Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2008, 07:14:35 AM
Post by: ilbob on February 21, 2008, 08:28:07 AM
Post by: HankB on February 21, 2008, 08:35:19 AM
We could do worse than having him in the White House . . . and as things are shaping up, we certainly will, no matter which party's candidate wins the Presidency.
Post by: ilbob on February 21, 2008, 09:11:28 AM
obama gives more specifics.
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 10:12:09 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2008, 10:18:02 AM
Bleh. After going over his website, I can see how much of a war monger this guy really is. He actually thinks Al-Queda has the power to destroy the United States.
Yeah, I don't know where anyone would get that idea.
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 10:23:56 AM
A group of thugs attacked us...that's why Newt wants to invade Iran....right?
Post by: Bogie on February 21, 2008, 10:28:54 AM
Quote
He actually thinks Al-Queda has the power to destroy the United States.
They do. After the nutjobs manage to pop a nuke or dirty bomb in a major city, the US as you know it will be gone. Things will change overnight.
Post by: HankB on February 21, 2008, 11:10:44 AM
his supposed ideas are not much more than platitudes, except on national security and immigration.
He also has denounced the Kyoto nonsense and, I believe, LOST.
Post by: MrRezister on February 21, 2008, 12:54:19 PM
Quote
He actually thinks Al-Queda has the power to destroy the United States.
They do. After the nutjobs manage to pop a nuke or dirty bomb in a major city, the US as you know it will be gone. Things will change overnight.
You mean like when the Prez suspends Habeus Corpus for US Citizens? It will truly be a dark day...
Post by: Finch on February 21, 2008, 02:20:10 PM
Quote
He actually thinks Al-Queda has the power to destroy the United States.
They do. After the nutjobs manage to pop a nuke or dirty bomb in a major city, the US as you know it will be gone. Things will change overnight.
You mean like when the Prez suspends Habeus Corpus for US Citizens? It will truly be a dark day...
Hey! Your freedoms can't get in the way of the war or Terrah!
Post by: De Selby on February 21, 2008, 09:30:00 PM
Quote
He actually thinks Al-Queda has the power to destroy the United States.
They do. After the nutjobs manage to pop a nuke or dirty bomb in a major city, the US as you know it will be gone. Things will change overnight.
They will only change if you and everyone else votes people into office who are willing to change it.
The nutjobs can't force us to do anything-they are only capable of murdering and barbarism. How we respond to their crimes is up to us-and we should take responsibility for it instead of refusing to admit that we have choices and that we, the folks who pull the strings in this country, are ultimately responsible for any lost liberty as a result of terrorism, not the terrorists.
Post by: SomeKid on February 22, 2008, 01:01:40 AM
Quote
He actually thinks Al-Queda has the power to destroy the United States.
They do. After the nutjobs manage to pop a nuke or dirty bomb in a major city, the US as you know it will be gone. Things will change overnight.
They will only change if you and everyone else votes people into office who are willing to change it.
The nutjobs can't force us to do anything-they are only capable of murdering and barbarism. How we respond to their crimes is up to us-and we should take responsibility for it instead of refusing to admit that we have choices and that we, the folks who pull the strings in this country, are ultimately responsible for any lost liberty as a result of terrorism, not the terrorists.
They are only capable of murdering and barbarism because we have gone soft. We ought to start rounding all of them up, and executing them en masse. Wipe a few countries out in this manner, and sooner or later the leaders of the countries we are blotting out of existence will get the hint, and help us kill the terrorists. Then, we won't have to do nearly as much backbreaking labor alone. If the Muslim world fails to join us and stamp terrorism out? We stamp the entire Muslim Middle East out. Simple enough.
Post by: MrRezister on February 22, 2008, 04:48:54 AM
If the Muslim world fails to join us and stamp terrorism out? We stamp the entire Muslim Middle East out. Simple enough.
Ah, yes - the old reliable "kill all the people who might be bad guys until the ones who are left like us" strategy. That always works.
Post by: ilbob on February 22, 2008, 05:34:50 AM
If the Muslim world fails to join us and stamp terrorism out? We stamp the entire Muslim Middle East out. Simple enough.
Ah, yes - the old reliable "kill all the people who might be bad guys until the ones who are left like us" strategy. That always works.
Sadly, I am beginning to think we might have made a mistake in going to Iraq. Iran seems to be a much worse problem these days. We will probably have to deal with them at some point. We will probably have to deal with NK somehow as well. I think part of the equation for going after Iraq was that a more or less stable democracy next door would put a lot of pressure on the mullahs in Iran. The stability is shaky, but improving, and it is quite clear that the mullahs really are scared of such a thing. It is hard to keep people in the dark ages when the 21st century is next door. Whether we can keep it up long enough to do any long term good is another story.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2008, 05:57:31 AM
We just have to see Iraq through. The question is how to minimize the damage and somehow try to get some payback at least financially, e.g. by oil, so that at least the fiscal damage is curtailed somewhat. Iraq certainly will not be a 21st c. nation or a democracy any time soon, but at least they can be stabilized enough to start the process that will take 20 years to complete, while most of our troops are gradually pulled out. We need to put the big-boy pants on and recognize this as a nation.
Post by: Bogie on February 22, 2008, 06:25:02 AM
Go talk to Mustaffa Abduhl Ibrihim El-Camel, and let him know...
"Now, you boys play nice, and get along, or we're gonna send someone in the night for you. Just you. And you won't like it."
After he misbehaves, show the pictures to his successor, with the same message.
Sooner or later, you'll get to the smart one.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on February 22, 2008, 06:29:17 AM
Quote
I think part of the equation for going after Iraq was that a more or less stable democracy next door would put a lot of pressure on the mullahs in Iran. The stability is shaky, but improving, and it is quite clear that the mullahs really are scared of such a thing. It is hard to keep people in the dark ages when the 21st century is next door.
I think this is a less and less viable argument.
United Arab Emirates is a very technologically-welcoming and open society with considerable freedom to participate in global markets. They can play in stocks, surf for porn on the internet, and read any book they want to from everything I have heard about them so far. They are a "next door neighbor" to Iran and Saudi Arabia, but they haven't influenced any Muslim-equivalent of "glassnost".
I doubt Iraq will either. They will need the next 20-30 years to rebuild their reputation away from being seen as a puppet banana republic of the US before they are taken seriously in Middle East regional politics.
Post by: Bogie on February 22, 2008, 03:06:24 PM
He knows he has very little chance of a successful run for major office. So he's speaking his mind with common sense. And paradoxically, that might get him a run at a major office...
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2008, 03:32:22 PM
Quote
I think part of the equation for going after Iraq was that a more or less stable democracy next door would put a lot of pressure on the mullahs in Iran. The stability is shaky, but improving, and it is quite clear that the mullahs really are scared of such a thing. It is hard to keep people in the dark ages when the 21st century is next door.
I think this is a less and less viable argument.
United Arab Emirates is a very technologically-welcoming and open society with considerable freedom to participate in global markets. They can play in stocks, surf for porn on the internet, and read any book they want to from everything I have heard about them so far. They are a "next door neighbor" to Iran and Saudi Arabia, but they haven't influenced any Muslim-equivalent of "glassnost".
I doubt Iraq will either. They will need the next 20-30 years to rebuild their reputation away from being seen as a puppet banana republic of the US before they are taken seriously in Middle East regional politics.
The UAE is New Rome, complete with slaves.
Dubai was built by and runs on the back of literal slave labor, imported workers who get minimum wage and aren't free to wander around outside their living areas, as if they could afford anything in a make-believe city of seven-star hotels anyway. If they're killed in construction projects, as many are, nobody notices, nobody cares.
That won't last forever. I fully expect to see Dubai in flames someday. It's just inevitable.
Post by: De Selby on February 22, 2008, 07:56:21 PM
Quote
He actually thinks Al-Queda has the power to destroy the United States.
They do. After the nutjobs manage to pop a nuke or dirty bomb in a major city, the US as you know it will be gone. Things will change overnight.
They will only change if you and everyone else votes people into office who are willing to change it.
The nutjobs can't force us to do anything-they are only capable of murdering and barbarism. How we respond to their crimes is up to us-and we should take responsibility for it instead of refusing to admit that we have choices and that we, the folks who pull the strings in this country, are ultimately responsible for any lost liberty as a result of terrorism, not the terrorists.
We ought to start rounding all of them up, and executing them en masse.
So your problem isn't with the Nazi method, it's just that they targeted the wrong people?
Post by: De Selby on February 22, 2008, 08:20:02 PM
[it is quite clear that the mullahs really are scared of such a thing. It is hard to keep people in the dark ages when the 21st century is next door. Whether we can keep it up long enough to do any long term good is another story.
The mullahs are scared? Of what? Having all their proxies elected to control Iraq?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 23, 2008, 06:30:26 AM
They are only capable of murdering and barbarism because we have gone soft. We ought to start rounding all of them up, and executing them en masse. Wipe a few countries out in this manner, and sooner or later the leaders of the countries we are blotting out of existence will get the hint, and help us kill the terrorists. Then, we won't have to do nearly as much backbreaking labor alone. If the Muslim world fails to join us and stamp terrorism out? We stamp the entire Muslim Middle East out. Simple enough.
I read posts like this and I have to wonder, "Why is this guy still allowed to post on this board?".
It would be nearly impossible to Godwin this guy.
Post by: Bogie on February 23, 2008, 07:50:39 AM
Remember 9/12/01? People wanted heads on stakes. Think how this country will react if the nutjobs successfully nuke a major city? All those folks will dust off their little lapel pins, and will be -demanding- that we glass half the middle east. And they quite possibly will -get- their wish.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2008, 07:55:12 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 23, 2008, 08:06:14 AM
Actually, he's not all -that- far off base... Iran's leadership claims to welcome martyrdom... That's scary...
Remember 9/12/01? People wanted heads on stakes. Think how this country will react if the nutjobs successfully nuke a major city? All those folks will dust off their little lapel pins, and will be -demanding- that we glass half the middle east. And they quite possibly will -get- their wish.
Remember 9/12/01? People wanted heads on stakes. Think how this country will react if the nutjobs successfully nuke a major city? All those folks will dust off their little lapel pins, and will be -demanding- that we glass half the middle east. And they quite possibly will -get- their wish.
It's still a far cry from advocating the systematic extermination of entire countries and religions, and it's been almost 7 years since that happened. Most of the people who thought that are not likely advocates of nuking most of the Middle East/Muslims.
Post by: De Selby on February 23, 2008, 01:59:51 PM
Remember 9/12/01? People wanted heads on stakes. Think how this country will react if the nutjobs successfully nuke a major city? All those folks will dust off their little lapel pins, and will be -demanding- that we glass half the middle east. And they quite possibly will -get- their wish.
I highlighted the key portion. How we react is up to us-not up to the terrorists.
Hence, it's your choice to do whatever it is you think will happen after the next attack. Blame the terrorists for the crime of the attack, but you should be square on who is responsible for the reaction. That's on our shoulders, not theirs, because our reaction is ours to control (or not control)
Post by: Bogie on February 23, 2008, 02:33:23 PM
What you see on the streets today is the result of seven years of media war by the Democrats. Bomb a major city, and what you'll see is a population up in arms.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 23, 2008, 02:46:19 PM
I remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S. military went in there... flags, lapel pins... everyone and their dog was suddenly a flag-waver. That died down rather quickly.
9/11, same deal. Even politicians.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Funny how things have changed...
Post by: De Selby on February 23, 2008, 06:01:54 PM
People tend to be a little difficult to "control." Since Hillary has a great history of following the wind as far as policy, what do you think will happen when 90% of the population starts screaming for glass, because Britney just got ashed?
What you see on the streets today is the result of seven years of media war by the Democrats. Bomb a major city, and what you'll see is a population up in arms.
What you see on the streets today is the result of seven years of media war by the Democrats. Bomb a major city, and what you'll see is a population up in arms.
Sorry, I don't buy the "I couldn't help myself!" line.
The fact that you think the public is fickle doesn't make it any less responsible for its choices.
Blaming the "media" and all these other amorphous entities for a concrete choice is a cop-out. You are responsible for your vote, not the cameras, and we'll all be responsible for the votes we cast in response to terrorism.
If you don't believe in personal responsibility for one's choices, it's hard to see how you could support gun ownership. If people can't be held accountable and react to their passions without thinking....what on earth business do they have owning guns?
Post by: Bogie on February 23, 2008, 06:15:43 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 23, 2008, 06:26:06 PM
Well, personally, if someone nukes a major US city, I think we should find out where it came from, and send a return present.
So the people who make this choice are responsible for it or not?
And what about the choice to destroy civil rights protections?
Are the people capable of thinking rationally before they support such measures? And if they're not, how can you possibly trust them with firearms?
Post by: SomeKid on February 23, 2008, 07:10:42 PM
Well, personally, if someone nukes a major US city, I think we should find out where it came from, and send a return present.
So the people who make this choice are responsible for it or not?
And what about the choice to destroy civil rights protections?
Are the people capable of thinking rationally before they support such measures? And if they're not, how can you possibly trust them with firearms?
Obfuscate all you want. Terrorists should die, just because they are your fellow Muslims and stuck in the 12th century doesn't make them anything special.
Post by: Bogie on February 23, 2008, 07:45:42 PM
When they proceed to irritate the most powerful country on earth, and get mostly ignored, they are very lucky.
When they finally attack the most powerful country on earth with enough force to warrant its full focused attention, they lose.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 23, 2008, 07:48:07 PM
Post by: Bogie on February 23, 2008, 07:50:18 PM
If you walk into a biker bar, walk up to the biggest, ugliest Hell's Angel, call him an Outlaw, and kick him in the shin, you really shouldn't be surprised at all about the monumental asskicking that follows...
Post by: De Selby on February 23, 2008, 08:42:44 PM
When someone declares war on the most powerful country on earth, and gets ignored, they are lucky.
When they proceed to irritate the most powerful country on earth, and get mostly ignored, they are very lucky.
When they finally attack the most powerful country on earth with enough force to warrant its full focused attention, they lose.
When they proceed to irritate the most powerful country on earth, and get mostly ignored, they are very lucky.
When they finally attack the most powerful country on earth with enough force to warrant its full focused attention, they lose.
Yeah, but I'm asking you about your claims that all our civil liberties will be gone in this process.
Who is responsible for the choices we make? The terrorists, or us? Simple question, and I have not yet seen you answer except to indicate that we're actually not responsible for the choices we make as a nation.
Post by: De Selby on February 23, 2008, 08:45:16 PM
Obfuscate all you want. Terrorists should die, just because they are your fellow Muslims and stuck in the 12th century doesn't make them anything special.
Supporting genocide, like you did on this thread, puts you in the same barbarous centuries as the terrorists.
I feel that part of having 21st century enlightened views means realizing that killing a billion people for any reason is so wrong as to warrant comparisons to the Nazi gas-chambers. Genocide is as backwards and barbaric as anything the terrorists propose (and some of them propose genocide, like you did on this thread).
I think if you are concerned about being stuck in the past you should review your own beliefs on this subject.
Post by: Bogie on February 23, 2008, 09:04:24 PM
Post by: Finch on February 23, 2008, 10:54:26 PM
When they finally attack the most powerful country on earth with enough force to warrant its full focused attention, they lose.
To bad we didn't focus our full attention on those who actually did it...
Post by: Bogie on February 24, 2008, 10:20:19 AM
Dear Middle East Despots:
See what we just did to the country with the largest and best equipped military in your region? You really oughta think twice before twisting this tiger's tail.
Sincerely,
The Guys with the Big Airplanes
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 24, 2008, 10:28:54 AM
When is mass murder okay - when the people being murdered are Americans? Because if I have to make an "us vs. them" choice, well... Guess who loses?
So...are you saying it's OK to exterminate 1 billion people then, which is what it sounds like? The argument is about committing genocide of all Muslims.
Or, are you just determined to win the argument because it's vs shootinstudent?
Post by: Bogie on February 24, 2008, 10:31:54 AM
Post by: Balog on February 24, 2008, 12:18:46 PM
Could be transference... After all, the nutjob types would like to exterminate all infidels...
Well, yeah. But we're better than that, right? Saying "Well the terrorists want to do it too!" doesn't make it right.
Post by: Bogie on February 24, 2008, 12:29:52 PM
If there's a billion folks out there, and all of them want me dead, well, that's a bad thing.
Religious wars are nasty.
Especially when you have a buncha folks who don't mind dying. Who, in some cases, welcome it.
Last time the US was exposed to that was in WWII vs. the Japanese.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 24, 2008, 12:36:14 PM
Could be transference... After all, the nutjob types would like to exterminate all infidels...
Well, yeah. But we're better than that, right? Saying "Well the terrorists want to do it too!" doesn't make it right.
"We" don't fly aircraft into buildings full of civilians. That's when the line was drawn in the sand, IMO.
For the record, I have nothing against Muslims and do not want to see innocent people killed. I work (and have worked) with a handful of Muslims, and they are peaceable, hard working folks.
The militant extremists, though, deserve everything coming at them. They do not understand terms like "negotiate". All they understand is violence and mayhem. They have twisted the Islamic faith to suit their own nefarious ends and purposes.
In their case, the only response possible, unfortunately, is violent.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 24, 2008, 12:38:50 PM
If the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East, including Israel, would the violence and hatred against the U.S. stop? I honestly don't believe it would. It's beyond that point now.
Post by: Balog on February 24, 2008, 01:15:40 PM
"right" or "necessary?"
If there's a billion folks out there, and all of them want me dead, well, that's a bad thing.
Religious wars are nasty.
Especially when you have a buncha folks who don't mind dying. Who, in some cases, welcome it.
Last time the US was exposed to that was in WWII vs. the Japanese.
If there's a billion folks out there, and all of them want me dead, well, that's a bad thing.
Religious wars are nasty.
Especially when you have a buncha folks who don't mind dying. Who, in some cases, welcome it.
Last time the US was exposed to that was in WWII vs. the Japanese.
Well, if a billion people want you dead, and are trying to make it happen, then yeah killing them is a good idea. But saying "A lot of people who look/talk/pray like this want to kill me, so I'll go and genocide everyone that looks/talks/prays like that" is *expletive deleted*it logic. Kill the fighters; ok. Kill the people supporting the fighters; great. Kill the wives and children of the fighters; evil. This isn't WWII Japan, where I agree nuking em was the best way to go. I've worked with hajjis, and if we can unf### their .gov long enough to breed a couple pro west generations they can be made to see reason.
Post by: Finch on February 24, 2008, 01:32:24 PM
Dear Middle East Despots:
See what we just did to the country with the largest and best equipped military in your region? You really oughta think twice before twisting this tiger's tail.
Sincerely,
The Guys with the Big Airplanes
See what we just did to the country with the largest and best equipped military in your region? You really oughta think twice before twisting this tiger's tail.
Sincerely,
The Guys with the Big Airplanes
P.S.
And all it cost us was thousands of lives, our economy, and some of our freedoms. And hey, we still can't finish the mission we "accomplished."
Post by: Bogie on February 24, 2008, 02:11:50 PM
Except for television.
Europe recovering from WWI took damn near 75 years, and another war.
Main reason our economy's acting like it's in the dumper is that we keep hearing that it's in the dumper. Only major screwed up sector is new house construction, which was on a bubble. That's cyclic, but generally the folks who are involved in construction seem to think that their "up cycles" are gonna last forever.
Clue: Everyone who was gonna buy a house in the 'burbs bought one. Don't need any more for a while.
Post by: Finch on February 24, 2008, 08:26:12 PM
Main reason our economy's acting like it's in the dumper is that we have a 3.1 trillion dollar budget a good chuck of which is needed to fund silly wars and bloated bureaucracy
Fixed.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 25, 2008, 03:52:45 AM
Main reason our economy's acting like it's in the dumper is that we have a 3.1 trillion dollar budget a good chuck of which is needed to fund silly wars and bloated bureaucracy
Fixed.
Nope.
Eliminate welfare. Close down Amtrak. Eliminate the NEA. Slash pork. Privatize social security. Problem solved.
Post by: Bogie on February 25, 2008, 06:01:57 AM
They won't hire anyone who even suggests that they are a "train buff." Yet their marketing is geared toward that segment. And since most of their routes seem to go to nowhere, slowly... IIRC, it was 3-4 days from St. Louis to Atlanta... Via Cleveland or somesuch...
The economy will pick right back up the week after the election, provided Obama or Hillary are in... Why? That's what we'll hear on the news.
Post by: grampster on February 25, 2008, 06:25:12 PM
Had our politico's had the balls to run over these obstructionists we'd be pumping oil out of the 2 trillion barrel reserves in the Green River watershed, Alaska, off the coast of Cali, in the Gulf and natural gas beneath the Great Lakes as well as wind power in the middle of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Nuclear power plants would dot the country, we'd probably have a high speed elevated electric train system criss crossing the country, recycling nuclear waste would not be against the law. We would not be distilling our food into alcohol. There would be no energy crisis, energy would be cheap, we'd be beholden to no tinpot dictator or tribal feudalist imam. The Middle East would be no trouble for anyone except each other.
People seem to have forgotten that America was built upon inovation and hard work. Freedom tends to inspire that. The only thing that has happened is that America has devolved into more and more socialism, nannyism and a propensity to give up in the face of challenge. You only have to look at the auto industry to see that it's a fact. You could look around in many other niches and see the same facts.
Post by: Bogie on February 26, 2008, 05:16:10 AM
The Environuts need to see the oil wells in southern Illinois. You don't even notice most of them.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 26, 2008, 05:53:06 AM
Okay, Grampster - you're in charge.
The Environuts need to see the oil wells in southern Illinois. You don't even notice most of them.
The Environuts need to see the oil wells in southern Illinois. You don't even notice most of them.
There are no oil wells in S. Illinois! I lived there for 3 1/2 years and I didn't see any!
Post by: Scout26 on February 26, 2008, 07:25:02 AM
Quote
There are no oil wells in S. Illinois!
Drive down I-57 through Cumberland, Effingham, Marion, Jefferson, Franklin, and Williamson counties.
They are there.
I can always tell what oil prices are by the number that are running.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 26, 2008, 08:33:07 AM
Quote
There are no oil wells in S. Illinois!
Drive down I-57 through Cumberland, Effingham, Marion, Jefferson, Franklin, and Williamson counties.
They are there.
I can always tell what oil prices are by the number that are running.
Well, I didn't see any!
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 27, 2008, 09:38:29 AM
Actually, I sort of wonder why we're paying the CIA...
Go talk to Mustaffa Abduhl Ibrihim El-Camel, and let him know...
"Now, you boys play nice, and get along, or we're gonna send someone in the night for you. Just you. And you won't like it."
After he misbehaves, show the pictures to his successor, with the same message.
Sooner or later, you'll get to the smart one.
Go talk to Mustaffa Abduhl Ibrihim El-Camel, and let him know...
"Now, you boys play nice, and get along, or we're gonna send someone in the night for you. Just you. And you won't like it."
After he misbehaves, show the pictures to his successor, with the same message.
Sooner or later, you'll get to the smart one.
Ahhh. The "kick them into the engine intake" school of negotiation.
Post by: Paddy on February 27, 2008, 09:41:20 AM
Oh, wait, that's already happening.
Post by: Bogie on February 27, 2008, 10:46:34 AM
Sigh... I'm on my way to the tax office and the DMV in a few minutes. In Missouri, the DMV is privatized, but it's awarded basically as political payoffs... So its sucks.
Heck, look at UPS and Fedex vs the Useless Postal System...
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 27, 2008, 10:59:47 AM
Yeah, let's privatize the whole country. Sell the government to the highest corporate bidder.
Oh, wait, that's already happening.
Oh, wait, that's already happening.
Not fast enough. There are still enough bureaucrats around to bolster horrendous inefficiency, laughably inept management, and abysmally poor fiscal performance, none of which would be tolerated under private ownership.
So let's get with it! Bidding starts now...
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 11:02:44 AM
Well, most government-run stuff doesn't work all that well...
Sigh... I'm on my way to the tax office and the DMV in a few minutes. In Missouri, the DMV is privatized, but it's awarded basically as political payoffs... So its sucks.
Heck, look at UPS and Fedex vs the Useless Postal System...
Sigh... I'm on my way to the tax office and the DMV in a few minutes. In Missouri, the DMV is privatized, but it's awarded basically as political payoffs... So its sucks.
Heck, look at UPS and Fedex vs the Useless Postal System...
Fedex: Stuff ends up on my doorstep in a plastic wrap if it's raining, to protect it.
Post Office: Note gets left to go get the package at a branch office seven miles away, with a window that's only open from 10am-12pm on Saturday.
Guess which I choose?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 27, 2008, 02:43:43 PM
I have been reading Newt's communiques for a long time now and seem to agree with him on virtually all issues. Many of his ideas to fix different fedgov disasters are innovative and sound. Does that make me a Newt Gingrich conservative? Is there such a thing? Are you one?
I don't know, but I can tell you that I just lost all respect for Newt.
Post by: Guitargod1985 on February 28, 2008, 12:55:29 PM
Post by: Paddy on February 28, 2008, 01:17:57 PM
Uh, no. I'm a Barry Goldwater conservative.
heh. Now you've done it. The majority of APS has no idea what you mean.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 28, 2008, 02:10:13 PM
Post by: roo_ster on February 28, 2008, 04:40:27 PM
To paraphrase the Princess Bride:
RileyMc/Vizzini: ...BARRY GOLDWATER!
jfruser/Inigo Montoya: You keep using that name. I do not think he stands for what you think he stands for.
(Or at least you are going to be specific as to when in AuH2O's career you want his views to be taken from.)
Post by: Bogie on February 28, 2008, 08:48:11 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on March 04, 2008, 11:43:13 AM
My name is Bogie. I think you completely bleeped up this thread. Therefore, I will keel you.
Never mess with a Missourian when keels are on the line.
Brad