Liberal Forum

maineman » 05 May 2024, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 10:21 am

the DoD will hold with the government against the rabble.  It'll be a real bloodbath.

Huey » 05 May 2024, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:36 am

You are assuming that the members of the military would fight against fellow citizens, Gilligan.

Huey » 05 May 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:34 am

what misquote?  Are you like Biden and suffer from CRS?  Another lie from Gilligan.

maineman » 05 May 2024, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 9:29 am

Interesting.  I would never even THINK that PROUD PFC stood for PROUD PROUD **** CIVILIAN.  Who talks like that?  Or should I have said, who who talks like that?  Now...Proud Puerile Foppish Cocksucker, on the other hand?  Why, that's so YOU!

And I fully understand why the military has a lot of career E-6's that never quite make it to E-7.  The Acey-Duecy Club always had a lot more guys than the Goat Locker.  The Peter Principle is a real thing.  You simply climbed up the ladder until you reached your level of incompetence.

I know no one is forcing me to post.  Your stumblings are just such low-hanging fruit, I can't NOT pick them. Sorry! 

And, btw, I have great respect for those enlisted personnel who deserve it.  Those who insult me should expect the same in return, Chuckie.

You really are an internet macho man with YUGE e-muscles.   Isn't it flex time?

maineman » 05 May 2024, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:43 am

you claim my quote is "my opinion of enlisted service members".  That's clearly false.  It is only my opinion of YOU specifically and my opinion of YOUR lack of intellect and character, and my belief that those failings of YOURS would make YOU proud proud proud to make it as high up as PFC.  

In fact, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for career enlisted military personnel.  They are, and have always been the most valuable assets any military outfit has.  It is certainly true that one bad apple does not spoil the bunch, but, nonetheless, you are one bad apple, Chuckie.

maineman » 05 May 2024, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 10:21 am

the DoD will hold with the government against the rabble.  It'll be a real bloodbath.

sootedupCyndi » 05 May 2024, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:40 am

well huey- we have contemplated that for years? I always thought no. That they would stand up for what's right.
pay attention.
After the skuttle butt in Canada with the truckers- I am NOT SO SURE :

Huey » 05 May 2024, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:36 am

You are assuming that the members of the military would fight against fellow citizens, Gilligan.

Huey » 05 May 2024, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:44 am

Spin your lies, buddy, spin away.

I quoted you verbatim.  You are not very smart.  Which of your parents had to blow the congressman for that letter to your trade school?

maineman » 05 May 2024, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:46 am

if those citizens proved to be domestic enemies of the Constitution, that would be their sworn duty.  

Members of the US military did exactly that over a quarter of a million times between 1861 and 1865.

maineman » 05 May 2024, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:48 am

you quoted me verbatim but lied about what the quote was.  you're really not all that bright.

Huey » 05 May 2024, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:52 am

Nope, it shows a clear disdain for at least Army enlisted.

Huey » 05 May 2024, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:51 am

You seem to forget that many of them went to the Confederacy.

There were only 16,367 servicemen in the U.S. Army, including 1,108 commissioned officers. Approximately 20% of these officers, most of them Southerners, resigned, choosing to tie their lives and fortunes to the Confederate Army.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Army#:~:text=There%20were%20only%2016%2C367%20servicemen,fortunes%20to%20the%20Confederate%20Army.

maineman » 05 May 2024, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 12:47 pm

Actually, it shows a clear disdain for exactly ONE Army enlisted.  YOU.  I said YOU were so stupid I could understand how YOU would be "proud proud" to have made it all the way to PFC.  YOU.    Own it.  You earned it.

maineman » 05 May 2024, 12:50 pm » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 12:50 pm

And there very well may be members of the Military who decide to become insurrectionists and betray their oath.  They, too, will become domestic enemies.  You will not see wholesale desertion on the part of today's professional officer corps, nor from the senior enlisted ranks either.

Huey » 05 May 2024, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 11:43 am

Interesting.  I would never even THINK that PROUD PFC stood for PROUD PROUD **** CIVILIAN.  Who talks like that?

"By next week, I'll be a PFC."
"But you're a sergeant..."
"Proud **** Civilian"

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=PFC

Let's see.  You lied that I misquoted you.  You are using references to Charles Atlas that are 60 years old.  You are unaware with modern terminology such as PFC.  You have shown you utter disdain for enlisted people,  

You are an elitist. One who would have been fragged in Vietnam.

Huey » 05 May 2024, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 12:52 pm

Dance Elitist Puppet, Dance!

maineman » 05 May 2024, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 12:55 pm

do you not see the grammatically incorrect redundancy in "proud PFC"

really?

I used the Charles Atlas reference because I knew you were old enough to fully understand it, Chuck.  

And here you are with this tough "fragging" talk.  

Look at you, those e-muscles just rippling there in front of the computer monitor.

VERY impressive

maineman » 05 May 2024, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 12:56 pm

flex Chuck, flex!

Huey » 05 May 2024, 12:58 pm » wrote: ↑

05 May 2024, 12:58 pm

Yawn!

You are just embarrassed because you rely on 60 year old references and are not up to date with military slang.  And the fact that an army enlisted man (you disdain enlisted men) own [sic]you.

Carry on.  Issue [sic] the proper military position and suck that admiral's dong.