N Korea's Nuke Submarine - Page 3
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: N Korea's Nuke Submarine

  1. #21
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    3,803

    Default

    [QUOTE=road kill;2171606]
    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    If one didn't know better, one might think it's been a concerted effort to spam the board and drown opposing viewpoints out.

    RK...Yep! Pretty much consistent with Tactics defined by Thomas Sowell in his book 'The Vision of the Anointed' He commented regarding how some people use "Arguments Without Arguments"...e.g. "making opaque proclamations with an air of certainty and sophistication." In other words try to place yourself above others to avoid logical arguments!

    Tigerlilly, unknowingly uses this tactic frequently by talking down to others and building himself up...thus hoping to avoid any legitimate argument.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    So when do you think it became a "non threatening" neighbor? Was it after it threatened us with a nuclear war. Or was it after it cleaned its jails out and shipped them to us? How many countries has it meddled in,in this hemisphere, against our own best interest, including Venezuella, only recently?

    So you think that when Fidell died and Raul is no longer president, it is no longer "threatening"? Tell me what policies have changed. What policies we now agree. Tell me any agreement we have other than recognition and what we got in return other than, as YOU say, "non threatening"?

    PS
    It isn't who had died or who is president, it is what policies have changed. I would think that such a scholar of the Constitution would know that.
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan View Post
    Cuba does not possess nuclear weapons.
    So how in the world could they threaten us with nuclear war?

    I've grown weary of trying to educate swampy; don't fall in that same swamp.

    You were the one that introduced the Castro Brothers as Boogeyman into this discussion; not me
    I just tried to educate you on the current status of the CastrosI would think that was obvious to most minimally informed Americans know but obviously you fall beneath that low standard.

    God it's frustrating to get down to your level but please tell me what in your delusional world the Constitution would have to do with what policies Cuba has in place.
    Good grief man it's 2019.
    You are the idiot that said Cuba "was a friendly country" and evidently thinks so because it NO LONGER has a nuclear capability. You do know that the former USSR, Russia and Cuba are the only actually comfirmed countries to ever be able to deliver a nuclear warhead on the US mainland, don't you?? I don't know of a single US policy regarding the Western Hemisphere, in the last 60 years, that Cuba has supported, much less been friendly toward the US. You can call it a friendly country but I don't. By the way, you were the one that brought "nuclear capability" as a requisite of being "unfriendly". Your claiming to understand the "current status" of Cuba appears to be about as accurate as its past history. Nothing in its policy indicates it is "friendly" toward the US.

  4. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan View Post
    ] good God man it's 2019

    Your post may not be very educational but boy their entertaining.

    Let's do a brief rundown of some of my favorite things I've learned from crazy Cary's Posts thus far in 2019.

    Franco is retarded because he's trying to warn us about a possible Danger from a brutal 36 year old dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen and relatives and whatever.
    He is also threatened to annihilate the United States with nuclear weapons and on Trump's watch has developed the capacity and Warheads that he can deliver nuclear strikes to anywhere on the mainland United States.
    Now his aggression and weaponry will soon include a nuclear submarine.

    Cary once again points out what an idiot Franco is and that the real threat we have is with Fidel Castro and Cuba. The threat posed here is much more real in light of the fact that you but has not had nuclear weaponry for 56 years and Castro has been dead for 3 years.
    Delivery Systems does Cuba have you ask?. It's hard to decipher crazy carries message but it's all I can presume is since he brought up Good Neighbor Sam RV parks maybe Cuba will deliver their nuclear non-existent weapons by hooking them up to one of the 1952 Chevrolet cars crowding their streets and pulling a RV trailer from they're good neighbor Sam RV Park across 90 miles of the Atlantic Ocean.
    Let's check a few other things we've learned from Cary this year
    Let's see Nancy Pelosi canceled President Trump State of Union Address.

    President Trump was elected in 2016, but his Administration has apparently not started yet.

    Robert Mueller has always been one of Cary's most admired public servants. But the fact that he completely complied with the Constitution and his promise to not give any more information that was in his report proved that he is now senile. Don't pay attention to the fact that all the people that got convicted while he was mentally incapacitated could get a new trial based on that mental incapacitation
    Crazy Cary knows his hero is incapacitated.
    United States Constitution apparently controls Cuba's policy-making.

    The relevant factors to determine whether or not the 2016 Republican platform softened in relationship to Russia annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine is to Compare the 2012 Republican platform with the 2016 Republican platform.
    EVEN THOUGH RUSSIA DIDN'T INVADE UKRAINE UNTIL 2014, the 2012 platform is somehow relevant!!!!

    Over a decade ago Barack Obama said you can keep your doctor, that statement somehow absolves Every Lie Donald Trump says now!!

    Now wise Cary could you answer a few more questions for me.
    Did Nancy cancel the State of the Union Address because the administration of trump had not begun yet?

    The Japs bombed Pearl Harbor back in 1941. Should we be laying in bed Sleepless because they might try that again this time possibly on New Port News
    You reckon we ought to keep our eyes out for Hannibal and a bunch of elephants crossing the Rocky Mountains to take us over.

    The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was during FDR's 3rd term. Has FDR'S Administration begun yet?

    Castro seize control of Cuba 60 years ago. I know he's still a huge threat to attack us with nuclear weapons even though he's been dead three years and they haven't had nuclear weapons for 56 years.
    But 60 years after he took control of Cuba and three years after his death ......has his administration begun yet?

    Are you and swampy related.?
    Is Marvin your daddy?

    Good grief man it's 2019
    As usual, you combine so many issues in one post that it is difficult to respond. So let me take only a couple of issues in this post.

    You make fun of my admiration of Meuller and then imply that I am critical of him because his interview shows that he has far less command of his understanding of the issues than he did when interviewed by Congress after 9/11. Dementia, Alzheimer's, cancer, Polio, MS, Diabetes, Autism and Lupus are but a few chronic illnesses that affect most of us and our families and NEVER have I ever implied any criticism of one because they had such an illness. Alchoholism, Tobacco addiction, and Narcotic Addiction are usually but not always aquired by choice. Those that enter recovery and remain so, I also respect and to an extent, admire. I reserve the use of the word "admire" for those that I find character and principle. I can respect the acts of some while not admiring their character or principle. So when you claim that I admire Trump, nothing could be farther from the truth. That doesn't mean that I will always disagree with all his policies and his acts of governing.

    After 911, Meuller testified before Congress. He needed no documents. He needed no help from aides. He was in command of all the issues and responded quickly and affirmatively. In a word, he was impressive. I recorded almost all his testimony(if you can call it that) and have watched all of it more than once. There are parts I have watched over and over. I see an aide turning the pages and pointing a finger many times at the portion of the report that is being referenced by a question and I see him many times, staring at the report with a quizical look and giving no response. It pains me to see him used the way he was used and I have little respect and less admiration for those that allowed this to happen to such a fine man. Yes, I now have concerns about the report and yes I want to know more about who actually wrote it and who wrote the conclusions of the report. No, it doesn't mean that I have any less respect or admiration for Meuller. You say that should Meuller be found to have Dementia, the guilty pleas and verdicts could be overturned. Well, in my opinion, if that is the case, then SO BE IT. Maybe that is exactly what needs to happen.

    Your posts consist mostly of attacks and personal redicule and offer little of constructive criticism and even less of alternative policy. You ask many questions but answer virtually none. You attack one of many that are running for President, but when asked the simple question, who you would vote for today, you slink like a vampire, from the light of day and reuturn to the shadows.

    You say you enjoy debate but actually engage virtually nobody in debate. Instead you choose to draw totally unfounded conclusions as to what many say and even what they think as if you have a crystal ball that reveals their minds and thought. Almost always you are wrong when it comes to what I think and berlieve and I assume that is also the case with most here.

    Concerning the Republican Platform, I think you will find that each successive Platform Committee will take the previous platform and make changes, deletions and additions as it sees fit. That is then presented to the full Convention for approval. For over 3 years now, it has been claimed that Trump "softened" the Republican Platform concerning Russia and the Ukrane and I have stated that this claim is false. You have brought up that Russia did not invade the Ukrane until after the 2012 Platform was approved and that it true. But that does not conclusively prove or disprove the claim that Trump softened the 2016 Platform concernng Russia and the Ukrane. I will let you figure out this last sentence.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #24
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    14,960

    Default

    When every day you post a "meme" to support your position, soon you too become a "meme."

    Every answer is supported by a cartoon.
    Hence, the King of Cartoon.

    Nothing more than an onslaught of spam to silence legitimate conversation.
    Stan b & Elvis

    So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory, the MOMENT." ~ Aldo Leopold

  7. #25
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    3,803

    Default

    RK.....I agree, you nailed it! They will either not respond or they will deflect to another topic..!

  8. #26
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    DuLarge-Dulac-Cocodrie Metroplex, La.
    Posts
    15,999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    When every day you post a "meme" to support your position, soon you too become a "meme."

    Every answer is supported by a cartoon.
    Hence, the King of Cartoon.

    Nothing more than an onslaught of spam to silence legitimate conversation.
    Memes are today's Editorial Cartoons.

    The reason you and others get butt-hurt over them is because they portray reality!

    Don't be such an obvious snowflake.
    “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U S Constitution
    This entire impeachment process is just going to be all about knocking down the most offensively stupid arguments from Trump supporters.









  9. #27
    Senior Member blind ambition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver CANADA
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post

    Concerning the Republican Platform, I think you will find that each successive Platform Committee will take the previous platform and make changes, deletions and additions as it sees fit. That is then presented to the full Convention for approval. For over 3 years now, it has been claimed that Trump "softened" the Republican Platform concerning Russia and the Ukrane and I have stated that this claim is false. You have brought up that Russia did not invade the Ukrane until after the 2012 Platform was approved and that it true. But that does not conclusively prove or disprove the claim that Trump softened the 2016 Platform concernng Russia and the Ukrane. I will let you figure out this last sentence.
    These claims were made by a Republican Committee member they aren’t the fabrication of posters here who are negative on Trump. You have for the past three years independently and repeatedly raised this subject as vague argument to question the veracity of those with whom you disagree. Rather than cite any proof to back up your position you continued to present a false linkage between the Platforms of 2012 and 16, which in spite of the best efforts of others, you have only just now apparently grasped. Congratulations at this rate you should be able to deal with the first reported lies of the Trump presidency in the next couple of months.

    https://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/48887...aid-to-ukraine

    One of the questions raised over the course of this year's presidential race is about how a President Trump would deal with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
    One reason to wonder: the Republican Party platform's new language on policy towards Ukraine.
    When Republican Party leaders drafted the platform prior to their convention in Cleveland last month, they had relatively little input from the campaign of then-presumptive nominee Donald Trump on most issues — except when it came to a future Republican administration's stance on Ukraine.
    It started when platform committee member Diana Denman tried to insert language calling for the U.S. to provide lethal defensive weapons to the Ukrainian government, which is fighting a separatist insurrection backed by Russia. Denman says she had no idea she was "going into a fire fight," calling it "an interesting exchange, to say the least."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...256_story.html



    Opinions
    Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine











    Donald Trump is expected to be officially nominated as the Republican candidate for president on July 18. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)


    By Josh Rogin



    July 18, 2016

    The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.
    Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.
    My concurrence is so vigorous that elucidation becomes a challenge I must now, in the interest of time, shrink from.

    Roseberry



  10. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blind ambition View Post
    These claims were made by a Republican Committee member they aren’t the fabrication of posters here who are negative on Trump. You have for the past three years independently and repeatedly raised this subject as vague argument to question the veracity of those with whom you disagree. Rather than cite any proof to back up your position you continued to present a false linkage between the Platforms of 2012 and 16, which in spite of the best efforts of others, you have only just now apparently grasped. Congratulations at this rate you should be able to deal with the first reported lies of the Trump presidency in the next couple of months.

    https://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/48887...aid-to-ukraine

    One of the questions raised over the course of this year's presidential race is about how a President Trump would deal with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
    One reason to wonder: the Republican Party platform's new language on policy towards Ukraine.
    When Republican Party leaders drafted the platform prior to their convention in Cleveland last month, they had relatively little input from the campaign of then-presumptive nominee Donald Trump on most issues — except when it came to a future Republican administration's stance on Ukraine.
    It started when platform committee member Diana Denman tried to insert language calling for the U.S. to provide lethal defensive weapons to the Ukrainian government, which is fighting a separatist insurrection backed by Russia. Denman says she had no idea she was "going into a fire fight," calling it "an interesting exchange, to say the least."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...256_story.html



    Opinions
    Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine











    Donald Trump is expected to be officially nominated as the Republican candidate for president on July 18. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)


    By Josh Rogin



    July 18, 2016

    The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.
    Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.
    First let me say that Breck is right and on the face of it, it is of little importance. Its only importance is relative to the constant rants and raves of how many lies Trump tells. Franco once posted a link to Politifact where this particular claim was one of the top four of thousands. That is what makes it important.

    Now to your claim. First your claim concerning the 2012 Platform. Franco made the statement that the 2016 Democrat Platform was the CURRENT Platform and that anything that any Democrat candidate proposed could not be in the current platform. I actually AGREED with him and used that as an additional arguement that the Trump campaign never "softened the platform".

    THANK YOU for posting the link to the NPR editorial which is actually FALSE!! For your information, the Platform Committee does NOT draft the Platform. It DRAFTS the PROPOSED Platform which is voted on by the whole Convention Delegation,which can also make additions, deletions and amendments. I simply used the 2012 Platform ASSUMING that all would realize that there had been no additions, deletions nor admendments to it PRIOR to 2016. I listened to the former Republican Platforman Chairman(not Paul Manafort who was Campaign Chairman) who was interviewed by Katie Kurick. I do not think even the wording in the editorial is accurate as I have no idea how a "defensive weapon" in this circumstance could not be "LETHAL". To the best of my memory, he said the reference was to call for "lethal action", which was changed to "appropriate action". That is the only reference in ANY Republican Platform be it in the 2012, 2013(if there ever was one, you do now see why I referenced it) or 2015 1/2 (if there was one, which I strongly doubt) Republican Platform. The wording that appears in the 2016 Republicsn is the ONLY wording the references Russia and the Ukrane and there is no way that I can find any other wording THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

    One last thought, I have served on a number of executive boards of various organizations. I would not be surprised if one were to think that if there is a "nominating committee" for officers, that those proposed were automatically nominated to lan office. I hav found this not to be true. The proposals of the nominating committee must also be acccepted by the whole club. There are a numbr of reasons that one someone is proposed for office by the Nominating Committee will not lbe nominated. I will leave it to you to tlhink of some.

  11. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    4,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blind ambition View Post
    These claims were made by a Republican Committee member they aren’t the fabrication of posters here who are negative on Trump. You have for the past three years independently and repeatedly raised this subject as vague argument to question the veracity of those with whom you disagree. Rather than cite any proof to back up your position you continued to present a false linkage between the Platforms of 2012 and 16, which in spite of the best efforts of others, you have only just now apparently grasped. Congratulations at this rate you should be able to deal with the first reported lies of the Trump presidency in the next couple of months.

    https://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/48887...aid-to-ukraine

    ……,......

    dead horse.jpg

  12. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blind ambition View Post
    These claims were made by a Republican Committee member they aren’t the fabrication of posters here who are negative on Trump. You have for the past three years independently and repeatedly raised this subject as vague argument to question the veracity of those with whom you disagree. Rather than cite any proof to back up your position you continued to present a false linkage between the Platforms of 2012 and 16, which in spite of the best efforts of others, you have only just now apparently grasped. Congratulations at this rate you should be able to deal with the first reported lies of the Trump presidency in the next couple of months.

    https://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/48887...aid-to-ukraine

    One of the questions raised over the course of this year's presidential race is about how a President Trump would deal with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
    One reason to wonder: the Republican Party platform's new language on policy towards Ukraine.
    When Republican Party leaders drafted the platform prior to their convention in Cleveland last month, they had relatively little input from the campaign of then-presumptive nominee Donald Trump on most issues — except when it came to a future Republican administration's stance on Ukraine.
    It started when platform committee member Diana Denman tried to insert language calling for the U.S. to provide lethal defensive weapons to the Ukrainian government, which is fighting a separatist insurrection backed by Russia. Denman says she had no idea she was "going into a fire fight," calling it "an interesting exchange, to say the least."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...256_story.html



    Opinions
    Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine











    Donald Trump is expected to be officially nominated as the Republican candidate for president on July 18. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)


    By Josh Rogin



    July 18, 2016

    The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.
    Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.
    I went back and checked again the Platform Here is the exact language.

    "We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions(so much for reducing sanctions), together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's soverengnty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning. All our adversaries heard the message in the Administration's cutbacks.

    Let me here also add that the Trump Administration has also provided defenfive weapons that were also suggested by either State or Defense or both during the Obma Administration but that advise was rejected by Obama.

    The 2016 Platform was approved on July 18 by the Republican Convention. I do not know how to make this more clear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •