Obama's Patriotism Speech

Originally posted by Dronetek

I see this all the time and I categorically dismiss it. The way I remember it is democrats were pissed off little children after the 2001 election.

What 2001 election? You mean Gore/Bush? That was 2000. Cheer up, you're only a whole year off.

Originally posted by Dronetek9/11 happens and the whole country is patriotic for a little while. Soon after though, America begins to split as democrats demonize Bush and the Republicans.

Your memory is faulty. There was no demonizing of Bush and the Republicans until the War on Terror turned into the Iraq War. It was in 2003 that the lead up to the invasion of Iraq split the country... that was a full 2 years after 911.

Originally posted by Dronetek The fact is Democrats paint themselves that way. They do it by calling Marines cold blooded killers and repeating talking points of our enemies.

Let me know when the shuttle lands, Francis. Democrats most certainly DO NOT call Marines cold blooded killers. In fact, the majority of Iraq War vets who have come back and run for office, run as Democrats. 'Splain me that one? I have yet to hear a Democrat declare Jihad on America, or say "Death to America" or claim that the US is a Zionist tool for world domination. What 'enemy' talking points do you mean?

I think it's safe to say I categorically dismiss your post, too.

Originally posted by SKMDC1


Let me know when the shuttle lands, Francis. Democrats most certainly DO NOT call Marines cold blooded killers. In fact, the majority of Iraq War vets who have come back and run for office, run as Democrats. 'Splain me that one? I have yet to hear a Democrat declare Jihad on America, or say "Death to America" or claim that the US is a Zionist tool for world domination. What 'enemy' talking points do you mean?

I think it's safe to say I categorically dismiss your post, too.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]

So John Murtha and some whackos standing in front of a recruitment office now represent the entire Democratic Party?

FWIW, I think Murtha has a right to say whatever he wants about the military. The man has two purple hearts for god sakes, I think he's earned his crankiness.

Using your logic however, I can say Republicans kill Abortion Doctors.

Well, this is certainly getting pretty far off topic related to Obama's speech, but -

US Marines are in fact "cold-blooded killers". That is their job. And they are very good at it, and I say to them for it.

cold-blooded




Main Entry: cold–blood·ed
Pronunciation:
Function: adjective
Date: 1595
1 a: done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency b: matter-of-fact, emotionless
2: having cold blood; specifically : having a body temperature not internally regulated but approximating that of the environment
3or cold·blood \-ˈbləd\ : of mixed or inferior breeding
4: noticeably sensitive to cold

Source

A particular Marine who was not "cold blooded" would be less effective at their job, and likely to not survive very long.

Whether a Marine cold-bloodedly kills the right or wrong person is a completely different topic.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
So John Murtha and some whackos standing in front of a recruitment office now represent the entire Democratic Party?

FWIW, I think Murtha has a right to say whatever he wants about the military. The man has two purple hearts for god sakes, I think he's earned his crankiness.

Using your logic however, I can say Republicans kill Abortion Doctors.

So, by your own logic all the crap slung at the "swiftboat veterans" by the media was wrong?

It wasn't only Murtha either. From Harry Ried and his smirking laugh to a question of he believed General Peterus. To Obama and other Democrat's support of the "General Betrayus" ad, put out by moveon.org and the NYT. Or how about Kerry and his comment about soldiers being dumb?

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Well, this is certainly getting pretty far off topic related to Obama's speech, but -

US Marines are in fact "cold-blooded killers". That is their job. And they are very good at it, and I say

to them for it.

cold-blooded




Main Entry: cold–blood·ed
Pronunciation:
Function: adjective
Date: 1595
1 a: done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency b: matter-of-fact, emotionless
2: having cold blood; specifically : having a body temperature not internally regulated but approximating that of the environment
3or cold·blood \-ˈbləd\ : of mixed or inferior breeding
4: noticeably sensitive to cold

Source

A particular Marine who was not "cold blooded" would be less effective at their job, and likely to not survive very long.

Whether a Marine cold-bloodedly kills the right or wrong person is a completely different topic.

You do realize he was talking about the Haditha Marines before they wer even investigated and tried? You know, the ones that were cleared of any wrong doing?

Man, you guys are all about polishing turds.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by Dronetek

So, by your own logic all the crap slung at the "swiftboat veterans" by the media was wrong?

Huh? Not following you there.

Originally posted by DronetekIt wasn't only Murtha either. From Harry Ried and his smirking laugh to a question of he believed General Peterus. To Obama and other Democrat's support of the "General Betrayus" ad, put out by moveon.org and the NYT. Or how about Kerry and his comment about soldiers being dumb?

WOW. You bring up 3 things, 2 of them are completely wrong and the other is a subjective judgment about someone's "smirk." That's pretty weak sauce.

1. Neither Obama nor other Democrats "supported" the MoveOn.org ad, they simply refused to use floor time on the Senate to go out of their way to "reject" a silly newspaper ad. There's a big difference there.

2. Kerry never said the soldiers were dumb. You might be talking about this:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Which, in the context of what he was saying, it was clear he was talking about President Bush getting stuck in Iraq, not the soldiers. In other words, if you cut corners, snort coke, and rely on Daddy to get you through life then you'll end up making stupid decisions like getting the country stuck in Iraq. You know that's what he meant. Everyone knows that's what he meant, so why continue to embarrass yourself? It's like the tired old "Gore invented the internet" meme. It's become a red flag for someone who has no interest in a real discussion about anything and is only looking for vacuous "sound byte" arguments that are absolutely meaningless and evaporate under the most casual research...

...Of course you also thought the 2000 Presidential election was in 2001, and that the Iraq War happened "soon after" 9/11... Maybe that's why you're suddenly so obsessed with John Kerry, in your truncated chronology of modern events, it's probably about time for the 2004 election.

Which, in the context of what he was saying, it was clear he was talking about President Bush getting stuck in Iraq, not the soldiers. In other words, if you cut corners, snort coke, and rely on Daddy to get you through life then you'll end up making stupid decisions like getting the country stuck in Iraq.

You know Obama admitted to doing lots of coke, right?

You know that's what he meant. Everyone knows that's what he meant

Clearly, that's not the case. You're just telling me what you wanted him to mean. Thats not what he said at all. As a former airman, I took offense to it and so did lots of other servicemen. Hence the picture.

...Of course you also thought the 2000 Presidential election was in 2001, and that the Iraq War happened "soon after" 9/11... Maybe that's why you're suddenly so obsessed with John Kerry, in your truncated chronology of modern events, it's probably about time for the 2004 election.

It was a simple typo. I have a very sound understanding of the last decades run up to war in Iraq. I'm quite aware of when the war started and how we got there.


1990- war stars
1991- war ends based on conditions
1992- Al Gore attacks Bush 41 for not taking out Saddam
1993- Saddam calls for halt to inspections for 1st time
1994/1995 - Pretty much same thing over and over again/constant threats of war from Clinton because of inspections and no-fly zone attacks
1998- almost go to war again, Iraqi liberation act, Kerry letter to Clinton asking for war in iraq, signed by democrats and some republicans.
2000- bush elected
2001- 3,000 people die from AQ terrorist attacks - invade afghanistan
2003- Iraq war starts, based on same premise as in 1998 (except stakes are higher)




[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by Dronetek
You know Obama admitted to doing lots of coke, right?

You have an interesting habit of completely ignoring any points anyone brings up and picking one sentence, or in this case one word, that someone uses and responding only to that. It leads one to assume you're conceding all the other points. So, thanks for changing your mind and agreeing I'm right on everything other than the "snorting coke" bit. I'll take that as a victory. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Dronetek
Clearly, that's not the case. You're just telling me what you wanted him to mean. Thats not what he said at all. As a former airman, I took offense to it and so did lots of other servicemen. Hence the picture.

I know that's exactly what he meant. If you took offense then you should lighten the frak up and stop being such a whinny little political correctness nazi. Be a man, airman.

Originally posted by Dronetek.
It was a simple typo. I have a very sound understanding of the last decades run up to war in Iraq. I'm quite aware of when the war started and how we got there.

Obviously not. Your simple "typo" was the crux of your argument that the Democrats were still fresh from the wounds of Gore loss after 9/11. That's simply not the case because it was a year later. In that case saying 2001 made your argument seem to make sense, but in reality it was 2000 so you had no argument whatsoever. Then you go on to say the country became divided over the war right after 9/11... Which again is way off. It wasn't until Iraq in 2003 that the country was divided. So, no, from all indications of you getting MAJOR events entirely wrong, I'm afraid you most certainly DO NOT have a "sound understanding" of the last decade's run up to war in Iraq.

Obviously not. Your simple "typo" was the crux of your argument that the Democrats were still fresh from the wounds of Gore loss after 9/11. That's simply not the case because it was a year later. In that case saying 2001 made your argument seem to make sense, but in reality it was 2000 so you had no argument whatsoever. Then you go on to say the country became divided over the war right after 9/11... Which again is way off. It wasn't until Iraq in 2003 that the country was divided. So, no, from all indications of you getting MAJOR events entirely wrong, I'm afraid you most certainly DO NOT have a "sound understanding" of the last decade's run up to war in Iraq.

You lost me at "crux of my argument". Stop being so childish. I obviously meant the 2000 election since that's when it was. The year isn't anywhere near the "crux" of the argument, since there is still animosity today about he election. Watching a few hours of Olberman or Mathews will bear that fact out.




[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by Dronetek
2000- bush elected
2001- 3,000 people die from AQ terrorist attacks - invade afghanistan
2003- Iraq war starts, based on same premise as in 1998 (except stakes are higher

I'm glad you learned something from this thread. You're welcome.

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by Dronetek
2000- bush elected
2001- 3,000 people die from AQ terrorist attacks - invade afghanistan
2003- Iraq war starts, based on same premise as in 1998 (except stakes are higher

I'm glad you learned something from this thread. You're welcome.

You're nothing but a troll.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]