The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=9631)

tw 06-07-2008 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 460127)
This started long before Bush, he just hastened it.

I don't see a previous president running up massive debts and pumping out economics incentives. Both the debts and economics incentive should start resulting in economics taking revenge about ... how about that ... George Jr's money games should start making economic downturns and recessions now.

How curious. tw was warning about this economic penalty when others were hyping Kennedy tax cuts back in 2002 - while ignoring the downturn created by those tax cuts. How curious. Deja vue. Silly tax cuts (without spending cuts) are again created economic problems years later. Oh. George Jr did not create those tax cuts? George Jr did not destroy a budget surplus? George Jr did not fill the world with so many dollars as to create a 40% reduction in American wealth? How curious - these many economic problems discussed (predicted) so many years ago are now happening. But somehow, the mental midget did not create it? One must be both blind and naive to ignore all these economic problems created by President Cheney.

Did we forget the $trillions of debt created by "Mission Accomplished"? Did we forget that "Mission Accomplished" debts do not appear in the budget? More George Jr money games that even Enron could not duplicate.

TheMercenary 06-08-2008 09:34 AM

Think NAFTA.

deadbeater 06-08-2008 07:09 PM

What did NAFTA has to do with this? Are we exporting incompetent CEO's around the world, or what?

TheMercenary 06-08-2008 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadbeater (Post 460606)
What did NAFTA has to do with this? Are we exporting incompetent CEO's around the world, or what?

No, just thousands of jobs.

Urbane Guerrilla 06-09-2008 09:15 PM

And let's see, just what is going on in China these days? Looks like abandoning Communism as the way of life and adopting capitalism to me. That Communism remains the state religion of the Beijing cadre becomes less and less relevant, as anyone can see.

Nah, headsplice: if you want to be part of the future, abandon leftism and socialism completely. They are keeping you screwed up. But mastering capitalism and at least centrist politics, ah, that will unscrew you nicely.

richlevy 06-09-2008 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 460450)
How curious. tw was warning about this economic penalty when others were ......

You did not just start referring to yourself in the third person, did you?

classicman 06-09-2008 09:27 PM

Oh C'mon Rich - he's been doing that for months! He is T-dub after all!!

Urbane Guerrilla 06-10-2008 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice (Post 459201)
World Net Daily? I call shenanigans...

Without cause.

That is Larry Elder of all people that you're trying to devalue, and that's an errand for a fool's fool. Don't be stupid enough to ignore this guy. Go find some of his books.

tw 06-10-2008 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 460854)
You did not just start referring to yourself in the third person, did you?

A challenge directed at English teachers. Teachers more concerned with conformity at the expense of clarity. Secondary is using first, second, or third person. Rules of English can be violated for clarity. A law is secondary to the purpose of that law. Irrelevant is whether the object is "I" or 'tw' (first or third person). Those who fear (who advocate blind conformity) would be upset. It bewilders or perplexes English Nazis who are more concerned with rules rather than the logic - the underlying point.

The point remains obvious. Today, the stock market welcomed rumors of increased interest rates. How can that be when the market rallied over lowered interest rates and easy money only months ago? Welcome to the conundrum created because massive economic stimulus by an irresponsible (wacko) administration now means that everything the government does can only make things worse.

Lower interest rates creates more inflation, a lower dollar, higher energy prices, and more money games that mortgage the future and stifle innovation. Raise interest rates only increases the deficit as we sell off more of America, continue to reduce real estate prices (cumulatively) by 40%, and increase bankruptcies. Well, this was the impending disaster that tw was warning about maybe four years ago. Problems created by welfare to the rich (lower taxes) and record high spending that only Republicans advocate. This same warning was coming from so many self made rich men so many years ago. Welcome to what happens because we ate Cheney's apples as the snake (UG, et al) so often advocated. Yes, tw also put the Bible into proper perspective.

lookout123 06-10-2008 04:49 PM

Lookout truly believes tw is insane.

tw 06-10-2008 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 461116)
Lookout truly believes tw is insane.

lookout123 also believed rhetoric of stock brokers and other myth purveyors. lookout123 believed George Jr's idioms after George talked to god. How curious that those accused of mental insanity got out of the nest seven years ago – and kept getting it right. The remaining cuckoo's would label as insane anyone who would question authority? But then many in that cuckoo’s nest only believed what they are told to believe.

lookout123 knew George Jr was honest; god talked to George. lookout123 still denies that stock brokers underperform the market. lookout123 has a history of repeating what is taught in that nest while forgeting his long history of being wrong. What happened to those mutual funds that lookout123 recommended? Underperformed the market - as is industry averages predict while denied by lookout.

lookout is not insane; just brainwashed. Sooner or later, he too may leave the nest - start thinking for himself.

TheMercenary 06-10-2008 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 461116)
Lookout truly believes tw is insane.

You ain't the only one. :lol2:

lookout123 06-10-2008 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 461122)
lookout123 still denies that stock brokers underperform the market.

No, Lookout has dealt with that issues multiple times. TW the coward fuckstick refuses to engage in conversation about the issue because he is an obvious liar. But thanks for playing.

TheMercenary 06-10-2008 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 461141)
No, Lookout has dealt with that issues multiple times. TW the coward fuckstick refuses to engage in conversation about the issue because he is an obvious liar. But thanks for playing.

Well ask Radar, he knows all the answer that tw does not know.:headshake

classicman 06-10-2008 09:18 PM

I thought Radar was tw's puppet or vice versa - oh well, whatever.

Urbane Guerrilla 06-11-2008 12:00 AM

No, classicman, they are distinct. Radar's eccentric and bullheaded and interested in politics, and you've nailed him as a narcissist; tw is an embarrassment to any cause he espouses and completely untalented at politics, not even to that minimum of being able to get people to enjoy contact with him -- and may be a narcissist. These flaws and communication styles aren't similar enough to posit a single individual behind these two identities.

How many desperate people have wondered in print here if I might be some other Cellarite playing some inscrutable game? They've all had to give the idea up. They tried to find the mask, and what they found was my real face.

DanaC 06-11-2008 05:39 AM

In what way would wondering if you are someone else in disguise, mean that someone was desperate?

This is a message board UG. You are not a cold war spy.

classicman 06-11-2008 07:45 AM

Hey - UG - I was being facetious - get it? a joke, ya know humor.... Oh nevermind.

tw 06-11-2008 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 461256)
This is a message board UG. You are not a cold war spy.

UG has a problem differentiating a 'gap' from his 'core'.

TheMercenary 06-12-2008 09:29 PM

June 12, 2008
Losing the Information War with Amendment 56
By Lance Fairchok
The Democrats are angry. Despite investing enormous effort undermining the military, things are going fairly well in Iraq. General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse. The anti-Bush themes of an "Iraqi quagmire" and "surge failure" were premature, and all the congressional show hearings, the choreographed Code Pink performance art and the MoveOn.org smears were for naught. The president and the military did it right, and the Democrats got it wrong.


Now it's time for Democrats to change the subject, to distract the public, to pretend the dire predictions and the hysterics were about something else entirely, and hope the short memory of the electorate kills the issue by November.


It's also time for a little vengeance on the Pentagon.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...war_wit_1.html

xoxoxoBruce 06-12-2008 10:47 PM

Petraeus got it right, but his predecessors did not.
Iraq's "freedom fighters" have used us to help rid themselves of the violent, oppressive, bastards, that call themselves AlQuida, but still are a long way from finding common ground with each other. A lengthy, and bloody, civil war is still a good possibility.

None of this changes the fact that Bush was wrong to leave Afghanistan twisting in the wind, to run off and start another war, especially under false pretenses.

tw 06-13-2008 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 461874)
General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse.

If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.

These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.

If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.

Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.

Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.

Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.

Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.

TheMercenary 06-13-2008 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 461919)
If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.

These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.

If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.

Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.

Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.

Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.

Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.

What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks? you are slipping... no "TheMercenary this bla, bla, bla..., no "TheMercenary that bla, bla, bla..., you really should go back to making mail bombs Ted, Tom, or whatever your name is...

TheMercenary 06-13-2008 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 461874)
June 12, 2008
Losing the Information War with Amendment 56
By Lance Fairchok
The Democrats are angry. Despite investing enormous effort undermining the military, things are going fairly well in Iraq. General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse. The anti-Bush themes of an "Iraqi quagmire" and "surge failure" were premature, and all the congressional show hearings, the choreographed Code Pink performance art and the MoveOn.org smears were for naught. The president and the military did it right, and the Democrats got it wrong.


Now it's time for Democrats to change the subject, to distract the public, to pretend the dire predictions and the hysterics were about something else entirely, and hope the short memory of the electorate kills the issue by November.


It's also time for a little vengeance on the Pentagon.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...war_wit_1.html

"It seems predictable that the Democrat controlled Congress would pass legislation to further hamstring our military while passing other legislation providing yet another layer of insulation for media who might use anonymous sources to betray our country with publication of classified material. Perhaps we should force legislation to prevent Congress from engaging in propaganda, which could be roughly defined as whatever you might hear when Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth." madmax

tw 06-13-2008 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 461930)
What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks?

Again TheMercenary posts mockery to avoid reality. No strategic objective means no victory. Deja vue Nam. The US won most every battle - tactical victories. But lost the war. Why? As the Pentagon Papers and a long list of other sources make so obvious - no strategic victory means an unwinnable war. "A Bright and Shining Lie" should one choose to learn from history.

Military operation must move the conflict to a negotiating table. When the US went to that Paris negotiating table, Le Duc Tho even provided Kissinger with N Vietnam's secret assessments of the future. US had no strategic objective. The Vietnamese objective was clear, obvious, and (we now know) took less time than even the North estimated. Vietnamese objective was reunification of their nation. America's were body counts, 'search and destroy', etc - nothing that creates a strategic victory.

Too complex for TheMercenary is Petraeus's statements. He can achieve tactical victory. America cannot achieve a strategic victory. Worse, Iraq's government wants to reassess their entire American agreement. Not negotiations with various insurgents - the many parties in that civil war. Instead, Maliki's government wants to limit the Americans. America's objectives are not consistent with an Iraqi solution. No viable strategic objective? So where is this light at the end of a tunnel? From the NY Times of 13 Jun 2008:
Quote:

... talks with the United States on a new long-term security pact were deadlocked because of U.S. demands that infringed Iraq's sovereignty.

"... we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept," Maliki said ...

The United States and Iraq are negotiating a new agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations mandate expires, as well as a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties between the two countries.
Not discussed is a fundamental definition of victory in "Mission Accomplished". Not discussed in those negotiations and completely ignored by TheMercenary. Well published facts that TheMercenary has difficulty grasping. TheMercenary confuses tactical victory with military victory. That difference why armies have officers who better understand the difference.

As one Captain said (quoted in network news broadcasts), "I can win every battle but cannot win this war". He is officer material; understands why an army can win every battle and still lose the war. No strategic objectives, means no strategic victory, means "no light at the end of the tunnel". Deja vue Nam - or why TheMercenary cannot challenge let alone understand the concept. But then TheMercenary always attacks the messenger when reality contradicts his political agenda. No wonder he loves the mental midget president. Birds of a feather ...

TheMercenary 06-13-2008 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462147)
TheMercenary ...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla, bla ...TheMercenary...TheMercenary ....TheMercenary ....TheMercenary......bla, bla

I knew you couldn't resist. Way to go. Did you actually say something of importance?:headshake

tw 06-13-2008 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 462150)
blah blah blah

And again the concept of military victory is too complex for one who worships George Jr. So TheMercenary. What color is George Jr's feather of the day? Do you wait for Rush Limbaugh to tell you or do they fax you the schedule?

Strategic objective? Too complex for extremists is even a simplest question: When do we go after bin Laden? No wonder 'strategic objective' is so difficult for TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.

TheMercenary 06-13-2008 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462153)
bla...TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla...TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.

Like I said there Willis, put up or shut up. So far you have produced no response. Should I consider that a weak attempt at a personal attack?:eek: :D

tw 06-13-2008 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 462154)
Should I consider that a weak attempt at a personal attack?

tw now duplicates how TheMercenary routinely posted.

It was only one paragraph. TheMercenary can only understand sound bytes. Typical of anyone so dumb as to still openly support George Jr, extremism, and fear a simplest question: When do we go after bin Laden? Why does TheMercenary fear to answer that question? Oh. Rush Limbaugh has not yet told him how to respond.

Yes, so dumb as to not apologize for supporting the scumbag president. So anti-social as to even approve of torture and Guantanamo. Well documented facts about someone who even lied about his service record. Funny how lies and extremism go hand in hand. Funny how such people cannot read beyond one paragraph. It was one paragraph. So TheMercenary almost understood it. Could George Jr also understand it. Birds of a feather …

tw 06-13-2008 06:40 PM

Again TheMercenary still cannot grasp something taught in Military Science 101 - strategic objective and the purpose of war. So his ignorance is not exposed in replies, TheMercenary attacks on the messenger. He has no grasp of basic military concepts ... just like George Jr. TheMercenary: can you even name the countries adjacent to Israel? George Jr couldn't.

TheMercenary 06-13-2008 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462166)
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…

Come on tw. You said it, answer it. Put up or shut up.:3_eyes:

tw 06-13-2008 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 462168)
Come on tw. You said it, answer it. Put up or shut up.

Posted as TheMercenary does. Supporting facts need not be posted. Accusations are sufficient. Posted by me is far more proof than TheMercenary posts. Meanwhile, TheMercenary lied about his service record. But then lying is situation normal for those who worship George Jr - who have no idea what is necessary to win a war.

How curious. You again avoid discussing what is necessary to win a war so that others will not see how ignorant you really are. Not just a personal attack. Also a fact.

lookout123 06-13-2008 07:13 PM

honest question tw: why do you think anyone should take you seriously when all you do is throw allegations without providing any support for your position?

tw 06-13-2008 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 462181)
honest question tw: why do you think anyone should take you seriously when all you do is throw allegations without providing any support for your position?

Look in the mirror you scumbag lover.

At least I post supporting facts. You admit to being lost in the very first paragraph. You admit to only understanding sound byte logic. What? You don't like reading posts that only mirror what you and UG post routinely? Well, you still refuse to discuss what is necessary to win a war. Why? If you discuss it, then everyone will learn your knowledge only comes from a political agenda - not from an education.
But again, only posting in the same tone used by TheMercenary - well known lover of a dic licking president. Why mention that? Because only the dumbest people could still supporting the mental midget. Just another metric of TheMercenary's intelligence.

classicman 06-13-2008 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462186)
Look in the mirror you scumbag lover.
...known lover of a dic licking president.
...only the dumbest people...
...the mental midget.


Rather interesting for one who claims not to post insults.

Pot - Kettle : Kettle - Pot

TheMercenary 06-13-2008 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462186)
Look in the mirror you scumbag lover.

Is that an insult?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…

Come on tw, answer the question. You said it, now put up or shut up.

lookout123 06-13-2008 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462186)
At least I post supporting facts.

where? cite? no? maybe just a hint about what thread it was in then?
Quote:

You admit to being lost in the very first paragraph. You admit to only understanding sound byte logic.
? where did this happen?

you are such a rancid little cunt of a liar, tw. wipe the spittle from your chin.

classicman 06-14-2008 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462179)
TheMercenary lied about his service record.

Please tell us where he lied - Thats a hell of an accusation to make without and supporting proof.

Flint 06-14-2008 01:50 AM

been waiting to post this
 
1 Attachment(s)
...

Clodfobble 06-14-2008 10:32 AM

nice!

richlevy 06-14-2008 10:54 AM

TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.

Merc, for his part actually took an earlier post and quoted himself, which seems odd. Also a bit high on the rant-o-meter.

All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.

It's a nice warmup for the fall elections.:blah:

TheMercenary 06-14-2008 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 462317)
TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.

Merc, for his part actually took an earlier post and quoted himself, which seems odd. Also a bit high on the rant-o-meter.

All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.

It's a nice warmup for the fall elections.:blah:

The only reason I quoted myself is that I felt is was a continuation of a chain of related thoughts which may stimulate some conversation with individuals who were interested in the subject. There was no other intent.:rolleyes:

tw 06-14-2008 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 462317)
TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.

Which ones do you have doubts about?

tw long and accurate claims about the myths and lies justifying "Mission Accomplshed" also appears to be rants. Today we know it was all true. Which part is unconfirmed?

classicman 06-14-2008 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 462270)
Please tell us where TheMercenary lied - Thats a hell of an accusation to make without any supporting proof.

You seem to keep missing this Tom. Please answer or recant & apologize. You can bitch, insult and name call all you want, but when you question a veterans service record you BETTER back it up.

Again, answer or recant & apologize.

Your lack of response is proving other's case against you.

Urbane Guerrilla 06-15-2008 12:13 AM

Tw is feared only by tw. Tw's self-justificatory attempts impress only tw. Tw is taking to speaking of tw in the third person.

It should -- again -- be pointed out that tw does not want us to win the GWOT. I explicitly asked him if he really wanted us to win the war about half a dozen times over the past eighteen to twenty-four months. There was no answer, affirmative or negative; tw confined himself to carping irresponsibly about our nation doing, apparently, anything at all to trouble the foe. Talk about being afraid! -- I saw it then.

Personally, I slap tw into accesses of jealous rage routinely. I'm the good man he'd like to be, but can't, owing to his developmental history. I managed to badger him into confessing he himself had never been in the military.

Flint 06-15-2008 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 462281)
...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 462312)
nice!

I'll be here all week. Try the veal!

tw 06-15-2008 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 462386)
Again, answer or recant & apologize.

Good Americans stand up for the troops. Good Americans ask fundamental and simple questions such as "When do we go after bin Laden?" Any good American with respect for the American soldier asked those questions long ago. Does classicman? Where?

Where were you when good Americans were standing up for the troops? Where were you when George Jr was lying about WMDs, violating most every basic military concept, sending American soldiers uselessly to death, making the American soldier a target for 5+ years by disbanding the Iraqi army and police, proclaiming "America does not do nation building", and even putting injured soldiers n disgusting treatment programs including Walter Reed? Where were you when soldiers were even denied basic medical treatment for the many physical and psychological wounds? Oh. classicman remained silent - would not even apologize for such contempt.

classicman avoids a simple question by posting accusations. Tell us why you fear to ask a simple patriotic question. Why so much contempt for the American soldier as to avoid that question and advocate more deaths? Do you routinely side with George Jr's lies and half truths? Why so much contempt for the American soldier as to side routinely with TheMercenary and UG? Do you also have so little respect for the American soldier as to advocate more torture, extraordinary rendition, and imprisonment without judicial review? These are advocated by TheMercenary, et al due to, in part, contempt for the American soldier. Do you also have that same contempt?

Estimates suggest that 25% of self proclaimed American veterans never served. Lying is routine among those who huff and puff their military credentials; who routinely advocate military solutions; who fear talking to our enemies; who also support lying presidents.

Where was classicman when it came time to stand up for the American soldier? Instead, he defends a mental midget? That is contempt for the American soldier. So contemptible as to require an apology. Shame on you classicman for even denying that contempt.

Ironic how you don't like it when tw replies using those same personal attacks. Too bad you scumbag president lover. Oh. Did you join UG fighting the Russians during Desert Storm? Yes, he also made that claim. He is someone that classicman agrees with?

No wonder some use personal attacks. Posting, TheMercenary style, is easier when supporting facts need not be provided. Screw the Cellar that should now become a hotbed of personal attacks. A George Jr worshipper demonstrates contempt for the American solider by not asking one simple question, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

classicman 06-15-2008 06:18 PM

Sorry Tom, that game has gotten very old. No diversionary tactics - no changing the subject. Please remain on topic - Where is your proof, Tom? You made an unfounded accusation - either back it up or STFU.

You can attack me later. Lets finish this subject first - ok?
Prove where Themercenary lied about his service record or apologize - just like any real man would do.

classicman 06-15-2008 06:20 PM

BTW - that was a very nice post although about 80% of the accusations about me were wrong too.

tw 06-15-2008 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 462615)
You made an unfounded accusation - either back it up or STFU.

You would again turn accurate statements into a pissing contest. classicman, when you do show responsibility and respect for the American soldier. Ask what an intelligent American adult would routinely ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

You would instead side with and post like TheMercenary? I thought you were smarter. TheMercenary cannot and therefore does not attempt to defend himself. So why are you his attack dog? Oh. You cannot miss any opportunity to denigrate another? Well, that is the point. Some people, especially George Jr supporters, only understand personal attacks - in Rush Limbaugh tradition.

At what point do you finally demonstrate integrity? Ask what any decent person would ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" I thought you might be smarter than that. Replies are now in a tone that you understand - personal attack.

Surprise me. Demonstrate a shred of intelligence and integrity. Define George Jr for what he really is. Ask that simple question that George Jr supporters (TheMercenary and UG) fear to ask. Show some respect for the American soldier. Deal with the issues rather than attack another. A simple question that exposes the uneducated (and therefore George Jr supporters) such as TheMercenary.

The game is not old. Now wonder you do it so often. Enjoyable is posting as you and TheMercenary routinely do. You don't like it? Why then would you post like TheMercenary and UG? A socially responsible classicman would instead criticize those who routinely reply with personal attacks. Why do you routinely side with and post like UG and TheMercenary? Are you also a wacko extremist? Its not getting old. Its only confronting extremists with what someone should have done long ago - replies duplicating what they normally do.

classicman 06-15-2008 08:07 PM

I have chosen only the side of the truth - that is my goal here - but alas another diversion attempted by you and refuted again by me - Please try to focus & stay on topic.

Integrity??? What a surreal challenge, coming from you- You made a claim, back it up! That would demonstrate your integrity, Tom Welch - Please don't question mine simply because I asked you to verify your claim. Just provide the proof you claim to have and we'll all be able to move on.

Another diversion will not change the subject nor the apparent reality that you are seemingly a liar. If that is not true - provide proof. It seems so simple that even a layman like me can understand it - surely an electrical engineer like yourself should be able to do so as well.

Am I somehow being unclear in what I am asking of you? If so, please let me know and I'll try to clarify it for you.

Your last post had nothing to do with you backing up your claim that TheMercenary lied about his service record - either put up or shut up - seems pretty simple. You can write a 2000 word post on virtually anything, but when asked to back it up with facts - - - silence...
Why is that? The simple answer seems to be that there is no proof. That would call into question much of what you claim.

Urbane Guerrilla 06-15-2008 11:57 PM

Accurate statements, tw? You do not issue accurate statements. Your most inaccurate statements are your claims to be some description of patriot. Sorry. Though the only thing I'm sorry about is how incapable you are of redemption or improvement. It is a sad spectacle. You're out of your depth in politics, and watching you try and do politics is like watching a thalidomide case playing the bagpipes. You are particularly out of your depth in the political question of when, whether, and how to replace nondemocracy with genuine democracy.

Hell, your memory about what I've said isn't exactly steel-trap. It's now a matter of Cellar record that you've exaggerated my length of service and underestimated my promotions -- there are many who can tell you the difference between a Petty Officer First Class and a corporal. And your source of information was me.

You do not want, and never did want, the American military to succeed in the endeavor made necessary by 9/11. You're transparent as glass, and we're not taking your ideas in any fashion, let alone taking them seriously.

TheMercenary 06-17-2008 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary lied about his service record.
Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 462270)
Please tell us where he lied - Thats a hell of an accusation to make without and supporting proof.

Come on tw. I am still waiting for you to prove this claim.

TheMercenary 06-17-2008 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 462626)
You would again turn accurate statements into a pissing contest. classicman, when you do show responsibility and respect for the American soldier. Ask what an intelligent American adult would routinely ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

You would instead side with and post like TheMercenary? I thought you were smarter. TheMercenary cannot and therefore does not attempt to defend himself. So why are you his attack dog? Oh. You cannot miss any opportunity to denigrate another? Well, that is the point. Some people, especially George Jr supporters, only understand personal attacks - in Rush Limbaugh tradition.

At what point do you finally demonstrate integrity? Ask what any decent person would ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" I thought you might be smarter than that. Replies are now in a tone that you understand - personal attack.

Surprise me. Demonstrate a shred of intelligence and integrity. Define George Jr for what he really is. Ask that simple question that George Jr supporters (TheMercenary and UG) fear to ask. Show some respect for the American soldier. Deal with the issues rather than attack another. A simple question that exposes the uneducated (and therefore George Jr supporters) such as TheMercenary.

The game is not old. Now wonder you do it so often. Enjoyable is posting as you and TheMercenary routinely do. You don't like it? Why then would you post like TheMercenary and UG? A socially responsible classicman would instead criticize those who routinely reply with personal attacks. Why do you routinely side with and post like UG and TheMercenary? Are you also a wacko extremist? Its not getting old. Its only confronting extremists with what someone should have done long ago - replies duplicating what they normally do.

No where in this post have you been able to support your claim:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary lied about his service record.
I have more than 20 years of honorable service and the documents to back it up. Your blanket statements dishonor hundreds of thousands of people who have served our nation. Please back up your statement or STFU.

I can't believe the number of other Cellar Dwellers you just sit by and accept this kind of statement from tw.

Thanks to classicman for stepping up to the plate.

glatt 06-17-2008 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 462987)
I can't believe the number of other Cellar Dwellers you just sit by and accept this kind of statement from tw.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this mud fight is not something I'm interested in joining.

I think rich got it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 462317)
All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.


jinx 06-17-2008 11:22 AM

As seen on bumper stickers and fridge magnets everywhere:

Never argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

lookout123 06-17-2008 11:33 AM

here's the deal Merc. TW has been around since the dawn of the cellar, which coincidentally was the same day his mom got him a laptop. He's always been out in leftfield from what I've seen, although I do wonder what he posted about before 2000. His erratic insanity has become more apparent over the last couple years, but within the last few months he has genuinely blown a circuit I think. The dude is nuts. He isn't worth arguing with. Yeah, I know I do it, but it is for my own entertainment at this point. Don't take anything he says seriously, it's all BS.

I didn't take his bait about your service because it is too ridiculous to argue about. Most guys who lie about their service just do it to make quick points in an argument and then disappear when questions come up. TW is a liar, we all know it, so there really isn't any point in arguing over his obvious lies and insults.

Glatt, I agree with your discomfort about the use of TW's whole name. I think that was a reaction to TW's claim that he knows the truth about other dwellars lives. Not an excuse, but somewhat understandable. Glad to see Classic has chosen to drop that line of attack.

All said and done TW is just a target now. Use him for practice. He has been shown to be a liar. He frequently posts insults but freaks out when someone throws it back at him. (Apparently his mom forgot to teach him that what goes around comes around). When is the last time a dwellar actually read his post without an expectation of insanity? Take it with a grain of salt and a laugh.

classicman 06-17-2008 12:24 PM

I'm just going to apologize in this thread too - I apologize.
I'm done wasting my time with him. Sorry everyone.

TheMercenary 06-17-2008 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 462995)
here's the deal Merc. TW has been around since the dawn of the cellar, which coincidentally was the same day his mom got him a laptop. He's always been out in leftfield from what I've seen, although I do wonder what he posted about before 2000. His erratic insanity has become more apparent over the last couple years, but within the last few months he has genuinely blown a circuit I think. The dude is nuts. He isn't worth arguing with. Yeah, I know I do it, but it is for my own entertainment at this point. Don't take anything he says seriously, it's all BS.

I didn't take his bait about your service because it is too ridiculous to argue about. Most guys who lie about their service just do it to make quick points in an argument and then disappear when questions come up. TW is a liar, we all know it, so there really isn't any point in arguing over his obvious lies and insults.

Glatt, I agree with your discomfort about the use of TW's whole name. I think that was a reaction to TW's claim that he knows the truth about other dwellars lives. Not an excuse, but somewhat understandable. Glad to see Classic has chosen to drop that line of attack.

All said and done TW is just a target now. Use him for practice. He has been shown to be a liar. He frequently posts insults but freaks out when someone throws it back at him. (Apparently his mom forgot to teach him that what goes around comes around). When is the last time a dwellar actually read his post without an expectation of insanity? Take it with a grain of salt and a laugh.

Good advice. I will just drop it and move on.

glatt 06-17-2008 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 462995)
Glatt, I agree with your discomfort about the use of TW's whole name. I think that was a reaction to TW's claim that he knows the truth about other dwellars lives.

Absolutely. I think tw was trying to prove some sort of a point by going personal lately. Trying to get some sort of reaction. Maybe play the victim.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.