Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

blogwiz: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

Actually, they generally do follow orders blindly.

Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

Actually, they generally do follow orders blindly.

I'm sure you've got experience to back that up right? You realize there's any number of college educated officers between that general and the ground pounders that deliver the punch and may have the cranial capacity to actually follow the constitution over orders as is demanded or is this new to you?

rohar: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

Actually, they generally do follow orders blindly.

I'm sure you've got experience to back that up right? You realize there's any number of college educated officers between that general and the ground pounders that deliver the punch and may have the cranial capacity to actually follow the constitution over orders as is demanded or is this new to you?

Well, torture is illegal right?

rohar: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

Actually, they generally do follow orders blindly.

I'm sure you've got experience to back that up right? You realize there's any number of college educated officers between that general and the ground pounders that deliver the punch and may have the cranial capacity to actually follow the constitution over orders as is demanded or is this new to you?

Actually I would trust the grunt over the officer.

This is just as stupid as when the liberals said it about Bush.

Sabyen91: YodaBlues: Crosshair:

Fair enough. Although I voted Obambi, I know full well both parties are full of shiat.

Obambi? The only place I have seen that is that crazy Hillaryis45 site. You want to admit something?


How much I hate Hillary Clinton? Just cause I voted for him and generally approve of his policies doesn't mean I can't make fun of him. Hell, I called Bush Chimpy McFlightsuit and the Shrub for 8 years.

Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

Actually, they generally do follow orders blindly.

I'm sure you've got experience to back that up right? You realize there's any number of college educated officers between that general and the ground pounders that deliver the punch and may have the cranial capacity to actually follow the constitution over orders as is demanded or is this new to you?

Well, torture is illegal right?

Sorry, I grew up and Air Force brat and served in the submarine fleet. That was the rudest reminder that my experience is not the entire farking military. Throw in a little social engineering and they could probably be controlled by a despotic government. Just send the east coast troops to the west coast, the southern troops to the liberal metro areas and it's probably over in hours.

I wish I was being sarcastic.

I yield.

YodaBlues: Sabyen91: YodaBlues: Crosshair:

Fair enough. Although I voted Obambi, I know full well both parties are full of shiat.

Obambi? The only place I have seen that is that crazy Hillaryis45 site. You want to admit something?


How much I hate Hillary Clinton? Just cause I voted for him and generally approve of his policies doesn't mean I can't make fun of him. Hell, I called Bush Chimpy McFlightsuit and the Shrub for 8 years.

Why Obambi? Is that making fun of him?

rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

Actually, they generally do follow orders blindly.

I'm sure you've got experience to back that up right? You realize there's any number of college educated officers between that general and the ground pounders that deliver the punch and may have the cranial capacity to actually follow the constitution over orders as is demanded or is this new to you?

Well, torture is illegal right?

Sorry, I grew up and Air Force brat and served in the submarine fleet. That was the rudest reminder that my experience is not the entire farking military. Throw in a little social engineering and they could probably be controlled by a despotic government. Just send the east coast troops to the west coast, the southern troops to the liberal metro areas and it's probably over in hours.

I wish I was being sarcastic.

I yield.

I just don't believe the military would be open to an overthrow of the government.

Sabyen91: YodaBlues: Sabyen91: YodaBlues: Crosshair:

Fair enough. Although I voted Obambi, I know full well both parties are full of shiat.

Obambi? The only place I have seen that is that crazy Hillaryis45 site. You want to admit something?


How much I hate Hillary Clinton? Just cause I voted for him and generally approve of his policies doesn't mean I can't make fun of him. Hell, I called Bush Chimpy McFlightsuit and the Shrub for 8 years.

Why Obambi? Is that making fun of him?


Dude...it's a silly nickname. Chill.

Sabyen91: I just don't believe the military would be open to an overthrow of the government.

I honestly don't think the entire military would. But we've seen verticals of the military be very malleable. We're trained on the UCMJ, the Constitution and the Geneva convention. Then we end up with Kent State, Abu Ghraib, My Lai etc.

The problem is that none of us actually join up to defend our country. We don't know our country at the tender age of 18. We join up to defend our family, our block and maybe our neighborhood. When we run into something that looks like an enemy and isn't like the folks back home, they're dehumanized so all bets are off.

I guess as I sit here thinking about it, without my natural defense of something I was part of, I'm not sure how things would work out. If the leadership handled things eloquently, it could go very bad. Let's hope we never have to actually figure it out.

Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sabyen91: blogwiz: Sygerrik: FishingWithFredo: Hah!

I'd like to see Obama try and go all Hugo.

We need a good civil war every 150 years or so.

You get the Congress, government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and the Judges on your side; we'll have the military and the bitter rural people who cling to their guns.

Wonder who would win?

Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

LOL You never served did you? A chain of command doesn't work when the ones taking the orders don't agree with the orders and believe me the ones with the most guns are the ones who are taking the orders!

So you are saying the military is full of traitors? That is weird.

Nope but they don't follow orders blindly, if a general goes off the deep end and tells his men to go to some town usa and kill everyone his men are going to point their guns at him and throw his ass in the brig! A soldier has a brain and they use them and they are not going to attack the people the swore to protect which includes their very own families!

Actually, they generally do follow orders blindly.

Fail.

Oh come the fark on.

Sygerrik
Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

Not a vet are you? If it came to a civil war, the military would be just as divided as the country, and the military tends to be much more conservative than the country as a whole. It amuses me to no end every time I see some clueless idiot make this argument. And, just to correct you, the military swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the President, his orders have to be constitutional, or they aren't legal orders, and therefore not only do not need to be followed, but are under obligation to not carry them out. Most military see themselves as the protectors of civilians, and forced to choose, the chain of command will lose. I know Hollywood loves the idea of the brainless automaton that just follows the lead of those above him, but that's simply not true. Seems kinda relevant to the people who keep making these claims though.

rohar
Just send the east coast troops to the west coast, the southern troops to the liberal metro areas and it's probably over in hours.

Um, there aren't any "East coast" troops, or "West coast" or "Southern". All units are a mix from all areas, and despite your claims, I've never served with a vet who didn't think he was there for the entire country, not just his piece of it. If, and it's a big if, we started having units that were segregated by regional origination, then possibly you could see something like that. But it would take a whole long chain of "if this, then if that, then if that, then.......". It's just not a realistic claim to make as it's based in pure fantasy.

Wraithbane: Sygerrik
Any conservative who thinks the military would side against the government in any civil war is encouraged to attempt to test this belief. The chain of command is long and winding, but it ends at the White House, not the chain-link gate to Real America's trailer park.

Not a vet are you? If it came to a civil war, the military would be just as divided as the country, and the military tends to be much more conservative than the country as a whole. It amuses me to no end every time I see some clueless idiot make this argument. And, just to correct you, the military swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the President, his orders have to be constitutional, or they aren't legal orders, and therefore not only do not need to be followed, but are under obligation to not carry them out. Most military see themselves as the protectors of civilians, and forced to choose, the chain of command will lose. I know Hollywood loves the idea of the brainless automaton that just follows the lead of those above him, but that's simply not true. Seems kinda relevant to the people who keep making these claims though.



Reluctantly agrees.

Wraithbane: rohar
Just send the east coast troops to the west coast, the southern troops to the liberal metro areas and it's probably over in hours.

Um, there aren't any "East coast" troops, or "West coast" or "Southern". All units are a mix from all areas, and despite your claims, I've never served with a vet who didn't think he was there for the entire country, not just his piece of it. If, and it's a big if, we started having units that were segregated by regional origination, then possibly you could see something like that. But it would take a whole long chain of "if this, then if that, then if that, then.......". It's just not a realistic claim to make as it's based in pure fantasy.

You have a hard time with complex issues don't you. Army?

I never said there were logistically segregated units, only that deft social manipulation could be very advantageous to a dictatorial regime. I never stated anything about what we thought when we were young, only what was possible. It is impossible at the average age of the military to even begin to comprehend defending this whole nation. It's simply unknowable as so few years. Yeah, even I said different, I had no idea.

The entire idea is fantastical, what do you want from me? It's like watching "The Wild" and saying that Water Buffalo can't dance after watching 7 animals talk for half an hour.

End of the day though, the basic premise stands. The troops are not limited by the law/constitution/geneva convention. See Kent State, Abu Ghraib, My Lai etc.

rohar: Wraithbane: rohar
Just send the east coast troops to the west coast, the southern troops to the liberal metro areas and it's probably over in hours.

Um, there aren't any "East coast" troops, or "West coast" or "Southern". All units are a mix from all areas, and despite your claims, I've never served with a vet who didn't think he was there for the entire country, not just his piece of it. If, and it's a big if, we started having units that were segregated by regional origination, then possibly you could see something like that. But it would take a whole long chain of "if this, then if that, then if that, then.......". It's just not a realistic claim to make as it's based in pure fantasy.

You have a hard time with complex issues don't you. Army?

I never said there were logistically segregated units, only that deft social manipulation could be very advantageous to a dictatorial regime. I never stated anything about what we thought when we were young, only what was possible. It is impossible at the average age of the military to even begin to comprehend defending this whole nation. It's simply unknowable as so few years. Yeah, even I said different, I had no idea.

The entire idea is fantastical, what do you want from me? It's like watching "The Wild" and saying that Water Buffalo can't dance after watching 7 animals talk for half an hour.

End of the day though, the basic premise stands. The troops are not limited by the law/constitution/geneva convention. See Kent State, Abu Ghraib, My Lai etc.

Yes they are limited by law. They are subject to civil law, the Constitution, and military law (UCMJ), and the Geneva Conventions. Abu Ghraib and My Lai had people thrown in prison, demoted, relieved of command. Plenty of people at Leavenworth and Mannheim.

So, in summary: You don't know shiat about the military.

YodaBlues: Sabyen91: YodaBlues: Sabyen91: YodaBlues: Crosshair:

Fair enough. Although I voted Obambi, I know full well both parties are full of shiat.

Obambi? The only place I have seen that is that crazy Hillaryis45 site. You want to admit something?


How much I hate Hillary Clinton? Just cause I voted for him and generally approve of his policies doesn't mean I can't make fun of him. Hell, I called Bush Chimpy McFlightsuit and the Shrub for 8 years.

Why Obambi? Is that making fun of him?


Dude...it's a silly nickname. Chill.

At least he didn't call him Obongo.

Ah yes, like Kennedy and his Catholic cabal were going to do. And Nixon. And Bush.
Reminds me - I need to pop for some ALCOA stock - I have the feeling they're going to be seeing some good revenue flow.

Keep an eye on proposed legislation yourself:
Link (new window)

museisluse: Keep an eye on proposed legislation yourself:
Link (new window)

And now, as a public service to those of our viewers who have difficulty with their hearing, I will repeat the most recent action on the proposed repeal of the 22nd amendment, aided by the Headmaster of the New York School for the Hard of Hearing, Garrett Morris.

Crosshair: Dammit can we PLEASE kick the neoconservatives and Moral Conservatives to the curb. The GOP will gain 2 votes for every vote they loose by doing so.

Get rid of the moral issues and the Dems are going to be in for a world of hurt.

/That and the fact that the GOP can criticize well, but then abandons those principals once they get elected.

You sound like a fellow libertarian. I am with you all the way.

From the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Saturday, Jan. 22, 2005 8:36 p.m. EST
Strategists Eyeing Deal for Clinton Third Term (new window)
Political strategists are reportedly pondering a deal that would allow Bill Clinton to run for president again by getting Republicans to agree to a change in the constitutional ban on third terms.

276 Posts and no Floor Humper?



That has to be a record in a NewsMax Thread.

bronyaur1: Unless, of course, NewsMax finds his Martian birth certificate before then.

Dude, Obama already covered this, its Krypton, not Mars.

me_the_farker 2009-07-03 06:29:21 PM

GaryPDX: Wow, this place really is the Freeperville of the Left. Funny thing is, most of you are zombie food and don't even know it.

I liked you better when you weren't on

truncated for accuracy

;D

but not previewed apparently*

/boo shiatty posting!
//hooray beer!

Man, will those bastards stop stealing our stuff...

We were the ones who claimed it wouldn't be remotely surprising if Bush declared martial law or engineered a crisis of some sort... Now Republicans have to be all "Obama too!!!"

But it's stupid... it was melodramatic even when it was Bush, but for a while there, it wasn't all that crazy given the frequency with which he was declaring executive privilege and increasing the powers of the executive office and all the overreaching bullshiat they were trying to do in the name of homeland security and stacking the DOJ wall-to-wall with Liberty U. grads.

There was a basis for the idea with Bush... What's the farking basis with a President who hasn't been in office six months?

You guys are just the whiniest, most ridiculous, bunch of drama queens on the planet? Cowboys? Rugged Americans? All that macho bullshiat? I've been camping in the rain with sorority girls who whined less than you farkers.

Worse yet, you're uncreative and you repeatedly lift material from the very same people you claim to loathe. If that's not proof positive of your general inferior intellectual ability, I don't know what is.


"Hey y'all, we wanna biatch about Obama like they done about BUsh... but we cain't think a nuthin' but stuff like faincy mustard and teleprompters and they just laugh at us when say that stuff... What can we use?"

"How about we use all that stuff they used to say about Bush?"

"Well, but does it apply to Obama?"

"Awww, that don't matter none... all them Presidentses is all alike... this hyere's just what they call a rivalry... lahk in rasslin.' I'm Republicans fan. They's got a elephant mascot like Alabama."

I'd believe it based on his rhetoric towards Honduras. Here is a situation where a congress and supreme court are trying to uphold a constitutional prohibition against seeking re-election and our government and our media are presenting it to us as a military coup. Obama's position on Honduras favors executive power over constitutional restraints. IMHO that's enough to suspect he and his supporters might move on the 22nd amendment. Then again there were a whole bunch of people running around saying Bush was not going to let the '08 elections happen due to national security. People say crazy things.

The reality though is repealing the 22nd amendment could possibly take years, longer than his second term (and politically talk of a third term couldn't even start until about 1-2 years into his second term). He's young enough to be looking long term, maybe come back in 2020 or 2024 and he and Chavez can be el presidente's para la vida. But 2016 does not seem plausible politically.

captain_heroic44: jpo2269: Whamdangler 2009-07-03 01:45:11 PM
You cannot be serious. Do you know the ridicule I received from NewsMax types when I said that I thought Bush might take steps to not step down at the end of his second term? I gotta believe the "right wing" of today is just drinking fine scotch, typing up the most ridiculous trolls, and laughing all day long.

So, you admit you were one of those who were convinced Dubya wouldn't step down, but somehow see humor when some on the other side are doing the exact same thing you did?

Would this be like the pot calling the kettle black??

There's a difference in the reasonableness of the inferences. Bush went to war on false facts, and for years dismissed with authoritarian contempt all those who dared point it out. His conduct created the appearance that he went to war on false pretenses for political aggrandizement. When Obama engages in like conduct, your inference that Obama doesn't intend to step down may likewise be thought reasonable.

Also, if we're going to talk about what Obama might or might not do in 2016, perhaps 2009 is a bit early to assume the sky is falling.