• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Articulate Op-Ed Piece Explains Why Negativity Toxic

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
Sounds to me that you just don't want negetive things about your leader brought up. Seems to me that you would rather put your head in the sand and pretend that they don't exist. That will get is nothing but trouble.

Sounds like you did not read what I wrote because I said something very different than that.

I read it and understood it. You think we need to put perfume on a turd and pretend it doesn't stink. I don't see where there is anything to be gained by pretending something doesn't exist when it does.

It's telling when you're not carping about negetive stories about Obama that are false, you just don't want any negetive Obama stories period. You know they're true, but you just don't want to hear them.
 

TSR

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
TSR said:
aplusmnt said:
See what happens when you have someone like Clinton cutting spending, then when a war breaks out the new President has to work with what was left him.

Same thing now, when Obama starts cutting military contracts and cuts military spending. The next President will have to pay for it.


Ps. You sure have a lot of friends to fit every discussion! :lol:


Aplus, This war just didn't "break out" it was planned, maybe not very well, but planned. And it was a disgrace for Rumsfield to send our troops into battle w/out the armor or anything else they might have needed.

Sure it was planned, but if we waited until every aspect was perfect then it would never happen. Not to mention War has surprises and things that you learn as you go. You can never be prepared for everything.

Should we put off all wars until the newest fighter jet or newest rocket or newest bomber is finished because it will save lives.

A quick and strong action needed to be taken and we had to do that with what Clinton left Bush!

You go to Congress and say here is the deal, I need 300 billion dollars for this and this so I can go to war. You tell me how many Democrats will approve that? They will filibuster until they can not filibuster any more.

But what we must do is to make sure that we are as well prepared as humanly possible. Soldiers going in to war without body armor is like a SWAT team going after a serial killer of policeman with their t-shirts on. Surely you UNDERSTAND this!
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIUhfKE9P9Y
What are the chances she will show up??? ZERO...because she is gutless!!!

Negativity is relative to one's beliefs and knowledge. Being ignorant of negativity(such as the assassinate Bush film) skews your prospective of balance of "who is being negative". Much of the left doesn't want to hear what the right has to say...the media/administration attacks against Fox, Rush, Beck, Laura....the fairness doctrine...this is all to silence the opposition. The right is floating in a sea of leftwing ideologues, many posing as journalist.

For this forum...civility and substance should always be the goal in debates.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TSR said:
aplusmnt said:
TSR said:
Aplus, This war just didn't "break out" it was planned, maybe not very well, but planned. And it was a disgrace for Rumsfield to send our troops into battle w/out the armor or anything else they might have needed.

Sure it was planned, but if we waited until every aspect was perfect then it would never happen. Not to mention War has surprises and things that you learn as you go. You can never be prepared for everything.

Should we put off all wars until the newest fighter jet or newest rocket or newest bomber is finished because it will save lives.

A quick and strong action needed to be taken and we had to do that with what Clinton left Bush!

You go to Congress and say here is the deal, I need 300 billion dollars for this and this so I can go to war. You tell me how many Democrats will approve that? They will filibuster until they can not filibuster any more.

But what we must do is to make sure that we are as well prepared as humanly possible. Soldiers going in to war without body armor is like a SWAT team going after a serial killer of policeman with their t-shirts on. Surely you UNDERSTAND this!

TSR when I served most of us dumped the so called "body armour". Now I'm sure it's better now but all it did back then was get you killed and you were safer in the t-shirt....I was much happier when we got M-16's and could junk the 40 year old rifles.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I didn't watch the video because I saw it was about some Hollywood person who thinks because they have been a successful actor, they can speak authoritatively about politics. I have said before that I don't like the leftist Hollywood types. They are to my mind full of rhetoric and lacking in substantive thinking and studying. It's arrogant to use celebrity to try to influence people religiously (like Travolta or Cruise) or politically. Their views are no more valid or weighty than any other citizen's.

Why give them more credit or attention than they deserve?
I agree with what you say, but it doesn't apply to the video.
 

Mike

Well-known member
But what we must do is to make sure that we are as well prepared as humanly possible. Soldiers going in to war without body armor is like a SWAT team going after a serial killer of policeman with their t-shirts on. Surely you UNDERSTAND this!

They all had "Body Armor", i.e, Flak Jackets. But they weren't as efficient or as safe as the newer "Interceptor" two-pieced ceramic kits.

These jackets were new technology and were being made as fast as possible. Some even complained about them being made outside the U.S. :lol: but the defense department was letting anyone make them in order to have enough.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mike said:
But what we must do is to make sure that we are as well prepared as humanly possible. Soldiers going in to war without body armor is like a SWAT team going after a serial killer of policeman with their t-shirts on. Surely you UNDERSTAND this!

They all had "Body Armor", i.e, Flak Jackets. But they weren't as efficient or as safe as the newer "Interceptor" two-pieced ceramic kits.

These jackets were new technology and were being made as fast as possible. Some even complained about them being made outside the U.S. :lol: but the defense department was letting anyone make them in order to have enough.

Little facts like this seem to get in the way of liberal reasoning! :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
reader (the Second) said:
I didn't watch the video because I saw it was about some Hollywood person who thinks because they have been a successful actor, they can speak authoritatively about politics. I have said before that I don't like the leftist Hollywood types. They are to my mind full of rhetoric and lacking in substantive thinking and studying. It's arrogant to use celebrity to try to influence people religiously (like Travolta or Cruise) or politically. Their views are no more valid or weighty than any other citizen's.

Why give them more credit or attention than they deserve?
I agree with what you say, but it doesn't apply to the video.

While refusal to educate yourself or check the facts (because of your bias), before you comment on a topic, is very much the point of the video.
 

TSR

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Mike said:
But what we must do is to make sure that we are as well prepared as humanly possible. Soldiers going in to war without body armor is like a SWAT team going after a serial killer of policeman with their t-shirts on. Surely you UNDERSTAND this!

They all had "Body Armor", i.e, Flak Jackets. But they weren't as efficient or as safe as the newer "Interceptor" two-pieced ceramic kits.

These jackets were new technology and were being made as fast as possible. Some even complained about them being made outside the U.S. :lol: but the defense department was letting anyone make them in order to have enough.

Little facts like this seem to get in the way of liberal reasoning! :roll:

Then I guess the soldiers I remember complaining about the absence of sufficient armor for them and their vehicles must have been liberals.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Then I guess the soldiers I remember complaining about the absence of sufficient armor for them and their vehicles must have been liberals.

The Hummer armor is an entirely different story. Those vehicles were not equipped with sufficient armor when built because the phenomenon of "IED's" and roadside bombs had never been encountered to such a dgree.

Those insurgents found a flaw in the armor and exploited it. No one could have known.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
Then I guess the soldiers I remember complaining about the absence of sufficient armor for them and their vehicles must have been liberals.

The Hummer armor is an entirely different story. Those vehicles were not equipped with sufficient armor when built because the phenomenon of "IED's" and roadside bombs had never been encountered to such a dgree.

Those insurgents found a flaw in the armor and exploited it. No one could have known.

True, maybe, about the IED's. But not true about RPG's which alos caused many deaths/damage. And the soldiers on tv I saw if my memory serves me, were talking about both armors- personal and vehicle.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
Then I guess the soldiers I remember complaining about the absence of sufficient armor for them and their vehicles must have been liberals.

The Hummer armor is an entirely different story. Those vehicles were not equipped with sufficient armor when built because the phenomenon of "IED's" and roadside bombs had never been encountered to such a dgree.

Those insurgents found a flaw in the armor and exploited it. No one could have known.

True, maybe, about the IED's. But not true about RPG's which alos caused many deaths/damage. And the soldiers on tv I saw if my memory serves me, were talking about both armors- personal and vehicle.

There are several different kinds of RPG's, and some can even damage a tank. There is no way to make a Tank out of a Hummer.

You sure have backed off of your original statement:
And it was a disgrace for Rumsfield to send our troops into battle w/out the armor or anything else they might have needed.

Were you saying they had NOTHING they needed because of Rumsfeld? Sure looks like it. :roll:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
TSR said:
Mike said:
The Hummer armor is an entirely different story. Those vehicles were not equipped with sufficient armor when built because the phenomenon of "IED's" and roadside bombs had never been encountered to such a dgree.

Those insurgents found a flaw in the armor and exploited it. No one could have known.

True, maybe, about the IED's. But not true about RPG's which alos caused many deaths/damage. And the soldiers on tv I saw if my memory serves me, were talking about both armors- personal and vehicle.

There are several different kinds of RPG's, and some can even damage a tank. There is no way to make a Tank out of a Hummer.

True, "some" RPG's are meant for tanks. They didn't want their Hummers made into tanks but just more resistant to the "standard RPG" attack if I understood what they were saying.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
TSR said:
True, maybe, about the IED's. But not true about RPG's which alos caused many deaths/damage. And the soldiers on tv I saw if my memory serves me, were talking about both armors- personal and vehicle.

There are several different kinds of RPG's, and some can even damage a tank. There is no way to make a Tank out of a Hummer.

True, "some" RPG's are meant for tanks. They didn't want their Hummers made into tanks but just more resistant to the "standard RPG" attack if I understood what they were saying.

There is no way to make a Hum-Vee RPG proof. Why didn't the Land-Rover from England get as much adverse publicity?

Reason: You Libs were trying to find anything you could fault Rumsfeld with. :roll:

Hum-Vees were not meant to be a battle machine, just like the jeeps that were used intil the 1980's they are a fast moving mode of ground transportation, nothing else. :roll:
 

TSR

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
There are several different kinds of RPG's, and some can even damage a tank. There is no way to make a Tank out of a Hummer.

Nor will any type body armor ever make the human body 100% bullet proof.

But we do want as much resistance as possible with respect to any projectile, before going into battle don't we??
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
TSR you are missing the point, with Iraq came new needs and new needs take time to produce. Problem is these obstacles can not always be foreseen until you go to battle.

Same thing happened in Vietnam, and all other wars. Once you get there new needs will be needed.

Like Mike said about the body armour, it was new technology and being made as quick as they could to get it to troops!

As Mike has shown you, things are not always as cut and dry as what you learn in the liberal media. There usually is a little more to the story. Kind of like the Repeal of the Glass Steagall act.

Stick with us and we will help you to see the whole truth! :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
There are several different kinds of RPG's, and some can even damage a tank. There is no way to make a Tank out of a Hummer.

Nor will any type body armor ever make the human body 100% bullet proof.

But we do want as much resistance as possible with respect to any projectile, before going into battle don't we??

They tried to RPG proof and EID proof the Hum-Vee but the suspension wouldn't hold the weight. They would have to totally re-engineer the Hum-Vee and build new ones to make that work.

You can't build a vehicle to repel "ANY" projectile. :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mike said:
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
Nor will any type body armor ever make the human body 100% bullet proof.

But we do want as much resistance as possible with respect to any projectile, before going into battle don't we??

They tried to RPG proof and EID proof the Hum-Vee but the suspension wouldn't hold the weight. They would have to totally re-engineer the Hum-Vee and build new ones to make that work.

You can't build a vehicle to repel "ANY" projectile. :roll:

Liberals always look for an angle to justify their stance. Kind of like late term abortion, the grasp to the moms health argument even though it is a minor reason women do it.

If a liberal can find one tiny reason they will base their whole beliefs on that fraction of truth. We see it in OT and the Glass Steagall act. Just the way of the liberal.
 

Latest posts

Top