PDA

View Full Version : George Bush secretly visited Ft Hood November 7th...



BrianW
11-12-2009, 03:37 AM
...prior to Obama.

Kept it quiet and dignified.

Class move.

link (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/george-w-bush-laura-bush-fort-hood-nidal-malik-hasan.html)

seanz
11-12-2009, 03:56 AM
Let's call it 'low key' not 'secret'......I knew about this yesterday.
:)

JimD
11-12-2009, 05:28 AM
He misses the spotlight and doesn't have much else to do with himself. He can only come to Canada to preach to American wannabees so many times.

huisjen
11-12-2009, 06:36 AM
So What?

Shrub isn't C-in-C any more. He isn't head of state anymore. He didn't give a speech that wowed millions.

So your point is that he got there first? So What?

Dan

Hwyl
11-12-2009, 06:51 AM
He only loves 30 miles away, he could have made it his Segway

The Bigfella
11-12-2009, 08:20 AM
He only loves 30 miles away, he could have made it his Segway

Secret mistress?

Phillip Allen
11-12-2009, 08:22 AM
I will add, in Obama's defense...its much easier for Mr. Bush to schedual these events

Beyond that...so what?

ljb5
11-12-2009, 08:46 AM
This is the third time it's been mentioned on this forum, so it can't have been too secret.

On the other hand, if Obama had gone there first, in secret for reals, we wouldn't know about it, would we? :)

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
11-12-2009, 08:49 AM
So What?.....

Dan

Presumably he went to apologise for starting the religious hatred.


Quietly.

htom
11-12-2009, 09:04 AM
Presumably he went to apologise for starting the religious hatred.


Quietly.

Ahh, that would explain the 299 dead on 23 October 1983, then ... where's that time machine when you need it?

ishmael
11-12-2009, 09:12 AM
"Presumably he went to apologise for starting the religious hatred."

Oh, I don't think we can blame Bush for that.

Good lord, what a silly thread. So, an ex-president goes, quietly, and visits a traumatized military base. I assume he did it quietly so as not to distract from the solemnity of the time. Give the guy a break! This constant portrayal of him as some evil dolt doesn't reflect well on his detractors.

Rick-Mi
11-12-2009, 09:17 AM
George Bush secretly visited Ft Hood November 7th


That is right in character for our former president who deeply cares for our troops and doesn't do things like this for a photo op or opportunity to give a campaign style speech. Our men and women in the military know it too.

I'm just deeply disappointed that the globalist war pigs were able to force their hand on President Bush and congress who voted in support of the invasion of Iraq. I was one of the conservatives opposed to the war long before the first shipment of men and materials. Unfortunately, my fears regarding the unnecessary high cost of blood and treasure have been realized. :(


.

Mrleft8
11-12-2009, 09:18 AM
He heard there was a media circus going on, and he wanted to see the elephants...

ljb5
11-12-2009, 09:20 AM
Good lord, what a silly thread. So, an ex-president goes, quietly, and visits a traumatized military base. I assume he did it quietly so as not to distract from the solemnity of the time. Give the guy a break!

I agree. It was a nice thing for him to do.

I just think it was wrong of Brian to try to make it into a race between Obama and Bush.

John of Phoenix
11-12-2009, 09:38 AM
dubya could crawl there on his hands and knees, a dozen times, dragging a crucifix and never make amends for what he's done.

I hope he lives another hundred years.

ishmael
11-12-2009, 09:47 AM
"I just think it was wrong of Brian to try to make it into a race between Obama and Bush."

I agree with that. It's appropriate both men went, and President Obama is in a different position as Commander in Chief, so his visit is going to be more public. "Who went first?" is playground argument. Who cares?

oznabrag
11-12-2009, 11:24 AM
That is right in character for our former president who deeply cares for our troops and doesn't do things like this for a photo op...


.

I don't know what planet you're from, but I wish you'd go back. GW pretends to care, and sends them to die for the enrichment of his war-contractor cronies. He didn't go 'in secret', or we wouldn't know about it. He didn't go for a photo-op, he went so that someone could post a thread about how he's somehow superior to Obama.

Get a grip. Obama's the CIC. He needs your support, not your sniping. Dissent is not sniping, though it can descend to that level.

JimD
11-12-2009, 11:30 AM
...I'm just deeply disappointed that the globalist war pigs were able to force their hand on President Bush
...

You mean his vice president and SecDef?

ljb5
11-12-2009, 12:02 PM
See also. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/12/2009-11-12_my_solemn_surprise_meeting_with_the_president_a t_my_friends_resting_place.html)

Joe (SoCal)
11-12-2009, 12:25 PM
See also. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/12/2009-11-12_my_solemn_surprise_meeting_with_the_president_a t_my_friends_resting_place.html)

That as touching thank you so much for that. More indication of the mans empathy. The Cons try to tag him with a megalomaniac narcissist personality. It never sticks, the guy is super humble and REAL. As a matter of fact hes been accused of being more that too nice, even to his rivals . The mans a class act all the way.

Rick-Mi
11-12-2009, 12:27 PM
Rick-Mi - I'm just deeply disappointed that the globalist war pigs were able to force their hand on President Bush <cut, snip> and congress who voted in support of the invasion of Iraq.



You mean his vice president and SecDef?


I meant exactly what I said.......


.

S/V Laura Ellen
11-12-2009, 12:30 PM
Give the guy a break! This constant portrayal of him as some evil dolt doesn't reflect well on his detractors.

Ish is right (this time). Bush doesn't need any help being portrayed as an evil dolt, he's done a fine job all by himself. (Okay maybe Cheney did help him a bit).:D

BrianW
11-12-2009, 12:58 PM
Let's call it 'low key' not 'secret'......I knew about this yesterday.
:)

Secret was the wording used in the LA Times article. I agree that "low key" is a better term.


He misses the spotlight and doesn't have much else to do with himself.

Actually the fact he didn't make it a "spotlight" event is the classy part. They made the trip, and kept it "low key". No attempt to usurp the spotlight from Obamas upcoming trip.


So your point is that he got there first? So What?

Dan

No, but it is a fact.

My point was it was low key, he didn't have to go, but still made the move.

A class move.


On the other hand, if Obama had gone there first, in secret for reals, we wouldn't know about it, would we? :)

If you believe Obama could have gone there in secret, and met with the troops, I'll let you continue to enjoy that fantasy. Once again you remind me that you know nothing of the military.

pefjr
11-12-2009, 01:12 PM
Presumably he went to apologise for starting the religious hatred.


Quietly.Silly comment. You think religious hatred is new, PISN?:)

pefjr
11-12-2009, 01:15 PM
I'm very glad he went.. it was the right thing to do, and I applaud him.

However, I'm hardly going to consider this particular act as any sort of measure of he character of the man. The photo-op stunt he pulled, flying onto the aircraft carrier wearing a jmpsuit, with the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, was one of the most shameful and insulting things that any President has ever done.... I was deeply embarrassed for the country by that. Funny, no soldier felt way, they love him.

pefjr
11-12-2009, 01:18 PM
Mention anything Bush, and it takes a leftist with the yellow infection a half a second to chime in spouting hate.

BrianW
11-12-2009, 01:21 PM
Mention anything Bush, and it takes a leftist with the yellow infection a half a second to chime in spouting hate.

Yep, it's a poor reflection on them. No thinking, just reacting.

LeeG
11-12-2009, 01:36 PM
Yep, it's a poor reflection on them. No thinking, just reacting.

you brought Obama into it.

ljb5
11-12-2009, 01:37 PM
If you believe Obama could have gone there in secret, and met with the troops, I'll let you continue to enjoy that fantasy.

Of course he couldn't. Neither could Mr. Bush, for that matter, which makes me wonder why you used the word "secretly"...

I'm sure you're at least partially aware of what would be needed for a sitting CiC to visit a large military base --- especially during an investigation of a terrorist attack. It would probably be disruptive, no matter how low key they tried to keep it.

I don't fault Bush for going, but I do take issue with your use of the word "secret" and the fact that you had to characterize it as some sort of competition between Bush and Obama.

Obama paid his respects... neither belatedly nor begrudgingly. His speech is being called one of the greatest in American history. I'm sure some will object to that. There are some who won't be satisfied by anything he does. You might be among them.

Phillip Allen
11-12-2009, 01:40 PM
come on ell jay...you already know why he used that word...he repeated the LA Times and he said so above...repeating that Brian picked that word after the answer was given is your specialty sort of lying...your invalidation is self-inflicted

ljb5
11-12-2009, 01:43 PM
...you already know why he used that word...he repeated the LA Times and he said so above...

It was wrong of the LA Times to say it and wrong of Brian to repeat it.

pefjr
11-12-2009, 01:44 PM
Of course he couldn't. Neither could Mr. Bush, for that matter, which makes me wonder why you used the word "secretly"...

I'm sure you're at least partially aware of what would be needed for a sitting CiC to visit a large military base --- especially during an investigation of a terrorist attack. It would probably be disruptive, no matter how low key they tried to keep it.

I don't fault Bush for going, but I do take issue with your use of the word "secret" and the fact that you had to characterize it as some sort of competition between Bush and Obama.

Obama paid his respects... neither belatedly nor begrudgingly. His speech is being called one of the greatest in American history. I'm sure some will object to that. There are some who won't be satisfied by anything he does. You might be among them.I'm sure that the Prez. approved of the Bush visit. Bush wanted it quiet as has been his behavior all along since Jan. No issues here to discuss.

ljb5
11-12-2009, 01:47 PM
Oddly, it wasn't the LA Times that first reported it, but FOX News.

Rick-Mi
11-12-2009, 02:14 PM
My point was it was low key, he didn't have to go, but still made the move.

A class move.

If you believe Obama could have gone there in secret, and met with the troops, I'll let you continue to enjoy that fantasy. Once again you remind me that you know nothing of the military.


Brian, we all saw what Obama decided when he found out the cameras wouldn't be rolling on a trip to visit wounded troops at a hospital in Germany.* :rolleyes:







*Libs don't need to bother listing the excuses for this slap in the face to our wounded warriors, we have heard them all......

ljb5
11-12-2009, 02:37 PM
... but in the world of right wing fantasy, a good smear is a good smear, and lives forever, regardless of the fact that it's false.

It's not just that it's a false smear long since debunked...

Rick-Mi and BrianW (and countless other conservatives) have shown an unseemly willingness to politicize every troop visit.

Anytime a politician visits the troops, you can count on the conservatives chorus to pronounce political judgment upon it. McCain actually tried to make it a campaign issue and released multiple press releases about it.

Does anyone think Bush would have done this if the cameras weren't rolling?

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/STFphotos/Bush-FlightSuit.jpg

They don't get to lecture anyone about media attention. Not after that one.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
11-12-2009, 02:41 PM
Silly comment. You think religious hatred is new, PISN?:)

Not generally - but Redneck V Muslim - that's new.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.


Singh along?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

jclays
11-12-2009, 05:50 PM
Mr Bush did well to visit and pay his respects aswell keep it quiet. It was in his state. Mr. Obama is now the President and it was right for him to get the coverage. Why keep dragging out the Bush Bashing? The man is long gone. This is now old stuff. Obama is now in the so to speak barrel and it is expected he will get his fair share of the bashing. No matter who is President someone is going to be unhappy. When the idol worship ends he too will be bashed until its his successor's turn.

perldog007
11-12-2009, 06:25 PM
"Presumably he went to apologise for starting the religious hatred."

Oh, I don't think we can blame Bush for that.

Good lord, what a silly thread. So, an ex-president goes, quietly, and visits a traumatized military base. I assume he did it quietly so as not to distract from the solemnity of the time. Give the guy a break! This constant portrayal of him as some evil dolt doesn't reflect well on his detractors.

But it does reflect accurately.

BrianW
11-12-2009, 06:28 PM
It was wrong of the LA Times to say it and wrong of Brian to repeat it.

Wrong?

Based on what standard?

It's common practice to quote, or paraphrase due to length, the headlines in articles being linked to in a thread title.

BrianW
11-12-2009, 06:33 PM
Rick-Mi and BrianW (and countless other conservatives) have shown an unseemly willingness to politicize every troop visit.

Actually, I simply pointed out an event. It was the liberals who decided this must be a political thread.

BrianW
11-12-2009, 06:38 PM
They don't get to lecture anyone about media attention. Not after that one.

We don't?

Damn! Anyone tell the RNC that 'lil bj' said they can't lecture on media attention?

I'm sure they'll be impressed.

:D

pefjr
11-12-2009, 06:50 PM
Not generally - but Redneck V Muslim - that's new.


Singh along?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
Oh, you think fanatical muslims distinguish between liberals, rednecks, and what others? First I've heard of a fanatical muslim, redneck war.

Thats Mark Twain, or maybe Mark was quoting someone else when he wrote it. But, it's been true for quite some time.

BrianW
11-12-2009, 06:52 PM
Oh, you think fanatical muslims distinguish between liberals, rednecks, and what others?..

Well they may notice the rednecks fire back. :D

Bob Adams
11-12-2009, 07:16 PM
Mr Bush did well to visit and pay his respects aswell keep it quiet. It was in his state. Mr. Obama is now the President and it was right for him to get the coverage. Why keep dragging out the Bush Bashing? The man is long gone. This is now old stuff. Obama is now in the so to speak barrel and it is expected he will get his fair share of the bashing. No matter who is President someone is going to be unhappy. When the idol worship ends he too will be bashed until its his successor's turn.

Because that's the way it is in the Bilge. Personally, I think it is quite possible he was just doing a decent thing.

perldog007
11-12-2009, 07:21 PM
It's not just that it's a false smear long since debunked...

Rick-Mi and BrianW (and countless other conservatives) have shown an unseemly willingness to politicize every troop visit.

Anytime a politician visits the troops, you can count on the conservatives chorus to pronounce political judgment upon it. McCain actually tried to make it a campaign issue and released multiple press releases about it.

Does anyone think Bush would have done this if the cameras weren't rolling?

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/STFphotos/Bush-FlightSuit.jpg

They don't get to lecture anyone about media attention. Not after that one.

well, W. was a pilot and he successfully did his part in the Viet Nam war by keeping the V.C. and N.V.A. out of the skies over Texas. I was on the Nimitz when Prince Charles did the same, only he actually landed his plane and by all accounts hit the number two wire.

I am not sure that W. flew that plane in. I think everybody should look at the political angles when a politician visits the troops. Why should we not?

They are after all politicians. ALL OF THEM, not just the ones you don't approve of.

High C
11-12-2009, 07:22 PM
...Singh along?


Groan :D

perldog007
11-12-2009, 07:26 PM
First I've heard of a fanatical muslim, redneck war.

http://onemansthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/image001.jpg?w=500&h=325

These boys will be dropped off in Afghanistan and have been given only the following facts about terrorists:

1. The season opened today.

2. There is no limit.

3. They taste just like chicken.

4. They donít like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.

5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt.

The Pentagon expects the problem in Afghanistan to be over by Friday.

Shamelessly lifted without permission from : http://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/united-states-redneck-special-forces-usrsf/

Phillip Allen
11-12-2009, 07:32 PM
Actually, I simply pointed out an event. It was the liberals who decided this must be a political thread.

I noticed that right away...very knee-jerk like :)

ljb5
11-12-2009, 07:35 PM
I am not sure that W. flew that plane in.


Don't be silly. Everyone knows he was cargo. The plane was piloted by Commander John Lussier.

Even if we thought the Secret Service would allow it, Bush hadn't flown in 20+ years, hadn't flown that type of aircraft and had never landed on a carrier. Not only that, but he had his wings clipped for failure to perform his duties.

How silly do you have to be to suppose, even for a second, that Bush may have been the pilot??!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Bush lied about the need for a jet. (Normally, he would make that trip by helicopter, but they said it was too far off-shore. That turned out not to be true.) They also lied about who made that big "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him.

I suppose if they thought you'd believe that, you might as well believe he was the pilot too. :rolleyes:

oznabrag
11-12-2009, 07:37 PM
Groan :D

Yeah. That was pretty sikh.

High C
11-12-2009, 07:40 PM
Yeah. That was pretty sikh.

Groan Groan, you sikho. :D

Phillip Allen
11-12-2009, 07:43 PM
Groan Groan, you sikho. :D

I'm glad to see some of you guys are having fun...of course there are other cases who seem content to limit themselves to their standard sh*t-hemorrhage

ljb5
11-12-2009, 08:06 PM
I was on the Nimitz when Prince Charles did the same, only he actually landed his plane and by all accounts hit the number two wire.

I have been unable to verify that this actually happened.

You'd think that there would be some record of it, wouldn't you?

The closest I can find is a note that he toured the Nimitz in May of '81 when it was in port.

Phillip Allen
11-12-2009, 08:10 PM
what are you ell jay...the keeper of truth? ...if YOU can't varify something then it isn't true...?

ljb5
11-12-2009, 08:25 PM
what are you ell jay...the keeper of truth? ...if YOU can't varify something then it isn't true...?

If I can't verify it, it makes me suspicious. If no one can verify it, it makes me skeptical.

You'd think there'd be some sorta record of the Prince of Wales landing a plane on a US carrier, dontcha?

LeeG
11-12-2009, 08:32 PM
OK, that's pretty funny. Even if the reality is that their fat asses would drop like cheap cigars in that thin dry air without their ATVs. Marlboros, Budweiser and TV have made the mythos of the American rifleman into a joke.

After reading this story I'd agree with you 100%. It's no game.


http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivor-Eyewitness-Account-Operation/dp/0316044695/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258075831&sr=1-1

BrianW
11-12-2009, 08:35 PM
You'd think there'd be some sorta record of the Prince of Wales landing a plane on a US carrier, dontcha?

"I didn't land on the Nimitz, the Nimitz landed on me!"



Oh wait, that was the Prince of Whales.

:D

seanz
11-12-2009, 10:30 PM
I noticed that right away...very knee-jerk like :)

Damn those liberal reflexes......it's all the vitamins dontcha know.


So Bush showed up somewhere when he should be in retirement.
Can we start comparing him to Jimmy Carter now?
:D

Paul Girouard
11-12-2009, 10:46 PM
If I can't verify it, it makes me suspicious. If no one can verify it, it makes me skeptical.

You'd think there'd be some sorta record of the Prince of Wales landing a plane on a US carrier, dontcha?



I agree with you on this one, here's some stuff about his career.


[edit (http://www.woodenboat.com/w/index.php?title=Charles,_Prince_of_Wales&action=edit&section=5)] Military training and career

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_Base_i n_the_United_States%2C_1981.jpg/180px-Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_Base_i n_the_United_States%2C_1981.jpg (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_B ase_in_the_United_States,_1981.jpg) http://www.woodenboat.com/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_B ase_in_the_United_States,_1981.jpg)
Prince Charles arrives at Andrews Air Force Base (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Andrews_Air_Force_Base) in the United States, 1981


Following in the tradition of Princes of Wales before him, Charles spent time in the navy and air force. After Royal Air Force (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Air_Force) training that he requested and received during his second year at Cambridge, on 8 March 1971 the Prince flew himself to the Royal Air Force College Cranwell (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/RAF_Cranwell) to train as a jet pilot. After the passing out parade in September of that year, he then embarked on a naval career, enrolling in a six week course at the Royal Naval College Dartmouth and then serving on the guided missile destroyer HMS Norfolk (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Norfolk_(D21)) (1971-1972) and the frigates HMS Minerva (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Minerva_(F45)) (1972-1973) and HMS Jupiter (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Jupiter_(F60)) (1974). Charles also qualified as a helicopter pilot at RNAS Yeovilton (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/RNAS_Yeovilton) in 1974, just prior to joining 845 Naval Air Squadron, operating from HMS Hermes (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(R12)), and on 9 February 1976, the Prince took command of the coastal minehunter HMS Bronington (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Bronington_(M1115)) for his last nine months in the navy. In total, Prince Charles has qualified to fly a Chipmunk (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-1_Chipmunk) basic pilot trainer, a Harrier T Mk.4 (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier) V/STOL fighter, a BAC Jet Provost (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/BAC_Jet_Provost) jet pilot trainer, a Nimrod (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Hawker-Siddeley_Nimrod) maritime patrol aircraft, a F-4 Phantom II (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II) fighter jet, an Avro Vulcan (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Avro_Vulcan) jet bomber, and a Spitfire (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire) classic WWII fighter.

Of the aircraft he qualified to fly only the Harrier, and Phantom are carrier based or USN compatible.

It's HIGHLY unlikely the USN just would let him "have a whack at a F-4 landing on a carrier, and IF he did land on Nimitz with a Harrier it would have been a vertical landing so no, " #2 wire", would have been involved.

I have seen Brit Harrier's land on TR when we where in the Med. so Brit Harrier's have landed on USN carrier's , I don't remember any announcement that "The Bonny Prince " was driving:D

I also am pretty sure there is no "OK 2 wire landings", IIRC only a 3 wire gets a "OK" pass grade. All other wires would have a lesser grade. BTW "OK" is as good as it gets for a grade.

Paul Girouard
11-12-2009, 10:52 PM
Here's what Dub-ya would have seen , S-3 "Hoover" on final approach, nice landing. You can hear how it got it's nickname.

BTW the S-3 is a dual stick aircraft so Dub-ya could have done a little driving on his way out to the ship. But like the Bonny Prince he would NOT have been driving when they landed.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/860996/steven_bonacorsi_us_navy_carrier_landing/


BTW I noticed on the metacalf site for this video one of the commentators / comments left about the video , states the Aircraft is a A-6 , which it is NOT. The pilot has no O2 mask,the aircraft has windshield wipers which the A-6 does NOT have it uses 12 stage bleed air for rain removal. And the cock house is WAY to big to be a A-6. Other than that no one would know. Well other than the sound, the A-6 is way louder!!

perldog007
11-12-2009, 11:11 PM
Don't be silly. Everyone knows he was cargo. The plane was piloted by Commander John Lussier.

Even if we thought the Secret Service would allow it, Bush hadn't flown in 20+ years, hadn't flown that type of aircraft and had never landed on a carrier. Not only that, but he had his wings clipped for failure to perform his duties.

How silly do you have to be to suppose, even for a second, that Bush may have been the pilot??!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Bush lied about the need for a jet. (Normally, he would make that trip by helicopter, but they said it was too far off-shore. That turned out not to be true.) They also lied about who made that big "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him.

I suppose if they thought you'd believe that, you might as well believe he was the pilot too. :rolleyes:

Are you always like this? it was a joke, but it does illustrate your partisan attack dog tendencies. lighten up, relax, you will live longer.

I don't care how skeptical you are, HRH did land on the Nimitz in the Summer of 81. Are you saying you have examined all the records kept of landings on the Nimitz? Or that google can retrieve them? Who is being silly now?

seanz
11-12-2009, 11:15 PM
There should be a bilge handbook....The Illustrated Guide of Partisan Attack Dogs

perldog007
11-12-2009, 11:20 PM
I agree with you on this one, here's some stuff about his career.


[edit (http://www.woodenboat.com/w/index.php?title=Charles,_Prince_of_Wales&action=edit&section=5)] Military training and career

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_Base_i n_the_United_States%2C_1981.jpg/180px-Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_Base_i n_the_United_States%2C_1981.jpg (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_B ase_in_the_United_States,_1981.jpg) http://www.woodenboat.com/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Prince_Charles_arrives_at_Andrews_Air_Force_B ase_in_the_United_States,_1981.jpg)
Prince Charles arrives at Andrews Air Force Base (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Andrews_Air_Force_Base) in the United States, 1981


Following in the tradition of Princes of Wales before him, Charles spent time in the navy and air force. After Royal Air Force (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Air_Force) training that he requested and received during his second year at Cambridge, on 8 March 1971 the Prince flew himself to the Royal Air Force College Cranwell (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/RAF_Cranwell) to train as a jet pilot. After the passing out parade in September of that year, he then embarked on a naval career, enrolling in a six week course at the Royal Naval College Dartmouth and then serving on the guided missile destroyer HMS Norfolk (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Norfolk_(D21)) (1971-1972) and the frigates HMS Minerva (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Minerva_(F45)) (1972-1973) and HMS Jupiter (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Jupiter_(F60)) (1974). Charles also qualified as a helicopter pilot at RNAS Yeovilton (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/RNAS_Yeovilton) in 1974, just prior to joining 845 Naval Air Squadron, operating from HMS Hermes (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(R12)), and on 9 February 1976, the Prince took command of the coastal minehunter HMS Bronington (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMS_Bronington_(M1115)) for his last nine months in the navy. In total, Prince Charles has qualified to fly a Chipmunk (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-1_Chipmunk) basic pilot trainer, a Harrier T Mk.4 (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier) V/STOL fighter, a BAC Jet Provost (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/BAC_Jet_Provost) jet pilot trainer, a Nimrod (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Hawker-Siddeley_Nimrod) maritime patrol aircraft, a F-4 Phantom II (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II) fighter jet, an Avro Vulcan (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Avro_Vulcan) jet bomber, and a Spitfire (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire) classic WWII fighter.

Of the aircraft he qualified to fly only the Harrier, and Phantom are carrier based or USN compatible.

It's HIGHLY unlikely the USN just would let him "have a whack at a F-4 landing on a carrier, and IF he did land on Nimitz with a Harrier it would have been a vertical landing so no, " #2 wire", would have been involved.

I have seen Brit Harrier's land on TR when we where in the Med. so Brit Harrier's have landed on USN carrier's , I don't remember any announcement that "The Bonny Prince " was driving:D

I also am pretty sure there is no "OK 2 wire landings", IIRC only a 3 wire gets a "OK" pass grade. All other wires would have a lesser grade. BTW "OK" is as good as it gets for a grade.

Actually, a landing everybody walks away from is a good one. But I am glad you know more about it than somebody who was on the ship and heard it announced that HRH had landed.

pefjr
11-12-2009, 11:42 PM
Perldog007, what good deeds have you done, what did ya steal, and can you hit the 4" bull eye from 22yds. with a Hoyt 58"recurve 16 out 20 arrows?

And if I can't verify this answer I am going to be suspicious.:D

ljb5
11-13-2009, 12:10 AM
Are you always like this? it was a joke, but it does illustrate your partisan attack dog tendencies. lighten up, relax, you will live longer.

I don't think you were joking. I think you were mistaken.


I don't care how skeptical you are, HRH did land on the Nimitz in the Summer of 81.

It's a remarkable claim. I really do think there would be record of that sort of thing somewhere. The Prince of Wales usually leaves a press record wherever he goes, especially right before his wedding.

At first, I was just asking if you could verify it. Now, I'm saying you can't.

I'm not calling you a liar... I'm just sayin' you're lyin'.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 12:19 AM
I don't think you were joking. I think you were mistaken.



It's a remarkable claim. I really do think there would be record of that sort of thing somewhere. The Prince of Wales usually leaves a press record wherever he goes.

I'm not calling you a liar... I'm just sayin' you're lyin'.

Fair enough, we know where you are coming from so it's not surprising. I am sure that you have examined all the newspaper morgues and not relied on a google for something that happened 28 years ago.
Glad i could be the pinata for a shining moment and give others a rest :D

ljb5
11-13-2009, 12:24 AM
Fair enough, we know where you are coming from so it's not surprising. I am sure that you have examined all the newspaper morgues and not relied on a google for something that happened 28 years ago.

Well, you're the one who made the claim, not me, so I kinda feel like you ought to take the initiative on this one.

At first, I was merely skeptical, but now you're acting evasive and trying to make it sound like it's my fault that your claim doesn't hold water.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 12:38 AM
Perldog007, what good deeds have you done, what did ya steal, and can you hit the 4" bull eye from 22yds. with a Hoyt 58"recurve 16 out 20 arrows?

And if I can't verify this answer I am going to be suspicious.:D

I am almost famous. I can bake fifteen minute brownies in seven. My sensuous flute playing woos Amazonian assassins as if they were innocent schoolgirls.

I can hit the 4" bull with my hand carved self bow from 15 yards with an arrow now and then. I am an ultra light carp action star.

In my spare time I teach Hispanic agricultural workers slurs en Francais so they can harass the Haitians, the French, and our friends from Quebec.

I watch Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman, I read High Times and Soldier of Fortune.

On 7OCT87 at 0230 hours I kicked in the door of 52 N. Salford St. in West Philly and took a bail skip to Burlington County Jail in Camden N.J. for $500 USD

I just pushed all in on full tilt against two other players with small suited connectors and made my flush.

I have seen Lilly Tomlin in her underwear. I have been in over one hundred physical confrontations at Union Station in Washington D.C.

Three of the statements above are false, spurious, bulltacos :D

perldog007
11-13-2009, 12:43 AM
Well, you're the one who made the claim, not me, so I kinda feel like you ought to take the initiative on this one.

At first, I was merely skeptical, but now you're acting evasive and trying to make it sound like it's my fault that your claim doesn't hold water.


Stay with it, you are about to uncover a vast right wing conspiracy. Remain on topic, don't accept any misdirection. Your cause is a just one.

Nobody's fault , the best sea stories are like the best conspiracy theories, hard to pin down. :cool:

ljb5
11-13-2009, 12:48 AM
perldog, I had you pegged as a phony from the moment you started posting.

Now everyone knows it. Don't try to act like it's my fault.

==============================================

Just out of curiosity, Paul, do they land aircraft on carriers when they're in port?

pefjr
11-13-2009, 12:50 AM
I am almost famous. I can bake fifteen minute brownies in seven. My sensuous flute playing woos Amazonian assassins as if they were innocent schoolgirls.

I can hit the 4" bull with my hand carved self bow from 15 yards with an arrow now and then. I am an ultra light carp action star.

In my spare time I teach Hispanic agricultural workers slurs en Francais so they can harass the Haitians, the French, and our friends from Quebec.

I watch Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman, I read High Times and Soldier of Fortune.

On 7OCT87 at 0230 hours I kicked in the door of 50 N. Salford St. in West Philly and took a bail skip to Burlington County Jail in Camden N.J. for $500 USD

I just pushed all in on full tilt against two other players with small suited connectors and made my flush.

I have seen Lilly Tomlin in her underwear. I have been in over one hundred physical confrontations at Union Station in Washington D.C.

Three of the statements above are false, spurious, bulltacos :DWell, I'll take your word for it, sounds good anyway. Don't pay LJB5 any mind, I own him. He was a star in this years "Being Obtuse" World Series and he has a big head. Plus, he is in love with Anita Dunn but she has spurned him for her dream of fighting along side Mao and the Viet Cong. :D

perldog007
11-13-2009, 12:57 AM
perldog, I had you pegged as a phony from the moment you started posting.

Don't try to act like it's my fault.

==============================================

Just out of curiosity, Paul, do they land aircraft on carriers when they're in port?

No they do not to the best of my knowledge, but i don't know about VTOL stuff like the Harrier. My squadron was VAW 124 - fixed wing trubo prop birds... Helocopters may be a different story, and today may be different from back in the day.

I would expect you would have animus towards me you are a partisan attack dog, I am not. Whatever gets you through the night. You weren't on the boat, you don't know me.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:10 AM
No they do not to the best of my knowledge, but i don't know about VTOL stuff like the Harrier.

The Nimitz was in port at Norfolk on the day Prince Charles visited, so either he landed on the carrier when it was in port, or he didn't land at all.

You said he hit the wire, so I interpret that to mean he was not flying VTOL.


I would expect you would have animus towards me you are a partisan attack dog, I am not.

Don't try to make it about me. This is about the claim you made.

pefjr
11-13-2009, 01:14 AM
LJ, you never answered my question. I repeat: What are you doing on WB? 33yrs old, a PHD, and how many? again other degrees? Are you avoiding the question? I have a right to know, before I invest more money in your contract for next year. I'm was suspicious and am now getting skeptical.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:15 AM
LJ, you never answered my question. I repeat: What are you doing on WB?

Reading and posting.

Paul Girouard
11-13-2009, 01:17 AM
Just out of curiosity, Paul, do they land aircraft on carriers when they're in port?




Helo's, yes, all the time. Mail, people , parts etc all can be ferried aboard vie the helo's while in port.

Fixed wing , no way!

It would be possible to land a Harrier while in port BUT it would be a rare thing and again no asserting gear would be used , so the OK 2 wire thing is B/S.

So most of the storey would fit the description of what we'd call a "No $hitter"/ sea storey / B/S.

SO IF HRH did fly aboard, was he driving a helo? If so how'd the wire come into play? :rolleyes:

pefjr
11-13-2009, 01:21 AM
I see that, over 5 yrs and and 13,000 rude posts. I'm skeptical because you are avoiding the questions. Are you layed off? a phd, no job, wasting time on WB, what's your story? Details?

Paul Girouard
11-13-2009, 01:28 AM
My squadron was VAW 124 - fixed wing trubo prop birds... Helocopters may be a different story, and today may be different from back in the day.

You weren't on the boat, you don't know me.




Ah, a Hummer guy eh? That explains it:D What was your rate? AD? High speed nose picker? :D You "read" like a AD:D

I would say there is NO WAY any Ships Captain is going to let anyone who have not trained , CQ'ed to land on his ship as a pilot of a fixed wing A/C totally unqualed. Even the CIC or HRH.

Even "way back then" which by the way isn't that long ago. You said 81 right?

Joe (SoCal)
11-13-2009, 01:34 AM
ljb5 nailed another one, ya might not like him but he's got facts on his side all the time. Well played, well played :D

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:36 AM
The Nimitz was in port at Norfolk on the day Prince Charles visited, so either he landed on the carrier when it was in port, or he didn't land at all.

You said he hit the wire, so I interpret that to mean he was not flying VTOL.



Don't try to make it about me. This is about the claim you made.

I was just posting what i remember you are the one making a federal case out of it. You just can't stand anybody or anything that does not fit your world view. I saw that report and don't remember a visit before the crash. I remember a visit when we crossed the pond.

Since I was with a Squadron I was living on NAS in a baracks until we went out for the work up cruise. I would not have been on the ship on May 1, I would have been in the shop across the street from the hangar.



Sorry to upset you, I remember a visit from HRH while we were underway on the Med Cruise after the crash on the work up. I am not trying to lie or mislead anybody.

You are the one with all the issues. Sorry that you have "had me pegged" since my first post. Apparently in all that education nobody ever taught you to be civilized in debate or to respect diversity of opinion. Very sad.


Just because you can't find it on google I am liar? O.K. like I said happy to the target if it keeps your personal attacks off of somebody else.

I suppose you can tell me everywhere PC went in '81? It's all about you. Call me a liar, I could care less. I know who I am and I don't hate you or anybody else who disagrees with me.

Edit- BTW it is sort of pompous for you to assume that the visit in Norfolk was "THE" visit, as in the only one. It also seems that nobody can prove it didn't happen and it's not like I claimed to land the plane. I was just on the boat. But since that can't be proven with a goolge I reckon that's suspect too. I just googled your handle and it didn't check out so you must be phony too :D

Joe (SoCal)
11-13-2009, 01:40 AM
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/Backpedal.jpg

pefjr
11-13-2009, 01:48 AM
ljb5 nailed another one, ya might not like him but he's got facts on his side all the time. Well played, well played :DIn 81, lJ was 5 and he acts as he is still 5. And he is avoiding explaining himself. I'm skeptical.:D

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:55 AM
Ah, a Hummer guy eh? That explains it:D What was your rate? AD? High speed nose picker? :D You "read" like a AD:D

I would say there is NO WAY any Ships Captain is going to let anyone who have not trained , CQ'ed to land on his ship as a pilot of a fixed wing A/C totally unqualed. Even the CIC or HRH.

Even "way back then" which by the way isn't that long ago. You said 81 right?


I was a tweak and worked in the ECM shop. Had the best job on the boat, the stuff I was supposed to fix never broke. God Bless Grumman .

That's why I remember it as odd.

It did not seem to make sense that he would land on deck. It was in 81, the med cruise after the crash on the work up.

I remember thinking what if something happens to this guy?

He was announced as being on board and the line rats all were saying he stuck the landing. I was in the coop, and would not have been allowed on the roof during recovery anyway.

It seems like too many folks were all a flutter for it to have been a serious sea story. Edit- meaning I believe it happened.
Edit the EDIT Can't even find any mention of any carrier landing by HRH.

pefjr
11-13-2009, 02:07 AM
ljb5 nailed another one, ya might not like him but he's got facts on his side all the time. Well played, well played :D Do you see the fish perldog is holding? Well, perldog must know how to play a fish and thats what he has on his line now, a fish called LJ and that is what is being played here. :D

perldog007
11-13-2009, 02:21 AM
Do you see the fish perldog is holding? Well, perldog must know how to play a fish and thats what he has on his line now, a fish called LJ and that is what is being played here. :D

So you believe that I am an ultra light Carp action star...

perldog007
11-13-2009, 02:26 AM
ljb5 nailed another one, ya might not like him but he's got facts on his side all the time. Well played, well played :D

Nailed? well okay, I am just rambling about what i remember. If I am mistaken I won't throw myself off of a bridge, but seriously not trying to buffalo anybody. I have better stories than that with links :cool: Gotta tell ya Joe, I am starting to doubt myself I just read that PC's military career ended in 1978. I was still in High School Maybe it was just the fog of the Med ( kush, severe kind, hashish) But I still have memories of everybody being all excited about Prince Chuck landing... Who knows. It is fun seeing an attack dog foam at the mouth though..... I am going to take the final position that if it didn't go down, it should have :D

Joe (SoCal)
11-13-2009, 07:20 AM
Did you completely miss the backpeddeling analogy I posted ?????
Sheesh maybe you will get this one ;)

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/virtualworlds/images/thumb/b/b9/Cinder_block_redirect.png/120px-Cinder_block_redirect.png

ljb5
11-13-2009, 09:18 AM
Nailed? well okay, I am just rambling about what i remember. If I am mistaken I won't throw myself off of a bridge.

Fair enough, I won't throw you off a bridge either.

But I sure as hell don't expect you to take it out on me just 'cause you made a mistake.


I am starting to doubt myself...

That's a step in the right direction. Don't be surprised if we doubt you too.


It is fun seeing an attack dog foam at the mouth though.....

I really don't feel like I'm foaming at the mouth... but I gotta say, if a person is going to get excited about something, I'd much rather get excited about reality than about some bs story from a ditsy gasbag.

Paul Girouard
11-13-2009, 09:40 AM
I was a tweak

You mean "tweet" as in AT ? Or where you the first to be a crack head?


and worked in the ECM shop.

So you worked in the VAN's/ "I" level. To damned cold in those shops!

Had the best job on the boat, the stuff I was supposed to fix never broke. God Bless Grumman .

Grumman made the plane , most black boxes where made by other companies. Your memory is highly suspect.

That's why I remember it as odd.

It did not seem to make sense that he would land on deck. It was in 81, the med cruise after the crash on the work up.

Dollars to donuts you have your storey wrong. He may have visited the ship but actually to have been the pilot flying the aircraft , unless it was a helo or Harrier, I can buy that.

I remember thinking what if something happens to this guy?

More importantly what about the ship? Having a untrained pilot land on a carrier at sea with a deck full of other A/C, loss of other assets / loss of the ship / damage to the flight deck gear etc , NO I'm gonna say he was NOT the pilot at the stick / yoke. He might have been cargo as Lil said but not the pilot.



I was in the coop, and would not have been allowed on the roof during recovery anyway.

But you'd except they'd let a untrained pilot do a arrested landing, but keep you off the roof!

It seems like too many folks were all a flutter for it to have been a serious sea story.

Oh a serious sea story , NOW thats a different storey:D One might call that a real "No $hitter"


Can't even find any mention of any carrier landing by HRH.



Ya thats odd eh? Cuz it NEVER happened maybe :D

pefjr
11-13-2009, 10:41 AM
So you believe that I am an ultra light Carp action star...Yeah, I believe it. But with this fish did you use the right equipment to qualify? Bamboo fly rod?, 3lb. test? Yes, you did catch a lite weight. And played him for awhile too, but he's easy. Points for the side action from the yankee fan though. The swabby kept his distance warily watching and I thought you might get him too, but he was too slippery. :D

perldog007
11-13-2009, 10:44 AM
Fair enough, I won't throw you off a bridge either.

But I sure as hell don't expect you to take it out on me just 'cause you made a mistake.



That's a step in the right direction. Don't be surprised if we doubt you too.



I really don't feel like I'm foaming at the mouth... but I gotta say, if a person is going to get excited about something, I'd much rather get excited about reality than about some bs story from a ditsy gasbag.

Which makes the whole exchange even more hysterical. A ditsy gasbag has you googling and ranting over a sea story. Your'e a genius alright.

It has been my honor to draw fire in this thread and take it off of guy who was just visiting troops under the radar without cameras rolling, without politicizing the event.

No matter how you feel about the man's politics it was a decent thing to do.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 10:50 AM
It has been my honor to draw fire in this thread and take it off of guy who was just visiting troops under the radar without cameras rolling, without politicizing the event.

So you're just a partisan hack willing to tell a lie to "draw fire" from Bush. :rolleyes:

True allegiance should not require you to bend the truth.


No matter how you feel about the man's politics it was a decent thing to do.

I said the same thing yesterday (post #14).

And I didn't need to tell any lies to make my point.

================================================== ===============

On the bright side, you are the first person to ever get Paul and me to agree about anything. We both think you're full of it!

perldog007
11-13-2009, 11:01 AM
Ya thats odd eh? Cuz it NEVER happened maybe :D

Could be Paul, never said I was the pope. Tweak was the old term, for the little screwdrivers carried in the shirt pocket/pocket protector for "tweaking" potentiometers.

Line rats, mechs, and other lower life forms mutated it into tweet over the years. :D

in '81 it would have been called base or freebase not crack. And no, that was not my thing.

I will admit, the only thing I can find online is the in port visit before the work up, and I am pretty sure you would know it was likely a squadron puke was almost certainly in the rear with the gear getting ready for the work up and not likely to be on the boat.

Plus, the man was a newlywed at the time. So if it wasn't crack maybe it was the bug juice pruno, combined with, as you say, a no $#!773R of a sea story.

Maybe not.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 11:10 AM
So you're just a partisan hack willing to tell a lie to "draw fire" from Bush. :rolleyes:

True allegiance should not require you to bend the truth.



I said the same thing yesterday (post #14).

And I didn't need to tell any lies to make my point.

================================================== ===============

On the bright side, you are the first person to ever get Paul and me to agree about anything. We both think you're full of it!

Glad I could help! I also take up for BHO, and I wasn't lying. That's what I remember.

It's a good thing that you can make your point with only peer reviewed honest approved facts. Now if we can get you to act like an adult and do it without the flippant insults we will have brought you to whatever deity you need bringing to.

Like Tommy Lee Jones' character said in "No Country For Old Men", "it's one hundred percent true that it's a story".

Now run off and verify that, and think of something else rude and flippant to say.

pefjr
11-13-2009, 12:41 PM
Now if we can get you to act like an adult and do it without the flippant insults we will have brought you to whatever deity you need bringing to.

Now run off and verify that,

It must be the lack of "upbringing".

perldog007
11-13-2009, 12:55 PM
It must be the lack of "upbringing".

I don't know, I have known folks - like my dear departed mother who were raised right then became screaming partisans late in life who could not respect anybody with opposing viewpoints.

I seriously was only trying to make the point that jumping up and down and making wee wee in your pants about a politico pulling a publicity stunt is as inane as moaning about how a just and merciful god could allow the creation of noxious and unstable plastics.

If I really did "misremember" then I am going to have to write Dick Cheney and see if he will come up with a way to let me off the hook like he did for Hillary during the primary.

Phillip Allen
11-13-2009, 01:01 PM
It must be the lack of "upbringing".

I'm sure it was...parental malpractice

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:08 PM
I seriously was only trying to make the point that jumping up and down and making wee wee in your pants about a politico pulling a publicity stunt...

Your language and imagery is crude and inappropriate.

You made a silly mistake. You'll get over it. Next time, be more careful.

It wasn't my fault. Stop trying to act like this reflects badly on me.

You keep trying to act like this is about me, but it's not. You made a silly mistake. Both Paul and I called you out. You need to deal with that on your own, without lashing out at me.

Phillip Allen
11-13-2009, 01:13 PM
Your language and imagery is crude and inappropriate.



It wasn't my fault. Stop trying to act like this reflects badly on me.

you should use more sophistacated language like ell jay does...IDIOT! LIAR! STUPID! and others...

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:17 PM
Your language and imagery is crude and inappropriate.

You made a silly mistake. You'll get over it. Next time, be more careful.

It wasn't my fault. Stop trying to act like this reflects badly on me.

I am not saying it makes you a bad person. I am saying that partisan rancor isn't just part of the problem, it is the problem.

Who makes you the arbiter? Saying things like "Fox sucks" isn't crude or inappropriate?

Is Hillary a "ditsy gasbag" because she misremembered and confused the time she went hunting with Dick Cheney for landing under sniper fire? Or is it only people who dare disagree with you?

I am not acting like anything. You are rude, disrespectful and have to constantly resort to insults and invective to bolster your position.

When you let somebody else think for you, that's gong to happen.

When you open your mind and stop dismissing people as stupid because their life experiences are different from yours and have given them different values, then it will stop happening.

You choose.

Edit- Paul did in fact call me on my statement. He did so without the inflammatory and condescending tone you bring to the forum. My responses to him reflect that. In fact, studying that exchange might give you a hint about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:18 PM
you should use more sophistacated language like ell jay does...IDIOT! LIAR! STUPID! and others...

If you didn't lie so much, I wouldn't call you a liar so often. The ball's in your court.

But I don't know who you think you are to lecture anyone. Look at the language and insults you use. What credibility do you think you have?

How about you just give it a rest? Perldog made a fool of himself. Paul and I both caught him. This really isn't my fault, and you're really not going to help yourself by trying to insert yourself into it.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:21 PM
I am not saying it makes you a bad person. I am saying that partisan rancor isn't just part of the problem, it is the problem.

Right back at you, partisan attack dog.


Is Hillary a "ditsy gasbag" because she misremembered and confused the time she went hunting with Dick Cheney for landing under sniper fire? Or is it only people who dare disagree with you?

Why don't you try owning your own mistakes instead of casting about for someone else to attack? Attacking Hillary instead of dealing with your own mistake makes you look a bit like a partisan hack.


You are rude, disrespectful and have to constantly resort to insults and invective to bolster your position.

Right back at you.

You have used crude language and insults instead of dealing with your own mistake.

You made a mistake. Stop acting like it's my fault.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:25 PM
If you didn't lie so much, I wouldn't call you a liar so often. The ball's in your court.

But I don't know who you think you are to lecture anyone. Look at the language and insults you use. What credibility do you think you have?

How about you just give it a rest? Perldog made a fool of himself. Paul and I both caught him. This really isn't my fault, and you're really not going to help yourself by trying to insert yourself into it.


I think the larger point here is that we don't have to throw bombs to make our point, and when we do it diminishes the debate.

BTW - did you catch me, or did you get punk'd?

Opinions vary.....

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:28 PM
I think the larger point here is that we don't have to throw bombs to make our point, and when we do it diminishes the debate.

Fair enough. But I sure as heck don't have to accept partisan hogwash.

If you're worried about "diminishing the debate," keep your nose clean and your facts straight.


BTW - did you catch me, or did you get punk'd?

Opinions vary.....

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.

You think anyone is going to believe that?

Man up and own it.

Phillip Allen
11-13-2009, 01:31 PM
foolish...(sigh)

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:32 PM
Yeah, I believe it. But with this fish did you use the right equipment to qualify? Bamboo fly rod?, 3lb. test? Yes, you did catch a lite weight. And played him for awhile too, but he's easy. Points for the side action from the yankee fan though. The swabby kept his distance warily watching and I thought you might get him too, but he was too slippery. :D

Well then there is that. I did use ultra light tackle, an old sea story from a cruise whose memory is fading. But I have to concede you are correct about lack of selectivity on the part of the quarry. It was nothing like getting a rising carp to take a fly...

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:34 PM
Fair enough. But I sure as heck don't have to accept partisan hogwash.

If you're worried about "diminishing the debate," keep your nose clean and your facts straight.



Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.

You think anyone is going to believe that?

Man up and own it.

Oh but I did, two seperate issues. keep your facts straight. What do you mean accept partisan hogwash? You are the prime source of partisan hogwash. That's rather the point.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:35 PM
And you talk about "diminishing the debate"?

You're nothing more than a partisan hack.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:39 PM
You are the prime source of partisan hogwash.

If you think so, you're more than welcome to try to prove that using factual, logical arguments, while still maintaining an air of decency and decorum.

Good luck.

Right now, you're running a little low on credibility, so pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

You're partisan, crude, factually incorrect and having a hard time showing integrity. Work on that before you lecture me.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:47 PM
And you talk about "diminishing the debate"?

You're nothing more than a partisan hack.

IN a sense you are correct. I have strong feelings about folks who have to stoop to invective all the time, lack manners, and mindlessly defend one side of an issue to the point where they attack the character of those who disagree, like when you called the tea party protesters "morons".

I am a rabid anti-partisan partisan.

Politically, I have views that are odius to the right and left, I am a registered Democrat who votes independently. Here I have defended and questioned both BHO and GWB.

What I try very hard not to do it inject the level of rudeness and disrespect you bring to the game.

Yes, I posted something based on a memory dating back to when you were in kindergarten. I have conceded that I may have very well been mistaken.

Nobody has conceded that it hasn't been proven to civil or criminal standards that I was not mistaken or more to the point committed moral turpitude by deliberately lying.

You have demonstrated beyond any doubt your willingness to engage in uncivilized and unwarranted invective.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 01:49 PM
If you think so, you're more than welcome to try to prove that using factual, logical arguments, while still maintaining an air of decency and decorum.

Good luck.

Right now, you're running a little low on credibility, so pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

You're partisan, crude, factually incorrect and having a hard time showing integrity. Work on that before you lecture me.

Um "Fox sucks" "morons led by a moron" ..... seriously credibility?

Yeah if you say so. Here are a few of my favorites,


My counter proposal: anyone who runs for office ought to be able to read a bill, no matter how long it might be.

It's their job.

They sure as heck shouldn't spend all day at a Tea Bagger rally and then complain that they didn't have a chance to read it.


Just to be clear -- is that something you actually believe, or just something you invented?

I'm just trying to figure out the parameters of your psychosis.


Don't lecture me, doofus.....


True, but one does not often see a rally of morons led by a sitting member of Congress.


Right now, Tea Baggers, Conservatives, Republicans and health insurance companies are fighting for that righ....


Michelle Bachmann (R-Alternate Universe) is planning a big rally tomorrow on Capitol Hill with her Tea Baggers.

She's well known for extreme battiness......

Nothing crude or inappropriate about calling the tea party protesters "Tea Baggers" :rolleyes: This is just from this month and only show outright insults, Rude and disrespectful are somewhat subjective so I will leave those out.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 01:53 PM
I have strong feelings about folks who have to stoop to invective all the time, lack manners, and mindlessly defend one side of an issue to the point where they attack the character of those who disagree, like when you called the tea party protesters "morons".

Dude, look in the mirror.


Politically, I have views that are odius to the right and left.

We all do. Don't think you're special.


What I try very hard not to do it inject the level of rudeness and disrespect you bring to the game.

I think you have failed and continue to fail in that endeavor. I look forward to you getting back on that path instead of repeatedly attacking me for catching your error.


Yes, I posted something based on a memory dating back to when you were in kindergarten. I have conceded that I may have very well been mistaken.

First you insisted you were right, then you conceded, then you said you "punk'd" me, then you said you conceded. Show some integrity.



You have demonstrated beyond any doubt your willingness to engage in uncivilized and unwarranted invective.

Dude, look in the mirror. :rolleyes:

perldog007
11-13-2009, 02:30 PM
First you insisted you were right, then you conceded, then you said you "punk'd" me, then you said you conceded. Show some integrity.



I insisted that I remembered what I posted and still do. I conceded that there was no evidence online and also that it was not only possible but likely I was mistaken. There was a suggestion from a poster other than myself that you were in fact punk'd.

I am not attacking you for "catching" me. I am engaging you for attacking me personally over a mostly moot point.

Integrity is saying what you mean and meaning what you say. I think we both do. It doesn't mean that either one of us won't ever be wrong.

Haven't read all of your posts, but what I have read tends to suggest a lack of humility and respect for opposing views and a tendency to result to flippant insults, like disparaging tea party protesters you don't agree with by using the innuendo "tea bagger".

Then you call me crude for referencing "making wee wee".

You insist that I was deliberately lying to make a point, that may very well be your opinion but certainly not a fact.

Lastly, i am not attacking you. You are doing the damage to yourself, and folks who have to constantly stoop to inflammatory rhetoric and insults are damaging our country. Nancy said so.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 02:46 PM
I am not attacking you for "catching" me. I am engaging you for attacking me personally over a mostly moot point.

That's a remarkable feat of self-justification. With reasoning like that, you can authorize yourself to accuse anyone of anything without ever having to acknowledge your own faults.


It doesn't mean that either one of us won't ever be wrong.

Perhaps. But in this case, you were wrong and I wasn't.



Haven't read all of your posts, but what I have read tends to suggest a lack of humility and respect for opposing views and a tendency to result to flippant insults...

I notice the same thing about you.


Then you call me crude for referencing "making wee wee".

Are you saying it wasn't crude, or saying it's okay for you to be crude?


You insist that I was deliberately lying to make a point, that may very well be your opinion but certainly not a fact.

I don't know why you said it, but you shouldn't have. Why did you?


Lastly, i am not attacking you.

Of course not. The word you used was "engaging." :rolleyes: I'm "attacking" you, but you're "engaging" me. Do you really believe that?


...folks who have to constantly stoop to inflammatory rhetoric and insults are damaging our country.

I believe this applies to you also, but I'm sure you're convinced that you have special dispensation. :rolleyes:

perldog007
11-13-2009, 02:59 PM
Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree. My apologies to the rest of the forum for the silliness and my part in it. But occupying a bomb thrower makes the rest of the world safer.

I will try to more careful especially with old memories. I am not sure that Ljb5 will try to curb the use of insults and rancor, but we can hope.

Some folks learn from experience, others already know everything.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 03:08 PM
...But occupying a bomb thrower makes the rest of the world safer.

You really think you're a hero, dontcha?

Let me guess... I'm wrong to post here, but you're doing a service for society?

Don't take yourself so seriously. I'm not a 'bomb thrower' and you're not a hero.

You think all your attacks and distortions and partisanship is justified but then you attack me. Oops, sorry, you don't "attack," you "engage."

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Phillip Allen
11-13-2009, 03:18 PM
Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree. My apologies to the rest of the forum for the silliness and my part in it. But occupying a bomb thrower makes the rest of the world safer.

I will try to more careful especially with old memories. I am not sure that Ljb5 will try to curb the use of insults and rancor, but we can hope.

Some folks learn from experience, others already know everything.

you have to understand...ell jay MUST have the last word...it is VERY important to him...whoever quits talking first, according to him, is conceeding defeat

pefjr
11-13-2009, 03:34 PM
you have to understand...ell jay MUST have the last word...it is VERY important to him...whoever quits talking first, according to him, is conceeding defeatSo, what was this subject about anyway, oh as I said earlier, there are no issues here, Bush might have been chosen by Obama to visit because of the respect he gets from the military. I'd like to think so.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 03:34 PM
you have to understand...ell jay MUST have the last word...it is VERY important to him...whoever quits talking first, according to him, is conceeding defeat
I know, that's kind of cool ain't it.... :cool:

perldog007
11-13-2009, 03:37 PM
So, what was this subject about anyway, oh as I said earlier, there are no issues here, Bush might have been chosen by Obama to visit because of the respect he gets from the military. I'd like to think so.


I would be a bit surprised if there wasn't some communication. Bush would be risking an awful lot to somehow offend or upstage POTUS if there was no communication.

Not everybody in the mil loves Bush according to my Jarhead number one son, but he was like thirty miles away. Maybe the location, location,location thing was in play as well.

pefjr
11-13-2009, 04:12 PM
Send your son a thank you from me.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 04:21 PM
Send your son a thank you from me.

Will do. That's one thing we have gotten better at as a Nation, realizing that those who serve do so for all of us.

Bob Adams
11-13-2009, 06:46 PM
And you talk about "diminishing the debate"?

You're nothing more than a partisan hack.

You calling someone else a partisan hack? Now that's a jewel.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 06:59 PM
You calling someone else a partisan hack? Now that's a jewel.

Nah, I'm just a guy who loves my country and stands up for the truth.

I can't help it if the truth has a decidedly leftward slant.

Unlike some people here, I can make my point without bending the facts. If that doesn't make you feel warm and cosy, it ain't my problem.

If you like, we can discuss at some length the relative merits of various political approaches. But I'm going to insist we keep it factual and logical, and that's almost an unfair advantage for me. :)

perldog007
11-13-2009, 07:04 PM
You calling someone else a partisan hack? Now that's a jewel.


speaking of which, where is my esteemed colleague? I am going to have a hard time dealing with a day's unemployment without his insightful, rational, and well reasoned debate.

Heck with enough inspiration from my new best buddy I might be able to beat my writer's block and make a few bucks on textbroker. W00T~~~~!!!!!!~~~~~~~

Hooray! he's back!!!

perldog007
11-13-2009, 07:06 PM
Nah, I'm just a guy who loves my country and stands up for the truth.

I can't help it if the truth has a decidedly leftward slant.

Unlike some people here, I can make my point without bending the facts. If that doesn't make you feel warm and cosy, it ain't my problem.

If you like, we can discuss at some length the relative merits of various political approaches. But I'm going to insist we keep it factual and logical, and that's almost an unfair advantage for me. :)

The truth is that the tea party protesters are Teabaggers and morons? Don't think so. And how is that factual?

ljb5
11-13-2009, 07:09 PM
The truth is that the tea party protesters are Teabaggers and morons? Don't think so. And how is that factual?

My gosh! Have you heard the stuff they say?

They're talking about Nazis and Dachau and Stalin and Death Panels and making false statements about the Constitution and faking video of the rally.

You don't see a problem with that?

They're getting ready to hold a rally and burn people in effigy. We did not use to do this in this country.

C. Ross
11-13-2009, 07:23 PM
They're getting ready to hold a rally and burn people in effigy. We did not use to do this in this country.

Is this another of your "truth[s] [with] a decidedly leftward slant"?

Are you willing to commit to this...that "we", presumably liberal-minded people, did not used to rally and burn people in effigy?

Yes or no?

perldog007
11-13-2009, 07:31 PM
My gosh! Have you heard the stuff they say?

They're talking about Nazis and Dachau and Stalin and Death Panels and making false statements about the Constitution and faking video of the rally.

You don't see a problem with that?

They're getting ready to hold a rally and burn people in effigy. We did not use to do this in this country.

We didn't? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HINhfkQAz1g

Who does not have their facts straight now. ?


Is that all of them or is it possible that it's the few that have earned media attention because they are the most sensational? Have you been to a rally or are you just parroting what somebody else says?

What about the asamom.org members ? Are they morons and teabaggers ? Did you catch the Beck show today?

Did the protesters fake video of the rally or was Hannity using the "wrong" footage for "cinematic emphasis"?

Are you trying to imply that the left leaning protests have been more peaceful? The beatings from SEIU members? Comparing Bush to hitler?

Have you seen the interview of the exAcorn member that stepped down after a "rally"?

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 07:33 PM
Shut up, Pearl. Your rabies is showing.

Get a grip.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 07:35 PM
Shut up, Pearl. Your rabies is showing.

Get a grip.

Not that's intelligent rebuttal! Well done! Tomorrow we will try for three syllable words, go ahead and take a nap for now. GOOD JOB!!! :):):D:D:):)

ljb5
11-13-2009, 07:51 PM
We didn't?

Not the decent folk.

But I'm not talking about a couple of over-excited Bush protesters getting a little carried away.

I'm talking about a political party.

This isn't a bunch of drunk college kids in the alley... this is a group that wants to be considered a genuine political party!

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/11/13/chatham/news/news35.txt

Do you see the difference?

perldog007
11-13-2009, 08:14 PM
Not the decent folk.

But I'm not talking about a couple of over-excited Bush protesters getting a little carried away.

I'm talking about a political party.

This isn't a bunch of drunk college kids in the alley... this is a group that wants to be considered a genuine political party!

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/11/13/chatham/news/news35.txt

Do you see the difference?

Ok. So the decent folks are the ones like you who call people tea baggers and morons because they oppose your views. If people who agree with your world view embarrass you, they are drunk kids in an alley.

I don't buy the spin. And I don't see a difference. People burning each other in effigy is a bad thing.

If they are on one side, you paint the whole group with a broad brush and call the whole group morons and tea baggers.

If they are on your side, it's excused by youth, alcohol, and the venue being an alley. I have been in Adams Morgan and believe that was a street, but that's a moot point, except for the accuracy thing you insist is pivotal to moot points.

Now I am going to say that all people burning folks in effigy is bad. i am not going to call all Democrats morons or slander them with innuendo because some of them burn Bush in effigy and I haven't heard any of them condemn Bush being burned in effigy around the world.

At the same time, I am not going to label every tea party protester a flaming moron, violent person, teabagger, or whatever because some of them are apparently radical. There were an estimated 1.7 million on the mall for the 9/12 rally. That's an awful lot of morons for an event without a significant number of arrests.

I heard Beck say zero arrests and did not hear MSNBC give a number or report arrests, but am not willing to stake on either one, only that i will say I haven't heard about enough arrests to indicate a crowd of 'morons' that large.

C. Ross
11-13-2009, 08:20 PM
Not the decent folk.

...

Do you see the difference?

Sure, can you?

There's decent folk, and nutters, on the left and right. You believe that lefties are all good, and righties are all bad. You are wrong about this, and decent folk on the right are entitled to point this out.

BrianW
11-13-2009, 08:28 PM
Sure, can you?

There's decent folk, and nutters, on the left and right. You believe that lefties are all good, and righties are all bad. You are wrong about this, and decent folk on the right are entitled to point this out.

Well said.

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 08:35 PM
Ok. So the decent folks are the ones like you who call people tea baggers and morons because they oppose your views. ...

No. He calls them 'teabaggers' and 'morons' because they're teabaggers and morons.

For someone who wants rational discussion, you sure have lost your way.

Get a grip.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 08:59 PM
No. He calls them 'teabaggers' and 'morons' because they're teabaggers and morons.

For someone who wants rational discussion, you sure have lost your way.

Get a grip.
Wow, that's three syllables a day ahead of schedule!!!!

seriously, Can you do better? that's pretty infantile and you are only making my point for me.

Why are they morons? What gives you the right to slander them like that and what does it say about you?

If you believe in your cause is that the best you can do to represent it?

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 09:10 PM
Wow, that's three syllables a day ahead of schedule!!!!

seriously, Can you do better? that's pretty infantile and you are only making my point for me.

Why are they morons? What gives you the right to slander them like that and what does it say about you?

If you believe in your cause is that the best you can do to represent it?

Now that you're foaming at the mouth and calling others infantile, how does it feel?

Freak.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 09:29 PM
Now that you're foaming at the mouth and calling others infantile, how does it feel?

Freak.


I'm not foaming and it feels right, besides I said your response was infantile. Posting my opinion of you based on your debating style would violate forum rules and any reasonable standard of decorum.

I am sure you can do better than Freak. I graduated from HS in '79 so that's not even an insult.

Now this time concentrate.....

TomF
11-13-2009, 09:29 PM
Either you believe in the values which you've always said separate you from the extremists, or you don't.

Rule of law. Due process. Constitutionality. Etc.

Can you really not see that trying prisoners in secret, rigged Military tribunals to ensure convictions is exactly what you (correctly) castigate Iran, China, Burma, N Korea etc for doing? That in those countries, their own Nationalists/Hawks have taken exactly the line the Reps have on this issue?

How you act reflects who you are, describes who you wish to become. Look carefully at the people who've gone down the road before you, before doing the same.

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 09:31 PM
No thanks. Just try to keep your ideological ranting down to a dull roar, child, there's more important stuff to attend to than your maunderings.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 09:36 PM
No thanks. Just try to keep your ideological ranting down to a dull roar, child, there's more important stuff to attend to than your maunderings.
I am not the one calling millions of people morons and teabaggers, that's you and ljb5.

I am the one asking for you and ljb5 to acknowledge that hating people who disagree is bad, and civilized debate is good.

I don't know why you refuse to stop calling me names and address the issues, and can only guess that you have nothing intelligent to say.

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 09:49 PM
Maybe you should shut the *$%^ up and just listen for a spell, you mouthy newb!

You got here 10 minutes ago, and you haven't shut yer damned trap yet.

Paul Girouard
11-13-2009, 09:50 PM
Whoa Ozzie ,,,,,,,, throttle back big guy:eek: :D

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Whoops! Sorry, Paul!

perldog007
11-13-2009, 10:12 PM
Maybe you should shut the *$%^ up and just listen for a spell, you mouthy newb!

You got here 10 minutes ago, and you haven't shut yer damned trap yet.
I have been online since the 300baud modem BBS days. I might be new on this board but not online. You have no right to gratuitously disrespect me or anybody else for their views.

If you want me to listen then say something that makes sense.

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 10:42 PM
... You have no right to gratuitously disrespect me or anybody else for their views.
...

Who said I was disrespecting you for your views?

I find a number of your views quite in line with my own.

It's your tone.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 10:50 PM
Who said I was disrespecting you for your views?

I find a number of your views quite in line with my own.

It's your tone.

Sorry about that. I try to respect those who show respect for me. Guess I need to work on respecting those who don't.

Phillip Allen
11-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Who said I was disrespecting you for your views?

I find a number of your views quite in line with my own.

It's your tone.

what do you think of ell jay's tone?

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 11:09 PM
what do you think of ell jay's tone?

Not so much.

Unfortunately, LJ's got the facts to back him up, most of the time. You can put this off to LJ being some sort of pansy, if you want to, like he won't go out on a limb without backup, or something, but he doesn't typically make an argument on lies. He leaves that to Fox.

Paul Girouard
11-13-2009, 11:11 PM
Sorry about that. I try to respect those who show respect for me. Guess I need to work on respecting those who don't.



Pretty much thats the way it works around here, IF you have any thing less than a left view.

I say beers on me, meet you at the Tiger Lady.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/Jan27th1.jpg

Now thems theres some good lookin squids eh!

Another "shout out" to Adrimal Zumwalt for those beards.


Good ole Zoomie!:D

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 11:11 PM
what do you think of ell jay's tone?

I love El Jay's tone.
Only you black-water, black-powder hombres find fault with with El Jay.
El Jay is a true Patriot.
God Bless El Jay.
El Jay will sit in Heaven on the Right Hand of God Almighty.
Okay, maybe on the Left Hand!

Phillip Allen
11-13-2009, 11:34 PM
Well, bless your little heart Glen...

perldog007
11-13-2009, 11:41 PM
Good ole Zoomie!:D

Amen

BETTY-B
11-13-2009, 11:46 PM
If a moron is confused in the forest, does it have to continue making noise?

perldog007
11-13-2009, 11:49 PM
If a moron is confused in the forest, does it have to continue making noise?

Apparently see above ^^

pefjr
11-14-2009, 12:19 AM
If a moron is confused in the forest, does it have to continue making noise?Where did the one legged waitress work?(now, this is a joke, you know, humor, I don't want to hear from anyone offended by humor) IHOP

BETTY-B
11-14-2009, 12:28 AM
Apparently see above ^^

Nice move. I'm surprised actually. You may yet be an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

DAN

perldog007
11-14-2009, 01:01 AM
Nice move. I'm surprised actually. You may yet be an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

DAN

thanks, qui vivre vera

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 03:06 AM
El Jay has more sense in his little finger than you self righteous bigots have in your whole body.
Bless your frigging little hearts!
You know what, Phillip?
I think Memphis Mike is right about you.

Joe (SoCal)
11-14-2009, 06:01 AM
You know what, Phillip?
I think Memphis Mike is right about you.

He is, its a fact

What also is a fact is ljb5 methodically cleaned all your cons clocks repeatedly in this thread. No seriously if you just sit back and read his nailing of the facts and calling you on ALL your errors while EDUCATING each an everyone of you there is little doubt he came out of this thread the clear winner.

Now sometimes I'm not crazy about his approach and he can be heavy handed, I've told him he could be deadly if he did it with a little humor and less coarseness. But in this case he is the lefts big gun and in looking at the logic and pure FACTS he's the last man standing in this debate.

Wine and back-peddle, use humor and ad hom attacks, pat each other on the backs with your stupid logic to your hearts content, but seriously ljb5's brilliant and cut you all down, you just haven't realized it yet but WE can all see it no problem. All you got is el jay

Have a great day, and thank you ljb5, this is one thread where you method and way proved to be perfect.

OH and trust me the guy NEVER forgets your mistakes so don't be surprised if he continues to correct you and bring up your LIES.

BrianW
11-14-2009, 07:08 AM
What also is a fact is ljb5 methodically cleaned all your cons clocks repeatedly in this thread.

Actually, this thread went south after page one.

I was not wrong, as claimed by 'lil bj', to paraphrase the article title in the subject line of this thread. It's common practice.

Pages 2-4... not my stuff brother.

Joe (SoCal)
11-14-2009, 07:21 AM
Brian you KNOW I would much rather share a beer (ok a couple) with you than ljb5 ;). But I got's to call BS on ya, come on my little right wing buddy. You posted this thread and USED the title to do exactly what pages 2-4 did.

It was a subtle little troll and you did a good job, you knew making Dubya look humble and reserved ( not an easy task :) ) while making a sly reference to Obama would be just enough line to snag some big lefty's

Please Brian don't play coy with me, I got your number and I still wanna come up to Alaska and hang with ya ;)

pefjr
11-14-2009, 10:49 AM
[quote=Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson );2387020]He is, its a fact

fact is ljb5 methodically seriously...... his nailing of the facts ...clear winner.

. EDUCATING.. deadly ...the lefts big gun... pure FACTS

. seriously.... ljb5's brilliant.... All you got is el jay

. thank you ljb5..... . perfect.

OH and trust me [quote]

Joe, are you in love? I am glad to see you have finally found someone. Seriously

Oh, and trust me. :D

Course, there were different views from different pews. Perldog caught, played, then released you for another day. From my pew.

And LJB5 destroyed himself( by creating an issue where there were none)as usual. From my pew.:)

perldog007
11-14-2009, 11:31 AM
El Jay has more sense in his little finger than you self righteous bigots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry) have in your whole body.
Bless your frigging little hearts!
You know what, Phillip?
I think Memphis Mike is right about you.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)




I heard Obama wrote his speech on the plane flying to Texas.
You are correct, Bush might have done better to have Obama write his speeches, but then Bush would still have had to read the speech.;)


"Bush read forty to ninety-five books a year..."

Does anybody believe that?:rolleyes:


"deft ears"

Did GW teach you to spell?


I simply don't trust your judgement of what is stupid or honest.
Remember, you're the same hombre who still thinks GW is "smart" and "honest. :rolleyes:


Jesus was a crackpot.
He flew in the face of the established religion and the government.
When the established religion and the government confronted him and told him to repent or die, he chose to die.
Case closed!


"what are you complaining about?"

Justice is never swift enough to suit the Conservative and the Godly.
Rod would have had ole whats-his-name strung up on a flag pole at Fort Hood 30 minutes after he was shot.
Anything less than that is mamby-pamby Liberal Lite Justice.


"trying to kill us across the world"

Rod, Rod, trust me, if you hole up there in Dallas and keep your damn mouth shut, no Jihadists will get you!
Have a nice day!



My counter proposal: anyone who runs for office ought to be able to read a bill, no matter how long it might be.

It's their job.

They sure as heck shouldn't spend all day at a Tea Bagger rally and then complain that they didn't have a chance to read it.


Just to be clear -- is that something you actually believe, or just something you invented?

I'm just trying to figure out the parameters of your psychosis.


Don't lecture me, doofus.....


True, but one does not often see a rally of morons led by a sitting member of Congress.


Right now, Tea Baggers, Conservatives, Republicans and health insurance companies are fighting for that righ....


Michelle Bachmann (R-Alternate Universe) is planning a big rally tomorrow on Capitol Hill with her Tea Baggers.

She's well known for extreme battiness......

ljb5
11-14-2009, 11:57 AM
I am not the one calling millions of people morons and teabaggers, that's you and ljb5.

I am the one asking for you and ljb5 to acknowledge that hating people who disagree is bad, and civilized debate is good.

I don't hate the Tea Baggers, but I'm permitted to have opinions about them.

Just to be clear: the "Tea Bagger" and the Neocons are close ideological relatives, in some cases, even the same people.

In review:

believed Saddam Huessein attacked us on 9/11
believed Iraq had WMDs
believed the Yellowcake hoax
advocated for invading Iraq
said we would be "Greeted as liberators"
said the Iraq war would take between six weeks and six months.
said the Iraq war would pay for itself.
believed in "Mission Accomplished" six and a half years ago.
believed Bush would be good for the economy
spread the lie that Obama was not born in the U.S.
spread the lie about government 'Death Panels'
said Stephen Hawking would not have received health care in the UK.
believe that Obama is a socialist
believe that Obama is a fascist
tried to read the preamble to the Constitution, but read the wrong document.
tried to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but failed.
Don't know what the Seventh Amendment says
received government-supplied health care from the Capitol Medics while protesting against it.
Complained that they can't read a document that's shorter than a Harry Potter novel.
faked footage of the rally at the Capitol


Just to be clear: I don't hate the Tea Baggers.... but they really are morons.

A few days ago, an irate tea bagger asked "Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can create a health care plan?"

My answer: "Article I, Section 8."

There's a difference between knowing the answer and just yelling like a moron.

perldog007
11-14-2009, 12:56 PM
I don't hate the Tea Baggers, but I'm permitted to have opinions about them.

Just to be clear: the "Tea Bagger" and the Neocons are close ideological relatives, in some cases, even the same people.

In review:

believed Saddam Huessein attacked us on 9/11
believed Iraq had WMDs
believed the Yellowcake hoax
advocated for invading Iraq
said we would be "Greeted as liberators"
said the Iraq war would take between six weeks and six months.
said the Iraq war would pay for itself.
believed in "Mission Accomplished" six and a half years ago.
believed Bush would be good for the economy
spread the lie that Obama was not born in the U.S.
spread the lie about government 'Death Panels'
said Stephen Hawking would not have received health care in the UK.
believe that Obama is a socialist
believe that Obama is a fascist
tried to read the preamble to the Constitution, but read the wrong document.
tried to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but failed.
Don't know what the Seventh Amendment says
received government-supplied health care from the Capitol Medics while protesting against it.
Complained that they can't read a document that's shorter than a Harry Potter novel.
faked footage of the rally at the Capitol


Just to be clear: I don't hate the Tea Baggers.... but they really are morons.

A few days ago, an irate tea bagger asked "Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can create a health care plan?"

My answer: "Article I, Section 8."

There's a difference between knowing the answer and just yelling like a moron.

I am assuming ( a dangerous game, admittedly) that you are referring to the "general Welfare" clause and I have never questioned the authority to create a government health care plan, only the method and the wisdom of said method.

Let's be clear, calling the tea party protesters "tea baggers" is a derogatory sexual innuendo and indicative of bigotry. Which is further re-enforced by your further use of the derogatory label "moron".

If you really believe that all of them believe all of your evidence points then you aren't half as intelligent as you claim to be. If you understand that all of the tea party protesters don't hold all of those beliefs then you are extremely dishonest in using that as a justification for your bigotry.

That would be like me accusing you of spreading the lie that GWB caused the 9/11 attacks and believing that we should teach fisting to high school students and of believing that our pets should have attorneys to sue us because these beliefs are reportedly held by some appointees of President Obama and you support him.

I believe that Van Jones is mistaken and that the truthers are off base, I think Kevin Jennings involvement in the "little black book" being distributed to High School students was inappropriate whether it was ten books left on a table or cases handed out, and that Cass Sunstein is a bit out there on some issues.

For me to then extrapolate that and call every Obama supporter a truther/sodomite/socialist whack job would in fact make me a bigot according to the wiki definition at least.

I think you would probably call me on such a generalization as well. You don't seem to have a problem with lumping all of the tea party protesters together and calling them tea baggers and morons.

My stated position and opinion is that you have failed to justify your position or to prove in any way that you are not a bigot, which given your stated education and obvious intelligence is a tragedy.

EDIT - on the faking of the footage, I am pretty sure that Sean Hannity used the footage of the 9/12 crowd in a story on the recent health care protest and agree that doing so exaggerated the crowd. Don't know that it was intentional, like the MSNBC white guy with guns thing, but I don't think too much of Hannity. Anybody who needs an Escalade to haul two kids then pats himself on the back repeatedly because it's a hybrid is no friend of mine....

In any case, how do the actions of one cable show reflect on the intelligence of the entire tea party protest movement?

ljb5
11-14-2009, 01:12 PM
I am assuming ( a dangerous game, admittedly) that you are referring to the "general Welfare" clause and I have never questioned the authority to create a government health care plan, only the method and the wisdom of said method.

There are more than enough Tea Baggers who have tried to raise this Constitutionality issue. Some are even sitting members of Congress. Some are members of this forum. You may not share it, but it's clearly part of their core ideology.


Let's be clear, calling the tea party protesters "tea baggers" is a derogatory sexual innuendo and indicative of bigotry.

It's a derogatory sexual innuendo, but not bigotry. I believe I'm still allowed to express my opinions, am I not? :)


If you really believe that all of them believe all of your evidence points then you aren't half as intelligent as you claim to be.

I believe enough of them believe enough of those points to justify my position. Feel free to read any thread started by tusti for more evidence.

I've noticed a subtle shift in the debate. We're now no longer arguing about if the Tea Baggers believe stupid things, but rather if each and every Tea Bagger believes each and every stupid thing.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how many trees constitute a forest.

================================================== ================


You don't seem to have a problem with lumping all of the tea party protesters together and calling them tea baggers and morons.

Just to be clear: they lump themselves together. I didn't make them form a group.

I suppose there could be some KKK members who are less abhorrent than other KKK members, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the fact that they have voluntarily elected to join a group that primarily defines itself by its stance on an issue.

When people organize themselves into a group (as the Tea Baggers have), do not be surprised to discover that they are recognized as a group.

Joe (SoCal)
11-14-2009, 01:39 PM
Joe, are you in love? I am glad to see you have finally found someone. Seriously


Oh look 7th grade homophobia humor, which was funny in ummmmmmmmmmm 7th grade Yawwwwwwwwn :rolleyes:

So is that all ya got ? :p

pefjr
11-14-2009, 02:19 PM
Oh look 7th grade homophobia humor, which was funny in ummmmmmmmmmm 7th grade Yawwwwwwwwn :rolleyes:

So is that all ya got ? :pSorry, I thought it was 6th grade. I guess that what I consider you to be. :D

Joe (SoCal)
11-14-2009, 02:23 PM
I know I am but what are you :rolleyes:
Yawwwwn :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

pefjr
11-14-2009, 02:32 PM
I know I am but what are you :rolleyes:
Yawwwwn :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I so old I can't remember.:D

Oh, I remember....well not quite. I can't remember if I spent 6yrs in the 7th grade, or 7yrs. in the 6th grade. I do remember it was in the deep south, so it probably ain't worth a sh!t anyways, right Joe.
:)

perldog007
11-14-2009, 03:11 PM
There are more than enough Tea Baggers who have tried to raise this Constitutionality issue. Some are even sitting members of Congress. Some are members of this forum. You may not share it, but it's clearly part of their core ideology.

And why shouldn't they? Depending on the construction of such legislation it may be conducive or hazardous to the General Welfare of the United States.


Representative Kucinich voted no because he thought it would be contrary to the benefit of the general welfare. (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927)

Is he a teabagging moron too?

Then there may be those who for whatever reason do not believe that providing health care is within the charter of general welfare. I disagree but am not going to resort to being dismissive or demeaning. BECAUSE DOING SO DIMINISHES MY POSITION.

We also have sitting members of congress and the administration who want to "regulate" internet speech and deal with the "problem" of talk radio.

That's not a reason to call every body left of center a Facist, although some do. Either you are better than that or your'e not.

Arguably, a bill that increases taxes, federal spending and still does not cover all uninsured citizens is dangerous to the general welfare and thereby unconstitutional.

We just don't know at this time what the final bill will even look like or who will pay for it, and exactly who will be helped by it.

Until we do dismissing either side of the debate is premature and indicative of an unproductive partisan stance.


It's a derogatory sexual innuendo, but not bigotry. I believe I'm still allowed to express my opinions, am I not? :)


From Wiki - A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.

Your continued insistence on using the derogatory term not only indicates obstinacy and is irrational ( it does nothing to make your case and arguably detracts from any logical debate by injecting emotion) but demonstrates animosity.

Yes!!! You are allowed to express your opinion and even to be a bigot.

But only because tea party protesters ( widely disparaged in their day ) challenged the crown for that freedom. You may also want to consider that the tea party movement has traction with some veterans who have also contributed to your freedom.


I believe enough of them believe enough of those points to justify my position. Feel free to read any thread started by tusti for more evidence.

There is no justification for being calling millions of your countrymen morons and tea baggers. With all due respect to tusti and the contributors to those threads.


I am sure that some right winger could ( and has ) come up with a bullet list of the most extreme views from the left and use it as a justification to use broad derogatory terms to describe all Obama supporters.

They are no more or less justified than you are. We can engage in inflammatory rhetoric while our country continues to suffer war and economic woes or we can have that respectful exchange of ideas.

We know which side of that proposition you are on.


I've noticed a subtle shift in the debate. We're now no longer arguing about if the Tea Baggers believe stupid things, but rather if each and every Tea Bagger believes each and every stupid thing.

No sir, we are arguing about why we shouldn't paint millions of Americans with a broad brush. Such prejudice has been widely and rightly decried by the left in the struggle for civil rights. It seems incongruent to take it up for the purpose of uncivilized and ineffective debate.

First of all, a "Tea Bagger" is a person who engages in the practice of tea bagging strictly speaking. I am not sure how many of those individuals adhere to any of the points you listed, nobody I know has professed to engaging in such. .

Second, you continue to throw the term around, admit that it's an innuendo, yet you called my language crude and inappropriate. That's hypocrisy.



I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how many trees constitute a forest.

What you are not going to do is prove that you not a bigot and a hypocrite as long as you continue to enforce those views.

That Sir is my beef with you and yes, that makes you a villain and me a hero - not to the hard right or the far left, but to the center where most reasonable folks live.

Because I know you have to have the last word, I shall let you have it in this thread. I'll see you on the field.

ljb5
11-14-2009, 03:55 PM
And why shouldn't they? Depending on the construction of such legislation it may be conducive or hazardous to the General Welfare of the United States.


Representative Kucinich voted no because he thought it would be contrary to the benefit of the general welfare. (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927)

Is he a teabagging moron too?


Calm down. You're frothing at the mouth so much that you can't see straight. For one thing, you just completely missed the issue that Constitutionality is not the same thing as beneficial.

If you don't like the bill, that's one thing... but that doesn't make it unconstitutional... especially considering Article II, Section 8 and the fact that the government has been providing health care for decades and this has never before been considered unconstitutional.

Kucinich voted against HR3962 because he didn't think it was a good bill, not because he thought it unconstitutional.

The problem with Tea Baggers is that they have tried to claim that any health care bill would be unconstitutional, regardless of whether it is beneficial or not. They are either unaware of, or deny the existence of Article II, Section 8.

An objection based on a false understanding of the Constitution is very different than one based on an analysis of the merits of the bill.

Of course, these are the same people who admit they haven't read the bill, believe it contains a provision for government death panels, think it will outlaw private health insurance, think the Declaration of Independence is part of the preamble and want to keep government out of Medicare. :rolleyes: They just don't know what they're talking about.

The Tea Baggers have made a logical error by insisting that the Constitution forbids government health care... and now you have made a logical error by confusing the issue of Constitutionally permissible with advisable.

Please try to keep your own arguments factual or else one might conclude that you're a moron too.

Phillip Allen
11-14-2009, 06:24 PM
pityfully predictable...

pefjr
11-14-2009, 07:14 PM
pityfully predictable...Yep, but Joe is probably jumping up and down celebrating LJ 's "last resort" ad hominem attack, thinking it's a glorious victory. :D:rolleyes:

BrianW
11-14-2009, 08:24 PM
Four pages (with my settings.)

Who'd a thunk it?

Paul Girouard
11-14-2009, 08:59 PM
Four pages (with my settings.)

Who'd a thunk it?



Change your settings,,, I have it at 11 pages :D

It's good to see some one else realizes that the # of pages , where the newest post is displayed, and other individual setting / computer program , etc all can have a effect on what the person sees.

I love it , in a bad way , when people as see the post "above"!
Or brag about how many pages thier thread has achieved. Leftys pub is way up there in pages, I'll have to "visit" to see what that ones at for pages.

The true reflection is # of posts and / or views. Views if you care what the lurkers think about it , or to judge if it's considered interesting but don't have any thing to say or ask about the topic.

pefjr
11-14-2009, 09:13 PM
Give BrianW a hand please, for a starting fine thread, a battle of wits, and a fishing adventure too. :D

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-14-2009, 09:28 PM
Hope may spring eternal but, more seriously, it's going to take more than a trip to Fort Hood to wash away George Bush's sins.

BrianW
11-14-2009, 09:30 PM
Give BrianW a hand please, for a starting fine thread, a battle of wits, and a fishing adventure too. :D

It were a small hook, inside a good message.

Naturally the hook was swallowed, and the message mostly ignored. :)

LeeG
11-14-2009, 10:59 PM
restate message please

BrianW
11-14-2009, 11:09 PM
restate message please

It's on page one.