Trump issues at least two pardons to service members

[Cow Poke]

I suggest you stop whining about people being non-civil in their discussions with you, CP.

A) Stating the obvious is not whining, Jim.
2) I had hopes that you could actually be civil - and you were, very briefly.
C) I never had even an ounce of hope that Charles could be anything other than a nanny - it's what he does.

But, by all means, feel free to defend him at every turn.

[Charles]

Actually, I don't believe you deserve any serious response when all you do us run around the board nannying conservatives. You're a stooge, Charles. A clown. I don't take you seriously at all.

You missed the chance to adress the point once again. And there was an ad hominem

[Cow Poke]

You missed the chance to adress the point once again.

I never miss what I aim at.

And there was an ad hominem

Tissue?

[Charles]

I never miss what I aim at.

And in this case you did not try to adress the point because attacking the person seemed more convincing to you?

Tissue?

I have no problem when you clearly demonstrate that you cannot attack my points and then attack my person instead. It makes it rather obvious that you are in serious problems defending your claim.

[One Bad Pig]

And in this case you did not try to adress the point because attacking the person seemed more convincing to you?



I have no problem when you clearly demonstrate that you cannot attack my points and then attack my person instead. It makes it rather obvious that you are in serious problems defending your claim.

When you raise a valid point, he'll address it. Troll harder, champ.

[Cow Poke]

And in this case you did not try to adress the point because attacking the person seemed more convincing to you?

Charles, I simply don't have any respect for you. You're a clown - and an incredibly hypocritical one, at that. You NEVER nanny your liberal buddies --- you're only here to conservatives.

Show me one single post where you jumped on JimL, for example, for his calling people dummies, morons, idiots...

Then you try to make every post about you.

How bout making some substantial on topic point some day, eh? How bout, at least, trying to be an equal opportunity nanny?

[seer]

It is worth paying with the price of our souls? In this post you have found it ok to use chemical weapons, you have supported your lack of limits pointing to how God told to kill children and the like. You are talking in favour of the lack of principle and decency and thus moving in the completely wrong direction and heading towards exactly what you claim to be against. And you even say it is worth paying with the price of our souls.... I have greater respect for those who actually find that principles worth living for are also worth dying.

I'm not sure what you mean by paying the price with our souls. Would you rather be dead or let the world and your loved ones be consumed with darkness and lose all freedoms? And yes, if it came to using chemical weapons or losing a war with Communists or Jihadists, especially if they are using them, I would have no problem. When the Germans started using Mustard gas the Allies did too, rather than lose the war. I don't think we lost our souls then. Whatever that means... And Charles, I am sticking by my principles, I think there are certain freedoms worth fighting for.

[Mountain Man]

Obama pardons enemies of the US and you get upset when Trump pardons patriots! Twisted...

Trump will never be able to do anything that liberals will consider good. He could cure cancer, and they would call him evil for putting hardworking doctors and researchers out of business.

[demi-conservative]

War is necessary sometimes but we should resist the temptations to be completely given over to our base nature in the process.

Yes.

The rules of war are meant to limit war to it's necessary purpose - to defend against those that would destroy us and take what we have.

No, they're a gentleman's agreement from another era of fighting that only occasionally intersects with what is moral.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes.



No, they're a gentleman's agreement from another era of fighting that only occasionally intersects with what is moral.

I disagree as I have already stated. Your arguments are arguments for utter devastation and amoral behavior with no limits during war. It is sad you are willing to embrace that concept, but I will not.