A Challenge to Red States Rule

[retiredman]

RSR continually slanders me by claiming that I have urged our "surrender" and our "defeat" in Iraq.

I have challenged him to either prove that claim by posting even ONE post of mine where I have ever expressed that sentiment... or retract it.

If he can prove it, I promise to leave DP.com and never return.

If he can't, I would imagine that his posse of rep circle buddies won't say diddly. I would be really impressed if he would either admit that he was wrong or maybe depart himself as the loser ought to.

I sincerely doubt the integrity of the RSR fan club here to call him to account... but I would welcome the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised.

[Psychoblues]

He can't prove it, mfm, and he won't even try. He's made so many claims on this board, been challenged and is yet to offer up anything to subtantiate anything. He still thinks there were WMD's in Iraq, Al Queda and Saddam Hussein were drinkin' buddies, the towers were attacked by the Iraqi Republican Guard, that Alawi Chalabi is trustworthy, I could go on and on.




RSR continually slanders me by claiming that I have urged our "surrender" and our "defeat" in Iraq.

I have challenged him to either prove that claim by posting even ONE post of mine where I have ever expressed that sentiment... or retract it.

If he can prove it, I promise to leave DP.com and never return.

If he can't, I would imagine that his posse of rep circle buddies won't say diddly. I would be really impressed if he would either admit that he was wrong or maybe depart himself as the loser ought to.

I sincerely doubt the integrity of the RSR fan club here to call him to account... but I would welcome the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised.

I wouldn't worry to much about rsr, mfm. Thin skin is not your usual forte'. Dig it?

Come on over to the Lounge and have a drink with me in the Pop A Top thread!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yurt]

here's my questions:

if we leave and do not secure the peace, how is this winning?

if we leave because we cannot secure the peace, how is this not surrendering to the terrorists?

and to make it simple for mfm, these are ONLY questions, no hairs were harmed in this post as none were split

[retiredman]

here's my questions:

if we leave and do not secure the peace, how is this winning?

if we leave because we cannot secure the peace, how is this not surrendering to the terrorists?

and to make it simple for mfm, these are ONLY questions, no hairs were harmed in this post as none were split

if we secure the peace, what makes you believe that the minute we leave, sunnis and shiites will not defect from the Iraqi military and immediately use their training to take up arms against each other.

YOu assume that a sustainable peace is being prevented by "terrorists". I do not see any proof of that. The sustainable peace will be prevented by the indigenous sunnis and shiites of Iraq who have a greater loyalty to their sect than they do to a fake country constructed on a map on a table in London nearly 100 years ago by a bunch of victorious Europeans who had no idea what ethnic groups they were throwing together in this country they called Iraq.

The "terrorists" who attacked us and who continue to threaten our security are not in Iraq and they never were in Iraq in any concentration warranting 150K troops. They ARE in Afghanistan and they ARE in Pakistan and they ARE, no doubt, in sleeper cells thoughout Europe and North America but we have pissed a trillion dollars away in Iraq that could have been put to a better use tracking them down

[Yurt]

if we secure the peace, what makes you believe that the minute we leave, sunnis and shiites will not defect from the Iraqi military and immediately use their training to take up arms against each other.

YOu assume that a sustainable peace is being prevented by "terrorists". I do not see any proof of that. The sustainable peace will be prevented by the indigenous sunnis and shiites of Iraq who have a greater loyalty to their sect than they do to a fake country constructed on a map on a table in London nearly 100 years ago by a bunch of victorious Europeans who had no idea what ethnic groups they were throwing together in this country they called Iraq.

The "terrorists" who attacked us and who continue to threaten our security are not in Iraq and they never were in Iraq in any concentration warranting 150K troops. They ARE in Afghanistan and they ARE in Pakistan and they ARE, no doubt, in sleeper cells thoughout Europe and North America but we have pissed a trillion dollars away in Iraq that could have been put to a better use tracking them down

thanks for your POV, but that did not really answer my question. what to you is winning, for that is the opposite of defeat? what to you is not surrendering?

as to what i assume or no, you have no proof to your assertions either. from what i see on the news, the attacks/bombings are all caused by terrorists and the iraqis (general population) are tired of it and want peace. but that is another issue, just stick to the two above, thanks.

[retiredman]

thanks for your POV, but that did not really answer my question. what to you is winning, for that is the opposite of defeat? what to you is not surrendering?

as to what i assume or no, you have no proof to your assertions either. from what i see on the news, the attacks/bombings are all caused by terrorists and the iraqis (general population) are tired of it and want peace. but that is another issue, just stick to the two above, thanks.


we have secured the peace. Maliki wants to set a timetable to get us out. the Iraqi military leaders feel confident in their ability to keep a lid on violence. Who are we to stay in a country when their leaders want us to leave?


#2 is moot.

[Yurt]

we have secured the peace. Maliki wants to set a timetable to get us out. the Iraqi military leaders feel confident in their ability to keep a lid on violence. Who are we to stay in a country when their leaders want us to leave?


#2 is moot.

i agree, we should leave if they want us out. and we have secured the peace? really, didn't know you felt that way.

how is #2 moot? is that how you debate, state a conclusion and thats it...

[retiredman]

i agree, we should leave if they want us out. and we have secured the peace? really, didn't know you felt that way.

how is #2 moot? is that how you debate, state a conclusion and thats it...

#2 states:

if we leave because we cannot secure the peace, how is this not surrendering to the terrorists?

I have already stated that we have secured "peace" in Iraq as well as it can be secured by a foreign invading conquering occupying army. the final details of securing the peace will have to be accomplished by the Iraqis.

So..the conditional if-how statement in #2 is moot

and just so you know: when talking about surrender of military forces, surrender is a military term and has a military definition. Our departing Iraq and turning over our encampments to the duly authorized government of Iraq is NOT surrender. It is ending an occupation. A parallel: did Britain SURRENDER Palestine in 1948? Answer: Of course they did not. They ended their occupation and turned over their encampemtns to the duly authorized government(s)

[Yurt]

if we secure the peace, what makes you believe that the minute we leave, sunnis and shiites will not defect from the Iraqi military and immediately use their training to take up arms against each other.

YOu assume that a sustainable peace is being prevented by "terrorists". I do not see any proof of that. The sustainable peace will be prevented by the indigenous sunnis and shiites of Iraq who have a greater loyalty to their sect than they do to a fake country constructed on a map on a table in London nearly 100 years ago by a bunch of victorious Europeans who had no idea what ethnic groups they were throwing together in this country they called Iraq.

The "terrorists" who attacked us and who continue to threaten our security are not in Iraq and they never were in Iraq in any concentration warranting 150K troops. They ARE in Afghanistan and they ARE in Pakistan and they ARE, no doubt, in sleeper cells thoughout Europe and North America but we have pissed a trillion dollars away in Iraq that could have been put to a better use tracking them down


#2 states:

if we leave because we cannot secure the peace, how is this not surrendering to the terrorists?

I have already stated that we have secured "peace" in Iraq as well as it can be secured by a foreign invading conquering occupying army. the final details of securing the peace will have to be accomplished by the Iraqis.

So..the conditional if-how statement in #2 is moot


this is why i was confused and did not know you felt that way. for in the first post, you question "if" we secure the peace. do you have some difference between "peace" and "sustainable peace?" you need to clarify the discrepencies.

i disagree that peace is as secure as it can be by a conquering occupying army. if we wanted to, we could take over the land as has been done in history and really secure the peace. but we don't do that...

[stephanie]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/th666039625882ic7.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/th666039625882ic7.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/th666039625882ic7.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/th666039625882ic7.gif

[retiredman]

this is why i was confused and did not know you felt that way. for in the first post, you question "if" we secure the peace. do you have some difference between "peace" and "sustainable peace?" you need to clarify the discrepencies.

i disagree that peace is as secure as it can be by a conquering occupying army. if we wanted to, we could take over the land as has been done in history and really secure the peace. but we don't do that...


of course I have a difference between peace and sustainable peace. When Maliki and his generals say that they have a handle on sectarian violence - which many Iraqi leaders are already saying is a reality from their perspective,, there will be "peace". I frankly do not believe for a new york minute that the sunnis and shiites in the iraqi military and police forces will remain loyal to the central government once we depart. I believe that they will devolve into sectarian militias and they will do that if we leave this month or next year or five years from now of fifty years from now....IMHO.

[stephanie]

will he stay or will he go...??

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thYep.gif

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/280nwib.gif

[Yurt]

of course I have a difference between peace and sustainable peace. When Maliki and his generals say that they have a handle on sectarian violence - which many Iraqi leaders are already saying is a reality from their perspective,, there will be "peace". I frankly do not believe for a new york minute that the sunnis and shiites in the iraqi military and police forces will remain loyal to the central government once we depart. I believe that they will devolve into sectarian militias and they will do that if we leave this month or next year or five years from now of fifty years from now....IMHO.

ok, you still did not clear up that you said "if" peace and then "have" peace. was that a typo?

[retiredman]

ok, you still did not clear up that you said "if" peace and then "have" peace. was that a typo?

yes....consider it a typo. are we done here?

[stephanie]

I got my Garfield popcorn out for nothing?:poke:

[retiredman]

I got my Garfield popcorn out for nothing?:poke:


I am sure you could pop in a video and put it to some creative uses. party on without us

[Dilloduck]

I got my Garfield popcorn out for nothing?:poke:

MFM done ??? cmon steph---don't get silly on us.

[stephanie]

MFM done ??? cmon steph---don't get silly on us.

Oh, that's right..I forgot who we were talking about..:dance::laugh2:

[Yurt]

yes....consider it a typo. are we done here?

if you say so

[retiredman]

if you say so

so...you can't help your old buddy RSR boot me off of the board?

I guess we are done here then.

[stephanie]

so...you can't help your old buddy RSR boot me off of the board?

I guess we are done here then.

Oh fer crying out loud...if you really wanted to leave...............you'd leave.

stop with all the drama..it doesn't become you....

Here, I'll bite......Mfm, please don't leave, the board wouldn't be the same without you..You bring so much more intellectual conversations to the board than any other person here.......

How's that, will that do??:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Oh fer crying out loud...if you really wanted to leave...............you'd leave.

stop with all the drama..it doesn't become you....

Here, I'll bite......Mfm, please don't leave, the board wouldn't be the same without you..You bring so much more intellectual conversations to the board than any other person here.......

How's that, will that do??:laugh2:

why don't you ask your pal RSR to either back up his nonstop insults or refrain from stating them?

I guess we both know that your criticism does not really extend very far to the right of center, does it?

[stephanie]

why don't you ask your pal RSR to either back up his nonstop insults or refrain from stating them?

I guess we both know that your criticism does not really extend very far to the right of center, does it?


Your problem is you can't stand it when you are proven wrong, especially by those redneck knuckle dragging hillbilly's, cause you consider yourself intellectually above everyone.......and that is your first mistake.

But hey, we all our little quirks and flaws.. you are like a doggie toy, we have a ball tossing you around and watching you fetch yourself and bring it back to us......:laugh2::cheers2:

[82Marine89]

why don't you ask your pal RSR to either back up his nonstop insults or refrain from stating them?

I guess we both know that your criticism does not really extend very far to the right of center, does it?

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/82Marine89/whaambulance.jpg

[Psychoblues]

Stand your ground, mfm. Your nemesis won't or can't answer as his cred is about zero. Instead he sicks the board lawyer on you and you beat his ass silly. And don't even worry about the puppy that wants to nip at your heals.



why don't you ask your pal RSR to either back up his nonstop insults or refrain from stating them?

I guess we both know that your criticism does not really extend very far to the right of center, does it?

Either the jerk can produce evidence that you have said the things he claims or he can't. So far, he hasn't. Rather cowardly I would think!!!!!!!!!!!

[retiredman]

Your problem is you can't stand it when you are proven wrong, especially by those redneck knuckle dragging hillbilly's, cause you consider yourself intellectually above everyone.......and that is your first mistake.

But hey, we all our little quirks and flaws.. you are like a doggie toy, we have a ball tossing you around and watching you fetch yourself and bring it back to us......:laugh2::cheers2:


if you can "prove me wrong" in this thread, I'll be gone.

I don't consider myself to be intellectually above hardly anyone... but I am not afraid to state my own opinions with my own words and defend my positions with my own words.

the individual being challenged is not so inclined.

[stephanie]

if you can "prove me wrong" in this thread, I'll be gone.

I don't consider myself to be intellectually above hardly anyone... but I am not afraid to state my own opinions with my own words and defend my positions with my own words.

the individual being challenged is not so inclined.

I'm not looking for you to be gone..believe it or not, I like you and every other person on this board..

just don't make a threat of leaving if you have no intention of doing so, it looks silly......:cheers2:

[mrg666]

RSR continually slanders me by claiming that I have urged our "surrender" and our "defeat" in Iraq.

I have challenged him to either prove that claim by posting even ONE post of mine where I have ever expressed that sentiment... or retract it.

If he can prove it, I promise to leave DP.com and never return.

If he can't, I would imagine that his posse of rep circle buddies won't say diddly. I would be really impressed if he would either admit that he was wrong or maybe depart himself as the loser ought to.

I sincerely doubt the integrity of the RSR fan club here to call him to account... but I would welcome the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised.

so the mentaly challenged is throwing out a challenge to rsr thats interesting bit one sided :laugh2:

[mrg666]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/82Marine89/whaambulance.jpg

MFM as a fleet of those dood

[Psychoblues]

Why are you picking on mfm, mgr666?



MFM as a fleet of those dood

He is obviously your superior or you would have addressed his concerns instead of just trying to diminish the person. Have I told you lately that I think you suck?

[stephanie]

Why are you picking on mfm, mgr666?




He is obviously your superior or you would have addressed his concerns instead of just trying to diminish the person. Have I told you lately that I think you suck?

Do you realize that you are stuck on this saying.......everyone SUCKS..and then you have the nerve to talk about diminishing a person....:laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

You don't look very good in the mirror, do you, stevie?



Do you realize that you are stuck on this saying.......everyone SUCKS..and then you have the nerve to talk about diminishing a person....:laugh2:

And you have the nerve to try and blame it on me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[mrg666]

Why are you picking on mfm, mgr666?




He is obviously your superior or you would have addressed his concerns instead of just trying to diminish the person. Have I told you lately that I think you suck?

superior what dickhead , ass wipe , thats the only superiority he as over anyone why are you sucking up to him as he promised you popcorn

and dont be so demeaning :fu:

[Psychoblues]

Oh, asswipe dickhead, what do you mean? You can't do anything other than accuse, ridicule and diminish and you expect me to defend you? Asswipe, dickhead, you got another thing comin'?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Asswipe, dickhead, those are very clever names. I'll try and keep them close to my heart, asswipe dickhead.

[mrg666]

Why are you picking on mfm, mgr666?




He is obviously your superior or you would have addressed his concerns instead of just trying to diminish the person. Have I told you lately that I think you suck?

if this is sticking up for me then go stick up for homo

[stephanie]

You don't look very good in the mirror, do you, stevie?




And you have the nerve to try and blame it on me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

mirror mirror mirror, on the damn wall
who is the cutest and smartest of them all
but of course we all know, it is Stephanie
there is no one who can compare, and we say that with glee...

nite nite:laugh2:

[mrg666]

mirror mirror mirror, on the damn wall
who is the cutest and smartest of them all
but of course we all know, it is Stephanie
there is no one who can compare, and we say that with glee...

nite nite:laugh2:

well said steph :clap:

[Psychoblues]

I'm sorry you took it so personally, asswipe dickhead.



if this is sticking up for me then go stick up for homo

I certainly didn't intend it that way. Lemme give you something to pacify you: :pee:

[Psychoblues]

Damn,,,,,,,,,,I was in kindergarten the last I heard anything like that and it got some claps.



well said steph :clap:

There was a maiden from Alaska
She didn't know but wouldn't ask ya
She grew out of her jeans
cause she ate too many beans
And fell out of her chair after Vodka

Don't forget the Cranberries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[stephanie]

Damn,,,,,,,,,,I was in kindergarten the last I heard anything like that and it got some claps.




There was a maiden from Alaska
She didn't know but wouldn't ask ya
She grew out of her jeans
cause she ate too many beans
And fell out of her chair after Vodka

Don't forget the Cranberries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: I was in first grade last I heard something like that..
made me laugh you old fart..:cheers2:

[Psychoblues]

And a hearty, hearty :cheers2: to you, stevie!!!!!!!!




:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: I was in first grade last I heard something like that..
made me laugh you old fart..:cheers2:

I haven't seen you in the Lounge lately? Wut's up wit dat? Catch me in the Pop A Top thread there and I'll buy you a Cape Cod!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrg666]

Damn,,,,,,,,,,I was in kindergarten the last I heard anything like that and it got some claps.




There was a maiden from Alaska
She didn't know but wouldn't ask ya
She grew out of her jeans
cause she ate too many beans
And fell out of her chair after Vodka

Don't forget the Cranberries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

its nice to be nice , you just arent nice just like mfm

[Psychoblues]

Wuzza matta wit you, 666? You gettin' jealous?


its nice to be nice , you just arent nice just like mfm

The invite is open to you as well!!!!!! I don't know wut you drink but come on to the Lounge and I'll get you anything you'd like!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't think poor ol' mfm will ever get anyone to prove he is all that shit like rsr says he is!!!!!!!!!!

Oh well, I've certainly seen this kind of battle before!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrg666]

Wuzza matta wit you, 666? You gettin' jealous?



The invite is open to you as well!!!!!! I don't know wut you drink but come on to the Lounge and I'll get you anything you'd like!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't think poor ol' mfm will ever get anyone to prove he is all that shit like rsr says he is!!!!!!!!!!

Oh well, I've certainly seen this kind of battle before!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i just have a dislike for him ive read a lot of his posts and i have a good memory mfm

[Psychoblues]

Like me, mfm deserves his enemies, but he has a point with his challenge and some of you only intend to pass it aside and attempt in whatever feeble way you can to avoid the subject.




i just have a dislike for him ive read a lot of his posts and i have a good memory mfm

mfm, also like me, is no angel. Are you? I didn't think so.

[stephanie]

As far as I see it and take it to heart..Mfn can be insufferable, arrogant, hooty tooty, and all that.......

But I just judge him as I do anyone......

We all have opinions, and as they say opinion are like asshole, we all have one..

I won't live my life as a hateful person, even though I very strongly disagree with somes politicts......I plan to live my life as a happy person, love all that I can, and then go into the arms of my God with the knowledge that I was a useful, honest, caring, helpful of my fellow human....I produced two wonderful human beings that I am proud of, and my life was fulfilled and happy...........

I will be ready and content to ride off into the sunset when that time comes..

[Psychoblues]

I don't know what kind of a God would accept someone that so condemns people as you have done even this very night, stevie. Redemption is not a mood or words that you speak.



As far as I see it and take it to heart..Mfn can be insufferable, arrogant, hooty tooty, and all that.......

But I just judge him as I do anyone......

We all have opinions, and as they say opinion are like asshole, we all have one..

I won't live my life as a hateful person, even though I very strongly disagree with somes politicts......I plan to live my life as a happy person, love all that I can, and then go into the arms of my God with the knowledge that I was a useful, honest, caring, helpful of my fellow human....I produced two wonderful human beings that I am proud of, and my life was fulfilled and happy...........

I will be ready and content to ride off into the sunset when that time comes..

And when the time comes I seriously doubt you will be riding off into the sunset, stevie. Those westerns on TV are poisoning your juvenile mind, aren't they?

[stephanie]

I don't know what kind of a God would accept someone that so condemns people as you have done even this very night, stevie. Redemption is not a mood or words that you speak.




And when the time comes I seriously doubt you will be riding off into the sunset, stevie. Those westerns on TV are poisoning your juvenile mind, aren't they?

I'm not worried...I don't go around telling everyone, I think they suck......

so good luck to you my friend.....You really do need to go and repent..and I hope it works out for you, but I have my doubls......:cheers2:

[Psychoblues]

You came here looking for redemption, stevie, and I cannot give that to you. Your redemption will come to you without request and without explanation.



I'm not worried...I don't go around telling everyone, I think they suck......

so good luck to you my friend.....You really do need to go and repent..and I hope it works out for you, but I have my doubls......:cheers2:

Give it your best shot, cowgirl. You may achieve redemption yet?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!

[Yurt]

so...you can't help your old buddy RSR boot me off of the board?

I guess we are done here then.

you're such a moron, notice i only asked questions...i just wanted to know your POV, i wasn't trying to help RSR. obviously you do not have the mental wherewithall to understand when someone merely seeks your POV, which i even clearly stated, but hey, wouldn't expect any intellectual honesty from you.

[retiredman]

50 posts into this "challenge" and nobody has been able to help poor RSR clear himself of this slander accusation and simultaneously rid DP.com of the mean old liberal MFM.

How does RSR respond to such support from his peers? He neg reps ME!:lol:

[retiredman]

you're such a moron, notice i only asked questions...i just wanted to know your POV, i wasn't trying to help RSR. obviously you do not have the mental wherewithall to understand when someone merely seeks your POV, which i even clearly stated, but hey, wouldn't expect any intellectual honesty from you.


I think that, from your perspective, your expectations of me are a self fulfilling prophesy... I hope to change that, but all I can do is all I can do.

[stephanie]

50 posts into this "challenge" and nobody has been able to help poor RSR clear himself of this slander accusation and simultaneously rid DP.com of the mean old liberal MFM.

How does RSR respond to such support from his peers? He neg reps ME!:lol:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thbaby-crying-1.gif

[retiredman]

trust me staph... I am laughing out loud.... I am certainly not crying. that is for sure. when all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot save poor RSR when he is confronted with lies, and he then NEG REPS me out of sheer frustration.... that cracks me up. honest it does!:laugh2:

[stephanie]

trust me staph... I am laughing out loud.... I am certainly not crying. that is for sure. when all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot save poor RSR when he is confronted with lies, and he then NEG REPS me out of sheer frustration.... that cracks me up. honest it does!:laugh2:

well that's good to hear..laughing is good for you, I do it all the time..:laugh2:

[retiredman]

well that's good to hear..laughing is good for you, I do it all the time..:laugh2:

as do I.

give me the benefit of the doubt.:cheers2:

[stephanie]

as do I.

give me the benefit of the doubt.:cheers2:

I always do.:cheers2:

[red states rule]

trust me staph... I am laughing out loud.... I am certainly not crying. that is for sure. when all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot save poor RSR when he is confronted with lies, and he then NEG REPS me out of sheer frustration.... that cracks me up. honest it does!:laugh2:

I dinged you because you are an asshole, have an over inflated opinion of your worth, and you think you are better then everyone else here

I am not playing your "proof" game because while you never used the word surrender, your call for "redeployment" has the same result

You play these word games, then when called on it, you play the "Who Me?" game

You can it redeployment but it also means, surrender, cut and run, get the hell out, run away, get out, leave town, and vamoose

[5stringJeff]

You can it redeployment but it also means, surrender, cut and run, get the hell out, run away, get out, leave town, and vamoose

Sorry, RSR, but "redeployment" and "surrender" are two very different terms.

[red states rule]

Sorry, RSR, but "redeployment" and "surrender" are two very different terms.

By "redeploy" the troops you are doing the same. You are telling the enemy you are leaving before the job is done. The troops have destroyed AQ, political progress is being made, more and more areas of Iraq are under government control - all that will be lost if the Dems "redeploy" the troops

With redeploymentr you are hasnding the terrorists a win, they can start up the war again, have a country as a base of operations, use oil money to fianance their operations, and little Adolf in Iran will eye Iraq (and see the US does not have the guts to hang in there)

OBL said Iraq is the centeral battleground in the war with the US. So you want to "redeploy" and give him a win?

[retiredman]

By "redeploy" the troops you are doing the same. You are telling the enemy you are leaving before the job is done. The troops have destroyed AQ, political progress is being made, more and more areas of Iraq are under government control - all that will be lost if the Dems "redeploy" the troops

With redeploymentr you are hasnding the terrorists a win, they can start up the war again, have a country as a base of operations, use oil money to fianance their operations, and little Adolf in Iran will eye Iraq (and see the US does not have the guts to hang in there)

OBL said Iraq is the centeral battleground in the war with the US. So you want to "redeploy" and give him a win?


surrender has a very specific military definition. It involves turning over positions to the enemy and withdrawing from the battle space under duress. I have never suggested we do any such thing. I have suggested that we allow Iraqis to solve their own sectarian struggles and not babysit them while they do it. I have suggested that we could better assist them, perhaps, by interdicting any weapons/armaments shipments at the borders so that the non-government sectarian militias would not be able to continue their fight.

I have suggested that the war in Iraq is counterproductive to our REAL war against islamic extremism and that we need to stop trying to fight a nationless enemy as if it were a nationstate.

Invading, conquering and occupying real estate will do little to stop the growth of an IDEA. We need to win the war of ideas in the global marketplace of ideology... we do not do that by spending a trillion dollars in Iraq.

I am and have always been pretty hawkish when it comes to the military, but the war in Iraq is, in my opinion, a poor use of tour military. Believing that does NOT make me a surrender monkey or a traitor or unpatriotic. I am, and will always be, twice the patriot you will ever be.

Are you really suggesting that we make military strategic decisions based upon the pronouncements of an islamic extremist?

Again. I have NEVER advocated surrender or defeat. If you could show me one post where I have, you would have done so by now and I would be gone. Given the fact that you cannot defend yourself against my accusations of slander, at least have the decency to stop repeating it.

[Yurt]

did we win the vietnam war?

[retiredman]

did we win the vietnam war?


If you would like to start a discussion about the vietnam war, I encourage you to start a thread about it. Please do not try to derail this thread, however.

[Yurt]

If you would like to start a discussion about the vietnam war, I encourage you to start a thread about it. Please do not try to derail this thread, however.

a simple yes or no will do. and you whine and cry about others telling you what to do, i suggest trying not to be a hypocrite for at least one hour.

[red states rule]

a simple yes or no will do. and you whine and cry about others telling you what to do, i suggest trying not to be a hypocrite for at least one hour.

You realy did not expect him to give you a straight answer did you? Libs want to do the same thing in Iraq, as they wanted done in Viet Nam

The results will be the same as well. Millions will be slaughtered. Libs will blame Pres Bush and ignore their actions which caused it

[Psychoblues]

mfm is correct. When the pukes can't back up what they say they change the subject and accuse their counterparts of whining or something silly like that only to obfuscate the ignorance of the nonargument they are presenting. Most say little or nothing about it but it is noticed and mental notes are being compiled. Dig it? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[red states rule]

mfm is correct. When the pukes can't back up what they say they change the subject and accuse their counterparts of whining or something silly like that only to obfuscate the ignorance of the nonargument they are presenting. Most say little or nothing about it but it is noticed and mental notes are being compiled. Dig it? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Not at all. You pukes want to cut and run - but refuse to call it what it is

Libs have not changed much since Viet Nam. They are still insulting and smearing the troops today like they did in Viet Nam

http://www.americans-working-together.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/murtha_cold_blood.jpg

[Psychoblues]

See what I mean, rsr? You can't back up what you say about mfm and now you make additional accusations that you also cannot back up. Pitiful!!!!!!!



Not at all. You pukes want to cut and run - but refuse to call it what it is

Libs have not changed much since Viet Nam. They are still insulting and smearing the troops today like they did in Viet Nam

Just how much do you know about Viet Nam, rsr? You are aware that tricky dicky was elected in '68 and '72 solely because he campaigned to end the war in Viet Nam, aren't you? If you're pissed about the congress ending the funding for that ridiculous and ill advised war then you must also be pissed at many repubs including tricky dicky that also supported the end of the war. The executive couldn't or wouldn't take the necessary hit so he insisted on the legislative branch to do his dirty work for him. Beginning to sound familiar, rsr?

[red states rule]

See what I mean, rsr? You can't back up what you say about mfm and now you make additional accusations that you also cannot back up. Pitiful!!!!!!!




Just how much do you know about Viet Nam, rsr? You are aware that tricky dicky was elected in '68 and '72 solely because he campaigned to end the war in Viet Nam, aren't you? If you're pissed about the congress ending the funding for that ridiculous and ill advised war then you must also be pissed at many repubs including tricky dicky that also supported the end of the war. The executive couldn't or wouldn't take the necessary hit so he insisted on the legislative branch to do his dirty work for him. Beginning to sound familiar, rsr?


and the US military NEVER lost a battle in Viet Nam. It was the left and liberal media that painted a picture of total defeat - just like they are trying now with Iraq

and like Viet Nam the peace loving anti war left shows how they REALLY feel about the men and women that put their lives on the line to protect America - and their sorry asses

Here is another example of that support


http://www.capveterans.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/shoot_officers.jpg

[retiredman]

a simple yes or no will do. and you whine and cry about others telling you what to do, i suggest trying not to be a hypocrite for at least one hour.

we neither won nor lost the vietnam war...but the aftermath of the conflict has been, in the long run, quite nice. We are an active trading partner with Vietnam now... we sell lots of American products in Vietnam and vice versa. Oddly enough, the dominoes never DID fall and communists never did gather outside the golden gate bridge.

but what does that have to do with my challenge to RSR? I asked him to back up his slanderous accusations that I have EVER called for us to SURRENDER or cheered for our DEFEAT.

I notice that YOU have not castigated him for his slander of ME. Why is that, yurt? or do you only act like an pro bono advocate for those on the right?

[5stringJeff]

By "redeploy" the troops you are doing the same. You are telling the enemy you are leaving before the job is done. The troops have destroyed AQ, political progress is being made, more and more areas of Iraq are under government control - all that will be lost if the Dems "redeploy" the troops

With redeploymentr you are hasnding the terrorists a win, they can start up the war again, have a country as a base of operations, use oil money to fianance their operations, and little Adolf in Iran will eye Iraq (and see the US does not have the guts to hang in there)

OBL said Iraq is the centeral battleground in the war with the US. So you want to "redeploy" and give him a win?

Incorrect. By redeploying some of the troops, we are allowing the Iraqi army to take over the mission of defending their own country. The Iraqi prime minister thinks his troops are ready, so it's time to let them take the mission.

[Yurt]

Incorrect. By redeploying some of the troops, we are allowing the Iraqi army to take over the mission of defending their own country. The Iraqi prime minister thinks his troops are ready, so it's time to let them take the mission.

so did we accomplish our mission in iraq then? i guess only time will tell, but if we have secured the peace and helped iraqi troops defend their country, why is the MSM and most libs calling iraq a failure or defeat?

[5stringJeff]

so did we accomplish our mission in iraq then? i guess only time will tell, but if we have secured the peace and helped iraqi troops defend their country, why is the MSM and most libs calling iraq a failure or defeat?

The US has secured the peace long enough for an Iraqi government to be elected and begin governing, and long enough for an Iraqi army and police forces to stand up and begin taking over the duty of securing Iraq. And now the prime minister wants us to reduce our troop levels. Looks to me like we've accomplished our mission in Iraq.

As far as the MSM calling it a failure, I don't know what to say. I think most media talking heads are idiots.

[Said1]

Is there a difference between withdrawing from a losing battle and losing a battle? Is it not considered a loss because there really is no offical winner or loser given that one party has backed off, for whatever reason?

What is considered a 'lost' battle?

[gabosaurus]

This is like challenging the group of monkeys to write "War and Peace."
You know there is a possibility that they might do it, but do you really want to watch a group of monkeys for that long?

I feel this way when I read how the DP conservatives keep trying to justify the continuation of the Iraq war. It's just a bunch of monkey business.

[Yurt]

This is like challenging the group of monkeys to write "War and Peace."
You know there is a possibility that they might do it, but do you really want to watch a group of monkeys for that long?

I feel this way when I read how the DP conservatives keep trying to justify the continuation of the Iraq war. It's just a bunch of monkey business.

do you agree with mfm that we have secured the peace, we have won and that we are not surrendering. (jeff's point aside)

mfm says we are not defeated, we have won and have secured the peace.

what say you?

[Yurt]

Is there a difference between withdrawing from a losing battle and losing a battle? Is it not considered a loss because there really is no offical winner or loser given that one party has backed off, for whatever reason?

What is considered a 'lost' battle?

exactly, this is what i want to know.

[red states rule]

exactly, this is what i want to know.

Trying to have a civil and rational discussion with MFM and Gabby

[Yurt]

The US has secured the peace long enough for an Iraqi government to be elected and begin governing, and long enough for an Iraqi army and police forces to stand up and begin taking over the duty of securing Iraq. And now the prime minister wants us to reduce our troop levels. Looks to me like we've accomplished our mission in Iraq.

As far as the MSM calling it a failure, I don't know what to say. I think most media talking heads are idiots.

fair enough....so, when the US secures the peace long enough for a government to be elected and begin governing and long enough for an army and police force to stand up and take over the duty of securing their country..... that is when we should leave?

[retiredman]

fair enough....so, when the US secures the peace long enough for a government to be elected and begin governing and long enough for an army and police force to stand up and take over the duty of securing their country..... that is when we should leave?


to quote our CinC: "Mission Accomplished!"

[Yurt]

Trying to have a civil and rational discussion with MFM and Gabby

i do not put gabs in the same cat as mfm. no way, no how. she is far smarter and she has great points at times, no matter that i don't agree.

i will not compare them, at all.

[red states rule]

i do not put gabs in the same cat as mfm. no way, no how. she is far smarter and she has great points at times, no matter that i don't agree.

i will not compare them, at all.

Based on her posts in response to mine, she probably has a scratching post with my name on it :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Based on her posts in response to mine, she probably has a scratching post with my name on it :laugh2:

why don't you either answer the challenge or have the grace to admit that you have slandered me?

[red states rule]

why don't you either answer the challenge or have the grace to admit that you have slandered me?

I did not slander you shithead. I have shown how you play your word games and yet it gets the same results as surrender. Cut and run, redeploy, run like the hell, give up - it all means the same

You are a disloyal asshole who does not give a damn about the troops or his country. Only your Dem party

You would have no problem losing the war if it means more power for the Dems. You shit on the troops who are in harms way for political gain

[Yurt]

I did not slander you shithead. I have shown how you play your word games and yet it gets the same results as surrender. Cut and run, redeploy, run like the hell, give up - it all means the same

You are a disloyal asshole who does not give a damn about the troops or his country. Only your Dem party

You would have no problem losing the war if it means more power for the Dems. You shit on the troops who are in harms way for political gain

so redeploy means the same as surrender?

[red states rule]

so redeploy means the same as surrender?

In my book yes

If the Dems get their way Yurt, we will be leaving before the job is done, telling the terrorists when we are leaving, AQ said Iraq was their main front with their war with the US, Little Adolf will see the US is a paper tiger, terrorists can set up camps in Iraq, have a country as a HQ, and use oil money to finance their terrorist activities

[manu1959]

slandering scum is redundant.............

[retiredman]

In my book yes

If the Dems get their way Yurt, we will be leaving before the job is done, telling the terrorists when we are leaving, AQ said Iraq was their main front with their war with the US, Little Adolf will see the US is a paper tiger, terrorists can set up camps in Iraq, have a country as a HQ, and use oil money to finance their terrorist activities


unfortunately for you, you do not get to write dictionaries. AQ is getting their asses kicked in Iraq... they will not be able to use Iraq as an HQ.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11701285

One of America’s justifications for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda. That claim, like the one that he had weapons of mass destruction, has been discredited. In fact, it was the invasion of Iraq that revived al-Qaeda after its eviction from Afghanistan in 2001. By early 2006, America’s National Intelligence Assessment on terrorism concluded that the Iraq conflict was “breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement”.

It doesn't matter when we leave... Iraq will closely align itself with Iran. That was a foregone conclusion the moment we got rid of the sunni dictator who was keeping the shiites in Iraq from exerting their dominance.

How again will a badly beaten organization like AQ in Iraq not only use Iraq as an HQ, but get their hands on any oil money? You keep saying shit like that but you never can explain how it might happen.

[retiredman]

I did not slander you shithead. I have shown how you play your word games and yet it gets the same results as surrender. Cut and run, redeploy, run like the hell, give up - it all means the same

You are a disloyal asshole who does not give a damn about the troops or his country. Only your Dem party

You would have no problem losing the war if it means more power for the Dems. You shit on the troops who are in harms way for political gain

that post is nothing but lies.

[Yurt]

slandering scum is redundant.............

true

[Said1]

Trying to have a civil and rational discussion with MFM and Gabby

The question was addressed to anyone, as no one specifically was quoted. Care to take a stab at it?

[Psychoblues]

Hilarious!!!!!!!!!! rsr can't answer the first question in this thread much less any other!!!!!!!!!!!

[retiredman]

not only can he not defend his slander, he does not have the grace to admit so and retract it.

[5stringJeff]

fair enough....so, when the US secures the peace long enough for a government to be elected and begin governing and long enough for an army and police force to stand up and take over the duty of securing their country..... that is when we should leave?

Yes. Not to mention, the Iraqis want us out now, and have told us that they can handle the job.

[5stringJeff]

In my book yes

If the Dems get their way Yurt, we will be leaving before the job is done, telling the terrorists when we are leaving, AQ said Iraq was their main front with their war with the US, Little Adolf will see the US is a paper tiger, terrorists can set up camps in Iraq, have a country as a HQ, and use oil money to finance their terrorist activities

The job is done. The Iraqi government has told us that they are ready to begin taking their country back over. We did what we set out to do.

[Yurt]

Yes. Not to mention, the Iraqis want us out now, and have told us that they can handle the job.

i certainly hope so. many of naysayers said we would never attain this much. if iraq continues to stabilize and then maintains that stability, it will be a good thing for us and the world.

[Yurt]

The job is done. The Iraqi government has told us that they are ready to begin taking their country back over. We did what we set out to do.

that is true now, but this was not true a year ago. would you advocate pulling out troops a year ago? two years ago?

[5stringJeff]

that is true now, but this was not true a year ago. would you advocate pulling out troops a year ago? two years ago?

No. I didn't advocate leaving Iraq until the job was done. I saw the first glimmers of that possibility a few months ago; now, al Maliki thinks his police force and army are ready. So it's now time to go.

[Yurt]

No. I didn't advocate leaving Iraq until the job was done. I saw the first glimmers of that possibility a few months ago; now, al Maliki thinks his police force and army are ready. So it's now time to go.

absolutely. there are some on this board who have been saying for over a year that we should "redeploy" the troops. and that was before the job was done.

[red states rule]

absolutely. there are some on this board who have been saying for over a year that we should "redeploy" the troops. and that was before the job was done.

How does MFM feel his messiah is going to give us the Bush 3rd term as far as Iraq is concerned? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

How does MFM feel his messiah is going to give us the Bush 3rd term as far as Iraq is concerned? :laugh2:

i wonder what you call it when certain people advocated pulling the troops out before the mission was accomplished...in other words, while we had not "won" they wanted troops home.

[red states rule]

i wonder what you call it when certain people advocated pulling the troops out before the mission was accomplished...in other words, while we had not "won" they wanted troops home.

appeasers who are more interested in winning their war on Bush then the war on terror

[retiredman]

How does MFM feel his messiah is going to give us the Bush 3rd term as far as Iraq is concerned? :laugh2:


Actually, Maliki's office just issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision to have American troops out by mid-2010.

I guess you gave up on the challenge, eh? When are you gonna apologize for lying about my positions?

[Kathianne]

Actually, Maliki's office just issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision to have American troops out by mid-2010.

I guess you gave up on the challenge, eh? When are you gonna apologize for lying about my positions?

Do you have a link for the 'just issued statement'?

[retiredman]

Do you have a link for the 'just issued statement'?

nope...just heard about it five minutes ago on CNN.

[5stringJeff]

Do you have a link for the 'just issued statement'?


nope...just heard about it five minutes ago on CNN.

Try this:

After Obama sat down with al-Maliki in Baghdad’s heavily protect Green Zone, government spokesman Ali al-Dabagh, who is very close to the Iraqi leader and sat in on the meeting, said Baghdad was not interested in troop withdrawal plans that arise out of the American presidential campaign but “in a real timetable the Iraqis have set.”

When asked for a date, al-Dabagh said, “up to 2010.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/obama-meets-with-iraqi-president/

[retiredman]

Try this:

After Obama sat down with al-Maliki in Baghdad’s heavily protect Green Zone, government spokesman Ali al-Dabagh, who is very close to the Iraqi leader and sat in on the meeting, said Baghdad was not interested in troop withdrawal plans that arise out of the American presidential campaign but “in a real timetable the Iraqis have set.”

When asked for a date, al-Dabagh said, “up to 2010.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/obama-meets-with-iraqi-president/

01/09 + 16 months = 05/10

Obama has proposed withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the government's "vision" is that most U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2010. Asked if that stance is part of the current negotiations, al-Dabbagh said, "No. This is the Iraqi vision."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html

[5stringJeff]

01/09 + 16 months = 05/10

I'm not disagreeing with you. If the Iraqis want us out, let's go.

[retiredman]

I'm not disagreeing with you. If the Iraqis want us out, let's go.

tell that to RSR. The whole point of this thread is that he has been slandering me by calling me a traitor and someone who has called for surrender and defeat. He is a liar.

I KNOW you get it, Jeff.


Beat Army

[Yurt]

obama has been calling for troop withdrawal for years, before the job was done. i believe someone else on this board has too. that is very, very different from the situation now. to give obama credit for the 16 months now is ludicrous. he introduced legislation in jan 07 to have troops out by force of law before the end of march 08. for years now he has wanted troops out, then when it came time actually have responsibility for doing it, he said he would refine his strategy.

the fact that the situation on the ground coincides with his latest call for troop withdrawal (which he actually hedged after he flat out promised it) is not call to congragulate obama, rather, a call to congragulate the troops on the ground and the current commander in chief.

[red states rule]

tell that to RSR. The whole point of this thread is that he has been slandering me by calling me a traitor and someone who has called for surrender and defeat. He is a liar.

I KNOW you get it, Jeff.


Beat Army

Ok MFM - I am very sorry you were a fucking surrender monkey before the job was done

I am happy to see you now agree with what Pres Bush said all along. When Iraq stands on its own - we stand down

[Yurt]

No. I didn't advocate leaving Iraq until the job was done. I saw the first glimmers of that possibility a few months ago; now, al Maliki thinks his police force and army are ready. So it's now time to go.

what do you think about advocating leaving iraq before the job is done? if not "surrender", what would you call that?

[red states rule]

what do you think about advocating leaving iraq before the job is done? if not "surrender", what would you call that?

Leaving before the job is done is surrender

[retiredman]

Ok MFM - I am very sorry you were a fucking surrender monkey before the job was done

I am happy to see you now agree with what Pres Bush said all along. When Iraq stands on its own - we stand down


I have never advocated surrender or defeat and if I had, you would have proven so and I would be long gone. the fact that you can't proves what a slanderous shitbag you are.

I am waiting for you to explain your goofy position that Al Qaeda and Iran are in cahoots, and that Al Qaeda will somehow be able to use Iraq as a HQ and training base and that it will all be funded by Iraqi oil money.:lol:

[red states rule]

http://www.auburn.edu/~murraba/elucid/baby,crying,tantrum.jpgC:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\WNNC65QC

[Yurt]

Leaving before the job is done is surrender

i'm not positive that is accurate. i am not positive because even if we left, i don't think we would call it a "draw." plus the definition of surrender and the military definition don't seem to exactly fit. i am interested in jeff's take and how do you feel it fits the definition RSR?

it is though advocating defeat, if we are losing, e.g., not winning our mission and leave, i can't believe you would call that a victory.

[retiredman]

i'm not positive that is accurate. i am not positive because even if we left, i don't think we would call it a "draw." plus the definition of surrender and the military definition don't seem to exactly fit. i am interested in jeff's take and how do you feel it fits the definition RSR?

it is though advocating defeat, if we are losing, e.g., not winning our mission and leave, i can't believe you would call that a victory.

the President defines the mission. period. not the military, and not california lawyers hanging around the internet. If Obama defines our mission as going after terrorists in Afghanistan, then that is what the mission is. If President Obama disagrees with the mission delineated by his predecessor, he is not required to continue it. period.

Our mission [singular] according to George Bush: Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament

mission accomplished. No WMD's. Saddam gone. Government formed. long past time to go.

[Yurt]

the President defines the mission. period. not the military, and not california lawyers hanging around the internet. If Obama defines our mission as going after terrorists in Afghanistan, then that is what the mission is. If President Obama disagrees with the mission delineated by his predecessor, he is not required to continue it. period.

Our mission [singular] according to George Bush: Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament

mission accomplished. No WMD's. Saddam gone. Government formed. long past time to go.

you're boring and so are you childish insults

and no, mission was not accomplished "long" ago, you just recently started saying we won ( i believe ). the iraqi government ONLY recently asked us to leave. you have been advocating withdrawal before that, that sure looks like defeat.

and btw, obama is NOT the CIC :poke:

[retiredman]

and btw, obama is NOT the CIC :poke: no kidding? I didn't KNOW that!:poke::poke::poke::poke:

[Yurt]

you're boring and so are you childish insults

and no, mission was not accomplished "long" ago, you just recently started saying we won ( i believe ). the iraqi government ONLY recently asked us to leave. you have been advocating withdrawal before that, that sure looks like defeat.

and btw, obama is NOT the CIC :poke:

right bush never wanted a stable democratic government in iraq, clearly mission was not accomplished until recently.

[retiredman]

you're boring and so are you childish insults

and no, mission was not accomplished "long" ago, you just recently started saying we won ( i believe ). the iraqi government ONLY recently asked us to leave. you have been advocating withdrawal before that, that sure looks like defeat.



what childish insult? are you not a california lawyer on the internet?

I thnk that the mission that Bush told us about before we invaded WAS accomplished long ago. I have been advocating withdrawal ever since we found out there were no WMD's and had captured Saddam and a new government was in place. If Iraqis want to live together in peace, and I happen to believe that they really and truly DON'T want to live together peacefully in one country, then it has always been up to them and not us to make that happen.

And mark my words.... within a year of our departure, Iraq will become closely aligned with Iran and the sunnis will be madder than wet hens and civil strife will come roaring back.

[red states rule]

what childish insult? are you not a california lawyer on the internet?

I thnk that the mission that Bush told us about before we invaded WAS accomplished long ago. I have been advocating withdrawal ever since we found out there were no WMD's and had captured Saddam and a new government was in place. If Iraqis want to live together in peace, and I happen to believe that they really and truly DON'T want to live together peacefully in one country, then it has always been up to them and not us to make that happen.

And mark my words.... within a year of our departure, Iraq will become closely aligned with Iran and the sunnis will be madder than wet hens and civil strife will come roaring back.

As you constantly toss out

Your opinion is just that - opinion

:laugh2:

[retiredman]

As you constantly toss out

Your opinion is just that - opinion

:laugh2:

absolutely.

so are yours.... I never claimed any factual standing in that thread....you ALWAYS claim the shit you spew is fact.:lol:

[red states rule]

absolutely.

so are yours.... I never claimed any factual standing in that thread....you ALWAYS claim the shit you spew is fact.:lol:

I do post facts

Not only because it is the truth, but it makes you meltdown

Killing 2 birds with one stone

[retiredman]

I do post facts

Not only because it is the truth, but it makes you meltdown

Killing 2 birds with one stone

when will you ever post the facts that answer this thread's challenge?

and...let me get this straight:

my opinions are just opinions, but your opinions are facts? have I got that right?:lol::lol:

[red states rule]

when will you ever post the facts that answer this thread's challenge?

and...let me get this straight:

my opinions are just opinions, but your opinions are facts? have I got that right?:lol::lol:

You dismiss facts as opinion - like you have all day on the tax thread

When the facts go against you, like they usually do, you play your normal games

[retiredman]

You dismiss facts as opinion - like you have all day on the tax thread

When the facts go against you, like they usually do, you play your normal games

bullshit. you have posted oped pieces on the tax thread...just like the last one...

but when are you going to answer the challenge in THIS thread or retract your slander?

and QUIT dodging the subject of the thread!:lol:

[red states rule]

bullshit. you have posted oped pieces on the tax thread...just like the last one...

but when are you going to answer the challenge in THIS thread or retract your slander?

and QUIT dodging the subject of the thread!:lol:

As on this thread - and others - when the numbers are run and they rpove you and your party are wrong youd dismiss them and go into atack mode

I have ansered the threads question several time. You refuse to admit the truth and continue to lie and play your role as the offended liberal

[Yurt]

Actually, Maliki's office just issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision to have American troops out by mid-2010.

I guess you gave up on the challenge, eh? When are you gonna apologize for lying about my positions?

unless you have a link otherwise, you are wrong (and by your logic, lying)


But in comments that suggest Iraq and Obama are not far apart on the issue, Dabbagh said Baghdad's goal was for foreign combat forces to leave by the end of 2010 if security conditions allowed. Dabbagh has floated a similar timeframe before.

"We cannot give any timetables or dates but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal of the forces," Dabbagh told reporters.

On Sunday, Dabbagh denied Maliki had told a German magazine in an interview that he backed Obama's troop withdrawal timeframe. Dabbagh had said no government statement should be seen as support for either U.S. presidential candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080721/pl_nm/iraq_dc

[Kathianne]

unless you have a link otherwise, you are wrong (and by your logic, lying)



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080721/pl_nm/iraq_dc

Yep, Speigel backed off their original story:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011674844


Kris Alingod - AHN News Writer

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's statements about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) timetable for troop withdrawal were "misunderstood," an Iraqi government spokesman said over the weekend after American officials called on Maliki to clarify a report that he endorsed the U.S. presidential candidate's plan.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in an e-mailed statement sent through the Pentagon's Central Command press office that Maliki's remarks about Obama's timetable were "mistranslated and "not conveyed accurately," according to the New York Times.

"The statements made by the head of the ministerial council (Prime Minister al-Maliki) or any of the members of the Iraqi government should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidates," Dabbagh's added in the statement.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel is quoted by Bloomberg as saying officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad spoke with Iraqi officials "and explained how the interview was being interpreted. The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it.''

The German newspaper Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying in an interview, "Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Der Spiegel said it stands by its story despite Maliki's retraction Maliki.

...

[retiredman]

As on this thread - and others - when the numbers are run and they rpove you and your party are wrong youd dismiss them and go into atack mode

I have ansered the threads question several time. You refuse to admit the truth and continue to lie and play your role as the offended liberal

this thread is about you proving that I have EVER supported defeat or surrender. You have been unable to do so.

[retiredman]

unless you have a link otherwise, you are wrong (and by your logic, lying)


did you MISS #107?

Obama has proposed withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the government's "vision" is that most U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2010. Asked if that stance is part of the current negotiations, al-Dabbagh said, "No. This is the Iraqi vision."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ast/index.html

01/09 + 16 months = 05/10

Maliki's vision is the same thing as Obama's vision! hmmmmm

and again... please don't call me a liar

[Yurt]

did you MISS #107?

Obama has proposed withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the government's "vision" is that most U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2010. Asked if that stance is part of the current negotiations, al-Dabbagh said, "No. This is the Iraqi vision."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ast/index.html

01/09 + 16 months = 05/10

Maliki's vision is the same thing as Obama's vision! hmmmmm

and again... please don't call me a liar


that is not what you said, you are changing your story again. you will be called whatever is appropriate and if you actually read my post, you will i did not call you a liar unless of course we use your logic, so you must be one according to your logic, that when one is wrong, they are a liar.

you said:


Maliki's office just issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision to have American troops out by mid-2010.

quite different than the merely being similar, you said he issued a statement that said they "shared obama's vision"

do you have a link to back up that statement or do you retract it.

[red states rule]

did you MISS #107?

Obama has proposed withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the government's "vision" is that most U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2010. Asked if that stance is part of the current negotiations, al-Dabbagh said, "No. This is the Iraqi vision."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ast/index.html

01/09 + 16 months = 05/10

Maliki's vision is the same thing as Obama's vision! hmmmmm

and again... please don't call me a liar



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hq7IyrjghLo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hq7IyrjghLo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8AQ_ufUG3qY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8AQ_ufUG3qY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Yurt]

rsr;


as i was trying to say earlier... it is the height of arrogance and stupidity to claim that "now" obama is right about iraq when he has been calling for the withdrawal of troops for many years and that we have had 2008 deadlines and 2009 deadlines....then he hedges his statement before he goes to iraq (ie, recants his promises) and now, now, the situation on the ground is different and some of his ignorant followers claim that obama was right all along and that iraq has come out and essentially endorsed obama and his plan.

[retiredman]

that is not what you said, you are changing your story again. you will be called whatever is appropriate and if you actually read my post, you will i did not call you a liar unless of course we use your logic, so you must be one according to your logic, that when one is wrong, they are a liar.

you said:

.

quite different than the merely being similar, you said he issued a statement that said they "shared obama's vision"

do you have a link to back up that statement or do you retract it.

their statement said that their vision was for us to be out of Iraq by 2010.

Obama's vision is that we will be out of Iraq by 2010.

They obviously share the same vision, do they not?

Is that so difficult for you to understand?

[Yurt]

again, not what you said, either back it up or retract it, that you have not so far, shows me you cannot be trusted, oh wait, i already knew that


Maliki's office just issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision to have American troops out by mid-2010
.


quite different than the merely being similar, you said he issued a statement that said they "shared obama's vision"

you see, you are changing your story, ho hum, boring....

[retiredman]

again, not what you said, either back it up or retract it, that you have not so far, shows me you cannot be trusted, oh wait, i already knew that. you see, you are changing your story, ho hum, boring....

they issued a statement with the same "vision" as Obama. I would say that means that they share that "vision", wouldn't you?

Are you really going to play these petty little word games? really?

Can you not see where the vision is shared?

grow up yurt. if you want to deal with me on an adult level, I would welcome it.

[Yurt]

issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision

obviously this was never said and the person who made the claim cannot honestly fess up that such a "statement" was never "said"

lame

[retiredman]

issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision

obviously this was never said and the person who made the claim cannot honestly fess up that such a "statement" was never "said"

lame


stupid word games. They said they had a vision. It happens to be the same vision as Obama has. Do they share the vision or don't they?

again.... if you want to debate issues like an adult, try it. this line of attack by you here is not how it is done. this is gradeschool. please grow up.

but for word game's sake, if my sentence had been the Maliki government issued a statement saying " we share Obama's vision", such a sentence would have been incorrect... mine is not

[Yurt]

stupid word games. They said they had a vision. It happens to be the same vision as Obama has. Do they share the vision or don't they?

again.... if you want to debate issues like an adult, try it. this line of attack by you here is not how it is done. this is gradeschool. please grow up.

but for word game's sake, if my sentence had been the Maliki government issued a statement saying " we share Obama's vision", such a sentence would have been incorrect... mine is not

dude, you have no room to lecture about discussing things like an adult, yesterday you obsessively chased me around the board insulting me without any debate, sole insults, so you can shut that little pie hole. word "games" you're a hypocrite, you know what you said and it matches "save for the stupid quotation marks" which are necessary exactly what you said. shares/shared and you accuse me of word games, LOL.


Maliki's office just issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision to have American troops out by mid-2010

that is what you said and you said above that would be wrong. be an adult and fess up honestly that you made a mistake. come on, you can do it.

[retiredman]

dude, you have no room to lecture about discussing things like an adult, yesterday you obsessively chased me around the board insulting me without any debate, sole insults, so you can shut that little pie hole. word "games" you're a hypocrite, you know what you said and it matches "save for the stupid quotation marks" which are necessary exactly what you said. shares/shared and you accuse me of word games, LOL.



that is what you said and you said above that would be wrong. be an adult and fess up honestly that you made a mistake. come on, you can do it.

it is not a "mistake". if you don't like the way I phrased it, I really am sorry, little boy. Maliki's office issued a statement that clearly shows that they share the same vision as Obama. get over it. really.

As I said, if you wanna talk like an adult, I'd welcome the opportunity.

[retiredman]

from the National Review, no less:

“Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?” Der Spiegel asked.

“As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned,” Maliki answered. “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

“Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November?” the magazine followed up. “Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?”

“Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic,” Maliki said. “Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWMxNTQ5ZGIyOTEzMzFmNDVlNmJiYmFlY2Y0NDRjYzg=

[Yurt]

you apparently don't know the difference between "issuing a statement" and replying to a reporters question. one is official, the other is simply answering questions, which as we have seen with obama, often need clarification, and in obama's case an entire second interview to """"clarify"""" his changing iraq policy.

do you have a link to where he issued a statement? yes or no.

[retiredman]

you apparently don't know the difference between "issuing a statement" and replying to a reporters question. one is official, the other is simply answering questions, which as we have seen with obama, often need clarification, and in obama's case an entire second interview to """"clarify"""" his changing iraq policy.

do you have a link to where he issued a statement? yes or no.

I posted it early on...from CNN. did you miss it?

After the interview, Maliki's press secretary later came out and "issued a statement" that said that it was Maliki's VISION that coalition forces be out of Iraq by 2010. That VISION is identical to Obama's vision.

[Yurt]

I posted it early on...from CNN. did you miss it?

After the interview, Maliki's press secretary later came out and "issued a statement" that said that it was Maliki's VISION that coalition forces be out of Iraq by 2010. That VISION is identical to Obama's vision.

why bother answering, i'll just be accused of "chasing" you around pointing out your mistakes....your link does not say "issued" or "just issued a statement" the link is about the interview.

i did not find issued statement, only the comments in the interview...all issued statements seem to clarify the interview and state that malaki's vision is NOT identical to obama's, while similar, it does not hold fast to the 16 month timeline as obama promised. so you are wrong, hopefully not lying, by saying it is identical.

waits for insult about chasing you around and playing word games because you can't backup your statement

[retiredman]

why bother answering, i'll just be accused of "chasing" you around pointing out your mistakes....your link does not say "issued" or "just issued a statement" the link is about the interview.

i did not find issued statement, only the comments in the interview...all issued statements seem to clarify the interview and state that malaki's vision is NOT identical to obama's, while similar, it does not hold fast to the 16 month timeline as obama promised. so you are wrong, hopefully not lying, by saying it is identical.

waits for insult about chasing you around and playing word games because you can't backup your statement

let's try this again: from my FIRST link regarding the statement:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html

"The prime minister reiterated that principle with Obama, according to a statement from al-Maliki's office.

"Developments of the situation and the circumstances is what will decide the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, but without keeping open-ended dates," al-Maliki said, according to a statement from his office.

"With the developments on the ground, we can set a vision and clear horizons regarding this issue, and this is a view both sides agree on in the ongoing negotiations."

Al-Maliki's office quoted Obama as saying he is "supportive and committed to preserving the gains achieved by the Iraqi government" under al-Maliki's leadership and that he admires the prime minister's courage.

Obama has proposed withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi government's "vision" is that most U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2010. Asked if that stance is part of the current negotiations, al-Dabbagh said, "No. This is the Iraqi vision.""

[Yurt]

this is important and where you have distorted what really was said in a "statement" that apparently has not been issued as it keeps needing to be referred to as "according" to the statement, which is different than an official "issued statement" usually following reports that such and such official released a statement....the main point is this:


The prime minister reiterated that principle with Obama, according to a statement from al-Maliki's office.

now, reiterated from what? obama's plan as you suggest or bush's plan?


But al-Maliki and President Bush last week agreed to a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" on troop cuts.

The prime minister reiterated that principle with Obama, according to a statement from al-Maliki's office.

the full context you conveniently left out



An Iraqi government spokesman said Saturday that the prime minister's comments to the magazine had been "misunderstood," and the White House said al-Maliki has made clear that any withdrawals would be conditioned on "continuing positive developments."

is that obama's plan in the primaries? no. is that his campaign pledge? no.

and again, more clarification:


But al-Maliki and President Bush last week agreed to a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" on troops cuts. The prime minister reiterated that principle with Obama, according to a statement from al-Maliki's office about their discussions.

it is different than what you said.

[retiredman]

whatever yurt. you are the master of minutia. My statement was essentially correct, but it is nice to know that the nitpicking brigade is hard at work.

have you ascertained the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin or are you still hard at work on that one?:lame2:

[Yurt]

Maliki's office just issued a statement that said that they shared Obama's vision to have American troops out by mid-2010

reality


But al-Maliki and President Bush last week agreed to a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" on troop cuts.

The prime minister reiterated that principle with Obama, according to a statement from al-Maliki's office.

[retiredman]

whatever yurt....

now perhaps you can help your friend RSR out and actually find the quotes that I was asking for in the opening post of this thread.

you know.... "surrender"..."defeat"....

go on... quit counting those angels for a few moments and give your buddy a helping hand.

[Kathianne]

whatever yurt....

now perhaps you can help your friend RSR out and actually find the quotes that I was asking for in the opening post of this thread.

you know.... "surrender"..."defeat"....

go on... quit counting those angels for a few moments and give your buddy a helping hand.

You were for 'withdrawal' when it meant defeat. Now that it means less than defeat, but still less than victory you're gung ho. Personally, I'm for winning, which may take a bit longer.

We've been winning, but still shor of won. Give the military that Obama has been praising today, time.

[retiredman]

You were for 'withdrawal' when it meant defeat. Now that it means less than defeat, but still less than victory you're gung ho. Personally, I'm for winning, which may take a bit longer.

We've been winning, but still shor of won. Give the military that Obama has been praising today, time.


no. withdrawal means withdrawal. defeat means defeat. redeployment means redeployment. surrender means surrender.

and if McCain wins and we stay in Iraq for ten more years only to see the country's well trained army devolve into sectarian militias the moment we finally DO leave, then the blood of ALL those Americans who died in those intervening years will be on YOUR hands... not mine.

[Kathianne]

no. withdrawal means withdrawal. defeat means defeat. redeployment means redeployment. surrender means surrender.

and if McCain wins and we stay in Iraq for ten more years only to see the country's well trained army devolve into sectarian militias the moment we finally DO leave, then the blood of ALL those Americans who died in those intervening years will be on YOUR hands... not mine.

For some reason I'm unwilling to go to the pot and kettle. More power to you finding another poster.

[Yurt]

whatever yurt....

now perhaps you can help your friend RSR out and actually find the quotes that I was asking for in the opening post of this thread.

you know.... "surrender"..."defeat"....

go on... quit counting those angels for a few moments and give your buddy a helping hand.

of course you feel this way, you're were caught making a booboo and got called on it, so you turn around and insult the other person to make yourself feel better and to distract from your mistake. you should really grow up and learn how discuss things in a rational manner.

boooring

there is no need to help RSR, he has already showed you were willing to leave before we won or accomplishmed our mission, e.g., you were willing to leave in defeat. that is enough.

[red states rule]

of course you feel this way, you're were caught making a booboo and got called on it, so you turn around and insult the other person to make yourself feel better and to distract from your mistake. you should really grow up and learn how discuss things in a rational manner.

boooring

there is no need to help RSR, he has already showed you were willing to leave before we won or accomplishmed our mission, e.g., you were willing to leave in defeat. that is enough.

You nailed it Yurt. Libs like MFM speak in code words

Investments means increased spending

New sources of revenue means tax increases

Compromise means agree with him and his liberal friends

redeployment means surrender, leave, cut and run, give up, and run away

[5stringJeff]

redeployment means surrender, leave, cut and run, give up, and run away

Wrong. I corrected this misconception previously:


Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a huge difference between redeployment and surrender.

redeployment (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04543.html)
(DOD) The transfer of forces and materiel to support another joint force commander's operational requirements, or to return personnel, equipment, and materiel to the home and/or demobilization stations for reintegration and/or out-processing.

The US doesn't surrender, officially. It conducts:

retrograde movement (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04688.html)
(DOD) Any movement of a command to the rear, or away from the enemy. It may be forced by the enemy or may be made voluntarily. Such movements may be classified as withdrawal, retirement, or delaying action.

retirement (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04685.html)
(DOD, NATO) An operation in which a force out of contact moves away from the enemy.

withdrawal operation (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/w/05898.html)
(DOD) A planned retrograde operation in which a force in contact disengages from an enemy force and moves in a direction away from the enemy.

[red states rule]

With all do respect Jeff, if Obama and MFM would have had their way - the success of the surge never would have happened

The US would have left Iraq as losers

The results would have been the same - so in my book redeployment is surrender

Dems would have shown the terrorists the US could not stand a fight and weakened because of troop deaths

[5stringJeff]

With all do respect Jeff, if Obama and MFM would have had their way - the success of the surge never would have happened

The US would have left Iraq as losers

The results would have been the same - so in my book redeployment is surrender

Dems would have shown the terrorists the US could not stand a fight and weakened because of troop deaths

I'm not arguing policy. I'm arguing semantics. Redeployment is NOT surrender. They are two separate and distinct ideas.

[red states rule]

I'm not arguing policy. I'm arguing semantics. Redeployment is NOT surrender. They are two separate and distinct ideas.

No to libs like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, ect

The results would have been the same

[5stringJeff]

No to libs like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, ect

The results would have been the same

It has nothing to do with "libs" or policy outcomes. They are two separate and distinct ideas.

[red states rule]

It has nothing to do with "libs" or policy outcomes. They are two separate and distinct ideas.

Whatever (shrug)

[red states rule]

no. withdrawal means withdrawal. defeat means defeat. redeployment means redeployment. surrender means surrender.

and if McCain wins and we stay in Iraq for ten more years only to see the country's well trained army devolve into sectarian militias the moment we finally DO leave, then the blood of ALL those Americans who died in those intervening years will be on YOUR hands... not mine.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/surrender/SMObamaCPUSA.jpg

[5stringJeff]

So do you favor withdrawal, RSR?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16138

[retiredman]

of course you feel this way, you're were caught making a booboo and got called on it, so you turn around and insult the other person to make yourself feel better and to distract from your mistake. you should really grow up and learn how discuss things in a rational manner.

boooring

there is no need to help RSR, he has already showed you were willing to leave before we won or accomplishmed our mission, e.g., you were willing to leave in defeat. that is enough.


a "booboo"? how fucking old are you? 12?

As I said, if you don't like the way that my post was worded, tough shit. Maliki's office did, in fact, issue a statement that confirmed the fact that the Iraqi government plan is essentially identical to Obama's in that both want America out of Iraq in 2010.... and both of those plans are significantly different than the neoconservative vision of a nearly permanent American presence in Iraq.

[Yurt]

you see, the insults continue

booooring

perhaps a different board where 5th grade taunts are the highlight of the day is better suited....

i love how now it is "essentially" identical....change you can believe in

[retiredman]

you see, the insults continue

booooring

perhaps a different board where 5th grade taunts are the highlight of the day is better suited....

i love how now it is "essentially" identical....change you can believe in

insults? I am not INSULTING you. I am laughing at your adolescent choice of language. I think it is funny. And I love how you are making a big huge deal out of an interpretative distinction that is withour real difference. Maliki wants us out in 2010. Obama wants us out in 2010. McCain wants us there for longer. THOSE are the facts.

What do you really want to talk about other than your hatred of Obama? is that about it, really?

[Yurt]

i never said i hate obama, you are lying. i don't hate him. i have told you that before, yet you continue with this false claim against me.

and the insults continue....

because i showed that what you claim is simply not accurate, which your claim clearly suggested


booooring

[retiredman]

i never said i hated obama, you are lying.

and the insults continue....

booooring

you don't need to SAY it, you certainly SHOW it...and that is NOT a lie.

And it is not even an insult... it is an observation.

and if I am sooooo boooring to you, why, pray tell, do you feel compelled to always answer my posts?:lol:

feel free to put me on ignore, yurt.... if I BORE you so much!

[Yurt]

i don't show it, you are lying. just because i disagree with someone politically, doesn't mean i hate them....

i have repeatedly told you i don't hate him, that you feel compelled to continue your lies is a testament to your faulty character...

boooring (your pettiness and insults and lies are boring)

now kindly grow up, and stop the petty insults and discuss things maturely, you can do that, right?

[retiredman]

i don't show it, you are lying. just because i disagree with someone politically, doesn't mean i hate them....

i have repeatedly told you i don't hate him, that you feel compelled to continue your lies is a testament to your faulty character...

boooring (your pettiness and insults and lies are boring)

now kindly grow up, and stop the petty insults and discuss things maturely, you can do that, right?

your overwhelming obsession with Obama goes far beyond mere political disagreement. IMHO, it is a pretty clear indication of irrational hatred. I understand why you would try to deny it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

and please quit insulting my character.

[Yurt]

your overwhelming obsession with Obama goes far beyond mere political disagreement. IMHO, it is a pretty clear indication of irrational hatred. I understand why you would try to deny it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

and please quit insulting my character.

insulting your character, give me a break. i have repeatedly told you i don't hate obama, and that i am not obsessed with him. this is a political board genius, maybe i should talk about dolly parton or fucking dead whores, you'd like that wouldn't you....

you continue to tell lies about me hating obama and that i am obsessed with him and you have the gall to tell me to stop insulting your behavior...:poke:

grow up mfm, seriously, for your own good

[retiredman]

insulting your character, give me a break. i have repeatedly told you i don't hate obama, and that i am not obsessed with him. this is a political board genius, maybe i should talk about dolly parton or fucking dead whores, you'd like that wouldn't you....

you continue to tell lies about me hating obama and that i am obsessed with him and you have the gall to tell me to stop insulting your behavior...:poke:

grow up mfm, seriously, for your own good

more than half the threads you've started recently are about Obama and way more than half your posts recently are about him. Again...you can SAY that you don't hate him, but your virulent dislike for him is evident in every post you make about him. Those aren't LIES about you, yurt...they are my honest opinions based upon my observations.

[Yurt]

they are lies

[retiredman]

they are lies

no. they are not. I believe them to be truthful statements.

[Yurt]

i have told you i don't. they are lies.

[retiredman]

i have told you i don't. they are lies.

talking the talk is one thing...I think your actions speak louder than your protestations to the contrary. They are not lies. I would suggest that it is YOU who cannot face the truth of your own enmity.

[Yurt]

lies

[retiredman]

lies


tough to confront your own bigotry? I understand son. That's OK. Maybe with time and prayer, you'll get there. I'll be pulling for you.

[Yurt]

you see, you continue to slander me with no proof.

lies

[retiredman]

you see, you continue to slander me with no proof.

lies

I am not slandering you at all yurt...I have read your post and your threads devoted to Obama.... even if you cannot admit it, your hatred for him is readily apparent.

[Yurt]

lies

[retiredman]

lies


denial ain't no river in Egypt!:lol:

[Yurt]

homosexual

[retiredman]

how juvenile.

are you done?

[Yurt]

it is my honest opinion and you just in denial

if its juvenile, then look in the mirror

you're lying, i've made my case, you refuse to recant and now i have shown you how "juvenile" you're insults are. if you continue to lie, there is nothing more to say.

[retiredman]

it is my honest opinion that you are in denial about your enmity for Obama. My stating that I believe you have such enmity is not a lie. It is my honest opinion.

calling someone a "liar" and a "homosexual" because you disagree with their opinions is juvenile. I'm sorry, but it really is.

[Said1]

Jaysus, Mary and Joseph, would you two get a room already. :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

Jaysus, Mary and Joseph, would you two get a room already. :laugh2:

that just made me think of this :laugh2:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RtsCxkol8-M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RtsCxkol8-M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Psychoblues]

I'd rather see them get into a ring!!!!!!!!!!



Jaysus, Mary and Joseph, would you two get a room already. :laugh2:

rsr clearly called the man some disparaging names. The man called him out and between rsr and yuk neither can justify the nomenclatures. Pitiful, don't you think?

[Yurt]

I'd rather see them get into a ring!!!!!!!!!!




rsr clearly called the man some disparaging names. The man called him out and between rsr and yuk neither can justify the nomenclatures. Pitiful, don't you think?

lookee, mfm has a cheerleader, how cute

[retiredman]

lookee, mfm has a cheerleader, how cute

lookee... RSR has an shyster advocate, how cute!

[Yurt]

lookee... RSR has an shyster advocate, how cute!

he was talking about me as well dumbass :poke:

he calls me yuk, if you bothered to read you would know, but you don't deserve and explanation because you can't follow along...

you're a waste and it is clear i waste my time with you at this point, i am going to rethink dealing with you, not sure what i will decide, but one thing is clear, you are nothing but a trouble maker.....

[actsnoblemartin]

he was talking about me as well dumbass :poke:

he calls me yuk, if you bothered to read you would know, but you don't deserve and explanation because you can't follow along...

you're a waste and it is clear i waste my time with you at this point, i am going to rethink dealing with you, not sure what i will decide, but one thing is clear, you are nothing but a trouble maker.....



in tonights tag team BRAWL FOR IT ALL we have the the bushwhackers psycho and maine vs Sargeant Slaughter (yurt) And the boss man (rsr)

:argue:

[actsnoblemartin]

:lol:


I'd rather see them get into a ring!!!!!!!!!!

I set up the fight :laugh2:

Im not taking sides here, although I probably could lol :coffee:

The insults have let to the brawl for it all, and the the dp world wrestling championship belt

have fun :dance:




rsr clearly called the man some disparaging names. The man called him out and between rsr and yuk neither can justify the nomenclatures. Pitiful, don't you think?

[retiredman]

he was talking about me as well dumbass :poke:

he calls me yuk, if you bothered to read you would know, but you don't deserve and explanation because you can't follow along...

you're a waste and it is clear i waste my time with you at this point, i am going to rethink dealing with you, not sure what i will decide, but one thing is clear, you are nothing but a trouble maker.....

this thread IS a challenge from me to HIM...not to YOU. Your participation in this thread from the very beginning has been as RSR's de facto advocate. Try to consider the longer view of a conversation and don't merely think that the last post is the only post.

And please feel free to rethink how you deal with me. You might consider starting from a position of dealing with me with respect if you wish to be treated with respect from me. If you are going to nitpick every post, ask idiotic questions like : is that YOUR opinion or is that the democratic party platform", and generally act like a little prick at every intersection with me, then I am not sure that I can treat you with much respect. sorry. If you'd care to try another path, you are certainly welcome to try.

[Psychoblues]

You can forget respect, mfm. These jerks have no respect for anything beyond themselves.




this thread IS a challenge from me to HIM...not to YOU. Your participation in this thread from the very beginning has been as RSR's de facto advocate. Try to consider the longer view of a conversation and don't merely think that the last post is the only post.

And please feel free to rethink how you deal with me. You might consider starting from a position of dealing with me with respect if you wish to be treated with respect from me. If you are going to nitpick every post, ask idiotic questions like : is that YOUR opinion or is that the democratic party platform", and generally act like a little prick at every intersection with me, then I am not sure that I can treat you with much respect. sorry. If you'd care to try another path, you are certainly welcome to try.

And don't even think showing respect for them gains anything for you. These jerks either ignore it or ridicule you for the attempt. I've been here much longer than you and I can testify truthfully about it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just have fun here, mfm, that's what it's all about!!!!!!!!!!!