[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I didn't see Brett's posts before they were edited.......but there is too much copy and past going on for this to be a debate forum.
Brett stands on his own word often enough....but I see a lot of c&p debating by others that is nothing less than 'in your face' posting.
But I admit.....sometimes it is fun

i agree....editing the posts wasn't about brett being "bad"....it was just about techguy's concern w/ copyright....

if i hadn't been so involved in this thread, they probably would'a slipped by unnoticed.....from what brett says, there's a lot of that going on in other threads.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

i agree....editing the posts wasn't about brett being "bad"....it was just about techguy's concern w/ copyright....

if i hadn't been so involved in this thread, they probably would'a slipped by unnoticed.....from what brett says, there's a lot of that going on in other threads.

from what brett says, there's a lot of that going on in other threads.

A tremendous amount, imo.
I like arguing with Brett......he responds with what he's thinking about..........even though he is wrong

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

A tremendous amount, imo.
I like arguing with Brett......he responds with what he's thinking about..........even though he is wrong

as he says, he likes to shoot from the hip....gotta respect that.....tho i imagine that poor leg is riddled with bullet holes

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

First off....there is little worth in reading the whole thread in order to 'catch up'
Most appointments are likely tokenism of some manner.

Personally.....I think it was politically stupid to be placing followers of Islam into security positions at this time.

Essentially, Brett has presented an argument to insert religious discrimination into our legal system.
How he accomplishes that is the mystery.

Originally Posted by Stoner

I think most readers have seen your original argument to block Muslims out of political appointments because of their religion and then not be able to present a legal means of religious discrimination, Brett.
It is a touchy subject.
If there are laws that allow that type of discrimination....the concept of freedom is drastically reduced and the presence of religious theocracies a possibility.


I think you started this thread off poorly.
If you'd have made a case that the two men had objectives that went counter to the welfare of the US......your argument against their being chosen would have seemed logical.....but you based it on religious bias alone .
I remember Lanmaster asking you if there was something in their loyalty to the US that was questionable and you never responded. A mistake in a debate, imo.

Of course choosing them seems poor in the political sense........look how it was received by several members here. I'm doubting much of middle America was impressed, either.

The situation is.....you claim the President has a choice, but you argue to limit it .

The thread got off to a bad start agreed,,,a touchy subject...difficult to express an opinion as trying to not offend anyone.

While I am showing my express of dissatisfaction for for poor choice there will be shots fired back...after all religion is involved.

People can think what they will about me thats is fine....I am sure there are other who feel the same but wont express and thats fine too..

You also agreed it was a poor choice for the same reasons as I...at least you admit it rather than remain silent.....If you think about it jack your decision is based on religion...I dont know why you stood on the fence with this one though......Sometimes I think you get a little bored of the bike and just like use the threads as a track lol......nothing wrong with that,

It would be wrong to enter legislation on the matter at hand agreed.
One would hope that his cic would want to play it very safe with these important appointments....but as we see he appoints tax cheats etc...a nice long list of unorthodox choices.....If legislation is needed it is in that area of the tax cheats etc.....he apparantly just likes to go against the grain.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by iltos

seriously....if you see 'em, report 'em...it is a concern of Techguy Mike's
i wouldn't have removed yours 100% if you'd been around...it you want to add some snippets, send 'em and i'll edit those posts.

They were long as heck...stuck out like a sore thumb

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I didn't see Brett's posts before they were edited.......but there is too much copy and past going on for this to be a debate forum.
Brett stands on his own word often enough....but I see a lot of c&p debating by others that is nothing less than 'in your face' posting.
But I admit.....sometimes it is fun

They had some scroll...poochee would have loved them had the topic been different

[iltos]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

The thread got off to a bad start agreed,,,a touchy subject...difficult to express an opinion as trying to not offend anyone.

it only got off to a bad start because you chose two extraordinarily biased sources in those early posts....

personally, i trust your own opinions on matters like this, even if i disagree with them.....trying to bolster them with that garbage you posted IS a slap in the face to the vast majority of muslims, and anyone who gives a crap about this country.....that was your mistake

jeez....even LAN saw it that way

While I am showing my express of dissatisfaction for for poor choice there will be shots fired back...after all religion is involved.

but if you noticed, the shots fired back where about freedom more than about religion.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by iltos

i understand that's the way you FEEL brett...and you're free to argue it all you want....there's just no evidence to back it up.

personally, my FEELING is that both were chosen because they offer unique perspectives on foreign affairs and homeland security.....both which concern this administration in different ways than the previous one.

there's no evidence for that, either

.
what stoner said is that they were politically stupid....judging by the hysteria about 'em, he's unfortunately correct, imo.

Stoner is correct it was a poor choice.
you feel they were chosen as they could offer a unique perspective...thats fine,,,,lets just dont put them at the top of the totem pole...thats my concern

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

,,,,lets just dont put them at the top of the totem pole...thats my concern

Muslims, totem poles.....the mixed metaphors are giving me heartburn.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

A tremendous amount, imo.
I like arguing with Brett......he responds with what he's thinking about..........even though he is wrong

Its fun arguing with you,,,,but you require alot of energy.....I wear out the coffee pot while you wear out the search feature

[Bastiat]

You may want to also consider that considering a persons' political affiliation is, apparently, not allowed in political appointments vis-a-vie US Attorneys and mass firings. At least that's what the liberals tell us in Congress.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by iltos

it only got off to a bad start because you chose two extraordinarily biased sources in those early posts....

personally, i trust your own opinions on matters like this, even if i disagree with them.....trying to bolster them with that garbage you posted IS a slap in the face to the vast majority of muslims, and anyone who gives a crap about this country.....that was your mistake

jeez....even LAN saw it that way





but if you noticed, the shots fired back where about freedom more than about religion.

I have found that the lefts always discount the source.
There was no polite way of me expressing my dissatisfaction with his choice.
Besides if you are going you kick in the door you dont knock first do you

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

..................

You also agreed it was a poor choice for the same reasons as I...at least you admit it rather than remain silent.....If you think about it jack your decision is based on religion...I dont know why you stood on the fence with this one though......Sometimes I think you get a little bored of the bike and just like use the threads as a track lol......nothing wrong with that,
...................................

No....I agree on one point, not your entire line of thought.

If you think about it jack your decision is based on religion

I thought about it............it's your take on religious discrimination that's the issue..

I dont know why you stood on the fence with this one though

What?.....this?
I'll ask you again.....how do you intend to impose legal restriction barring people from government appointments on the basis of religion?
This is not an issue of the President's choice, it's an issue of limiting the President's choice......and that is your argument.
I think you have a Constitutional problem to address and it's obvious you dodge it because you likely don't have an answer.

Well......I'd sure like to see the fence first before I choose a side.

Sometimes I think you get a little bored of the bike and just like use the threads as a track

This forum used to be a lot more active and a lot more interesting, imo.
It's controversial threads like this that I like to 'play' in ......that's a compliment.

Haven't been able to ride the bike much more than a couple hundred miles this year.....a lot more family commitments the last few years keep me near the house a lot more.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Its fun arguing with you,,,,but you require alot of energy.....I wear out the coffee pot while you wear out the search feature

Alot? His strategy is that of the constrictor. It doesn't happen at first.... he gives you time to exhale. And then he hangs on.....



I think I had to set up a tent near the computer the last time Jack let into me...

[iltos]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

I have found that the lefts always discount the source.

heh
funny, there are conservatives on this board -you included- who do exactly the same....
been that way forever
it's why i choose to take the time to post about WHAT some sources are actually saying

which makes me a source, i guess ....and only wacor will actually read and respond to my deconstructions....and then, only if they're about something he's posted
gotta respect him for that....one of the more open minds 'round here, imo.....it's made for some interesting discussions, too

There was no polite way of me expressing my dissatisfaction with his choice.

hogwash....you kinda liked the tone from those sources....
c'mon....admit it

Besides if you are going you kick in the door you dont knock first do you

i rest my case