PDA

View Full Version : Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel: "The President is "disconnected from reality."



Hardrock69
03-23-2006, 10:34 AM
Bush just can't stop lying

By DOUG THOMPSON
Mar 22, 2006, 07:38
Email this article
Printer friendly page

Americans who tuned in for one of President George W. Bush's rare press conferences saw a cornered animal trying to squirm his way out of trouble by doing what he has always done - evading the truth.

Bush's attempt to showcase himself as a leader who could handle tough questions from the press corps fell just as flat as his unscripted town-meeting style appearance in Cleveland the day before.

His eyes darted from side-to-side as he fielded questions about his real reasons for invading Iraq. He stammered. Stalled. Used the word "uh" more times than a suspect caught red-handed. He still claimed his reasons for invading Iraq were just, even though those reasons have been proven wrong. He claims the war can be won, a view not shared by many of his generals. He claimed a lot of things - few of them true.

"President Bush exhibited symptoms of pathological prevarication," says Dr. Stephanie Crossfield, a psychologist who treats people who have trouble telling the truth and who watched Bush's performances on Monday and Tuesday at my request. "His eye movements, gestures, and changes in voice tone all display traits of consistent evasion of the truth."

This isn't the first time I've asked Dr. Crossfield to study a politician. She watched several of former President Bill Clinton's press conferences and came to similar conclusions about Clinton disassociation with reality.

When studying a subject, she watches the eyes.

"Eye movement is difficult to control," she said. "You find that the eyes dart away in specific patterns when a person is not telling the truth. The President's eyes dart a great deal. He is not comfortable facing the truth."

Dr. Justin Frank, author of the book, Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, agrees with Dr. Crossfield.

"President Bush marches deeper and deeper into a world of his own," says Dr. Frank. "Central to Bush's world is an iron will which demands that external reality be changed to conform to his personal view of how things are."

Republicans reluctantly admit Bush has lost touch with the truth. Sen. Chuck Hagel says the President is "disconnected from reality."

Venture out beyond the Beltway and you find conservative Republicans shaking their head and wondering the same thing.

Dennis Dalbey cuts the hair of Camp Pendleton's young Marines, giving them the regulation haircut before they head to combat in Iraq. His barbershop on the Coast Highway near the base in California is covered with painted yellow ribbons, flags and "We support our troops" banners. But Dalbey, a Republican and a self-described conservative who voted for Bush, says he is fed up with the President's lies.

"Enough is enough," he says. "It's time to bring the boys home."

In San Marcos, retired Navy veteran Herb Ranquist, 77, sits in the local VFW hall and says Bush is a failure.

"I voted for him two times, and I wish I hadn't," Ranquist says. "It was probably one of the worst mistakes I ever made."

Dr. Crossfield says it doesn't take a degree in psychology or advanced training in spotting liars to realize the President plays fast and loose with the truth.

"More and more ordinary Americans see the evidence clearly every day," she says. "It is difficult to ignore."

Dr. Frank says Bush can't change his ways.

"Taking responsibility has always been hard for George W. Bush," he says. "Taking responsibility for inflicting harm on others, a major step in the development of maturity, is a step President Bush has yet to make. Instead, he persists in lying to himself."

And to the American people.



http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8315.shtml

FORD
03-23-2006, 11:57 AM
Why couldn't these Republicans have figured this out before November 2004?

Seriously..... Katrina was a massive faiulre, but all his other failures were as known then as they are now.

Should have paid attention, and spared the country.

Hardrock69
03-23-2006, 12:17 PM
They are not concerned with the well-being of America or it's citizens.

That much is obvious.

ct2kc1111
03-23-2006, 01:36 PM
What crap. Everyone knows The President is hardly an eloquent speaker but quoting a poseur like RINO Hagel and these other psychologists (see also Psychos, one and all) is a typical Leftist move to "affirm" their position. The Dems problem is tey have no position, no answers and NO BALLS! Weak!!!

Hardrock69
03-23-2006, 02:29 PM
Another ignorant stooge, hiding from reality.

:rolleyes:

ct2kc1111
03-24-2006, 10:33 PM
Stop talking about yourself like that, man. Get a real opinion and state it, rather than these stupid 3rd grade comments. Democrats and their supporters are soft ass pussies, face it. Disagree with Bush or Conservatives if you wish but at least he had the balls to do something. "Let's 'negotiate' with terrorists.." . Ridiculous. Grow a set and then talk to me.

FORD
03-24-2006, 10:36 PM
Who's the new troll?

Nickdfresh
03-24-2006, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by ct2kc1111
Stop talking about yourself like that, man. Get a real opinion and state it, rather than these stupid 3rd grade comments. Democrats and their supporters are soft ass pussies, face it.

Really? Pot fucking meet the tea kettle...

Funny, I thought Democrats started, or conducted, every War prior to the Gulf War Trilogy...


Disagree with Bush or Conservatives if you wish but at least he had the balls to do something.

Yeah, to get middle class kids killed in an irrational, counter-productive war...

Wow, how tough. Sending other peoples' children to die to drive up oil profits...


"Let's 'negotiate' with terrorists.." . Ridiculous. Grow a set and then talk to me.

Ooooh, thw'ogh macho!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/butch.gif

BTW, have you ever served in the military, or are you just another arm-chair bitchy Chicken Hawk crowing on the internet???

Warham
03-25-2006, 04:28 PM
Yep, Democrats started that war that killed 56,000 back in the 1960's.

FORD
03-25-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yep, Democrats started that war that killed 56,000 back in the 1960's.

Not so. Granted, LBJ escalated it, and was a fucking moron for doing so, but Eisenhower was the first to send US troops.

And Eisenhower was the first (and least offensive) of the BCE presidents.

Warham
03-25-2006, 08:53 PM
He sent a few hundred, at the most! And they weren't involved in any fighting at that time. Mostly there as a showpiece of US power.

There wasn't 100,000+ sent into Vietnam prior to 1965.

Maybe we should add up every US war casualty under Republican and Democrat presidents and see which party comes out on top. I have a feeling already who's going to win in a landslide.

FORD
03-25-2006, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Warham
He sent a few hundred, at the most! And they weren't involved in any fighting at that time. Mostly there as a showpiece of US power.

There wasn't 100,000+ sent into Vietnam prior to 1965.

Maybe we should add up every US war casualty under Republican and Democrat presidents and see which party comes out on top. I have a feeling already who's going to win in a landslide.

So you would blame FDR for sending troops to fight Japan (who attacked us) or Germany, whose war machine was funded by Prescott Bush?

Warham
03-25-2006, 09:36 PM
Well, if you think Vietnam and Iraq were the only two unjust wars, maybe Korea could be included, the Democrats would still come out on top.

Nickdfresh
03-25-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yep, Democrats started that war that killed 56,000 back in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was a Democrat?


Originally posted by Warham
He sent a few hundred, at the most! And they weren't involved in any fighting at that time. Mostly there as a showpiece of US power.

There wasn't 100,000+ sent into Vietnam prior to 1965.

Maybe we should add up every US war casualty under Republican and Democrat presidents and see which party comes out on top. I have a feeling already who's going to win in a landslide.

Eisenhower cancelled a UN sanctioned democratic election which divided Vietnam putting the South under a bunch of ex-French lackeys with a corrupt gov't that had no credibility...

JFK inherited this mess...

Warham
03-25-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Eisenhower was a Democrat?

:rolleyes:

How many troops did he send into Vietnam, Nick?

Warham
03-25-2006, 09:48 PM
Tell me, who started the Korean War, where we lost 33,000+? I believe FORD claimed that war was unjust.

Nickdfresh
03-25-2006, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Well, if you think Vietnam and Iraq were the only two unjust wars, maybe Korea could be included, the Democrats would still come out on top.

The South was invaded by the North...


And in neither case did the US invade these countries...

Warham
03-25-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The South was invaded by the North...


And in neither case did the US invade these countries...

We didn't have to go over there. No national security threats to us.

Nickdfresh
03-25-2006, 09:54 PM
How would you know? Japan was threatened, and the War was not preemptive...

Keep trying to find historical parallels to the US "preemptively" invading another country though...

FORD
03-25-2006, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Warham
We didn't have to go over there. No national security threats to us.

That's not what the BCE-manipulated military industrial complex said.

Warham
03-25-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by FORD
That's not what the BCE-manipulated military industrial complex said.

Truman started that whole Southeast Asia mess in the first place. He wasn't manipulated by the BCE, FORD.

Warham
03-25-2006, 09:57 PM
I would say that Iraq (when Saddam was still running the show) was more of a threat to our national security than North Vietnam ever was.

Nickdfresh
03-25-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I would say that Iraq (when Saddam was still running the show) was more of a threat to our national security than North Vietnam ever was.

Funny, but the Pentagon considered him contained, with an aging military frozen in 1970's-1990 technology, more worried about IRAN that us...

He was a threat to no one but himself...

Warham
03-25-2006, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Funny, but the Pentagon considered him contained, with an aging military frozen in 1970's-1990 technology, more worried about IRAN that us...

He was a threat to no one but himself...

I'm not so sure about that. He had help from the Russians, among other countries.

He wasn't as helpless as people let on.

I thought you didn't buy what the DoD tells us?

Warham
03-25-2006, 10:12 PM
From what I understand, Truman's the one who initiated helping the French in Vietnam, not Eisenhower. It was E who increased aid to the French after he took office in 1952. Much of France's early efforts were financed by Truman's aid there.

Nickdfresh
03-25-2006, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Warham
...

I thought you didn't buy what the DoD tells us?

That's BUSH and the Neo CoNs actually...

LoungeMachine
03-25-2006, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Warham


add up every US war casualty


who's going to win in a landslide.


You think there's a "win" there?

:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
03-25-2006, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Warham
We didn't have to go over there. No national security threats to us.

Oh, the irony.

the hypocrisy.

LoungeMachine
03-25-2006, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Warham
.

He wasn't as helpless as people let on.




And we could all list a half dozen other tyrants, dictators, and regimes just as "not helpless", and even more telling is the fact they all had the same "ties" to harboring Al Qaeda, OBL, and Islamo-schmucks in general.

Some of them are even considered "allies"

What made Iraq special?

Until you can answer that truthfully, you're just another sheep.

Warham
03-25-2006, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And we could all list a half dozen other tyrants, dictators, and regimes just as "not helpless", and even more telling is the fact they all had the same "ties" to harboring Al Qaeda, OBL, and Islamo-schmucks in general.

Some of them are even considered "allies"

What made Iraq special?

Until you can answer that truthfully, you're just another sheep.

What made Iraq special?

Shall we take a trip back to 1991, and the first Gulf War?

LoungeMachine
03-25-2006, 11:00 PM
Absolutely.

Let's.

How you think it makes your case for pre-emptive overthrow and occupation in 2003, and blaming it on any so called "war on terror" and invoking 9/11 every other breath is beyond me.


If you still defend, excuse, and or justify this war, you're beyond pity.

Warham
03-25-2006, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Absolutely.

Let's.

How you think it makes your case for pre-emptive overthrow and occupation in 2003, and blaming it on any so called "war on terror" and invoking 9/11 every other breath is beyond me.


If you still defend, excuse, and or justify this war, you're beyond pity.

Oh, I can still do all those things, and much, much more.

1991 is just the beginning...

Nickdfresh
03-25-2006, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Warham
From what I understand, Truman's the one who initiated helping the French in Vietnam, not Eisenhower.

Truman tolerated the FRENCH based on the same anti-Communist hysteria taking hold at the time after the fall of CHINA, and the Korean War, in South East Asia...

But yes, he did allow the French to go back into Vietnam, which was their colonial 'possession' until the Japanese decided the Vichy armistice didn't apply to them... So I'll grant you that...


It was E who increased aid to the French after he took office in 1952. Much of France's early efforts were financed by Truman's aid there.

True, to an extent. But the French fell at Dien Bien Phu, and Ike decided to not get involved, to make a long story short, a corrupt joke of an idiot came to power as emperor (Bao Dai), and he was quickly replaced by a series of corrupt dictators...

A democratic election was to held to decide Vietnam's fate, and Ike called it off fearing Ho Chi Minh would win it... Had he allowed it to happen, Ho may not have gone over to the Communist side... (he even borrowed extracts from the US Constitution to appeal to us, a fact we like to ignore.)

FORD
03-26-2006, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

A democratic election was to held to decide Vietnam's fate, and Ike called it off fearing Ho Chi Minh would win it... Had he allowed it to happen, Ho may not have gone over to the Communist side... (he even borrowed extracts from the US Constitution to appeal to us, a fact we like to ignore.)

Similar in many ways to Castro asking the Eisenhower administration to help him against the fascist Batitsta regime. They turned Fidel down, and Nikita Kruschev bailed him out. Giving the Communists a Cold War front 90 miles from the American mainland in the process.

Which goes to show that BCE foreign policy has always had fatal flaws. You would think they would learn......

Warham
03-26-2006, 09:47 AM
Truman was BCE? I would guess that would mean Roosevelt was BCE as well, right?

blueturk
03-26-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I would say that Iraq (when Saddam was still running the show) was more of a threat to our national security than North Vietnam ever was.

And I would say that Iran is a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. Why aren't we invading that country and proclaiming fucking "Mission Accomplished"? Why the kid gloves? Your idiotic "leader" started a war just because he WANTED to. Because he had a hard-on for Saddam....

"Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon." óGeorge W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 18, 2003

LoungeMachine
03-26-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Truman was BCE? I would guess that would mean Roosevelt was BCE as well, right?


Lincoln was BCE ;)


Booth was acting on orders from moveon.org.

ODShowtime
03-26-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by ct2kc1111
Stop talking about yourself like that, man. Get a real opinion and state it, rather than these stupid 3rd grade comments. Democrats and their supporters are soft ass pussies, face it. Disagree with Bush or Conservatives if you wish but at least he had the balls to do something. "Let's 'negotiate' with terrorists.." . Ridiculous. Grow a set and then talk to me.


Yeah, I really respect people who can come to a conclusion and then prove it. And then start a war that killed thousands, wasted billions, and threatens to plunge the entire region into civil war.

But at least he did something. Whew!

I was waited to for us to kill more brown people after that little camping trip we had in afghanistan. How'd that turn out anyway?

blueturk
03-26-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by ct2kc1111
Stop talking about yourself like that, man. Get a real opinion and state it, rather than these stupid 3rd grade comments. Democrats and their supporters are soft ass pussies, face it. Disagree with Bush or Conservatives if you wish but at least he had the balls to do something. "Let's 'negotiate' with terrorists.." . Ridiculous. Grow a set and then talk to me.

Sure, dumbfuck. Democrats are pussies. Thank God you sheep have a real man in the White House. A fucking draft-dodging ex-college cheerleader who can't even eat a fucking pretzel without getting hurt (if that's what really happened). Hell yeah, real men start a war with no strategy whatsoever except to get rid of Hussein, and then make up the rest as they go along. I'll bet you've seen quite a few sets of balls in your lifetime, up close. REAL close. Fucking pussy-ass sheep.

BigBadBrian
03-26-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by blueturk
Sure, dumbfuck. Democrats are pussies. Thank God you sheep have a real man in the White House. A fucking draft-dodging ex-college cheerleader who can't even eat a fucking pretzel without getting hurt (if that's what really happened). Hell yeah, real men start a war with no strategy whatsoever except to get rid of Hussein, and then make up the rest as they go along. I'll bet you've seen quite a few sets of balls in your lifetime, up close. REAL close. Fucking pussy-ass sheep.

Where did you get your debating skills... out of a box of Fruit Loops? Name- calling is unnecessary....unless I do it. :D

FORD
03-26-2006, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Truman was BCE? I would guess that would mean Roosevelt was BCE as well, right?

Eisenhower was BCE. I didn't mention Truman or Roosevelt at all.

Remember that Roosevelt defeated the fascist madman funded by the BCE, and Truman defeated their partners in Japan.

blueturk
03-26-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Where did you get your debating skills... out of a box of Fruit Loops? Name- calling is unnecessary....unless I do it. :D

I wasn't debating ct2kc1111, I was calling him out on being a true sheep, defending his leader against all logic.If you want to see Froot-Loopian debate, wait for his response...

Warham
03-27-2006, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Eisenhower was BCE. I didn't mention Truman or Roosevelt at all.

Remember that Roosevelt defeated the fascist madman funded by the BCE, and Truman defeated their partners in Japan.

Truman started the US interference in Vietnam. Eisenhower only escalated it.

If you say that Eisenhower was part of the BCE, then so is Truman by connecting the dots.

Nickdfresh
03-27-2006, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Where did you get your debating skills... out of a box of Fruit Loops?

Is this where you're getting your college degree?

Warham
03-27-2006, 06:40 AM
I can't believe I'm even debating the 'BCE' with FORD...

::sigh::

Nickdfresh
03-27-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Truman started the US interference in Vietnam. Eisenhower only escalated it.

If you say that Eisenhower was part of the BCE, then so is Truman by connecting the dots.

There was no Republic of (South) Vietnam when Truman was President, it and the whole situation of partition, was created by Eisenhower and his policies...

Hence, that's when the War started, he deployed US troops to South Vietnam in the mid-50's...

Do a little reading on it sometime kiddo...

Warham
03-27-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
There was no Republic of (South) Vietnam when Truman was President, it and the whole situation of partition, was created by Eisenhower and his policies...

Hence, that's when the War started, he deployed US troops to South Vietnam in the mid-50's...

Do a little reading on it sometime kiddo...

The first soldier casualty wasn't until 1961, so I don't think we had more than a few dozen or even hundred troops troops when E was president. I wouldn't call that a 'presence' by any stretch of the imagination.

Warham
03-27-2006, 06:48 AM
13 May 61 - President Kennedy orders 100 "special forces" troops to S. Vietnam

Warham
03-27-2006, 06:49 AM
22 Dec 61 - SP4 James Davis of Livingston, Tennessee killed by Viet Cong (VC) later called by President Johnson "The first American to fall in defense of our freedom in Vietnam"

Nickdfresh
03-27-2006, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Warham
13 May 61 - President Kennedy orders 100 "special forces" troops to S. Vietnam


Originally posted by Warham
22 Dec 61 - SP4 James Davis of Livingston, Tennessee killed by Viet Cong (VC) later called by President Johnson "The first American to fall in defense of our freedom in Vietnam"

And?


Is this supposed to prove something?

And if you're going to cut and paste quotes out of context from some internet Vietnam timeline, at least provide a link and some bare-minimum attribution...

Warham
03-27-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And?


Is this supposed to prove something?

And if you're going to cut and paste quotes out of context from some internet Vietnam timeline, at least provide a link and some bare-minimum attribution...

It's a timeline. It doesn't need to be 'linked'. There are thousands of Vietnam timelines on the internet with the same information. It's verifiable fact, not somebody's opinion.

It's supposed to prove that soldiers (not 'advisors') were not sent into Vietnam prior to 1961, so that means that Eisenhower had nothing to do with the US military build-up over there. Sure, we were providing aid to the French, but our men weren't over there in any large measure.

Warham
03-27-2006, 06:59 AM
Prior to 1961...

10 Aug 50 - First shipload of U.S. arms aid to pro-French Vietnam arrives

1951 - U.S. military aid amounted to more than $500 million by 1951

7 May 54 - Viet Minh overrun French fortress at Dien Bien Phu

8 Sep 54 - Eight nations sign U.S.-sponsored SEATO treaty

12 Feb 55 - President Eisenhower's administration sends the first U.S. advisers to South Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese Army

5 Sep 56 - President Eisenhower tells a news conference that the French are "involved in a hopelessly losing war in Indochina"

8 July 59 - Two Americans are killed and one wounded during a Viet Minh attack 20 miles north of Saigon

Phil theStalker
03-27-2006, 07:07 AM
I think this thread should be TITled: Warham Is DiscuntnnecTITed Wit Reality.

:D


:spank:

Warham
03-27-2006, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
I think this thread should be TITled: Warham Is DiscuntnnecTITed Wit Reality.

:D


:spank:

I agree with you, Phil, I think a civil war will happen here before I can make sense of your posts.

Nickdfresh
03-27-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Warham
It's a timeline. It doesn't need to be 'linked'. There are thousands of Vietnam timelines on the internet with the same information. It's verifiable fact, not somebody's opinion.

It's still plagerism because you're presenting it essentially as your own research, which it's not, my little GOOGLE-monkey...


It's supposed to prove that soldiers (not 'advisors') were not sent into Vietnam prior to 1961, so that means that Eisenhower had nothing to do with the US military build-up over there. Sure, we were providing aid to the French, but our men weren't over there in any large measure.

Again, I'll try to make this clear...

IKE started the precedent of sending US Military "Advisers," so he took over for the French in establishing a South Vietnamese Army (ARVN), and supporting anachronistic, corrupt royalists. He was the first to support RVN, perpetuated the divide at the 17th Parallel between North and South, and cancelled a scheduled democratic election to stop "communism." He created the ground work of the Vietnam War in no small part...

It's not a battle of who sent the troops in first (otherwise it would be FDR, who sent in OSS and small Army teams to support the "Viet Minh" anti-Japanese/French guerrillas, or how many, it's who layed the ground work for the US involvement for the Vietnamese Civil War...

BTW, I didn't Google any of that, that's just from memory.:)

Warham
03-27-2006, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's still plagerism because you're presenting it essentially as your own research, which it's not, my little GOOGLE-monkey...

No, I'm not presenting it as my own research. I said that there were thousands of timelines on the internet, and I never claimed it was my own work.

Just admit you're being anal and we'll move on.


Again, I'll try to make this clear...

IKE started the precedent of sending US Military "Advisers," so he took over for the French in establishing a South Vietnamese Army (ARVN), and supporting anachronistic, corrupt royalists. He was the first to support RVN, perpetuated the divide at the 17th Parallel between North and South, and cancelled a scheduled democratic election to stop "communism." He created the ground work of the Vietnam War in no small part...

It's not a battle of who sent the troops in first (otherwise it would be FDR, who sent in OSS and small Army teams to support the "Viet Minh" anti-Japanese/French guerrillas, or how many, it's who layed the ground work for the US involvement for the Vietnamese Civil War...

BTW, I didn't Google any of that, that's just from memory.:)

OK, then by your 'memory' it was a democrat who started it. So we are right back to where we started.

By the way, I'm going to go back and look through every thing you've ever posted and see if they are all linked. You don't mind, do ya?

Phil theStalker
03-27-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I agree with you, Phil, I think a civil war will happen here before I can make sense of your posts. Hey baybee, I was in da BLACKOUT. Yeh, a little tree touched a power line in Cleveland wit my electric company, FirstEnergy, and everyboody in da east losst all their power. I know we're only 3 days from civil war on any given day we wake up.;)


:spank:

PS Sorry aboot da 'Warham Bashing', butt tit's FUN.:D

Warham
03-27-2006, 07:46 AM
There's no need to document credit when assembling generally accepted facts, like the timeline above.

I googled that, by the way. :P

Warham
03-27-2006, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Hey baybee, I was in da BLACKOUT. Yeh, a little tree touched a power line in Cleveland wit my electric company, FirstEnergy, and everyboody in da east losst all their power. I know we're only 3 days from civil war on any given day we wake up.;)


:spank:

PS Sorry aboot da 'Warham Bashing', butt tit's FUN.:D

It's alright, Phil. I'm used to it. ;)

Nickdfresh
03-27-2006, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Warham
No, I'm not presenting it as my own research. I said that there were thousands of timelines on the internet, and I never claimed it was my own work.

Just admit you're being anal and we'll move on.

No. I'm following basic prodocals. Just admit you're being: A.) Lazy B.) Cryptic C.) Sloppy D.) all of the above




OK, then by your 'memory' it was a democrat who started it. So we are right back to where we started.

By the way, I'm going to go back and look through every thing you've ever posted and see if they are all linked. You don't mind, do ya?

What is "it?" And if any info I've posted isn't attributed to another writer or organization, then it is linked...

Have fun though.:)

Warham
03-27-2006, 02:20 PM
How about E) I'm correct?

Reciting generally accepted facts (and that list is) is not considered to be plagiarism.

And here I thought you were a teacher...

Again, you can admit to being anal and we'll move on.

BigBadBrian
03-27-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Yeah, I really respect people who can come to a conclusion and then prove it.


I was waited to for us to kill more brown people after that little camping trip we had in afghanistan.

Try that last sentence again. You obviously had your grammar switch in the "OFF" position.

:gulp:

ODShowtime
03-27-2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
The first soldier casualty wasn't until 1961, so I don't think we had more than a few dozen or even hundred troops troops when E was president. I wouldn't call that a 'presence' by any stretch of the imagination.

yeah... just take out the facts that don't help your argument.

Where'd you learn how to do that? :confused:

ODShowtime
03-27-2006, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Try that last sentence again. You obviously had your grammar switch in the "OFF" position.

:gulp:

yeah that is fucked up. and it took me twice this time to figure it out. oh well

my keyboard died and I'm using some mini piece of shit. That's not an excuse for this fuck up, but I will be making more until I get a decent keyboard.

Warham
03-27-2006, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
yeah... just take out the facts that don't help your argument.

Where'd you learn how to do that? :confused:

What are you talking about now?

ODShowtime
03-27-2006, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Warham
What are you talking about now?

Nick proved you wrong about the first President to get the US involved in Vietnam. Then all of a sudden pre-CIA agents and Green Berets don't count as US agents to you. So you just brush aside those facts that don't fit your incorrect argument.

It reminded me of how many republicans continue to justify their crumbling positions.

It's weak.

Warham
03-27-2006, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Nick proved you wrong about the first President to get the US involved in Vietnam. Then all of a sudden pre-CIA agents and Green Berets don't count as US agents to you. So you just brush aside those facts that don't fit your incorrect argument.

It reminded me of how many republicans continue to justify their crumbling positions.

It's weak.

No he didn't. He actually gave me one for saying Truman was the first to get involved. Did you read that post, or did you just fly over it like half of the thread?

I don't consider CIA members to be 'troops'. You may, if you so choose.

ODShowtime
03-27-2006, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Warham
No he didn't. He actually gave me one for saying Truman was the first to get involved. Did you read that post, or did you just fly over it like half of the thread?

I don't consider CIA members to be 'troops'. You may, if you so choose.

I thought he meant when Eisenhower the General, not the President.

It's conceivable he ordered it considering how intelligence was handled back then. That's probably how it went down.

ODShowtime
03-27-2006, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
No he didn't. He actually gave me one for saying Truman was the first to get involved. Did you read that post, or did you just fly over it like half of the thread?

I don't consider CIA members to be 'troops'. You may, if you so choose.

regardless of where this goes, I was under the impression that the argument was which president started US involvement in Vietnam. Not who "sent troops" not who started the "presence" So we both fucked up...

Warham
03-27-2006, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
I thought he meant when Eisenhower the General, not the President.

It's conceivable he ordered it considering how intelligence was handled back then. That's probably how it went down.

No, no, he meant E, the president.

Sorry you were confused on that.

Warham
03-27-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
regardless of where this goes, I was under the impression that the argument was which president started US involvement in Vietnam. Not who "sent troops" not who started the "presence" So we both fucked up...

I didn't. The whole premise of my point of view was that Truman initiated our involvement, and that it was Kennedy and Johnson that started sending our boys over there.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Try that last sentence again. You obviously had your grammar switch in the "OFF" position.

:gulp:

BTW dickwad, it should be: "you obviously HAVE had your grammar switch in the 'OFF' position."

Much like you have had your logic switch in the off position, terminally...

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I didn't. The whole premise of my point of view was that Truman initiated our involvement,

Well you were wrong, FDR did by sending special operations/spys during the war with JAPAN (after they occupied the French colonies).


and that it was Kennedy and Johnson that started sending our boys over there.

Well then, pay attention to your own posted cut & pastes...

Ike sent US "Advisers" in in 1955-57', setting the stage for the US involvement in the War between North and South...

Warham
03-28-2006, 07:32 AM
Alright then, if FDR started our involvement in Vietnam (not Japan), maybe you can cut and paste an article off the web to show me I'm wrong.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:37 AM
You just admitted you were wrong, and ignorant of the Vietnam War history (like 90% of Americans who wanted to 'save a land from Communism' that they couldn't be bothered to find on a map.) WWII "initiated our involvement," not a president, but we didn't need to continue... That was the conscious choice.

FDR sent OSS Agents to Vietnam (well, not him personally, I doubt he was aware of any specifics) to help anti-Japanese/colonial insurgents like HO CHI MINH...

In fact, the CIA's dossier on MINH probably begins with him being an American supporter and nationalist guerrilla fighter...

I think I said this in one of my first posts --does every thread need to become a redundant circle-jerk around here???

Warham
03-28-2006, 07:42 AM
It didn't need to be a 'circle jerk' if you wouldn't argue with me over my ORIGINAL and only point: A DEMOCRAT got us started over in Vietnam. Now after this 'circle jerk', you've come around to say that FDR started it all over there, not Truman or Eisenhower.

Now, who's right again?

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Warham
It didn't need to be a circle jerk if you wouldn't argue with me over my original point: A DEMOCRAT got us started over in Vietnam. Now after this 'circle jerk', you've come around to say that FDR started it all over there.

Now, who's right again?

You didn't say "a DEMOCRAT," you said JFK/LBJ, which is incorrect. And stop with the semantics pissing contest already...

LBJ was the the first to send combat ground forces (the 1st AIR CAV to the Ia Drang Valley --see "We Were Soldiers" for more info), but IKE "initiated" what KENNEDY continued, that led to direct American involvement in the Vietnamese War...

I know my Vietnam inside out...

P.S. There are persistent rumors that JFK was thinking of pulling all support for the Saigon regime after DIEM was assassinated... This is what fueled the conspiracy theories that Oliver Stone has perpetuated...

Warham
03-28-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You just admitted you were wrong, and ignorant of the Vietnam War history (like 90% of Americans who wanted to 'save a land from Communism' that they couldn't be bothered to find on a map.) WWII "initiated our involvement," not a president, but we didn't need to continue... That was the conscious choice.

No, I can find Vietnam on a map quite easily, but that's a nice try at attacking me personally.

Warham
03-28-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You didn't say "a DEMOCRAT," you said JFK/LBJ, which is incorrect. And stop with the semantics pissing contest already...

LBJ was the the first to send combat ground forces (the 1st AIR CAV to the Ia Drang Valley --see "We Were Soldiers" for more info), but IKE "initiated" what KENNEDY continued, that led to direct American involvement that led to the Vietnamese War...

I know my Vietnam inside out...

I think you better go back and read my first post in this thread...


Originally posted by Warham
Yep, Democrats started that war that killed 56,000 back in the 1960's.

You might know your Vietnam inside and out, but you sure don't know this thread inside and out.

Instead of agreeing with me, you went into saying sarcastically, 'Oh, was Eisenhower a Democrat?'

:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Warham
No, I can find Vietnam on a map quite easily, but that's a nice try at attacking me personally.

It's nothing personal, ignorance is not a comment on intelligence...

But it's true that most people devolve Vietnam into simplistic partisan BS without ever understanding what went on over there...

Warham
03-28-2006, 07:57 AM
I'll just drop it.

If I accuse Democrats of anything unholy, I'll get reamed around here by the 'nonpartisan' members of the forum.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I think you better go back and read my first post in this thread...
Instead of agreeing with me, you went into saying sarcastically, 'Oh, was Eisenhower a Democrat?'

:rolleyes:

How is this in any way correct? Democrats started the War??? The War was always there. Democrats and Republicans kept us involved in it.

They didn't start anything...

You are ignorant, because you view everything through the simplistic prism of an American bias...

Firstly, who was screaming about fighting communism all through the fifties??? Democrats?

Which Republicans in congress stood up against our involvement in Vietnam? They were the ones screaming about continuing the War, what was their alternative??

Which Democratic president destroyed every American principle by cancelling free and fair Democratic elections in the late 1950s? There would have been no War.

Warham
03-28-2006, 08:01 AM
Gee, I'm American, and yet I view things from an American perspective...

Fascinating.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I'll just drop it.

If I accuse Democrats of anything unholy, I'll get reamed around here by the 'nonpartisan' members of the forum.

You weren't accusing Democrats of being "unholy," most politicians are unholy; especially the ones that claim to be the most 'holy.' (Frist, Allen, Bush)...

No. You were trying to lay the singular blame of Vietnam on "Democrats," which is unfair and untrue historically speaking... It was a fully bipartisan fuck-fest of hell and stupidity. And I just mentioned that it was JOHNSON that sent American Soldiers into large scale combat (1965, the "first year" of "the war") because the ARVN forces were corrupt and lacking...

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Gee, I'm American, and yet I view things from an American perspective...

Fascinating.

Not 'perspective,' myopic BIAS... You fail to look at things from others' points of view, and put yourself in their place...

And, fail to see that the War was there long before America involved itself...

Warham
03-28-2006, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You weren't accusing Democrats of being "unholy," most politicians are unholy; especially the ones that claim to be the most 'holy.' (Frist, Allen, Bush)...


Oh please. Isn't Hillary, you favorite politician, running around quoting the Bible right now?

:rolleyes:

Warham
03-28-2006, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Not 'perspective,' myopic BIAS... You fail to look at things from others' points of view, and put yourself in their place...

And, fail to see that the War was there long before America involved itself...

Yeah, I'm American, and I have an American BIAS. Shoot me. I'm sorry if I'm not an internationalist, like most liberals are.

What do you mean, I failed to see it. I knew that the French were there and gone long before our troops showed up. My dad told me that years before I ever took a history class in school.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Oh please. Isn't Hillary, you favorite politician, running around quoting the Bible right now?

:rolleyes:

I thought you were "done" with this thread...

Yeah, HILLARY is so much my favorite politician that I bring her up every thread --hey, wait a minute!!

Dude, get help. You really have a serious obsession with HILLARY (as well as BILL)...

Must be those cankles and cigars...
http://www.nndb.com/people/419/000025344/john-hink.jpg

LoungeMachine
03-28-2006, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham


. Shoot me. .


Thought you'd never ask .:cool:


Warpig :elvis:

Warham
03-28-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I thought you were "done" with this thread...

Yeah, HILLARY is so much my favorite politician that I bring her up every thread --hey, wait a minute!!

Dude, get help. You really have a serious obsession with HILLARY (as well as BILL)...

Must be those cankles and cigars...
http://www.nndb.com/people/419/000025344/john-hink.jpg

Why are you posting your high school yearbook picture?

I don't care what you look like.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 10:07 PM
You don't want to see my pic. *sigh*

Warham
03-28-2006, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You don't want to see my pic. *sigh*

You're right. I don't.

But, why the sigh? Disappointed?

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 10:13 PM
Yeah, I feel so deflated...

Steve Savicki
03-29-2006, 02:24 PM
He's disconnected from realizing that he's the vice-president and Cheney is the man running the country.