Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I can back down on that. War is what I want to avoid. If you think having a bunch of dudes hanging out at a military base but not actively fighting anyone is a good idea, fine.

To clarify:

Nobody wants Americans at war in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the people who stand to profit from the war machine.

But it's utterly foolish to take military action, or at least the threat of military action, off the table as an option when it comes to protecting America's interests or national security.

Many on the left seem to not understand this.  They seem to think that vigorous finger wagging and stern words should be more than sufficient to handle any such situation.

No one is taking it off of the table. If there is a legitimate reason to go to war, fine. But, right now, there isn't one.

Is anybody here saying we should be going to war in the Middle East?

If you aren't, I guess no one is. Good job, we agree.

Wow.  Did you think I was arguing in favor of a war?

You're incredibly dumb.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I can back down on that. War is what I want to avoid. If you think having a bunch of dudes hanging out at a military base but not actively fighting anyone is a good idea, fine.

To clarify:

Nobody wants Americans at war in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the people who stand to profit from the war machine.

But it's utterly foolish to take military action, or at least the threat of military action, off the table as an option when it comes to protecting America's interests or national security.

Many on the left seem to not understand this.  They seem to think that vigorous finger wagging and stern words should be more than sufficient to handle any such situation.

No one is taking it off of the table. If there is a legitimate reason to go to war, fine. But, right now, there isn't one.

Is anybody here saying we should be going to war in the Middle East?

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I can back down on that. War is what I want to avoid. If you think having a bunch of dudes hanging out at a military base but not actively fighting anyone is a good idea, fine.

To clarify:

Nobody wants Americans at war in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the people who stand to profit from the war machine.

But it's utterly foolish to take military action, or at least the threat of military action, off the table as an option when it comes to protecting America's interests or national security.

Many on the left seem to not understand this.  They seem to think that vigorous finger wagging and stern words should be more than sufficient to handle any such situation.

No one is taking it off of the table. If there is a legitimate reason to go to war, fine. But, right now, there isn't one.

Is anybody here saying we should be going to war in the Middle East?

If you aren't, I guess no one is. Good job, we agree.

Wow.  Did you think I was arguing in favor of a war?

You're incredibly dumb.

You have argued for it recently, mr. boots on the ground. My bad if you changed your mind.

WHY HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND IF THEY AIN'T GONNA SHOOT SOME RAGHEADS!?!?!?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/13/2015 5:07:00 PM (view original):

WHY HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND IF THEY AIN'T GONNA SHOOT SOME RAGHEADS!?!?!?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I can back down on that. War is what I want to avoid. If you think having a bunch of dudes hanging out at a military base but not actively fighting anyone is a good idea, fine.

To clarify:

Nobody wants Americans at war in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the people who stand to profit from the war machine.

But it's utterly foolish to take military action, or at least the threat of military action, off the table as an option when it comes to protecting America's interests or national security.

Many on the left seem to not understand this.  They seem to think that vigorous finger wagging and stern words should be more than sufficient to handle any such situation.

No one is taking it off of the table. If there is a legitimate reason to go to war, fine. But, right now, there isn't one.

Is anybody here saying we should be going to war in the Middle East?

If you aren't, I guess no one is. Good job, we agree.

Wow.  Did you think I was arguing in favor of a war?

You're incredibly dumb.

You have argued for it recently, mr. boots on the ground. My bad if you changed your mind.

Is "war" the only reasonable definition of "boots on the ground" in your world?

You're incredibly dumb if you think so.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/13/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/13/2015 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/13/2015 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/13/2015 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Mark my words, if the supreme court comes down with a decision in favor of gay marriage and forcing it on all of the states, in very quick order you will see what the agenda really is all about.

They will systematically go after Christian owned businesses, and file law suit after law suit.

If someone says "I will not serve your kind, get out of my store" THAT is discrimination.
If someone says "I will gladly sell you anything we have in the store on any day, thanks for coming in, but if you ask me to make you a wedding cake for your gay wedding, I will have to decline." That is NOT discrimination, yet that will be the basis of 100s of law suits by the end of the year.

The two circumstances are very different but they will try to convince the courts that they are not different in any way.

I will admit that this is the same argument the NRA uses.

"If they take our Uzis, they'll take our hunting rifles eventually!!!"

It's a poor argument even if there is some merit.     It's just not something that will happen in present day America.  Or near future America.

It has already happened.

They are very clever, and well coached.

I can promise you they already have targets listed for when the time comes.

I'm well-aware of at least one of the cases.  

I dare say the business owner was NOT well-coached but future ones will be.

There are several ways to "work around" the problem.  "Sorry, I have no availability until day-x" is one.   Another is to do a terrible job and still get paid.   Or to say you'll do it and find a reason why you couldn't get it done on time.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I can back down on that. War is what I want to avoid. If you think having a bunch of dudes hanging out at a military base but not actively fighting anyone is a good idea, fine.

To clarify:

Nobody wants Americans at war in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the people who stand to profit from the war machine.

But it's utterly foolish to take military action, or at least the threat of military action, off the table as an option when it comes to protecting America's interests or national security.

Many on the left seem to not understand this.  They seem to think that vigorous finger wagging and stern words should be more than sufficient to handle any such situation.

No one is taking it off of the table. If there is a legitimate reason to go to war, fine. But, right now, there isn't one.

Is anybody here saying we should be going to war in the Middle East?

If you aren't, I guess no one is. Good job, we agree.

Wow.  Did you think I was arguing in favor of a war?

You're incredibly dumb.

You have argued for it recently, mr. boots on the ground. My bad if you changed your mind.

Is "war" the only reasonable definition of "boots on the ground" in your world?

You're incredibly dumb if you think so.

In the context of the post/thread, when you said "boots on the ground," you meant war:

Quote post by tecwrg on 9/4/2014 12:42:00 PM:

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):
How would you suggest we kill the terrorists?

Boots on the ground.  We go in after them.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/13/2015 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Mark my words, if the supreme court comes down with a decision in favor of gay marriage and forcing it on all of the states, in very quick order you will see what the agenda really is all about.

They will systematically go after Christian owned businesses, and file law suit after law suit.

If someone says "I will not serve your kind, get out of my store" THAT is discrimination.
If someone says "I will gladly sell you anything we have in the store on any day, thanks for coming in, but if you ask me to make you a wedding cake for your gay wedding, I will have to decline." That is NOT discrimination, yet that will be the basis of 100s of law suits by the end of the year.

The two circumstances are very different but they will try to convince the courts that they are not different in any way.

What does and does not constitute discrimination by businesses against gays is not on trial. (But I am curious, if a business owner told a Christian couple that they wouldn't bake a cake for their wedding because they don't agree with Christianity, would you think that is OK?)

The question the court's facing is whether or not the government has the right to tell gays they aren't allowed to marry. That's a much easier question to answer.

if a business owner told a Christian couple that they wouldn't bake a cake for their wedding because they don't agree with Christianity, would you think that is OK?

I would think it's OK.  That's a poor business model that's not going to be sustainable in the long run.  The market itself would put that business owner out of business.  No need to legislate against it.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/13/2015 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Mark my words, if the supreme court comes down with a decision in favor of gay marriage and forcing it on all of the states, in very quick order you will see what the agenda really is all about.

They will systematically go after Christian owned businesses, and file law suit after law suit.

If someone says "I will not serve your kind, get out of my store" THAT is discrimination.
If someone says "I will gladly sell you anything we have in the store on any day, thanks for coming in, but if you ask me to make you a wedding cake for your gay wedding, I will have to decline." That is NOT discrimination, yet that will be the basis of 100s of law suits by the end of the year.

The two circumstances are very different but they will try to convince the courts that they are not different in any way.

What does and does not constitute discrimination by businesses against gays is not on trial. (But I am curious, if a business owner told a Christian couple that they wouldn't bake a cake for their wedding because they don't agree with Christianity, would you think that is OK?)

The question the court's facing is whether or not the government has the right to tell gays they aren't allowed to marry. That's a much easier question to answer.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 5:19:00 PM (view original):
And what, exactly, is the gay agenda?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/13/2015 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2015 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I can back down on that. War is what I want to avoid. If you think having a bunch of dudes hanging out at a military base but not actively fighting anyone is a good idea, fine.

To clarify:

Nobody wants Americans at war in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the people who stand to profit from the war machine.

But it's utterly foolish to take military action, or at least the threat of military action, off the table as an option when it comes to protecting America's interests or national security.

Many on the left seem to not understand this.  They seem to think that vigorous finger wagging and stern words should be more than sufficient to handle any such situation.

No one is taking it off of the table. If there is a legitimate reason to go to war, fine. But, right now, there isn't one.

Is anybody here saying we should be going to war in the Middle East?

If you aren't, I guess no one is. Good job, we agree.

Wow.  Did you think I was arguing in favor of a war?

You're incredibly dumb.

You have argued for it recently, mr. boots on the ground. My bad if you changed your mind.

Is "war" the only reasonable definition of "boots on the ground" in your world?

You're incredibly dumb if you think so.

In the context of the post/thread, when you said "boots on the ground," you meant war:

Quote post by tecwrg on 9/4/2014 12:42:00 PM:

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):
How would you suggest we kill the terrorists?

Boots on the ground.  We go in after them.

You're conveniently forgetting this.