| Author | Message | ||
     Bastard |
you obviously have no combat experience. man up and enlist or shut the hell up. you are an absolute hypocrite until you do. i am shamed for you and your posin swaggering talk. you are the kind of guy who talks a big, bad game and slips out the side door when the bottles are breaking. we had YOUR type in our Bn., as well. have you ever even kissed a girl or broken a man's nose? i am sad for you and i fought for your right to shriek your little hypocrysies. homo | ||
| Ray_maines |
Had a little too much to drink have you? | ||
| Blake |
Hey everyone! Cool! John Kerry is posting here! Hey John! Buck up old boy. You still have your Senate seat to fall back on. Good luck with that wife of yours though. WHOAH! | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
By registering for participation in this Buell enthusiasts' discussion board you hereby agree that you will not post profain language nor will you engage in personal attacks or in derision of other users of the board. I see the rules only apply when Blake chooses. | ||
| Blake |
What would you have me do Mike? | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Honestly Blake, if your going to give someone a time out for a minor slight that honestly could have simply been posted elsewhere yet you let an obvious personal attack go then it speaks to me as a participent that possibly your time out was more personal then just an enforcement of the rules of the board. Notice I posted this here in this thread and not the other thread started by "•••••••". This particular thread does strike me as a direct personal attack. The fact to me, in my eyes, that you chose to make it a joke rather then even admonish him in this thread regarding an open personal attack just makes it seem even more so. | ||
| Blake |
Get your own board and run it the way you see fit. Don't like the way this one is run?... Then leave. I'm sick and tired of all the critics. REALLY sick and tired! | ||
| SouthernMarine |
Blakes board, he can do what he wants. 8astard is just making a fool of himself. I rather enjoy seeing him do so. | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Blake I apologize. You asked me for what I would have you do and I criticized you instead and that was wrong. What I might suggest instead, change the thread title so that it doesn't pinpoint one person, move the thread to a locked archive or simply remove the text of the offending post and insert that it was deleted due to a breach of the rules. | ||
| Blake |
Thank you. | ||
| Court |
>>>man up and enlist I did, United States Marine Corps. As a Platoon Leader I had people with mouths like your's in my unit. We referred to them as "loose cannons" because they frequently spoke without thinking, would foolishly place others of us in harm's way by not being able to control their behavior and mouths and often felt their level of personnel toughness was somehow related to their blood alcohol content. I have never broken anyone's nose. However following my innovating handling of Pvt. William Lehr following his exhibition of the above described behavior during a night infiltration, I had a number of Marines intentionally keep their noses from my reach. Learn to behave. Your views here, regardless of how diverse they are from those of others or the admin group, are welcome. You may disagree, you are free to dislike me (the club has t-shirts) and you are free to pontificate about your personal political beliefs. You are not free to act like a 6th grader on a playground. Simple rules, applied consistently. Accept the terms or go to the Suzuki board to rant. Court Canfield | ||
| Lake_bueller |
Why is everyone getting their undies in a bundle over this f@cknut? For crying out loud, his first posts were yesterday. He's obviously not a true fellow badwebber. I agree that Blake should take a stand against the rules of the board. There should be EQUAL enforcement across all threads. Dennis | ||
| Brucelee |
I am not even sure who that guy was mad and ranting at? I guess self-expression was not an important skill for him to develop, along with his kissing and fighting skills! | ||
| Polekat |
Over the years I've met a lot of real vets from all walks of military service. They include officers to buck privates. Special forces to the plains vanilla grunts and none of them talk like that. None of the real vets feel others need to go through what they did. (Message edited by polekat on September 11, 2004) | ||
| Charlieboy6649 |
Leave it to a doggie! How proud are you of your service? HOO-ah whatever... You probably joined because you had no where else to go. Don't try to make yourself sound noble and better than others because of your service. You have no idea what Blake may have contributed to America in his lifetime... Semper Fi, Mac | ||
| Johncr250 |
Man-up sweetpea! | ||
| M2me |
Isn't it true that those who have experienced combat are usually the ones who would avoid war at all costs and are only for war if it's absolutely, positively necessary? Something to think about before you say that war is the only answer. Most of the time war is the worst answer. | ||
| Ray_maines |
Court ....... Did you say that there are anti-Court t-shirts? Wow! That's so cool. Can you post a link. Would any profits go to helping Blake defray the cost of running the BadWeB? I'd buy one. | ||
| Brucelee |
"Something to think about before you say that war is the only answer. Most of the time war is the worst answer." This is a supposition, not a fact! Frankly, I think this issue is somewhat moot. We already had the war, the govt is gone, the leaders are dead or in jail. So, obviously, this war accomplished its prime objective, which was to neutralize SH and prevent him from becoming a bigger pain in the ••• than he was. While they won't admit it, everyone of the countries who are pissing and moaning are glad we did this deed and some are afraid we might go and do it to them or their trading partners. All of them are (like us) self-interested and see it from their point of view (easy to have the Canadian view. Who the hell would attack those wussies? Mission accomplished in the Iraq war. The next piece of helping the Iraqi's build a stable society will take much work. I am amazed at how many folks here think we should cut and run. That of course would really build trust in the US around the world. Can't any of the liberals understand how important it is to stay the course here? You may not like that we are in Iraq but we are. Even Saint Kerry says it will take 4 yrs to get out. Why bash Bush when Kerry has been with him every step of the way, save his flip-flops. Get over it and get on with it. There are more terrorists to kill. Remember 9/11! | ||
| Polekat |
"Isn't it true that those who have experienced combat are usually the ones who would avoid war at all costs and are only for war if it's absolutely, positively necessary?" Not at ALL costs. Unlike the slogan of years gone by, I would rather be dead than red and I will live free or die trying. Giving unlimited time to failed diplomacy won't make it succeed. War is and always has been one of two solutions to to failed diplomacy. Surrender is the second choice. | ||
| Brucelee |
Polekat-- Well said! | ||
| Reindog |
Brucelee, Attaboy! You know you must be doing something right when a tipsy typester gets so easily offended by the truth. - Swerlin Molson | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Ray, im in for one of those shirts as well  | ||
| Brucelee |
Swerlin Molson Love your handle! | ||
| Brucelee |
This would be funny if it weren't true! Let Kerry Be Kerry The candidate Dems dont want you to see. In the 1980s, when it seemed like the "squishes" in the Reagan White House were getting the upper hand over the Reaganites or, if you prefer, the hardliners in the battle for Reagan's ear, the call went forth, "Let Reagan be Reagan." The argument was that Reagan's instincts and principles were better than those of his New York Times-pleasing handlers, and they shouldn't try to make the Gipper be somebody he wasn't. Click Here Today we're witnessing the same thing in reverse. A host of Democratic operatives, elder statesmen, consultants, and pundits have launched a campaign that says in effect, "Don't let Kerry be Kerry." Here's the problem. Kerry is, as he's been known to brag, a "man of nuance" or of "complexity." What he means by these terms, of course, is that he should be permitted to say whatever he wants or whatever the audience at a particular moment wants to hear without feeling like he's contradicting, or making an ••• of, himself. The little examples are legion. "Who among us doesn't like NASCAR?" Kerry asked not too long ago, about as convincingly as a French chef lauding SPAM. More recently, he tried to convince a crowd of farmers that even though he grew up the son of a diplomat, spending most of his time in Europe or boarding school, he was actually a farmer at heart because as a kid he got to ride a tractor a few times at a relative's house. By this standard, I joined the circus as a kid because I once got to ride an elephant when Barnum and Bailey came to New York. Now, it's in the nature of all politicians to want to be liked by as many people as possible. What distinguishes a statesman from the common run, however, is what he is willing to be disliked for. And the answer, in John Kerry's case, is "almost nothing" even on the central issues of the day, such as Iraq and the war on terror. During a primary debate in Minnesota, Kerry was asked if he'd call himself a "war president" the way George Bush does. He responded: "I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health-care president, as an education president, and also an environmental president. So I would see myself as a very different kind of global leader than George Bush." And, as we all know by now, Kerry's position(s) on the war have more possible combinations than a Rubik's Cube. He voted for it, but he was really against it. He voted against the $87 billion funding for reconstruction, but he was really for it. He said recently that he would vote for the war all over again, given the opportunity. Even more recently Kerry said that Bush did everything wrong. He said he wants major troop reductions in Iraq within six months. Then he said he wants to add troops. Now he says that he'll get America out of Iraq during his first term. When the 1,000th American died in Iraq, Kerry said they died fighting the "war on terror," even though he insisted that same week that Iraq was not part of the war on terror. He told Time earlier this year that the war was a failure, but also that it might end up being a success. Presumably, if the war turns against the United States, Kerry will claim he was right to oppose it; if it succeeds, he will be right to have supported it. See how nuanced he is? This is all familiar territory for anybody who's been paying attention for the last year, and I don't want to rehash any more of it than is necessary. Indeed, I'd rather take John Kerry at his word. He endlessly reiterates that he's been "perfectly consistent" about the war. Perhaps he is. Perhaps Kerry is being Kerry. Perhaps, unlike most of us, he doesn't see a yes/no vote as an on/off switch so much as a huge wall of dials, knobs, levers, and switches that he can endlessly fine-tune. Maybe he has a capacity to grasp complexity most of us do not, and he's being entirely sincere when he takes positions that seem contradictory to conventional Earth Logic. And that's what I find so fascinating in the ongoing search by Kerry's handlers for a single coherent position their man can take against George W. Bush. Everybody in Washington agrees that it was this quest that produced Kerry's latest broadside against "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Never mind that when Howard Dean made almost exactly the same charge during the primaries, Kerry disagreed. Again, we cannot unfairly hold this man to the standards of Earth Logic. The problem is that, at this point, any coherent position on Kerry's part would be a contradiction and, hence, a lie. Perhaps it's expecting too much of the liberal establishment that it should feel moral qualms for exhorting Kerry to take a position he doesn't believe on the war, just to win the election. Maybe they should worry, however, that if elected, President Kerry would be Kerry. |
