Buttigieg 2020

[Irwin F Fletcher 3554]

It's already been outlined above. Like I've said, you're a master troll. You do you.

[bad_teammate 13345]

2 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

It's already been outlined above.

No, it hasn't. No one has demonstrated in any way how our ME wars post 9/11 protected the rights of Americans.

The argument is very easily made for, say, WWII. Expansionist nations were taking over other nations and threatening to do the same to us. They had the military power and leadership to potentially do so. We were attacked by one of those nations.

What is the argument for the post-9/11 wars in the ME?

For those of us who opposed these wars before they started, we heard the exact same bullshit as you and Brad are parroting now.

"Oh, so you hate troops?!"

"I served in some other, unrelated war, HOW DARE YOU, SIR!?"

There was zero difference between Joe Biden and Paul Wolfowitz.

[Fudge Nuggets 19293]

5 hours ago, horncyclist said:

6 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Our troops were there to kill terrorists and those that supported them.  It had nothing to do with freedom of speech and to use that as a campaign zinger is just as corny when he uses it as when Patch Crenshaw does.

Why do we want to kill terrorists?

We want to kill them before they kill us and I’m fine with that.  But don’t wrap it up in some dumbass first amendment justification.  Good for Pete serving in Afghanistan as it is commendable, but to claim he was there to protect some redneck’s right to spout stupid stuff is well... stupid.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3554]

You do you, here's the oath we take.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I understand you don't agree we should of been in the ME, but as a member of the Armed Forces we go where we are told to go. We do so to as stated above in the oath we take.

I'm done explaining and engaging with the troll. You can continue to disparage Pete all you want, it's obvious as day that he's a concern to Bernie and his supporters. You do you.

[bad_teammate 13345]

Just now, Irwin F Fletcher said:

You do you, here's the oath we take.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What does the oath you take have to do with the reality of the wars we are discussing?

Quote

I understand you don't agree we should of been in the ME, but as a member of the Armed Forces we go where we are told to go. We do so to as stated above in the oath we take.

Ok, cool, what does that have to do with what we are discussing? Did I say that Pete went over there randomly or against orders? What is your point with this?

[bad_teammate 13345]

Can't fucking wait until President Pete kills a few thousand civilians to prove how tough he is and the libs all say, "Unfortunate, but a necessary evil."

[mchookem 16593]

some of y'all are looking too hard for something to bitch about. it was a perfect line for the ridiculousness of the 'protest'. it's not that deep. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19293]

I wouldn’t have a problem with him saying I joined the military (and leave it at that) to protect your right to say those things.  I have a problem that he had to make sure everyone knew he went to Afghanistan to protect free speech because that’s just pandering at its worst.

[F250 28990]

1 hour ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

As someone who served both in Dessert Storm and Enduring Freedom as a Reservist, you couldn't be farther from the truth bad teammate.

 

 

 

 

[Message Board User 12397]

 

[Hank Scorpio 17802]

Pete didn’t go to Afghanistan to protect free speech. He went to Afghanistan to protect people’s rights to not vaccinate their kids. That’s real freedom. 

[bad_teammate 13345]

A Fox News poll taken after then-Sen. Barack Obama declared in February 2007 found that 69% of Democrats and 69% of voters thought the country was ready to elect a black president.

nice

I think Pete is perfectly electable. All these signifiers overlap and the fact that he's a white male will dramatically outweigh his gayness. He passes as a hetero guy in his speech and walk, so his gayness won't really matter to a lot of average Joes.

Barack's blackness and Hillary's femaleness were immediate, unavoidable defining features.

If anyone wants to back Pete for policy/leadership reasons but says, "I would, but America isn't read for a gay president" then that person is being disingenuous or dumb.

[Hank Kingsley 21167]

 

[BradInATX 9208]

11 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I wouldn’t have a problem with him saying I joined the military (and leave it at that) to protect your right to say those things.  I have a problem that he had to make sure everyone knew he went to Afghanistan to protect free speech because that’s just pandering at its worst.

I think if I was a gay guy from Indiana and some dude came at me, I'd probably tell that dumb mother fucker that I served to protect his right to be a dumb mother fucker as well. 

It's such a stupid thing for any of you to be mad at. I hope when Bernie goes by the wayside you can forgive Pete for his civil service. It's going to be important for our future.

Edited May 5, 2019 by BradInATX

[henrygandorf 29201]

sorry, been out of town so i'm just catching up.

basically, my summary is that pete is full of shit because if he really cared about fighting for american values and principles, he would've sacked up like marty mcfly, gotten in a time machine, and gone back to ww2 to fight a real war with something on the line.

otherwise, he's a lying fuck, and his motives are disingenuous.  

are we good?

[gasman 114]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

sorry, been out of town so i'm just catching up.

basically, my summary is that pete is full of shit because if he really cared about fighting for american values and principles, he would've sacked up like marty mcfly, gotten in a time machine, and gone back to ww2 to fight a real war with something on the line.

otherwise, he's a lying fuck, and his motives are disingenuous.  

are we good?

We are all using Avengers Quantum Realm for time travel now, but otherwise, yeah, we good. 

[bad_teammate 13345]

9 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

otherwise, he's a lying fuck, and his motives are disingenuous.  

"Lying" is strong, but he's absolutely a politician trying to use his military service to burnish and bolster his image and does so in a typical and lame politician way of shoehorning it into unrelated conversations or issues.

[NowThis 931]

the Dallas rowdy dips heckle Mayor Pete 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by NowThis

[TDunk 590]

At least with same-sex marriage, you don't have to worry about abortions.  

[WhatTheBuck 28852]

 

 

[henrygandorf 29201]

On 5/5/2019 at 9:33 AM, bad_teammate said:

"Lying" is strong, but he's absolutely a politician trying to use his military service to burnish and bolster his image and does so in a typical and lame politician way of shoehorning it into unrelated conversations or issues.

i only said lying because you found it so appropriate to use the "you lying fuck" gif a few weeks ago back when you were sorta pretending to support pete.  nice to get pointed out when language i'm using is too strong.  wouldn't want that to spread.

the big issue here, is that you're hating the game, but taking it out on the player.  if you have issues with the post 911 (or even post ww2) wars, then that's fine, you're not alone.  but that doesn't mean people who chose to serve should get universally shit on by people like you.  

pete was getting heckled, and the topic of those heckles were religion and sexuality.  the first amendment of the constitution is broad enough to cover most everything that is topical for hecklers, along with the heckler him/herself.  like it or not, a huge part of what america is all about involves the first amendment.  citizens of other nations don't all have what we have.  some of them attack us for it.  we have armed forces in place to defend those attacks.  to say it's a stretch is a stretch.

so if you think pete is politicizing his service, that's your opinion to have.  but if you think his response to hecklers is some sort of way to shoehorn his service, then you're being intentionally obtuse, and you know it.  he's not gonna get heckled about same sex marriage and respond by pivoting to climate change.  if bernie was to get heckled for something (being too old or something dumb) would he pivot to universal suffrage in his response?  it would be weird if he did.

like it or not, pete served in afghanistan.  and we will never know his true motives, or whether it was political in nature.  until then, i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  some people are drawn to public service, be it military or govt work.  he wanted to do it, and he made the sacrifice.  roll your eyes all you want, but that's where you should stop.  responding to a heckler doesn't make him dukakis in a tank.

and as commander-in-chief, it's inevitable he's going to have to send troops somewhere, at some point.  and i can tell you for a fact, there are plenty of folks enlisted or families of enlisted men/women who respect that the person giving the order to send them someplace has himself sacrificed and served for our country.  it makes a difference to them, even if it doesn't to you.  even if the war is stupid.  even if they didn't even vote for that person.

this tunnel vision of:

-if bernie says it, it's because it's who he is, and what he believes, and everything he says is right

-if pete says it, it's pandering, and everything he says and does is politically manufactured

is getting really old.  be better.

[bad_teammate 13345]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

but that doesn't mean people who chose to serve should get universally shit on by people like you. 

Did I universally shit on soldiers? When? Can you quote me?

------------------------
*my argument fails and I can't think of anything rational to say past the haze of my hurt feelings*

"WHY DO YOU HATE TROOPS!?!?!?!?!?!"
-----------------------

Quote

but if you think his response to hecklers is some sort of way to shoehorn his service, then you're being intentionally obtuse, and you know it.

It's intentionally obtuse to deny the obvious reality of what he's doing and has done ever since he got back. It's not like it's a new thing for him.

Quote

and i can tell you for a fact, there are plenty of folks enlisted or families of enlisted men/women who respect that the person giving the order to send them someplace has himself sacrificed and served for our country.  it makes a difference to them, even if it doesn't to you.  even if the war is stupid.  even if they didn't even vote for that person.

OK ... so?

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

BT really seems to have a hard on for Mayor Pete.  

[Hank Kingsley 21167]

 

[bad_teammate 13345]

8 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

BT really seems to have a hard on for Mayor Pete.  

accusing people of being gay as an insult is #Problematic

 

#DoBetter

[edit]

Also, no way. Little goofy dork. Tim Ryan could get it, though. Silverfox.

Edited May 6, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29201]

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did I universally shit on soldiers? When? Can you quote me?

------------------------
*my argument fails and I can't think of anything rational to say past the haze of my hurt feelings*

"WHY DO YOU HATE TROOPS!?!?!?!?!?!"
-----------------------

you've spent the last few pages shitting on the entire military industrial complex and everything associated with it, including enlisted men/women and choices they made and the politicians who for reasons good or bad, sent them places.  once again, hate the game, don't hate the player.  i never asked "why do you hate the troops?"  i know you don't.  you're just finding whatever you can to nit-pick pete, as you've done since his popularity increased.  you used to not do it.

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's intentionally obtuse to deny the obvious reality of what he's doing and has done ever since he got back. It's not like it's a new thing for him.

 

the fact that he said this in 2017, way before he even was close to forming an exploratory committee about running for president should tell you that this is just who he is.  the fact that he said it that long ago actually proves the opposite point you were trying to make.  sweet self-pwnage.

 

39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK ... so?

so he's running to be the commander-in-chief.  what i said is 100% relevant.

[David Dennison 19140]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

accusing people of being gay as an insult is #Problematic

 

#DoBetter

[edit]

Also, no way. Little goofy dork. Tim Ryan could get it, though. Silverfox.

 

On 4/16/2019 at 10:16 PM, bad_teammate said:

Talking about Beto and Pete all in one night probably made Tucker so horny he had to rub one out in the green room.

#DoBetter

[bad_teammate 13345]

12 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you've spent the last few pages shitting on the entire military industrial complex and everything associated with it, including enlisted men/women and choices they made and the politicians who for reasons good or bad, sent them places. 

lol no I didn't you whining baby. Quote me.

Also, awesome job of throwing "military industrial complex" in there in an attempt to conflate the war machine with the individual troops just like a bloodthirsty neo-cons do. "IF YOU HATE LOCKHEED-MARTIN YOU HATE THE TROOPS!"

Quote

you're just finding whatever you can to nit-pick pete, as you've done since his popularity increased.  you used to not do it.

Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that I (like everyone else) barely knew anything about him until he started getting more exposure?

Quote

the fact that he said this in 2017, way before he even was close to forming an exploratory committee about running for president should tell you that this is just who he is.  the fact that he said it that long ago actually proves the opposite point you were trying to make.  sweet self-pwnage.

He's a career politician. Be serious.

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

#DoBetter

man, you owned my obvious joke with logic

Good job, Mr. Shapiro.

[David Dennison 19140]

So you weren't trying to insult Tucker Carlson by accusing him of being gay?

 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

34 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

I'll vote for him over Beto for this reason alone. 

[TornACL 7767]

3 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I'll vote for him over Beto for this reason alone. 

I still have PTSD about the weekly unsolicited text messages to my phone from the Beto campaign. 

[bad_teammate 13345]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you weren't trying to insult Tucker Carlson by accusing him of being gay?

I was making fun of how extremely horny Tucker was in the clip being referenced.

 

[David Dennison 19140]

Just now, TornACL said:

I still have PTSD about the weekly unsolicited text messages to my phone from the Beto campaign. 

Thankfully, STOP worked in 2018.

They still haven't sent me anything for Beto 2020.

[henrygandorf 29201]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol no I didn't you whining baby. Quote me.

yes, you're right.  my bad.  this is all very complimentary and not at all condescending.

lol fuck off with that shit, Pete, you weren't defending any American's rights

"I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT, SIR!"

*joins the reserves as an officer and actually deploys a decade after the war is over*

It's not me taking offense (I don't even know what I'm supposed to be "offended" about), it's me mocking his politician move of shoving his overseas deployment into unrelated issues as an attempt to make himself seem noble, strong, or otherwise desirable as a leader.

Well then if you didn't actually do anything to protect America (and the rest), don't talk like you did and I won't make fun of you.

No need to shout "FUCK THE TROOPS", just an eyeroll and a dismissive jerk-off motion when some dork like Pete tries to pretend he's Audie Murphy will do the job.

His service did absolutely nothing to protect any American's rights. How can you even pretend otherwise?

Can't fucking wait until President Pete kills a few thousand civilians to prove how tough he is and the libs all say, "Unfortunate, but a necessary evil."

[bad_teammate 13345]

Every single one of those is about Pete specifically and him shoving his military service into unrelated conversations and issues.

"... shitting on the entire military industrial complex and everything associated with it, including enlisted men/women  ..."

You're a liar.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you weren't trying to insult Tucker Carlson by accusing him of being gay?

 

BT is a hypocrite?  I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

[henrygandorf 29201]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Every single one of those is about Pete specifically and him shoving his military service into unrelated conversations and issues.

"... shitting on the entire military industrial complex and everything associated with it, including enlisted men/women  ..."

You're a liar.

you also made several mentions of politicians sending troops into places on lies, calling them war crimes, etc.  i was picking out specific attacks on pete because that's what we're talking about - this is the pete thread and it all started by you stating that his response to the heckler was based on a lie. (i don't like just saying "the military" because it's vague so i elaborated into industrial complex, but we both know this isn't about lockheed). 

you've been shitting on men/women who make the decision to serve by generalizing why you think pete decided to serve, and stating as fact that he wasn't protecting any american's rights.  i'm making logical next step conclusions based on your statements.  you make giant leaps in most everything you post, but we're not allowed to take small steps to confirm your intentions when you post your garbage?

start a thread about ill intents of military action since korea, and i'll be happy to participate in that thread, as this stuff interests me.  but if you're going to be a dick on purpose and try to align pete like:

"military action built on bad intentions.  pete joined the military.  therefore, pete had bad intentions."

then don't be surprised when people properly put you in your place.  i did not serve.  i am not personally offended by what you said, i just think what you said is incorrect.  others who are closer to it should and did get offended by what you said.

the primary reason people have issues with what you say is that you treat your opinions as facts, and everyone else's opinions as false.  that's not how an intelligent multi-sided discussion sounds.

 

[bad_teammate 13345]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you also made several mentions of politicians sending troops into places on lies, calling them war crimes, etc. 

Yes, which is all true.

Quote

you've been shitting on men/women who make the decision to serve by generalizing why you think pete decided to serve, and stating as fact that he wasn't protecting any american's rights.  i'm making logical next step conclusions based on your statements. 

In other words, you're lying.

Pete says he joined because it shouldn't just be the yeoman's sons who serve. Did he join because he saw it as a resume-builder? Did he join because he believed in the cause of the larger War on Terror? Honestly, a "yes" to the former is preferable to a "yes" to the latter. A mix of all of it? Who knows.

What I DO know is that the "war", such as it is, that he fought in did no service to Americans as far as securing rights, freedoms, and life. This is true and you cannot honestly argue otherwise (you don't even try, you just make things up).

I also know that he mentions his military service in unrelated situations in an attempt to make himself appear noble, virtuous, or strong.

I also know that he's an astonishingly ambitious careerist politician who is always seeking to climb the ladder.

He's an ambitious young politician. I'm sorry if this revelation disturbs you.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Thankfully, STOP worked in 2018.

They still haven't sent me anything for Beto 2020.

I've already got about 10 for the 2020 election. "Can we count on you to show up". Haven't gotten any in about a month, hopefully the campaign got enough negative feedback. Not sure whose bright idea it was "hey, you know what people love!!! Unsolicited text messages every other day! Let's do it" 

[henrygandorf 29201]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I also know that he mentions his military service in unrelated situations in an attempt to make himself appear noble, virtuous, or strong.

have you ever considered the possibility that he actually is noble, virtuous, or strong?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3554]

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

have you ever considered the possibility that he actually is noble, virtuous, or strong?

After engaging with BT over the weekend it is quite clear he has no intention in an open discussion of Pete Buttigieg the democratic candidate for President. My advice to the rest of this thread is to not engage the troll. 

To answer your question HenryG, no BT has never considered that possibility. He's well above serving in the military, which is fine. It's not cut out for a lot of people.

 

[bad_teammate 13345]

16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

have you ever considered the possibility that he actually is noble, virtuous, or strong?

Whether he is or not doesn't change the intention of his off-topic shoehorning of his military service.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13345]

14 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

... it is quite clear he has no intention in an open discussion of Pete Buttigieg the democratic candidate for President.

By all means, my guy, let's discuss Pete the candidate. I'd love to. Henry the White Knight of Petesville resurrected this military sidetrack.

Let's talk about his policy initiatives, instead...

oh... wait...

Damn

[henrygandorf 29201]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Whether he is or not doesn't change the intention of his off-topic shoehorning of his military service.

you realize that defending someone's first amendment rights is something that overlaps pretty cleanly with military service, where people are fighting for the american way of life.  i'm happy to entertain actual shoehorning accusations.

and when you say a sentence and use "in an attempt to make himself appear" then you're clearly implying that he isn't those things.  don't accuse him of something then try to deflect when someone calls you on it.

[Biff Tannen 45786]

B_T still shitting on every candidate thread?  Fuck he's annoying.  Do we think he has the tenacity to do this for another 10 straight months?  

[Brisketexan 105701]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

B_T still shitting on every candidate thread?  Fuck he's annoying.  Do we think he has the tenacity to do this for another 10 straight months?  

Yes.  It's Bernie, or death to the Republic.  Those are your choices, you best get in line!

 

[bad_teammate 13345]

31 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you realize that defending someone's first amendment rights is something that overlaps pretty cleanly with military service, where people are fighting for the american way of life.

Many hundreds of thousands of US soldiers have fought to defend the rights and lives of Americans. Pete Buttigieg isn't one of them.

That isn't to say he wouldn't if he was put in a situation where that was the case. I believe he would, in fact! If Pete Buttigieg had served at a time and place when that was the practical effect, I think he would've comported himself well and served honorably. Put me and Pete next to each other in the recruiting line for the Marines in 1940 and I would be the first to tell you that Pete would be the better leader and officer.

That's not what happened, though.

So what does it matter? I don't think it matters overmuch, but I always cringe when someone is in charge of the military and feels like they have to prove something, especially someone with big aspirations. And if they look at Israel's ongoing massacre in Gaza and say, "Hey, that's pretty cool," it's an even bigger worry. 

Quote

and when you say a sentence and use "in an attempt to make himself appear" then you're clearly implying that he isn't those things.

It's me, the brain genius who doesn't know what boasting is.

If a noble person says, "I'm very noble" that doesn't make them ignoble and it would be accurate to say, "That person wants you to think he's noble."

[henrygandorf 29201]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's me, the brain genius who doesn't know what boasting is.

If a noble person says, "I'm very noble" that doesn't make them ignoble and it would be accurate to say, "That person wants you to think he's noble."

again, it's just the way language works.

if i were to say, "at the event, bernie mentioned marching with martin luther king to remind everyone that he has long been sensitive to issues of racial equality" vs saying "at the event, bernie mentioned marching with martin luther king in an attempt to make himself appear sensitive to issues of racial equality" then what's the takeaway?

one of them is a fact, one of them is a dig.  you know fuck-all about people's intentions (including the exact reasons pete or anyone else enlisted) so you should stop talking like you do.  you may not even realize you're doing it anymore.  

[bad_teammate 13345]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

again, it's just the way language works.

if i were to say, "at the event, bernie mentioned marching with martin luther king to remind everyone that he has long been sensitive to issues of racial equality" vs saying "at the event, bernie mentioned marching with martin luther king in an attempt to make himself appear sensitive to issues of racial equality" then what's the takeaway?

"Remind" confirms the truth of the content while "make himself appear" leaves it open to question.

Pete's nobility, virtuousness, and strength are definitely not settled matters in my mind. He seems like a good guy who did his bit with dutiful competence. You're going to have to do some selling to get me to contribute to "Add a Pete-themed fresco to the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel".

Specific to Bernie, both of those work just fine. At the event in Houston he inartfully used his history in the civil rights movement as a defensive response (poorly, in my opinion, with his typical inability to read an audience well). He was doing a politician thing by wanting to shove everybody into the Wayback machine, and did so very poorly because he is a difficult-to-like curmudgeon who doesn't understand why the people around him don't get it. (Gee, I wonder why I like him so much!?)

It was a "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole" moment from him, which he has a lot of.

Quote

you know fuck-all about people's intentions (including the exact reasons pete or anyone else enlisted) so you should stop talking like you do.  you may not even realize you're doing it anymore.

Given your endless pathetic attempts at psychoanalyzing me and divining not only my motives but strangers on Twitter...

irony is fun for everyone

[henrygandorf 29201]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Given your endless pathetic attempts at psychoanalyzing me and divining not only my motives but strangers on Twitter...

irony is fun for everyone

glad you've taken my line, repeatedly reused it, and now feel the need to bold it.

you're right though, i should stop trying to figure out why you troll. 

guess i just have an incessant need to see the good in people.