Troll??? lmao! How long have you been around and how many post do you have? Are you here for trucks or just starting trouble? Cause all I see is trouble.

 

Originally posted by Odin's Wrath

Thank you for apologizing and acknowledging that I am not Scarecrow. No "diss" intended to Scarecrow.

However, I have to wonder and ask the question...
You stand by the rest?


Originally posted by Odin's Wrath

Yes, you did "mention" that, and I didn't accuse of going to a right-wing website. But I am accusing you of not posting the entire quote which included a very small sentence at the end. Why didn't you post the ENTIRE quote? You chose only what supported your opinion.


Originally posted by Odin's Wrath

It was/is available. There are new vests containing ceramic plates. 40,000 troops were sent without.

Sourced from...
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155


Originally posted by Odin's Wrath

So, the best equipment was held back from those that you say were considered "low risk". The Bush administration couldn't justify the expenditure and now they can? Sounds like someone changed their mind. A bit of a "flip-flop" if you ask me.

Of course, this is my opinion based on your opinion of what you call our "low risk" people (soldiers).


Originally posted by Odin's Wrath

I'm sorry...I'm trying to understand this. So, what you're saying is, we sent our troops into Iraq, without top grade armor for 40,000 soldiers, have lost over 1,000 troops, and have endured beheadings of "civilian" contractors so that the Iraqis could "enjoy it" (their country)? I could have sworn we went there for an entirely different reason.

You stand by everything you have said. You are Odin, "Please don't confuse me with the facts, I have my opinion." And that's how you vote. You have ignored everything I have said, because you have your opinion.

Don't pull a Bush, don't ignore the questions and say "I stand by the rest", and please don't change the subject as Bush does when he doesn't like the question.

I don't care who you vote for, but good God, at least do it on an informed decision and not on personal opinions.

You make a mockery of self-government when you vote purely on the basis of your selfish interests and/or opinions.

I'm an Army of 2 Mom and I approve this message

 

 

Sounds like you think Kerry could do better. Maybe so if he could get the French, Russians and Chinese to help us and bring in the UN too.

 

I see, anyone challangeing you or your ideology has to justify their validity.

My posts (about politics) started out somewhat civil, but I learned very quickly there is no civil discourse when dealing with the folks here infected with shrub agendas.
So, its down to your level and play dirty, name calling, catching you in lies and your parroting the direct talking points of the shrub campaign, which BTW are usually distortions of statistics or facts taken out of context which are lies by omission.
To be fair, the Kerry campaign has adopted the same techniques having to fight fire with fire.

If my posts make it troublesome for you to post those myopic talking points of the shub campaign, so be it.

Try an original thought.

Here is something to ponder.
At shrub rallys one cannot enter without signing the loyalty oath, and if one protests at this rally they are physically ejected for challangeing the speech.
This is freedom? Liberty?

It's fascism.

 

The last sentence in that paragraph was opinion, not fact. Therefore, not relevant to the point I was making. Your numbers weren't just wrong, they were silly.



It was commercially available; but, it hadn't been purchased under the pre-deployment budgets. Therefore, wasn't available to every soldier until the budget was passed.





Limited equipment must be rationed by need according to risk. Front line soldiers get dibs. What's so hard to understand?




My opinion is based on my interpretation of the facts I get from many different sources. I not only watch both CNN and FOX news broadcasts and commentary. I listen to NPR and the BBC as well. When things don't match up I try to piece them together in a way that makes sense. Sometimes there's no making sense of it. That's when personal views come into it. Mine started out liberal and became more conservative as I gained experience. My experiences aren't the same as yours I'm sure; but, I trust what I have learned. Explaining a lifetime of growth is not feasible; so, that will have to be passed over. What you have said has been colored very deeply by your own views and I do not think I can do anything but respectfully disagree with them.



Politician? Kerry is no amateur at this. In fact, he's so good at it that he wins debates with it as his only weapon. According to the liberals on spin alley he does anyway. I think he won the first debate, just barely; but, he lost the second and third on substance. Again, my opinion. I, as an American, am just as justified in having one as you are. Isn't it great?




Good advice, I suggest you heed it yourself.

Thank you.

 

Honestly I don't know if Kerry could do a better job since he's never been president, but I would like to give him a try, just like we all did when we voted for Bush 4 years ago. However, having Bush in there for another four years scares the hell out of me.

I know people who voted for Bush four years ago, are happy with what he's done, and are voting for him again. I also know people who voted for Bush who are NOT happy and are not voting for him again, myself included.

I'm an Army of 2 Mom and I approve this message

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
[B]The last sentence in that paragraph was opinion, not fact. Therefore, not relevant to the point I was making. Your numbers weren't just wrong, they were silly.

The last sentence wasn't relevant because it was opinion, not fact. What???!?! You spout your "opinion" in this post and it's relevant, but not someone else's. Wow...cool.
Why are my numbers wrong AND silly? Because I didn't get them from Odin.com?


Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
It was commercially available; but, it hadn't been purchased under the pre-deployment budgets. Therefore, wasn't available to every soldier until the budget was passed.


You're the the man!! Maybe you should get up there in DC since you know about pre-deployment budgets and get them pushed through PRE-deployment. Gee, who's mistake was that? Let me guess, Clinton? Bush Sr.? Nixon? Kennedy? Reagan? Ford? Lincoln? Am I getting warm?


Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
Limited equipment must be rationed by need according to risk. Front line soldiers get dibs. What's so hard to understand?


It wasn't limited, you're wrong...wrong wrong wrong, (my opinion). The reason is because Bush thought it was going to be a cake walk (my opinion) and that it wouldn't be needed (my opinion). This "opinion" is based on my interpretation of the facts and in no way reflects the beliefs and opinions of this website (in my opinion).

What's hard to understand? What an inappropriate thing to ask me. Ask the soldier that doesn't have one. .....<What's hard to understand>......sheesh!!


Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
My opinion is based on my interpretation of the facts I get from many different sources. I not only watch both CNN and FOX news broadcasts and commentary. I listen to NPR and the BBC as well. When things don't match up I try to piece them together in a way that makes sense. Sometimes there's no making sense of it. That's when personal views come into it. Mine started out liberal and became more conservative as I gained experience. My experiences aren't the same as yours I'm sure; but, I trust what I have learned. Explaining a lifetime of growth is not feasible; so, that will have to be passed over. What you have said has been colored very deeply by your own views and I do not think I can do anything but respectfully disagree with them.


Oh now you're dropping names!!! Well, I watch the John Daly show, so there. And research has proven that's THE show to watch.

A LIFETIME of growth?? How old are you?? You debate with no more intelligence than say...maybe a 30 year old. You have a lot to learn. (my opinion of course) You debate your "opinions" based on your interpretations of whatever (your own words)
...and one sided they are...

Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
Politician? Kerry is no amateur at this. In fact, he's so good at it that he wins debates with it as his only weapon. According to the liberals on spin alley he does anyway. I think he won the first debate, just barely; but, he lost the second and third on substance. Again, my opinion. I, as an American, am just as justified in having one as you are. Isn't it great?


Wow Odin, I didn't know you were the official score keeper for the polls on all three debates... <chanting> ohhh odin....ohhh odin....oh odin...
(BTW...polls showed that Kerry won all three debates. Based on fact, not opinion.)

Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
Good advice,
Thank you.
(the nifty pick and post)

You're very welcome.

I'm not trying to change your mind...I'm trying to show you the other side...there is one you know. Bush is far from perfect.

I'm an Army of 2 Mom and I approve this message.

And one more thing...yes, I have dropped to your level since you do not, can not and will not rise to mine.

 

Army of 2 Mom,

I am not going to go tit for tat with you forever. I can see that discussing this with you is a waste of my time. I've said what I have to say, and it's not what you want to hear. I didn't expect it to be. The truth is always a hard pill to swallow, when you're on the wrong end of it.

 

Well thank you yoda, I'm so glad that one has to be old to be intelligent.
You might be able to correlate wisdom with age, but hardly intelligence. That’s pretty arrogant. You do the same thing as you accuse Odin of, debate your opinions based on your interpretations. Hello pot this kettle. Another tragic example of if you refuse to think as I do, you must be some sort of idiot and jacka$$ for daring to post different interpretations of anything. You are not going to convince him any more than he's going to convince you, get over it and feel secure in the fact that you must be right, b/c you couldn't possibly be wrong, could you... that might shatter your world. Reasonable people are always willing to entertain the doubt that no matter how sure they are of their views; they might not have the monopoly on what is right (if such a thing even exists). Those that can’t do that are not worth the time to ague with. Something my father taught me, I consider it a very wise statement.

 

Ao2Mom, now you see why trying to rational with these nimrods is non productive.
O dumb Wrat is just a shill, he has no opinion. Think parrot.
There are a few others here as well, they work in teams and tag out when they get stunned. Another should be along soon.
Can you smell their desperation?
BTW, nice to see another scrapper that likes to keep things honest around here!


Hey O dumb Wrat!

Didn't shrub get 67 BILLION in pre-deployment funds?
I guess that ceramic body armor is real expensive.

Shows again that shrub didn't grasp the type of warfare it was going to be invading Baghdad... hint: urban guerilla.

He didn't read Dad's book:
In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:
Chapter 19
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.


Shrub can't read, shrub doesn't have any good sense.
fermez la bouche

 

loudist (aka Scarecrow),

Sorry, but I jumped the gun and gave out your award in a previous thread. So, I take it back and give you your well deserved award.

 

Screwyou,
If you paid real close attention to the Wizard of OZ, the scarecrow always had the best advice and ideas, so in the words of the King: Thankyou, thankyoukerrymuch.

 

Scarecrow strikes again.


Don't flatter yourself, you manage to irritate people until they give up debating, discussing, or arguing with you. Your intellectual standing is hardly anything to crow about.


This is the place where you post another piece of my personal information, in an attempt to intimidate me into laying off of your punk ***. I hope you know that at the first sign of fraud, or when you finally cross the line with that crap... Well, use your imagination.

 

I'm sure your familiar with the song from the Wizard of OZ - "If I only had a brain."