It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lasheic
Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Lasheic
I'm starting to see more and more posts by people coming to their senses - after they voted - so that post wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one person. Hence the use of "you all".
If it wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one, then perhaps you shouldn't have stated it in a direct response to me and addressing my comment. There's other ways to word it when addressing a general target audience. Think before you hit the reply button.
Ah, another (elitist?) pseudo-intellectual has joined our ranks.
What you are attempting to do is called a deflection attempt here, and is definitely against the T & C.
BTW, "irregardless" is not really a word, but I've met a lot of people from CA that think it is.
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
Usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
So, if you want to discuss why obama is now quite content to keep what were once regarded as war criminals in the Defense Department, please feel free to do so.
I see your previous post has gotten a couple of stars. No doubt from others here that would rather continue deflecting rather than dealing with the unpleasantness of a candidate they supported turning his back on a key reason they voted for him.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by The Bald Champion
I think it would be stupid of Obama to clean out the experienced war mongers and put in hippies. I think it would be irresponsible to put in newbees during the transition...
Anyhow aren't You NEOCONS happy that the war is on??? Remember, spread freedom and Democracy???
So you got a good thing going for you! Cheers
No, but that's exactly what you (anti-war appeasers) said you wanted during the campaign, and obama was right there with you. So, bring on the hippies. Let's see once and for all how "brilliant" a move what you said you wanted would be.
Might end up costing us millions of lives and our nation as our enemies decide to take advantage of the hippies, but then we will have finally proved the point that their philosophy on this is wrong.
So, why take out your frustrations by trying to insult me when it is your guy that's let you down?
Up to you to now figure out what if any of what I just wrote was "tongue-in-cheek".
[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion-1211]
Originally posted by Merkel
Do you think most Obama supporters will question Obama if he starts his own war or carries the current conflicts on after taking office? Nope. They'll praise him and say how well he is handling everything.Scary to think this guy is going to be my new boss soon.
Originally posted by centurion1211
No, the truth BH is that after years of dishing out sometimes the lowest form of political bashing, including name calling here on ATS, you and those like you can't seem deal with even the slightest dissent on obama.
Seems like a bunch of obama's supporters are starting to say "oops" before he is even sworn in.
Might be some sort of clue on what's to come, don't you think?