Strike 3,956 Posted June 9, 2006 I give up Joe. I'm not going to argue with someone who can not admit the obvious. Why would you expect anything different? He won't admit that committing a crime is illegal lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joneo 529 Posted June 9, 2006 Why would you expect anything different? He won't admit that committing a crime is illegal lol I'm sure Joe is a good person and I know he is smart. I DO expect better out of him. Every so often, he goes IMO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 0 Posted June 9, 2006 I give up Joe. I'm not going to argue with someone who can not admit the obvious. Don't argue with yourself, then. It's patently obvious what the difference between fault and responsibility is, especially in the military chain of command. No matter WHAT happens, and who actually is at fault, it's the Commander in Chief's responsibility. Always. Why would you expect anything different? He won't admit that committing a crime is illegal lol you won't admit what a hapless, lying sack of yaksperm you are, will you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,956 Posted June 9, 2006 Don't argue with yourself, then. It's patently obvious what the difference between fault and responsibility is, especially in the military chain of command. No matter WHAT happens, and who actually is at fault, it's the Commander in Chief's responsibility. Always.you won't admit what a hapless, lying sack of yaksperm you are, will you? Why don't you answer my question? How is Bush responsible for the irresponsible actions of one of his private citizens? Instead you resort to name calling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 0 Posted June 9, 2006 Why don't you answer my question? How is Bush responsible for the irresponsible actions of one of his private citizens? Instead you resort to name calling. Because he hired him for the job in Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,956 Posted June 9, 2006 Because he hired him for the job in Iraq. Hmmm, I'd love to see a link to find out exactly what the definition of "hiring him" means. You'll have to excuse me if I"m a little skeptical of anything you write, given your past history. My understanding is he was there on business and didn't heed specific warnings about how he was going about his business. Even if Bush sent him there, if he was told to leave or not go certain places and did anyways you can't hold Bush responsible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 0 Posted June 9, 2006 Hmmm, I'd love to see a link to find out exactly what the definition of "hiring him" means. You'll have to excuse me if I"m a little skeptical of anything you write, given your past history. My understanding is he was there on business and didn't heed specific warnings about how he was going about his business. Even if Bush sent him there, if he was told to leave or not go certain places and did anyways you can't hold Bush responsible. I misspoke. He wasn't working at the time; the contract he thought he'd gotten turned out to have fallen through. So he wasn't on government contract. He was detained by the US military and then let go, and in the process of trying to leave the country he was apprehended. Based on that, I agree that Bush isn't responsible. Of course, without Bush taking us to war Berg's son would likely never have even gone to Iraq, but Nick Berg was entirely on his own when he was abducted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,956 Posted June 9, 2006 I misspoke. He wasn't working at the time; the contract he thought he'd gotten turned out to have fallen through. So he wasn't on government contract. He was detained by the US military and then let go, and in the process of trying to leave the country he was apprehended. Based on that, I agree that Bush isn't responsible. Of course, without Bush taking us to war Berg's son would likely never have even gone to Iraq, but Nick Berg was entirely on his own when he was abducted. Why is it anytime you're WRONG you "misspoke" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted June 9, 2006 I misspoke. He wasn't working at the time; the contract he thought he'd gotten turned out to have fallen through. So he wasn't on government contract. He was detained by the US military and then let go, and in the process of trying to leave the country he was apprehended. Based on that, I agree that Bush isn't responsible. Of course, without Bush along with congress taking us to war Berg's son would likely never have even gone to Iraq, but Nick Berg was entirely on his own when he was abducted. fixed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 0 Posted June 9, 2006 Why is it anytime you're WRONG you "misspoke" what the hell is the difference? I was wrong. I had Berg's status confused with that of the four contractors in Fallujah. Satisfied? fixed. Congress didn't take us to war. Be serious. They let the President take us. If Congress had taken us, there'd be some kind of bill that did it. There wasn't one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,956 Posted June 9, 2006 what the hell is the difference? I was wrong. I had Berg's status confused with that of the four contractors in Fallujah. Satisfied? The difference is "misspoke" is what you allege Francine Busby did last week, and being wrong is when you're flat out wrong. Wrong is not equal to misspoke but I appreciate you finally admitting you're wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted June 9, 2006 Congress didn't take us to war. Be serious. They let the President take us. If Congress had taken us, there'd be some kind of bill that did it. There wasn't one. Oh for cryin out loud. You're unfockingreal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 0 Posted June 9, 2006 The difference is "misspoke" is what you allege Francine Busby did last week, and being wrong is when you're flat out wrong. Wrong is not equal to misspoke but I appreciate you finally admitting you're wrong. Fair enough. You can misspeak because you're wrong, but I was wrong on the facts regardless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tusekan Raiders 0 Posted June 9, 2006 Violence begets violence is what he's convinced of. I would absolutely agree with him except for believing we'll NEVER get to the point where we all agree on peace. Just because of human nature, so you have to do something. The fighting it takes to overcome the world they'd want us to live or die in is worth it. This is such an incredibly lucid point it hardly belongs in thread like this that was doomed at inception to stupidity from polarized political opinions. Bravo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,956 Posted June 9, 2006 Fair enough. You can misspeak because you're wrong, but I was wrong on the facts regardless. Muhammad, unlike you I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. And I try very hard not to misspeak. I proofread my posts for spelling, grammar, and content. I also often check my facts before posting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joneo 529 Posted June 10, 2006 I'm still waiting for an apology. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted June 10, 2006 Congress didn't take us to war. Be serious. They let the President take us. If Congress had taken us, there'd be some kind of bill that did it. There wasn't one. I guess you missed that whole Resolution thing that was voted on, and passed by a huge majority. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joneo 529 Posted June 10, 2006 Because he hired him for the job in Iraq. Even if he did hire him for a job, the greedy idiot took the job. To me, that implies the kid made the decision to be there, thus he is at fault and responsible for his own action/decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
