Somebody needs to tell Obama that he's been elected President and not Queen. It's understandable if he gives speeches and makes superficial visits for the first month or two while he and his staff get up to speed, but we're going on 10 months now and all the man does is jet around the world to talk to the press and go to parties.

He's devoted more time and effort to the Chicago Olympic bid than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear situation, and the global loss of confidence in the dollar. While he's certainly figured out that it's enjoyable to be carried around on a litter and fawned over by an obsequious media, it's time for him to realize that he's also Head of the US Government and CinC of its Armed Forces.

Posted by Jack Schite

2009-10-05 09:17:42

What shots has Obama called in Afghanistan? What negotiation has he entered in for Afghanistan? What strategy has he called for in Afghanistan?

Perhaps Obama has done absolutely nothing? And people are starting to take notice that even his generals are calling out for help and getting no response. If it is rare that a general will "pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy", it is only because it is equally rare that a President will ignore his generals – and no, I don't mean 'ignore' in that he listens to their decisions and chooses his another option, I mean 'ignore' in that he won't even talk to the guy.

When the narcissistic trolls such as Jack Schite are out in full force you can safely conclude that the left are biting their nails over Obama. Even they're realizing that Obama is a complete failure.

"Even they're realizing that Obama is a complete failure."

Ironically, it the Olympic bid that's causing them to wake up. Obama never did anything substantial, which his critics have known all along. But now that he's blown an effort based solely on his own ego and celebrity, he's been exposed even to his own worshippers.

Maybe this will help the left realize that they're not going to get everything they want because Obama gives a speech and points out that he's not George W. Bush. Unfortunately they're also realizing that giving speeches and pointing out he's not Bush is about all Obama knows how to do.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-10-05 10:51:24

And yet Iran is allowing nuclear inspectors into their country and talking for the first time to the west. Interesting that the conservative foreign policy couldnt produce this…hmm.

That is false and you know it, any time a liberal criticized how things were going in Iraq (stay the course), we were called traitors and unamerican for not supporting the President and the Troops.

In that case I'm sure you have countless examples, right?

"Where is your support for the President, or are you just a traitor?"

So the President is now the State in this country? Who else said "I am the State"?

By the way, we were supporting the troops and the country is wanting to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cheerleading for death and defeat is a hallmark of liberalism.

Let's bear in mind that Iran is not "allowing nuclear inspectors into their country and talking for the first time to the west (sic)" it is promising to allow nuclear inspectors into their country and continue talks. This, in fact, is something that Mr. Bush's foreign policy did, in fact, deliver.

Posted by Bill_Dalasio

2009-10-05 12:01:15

Bill,

Really, when did this occur under Bush? Certainly you should be able to show us how Bush made this occur, we will wait patiently.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 12:23:36

who gives a fuck m77tha what you think? We don't have to justify a damned thing to a lying pos like yourself.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 12:23:36

who gives a fuck m77tha what you think? We don't have to justify a damned thing to a lying pos like yourself.

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-10-05 12:29:58

Nixon,

I thought I was a sockpuppet of crthns? You just cant seem to keep people straight can you, perhaps if you take your medication it will be all right, then again you were the one that claimed that you wouldnt post here again, liar.

"And yet Iran is allowing nuclear inspectors into their country and talking for the first time to the west. Interesting that the conservative foreign policy couldnt produce this…hmm.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 11:32:58"

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe that IAEA inspectors were granted access to Iran in 2003 as a part of the Tehran Declaration. And that access has not been rescinded by the Iranians since that time. If you recall, there was a notorious inspection in 2007 in which El Baradei said that they couldn't find any weapons production going on.

So your implication that Mr. Obama has achieved something with respect to international inspectors that Mr. Bush couldn't is completely wrong.

Additionally, the Iranians have had extensive talks with Western nations for years about their nuclear programme. If you recall your recent history correctly, it was France, Germany and the UK (the EU-3) which sat down with the Iranians in 2003 and ended up with the Paris Agreement of late 2004 in which the Iranians agreed to suspend their enrichment activities. They resumed enrichment in 2005 with the election of Ahmadinejad. The discussions held last week between the Iranians and the US were definitely not the first conversations between the West and Iran over its nuclear programme.

So your implication that Mr Obama has succeeded in getting Iran to discuss its nuclear programme with the West when Mr. Bush failed to do so is also wrong. The Iranians have been talking to the West all along.

Now to my way of thinking, that makes your statement 0 for 2.

A simple google search revealed 468,000 articles on the subject.

LOL What, you typed "liberal traitor" into google and you think that proves something?

Here is just a few since you seem to have selective memory (why does that not surprise me):

Wow. Wow Whats_up. Did you even bother to actually read any of those?

I specifically asked you for examples of liberals being called traitors simply for disagreeing with President Bush and what did you give me? Three examples of liberals being called traitors for things OTHER than simply disagreeing with Bush.

Example the First: World Net Daily

Andy Rooney, the senior resident liberal at "60 Minutes," got on his prime-time TV spot to blame not the terrorists, but America for the 9/11 attacks.

…Katha Pollitt, whose work appears in many left-of-center publications, said shortly after 9/11 that her daughter thought they should fly an American flag out their window. "Definitely not", opined Pollitt. "I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war."

…Actor Harry Belafonte told the world that Bush is at fault because he represents the last two to three decades of "failed U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East" making America "the greatest terrorist" in the history of the world, and Bush the head of a "terrorist regime."

…The "esteemed" New York Times published sensitive government information aimed at foiling terrorist plots – naturally, the entire world got to see those sensitive documents. Including the terrorists.

Simple disagreement, eh?

You fail.

Example the Second: SpeakNowConservatives.org

Liberal Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats on a daily basis attack capitalism and democracy. These liberals are always attempting to promote class envy and hate. They tell you how bad capitalism and those who succeed are. That those who succeed are taking from those who don’t succeed.

No mention of President Bush WHATSOEVER.

You fail twice.

Example the Third: Hennessy's View

The long-term implications of liberalism’s anti-Americanism frightens. As more generations separate our children from World War II–the last war with celebrated heroes–our heroic ideal will become further disordered. Movie stars and singers, athletes and criminals earn more admiration with each passing year. And if that trend doesn’t happen, the media will stop running polls on the subject.

Only speaks metaphorically about the way liberals have "betrayed" the ideals of America by elevating celebrities over our nation's heroes. And yet again, NO MENTION OF PRESIDENT BUSH.

You fail thrice.

How many more do you need mighty?

I'd settle for just one.

<a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57279” target=”_blank”>www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57279

Hey fuckwad, did you actually READ the article?

A simple google search revealed 468,000 articles on the subject.

And you simply cut-and-paste without bothering to read what the articles stated.

Since your IQ is in the single-digit range, let me help you understand the issue. This is from the aforementioned link:

Liberals are traitors – at least the self-conscious ones are. And it is not because they hate Bush or disagree with the Iraq war. Their treason stems from their behavior – from the way they go around telling everyone that they hate Bush and disagree with the war – even to the extent that they sympathize with and give material aid to the enemy.

Andy Rooney, the senior resident liberal at "60 Minutes," got on his prime-time TV spot to blame not the terrorists, but America for the 9/11 attacks.

I guess you agree with Rooney, right? We're to blame and the terrorists are innocent.

The "esteemed" New York Times published sensitive government information aimed at foiling terrorist plots – naturally, the entire world got to see those sensitive documents. Including the terrorists.

I'll have to conclude that you believe that the NY Times did the proper thing by releasing sensitive information.

Now, look up the word "traitor" in the dictionary and get back to us.

When are you going to apologies to all those who questioned Bush and his policies and then were called traitors?

2009-10-05 13:02:21

We've already proven you to be a liar on that issue, AGAIN!

When will you apologize for those lies?

The discussions held last week between the Iranians and the US were definitely not the first conversations between the West and Iran over its nuclear programme.

But it is the first time that The United States has talked with Iran on the issue. So despite Bush, the rest of Europe has been talking, is that a bad thing Martin?

When are you going to apologies to all those who questioned Bush and his policies and then were called traitors?

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 13:02:21

Well, since I never did that, no apology is required.

Both the Left and Right questioned Bush's policies and his direction on the war. A small number of the Left that pushed it further by calling for America to be defeated, cheered dead Americans, and actively gave aid and comfort to our enemies were called traitors. No apology to them either.

Tell me something, whats_up. Where is your condemnation for all those on the Left that claimed that dissent was the highest form of patriotism, yet now want to use the power of the Obama administration to silence that same dissent?

Anything at all?????

But it is the first time that The United States has talked with Iran on the issue. So despite Bush, the rest of Europe has been talking, is that a bad thing Martin?

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 13:08:18

Like a good liberal whats_up is applauding the (apparant) intentions here. But where are the results? A promise to let inspector's in under extremely limited conditions? Hmm, where have we seen that before?

The problem with you whats_up is that you are too ignorant – willfully or not – of the true nature of Iran. Despite Iran's leadership telling us in no uncertain terms what their plan is, you still exercise functional blindness and pretend that Obama will fix everything with words. Obama is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the world. He is a godsend (an Allahsend?) for the Iranians as they will promise to talk and invite meaningless inpections that they can control, and all the while they will continue full speed with their nuclear program. The North Koreans managed this on Clinton's watch and he was by far a better President then Obama could ever hope to be (and yes, I had to wash my hands twice after typing that last part).

Our wet noodle President is allowing the Iranians to build nukes in plain sight. And he knows there are willing idiots like you that will forgive him in the end.

Do you really think it's becoming of the President of the United States to stomp his feet and scream like a ninny at a US Army General for telling the truth about a war?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-10-05 13:04:42

Good thing that Obama has not done that then huh Mike? Why the grandiose and untrue claims?

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-10-05 13:09:53

Not at all, however I was asked to provide examples of conservatives calling liberals "traitors" I have, and yet no condemnation from you King, oh thats right you call people that all the time.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 13:50:52

Ask the USSR and Iraq. Idiot.

Not at all, however I was asked to provide examples of conservatives calling liberals "traitors"

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 13:50:10

No, you were asked to provide examples of people called traitors for simply disagreeing with President Bush. Don;t change the game in the middle just to make yourself look good, whats_up.

It is interesting that the only political party to have people arrested for not agreeing with them is Conservatives, imagine my surprise.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 13:48:38

Care to prove this?

Great so now you are making up stories, unreal.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 13:53:51

What is wrong with you. There have been threats, and laws are being discussed that will accomplish that very end. The fact that it hasen't happened yet doies not mean that it won't, or that the Left isn't trying.

You debate like a child, whats_up!

Conservatives for the last six years and then some have called liberals traitors for not agreeing with their positions on foreign policy.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 13:56:14

That is a lie and the very thing you were asked to prove. And you did not.

At least you admit you lied.

"Who has been arrested for their dissent? Anyone, I thought not."

No, Obama just send thugs to beat them then has the media whip up fantasies about assassination and violence.

Liberals get arrested because their definition of "protest" is rioting, buring cars and buildings, and assaulting police officers.

"So despite Bush, the rest of Europe has been talking, is that a bad thing Martin?"

In truth, my point was to expose the statement that you made as nothing more than an example of partisan cheerleading. Both things that you implied were flat out wrong, and I was just taking the opportunity to correct the misinformation you were busy spreading.

What's even funnier is that in replying to me, you made another mistake. You said "the rest of Europe". You do realise that the last talks with Iran were run by three EU nations only – 3 out of 44 nations. France, Germany and the UK did not claim to speak for the rest of EU, nor for 'the West'.

On a personal level, since you asked, I don't really have any strong feelings about whether the Iranians talk with us or not. For well over twenty years, the Iranians history of 'negotiations' on nuclear programmes has been a story of lies, more lies and outright damnable lies. Whether they're lying to the EU-3, lying to the UN IAEA, or lying to the US matters very little to me – they're still lying and will, in my humble opinion, continue to lie right up until they've set off their first test blast. It is clear to me that the mullahs and the Revolutionary Council decided long ago that a nuclear-armed Iran is their goal, and with the blessing of Islam, they'll lie, cheat and deceive as needed in order to achieve their aims.

Mr. Obama may have started talks, but I'll wait to see some results before I have any reason to rejoice, or even change my mind about the whole topic. I've seen the Iranians make and break promises for long enough that I'm not impressed by some Obama cheerleader telling me that this is clear progress – it's nothing of the sort. It won't be progress until something actually changes for the better. And when you're sitting down with people who'll lie and deceive under the authority of Allah, don't expect things to actually change for the better anytime soon. Remember, the EU-3 got the Iranians to sign an agreement in which they agreed to suspend their enrichment activities. That agreement was informally probably never followed and formally, dissolved about a year later when the Iranians ordered even more centrifuges to step up their enrichment programme.

For extra credit, you might find some interesting reading by googling "al-takeyya" and learning about how Allah (as interpreted by various Islamic leaders over the centuries) condones the use of lies and deception to defeat enemies of Islam. We've witnessed that policy of 'al-takeyya' in action throughout the entire time western nations have been talking with the Iranians about nuclear weapons.

Posted by martinhale

2009-10-05 14:04:02

Martin,

Thanks for your response. Lying about what countries are going to do or not is not unique to Islam or the Middle East. Every country on earth has signed a treaty or pact and then reneged on some part of it. Foreign policy is complex and interesting, neither party really has a very good success record with this.

There have been no "threats", and until a law is actually PASSED nothing has been done. As soon as a law PASSES, get back to me. More paranoia from the right, that is all they seem to have lately. Next they will be telling us that this administration is going to take our guns despite the fact that this is not occuring, oh wait they allready did that.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 14:05:11

Spare me your drival, whats_up. Powerful members of Congress and this Administration are publically stating that people that disagree with this President are dangerous and must be stopped. That is a THREAT, one that they are highly capable of acting on. Of course, you do not see it as anything to worry about BECAUSE YOU AGREE WITH IT.

It was differnet in the Bush Administration. Then, programs designed to intercept terrorist phone calls meant all your civil rights were being taken away. My, how the times have changed, little hypocrite.

NO I wasnt mighty, perhaps you should learn to read.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 14:08:24

"we were called traitors and unamerican for not supporting the President and the Troops.

2009-10-05 11:54:58 "

Do try to keep up, whats_up!

How many examples do you need:

A couple arrested for trespassing and some teachers arrested for refusing to obey safety regulations? Yeah, that's pretty scary stuff you got there. I'm looking for something issued by the DHS labeling all Liberals dangerous subversives, the same way Obama's DHS labeled Conservatives and members of the military. Got something like that?

So, when whats_up gets completely pwned on the issue of whether the Obama administration has accomplished anything beyond what the Bush administration had already accomplished years ago, it immediately tries to finagle its way out of the subject. Now that's funny!!!

That's what happens to an idiot suffering from terminal hate.

then again you were the one that claimed that you wouldnt post here again, liar.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 12:45:00

No, that wasn't me. So lets see your proof. Again, you are mistaken. And yes, you formerly posted under crthns. And you have multiple user names. Anything else you need to know?

Conservatives for the last six years and then some have called liberals traitors for not agreeing with their positions on foreign policy. Typical arrogance from conservatives, thinking that only their viewpoint matters, no wonder you are acting like spoiled little children.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 13:56:14

Some proof would be nice.

Some proof would be nice.

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-10-05 15:05:59

Allready provided, but since you have a reading problem scroll up.

Nixon, you do know the name of Ann Coulter's book?

The congresswoman who said Congresspeople should be investigated for unAmerican activities?

The congressman who at the modest 9/12 rally said we (as in people who support a public option for health insurance) "hated freedom"?

When Sarah Palin implied that rural Americans are the only "real Americans"?

When numerous conservo-bloggers outright called us traitors for disagreeing with a war policy that changed in 2006?

When Cheney criticized a timed withdrawal of Iraq troops, which is the SOFA that his admin agreed to before Obama was even in office?

The numerous Republicans that used the code-words "giving comfort to the enemy", a clear implication of treason?

Gimme a break. That's just off the top of my head. You want me to keep going?

Gimme a break. That's just off the top of my head. You want me to keep going?

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-05 15:15:07

What you claim and what you typed were two different things.

Allready provided, but since you have a reading problem scroll up.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-05 15:09:41

You did not provide the proof you were asked for, but went off on a tangent.

Hardly suprising, coming from you whats_up!

And Baud, you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to asking someone for proof of anything. You never provide any proof of anything you say, but you expect to get something back. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

"The right has no moral standing in calling out anyone's patriotism."

You're right. We can't call out something that doesn't exist.

"Lying about what countries are going to do or not is not unique to Islam or the Middle East."

Yep, that's true. Look at the lies that passed for diplomacy between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR prior to and into WWII. What, for me, distinguishes Islam from the pack, however, is that the lying and deceit within Islam are institutionalised and sold as being sanctioned by Allah, as opposed to being pathological and confined to the leader(s) of the nation. This means that it has become a cultural phenomenon about which we need to worry, not just the actions of a lone-wolf tinpot satrap or two. I think most nations and people in the world knew that Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, or Nikita Krushchev were lying sacks of sh*t, but none of those bottom-feeders were turning around and telling their citizens – "look, I know I told those fools a whopper, but you all know that God/Allah/The Great White Light of Stupidity says it's all good."

But in any case, I think a good general rule of thumb about international relations is to assume that the other side is lying and always have a safe fallback position laid out, just to be sure.

then again you were the one that claimed that you wouldnt post here again, liar.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 12:45:00

No, that wasn't me. So lets see your proof. Again, you are mistaken. And yes, you formerly posted under crthns. And you have multiple user names. Anything else you need to know?

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-10-05 15:03:48

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-10-05 15:16:58

Typical that you dont hold your side accountable when it does things like this. – crthns

Nice to see that log still sticking out of your eye.

Martinhale and Mike_M,

Hats off to you gentlemen. Your posts are well said, researched and reasoned. All I've seen from those on the Left here is "Oh yeah? Well your side has no room to talk! You're a bunch of whiners!" but no reasoned response. This is my typical experience watching Leftists "debate."

And as for the "now you're scaring the soldiers" talk, the American soldier is by and large made of sterner stuff and believe it or not has the ability to think for himself. That's probably why the majority voted against Obama.

By the way, the understanding that a number of countries in the world, in particular, enemies of the USA, do in fact LIE and therefore cannot be trusted, is precisely one of the reasons that conservatives are less than sanguine on the endless "dialogue" and "talks" that seem to be the hallmark of modern diplomacy.

And as for the "now you're scaring the soldiers" talk, the American soldier is by and large made of sterner stuff and believe it or not has the ability to think for himself.

Thank goodness they do. Otherwise, they may be convinced that Obama is not their commander and they would lay down their weapons.

<blockqoteThank goodness they do. Otherwise, they may be convinced that Obama is not their commander and they would lay down their weapons.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-05 16:54:10

this was the comment I was alluding to…

"Is President Obama a traitor to this country?"

Not at the present time, he's not.

But overall, I'm not sure that this is the question to ask. By that I mean that while foreign affairs are important, the real issues and work that face this president are domestic in nature and therefore his responces to date are more difficult to assess vis a vis his degree of patriotism.

I think a more germane question would be:

"Will Mr. Obama's policies result in negative consequences for the nation as a whole if they are enacted?"

Once you've answered that question, then you can turn your attention to the issue of patriotism.

Now questioning the President is okay, when before it wasnt. Why do you think that is Mike?

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-05 12:23:36

Because the general wasn't. He was at a security conference discussing security issues. He didn't get on television and run his mouth like liberals do every time there is a camera pointed in their general direction. He was asked a question and he gave an honest response.

Do you guys have any ability to think rationally?

I think a more germane question would be:

I disagree, martin. Because any opposition party would say yes to that question.

The question of patriotism is a lot deeper and fundamental. If you think the President of the U.S.A. is not a patriot, then the whole issues of respect and loyalty go out the window.

Like I said, jasamc. It's a simple question. Don't be afraid to answer it honestly.

Don't cop-out like a little bitch, Baud.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-05 17:14:50

Obama has done nothing that would fit any definition of a traitor. That is said with the caveat that his presidency is not yet over.

Now, are you going to grow a spine and prove that Ken Gladney was faking his injuries as you have repeatedly claimed?

Just seems like a change in topic to avoid the previous discussion.

Posted by Major_O 2009-10-05 17:29:55

Liberals like D-Vega and whats_up either run away when confronted or try to change the subject. It is all you can expect for people so bereft of ideals and intelligence.

Oh and people who I am convinced are traitors?

John Kerry – because of his Winter Soldier activities

Ted Kennedy – because of his attempt to work with the Soviets against Pres Reagan

Jane Fonda – because of her Vietnam protest turned active assistance

Bill Clinton – IF he was involved in the transfer of defense technology to China during his admin

New York Times – for their regular "leaks" of important national security programs

To name a few…

Is President Obama a traitor to this country?

Simple question, really. Let's see who really has some balls on this site.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-05 16:51:55

NO, is that simple enough for Vega?

A disaster? Yes! A socialist? Yes! But so far nothing that nails down traitor, yet.

I disagree, martin. Because any opposition party would say yes to that question.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-05 17:20:04

But the question isn't just for the opposition to anwer, Vega, it's for the whole country to answer. And it's still a more germane question that Mr. Obama's degree of patriotism.

a campaign to delegitimize the current President.

And Baud, you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to asking someone for proof of anything. You never provide any proof of anything you say, but you expect to get something back. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-05 15:35:08

Got that proof that Ken Gladney was faking his injuries, as you repeatedly claimed? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

So, what were you saying about providing proof, D-Vega?

You are correct, Major, only when you say "convinced" of treason. Because the main fundamental of treason is intent, not whether you believe it harmed American interests, but if that was the goal.

If it's only "harm" as defined by whomever, usually those who hold the power, then Dick Cheney would be guilty of treason. As he is undermining American policy, as authorized by the present Commander in Chief, by his continuous, Cher-like, Torture Media Tour.

Your psuedo-machismo is boring. I gave you proof on the first thread, second thread, and third thread when you kept bringing this up.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 09:45:52

More bullshit from the coward.

All you have ever said was that Gladney was obviously faking his injuries. No proof, only conjecture and your patented "Because I said so" excuses.

Sorry, D-Vega, but until you can be bothered to back up your statements, don't demand it from others.

Run away again, 'little bitch'.

Like I said, all you do is bitch & whine, and never ever have the nads to even post a link or citiation. Amateur.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 10:05:39

Projecting your debate style on others is a sign of a weak and deluded mind, D-Vega. But what else would I expect from a classless ass like you. Your lies and deceptions are as large as your ego.

Either run away again or try posting on a current thread.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-06 13:05:26

…as if I care what you think about anything.

Now run away with D-Vega. I know how close you two are!

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-06 13:24:59

After your conduct yesterday with denying you said what was clearly posted, you calling me a liar has a very hollow and impotent ring to it.

Tell D-Vega I said HI!

Point proven.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 13:55:29

Thank you.

Although proving what a duplicious liar and classless ass you are is not very difficult. After all, you do most of the work for me!

Point proven.

Yes, TheBaud's point was proven. Thank you for acknowledging it.

No, it wasn't Sam. Don't be silly.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 16:16:16

I see you are adding a new facet, D-Vega. For a long time, it has been…

1 – Demand of others what you refuse to provide yourself.

2 – Ignore requests for proof and run away when confronted.

Now we get…

3 – Lie and claim to have already provided proof.

Here's the part I don't get, D-Vega. You are held up by some on this board as a shining example of Liberal thought. Yet you whine about everything and everyone, you have been caught in more lies than I care to count, and when you are confronted you run away. THEN you have the audacity to return to day-old threads (OR DAYS-OLD) to continue your childish rants against people you think are no longer there, in an infantile attempt to get the last word in.

If you are what passes for Liberal thought these days, then Conservatives have nothing to fear.

Again, a lot of posturing from The Baud, but nothing of substance.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 16:42:14

When you can provide proof of the things you claim, then you can lecture me.

Until then, GFY!

If you are seriously looking for supporting proof, then ask for it and accept it or counter it. Don't ignore it and then say it never happened. It makes you look like a pompous ass.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 17:03:11

I haven't ignored anything D-Vega. For me to ignore proof would mean you ever provided any, which you have not.

I asked you to prove your claim that Ken Gladney was faking his injuries. You claimed it was obvious. I asked for real proof and you ran away REPEATEDLY.

You are obviously unable to back up your statement, so you deflect by demanding of others that which you cannot provide yourself.

Again, you have proven to everyone here who the true 'Little Bitch' is.

I'll await your response, Baud. And if you dodge my post, I will paste and link this thread everytime you try to address me on any thread.

It's time to put up or shut up.

I'll await your response, Baud. And if you dodge my post, I will paste and link this thread everytime you try to address me on any thread.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 17:38:45

What an asshole you are. You run away and leave for hours, and then lecture me about no responding to you.

Fuck you very much, D-Vega! And your juvenile threats too!

You have not provided any proof of what you saw, but you have the nerve to question mine. What a moron.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-06 17:53:00

So when you said you would except opinion from me, you were lying about that. Even though all you offer as proof is your opinion. "Refutation is the only thing I'll accept. I would even accept an opinion."

The only difference in the two opinions being that you have zero medical training and I have a small amount.

So I refuted your arguments and offered my own opinion, and you lash out further. And you are questioning my skill and integrity?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Now you're onto scaring soldiers with paranoia, too?

That's just grand.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-05 13:43:15

I have a relative who served in Iraq and is now in Afghanistan. He has told family back home that they are not getting what they need there.

Is that scary? Maybe frustrating? How about betraying?