[3deroticer]

If he got a PHd, then what did I get?

DeJa Vue Notty?

I feel the weight lift off my shoulder from the Canuck guy!
carry on dude! I'm rooting for you!

[notty]

Quote:
3deroticer said:
If he got a PHd, then what did I get?

DeJa Vue Notty?

I feel the weight lift off my shoulder from the Canuck guy!
carry on dude! I'm rooting for you!

I was thinking that! I was thinking, "This reminds me of the endless bickering between 3d and myself."

We've located your successor. Where is mine?

[3deroticer]

Isn't Shara yours?

Are we going to tag team fight this out?

First one to resort to Meercats and pancakes loses!

[gOOber]

 

[3deroticer]

 

[Real]

im not here to be barack obama's press secretary or an apologist for mindless political wonks of any brand.  i might go a bit deeper into the pigeon holing of anyone who is stoked to see bush gone as "trading in reason for enthusiasm" or whatever but im not in the mood to write an essay just to get some pankakes/meerkats response when the well of smarmy runs dry.

my only point is ill speak on mine, yours, china's, russia's, sudan's, zimbabwe's, dollywood's or sweden's administrations whenever i please.  you can be comforted, disturbed or indifferent. whichever you please.

funny how much of a fuss is stirred up when i rightly point out the punchline to a bad political satire illustration is essentially equivalent to barry bonds telling a-rod "you sir are no hank aaron" lol....

[notty]

Holy crap...3d, tell me that isn't you with a second account.

Eerie.

As for Shara, she could do the job, but I don't think she gives a damn about politics. And she definitely wouldn't waste her time on some turd in off-topic forum. Silly, silly me!

[Dearc]

Quote:
3deroticer said:
Given that we spend more on military than any other country combine,

Defending the free world is a highly expensive and potentially dangerous duty that no other country in world history has ever done, for as long as we have.

Is it possible that if we scale back our Department of Defense (DOD) budget, other things may seem easier to fix?  Sure.  
(I truly hate that bumper sticker "It'd be a great day when the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.")

Is it also possible that if we spent more money on building things and feeding people rather than bombing them, they may stop fighting us?  Maybe.

Let us not forget, however, there are plenty of bad guys that still want to wipe us off the map, no matter whom our esteemed president is.  Some of them don't want our money, they just want us dead.  Let's not pick-n-choose who's who on the shit-list...

Although, I thought I heard on the radio this morning that if N. Korea launches it's "peaceful" satellite with it's missile capable of hitting the U.S. West Coast, the White House said it'll shoot it down.  That'll be the day!     I'm on the fence to think if Pres. Obama was serious, or just take Kim Jong Il out to lunch.

Despite the overwhelming anit-war stance the average European took against the U.S. regarding Iraq, I don't recall anyone seriously proposing the U.S. pull out of it's European bases, which the U.S. pays a hefty rent for.  This is less money European countries have to pay for their own defense, and allows them to spend it on things that most Americans may consider socialist.  Just a thought...

While hoping not to go too far off topic, what is people's experience with the military here?  I don't think I warrant the stature of starting a new thread with the hopes of getting any serious responses, but on the flip side I don't think a sob story of someone you met in college from a country with a name most people can't pronounce qualifies.

[solvegas]

I'm retired Navy, submarines to be precise. Why such a large, expensive military ? Because it's like insurance. Nobody likes to pay for it but you are glad you have it. Too many americans take it for granted the nation can't be invaded or destroyed. The reason the White House is white is because the british burned it down and, after reconstruction,the only paint in sufficient amount at the time was white. Military weakness always attracts attack. In December 7,1941, the japanese attacked because they saw the USA as militarily and culturally weak. European nations hate us but they are dependent on us because they are militarily weak. Ask the Poles, Checkz or Hungarians who they rather depend on more to protect them from revanchist Russia, the USA or France ? Real diplomacy is about getting the other guy to do what you want him to do. If you can talk about it and do a mutually satisfying agreement, that is indeed best. But sometimes only force will do. The japanese attacked because they did not want interference in their Greater East Asia Cooperation Empire and since they could not get us to agree to acquiesce, they attacked. If they had known about what would happen they would have not attacked.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
Dearc: It isn't Obama that bothers me, but AG Eric Holder and his stance on gun control.

What is it about his stance on gun control that has got you bothered, Dearc? I'm curious.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
ROUNDandHEAVY: I love the pundits. Now they are saying Obama is trying to do too much, that he shouldn't be out stumping in front of citizens.

Well, maybe he's trying to do so much because there's a helluva lot to do! Why hasn't the pundit class considered that, I wonder? He's taking over from a guy who spent more time on vacation than any other two-term president in history, including Ronald Reagan. He left a lot of shit to clean up, and Obama has to get busy with the fumigation, otherwise it'll stink up the country (more than it already is, I mean).

I would rather have a president talk to us than talk down to us. I would rather have a president willing to engage the people who gave him his job in the first place, instead of hiding in a bubble of yes-men and sycophants. But I'm just crazy that way, I guess.

Quote:
BBC: Washington Diary: "Doing too much?"

...The rumbling this week has been that after a mere 50 days in the job, Barack Obama is doing more than most presidents cram into one term, while riding roughshod over the nation's sensibilities.

As David Brooks put it in the New York Times: "Republicans could argue that it is Nero-esque for Democrats to be planning extensive renovations when the house is still on fire."

He may have a point, but you could also argue that if the Democrats are Nero, the Republicans are behaving like Caligula with a barrel of petrol, dousing the flames with fuel rather than coming up with any genuine alternatives.

The Obama administration has always seen this crisis as an opportunity to hasten its realisation of the American make-over. On that score the president is living up to his election promises.

Whether it is healthcare, education or immigration reform, the White House insists that these fundamental issues have languished for decades, gathering mould, because the impetus for change was too weak to survive the dead hand of Congress.

Inertia maintains the status quo, delighting the special interest groups, the administration argues. So the new president's team is determined to seize the day: "Carpe diem" might as well be emblazoned on the North Facade of the White House.

They have a point. The president's political capital is still high.

The last Democratic president wasted precious time doing too little, too late. The Republicans are floundering on a rudderless, listing ship weighed down by an elephant called Rush.

Healthcare, education, the moribund infrastructure, to name but a few, all need urgent attention.

If they are not addressed now, the moment may have passed.

And "carpe diem" has always been Mr Obama's mantra.

During the campaign, he gave the impression of being measured and sober-minded. But the 47-year-old president has also always combined thoughtfulness with the urgency of now. He is an impatient man...

Well, better carpe diem than "Mission Accomplished".

[Dearc]

AG Holder is pushing the idea that if the U.S. reinstitutes the assault rifle ban, the Mexican drug cartel's access to firearms will be cut off, and their terrorization of Mexican citizens will cease.

It's the worst excuse for gun control on record.

First of all, you can only (legally) buy semi-automatic (single shot) rifles here in the U.S.  The cartel can get its weapons from the black market, or the corrupt Mexican military personnel, and almost always they'll be fully automatic (burst fire).

Criminals will always have access to whatever guns they want.  Laws like that only hurt law abiding citizens.  Crime did NOT decrease when D.C. had it's anit-gun law in place.  It's a proven fact: armed citizens make better communities.  I for one have a .40 cal pistol, .12 ga pump action shotgun, and will be picking up an 5.56m M4 or AR15 in a couple weeks.

I posted a related pic.  Sorry, I can't make it a JPEG.  

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

Quote:
Dearc said:
AG Holder is pushing the idea that if the U.S. reinstitutes the assault rifle ban, the Mexican drug cartel's access to firearms will be cut off, and their terrorization of Mexican citizens will cease.

It's the worst excuse for gun control on record.

First of all, you can only (legally) buy semi-automatic (single shot) rifles here in the U.S.  The cartel can get its weapons from the black market, or the corrupt Mexican military personnel, and almost always they'll be fully automatic (burst fire).

Criminals will always have access to whatever guns they want.  Laws like that only hurt law abiding citizens.  Crime did NOT decrease when D.C. had it's anit-gun law in place.  It's a proven fact: armed citizens make better communities.  I for one have a .40 cal pistol, .12 ga pump action shotgun, and will be picking up an 5.56m M4 or AR15 in a couple weeks.

I posted a related pic.  Sorry, I can't make it a JPEG.  

Seriously, you think passing out AK47's to every citizen will protect us from government oppression? How gullible. You have me at responsible gun ownership for home protection and hunting, but insisting that the average citizen deserves the right for automatic weapons...where do you draw the line? A home nuclear weapon would make a fine deterrent to crime too.

Read your damn constitution, a citizen with an assault rifle doesn't constitute a well regulated militia. When the founding fathers wrote that amendment, the most deadly hand weapon was a musket. Do you think Jefferson would have advocated unliscensed cannons being mounted in every home?

This selective read of the constitution is noithing more than a macho attempt to cling to some cowboy, John Wayne vision of virile American manhood.

You want to protect yourself from government oppression, do your fkn homework and vote to prevent crooks and ideologues from being elected.  

You want some sympathy fore gun rights? Try showing a scintilla of common sense.

[Dearc]

Quote:
ROUNDandHEAVY said:
Seriously, you think passing out AK47's to every citizen will protect us from government oppression? How gullible. You have me at responsible gun ownership for home protection and hunting, but insisting that the average citizen deserves the right for automatic weapons...where do you draw the line? A home nuclear weapon would make a fine deterrent to crime too.

Read your damn constitution, a citizen with an assault rifle doesn't constitute a well regulated militia. When the founding fathers wrote that amendment, the most deadly hand weapon was a musket. Do you think Jefferson would have advocated unliscensed cannons being mounted in every home?

This selective read of the constitution is noithing more than a macho attempt to cling to some cowboy, John Wayne vision of virile American manhood.

You want to protect yourself from government oppression, do your fkn homework and vote to prevent crooks and ideologues from being elected.  

You want some sympathy fore gun rights? Try showing a scintilla of common sense.

Not a bad start from muskets to nukes, but I didn't say that.  Even the most militant gun owner wouldn't allow it...too much competition.  lol  Some people shouldn't be allowed firearms, that's why we have background checks.

I'd consider a "militia" to be average gun owners whom show up to report to their local sheriff, mayor, governor, etc. in time of emergencies and offer their services.  We obviously cannot rely on the gov't to take care of us all the time.  We can all agree L.A. riots, Midwest floods of the early 90's, and Katrina are good points.

Some guys practice metro-sexual behaviors, like wear pink t-shirts with peace signs and go out on man-dates, others go target practice, and teach something to their ch!ldren that has been taught since the founding of this country.  Either way, men love to discharge...  lmao

If Obama and Holder have their way, they can have my guns from my cold dead hands.

Typical liberal pacifist:  if you don't like it, insult the intelligence of the opposing side.  Get your panties out of a bind.  I bet you were tortured with water pistols, then upgraded to slingshots, weren't you?  

[Hugeboobfan]

Quote:
Dearc said:
Not a bad start from muskets to nukes, but I didn't say that.  Even the most militant gun owner wouldn't allow it...too much competition.  lol  Some people shouldn't be allowed firearms, that's why we have background checks.

Why have background checks?  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about background checks.  It states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Background checks allow the government to arbitrarily decide which citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms.  Doesn't that sound like an infringement on our constitutional rights?

Quote:
I'd consider a "militia" to be average gun owners whom show up to report to their local sheriff, mayor, governor, etc. in time of emergencies and offer their services.  We obviously cannot rely on the gov't to take care of us all the time.  We can all agree L.A. riots, Midwest floods of the early 90's, and Katrina are good points.

If you are ok with background checks, then you are ok with restrictions on gun ownership.  Why do you need an assault rifle, be it semi-automatic or not?  Why do you need a  handgun?  Wouldn't a hunting rifle suffice?  If your argument is that you need more firepower to combat criminals then perhaps you do need automatic weapons, no?

I find it strange that when you think of offering your services to the community you think of guns.  If that's the way you think of a militia, why not have the sheriff hand you a gun when you show up?  But I guess that's a typical right-wing conservative: the only freedom you're really concerned about is the right to own guns.