DanG

He didn't just quote someone else. He implied that he agreed by saying the situation in the US is the same as in SA. I'm not surprised that you don't realize that isn't another note at all. It's the exact same note. The OP didn't write the thread title, it was the title of the video. He was just quoting someone else. But he doesn't get a free pass from you because the offensive language is about Christians. Would it be appropriate for me to tell you to lighten the hell up, dude? - Dan G

When someone refers to a politician running an honorable campaign, they are talking about avoiding negative ads, avoiding lying or muckraking about their opponent, and keping the tone civil and polite. They are not talking about making promises that you fail to keep. That's a different discussion. Of course, you knew that, but you wanted to talk about something else. Again, that's fine, but it's not what we were talking about. - Dan G

I don't care. All of the translations are just that, translations. Maybe some are better than others, I'm not a linguist. It does annoy me, however, when someone grabs onto a specific English word or turn of phrase and base their argument for what is right and wrong on the English meaning. I also don't believe in God, so the words in the Bible don't have any mystical power over me. I think Jesus's teachings can have great value, but I'm constantly dismayed that many of the people who profess the strongest love for him seem to be the worst at following his advice. - Dan G

The discussion at hand was about running an honorable campaign. You decided to jump into it. Now you want to talk about failed campaign promises. That's fine, but don't try to pretend that you were being responsive to my question about the honorable campaign topic. - Dan G

Do you honestly not see that refering to other people as animals because of their skin color is extremely offensive? - Dan G

That's not what he meant, and you know it. And I assume by "lied" you mean that he made campaign promises that he failed to keep. If that's the standard, then McCain probably didn't run an honorable campaign either. - Dan G

I don't recall that at all. I do recall McCain running an honorable campaign, but what did Obama do that wasn't honorable? - Dan G

So what you're saying is that you likely caused the death of multiple skydiving students because you were too busy giving secrets to the commies to properly supervise them? - Dan G

Why are sorry about that? I'm sure they all served honorably. I didn't say he bent to Republican pressure. I said the Republicans, too, wanted and end to the war. They pushed for a withdrawal date. Obama probably wanted a clear end, too, but at least he focused resources there as soon as he could. Is this any different than it has been in the past? Winning hearts and minds was always a central tenet to this war. ROE was tightened because civiliancasualties were getting high, and people were blaming the Coalition. There were also some high profile fuck-ups. That's what critics do, they criticize. If they were severely reprimanded, then that goes directly against your argument that pussification was coming from the top down. In your Obama-hates-the-troops world, they would have received medals. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Obama doesn't have his little fingers in every order. He's not Dr. Evil. Sure they do, but they deserve to know the truth, not a line of shity from one of your right-wing extremist websites. How much time have you spent in Afghanistan? - Dan G

By whom? - Dan G

Well, since you "know" me, then you can't say all the veterans you know felt that way. I wouldn't have announced a withdrawal date, but the Republicans insisted on it, so what was he to do. No resentment of them from you? I didn't experience any change in ROE, but I left in 2005, before Obama came to office. The only ROE change I remember hearing about was limiting the use of air power. I never heard any ROE that said soldier had to be unarmed when working out because having weapons would offend Afghans. In fact, that wouldn't even be covered under ROE, but you (and Col. West)probably knew that. I did get to vote. I don't know if my vote was counted, but everyone on my team got an absentee ballot and we sent them back. If they didn't make it in time it certainly was the military's fault, since transporting them out of theater was the military's responsibility. Sure, if you call being "out of there" having thousands of troops on dozens of permenent military installations in Europe and Asia. Reagan had cruise missles, which are just single use drones. It was the same strategy, but drones are much more effective. But you knew that, too. - Dan G

In was in Afghanistan in 2002/3 and 2004/5. There were about 12,000 US troops in country back then. Calling a force of 30,000 "left behind" doesn't resonate with me. I think we needed to give Afghanistan more attention and resources from the get-go. My job was hearts and minds. We never had the resources to do it right, and now we'll leave with the job half done. I know you'll blame Obama, because that's what you do, but it's a lot more complicated than that. The finger also needs to be pointed at the anti-Obama crowd, who criticized him for pouring more men and money in, even though they lauded Bush for doing the same in Iraq. The Republicans in Congress are skewing isolationist thanks to the Tea Party. The American people put "Support the Troops" bumper stickers on their cars, but never felt any pain from the war, so they just don't care. It's sad, but we'll end up fucking Afghanistan just like we did after the Soviet withdrawal. - Dan G

Or, you know, he could send his boy in to kill some guys. Who was left behind? What are talking about "Vietnam movies"? - Dan G

Have you? How much contact with young people do you actually have in your Georgia mountain enclave? - Dan G

Well, he screwed up. For whatever reason, his commander then gave him a bad OER. We don't know the whole story, maybe he was a shitty officer. Grow up. - Dan G

I wasn't there at the time of this shooting. I did, however, serve two tours in Afghanistan, including one in Helmand. The very idea that the Marines were unarmed because carrying weapons would offend the Afghans is laughable. The side note about the police commander's butt boy is just there to inflame. Did that sort of thing happen? Sure, but it's not nearly as common as the media would have you believe. As far as the retired Marine getting in trouble for sending a classified document over the SIPRNET, damn right he should get in trouble. What was he doing with classified documents in the first place? If he needed to warn someone about this guy, there are channels to do that. And Allen West is a moron in part because of his politics, but not entirely. He's just a moron in general, too. - Dan G

There is so much BS in that story I don't even know where to begin. I'm not really sure what the point of it is, either. Allen West is a moron. - Dan G

If you want to stomp your feet and throw a tantrum like a little child, who am I to stop you? Of course, you come off like a total fool, but if that's what you're going for, have at it. - Dan G

I'm going to assume some typos in the above. I think you meant, "if you have something, the government can make you buy more things whether you want to or not." Yes, in a limited sense. If you have something that will require your neighbors to suffer some harm, then the government can make you shoulder some of the burden of that harm. So if you have a coal smokestack, the government can make you buy a scrubber for it. On the other hand, if you have something that you use and enjoy and it doesn't impact society, then of course the government has no interest in regulating it. I just thought of an interesting parallel. Many conservatives (and some liberals, too) argue that the government has the right to regulate what drugs you put into your body in the privacy of your own home. Their argument is that drug users are a burden to society through crime, lost work, sickness, etc. How is that any different from the argument that the government can regulate health insurance because people without it are a burden to society? - Dan G

I didn't mean that they could give them money to cover premiums. They can give their employees HSA money to supplement the non-copliant insurance that they think offends their religion. - Dan G

Actually, they could. They could give them money as a contribution to an HSA, which is pre-tax. - Dan G

No, but you wrote the stupid fucking thread title, didn't you? - Dan G

Um, you realize Mandela was black, and the person making the claim of racism was talking about him, not Obama, right? - Dan G

Yeah, sure. If you don't meet a government requirement, there is usually some penalty. Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with religion. It's purely political. - Dan G

Ah, the old prediction masquerading as fact. How long do we have to wait before we can call your prediction unfulfilled? - Dan G