Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, without knowing the facts you believe Obama should back the 3 and not the Navy's Judicial branch? Of which he's also CinC?
This isn't war, it's just another lame NeoConfused Obama bash, facts optional and discouraged.
Yup. After 8 years of bush bashing without the facts, gosh darn it, this feels good!. Seriously, obama comes across to me as totally aloof towards support of the military. I think the war goes against his liberal ideology anyhow. He pays more attention to the Cambridge police.
So, without knowing the facts you believe Obama should back the 3 and not the Navy's Judicial branch? Of which he's also CinC?
So, without knowing the facts, you in your own mind convict these seals? No concept of a fair trial? No concept of hearing evidence? You can't have it both ways, you know. Or is it just anti-military spewing? Typical liberal.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,368,826 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBelle3
Yup. After 8 years of bush bashing without the facts, gosh darn it, this feels good!. Seriously, obama comes across to me as totally aloof towards support of the military. I think the war goes against his liberal ideology anyhow. He pays more attention to the Cambridge police.
No, most Bush bashing was based on facts. View the PBS documentary Bush's War and factually refute at least 50% of its contentions, then you can claim Bush bashing without fact.
So, in your mind if Obama supports the entire Judicial branch of the Navy rather than 3 individuals he's being aloof towards the military?
Have anything factual to support that contention or shall we just leave it scored as a baseless, lame ObamaBash?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,368,826 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predos
So, without knowing the facts, you in your own mind convict these seals? No concept of a fair trial? No concept of hearing evidence? You can't have it both ways, you know. Or is it just anti-military spewing? Typical liberal.
WHERE did I ever claim anything about their guilt or innocence? What I said, IF you'd take the trouble to read AND understand, was that NO evidence was presented in that linked article to judge the case either way which made the OP just another lame NeoConfused ObamaBash.
Typical NeoConfused shoot from the lip blather, facts optional and discouraged
This is a war, not a game. What is obama doing to back up these guys as commander in chief. This will really show what a ***** he is. We need to support our military and all they do to get up safe from terrorist.
The defense of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials was that they were, "just following orders."
Quote:
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.
WHERE did I ever claim anything about their guilt or innocence? What I said, IF you'd take the trouble to read AND understand, was that NO evidence was presented in that linked article to judge the case either way which made the OP just another lame NeoConfused ObamaBash.
Typical NeoConfused shoot from the lip blather, facts optional and discouraged
No, your implication was that the facts would convict these men and if others don't realize it, they are "neoconfused".
You mention a lack of "facts" in the OP, yet you supply no facts and seem to make a judgement. How omnipotent of you.
Btw, where is Obowma mentioned in the discussion, except by you? Another liberal attempt to deflect the stream of the conversation? You brought up Obowma, for no apparent reason. Another typical liberal tactic.
If you could read and comprehend, perhaps you would temper your attacks just a bit. Of course, since you feel yourself to always be correct, that will never happen.
No, your implication was that the facts would convict these men and if others don't realize it, they are "neoconfused".
You mention a lack of "facts" in the OP, yet you supply no facts and seem to make a judgement. How omnipotent of you.
Btw, where is Obowma mentioned in the discussion, except by you? Another liberal attempt to deflect the stream of the conversation? You brought up Obowma, for no apparent reason. Another typical liberal tactic.
If you could read and comprehend, perhaps you would temper your attacks just a bit. Of course, since you feel yourself to always be correct, that will never happen.
Obama was brought up in the OP. Guess you should listen to your advice (bolded)
From the original post: "What is obama doing to back up these guys as commander in chief. This will really show what a ***** he is".
This is a military issue, period.And they will handle it. (unless you now don't support (or trust) the military to do their job)
well, without knowing the facts pbo sure as heck called that cop stupid.
so how do you feel about the facts now?
What does this have to do with the topic? Deflection that is what.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
