[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[squadops]

I'll ask you again, who would put their life on the line for a cause they do not believe in?

You either choose not to listen or you want a squabble. Either way, you would be wrong. It's a hard pill to swallow I know, supporting what we do but I see nothing more in this thread than "we want it all and we want it for free" that is what I see.

I will always defend our military more than just about anything else.

 

[Tornado]

I already explained that, you'd have to oppose the troops too.

Repeatedly insisting something is the case is not explaining why something is the case. I'm perfectly capable of hoping that US service people are the best equipped and trained and safest military in the world while also wishing the United States government would stop invading Middle Eastern countries and putting those troops at risk. That remains true regardless of what bizarre analogies you want to draw to criminals.

 

[squadops]

How can it be that I have not explained? My lord I've said it a dozen times already. What do you think our troops are doing, collecting a blind paycheck?

The stuberness is thick, but it's not on my side, someone tell me how it makes sense to support the troops without supporting what they do? It is not possible, logic dictates here.

 

[Tornado]

Simply throwing the word "logic" also doesn't make an argument stronger, by the way.

 

[Joel]

I already explained that, you'd have to oppose the troops too.

You really haven't explained it. You've posted an anecdote about a "no blood for oil" bumper sticker and used that to illustrate your point about people supposedly reaping the rewards of the war without supporting it. This is only logically consistent within your worldview where you believe these things were tough but necessary decisions. It is not a fact that the war was necessary or brought net financial or political reward to the US or the western world. We're talking about a war that cost over a trillion dollars, it is by no means clear that the war brought great reward to the US.

Ignoring all that, you haven't explained why it's necessary to support the institution and what it does to support the individuals. We're talking about the people in the military, not the military itself or the aims of the organization. It's perfectly reasonable for someone's idea of "support the troops" to be "scale down involvement in wars and spend more money on education and mental health initiatives for current soldiers and veterans".

Our military carries out very tough decisions every day, they know what they are doing and why they are doing it. The fact that some of you think they are nothing more than stupid kids blindly following orders is insulting. Support them or do not, there is no 1/2 way, keep trying to say I have not made my point.

Nobody here has said they're stupid kids blindly following orders. For the umpteenth time, supporting the individuals does not mean you have to support the mission. "The troops" didn't decide to invade Iraq, I disagree with that decision but it was the decision of 2 presidents and a handful of military and political leaders, not the million people in the US military or the tens of thousands deployed.

 

[squadops]

Ok, keep living in a fantasy, I don't mind. You cannot support troops without supporting their cause, maybe if you consider the few who have second thoughts and are forced to serve out their time. In that case why did they sign up to begin with?

This is ridiculous, you guys remind me of a vegan who somehow supports Burger King

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'll ask you again, who would put their life on the line for a cause they do not believe in?

People who have no other choice in life, people who only see it as their only option or a means to an end. There are service members right now enlisted, retired, inactive that have formed groups against wars the gov't decides to take up.

You either choose not to listen or you want a squabble. Either way, you would be wrong. It's a hard pill to swallow I know, supporting what we do but I see nothing more in this thread than "we want it all and we want it for free" that is what I see.

Listen to what, you constantly say "nope can't do that, end of story" without any real insight...

If all you see is we want it all for free, then you're quite misinformed or you have a strange understanding of the English language.

I will always defend our military more than just about anything else.

Good for you, I don't see it needing defending but what ever makes you feel better.

 

[Tornado]

Meaningless similies don't make the argument any stronger either.

 

[CodeRedR51]

How do you consider our military, a bunch of imbeciles who blindly follow orders? You are insulting.

Backwards eh? not even close to that, how can you not see that supporting our troops means supporting what they do? Mind boggling it is. It's like saying you love the bank robber until he robs the bank

Get it straight, there is nothing confusing about it. Now if you'd rather sit around and sing kumbaya, that is fine too. Who likes war? No one, that is who.

You have an inane ability to put words in people's mouths that they never said. Maybe you should work to correct that.

 

[squadops]

Let us disarm then, let's see how far that gets us.

Utopian dreams will be shattered with harsh realities. Our troops do need defending, everyday. Remember nam? prolly not, every been to a VA? doubt it. They need all the support they can get, even from a silly guy on the GTP.

 

[squadops]

Meaningless similies don't make the argument any stronger either.

No but some of you still seem like vegans supporting burger king up until they serve up a burger. (no silly smiley)

 

[Tornado]

Let us disarm then, let's see how far that gets us.

I see. So not wanting servicemen put in unnecessary danger is a call to put them in unnecessary danger. Thank you for explaining the logical thought process.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Let us disarm then, let's see how far that gets us.

Utopian dreams will be shattered with harsh realities. Our troops do need defending, everyday. Remember nam? prolly not, every been to a VA? doubt it. They need all the support they can get, even from a silly guy on the GTP.

You remind me of a crazy right winger that I know, who when told that gays should be allowed to live as they wish and marry who they wish and not be hindered...he saw this as saying "gays should be allowed to be gay and thus force us all to be gay and destroy marriage and family values".

See that insane leap from one extreme to the other is quite toxic, sorry, and not really becoming of any intellectual value. Especially when imposed upon others who don't have a choice to come to conclusions on their own like younger people.

 

[squadops]

You guys are just jokesters at this point. But keep believing you support our troops when you clearly do not 👍 (that is a silly smiley) 👍

I see. So not wanting servicemen put in unnecessary danger is a call to put them in unnecessary danger. Thank you for explaining the logical thought process.

And you are qualified to make that distinction of course NOT

 

[Pillo-san]

Then why make comments on them when you have no idea what you're talking about and with each passing comment make more incorrect statements. What's an AR150...

So a person shouldn't be able to defend themselves outside the home? Seems silly, as if your suggestion is only violence has a chance of occurring at the home. No civilian can handle them? Says who, you? I handle my weapons just fine, I keep them locked up and in a safe location, I review safety measures when cleaning and handling my firearms and use them with respect for myself and others around me. Never had a problem in the 15 years I've owned weapons.

Where are you getting this crap, just please stop...I don't even know what to say at this point, it's so inane I'm getting a headache just from the chore of trying to dissect what you're thought process is.



Eh, I think the insulting one is you. I didn't say anything of the sort, respond to the posts not the user. Not only do you not answer the question you let your emotions run rampant, about a tone that not I nor others (@R1600) used.

ar15, a 0 snuck in, why are you so strange? do you mark words just to not see what I wrote? And what is wrong with telling you that the place for a gun for self-defence is at home. So you are not following shootings and such that happens in your own country where it always end with police officers playing firing squad on a suspect? And you know that Poland was in clutches of communistic soviet and still the police.It was not even Police it was "Milicia" maybe it is Military police in English I do not know but the point is that they did not use that kind of disproportionate/exessiv use of violence against the population. Is it wrong of me to suspect that it is "gun related" in this case?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Remember nam? prolly not, every been to a VA? doubt it. They need all the support they can get, even from a silly guy on the GTP.

Just because I was born in the 80's doesn't mean I don't know anything about war. I am an avid follower of all things WWII, I know what war is.

But keep believing you support our troops when you clearly do not 👍 (that is a silly smiley) 👍

Just your opinion, nothing more. And you know what they say about opinions.

 

[Tornado]

And you are qualified to make that distinction of course NOT

I'm a hell of a lot more qualified to express my beliefs than you are to express my beliefs for me, no matter how hard you try and force words in my mouth.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

ar15, a 0 snuck in, why are you so strange? do you mark words just to not see what I wrote? And what is wrong with telling you that the place for a gun for self-defence is at home. So you are not following shootings and such that happens in your own country where it always end with police officers playing firing squad on a suspect? And you know that Poland was in clutches of communistic soviet and still the police.I was not even Police it was "Milicia" maybe it is Military police in English I do not know but the point is that they did not use that kind of disproportionate/exessiv use of violence against the population. Is it wrong of me to suspect that it is "gun related" in this case?

Okay let's clear some things up, since there seems to be a substantial language gap. I don't know what mark words means, I've never heard the phrase before now. I can only assume you mean mince words or something to that likeness.

What's wrong with the notion of self-defense at home only, is crime doesn't just decide to happen when your at home, as crazy as it sounds. People will do criminal acts against you away from your home and possibly kill you if they want away from your home. Thus self defense in limited selections seems silly as crazy as it may be.

As for police, if you want to link a recent case where a criminal or victim was shot 30-60 times please do so. But just like most of your posts it seems like exaggeration to get your opinion down. Also what is gun related, because people are allowed to actively carry guns in certain states?

@squadpops actually I use to do charity work at the VA from time to time and use to hang out with veterans at the local VA with my parents. You have no idea what any of us do or have done.

 

[squadops]

@Tornado Well this is the POTUS thead, we hire him to be the commander in chief of the best military in the world, let's hope whomever is elected does a better job than your armchair quarterbacking.

 

[Biggles]

Am I all over the map yet again?

Yes ... squadops you've raised being "all over the map" to an art form.

 

[huskeR32]

What part of freedom do you not understand exactly?

This doesn't even merit a response.

The idea of hunting or home protection was a given, no one ever considered seeing people like you in the future.

You care to elaborate on this?

--

DC vs Heller's majority opinion seemed to do a pretty thorough job explaining why it was always intended to mean as such. There was, of course, dissent nearly as lengthy as the majority, but it does a disservice to the actual case to act like they just decided "sure, guns are fine in 2008" or whatever.

Several majority opinions before Heller also did a pretty thorough job explaining why it wasn't intended to mean as such. So, it also does a disservice to act like the individual right to bear arms has always been a given.

--

You cannot support troops without supporting their cause

You most certainly can.

 

[Pillo-san]

Okay let's clear some things up, since there seems to be a substantial language gap. I don't know what mark words means, I've never heard the phrase before now. I can only assume you mean mince words or something to that likeness.

What's wrong with the notion of self-defense at home only, is crime doesn't just decide to happen when your at home, as crazy as it sounds. People will do criminal acts against you away from your home and possibly kill you if they want away from your home. Thus self defense in limited selections seems silly as crazy as it may be.

As for police, if you want to link a recent case where a criminal or victim was shot 30-60 times please do so. But just like most of your posts it seems like exaggeration to get your opinion down. Also what is gun related, because people are allowed to actively carry guns in certain states?

@squadpops actually I use to do charity work at the VA from time to time and use to hang out with veterans at the local VA with my parents. You have no idea what any of us do or have done.

It means that if I write ar150, you suddenly do not know what I mean when it it easy to understand that it is ar15 I mention, for example.

Who cares about something happening you out in the city, there should be law enforcers that should be able to help if necessary. It is your family at home (in your sanctuary) that is important to protect in this case if you ask me.

Yes, I mean that the whole culture is so addicted to weapons that no one can relax and always hope for the worst case scenario. Lets play I am a police officer that have stopped a car that was going to fast: well I better be prepared to squeeze my trigger in case the driver makes a fast movement.

there are so many videos out there where police officers empties their pistol magazine/clips so that I right now do not have energy for it. it is like i the middle of the night here. (watching anime and looking at this thread, fun fun for everyone )

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It means that if I write ar150, you suddenly do not know what I mean when it it easy to understand that it is ar15 I mention, for example.

Could be a popular European rifle that I've never heard of...I'm not going to assume when I can just ask to be safe.

Who cares about something happening you out in the city, there should be law enforcers that should be able to help if necessary. It is your family at home (in your sanctuary) that is important to protect in this case if you ask me.

...Are you serious? No what's important to protect is your right to life, that doesn't stop when you leave your domain. Not sure where you're from but where I live, people have been shot walking distance from outside places I've lived and police had to hunt them down or never find them. Police aren't personal body guards or personal standby that you can wave down if needed cause they're stationed at every corner.

Yes, I mean that the whole culture is so addicted to weapon that no one can relax and always hope for the worst case scenario. Lets play I am a police officer that have stopped a car that was going to fast: well I better be prepared to squeeze my trigger in case the driver makes a fast movement.

No, once again STOP mischaracterizing groups of people you know nothing about, I don't make any mischaracterizations of you, so why do it to others. I guess it's just that night on this thread, you're not the only person speaking on the behalf of others. I've never had a cop pull me over and have their hand on their weapon when approaching me, and I'm part of a group of people that like to claim the police have it out for them.

there are so many videos out there where police officers empties their pistol magazine/clips so that I right now do not have energy for it. it is like i the middle of the knight here. (watching anime and looking at this thread, fun fun for everyone )

Uh you made a claim, thus you must provide proof if asked. I just had to do this myself in another thread, and I didn't make a cop out. It should be simple despite your physical state.

 

[Tornado]

@Tornado Well this is the POTUS thead, we hire him to be the commander in chief of the best military in the world, let's hope whomever is elected does a better job than your armchair quarterbacking.

Oh man, Sick Burn™.

Several majority opinions before Heller also did a pretty thorough job explaining why it wasn't intended to mean as such.

And which Supreme Court majority opinions would those be? Since Heller was the first case specifically focused on whether or not the 2nd Amendment protected individual rights or not, I'm quite curious which other ones commented so directly and thoroughly on the issue. US vs. Miller seems to be the closest, but that entire case was quite a mess.

 

[Pillo-san]

Follow this link below, I do not like this kind of things so I do not post it as a media link here, but it was like 1 sec google search.



youtube.com/watch?v=9LNO_y9Dge4


second link, starts at 20sec, exactly like I said.. dude reaches for the licence and gets shot.

youtu.be/vXmVPxQGTsE?t=20s

 

[squadops]

You care to elaborate on this?

Sure, I've figured you for some sort of gun control guy, if that is not correct than I apologize. The point was no one at the time of the country being formed considered a needed for a law for possession per say, the law was about protection from the government.

Just in case you didn't catch that part.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Follow this link below, I do not like this kind of things so I do not post it as a media link here, but it was like 1 sec google search.



youtube.com/watch?v=9LNO_y9Dge4


second link, starts at 20sec, exacly like I said.. dude reaches for the licence and gets shot.

youtu.be/vXmVPxQGTsE?t=20s

I fail to see the 30-60 rounds fired.

 

[Pillo-san]

There are clips like that, where 3-4 police officers stands around the suspect and just fire away everything they got. Like I said, I really dont want to search for those kind of things. really unpleasant when a person slips away to become a just a dead thing.


And yeah, guns... it is all i can say.. nothing good comes out of that.

lets hope our favorite candidate Bernie Sanders chagnes that, we love him, do we not guys?

But like some one of you really mentioned, it probably will be Hillary or Cruz because they are stable buyable puppets (they conform to the norm)

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

there are clips like that, where 3-4 police officers stands around the suspect and just fire away everything they got. Like I said, I really dont want to search for those kind of things. really unpleasant when a person slips away to become a just a dead thing.

No one said you had to find a video, there are several forms of media that convey info without being graphic. And probably wont put you in violation of GTP.

 

[squadops]

there are clips like that, where 3-4 police officers stands around the suspect and just fire away everything they got. Like I said, I really dont want to search for those kind of things. really unpleasant when a person slips away to become a just a dead thing.

What now?, an out of control extension of our government? You don't say.