quote:

Every woman that has sat on my face had a great time. Women who have sat on my face outside of BDSM, aka vanilla, got possessive of me and reacted like they've never gotten their snatch eaten out before. Every woman that has sat on my face had no regrets. It didn't matter if these women were straight, bi, American, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

He just wants to be needed and appreciated.

No I don't. I'm here for the reasons I've stated throughout this thread, mainly to continue destroying the opposition's arguments. I don't need anything from a bunch of strangers that don't have a clue about what they're talking about.

Apparently you do or you would not continue posting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gigi08

I cannot thank you enough for all that you do. You have my utmost respect. Thank you for making my children safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Here's an example of you proving my point about your side of the argument. You're working overtime to try to cast doubt on my statement, as well as on one of the things that gives me validity in this argument over your side of the argument. I don't go drinking, clubbing, fishing, or hunting like the majority of the soldiers out here. Are you going to try to use that as another exhibit in your feeble attempt to continue to cast doubt on my service?

Have you ever heard of this little thing like, you know, people doing different things on their off time for fun? One of my favorite pass times happens to be "writing," I've gotten to the point to where I'm doing it for profit.

The fact that you'd "snip" the part of his post out that proves your assumptions wrong speaks volumes about your integrity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

I would agree.

There hasn't been any winning of a debate here.

I've won this debate by advancing a reasoned response, backed by facts, logic, experience and research. I've done this against an opposition that has yet to advance a legitimate post on this thread... or any other thread I've debated on in this and other message boards. The opposition advances an indefensible position. They refuse to answer straightforward questions, they dodge the issue, make strawman arguments, utilize red herrings, constantly repeat themselves, etc. You could argue the facts "indefinitely," but you can't defend an indefensible position without using the tactics the opposition has used here. My questions to them, relevant to the discussion, remain unanswered, my challenges remain ignored. This is the case as the opposition knows that they don't have an argument, they're not confident in their position, as I am with mine.

I won, I've pulverized the opposition on this thread, this is a fact that'd be obvious to the critical thinker evaluating this thread with objectivity and without bias. To say otherwise is to demonstrate intellectual dishonesty. Now, it's just a matter of continuing to destroy their position every time they come back here.

I dont think you won this debate.

I think you did alot of posting.

Goldman Sachs got alot of bonuses this year. People have been robbed of their jobs, houses and retirement.

But Wall street did well.

You are Wall Street army. Not the peoples army.

quote:

thompsonx: That is clearly your opinion but could you please show us just where in the u.n. charter it speaks of "symetrical warfare"? Red Herring + Strawman Argument

Their charter addresses symmetrical warfare, NOT asymmetrical warfare. Everything that was contained in your quote was symmetrical warfare in nature, with the intentions of addressing symmetrical, not asymmetrical warfare. Expecting the people that wrote the charter to know terms that's commonly used in the 21st Century, to describe a 21st Century War, is completely asinine. That charter was written in the middle of the 20th Century with the assumption that warfare would remain "frozen" in the World War II, (symmetrical warfare) sense. Wars, and what constitutes the acts of war, and what's needed to address war, or the potential for one, have changed. Bottom line, the United Nations Charter didn't address asymmetrical warfare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

REPEAT POINT

Actually I see him as an individual who has no clue what the military is about.

REPEAT POINT

Whether you like it or not, how you say the military runs is "textbook," what would happen in the perfect world. The military that I described is the military that exists. Don't mistake my constantly hammering your lack of knowledge of how we do things in the military as my "not" having a clue" about what the military is about. Unlike you, I served in the military.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: toxic66

To the OP I deeply thank you for your service. I hope you arrive safely home soon. Good luck and Godspeed.

To the rest of you who doubted whether he is really a Soldier serving in Iraq, I believe he is and I am a twice deployed veteran (if you doubt that just go look at my profile pics, two were taken in Iraq (one in full battle rattle)). I base my belief in that he talks like a Soldier and does know about things going on there. And, he nailed all of the flight times out Iraq back to the U. S. Plus, just knowing what Ali Al Salem is shows a lot (quick before you Google it how many of you know what it is?). He refers to his buddies as battles, and just everything he talked about and described seemed accurate. However, I can't vouch for chemical weapons as I never ran into any (it doesn't mean no one else did, just means I didn't). To be a fake he would have had to talk to a Soldier extensively and asked a lot of questions about even mundane things. It just all sounded like someone who has been there.

I was going to write more about the war and my experiences there that are very similar to his, but after reading page after page of this thread I recognized the futility in that. Seriously I am only surprised that he devoted so much time and energy to this during R&R. I would not have done so. In fact, I couldn't even read the whole thread. It became so inane and insane I finally just skipped to the end.

So you too believe that enlisted men can kick the shit out of an officer and not go to the brig like your hero? REPEAT POINT

The military must have changed a great deal since I got out. ROTFLMFAO!

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Every woman that has sat on my face had a great time. 

quote:

Your saying that you didn’t think that I won the debate doesn’t change the fact that I won this debate. You win the debate by presenting a reasoned, logical argument backed with facts, research and experience. The opposition didn’t have any of that, just emotional and ideologically driven rhetoric combined with strawman arguments, repeat points, hed herring statements, and so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Every woman that has sat on my face had a great time. 

Any of them ever take the opportunity to take a huge dump?
 
They must have been tempted.

quote:

thompsonx: Your daddy served six years in viet nam...yeah right. Repeat Point.

All you did was give your opinion that my dad "didn't" serve in Vietnam. I countered you with the facts, that he did 6 combat tours in Vietnam... I saw his old award orders for one of the combat tours that he did. Unlike you, my dad served. You could sit there, having never served, and fart the opinion that my dad "didn't" serve all you want, that doesn't change the fact that unlike you, he served in Vietnam.

quote:

Also, "since you got out"? Are you fucking kidding me? The best case scenario for you is that you did "serve," but never combat deployed. The worst case scenario is that you never served. Based on your hatred for the troops, I'd say that you never served.

quote:

thompsonx: Halliburton is not making any money in the sand box...yeah right. Repeat point + strawman argument

You argued that Halliburton was involved with Iraq contracts. These contracts entailed reconstruction and supplies and services. Halliburton's own website denies these.

That is your contention not mine. Halliburton is still in the sand box and they are making money yet you want to set up some other scenario like your "kbr" story.
Maybe that works on your high school debate team but this is the real world.



It's then subsidiary, KBR, provided the logistics services. You insinuated that Halliburton provided these services, when it was KBR that provided these services.

I insinuated no such thing. You are the one who pulled that straw man out of your ass.


It speaks volumes about your "debate" ability when you have to resort to revising history to make it look like we were arguing something completely different.

I believe I have mentioned before that I do not debate I discuss. You on the other hand are not interested in learning anything. Your only purpose here is to spout some bullshit rhetoric about how knowledgeble you are about things "sand box". The majority on this thread have pointedly told you just how full of shit you and your rant are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I would much rather look at your appendages than his...care to share[:D][

Are you that dense that you don't see her as expressing her opinion that we're "involved" in a "pissing" contest? By the way, your doctor called. That strange neck growth you're worried about is you head, it won't hurt you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

I would agree.

There hasn't been any winning of a debate here.

I've won this debate by advancing a reasoned response, backed by facts, logic, experience and research. I've done this against an opposition that has yet to advance a legitimate post on this thread... or any other thread I've debated on in this and other message boards. The opposition advances an indefensible position. They refuse to answer straightforward questions, they dodge the issue, make strawman arguments, utilize red herrings, constantly repeat themselves, etc. You could argue the facts "indefinitely," but you can't defend an indefensible position without using the tactics the opposition has used here. My questions to them, relevant to the discussion, remain unanswered, my challenges remain ignored. This is the case as the opposition knows that they don't have an argument, they're not confident in their position, as I am with mine.

I won, I've pulverized the opposition on this thread, this is a fact that'd be obvious to the critical thinker evaluating this thread with objectivity and without bias. To say otherwise is to demonstrate intellectual dishonesty. Now, it's just a matter of continuing to destroy their position every time they come back here.

I dont think you won this debate.

I think you did alot of posting.

Goldman Sachs got alot of bonuses this year. People have been robbed of their jobs, houses and retirement.

But Wall street did well.

You are Wall Street army. Not the peoples army.

Your saying that you didn’t think that I won the debate doesn’t change the fact that I won this debate. You win the debate by presenting a reasoned, logical argument backed with facts, research and experience. The opposition didn’t have any of that, just emotional and ideologically driven rhetoric combined with strawman arguments, repeat points, hed herring statements, and so on.
<b>
I serve the American people, not the corporations. I don’t recall destroying Goldman Sachs’ competitors in Iraq. I don’t recall destroying their competitors at any time throughout my time in the military.</b>

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair


Go back and read our entire exchange and you'll see how I proved you wrong. You tried to cast doubt on something I said. That caused me to come back and highlight in red what I said. That showed you that what you said was wrong the moment you said it. For instance, your claim about "my commander," when I didn't even speak about him in the post that you replied to. It's like I said, you shouldn't have gone against your better judgment. It's too late, you don't do yourself any justice by trying to backpedal.

right, uh-huh....I gotcha....you are so so wise....do tell...no way?!?!?

Bless yer heart...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

You don't seem to care about other people posting here, just me. That speaks volumes as to the real reason you've got issues with me refusing to stop posting.

Since you are the op and the one who is dishing out the bullshit then we just keep pissing on the flames.
We are having a fun time pointing out how foolish you are and you keep giving us more reasons to point it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

thompxonx: So in your military it is ok for enlisted men to punch out officers as long as they actually follow his orders REPEAT POINT


WHERE, in my post, do I say that it's OK to punch officers out as long as their orders are followed? Quote where I say those exact words. Here, let me simplify it for you.

Officer issues stupid orders
Someone's, or his own, wisdom indicates a better option, but he goes against better judgment.
His orders are followed.
Soldiers get killed, injured as a result.
Information is received that indicated that the mission didn't have to happen.
Officer gets knocked on his azz.

Nowhere in that scenario does it say that it's OK to punch them as long as their orders were followed.