T1B

Spare me the BS...

When the next republidummy resides in the WH, the libtards will go straight to your basements and dust off the signs you've got stashed down there.

It's been that way since forever...and you know it.

What ^^^^^^ said. Partisan politics is alive and well on both sides.

And a question for chip. You site numerous right wing articles as a defense for Barry shitting all over the rule of law.....again? Why did he not simply put out that this POS was a deserter and that he would not negotiate with terrorists?

Jsc810 wrote:How come Obama hasn't done anything? He's horrible.
Obama acts.
How come Obama did that? He's horrible.

Repeat until his term finishes.

I don't think it's been a question of whether he does or doesn't act. It's the how and why.

Jsc810 wrote:Much ado about nothing.

Really? Sad that you think so.

Again, he had to release them in the coming months under treaties we signed. We did not negotiate with terrorists. We negotiated with the other side of a war we are fighting. Therefore it doesn't matter how bad these people are, because they were going home soon, full stop. He is not a deserter until he is tried and convicted of such. War is messy and this is part of the sausage factory. The reason many dems are running from this is that they lack the stones to stand up to the rabid right not because there was anything wrong with the swap.

Moving Sale wrote:Again, he had to release them in the coming months under treaties we signed.

A blatant lie.

That you know nothing about this is not surprising. You are a racist hack.

There is no treaty with Afghanistan nor is there anything reference to the repatriation of Taliban prisoners.

Moving Sale wrote: full stop.

Jsc810 wrote:We've all broken the law. We speed while driving because we want to be on time for an appointment. And many of us have said that if someone harmed one of our family members, that we would take justice into our own hands, consequences be damned.

So the President returned a soldier home and failed to give Congress sufficient notification of his actions. Fine, he broke the law, but in the grand scheme of things, this law violation concerns me about as much as a speeding ticket.

Returning a POW home > giving Congress 30 days notice

Yes, because us skirting the law by speeding is on par with the POTUS, who is supposed to serve and protect our country FIRST, putting our country in greater danger... for virtually no reason.

This is completely illustrative of your profound ignorance regarding this. The fact that your ability to not recognize the 'apples to oranges' concept regarding this absolutely, unequivocally paints you as an ignorant human being. In addition, you are a certifiable idiot.

Holy shit, Rack! Ken.

Well said.

The biggest partisan hack here (not even a close contest) is suggesting that other people are partisan.

Yes, JSC, we all know you'd be the first to run in here and defend Bush, had he flagrantly violated the law...

Unfreakingbelievable, even by JSC the lockstepper

YHKYOA... badly.

And now for the Administration's Bald Faced Lie of the Day:

Officials: Congress not told of swap because Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if it leaked.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/official ... -it-leaked

Oh...OK.

I thought is was because he had some life threatening medical condition? Oh, that was yesterday. Got it.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Therefore it doesn't matter how bad these people are, because they were going home soon, full stop.

Provide the legal basis for this statement.

There is none. What we should have done is remand them into the custody of the Afghan government when we leave and they can decide what they want to do with them. Instead, Bath House Barry, brainless fuckhead that he is, just turned them loose. Needless to say, that isn't playing very well in Kabul.

We just destabilized an "ally/puppet" in order to obtain the release of a worthless piece of shit who should have been left to rot with his new buddies.

88 wrote: If you are blindly swallowing DailyKos bullshit about Article 118 of the Geneva (III) Convention, you are flat wrong.

I don’t read the Dailykos, but yes I would use the Geneva convention even though the current Afgan gov has not signed it and it could be argued this is not a war. [infra] We have to negotiate an end. There needs to be some framework for that negotiation. The framework will have to look like the GC protocols in order to have any legitimacy internally and to the world we still have to function in post 2016. Is this all legally binding on the US? Maybe not, but I also think I used the word ‘had’ correctly. We had to do this at some point. The facts, the need to negotiate, the framework for the negations having to have, if not international support at least at lack of international distain, all lead down one path. He was coming home some how some way and they were going back just as surely.

Was "war" declared?

Congress authorized the use of military force under the WAR powers [act] for over 10 years. That’s a war.

Are you suggesting that the individuals release from Gitmo did not engage in terrorist acts?

They never instilled any terror in me. Are you suggesting YOU get to decide who is and isn’t terrorizing me or are you saying if they scare you that’s good enough? I guess you could argue that somebody else can decide for both of us but that is just wack. In all seriousness, I don't think from what I know (which is only the info from a few dubious websites) that they engaged in any terrorism on say American civilians. If you have some info about their actions pre gitmo that you think says otherwise, lay it on me.

Provide the legal basis for this {Therefore it doesn't matter how bad these people are, because they were going home soon, full stop.} statement.

The legal argument is above, but remember I don’t have to prove he shall do it. I only have to prove he can (should?) do it legally and that the facts show that he was bound to do it at some point.

The dems are running from this because they lack the stones to tell the truth, which is that they don't give a shit about anything as long as they are in power.

Well yea but that is not what we were discussing now is it?

mvscal wrote:What we should have done is remand them into the custody of the Afghan government when we leave and they can decide what they want to do with them

This presupposes that the American we got back needs a good dose of swiftboating and not a parade.

By "swift boating," you mean telling the inconvenient truth about worthless pieces of shit, right?

John Kerry served in Viet Nam you know. Can a Bergdahl run for the Senate be in Idaho's future?

mvscal wrote:By "swift boating," you mean telling the inconvenient truth about worthless pieces of shit, right?

You would know the truth if it pulled out at the last minute and shot a load on your back.

Nice white flag, you cum drunk simpleton.

Just because he was in a hot war and you peeled potatoes doesn't mean you have to get all pissy like a little girl.

mvscal wrote:And now for the Administration's Bald Faced Lie of the Day:

Officials: Congress not told of swap because Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if it leaked.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/official ... -it-leaked

Oh...OK.

I thought is was because he had some life threatening medical condition? Oh, that was yesterday. Got it.

Yes, and Susan Rice contradicted that by stating on Sunday that Bergdahl is in good condition and walking around.

I know huh? And what about the time they said it was because he had wmds in his pants and then they said it was because he was involved in 911 and it was even :lol:er when they said it was that he broke the nofly zone and I ROTFLMAOed when they said it was to free his people. Wait. What?

So in other words you have no idea what's going on here. Your brain dead post has been noted.

Moving Sale wrote:I know huh? And what about the time they said it was because he had wmds in his pants and then they said it was because he was involved in 911 and it was even :lol:er when they said it was that he broke the nofly zone and I ROTFLMAOed when they said it was to free his people. Wait. What?

Surrender accepted.

You really think the two are both oranges?

Moving Sale wrote:We have to negotiate an end. There needs to be some framework for that negotiation.

Yes, we are working on a Bilateral Security Agreement with the Afghan government right now. The Taliban are not and will not be party to those negotiations.

It is always amusing and sad that to watch libs defend the current President.

They can't make a point or two without bringing in W to the discussion. Never mind that the current occupant of the WH has doubled down on most of the things the libs hate about Bush.

Left Seater wrote:It is always amusing and sad that to watch libs defend the current President.

They can't make a point or two without bringing in W to the discussion. Never mind that the current occupant of the WH has doubled down on most of the things the libs hate about Bush.

And never mind that they spent 8 years calling Chimpy the most catastrophically stupid President in history.

Left Seater wrote:It is always amusing and sad that to watch libs defend the current President.

They can't make a point or two without bringing in W to the discussion. Never mind that the current occupant of the WH has doubled down on most of the things the libs hate about Bush.

Kind of reminds me of when people would bash George W, and Bill Clinton was always brought into the discussion. Good times, good times.

Yeah, but Billigula was a scummy pervert not a complete moron.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:It is always amusing and sad that to watch libs defend the current President.

They can't make a point or two without bringing in W to the discussion. Never mind that the current occupant of the WH has doubled down on most of the things the libs hate about Bush.

Kind of reminds me of when people would bash George W, and Bill Clinton was always brought into the discussion. Good times, good times.

Exactly. Make your point without using the failures, real or perceived, of the previous office holder.


Nice to see you doubled down on this point as well.

Sudden Sam wrote:Has there ever been an administration whose "fans" didn't blame the previous administration for everything?

Yes.

Left Seater wrote:It is always amusing and sad that to watch libs defend the current President.

They can't make a point or two without bringing in W to the discussion. Never mind that the current occupant of the WH has doubled down on most of the things the libs hate about Bush.

My point was that puptent and ofailurecal never cared about the reasons given for things they backed like the Iraq war, so how sincere are they now especially when thousands died in Iraq and this decision has produced zero deaths? That's a rectorical question btw.

Good job comparing apples to BBC up your ass.

Moving Bowel wrote:the Iraq war

Keep flailing, asstard.

Those were weak posts even coming from you two. Try harder next time you stupid vile fucks.

Nice white flag, fuckdust.

If you would like to make a retort that makes sense I'll respond.

Moving Sale wrote:...this decision has produced zero deaths?

Not yet anyway. Get back to us in 2 years... literally.

That's a rectorical question btw.

I'd give credit for an intentional gaffe but your head is so persistently jammed up your rectum, not so much in this instance.