'm going to guess you can't. Meaning you're being entirely disingenuous.
No, he wasn't an elected politician, but I never said that he was, and if you are against gun control, as you stated you are, then you don't care who has guns! I am being absolutely serious. Gun control is an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them, like the insane dude that shot Brady!! You are right, Brady did switch parties after he was shot. He learned first hand why gun control matters, unfortunately.
--Well, usually when people are talking about Democrats & Republicans, especially name ones, and regarding legislation, the person is/was a politician.
"if you are against gun control ... then you don't care who has guns"
--Ummm.... says who?
"attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them"
--That's not what the leaders in gun control advocacy say, going back to the 70s.
"if you are against gun control ... then you don't care who has guns"
--Ummm.... says who?--says you, duh. No gun control, then everyone can have guns, and by your response I guess you don't like that, well, neither do Dems.
That's not what the leaders in gun control advocacy say, going back to the 70s.--nope again. Some restraint doesn't mean TOTAL restraint.
--Under what law?--this rebuttal doesn't even make sense?!
"says you, duh. No gun control, then everyone can have guns"
--Preventing criminals & the mentally deranged from owning guns is not "gun control." DUH! That's like saying its wrong to not allow arsonists to own flamethrowers.
"nope again. Some restraint doesn't mean TOTAL restraint"
--Obviously you need to read up.
"this rebuttal"
--You wrote about John Hinckley. Well, Hinckley had no record & wasn't evaluated by anyone. So what law is there to prevent such people from owing guns?
Tell me, genius, if you are against gun control, like background checks, then how do you plan on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally deranged. You act like that's a no-brainer, yet you are against the laws THAT DO JUST THAT. It no longer makes any sense to have this discussion with you b/c you keep contradicting yourself. And, Hinckley DID have a record, which was why the Brady Bill was passed!!! You keep getting every fact wrong! These facts are so easily documentable.
"if you are against gun control, like background checks, then how do you plan on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally deranged"
--Why must you lie to make your point? You continually lie and lie and lie. It's pathetic.
Please provide a quote from me where I say I'm against criminal and/or psychological background checks for gun ownership, and where I say I want criminals and/or the mentally deranged to have guns.
Okay genius, see if you can follow along. I will make this as clear as possible for you. My first comment on this thread that you commented on was in response to a commrent about how horrible it was for Dems to want gun control. you have yet to tell me HOW you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill w/o some sort of legislation to restrict the access to guns for some of our citizens. That restriction is gun control!! I'll be waiting a long time for your answer.
--Is 12 hours too long? I never claimed that keeping guns from criminals or psychopaths was gun control. Again, please show me where I did. Gun control is restricting guns from law-abiding citizens, which is pointless.
--Again with the lies. Please cite any example where I have contradicted myself. You see, when you know what you're talking about and you have strong convictions, you don't constradict yourself.
"Hinckley DID have a record"
--What felonies did he commit before he shot Reagan?
"These facts are so easily documentable"
--Like the 2nd Amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I just want to know.
What record did Hinckley have? My god, man, where's your brain. He was in and out of mental institutions! That was his record. I never said it was a criminal record. The Brady Bill includes the mentally learn. Shit, learn the law b/f trying to sound intelligent! And the 2nd Amendment is in reference to a militia, and was in response to the arms being stashed in Lexington and Concord that the British tried to take away. It was not intended as a free reign on all types of weapons.
That is so easy to answer, dude, as I've read all primary sources on this point. The Anti-Federalists and Federalists got together and sketched out protections in order for the Constitution to get ratified. They also meant for it to be a "living" document, evolving with the times. It wasn't meant to be static. Read some Jefferson and Madison, not books about them, but their actual letters, you may learn something.
Do you really think the forefathers knew what an AK 47 or a rocket launcher were? The 2nd Amendment was referring to the guns they had at the time--muskets and rifles and the pistol. Rifles and pistols are legal, still. Your argument is like saying that b/c the 1st Amendment doesn't limit threatening one's life, that I have free reign to do so. So, do I? Do I have the right to do crack in the name of freedom of religion, if I include it in my church service? Um, no.
Dems aren't trying to take away all guns from all citizens. You must think the EXTREME left account for all Dems. They are not. Keeping the guns out of criminal's hands or the mentally deranged doesn't limit our militia capability at all. Dems aren't saying to get rid of hand guns or hunting rifles. Some restriction doesn't mean total restriction, and for this reason the Brady BIll passed!!! It was Constitutional.
--As I told you before, most are. Diane Feinstein, who has a CCW permit, said if she had enough votes she'd take them all away from other citizens. Plenty of other leading Dems would, too, as their statements show.
"Some restriction doesn't mean total restriction"
--The Progressive methodology (Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and Sunsetein's "Nudge") calls for continual pushing toward the goal. This goal, as stated, is total confiscation.
okay, here's one simple contradiction you posted. It took 3 seconds to find it:
I wrote "if you are against gun control ... then you don't care who has guns" and you said
--Ummm.... says who?
Don't you see the irony there?? You are against gun control but by your genius rebuttal of "umm, says who" you are implying that you don't want anyone carrying guns, but you are against the legislation that would do just that. That, NoGuff, is called a contradiction!!!
--No. Let's look at that exchange. You claimed I don't care who has guns, then I replied asking who said that, becuase it wasn't me (some call that a "strawman" argument). If there's a contradiction there, it exists only in your pointy little head, dummy.
do you even know what "irony" means. You jumped in the strawman argument after his comment, on my rebuttal to him about that point, meaning you supported it. If you didn't, then you shouldn't have been involved. So, you are either nosey, or a hypocrite--feel free to choose.
--Yes. And that wasn't it. You're confusing "contradiction" with "irony." And I have yet to contradict myself. Your example was a failure. You didn't even understand it.
"meaning you supported it"
--That's the meaning you wrongly conjured. So don't blame me for it.
--Well, usually when people are talking about Democrats & Republicans, especially name ones, and regarding legislation, the person is/was a politician.
The mere fact that Reagan's Press Secretary, a hard core conservative, flipped parties after being shot, b/c he saw the need for some kind of gun legislation shows the intelligence of the Dem. position. Everyone shouldn't have guns. Not every gun should be legal. If the NRA had their way ALL guns would be legal
--What other types of Conservatives are there? None that I'm aware of. But, to you, because he was a Conservative (allegedly) that means he was a "hard core" one.
"If the NRA had their way ALL guns would be legal"
There are other types of Conservatives, other than hard-core, my friend. Case in point, I am a Blue Dog Dem, meaning I am a fiscal conservative. I hate the bank bailouts, started by Bush and Paulson and continued by Obama, but I am not as extreme as Buchanan or Pailin on any issue Most conservatives aren't hard core, but just right of center. I teach Poli Sci for a living. There's a plethora of evidence to support that the only hard-core on both sides are in the minority of both sides.
"I am a Blue Dog Dem, meaning I am a fiscal conservative"
--You share some ideas on fiscal policy with Conservatives and you think that makes you a Conservative? Wow. What color is the sky in your world? So, if I hate Communists, & Hitler did, by your definition I'm a Fascist. Right? You're a piece of work.
"but I am not as extreme as Buchanan or Pailin"
--Buchanan? The guy on MSNBC who agrees with a lot of that they say? And exactly what "extreme" positions does Palin have?
You just contradicted yourself again! Jes, dude, follow your logic. You said there are only "hard core conservative" I said there were degrees, you said no, and then you implied that you don't agree w/ Hitler, who was as extreme right as you can get, you then prove that there ARE DEGREES of Conservatism. Do you even know what a political spectrum is and where the parties fall?
--By your definition. It's like being a little pregnant. You're either a Conservative, or not.
"I teach Poli Sci for a living"
--So much for our great education system. You're one of those perpetuating myths & lies.
"the only hard-core on both sides are in the minority of both sides"
--You're confusing people who believe in what they say & "extremists." So just because someone believes in the entire Conservative platform that makes them extremists?
I'm a hard core Dem and I own a gun. So, please don't preach to me about wanting to get rid of them. Tell me, does some law in a country mean that that country is a military-state? I assume you prefer anarchy? My point is that neither is good, but a middle ground is ideal. This is the same w/ gun laws. Some are necessary. IE, Cop-Killer bullets. The NRA fought like hell to keep them legal--why? A deer doesn't wear kevlar!
--Are you referring to a junta? "Military state" refers to one RUN by the military, not where the citizens own firearms."
I know what a military state means! I can see my analogy went right over your head. I guess I need to dumb things down for you
--No, but the real agenda behind banning those bullets (which cops can have) wasn't to save the lives of cops."--oh really?? So, I guess all cops are Dems now, as they applauded the ban!!
--There was no analogy. Liberals are totally incapable of using or understanding them. This example is further proof. You asked a question in a hypthetical context (without prefacing it), not an analogy, dummy.
"So, I guess"
--You can guess all you want, that's not what I said. And I don't blame them for siding with the ban. Police are an odd bunch to poll. Most say they agree we have the right to own firearms, but they also confiscated them from law-abiding Katrina victims.
I have no problem w/ a person waiting a few days to make sure they aren't a mental patient or a criminal. I bet Brady would agree. We register our cars! Does that mean that the gov't wants to get rid of cars?? No, it doesn't. Use your head. Janet Reno wasn't referring to confiscating all weapons, just those in the wrong hands. I guess you don't care if a career criminal has a gun? Why would that be? Do tell!
--Hinckley was neither, and bought his gun well in advance. People who are enraged grab a nearby weapon (knife, bat, tire iron), they don't go down to the local gunshop.
"register our cars"
--Only to drive on public roads. Driving is not a right.
"Does that mean"
--Our current Admin. does. But that's another topic.
"Janet Reno wasn't referring"
--Wrong.
"if a career criminal"
--You think he can't get one? Saying he can't just reveals an agenda.
"the AK 47s that aren't used for hunting or protection in the home, but that have been proven to be directly connected to the rise in drug violence in northern Mexico"
--If that's the case, then why ban law-abiding citizens from owning them? Why not just ban the criminals from owning them?
"Do you ever actually read, or simply spread right-winged rhetoric not based on any fact at all"
--Do you every actually read, or simply spread Left-Wing rhetoric not based on any fact at all?
The fact that you didn't know that the violence in Mexico has been linked to the Assault Weapon Ban being lifted shows that you don't actually follow policy beyond what Fox News tells you. Normal, law abiding citizens don't need a machine gun to hunt, unless they suck at hunting, or to protect their homes.
"has been linked to the Assault Weapon Ban being lifted"
--The problem is not the lifting of the AWB (its still effective in CA), its with the criminals. Having any other attitude just reveals an agenda on your part.
"you don't actually follow policy beyond what Fox News tells you"
--FNC had stories on the Mexican gangs, but their target was not our firearm laws. That would simply reveal an anti-2nd Amdt agenda.
"The problem is not the lifting of the AWB (its still effective in CA), its with the criminals."--no shit! That's the whole point!! Law abiding citizens don't need assault weapons. Criminals use them more! Thanks for proving my point for me. Look up the stats on nations that have loose gun laws. They statistically have more crime than nations w/ firmer gun laws. Hum, I wonder why that is?? Gun laws keep the guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. They aren't perfect, obviously.
--You already know the answers to this question. For some reason you want to challemge me on it, like a tyipcal Liberal.
Waiting periods, registration/applications, type bans, model bans, accessory bans, caliber bans, design bans, etc. And since the Amendment specifies "arms," there are other weapons banned, like knives, batons, etc.
I'm sure you'll refute every single one of those.
If that's the case, then why ban law-abiding citizens from owning them? Why not just ban the criminals from owning them?--It's called doing what is right for the greater good. With your logic, why not let law-abiding citizens drive around in tanks and own rocket launchers! Rocket launchers are "arms" and by your logic are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Handguns protect the home, and shotguns and rifles are used to hunt. AKs are used for what?
--How can "the greater good" be served by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens? The further you go into your REAL beliefs, the more they buckle under scrutiny.
"in tanks"
--Isn't that what Obama's "civilian national security force" will do? Tell me, if the military fights foreigners, who will this force fight?
"AKs"
--Killing people outside the home. You really are dumb. A rancher armed with a pistol or a hunting rifle is no match for the Nat'l Guard, is he?
Excellent suggestion. I think however that would be a double edge sword as it would also insult us patriotic Americans to be associated with the likes of them.
Awe, isn't that cute. Did mommy and daddy let you use the computer little boy? I'm sure it's past your sleepy time, so run off to bed and let the grownups speak.
funny comment, apparently you aren't bright enough to see the message in the prior comment. In war, it isn't so cut and dry as this anti-Dem wants you to think it is. But, thanks for your comment, b/c you completely proved my point for me. Thanks!
I'm sure there may be someone, a family member possibly, who might care about your lame ass opinions, but I do not. You are a liberal, and as you may or may not know, liberals are cowards, so please piss off.
Cowards in what way? You think wanting to simply kill someone b/c Bush says to makes you a "man?" We invaded Iraq on a lie!! Tell me, where are the weapons of mass destruction? There aren't any. So, Dems are cowards, just educated and not willing to put our troops in harms way for no reason. Good job Republicans, on getting our troops killed! But hey, at least you're not a coward, just an idiot--congrats!!
How long were you in Iraq? I am so sick of hearing liberal twats claim to know more about the war in Iraq than those of us who were there. I was there three years and can tell you that we did in fact find WsMD, so be a good little boy and piss off. By the way they're not your troops, you arrogant scum.
You are a liar, and therefore a disgrace to our real military. If you had found weapons, it would have been all over the news! It would've been a key platform of the McCain campaign! God damn, it is amazing just how stupid you are, to lie over something so easy to discredit. Tell me, what weapon did you find over there that proved a threat to our country? It was already proven that Iraq wasn't obtaining components from Niger. The case has already been closed by our State Dept. Moron!!!!!!!
Josh bernard is my cousin, thank you for getting this word out, these idiot liberals need to pay attention to this before there is more american blood being spilled
PropagandaBuster, I thank you for your concern of the issue with the ROE. I knew Joshua Bernard, and I see how angry John Bernard is about how the war is being run. Please try to get word out to even more people about this.
USAG as I said I'd turned that cheek and even another quite a bit before I decided diferently as I also believe in not being abused.
Sweetie I'm not the one who started our conversation about treatment....remember you are the one who complained I'd called you a foul name. So I'm not the whiner...that'd be you.
USAG...I've never called anyone a foul name before being called one myself. In your case you'd called me at least a dozen derogatory names before I retaliated at all. I've watched my language very well on this channel so I know that the worst thing I've ever called you was a name you've earned every bit of. I've seen quite a bit of language here much more foul than that.....none from me.
No elgcpa...it was the comment you sent me that said "You know, I'll just say something that will shut your f...ing mouth up once and for all. At least in this video".
If I'm confused about what you sent or meant...please explain.
elgcpa....I was talking about a comment you sent to my home page. After reading it a couple more times the best I can come up with is it was something you sent me that someone else wrote...and you'd responded to. I think I misinterpreted that comment for what you were saying to me. Does ObliviuxProduction's ring a bell?
Propo...my comments from a couple days ago appeared when I wrote them....then later disappeared so I obviously knew how to post them. My name is still there but the comment is not. Just asking...
Drones are nessisary from preventing death, how dare they say we can't use air support. It's irresponsible to say that "civilians won't die in a war". I don't like it either but whats the alternative, thermonuclear war? The constant threat of terrorist attacks on our nation? I know FRIST HAND how drones have kept men alive so they can come home for the holidays, it's irresponsible to say we can't use them. That is aweful and the feminists that are supporting these policies make more die.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They have government run health care and when Obama wanted to privatize it a lot of people got angry because it was a terrible idea and he backed off.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
See how misinformation gets around propo? People actually think Obama changed the rules of engagement...now that's propaganda wouldn't you say buster?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I was hoping that when Obama inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Republicans would start to oppose it just to be obstructionists and maybe call for the end of the war but Republicans apparently love war that much.
That Senator was speaking his mind, and was incorrect to label all Soldiers as Nazis or worse. They are always some bad apples in the bunch.But most soldiers are good, caring Patriotic Americans.
ok so your a republican fine but most of your videos maintain some loose sense of fairness but this is a bit skewed even by that standard. besides from being american please explain the reasoning behind the shock at those comments the senator made?
podge314: I think I summed up my feelings concerning the Senator's comments in this video. That Senator and his comments deserve no further examination by me other than to write the comments were despicable and he is a disgrace to the United States Senate. Such a human being as he deserves no respect from me. As a citizen of these here United States my respect lies with the brave men and women who serve our nation as oppose to a Senator only concerned with reelection.
I respect your zeal for the armed forces but it worrys me you will brook no criticism of any section of them. I dont believe this comment will make you change your beliefs. But this is as neutral an opinion as i belive you will hear upon it.
This video is about the anti-USA, anti-military thugs in the Democratic Party leadership. So I may be a bit confused. Where in that topic is any criticism expected by me concerning the military to stay on topic?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gee propo...when you make a video that is so full of ridiculous blanket comments about a political party why would you not expect comments that show the hypocracy of it?
The rules of engagement in Afghanistan were decided by the military...not Obama as you suggest.
Durben didn't say all of our troops behaved as Nazis as you suggest either.....a terrible thing to stretch the truth to fit ones agenda propo.
You can choose to ignore your own party's abuse of the military...the nation hasn't.
Podge314: Now I admit my looks may be a bit terrifying, but I would hope my words did not equal the same. Are you sure your above comment is about something I wrote or said? Because if so, it eludes me.
How about showing what was on that paper the senator had, describing the condition and treatment of prisoners protected by the Geneva Convention, then compare THAT with the groups of "evil" people, rather than picking the "good" pictures of the soldiers which is just as much propaganda.
My grandfather was a tank commander in the German military in WW2 (Africa), but no account would describe him with the "Nazi" stereotype; there are good soldiers and bad soldiers
Great video PB. Every time I watch one, I become more of a fan. And as I read the Loony-libs that try to discredit you and other conservatives, it become more and more clear how completely they the left has lost touch with reality GOD Bless you, GOD bless our troops and the job they are trying to do (despite the democrat partys attempt to neuter them) , and GOD bless America
(continued) However, as an American, it is my responsibility to ensure our federal government never oversteps its boundaries.
TARGETING CIVILIANS is doing just that. Every rational, moral principle of war, including Just War theory, which our country is supposed to follow, tells us it is wrong. Nor do I agree with Sherman's March, targeting confederate civilians.
I need not support every immoral act by the United States government to be a good citizen. I would be remiss not to talk.
The Democratic Party today has certainly severely changed for the worse. It's not the party of the working class or a party that can properly lead America. Even FDR would be ashamed of how some of the Democrats' top leaders view the U.S. Armed Forces.
wow, are you out of touch. Republicans want corporate profit, so they encourage large companies to move over seas for cheaper labor and tax breaks. This action is eliminating our middle class! Your apparent ignorance of this key element of Republican fiscal policy also may be why you think that Dems. are unpatriotic b/c we actually know why Bush went to war in Iraq--for more profit, not for protection from weapons that didn't exist!!
So you don't deny my comment. Great! Small business tax isn't ideal, but when companies like Nike, Walmart, and even our auto companies are now doing business overseas, that's when you see layoffs in the tens of thousands, not 6 or 7
I do when large corps leave the US to escape tax laws and no exploit other countries that don't have mininum wage! You are damn right I do. I've been to several of the countries exploited by the US over the past 15 years. Have you? If you had, you'd know that our middle class is gone b/c America companies can go somewhere else for less money, making more for the stockholders--who usually are Republicans, not Dems. See the forest through the trees dude!
"when large corps leave the US to escape tax laws"
--So what does that tell you?
"America companies can go somewhere else for less money"
--And what does that tell you?
"who usually are Republicans, not Dems"
--Fact: Most Americans are now stockholders through the stock market. Fact: Most Americans are Democrats, particularly the middle class. So I don't know where you get the bullshit you spew.
And I'm sure you'll come to the wrong coclusions on the questions above.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Our troops are dying because Afghanistan has 30+ million armed men who do not want us invading their country. You can argue who's right or wrong all day long, but at the end of the day, we should not be over there at all, and these wars have absolutely NOTHING to do with our freedom here at home.
There are not 30+ million, the fact that you used that number makes you a complete fucking retards. The ones fighting the troops are insurgents, and they are extremely small compared to the general public. If all 30+ million wanted the U.S. troops out, there would be far more deaths there than there are now.
Nazis are far right wingers, not left wingers you moron! This makes them closer to the Republicans. Funny how Republicans always bring up abortion, but also want to cut the social programs that would end up caring for all of the unwanted babies. They also want to limit the sex ed. necessary to bring down the unwanted pregnancies. Can you say "double standard?"
Jes, at least learn to name call correctly. Do you even know the definition of a "Nazi?" Open up a book and make an effort at reading. They are right wing. I've got a Master's degree in history, dude. Republicans are right-leaning and Nazis are extreme right wing. Calling a Democrats a Nazi just shows how completely ignorant you are. Maybe you should be debating cartoon characters instead and leave the big words to the educated people.
"Do you even know the definition of a "Nazi?" Open up a book and make an effort at reading"
--National Socialism.
"I've got a Master's degree in history, dude"
--Well, first, your view of history is either bent by your personal beliefs, or you've been indoctrinated by the Left. And second, you need take some new courses in basic English. I'm surprised you could get a Masters in history with your grammar. "I've got a Master's?" You "have got?" Please, stop trying to bullshit us.
I like what Chris Titus said about Abu-Grab."That is rush week at Chico State.The woman pointing at the guy's privates laughing were half of my ex-girlfriends.Real torture is taking an innocent journalist,filming as you cut thier head off with a hacksaw,and mailing the tape to their family.That's torture".
Durbin voted to keek funding acorn. Why? Because arcorn helps keep Durbin in power in Illinois. Illinois is a very corrupt state and Durbin is a part of that corruption.
Tony, in my previous post I gave a snap-shot of the reality of why the current rules of engagement are there (to appease Karzai and keep him in power). Now, I have already stated previously that the US had every right to invade and in my opinion even occupy/colonize Afghanistan, since their country participated in the 9/11 attacks on the US. If the latter were the case, the US could of course make their own rules of engagement as the de facto ruling party. This is what should happen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
computerpurple....it took Bush and Petreaous months to decide on the surge and Bush never even had a plan in Afghanistan....that's a MF....and the whining from you guys is laughable.
Well hello wittumy. Bush was adamant about the surge. It was the democrats that played head games in regards to funding of the surge. This is what cause some slow down of inacting the surge.
--I don't respond to that child-brained troll anymore. The fewer messages he posts without thinking, the better.
Anyway, that lie he wrote, "Bush never even had a plan in Afghanistan," is the latest Talking Point from the Left (R. Emmanuel, et. al.). I heard it just yesterday and already the minions are spewing it everywhere.
So pathetic. One can only hope there will be a day when they wake up and start thinking for themselves. For now, they're "useful idiots."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
NoGuff....you've run away from discussions because you have nothing to offer but namecallin. You censor your own home page to keep up the appearance of being right all the time and withdrew your comments when you knew they were wrong.
What was Bush's plan then? He in fact did decide to not send troops after Bin Laden (remember him pal?) but instead hired tribals to to do for him...brilliant. Seven years of war with most of them ignoring military call for more troops....a Bush reality.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
computer...it took Petraeous time to come up with the plan and sell it to Bush and this superiors....of course Bush didn't care about thinking about the plan...he was ready to try anything to get him out of the mess he started.
My blood boils over the way the democrats talk about the military. Makes me SICK to hear comments about our brave troops by the likes of dick SHIT durbin. Perhaps come next voting time the results will be KICK ASS BAD KARMA COMING THEIR WAY.
"Perhaps come next voting time the results will be"
--Yes, I'm hoping for a filibuster-proof majority for the Republicans. What a message that would send. I wonder how the lame-stream press would report it.
um well if there is a case of American troops abusing Taliban prisoners or so, it Should be dealt with.
I think that was what that legislator is aiming to say. Personally I am against branding people outright like calling democrats unloyal to the US or Liberals as a mental disorder. Its a case to case basis.
However it cannot be denied that some American Soldier boys do sin in the country they are in that hurt their image.
I agree. I think the current US military, which is 100% voluntary is one of the best fighting foces AND moral in terms of treatment of civilians in the entire world. There was only 1 case of rape by US soldiers in the entire Iraq war. IMHO those soldiers should have gotten the death penalty for disgracing the Army and putting the rest of the troops around the world in danger. But the fact is they were immediately brought to (some) justice.
Though I've been called a liberal for the views I expressed here, I agree with you that our armed forces fundamentally believe in moral treatment of non-combatants. And I agree that those soldiers that committed rape deserve the death penalty.
That's precisely why I support prudence and restraint in our military policy--it is American. And regardless of foreign policy, I will always believe the vast majority of our soldiers are heroes who deserve the best for the good they've done.
RE: NoGuff. Didn't see this all those months ago. I'll reply now.
Concerning the death penalty: I personally believe rape warrants the death penalty because it's just that heinous, but reasonable people can disagree.
I agree we shouldn't tie the hands of our military unnecessarily, yes, but the question is what is necessary. Sacrificing the principles of our Constitution and Just War is never justifiable. Neither is targeting civilians.
My justifications regarding the death penalty would require a personal message due to length. I may resort to one. Parts of Alito's dissent in Kennedy v. Louisiana make a sufficient case for justifications, though. I will relay them to you.
Regarding targeting civilians, I made it quite clear I know it's not a regular practice. However, it has been done (again, Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and I am making the case that it SHOULD NOT be the policy of our military. (continued)
(continued) In other words, my case is that a reasonable foreign policy requires some hands-tying. Whether our de facto policy is essentially moral or not is a subject on which reasonable men can disagree.
finally, someone intelligent in this argument! It seems most people here can't wrap their head around that fact that is it possible to support our troops, but not politics. Democrats are patriots and do support our military! But, most of us are set against the War Hawk mentality of our previous administration. So, really, who values our troops more--Dems who only want them to die protecting our country, or Reps. who use them to fight wars for oil?
I appreciate the positive reply. In all honesty, I'm a Republican, not a Democrat, and I classify myself as an old-school conservative (think Goldwater).
I don't know that the wars our soldiers have fought are "wars for oil"--I wouldn't go that far--but I do think we need to reassess our policy of preemptive war, simply because it is not in line with traditional American principles and basic morality. Lots of Democrats AND Republicans (at least, conservatives) realize this.
Anxiety about the treatment of Taliban prisoners would be about the lowest thing on my list of priorities concerning the conduct of the war. No standard exists by which you can compare the behavior of U.S. troops to the Taliban. So... I think a legislator should be concerned about the safety of the soldiers rather than the welfare of interned Taliban. Remember, It's a mistake to regard them as legit combatants. They only have an idiology but they don't wear a uniform or represent a state.
Cpl. Bernards father is a First Sergeant. The USMC does not shorten ranks to just "sarge." if you don't mind the correction.
Sabintwin 6 months ago
I don know with who they'r fighting with , gay party soldiers.
PAWASHUPA 9 months ago
There are more ex military and combat veterans that are elected democrats than republicans. John Kerry had combat experience in Vietnam Bush dodged war big time.
thecaliforniaknight 1 year ago
@thecaliforniaknight You forgot to mention John McCain. But then that wouldn't support your one dimensional view.
scottg4520 1 year ago
@scottg4520
Right because this guys video isnt one dimensional.
thecaliforniaknight 1 year ago
@thecaliforniaknight I was replying to your comment. Not his video. And he never compared people running for office and their past military experience, Since we are on the topic, how many years was President Obama in the military?
scottg4520 1 year ago
waya bababa labba dabba
Stoganof 1 year ago
--it sounds as though you Believe Republicans and Democrats Both aren't illegitimate...good to know: means we need to work harder, to expose the Left-Right Scam
[here's a thought for you: WikiLeaks]
Those look like some good men, and they're all nice photo's...but Propoganda needs to be called out at All levels
onestupidman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have only pride for the US military (my military). But let's not forget the IDF. They are also extremely ethical and they are also following rules of engagement that tend to get more of their own killed. God bless Israel and God bless the USA.
Thanks again, Tony
Telly
tasj0001 1 year ago
Comment removed
tasj0001 1 year ago
So--we can win against playgrounds and grocers!
And you think others cast aspersions on soldiers?
KeeperOfTheWord 1 year ago
Brain dead morons. Durbin should NOT have apologized. He was right, you dumb bastards are not. I served, I believe in the principles of America which instruct me to be better than that which wants to destroy me.
RWers are the "dispicable bunch". Bite me bitches.
redhaireddog 1 year ago
Ha, DICK Durbin bitches about how our troops are "like Soviets" when his party is the most Soviet of all political factions in the US government!
ignati123 1 year ago
Well all I see is democrats pointing out the republican mess and not doing much about it. Instead Dems want to ruin peoples healthcare-when 9/10 people polled are very happy with their healthcare. So thats why their corrupt bill isnt being passed.
Fishstix9000 1 year ago
So it's the Democratic Leadership that hates the Military? It was a republican leader who started two wars, under supplied the soldiers with faulty equipment. Then they cut funding for the VA hospitals and sweep under the carpet veterans dealing with PTSD and other chronic ailments. Obama inherited this mess!! Conservatives are not only UNfit to lead but completely off base and criminally stupid for what they support and don't support. Hypocrisy never works despite what cons would believe.
callouschristian 1 year ago
You make valid points on the blunders of the republican party. But you are basically a team picker. You chose to stand up for democrats. What good things have democrats done for the American people recently? The only reason Dems were elected was because the people wanted the wars to end. The democrats are full majority and could end both wars instantly. Instead they are wasting trillions and we are still at war. They cant get anything done.
Fishstix9000 1 year ago
I would never presume I know enough about a war crime bush blunder like Iraq and Afghanistan to say what Obama and the Democrats should or should not do to fix the mess. When Bush I pulled out of Iraq the first time it led to mass civilian slaughter while American Soldiers watched. It takes time to fix Republican messes. No one does anything well with whacks screaming in their ear. Republicans know this which only makes them more deserving of the wrath of the American People.
callouschristian 1 year ago
God, so many of you are so stupid--it's incredible! Fact: Gore and Kerry were honored vets--Bush Jr, Rumsfeld, and Cheney NEVER served, unless you want to count Bush in the reserves, in which he often failed to show. Being a War Hawk doesn't make you a Patriot, it makes you an idiot for thinking that simply going to war will solve all of the problems we face. This moron here can't seem to understand the difference between not suppporting our military and not supporting the Republicans!!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"Bush Jr, Rumsfeld, and Cheney NEVER served, unless you want to count Bush in the reserves"
--So you just contradicted yourself.
"makes you an idiot for thinking that simply going to war will solve all of the problems we face"
--Gee, is that why Bush went to war?
NoGuff 2 years ago
obviously, its not a war, its policing.. when you have to worry about bistandards, its police force, not a war. WAR KILLS.. PERIOD.. it KILLS ANYONE ON THE ENEMY SIDE.. THUS IT MAKES THEM AN ENEMY. when you cant fire on civilians, your a police officer.. Nothing more.
danratsnapnames 2 years ago
Good to see the Armed Forces doesn't forbid the recruitment of the mentally retarded, because then we wouldn't get to here your mumble mouth rant.
kschumannjr 2 years ago
Obama and the Democrats in America want to disarm all Americans with their so-called "Gun Control" for the safety "of the children" of course, (except for their own bodyguards and their military) so Americans who disagree with their policies can then be shot dead if need be, in the streets like peaceful citizens are brutalized all over the world by their corrupt and brutal dictatorships. Never vote for a Democrat, they are the "Enemy Within".
26desk 2 years ago
Jes, you are so out of touch w/ actual policy. Dems don't want to get rid of all guns, just the ones used in crimes--like the AK 47s that aren't used for hunting or protection in the home, but that have been proven to be directly connected to the rise in drug violence in northern Mexico. Do you ever actually read, or simply spread right-winged rhetoric not based on any fact at all??
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"Dems don't want to get rid of all guns, just the ones used in crimes"
--Actually, you're wrong. First, what's the point in having law-abiding citizens apply to own firearms, register their firearms, and prevent them from buying certain firearms when it's the criminals you're really after? And second, Janet Reno herself, as echoed by a leader of a gun control group, that registration & waiting periods are only the first step to confiscation of firearms & the banning of firearms ownership.
NoGuff 2 years ago
The Brady Bill, which you are referring to, was created by a Republican, not a Democrat. Learn some history. I guess you are fine w/ the criminally insane purchasing guns? Great! Another member for your party
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"was created by a Republican, not a Democrat. Learn some history"
--Only after he was shot. And I'm going to bet his wife had more to do with it than he did. Plus, he wasn't an elected politician. So how about you learn some history, too?
"I guess you are fine w/ the criminally insane purchasing guns"
--Please show me exactly what I wrote that would make you believe that. I'm going to guess you can't. Meaning you're being entirely disingenuous.
NoGuff 2 years ago
No, he wasn't an elected politician, but I never said that he was, and if you are against gun control, as you stated you are, then you don't care who has guns! I am being absolutely serious. Gun control is an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them, like the insane dude that shot Brady!! You are right, Brady did switch parties after he was shot. He learned first hand why gun control matters, unfortunately.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"I never said that he was"
--Well, usually when people are talking about Democrats & Republicans, especially name ones, and regarding legislation, the person is/was a politician.
"if you are against gun control ... then you don't care who has guns"
--Ummm.... says who?
"attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them"
--That's not what the leaders in gun control advocacy say, going back to the 70s.
"the insane dude that shot Brady"
--Under what law?
NoGuff 2 years ago
"if you are against gun control ... then you don't care who has guns"
--Ummm.... says who?--says you, duh. No gun control, then everyone can have guns, and by your response I guess you don't like that, well, neither do Dems.
That's not what the leaders in gun control advocacy say, going back to the 70s.--nope again. Some restraint doesn't mean TOTAL restraint.
--Under what law?--this rebuttal doesn't even make sense?!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"says you, duh. No gun control, then everyone can have guns"
--Preventing criminals & the mentally deranged from owning guns is not "gun control." DUH! That's like saying its wrong to not allow arsonists to own flamethrowers.
"nope again. Some restraint doesn't mean TOTAL restraint"
--Obviously you need to read up.
"this rebuttal"
--You wrote about John Hinckley. Well, Hinckley had no record & wasn't evaluated by anyone. So what law is there to prevent such people from owing guns?
NoGuff 2 years ago
Tell me, genius, if you are against gun control, like background checks, then how do you plan on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally deranged. You act like that's a no-brainer, yet you are against the laws THAT DO JUST THAT. It no longer makes any sense to have this discussion with you b/c you keep contradicting yourself. And, Hinckley DID have a record, which was why the Brady Bill was passed!!! You keep getting every fact wrong! These facts are so easily documentable.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"if you are against gun control, like background checks, then how do you plan on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally deranged"
--Why must you lie to make your point? You continually lie and lie and lie. It's pathetic.
Please provide a quote from me where I say I'm against criminal and/or psychological background checks for gun ownership, and where I say I want criminals and/or the mentally deranged to have guns.
I'll wait. I think I'll be waiting a long time.
NoGuff 2 years ago
Okay genius, see if you can follow along. I will make this as clear as possible for you. My first comment on this thread that you commented on was in response to a commrent about how horrible it was for Dems to want gun control. you have yet to tell me HOW you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill w/o some sort of legislation to restrict the access to guns for some of our citizens. That restriction is gun control!! I'll be waiting a long time for your answer.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"I'll be waiting a long time for your answer"
--Is 12 hours too long? I never claimed that keeping guns from criminals or psychopaths was gun control. Again, please show me where I did. Gun control is restricting guns from law-abiding citizens, which is pointless.
NoGuff 2 years ago
"you keep contradicting yourself"
--Again with the lies. Please cite any example where I have contradicted myself. You see, when you know what you're talking about and you have strong convictions, you don't constradict yourself.
"Hinckley DID have a record"
--What felonies did he commit before he shot Reagan?
"These facts are so easily documentable"
--Like the 2nd Amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I just want to know.
NoGuff 2 years ago
What record did Hinckley have? My god, man, where's your brain. He was in and out of mental institutions! That was his record. I never said it was a criminal record. The Brady Bill includes the mentally learn. Shit, learn the law b/f trying to sound intelligent! And the 2nd Amendment is in reference to a militia, and was in response to the arms being stashed in Lexington and Concord that the British tried to take away. It was not intended as a free reign on all types of weapons.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"What record did Hinckley have? My god, man, where's your brain. He was in and out of mental institutions! That was his record"
--Lie.
"the 2nd Amendment is in reference to a militia"
--It makes reference to the militia, but is meant to allow all citizens to own arms. Shit, learn the law before trying to sound intelligent!
"It was not intended as a free reign on all types of weapons"
--So why did they leave out that one, very, very important part? They were stupid?
NoGuff 2 years ago
That is so easy to answer, dude, as I've read all primary sources on this point. The Anti-Federalists and Federalists got together and sketched out protections in order for the Constitution to get ratified. They also meant for it to be a "living" document, evolving with the times. It wasn't meant to be static. Read some Jefferson and Madison, not books about them, but their actual letters, you may learn something.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"They also meant for it to be a "living" document, evolving with the times"
--Amended, not "evolving." If its supposed to "evolve" why did they make it so difficult to do?
And no proof on the Hinckley "in and out of mental institutions" lie? I thought as much.
NoGuff 2 years ago
Do you really think the forefathers knew what an AK 47 or a rocket launcher were? The 2nd Amendment was referring to the guns they had at the time--muskets and rifles and the pistol. Rifles and pistols are legal, still. Your argument is like saying that b/c the 1st Amendment doesn't limit threatening one's life, that I have free reign to do so. So, do I? Do I have the right to do crack in the name of freedom of religion, if I include it in my church service? Um, no.
Got anything else?
climbtraditional 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"guns they had at the time--muskets and rifles and the pistols"
--And canons, or did you forget about those? They didn't specify "firearms," they specified "arms." Sounds inclusive to me.
"Rifles and pistols are legal"
--Not all, and not everywhere. Is that what the Founders meant by "shall not be infringed?"
"threatening one's life"
--Then you're infringing on another's right to life, liberty, etc., so that's different.
"Do I have the right to do crack"
--Libertarians say yes.
NoGuff 2 years ago
Dems aren't trying to take away all guns from all citizens. You must think the EXTREME left account for all Dems. They are not. Keeping the guns out of criminal's hands or the mentally deranged doesn't limit our militia capability at all. Dems aren't saying to get rid of hand guns or hunting rifles. Some restriction doesn't mean total restriction, and for this reason the Brady BIll passed!!! It was Constitutional.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dems aren't trying to take away all guns"
--As I told you before, most are. Diane Feinstein, who has a CCW permit, said if she had enough votes she'd take them all away from other citizens. Plenty of other leading Dems would, too, as their statements show.
"Some restriction doesn't mean total restriction"
--The Progressive methodology (Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and Sunsetein's "Nudge") calls for continual pushing toward the goal. This goal, as stated, is total confiscation.
NoGuff 2 years ago
okay, here's one simple contradiction you posted. It took 3 seconds to find it:
I wrote "if you are against gun control ... then you don't care who has guns" and you said
--Ummm.... says who?
Don't you see the irony there?? You are against gun control but by your genius rebuttal of "umm, says who" you are implying that you don't want anyone carrying guns, but you are against the legislation that would do just that. That, NoGuff, is called a contradiction!!!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"Don't you see the irony there??"
--No. Let's look at that exchange. You claimed I don't care who has guns, then I replied asking who said that, becuase it wasn't me (some call that a "strawman" argument). If there's a contradiction there, it exists only in your pointy little head, dummy.
NoGuff 2 years ago
do you even know what "irony" means. You jumped in the strawman argument after his comment, on my rebuttal to him about that point, meaning you supported it. If you didn't, then you shouldn't have been involved. So, you are either nosey, or a hypocrite--feel free to choose.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"do you even know what "irony" means"
--Yes. And that wasn't it. You're confusing "contradiction" with "irony." And I have yet to contradict myself. Your example was a failure. You didn't even understand it.
"meaning you supported it"
--That's the meaning you wrongly conjured. So don't blame me for it.
NoGuff 2 years ago
"I never said that he was"
--Well, usually when people are talking about Democrats & Republicans, especially name ones, and regarding legislation, the person is/was a politician.
The mere fact that Reagan's Press Secretary, a hard core conservative, flipped parties after being shot, b/c he saw the need for some kind of gun legislation shows the intelligence of the Dem. position. Everyone shouldn't have guns. Not every gun should be legal. If the NRA had their way ALL guns would be legal
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"a hard core conservative"
--What other types of Conservatives are there? None that I'm aware of. But, to you, because he was a Conservative (allegedly) that means he was a "hard core" one.
"If the NRA had their way ALL guns would be legal"
--Under the 2nd Amendment, they are.
NoGuff 2 years ago
There are other types of Conservatives, other than hard-core, my friend. Case in point, I am a Blue Dog Dem, meaning I am a fiscal conservative. I hate the bank bailouts, started by Bush and Paulson and continued by Obama, but I am not as extreme as Buchanan or Pailin on any issue Most conservatives aren't hard core, but just right of center. I teach Poli Sci for a living. There's a plethora of evidence to support that the only hard-core on both sides are in the minority of both sides.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"I am a Blue Dog Dem, meaning I am a fiscal conservative"
--You share some ideas on fiscal policy with Conservatives and you think that makes you a Conservative? Wow. What color is the sky in your world? So, if I hate Communists, & Hitler did, by your definition I'm a Fascist. Right? You're a piece of work.
"but I am not as extreme as Buchanan or Pailin"
--Buchanan? The guy on MSNBC who agrees with a lot of that they say? And exactly what "extreme" positions does Palin have?
NoGuff 2 years ago
You just contradicted yourself again! Jes, dude, follow your logic. You said there are only "hard core conservative" I said there were degrees, you said no, and then you implied that you don't agree w/ Hitler, who was as extreme right as you can get, you then prove that there ARE DEGREES of Conservatism. Do you even know what a political spectrum is and where the parties fall?
climbtraditional 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You said there are only "hard core conservative""
--If I did, then you should be able to quote me.
"prove that there ARE DEGREES of Conservatism"
--Only under your misguided notions.
"Do you even know what a political spectrum is and where the parties fall?"
--There are more than just one. And every one is self serving. You must be able to admit that.
NoGuff 2 years ago
climb - I think its obvious I've destroyed every single one of your arguments. So I see no point in littering Tony's video with our little debate.
I'm done. But if you care to continue this and get your butt defeated further, just send me PMs. This 500 character limit stuff gets annoying.
NoGuff 2 years ago
"Most conservatives aren't hard core"
--By your definition. It's like being a little pregnant. You're either a Conservative, or not.
"I teach Poli Sci for a living"
--So much for our great education system. You're one of those perpetuating myths & lies.
"the only hard-core on both sides are in the minority of both sides"
--You're confusing people who believe in what they say & "extremists." So just because someone believes in the entire Conservative platform that makes them extremists?
NoGuff 2 years ago
I'm a hard core Dem and I own a gun. So, please don't preach to me about wanting to get rid of them. Tell me, does some law in a country mean that that country is a military-state? I assume you prefer anarchy? My point is that neither is good, but a middle ground is ideal. This is the same w/ gun laws. Some are necessary. IE, Cop-Killer bullets. The NRA fought like hell to keep them legal--why? A deer doesn't wear kevlar!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"please don't preach to me about wanting to get rid of them"
--Okay, MOST Dems.
"that country is a military-state?"
--Are you referring to a junta? "Military state" refers to one RUN by the military, not where the citizens own firearms.
"middle ground is ideal"
--What part of the 2nd Amdt refers to a "middle ground" for the ownership of arms?
"A deer doesn't wear kevlar"
--No, but the real agenda behind banning those bullets (which cops can have) wasn't to save the lives of cops.
NoGuff 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"that country is a military-state?"
--Are you referring to a junta? "Military state" refers to one RUN by the military, not where the citizens own firearms."
I know what a military state means! I can see my analogy went right over your head. I guess I need to dumb things down for you
--No, but the real agenda behind banning those bullets (which cops can have) wasn't to save the lives of cops."--oh really?? So, I guess all cops are Dems now, as they applauded the ban!!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"my analogy"
--There was no analogy. Liberals are totally incapable of using or understanding them. This example is further proof. You asked a question in a hypthetical context (without prefacing it), not an analogy, dummy.
"So, I guess"
--You can guess all you want, that's not what I said. And I don't blame them for siding with the ban. Police are an odd bunch to poll. Most say they agree we have the right to own firearms, but they also confiscated them from law-abiding Katrina victims.
NoGuff 2 years ago
I have no problem w/ a person waiting a few days to make sure they aren't a mental patient or a criminal. I bet Brady would agree. We register our cars! Does that mean that the gov't wants to get rid of cars?? No, it doesn't. Use your head. Janet Reno wasn't referring to confiscating all weapons, just those in the wrong hands. I guess you don't care if a career criminal has a gun? Why would that be? Do tell!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"a mental patient or a criminal"
--Hinckley was neither, and bought his gun well in advance. People who are enraged grab a nearby weapon (knife, bat, tire iron), they don't go down to the local gunshop.
"register our cars"
--Only to drive on public roads. Driving is not a right.
"Does that mean"
--Our current Admin. does. But that's another topic.
"Janet Reno wasn't referring"
--Wrong.
"if a career criminal"
--You think he can't get one? Saying he can't just reveals an agenda.
NoGuff 2 years ago
"the AK 47s that aren't used for hunting or protection in the home, but that have been proven to be directly connected to the rise in drug violence in northern Mexico"
--If that's the case, then why ban law-abiding citizens from owning them? Why not just ban the criminals from owning them?
"Do you ever actually read, or simply spread right-winged rhetoric not based on any fact at all"
--Do you every actually read, or simply spread Left-Wing rhetoric not based on any fact at all?
NoGuff 2 years ago
The fact that you didn't know that the violence in Mexico has been linked to the Assault Weapon Ban being lifted shows that you don't actually follow policy beyond what Fox News tells you. Normal, law abiding citizens don't need a machine gun to hunt, unless they suck at hunting, or to protect their homes.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"has been linked to the Assault Weapon Ban being lifted"
--The problem is not the lifting of the AWB (its still effective in CA), its with the criminals. Having any other attitude just reveals an agenda on your part.
"you don't actually follow policy beyond what Fox News tells you"
--FNC had stories on the Mexican gangs, but their target was not our firearm laws. That would simply reveal an anti-2nd Amdt agenda.
"don't need a machine gun"
--Irrelevent, since I have a right to own one.
NoGuff 2 years ago
"The problem is not the lifting of the AWB (its still effective in CA), its with the criminals."--no shit! That's the whole point!! Law abiding citizens don't need assault weapons. Criminals use them more! Thanks for proving my point for me. Look up the stats on nations that have loose gun laws. They statistically have more crime than nations w/ firmer gun laws. Hum, I wonder why that is?? Gun laws keep the guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. They aren't perfect, obviously.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"That's the whole point"
--You're such a liar! If it were the point, why prevent law abiding citizens from owning them? You still haven't answered that question.
"Law abiding citizens don't need assault weapons"
--I guess that's your answer. Where in the 2nd Amdt is that concept?
"Criminals use them more!"
--Got stats for that? Because to my knowledge, their use in crimes is extremely rare here.
"Gun laws keep the guns in the hands of law abiding citizens"
--Not true. Agenda.
NoGuff 2 years ago
"--Not true. Agenda." Really?? Give me a case in point
climbtraditional 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Really?? Give me a case in point"
--You already know the answers to this question. For some reason you want to challemge me on it, like a tyipcal Liberal.
Waiting periods, registration/applications, type bans, model bans, accessory bans, caliber bans, design bans, etc. And since the Amendment specifies "arms," there are other weapons banned, like knives, batons, etc.
I'm sure you'll refute every single one of those.
NoGuff 2 years ago
If that's the case, then why ban law-abiding citizens from owning them? Why not just ban the criminals from owning them?--It's called doing what is right for the greater good. With your logic, why not let law-abiding citizens drive around in tanks and own rocket launchers! Rocket launchers are "arms" and by your logic are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Handguns protect the home, and shotguns and rifles are used to hunt. AKs are used for what?
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"greater good"
--How can "the greater good" be served by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens? The further you go into your REAL beliefs, the more they buckle under scrutiny.
"in tanks"
--Isn't that what Obama's "civilian national security force" will do? Tell me, if the military fights foreigners, who will this force fight?
"AKs"
--Killing people outside the home. You really are dumb. A rancher armed with a pistol or a hunting rifle is no match for the Nat'l Guard, is he?
NoGuff 2 years ago
Durbin is a dick.
Lizardking623 2 years ago
I can top that insult towards him. He is also one of them thar Democrats! .
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Actually, the best way to insult a democrat, is to call them patriotic Americans.
Lizardking623 2 years ago
Excellent suggestion. I think however that would be a double edge sword as it would also insult us patriotic Americans to be associated with the likes of them.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
the best way to insult a Republican--ask him to think first and then shoot--they will never get to the shooting part!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
Awe, isn't that cute. Did mommy and daddy let you use the computer little boy? I'm sure it's past your sleepy time, so run off to bed and let the grownups speak.
Say hi to your mom for me.
Lizardking623 2 years ago
funny comment, apparently you aren't bright enough to see the message in the prior comment. In war, it isn't so cut and dry as this anti-Dem wants you to think it is. But, thanks for your comment, b/c you completely proved my point for me. Thanks!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
I'm sure there may be someone, a family member possibly, who might care about your lame ass opinions, but I do not. You are a liberal, and as you may or may not know, liberals are cowards, so please piss off.
Lizardking623 2 years ago 2
Cowards in what way? You think wanting to simply kill someone b/c Bush says to makes you a "man?" We invaded Iraq on a lie!! Tell me, where are the weapons of mass destruction? There aren't any. So, Dems are cowards, just educated and not willing to put our troops in harms way for no reason. Good job Republicans, on getting our troops killed! But hey, at least you're not a coward, just an idiot--congrats!!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
How long were you in Iraq? I am so sick of hearing liberal twats claim to know more about the war in Iraq than those of us who were there. I was there three years and can tell you that we did in fact find WsMD, so be a good little boy and piss off. By the way they're not your troops, you arrogant scum.
Lizardking623 2 years ago
You are a liar, and therefore a disgrace to our real military. If you had found weapons, it would have been all over the news! It would've been a key platform of the McCain campaign! God damn, it is amazing just how stupid you are, to lie over something so easy to discredit. Tell me, what weapon did you find over there that proved a threat to our country? It was already proven that Iraq wasn't obtaining components from Niger. The case has already been closed by our State Dept. Moron!!!!!!!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
I hope you slur because you had a stroke. Please have another.
knightnvy 2 years ago
Try "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Lutrrell.
l3lip 2 years ago
Josh bernard is my cousin, thank you for getting this word out, these idiot liberals need to pay attention to this before there is more american blood being spilled
KyleMagner 2 years ago
PropagandaBuster, I thank you for your concern of the issue with the ROE. I knew Joshua Bernard, and I see how angry John Bernard is about how the war is being run. Please try to get word out to even more people about this.
Someone22341 2 years ago
I owe elgcpa an apology....I attributed a comment to him when it was in truth made by someone with one letter different in the name.
wittumy 2 years ago
No support for the troops Send in the troops mr ob. Our men are dying daily. Support them.
gtgale1 2 years ago
Obama should support them by changing the Rules of Engagement. NOT by sending more in.
Someone22341 2 years ago
USAG as I said I'd turned that cheek and even another quite a bit before I decided diferently as I also believe in not being abused.
Sweetie I'm not the one who started our conversation about treatment....remember you are the one who complained I'd called you a foul name. So I'm not the whiner...that'd be you.
wittumy 2 years ago
USAG...I've never called anyone a foul name before being called one myself. In your case you'd called me at least a dozen derogatory names before I retaliated at all. I've watched my language very well on this channel so I know that the worst thing I've ever called you was a name you've earned every bit of. I've seen quite a bit of language here much more foul than that.....none from me.
wittumy 2 years ago
USAG...what foul language would that be? I can assure you it wasn't the language I was speaking of.
wittumy 2 years ago
elgcpa....I really don't appreciate the personal comment you made to me with the foul language you chose to use.
wittumy 2 years ago
wittumy
Foul language? What foul language? The word "dummy"?
Gee, so sorry to offend you. I'll go wash my mouth out with a bar of soap.
elgcpa 2 years ago
No elgcpa...it was the comment you sent me that said "You know, I'll just say something that will shut your f...ing mouth up once and for all. At least in this video".
If I'm confused about what you sent or meant...please explain.
wittumy 2 years ago
wittumy
Not sure what you're talking about. I've never posted any such comment. Check again. Looks like you're assigning blame to the wrong person.
elgcpa 2 years ago
elgcpa....I was talking about a comment you sent to my home page. After reading it a couple more times the best I can come up with is it was something you sent me that someone else wrote...and you'd responded to. I think I misinterpreted that comment for what you were saying to me. Does ObliviuxProduction's ring a bell?
wittumy 2 years ago
Honestly, I have no earthly idea what you're talking about. Never posted such a comment. Never heard of ObliviuxProductions.
elgcpa 2 years ago
Propo...any particular reason you erase my comments without telling me why?
wittumy 2 years ago
witt...any particular reason you still do not know how to post a comment, then blame me for your inability?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Propo...my comments from a couple days ago appeared when I wrote them....then later disappeared so I obviously knew how to post them. My name is still there but the comment is not. Just asking...
wittumy 2 years ago
Hit the "reply" in blue to the right of your name and you will see your comment is still there.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Propo....thanks for setting me straight....I've never commented to myself before....duh.
wittumy 2 years ago
No problem.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
One of your best, PB. Thank you.
flurdalee 2 years ago 3
Drones are nessisary from preventing death, how dare they say we can't use air support. It's irresponsible to say that "civilians won't die in a war". I don't like it either but whats the alternative, thermonuclear war? The constant threat of terrorist attacks on our nation? I know FRIST HAND how drones have kept men alive so they can come home for the holidays, it's irresponsible to say we can't use them. That is aweful and the feminists that are supporting these policies make more die.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They have government run health care and when Obama wanted to privatize it a lot of people got angry because it was a terrible idea and he backed off.
WHAT NOW HUH WHAT NOW?!!?!?!
Joe402 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
See how misinformation gets around propo? People actually think Obama changed the rules of engagement...now that's propaganda wouldn't you say buster?
wittumy 2 years ago
Obama is doing what his ancestor LBJ did. Change the rules of engagment so the war will be pro-longed. And, yes everyone Obama is related to LBJ.
TheStormchaser1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey I think I got blocked unless YouTube is acting weird.
Joe402 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The military is the most socialist organization in the United States how do you conservatives deal with that fact?
Joe402 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I was hoping that when Obama inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Republicans would start to oppose it just to be obstructionists and maybe call for the end of the war but Republicans apparently love war that much.
Joe402 2 years ago
Obama is not for America Obama is for Communism and Jihad
666sun666 2 years ago 3
That Senator was speaking his mind, and was incorrect to label all Soldiers as Nazis or worse. They are always some bad apples in the bunch.But most soldiers are good, caring Patriotic Americans.
947Patriot 2 years ago 2
ok so your a republican fine but most of your videos maintain some loose sense of fairness but this is a bit skewed even by that standard. besides from being american please explain the reasoning behind the shock at those comments the senator made?
podge314 2 years ago
podge314: I think I summed up my feelings concerning the Senator's comments in this video. That Senator and his comments deserve no further examination by me other than to write the comments were despicable and he is a disgrace to the United States Senate. Such a human being as he deserves no respect from me. As a citizen of these here United States my respect lies with the brave men and women who serve our nation as oppose to a Senator only concerned with reelection.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
I respect your zeal for the armed forces but it worrys me you will brook no criticism of any section of them. I dont believe this comment will make you change your beliefs. But this is as neutral an opinion as i belive you will hear upon it.
podge314 2 years ago
This video is about the anti-USA, anti-military thugs in the Democratic Party leadership. So I may be a bit confused. Where in that topic is any criticism expected by me concerning the military to stay on topic?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gee propo...when you make a video that is so full of ridiculous blanket comments about a political party why would you not expect comments that show the hypocracy of it?
The rules of engagement in Afghanistan were decided by the military...not Obama as you suggest.
Durben didn't say all of our troops behaved as Nazis as you suggest either.....a terrible thing to stretch the truth to fit ones agenda propo.
You can choose to ignore your own party's abuse of the military...the nation hasn't.
wittumy 2 years ago
Thats quite terrifying. Are you saying that its not the fact that someone criticized the military its the fact that he was a Democrat?
podge314 2 years ago
Podge314: Now I admit my looks may be a bit terrifying, but I would hope my words did not equal the same. Are you sure your above comment is about something I wrote or said? Because if so, it eludes me.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
How about showing what was on that paper the senator had, describing the condition and treatment of prisoners protected by the Geneva Convention, then compare THAT with the groups of "evil" people, rather than picking the "good" pictures of the soldiers which is just as much propaganda.
My grandfather was a tank commander in the German military in WW2 (Africa), but no account would describe him with the "Nazi" stereotype; there are good soldiers and bad soldiers
StarJekker 2 years ago
Great video PB. Every time I watch one, I become more of a fan. And as I read the Loony-libs that try to discredit you and other conservatives, it become more and more clear how completely they the left has lost touch with reality GOD Bless you, GOD bless our troops and the job they are trying to do (despite the democrat partys attempt to neuter them) , and GOD bless America
Droidmakr 2 years ago
(continued) However, as an American, it is my responsibility to ensure our federal government never oversteps its boundaries.
TARGETING CIVILIANS is doing just that. Every rational, moral principle of war, including Just War theory, which our country is supposed to follow, tells us it is wrong. Nor do I agree with Sherman's March, targeting confederate civilians.
I need not support every immoral act by the United States government to be a good citizen. I would be remiss not to talk.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
The Democratic Party today has certainly severely changed for the worse. It's not the party of the working class or a party that can properly lead America. Even FDR would be ashamed of how some of the Democrats' top leaders view the U.S. Armed Forces.
Infantry9 2 years ago
wow, are you out of touch. Republicans want corporate profit, so they encourage large companies to move over seas for cheaper labor and tax breaks. This action is eliminating our middle class! Your apparent ignorance of this key element of Republican fiscal policy also may be why you think that Dems. are unpatriotic b/c we actually know why Bush went to war in Iraq--for more profit, not for protection from weapons that didn't exist!!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"This action is eliminating our middle class!"
--So is taxing small businesses to hell. But it seems to be doing it much, much faster and with greater precision.
NoGuff 2 years ago
So you don't deny my comment. Great! Small business tax isn't ideal, but when companies like Nike, Walmart, and even our auto companies are now doing business overseas, that's when you see layoffs in the tens of thousands, not 6 or 7
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"Small business tax isn't ideal"
--But obviously you're okay with decimating small business via targeted taxes, and therefore the middle class.
"are now doing business overseas"
--So you think we should make it illegal for American business to do business internationally.
NoGuff 2 years ago
I do when large corps leave the US to escape tax laws and no exploit other countries that don't have mininum wage! You are damn right I do. I've been to several of the countries exploited by the US over the past 15 years. Have you? If you had, you'd know that our middle class is gone b/c America companies can go somewhere else for less money, making more for the stockholders--who usually are Republicans, not Dems. See the forest through the trees dude!
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"when large corps leave the US to escape tax laws"
--So what does that tell you?
"America companies can go somewhere else for less money"
--And what does that tell you?
"who usually are Republicans, not Dems"
--Fact: Most Americans are now stockholders through the stock market. Fact: Most Americans are Democrats, particularly the middle class. So I don't know where you get the bullshit you spew.
And I'm sure you'll come to the wrong coclusions on the questions above.
NoGuff 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Our troops are dying because Afghanistan has 30+ million armed men who do not want us invading their country. You can argue who's right or wrong all day long, but at the end of the day, we should not be over there at all, and these wars have absolutely NOTHING to do with our freedom here at home.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
There are not 30+ million, the fact that you used that number makes you a complete fucking retards. The ones fighting the troops are insurgents, and they are extremely small compared to the general public. If all 30+ million wanted the U.S. troops out, there would be far more deaths there than there are now.
itachi705 2 years ago 2
brilliant job as usual simplifying the subject and painting it in a way to make the Democrats look like the cause of the problem.
thescreamingid 2 years ago
The Democrats are the "Nazis" they support genocide in this country. Look at how many babies have been murdered since Roe vs. Wade.
AR15Militant 2 years ago 3
Nazis are far right wingers, not left wingers you moron! This makes them closer to the Republicans. Funny how Republicans always bring up abortion, but also want to cut the social programs that would end up caring for all of the unwanted babies. They also want to limit the sex ed. necessary to bring down the unwanted pregnancies. Can you say "double standard?"
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"Nazis are far right wingers, not left wingers you moron! This makes them closer to the Republicans"
--Fascist propaganda.
NoGuff 2 years ago
Jes, at least learn to name call correctly. Do you even know the definition of a "Nazi?" Open up a book and make an effort at reading. They are right wing. I've got a Master's degree in history, dude. Republicans are right-leaning and Nazis are extreme right wing. Calling a Democrats a Nazi just shows how completely ignorant you are. Maybe you should be debating cartoon characters instead and leave the big words to the educated people.
climbtraditional 2 years ago
"Do you even know the definition of a "Nazi?" Open up a book and make an effort at reading"
--National Socialism.
"I've got a Master's degree in history, dude"
--Well, first, your view of history is either bent by your personal beliefs, or you've been indoctrinated by the Left. And second, you need take some new courses in basic English. I'm surprised you could get a Masters in history with your grammar. "I've got a Master's?" You "have got?" Please, stop trying to bullshit us.
NoGuff 2 years ago
"Democratic Party leadership loathe the American military"
--And this is news to people?
This goes all the way back to Hillary's first day in the White House as First Bitch, or earlier.
NoGuff 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
General Betrayus
War of Terror is as useless as the war of drugs
Military Contractors are very evil and support rape
^^^Do these words anger you guys if it does you need to TOUGHEN THE FUCK UP AND JOIN THE MARINES OORAH!
Joe402 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is literally no reason to stay in Afghanistan.
Joe402 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You guys really want to protect and support our troops?
Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Joe402 2 years ago
uncle tony u misspelled "grateful"
kibbleznblitz 2 years ago
I like what Chris Titus said about Abu-Grab."That is rush week at Chico State.The woman pointing at the guy's privates laughing were half of my ex-girlfriends.Real torture is taking an innocent journalist,filming as you cut thier head off with a hacksaw,and mailing the tape to their family.That's torture".
tenfed1861 2 years ago 2
Durbin voted to keek funding acorn. Why? Because arcorn helps keep Durbin in power in Illinois. Illinois is a very corrupt state and Durbin is a part of that corruption.
lancechamplain 2 years ago 2
Wouldn't accusing US military personnel of committing crimes without proof be considered slanderous?
Shugotenshi47 2 years ago
Tony, in my previous post I gave a snap-shot of the reality of why the current rules of engagement are there (to appease Karzai and keep him in power). Now, I have already stated previously that the US had every right to invade and in my opinion even occupy/colonize Afghanistan, since their country participated in the 9/11 attacks on the US. If the latter were the case, the US could of course make their own rules of engagement as the de facto ruling party. This is what should happen.
capone70 2 years ago
Obama need to get off his ASS and make a decision NOW. He should NOT be throwing parties. What a MF.
computerpurple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he should not be president.
kibbleznblitz 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
computerpurple....it took Bush and Petreaous months to decide on the surge and Bush never even had a plan in Afghanistan....that's a MF....and the whining from you guys is laughable.
wittumy 2 years ago
Well hello wittumy. Bush was adamant about the surge. It was the democrats that played head games in regards to funding of the surge. This is what cause some slow down of inacting the surge.
computerpurple 2 years ago 2
"Well hello wittumy"
--I don't respond to that child-brained troll anymore. The fewer messages he posts without thinking, the better.
Anyway, that lie he wrote, "Bush never even had a plan in Afghanistan," is the latest Talking Point from the Left (R. Emmanuel, et. al.). I heard it just yesterday and already the minions are spewing it everywhere.
So pathetic. One can only hope there will be a day when they wake up and start thinking for themselves. For now, they're "useful idiots."
NoGuff 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NoGuff....you've run away from discussions because you have nothing to offer but namecallin. You censor your own home page to keep up the appearance of being right all the time and withdrew your comments when you knew they were wrong.
What was Bush's plan then? He in fact did decide to not send troops after Bin Laden (remember him pal?) but instead hired tribals to to do for him...brilliant. Seven years of war with most of them ignoring military call for more troops....a Bush reality.
wittumy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
computer...it took Petraeous time to come up with the plan and sell it to Bush and this superiors....of course Bush didn't care about thinking about the plan...he was ready to try anything to get him out of the mess he started.
wittumy 2 years ago
My blood boils over the way the democrats talk about the military. Makes me SICK to hear comments about our brave troops by the likes of dick SHIT durbin. Perhaps come next voting time the results will be KICK ASS BAD KARMA COMING THEIR WAY.
computerpurple 2 years ago 2
"Perhaps come next voting time the results will be"
--Yes, I'm hoping for a filibuster-proof majority for the Republicans. What a message that would send. I wonder how the lame-stream press would report it.
NoGuff 2 years ago 2
um well if there is a case of American troops abusing Taliban prisoners or so, it Should be dealt with.
I think that was what that legislator is aiming to say. Personally I am against branding people outright like calling democrats unloyal to the US or Liberals as a mental disorder. Its a case to case basis.
However it cannot be denied that some American Soldier boys do sin in the country they are in that hurt their image.
1942tj 2 years ago
I agree. I think the current US military, which is 100% voluntary is one of the best fighting foces AND moral in terms of treatment of civilians in the entire world. There was only 1 case of rape by US soldiers in the entire Iraq war. IMHO those soldiers should have gotten the death penalty for disgracing the Army and putting the rest of the troops around the world in danger. But the fact is they were immediately brought to (some) justice.
capone70 2 years ago
RE:Capone
Though I've been called a liberal for the views I expressed here, I agree with you that our armed forces fundamentally believe in moral treatment of non-combatants. And I agree that those soldiers that committed rape deserve the death penalty.
That's precisely why I support prudence and restraint in our military policy--it is American. And regardless of foreign policy, I will always believe the vast majority of our soldiers are heroes who deserve the best for the good they've done.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
"those soldiers that committed rape deserve the death penalty"
--How can a crime that doesn't result in death warrant the death penalty? I don't understand that reasoning.
"I support prudence and restraint in our military policy"
--We already have that in our military policy. But it has little to do with war.
"deserve the best for the good they've done"
--Then you should provide them the means to win, not tie their hands and over time run the risk of getting killed. Wouldn't you agree?
NoGuff 2 years ago
RE: NoGuff. Didn't see this all those months ago. I'll reply now.
Concerning the death penalty: I personally believe rape warrants the death penalty because it's just that heinous, but reasonable people can disagree.
I agree we shouldn't tie the hands of our military unnecessarily, yes, but the question is what is necessary. Sacrificing the principles of our Constitution and Just War is never justifiable. Neither is targeting civilians.
That's all I said here.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
"I personally believe rape warrants the death penalty because it's just that heinous"
--I personally believe stealing my car or breaking into my home & stealing from me warrants the death penalty. Doesn't mean its a truly just penalty.
"Neither is targeting civilians"
--We don't. The Leftists, anti-Americans, terrorists & their supporters want you to believe that.
NoGuff 2 years ago
My justifications regarding the death penalty would require a personal message due to length. I may resort to one. Parts of Alito's dissent in Kennedy v. Louisiana make a sufficient case for justifications, though. I will relay them to you.
Regarding targeting civilians, I made it quite clear I know it's not a regular practice. However, it has been done (again, Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and I am making the case that it SHOULD NOT be the policy of our military. (continued)
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
(continued) In other words, my case is that a reasonable foreign policy requires some hands-tying. Whether our de facto policy is essentially moral or not is a subject on which reasonable men can disagree.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I am making the case that it SHOULD NOT be the policy of our military"
--And I'm saying we don't.
But what if the very existence of our nation and its people depended on it? Just wondering where you stand on that hypothetical.
NoGuff 2 years ago
finally, someone intelligent in this argument! It seems most people here can't wrap their head around that fact that is it possible to support our troops, but not politics. Democrats are patriots and do support our military! But, most of us are set against the War Hawk mentality of our previous administration. So, really, who values our troops more--Dems who only want them to die protecting our country, or Reps. who use them to fight wars for oil?
climbtraditional 2 years ago
I appreciate the positive reply. In all honesty, I'm a Republican, not a Democrat, and I classify myself as an old-school conservative (think Goldwater).
I don't know that the wars our soldiers have fought are "wars for oil"--I wouldn't go that far--but I do think we need to reassess our policy of preemptive war, simply because it is not in line with traditional American principles and basic morality. Lots of Democrats AND Republicans (at least, conservatives) realize this.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
Anxiety about the treatment of Taliban prisoners would be about the lowest thing on my list of priorities concerning the conduct of the war. No standard exists by which you can compare the behavior of U.S. troops to the Taliban. So... I think a legislator should be concerned about the safety of the soldiers rather than the welfare of interned Taliban. Remember, It's a mistake to regard them as legit combatants. They only have an idiology but they don't wear a uniform or represent a state.
dar101ia 2 years ago 3