Oooooops???!!!!

did he rape a 15 year old boy?

They are all crooks in some sort of way. Look at them Clinton scandals are evovling every day.

Dennis Hastert got caught spending HIS OWN money in a way the violates fed banking laws. It appears that he had to cover up some bad stuff he did earlier in life.


libs are in bad need of some dirt to throw on republicans right now, as Democrats and Obama have the reverse Midas touch, where everything they lay their greasy fingers on turns to crap.

Liberals are sucking hind tit right now. Everyday new info is coming out concerning the dirty dealings of Hillary and Bill and their Clinton Foundation. Hillary’s performance as Sec of State is a giant disaster.

Obama diplomacy in the Middle East is proving to be an absolute failure, and the old Blame Bush game is getting old. The military leaders and Bush told us that a contingency force is needed to stay on the ground in Iraq for a while, but Obama does not listen to the experts. Now Iraq is falling piece by piece to ISIS.

Baltimore is also turning out to be a giant black eye for democrats and libs. They worship a dope dealing thug like Freddy Gray, and despise the police officers that would arrest a criminal like him. The black democrat mayor, chief of police, and DA decided to appease the thugs, and now thuggery is taking over. Just last weekend, the heathen shot 29 people, killing nine in Baltimore.

Liberals legislate moronic laws that generate bigger problems. LIbs then enforce political correct speech that prevents people from solving and speaking truthfully about the problems libs have created. Once the problem grows out of control, the libs and the media lie, and blame Republicans for the problems the libs created in the first place (welfare, social security, Obama Care, Iraq Diplomacy, Education decline,….)

I'm not sure about this, but I think I head It said at a few Memorial Day ceremonies that this was the first time in a long time America did not have troops stationed in an area of armed conflict. I may not have the exact military terminology for this but you get the idea. Thank you President Obama and RangerP for making that happen.

I am betting Christians and others getting their heads cut off and burned to death in Iraq are not thanking Obama.


Thanking Obama for no war now would be like thanking Neville Chamberlain for peace just prior to WWII.

Who ended the war in Iraq? watch the clip below?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_nxouSJq9c

Did you watch the video?


Had we not pulled completely out, we would not have this mess.
\

There is a reason we call them ISIS, and not ISSL. To call them ISSL gives credence that they have a caliphate and control Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel...

Sometimes you have to listen to experts. The experts knew that pulling out early would lead to a mess, and now it has.

Check out the quote from this article back in 2007 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02203.html


""When President Bush says, 'I just want to give the commanders what they want, listen to the generals,' he doesn't understand how we work here in America. Civilians control the military and we are supposed to set the mission for the generals and then the generals should carry out the mission," Obama said at an outdoor town hall meeting.


Obama had zero diplomacy experience, and he hired Hillary to be the Sec of State. SHe had no experience also. He did not listen to the Generals who did have experience.


Another interesting article on the matter - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

"In the summer of 2007, Bush warned of the dire consequence of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq against the advice of our commanders on the ground. All of Washington was telling Bush that the surge he had launched would fail and that the time had come to withdraw from Iraq and accept defeat.

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”


He had no idea at the time how prophetic his words would be



Dean Guidry - who was right, Obama or Bush?

Unlike you, I answer every question asked.


Here is what I would do -

Appoint Tom Cotton as Sec of Defense, Appoint someone like Ryan Crocker, John Bolton, LG Ben Mixon (unlike Hillary and Obama - they have diplomacy experience) .. as Sec of State.

I would direct Sec of Defense Tom Cotton to cease all social experimentation in our military, reinstate a policy that bars sex perverts, transgenders, homosexuals... from service, combat arms would be strictly males with high standards. I would direct that we purge the political correct ass-kissers from the senior ranks, and get back to truth telling warriors that lead soldiers with a goal of fighting and winning America's wars.


I would then bring in Gen David Petraeus as an advisor for middle eastern strategy . I would give some left and right limits and then have the Joint Chiefs design a plan that would best rid the Middle East of ISIS, with a goal of regaining stability to the region. They would put their plan before the sec of defense, and then we would execute. I am not the expert, but I would assume a plan that is very heavy on special operations taking out key leaders, and controlling air strikes would be viable, with a contingent force left to insure the new government include both Shia and Sunni representation (we had that before Obama pulled out all troops).


Now once again, in reference to maintaining stability in the Middle East, who was right, Obama or Bush?

Bushes statements were in 2007. By then we had not had enough time to arm and train the Iraqi forces sufficiently to defend themselves . The jury is still out whether they can do that but when we pulled out, the assessment by the military experts was that they could. I think the recent take over of Ramadi is a temporary set back and things will get back into equilibrium shortly. Iraq is a mess and will always be. No one can expect more that a messy equilibrium in that country in the northern territories.

Dguidry stated "I think the recent take over of Ramadi is a temporary set back and things will get back into equilibrium shortly"


Do you smoke crack?


Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler would stop at Poland. How did that work out?

This is the best article I have seen to date on ISIS. it is kind of long and deeper than what most will want to read, but well written and worth your time.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/

I find it amazing how rangerp puts u in your place time and time again without ever even saying one curse word.
and equally amazing how u still have the nerve to try to argue with a man that knocks your dick in the dirt every fukkin time.....every time u try to argue, u get bitch slapped with facts.
Fuck you and your ****** president too!

Dguidry - It goes much deeper than that (just hoping Iraq will stand and fight).

our new found support of Iran is feeding the fire. Kuwait, Saudi, Egypt... and other Sunni dominated nations will begin to funnel money to ISIS. ISIS may be their enemy, but the enemy of their enemy will be their friend. Our Iran support is rocking the Sunni Shia struggle. A nuclear Iran puts a huge imbalance in the entire region, and will start a arms race, where Egypt and Saudi will see a need for nukes.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in in Egypt, and we were on the wrong side there. Our stance in Libya went afoul. Pulling out of Iraq created a vacuum and ISIS has filled the void. I fear support in Syria is going into the wrong hands. We have muddied our relationship with Israel, and they are our greatest ally in the region. So when you say " I hope the Iraqi forces with the stepped up help of us air support can move against the ISIS advances and recapture Ramadi", I kind of laugh. "Hope" is not a method, and "Change" is not always for the better.

When you study what an actual "caliphate" actually is you see the need to actually take land away from them. If you take away land, it delegitimizes their claim to a caliphate. It is hard to take land with just air power. You have to put boots on the ground.


Currently the White House is saying " Hey, it’s not our job to defeat ISIS"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05 ... -strategy/

RangerP: Yea, I read in the article that land is their legitimizing criteria. I'm not sure what you are complaining about. It you think President Obama's advisers were incorrect in telling him to withdraw our troops and we have to go in an root this out again, then so be it. Decisions are made like this by our presidents and they are not always right. But, if you're suggesting he pulled out for political expediency, I think you are dead wrong. It was a considered decision and i'm certain most, if not all, of his advisory staff were on board with the decision.

Regarding Israel, yes they are a strong ally. If I were Israel, I would go it alone and begin an extensive military campaign into neighboring countries of Syria and Iraq and occupy territory where ISIS currently does. We would be forced to support them. I have been perplexed for some time now as to why that has not been done. Saudi Arabia can scream all they want about it, but they would do nothing. This would draw Iran into the picture, and the whole area would become a major conflagration. It will eventually come to this anyway so I say get it over with. Russia and China will only react with rhetoric.

Until this happens we will be sending troops in and out of the region for eternity. But, maybe that's a better alternative. I don't know.

Dguidry stated "you think President Obama's advisers were incorrect in telling him to withdraw our troops and we have to go in an root this out again, then so be it. Decisions are made like this by our presidents and they are not always right. But, if you're suggesting he pulled out for political expediency, I think you are dead wrong."




YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.

Watch this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_nxouSJq9c


Obama's "ending the war in Iraq" was purely political and the generals on the ground to include the joint chiefs advised against completely pulling out of Iraq. The White House used the lame excuse of not having a Status of Forces Agreement - hey, if you run with the big dogs, you perform like a big dog. That is where diplomacy experience comes in. You do what you have to do to get the agreement, you do not just pack up and walk away. Bush had a stable Iraq with elections going on regularly. By 2008, the region was very stable. Look at the mess now.



If you think Obama was not playing politics, you are either dumb, forgetful, or willfully lying.


take a little trip back down memory lane.

In 2007, Gen Dave Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker briefed congress on the success of the surge. A junior wet behind the ears senator with no military experience or diplomacy experience basically told Petraeus that the surge did not work, and that Iraq was not winnable. that Sen was Obama - Watch the clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9wtAqXq7Sg

When Obama threw his hat into the presidential race, he had to eat his words, because the surge did work. I know, I was there. I saw the difference of daily fighting in 2007, to daily peace in 2008.


Days after Sen Obama told Petraeus that he padded his numbers and that the surge would not work, Moveon.org printed a full page add in the New York Times with a picture of Gen Petraeus and the caption "General Betray Us". George Sores, the billionaire tycoon is the money behind Obama, and the money behind Moveon.org. Follow the money on that one. Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq. He also claimed that while Iraq was the wrong war, that Afghanistan was " a just war -- a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense" - http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2009 ... fghanistan

This is the MoveOn.org add - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ad-website

Once elected, Obama had to live up to his words and fight the "just war" in Afghanistan. History shows that war to be the one that can not be won. Alexander the Great, the British, and the Russians failed.

Obama hand picked the very liberal Gen Stan McChrystal to fight it for him. I do not think Obama really looked to win anything, but just had to back up his own words. McChrystal on the other hand thought he was going to win. When looking for a strategy that would work, McChrystal looked no further than Petraeus's surge in Iraq. it worked there, and he wanted one also. Obama pulled the rug out from under his feet, when he gave him a much smaller surge, and instead of tying it to success, Obama tied it to time. McChrystal was not about to go down in history as the man that lost Afghanistan, so he did his convenient little story with Rolling Stone magazine, forcing Obama to fire him.

When Obama needed someone to come fight the real "unwinnable" war in Afghanistan, who did he call on? He called in Dave Petraeus. It was literally a demotion. Petraeus was the CENTCOM commander, in charge of Iraq (Gen Odierno), Afghanistan, and the rest of the middle east. Petraeus did not miss a beat, and jumped in feet first. He knew he could not have another surge, so he played ball with what he had. he set up the SRPF, the ring of security around Kandahar (I was there for that also), and started seeing success. Soon after, he was asked to take the CIA.

You can spin all you want. OBAMA ENDED THE WAR IN IRAQ, and he promise to do so. He pulled out early, and the generals told him that it was a bad idea.

It was 100% political, and it was 100% Obama.


I may not be all that intelligent, but my memory is rock solid.

Nice Ranger. i remember some of that hope and change stuff. It was all political. Everything he ever did was political.

RangerP: I must be missing something. Where in the hell do you find the time to put these responses together? There's something more to your background and current responsibilities than you've shared. It's a full time job to keep up with your ass. Between my responsibilities as a praxticing lawyer and building a recording studio, and hunting and fishing I just don't have the time but to respond on one or two paragraphs at a time. I don't live and breath this stuff like you do.

A quick google search tells me you could be only one grade below brigadire general...well I guess you would know the topic and you've lived it.

Frog Man,


The rumors on the web are that he had some sort of sexual realtionship with someone while he was teaching high school. I am not sure that is true though.

he has been out of officer for a pretty good while, and nothing he does now is real big news. The fact that everything Hillary is turning into a circus, and Obama diplomacy is turning into a nightmare means libs in the medai are really scrambling hard to find some conservatives to throw dirt on, because their folks are doing so bad. They would rather concerntrate on actions done by a 14 year old, that happened 12 years ago, than deal with Hillary's million dollar scams.

Thanks much for the compliments. I appreciate it.

Our media would much rather go after Hastert or Josh Duggar than look close at Hillary and crew.

Check the story - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnic ... nd-stories

RangerP I was there myself, only as an enlisted Leatherneck, but I still feel compelled to thank you and think of you as my brother.

I haven't read the entire thread in depth or viewed all the attachments but I can say for 100% boots on the ground fact that we were not ready to leave Iraq. I was there, and our unit was one of many that took part in training the Iraqi troops. I equate it to turning a bunch of 10yr olds loose with live ammo.... Not only that, they were still so intimidated by (then, Taliban) that they didn't "want it" it was a pretty hopeless feeling leaving them there with the expectation that they were going to assume control. It was doomed from the outset.

Confirmed: it was a young boy he molested. Tried to buy forgiveness to the tune of $3.5 million. This is disgusting enough but what makes this worse is he was a one of the highest ranking Republicans of his time and represented the religious right. How did this guy function with his inner soul so conflicted.

Do you have a link "confirming"?

He sounds like a typical homosexual to me - out there buggering the boys.

Dang, 3.5 million. Where the hell do these crooked politicians get that kind of money?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusiv ... d=31530828


It looks like there might be some truth to the "alleged" male sex victims of Denny Hastert.

It is going to be very interesting how the media handles this. It will not be easy for them on a number of accounts.

the link above is from a girl, who claims her brother had sex with Denny Hastert when he was the manager for the wrestling team Hastert coached. This can not be the same person Hastert was paying, being this victim died of HIV back in 1995.

When Coach Jerry Sandusky raped little boys, he was never labeled a homosexual, but Hastert was having sex with post puberty teens. Will the media call him a homosexual?

Remember, Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as Safe School Czar. Jennings boasted of knowing a 15 year old boy who was being sodomized by a grown man, and he supported it. It is going to be a bit tough for the lib media to attack Hastert for doing something Obama's czar approved of.

the article above also states that the sister believe the improper sex Hastert had with her brother was a negative influence on her brother's life. it was his first sex experience. If homosexual are "born that way", why are so many homosexual men prior victims of predatory homosexual when they were boys?

Now factor in that Terry Bean (a founding member of Human Rights Campaign) just got arrested for the rape of a 15 year old.

there is no denying that many homosexual men get busted with gay porn, or get found buggering teen age boys. The media does not want that cat out of the bag.

Dguidry stated "If we apply your logic to this, then because Hastert is a pedophiles, all Republicans are evil too. Why didn't anyone investigate this when many of his colleagues were aware of the allegations 15 years ago?"



Your Logic, lacks logic.


Pedophilia is where an adult prefers children, generally younger than the age of 13 (more of a medical term than a legal one).

From what I am reading, Hastert was more typical of gay men like Kevin Jennings, Terry Bean, Walt Whitman... where they seek teen age partners and young men.

The statement "then because Hastert is a pedophiles, all Republicans are evil too" makes absolutely no sense at all. Because Barney Frank is a homosexual, has absolutely nothing to do with how I see democrats like Sam Nunn, Mike Beebe, Pete Gallego and others.


The statute of limitations may be up for whatever Hastert did, but I hope they nail him in civil court, and if they can prove that any politician, either democrat or republican hid his wickedness, I hope they get nailed in court also.

For you to be a lawyer, that was one of the dumber statement I have ever seen you make. I assume from the misspelled words that you are drinking early today.