You two are correct: Tebow's ad did not make any sense. Why are you wasting your time commenting on it: to stir up controversy. Which is entertaining and makes money if you're any good at it like real pundits. Stereotyping an entire group of people...."perfect for the christian right, why do we need logic? why do we need reason?" You sound like Rush Limbaugh's alter protege in infant stage. Next you'll be saying things like Jews are subhuman creatures infiltrating aryan society.
i'd like to see more atheists like myself speak against abortions so that it's not only crazy right wing extremists who don't like seeing the growing number of abortions
@animals0feel1pain2 I'm an atheist myself and since it's so unusual to find one of us against abortion (I'm pro-choice myself) I would sincerely like to hear your rationale. I'm being serious, not sarcastic. Since obviously you aren't against abortion on religious grounds I'd like to "hear your case," so to speak, as to why you think abortion is wrong--or should be illegal under certain circumstances or whatever. Drop me a message in my inbox if you have the chance.
on of the top 10 biggest cancers in the history of american sports. This is so offensive of so many levels its uncomprehendible how this flys in the US is proof the US is the worst country ever. I speak for everyone with an IQ above their shoe size when we can only pray he suffers a career or life threatinging injury.
@jrdagooc Call us all stupid then, because it didnt make sense unless you know focus on the family.
Nothing about the ad said pro-life.
Sure, if your a pro-lifer or follow the issue, you will connect its vague points to the issue, but so many people dont and your trying to advertise to those people who dont think about it yet.
All you did was take shots at Christian's. And be a douche too Tim Tebow. Being a jerk does not make you right. I have no idea why i watched this. I knew it was going to make me mad haha. So i am sorry i will no longer watch your videos.
Why are pepole pissed off about this commercial? People cant keep to their own and have to bitch about EVERYTHING. It doesnt matter about someones sexual orientation, or if they were almost aborted. People need to grow up
Was this made for the sole reason of making fun of the Right just for the sake of making fun of the Right, regardless of having nothing to make fun of? And then you call Tebow gay?
YOUNG TURKS- SIT DOWN- TAKE NOTES- MESSAGE IS- #15- THAT'S TIM TEBOW'S GATOR NUMBER MEANS SOMETHING TO ELIJAH- IT MEANS- FOCUS TO THE FAMILY - PROMISE KEPT- AND WHO THE FUCK CARES IF TIM IS GAY, STRAIGHT OR PART OF ELIJAH'S BI-SEXUAL LOVE HOUSE- HE'S STILL A MAN WHO KEPT HIS PROMISE TO HIS TEAMMATES- THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MAN- HE IS NOT A COWARD- ELIJAH NEEDS THIS COMMERCIAL FOR HIS #15- SO NOW WHO'S THE DUMB FUCK- TIM TEBOW OR THE YOUNG TURKS..
I say that the ad is illogical because it implies that abortion prevents the birth of someone with great potential. Guess what? What about actual PARENTING?
The dumb young turks don't get it. The BUZZ before the ad was the point. The media, the feminists, and pro choicers made this ad so much more than it was which got Focus on the Family's message out.
All the criticism they have for this commercial I have for this show. I've seen this idiot guy on a lot of wannabe funny newscast shows here lately. 1) This so is horrible 2) This show has no point other than bashing a perfectly nice dude because I'm sure you're just jealous and 3) If you want to point the gay finger, look at yourself and your cheesy laughs. Grow up and get a real job
While I think the Ad wasn't great. The comments made in this clip are ridiculous. The guy on the left should actually pick up some Christian books and study and learn that Logic comes from God. Christian's out to be thinking ones and a plethora of amazing men and women throughout history who were thinkers were Christian.
The only reason the ad was so vague was because of idiotic liberals screaming like banshees about two people who choose to promote against the murder babies.
The argument about Tebow being gay is the most ridiculously immature thing I have ever heard... "no wonder he hasn't gotten laid yet?" WTF. Firstly, aren't liberals supposed to be the champions of the gay rights movement? And secondly, why is someone who chooses not to sleep around before marriage being chastised by anyone? Despicable.
Also, notice how the Iranian looking guy in this video says that the Christian Right does not need logic.
His statement can not be logically defended and here's why:
FACT: Christians maintain that Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (i.e: The MIND of God).
FACT: Atheists maintain that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source. (ie.: logic arises out of meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos).
This show sucks, its like Limbaugh for liberals but less entertaining. Seriously, I'd rather watch the fat guy prattle on with fallacious arguments then endure these hyper-liberal clowns that regurgitate left-wing dogma. I'm not evening responding to the contents of this specific video. I just loathe these mouth pieces because I feel less informed after having listened to them. At least O'reilly has a high production value. Yeah, I'd rather watch THAT than this.
Further, it's not surprising in these times that Focus on the Family would be laying people off. Abortion mills like Planned Parenthood are not a only a tax deductible "charity" with multimillion dollar profits but it also collects hundred of millions of dollars in government funding via grants and contracts; Focus on the Family, being pro life, doesn't have this welfare luxury. If it was an abortion mill, things would be different.
These people are always heavy on the ad hominems light on substance. It ad clearly states to visit Focus on the Family to learn about Tebow's story; that's where you'll learn about why prolife is the answer and abortion is wrong. If the ad was any more specific, it wouldn't have aired because the liberal media doesn't want explicitly prolife messages to air, just as proabortion violence doesn't make the news.Tebow's not gay & there'e nothing gay in that ad; maybe your friends are just wishful
No one WANTS to have an abortion, it's just a sad reality of a free country.
Just like religion, I think religious people are nuttier than squirrel shit, should I get to choose if we have religion in this country? Hell no, it wouldn't be fair, or right. So, stay on your side of the street and I'll stay on mine and we'll get along just fine. Try to put your nose on my side of the street, and it's on. All bets are off at that point and someone will bleed.
Well, we have had over 30 million of them so someone sure wants them.
Having a free country has nothing to do with murdering unborn children. We had a free country before Roe vs Wade too. That decision ended freedom for the unborn to live.
Bring it on. I won't stay on my side of the street because what you do affects my side. As for bleeding, I would not be to sure on who would bleed.
most, like 90% of "Pro-Lifers" love war, especially when it's opposing religions. e.g. Islam vs. Christianity. Which is going on right now. Most "Pro-Lifers" love to kill anyone they "feel" threaten from, in any way.
No one I know loves war. No one I know wants to have a war with any religion, especially Islam. You do not understand pro-lifers or Christians. We just oppose YOUR war on the unborn.
okay than tell your fucking republicans fuck buddies, to pull out of Afgan and Iraq RIGHT NOW for the useless stupid no reason wars we're in and they've started, AND we cannot afford to pay for!
The wars were both absolutely necessary. Even President Obama understands this. He lied to you to get your vote by saying he would end them. He knew he would not. Both were needed to fight terrorism.
And about "You do not understand pro-lifers or Christians. We just oppose YOUR war on the unborn."
Seriously? You clearly do not understand that you're own personal opinion on how you and your people define death, life, and when a life is born is completely different than the legal definition and scientific definition. And I'm talking about scientific definition that most of the planet agrees on, not "creationism" bs. It's not war, what if there is no abortion at all, are you will to see ----
Again, you are simply wrong. Science tells us that when a fertilized egg implants on the wall of uterus, it is a life . That is not my "creationism" definition, but science. The legal issues surrounding abortion have never centered on when LIFE begins. It has ALWAYS been when does life have rights. This is why we use the phrase, right to life.
Are you willing to see the damage that would cause on our planet?
We already live in the world with over population issues. Massive hunger issues, massive amount of people living unwillingly in poverty. You honestly think the planet can handle an UNLIMITED amount of humans. Simple science proves that there is a limit to growth of a species. If we had no abortion ever, wed be extinct by now, just because the resources would be completely cleaned out.
Hey, not just that, what if a chick who is completely unable to care for the child, financially, emotionally, academically. What would you do, just hand the kids over to the Christians, Christian groups, ect.? You honestly think those Christians and Christian groups handling the care of those children would as well run out of resources for the children? Yes. Again simple math oh oh wait you dont understand logic I forgot.
If she cannot accept the consequences of her actions, then I would suggest she stay off her back and keep legs together until she can. However to answer your question, YES! There are many couples ready and willing to adopt a baby in this country. The issue is not simple math, but simply morality.
it is simple math, not to you just because you choose your own view point of morality to surpass scientific evidence. Period! No matter what science will out smart the excuses your people gives for creating and going to wars. Keep her legs together, you know what, we live in reality. People love sex. It's your people's fault that education is a bad thing, e.g. Sex education (real sex education). -
I love sex as well. Yet, I have not created a child for nearly two decades. Why? Because I have common sense! I have taken the necessary steps to prevent that from happening. You should not talk about excuses and abortion. I am all for true sex education. It is liberals that oppose tell young people the FACTS about sexual activity. We don't want to scare them, they say. We will just provide condoms that fail nearly 20% of the time and low cost abortions. Nice plan. Killing the unborn.
If we forced all citizens to have a parenting license before any live birth, and controlled when people can have babies (like an off and on switch to the procreation cells in humans bodies) we'd wouldn't have any abortions. But sadly most the humans species today are complete idiots and would rather have unlimited power to procreation rights to anyone on the planet, no matter who, even the baddest people, e.g. Hitler would even be allowed to procreate if alive.
You'll see once the stupid sees the 'too late to fix' problems that over population will cause. Hey, lets sing the Armageddon song together? Self-destruction will come to the human race just because of the religious idiots and super greedy people of this world.
Oh, great, now we are back to the flawed argument of overpopulation. Do you know how many times we have been on edge of destruction because of the evil "overpopulation"? Abortion is about personal responsibility, not overpopulation.
I got a better one for you. Let's say that we discover the gene for being gay, and can test for it prior to birth. Would you support a woman's right to abort her child simply for being gay?
And Mark Sanford said Clinton couldn't be trusted after cheating on Hillary. Saying something is different than doing something. Priests aren't supposed to molest kids, either.
Hypocrisy is rampant in life, even among "religious" people. Swaggart, Baker, etc.
Something tells me you'd never have an abortion, and that's where your involvement ends. Now mind your own business. Bu bye.
Smart play..change the subject quick and use the religious card. Hypocrisy is rampant. We do agree on that. The comparison of Sanford and Clinton is somewhat flawed. I don't approve of what either of them did. However, Clinton's problem is more a kind to Tiger Woods than Mark Sanford.
I have never had an abortion because I am a man. I have never murder anyone either, but I am still against that. I decide where my involvement ends. This is my country and it is my business.
Not really, as Hillary stayed with Bill, like maybe she and Bill had an agreement(that does happen), Sanford's wife dropped him like a bad habit.
Nice thing is It's none of my business, and for some reason you think somehow somebody gives a flying shit if YOU aprove. LOL That's your problem you're too arrogant to allow strangers to live their lives without butting in.
You're a dude??
Then abortion's none of your fucking business, anyway.
As I said, the two situation are NOT comparable. Whether Hillary stayed with Bill or not is not relevant to what he did. He is a sexual predator. He abused his office and took advantage of a young intern. That was only the tip of the iceberg though.
Abortion is my business if you want to use MY TAX DOLLARS to pay for it.
I guess if I get to decide where MY tax dollars go, Iraq would never have happened. But them WE live in a Rep. republic and OUR representatives do what WE ask them, I guess you'll just have to find yourself a different place to live.
I suggest Iran or Afghanistan, as they share the same sort of religious zealotry.
No, not at all. I am solidly standing for what is right.
Paying for a war, which is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government, and funding an individual's lack of personal responsibility and promiscuity, are NOT the same thing.
There is a world of difference between my beliefs and religious zealotry. If I were a zealot, I would be killing doctors who perform abortions and bombing clinics. I also would be killing S.C. Justices as well. You had better thank God for that.
I have always supported the war in Iraq and it is NOT an un-constitutional conflict. Your Supreme Court has already decided that one.
Your problem is that the Constitution does not authorize the government to take money from one citizen to pay for the murder of an unborn child. It is however the role of the government to make war on those who threat our security.
Only congress can declare WAR. When did they do that?
I don't give a fuck about tax money, I think if a person wants an abortion, they should pay for it, but if Govt. does get used, I guess that's better than a church getting it.
Again, you've never read the costitution, otherwise you'd know our founders NEVER wanted us to involve ourselves in nation building. BTW, that's all we've done in Iraq.
Congress authorized the war in Iraq TWICE! There is no formal wording for a declaration of war given in the Constitution. Like I said, the Supreme Court said you are wrong.
Churches don't get tax money.
I have read and studied the Constitution. I don't agree with Dr. Paul and his interpretation of it.
Through what means? Our costitution lays out how war is declared. We quit following the costitution after WWII.
An historical fact that even an asshole as hard-headed as you can see, if you can read.
Sure they do, because they don't pay any tax. What the fuck do you call not having to pay any taxes? If I buy a car, I pay tax, they don't. If I buy a house I pay a tax, a church doesn't.
I seriously doubt that, Jefferson dis-agrees with YOU.
The Congress pass a resolution approving the use of force. The Supreme Court said that was a Declaration of War. You were the one who loved the Supreme Court, remember?
The Declaration of War was required so that the President do not involve us in a war without the Congress's approval. The Congress approved TWICE. They continued to appropriate money for the war.
Not paying tax is not the same thing as getting government money. Poor people don't pay any tax, but they don't get any money.
"Since Bob Woodward disclosed that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress, the Bush Administration has failed to provide one shred of evidence to rebuff the charge"
PLANNING....not invading. There is a reason it is called a use of force. Bob Woodward is an idiot. You don't have to provide evidence to rebuff the charge of an idiot. However I can see where you get your warped view of things.
President Bush, as commander and chief. can use the money in the military budget however he wants. He cannot, however, invade a sovereign country without Congressional approval. If President Bush had done anything remotely close to what you were suggesting, the Democrats would have had him removed from office. Woodward is NOT reproach. Diverting implies something improper, and nothing improper happened.
Nigga please. WTF? CIC can spend the $ anyway he wants?????
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about and at this point your hypocrisy is becoming SCARY.
Bush ADMITTED to using torture, torture is against our laws and the Geneva convention. The Dems have him dead to rights IF they wanted to make a U'S. presideny look like a criminal.
What do you think the Dems are, REPUBLICAN? LOL
Woodward has been proven right, and truthful. Have you? NO FUCKING WAY.
They went after President Bush with a vengeance. They investigate everything, even when they knew he was well within in his authority. There is nothing illegal about the war in Iraq. Bush admitted to using enhanced interrogation techniques. They worked and got us valuable intelligence. Guess what? President Obama is going to use those same techniques if needed. The only difference is that media won't call them torture.
I said when we started, it was and is a constitutional war.
See, here's where your screename looks ironic. Waterboarding is included in a list of TORTURE that is not allowed in the Genevea convention, you stupid motherfucker.
I was given a pamphlet that expressly forbid me from using waterboarding as a means to get intellagence.
I could get YOU to admit to being a gay pedophile in about 10 seconds. That's why it's not allowed, because you can't tell what the truth is.
Now, you're saying that torture is constitutional, LOL
There is no comparing what we did with the waterboarding of the past.
You never interrogated a terrorist then.
That is why you also use independent verification and selective use of the enhanced techniques. No physical harm came to those who were subjected to the techniques. They were done under a doctor's direct supervision. They provided us with intelligence that prevent further attacks.
First of all, OI've been boarded, also, I love the use of the word PHYSICAL. What, no mention of psychological harm? LOL
And why would a Dr. need to supervise such a fun, safe, thing?
Please list the attacks that we prevented?
Just busting your chops, since you and I both know that a negative cannot be proven. That'd be like you asking me to prove that god doesn't exist. Hahahahaha
I cannot understand how a person who is military fails to grasp the whole concept of terrorism. Do you honestly except me to believe that you would not use the technique to prevent an attack that would kill thousands of civilians?
The doctor is present as a precaution to insure that no harm comes to the person. So you have been boarded and survived to talk about it. Explains a lot.
O, I understand terrorism and know that it can never be defeated. I also understand that if a country becomes what they're fighting, nobody wins. I wouldn't use it because I know what it's like, and would have said ANYTHING to make it stop.
I was boarded to show me what third world countries would do to me if I was caught, NOT to show me what the greatest country on earth was going to be doing.
Thousands of jews survived auschwitz, should we do that?
No, I don't think you do. It can be defeated by making those who who use it pay a high price for doing so. When we start sawing off people's head and making a video of it, you can talk about us becoming them.
No one has ever died from the technique. It was used on only a few people. It is not something that we do to everyone.
"It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years."
Waterboarding can cause those things if done simply to inflect pain and cause harm. That is NOT why it was used in a limited and totally different way by the CIA. I realize that you must hate President Bush so much that you have to stay with the liberal narrative. Best you stay with your wikipedia understanding of life.
I know that valuable intelligence was gotten at a critical time in our country. No terrorist was harmed or killed. If you want to cry, cry for those killed by terrorists.
WTF? That's like saying that drowning only occurs if a person is swimming, not surfing. Waterboarding is waterboarding, you, dumbass.
Unlike you I support my comander in chief, whatever party he's from. I backed Bush until I saw what he was up to. Almost 5000 of my buddies are dead because he wanted to get back at Saddam, and not once did he honor our fallen heros by being there to welcome thier bodies home. NOT ONCE!
How long do you think history will take to prove that? Right now, MOST historians believe Bush is one of our worst Presidents in history, and that the Iraq war is one of our nations biggest blunders.
Not wolcoming our fallen heros home, EVER is not a good way to honor our heros. If you can send them to die,at the very least, be there when they come home in a box.
Obama has only been POTUS for a year, and he's already done it, what's Bush's excuse?
And Bush didn't go, why? To avoid being accused of a photo op????
I'd rather my CIC show up to take a fucking leak in the DOVER AFB, at least he was there for something.
I have never seen someone so full of excuses. you have an excuse for every fucked up thing the right does, and everything the left does is a mortal sin.
Hey joe, did you happen to see the date on the evidence i just dick-slapped you with? Yeah, bitch it was 2002. BEFORE the use of force in Iraq was approved.
You did say "actually, he did not", right?
Just checking, cause damn it feels good to do that shit to a dipshit.
Again, planning an invasion is not actually invading. There is a reason it is called "a use of force" resolution. He did not divert anything according to the administration. Last time I looked, Woodard was not god.
Oh, as long as the guys that broke the law say so. LOL
Woodward has the goods, you queef. Now you're down to "that;s not what the Admin. says" Holy fuck, what's next, nanny nanny boo boo?
Btw, if Bush diverted $ in june, 2002 and congress didn't pass the resolution until Oct, doen't that mean that Bush overstepped his constitutional role?
If the Bush Administration had broken the law, trust me, the Democrats would have investigated it and removed him. They investigate everything he did when they came to power.
No, it is not diverting because Woodward calls it that. Planning for an invasion is not diverting funds. President Bush did not invade until he had the approval of Congress - TWICE. It is and always has been a constitutional war. The Supreme Court said so. Why don't you just accept that you are wrong about this.
Correct, planning is not diverting, DIVERTING is diverting.
Even Condi said it. She said it was ok because Iraq and Afghanistan wer in the same "region" Holy fuck, that means that San Antonio, TX and Brazil are in the same region.
Try as you might, you cannot rewrite history, the truth is the truth.
It was OK because it was all about fighting terrorism. We waited OVER A YEAR to invade Iraq. We tried numerous times to get the UN on board, only to find that they had been bought off with OIL for Food vouchers. It is you who cannot write history, not me.
IRAQ had nothing to do with terrorism and you know it.
Ever hear of the no-fly zones? Ever hear of weapons inspectors?
We had Iraq in a box and had that country under control, including it's borders, now it's caos and we can't tell who's coming in or leaving. At least with Sadam, the violence was minimal.
We had a dog in a cage, and decided to go into the cage and kill it. You must be so proud to have killed an already paralyzed animal.
You liberals follow such a script. I should just cut and paste these responses. You all go to the same failed logic.
Invading Iraq was part of an overall strategy to force the terrorists to confront our military on their own soil. This took the US out of their sights and forced them to fight a war that they can never win.
Under Saddam, a million children were starving to death because he was using the Oil for food program to bribe people at the UN. He was attempting to gain a WMD.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, did you just say "on their own soil"? Please, knock off the bullshit, it may work on idiots like you, but I can read.
Also, didn't you claim in your last post that we prevented attacks on the U.S. by Al queda? Dude, you'll have to choose one.
And, exactly how can an idea be defeated? You do know that "terrorism" can never be defeated, it can only be minimized.
Under Saddam, hundreds starved to death, since we invaded, 600,000+ have died.
To fight terrorism, you have to a comprehensive strategy. You must protect your own country, but you cannot simply hide behind your own borders and wait for the next attack. By invading Iraq and establishing a democracy in Middle East, we gave Al queda a bigger threat to deal with. Terrorism does not against a military, only civilians.
ONE MILLION children were starving to death before we invaded. Countless others were being killed as well.
N. Korea has been abiding by their cease-fire agreement. Iran has not invade any ally of the US. Russia has not invaded anyone lately either.
Iraq is a democracy and still sorting things out. That is to be expected. I never said that they were there before we invaded. That is the point. Our invasion drew them there to fight our military. Better there, than here.
An attack on our barracks is not the same as an attack on an American elementary school. You are the one who does not get it.
You proved nothing moron. Yes, a suicide bomber attacked and killed our marines. Tell me, do you think the Marines were terrified and wanted to run home to lick their wounds? Absolutely NOT! While our military is just now getting up to speed on dealing with such attacks, they are FAR BETTER than civilians.
We can debate the whole N. Korea, Iran, and Russian situations is you want. I do not agree with how those are being handled. They do not compare to Iraq, however. Terrorism remember?
Terrorism is terrorism, what the fuck is wrong with you? How the fuck does a terrorist attack become NOT a terrorist attack?
I gaurantee you, that some marines were terrified, AND wanted to run home. Soldiers are human, and have the same fears everyone has, they just CAN'T quit and run home.
Terrorism is a very specific tactic. It is not intended, nor it is effective against military forces. As you said, "they just can't quit and run home". It is by definition, it is an attack against civilians designed to create terrorism in the general population of a country.
Would you rather have an IED set to blow up a school bus here or to attack a convey in Iraq? It is just that simple.
What does my military service have to do with anything?
I was right. You do not understand how terrorism works. If I have to explain the difference between attacking a barracks and civilians, you are really stupid.
No one is terrified when soldiers die. It is sad, but not terrifying. Blowing up buildings, buses, and air liners full of women and children on American soil, THAT IS TERRORISM MORON!
Everything, especially if a person CLAIMS to love their country.
So, explain the process that changes a terrorist into something else simply by attacking the military? By your definition, the attack on our pentagon was perfevtly fine, since it wasn't terrorism. WTF?
I'll bet you your virginity, that the soldiers that are dying are terrorized.
WHAT? You just said that the plane that hit the pentagon WASN"T a terrorist attack, make up your fucking mind.
It is pointless to try to explain this to you. Terrorism is designed to work best against a civilian population. By invading Iraq, we force the terrorists to do two things. One, they have to confront our military. Two, they committed acts of terrorism against fellow Muslims.
I know you cannot understand the difference because you are simply too biased. Terrorists can attack military targets. However, the point of attacking the Pentagon was to make a statement that we can hit you anywhere.
They don't HAVE to do anything, you dumbass. Why do they have to confront us? WTF? They were forced to do 2 things, "they commited acts of terrorism against fellow muslims" What the hell does that even mean? How is that something they were FORCED to do?
Those two things can't be forced on anyone.
This has to be a joke, nobody is that stupid. Where the hell is the candid camera? Holy shit, absolute idiocy.
I knew you were not going to get it, but I tried.
We have killed or captured over 50,000 terrorists between Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists cannot allow us to build a democracy in the Middle East. Why do you think they are coming to Iraq, VACATION?
When they blow up a market full of Iraqis, who are they killing? FELLOW MUSLIMS! This is not applauded in the Muslim world like the killing of American Christians would be.
And 600,000+ civilians. Iraq is not a democracy, no where near it. And after we leavem it's civil war time. Pretty bad when the people of Iraq start longing for Saddam.
I have to give you credit, most people get tired of looking stupid, you seem to like it.
Tell you what, you start providing quotes as I'm getting tired of watching you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and go Lalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalalalalal
I suppose as long as reality never gets into your head, you'll never have to face it.
Why don't you ask President Obama? He has been in there more than a year, and still not caught Osama Bin Ladin. The goal is to protect American lives, not catch a single individual. I don't expect you to understand terrorism or strategy. Most people don't think that way.
You can whine all you want. You know as well as I do, if the Democrats had ANYTHING to get President Bush or Vice-President Cheney on, they would have taken to court. The Democrats leaked classified materials to the press.
Awesome, blame Obama for Bush taking HIS eye off the real threat.
Bush, 7 years and nothing.
Obama, 1 year and nothing.
Obama still wins, you moron.
Iraq had nothing to do with protecting us and lots to do with avenging daddy. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go after Saddam and history will record it as such.
Yeah, someone like me who has served in the military MUST know less than a an armchair patriot like yourself. LOL
I am not blaming President Obama for anything that President Bush did or did not do. I have never defined success or failure by the capture of Bin-laden.
Iraq had everything to do with fight terrorism. If Bush used 911 as an excuse, why wait over a year later to invade? Are you that simple to believe that President Bush cared what happened to his dad?
Not during a time of war for political gain! Classified investigations and public hearings do not go together.
You dumbass, Bush was talking about invading Iraq during the 2000 election. Then 9/11 gave him all the excuse he needed and he swutched from afghanistan(Bin Ladin) to Iraq(Saddam).
Killing Bin Ladin is the ONLY way to punish him for 9/11, HE PLANNED IT.
Do you care about your dad?
Oh, now you're just making shit up. Please educate yourself or at least quit lying.
Ever hear of Valerie Plame? Yeah, bitch it was during a time of war, to punish her husband for talking, POLITICALLY.
I would not risk American lives for my dad's legacy and neither would President Bush.
Plume's identity was not revealed by the Bush Administration but Richard Armitage who work in the state department. It was common knowledge among reporters.
That information did not endanger a single soldier's life. Leaking the Abu Grib investigation DID endanger American soldiers. Leaking the surveillance program hurt our ability to protect Americans. You want to keep this up. I can go the distance.
Richard Armitage admitted that it was HE who accidentally confirmed Plane's position at the CIA. It was not President Bush or anyone on his staff, nor was it done for political points. If the press already knew it, the rest of the world knew as well.
Your ego simply will not allow you to see the truth. You just keep believing the lies. You are letting your bias cloud your limited judgment.
I'm the only one hear pointing out both sides fuck-ups, and I'M biased. Dude, you should really get checked out, I think maybe you've had several strokes or lot's of lead paint in your system.
Actually, you are attacking President Bush. You are showing your bias by simple repeating the same worn out accusations. Would you feel better about the war if Saddam did have stock piles of WMDs and used them against our soldiers?
Reciting history is NOT attacking. The fact is you don't like the truth, and would rather repeat the same old bullshit that was used to get us into Iraq.
You bought into it and supported it, so now you have to keep up the lying.
Like the "armitage wasn't part of the Admin." crap. Or, "I meant Waterboarding for pain and suffering"
I love the truth. Richard Armitage worked for the STATE department. Yes, it is technically part of the administration, but not the White House. The accusation was that the White House leaked the name, which was proved false. Still they went after Cheney anyway. Now that is politics.
You cannot honestly compare waterboarding in past with what was done to these terrorists.
Libby did not leak anything. That is the sad part of the whole story. Armitage went to the prosecutor and confessed he inadvertently confirmed her status. It was not anyone in the White House or their staff.
You know torture is not torture. If you don't then you are dumber than I thought.
You know what I mean. I am not going to keep explaining to you. We do not torture. We use aggressive techniques is a few instances. No died and no one was harmed. These are the facts. You said yourself, you were waterboarded. Are we allowed to torture our own soldiers now?
See, if you had served, you'd know how stupid that question is. When I joined, I gave up my freedom, and volenteered for whatever training was needed. I was Gassed, and SUBMITTED to SEAR training.
We signed the Geneva convention and we violated it. END OF DEBATE. We used to be seen as the good guys, now thanks to idiots like you, the world sees us as what we've been trying to fight.
WE used to bitch when the Viet Namese waterboarded our people, now we waterboard.
Great...would we used something on own soldiers that would cause any serious harm?
Geneva covers soldiers. Terrorists are not soldiers. We are nothing like the terrorists we fight. Talk to me when we saw their heads off on national TV. You are comparing two different situations. Our soldiers were not terrorists. They waterboarded for no reason but to cause harm.
Holy shit you're dumb. we do shit to our soldiers that harm them ALL THE TIME.
Right now, we've sent the National guard(only supposed to used in emergency) back for up to 5 deployments. Suicides are up 40% since we started multiple deployments, and many have lost homes and families because of these "wars"
Which is it, earlier you said we were fighting a war, now the guys we're fighting are civilians.
Believe me, if left up to people like you, we would saw off heads.
Now you are just ranting so I will let this be my last post. Thank you for your service to our country. I realize that the deployments are difficult on individuals and families. We should have thought about that when Clinton was cutting the standing army to "balance" the budget.
No, I am not for sawing off people's heads. I am not for torture. I am for doing what needs to be done within the law to save American lives. Treating evil terrorists like soldiers is just simply wrong.
As long as self-ritious people like you are around, labels will be used to excuse the mis-treatment and murder of people unlike you.
It wasn't long ago a man labeled all jews and tried to exterminate tehm, you are no different. After all, he also had his followers supporting him.
I blasted your position on this post BECAUSE your position is so simlilar to Hitlers. You both KNOW what's best for everyone else, and have no problem choosing for the rest of us.
Dude, you have proved nothing except that there WAS A USE OF FORCE AUTHORIZATION. That makes you original point WRONG. The war is constitutional. Woodard cannot prove his assertion anymore than you can. The point was and is that the war was duly authorized by Congress - TWICE! The Democrats demanded that they be allowed to vote for the war as well.
Like I said, you have nothing to fear from us. We believe you have the sovereign choice to go to hell if you want to. You just don't have the right to take our country with you.
lol greatest comment ever from TYT "its perfect for christians cus they lack logic and reason so make a commercial that lacks it aswell" XDHAHAAHHAAHHA
You two are correct: Tebow's ad did not make any sense. Why are you wasting your time commenting on it: to stir up controversy. Which is entertaining and makes money if you're any good at it like real pundits. Stereotyping an entire group of people...."perfect for the christian right, why do we need logic? why do we need reason?" You sound like Rush Limbaugh's alter protege in infant stage. Next you'll be saying things like Jews are subhuman creatures infiltrating aryan society.
SerTitanium42 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He's very effeminate in this video: watch?v=ojXkblN7pC0 . If he's gay, so what? A good quarterback is a good quarterback.
LulupaloozaPro 1 week ago
You two are morons.
vidmaster7 2 weeks ago
haven't you got kebabs to slice...
RayPatterson59 2 weeks ago
Ain't nothin wrong wit abortions!!!
ganggreen111 2 weeks ago
gay
firechaser4 3 weeks ago
These videos SUCK. They make it look like you're going to see the Tim Tebow ad but it ends up being a bunch of douchebags offering commentary.
WE DONT CARE.
fadedyouthtube 1 month ago
@fadedyouthtube idiot.
Spaghettimonster777 2 weeks ago
i'd like to see more atheists like myself speak against abortions so that it's not only crazy right wing extremists who don't like seeing the growing number of abortions
animals0feel1pain2 1 month ago
@animals0feel1pain2 I'm an atheist myself and since it's so unusual to find one of us against abortion (I'm pro-choice myself) I would sincerely like to hear your rationale. I'm being serious, not sarcastic. Since obviously you aren't against abortion on religious grounds I'd like to "hear your case," so to speak, as to why you think abortion is wrong--or should be illegal under certain circumstances or whatever. Drop me a message in my inbox if you have the chance.
danning1 1 week ago
on of the top 10 biggest cancers in the history of american sports. This is so offensive of so many levels its uncomprehendible how this flys in the US is proof the US is the worst country ever. I speak for everyone with an IQ above their shoe size when we can only pray he suffers a career or life threatinging injury.
BCH19821091 1 month ago
Are these two pretending to be stupid? They really didn't the message of the ad? Maybe they are truly stupid
jrdagooc 1 month ago
@jrdagooc Call us all stupid then, because it didnt make sense unless you know focus on the family.
Nothing about the ad said pro-life.
Sure, if your a pro-lifer or follow the issue, you will connect its vague points to the issue, but so many people dont and your trying to advertise to those people who dont think about it yet.
waltermh111 1 month ago
He is so gay its not even funny
fungirlparty 1 month ago
You guys are stupid, and so is your video
chumpchallenge 1 month ago
@chumpchallenge Oooooh nooooo! You showed them.
clipsryan 1 month ago
why didnt she do it..?
Halo2sleker 1 month ago
Dumb and Dumber
BiHPacker 1 month ago
and i would take moral advice from these two clowns.....
sammyjs1983 1 month ago
All you did was take shots at Christian's. And be a douche too Tim Tebow. Being a jerk does not make you right. I have no idea why i watched this. I knew it was going to make me mad haha. So i am sorry i will no longer watch your videos.
CalebNelson64 1 month ago
@CalebNelson64 yay, good riddance to you, go back to fox news
waltermh111 1 month ago
These two people are just plain stupid. Nothing else needs to be said.
boyroney 1 month ago
@boyroney Lol, yeah, you're a dumbass.
steelty 1 month ago
These people need prays. Dear lord.
Jaime232425 3 months ago
Why are pepole pissed off about this commercial? People cant keep to their own and have to bitch about EVERYTHING. It doesnt matter about someones sexual orientation, or if they were almost aborted. People need to grow up
rockstr56 7 months ago
Tim Tebow's gay, ha!
jpm000001 7 months ago
@jpm000001 Ad hominem much
Andytheantiathiest 1 month ago
This guy has no morals, the more and more I listen to him. Attacking Everything Holy..
muzapstar 7 months ago
Was this made for the sole reason of making fun of the Right just for the sake of making fun of the Right, regardless of having nothing to make fun of? And then you call Tebow gay?
Garbage video.
DeathToTheseWalls 1 year ago
YOUNG TURKS- SIT DOWN- TAKE NOTES- MESSAGE IS- #15- THAT'S TIM TEBOW'S GATOR NUMBER MEANS SOMETHING TO ELIJAH- IT MEANS- FOCUS TO THE FAMILY - PROMISE KEPT- AND WHO THE FUCK CARES IF TIM IS GAY, STRAIGHT OR PART OF ELIJAH'S BI-SEXUAL LOVE HOUSE- HE'S STILL A MAN WHO KEPT HIS PROMISE TO HIS TEAMMATES- THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MAN- HE IS NOT A COWARD- ELIJAH NEEDS THIS COMMERCIAL FOR HIS #15- SO NOW WHO'S THE DUMB FUCK- TIM TEBOW OR THE YOUNG TURKS..
EnterHisRest1 1 year ago
I say that the ad is illogical because it implies that abortion prevents the birth of someone with great potential. Guess what? What about actual PARENTING?
andrewsaccount09 1 year ago
lmao, that guy is hilarious...
reefgurl90 1 year ago
you are a moron.....and jealous that you dont have everything he has...
kate13gilmorefan 1 year ago
The dumb young turks don't get it. The BUZZ before the ad was the point. The media, the feminists, and pro choicers made this ad so much more than it was which got Focus on the Family's message out.
3funkforme 1 year ago
It was about a failed abortion, it did not take.
talltom1973 1 year ago
All the criticism they have for this commercial I have for this show. I've seen this idiot guy on a lot of wannabe funny newscast shows here lately. 1) This so is horrible 2) This show has no point other than bashing a perfectly nice dude because I'm sure you're just jealous and 3) If you want to point the gay finger, look at yourself and your cheesy laughs. Grow up and get a real job
bigfellakid 1 year ago
While I think the Ad wasn't great. The comments made in this clip are ridiculous. The guy on the left should actually pick up some Christian books and study and learn that Logic comes from God. Christian's out to be thinking ones and a plethora of amazing men and women throughout history who were thinkers were Christian.
theshakoone 1 year ago
The only reason the ad was so vague was because of idiotic liberals screaming like banshees about two people who choose to promote against the murder babies.
The argument about Tebow being gay is the most ridiculously immature thing I have ever heard... "no wonder he hasn't gotten laid yet?" WTF. Firstly, aren't liberals supposed to be the champions of the gay rights movement? And secondly, why is someone who chooses not to sleep around before marriage being chastised by anyone? Despicable.
retownsend 1 year ago
They didnt even say the word abortion you dumb shits
Jphu8414 1 year ago
ITS A SUPER BOWL ADD!!!< ITS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY DUMBASSES.
HyunChunProductions 1 year ago
What's the big deal? If you are "PRO CHOICE" you must absolutely love and respect, support and encourage things like that commercial.
It is their CHOICE and you of all people stand for "choice".
Tim Tebow's mom CHOSE to let Tim live.
That commercial satisfies both camps. The PRO-LIFE people and the PRO-CHOICE people. Anyone who gets mad about that ad is illogical and crazy.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
Also, notice how the Iranian looking guy in this video says that the Christian Right does not need logic.
His statement can not be logically defended and here's why:
FACT: Christians maintain that Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (i.e: The MIND of God).
FACT: Atheists maintain that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source. (ie.: logic arises out of meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos).
LOGIC sides with Christians.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
This show sucks, its like Limbaugh for liberals but less entertaining. Seriously, I'd rather watch the fat guy prattle on with fallacious arguments then endure these hyper-liberal clowns that regurgitate left-wing dogma. I'm not evening responding to the contents of this specific video. I just loathe these mouth pieces because I feel less informed after having listened to them. At least O'reilly has a high production value. Yeah, I'd rather watch THAT than this.
turokdarkstar 1 year ago
Fuck Turks.
habbadou 1 year ago
Turkey is so great yet Turks are fleeing it like rats off the Titanic. Go figure.
habbadou 1 year ago
I really think the comment at 1:50 is very offfending to all christians. We are attached to logic. We don't believe in nonsense
sokker03 1 year ago
he said tim tebow was gay did he hear himself at the end?
churchboyextreme 1 year ago
@totalembarrasment NO!
Paulwhoisvegan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't Young Turks a biased idiot that likes to bash everyone who isn't him?
Oh yea that's what I thought, but that's beside the point because the guy is so stupid I don't even care to listen to what he has to say.
Did anyone else think it was funny when he plows his mom over? CGI is the best!
avenged13fold 1 year ago
tebow = best player EVER
247gatorfan 1 year ago
Further, it's not surprising in these times that Focus on the Family would be laying people off. Abortion mills like Planned Parenthood are not a only a tax deductible "charity" with multimillion dollar profits but it also collects hundred of millions of dollars in government funding via grants and contracts; Focus on the Family, being pro life, doesn't have this welfare luxury. If it was an abortion mill, things would be different.
ChristianMission 1 year ago
These people are always heavy on the ad hominems light on substance. It ad clearly states to visit Focus on the Family to learn about Tebow's story; that's where you'll learn about why prolife is the answer and abortion is wrong. If the ad was any more specific, it wouldn't have aired because the liberal media doesn't want explicitly prolife messages to air, just as proabortion violence doesn't make the news.Tebow's not gay & there'e nothing gay in that ad; maybe your friends are just wishful
ChristianMission 1 year ago
Uhh, is he kidding me? "i guess all super bowl adds have to be violent." ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! he tackeld her becasue
a.] they wanted to be funny
b.] she was talking about being tough
c.] he is a foot ball player
fireflies7891 1 year ago
Focus on the family....they're a bunch of idiots. My god mother listens to their radio show all day.
darkfirelights 1 year ago
Comment removed
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
PRO-LIFE = PRO WAR .... :=D
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
No one favors war. It is a sad reality of life in a world of evil.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago 2
@CommonSenseJoe
No one WANTS to have an abortion, it's just a sad reality of a free country.
Just like religion, I think religious people are nuttier than squirrel shit, should I get to choose if we have religion in this country? Hell no, it wouldn't be fair, or right. So, stay on your side of the street and I'll stay on mine and we'll get along just fine. Try to put your nose on my side of the street, and it's on. All bets are off at that point and someone will bleed.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Well, we have had over 30 million of them so someone sure wants them.
Having a free country has nothing to do with murdering unborn children. We had a free country before Roe vs Wade too. That decision ended freedom for the unborn to live.
Bring it on. I won't stay on my side of the street because what you do affects my side. As for bleeding, I would not be to sure on who would bleed.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago 2
most, like 90% of "Pro-Lifers" love war, especially when it's opposing religions. e.g. Islam vs. Christianity. Which is going on right now. Most "Pro-Lifers" love to kill anyone they "feel" threaten from, in any way.
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
No one I know loves war. No one I know wants to have a war with any religion, especially Islam. You do not understand pro-lifers or Christians. We just oppose YOUR war on the unborn.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago 2
yea, maybe people you know personally, but you're god loving Republicans love war.... IT IS FACT! And you know they're all 100% "PRO-LIFERS"!
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
No one loves war.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago 2
okay than tell your fucking republicans fuck buddies, to pull out of Afgan and Iraq RIGHT NOW for the useless stupid no reason wars we're in and they've started, AND we cannot afford to pay for!
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
The wars were both absolutely necessary. Even President Obama understands this. He lied to you to get your vote by saying he would end them. He knew he would not. Both were needed to fight terrorism.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
And about "You do not understand pro-lifers or Christians. We just oppose YOUR war on the unborn."
Seriously? You clearly do not understand that you're own personal opinion on how you and your people define death, life, and when a life is born is completely different than the legal definition and scientific definition. And I'm talking about scientific definition that most of the planet agrees on, not "creationism" bs. It's not war, what if there is no abortion at all, are you will to see ----
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
Again, you are simply wrong. Science tells us that when a fertilized egg implants on the wall of uterus, it is a life . That is not my "creationism" definition, but science. The legal issues surrounding abortion have never centered on when LIFE begins. It has ALWAYS been when does life have rights. This is why we use the phrase, right to life.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago 2
okay, go create your own planet, and you'll see having an unlimited amount of babies would do to the planet. As for the planet I live on fuck off!
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
Comment removed
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you willing to see the damage that would cause on our planet?
We already live in the world with over population issues. Massive hunger issues, massive amount of people living unwillingly in poverty. You honestly think the planet can handle an UNLIMITED amount of humans. Simple science proves that there is a limit to growth of a species. If we had no abortion ever, wed be extinct by now, just because the resources would be completely cleaned out.
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
Hey, not just that, what if a chick who is completely unable to care for the child, financially, emotionally, academically. What would you do, just hand the kids over to the Christians, Christian groups, ect.? You honestly think those Christians and Christian groups handling the care of those children would as well run out of resources for the children? Yes. Again simple math oh oh wait you dont understand logic I forgot.
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
If she cannot accept the consequences of her actions, then I would suggest she stay off her back and keep legs together until she can. However to answer your question, YES! There are many couples ready and willing to adopt a baby in this country. The issue is not simple math, but simply morality.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago 2
it is simple math, not to you just because you choose your own view point of morality to surpass scientific evidence. Period! No matter what science will out smart the excuses your people gives for creating and going to wars. Keep her legs together, you know what, we live in reality. People love sex. It's your people's fault that education is a bad thing, e.g. Sex education (real sex education). -
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
I love sex as well. Yet, I have not created a child for nearly two decades. Why? Because I have common sense! I have taken the necessary steps to prevent that from happening. You should not talk about excuses and abortion. I am all for true sex education. It is liberals that oppose tell young people the FACTS about sexual activity. We don't want to scare them, they say. We will just provide condoms that fail nearly 20% of the time and low cost abortions. Nice plan. Killing the unborn.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
If we forced all citizens to have a parenting license before any live birth, and controlled when people can have babies (like an off and on switch to the procreation cells in humans bodies) we'd wouldn't have any abortions. But sadly most the humans species today are complete idiots and would rather have unlimited power to procreation rights to anyone on the planet, no matter who, even the baddest people, e.g. Hitler would even be allowed to procreate if alive.
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
Are you saying you would support forced sterilization? Now you are talking!
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
You'll see once the stupid sees the 'too late to fix' problems that over population will cause. Hey, lets sing the Armageddon song together? Self-destruction will come to the human race just because of the religious idiots and super greedy people of this world.
Snakekilla12 1 year ago
Oh, great, now we are back to the flawed argument of overpopulation. Do you know how many times we have been on edge of destruction because of the evil "overpopulation"? Abortion is about personal responsibility, not overpopulation.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Great, I know a gay couple that would love a baby. LOL
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I got a better one for you. Let's say that we discover the gene for being gay, and can test for it prior to birth. Would you support a woman's right to abort her child simply for being gay?
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
I'd support a woman's choice to abort for whatever SHE decides, I personally wouldn't.
The wierd thing is how many so-called pro-lifers would abort a "gay" child.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
No, pro-lifers do not support abortion for any reason other than saving the mother's life. Even the rape and incest exceptions are rejected.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
And Mark Sanford said Clinton couldn't be trusted after cheating on Hillary. Saying something is different than doing something. Priests aren't supposed to molest kids, either.
Hypocrisy is rampant in life, even among "religious" people. Swaggart, Baker, etc.
Something tells me you'd never have an abortion, and that's where your involvement ends. Now mind your own business. Bu bye.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Smart play..change the subject quick and use the religious card. Hypocrisy is rampant. We do agree on that. The comparison of Sanford and Clinton is somewhat flawed. I don't approve of what either of them did. However, Clinton's problem is more a kind to Tiger Woods than Mark Sanford.
I have never had an abortion because I am a man. I have never murder anyone either, but I am still against that. I decide where my involvement ends. This is my country and it is my business.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Not really, as Hillary stayed with Bill, like maybe she and Bill had an agreement(that does happen), Sanford's wife dropped him like a bad habit.
Nice thing is It's none of my business, and for some reason you think somehow somebody gives a flying shit if YOU aprove. LOL That's your problem you're too arrogant to allow strangers to live their lives without butting in.
You're a dude??
Then abortion's none of your fucking business, anyway.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
As I said, the two situation are NOT comparable. Whether Hillary stayed with Bill or not is not relevant to what he did. He is a sexual predator. He abused his office and took advantage of a young intern. That was only the tip of the iceberg though.
Abortion is my business if you want to use MY TAX DOLLARS to pay for it.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Sounds like you're reaching and spinning.
I guess if I get to decide where MY tax dollars go, Iraq would never have happened. But them WE live in a Rep. republic and OUR representatives do what WE ask them, I guess you'll just have to find yourself a different place to live.
I suggest Iran or Afghanistan, as they share the same sort of religious zealotry.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
No, not at all. I am solidly standing for what is right.
Paying for a war, which is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government, and funding an individual's lack of personal responsibility and promiscuity, are NOT the same thing.
There is a world of difference between my beliefs and religious zealotry. If I were a zealot, I would be killing doctors who perform abortions and bombing clinics. I also would be killing S.C. Justices as well. You had better thank God for that.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Really? Did you support the war in Iraq?
Sorry, I mean the conflict in Iraq?
Since the last "war" was WWII, YOU supported an un-constitutional conflict.
That means both of us support things for which our Govt. shouldn't be involved in.
I guess I'll overlook yours if you overlook mine. LOL
Zealot: an immoderate, fanatical, or extremely zealous adherent to a cause, esp a religious one.
Hmmm? Wierd, fits you to a T.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I have always supported the war in Iraq and it is NOT an un-constitutional conflict. Your Supreme Court has already decided that one.
Your problem is that the Constitution does not authorize the government to take money from one citizen to pay for the murder of an unborn child. It is however the role of the government to make war on those who threat our security.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Read the fucking constitution, dumbass.
Only congress can declare WAR. When did they do that?
I don't give a fuck about tax money, I think if a person wants an abortion, they should pay for it, but if Govt. does get used, I guess that's better than a church getting it.
Again, you've never read the costitution, otherwise you'd know our founders NEVER wanted us to involve ourselves in nation building. BTW, that's all we've done in Iraq.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Congress authorized the war in Iraq TWICE! There is no formal wording for a declaration of war given in the Constitution. Like I said, the Supreme Court said you are wrong.
Churches don't get tax money.
I have read and studied the Constitution. I don't agree with Dr. Paul and his interpretation of it.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Through what means? Our costitution lays out how war is declared. We quit following the costitution after WWII.
An historical fact that even an asshole as hard-headed as you can see, if you can read.
Sure they do, because they don't pay any tax. What the fuck do you call not having to pay any taxes? If I buy a car, I pay tax, they don't. If I buy a house I pay a tax, a church doesn't.
I seriously doubt that, Jefferson dis-agrees with YOU.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
The Congress pass a resolution approving the use of force. The Supreme Court said that was a Declaration of War. You were the one who loved the Supreme Court, remember?
The Declaration of War was required so that the President do not involve us in a war without the Congress's approval. The Congress approved TWICE. They continued to appropriate money for the war.
Not paying tax is not the same thing as getting government money. Poor people don't pay any tax, but they don't get any money.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Bush diverted millions from afghanistan to Iraq long before congress approved of the use of force, so nice try on that one.
WTF? Poor people get yax credits all the time, you dumbass.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Actually, he did not. But you keep trying their Butch. So there was a use of force approved. You are slowly coming along.
A tax credit is NOT the same not paying tax. You keep working on it. You will get it eventually. BTW, Church don't get tax credits.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
"Since Bob Woodward disclosed that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress, the Bush Administration has failed to provide one shred of evidence to rebuff the charge"
What was that? Man that has to hurt.
Use of force, not a declaration of war.
Words mean things, zeek.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
PLANNING....not invading. There is a reason it is called a use of force. Bob Woodward is an idiot. You don't have to provide evidence to rebuff the charge of an idiot. However I can see where you get your warped view of things.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Not quite, zeek. You don't get off that easy. You said "actually, he did not" divert millions. When clearly he did and you now know he did.
Bob Woodward is above reproach, and didn't just get caught on youtube lying his ass off. LOL BTW, wasn't Woodward the guy that took down Nixon?
Yeah, bitch. Keep trying.
I love it, you get caught in a lie, and try to spin your way out.
Planning? Holy shit, I said nothing about invading, I said DIVERTED.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
President Bush, as commander and chief. can use the money in the military budget however he wants. He cannot, however, invade a sovereign country without Congressional approval. If President Bush had done anything remotely close to what you were suggesting, the Democrats would have had him removed from office. Woodward is NOT reproach. Diverting implies something improper, and nothing improper happened.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Nigga please. WTF? CIC can spend the $ anyway he wants?????
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about and at this point your hypocrisy is becoming SCARY.
Bush ADMITTED to using torture, torture is against our laws and the Geneva convention. The Dems have him dead to rights IF they wanted to make a U'S. presideny look like a criminal.
What do you think the Dems are, REPUBLICAN? LOL
Woodward has been proven right, and truthful. Have you? NO FUCKING WAY.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
They went after President Bush with a vengeance. They investigate everything, even when they knew he was well within in his authority. There is nothing illegal about the war in Iraq. Bush admitted to using enhanced interrogation techniques. They worked and got us valuable intelligence. Guess what? President Obama is going to use those same techniques if needed. The only difference is that media won't call them torture.
I said when we started, it was and is a constitutional war.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
See, here's where your screename looks ironic. Waterboarding is included in a list of TORTURE that is not allowed in the Genevea convention, you stupid motherfucker.
I was given a pamphlet that expressly forbid me from using waterboarding as a means to get intellagence.
I could get YOU to admit to being a gay pedophile in about 10 seconds. That's why it's not allowed, because you can't tell what the truth is.
Now, you're saying that torture is constitutional, LOL
He's wrong too
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
There is no comparing what we did with the waterboarding of the past.
You never interrogated a terrorist then.
That is why you also use independent verification and selective use of the enhanced techniques. No physical harm came to those who were subjected to the techniques. They were done under a doctor's direct supervision. They provided us with intelligence that prevent further attacks.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
First of all, OI've been boarded, also, I love the use of the word PHYSICAL. What, no mention of psychological harm? LOL
And why would a Dr. need to supervise such a fun, safe, thing?
Please list the attacks that we prevented?
Just busting your chops, since you and I both know that a negative cannot be proven. That'd be like you asking me to prove that god doesn't exist. Hahahahaha
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I cannot understand how a person who is military fails to grasp the whole concept of terrorism. Do you honestly except me to believe that you would not use the technique to prevent an attack that would kill thousands of civilians?
The doctor is present as a precaution to insure that no harm comes to the person. So you have been boarded and survived to talk about it. Explains a lot.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
O, I understand terrorism and know that it can never be defeated. I also understand that if a country becomes what they're fighting, nobody wins. I wouldn't use it because I know what it's like, and would have said ANYTHING to make it stop.
I was boarded to show me what third world countries would do to me if I was caught, NOT to show me what the greatest country on earth was going to be doing.
Thousands of jews survived auschwitz, should we do that?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
No, I don't think you do. It can be defeated by making those who who use it pay a high price for doing so. When we start sawing off people's head and making a video of it, you can talk about us becoming them.
No one has ever died from the technique. It was used on only a few people. It is not something that we do to everyone.
Not even a fair comparison.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Are you tired of being wrong yet?
"It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years."
That was from wikipedia you fucking moron.
Really, do you KNOW anything?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Waterboarding can cause those things if done simply to inflect pain and cause harm. That is NOT why it was used in a limited and totally different way by the CIA. I realize that you must hate President Bush so much that you have to stay with the liberal narrative. Best you stay with your wikipedia understanding of life.
I know that valuable intelligence was gotten at a critical time in our country. No terrorist was harmed or killed. If you want to cry, cry for those killed by terrorists.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
WTF? That's like saying that drowning only occurs if a person is swimming, not surfing. Waterboarding is waterboarding, you, dumbass.
Unlike you I support my comander in chief, whatever party he's from. I backed Bush until I saw what he was up to. Almost 5000 of my buddies are dead because he wanted to get back at Saddam, and not once did he honor our fallen heros by being there to welcome thier bodies home. NOT ONCE!
You go blindly into the night, not I.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
You obviously did NOT see what he was doing. That's OK most people still don't. History will prove that his strategy was correct.
He did honor them, just not in the way YOU think he should have.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
How long do you think history will take to prove that? Right now, MOST historians believe Bush is one of our worst Presidents in history, and that the Iraq war is one of our nations biggest blunders.
Not wolcoming our fallen heros home, EVER is not a good way to honor our heros. If you can send them to die,at the very least, be there when they come home in a box.
Obama has only been POTUS for a year, and he's already done it, what's Bush's excuse?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Obama did for a photo opportunity. President Bush spoke with family privately. It is a matter of preference. Nothing more.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
And Bush didn't go, why? To avoid being accused of a photo op????
I'd rather my CIC show up to take a fucking leak in the DOVER AFB, at least he was there for something.
I have never seen someone so full of excuses. you have an excuse for every fucked up thing the right does, and everything the left does is a mortal sin.
You, sir are truely a piece of shit.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
You call them excuses, I call them facts you just don't want to recognize.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Hey joe, did you happen to see the date on the evidence i just dick-slapped you with? Yeah, bitch it was 2002. BEFORE the use of force in Iraq was approved.
You did say "actually, he did not", right?
Just checking, cause damn it feels good to do that shit to a dipshit.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Again, planning an invasion is not actually invading. There is a reason it is called "a use of force" resolution. He did not divert anything according to the administration. Last time I looked, Woodard was not god.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Oh, as long as the guys that broke the law say so. LOL
Woodward has the goods, you queef. Now you're down to "that;s not what the Admin. says" Holy fuck, what's next, nanny nanny boo boo?
Btw, if Bush diverted $ in june, 2002 and congress didn't pass the resolution until Oct, doen't that mean that Bush overstepped his constitutional role?
After all, only congress can issue funding.
So much for a constitutional war.
SN AP
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
If the Bush Administration had broken the law, trust me, the Democrats would have investigated it and removed him. They investigate everything he did when they came to power.
No, it is not diverting because Woodward calls it that. Planning for an invasion is not diverting funds. President Bush did not invade until he had the approval of Congress - TWICE. It is and always has been a constitutional war. The Supreme Court said so. Why don't you just accept that you are wrong about this.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Correct, planning is not diverting, DIVERTING is diverting.
Even Condi said it. She said it was ok because Iraq and Afghanistan wer in the same "region" Holy fuck, that means that San Antonio, TX and Brazil are in the same region.
Try as you might, you cannot rewrite history, the truth is the truth.
But don't let facts get in your way.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
It was OK because it was all about fighting terrorism. We waited OVER A YEAR to invade Iraq. We tried numerous times to get the UN on board, only to find that they had been bought off with OIL for Food vouchers. It is you who cannot write history, not me.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
IRAQ had nothing to do with terrorism and you know it.
Ever hear of the no-fly zones? Ever hear of weapons inspectors?
We had Iraq in a box and had that country under control, including it's borders, now it's caos and we can't tell who's coming in or leaving. At least with Sadam, the violence was minimal.
We had a dog in a cage, and decided to go into the cage and kill it. You must be so proud to have killed an already paralyzed animal.
Yet, where is Usama Bin Ladin? LOL
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
You liberals follow such a script. I should just cut and paste these responses. You all go to the same failed logic.
Invading Iraq was part of an overall strategy to force the terrorists to confront our military on their own soil. This took the US out of their sights and forced them to fight a war that they can never win.
Under Saddam, a million children were starving to death because he was using the Oil for food program to bribe people at the UN. He was attempting to gain a WMD.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, did you just say "on their own soil"? Please, knock off the bullshit, it may work on idiots like you, but I can read.
Also, didn't you claim in your last post that we prevented attacks on the U.S. by Al queda? Dude, you'll have to choose one.
And, exactly how can an idea be defeated? You do know that "terrorism" can never be defeated, it can only be minimized.
Under Saddam, hundreds starved to death, since we invaded, 600,000+ have died.
Ouch!
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Come on, do I have to explain it all to you.
To fight terrorism, you have to a comprehensive strategy. You must protect your own country, but you cannot simply hide behind your own borders and wait for the next attack. By invading Iraq and establishing a democracy in Middle East, we gave Al queda a bigger threat to deal with. Terrorism does not against a military, only civilians.
ONE MILLION children were starving to death before we invaded. Countless others were being killed as well.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Well then, by that line of thought we should attack N. Korea, Iran and Russia.
Wait wait wait, did you say we established a democracy in the mid-east?? LOL Dude we haven't ESTABLISHED anything yet.
Al Queda wasn't in Iraq, you dumbass. Saying over and over won't change the truth.
DUDE! some of the first documented Terrorist attacks were against our barracks in Beruit.
Holy shit you are dumb.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
N. Korea has been abiding by their cease-fire agreement. Iran has not invade any ally of the US. Russia has not invaded anyone lately either.
Iraq is a democracy and still sorting things out. That is to be expected. I never said that they were there before we invaded. That is the point. Our invasion drew them there to fight our military. Better there, than here.
An attack on our barracks is not the same as an attack on an American elementary school. You are the one who does not get it.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
N. Korea HAS gotten WMD's, Iran IS starving and killing it's people and have you heard of Georgia, you dumbass?
Russia invaded them 2 years ago and they are our ally.
YOU SAID TERRORISNM ONLY WORKS ON CIVILIANS, I proved that terrorists have attacked our military.
Wake the fuck up, you dumbass.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
You proved nothing moron. Yes, a suicide bomber attacked and killed our marines. Tell me, do you think the Marines were terrified and wanted to run home to lick their wounds? Absolutely NOT! While our military is just now getting up to speed on dealing with such attacks, they are FAR BETTER than civilians.
We can debate the whole N. Korea, Iran, and Russian situations is you want. I do not agree with how those are being handled. They do not compare to Iraq, however. Terrorism remember?
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Terrorism is terrorism, what the fuck is wrong with you? How the fuck does a terrorist attack become NOT a terrorist attack?
I gaurantee you, that some marines were terrified, AND wanted to run home. Soldiers are human, and have the same fears everyone has, they just CAN'T quit and run home.
You clearly have no idea what reality is.
I pity you.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I understand. You were never a marine.
Terrorism is a very specific tactic. It is not intended, nor it is effective against military forces. As you said, "they just can't quit and run home". It is by definition, it is an attack against civilians designed to create terrorism in the general population of a country.
Would you rather have an IED set to blow up a school bus here or to attack a convey in Iraq? It is just that simple.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
And you've never served your country at all. AND?
Then why did terrorists attack our Barracks? Barracks are where soldiers sleep, just in case you didn't know.
Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Where are civilians expressly mentioned?
Actually neither i would rather our boys not be nation building, when they could be finding the bastard that killed our people.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
What does my military service have to do with anything?
I was right. You do not understand how terrorism works. If I have to explain the difference between attacking a barracks and civilians, you are really stupid.
No one is terrified when soldiers die. It is sad, but not terrifying. Blowing up buildings, buses, and air liners full of women and children on American soil, THAT IS TERRORISM MORON!
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Everything, especially if a person CLAIMS to love their country.
So, explain the process that changes a terrorist into something else simply by attacking the military? By your definition, the attack on our pentagon was perfevtly fine, since it wasn't terrorism. WTF?
I'll bet you your virginity, that the soldiers that are dying are terrorized.
WHAT? You just said that the plane that hit the pentagon WASN"T a terrorist attack, make up your fucking mind.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
It is pointless to try to explain this to you. Terrorism is designed to work best against a civilian population. By invading Iraq, we force the terrorists to do two things. One, they have to confront our military. Two, they committed acts of terrorism against fellow Muslims.
I know you cannot understand the difference because you are simply too biased. Terrorists can attack military targets. However, the point of attacking the Pentagon was to make a statement that we can hit you anywhere.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Best, I thought soldiers were immune to terror?
They don't HAVE to do anything, you dumbass. Why do they have to confront us? WTF? They were forced to do 2 things, "they commited acts of terrorism against fellow muslims" What the hell does that even mean? How is that something they were FORCED to do?
Those two things can't be forced on anyone.
This has to be a joke, nobody is that stupid. Where the hell is the candid camera? Holy shit, absolute idiocy.
How old are you?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I knew you were not going to get it, but I tried.
We have killed or captured over 50,000 terrorists between Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists cannot allow us to build a democracy in the Middle East. Why do you think they are coming to Iraq, VACATION?
When they blow up a market full of Iraqis, who are they killing? FELLOW MUSLIMS! This is not applauded in the Muslim world like the killing of American Christians would be.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
And 600,000+ civilians. Iraq is not a democracy, no where near it. And after we leavem it's civil war time. Pretty bad when the people of Iraq start longing for Saddam.
I have to give you credit, most people get tired of looking stupid, you seem to like it.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
We did not kill 600,000 civilians. Iraq is a democracy. They have elections. No one is going to long for Saddam back.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Well you just keep that a secret.
No, I guess the people that wanted Hitler back never existed either?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Tell you what, you start providing quotes as I'm getting tired of watching you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and go Lalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalalalalal
I suppose as long as reality never gets into your head, you'll never have to face it.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Why don't you ask President Obama? He has been in there more than a year, and still not caught Osama Bin Ladin. The goal is to protect American lives, not catch a single individual. I don't expect you to understand terrorism or strategy. Most people don't think that way.
You can whine all you want. You know as well as I do, if the Democrats had ANYTHING to get President Bush or Vice-President Cheney on, they would have taken to court. The Democrats leaked classified materials to the press.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Awesome, blame Obama for Bush taking HIS eye off the real threat.
Bush, 7 years and nothing.
Obama, 1 year and nothing.
Obama still wins, you moron.
Iraq had nothing to do with protecting us and lots to do with avenging daddy. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go after Saddam and history will record it as such.
Yeah, someone like me who has served in the military MUST know less than a an armchair patriot like yourself. LOL
They all leak material to the press, you dumbass.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I am not blaming President Obama for anything that President Bush did or did not do. I have never defined success or failure by the capture of Bin-laden.
Iraq had everything to do with fight terrorism. If Bush used 911 as an excuse, why wait over a year later to invade? Are you that simple to believe that President Bush cared what happened to his dad?
Not during a time of war for political gain! Classified investigations and public hearings do not go together.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
You dumbass, Bush was talking about invading Iraq during the 2000 election. Then 9/11 gave him all the excuse he needed and he swutched from afghanistan(Bin Ladin) to Iraq(Saddam).
Killing Bin Ladin is the ONLY way to punish him for 9/11, HE PLANNED IT.
Do you care about your dad?
Oh, now you're just making shit up. Please educate yourself or at least quit lying.
Ever hear of Valerie Plame? Yeah, bitch it was during a time of war, to punish her husband for talking, POLITICALLY.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I would not risk American lives for my dad's legacy and neither would President Bush.
Plume's identity was not revealed by the Bush Administration but Richard Armitage who work in the state department. It was common knowledge among reporters.
That information did not endanger a single soldier's life. Leaking the Abu Grib investigation DID endanger American soldiers. Leaking the surveillance program hurt our ability to protect Americans. You want to keep this up. I can go the distance.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
That's right, speak for someone you've never met. LOL
Did you just say "Bush administartion" and "state Dept" in the same post, and NOT see that the state Dept. was part of the Bush Admin? WTF?
It endangered a CIA agents life, dipshit.
You most likely don't know what Distance means.
I've destroyed every point you've TRIED to make. I've seen smarter dogs.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Richard Armitage admitted that it was HE who accidentally confirmed Plane's position at the CIA. It was not President Bush or anyone on his staff, nor was it done for political points. If the press already knew it, the rest of the world knew as well.
Your ego simply will not allow you to see the truth. You just keep believing the lies. You are letting your bias cloud your limited judgment.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
I'm the only one hear pointing out both sides fuck-ups, and I'M biased. Dude, you should really get checked out, I think maybe you've had several strokes or lot's of lead paint in your system.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Actually, you are attacking President Bush. You are showing your bias by simple repeating the same worn out accusations. Would you feel better about the war if Saddam did have stock piles of WMDs and used them against our soldiers?
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Reciting history is NOT attacking. The fact is you don't like the truth, and would rather repeat the same old bullshit that was used to get us into Iraq.
You bought into it and supported it, so now you have to keep up the lying.
Like the "armitage wasn't part of the Admin." crap. Or, "I meant Waterboarding for pain and suffering"
Hahahahahahahahaha
Thanks dude, I need a good laugh once in awhile.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I love the truth. Richard Armitage worked for the STATE department. Yes, it is technically part of the administration, but not the White House. The accusation was that the White House leaked the name, which was proved false. Still they went after Cheney anyway. Now that is politics.
You cannot honestly compare waterboarding in past with what was done to these terrorists.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
TECHNICALLY?? TECHNICALLY? Is that the truth or technically, the truth? LOL
Question? Who was convicted of lying about KNOWING WHO LEAKED the name, to the grand jury?
That's right, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's personal assistant, would he TECHNICALLY be part of the white house? LOL You certainly know politics.
Torture is torture, pal. It's called integrity, get some.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Libby did not leak anything. That is the sad part of the whole story. Armitage went to the prosecutor and confessed he inadvertently confirmed her status. It was not anyone in the White House or their staff.
You know torture is not torture. If you don't then you are dumber than I thought.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Oh shit, did you really just say that torture isn't torture?
If only I had a real picture of you to put alongside the idiotic things you say?
Fuck, this is classic. LOL ROTFLMFAO
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
You know what I mean. I am not going to keep explaining to you. We do not torture. We use aggressive techniques is a few instances. No died and no one was harmed. These are the facts. You said yourself, you were waterboarded. Are we allowed to torture our own soldiers now?
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
See, if you had served, you'd know how stupid that question is. When I joined, I gave up my freedom, and volenteered for whatever training was needed. I was Gassed, and SUBMITTED to SEAR training.
We signed the Geneva convention and we violated it. END OF DEBATE. We used to be seen as the good guys, now thanks to idiots like you, the world sees us as what we've been trying to fight.
WE used to bitch when the Viet Namese waterboarded our people, now we waterboard.
Sad.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Great...would we used something on own soldiers that would cause any serious harm?
Geneva covers soldiers. Terrorists are not soldiers. We are nothing like the terrorists we fight. Talk to me when we saw their heads off on national TV. You are comparing two different situations. Our soldiers were not terrorists. They waterboarded for no reason but to cause harm.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Holy shit you're dumb. we do shit to our soldiers that harm them ALL THE TIME.
Right now, we've sent the National guard(only supposed to used in emergency) back for up to 5 deployments. Suicides are up 40% since we started multiple deployments, and many have lost homes and families because of these "wars"
Which is it, earlier you said we were fighting a war, now the guys we're fighting are civilians.
Believe me, if left up to people like you, we would saw off heads.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Now you are just ranting so I will let this be my last post. Thank you for your service to our country. I realize that the deployments are difficult on individuals and families. We should have thought about that when Clinton was cutting the standing army to "balance" the budget.
No, I am not for sawing off people's heads. I am not for torture. I am for doing what needs to be done within the law to save American lives. Treating evil terrorists like soldiers is just simply wrong.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
As long as self-ritious people like you are around, labels will be used to excuse the mis-treatment and murder of people unlike you.
It wasn't long ago a man labeled all jews and tried to exterminate tehm, you are no different. After all, he also had his followers supporting him.
I blasted your position on this post BECAUSE your position is so simlilar to Hitlers. You both KNOW what's best for everyone else, and have no problem choosing for the rest of us.
alvederzane
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Dude, I'd love to continue the beat down, but I need a challenge, like laying down. Hahahahahahahaha
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Dude, you have proved nothing except that there WAS A USE OF FORCE AUTHORIZATION. That makes you original point WRONG. The war is constitutional. Woodard cannot prove his assertion anymore than you can. The point was and is that the war was duly authorized by Congress - TWICE! The Democrats demanded that they be allowed to vote for the war as well.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
No need to thank god, as I can handle a zealot on my own. Good, honest people like me will thwart the likes of you forever.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
You are not doing very well so far.
Like I said, you have nothing to fear from us. We believe you have the sovereign choice to go to hell if you want to. You just don't have the right to take our country with you.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
WTF?
Dude, lay off the crack.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Dude, I can't help it if you don't get it. Keep trying though. I will come to you eventually.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
lol greatest comment ever from TYT "its perfect for christians cus they lack logic and reason so make a commercial that lacks it aswell" XDHAHAAHHAAHHA
brianmejia2 1 year ago
Really? How he and every other left wing liberal, pro-death nutcase is TALKING ABOUT IT?
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago