|
|
| Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? (918845) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (919581) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 00:21:21 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 00:07:38 2012. I never suggested that it does. It's just interesting to note how careful one must be when dealing with Islamic terrorism. Obama is not the only guilty party. Bloomberg overreacted to the TSQ bomber too. |
|
|
| (919586) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 00:32:32 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 14 00:18:38 2012. No. How is anyone being sacrificed?your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (919588) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 00:35:20 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 00:21:21 2012. Huh? What are you talking about?your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (919592) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 00:39:44 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 00:35:20 2012. You know what I'm talking about. Obama warned everyone not to rush to judgement after the Hasan shooting but didn't in the most recent shooting. That's an example of political correctness applied when dealing with Islamic terrorism. That's why Olog-hai pointed it out, and he's right. It's obvious to see. |
|
|
| (919593) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 00:42:53 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 00:39:44 2012. LOL!!your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (919595) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 00:44:57 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 00:42:53 2012. Had it not been a Muslim army general, I don't think Obama would have warned about rushing to judgement. That was why he chose the words he did. In the most recent case, the victims are Muslims, and his choice of words can be different. Harsher. THIW. |
|
|
| (919596) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 14 00:48:43 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 00:44:57 2012. Uh-huh; THIG. |
|
|
| (919598) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 14 01:03:35 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 00:32:32 2012. Quick trial and execution. All ready being said that he's eligable for the death penalty. Have we heard that about the Ft. Hood killer? |
|
|
| (919600) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 14 01:07:09 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 00:44:57 2012. "Had it not been a Muslim army general, I don't think Obama would have warned about rushing to judgement. "Can't blame obama for showing some favoritism toward the old home team. |
|
|
| (919625) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Mar 14 04:48:24 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by orange blossom special on Tue Mar 13 18:35:55 2012. When I go to walmartLOL even flour is skyrocketing, gas is doubling, electricity is skyrocketing, foreclosures are skyrocketing, In your double-digit unemployment Right-to-Work-for-Less Shit State perhaps. Here in the First World, things are fine. We don't riot over the price of flour like in the Third World favelas where you live. |
|
|
| (919639) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 06:47:22 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 14 01:03:35 2012. Yes, a TRIAL. So...no sacrifice.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (919641) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Mar 14 06:51:27 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 14 01:03:35 2012. It's the defendant's right to ask for a quick trial, not the government's, stupid. |
|
|
| (919644) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Wed Mar 14 07:22:58 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 13 23:52:12 2012. Oh shut up Luch you're an annoying Troll. Who deep down is a racist because everything you see is with Racist undertones. |
|
|
| (919645) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 07:28:20 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 13 23:52:12 2012. As you don't remember, the debate was whether he was a terrorist or just a sick individual. Some of us pointed out that the Army was investigating the incident and individual and we were willing to let them do their work without us jumping to conclusions. Others already had him convicted because of his last name.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (919680) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 14 12:59:58 2012, in response to Obama promises "full force of law" on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 18:02:15 2012. All criminal trials involve the "full force of the law". In both of these cases the defendant has the right to being fit for that trial. In both cases, like it or not, there are issues regarding fitness. Time will tell how they play out. |
|
|
| (919951) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 23:51:51 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by ClearAspect on Wed Mar 14 07:22:58 2012. You came here today to leave one message for one person you don't like, and that's not being a troll? And that person wasn't even engaging you in the thread. There's nothing racial about my post. I was simply agreeing with Olog's observation.Seems like someone owns a piece of real estate in your head. |
|
|
| (919971) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 01:12:26 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 14 23:51:51 2012. That's kinda sad. Not a word out of him about what happened in Egypt's parliament either. |
|
|
| (919976) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 15 02:13:33 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 01:12:26 2012. Recently he said it's a step in the right direction. A phase they're going through like we did when we had slavery then segregation to equal rights for all.It is sad that he sought me out when I didn't even say anything so inciting. |
|
|
| (919978) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 02:38:10 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 15 02:13:33 2012. Recently he said it's a step in the right direction. A phase they're going through like we did when we had slavery then segregation to equal rights for allI remember. But the USA was not the Ottoman Empire before it became the USA. It started with the same Constitution it has today; Egypt is regressing and adopting Shari'a Law. Never mind the fact that Egypt has existed for millennia while the USA is struggling to reach 2½ centuries. |
|
|
| (919983) | |
Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 15 02:47:43 2012, in response to Re: Obama promises ''full force of law'' on Army sergeant (Afghanistan), but Fort Hood . . . ?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 02:38:10 2012. Well, he actually may have posted twice today, but it's still obvious that someone has a piece in his head.As Egypt worsens, leftist most involved in the thread at first become quiet. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||