Chump for President

[cale]

Obama should shut the fuck up like presidents before him and come to grips with the fact that he's a footnote in history

Just for you farb

Rich considering he's younger than you, yet you still think your opinions are relevant.

[decay]

No doubt it will be my fault when he comes back.

as you said yourself, we are both guilty of name-calling.

it's not at all your fault that agent allows his political bias to influence how he enforces rules.

anyway the most recent disgusting thing out of drumpf's mouth lately was how american soldiers "don't fight to win anymore"-

http://theweek.com/speedreads/682636/trump-laments-that-american-soldiers-no-longer-fight-win

go fuck yourself you draft-dodging silver-spoon-sucking piece of shit.

(here's hoping i don't get banned again because swearing at 45 is also not allowed.)

[agent]

it's not at all your fault that agent allows his political bias to influence how he enforces rules.

I understand you're frustrated over your timeout, though I'm curious to know how you're formulating your opinion on my political bias.

[decay]

I understand you're frustrated over your timeout, though I'm curious to know how you're formulating your opinion on my political bias.

i thought i made the concept of selective enforcement pretty clear?

[gwb72tii]

Ban
And the commander in chiefs opinion of how we fight was directed at obama and his rules of engagement. We haven't fought to win since WW2

[decay]

Ban

for calling out selective rule enforcement? how very typical of the right. silence anyone who disagrees. kind of like how a lot of news organizations aren't allowed into white house press conferences anymore... are you proud to be a member of the party of censorship?

And the commander in chiefs opinion of how we fight was directed at obama and his rules of engagement. We haven't fought to win since WW2

ok well he and you are wrong about so many things.

given that "since ww2" also includes korea, vietnam, panama, somalia, desert shield/storm, the balkan conflicts, why is 70 years of history obama's fault? he's not even that old yet.

i was in the middle of my iraq deployment when obama got elected and took office. the rules of engagement didn't change while i was there. rumsfeld had gotten his ass kicked out about a year earlier, but we were still under his op orders.

war is never pretty but we left some of those shit-shows better than we found them (or started them).

[agent]

i thought i made the concept of selective enforcement pretty clear?

Nope, not at all.

[marshallnoise]

Just going to watch the dunken postings of a mad-man.

[decay]

Just going to watch the dunken postings of a mad-man.

haha, i'm not drunk... and did you miss the part where i agreed with you?

agent, denying what you did doesn't mean you didn't actually do it. but we're cool.

[marshallnoise]

haha, i'm not drunk... and did you miss the part where i agreed with you?

agent, denying what you did doesn't mean you didn't actually do it. but we're cool.

Agreeing with me about what, you blaming me? Or that I called you names?

Either way, the break didn't cure your anger at the world. Not that it would necessarily.

[decay]

uh, i was pretty specific about my issue with agent.

that's not "angry at the world", it's "angry about this one thing".

[mbonder]

And mbonder
You are giving reasons why the federal government can justify what it does. Lol no surprise as the gov grows in size there are always justifications.
I'm telling you the DoED is not justified in any form if you read the constitution

The difference here I think is interpretation. You're taking a more literal interpretation, which is fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion. However, shouldn't you also be attacking the Department of Housing and Urban Development in addition to the Department of Education?

I can see clear justification for these departments based on the Constitution:

All fall under trade/commerce of some sort:
Agriculture
Commerce
Labor
Transportation

All fall under protection/conservation of some sort (domestic and foreign):
Interior
Defense
Justice
Homeland Security

Science/Research/Welfare:
Health and Human Services
Energy
Veterans Affairs

Foreign Relations:
State

Finance/Taxes:
Treasury

So that leaves us with Housing and Urban Development and Department of Education. I'd justify both of these departments as being for the greater welfare of the people, but there isn't anything in the Constitution that explicitly states anything about either.

So beyond your (gwb72tii) view that there is no justification for the department, what is it exactly about the DoEd that you don't like? I guess a shift in this discussion because I'm curious.

[mbonder]

And I guess because I've taken a tangent in this thread away from the original intent of it, here's my "on topic" question for the thread:

How does everyone feel about the perception that Trump is itching for a war? He's just spoken about increasing the size and scope of the military, given the go-ahead for a raid in a foreign country, and spoken about "winning wars again". Is it just bluster to appear strong on the international stage or is he gearing up for another international conflict?

[BraveUlysses]

This is amusing to see you getting your ass handed to you in so many threads lately.

thanks, another good z31 contribution to this subforum. do you have anything to discuss or are you here just to comment to my posts?

All the sudden Wiki is a valid evidence source? For the last eight years I recall people getting creamed for claiming a user-edited resource is factual.

Is there something incorrect that you found in that wiki article? you should correct it!

I brought it because you and other posters give GWB a pass on the constant arguments from ignorance--his knowledge on the DoED doesn't even constitute a paragraph so any improvement in that knowledge, even a non-ideal source like wikipedia would be an improvement.

And I guess because I've taken a tangent in this thread away from the original intent of it, here's my "on topic" question for the thread:

How does everyone feel about the perception that Trump is itching for a war? He's just spoken about increasing the size and scope of the military, given the go-ahead for a raid in a foreign country, and spoken about "winning wars again". Is it just bluster to appear strong on the international stage or is he gearing up for another international conflict?

considering how many of his advisors are islamophobes and open advocates for war with iran, yes, it looks like that could be in our future.

[Wschnitz]

This just in, Brietbart News Network is a more reliable source then daily intelligence briefings and the FBI/CIA themselves!