Potential Memorial Day Pardons

[hollodero]

(05-24-2019, 01:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But according to the Op he didn't suggest that the Troops should be disturbed by it.


The absolutely inane reasoning we take as subjects grow in the forum is absurd.

He said it sends a disturbing message, to the troops and the public and other countries. There is a clear and non-inane reasoning for that stance. 
Why are you so keen on twisting his words and then call all of our comments absolutely inane for not falling in line with that distorted portrayal?

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 02:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: He said it sends a disturbing message, to the troops and the public and other countries. There is a clear and non-inane reasoning for that stance. 
Why are you so keen on twisting his words and then call all of our comments absolutely inane for not falling in line with that distorted portrayal?

No intent to twist. much less keen to do it.

This is just probably the only place you could send a disturbing message and not expect the reader to be disturbed. I stated Matt said troops should be disturbed  instead of saying the troops were sent a disturbing (we're not sure disturbing to whom) and at least 2 people plus the OP call foul. Yet in the same thread one word of a 36 word point made by me is focused on to try to bastardize the point and we get "crickets" or worse yet affirmation.  

Answer me a question: Would you expect Troops, the public, and other countries to be disturbed over a disturbing message?
"I going to send you these disturbing images, but I don't expect you to be disturbed by them"

A a troop; I'm disturbed by many thinks POTUS says/does and this is one; I've said as much earlier. WTS, it's ridiculous and really not worth further discussion

[Dill]

(05-24-2019, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There are two different scenarios in question:

Matt's OP was how Military folk should be mad about Trump considering pardoning this operative. I simply asserted it wasn't the first time Military folks should be mad about such thing with a reference to manning.

Then Dill chimed in with OK, you may have a point there but.....no President has influenced prior and I provided the Bergdahl circus as proof.

Such distortion. I never said no president has EVER exercised undue influence. I only cited/linked to the concerns of military officers and commentators regarding Trump's undue influence.

Then you threw up your Bergdahl circus as "proof" Obama had done the same--except, as I explain, it is not proof of any such thing. The Bergdahl case is IN FACT another example of Trump's undue influence. At this point is is clear that you do not know what "undue influence" means as a legal term.

Plus you are angry that "we allowed" another soldier to be executed in Iraq.  Wow.

(05-24-2019, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The rest is typical Dill but I felt compelled to address the bold, because it is really what is going to cause the demise of this forum. You took 1 word of a 36 word point to try to suggest someone said something they did not.

"Typical Dill" means defining terms, explaining how the law works and providing reasons in a logical sequence--for which you are unable to respond in kind. It never means bailing when the going gets tough.

Typical Bfine means throwing in unrelated issues you are angry about, then suggesting some unnamed someone said some undefined something,
all which is prep for the moment you decide others (the ones who eschew "undefined somethings" to cite legal process as they explain and refute) cannot be reasoned with, and bail to safety insisting you've retained some high moral ground.

[hollodero]

(05-24-2019, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Answer me a question: Would you expect Troops, the public, and other countries to be disturbed over a disturbing message?
"I going to send you these disturbing images, but I don't expect you to be disturbed by them"

I might expect them to be disturbed, but that still is not the same as talking about a "disturbing message". For one, the disturbing thing about the message might just be that it is recieved as an affirmation by some. Namely by those who are emboldened to commit war crimes of their own now, because that's obviously ok now. Very much like sending child pornography is a disturbing thing to do, while the recipient of those messages is often anything but disturbed.
Would I expect all others (troops, public, world) to be disturbed by that? Yeah, very much so.

But that's not the main point. The main point is that you changed the OP's words to "...how Military folk should be mad about Trump considering pardoning this operative", when it was really not what he said. And then you built your whole "ah, that happens all the time, stop being such partisan hypocrites about it"-point around that interpretation, where you call other people's points inane and whatnot. That intellectual arrogance does hold zero water.

All while a war criminal might go free. I get that you don't like that either, but as usual I do not get how you spend 1% of your words on that and the remaining 99% to spin words and meanings in attempts to prove something unflattering about non-conservatives.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 01:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So they were sent a disturbing message, but shouldn't be disturbed? I definitely got that one wrong.

I fully understood why you felt the message should be disturbing to troops; hence my reply whataboutis

dis·turb·ing
/dəˈstərbiNG/

adjective

1. causing anxiety; worrying.
   "disturbing unemployment figures"
   
   

mad
/mad/

adjective

1. 1.
   INFORMAL
   very angry.
   "they were mad at each other"
   
   

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 01:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But according to the Op he didn't suggest that the Troops should be disturbed by it.


The absolutely inane reasoning we take as subjects grow in the forum is absurd.

Boy, you can say that again.

If it ain't the inane reasoning that gets you, it's the just make shit up as we go along that will.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No intent to twist. much less keen to do it.

This is just probably the only place you could send a disturbing message and not expect the reader to be disturbed. I stated Matt said troops should be disturbed  instead of saying the troops were sent a disturbing (we're not sure disturbing to whom) and at least 2 people plus the OP call foul. Yet in the same thread one word of a 36 word point made by me is focused on to try to bastardize the point and we get "crickets" or worse yet affirmation.  

Answer me a question: Would you expect Troops, the public, and other countries to be disturbed over a disturbing message?
"I going to send you these disturbing images, but I don't expect you to be disturbed by them"

A a troop; I'm disturbed by many thinks POTUS says/does and this is one; I've said as much earlier. WTS, it's ridiculous and really not worth further discussion

(05-24-2019, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There are two different scenarios in question:

Matt's OP was how Military folk should be mad about Trump considering pardoning this operative. I simply asserted it wasn't the first time Military folks should be mad about such thing with a reference to manning.

Then Dill chimed in with OK, you may have a point there but.....no President has influenced prior and I provided the Bergdahl circus as proof.

Then you came in with doing what you do. Dissecting every detail instead of trying to grasp the point made looking for a gotcha

The insult comes when folks right these examples off as "whataboutism"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Such distortion. I never said no president has EVER exercised undue influence. I only cited/linked to the concerns of military officers and commentators regarding Trump's undue influence.

Then you threw up your Bergdahl circus as "proof" Obama had done the same--except, as I explain, it is not proof of any such thing. The Bergdahl case is IN FACT another example of Trump's undue influence. At this point is is clear that you do not know what "undue influence" means as a legal term.

Plus you are angry that "we allowed" another soldier to be executed in Iraq.  Wow.



"Typical Dill" means defining terms, explaining how the law works and providing reasons in a logical sequence--for which you are unable to respond in kind. It never means bailing when the going gets tough.

Typical Bfine means throwing in unrelated issues you are angry about, then suggesting some unnamed someone said some undefined something,
all which is prep for the moment you decide others (the ones who eschew "undefined somethings" to cite legal process as they explain and refute) cannot be reasoned with, and bail to safety insisting you've retained some high moral ground.

We'll just let the readers decide on that, bud!  Now if you will help me onto my high horse I will be on my way.  Good day to you, sir!

[GMDino]

Have we reached a consensus that Trump considering pardoning Gallagher is Obama's fault yet?  

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 04:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: 1. I might expect them to be disturbed, but that still is not the same as talking about a "disturbing message". For one, the disturbing thing about the message might just be that it is recieved as an affirmation by some. Namely by those who are emboldened to commit war crimes of their own now, because that's obviously ok now. Very much like sending child pornography is a disturbing thing to do, while the recipient of those messages is often anything but disturbed.
Would I expect all others (troops, public, world) to be disturbed by that? Yeah, very much so.

2. But that's not the main point. The main point is that you changed the OP's words to "...how Military folk should be mad about Trump considering pardoning this operative", when it was really not what he said. And then you built your whole "ah, that happens all the time, stop being such partisan hypocrites about it"-point around that interpretation, where you call other people's points inane and whatnot. That intellectual arrogance does hold zero water.

3. All while a war criminal might go free. I get that you don't like that either, but as usual I do not get how you spend 1% of your words on that and the remaining 99% to spin words and meanings in attempts to prove something unflattering about non-conservatives.

1. Sounds like you're trying to talk yourself into the more nuanced meaning than the simple assertion that folks are expected to be disturbed at disturbing messages..

2. Of course that's the main point. If folks aren't mad/disturbed about trump possibly pardoning this guy then what are they disturbed by in the message? Simply pointed out he has no monopoly.

3. Hell it takes two to tango. I've not been required to defend/curse his actions because 99% of the thread is about me.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Sounds like you're trying to talk yourself into the more nuanced meaning than the simple assertion that folks are expected to be disturbed at disturbing messages..

2. Of course that's the main point. If folks aren't mad/disturbed about trump possibly pardoning this guy then what are they disturbed by in the message? Simply pointed out he has no monopoly.

3. Hell it takes two to tango. I've not been required to defend/curse his actions because 99% of the thread is about me.

I'm amused/disturbed that you pretending that by placing a slash between two words with different contextual definitions you can magically make their definitions interchangeable regardless of the context in which they were used.

Talk about your inane reasoning.

Check it out: oncemoreuntothejimbreech/bfine32

We're that same simply because I used a slash!

[hollodero]

(05-24-2019, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Sounds like you're trying to talk yourself into the more nuanced meaning than the simple assertion that folks are expected to be disturbed at disturbing messages..

You didn't suggest they were disturbed, you suggested they are supposed to be mad, and then you suggested that under Obama they were also supposed to be mad, that's just how the world goes, so nothing new and nothing really to see here.
And this is troubling taken by itself. How relativizing everything Trump does superseed the bad things he does. Everything concerning Trump, you seem physically unable to say "yeah that's bad, full stop", you can only say "yeah that's bad, but so is Hillary/Obama/someone non-conservative, also your points are moronic".

(05-24-2019, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Hell it takes two to tango. I've not been required to defend/curse his actions because 99% of the thread is about me.

Well, that's what's to be expected if one has a hard to ccomprehend outsider position. If everyone agrees that 2+2=4 except for one guy, that guy will be the center of debate as well. He might accuse everyone of ganging up on him because of his different beliefs and feel persecuted, but that's not the real reason of course.
Admittedly, you don't take it quite that far. You'd rather be the guy that says "yeah, 2+2 equals 4, there I said it, but you still all make inane points about that and I still weep for your mental insufficiency."

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 05:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: You didn't suggest they were disturbed, you suggested they are supposed to be mad, and then you suggested that under Obama they were also supposed to be mad, that's just how the world goes, so nothing new and nothing really to see here.
And this is troubling taken by itself. How relativizing everything Trump does superseed the bad things he does. Everything concerning Trump, you seem physically unable to say "yeah that's bad, full stop", you can only say "yeah that's bad, but so is Hillary/Obama/someone non-conservative, also your points are moronic".



Well, that's what's to be expected if one has a hard to ccomprehend outsider position. If everyone agrees that 2+2=4 except for one guy, that guy will be the center of debate as well. He might accuse everyone of ganging up on him because of his different beliefs and feel persecuted, but that's not the real reason of course.
Admittedly, you don't take it quite that far. You'd rather be the guy that says "yeah, 2+2 equals 4, there I said it, but you still all make inane points about that and I still weep for your mental insufficiency."

Yeah, you just found another semantic to build your case on. Both the OP and you were find with disputing "disturbed" versus "disturbing" until someone pointed out a used a synonym for disturbed. So seeing how silly the initial argument looked you've jumped on that word in an attempt to make it look less silly. The point is unchanged whether I said disturbed, angry, mad, upset, given pause, pissed, takes issue......but I understand you have to try.

But what if everybody agrees 2+2=3 except one guy? 

[hollodero]

(05-24-2019, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, you just found another semantic to build your case on. Both the OP and you were find with disputing "disturbed" versus "disturbing" until someone pointed out a used a synonym for disturbed. So seeing how silly the initial argument looked you've jumped on that word in an attempt to make it look less silly. The point is unchanged whether I said disturbed, angry, mad, upset, given pause, pissed, takes issue......but I understand you have to try.

You understand nothing, Jon Snow.
Really, all the motives of mine you allege are quite far away from the truth.

(05-24-2019, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But what if everybody agrees 2+2=3 except one guy? 

Yeah, that's usually how the one guy feels. All ghost drivers except me!
But for real, you were the one that brought Obama into it and tried to construct some equivalency. And after you established that equivalency for yourself, you used that position to critizise those that need to be critizised by all means: Those who are not conservatives and have an issue with Trump.

From the outside, I can only see a president pardoning a gruesome war criminal and a guy who claims all outrage about that is misplaced for Obama did something totally akin to that ("it wasn't the first time Military folks should be mad about such thing"/"a President has influenced prior"/"there was circus before"). Which in reality he did not. All you bring up about a prior president has nothing to do with pardoning a war criminal and is not akin to it. That is my point, not me jumping anywhere or realizing how dumb you made me look or whatever insulting assertion you dig up.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, you just found another semantic to build your case on. Both the OP and you were find with disputing "disturbed" versus "disturbing" until someone pointed out a used a synonym for disturbed. So seeing how silly the initial argument looked you've jumped on that word in an attempt to make it look less silly. The point is unchanged whether I said disturbed, angry, mad, upset, given pause, pissed, takes issue......but I understand you have to try.

But what if everybody agrees 2+2=3 except one guy? 

There is no semantics argument here. It's just you making crap up. You made a false claim Matt said military folk should be mad as in angry. While Matt wrote this situation sends a disturbing message. That's not a synonym for mad or angry.

[BmorePat87]

Back on topic:

Congressman Duncan Hunter seemed to defend Gallagher at a recent townhall by saying that he too posed with dead bodies while he was serving.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/27/one-bad-thing-that-im-guilty-rep-duncan-hunter-says-he-took-photo-with-enemy-corpse-during-military-service/?utm_term=.fd19ad73647c

I'm not sure if he commented on the alleged murder or the indiscriminate shooting of civilians that Gallagher is accused of doing.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2019, 10:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Back on topic:

Congressman Duncan Hunter seemed to defend Gallagher at a recent townhall by saying that he too posed with dead bodies while he was serving.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/27/one-bad-thing-that-im-guilty-rep-duncan-hunter-says-he-took-photo-with-enemy-corpse-during-military-service/?utm_term=.fd19ad73647c

I'm not sure if he commented on the alleged murder or the indiscriminate shooting of civilians that Gallagher is accused of doing.

Human lives are not "war trophies". Anyone who posed with dead combatants in an attempt to make themselves look superior, gets 0 respect from me for that action.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-28-2019, 12:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Human lives are not "war trophies". Anyone who posed with dead combatants in an attempt to make themselves look superior, gets 0 respect from me for that action.

Rape and murder and the like, I'll have an opinion on, but something like that, I leave up to combat veterans to judge.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

So.... 0 happened?

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 04:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So.... 0 happened?

It was just fear mongering from the Left.