Jump to content

The terrorist have won


AUUSN

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

Yep, I've moved on to bigger and better things. 

Ok.    I was wondering why you weren't concerned about article 88.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 426
  • Created
  • Last Reply
20 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Dammit, I'm speaking about the wide range of freaking LIES being told about this E.O. Imperfect as it is, it's still legal and it's not some new draconian movement against Muslims.  You want to turn this into some sort of tit-for-tat whizzing contest, and I'm just trying to deal in facts.  Yes, I did say " no questions asked ", but that CLEARLY should be understood to be a bit of sarcasm. On the flip side, we actually DO basically ask " are you a terrorist "  as one of the questions for those trying to come into the country.  That's what has been passed off as ' harsh vetting ', as Obama and or Hillary would say. 

So spare me your ' false equivalency ' speak.  

It is a false equivalency. For instance, you can't even manage to distinguish between the vetting done on refugees and a visa application. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cptau said:

Ok.    I was wondering why you weren't concerned about article 88.  

Even if I was still on Active Duty, article 88 wouldn't apply to me posting on a small sports forum. Don't try to be a sea lawyer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

Even if I was still on Active Duty, article 88 wouldn't apply to me posting on a small sports forum. Don't try to be a sea lawyer. 

 

 I asked if you were concerned.  Obviously you never were.  

would never want to be sea lawyer, whatever the navy thinks that is.  Maybe a Martime attorney, a lot more money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cptau said:

 

 I asked if you were concerned.  Obviously you never were.  

would never want to be sea lawyer, whatever the navy thinks that is.  Maybe a Martime attorney, a lot more money.

 

While on Active Duty I was always concerned acting in accordance with the UCMJ. I know my limitations and I know my ethical obligations. 

So read article 88 and pay attention to the last sentence. 

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It is a false equivalency. For instance, you can't even manage to distinguish between the vetting done on refugees and a visa application. 

You think there's a  tangible difference w/ this govt ? The way it operates ? 

I give up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

You think there's a  tangible difference w/ this govt ? The way it operates ? 

I give up. 

Yes. Because I've read fairly extensively on the vetting process. I don't just spout hot takes on things without studying them some to come to what I believe is a reasonable position on a matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes. Because I've read fairly extensively on the vetting process. I don't just spout hot takes on things without studying them some to come to what I believe is a reasonable position on a matter. 

No,  you just accept at face value anything this govt says. I don't. And for good reason. 

And those ' hot takes ' ? Are so because I DO know what this govt does, and it should piss off most citizens. But not you. Got it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AURaptor said:

No,  you just accept at face value anything this govt says. I don't. And for good reason. 

And those ' hot takes ' ? Are so because I DO know what this govt does, and it should piss off most citizens. But not you. Got it. 

 

You're hopeless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

While on Active Duty I was always concerned acting in accordance with the UCMJ. I know my limitations and I know my ethical obligations. 

So read article 88 and pay attention to the last sentence. 

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I know what it states, I asked you if you were still on active duty and were concerned,  remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cptau said:

I know what it states, I asked you if you were still on active duty and were concerned,  remember?

To which I replied yes. We done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, japantiger said:

Nice...I am in fact a white guy....so no offense taken.  Muslim ban is just that, a catch phrase and an inaccurate one as well.  Again, you seem to have trouble letting go of that....I just tend to like the folks I have discussions with to acknowledge reality.   Even Obama let go of "if you like you Dr., you can keep them".   The OE was clear on those points; direction to the DHS were poor or not communicated at all or just not understood...the initial hysteria could have been avoided.  But, I'm not really going to sweat what happened to ~100 foreigners who have no inherent right to be here.  They're lucky to be here.  If they had to put up with some hassle  a few hours to reinforce that they are here at our good graces and not by right; then I don't have a problem with that.  If they feel put upon, I'm sure they're homeland would love to have them back.  Yes, I am a complete bastard in this regard...somehow I think the republic will survive the mindless hysteria on this...it managed to when the last 6 presidents did some version of the same thing....

Ok. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 1/29/2017 at 10:41 AM, RunInRed said:

C3Wh4zaWAAAdhKi.jpg:large

 

I'm not 100% sure if people really want to live by OT law. I know a few that would be quite opposed to it. You can't pick and choose which laws are followed and which are ignored.

Leviticus 20:10
English Standard Version
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13
English Standard Version
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

That said, Christians no longer abide by to law. We were given a new set and now live under the NT covenant which is merciful.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AURaptor said:

No,  you just accept at face value anything this govt says. I don't. And for good reason. 

And those ' hot takes ' ? Are so because I DO know what this govt does, and it should piss off most citizens. But not you. Got it. 

 

weasel think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

weasel think

Which is Stephen Hawking level to your Homer Simpson pea sized brain. 

 

:laugh: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Ok. 

 

This 9 month old video was irrelevant the 1st time you posted it...Old words vs reality...you get that concept, right?  You're about as serious as Chuck Shumer on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT, the Left has declared all out war on Trump, no matter the hypocrisy, no matter the irrelevance, no matter what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

JT, the Left has declared all out war on Trump, no matter the hypocrisy, no matter the irrelevance, no matter what. 

Raptor, now that is just not true...I mean, those Chuck Shumer tears just tore me apart...man, he really cares...this is truly about principle and morality and... he cares almost as much now as he did when in 2015 he publicly said we might have to do just what Trump did....so I'm sure you're just being partisan Raptor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Raptor, now that is just not true...I mean, those Chuck Shumer tears just tore me apart...man, he really cares...this is truly about principle and morality and... he cares almost as much now as he did when in 2015 he publicly said we might have to do just what Trump did....so I'm sure you're just being partisan Raptor...

Shame on me, huh ? Man, do I feel like a dummy. See, even Amy has come out in defense of 2nd cousin Chuck 

“I know Chuck Schumer and HE CANNOT act trust me,” she wrote on Instagram. “He can barely smile on cue. He can’t help but be transparent and genuine. He was hurt for those people and all the people facing such unconstitutional injustice.”

 

:cry3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, japantiger said:

This 9 month old video was irrelevant the 1st time you posted it...Old words vs reality...you get that concept, right?  You're about as serious as Chuck Shumer on this topic.

So then when Trump says he is going to enact a Muslim ban on the campaign trail, tells Giuliani to draft a Muslim ban, then issues an EO banning individuals from predominately Muslim countries, it's not a Muslim ban. Got it. 

He probably should let the people at the US embassy in Israel know this. They are telling Jews born in Iraq and Iran that they are exempt from this travel ban. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt who attacked the Louvre.  There were contradicting reports as to Quebec, but of course your spin is that Trump is fine w/ the Mosque attack, because it was a white guy.

 

Got it. 

 

But good job getting JAKE ( Hey homer !! ) Tapper some more exposure. :thumbsup: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

No doubt who attacked the Louvre.  There were contradicting reports as to Quebec, but of course your spin is that Trump is fine w/ the Mosque attack, because it was a white guy.

 

Got it. 

 

But good job getting JAKE ( Hey homer !! ) Tapper some more exposure. :thumbsup: 

So then Trump tweeted about the Mosque attack? He seems to have plenty of free time around 3am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

So then Trump tweeted about the Mosque attack? He seems to have plenty of free time around 3am.

When there's a global assault on Mosques by - ANYONE , then I'm sure Trump will address it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...