Score another one for the good guys

[kallend 2,182]

www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-forces-rescue-kidnapped-aid-workers-jessica-buchanan-and-poul-hagen-thisted-in-somalia/2012/01/25/gIQA7WopPQ_story.html?wprss=

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[matthewcline 0]

Yes, they did great job again!

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Great job.

Much better use of SEAL teams than murdering American citizens.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Much better use of SEAL teams than murdering American citizens.

When were SEAL teams used to murder American citizens?

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

As far as I know, they haven't been used for this pupose, YET. Although I doubt if we would know if they have or will be.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

As far as I know, they haven't been used for this pupose, YET. Although I doubt if we would know if they have or will be.

Well, then why .... never mind.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Much better use of SEAL teams than murdering American citizens.

When were SEAL teams used to murder American citizens?

why would they? In the US congressmen can have "plane accidents" or "strokes" at the president's command.


Just kidding, but thought I'd throw in one from each political party anyway to get the nanothermite people contributing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Much better use of SEAL teams than murdering American citizens.

When were SEAL teams used to murder American citizens?

why would they? In the US congressmen can have "plane accidents" or "strokes" at the president's command.


Just kidding, but thought I'd throw in one from each political party anyway to get the nanothermite people contributing

Jesse Ventura has already told us 911 was an inside job.

[lurch 0]

Well, whatddya know. The military actually being used for actual defense of American citizens for a change. Got in, killed the bad guys, got our people safe and got out. Now thats national defense I can get behind and applaud.

And for once I think maybe our gov't is telling the truth on this one too.

Good job gentlemen, and thank you.

Betcha the Somalis were pissed... "we were gonna sell her for ten million!"

Don't, kidnap, people.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

As far as I know, they haven't been used for this pupose, YET. Although I doubt if we would know if they have or will be.

Well, then why .... never mind.

Let's see, they were kidnapped last October and shazaam, they were rescued right before the SOTU Campaign Speech. Coincidence? Naw!!!

[winsor 236]

Quote

Much better use of SEAL teams than murdering American citizens.

When were SEAL teams used to murder American citizens?

[DanG 1]

Upon reflection, I see your point. This is certainly a better use of Navy SEALs than strangling orphans with fresh puppy guts.

Which we all know is what Obama wants to use them for.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Upon reflection, I see your point. This is certainly a better use of Navy SEALs than strangling orphans with fresh puppy guts.

Which we all know is what Obama wants to use them for.

Well, it's good that you see the parity.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Well, it's good that you see the parity.

What I see is you using any and all excuses to get a cheap dig at the President. It's pathetic.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, it's good that you see the parity.

What I see is you using any and all excuses to get a cheap dig at the President. It's pathetic.

What's pathetic is people who defend and shield those who toss the U.S. Constitution in the trash in order to defend the indefensible. In fact, I'd say those type of actions are beyond pathetic. Thy border on collusion.

[billvon 3,132]

>What's pathetic is people who defend and shield those who toss the U.S.
>Constitution in the trash in order to defend the indefensible.

In other words, republicans circa 2001-2009.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>What's pathetic is people who defend and shield those who toss the U.S.
>Constitution in the trash in order to defend the indefensible.

In other words, republicans circa 2001-2009.

Why stop and start there?

[billvon 3,132]

>Why stop and start there?

Because in 2001, the 9/11 attacks gave the republicans carte blanche to toss the US Constitution in the trash. One need only read this forum to read the impassioned GOP defenses of everything Bush was doing, and how anyone who opposed such violations was "emboldening the terrorists."

In 2009, republicans finally realized they were no longer in power, and became very offended - outraged even! - when they realized that democrats were doing the same thing. Both parties switched sides on the debate quite neatly.

Does that mean that the republicans are "emboldening the terrorists" now?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

>What's pathetic is people who defend and shield those who toss the U.S.
>Constitution in the trash in order to defend the indefensible.

In other words, republicans circa 2001-2009.

Why stop and start there?

To try and equate something Bush did as being equivalent to Obama's drone strike on Awlaki?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Why stop and start there?

Because in 2001, the 9/11 attacks gave the republicans carte blanche to toss the US Constitution in the trash. One need only read this forum to read the impassioned GOP defenses of everything Bush was doing, and how anyone who opposed such violations was "emboldening the terrorists."

In 2009, republicans finally realized they were no longer in power, and became very offended - outraged even! - when they realized that democrats were doing the same thing. Both parties switched sides on the debate quite neatly.

Does that mean that the republicans are "emboldening the terrorists" now?

And the same Democrats that *howled* over Patriot have not a peep to say about Obama's continuation of it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Why stop and start there?

Because in 2001, the 9/11 attacks gave the republicans carte blanche to toss the US Constitution in the trash. One need only read this forum to read the impassioned GOP defenses of everything Bush was doing, and how anyone who opposed such violations was "emboldening the terrorists."

In 2009, republicans finally realized they were no longer in power, and became very offended - outraged even! - when they realized that democrats were doing the same thing. Both parties switched sides on the debate quite neatly.

Does that mean that the republicans are "emboldening the terrorists" now?

Still got BDS, I see.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What's pathetic is people who defend and shield those who toss the U.S.
>Constitution in the trash in order to defend the indefensible.

In other words, republicans circa 2001-2009.

Why stop and start there?

To try and equate something Bush did as being equivalent to Obama's drone strike on Awlaki?

Reminds me of someone with Tourettes Syndrome. Right in the middle of a discussion about Obama, thet can't help but spit out "Bush was worse".

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What's pathetic is people who defend and shield those who toss the U.S.
>Constitution in the trash in order to defend the indefensible.

In other words, republicans circa 2001-2009.

Why stop and start there?

To try and equate something Bush did as being equivalent to Obama's drone strike on Awlaki?

Reminds me of someone with Tourettes Syndrome. Right in the middle of a discussion about Obama, thet can't help but spit out "Bush was worse".

Surely you mean "CDIF" whenever GWB was criticized.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What's pathetic is people who defend and shield those who toss the U.S.
>Constitution in the trash in order to defend the indefensible.

In other words, republicans circa 2001-2009.

Why stop and start there?

To try and equate something Bush did as being equivalent to Obama's drone strike on Awlaki?

Reminds me of someone with Tourettes Syndrome. Right in the middle of a discussion about Obama, thet can't help but spit out "Bush was worse".

Surely you mean "CDIF" whenever GWB was criticized.

And in this case, Bush *didn't* do it first.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706