RE: Freedom...

RE: Freedom... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 8:39:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Chief Warrant Officer...CW-3 MOS 100C0 CH-47 pilot..... 16th CAG, 14th CAB, opcon 23rd INF DIV (Americal).... Multi-engine, turbine, tandem rotor ATP...Instrument and Flight Standardizaton Instructor for all incoming flight crews in Southern I Corps 70-71....and line pilot serving 11th Inf Brigade....Duc Pho RVN.... That sounds like army speak for taxi driver. I am curious how a taxi driver would become involved in the sorts of combat you allude to? Your constant tirades against REMs seems to be well founded. Since as a taxi driver you got to sleep in a barracks and eat in a mess hall and drink in the O club you would be in a good position to understand how easy it was for you when you dropped off the men you would go back to the air conditioned O club.

rulemylife -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 8:41:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Chief Warrant Officer...CW-3 MOS 100C0 CH-47 pilot..... 16th CAG, 14th CAB, opcon 23rd INF DIV (Americal).... Multi-engine, turbine, tandem rotor ATP...Instrument and Flight Standardizaton Instructor for all incoming flight crews in Southern I Corps 70-71....and line pilot serving 11th Inf Brigade....Duc Pho RVN.... Ah yes...the bravery of being out of range. As much as I hate the idea, I have to come to Cucky's defense. The things he listed here ring true, unless he did a lot of research to concoct this, which I doubt. And the CH-47 crews were anything but out of range: Army Chinook Helicopter Crew Home At Last The CH47 "Chinook" helicopter was one of the workhorses of the Army's air fleet. As a cargo lift, the Chinook could carry up to 28,000 pounds on its external cargo hook, and is credited with the recovery of 11,500 disabled aircraft worth more than $3 billion. As troop carrier, the aircraft could be fitted with 24 litters for medical evacuation, or carry 33-44 troops in addition to the crew. On one occasion, a Chinook evacuated 147 refugees and their possessions on a single flight. The Chinook could be outfitted for bombing missions, dropping tear gas or napalm in locations fixed wing aircraft could not reach. The big bird could carry a large cargo of supplies.

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 8:44:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman yeah, all of us REMF's wear the Silver Star.... Like John Kerry?

juliaoceania -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 8:47:23 AM)
just saw the mod's warning

Moonhead -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 8:59:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman You and the left wing ilk always want EVERY combat veteran to be quiet... No, that was the right. Or doesn't John Kerry count?

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 9:06:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Baby those boys come from your side of the isle....the Nazi's were soicalist sweetcakes.... read it and weep.... You do not seem to have a full grasp of the English language or of the vernacular of political science. Perhaps if you were to read Giovanni Gentile he was the mouth piece (press secretary) for Benito Mussolini. He wrote a book called Doctrin of Fascism. A cursory reading might help you to distinguish between "National Socialism"(NAZI) and the Socialism you seem to despise.

rulemylife -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 9:07:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Baby those boys come from your side of the isle....the Nazi's were soicalist sweetcakes.... read it and weep.... Is that why they invaded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? One would think they would be allies based on your definition.

BoiJen -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 9:19:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Chief Warrant Officer...CW-3 MOS 100C0 CH-47 pilot..... 16th CAG, 14th CAB, opcon 23rd INF DIV (Americal).... Multi-engine, turbine, tandem rotor ATP...Instrument and Flight Standardizaton Instructor for all incoming flight crews in Southern I Corps 70-71....and line pilot serving 11th Inf Brigade....Duc Pho RVN.... Clearly, you wouldn't stand too well against a minor bit of interrogation would you? quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman You and the left wing ilk always want EVERY combat veteran to be quiet...it gets in the way of their lying ass socialist dreams..... If a man went to war, he has the RIGHT to 'talk the talk'.... you, on the other hand, ain't earned shit, but use the freedoms earned by OTHERS to degrade the very people who fought to give you that right... This vet is telling you simply to eat shit and die..... how bout them apples babycakes...? If you ain't done it....you can't talk about it....real simple ain't it? quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Hitler and the Nazi's were SOCIALIST babycakes....you had better check your facts before spouting another left wing shit pile..... look it up in your Funk and Wagnel.... You are kinda dumb aren't ya? Fascists. Says so in every history book in America....even the ones Texas has reprinting. So really, in your supposedly comfortable beach home, when was the last time you were at Ft. Bragg? Ya see, I was seeing the 504th parachute infantry regiment of the 82nd Airborne off on their last deployment. And seeing a small group of them home during their mid-deployment leave. That's what my brother does. And I'm damn proud of him. (That was last summer and their coming home this fall....for the firt time in 6 years they're gonna be state side for quite a while) Ya see, 3 deployments in a sand box between 18 and 24 is pretty fuckin hard where as your pansy ass sat back from the safe spot according to your story and watched other people do the hard work. Nope, I didn't serve but these men in my life have and they tell me that I enjoy the same if not more right than they do and they're HAPPY to have done that for every American...even the ones they disagree with. They have bad days and they have good days but not in any of their days would they even think about saying the shit you've said. Because to do so would mean that their service wasn't worth anything. To advocate for taking away the VERY rights they have fought for EVERY American citizen to keep would take away all the hours of combat and heart break and bravery that they've given this country. Then again...I could have misunderstood my family members when they were saying these things because they kept going back and forth from being angry and yelling over the phone and so moved by the actions of their fellow service members and their lost brothers in combat that their voices became quite and trembled. Then again...they're real men. boi

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 9:25:53 AM)
quote: This comment sparked my curiousity. It'd be helpful if you could show the support for your comment that the Constitution supports a strong and/or powerful central government... I am sure you are aware that during the revolutionary war the colonies in rebellion were governed by the Articles of Confederation. It was clear during the war that the Articles of Confederation did not give the central government sufficient power to carry out all of the duties of a government. It was because of this deficiency that the Contintetal Congress called for a constitutional convention at which a new agreement would be forged among the several states. This agreement would form the states into a single nation. At the time there was a great deal of interest in forming several distinct countries out of the 13 states. The new Constitution was designed to give the central government the power that it lacked under the Articles of Confederation and unite all of the states into one "United States of America". The Federalist Papers were the efforts of the supporters of the new constitution to get the several states to adopt the new constitution. If you would like a point by point breakdown of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution I am sure I have the titles of several good dissertations that compare and contrasts of the two documents.

slvemike4u -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 11:17:05 AM)
What is this remedial history for idiots.....I have heard it said that even a broken clock is right twice a day.....cucky is the exception that proves the rule.Do we really need to explain to this senior citizen why a strong central govt was essential to the birth and growth of a nation?

stella41b -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 11:44:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Have you considered a career in stand up? A few modifications to your act and you could be a major hit, though it might involve working the city clubs before a TV break. Absolutely hilarious. Nearly as good as old Adolf in full swing. E He could start at the Edinburgh Fringe. He'd romp home with the Fringe First award.

calamitysandra -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 12:28:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen ... even spent a few years in Germany helping make sure those same fascists didn't think they could try that shit again. Would you please consider relating my thanks and sincere appreciation to your great grand father?

Moonhead -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 1:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u What is this remedial history for idiots.....I have heard it said that even a broken clock is right twice a day.....cucky is the exception that proves the rule.Do we really need to explain to this senior citizen why a strong central govt was essential to the birth and growth of a nation? Yes, it looks like we do. Depressing, innit?

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 1:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Baby those boys come from your side of the isle....the Nazi's were soicalist sweetcakes.... read it and weep.... Nazi ideology was racial orientated; it informed the entire basis of Nazi policy. I imagine you would agree that ideas of racial superiority feature on the right rather than the left. The Nazis were fascinated with 'the land' and the German volk - again far more in tune with the right. Some of the leading German Nazis were farmers (e.g. Himmler) - now I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say farmers (though obviously not Nazis) tend to be conservative in their views (they certainly are over here). Martin Heidegger was the philosophical spokesman of the Nazi party (a man whose ideas are held in high regard) - he was a Bavarian farmer who once predicted something like: Liberalism and the growth of cities/towns could only lead to the death of individualism (one of the reasons he joined the Nazi Party - towns and cities by the way that spurn Liberalism and at that time in Germany were a collective haven for socialists). The only real similarity in Nazism and Socialism is that both are totalitarian and both use coercion in order to gain/maintain power. Yet there is a crucial difference: the Nazis did not employ arbitrary violence (they had certain target groups based on race and blood/stock) whereas Socialism comes complete with arbitrary violence because there are no ideas of blood and race that must be preserved at all costs - just people to keep in order (including those at the very top).

Aylee -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 1:51:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You seem to not be aware of the Constitution. You claim to have read both the Constitution and the Federalist papers but both of those documents go to great lengths to explane the necesity of a strong central government. This comment sparked my curiousity. It'd be helpful if you could show the support for your comment that the Constitution supports a strong and/or powerful central government... I assumed that he meant as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that it replaced. That is just my guess.

xBullx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 2:01:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: This comment sparked my curiousity. It'd be helpful if you could show the support for your comment that the Constitution supports a strong and/or powerful central government... I am sure you are aware that during the revolutionary war the colonies in rebellion were governed by the Articles of Confederation. It was clear during the war that the Articles of Confederation did not give the central government sufficient power to carry out all of the duties of a government. It was because of this deficiency that the Contintetal Congress called for a constitutional convention at which a new agreement would be forged among the several states. This agreement would form the states into a single nation. At the time there was a great deal of interest in forming several distinct countries out of the 13 states. The new Constitution was designed to give the central government the power that it lacked under the Articles of Confederation and unite all of the states into one "United States of America". The Federalist Papers were the efforts of the supporters of the new constitution to get the several states to adopt the new constitution. If you would like a point by point breakdown of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution I am sure I have the titles of several good dissertations that compare and contrasts of the two documents. There's always a lot of pomposity and disingenuous bluster with you. It was a simple fuckin' question about the CONSTITUTION, nothing else. So nevermind, your presentation lacks sincerity and I'm not sure it's all that reliable.

slvemike4u -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 2:03:04 PM)
Not a bad guess Aylee...but to go a bit farther Bull,you might want to check out the Federlist Papers authored in chief by Mrs.Hamilton ,Adams and Jay as justification and rationalization for the need of a strong central govt and Constitution to bind in a more stronger central govt the disparate colonies...which up to that point had been only loosley bound by the Artcles of Confederation. Jefferson and Madison were both on record as fearing such a strong consolidation of power..but were convinced of the need after insiting on an inclusion of a Bill of Rights.....opening up a whole nother can of words as far as the belief that future Americans might conclude that only those rights eneumerated as such ....remained of the people.

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 2:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: This comment sparked my curiousity. It'd be helpful if you could show the support for your comment that the Constitution supports a strong and/or powerful central government... I am sure you are aware that during the revolutionary war the colonies in rebellion were governed by the Articles of Confederation. It was clear during the war that the Articles of Confederation did not give the central government sufficient power to carry out all of the duties of a government. It was because of this deficiency that the Contintetal Congress called for a constitutional convention at which a new agreement would be forged among the several states. This agreement would form the states into a single nation. At the time there was a great deal of interest in forming several distinct countries out of the 13 states. The new Constitution was designed to give the central government the power that it lacked under the Articles of Confederation and unite all of the states into one "United States of America". The Federalist Papers were the efforts of the supporters of the new constitution to get the several states to adopt the new constitution. If you would like a point by point breakdown of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution I am sure I have the titles of several good dissertations that compare and contrasts of the two documents. There's always a lot of pomposity and disingenuous bluster with you. No pomposity would have been informing you that that is usually taught in sixth grade civics. It was a simple fuckin' question about the CONSTITUTION, nothing else. I answered your simple question So nevermind, your presentation lacks sincerity and I'm not sure it's all that reliable. You do not know the answer but you know my answer is wrong? I take it that you skipped that logic class.

xBullx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 2:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Not a bad guess Aylee...but to go a bit farther Bull,you might want to check out the Federlist Papers authored in chief by Mrs.Hamilton ,Adams and Jay as justification and rationalization for the need of a strong central govt and Constitution to bind in a more stronger central govt the disparate colonies...which up to that point had been only loosley bound by the Artcles of Confederation. Jefferson and Madison were both on record as fearing such a strong consolidation of power..but were convinced of the need after insiting on an inclusion of a Bill of Rights.....opening up a whole nother can of words as far as the belief that future Americans might conclude that only those rights eneumerated as such ....remained of the people. Thank you Mike, I'm going to do a bit of rediscovery...

xBullx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 2:33:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: This comment sparked my curiousity. It'd be helpful if you could show the support for your comment that the Constitution supports a strong and/or powerful central government... I am sure you are aware that during the revolutionary war the colonies in rebellion were governed by the Articles of Confederation. It was clear during the war that the Articles of Confederation did not give the central government sufficient power to carry out all of the duties of a government. It was because of this deficiency that the Contintetal Congress called for a constitutional convention at which a new agreement would be forged among the several states. This agreement would form the states into a single nation. At the time there was a great deal of interest in forming several distinct countries out of the 13 states. The new Constitution was designed to give the central government the power that it lacked under the Articles of Confederation and unite all of the states into one "United States of America". The Federalist Papers were the efforts of the supporters of the new constitution to get the several states to adopt the new constitution. If you would like a point by point breakdown of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution I am sure I have the titles of several good dissertations that compare and contrasts of the two documents. There's always a lot of pomposity and disingenuous bluster with you. No pomposity would have been informing you that that is usually taught in sixth grade civics. It was a simple fuckin' question about the CONSTITUTION, nothing else. I answered your simple question So nevermind, your presentation lacks sincerity and I'm not sure it's all that reliable. You do not know the answer but you know my answer is wrong? I take it that you skipped that logic class. Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875