View Full Version : Will the lefties eventually turn this country into a bunch of Eurofhags?
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 02:11 PM
Everything that comes from this party is pussified to the umpteenth degree. Punish the strong and reward the weak. Their whole goal is to glorify weakness and encourage it which will eventually lead to our downfall IMO if we let it. Stomp on anything testosterone related and promote anything with a good estrogen base. Let me give you a great example.
I came back from a cruise a little while back but just before I left I was watching the local liberal news network. They were very upset about what was going on with Greyhounds and said the global outrage had been pouring in ever since their last report. When they come back they have the head of HSU on there who has acting horrified to the level that you would think she had just witnessed her family being slaughtered.
Come to find out she is very upset because people are letting their dogs chase bunnies. That's right, ****ing bunnies. She is literally holding her heart like she is having a heart attack talking about these poor little bunnies hearts. "Even if they get away they are never the same again" she said.
After lauphing my ass off watching that the next segment is on a midget with a bizzillion different health problems. They were so excited that this lady had just been able to have her very own baby. Apparently they had been reporting on this for awhile because the baby had finally pulled through. I am just blown away. They are so excited about how this woman with all these health problems had just procreated. To hell with the fact that she is already living off the system costing taxpayers untold major dollars. The least she could have done was give us all a break and adopt an unwanted kid already living off the system and raise a healthy one. Oh no, they were ready to she a tear on what a wonderful ****ing story this was.
It's the same position though on all subjects. Anti alpha male, pro butt pirate. Anti stand up for yourself, pro snitch. Anti suggestive dancing in schools for heterosexual students, pro celebrate diversity. Anti guns, dogs, military, dirtbikes, snowmobiles, sports, hunting or anything that ilk. Pro excessive taxation, legalization of discrimination against whitey or anything male for that matter.
Heaven forbid we should kill mass murderers but it's OK to kill unborn kids because it's power is based in estrogen. Don't get me wrong I am for both but it just amazes me that you could be against the death penalty but for abortion.
To further solidify my thinking on this subject I got to meet many of the members of Ms. Magazine on my cruise. There had to be a couple hundred of them. Can you say wacked out liberal femanazi's? This is their wesight. http://www.msmagazine.com/ It occured to me when I accidentally walked in to an area they had reserved and got treated like the wolf who had just been spotted in the chickens nest that this has become the essence of the democratic party. They are the Hillary Clintons and Jane Fondas of the world. You all should build statues of these cunts and pray for them to lead you to the promised land and deliver you from the giant penises that rule over you now.
HC_Chief
03-09-2006, 02:35 PM
lol
That's quite a rant, BD
methinks you've been in moonbatland too long. CA is all about the loons, dude.
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 03:01 PM
lol
That's quite a rant, BD
methinks you've been in moonbatland too long. CA is all about the loons, dude.
It's true though that's what their all about. Look at the loons we have right here at the our own planet. jaz is for the elimination of some breeds of dogs through banned breeding. He only wants little pussy ass dogs around. Look at meme. Don't even get me started I could go on and on. They are the estrogen party.
Who's for banning dogs? Dems
Who's for never ending gun legislation? Dems
Who's notoriously dogged out our military? Dems
Who goes after our areas to ride? Dems
Who is for taxing to death those that work their ass off? Dems
Who is for legalizing discrimination against me? Dems (affirmative action)
Who has went after sports in school? Dems
Who wants to celebrate diversity in school? Dems
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Dems are also the party that never ever comes out against their own no matter how assinine something one of their members may have said like this clown.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/02/23/cstillwell.DTL&hw=no+military+hannity&sn=002&sc=801
It makes it impossible to support the party because you can't take them seriously. It also lets the right run unchecked which is very dangerous.
Cochise
03-09-2006, 03:04 PM
BD,
Not very long ago, I read an article on a sportbike message board about someone out there in Kali campaigning for limiting performance specifications on sportbikes.
I think that imported bikes are already limited to 185mph, and granted that's a limit that is never going to affect me, but it IS another case of "We'll decide what you 'need' for you."
You heard anything about that?
I know that the enviro-cialist lobby on the left coast has already banned 2-strokes in a lot of places too.
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 03:22 PM
BD,
Not very long ago, I read an article on a sportbike message board about someone out there in Kali campaigning for limiting performance specifications on sportbikes.
I think that imported bikes are already limited to 185mph, and granted that's a limit that is never going to affect me, but it IS another case of "We'll decide what you 'need' for you."
You heard anything about that?
I know that the enviro-cialist lobby on the left coast has already banned 2-strokes in a lot of places too.
The 2 stroke dirt bikes made past a certain year are banned during the summer. That's why I register mine in Oregon so I can ride all year long. The problem is they continue to shut down areas out here and I am going to sell mine soon. I simply don't have 3 hours to drive the bikes somewhere and then another 3 to drive them back. It's the old give them an inch and they will take a mile dealio kind of like the dogs. They slowly kept limiting the areas you could bring them and now they are just going after them period.
The 185 MPH rule came up when on the 2nd year Kawasaki produced the ZX-12. Word was they were going to be the first company to produce the 200 MPH motorcycle. The lefties went wild and told horror stories about kids loosing their lives on these bikes. Naturally like all feel good legislation these POS bloody boxes bring to the table it totally defies logic as what is the difference between 185MPH and 200MPH when your crashing a street bike really? If they had ti their way they would have us all in VW Bugs and Mini Coopers. Whatever, I do believe this is the trend of our country though. The liberals have infested our schools and the kids out here are left of Diane Feinswine.
Eurogfags I'm telling you, it's our future.
Cochise
03-09-2006, 03:28 PM
...what is the difference between 185MPH and 200MPH when your crashing a street bike really?
It's laughable that 185 is ok, but 200 was over the line. I wouldn't guess there is a ton of difference between 85 mph and 185 mph for that matter, if you're talking about a kid acting stupid. He could kill himself in first gear on a literbike without even thinking about it.
If they had ti their way they would have us all in VW Bugs and Mini Coopers.
You mean going to work in rickshaws.
Mr. Kotter
03-09-2006, 03:30 PM
There are some real men left in the party; and we keep trying to take it back from the metrosexual fluffer hags who've taken it over....
Until we do and the BlueDogs and DLC right the party, we'll probably keep voting for the "other side".....in national elections, anyway.
banyon
03-09-2006, 03:47 PM
This sort of mentality is why poor farmers and laborers will continue to elect the conservatives that outsource their jobs and bankrupt their children.
Cuz, who cares if we have a means of subsistence so long as we don't let them teh gheys marry.
BTW, Dems are to blame for this problem too, by letting those extremist factions control the debate.
Course the Right has them too. Like the people pissed about the gay penguins.
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 03:50 PM
It's laughable that 185 is ok, but 200 was over the line. I wouldn't guess there is a ton of difference between 85 mph and 185 mph for that matter, if you're talking about a kid acting stupid. He could kill himself in first gear on a literbike without even thinking about it.
Yea just ask Kellen Winslow. ROFL
You mean going to work in rickshaws.
I am talking more about forcing all real men into the most feminine vehical they can find. Remember it's the lefts agenda to cut the balls off of everything they can.
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 04:00 PM
This sort of mentality is why poor farmers and laborers will continue to elect the conservatives that outsource their jobs and bankrupt their children.
Cuz, who cares if we have a means of subsistence so long as we don't let them teh gheys marry.
BTW, Dems are to blame for this problem too, by letting those extremist factions control the debate.
Course the Right has them too. Like the people pissed about the gay penguins.
Yes and no. I don't care if people are gay at all. I care about the gay agenda and this anti alpha male femanzi thing going on within the Democratic party. I think what I posted basically says it all.
Cochise
03-09-2006, 04:23 PM
Yea just ask Kellen Winslow. ROFL
His was only 3/4 of a liter!
Amnorix
03-09-2006, 04:32 PM
Just for the record, what BD is ranting about doesn't apply to me or many other Democrats. Basically, some of what he posts is mainline Democrat stuff, but really it's a very liberal position.
Just like the arch-conservatives don't define the entire Republican party (but can often have a dominant effect on its platform etc), the liberals don't define the Democratic party.
Greyhound dogs -- WTF cares?
Speed of bikes -- WTF cares?
Personally, I think it's irresponsible for people with very serious genetic health problems to procreate, but i wouldn't pass a law against it
Banning dogs -- no. But punishing owners who can't control them depending on the circumstances -- hell yes.
Our military is great, and needs to be really big, but I don't wonder if it isn't more expensive than it needs to be. This is more because of my concerns about the budget than being anti-military. Actually, I have tremendous respect for those who serve.
Affirmative action shouldn't be perpetual. This is complicated so I'll say no more about it.
Fundamentally, the far, far, far left tends to bother you more than the far, far, far right does. :shrug:
Amnorix
03-09-2006, 04:33 PM
Yes and no. I don't care if people are gay at all. I care about the gay agenda and this anti alpha male femanzi thing going on within the Democratic party. I think what I posted basically says it all.
With all due respect, and I'll note that I think you're a great guy generally, I must admit I've seen what seems to me to be very serious anti-gay themes in your post. Like, the strongest of anyone on this bulletin board.
Maybe that has nothing to do with how you conduct yourself in public or private, but on this board, you *SEEM* to be a raging homophobe...
the Talking Can
03-09-2006, 04:54 PM
awesome thread
Would this thread fall into the catagory of "sandy vagina :deevee:"?
I'm sure Iowanian, Brock and BD (oh wait!?!) will be along shortly to tell us that it does... Clearly this makes BD a sandy lefty.
JBucc
03-09-2006, 05:03 PM
I don't know, I don't think what hand you use has much effect on the country.
With all due respect, and I'll note that I think you're a great guy generally, I must admit I've seen what seems to me to be very serious anti-gay themes in your post. Like, the strongest of anyone on this bulletin board.
Maybe that has nothing to do with how you conduct yourself in public or private, but on this board, you *SEEM* to be a raging homophobe...
You aren't alone in seeing this. I don't know BD in person, so I can't say anything as fact or even well informed, but we all form opinions based upon what we see here.
I've always sensed a "thou doth protest too much" vibe from BD. Overly fixated on sex, overly fixated on gays... And for a time, overly fixated on young looking girls on the GirlyJPEG thread.
I can't rightly make any assertion that any of that has merit or means anything, but I've noticed a trend in all three areas and I've always had a running mental note WRT those things.
Amnorix
03-09-2006, 05:08 PM
You aren't alone in seeing this. I don't know BD in person, so I can't say anything as fact or even well informed, but we all form opinions based upon what we see here.
I've always sensed a "thou doth protest too much" vibe from BD. Overly fixated on sex, overly fixated on gays... And for a time, overly fixated on young looking girls on the GirlyJPEG thread.
I can't rightly make any assertion that any of that has merit or means anything, but I've noticed a trend in all three areas and I've always had a running mental note WRT those things.
Well, he's male, so being overly fixated on sex and young looking girls on the Girly thread is pretty much natural.
It's just the gay-hatred thing that ain't too subtle...
HC_Chief
03-09-2006, 05:10 PM
I can't rightly make any assertion that any of that has merit or means anything, but I've noticed a trend in all three areas and I've always had a running mental note WRT those things.
What kind of passive-aggressive bullshit is this? You directly infer the dude a homophobe and pedophile then turn around and say you can't "rightly make the assertion"?
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 05:10 PM
With all due respect, and I'll note that I think you're a great guy generally, I must admit I've seen what seems to me to be very serious anti-gay themes in your post. Like, the strongest of anyone on this bulletin board.
Maybe that has nothing to do with how you conduct yourself in public or private, but on this board, you *SEEM* to be a raging homophobe...
Well your one of the lefties that I actually like and respect although I will respectfully disagree with you on this. Running health clubs for most of my life means having to deal with many gay men teaching aerobic classes on a daily basis. I have also run clubs in SF, imagine that? Besides this the women I am going to marry and several others I have been with in life have been bisexual. Once you have a woman that is you will never want anything less. :) That being said I don't know how much more clearly I can put it for you than I already have. It's the agenda this group has that I have a problem with. It's this aniti alpha male pussification of our children I have a problem with and it all resides withing one party. It's this element within your party that is killing it just like banyon said. You guys need to Newt Gingrich your freaks.
Anmorix,
Explain these things to me. What is with this element within your party that feels the need to cut the balls off of everything in society? Why is there so much support for this element in your party now? Do you agree with them?
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 05:24 PM
Would this thread fall into the catagory of "sandy vagina :deevee:"?
I'm sure Iowanian, Brock and BD (oh wait!?!) will be along shortly to tell us that it does... Clearly this makes BD a sandy lefty.
All I did was point out my problems with a party I would very much like to see get its ****ing act together. I am not the enemy of the party although I would be considered an enemy of that element within the party. It would be better for eveyone but the Republicans if they would quit catering to that element of which you are a part of and you're not even gay. Which goes to prove my point it's not the act of being gay I have a problem with it's the agenda so many of them hold dear. I have also refered to this element as the estrogen element. You don't have to be gay to have it you're a prime example.
1.You want to see breed specific genocide of certain breeds of dogs enacted through banned breeding. That has pussy ass written all over it.
2. You support legalizing discrimination.
3. You support excessive taxation of those that work thir ass off to support lazy ass POS.
I won't even get into guns.
And on and on and on.
I could do your profile real easy.
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 05:39 PM
Fundamentally, the far, far, far left tends to bother you more than the far, far, far right does. :shrug:
Yea I have never spoke out against the Patriot Act, War on Drugs or Ashcroft in general right? I have never spoke out against legislating morality right? I have never hammered the right on their position on prostitution, gambling or protecting pharmaceutical companies right?
I am not sure where you're getting this stuff at Anmorix. Just because I am willing to come out and say what is not PC doesn't mean you should shove me in the same box a some one like jaz will. I am all for resurrecting the party man we just need to get rid of these mamby pamby candy ass POS that have taken over the party. For the party to even think about putting someone like Hillary in office tells us everything we need to know about where the party is now. You think I want the right running rampant any more than you do?
BIG_DADDY
03-09-2006, 05:54 PM
You aren't alone in seeing this. I don't know BD in person, so I can't say anything as fact or even well informed, but we all form opinions based upon what we see here.
I've always sensed a "thou doth protest too much" vibe from BD. Overly fixated on sex, overly fixated on gays... And for a time, overly fixated on young looking girls on the GirlyJPEG thread.
I can't rightly make any assertion that any of that has merit or means anything, but I've noticed a trend in all three areas and I've always had a running mental note WRT those things.
What a weak ass insinuation. You and many other members here have met me an lil momma and I will just let the jury rest there.
Since you said that though I will do your profile as I see it.
1. Big John Lennon fan growing up.
2. Never played any real sports.
3. Probably got picked on in school which explains his alliance with the estrogen element.
4. Never been in a fight unless you call beating up someones fist with your face a fight. No that pillow fight with your sister doesn't count.
5. Never Hunted.
6. Married or is with an off the scale liberal who runs the relationship.
7. Always had problems with women cheating on him or has been with the same women since shortly after school.
8. May have experimented with his friends growing up.
How close am I jaz? Come on, give me the real answer dude.
vailpass
03-09-2006, 06:03 PM
What a weak ass insinuation. You and many other members here have met me an lil momma and I will just let the jury rest there.
Since you said that though I will do your profile as I see it.
1. Big John Lennon fan growing up.
2. Never played any real sports.
3. Probably got picked on in school which explains his alliance with the estrogen element.
4. Never been in a fight unless you call beating up someones fist with your face a fight. No that pillow fight with your sister doesn't count.
5. Never Hunted.
6. Married or is with an off the scale liberal who runs the relationship.
7. Always had problems with women cheating on him or has been with the same women since shortly after school.
8. May have experimented with his friends growing up.
How close am I jaz? Come on, give me the real answer dude.
OH SNAP!!!!!
What a weak ass insinuation. You and many other members here have met me an lil momma and I will just let the jury rest there.
Since you said that though I will do your profile as I see it.
1. Big John Lennon fan growing up.
2. Never played any real sports.
3. Probably got picked on in school which explains his alliance with the estrogen element.
4. Never been in a fight unless you call beating up someones fist with your face a fight. No that pillow fight with your sister doesn't count.
5. Never Hunted.
6. Married or is with an off the scale liberal who runs the relationship.
7. Always had problems with women cheating on him or has been with the same women since shortly after school.
8. May have experimented with his friends growing up.
How close am I jaz? Come on, give me the real answer dude.
ROFL
I don't care for bashing a guy, but this is pretty funny.
What a weak ass insinuation. You and many other members here have met me an lil momma and I will just let the jury rest there.
Since you said that though I will do your profile as I see it.
1. Big John Lennon fan growing up.
2. Never played any real sports.
3. Probably got picked on in school which explains his alliance with the estrogen element.
4. Never been in a fight unless you call beating up someones fist with your face a fight. No that pillow fight with your sister doesn't count.
5. Never Hunted.
6. Married or is with an off the scale liberal who runs the relationship.
7. Always had problems with women cheating on him or has been with the same women since shortly after school.
8. May have experimented with his friends growing up.
How close am I jaz? Come on, give me the real answer dude.
Given that my observations of you were blunt, your speculation about me is appropriately blunt.
1. Too young to be a Big JL fan, more Queen (oops!), Def Leppard, KISS growing up
2. Played football (QB & DB), Soccer, Basketball
3. Only 2 fights in school... won both.
4. See #3.
5. Never hunted... always kinda wanted to. Fired guns, "own" one rifle though it's never left my dad's house
6. As I've said before, I'm married an actual liberal (pacifist) who defers to me all too often (because she was raised in a strict Christian household).
7. Never had a woman cheat on me before, didn't meet my wife until I was 24. Partied way too hard before that. She is the best thing to happen to me though. Gave me commitment to pulling my shit together and making myself a success.
8. Never "experiemented" with any friends unless you mean "friends with benefits".
1 of 8 isn't too bad when you are guessing. It was worth a shot though, wasn't it?
|Zach|
03-09-2006, 07:20 PM
People that go on an on about masculinity wether it means their own or someone's else just come off as insecure to me. Could be the case...I could be wrong.
People should be who they want to be and have the ideals that they feel are right. I am not sure why some are so worried if these things fit into this "alpha male" box or not.
Just seems to me real men don't sit around and worry if they are real men or not.
Excude me while I go move some sheet rock for validation.
People that go on an on about masculinity wether it means their own or someone's else just come off as insecure to me.
I tought it was kind of amusing that BD chose to try to re-enforce my impression of him by posting this list of pussified things he finds likely to be true about me. I really don't think he could do anything more to support my impression if he tried.
Since you said that though I will do your profile as I see it.
1. Big John Lennon fan growing up.
2. Never played any real sports.
3. Probably got picked on in school which explains his alliance with the estrogen element.
4. Never been in a fight unless you call beating up someones fist with your face a fight. No that pillow fight with your sister doesn't count.
5. Never Hunted.
6. Married or is with an off the scale liberal who runs the relationship.
7. Always had problems with women cheating on him or has been with the same women since shortly after school.
8. May have experimented with his friends growing up.
|Zach|
03-09-2006, 07:29 PM
I don't know...BD is a good guy. It just seems there are so many other qualities that are far more important in a person...things like if they have hunted or not or fighting experience seem so silly. Almost laughable.
To each their own.
Taco John
03-10-2006, 12:51 AM
For the party to even think about putting someone like Hillary in office tells us everything we need to know about where the party is now.
Dude, you'll fall for anything. The Democrats haven't made any overtures towards putting Hillary in office. The Republicans are feeding you a line, and like usual, you seem to eat it up. The only people talking about Hillary being in office are Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh types. I can't find a single Democrat who wants Hillary as the president.
Amnorix
03-10-2006, 08:02 AM
Well your one of the lefties that I actually like and respect although I will respectfully disagree with you on this.
That's fine. This is an internet BB for chrissakes, so I don't pretend I really "know" anybody on here. Sarcasm gets completely lost, half the time, and people tend to "overplay" their hands -- for example I'm not nearly as much of an arrogant bastard in "real life". :D
Running health clubs for most of my life means having to deal with many gay men teaching aerobic classes on a daily basis. I have also run clubs in SF, imagine that?
Then I can honestly say you've hung out with more gay men than I have. I've only known a relative few, and have never been good buddies with a gay man.
Besides this the women I am going to marry and several others I have been with in life have been bisexual. Once you have a woman that is you will never want anything less. :)
Anything I said about you only relates to gay men. Most guys like bisexuals/lesbian women (as long as they are bull-dykes) :)
Anmorix,
Explain these things to me. What is with this element within your party that feels the need to cut the balls off of everything in society? Why is there so much support for this element in your party now? Do you agree with them?
No, I'm much more into individual responsibility than far-left liberals seem to be. I'm not in favor of legislating against dogs, for chrissakes, because that's just stupid. I believe in gun regulation to a degree (I think everyone does to SOME extent, or do people really think that everyone should be allowed to carry concealed weapons anywhere they want?) but I'm not a fanatic about it. I'm pro choice, but wouldn't support an abortion at 8-1/2 months unless it threatened the life of the mother.
I don't object to using limited and reasonable physical discipline on children if necessary (i.e. spanking) and consider it out-of-bounds for governments to get involved in how parents discipline their kids anyway, unless it clearly is abusive.
I could go on forever. Suffice to say that PARTS of the Democratic Party are as nuts as that idiot conservative who protests military funerals because the government supports a gay society or whatever the hell it is he's babbling about. They get alot of press because they're out of power and loud and never shut up, but I don't think they're representative of all Democrats any more than all Republicans are represented by far right wing nut jobs.
Amnorix
03-10-2006, 08:07 AM
I'll answer each of these specifically, in follow up to your prior question
1.You want to see breed specific genocide of certain breeds of dogs enacted through banned breeding. That has pussy ass written all over it.
I think it's pretty dumb to regulate this. Seems to me that you could have tougher laws, if it was REALLY necessary, regarding fences for the dogs, leashes, etc.
2. You support legalizing discrimination.
You're talking about affirmative action here, I know. I believe that affirmative action has been, to some degree, a good and necessary thing to even what had been a ridiculously uneven playing field. HOWEVER, sooner or later these rights need to go away. It shouldn't be permanent.
3. You support excessive taxation of those that work thir ass off to support lazy ass POS.
We could argue all day about what is excessive, and why, and all that.
Let me put it this way -- welfare should not be a permanent entitlement. Those on welfare should be assigned to do specific work for the government, their local community, ro give time to charities. There is NO REASON to encourage people to stay on welfare forever. Society doesn't exist to give the poor a permanent, free handout. There's a difference between helping the needy who are working hard to get by or who have run into bad luck, and just giving someone a free ride on the train of life. I support the former, but not the latter.
Ugly Duck
03-10-2006, 08:56 AM
Punish the strong and reward the weak. No, no... you got that wrong. It should read "Punish the ones responsible for 9/11 instead of some other people that had nothing to do with it." Thankfully, the country is turning our way:
Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.
Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq _ the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.
The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.
Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.
By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/03/10/342417.html
stevieray
03-10-2006, 10:02 AM
No, no... you got that wrong. It should read "Punish the ones responsible for 9/11 instead of some other people that had nothing to do with it." Thankfully, the country is turning our way:
Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.
Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq _ the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.
The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.
Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.
By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/03/10/342417.html
Oh look another popularity poll from a Californian.
These polls sure have helped you out the last six years, huh?
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 10:29 AM
That's fine. This is an internet BB for chrissakes, so I don't pretend I really "know" anybody on here. Sarcasm gets completely lost, half the time, and people tend to "overplay" their hands -- for example I'm not nearly as much of an arrogant bastard in "real life". :D
Then I can honestly say you've hung out with more gay men than I have. I've only known a relative few, and have never been good buddies with a gay man.
Anything I said about you only relates to gay men. Most guys like bisexuals/lesbian women (as long as they are bull-dykes) :)
No, I'm much more into individual responsibility than far-left liberals seem to be. I'm not in favor of legislating against dogs, for chrissakes, because that's just stupid. I believe in gun regulation to a degree (I think everyone does to SOME extent, or do people really think that everyone should be allowed to carry concealed weapons anywhere they want?) but I'm not a fanatic about it. I'm pro choice, but wouldn't support an abortion at 8-1/2 months unless it threatened the life of the mother.
I don't object to using limited and reasonable physical discipline on children if necessary (i.e. spanking) and consider it out-of-bounds for governments to get involved in how parents discipline their kids anyway, unless it clearly is abusive.
I could go on forever. Suffice to say that PARTS of the Democratic Party are as nuts as that idiot conservative who protests military funerals because the government supports a gay society or whatever the hell it is he's babbling about. They get alot of press because they're out of power and loud and never shut up, but I don't think they're representative of all Democrats any more than all Republicans are represented by far right wing nut jobs.
Then we are basically in the same boat when it comes to the direction we would like to see the Democratic party go. That's why I have always liked you as a lefty. :)
patteeu
03-10-2006, 10:29 AM
No, no... you got that wrong. It should read "Punish the ones responsible for 9/11 instead of some other people that had nothing to do with it." Thankfully, the country is turning our way:
Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.
Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq _ the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.
The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.
Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.
By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/03/10/342417.html
Weren't you quoting polls that said he was at 34% a week or two ago? If so, it looks like things are looking up to me. :)
Mr. Kotter
03-10-2006, 10:31 AM
Oh look another popularity poll from a Californian.
These polls sure have helped you out the last six years, huh?
Six years? Try "since '68....."
;)
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 10:33 AM
I tought it was kind of amusing that BD chose to try to re-enforce my impression of him by posting this list of pussified things he finds likely to be true about me. I really don't think he could do anything more to support my impression if he tried.
What I threw out out you was nothing more than a response to like insults you hurled at me first. For you to look deeper than that shows what a ****ing moron you are. For the record I have met you and not to be insulting but you don't look like an ex-athlete at all.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 10:36 AM
Dude, you'll fall for anything. The Democrats haven't made any overtures towards putting Hillary in office. The Republicans are feeding you a line, and like usual, you seem to eat it up. The only people talking about Hillary being in office are Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh types. I can't find a single Democrat who wants Hillary as the president.
I would fall for anything? How about you posting that Bush has lost all power just because they saw an easy out on the port deal?
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 10:45 AM
I don't know...BD is a good guy. It just seems there are so many other qualities that are far more important in a person...things like if they have hunted or not or fighting experience seem so silly. Almost laughable.
To each their own.
It was in response to him huring similar accusations at me nothing more.
People that go on an on about masculinity wether it means their own or someone's else just come off as insecure to me. Could be the case...I could be wrong.
People should be who they want to be and have the ideals that they feel are right. I am not sure why some are so worried if these things fit into this "alpha male" box or not.
Just seems to me real men don't sit around and worry if they are real men or not.
Excude me while I go move some sheet rock for validation.
1. Once again it was in response to a similar post he made about me, read the whole thread. You of all people should know if you come after me there will be a response.
The alph male references would apply to some elements that are catered to within the Democratic party that are wacked like the ladies on the ship I posted on in my original post. Remember I live in California. I gave a lot of expamples in my original post about what I am pissed about but you only seem to focas on the stupid petty shit posted between me and jaz.
Cochise
03-10-2006, 10:50 AM
By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.
...except in elections
NewPhin
03-10-2006, 10:51 AM
Besides this the women I am going to marry and several others I have been with in life have been bisexual. Once you have a woman that is you will never want anything less. :)
I'm not going to get into the whole thread, because it's just another testosterone-fueled, BD rant, but I do want to comment on this repeated piece of evidence that you use to prove how open-minded you are about homosexuality.
You saying that your dating a bisexual woman proves you have nothing against homosexuality is like someone saying, "I'm not racist. I married an Irishman." Hot, bisexual women aren't exactly the same thing as homosexual dudes.
Lurch
03-10-2006, 10:56 AM
.... Hot, bisexual women aren't exactly the same thing as homosexual dudes.
Now, maybe, you are beginning to get it...
|Zach|
03-10-2006, 11:07 AM
It was in response to him huring similar accusations at me nothing more.
1. Once again it was in response to a similar post he made about me, read the whole thread. You of all people should know if you come after me there will be a response.
The alph male references would apply to some elements that are catered to within the Democratic party that are wacked like the ladies on the ship I posted on in my original post. Remember I live in California. I gave a lot of expamples in my original post about what I am pissed about but you only seem to focas on the stupid petty shit posted between me and jaz.
I felt like I responded to things that you not only posted in a conversation with and Jaz but talk about all the time in a general sense...
How was my commentery about your obsession with what males should and shouldn't be and how ridiculous it is (imo) to sit around worrying about your own masculinity and others not apply to alot of rants you have had on this board.
Basically my point is...you were talking to Jaz but it was about stuff you go over alot. I don't see how that coversation was some kind of outliner.
PunkinDrublic
03-10-2006, 11:49 AM
BD don't you think you kind of have a skewed perspective? I mean you live in the bay perhaps the most liberal area in the country. Isn't that about the equivilant of a guy living by the airport complaining about the noise from jet engines? I mean I live in Plano, Tx which recently was voted the fourth most conservative city in America. Our governer signs bills in a baptist church and even a lot of our democrats would be considered conservatives anywhere else. Even with all that being said I realize that this is the south and it doesn't reflect the rest of America. Believe me there are no shortage of neocons from this region of the country who would love to turn this country into a Christian theocracy and I guarantee you they weild more power than the politicians in your area.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm not going to get into the whole thread, because it's just another testosterone-fueled, BD rant, but I do want to comment on this repeated piece of evidence that you use to prove how open-minded you are about homosexuality.
You saying that your dating a bisexual woman proves you have nothing against homosexuality is like someone saying, "I'm not racist. I married an Irishman." Hot, bisexual women aren't exactly the same thing as homosexual dudes.
Sorry it took so long I was busy. A bunch of us are going to a MMA fight out at the HP Pavillion tonight and we are trying to get everything situated. IT will be the biggest MMA event in this countries history. The estrogen element is already up in arms about the barbaric nature of the first sanctioned MMA event in Californias history. The SF Comical wrote a ridiculous completely untrue article about the whole event. I was going to post a link to it but they have already removed it from their sight
Once again it is not just the dudes I have a problem with or the women it's the agenda some of them have. Along with that agenda there is the pussification thing many heterosexuals promote within the party like jaz the jock QB. ROFL
When I make the reference to Eurofhags it's because I don't want to see our country become highly effeminate like theirs. Their military is a joke. My sister in Iraq says when they get hit with a bomb they all retreat and leave their fellow soldiers there to die. The Americans are the only ones that attack when that happens and goes after the insugency and saves their fellow comrades. From guns to exterminating dogs to radical animal rights activists and on and on. This whole far left thing with the goal of feminizing society is very strong there and I see it taking root here.
There is where my problem lies not in two guys poking each other in the butt. I had a sales guy who used to work for me that was gay. He had his act together in many ways and very much distanced himself from that far left element. We agreed on many things along these lines. He didn't like what they were doing in our schools out here any more than I did. He was a great spokesman for homosexuals in general IMO but he got tired of this endless BS too and focased on himself.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 12:05 PM
Now, maybe, you are beginning to get it...
ROFL
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 12:07 PM
I felt like I responded to things that you not only posted in a conversation with and Jaz but talk about all the time in a general sense...
How was my commentery about your obsession with what males should and shouldn't be and how ridiculous it is (imo) to sit around worrying about your own masculinity and others not apply to alot of rants you have had on this board.
Basically my point is...you were talking to Jaz but it was about stuff you go over alot. I don't see how that coversation was some kind of outliner.
So you don't see how me responding to someone questioning my sexuality by questioning theirs as relevant. OK
Amnorix
03-10-2006, 12:25 PM
Anything I said about you only relates to gay men. Most guys like bisexuals/lesbian women (as long as they are bull-dykes) :)
err...that should've been ARE NOT bull-dykes... :banghead:
NewPhin
03-10-2006, 12:27 PM
err...that should've been ARE NOT bull-dykes... :banghead:
Sure sure. We know how you swing now. You like them with the unibrow and crew cut, eh? Nothing wrong with that.
Taco John
03-10-2006, 12:28 PM
I would fall for anything? How about you posting that Bush has lost all power just because they saw an easy out on the port deal?
You clearly do not understand what happened with this port deal. Nor do you understand why Bush has lost power.
The two issues are related, but they're not exclusive to eachother.
Amnorix
03-10-2006, 12:30 PM
Sure sure. We know how you swing now. You like them with the unibrow and crew cut, eh? Nothing wrong with that.
Well, I heard you hump hermaphrodites, so who are you to talk?
:p
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 12:46 PM
BD don't you think you kind of have a skewed perspective? I mean you live in the bay perhaps the most liberal area in the country. Isn't that about the equivilant of a guy living by the airport complaining about the noise from jet engines? I mean I live in Plano, Tx which recently was voted the fourth most conservative city in America. Our governer signs bills in a baptist church and even a lot of our democrats would be considered conservatives anywhere else. Even with all that being said I realize that this is the south and it doesn't reflect the rest of America. Believe me there are no shortage of neocons from this region of the country who would love to turn this country into a Christian theocracy and I guarantee you they weild more power than the politicians in your area.
I'm sure there is something to that and maybe that skews my perspective. I'm sure in Texas they don't tell 14 year old boys in school that they may be gay. I am sure in schools in Texas they don't have celebrate diversity week in school and bus kids on public money to Democratic rallies. I am sure in Texas you don't have moronic polititians that think all countries should have the same amount of weapons to make it all fairsies or even worse think we should get rid of our military in general and secure our boarders with local police departments. I am sure in Texas you don't have to put your dirt bike in your truck and drive 3 hours just to have a place to ride. I am sure in Texas you are allowed to bring your dog IN THE FUHCKING MOUNTAINS for gods sake. I am sure in Texas when you let your dog chase a FUHCKING rabbit isn't you are not considered a barbarian and put on the local news.
Am I frusterated? Yes.
That doesn't change a lot of things though that are national. Gun laws, dog legislation, legalized racism, over taxation ect.
One of my black buddies at Jiu-Jitsu a few years back was talking to me when we went to get a beer after our workout. I told him I didn't want to offend him and gave him my opinion on affirmative action. He got a serious look for a second and then started laughing. "You have got to be a stupid SOB to pass laws against your own race" he said. "I know it's all just to get my vote but it makes me wonder what level they will go to get other peoples vote if they will do that" Just like in Jiu Jitsu all I want is a equal chance to compete. I know a lot of my friends don't feel that way though. They will take whatever they can get. He was a good guy and I found that very humorous. I also gained a lot of respect for him as a person when he said that.
MOhillbilly
03-10-2006, 12:54 PM
ive told you this before BD but you gotta get outta Cali.
get you a spread next to nothing, alittle piece of mind.
my neighbor is from cali and she is crazy as a shit house rat.
Am I frusterated? Yes..
just frustrated???
Hell, you're a whining little bitch
so tell me ... why are all this things you hate happening under a completely REPUBLICAN dominated federal government?
you'd blame liberals for your shit stinking if you thought someone would listen.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 01:17 PM
just frustrated???
Hell, you're a whining little bitch
so tell me ... why are all this things you hate happening under a completely REPUBLICAN dominated federal government?
you'd blame liberals for your shit stinking if you thought someone would listen.
Because it's the Democrats that are passing all this shit you fhucking moron.
On another note I have went after Republicans for
War in Iraq
War on Drugs
Steroids
Trying pass legislation on offshore gambling
Patriot Act
Legislating morality in general.
Of course I am sure you missed all of that didn't you Laz?
Don't let that get in the way of your brainless response though. It's obvious you're completely incappable of seeing it for what it is.
Katipan
03-10-2006, 01:22 PM
Anti alpha male, pro butt pirate. Anti stand up for yourself, pro snitch. Anti suggestive dancing in schools for heterosexual students, pro celebrate diversity. Anti guns, dogs, military, dirtbikes, snowmobiles, sports, hunting or anything that ilk...Heaven forbid we should kill mass murderers but it's OK to kill unborn kids because it's power is based in estrogen. Don't get me wrong I am for both but it just amazes me that you could be against the death penalty but for abortion.
I'm pro all those things.
Radar Chief
03-10-2006, 01:27 PM
Hell, you're a whining little bitch
And if anyone’s gonna recognize a “whining little bitch”,….. ;)
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 01:30 PM
I'm pro all those things.
Uhhhhh.....most of those were anti. ROFL
Katipan
03-10-2006, 01:35 PM
Uhhhhh.....most of those were anti. ROFL
I know, babe. You don't need me to remove the unnecessary words do you? :p
I am pro...
alpha male
butt pirate
stand up for yourself
snitch
suggestive dancing in schools for heterosexual students
celebrate diversity
guns
dogs
military
dirtbikes
snowmobiles
sports
hunting or anything that ilk
kill mass murderers
kill unborn kids
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 01:43 PM
And if anyone’s gonna recognize a “whining little bitch”,….. ;)
What a flipping moron Laz is, really. Lets look at this for a second. This forum has become a 90% liberal circle jerk of bitching but if anyone comes in and complains about the Dems their a whining little bitch.
I don't know why would I blame the Dems for anything I posted on here. Maybe because their behind the promotion of all of it you fhucking idiot Laz.
What's even more amazing is Laz wants me to blame the Republicans for it. I would stand a better chance of having an intelligent conversation with someone in 1st grade. As usual only Amnorix addressed the issues I posted and did a fine job of it I might add. If Dems were like Amnorix I would probably be a Dem. Nah, I wouldn't go that far I would still be a libertarian but would certainly support them over the direction the right is bringing us now.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 01:44 PM
I know, babe. You don't need me to remove the unnecessary words do you? :p
I am pro...
alpha male
butt pirate
stand up for yourself
snitch
suggestive dancing in schools for heterosexual students
celebrate diversity
guns
dogs
military
dirtbikes
snowmobiles
sports
hunting or anything that ilk
kill mass murderers
kill unborn kids
NICE!!! ROFL
Bwana
03-10-2006, 01:50 PM
What a weak ass insinuation. You and many other members here have met me an lil momma and I will just let the jury rest there.
Since you said that though I will do your profile as I see it.
1. Big John Lennon fan growing up.
2. Never played any real sports.
3. Probably got picked on in school which explains his alliance with the estrogen element.
4. Never been in a fight unless you call beating up someones fist with your face a fight. No that pillow fight with your sister doesn't count.
5. Never Hunted.
6. Married or is with an off the scale liberal who runs the relationship.
7. Always had problems with women cheating on him or has been with the same women since shortly after school.
8. May have experimented with his friends growing up.
How close am I jaz? Come on, give me the real answer dude.
Sounds about right. ROFL
banyon
03-10-2006, 02:15 PM
Hey BD, I think I found your guy...
:)
Vernon Robinson (Windows Media Player) (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/twilight.wmv)
Vernon Robinson (Quick Time) (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/twilight.mov)
Hydrae
03-10-2006, 02:16 PM
You may consider it the pussification of the country but the truth be told, it is the nerdisation. All through history it has been survival of the fittest but in todays world it is more important to be smart than strong. This leads to a LOT of changes in the societal mindset.
Check out the list of questions you put up there for jAZ. How do you think a Paul Allen or Bill Gates would fall there? But in today's society they are highly successful. It is not about being able to beat someone up anymore, it is about having the smarts to get around them. You have to recognize that testosterone is no longer king.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 02:35 PM
You may consider it the pussification of the country but the truth be told, it is the nerdisation. All through history it has been survival of the fittest but in todays world it is more important to be smart than strong. This leads to a LOT of changes in the societal mindset.
Check out the list of questions you put up there for jAZ. How do you think a Paul Allen or Bill Gates would fall there? But in today's society they are highly successful. It is not about being able to beat someone up anymore, it is about having the smarts to get around them. You have to recognize that testosterone is no longer king.
I have a ton of respect for senior executives of high technology companies. That's who I work with and why I live here. Bill Gates is a true capitalist and a truly good human being who give almost everything he has made to those who most need it before he leaves this world. Intellectuals have always had the pawer that is nothing new. The only reason I posted that for jaz was just because he had questioned my sexuality so it seemed like a humorous response. Truth of the matter is the legislation being promoted by this estrogen element on the left is what I have an issue with. Besides jaz is a jock QB didn't you read that?
|Zach|
03-10-2006, 02:38 PM
So you don't see how me responding to someone questioning my sexuality by questioning theirs as relevant. OK
No, what I am saying is the underlying points you made and the things I was talking about? You talk about them all the time. Literally all the time. Yet you acted like I was only talking about your little conversation.
Oh well.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 02:47 PM
Sounds about right. ROFL
No way dude jaz is a total bad ass jock. He played O and D on the football team as the QB and DB. He was a total stud that won every fight he was ever in and his woman does exactly as she is told. He has never even had his woman look at another man. That's why he will really leave that impression on you when you meet the guy. Please somebody make this guy throw them a football next time you meet him. You will obviously know who he is in this picture he is the good looking king stud on the far right.
Given that my observations of you were blunt, your speculation about me is appropriately blunt.
2. Played football (QB & DB), Soccer, Basketball
3. Only 2 fights in school... won both.
4. See #3.
5. Never hunted... always kinda wanted to. Fired guns, "own" one rifle though it's never left my dad's house
6. As I've said before, I'm married an actual liberal (pacifist) who defers to me all too often (because she was raised in a strict Christian household).
7. Never had a woman cheat on me before, didn't meet my wife until I was 24. Partied way too hard before that. She is the best thing to happen to me though. Gave me commitment to pulling my shit together and making myself a success.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 02:50 PM
No, what I am saying is the underlying points you made and the things I was talking about? You talk about them all the time. Literally all the time. Yet you acted like I was only talking about your little conversation.
Oh well.
Yes I talk about pussified element pushing their agenda rather frequently. Then again I am frusterated by what they are doing more than most probably because of where I live. You may feel the same way if you lived here but I doubt we have the same interests. I am not sure what you mean by my little conversation.
Besides jaz is a jock QB didn't you read that?
And I'm a senior executive of 2 different high technology companies and CEO of a low tech one.
Don't sell me short.
I'm not *only* a former jock... I am a computer geek, turned entrepreneur just like Bill Gates. Oh and chicks dig me.
(Am I starting to fit your acceptable mold? Or do I need to brag about my penis size too?)
CRONUS
03-10-2006, 02:54 PM
I know, babe. You don't need me to remove the unnecessary words do you? :p
I am pro...
alpha male
butt pirate
stand up for yourself
snitch
suggestive dancing in schools for heterosexual students
celebrate diversity
guns
dogs
military
dirtbikes
snowmobiles
sports
hunting or anything that ilk
kill mass murderers
kill unborn kidsMy God I have found the perfect woman. Bryan you lucky bastard.
|Zach|
03-10-2006, 02:55 PM
(Am I starting to fit your acceptable mold? Or do I need to brag about my penis size too?)
Move sheet rock for a little while. It worked out for me.
CRONUS
03-10-2006, 02:56 PM
...
(Am I starting to fit your acceptable mold? Or do I need to brag about my penis size too?)
Please don't or Phobia will be obligated to one up you.
BIG_DADDY
03-10-2006, 03:20 PM
And I'm a senior executive of 2 different high technology companies and CEO of a low tech one.
Don't sell me short.
I'm not *only* a former jock... I am a computer geek, turned entrepreneur just like Bill Gates. Oh and chicks dig me.
(Am I starting to fit your acceptable mold? Or do I need to brag about my penis size too?)
Wow a king stud super jock that's just like Bill Gates. You're sinply AMAAAAAAZING!!!! My issue with you was never anything other than you support total pussification legislation. When you backed the systematic genocide of my favorite breed through banned breeding you knew you were starting something with me. You support legalizing racism against your own race. You may be able to make a billion dollars jaz but that is still moronic to me. You also are for increasing taxation for those who are working their ass off. This is where a majority of our friction begins and ends.
As far as my acceptance mold is concerned I find your position there very interesting considering you wouldn't address any of the issues I put out there in the thread initially and came right after my sexuality. BTW are paying Zach now to point out the things I do in response to your posts now and ignore yours?
ENDelt260
03-10-2006, 05:00 PM
My God I have found the perfect woman. Bryan you lucky bastard.
It's Brian.
And, thank you. I know.
CRONUS
03-10-2006, 05:11 PM
It's Brian.
And, thank you. I know.Sorry about the glitch I work with a Bryan, I know you are Brian.
Rausch
03-10-2006, 06:23 PM
No way dude jaz is a total bad ass jock. He played O and D on the football team as the QB and DB. He was a total stud that won every fight he was ever in and his woman does exactly as she is told. He has never even had his woman look at another man. That's why he will really leave that impression on you when you meet the guy. Please somebody make this guy throw them a football next time you meet him. You will obviously know who he is in this picture he is the good looking king stud on the far right.
Not a single goatee among them.
I call photoshop...
Wow a king stud super jock that's just like Bill Gates. You're sinply AMAAAAAAZING!!!!
...
You may be able to make a billion dollars jaz but that is still moronic to me.
...
BTW are paying Zach now to point out the things I do in response to your posts now and ignore yours?
Handsome, charasmatic, well-hung billionaires like myself get rich off of the folks who are willing to PAY to fight my battles. Though from the sounds of how successful and "Alpha" you are, you already know that first hand.
WilliamTheIrish
03-10-2006, 07:52 PM
Handsome, charasmatic, well-hung billionaires like myself get rich off of the folks who are willing to PAY to fight my battles. Though from the sounds of how successful and "Alpha" you are, you already know that first hand.
"Two men enter, one man leaves..."
"Two men enter, one man leaves..."
rochambeau
CRONUS
03-10-2006, 09:12 PM
Testing to see if thread is locked
Werid... let's see if this works...
Looks like you helped to unstick it for me. Thanks!
...
Our military is great, and needs to be really big, but I don't wonder if it isn't more expensive than it needs to be. This is more because of my concerns about the budget than being anti-military. Actually, I have tremendous respect for those who serve.
...
then never again b!tch about the cost!!
those are OUR countrymen out there fighting for us. always give them
the best equipment to do their jobs and make it home VICTORIOUS.
* * *
dems:
-----
- first to cry about and subsequently CUT military spending
- first to incredulously wonder why our troops have sh*tty equipment
when we go to war
:shake: :shake: :shake:
* * *
ps: don't take the above as a personal slam amnorix...
i know you respect our troops.
then never again b!tch about the cost!!
those are OUR countrymen out there fighting for us. always give them
the best equipment to do their jobs and make it home VICTORIOUS.
* * *
dems:
-----
- first to cry about and subsequently CUT military spending
- first to incredulously wonder why our troops have sh*tty equipment
when we go to war
:shake: :shake: :shake:
* * *
ps: don't take the above as a personal slam amnorix...
i know you respect our troops.
This really isn't fair.
That attitude (as well intentioned as it seems to be) invites stealing and corruption and prevents protection and oversight of those who would exploit and hide behind our soldiers in order to prevent being seen as they steal a buck for themselves.
We are adults. We can discuss the value of war while our soldiers fight. We can discuss the need for billion dollar boondoggle weapons systems even though they are intended to be used by soldiers.
Drawing that arbitrary line is unhealthy for our democracy.
Oh look another popularity poll from a Californian.
These polls sure have helped you out the last six years, huh?
LOL !!!
WilliamTheIrish
03-10-2006, 10:32 PM
I especially liked the reference to the Eurofhags... ROFL
BD, you slay me.
"Two men enter, one man leaves..."
LOL
http://photos.weschan.com/photos/34888471-M.jpg
alanm
03-10-2006, 11:06 PM
Handsome, charasmatic, well-hung billionaires like myself get rich off of the folks who are willing to PAY to fight my battles. Though from the sounds of how successful and "Alpha" you are, you already know that first hand.
Funny.. I could have swore you were still in college at Arizona. :hmmm:
Funny.. I could have swore you were still in college at Arizona. :hmmm:
That was *so* 3 years ago...
alanm
03-10-2006, 11:11 PM
That was *so* 3 years ago...And in 3 short years you leap frogged and back stabbed every one to get to the top of 3 companies.
Tell me another story daddy.
:rolleyes:
And in 3 short years you leap frogged and back stabbed every one to get to the top of 3 companies.
Tell me another story daddy.
:rolleyes:
Bought 1 (low-tech), founded 1 (high-tech... founded while in college), hired as Executive Director of 1 (high-tech)
Just to clarify my graduation from "College" wasn't my Undergrad degree. It was my MBA. I had worked in software, management and IT for 8+ years prior to that.
Nightwish
03-10-2006, 11:19 PM
Everything that comes from this party is pussified to the umpteenth degree. Punish the strong and reward the weak. Their whole goal is to glorify weakness and encourage it which will eventually lead to our downfall IMO if we let it. Stomp on anything testosterone related and promote anything with a good estrogen base. Let me give you a great example.
I came back from a cruise a little while back but just before I left I was watching the local liberal news network. They were very upset about what was going on with Greyhounds and said the global outrage had been pouring in ever since their last report. When they come back they have the head of HSU on there who has acting horrified to the level that you would think she had just witnessed her family being slaughtered.
Come to find out she is very upset because people are letting their dogs chase bunnies. That's right, ****ing bunnies. She is literally holding her heart like she is having a heart attack talking about these poor little bunnies hearts. "Even if they get away they are never the same again" she said.
After lauphing my ass off watching that the next segment is on a midget with a bizzillion different health problems. They were so excited that this lady had just been able to have her very own baby. Apparently they had been reporting on this for awhile because the baby had finally pulled through. I am just blown away. They are so excited about how this woman with all these health problems had just procreated. To hell with the fact that she is already living off the system costing taxpayers untold major dollars. The least she could have done was give us all a break and adopt an unwanted kid already living off the system and raise a healthy one. Oh no, they were ready to she a tear on what a wonderful ****ing story this was.
It's the same position though on all subjects. Anti alpha male, pro butt pirate. Anti stand up for yourself, pro snitch. Anti suggestive dancing in schools for heterosexual students, pro celebrate diversity. Anti guns, dogs, military, dirtbikes, snowmobiles, sports, hunting or anything that ilk. Pro excessive taxation, legalization of discrimination against whitey or anything male for that matter.
Heaven forbid we should kill mass murderers but it's OK to kill unborn kids because it's power is based in estrogen. Don't get me wrong I am for both but it just amazes me that you could be against the death penalty but for abortion.
To further solidify my thinking on this subject I got to meet many of the members of Ms. Magazine on my cruise. There had to be a couple hundred of them. Can you say wacked out liberal femanazi's? This is their wesight. http://www.msmagazine.com/ It occured to me when I accidentally walked in to an area they had reserved and got treated like the wolf who had just been spotted in the chickens nest that this has become the essence of the democratic party. They are the Hillary Clintons and Jane Fondas of the world. You all should build statues of these **nts and pray for them to lead you to the promised land and deliver you from the giant penises that rule over you now.
Just curious, BD, how long did you have to mull this over on the toilet before you posted, and did it require a laxative?
This really isn't fair.
That attitude (as well intentioned as it seems to be) invites stealing and corruption and prevents protection and oversight of those who would exploit and hide behind our soldiers in order to prevent being seen as they steal a buck for themselves.
We are adults. We can discuss the value of war while our soldiers fight. We can discuss the need for billion dollar boondoggle weapons systems even though they are intended to be used by soldiers.
Drawing that arbitrary line is unhealthy for our democracy.
jaz,
having an untrained, underfunded, and unequipped military is even
MORE unhealthy for our democracy IMO.
if we always upheld a military standard in peacetime as we do in wartime
we probably WOULDN'T have to deal with corruption, oversights, stealing
and all the other things you're so worried about.
equipment would be consistently upgraded, soldiers would be well
trained, and our readiness for war or peace would go on without
question.
IMO democrats have never learned the lessons of our past military
history and continuously make the same mistakes of cutting military
spending, force strength and overall preparedness during times of peace.
for example, the "task force smith" blunder during the korean war
proves that untrained and ill-equipped American troops cannot be
expected to win wars simply because they are American. (they basically
got the living sh*t kicked out of them.)
recent history has proven the same... very controvesial. the same
(democratic) politicians who voted against military spending are the
very same ones who are scrambling and/or so outspoken about
substandard armored hummers, ballistic vests, untrained soldiers etc
etc. (we really don't need to dredge up john kerry's voting record
again ... do we?)
regardless of wether we are at war or enjoying peace, the freedoms
you and i enjoy come from constant vigilance... and right now some
of our freedoms are at risk. (lol... enjoy spinning that one ya freakin'
LWNJ !! :p)
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - Vegetius
- If you want peace, prepare for war.
alanm
03-11-2006, 05:21 AM
jaz,
having an untrained, underfunded, and unequipped military is even
MORE unhealthy for our democracy IMO.
if we always upheld a military standard in peacetime as we do in wartime
we probably WOULDN'T have to deal with corruption, oversights, stealing
and all the other things you're so worried about.
equipment would be consistently upgraded, soldiers would be well
trained, and our readiness for war or peace would go on without
question.
IMO democrats have never learned the lessons of our past military
history and continuously make the same mistakes of cutting military
spending, force strength and overall preparedness during times of peace.
for example, the "task force smith" blunder during the korean war
proves that untrained and ill-equipped American troops cannot be
expected to win wars simply because they are American. (they basically
got the living sh*t kicked out of them.)
recent history has proven the same... very controvesial. the same
(democratic) politicians who voted against military spending are the
very same ones who are scrambling and/or so outspoken about
substandard armored hummers, ballistic vests, untrained soldiers etc
etc. (we really don't need to dredge up john kerry's voting record
again ... do we?)
regardless of wether we are at war or enjoying peace, the freedoms
you and i enjoy come from constant vigilance... and right now some
of our freedoms are at risk. (lol... enjoy spinning that one ya freakin'
LWNJ !! :p)
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - Vegetius
- If you want peace, prepare for war.
:thumb:
jaz,
having an untrained, underfunded, and unequipped military is even
MORE unhealthy for our democracy IMO.
if we always upheld a military standard in peacetime as we do in wartime
we probably WOULDN'T have to deal with corruption, oversights, stealing
and all the other things you're so worried about.
equipment would be consistently upgraded, soldiers would be well
trained, and our readiness for war or peace would go on without
question.
IMO democrats have never learned the lessons of our past military
history and continuously make the same mistakes of cutting military
spending, force strength and overall preparedness during times of peace.
for example, the "task force smith" blunder during the korean war
proves that untrained and ill-equipped American troops cannot be
expected to win wars simply because they are American. (they basically
got the living sh*t kicked out of them.)
recent history has proven the same... very controvesial. the same
(democratic) politicians who voted against military spending are the
very same ones who are scrambling and/or so outspoken about
substandard armored hummers, ballistic vests, untrained soldiers etc
etc. (we really don't need to dredge up john kerry's voting record
again ... do we?)
regardless of wether we are at war or enjoying peace, the freedoms
you and i enjoy come from constant vigilance... and right now some
of our freedoms are at risk. (lol... enjoy spinning that one ya freakin'
LWNJ !! :p)
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - Vegetius
- If you want peace, prepare for war.
It's called "balance"... you are lobbying for throwing it out (and indirectly) in favor of massive, unchecked corruption and stealing money. I'm lobbying in favor of balance and honest discussion about honest issues.
There's no debating the point. I'm not willing to let Raytheon, LM, their lobbists and the like effectively steal trillions and trillions of dollars simply so that there is no discussion about the pros and cons of war.
There is no doubt that the military is underequipped in Iraq... I find it strange (downright shameful) that you are willing to pin the blame on the Democrats (who don't control a single branch of government) while ignoring the powerst that be, that set the budget, military spending priorities and military engagements.
It's called "balance"... you are lobbying for throwing it out (and indirectly) in favor of massive, unchecked corruption and stealing money. I'm lobbying in favor of balance and honest discussion about honest issues.
There's no debating the point. I'm not willing to let Raytheon, LM, their lobbists and the like effectively steal trillions and trillions of dollars simply so that there is no discussion about the pros and cons of war.
There is no doubt that the military is underequipped in Iraq... I find it strange (downright shameful) that you are willing to pin the blame on the Democrats (who don't control a single branch of government) while ignoring the powerst that be, that set the budget, military spending priorities and military engagements.your perception of my opinion is completely incorrect.
i don't want corruption. i want a strong military. it is undoubtely the best deterrent.
pin the blame on whomever you choose dude. the democratic party has
never been partial to our forces.
be my guest to prove me wrong if you're so inclined. i'm not that much
of a dick to say i'm wrong if and when i am.
CHIEF4EVER
03-12-2006, 01:19 AM
There is no doubt that the military is underequipped in Iraq... I find it strange (downright shameful) that you are willing to pin the blame on the Democrats (who don't control a single branch of government) while ignoring the powerst that be, that set the budget, military spending priorities and military engagements.
You apparently have absolutely NO clue what the Dems do to the military when they are in power. Take your boy Slick Willie for example. He not only misused the assets he had, he (by his own admission) HATED the military and was scared of it. Every time a conservative administration comes to power, they have to upgrade our military and repair the neglect of the Dems.
You apparently have absolutely NO clue what the Dems do to the military when they are in power. Take your boy Slick Willie for example. He not only misused the assets he had, he (by his own admission) HATED the military and was scared of it. Every time a conservative administration comes to power, they have to upgrade our military and repair the neglect of the Dems.
yep...
Lurch
03-12-2006, 10:04 AM
You apparently have absolutely NO clue what the Dems do to the military when they are in power. Take your boy Slick Willie for example. He not only misused the assets he had, he (by his own admission) HATED the military and was scared of it. Every time a conservative administration comes to power, they have to upgrade our military and repair the neglect of the Dems.
That's certainly been true since Vietnam anyway.
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 12:12 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/11/HOGCHHKSFE1.DTL&hw=greyhounds&sn=001&sc=1000
Maybe we should coddle the bunnies and kill the greyhounds jaz style.
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 12:27 PM
You apparently have absolutely NO clue what the Dems do to the military when they are in power. Take your boy Slick Willie for example. He not only misused the assets he had, he (by his own admission) HATED the military and was scared of it. Every time a conservative administration comes to power, they have to upgrade our military and repair the neglect of the Dems.
Please, spare me. The American military is the most well-funded organization since the history of time...
The military has become something akin to Social Security -- a third rail -- touch their funding and you risk an entire segment of society going completely up in flames. God forbid we try to achieve any kind of Cold War-ending peace dividend.
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 12:28 PM
Here's a good one.
World wide military spending (2004):
1. USA: $466 Billion
2. Rest of the World (estimated): $500 Billion.
Good God...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 12:30 PM
Oh, and P.S., I don't support cutting military spending to fund national healthcare or anything. But rather to CUT THE DAMN DEBT.
IMHO, a country's power is tied more into its economic strength than anything else. And we are bleeding ours away by running absurd deficits every year.
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 12:31 PM
your perception of my opinion is completely incorrect.
i don't want corruption. i want a strong military. it is undoubtely the best deterrent.
pin the blame on whomever you choose dude. the democratic party has
never been partial to our forces.
be my guest to prove me wrong if you're so inclined. i'm not that much
of a dick to say i'm wrong if and when i am.
We HAVE a strong military. Very strong. Absurdly strong. So strong nobody else in the world would ever think of going toe-to-toe with us in a war.
How much stronger does it need to be? Are we going to conquer foreign planets??
I'm not saying cut military spending 50%. Far from it. I WANT to have the strongest military in the world. But when is enough enough?
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 12:36 PM
I especially liked the reference to the Eurofhags... ROFL
BD, you slay me.
Yea well were headed right down that road. We will be powdering our box in no time at this rate.
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 12:37 PM
jaz,
having an untrained, underfunded, and unequipped military is even
MORE unhealthy for our democracy IMO.
I agree, but we are SO FAR from this state of affairs as to make it not worth talking about.
if we always upheld a military standard in peacetime as we do in wartime we probably WOULDN'T have to deal with corruption, oversights, stealing and all the other things you're so worried about.
Not really. World War II involved massive waste at all times. So did Vietnam. Any very large enterprise, regardless of reason or whatever, involves large amounts of waste. Effectively, the bigger the project, the bigger the waste. This is true regardless of surrounding circumstances.
IMO democrats have never learned the lessons of our past military history and continuously make the same mistakes of cutting military spending, force strength and overall preparedness during times of peace. for example, the "task force smith" blunder during the korean war proves that untrained and ill-equipped American troops cannot be expected to win wars simply because they are American. (they basically got the living sh*t kicked out of them.)
Not sure about "task force smith", but we demilitarized too fast after World War II, no doubt about that. But that was largely a special circumstance. America trying to revert to what it was before WWII, and not become the global policeman that it now accepts as its job.
recent history has proven the same... very controvesial. the same (democratic) politicians who voted against military spending are the very same ones who are scrambling and/or so outspoken about substandard armored hummers, ballistic vests, untrained soldiers etc etc. (we really don't need to dredge up john kerry's voting record again ... do we?)
You should note that Carter started the Reagan military buildup 2 years before leaving office.
regardless of wether we are at war or enjoying peace, the freedoms you and i enjoy come from constant vigilance... and right now some of our freedoms are at risk. (lol... enjoy spinning that one ya freakin' LWNJ !! :p)
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - Vegetius
- If you want peace, prepare for war.
I agree with all this. And yet we are, by a funding perspective, something like 5+ times "more prepared" for war than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET.
Can we not spend just 33% of the total worldwide military expenditures, or does it have to be nearly 50%???
Baby Lee
03-13-2006, 01:00 PM
My mental image of this thread
BD to Lefties: "Be a man!!!"
Nightwish
03-13-2006, 02:00 PM
You apparently have absolutely NO clue what the Dems do to the military when they are in power. Take your boy Slick Willie for example. He not only misused the assets he had, he (by his own admission) HATED the military and was scared of it. Every time a conservative administration comes to power, they have to upgrade our military and repair the neglect of the Dems.
I'm afraid you're mistaken about a couple things. Defense spending under Clinton was increased overall, and increased dramatically (some say it was the largest increase since Reagan) in his second term. It decreased steadily through his first term, continuing a trend started by Bush I in 1989, and fairly consistent with that rate of decrease. In his second term, Clinton reversed the trend and increased military spending by up to 124 billion dollars by the end of his presidency.
Also, he never said he hated the military. During Vietnam we saw the same scathing criticisms of war opponents as we now see from Bush and his supporters - that anyone critical of the war, the government or the military is un-American and un-patriotic. Of course, any rational human being knows that's complete bullshit, but it seems that there aren't that many rational human beings in the pro-Bush camp these days. Anyway, in a commentary about those criticisms of free speech, Clinton wrote in a 1969 letter: "A lot of wonderful people love their country and hate the military." He didn't say he hated the military himself. He said that it is possible to love one and hate the other, that doing so doesn't make someone unpatriotic or anti-American.
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 02:26 PM
Here is another one. We had our first sanctioned MMA fights in our states history. Of course this is the California version with more rules than even the Ultimate. Irregardless they make it sound like it's just one step shy of the Kumitae:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14073909.htm
Nightwish
03-13-2006, 02:32 PM
My mental image of this thread
BD to Lefties: "Be a man!!!"My mental image of this thread:
BD and fellow righties: :deevee:
Heaven forbid any suggestion that non-whites, non-alpha males, non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals be treated as anything other than second-class citizens!
|Zach|
03-13-2006, 02:35 PM
Here is another one. We had our first sanctioned MMA fights in our states history. Of course this is the California version with more rules than even the Ultimate. Irregardless they make it sound like it's just one step shy of the Kumitae:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14073909.htm
How is that article a big deal? You would have to go pretty far out of your way to be offended by that article.
Nightwish
03-13-2006, 02:38 PM
Take, for instance, this paragraph:
"After lauphing my ass off watching that the next segment is on a midget with a bizzillion different health problems. They were so excited that this lady had just been able to have her very own baby. Apparently they had been reporting on this for awhile because the baby had finally pulled through. I am just blown away. They are so excited about how this woman with all these health problems had just procreated. To hell with the fact that she is already living off the system costing taxpayers untold major dollars. The least she could have done was give us all a break and adopt an unwanted kid already living off the system and raise a healthy one. Oh no, they were ready to she a tear on what a wonderful ****ing story this was."
That is potentially the dumbest, most cry-baby thing ever posted on these boards, and considering the fact that recxjake and Chiefs Express frequent these boards, that's really saying something!
Garcia Bronco
03-13-2006, 02:40 PM
Good rant BD.
Garcia Bronco
03-13-2006, 02:42 PM
We HAVE a strong military. Very strong. Absurdly strong. So strong nobody else in the world would ever think of going toe-to-toe with us in a war.
How much stronger does it need to be? Are we going to conquer foreign planets??
I'm not saying cut military spending 50%. Far from it. I WANT to have the strongest military in the world. But when is enough enough?
It needs to be absurdly strong...because there are absurdly stupid people out there that wish to challege it.
Baby Lee
03-13-2006, 03:04 PM
My mental image of this thread:
BD and fellow righties: :deevee:
Heaven forbid any suggestion that non-whites, non-alpha males, non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals be treated as anything other than second-class citizens!
Congrats on the righteous indignation in the face of an effing joke.
Can I call you Earnest??
Nightwish
03-13-2006, 03:14 PM
Congrats on the righteous indignation in the face of an effing joke.
Well, you're right, BD's opening post was a joke. A major joke. The sad thing is, I don't think he intended it to be. Anyone who gets worked up because some people find it inspiring that someone with health problems was able to beat the odds and have a child is either a truly sad individual (if it was meant seriously, as it appears it was), or is seriously humor challenged (if it was intended as a joke).
patteeu
03-13-2006, 03:15 PM
You should note that Carter started the Reagan military buildup 2 years before leaving office.
That depends on how you define the "Reagan military buildup" I suppose. Certainly there were some high profile weapons systems that were started (or at least made public) during the Carter years, e.g. the B2 Bomber (although he did cancel the B1 Bomber which was later resurrected by Reagan IIRC).
In dollar terms, defense spending did increase by some measures under Carter, but the rate of increase was substantially higher during the Reagan years. I'm not arguing with your assertion here, I'm just providing some facts below and everyone can make up their own minds.
--------------------------
If we are talking about defense spending in terms of equivalent dollars (2002), spending increased during every year of Carter's presidency, after decreasing for a couple of post-Vietnam years under Ford:
Ford
1975 $293.3 bil (down from $299.7 bil the year before)
1976 $283.8 bil
Carter
1977 $286.2 bil
1977 $286.5 bil
1979 $295.6 bil
1980 $303.4 bil
Reagan (first term)
1981 $317.4 bil
1982 $339.4 bil
1983 $366.7 bil
1984 $381.7 bil
Reagan (second term)
1985 $405.4 bil
1986 $426.6 bil
1987 $427.9 bil
1988 $426.4 bil
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html)
But the rate of increase paled by comparison to that of Reagan's first 6 years:
Ford (last 2 years) = -5.3%
Carter (first 2 years) = +0.9%
Carter (second 2 years) = +5.9%
Reagan (first 2 years) = +11.9%
Reagan (second 2 years) = +12.5%
Reagan (third 2 years) = +11.8%
Reagan (fourth 2 years) = -0.05%
As a fraction of the discretionary outlays*, defense spending was essentially flat under Carter (49.5%, 47.8%, 48.7%, and 48.7%) but took off under Reagan (from 51.3% in Reagan's first year to 63.6% in his final year).
As a fraction of GDP*, defense spending was again flat under Carter, first declining and then returning to the baseline in his last year (4.9%, 4.7%, 4.6%, and 4.9%). Under Reagan, it increased substantially (5.1% in Reagan's first year to 6.1% in his final year).
-----------------
* Source (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)
Baby Lee
03-13-2006, 03:20 PM
Well, you're right, BD's opening post was a joke. A major joke. The sad thing is, I don't think he intended it to be.
'Wilfully obtuse' is not becoming.
I was referring to MY joke, the one you went all 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' over.
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 03:22 PM
How is that article a big deal? You would have to go pretty far out of your way to be offended by that article.
Where did I say I was offended? I was just showing how left wing estrogen based media is out here. First they don't want them because there is no demand in this area because we are all supposedly high society snobs out here. It is also WAY too violent and a blood sport. Now we see that there is a huge demand for it 18k sellout crowd woth over 1k turned aways and there was almost no blood. What do you do now. Make up a bunch of shit about how pwoplw want to see blood and don't want to see the fights stopped. Make sure you don't tell anyone that we have more rules than any other MMA event in the world too.
The one before was on the greyhounds because I didn't think anyone would believe the story I was telling about them. They all have to be killed but we don't want your dogs chasing them it's barbaric. ROFL
One more thing. How come you always pick the other side of everything I post?
Nightwish
03-13-2006, 03:22 PM
'Wilfully obtuse' is not becoming.
I was referring to MY joke, the one you went all 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' over.
I didn't care about your joke. Your joke meant nothing to me, except as a lead-in to comment about the pathetic poorness of the opening post, the post which many of you have been rather stupidly praising. I should think that was rather apparent, was it not?
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 03:24 PM
Well, you're right, BD's opening post was a joke. A major joke. The sad thing is, I don't think he intended it to be. Anyone who gets worked up because some people find it inspiring that someone with health problems was able to beat the odds and have a child is either a truly sad individual (if it was meant seriously, as it appears it was), or is seriously humor challenged (if it was intended as a joke).
You are just like jaz all you can do is come after me personally.
Baby Lee
03-13-2006, 03:24 PM
I didn't care about your joke. Your joke meant nothing to me, except as a lead-in to comment about the pathetic poorness of the opening post, the post which many of you have been rather stupidly praising. I should think that was rather apparent, was it not?
There is only ONE of 'me.' And the only thing I posted was a bit of humor.
Can I keep calling you Earnest?
patteeu
03-13-2006, 03:25 PM
I'm afraid you're mistaken about a couple things. Defense spending under Clinton was increased overall, and increased dramatically (some say it was the largest increase since Reagan) in his second term. It decreased steadily through his first term, continuing a trend started by Bush I in 1989, and fairly consistent with that rate of decrease. In his second term, Clinton reversed the trend and increased military spending by up to 124 billion dollars by the end of his presidency.
That's not what my information tells me.
Defense spending in 2002 equivalent dollars was down 17.9% during Clinton's tenure and only up 1.4% during his second term. And it was the biggest increase since Reagan only in the quite misleading sense that it was the first increase over a full Presidential term since Reagan left office (Bush I presided over an overall decrease in defense spending from the beginning of his term to the end). Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html)
In terms of both discretionary outlays and GDP, defense spending declined during every year of Clinton's two terms. Source (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)
Nightwish
03-13-2006, 03:25 PM
You are just like jaz all you can do is come after me personally.Most times, I just ignore what you post, if it is something with which I disagree. It is only when you post something as monumentally stupid as the opening post in this thread that I come after you personally. If you had left it with the opening paragraph about the greyhounds, I would have agreed with you, but when you decided to go off on people who think medical "miracles" are inspiring, you completely killed any credibility your post might otherwise have had. And you drove the nails even further into the coffin when you then went to a canned rant about how much your kind are the victim.
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 03:28 PM
And in 3 short years you leap frogged and back stabbed every one to get to the top of 3 companies.
Tell me another story daddy.
:rolleyes:
He was the stud of his school and played QB and DB. He has never even lost a fight and kicked everyone's ass he ever fought. Pretty scary guy that jaz.
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 03:29 PM
Testing to see if thread is locked
Maybe you would prefer something better like this:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=100540 ROFL
Nightwish
03-13-2006, 03:31 PM
There is only ONE of 'me.' And the only thing I posted was a bit of humor.
I don't care how many there are of YOU. This is a public forum. As often as not, when one person is quoted, it is by way of addressing a number of people with similar opinions, as evidenced by the fact that in my response I didn't refer to "Baby Lee," I referred to "BD and his fellow righties."
Can I keep calling you Earnest?
You can call me whatever you want, Vern, as long as you don't call me late for dinner.
banyon
03-13-2006, 03:32 PM
"will the lefties eventually turn this country into a bunch of Eurofhags?
:shrug:
Will this thread eventually turn D.C. into a pussified version of Romper Room?
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 03:33 PM
Most times, I just ignore what you post, if it is something with which I disagree. It is only when you post something as monumentally stupid as the opening post in this thread that I come after you personally. If you had left it with the opening paragraph about the greyhounds, I would have agreed with you, but when you decided to go off on people who think medical "miracles" are inspiring, you completely killed any credibility your post might otherwise have had. And you drove the nails even further into the coffin when you then went to a canned rant about how much your kind are the victim.
All I did was say what was on my mind and have given reasons why I posted what I did after that. If you have an issue with what I posted why don't you just come out and say where I came up short?
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 03:35 PM
"will the lefties eventually turn this country into a bunch of Eurofhags?
:shrug:
Will this thread eventually turn D.C. into a pussified version of Romper Room?
Quick call him a pussy back before they see your panties are showing. :rolleyes:
banyon
03-13-2006, 03:36 PM
Quick call him a pussy back before they see your panties are showing. :rolleyes:
yeah...exactly my point.
BIG_DADDY
03-13-2006, 03:51 PM
yeah...exactly my point.
You are kind of like all the lefties over here. Bitch non stop month in and month. year end and year out until someone else posts something you don't like. When they do be sure and tell them to quit bitching and not to get their panties in a wad. OK jaz. You can try and cover up the estrogen factor all you want by not addressing what is posted and just saying it's not me it's you but that doesn't change anything. The soft ass humaniacs and male haters are almost all on the left side of the fence as I have listed here. From educational system to Peta, HSUS, eviromentalists to gun law backers and on and on. Show me how I am wrong here and drop the I know you are so what am I styled jaz BS.
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 04:02 PM
It needs to be absurdly strong...because there are absurdly stupid people out there that wish to challege it.
No. Not really. Terrorists aren't challenging our military. They are challenging our border defenses and our security systems and our intelligence community.
Or do you think bin Laden is going to hurl thousands of T-90 (or whatever) tanks at us? Or is he going to send aircraft carriers against us.
And its laughable to me that anyone can describe what we did in Somalia or under Clinton as mismanagement of assets, while not saying the same of Iraq. Iraq is going to go the same way as Somalia -- US lives lost but no control over the situation acquired.
|Zach|
03-13-2006, 04:03 PM
Where did I say I was offended? I was just showing how left wing estrogen based media is out here. First they don't want them because there is no demand in this area because we are all supposedly high society snobs out here. It is also WAY too violent and a blood sport. Now we see that there is a huge demand for it 18k sellout crowd woth over 1k turned aways and there was almost no blood. What do you do now. Make up a bunch of shit about how pwoplw want to see blood and don't want to see the fights stopped. Make sure you don't tell anyone that we have more rules than any other MMA event in the world too.
The one before was on the greyhounds because I didn't think anyone would believe the story I was telling about them. They all have to be killed but we don't want your dogs chasing them it's barbaric. ROFL
One more thing. How come you always pick the other side of everything I post?
There was nothing in that article that was a big deal in the least. Unless you are a drama queen.
One more thing. How come you always pick the other side of everything I post?
Well you don't really post anymore...you just come on and throw up stuff that is a lot like this thread...and I usually disagree. Alot of drama queen stuff IMO.
|Zach|
03-13-2006, 04:04 PM
I haven't moved sheet rock today. Excuse me...
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 04:07 PM
That depends on how you define the "Reagan military buildup" I suppose. Certainly there were some high profile weapons systems that were started (or at least made public) during the Carter years, e.g. the B2 Bomber (although he did cancel the B1 Bomber which was later resurrected by Reagan IIRC).
Oh, I certainly agree Reagan built it up MORE. No doubt about that. Some dollars were wasted, but certainly not all.
But I think alot of people think Carter had held defense spending flat or reduced it during his term, where it was basically 2 years of cuts, and then the start of rapid escalation, which Reagan then built up even faster.
Amnorix
03-13-2006, 04:10 PM
In terms of both discretionary outlays and GDP, defense spending declined during every year of Clinton's two terms. Source (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)
Not at all a bad thing, as I don't recall any serious risks of invasions by China or anyone else durign that timeframe.
Also, our GDP was growing by leaps and bounds during that same timeframe, so it's hardly shocking that military spending in proportion to the GDP.
Realize, of course, that part of the reason WHY our GDP might have grown so quickly was that the gubment was borrowing less to fund continued huge military expansion. That helps lead to a decline in interest rates, blah, blah, blah. That's not the entire reason, of course, far from it, but it probably didn't hurt.
Pitt Gorilla
03-13-2006, 04:22 PM
This just seems a tad ironic; whining about estrogen-induced pussification.
Radar Chief
03-13-2006, 04:25 PM
And its laughable to me that anyone can describe what we did in Somalia or under Clinton as mismanagement of assets, while not saying the same of Iraq. Iraq is going to go the same way as Somalia -- US lives lost but no control over the situation acquired.
Well, it’s “laughable” to me that you can actually try and compare the two. We’re approach’n the 3-year anniversary in Iraq and we’ve yet to turn tail and run cause a Blackhawk got shot down.
Sully
03-13-2006, 04:27 PM
This just seems a tad ironic; whining about estrogen-induced pussification.
Really?
LOL...
That's the only ironic thing about this whole mess? I think the list could go on and on.
Radar Chief
03-13-2006, 04:30 PM
This just seems a tad ironic; whining about estrogen-induced pussification.
Whine’n ‘bout the whine’n? Yea, I know. The funiest part, at least to me, was when Nightwish started whine’n ‘bout the whine’n over the whine’n. ROFL
You just can't write comedy that good. :clap: