View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Bergdahl and Obama deserve the same cell

Posted: June 9, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 9, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Regarding Bowe Bergdahl’s release in exchange for five terrorists, when this soldier enlisted in the Army, he knew the challenges ahead of him in military life, and one of those challenges was the possibility of capture by the enemy.

He also knew what was expected of him if captured by the enemy.

But in the life of Bowe Bergdahl, he violated article(s) of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) by laying down his rifle, taking off his bullet-proof vest and walking away from his post.

According to some of the military personnel in the same unit with him, he was just upset with the way the war was going.

What garbage. What cowardice.

This Army man violated the UCMJ and should face a court-martial and be put in prison. There were honorable men from his unit killed looking for him.

Plain and simple, he is a coward and a traitor and should be dealtwith accordingly.

And as for President Obama, he should be impeached for giving aid to the enemy. I just heard him giving a speech in which he said: “We have defeated the Taliban and destroyed their leadership.”

Obama once again bypassed Congress and on his own released five of the most treacherous and active Taliban killers back to the Taliban. Now they can regroup, be briefed and go back to trying to kill Americans on our soil once again.

Believe me, it is going to happen.

I just do not understand how either party can let Obama get away with this violation of the law. He is a traitor to his country.

Bergdahl should face court-martial for betraying his country and Obama should be impeached for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the Taliban, because he certainly does not have any love or concern for this country.

Secretary of Defense Hagel should be removed from office for telling the citizens that the soldier’s life was in jeopardy and the government had to act quickly for the soldier’s safety.

That traitor was with the Taliban for five years. Sorry, soldier, but you asked for it and you got what you wanted: another life other than the U.S. military. 

I only hope that somewhere in the Democratic crowd of leaders there is someone who is man enough to stand up to those who make the decisions. But that would be asking for too much, seeing that they left their spines at home when they went to Washington, D.C.

The only satisfaction that I can see is that Bergdahl and Obama get the same cell.

I can see nor feel any sympathy or compassion for these traitors.

This is one citizen’s opinion and, yes, one proud member of the United States Marine Corps. Semper Fidelis.

Comments

BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 7:12 a.m.

This former soldier agrees with the Marine.

Putting aside all the hyperbole, there's one basic underlying fact:

Bergdahl wasn't captured in action. He wasn't a POW. He deserted, plain and simple.

All the rest of the hoo-hah about everything that resulted from his doing so is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how he was treated by the Taliban while under their control.

The excuse that "we leave no one behind" doesn't apply to troops who desert their posts. Just ask Private Eddie Slovick, executed in WW2 for desertion.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 7:46 a.m.

Guaranteed that if Bush or any other Republican president did this, the right wing would be fawning all over him.

Guaran-damned-teed.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:02 a.m.

Oh, right, steve. In your dreams.

Remind me of your own military service?


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:05 a.m.

Oh good grief...STILL the "what about Bush" defense, Steve? When will you guys on the far left EVER show an ounce of integrity and accept responsibility for your leader?

For normal people, let's examine the facts:

Obama claimed he had to make this arbitrary decision without giving Congress 30 days notice as the law requires because of Bergdahl's failing health. So he allowed the Taliban to dictate to him which five terrorists would be released.

Question: On what basis was Obama believing that Bergdahl's health was failing? The Taliban said it was in their propaganda video and Obama bought it. (What is it about Obama, videos, and the truth?)

So when THIS lie didn't fly, Obama created a new spin. He said he feared the Taliban would kill Bergdahl if he gave Congress 30 days notice. When the laughing stopped, Obama had to come up with a third lie.

Obama and his minions actually said with a straight face that "we leave no one behind". Yep, the same guy who went on a cash junket to Vegas the day after a terrorist attack in Benghazi. The same guy who has ignored the deaths of veterans from the V.A. scandal.

The same guy who was awarded "Lie of the Year" for his Obamacare scam is now expecting normal people to believe his lies about Bergdahl. As his secretary of state once shrieked, "What difference does it make!"


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:19 a.m.

"""I only hope that somewhere in the Democratic crowd of leaders there is someone who is man enough to stand up to those who make the decisions."""

Never.

The reason why Nixon resigned from office (for things FAR LESS egregious than the current White House occupant) was two fold. First, the media acted like real journalists, investigated the stories, and reported the news. Second, when the leaders of the GOP understood the gravity of the offenses, they refused to provide political cover and Nixon was finished.

Today's media sees every story through a single filter: How will it impact Barack Obama? If it will hurt him, they drop it. If it will help him or hurt his opponents, they run it.

And today's Democratic Party led by Reid/Pelosi is such a sad sack of crap. They will never, ever, ever take a stand against a fellow Democrat. When Clinton disgraced the office by having sex with a 24 year old intern in the White House, 100% of the Democrats stood by him and attacked anyone else who even questioned Clinton's actions. They would never question Obama.

The reason we have a rogue president is because he KNOWS the media and his political party will NEVER turn against him. And so Barack Obama's attitude toward the growing majority of American citizens who disapprove of him is....F*ck You!


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:32 a.m.

A horrible and dangerous deal. It never should have been done, and that's why Obama did it behind everyone's back. Stupid, stupid move.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:33 a.m.

"Oh good grief...STILL the "what about Bush" defense, Steve?"

Read what I wrote:

" if Bush or **************any other Republican president did this*************"


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:38 a.m.

Still waiting to be reminded of your own vast military experience, steve.


projalice11: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:48 a.m.


"Bergdahl and Obama deserve the same cell," just like Bush and Cheney deserve the same cell ..
Talk about traitors ..

How would you feel if Bowe Bergdahl was your son ??


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:05 a.m.

"How would you feel if Bowe Bergdahl was your son ??"

Ashamed and embarrassed.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:06 a.m.

As if it made any difference whatsoever, Baker...none. But I guess only someone who was in the service is entitled to any opinions, now, according to you?

I love the way right-wing ex-military guys always toss out their "street cred" and try to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them...I'm pretty sure the next line will be something like "I fought for your right to free speech" (which means, you don't have the right to say anything unless I approve of it).


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:14 a.m.

Steve: "As if it made any difference whatsoever, Baker...none. But I guess only someone who was in the service is entitled to any opinions, now, according to you?"

Is this the same guy who regularly bleats about "chickenhawks"?

My, my..... your hypocrisy's showing.

Anything else you'd like to add, Mr. "Do as I say, not as I do"?


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:20 a.m.

Uh, where have you ever heard me say that we should start wars?

Like I said...first thing the right-wingers do...browbeat anyone who disagrees with them, using their military service as a stick.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:27 a.m.

The intellectually honest man would give reasons why Obama's actions were warranted. The partisan stooge tries to predict what the reaction would have been had Bush (or any republican) had done the same thing.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:34 a.m.

The attempt was so lame you should be embarrassed.

Same principle adheres: someone with ZERO military experience opining on military matters, which you regularly raise as a criticism of people who support military action. But okay. I guess in your case we can use the term "chickenchicken".

Feel better now?

"Browbeat"!!!!

Kinda early in the thread for you to start resorting to the "I'm a victim!" meme, isn't it? Even for you.

Hilarious!

I guess pointing out hypocrisy is now the same thing as being "bullied" or "victimized". Just like everything's "racism" to the current occupant of the White House and his minions.

You guys really crack me up.
.
.
.
--edited.


chefgirl358: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:46 a.m.

projalice....how would I feel if that freaking dirtbag was my kid? HORRIFIED! There are not strong enough words for the horror and shame I would feel if I had raised such a P***Y and coward and that he deserted his unit and essentially his country, and decent men DIED looking for his whiny pathetic a**. Additionally, I would encourage the government to let the taliban keep him. In fact, we should've sent them Jane Fonda to keep him company. That's how I would feel about it since you asked.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:50 a.m.

Steve, when the subject is global warming you often ridicule people who don't have degrees in this field as unqualified to comment. And so, yes, it is quite hypocritical of you to say the comments of former military are irrelevant on this subject.

But that's just an attempt to change the subject which all left-wingers do over the latest Obama gaffe. Can you and the other Obama supporters give reasons why your president's actions were warranted?

Anyone want to bet that Indy cannot do it without mentioning Fox News?


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:52 a.m.

"someone with ZERO military experience opining on military matters, which you regularly raise as a criticism of people who support military action. "

I wasn't opining on any such thing...but of course you took offense at what you perceive as your exclusive domain of discourse.

I was opining on the *right-wingers* who are calling for Obama's impeachment, blah blah blah, and that they would have fully supported a Republican president doing the same thing.

Of course, that's true about pretty much anything Obama does...if Obama does it, you right-wingers want him impeached, thrown out of office, tried for treason, etc. But if it's a *Republican* idea, or a *Republican* president did it, then it's *F'ing FANTASTIC*.

THAT is hypocrisy.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:56 a.m.

I have to laugh at the sniveling about being "browbeat".

This is the same hypocrite that will call anyone that does not support SSM a "homophobe".

This is the same hypocrite that will call anyone that does not support AGW "anti-science".

This is the same hypocrite that will call anyone that does not support Obama a "racist".

Spare me.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:56 a.m.

Projalice11: "Bergdahl and Obama deserve the same cell," just like Bush and Cheney deserve the same cell ... Talk about traitors ...

Oh my...more "what about Bush" defense. Truly pathetic. At least when projalice brings up the name Obama she says...."talk about traitors". At last, something we finally agree upon regarding Barack Obama.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:57 a.m.

Let's try this again:

"Guaranteed that if Bush or any other Republican president did this, the right wing would be fawning all over him. "

trs, BB, etc....do you see ANYTHING in there that in any way comments on military things? Anything at all?

No. Because there isn't. But because the issue involves the military in some way, as we can see here, nobody is allowed to say anything which disagrees with the posters who were in the service, on anything related to the matter, in any way, shape or form, because they're the *only* ones qualified to have an opinion.

"when the subject is global warming you often ridicule people who don't have degrees in this field as unqualified to comment"

Yes. And if I were to start commenting on, say, military strategy or field tactics or weapons operations or anything like that, then I'd expect to be ridiculed, too, and rightly so.

But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking politics.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:01 a.m.

"""THAT is hypocrisy."""

Any normal person would read your rant and say 'THAT is lunacy'.

But why do you keep dodging the question, Steve? Please, tell us why your president's actions were warranted. Personally attacking everyone else or conjecturing how someone else might have responded 10 years ago to a different president is not a very good defense.

Is that the best you've got?


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:06 a.m.

Well, let's see...

Bush released over 500 prisoners from GITMO.

"A Pentagon report released today confirms that 14 percent of the 540 detainees — or one in seven — who were released from the detainee center Guantanamo Bay have been known or suspected of returning to terrorist activities. "Based on a comprehensive review of available information as of mid-March 2009, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported 14 percent as the overall rate of former Guantanamo detainees confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist activities. Of the more than 530 Guantanamo detainees transferred from Department of Defense custody to Guantanamo Bay, 27 were confirmed and 47 were suspected of reengaging in terrorist activity."

Where were all you right-wingers then, huh? Yelling and screaming about "impeachment" or "treason"? HUH?

Not a peep from anyone on the right wing.

Same prison. Same bunch of prisoners. Same "release" or "transfer". Same situation save getting anyone back. And a bunch of them went back to terrorism.

So why weren't you shouting for Bush's impeachment?

Oh, right...he was a Republican.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:07 a.m.

"conjecturing how someone else might have responded 10 years ago to a different president "

I'm not conjecturing. See above. The right-wing gave their President a full-on pass on releasing terrorists. The only conjecture, and it's hardly that, is that they'd do the same thing again if we had a Republican president now.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:12 a.m.

That doesn't even pass the giggle test, stevie.

Let's see... you wrote: "'someone with ZERO military experience opining on military matters, which you regularly raise as a criticism of people who support military action.' ... I wasn't opining on any such thing...but of course you took offense at what you perceive as your exclusive domain of discourse.... I was opining on the *right-wingers* who are calling for Obama's impeachment, blah blah blah, and that they would have fully supported a Republican president doing the same thing."


Let's examine that, shall we?

First of all, I've never said that ANYONE'S opinion on matters of public policy should be restricted based on their personal experience. That's pretty much the exclusive domain of you and your cohorts, and I point out your own lack of experience only to highlight your constant and dependable hypocrisy. As far as I'm concerned you can opine away to your heart's content.

In fact, I think that you lefties' constant attempts to shelter behind such a specious objection -- personal experience -- is lame and pathetic beyond description, and have mocked and ridiculed it on many an occasion.

I'll also point out to you that I've spent almost as much time criticizing Republicans as I have criticizing Obama. I have almost as much contempt for the Establishment GOP as I do for lefties, and often have a hard time distinguishing between the two.

But hey! If THAT'S your story, and you're sticking to it, more power to ya!

Just don't be offended if I sometimes break out into fits of laughter. (It doesn't pass the giggle test, but it aces the scorn test, bug time)


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:18 a.m.

LOL!

Keep digging, steve.

"Let's try this again:

"'Guaranteed that if Bush or any other Republican president did this, the right wing would be fawning all over him.'

"trs, BB, etc....do you see ANYTHING in there that in any way comments on military things? Anything at all?"

What is the "this" you're referring to in your second paragraph, steve? Is that not the recovery of Bergdahl? Or are you talking about a poker game? Or what?

If it's the Bergdahl affair, how is that NOT a "military affair", as we're talking about recovering a guy who's a DESERTER in a war zone, and claiming he "served honorably" (a slap in the face of every vet and active-duty troop who actually DID so), and all the rest of the bullpuckey the Obamaists have been shoveling?

(Finally! A "shovel-ready job"! White House spokeshole)





stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:20 a.m.

"First of all, I've never said that ANYONE'S opinion on matters of public policy should be restricted based on their personal experience. "

Then why did you ask if I had any military experience? Never mind, we all know why. (Not to mention that, as I said, I wasn't commenting on any military aspects of the trade...I was commenting on YOUR and the right-wing's screams of "treason" and "impeachment").

"I'll also point out to you that I've spent almost as much time criticizing Republicans as I have criticizing Obama. I have almost as much contempt for the Establishment GOP as I do for lefties, and often have a hard time distinguishing between the two."

And when the last Republican president released over 500 prisoners, some of whom (as much as 30% if you believe John McCain, which I don't...but at least 15% or so if you believe the Pentagon, which I do) went back to being terrorists? What did you have to say about that, then? Let me guess...

Nothing. (You can easily prove me wrong...just dig out the archives of your own blog).


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:22 a.m.

What I found most disturbing is that Mr. Obama did not fathom the issues here. Did he not think that the release of this soldier would represent an offense to our military? Apparently not.

Does this rise to the level of an impeachable offense? This is where I must part ways with Dick. I don't think so.

But, it does show massively poor judgment on the part of the Administration. Forget the partisan stuff. This stinks on its face. The White House should have recognized that.


Socalguy: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:25 a.m.

Leave no man behind.... no matter who that man is.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:30 a.m.

Really getting desperate now, aren'tcha, stevie?

Yes, I explained exactly what I was saying, and all you can do is try to read my mind?...... AGAIN, Karnack?

Is that all you've got?

Stevie, remember the first rule when you're stuck in a hole: stop digging!


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:31 a.m.

"Leave no man behind.... no matter who that man is."

You -- and Obama -- have been watching too many movies.

We've left men behind in every war. That's just a fact.

Nice slogan, though.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:38 a.m.

Me: "Guaranteed that if Bush or any other Republican president did this, the right wing would be fawning all over him."

Baker: "Remind me of your own military service?"

Then later

Baker: "First of all, I've never said that ANYONE'S opinion on matters of public policy should be restricted based on their personal experience. "

No, he's not actually *saying* it...but he's certainly insinuating it. (If he said it outright, it'd be obvious what he thinks...but this way, he gets to deny *actually* saying it). We all know what he was doing, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

It's not the first time, either.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:43 a.m.

Boo-hoo, stevie the victim.

Don'tcha hate it when your own hypocrisy sneaks up and bites ya on the butt?


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:43 a.m.

Steve,...so your best defense of Obama's actions is what a different president did. As I've repeatedly said, Bush's approval rating was about 26% when he left office. Both Houses of Congress switched from Republican to Democratic. That's because millions of people were VERY upset with Bush.

It's painful to watch you keep dodging the question so we'll give you a fourth try. Let's hear your actual defense of your president's actions to trade a deserter for the top five terrorists in the world - without any input from Congress.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 10:47 a.m.

Socalguy: """Leave no man behind.... no matter who that man is."""

Unless you've been telling people in your campaign speeches that you've got the Taliban on the run. Then deny requests for help in Benghazi because it goes against your political narrative. When the terrorists strike, then invent a fantasy about a spontaneous reaction to a video. And then resume your campaign the next day in Las Vegas for a political fund raiser.

Never been more proud that I didn't waste my vote on this guy.


hopeful: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:09 a.m.

Just for fun, I googled "When will Democrats finally turn on Obama?". To my surprise, it is finally happening. And for those of you with a knee-jerk reaction, I am NOT a Republican. To me, there is very little difference between the two parties...both are corrupt!

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/adriana_cohen/2014/06/adriana_cohen_democrats_finally_get_that_the_problem

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/i-ve-had-enough-when-democrats-quit-on-obama-20140609

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/03/senate-democrats-who-trumpeted-bergdahl-deal-go-silent/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/democrats_turning_on_obama_in_semi_private.html


projalice11: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:09 a.m.

"How would you feel if Bowe Bergdahl was your son ??"

"Ashamed and embarrassed."

I'm ashamed and embarrassed of the poster for not being grateful that a son of his was alive .. SHAME SHAME SHAME


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:28 a.m.

"Steve,...so your best defense of Obama's actions is what a different president did. "

Do you all have a reading comprehension problem? Did I defend Obama's actions here? No.

I'm attacking the faux outrage from the right when they exhibited NONE over the release of 100 times as many prisoners. THAT'S what I'm pointing out...not the wisdom or idiocy of doing a prisoner exchange, nor anything related to Baker's hallowed military, etc.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:39 a.m.

steve, why didn't you give the link? Oh wait, maybe it's because of this which followed your "evidence":

"Last week, President Obama defended his decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year’s time, saying it only helped fuel terrorist activities. "Instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained," the president said last Thursday. "So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.""

Obama said that on 5/21/2009. So he feels that Guantanamo "has weakened American national security" and is a "rallying cry for our enemies" but he's kept it open for the last five years.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/05/pentagon-releas/ --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:41 a.m.

The outrage is because Obama negotiated with terrorists, Bush did not. It's not the same thing, not even close.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:55 a.m.

No, you're right...Bush just let terrorists go free. 500+ of them.

And not a single complaint from the right.

Look, I'm not defending Obama...I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists, either.

There are a lot of issues balled up in this:
Whether the prisoners are POWs or not
Whether prisoner exchanges are allowed or not
Whether Obama should have informed Congress or not
etc.

Of all of those, the one I think holds the most water is his failure to inform Congress. However, it's pretty easy to predict what their reaction would have been.


chefgirl358: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:56 a.m.

Lois, can it. You are NOT going to have a single person on THIS topic who agrees with you, you're just going to end up offended and shrieking in exclamation points. I guess you didn't see MY reply to you or else you'd already be going bananas. Go worry about turn signals and mailbox heights.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:59 a.m.

Not to worry, Steve. We all know why your president was so eager to negotiate with terrorists. He knew the crap was about to hit the fan with the VA scandal as reported in today's Huffington Post. Obama thought negotiating the release of Bergdahl would make him look like a hero. Boy, did THAT ever backfire. "We will leave no soldier behind"...bullsheet!

Audit: Over 57,000 New Patients Awaiting Appointments At Veterans Affairs Hospitals, Clinics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/veterans-audit-new-patients_n_5473831.html


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 12:00 p.m.

And if you think the VA scandal is bad, just wait. You're seeing government controlled healthcare in action, aka Obamacare.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 12:14 p.m.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but as for me, if Bush had negotiated with terrorists like Obama did then I would be going through the roof. just like I did when he was spending money like a drunken sailor, or when his dad broke his "no new taxes" claim.

You however are not outraged, in fact you are looking for some reason to calm down those that are outraged. You know steve, here in America, it's alright to say things against the leadership. The "hallowed military" as you so sarcastically refer to them make sure you have that right.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 12:31 p.m.

"...but as for me, if Bush had ... I would be going through the roof...***just like I did when***..."

Sorry. Don't believe it. I don't believe for a moment you "went through the roof" at anything either of the Bushes did.

I'm not looking to calm anyone down...that's your interpretation. I'm merely pointing out that there was NO outrage at a Republican president releasing 500+ prisoners, of whom 15% turned out to actually go back and engage in terrorism. None. Nada. Zip. Not...one...word.

And I didn't say "THE hallowed military". I said "Baker's hallowed military", because he, like a lot of right-wingers, use their service as a weapon with which to try to quell dissenting opinions. As in "I say X, and how DARE you disagree with me! You don't have any military experience, and *I* do!"


hopeful: Posted: June 9, 2014 12:48 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: "And if you think the VA scandal is bad, just wait. You're seeing government controlled healthcare in action, aka Obamacare."

On top of all the problems the Obama Administration has caused, what may turn out to be the worst of them is his extremely short-sighted immigration reform (or more like LACK of immigration policy). The Republicans are just as complacent, but just now being reported is the HUGE humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands of children are illegally crossing the U.S. border WITHOUT their parents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653063/Republicans-claim-Obama-policy-enticed-tens-thousands-homeless-illegal-immigrant-children-cross-border-landing-secret-government-holding-pens.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/us/us-sets-up-crisis-shelter-as-children-flow-across-border-alone.html?_r=0


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 12:48 p.m.

Oh gosh, steve doesn't believe me...what will I do?

As if anyone here cares what a partisan stooge like you believes about any one of us.

Baker has his own military? Who knew? You're ridiculous.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 12:57 p.m.

Whatever.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:05 p.m.

Gaaawd, yeah, CG. LOL!

I'm the Commander-In-Chief of the Saugus Sabers. Didn't you know?

Jeez, stevie, you DO come up with the weirdest stuff.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:07 p.m.

Projaclice: "I'm ashamed and embarrassed of the poster for not being grateful that a son of his was alive .. SHAME SHAME SHAME"


Yeah, yeah, yeah.

If any son of mine was a deserter, I'd disown him.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:07 p.m.

Steve: """I'm merely pointing out that there was NO outrage at a Republican president releasing 500+ prisoners, of whom 15% turned out to actually go back and engage in terrorism. None. Nada. Zip. Not...one...word."""

And your proof?

Why is it so hard for lefties to believe that normal people can be upset at Obama AND Bush? Must you see EVERYTHING through partisan eyes, Steve?


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:12 p.m.

Hey, hopeful, did you see Chris "Tingles" Matthews's meltdown over Obama's reclaiming the traitor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnIHOUNFbr4&feature=player_embedded

Whoa! If Obama's even lost "Tingles", what's next? They handing out snowshoes in Hell?


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:18 p.m.

This is why I can't take steve seriously anymore. Instead of giving a cogent argument in favor of the trade he goes right into "bring it back to Bush" default mode. He even mentioned the detainees that Bush transferred or released. That tactic worked on steve, so he thinks it will work on us. He is so partisan that he can't even believe that someone could dislike both Obama AND Bush.

What a narrow minded way to live.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:24 p.m.

Yeah, CG, that's the cognitive dissonance of the lefties. In their ... minds (a term I use loosely) ... if you don't like what Obama's doing, somehow or another that means you LIKED what Bush did.

It's just nuts, frankly.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:27 p.m.

PS, CG.


Never forget. Stevie has the uncanny and unrivaled ability to read minds, and tell us all what we REALLY think.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 1:57 p.m.

It's not "bring it back to Bush". It's got nothing to do with *Bush*, per se.

It's the hypocrisy of lambasting one president for doing something, and ignoring it when another president does it, which I am pointing out.

"he can't even believe that someone could dislike both Obama AND Bush."

I can believe that someone could feel that way.

I just don't think nearly as many people do who now *say* that they disliked Bush back then.

I remember an awful lot of rah rah cheerleading for Bush throughout his entire 8 years from the far right...and very little complaining about anything he did, let alone the level of vitriol they're spouting now. Impeachment? The words never came up. Treason? Well, those words did...from the left, but never from the right.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 2:03 p.m.

steve: "It's not "bring it back to Bush". It's got nothing to do with *Bush*, per se."

And yet the very first thing you do is mention Bush.

steve: "It's the hypocrisy of lambasting one president for doing something, and ignoring it when another president does it, which I am pointing out."

Show me an example of Bush negotiating with terrorists for the release of terrorists in exchange for a deserter and I will concede the point.

Fair enough?

(extra points if the ratio is 5 terrorists to 1 deserter) --edited.


projalice11: Posted: June 9, 2014 2:20 p.m.

"If any son of mine was a deserter, I'd disown him." Bully for you ..


philellis: Posted: June 9, 2014 2:21 p.m.

I found this intereting release:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/18/steny-hoyer/hoyer-correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 2:22 p.m.

"And yet the very first thing you do is mention Bush."

Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he the last Republican president? You want me to go back to Nixon or Eisenhower or somebody? Who ELSE would I mention in a discussion about double standards for Democratic vs. Republican presidents? Shees. Talk about dense.

"Show me an example of Bush negotiating with terrorists for the release of terrorists in exchange for a deserter and I will concede the point."

Alleged deserter. Obviously, I can't, nor will I pretend to be able to do so. I'm not arguing that point.

Tell you what...show ME an example of your "going through the roof" when your President released 500+ prisoners, *27* of whom were confirmed to go back to conducting terrorist acts, and 47 of whom were suspected of doing so.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 2:55 p.m.

steve: "Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he the last Republican president?"

Correcting you has become a bit of a cottage industry for me.

Here goes, in your first post you said: "...if Bush or any other Republican president did this..." When you were called on this you went to great lengths to point out that you included "or any other Republican president". You used "or any other Republican president" as cover when accused of bringing it back to Bush. Now you think focusing on Bush is appropriate because he's the most recent republican.

Hypocrite.

Of course you're whole comment is just fantasy as no other president, republican or democrat, has ever done this (another first for Obama).

"Obviously, I can't, nor will I pretend to be able to do so. I'm not arguing that point."

Of course you can't, all you can do is pontificate on what you think the reaction would have been if some other president (read: Bush) had done this. But since nobody has done this, all you got is your crystal ball.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 3:02 p.m.

"""You want me to go back to Nixon or Eisenhower or somebody?"""

Why can't we just deal with Obama for negotiating with terrorists? Why must you guys on the far-left always try to feel better about your leaders when they screw up by comparing their actions with someone else that you think did something worse?

The sixth grade mentality of the far-left never ceases to entertain.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 3:15 p.m.

"all you can do is pontificate on what you think the reaction would have been if some other president (read: Bush) had done this. But since nobody has done this, all you got is your crystal ball. "

Nope. It's called the internet, and all we have to do is go look for evidence of anyone on the right wing "going through the roof" about releasing terrorists when their guy was in office.

Now why don't I remember that? Oh, yeah...because it *didn't happen*.

If you want to argue that "negotiating with terrorists" was wrong, fine. Let's do that. But please don't try to pretend that you were upset with your president when he *released* terrorists. Who then went on to continue terrorist acts.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 3:30 p.m.

Reading comprehension problems steve? I gave you examples of the things the last two republican presidents did to poss me off, it didn't include transferring or releasing Gitmo detainees. What difference would it make if I had said that? You don't believe me anyway!

steve: "If you want to argue that "negotiating with terrorists" was wrong, fine. Let's do that"

That's exactly what was happening until some partisan stooge decided to try and "bring it back to Bush".


philellis: Posted: June 9, 2014 4:58 p.m.

"Release"??? Please use the internet as I did. See above link.


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:34 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """You want me to go back to Nixon or Eisenhower or somebody?"""

Why can't we just deal with Obama for negotiating with terrorists? Why must you guys on the far-left always try to feel better about your leaders when they screw up by comparing their actions with someone else that you think did something worse?

Indy: Let’s see here . . .

Israel’s prisoner swaps have been far more lopsided than Obama’s Bergdahl deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/05/israels-prisoner-swaps-have-been-far-more-lopsided-than-obamas-bergdahl-deal/

“JERUSALEM — The prisoner exchange that saw U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl swapped for five Taliban commanders is of more than passing interest in Israel, where trading enemy combatants for Israeli soldiers is a long and controversial tradition.
The trades made by Israel have been far more lopsided than the deal struck by the Obama administration this week. The most famous swap, in 2011, involved the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian militants in exchange for one Israeli corporal.”

Indy: I guess Fox assumes their views are ‘brain dead’ and can’t remember any history . . .


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:35 p.m.

And President Reagan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
“The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that was uncovered by Daniel Sheehan and the Christic Institute, and became national news in November of 1986.[3][4][5][6] During the Reagan administration, senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[7] Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of several hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.”

Indy: You can search this stuff in ‘seconds’ yet the conservatives here can’t grasp that and continue to make statements that are simply ‘misleading, inappropriate, and border on hypocrisy’. Want these folks to lead us into the future? I don’t . . .


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 7:29 p.m.

Indy: """I guess Fox assumes their views are ‘brain dead’ and can’t remember any history . . ."""

Ahhhh...there it is, right on cue. Once again this poster wastes no time blaming Fox for all of this. When Obama loyalists don't want to deal with the ugly truth of their leader, they default to blaming Fox News. Geez....talk about brain dead. It's hilariously predictable.

So let's see...

Obama wh0res have NO problem when their leader lies repeatedly about a phantom video to cover his political ass over a terrorist attack that murders four American victims.

Obama wh0res have NO problem when their leader lies 37 times to get Obamacare passed.

Obama wh0res have NO problem when their leader is awarded "Lie of the Year"

Obama wh0res have NO problem when groups opposed to their leader are targeted by the IRS and before the investigation is complete, Obama swears there is "no smidgen of corruption in the IRS" (The fix is in)

Obama wh0res have NO problem when their leader swaps an alleged deserter for five of the top terrorists in the world, and then lies about the reasons he didn't tell Congress.

But if these facts are aired on Fox News....ONLY THEN are they offended.

Such is the sad life of useless partisans and shameless Democratic wh0res like this poster.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 9, 2014 7:49 p.m.

I've been watching all this irrelevant bullpuckey. Interesting, and completely predictable from our "cousins" on the Left.

Diversion, obfuscation, all the usual and expected SOP (a military term!) nonsense from them.

I don't care what either Bush did, nor Reagan, nor Clinton (who managed to launch Cruise missiles at an aspirin factory), nor Lincoln, nor Jefferson, nor anybody else.

OBAMA is President. Bergdahl's a DESERTER. THOSE are the only salient facts to this discussion.

We keep hearing this nonsense rationalization from the Obama worshippers that "we leave no man behind", which -- speaking as a vet -- is also complete horsepuckey. We've "left men behind" in just about every war of which I'm aware. Where do you think the term "MIA" comes from?

"We leave no man behind" is just a line from countless war movies, usually just before the hero manages to slaughter about a thousand "enemies" who are too stupid to fire from behind effective cover, running headlong into the hero's blazing machine gun.

And if "we leave no man behind", why weren't any military units launched to save those poor dudes at the Benghazi mission? I mean, c'mon. They were about as "left behind" as it gets. Even if your mission fails, at least give it a try. Ever heard of "Black Hawk Down"?

Is it "we leave no man behind" when it suits our C-in-C's fundraising schedule? "We leave no man behind" when it fits his narrative of "caring" for our vets while the VA system is melting down publicly around our ears?

Seriously. Enough of the silliness.


therightstuff: Posted: June 9, 2014 8:45 p.m.

Stand by for the "GOP talking points-focus group tested-Fox News" schtick, Brian. Not one word you said will be allowed to sink in. But I've learned that getting frustrated with our friends on the left is like being mad at a blind man for not seeing! They can't help it. They're Democrats.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 9:59 p.m.

TRS, I have no doubt you're correct. There'll be some mad scrambling to try to "counter" what I wrote.

But I can call "BS" when I see it. That's why I stayed silent so long here today. I wanted the horsepuckey to play itself out to full extent.


ptavolunteer: Posted: June 10, 2014 2:25 a.m.

BB, I call BS. Your statement that “Bergdahl’s a DESERTER” is not a “salient fact”. In fact, it’s not a fact at all, it’s your opinion. If Bergdahl is convicted for desertion under the UCMJ, then he can be called a “DESERTER”.

Short of that, Bergdahl is an Army soldier; he is not listed by the Army as a deserter or as AWOL or as a POW. The best description for him came from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, “U.S. Service member in enemy captivity”. He deserved every effort to bring him home.

If there is one thing I learned from “Brothers in War”, politics should not judge a man that has been sent to war.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:32 a.m.

I don't need a UCMJ conviction to identify a deserter.

If a soldier's missing from his post, wasn't captured in action, left a letter behind saying he was leaving, did so in a combat zone...... Well, he's a damned deserter!

Yeah, in order for society to impose a penalty, the "due process" of law must be rightfully observed. But that DOESN'T mean we should suspend our own powers of critical thinking in the meantime.

If I'm doing the speed limit on the freeway and someone zips past me at 30 MPH faster than I'm already doing, I think I can safely say he's speeding, whether he ever gets a ticket for it or not.

Get it now, bubba?


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:37 a.m.

BTW, do you think OJ Simpson's not a murderer?

He was never convicted of murder. But Ron and Nicole are still very dead, and SOMEONE did that.


ricketzz: Posted: June 10, 2014 9:28 a.m.

POTUS, as Commander in Chief, can conduct The War without running every move by the ossified Congress for pre-approval. If he had run this by Congress, Bergdahl would still be in Pakistan.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 9:34 a.m.

And the problem with that would be...?


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:50 a.m.

"""If he had run this by Congress, Bergdahl would still be in Pakistan."""

And why...because even members of your president's own party would have declined it siting that America does not negotiate with terrorists.

So Obama invented the story about Bergdahl's health....and then changed the story to death threats....and is now spinning it as "we will leave no soldier behind". What a pathetic excuse for a leader you keep defending, ricketzz.


stevehw: Posted: June 10, 2014 2:52 p.m.

'Yeah, in order for society to impose a penalty, the "due process" of law must be rightfully observed.'

I like the way this guy puts scare quotes around the words..."due process".

'"""If he had run this by Congress, Bergdahl would still be in Pakistan."""

And why...because even members of your president's own party would have declined it siting that America does not negotiate with terrorists.'

Nope...it be because the Republicans have and will oppose every single thing Obama does. Everything. Guaranteed they'd have blocked it, or leaked info about it to spoil the deal, or some other move to prevent it.

Because to the right wing, Obama can't be allowed to have any successes, even if preventing them is harmful to Americans.


CaptGene: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:25 p.m.

steve has inadvertently revealed the flavor of the KoolAid®; Sour Grape.


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 5:07 p.m.

"Nope...it be because the Republicans have and will oppose every single thing Obama does." - stevehw

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

The Senate called a special Saturday debate session for February 7 at the urging of President Obama. The Senate voted, 61–36 (with 2 not voting) on February 9 to end debate on the bill and advance it to the Senate floor to vote on the bill itself.[12] On February 10, the Senate voted 61–37 (with one not voting)[13] All the Democrats voted in favor, but only three Republicans voted in favor (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter), with Specter later switching to the Democratic party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Senate

Bonus point: How many Obama budgets have Congressional Democratic members voted to approve? --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 5:29 p.m.

Yes, stevie, "due process" is in quotes because I'm actually QUOTING something, namely the Fifth Amendment.

For civilians, that's a trial. For military personnel, it's a court-marshal.

You really need to learn about things before spouting off.


stevehw: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:47 p.m.

I think most people other than Baker would have just written "in order to impose a penalty, due process of law must be observed", without the scare quotes.

It's just another infantile word game he plays...subtly implying that the guy doesn't deserve *actual* due process.


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 9:35 p.m.

steve: "I think..."

I don't believe that for one minute!


BrianBaker: Posted: June 11, 2014 9:50 p.m.

"Scare quotes".


Grow up.


ptavolunteer: Posted: June 11, 2014 1:34 a.m.

stevehw, it's not the quotes around "due process" that bother me but Baker's three-card monte system of justice. (1) He doesn’t need a UCMJ conviction, with actual evidence, to identify a deserter; he’s already done that and saved everyone the trouble, (2) an allegation of war-time desertion is the same as someone speeding past him on the highway and (3) this is all “critical thinking” on his part. I think by “critical” he means almost brain dead.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:14 a.m.

So, then, ptavolunteer, I take it you don't think OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole then, right?

After all, he had his "due process" (sorry for scaring you again, stevie), a murder trial, and the jury kicked him loose. Therefore he's not a murderer, right? He didn't kill them.

Maybe they killed themselves by sawing their own heads almost off. Maybe it just magically happened!

That has to be your position, right?

Talk about "brain dead"!

(Oooooooh, stevie..... MORE "scare quotes"...)


ricketzz: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:37 a.m.

Your President is absolute Commander in Chief. The Congress voted him an Authorization that makes him a Dictator as well as CIC. You are under Martial Law and don't even realize it. Congress is a joke. Obama should ignore them more often.


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 8:55 p.m.

So that everyone has the context of what ricketzz advocates, from another thread:

ricketzz:
Posted: June 7, 2014
7:06 a.m.

Tech has no faith in this country nor its Founding Principles. He accuses me of being antisocial while condemning one of humanity's greatest experiments. Perhaps we are more alike than it seems. I don't think Jeffersonian Democracy scales infinitely. What worked for 30,000,000 farmers is not working for 300,000,000 service sector slaves. Totalitarian methods must be used, in lieu of an objective press and an educated electorate, to maintain order.

A New World Order is what they called it, as I recall. I call it The Bubble.


ricketzz: Posted: June 12, 2014 7:08 a.m.

I advocate nothing in your citation of me. Jeffersonian Democracy worked when we had broadcast fairness, good schools and national unity. The scene today is much different. We are a society of gangs. There are people running your life who have never felt the gut wrenching pangs of food insecurity or having the rent raised. They think they are doing us a favor by not totally cutting us off. The fact we let these people happen will be a black mark on us until we undo it. The Founders hated inherited wealth and status. The country is too big to be run centrally. I mean McDonald's as much as I mean OSHA.


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 1:20 p.m.

"I advocate nothing in your citation of me." - ricketzz

You can't deny your own words, ricketzz. Do you revoke your advocacy of "Totalitarian methods must be used, in lieu of an objective press and an educated electorate, to maintain order."?

Our Republic wasn't designed to be run centrally. Do you favor a devolution of usurped power aggregated to Washington D.C. over the last 100+ years?


ptavolunteer: Posted: June 13, 2014 12:32 a.m.

Fantastic, Baker. If there was one person in the world to add a fourth card to three-card monte it would be you. The OJ Simpson card. Somehow in your warped "critical thinking" mind the guilt err not guilt of OJ Simpson ten years ago has something, anything to do with the alleged war-time desertion case of Bowe Bergdahl. If OJ's was the "case of the century" you get an award for "over-reach of the millennium". Got that, bubba?


therightstuff: Posted: June 13, 2014 7:25 p.m.

"""Because to the right wing, Obama can't be allowed to have any successes, even if preventing them is harmful to Americans."""

Poor Barack. He cannot be held responsible for his failures. The reason he has no successes is because of the right wing!

After five years that song has sure gotten old.


tech: Posted: June 15, 2014 12:59 p.m.

Did I hear a call for a song? With apologies to Danny Elfman and Oingo Boingo, I offer this:

"Only a lad. He really couldn't help it."
"Only a lad. He didn't want to do it*."
"Only a lad. He's overprivileged and abused."
Perhaps a little bit confused (bored)?
Oh oh oh, ohh ohh ohh

It's not his fault that we can't believe,
It's not his fault that we can't behave,
Republicans/Bush made him go astray.

Perhaps if we're nice he'll go away,
Perhaps he'll go away,
He'll go away

*Govern


ricketzz: Posted: June 16, 2014 7:47 a.m.

tech, I was stating a fact, not predicting the future. You are a long way from freedom. You were programmed from birth to be what you are today, a proud consumer.


tech: Posted: June 19, 2014 9:16 p.m.

Non sequitur. Every single human throughout history has been a consumer in some fashion, ricktezz. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.


tech: Posted: June 19, 2014 9:18 p.m.

Pity you're unable or unwilling to confirm/deny your own words and answer simple questions.


ricketzz: Posted: June 20, 2014 8:01 a.m.

I should have said "consumerist". I apologize.

Unlike you (probably) I was around before ubiquitous television. Also, unlike you (probably) I had a beat hipster 4th grade home room teacher named Don Wycliffe who gave me books about the science behind mass media marketing, branding, impressions, etc. He encouraged us to read Mad Magazine. I've been an enlightened 9 year old kid ever since. I have been suspicious of anything too slick ever since. I do like cartoons on Saturday morning, but why do they have to put commercials in the middle of them?


CaptGene: Posted: June 20, 2014 11:13 a.m.

ricketzz: "I have been suspicious of anything too slick ever since"

Just curious, who were the last two presidents you voted for?


ricketzz: Posted: June 23, 2014 8:36 a.m.

Cynthia McKinney and Rosanne Barr


tech: Posted: June 23, 2014 6:33 p.m.

"Cynthia McKinney and Rosanne Barr" - ricketzz

Illuminating.

FLASHBACK: Cynthia McKinney Reveals 5,000 Executed Post Hurricane Katrina
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6TyC2DHbKg Mar 29, 2012

12 Crazy Things Presidential Candidate Roseanne Barr Has Said About The United States

http://www.businessinsider.com/12-crazy-things-presidential-candidate-roseanne-has-said-about-the-united-states-2012-2#ixzz35W3u0IVT


ricketzz: Posted: June 24, 2014 7:07 a.m.

You should never bad mouth the talent. It will always come back and bite you in the bootie.


tech: Posted: June 24, 2014 8:38 a.m.

Perhaps you should contact the individuals who were communicating their positions on the issues and provide them with your sage advice.


ricketzz: Posted: June 25, 2014 6:46 a.m.

If you go through life needing to summarize everyone you meet with a neat label you are missing the best parts of being a social animal.


ricketzz: Posted: June 25, 2014 6:48 a.m.

That's like thinking all Ozzy is about is biting a live bat. It's lazy.


tech: Posted: June 25, 2014 4:47 p.m.

Those are representive samplings, ricketzz. They are accurate. Entirely rational, not lazy.


ricketzz: Posted: June 26, 2014 6:53 a.m.

Plucked out of context, they represent nothing but an always-on reactionary political mind.


CaptGene: Posted: June 27, 2014 6:41 a.m.

If your answer was accurate, you confirm you're a fool, if they were not you must be ashamed.


ricketzz: Posted: June 27, 2014 7:27 a.m.

CG; I cannot fathom your meaning from your last post. You did use a plural pronoun for a singular noun, was that a clue?


CaptGene: Posted: June 27, 2014 12:11 p.m.

Can't fathom the meaning from my last post? Now you know how most of us feel reading anything of yours.

As for my response, let me have your hand and I'll walk you through it. My original question for you was:

"Just curious, who were the last two presidents you voted for?"

Notice that I asked about two presidents? You realize that "two" of anything is a plurality of those things, right? Plural is defined as "more than one in number". So, I was asking for a plural in your answer, but was expecting and prepared for a singular as a response.

Your response was:

"Cynthia McKinney and Rosanne Barr"

As you responded in the plural, I felt it was appropriate for me to refer to the subject of your response in the plural as well. Hence the use of the word "they". Just for your edification, here's the definition of the word "they: "used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified".

So, when I referred to your answer, of which there was only one, I used a singular. When I referred to the subject of your answer, of which there were two, I used a plural.

Now, I probably could have made my point clearer by saying something like: "If you are telling the truth, and you really did waste your vote on those two morons, it just proves you're a fool. If those two were not the ones you voted for, then you must be ashamed to admit who you really did vote for".

I assumed you were smart enough to figure out what I meant...rookie mistake. --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: July 1, 2014 7:39 a.m.

If I had voted for Obama I would have wasted my vote, as Obama was a lock in the state I vote in, but I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats, as a standing rule. If the Greens get enough votes they get treated better by voting authorities. They can even get 50 state ballot access if they exceed certain thresholds. "Wasted" my vote...[sigh]



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...