TrumPutinGate

#17,952
#17,952
Grand Vol said:
I don't think I've ever seen a military member so eager for his Commander in Chief to be taken down.

Carlos is a disgrace to his uniform, for certain.
Click to expand...

Seems a little harsh. Being in the Army while Clinton was POTUS, by your standards, 75% would have been considered a disgrace.
 
#17,953
#17,953
Stew Cook said:
Seems a little harsh. Being in the Army while Clinton was POTUS, by your standards, 75% would have been considered a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Being in the USAF at the same time, I'll disagree. We certainly didn't like him, but damned if we put such things out in public. It's called discipline and respect for the position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic and 1972 Grad
#17,954
#17,954
Grand Vol said:
Being in the USAF at the same time, I'll disagree. We certainly didn't like him, but damned if we put such things out in public. It's called discipline and respect for the position.
Click to expand...

You may have had a different experience, and I won't disount your reality.
Possibly variants in branches of the service or even divisions in my case. But I can tell you there was little to no Clinton love to be found.

Not worth arguing over, but I'll not shame Carlos for expressing himself in a forum.
 
#17,955
#17,955
Stew Cook said:
You may have had a different experience, and I won't disount your reality.
Possibly variants in branches of the service or even divisions in my case. But I can tell you there was little to no Clinton love to be found.

Not worth arguing over, but I'll not shame Carlos for expressing himself in a forum.
Click to expand...

Big difference in not liking him (that was widespread) and respecting the position enough to not make our feelings public. Oh, sure, we discussed things over a beer about how we didn't care for him...or Hillary even that far back, but never did we get giddy over his possible demise as POTUS.

Call me old school, but if you wear a uniform, you keep your ****ing mouth shut when it comes to bashing your CinC even when you are hiding behind a computer.
 
#17,956
#17,956
Grand Vol said:
Big difference in not liking him (that was widespread) and respecting the position enough to not make our feelings public. Oh, sure, we discussed things over a beer about how we didn't care for him...or Hillary even that far back, but never did we get giddy over his possible demise as POTUS.

Call me old school, but if you wear a uniform, you keep your ****ing mouth shut when it comes to bashing your CinC even when you are hiding behind a computer.
Click to expand...

I had the same attitude, more like I'd rather not talk about anything controversial politically, especially the CInC. But I can tell you Fort Hood was the worst for POTUS haters, Limbaugh on the radio everywhere, everyday, and similar rhetoric otherwise.

Might have considerd it a pervasive lack of discipline. Yet, I have no problem with the avatar known as Carlos.
 
#17,958
#17,958
Grand Vol said:
Being in the USAF at the same time, I'll disagree. We certainly didn't like him, but damned if we put such things out in public. It's called discipline and respect for the position.
Click to expand...

Ehh, there were many who voiced their opinions openly about Clinton. Enough so that the CG of the 101st had to send out a directive. I don’t remember anyone even considering the thought of him being removed from office, just a general thought that he was a POS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#17,967
#17,967
volinbham said:
what is she hiding! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH. She's guilty!!!! Innocent people demand to be investigated.

Sorry, got this confused with Kavanaugh situation.
Click to expand...

You got it backwards. No one says if you're innocent you demand an investigation. The conditional runs the other way--if you're demanding that someone investigate your claims, then you're likely being honest. It does not follow that if you're not demanding an investigation you must have something to hide.
 
#17,969
#17,969
evillawyer said:
You got it backwards. No one says if you're innocent you demand an investigation. The conditional runs the other way--if you're demanding that someone investigate your claims, then you're likely being honest. It does not follow that if you're not demanding an investigation you must have something to hide.
Click to expand...

Have you not been paying attention? Dems are saying because K isn't demanding an FBI investigation he must be guilty. Glad you agree they are 100% wrong and it's a stupid argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy and NorthDallas40
#17,971
#17,971
evillawyer said:
You got it backwards. No one says if you're innocent you demand an investigation. The conditional runs the other way--if you're demanding that someone investigate your claims, then you're likely being honest. It does not follow that if you're not demanding an investigation you must have something to hide.
Click to expand...

What if you are a federal judge and know it doesn’t fall under the FBI to investigate , do you still have to ask so people think you are innocent or no?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top