Political Thread: Non-obscene version

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
I agree that on this surface this seems like a lousey deal for the US, but this deal was cooked up in the Pentagon, not the Oval Office:

DoD and Army officials defended the prisoner swap that led to Bergdahl's release. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond
T. Odierno said in a statement, "It was always a high priority that every soldier deployed to
Afghanistan would return home. We will never leave a fallen comrade behind.

The Army was not clear on the circumstances of his disappearance and capture at the time and only after the board of inquiry has finished it's work was it determined that he was a deserter.

Surely you cannot be this ignorant to what goes on here? Don't you realize that those in the Pentagon want to keep their jobs? When the president tells them what to do or else, (which is what happens) they comply. In the past we have had military leaders who bucked the president but, in these days they wait until they either retire or are fired before they tell the story. I am sure you are not ignorant nor stupid to this. It is my belief that you agree with the presidents strategy and are just doing what you normally do and deflect and defend his moronic mistakes because you agree with them.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

That Bill is nothing but fodder for the masses. I work for a federal agency, and I can assure you that pornograghic sites are off limits.
Anything with a chance of being pornographic is blocked, and if you somehow circumvent that, once discovered you receive time off, and likely termination.

This. In the past maybe but not in a few years now. You are monitored daily.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
I don't have to take anything up with that guy, because he like everyone else at the Pentagon had nothing to do with going out and negotiating with terrorists to see how many terrorists we had to release back onto the battlefield in order to secure the release of a guy who was always known to have been a deserter.

Poor Barak, handcuffed to an awful transfer by the meenies at the Pentagon.

Is it your position as well that the Pentagon is responsible for sending Susan Rice out on Sunday tv shows to lie and say Berghdal served with distinction & honor?

Is the Pentagon responsible for State Department Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf, who called his platoon mates not credible and painted them as liars when they went to the media telling how Berghdal was a deserter?

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Brandon Friedman suggested publicly that the platoon might be full of "psychopaths." - again, as directed by the Pentagon?

The point I made cite's a reputable source The Association Of The United States Army. If you believe this deal was cooked up in the Whitehouse instead, post a source to validate it.

I'm not familiar with the Harf comment, but I will agree that the Whitehouse handled the PR on this very poorly. The Rose Garden Ceremony and the Rice comments were idiotic.

Prison exchanges are suppose to benefit both sides, obviously we got the short end of the stick, no argument there. Israel once traded 1000 prisoners for one of their guys. It just depends on your priorities. If it turned out later that this character had been kidnapped instead of deserting, it would look a lot better. You know what they say about hind sight.

Once again, MILITARY LEARDERS DO WHAT THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TELLS THEM TOO. You kill me sometimes. Stop the madness DEEEEEEE!

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Once again, MILITARY LEARDERS DO WHAT THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TELLS THEM TOO. You kill me sometimes. Stop the madness DEEEEEEE!

Of course they do he's the commander and chief, but you would have to be totally brainwashed to think any president, would not be seriously heading the advise and consent of the military over an issue that involves one of their own held as a prisoner.
If you had read the article I linked above you would have learned the Sec. of Defense Hagel vigorously defended the decision under oath before Congress. I think Hagel is an honorable man and certainly would not purger himself.

The president has the final say so, and he approved the deal, so he has responsibility of the decision, but the military leaders were rooted in, and in agreement with the decision, not just blindly following something Obama cooked up all by himself.
But if blaming Obama solely for a decision you don't agree with makes you feel warm have at it.

To repeat. At the time they did not know if this guy was a deserter or a victim. All they knew was that he had been captured and was in poor health. They made a decision to make a prisoner swap, something we have been doing since the Revolutionary War and it isn't always to our favor. It's easy to sit here the day after we find out the guy has been charged with desertion and say it's a crappy deal - hay using 20/20 hindsight, I totally agree. But they did what they felt like was the right thing at the time based on the information they had.









This post was edited on 3/26 10:38 PM by Deeeefense

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Once again, MILITARY LEARDERS DO WHAT THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TELLS THEM TOO. You kill me sometimes. Stop the madness DEEEEEEE!

Of course they do he's the commander and chief, but you would have to be totally brainwashed to think any president, would not be seriously heading the advise and consent of the military over an issue that involves one of their own held as a prisoner.
If you had read the article I linked above you would have learned the Sec. of Defense Hagel vigorously defended the decision under oath before Congress. I think Hagel is an honorable man and certainly would not purger himself.

The president has the final say so, and he approved the deal, so he has responsibility of the decision, but the military leaders were rooted in, and in agreement with the decision, not just blindly following something Obama cooked up all by himself.
But if blaming Obama solely for a decision you don't agree with makes you feel warm have at it.

To repeat. At the time they did not know if this guy was a deserter or a victim. All they knew was that he had been captured and was in poor health. They made a decision to make a prisoner swap, something we have been doing since the Revolutionary War and it isn't always to our favor. It's easy to sit here the day after we find out the guy has been charged with desertion and say it's a crappy deal - hay using 20/20 hindsight, I totally agree. But they did what they felt like was the right thing at the time based on the information they had.









This post was edited on 3/26 10:38 PM by Deeeefense

Once again your blind agenda filled postings show that you either don't have a clue or you lock step to your dictator showing how you can also shift the blame the way he does. It was his decision and no one else.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Lols Deeeee, get real. Your arms have *got* to be tired from the water carrying. Must be trying for some "Barack Bucks" from the Presidents rewards catalog or something.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Harry Reid announces he will retire.

Link

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Once again your blind agenda filled postings show that you either don't have a clue or you lock step to your dictator showing how you can also shift the blame the way he does. It was his decision and no one else.

If you think the president is a dictator then that explains to me why you have the opinion you have. Your opinion is perception based, not fact based, but you're certainly entitled to it.

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by Rex Kwon Do:
Lols Deeeee, get real. Your arms have *got* to be tired from the water carrying. Must be trying for some "Barack Bucks" from the Presidents rewards catalog or something.

pfffft...just some PR mistakes. Optics and whatnot.

Which makes the pullout in Iraq so interesting that has led to slaughter and ISIS building power. He went against his own GD Sec of Defense on not extending the deadline. But, you know, it was Bush's fault for that pullout date. UNCHANGEABLE I tell ya (unlike the Afg one).

The bucks stops wherever the fluffers say it stops, just never with their guy.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Obama was clearly behind this. It was his move. It failed miserably. Then he tried to cover it up with Susan Rice in the media.

Issues like this are why no one here takes you seriously. Posturing is one thing. Outright lying is quite another. No harm in admitting when your hero made a mistake. Would make you far more credible in the long run.

Like I said to JHB - I posted a link from a credible source. If you think it's wrong prove it. Just repeating what you heard smart sounding political hacks from your news sources say doesn't make it so.

IMO fair-minded people take seriously those that back up their statements with sources, not those that repeat opinions based on their political biases.

BTW I did say that the PR was handled poorly by the Whitehouse, you're right about that.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[KyFaninNC]

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

Harry Reid announces he will retire.

Saving himself from the humiliation of getting beat in 2016.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:


Harry Reid announces he will retire.

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

Harry Reid announces he will retire.

Good! Now if McConnell were to do the same, the world would be a better place.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:


Harry Reid announces he will retire.

Good! Now if McConnell were to do the same, the world would be a better place.

Why stop there? Pelosi and Feinstein would look great out of office.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

There are a lot of people that I would like to see retire from the House and the Senate. One more to add to the list is John McCain.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Dick "Turbin" Durbin could replace Reid when he does retire.

 

[Deeeefense]

Science denier James Inhofe tops my list.

No love lost over Reid's pending departure, he sort of gave the Senate a black eye

 

[From-the-stands]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Once again, MILITARY LEARDERS DO WHAT THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TELLS THEM TOO. You kill me sometimes. Stop the madness DEEEEEEE!

Of course they do he's the commander and chief, but you would have to be totally brainwashed to think any president, would not be seriously heading the advise and consent of the military over an issue that involves one of their own held as a prisoner.
If you had read the article I linked above you would have learned the Sec. of Defense Hagel vigorously defended the decision under oath before Congress. I think Hagel is an honorable man and certainly would not purger himself.

The president has the final say so, and he approved the deal, so he has responsibility of the decision, but the military leaders were rooted in, and in agreement with the decision, not just blindly following something Obama cooked up all by himself.
But if blaming Obama solely for a decision you don't agree with makes you feel warm have at it.

To repeat. At the time they did not know if this guy was a deserter or a victim. All they knew was that he had been captured and was in poor health. They made a decision to make a prisoner swap, something we have been doing since the Revolutionary War and it isn't always to our favor. It's easy to sit here the day after we find out the guy has been charged with desertion and say it's a crappy deal - hay using 20/20 hindsight, I totally agree. But they did what they felt like was the right thing at the time based on the information they had.









This post was edited on 3/26 10:38 PM by Deeeefense

Once again your blind agenda filled postings show that you either don't have a clue or you lock step to your dictator showing how you can also shift the blame the way he does. It was his decision and no one else.

I find myself siding with the opposition on this one. Yes, Obama acted on Military advise, but he made the decision and did the photo opp. The buck stops with him. Obama also gets the credit for making the correct call to initiate the attack that killed Bin Laden. If that mission had failed he would have been blamed. The buck stops with him. You can't win 'em all.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by From-the-stands: I find myself siding with the opposition on this one. Yes, Obama acted on Military advise, but he made the decision and did the photo opp. The buck stops with him. Obama also gets the credit for making the correct call to initiate the attack that killed Bin Laden. If that mission had failed he would have been blamed. The buck stops with him. You can't win 'em all.

I don't disagree with you or my conservative friends that say the buck stops with the President. He's the CIC and takes ultimate responsibility. My point is, that it was a collective decision not a unilateral one, and at the time it was felt to be the best of the available options.




This post was edited on 3/27 11:24 AM by Deeeefense

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by From-the-stands:

I find myself siding with the opposition on this one. Yes, Obama acted on Military advise, but he made the decision and did the photo opp. The buck stops with him. Obama also gets the credit for making the correct call to initiate the attack that killed Bin Laden. If that mission had failed he would have been blamed. The buck stops with him. You can't win 'em all.

I don't disagree with you or my conservative friends that say the buck stops with the President. He's the CIC and takes ultimate responsibility. My point is, that it was a collective decision not a unilateral one, and at the time it was felt to be the best of the available options.





This post was edited on 3/27 11:24 AM by Deeeefense

The problem here is that you immediately blamed the military leaders for his decisions. According to many, he has gone againts their advice on many issues. He made the decision and it is time to own up to it. You get a bumb rap on here mainly becaue of your defending him using left wing talking points.

 

[qwesley]

Both from today:

Pelosi Is Still the Most Effective Leader in Congress - Chris Cillizza, WP
Obama Has Reid to Thank for His Accomplishments - Ezra Klein, Vox

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
The problem here is that you immediately blamed the military leaders for his decisions. According to many, he has gone againts their advice on many issues. He made the decision and it is time to own up to it. You get a bumb rap on here mainly becaue of your defending him using left wing talking points.

You're not hearing me. The word "blame" doesn't fit. I think the decision they collectively made was the best available of bad options at the time. Therefore there is no "blame" the way I see it.

 

[wkycatfan]

Pelosi is horrible. She is the worst for me.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:


The problem here is that you immediately blamed the military leaders for his decisions. According to many, he has gone againts their advice on many issues. He made the decision and it is time to own up to it. You get a bumb rap on here mainly becaue of your defending him using left wing talking points.

You're not hearing me. The word "blame" doesn't fit. I think the decision they collectively made was the best available of bad options at the time. Therefore there is no "blame" the way I see it.

You are not understanding me, you blamed the the Pentagon in an attempt to deflect blame against the person who made the decision. Going back to what I have posted before, the President makes the decisions many times going against the advice of his commanders. You will see later on after those in the mix (Generals) retire they will tell us that they probably advised against it. They have careers to think about and will do as ordered.

This post was edited on 3/27 7:22 PM by warrior-cat

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by wkycatfan:
Pelosi is horrible. She is the worst for me.

Diane Feinstein the worst for me.

 

[Chuckinden]

They are all bad. It doesn't matter what gender or party they are in.

BTW, I hope Cosby did get banned. He can't post without an obscenity or calling someone and stupid idiot. He doesn't need to be on here.

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
I agree that on this surface this seems like a lousey deal for the US, but this deal was cooked up in the Pentagon, not the Oval Office:

DoD and Army officials defended the prisoner swap that led to Bergdahl's release. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond
T. Odierno said in a statement, "It was always a high priority that every soldier deployed to
Afghanistan would return home. We will never leave a fallen comrade behind.

The Army was not clear on the circumstances of his disappearance and capture at the time and only after the board of inquiry has finished it's work was it determined that he was a deserter.

Come on Dee. That is just blind loyalty. If if what you say is true, and I doubt it, Obama could have stopped that in a heartbeat.

It was a terrible decision to release terrorists to save a stinking deserter.

 

[jamo0001]

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Originally posted by wkycatfan:
Pelosi is horrible. She is the worst for me.

Diane Feinstein the worst for me.

Pelosi is 10x the ***t that Feinstein is, IMO

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by jamo0001:

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Diane Feinstein the worst for me.

Pelosi is 10x the ***t that Feinstein is, IMO

Jamo- I think Feinstein is worst because she in computer capital of U.S and to me she wants to end every bit of our privacy. She'd let NSA stick a modem dildo in her meat purse and tell Americans its awesome for us. She's a cancer to freedom.

 

[WayneDougan]

Re: Religions Freedom Law in Indiana, some points:


Is the left a bunch of hysterical bitches or what? Do they not realize that most states and the federal government do not consider homosexuals a protected class? You can discriminate against them all you want anyway. This law didn't change that.I don't fell comfortable with businesses threatening state investment based on social politics. It's kind of a one-way street. States cannot tell a business to piss off and not do business there if they are left or right leaning. Think back to Chick-Fil-A. The mayor of Boston said Chick-Fil-A was not welcome in his city. Many people on the left and right had an issue with that.This law provides protections to religious minorities. It puts the onus on the state rather than the individual or business. That used to be a good thing in this country. If I were Indiana I'd tell the NCAA to pack the eff up and leave. Indiana provides significant tax breaks to the NCAA. If they are going to sell out the state this quickly I'd get the state legislature to impose significant taxes on the NCAA with a quickness.

 

[From-the-stands]

Originally posted by WayneDougan:

Re: Religions Freedom Law in Indiana, some points:


Is the left a bunch of hysterical bitches or what? Do they not realize that most states and the federal government do not consider homosexuals a protected class? You can discriminate against them all you want anyway. This law didn't change that.I don't fell comfortable with businesses threatening state investment based on social politics. It's kind of a one-way street. States cannot tell a business to piss off and not do business there if they are left or right leaning. Think back to Chick-Fil-A. The mayor of Boston said Chick-Fil-A was not welcome in his city. Many people on the left and right had an issue with that.This law provides protections to religious minorities. It puts the onus on the state rather than the individual or business. That used to be a good thing in this country. If I were Indiana I'd tell the NCAA to pack the eff up and leave. Indiana provides significant tax breaks to the NCAA. If they are going to sell out the state this quickly I'd get the state legislature to impose significant taxes on the NCAA with a quickness.

1 - You must not realize plenty of conservatives disagree with the law.
2 - The mayor of Boston may have said he didn't want Chik-Fil-A in Boston but that was his opinion, not a law - big difference
3 - George W. Bush signed into law as Texas Governor a bill that protected anti-discrimination in the state. Basically saying your religious freedom ends at the rights of the rest of us.
4 - The NCAA added 500 mostly high paying jobs into the Indianapolis economy when it moved from Kansas in 1999 and it's normal business events added 161 million dollars to the local economy in 2012, the last time a study was made. This doesn't include the final four which is scheduled to be held there every 5 years for the next 45 years.The Dallas Tx area reported a 276 million dollar economic impact from last years final four. The state of Indiana better "pray" the NCAA doesn't pack up and move.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

I'm sorry but the moment your company becomes a public business, religion should play no part in it. You shouldn't be able to discriminate based on the owner's beliefs. If it's you and your wife or family, by all means, discriminate against whoever. But the second you add an outside employee, your beliefs should no longer matter. With all rights, they end when they start affecting everyone else. Religion should be no part of business or money making. You can act Christian in how you run your business, but religion should never be about making money. This law is anti-Jesus.

I certainly hope they cost Indiana $$ like it did with Arizona. Act like a bunch of bigots and get burned. Jesus sat with prostitutes, lawyers and all types of outcasts. You can't act all Christian and then do the exact opposite of what Jesus example showed.

It doesn't surprise me that Indiana would enact such an ignorant law but it doe surprise me how many support just cause it's being labeled some religious freedom bill. It's a right to hate bill and nothing Jesus ever teached talked about hate.

 

[WayneDougan]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
your beliefs should no longer matter

This is exactly what conservatives have known for years about you liberals. You hide behind tolerance, but in reality it's either your way or the highway. What you really mean is that "our beliefs are the only ones that matter".

Requiring businesses to perform services they find objectionable is abusive to the business owner. I don't care if it's based on religion or the fact the person just doesn't want to. I am perfectly fine with the government saying that you must serve people of all races, creeds and religions, but I don't think the government should be able to dictate your service offerings.

I would think in a free society, protecting the rights and religion of both actors in trade would be in everyone's best interests. Besides, if one bakery doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I'm sure a 1000 others will.

 

[krazykats]

Last night is exactly why I don't want Seth Rollins as champ, run hide duck champ is stale and very boring. Miz, Punk now Rollins. Having J&J and Kane and Show is ok I guess but not one of them is even credible. If it were still the Shield it would be a lot better, but that is being picky.

Other than Reigns this isnt a current challenger Id rather see lose to Rollins, and we will spend the next few months watching the belt keeper play keep away. I mentioned he should take notes from Flair and rule number one is take on the challenges, talk big all the time, sometimes run hide behind your crew, but often times your crew and YOU have to fight it out.

Love Brock going nuts.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
I'm sorry but the moment your company becomes a public business, religion should play no part in it. You shouldn't be able to discriminate based on the owner's beliefs. If it's you and your wife or family, by all means, discriminate against whoever. But the second you add an outside employee, your beliefs should no longer matter. With all rights, they end when they start affecting everyone else. Religion should be no part of business or money making. You can act Christian in how you run your business, but religion should never be about making money. This law is anti-Jesus.

I certainly hope they cost Indiana $$ like it did with Arizona. Act like a bunch of bigots and get burned. Jesus sat with prostitutes, lawyers and all types of outcasts. You can't act all Christian and then do the exact opposite of what Jesus example showed.

It doesn't surprise me that Indiana would enact such an ignorant law but it doe surprise me how many support just cause it's being labeled some religious freedom bill. It's a right to hate bill and nothing Jesus ever teached talked about hate.

I don't understand why you would want the law to hide these type of people from the world and let them be successful in business. Your side of this isn't protecting the consumer, it's protecting the "bigot" owners from outing themselves...

Hey, you own a business....don't want to allow a certain type to work or shop there? Good, that's your choice - hope you can handle the press of that decision...hope you can handle the people that you would allow to buy from you deciding that they will take their $ elsewhere because you don't include others. Still take your $ to a place like that as a consumer? That will have its consequences as well.

Let these people fail in business.

But hey, you want to let gays buy from someone who may hate gays - go right ahead and be on that side.

 

[jamo0001]

Originally posted by krazykats:
Last night is exactly why I don't want Seth Rollins as champ, run hide duck champ is stale and very boring. Miz, Punk now Rollins. Having J&J and Kane and Show is ok I guess but not one of them is even credible. If it were still the Shield it would be a lot better, but that is being picky.

Other than Reigns this isnt a current challenger Id rather see lose to Rollins, and we will spend the next few months watching the belt keeper play keep away. I mentioned he should take notes from Flair and rule number one is take on the challenges, talk big all the time, sometimes run hide behind your crew, but often times your crew and YOU have to fight it out.

Love Brock going nuts.

This could be an actual political post and I wouldn't be surprised anymore

 

[WayneDougan]

Review the E-Harmony lawsuit and tell me who's intolerant. This is why businesses should have more leeway in terms of the goods and services they provide. Quit drinking the woe-is-me-LGBT Kool-aid.


E-Harmony

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by CatsFanGG24:
Hey, you own a business....don't want to allow a certain type to work or shop there? Good, that's your choice -

Mostly false. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,
without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
religion, or national origin."

Obviusly the issue of sexual orientation is not covered here which is why the Indiana law on the surface does not obviously violate the letter of the law (thou some would argue it does violate the spirit of the law).

The Indiana law is the same as the Arizona Bill that Governor Jan Brewer vetoed becasue of the blow back from businesses, including the Chamber of Commerce and the NFL's decision to move the SuperBowl out of Arizona if the bill was inacted.

The Indiana Law is simply bad for business. Sales Force, Angies List and other companies are cancelling expansion plan in the state and the NCAA may relocate if the law stands.

 

[qwesley]

As Bill Maher refers to them, this is the "gay mafia" at work. A dog whistle for the simple-minded followers (see the three above who play this role impeccably).

The Salesforce and Angie's List CEOs are huge Dem party contributors, two of the largest.

And Apple preaching about integrity or anything is laughable....slave labor, tax evasion, and obscene gross profits...but yet wants to preach about the "possible" effect of this law.

All the while, you can go read about the far far reaches within the Obama admin that Google has so much influence. Their CEO worked the campaign HQ the night of the election. But let's manufacture outrage that a bakery in Pawnee IN could possibly, only with court approval, refuse to bake a GD cake for a same sex couple.

This post was edited on 3/31 10:28 AM by qwesley

 

[Tannerdad]

Funny...pretty much the same bill was passed this past week in KY and not a peep.

If I go to a butcher and he refuses to cut up my pork chops because he is a Muslim, should I rant and rave or sue him? Or just thank him and ask for another butcher or go to a different shop?

Situations like this will make Liberal heads explode. They are great at being high and mighty about tolerance. That is until they talk about the right, then tolerance be damned.