Biden is Mentally Fit Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 minute ago, Roundybout said: Washington Post already debunked this. There is no evidence he ever claimed he served in Afghanistan. I will take the word of the reliable Washington Post and yourself on the Afghanistan matter. My apologies. Iraq? 1
Roundybout Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 minute ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: I will take the word of the reliable Washington Post and yourself on the Afghanistan matter. My apologies. Iraq? What about Iraq? He served beyond his 20 years of service and decided to resign from the national guard on May 16, 2005 to focus on his congressional run. There was no indication that his retirement was blocked. His unit went out in March 2006. I guess this depends on perspective; I think at this point he was 41, ready for politics, and had served for 24 years. Bad timing but nothing malicious. A lot of the right wing takes I see portray Walz as hopping back on the helicopter in the middle of battle and heading home.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted August 9 Posted August 9 4 minutes ago, Roundybout said: What about Iraq? He served beyond his 20 years of service and decided to resign from the national guard on May 16, 2005 to focus on his congressional run. There was no indication that his retirement was blocked. His unit went out in March 2006. I guess this depends on perspective; I think at this point he was 41, ready for politics, and had served for 24 years. Bad timing but nothing malicious. A lot of the right wing takes I see portray Walz as hopping back on the helicopter in the middle of battle and heading home. I withdraw my earlier apology. Walz clearly misled people to have them believe he served in Afghanistan. I don’t understand why a grown man would do the things that he’s done as it relates to his military service. He could be proud of what he did without embellishing it. That’s embarrassing. I do understand why you are willing to excuse it. You will twist and turn to fluff your favorite politicians in every instance. I look forward to your commenting on him hosting, on five occasions, a Nazi sympathizer. That should be fun. 1
BillsFanNC Posted August 9 Author Posted August 9 Well McCain was instrumental in spreading the fake Steele dossier so I understand why Trump despised him. Politically Trump definitely should have found ways to attack other than on his military record, but then again when McCain chose to circulate a completely fabricated pee tape dossier I'm sure that's exactly the type of response he expected and hoped for from Trump. 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted August 9 Posted August 9 46 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Trump's comments about McCain's service were egregious, though I personally think McCain was a horrible senator and a bad guy generally. I didn't always feel this way, but as I stopped to consider the problems at the border-from the victimization of travelers, the involvement of the cartels, and the power he had as a Senator...I believe he was complicit in a whole lot of pain and suffering because he benefited financially from it. I think that's the general trend in DC, btw. Were you appalled at Harris' treatment of Kavanaugh? Her comments about JB and his groping of women, or JB's acknowledgement of inappropriate touching? Not appalled but certainly thought it a cheap political stunt.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, L Ron Burgundy said: Not appalled but certainly thought it a cheap political stunt. What was the “cheap political stunt”? Harris re: Kavanaugh? Harris re: Biden believing the women accusing Biden of assault? Biden acknowledging the inappropriate touching? Harris advocating for women and then partnering with the guy they accused of wrongdoing?
L Ron Burgundy Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What was the “cheap political stunt”? Harris re: Kavanaugh? Harris re: Biden believing the women accusing Biden of assault? Biden acknowledging the inappropriate touching? Harris advocating for women and then partnering with the guy they accused of wrongdoing? Harris/Kavanaugh.
Scraps Posted August 9 Posted August 9 49 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: As far as the retirement stuff I don't know enough about Army regulations and what he knew when to for sure say one way or the other. This is not complicated. After 24 years of service, the man decided to retire and did so before his unit was activated. Most likely, he made his intentions known about a year in advance. 24 years is longer than most people spend in service and 20 years longer than James Donald Bowman served. If he had skills that the Army felt could not be easily replaced, they could have put a stop-loss on his retirement and forced him to serve. They did stop-lossed many people once Iraq ramped up but didn't bother to do so in this case. 55 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: I think the pass on everything may depend on one's perspective. Impeached twice and convicted on 34 counts is getting away with everything? Impeached but not convicted. He is trying to get the 34 count conviction thrown out based on "absolute Presidential immunity" even though he was not President when he hatched the scheme with ***** and Cohen. A Judge he appointed, who the chief judge in the 11th District encouraged recusal, stalled his espionage and obstruction of justice case for over an year and then threw it out completely. He has at least 2 Supreme Court justices, who should have recused themselves, who act more like defense attorneys and came up with an absurd immunity ruling. Nobody else would get these breaks. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, L Ron Burgundy said: Harris/Kavanaugh. Ah, I see. I’m always interested when I see things like this, especially in context of divisiveness and issues in our country. A US Senator launches an all out character assassination on an enemy, a guy with an excellent track record of public service. She accuses him of running rape trains, violent sexual assaults and generally committing horrendous crimes against young innocents and is supported and is applauded by her party and base. The media swoons over the story, reporting breathlessly on allegations impossible to prove and of course impossible to disprove. That Senator earns your vote because she just ran with a “cheap political stunt”, like pulling signs off lawns. Trump says something stupid about a guy legendary for his political savvy and certainly willing to insult/debase his opponents, that’s a show stopper for you. Go figure.
L Ron Burgundy Posted August 9 Posted August 9 7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Ah, I see. I’m always interested when I see things like this, especially in context of divisiveness and issues in our country. A US Senator launches an all out character assassination on an enemy, a guy with an excellent track record of public service. She accuses him of running rape trains, violent sexual assaults and generally committing horrendous crimes against young innocents and is supported and is applauded by her party and base. The media swoons over the story, reporting breathlessly on allegations impossible to prove and of course impossible to disprove. That Senator earns your vote because she just ran with a “cheap political stunt”, like pulling signs off lawns. Trump says something stupid about a guy legendary for his political savvy and certainly willing to insult/debase his opponents, that’s a show stopper for you. Go figure. Not go figure, that didn't happen. And no matter how hard you try to say dems are just as bad as your orange deity, you will lose. In a few short months you will vote for someone who is very likely a rapist, a definite felon, a 100% bottom of the barrel scumbag. But sure, keep trying to tell yourself you're voting the lesser evil. The term "rape trains" was associated with the allegations made by Julie Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh of being present at parties where such events allegedly occurred. However, Harris did not use this language or mention these allegations directly during her questioning of Kavanaugh.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 9 Posted August 9 9 minutes ago, Scraps said: This is not complicated. After 24 years of service, the man decided to retire and did so before his unit was activated. Most likely, he made his intentions known about a year in advance. 24 years is longer than most people spend in service and 20 years longer than James Donald Bowman served. If he had skills that the Army felt could not be easily replaced, they could have put a stop-loss on his retirement and forced him to serve. They did stop-lossed many people once Iraq ramped up but didn't bother to do so in this case. Impeached but not convicted. He is trying to get the 34 count conviction thrown out based on "absolute Presidential immunity" even though he was not President when he hatched the scheme with ***** and Cohen. A Judge he appointed, who the chief judge in the 11th District encouraged recusal, stalled his espionage and obstruction of justice case for over an year and then threw it out completely. He has at least 2 Supreme Court justices, who should have recused themselves, who act more like defense attorneys and came up with an absurd immunity ruling. Nobody else would get these breaks. Yeah, but the impeachment was launched by the opposition party, the AG pursuing subsequent cases is from the opposition party, judge(s) unfavorable to conservative causes, the Russia inv started by a hostile director of the FBI who's actions were questionable, and your biggest issue with the Supreme Court is you didn't like the outcome. Add to that his troubles in NY came about as a result of reimagined statutes and personal animus against Trump, his civil suit judgement a result of temporary changes to statutes of limitations, and so on. In this regard, you're just another partisan with partisan views.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 9 Posted August 9 2 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Not go figure, that didn't happen. And no matter how hard you try to say dems are just as bad as your orange deity, you will lose. In a few short months you will vote for someone who is very likely a rapist, a definite felon, a 100% bottom of the barrel scumbag. But sure, keep trying to tell yourself you're voting the lesser evil. The term "rape trains" was associated with the allegations made by Julie Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh of being present at parties where such events allegedly occurred. However, Harris did not use this language or mention these allegations directly during her questioning of Kavanaugh. L Ron, that you like your liars, sexual abusers, character assassins, influence peddlers, vaccine deniers, authoritarians and the like to be of the democrat variety is completely within your purview as a partisan and citizen. Don't feign indignation when someone points it out to you. Go figure, again. 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: L Ron, that you like your liars, sexual abusers, character assassins, influence peddlers, vaccine deniers, authoritarians and the like to be of the democrat variety is completely within your purview as a partisan and citizen. Don't feign indignation when someone points it out to you. Go figure, again. We need a yawn emoji.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted August 9 Posted August 9 15 minutes ago, SCBills said: I mean, it’s abjectly hilarious at this point. He’s an embarrassment for several reasons. In this instance all he had to do was say “let me correct the record, Nancy”.
Scraps Posted August 9 Posted August 9 14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yeah, but the impeachment was launched by the opposition party, the AG pursuing subsequent cases is from the opposition party, judge(s) unfavorable to conservative causes, the Russia inv started by a hostile director of the FBI who's actions were questionable, and your biggest issue with the Supreme Court is you didn't like the outcome. Add to that his troubles in NY came about as a result of reimagined statutes and personal animus against Trump, his civil suit judgement a result of temporary changes to statutes of limitations, and so on. In this regard, you're just another partisan with partisan views. My biggest problems with the Supreme Court is that Thomas is corrupt and that both Thomas and Alito either openly sympathize with or sleep with people favorable to the insurrection. Both should recuse themselves from anything Jan 6 related. I guess I am as partisan as Liz Cheney, Tom Rice, Dan Newhouse, Adam Kinzinger, Tony Gonzales, Fed Upton, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Peter Meijer, John Katko, David Valadao, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey. 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 9 Posted August 9 5 minutes ago, Scraps said: My biggest problems with the Supreme Court is that Thomas is corrupt and that both Thomas and Alito either openly sympathize with or sleep with people favorable to the insurrection. Both should recuse themselves from anything Jan 6 related. I guess I am as partisan as Liz Cheney, Tom Rice, Dan Newhouse, Adam Kinzinger, Tony Gonzales, Fed Upton, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Peter Meijer, John Katko, David Valadao, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey. Yeah, you think a politician/justice on the other side of the aisle from you is corrupt. Tell you what--let's agree that an independent, non-partisan committee investigates the personal finances of all Supreme Court justices from the past 30 years--book deals, private speaking engagements, free concert tix, vacations with billionaires, and lets extend what we look at to include the actions of past professional/corporate relationships, spouse, siblings and parents. That will provide a complete snapshot of who is corrupt, who is pure as the driven snow, and who should recuse from what and why. Consider, as an example, HRCs relationship with Steele and a foreign element hostile to our free and fair elections. The fact that she lost the election in no way reveals that she wasn't trying to intentionally and fraudulently impact our free and fair elections, and we know after the Mueller case post mortem that the leadership of the Dem party knew as early as Trump's inauguration of that particular attempt to steal the election. Let's get it all out, instead of reacting to bogus stories and political opinion pieces about one particular justice without context of what really happens. 28 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: We need a yawn emoji. Tough to yawn when you're typing a reply, playa. 1 1
Scraps Posted August 9 Posted August 9 3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yeah, you think a politician/justice on the other side of the aisle from you is corrupt. Tell you what--let's agree that an independent, non-partisan committee investigates the personal finances of all Supreme Court justices from the past 30 years--book deals, private speaking engagements, free concert tix, vacations with billionaires, and lets extend what we look at to include the actions of past professional/corporate relationships, spouse, siblings and parents. That will provide a complete snapshot of who is corrupt, who is pure as the driven snow, and who should recuse from what and why. Consider, as an example, HRCs relationship with Steele and a foreign element hostile to our free and fair elections. The fact that she lost the election in no way reveals that she wasn't trying to intentionally and fraudulently impact our free and fair elections, and we know after the Mueller case post mortem that the leadership of the Dem party knew as early as Trump's inauguration of that particular attempt to steal the election. Let's get it all out, instead of reacting to bogus stories and political opinion pieces about one particular justice without context of what really happens. Tough to yawn when you're typing a reply, playa. I do not consider the justices I criticized to be on the "other side of the aisle". How exactly did HRC use the Steele Dossier, which if memory serves was started by the Washington Free Beacon (a conservative site) during the primaries? 1
Recommended Posts