posted April 17, 2009 03:35 PM         

Bringing up my husbands being in the Military and "Signing up for it" is an even bigger joke here in LL... Because they ALL know Bear the Leo.. He has been in for 15 years, if he or I have not understood the so called "periods of seperation" well... we would be stupid.. No wait..we would be as absurd and ignorant as you.

posted April 17, 2009 03:41 PM         

i don't see the provacation for the mudsling.
i do know kat can handle her own, but i really see no reason to get personal and insulting.

kat is not ignorant. is name calling now appropriate?

nor is she a piggie, in fact, she doesn't need my help with this, she can kick all the ass needed on her own.

try to stick to the subject.

posted April 17, 2009 04:42 PM         

Well... not as proud as I am over my deployed husband that fights for our country... instead of bitching about things ...

posted April 17, 2009 04:56 PM         

marrying into, being in the military is signing up for separations - is it not? what is the insult you are sucking out of this? i have lots of family in the military so go bang your head on someone else's wall.

posted April 17, 2009 05:19 PM         

"if he or I have not understood the so called "periods of seperation" well... we would be stupid.. No wait..we would be as absurd and ignorant as you. "

" Suuuuey.... pig pig pig.. you know what that means LMAO"

no i can see, you never sneer!. and i am not playing victim i am taking issue with your attitude. there is a difference.

posted April 18, 2009 10:07 AM         

Well Pid, you can see how it's going here...the usual blithering, blathering and bullshiiit.

This latest dust up was really over before it began. The usual, a leftist making another false accusation and offering not one iota of proof what they said is true....Bush and the Patriot Act violated Americans constitutional rights.

But, when challenged...and all lies should be challenged...not 3 Americans out of 300,000,000 could be found to back up the loony tunes allegation.

And, of course, there's acoustic attempting to stand at least 400 years of jurisprudence on it's ear...going all the way back to the English Common Law...by asserting the accused must prove their INNOCENCE.

I suppose it would be different...indeed it would be different if people just came here and expressed their "opinions" instead of stating their "opinions" as "facts". It seems there are some...the usual suspects...who do not understand stating opinions starts with saying.."I think", "I believe", "I feel" or some other qualifier which indicate they are expressing their "opinions" and what they're saying isn't to be taken as "fact".

So, when challenged to provide some evidence what they say is true, the ducking, bobbing and weaving begins...attached to a challenge.

quote:

---

why don't YOU name 3 people who have been profiled as dangerous rightwing extremists...katatonic

---

So, the challenge was met with facts in that Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin were specifically singled out in a Missouri law enforcement study which was disseminated to law enforcement.

Then, as is usual, the ducking, bobbing and weaving began all over again by katatonic. It seems katatonic doesn't understand that the supporters of Paul, Barr and Baldwin support them...because of their stances on issues and those issues involve the Federal Reserve System, the size, scope and authority of the federal government and other issues. How can the supporters of Paul, Barr and Baldwin be targeted as those of whom law enforcement should be suspicious without also being suspicious of the actual proponents of the ideas being supported by supporters of Paul, Barr and Baldwin? The idea is preposterous on it's face.

You came back at the right moment in time Pid because when I read from the DHS summary of a long report disseminated by the Department of Homeland Security to law enforcement all over America...about whom law enforcement should be targeting as suspicious...the report included "returning military personnel". I thought about you and Bear and also Eleanore and her husband stationed in Japan.

Janet Napolitano, head of DHS and the other leftist idiots who drafted this report are a disgrace and should be fired.

posted April 18, 2009 12:53 PM         

Jwhop...

I saw that DHS report and it has caused a major buzz in our communities here in Graf and Vilseck as well as downrange with Bear and his fellow Soldiers. I have never liked Napalitano at all. She ruined (or tried to) AZ and she is doing the same for the country. In AZ we all were happy to see her go (although she left us seriously in debt) but were fearful for what she would do to the US in her position.

Now we see exactly how she is abusing her power. Actually putting Vets returning from downrange on a "hit list" of potential recruitments to right wing extremist groups. To use Timothy McVeigh as an example is insane. He was only ONE of many vets coming back from the first Gulf War. Instead, we call terrorism overseas an "Overseas contingency" something or other... and there is no overseas terrorism.. it is attributed to 'Man-made disasters". BUT.. we can lump anyone that is against big government, abortion or illegal immigration.. or worse of all.. those that GAVE freely of themselves and have shed blood for our country.. well.. we are the ones to watch.

Last Tuesday I attended a memorial for our FIRST casualty from our Brigade during this deployment. Last deployment the 172nd (before it was reflagged we were the 2BCT) had the highest number of deaths from Europe. The Second Stryker Regiment (I work for them) had the second highest number of KIA's. The Soldier that was KIA for our Brigade was stop-lossed. He was supposed to get out of the Army in August but because of the deployment he was kept in. He was a hero. He was proud to serve and even said "Hey.. I know I am due to get out, but I have another good fight left in me. I love my Country and I will give my all during this deployment".

He was a true hero! Many here (Libbie LL peeps) have NO idea about Memorials or attending funerals. This was my 8th since I joined Bear in Germany. If I count the Regiment I work for, then Tuesday's Memorial was my 12th. The last big memorial was for all the Soldiers that gave their lives downrange (2SCR was in one of the worst areas, my squadron had one of highest number of casualties because they are infantry). It was a moving service.. and not 2 hours after Bear called me to tell me they moved him from a December 6th flight to a flight on Thanksgiving. That gave us less than 48 hours to get things in order.

But that is the life.. we know this. Every Soldier / Military spouse knows what can happen. However, we do NOT expect that our spouses or Soldiers will be put on a list of potential domestic terrorists. We do not expect that the idiot running our country would be so callous as to stand behind such a report (since he doesn't speak out Obama surely stands behind it). I do hope that those in the Military that voted for Obomber think again during the next election.

I have already heard it where I work. Those that thought he would pull them out or would help Soldiers are now ticked off that they voted for him.

I will say this though.. I am glad to be a part of the "extremist list" because I am against illegal immigration, I DO support our Military and abortion is something I have always been against.

posted April 18, 2009 12:54 PM         

And...I'm still waiting for you to provide 3 names out of 300,000,000 US citizens who had their constitutional rights violated by Bush or the Patriot act.

Any 3 names...which, if Bush was the monster leftists claim and the Patriot Act a thrust at the heart of the constitutional rights of Americans....3 names of those who have come forward with allegations of Bush/Patriot Act rights violations should not in any way be a burden for anyone to find.

So, how about getting aroundtoit?

posted April 18, 2009 01:30 PM         

BTW.. I really loved your comparison between Right Wing extremists and Peace loving (I say that without choking).. left wing extremists...

posted April 18, 2009 01:34 PM         

But wait, terrorism now only exists in the United States and those of whom law enforcement should be suspicious are those exercising their constitutional rights to "freedom of speech", the "free exercise of religion", the "right to peaceably assemble", "the right to keep and bear arms" and "10th Amendment rights of the States and the people". Oh yeah, and the right to support and vote for the candidate of ones own choice...and not the choice of the head of the DHS and the rest of the cadre of the brain dead.

So, to the list of those of whom law enforcement should be suspicious, these should be added. The Governor of Texas, the State Legislature of Oklahoma and other State Legislatures and Governors who are pursuing State Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

But to list returning US military personnel who put their lives on the line defending the United States or United States interests around the world as a projection of US Foreign Policy? That's sick, twisted, disgusting and contemptible.

Sorry to hear there are funerals and Memorial services for unit members there Pid.

posted April 18, 2009 08:49 PM         

so no, what you can take from my last post is that i'm not interested in getting into it with a bunch of highschool "my-teamers". i have repeatedly tried to steer this discussion into a "what can we do" direction rather than just a bitching column but i can talk to reasonable, intelligent conservatives elsewhere.

posted April 18, 2009 11:06 PM         

I am also proud of one of my best friends son who lost his life in iraq at the syrian border, ok. there is no lack of respect from me to anyone that serves our country in such a capacity.

i don't think kat was trying to be offensive to you, so i just didn't think what got wrote was really warranted.

posted April 19, 2009 10:05 AM         

quote:

---

i was trying to have a dialogue. it seems no such thing is possible with you so i will not bother trying anymore. carry on...katatonic

---

The problem with attempts to have a dialog or rational discussion with leftists is that their concept of discussion is centered on lying inflammatory, accusatory rhetoric against people they don't like...politically or otherwise. Which is the exact reason I decided to talk to leftists in the language they understand...their own. When I choose my targets...their leftist icons, I don't have to lie about them because they're a target rich environment.

There were plenty of policy decisions made by Bush which could have been legitimately attacked and Pid and I did attack those policy decisions here.

You chose to launch an attack on Bush for something he didn't do and no credible evidence exists that he did. You're by no means the first here to allege Bush violated the Constitutional (Civil) rights of US citizens without providing a single example of violations.

Let it be noted you're also the member who alleged that Sarah Palin had been "indicted" in Alaska during the Presidential Primary and for the very same reason. You don't like Palin.

Personal dislike is not a legitimate excuse for lying about anyone...if there even is any legitimate excuse at all.

posted April 19, 2009 10:48 AM         

Your assumption no amount of proof would satisfy my requirements is utter bullshiit but, if you want to give it your best shot, fire away.

quote:

---

"Prove that I, as an American not associated with terrorists, was not wire-tapped by the Bush administration."....acoustic

---

You really are clueless aren't you and never learn your lessons acoustic? Again, you ask for proof something "DIDN'T" happen. Prove a negative. However acoustic, your attempt to glorify terrorists who attack and kill defenseless civilians by calling them "ballsy"..."because they are killing people they don't even know" might be the very "good faith probable cause" which would permit intelligence agencies to give you a long hard look.

quote:

---

The Defense does take action in defending the innocent. They don't sit on their hands as you endorsed...acoustic

---

How about you not mischaracterizing what I say acoustic. I never said the defense takes no action or that they sit on their hands in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a/the crime falls on the prosecution as the accuser in Court. The job of defense attorneys is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors and that's done by attacking prosecution witnesses credibility, physical evidence, laboratory and police procedures and any errors made by the prosecution team. It most definitely is not the job of defense attorneys to "prove the defendant is innocent".