Obama Speech

[The Dark Side of Will]

I know you disagree, but you have yet to explain how they could write such a flowery document and have such attrocious events transpiring.

I don't need to explain that. It's human nature. People have been doing horrible things to each other throughout the entire history of the human race. I think that the Constitution is an outstandingly well written document, in order for its provisions to have remained as intact as they have for as long as they have.

The big issue is that power-hungry would-be oppressors in D.C. are gradually disassembling the checks, balances and protections built into the Constitution for the express purpose of restraining and limiting the government.
One of the first big checks/balances to go was the state legislature choosing senators. Popular election of senators removes the say that the state governments were supposed to have in the operations of the federal government.
Another huge one was that idiotic SCROTUS decision that constitutional protections don't apply in civil cases... which opened up the door to civil propery seizure; a flagrant--yet somehow legal--violation of 5th ammendment rights.

It's going to keep getting worse. Right now I'm wondering if taxation abuses or civil property seizure will be what causes the eventual revolution.

[EBSB52]

I know you disagree, but you have yet to explain how they could write such a flowery document and have such attrocious events transpiring.

I don't need to explain that. It's human nature. People have been doing horrible things to each other throughout the entire history of the human race. I think that the Constitution is an outstandingly well written document, in order for its provisions to have remained as intact as they have for as long as they have.

And yet you never want to discuss that it was written by oppressive slave owners and rapists to say the least, probably much worse. Will, you tend to selectively choose what you wish to accept or deny, logically you have to look at the authors, their actions, their intent, etc as you review an enormous doc like the US Const. Case law is surrounded by wondering what they meant and if they wrote, "freedom and liberty" then went home to fuck their slaves, well, they must have meant it in an exclusive way. In Austria they get jailed for denying the Haloucast, in the US we are praised for that same denial in regard to the Indian Haloucast or the African Haloucast. Let's get honest; waving flags is fun, but unimpressive to me.

The big issue is that power-hungry would-be oppressors in D.C. are gradually disassembling the checks, balances and protections built into the Constitution for the express purpose of restraining and limiting the government.

Like the then Republican senate threatening to rewrite the rules of fillibuster if teh Dems dare do it about 3 years ago? How have the Dems done it? Rememebr, you have to provide a substantive reason, not the essence of.

One of the first big checks/balances to go was the state legislature choosing senators. Popular election of senators removes the say that the state governments were supposed to have in the operations of the federal government.

IS this in all states? What legislation established this?

Another huge one was that idiotic SCROTUS decision that constitutional protections don't apply in civil cases... which opened up the door to civil propery seizure; a flagrant--yet somehow legal--violation of 5th ammendment rights.

I agree. That is as old as RICO (1920's), right? Can you supply a case? BTW, I totally agree.

It's going to keep getting worse. Right now I'm wondering if taxation abuses or civil property seizure will be what causes the eventual revolution.

[/quote]


Taxation abuses??? Oh, you mean reducing taxes to the point where we have such a disparity of the rich and poor that we might as well have a 1500's monarchy here? Oh, you mean taxing the rich so they have to fall off of their billions. I see, and these millionaires/billionaires are gonna be in the streets causing hell, right. Will, foreign companies are flocking here by the thousands to enjoy our low tax rates and lack of any real employee laws. We are probably the only industrialized nation to not have uni-care, yet you think we have too many svs....whatever.

BTW, as lowly individuals, we are pussies. We are the best armed underclass of the world and yet there is no and will be no revolution. We are trained to cross each other's picket lines and sell each other out, there will be no revolution. Europeans, well, that's another story, they have revolted.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I know you disagree, but you have yet to explain how they could write such a flowery document and have such attrocious events transpiring.

I don't need to explain that. It's human nature. People have been doing horrible things to each other throughout the entire history of the human race. I think that the Constitution is an outstandingly well written document, in order for its provisions to have remained as intact as they have for as long as they have.

And yet you never want to discuss that it was written by oppressive slave owners and rapists to say the least, probably much worse. Will, you tend to selectively choose what you wish to accept or deny, logically you have to look at the authors, their actions, their intent, etc as you review an enormous doc like the US Const. Case law is surrounded by wondering what they meant and if they wrote, "freedom and liberty" then went home to fuck their slaves, well, they must have meant it in an exclusive way. In Austria they get jailed for denying the Haloucast, in the US we are praised for that same denial in regard to the Indian Haloucast or the African Haloucast. Let's get honest; waving flags is fun, but unimpressive to me.

Take your own pill;
Put down the ad hominem and do some research:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... avery.html

IS this in all states? What legislation established this?

17th Ammendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeent ... nstitution

Another huge one was that idiotic SCROTUS decision that constitutional protections don't apply in civil cases... which opened up the door to civil propery seizure; a flagrant--yet somehow legal--violation of 5th ammendment rights.

I agree. That is as old as RICO (1920's), right? Can you supply a case? BTW, I totally agree.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179.html outlines civil forfeiture. I'm pretty sure I've read a reference someplace that cited which case disallowed Constitutional protections in civil cases... but I could be wrong about that and that loophole may be procedural or statutory.

It's going to keep getting worse. Right now I'm wondering if taxation abuses or civil property seizure will be what causes the eventual revolution.

Taxation abuses???

I mean the fact that the income tax is not a REQUIREMENT for anyone who is not taking money from the federal government, but that everyone and every business has been taught from birth/incorporation that income tax is just a part of life and that it needs to be blindly paid by everyone all the time. The system is set up to deliberately obfuscate the fact that you can become a non-taxpayer. The day-to-day way to live your life that you've been taught for your entire life inadvertently puts you into the class of being a taxpayer.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/fedincometax.php
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/empltax.php

[EBSB52]

I know you disagree, but you have yet to explain how they could write such a flowery document and have such attrocious events transpiring.

I don't need to explain that. It's human nature. People have been doing horrible things to each other throughout the entire history of the human race. I think that the Constitution is an outstandingly well written document, in order for its provisions to have remained as intact as they have for as long as they have.

And yet you never want to discuss that it was written by oppressive slave owners and rapists to say the least, probably much worse. Will, you tend to selectively choose what you wish to accept or deny, logically you have to look at the authors, their actions, their intent, etc as you review an enormous doc like the US Const. Case law is surrounded by wondering what they meant and if they wrote, "freedom and liberty" then went home to fuck their slaves, well, they must have meant it in an exclusive way. In Austria they get jailed for denying the Haloucast, in the US we are praised for that same denial in regard to the Indian Haloucast or the African Haloucast. Let's get honest; waving flags is fun, but unimpressive to me.

Take your own pill;
Put down the ad hominem and do some research:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... avery.html

I don't care what they said about it, they wrotethat flowery bullshit and then went home to fuck their slave women. So once again; what did they really mean with all that liberty rhetoric. Your assertion is like Dahmer denouncing homosexuality and murder, then doing it.

Trying to call this and ad hominem is idioctic:

And yet you never want to discuss that it was written by oppressive slave owners and rapists to say the least, probably much worse. Will, you tend to selectively choose what you wish to accept or deny, logically you have to look at the authors, their actions, their intent, etc as you review an enormous doc like the US Const. Case law is surrounded by wondering what they meant and if they wrote, "freedom and liberty" then went home to fuck their slaves, well, they must have meant it in an exclusive way. In Austria they get jailed for denying the Haloucast, in the US we are praised for that same denial in regard to the Indian Haloucast or the African Haloucast. Let's get honest; waving flags is fun, but unimpressive to me.

Where do I attack your character or make your character the theme of teh argument? I merely say that the FF were rapists and slave owners, therefore the US Const must be interpreted with that in mind, as some were of the practice that it was ok. No where do I attack your character or make it central to the point. I'm about to, as with "Imerialism" you seem to want to write things to be flowery. Sorry Will, America stands for some things great, some things horrific.

[The Dark Side of Will]

See above yet again. Do you just sit and wait for somebody to post on the board?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Trying to call this and ad hominem is idioctic:

You're making your perception of my personality and issue in the "debate". Your purpose was to discredit what I was saying by saying things about me.

To deny that this is ad hominem is deceitful and evasive.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Like the then Republican senate threatening to rewrite the rules of fillibuster if teh Dems dare do it about 3 years ago? How have the Dems done it? Rememebr, you have to provide a substantive reason, not the essence of.

Fillibustering is procedural, not Constitutional.
Please try to remember that I'm not under any obligation to provide substantiation of your world view.

[EBSB52]

See above yet again. Do you just sit and wait for somebody to post on the board?

What? Make your own argument, I have no idea what you're saying here.

[EBSB52]

Trying to call this and ad hominem is idioctic:

You're making your perception of my personality and issue in the "debate". Your purpose was to discredit what I was saying by saying things about me.

To deny that this is ad hominem is deceitful and evasive.

Perception of your personality???? I'm discrediting the merits of argument by way of example. Oh Jesus Christ, I will make an observation now: this is like arguing with a woman. Your personality/atributes:

- Patriot

- Smart guy Engineer

- Denialist

An ad hominem would be lie: You're too stupid to understand the constitution, you have never taken 1 class on constitutional law. You're trying to misdirect the issue to poor you, ARGUE TEH MERIT BY ADDRESSING MY EXAMPLES. An example of your denial, an old one but stillvery relevant is that you don't like the definition of IMPERIALIST in the dictionary, as it describes the US activity by fiscally sponsoring cvountries and asking for favors.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled argument. Will, being this patriot you claim to be also requires understanding the shortcommings of your country from start to now. To ask Will, he would say that there were none.

Will, the US Const is a rag, it was then, it is now. It was written by people who didn't follow it and didn't expect others to. Theyt may have had visions such as MLK, but the Const was conceptual. Even look at Darwin, he was funded by the church, so he couldn't come out and say this religious material is BS, he had to time release it, just as Mendel, teh father of genetics from the mid-late 1800's, idiotic, the closed-minded world wasn't ready for these concepts. Hell, in surgery until I believe it was teh mid 1800's the surgeon went from patient to patient w/o even washing their hands. Think of the world's intelligence and processes in the 1800's, let alone the late 1700's.

In various legal/justice-based classes I took taught by lawyers many times, I would have the same position of the US Const as you, bring it up in conversation with these teachers whether in class or in private. They wouldn't say it's a rag, but the impatient rolling of the eyes made me aware that the const is really just an old guideline. When it comes to obsolute fundamental issues, like right to counsel, they apply it, but with more casual isses like unusual punishment, like tent city here in AZ, they ignore it. Don't stick your chest out with pride when the constitution comes up, it just comes off as between naive and idealistic from those who understand it. The FF who wrote it didn't follow it, those who interpret it now use it as an obstacle for which they have to pretend to cite when neccessary. It's a utopian document, but even as early as the 1950's a black woman had a 1-day murder trial for murdering a white man, had a white male judge and an all-white jury. She was executed soon after and just given a postumous pardon. But it doesn't happen today, right? The Vegas OJ case where he had an all-white jury, as well, at least 5 jurors had stated in their questionaires that they had a problem with the 95 OJ acquittal. Will, I pls send me your copy of the US COnst, I need to take a shit and we're out of toilet paper. Reality check, time to wake up.

[EBSB52]

Like the then Republican senate threatening to rewrite the rules of fillibuster if teh Dems dare do it about 3 years ago? How have the Dems done it? Rememebr, you have to provide a substantive reason, not the essence of.

Fillibustering is procedural, not Constitutional.
Please try to remember that I'm not under any obligation to provide substantiation of your world view.

This is what I replied to with my fillibuster argument:

WILL WROTE: The big issue is that power-hungry would-be oppressors in D.C. are gradually disassembling the checks, balances and protections built into the Constitution for the express purpose of restraining and limiting the government.

True, of course, but it is about as old as the constitution and is part of a check-balance process, that is what I was saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillibuster

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[15] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[15] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

[Shaun41178(2)]

eb is poor and mooches off his girlfreind. that is all.

[EBSB52]

eb is poor and mooches off his girlfreind. that is all.

I have more in property than you have in property and cash, of course that says little. Shaun, is that your mommy I hear? Better clean your room.

[Shaun41178(2)]

you don't have any property, because if you did you would be living on it, not renting a room at your girlfreinds house. Later peon.

[EBSB52]

you don't have any property, because if you did you would be living on it, not renting a room at your girlfreinds house. Later peon.

Why am I wasting keystrokes? Property can be real property, as in land or it can be personal property. I'm probably done after that gem, I just can't see wasting time responding to a 15YO kid, which is my guess that you are.

[slowpoke]

Here we go with the namecalling and bullshit, shut me down on some stuff? Did the democrats have a congretional majority or not? You said it was becoming dishonest that I wouldn't address the issue of contract labor or something, so I did imediately, and you shut up about it because you either didn't fucking understand my first post or were to fucking ready to throw some insults to read the damn thing. You said I was wrong because republicans had congress during bush. I never said the last forty years, then you say I'm still wrong because of the senate during reagan, well the truth is the democrats still had a congressional majority, you fuckin know it and you avoid it, how many democrats were president during those 40 years, all that time, the debt fell twice, ok so why did we even still have a debt if there so fuckin great?

My grandfather worked for the city in a town with a population of 3000, you do the math dipshit, piss rich? Get real, why should those of us that work our asses off get fucked out of our hard earned money to later support a bunch of lazy fucks that didn't go to work and pay the shit in. And I mean social security.

Hell stupid why would I go to a site you post if right after the site you tell everything it says? I said I would take your word for it.

Here is one I haven't already said anything about, you keep talking about the fucking unions, there was a time when unions did a great service for the workers of this country, then many of the stuarts and reps became very corrupt and fucked many workers they were supposed to represent. Next you get honest but greedy unions like the ones at ford manufacturing plants. 50 an hour for working a rivett gun? No thanks we are moving this shit to mexico. To damned greedy. You don't want anyone to cross your fucking picket line and fuck you over, but your willing to let people pay in their hard earned money to social security and fuck them over later because you fuckin libs decide they don't need it. Explain that one for me. Government programs is code for let those that have worked pay for those that have not.

Oh and hear is a question for you, what happened after pearl harbor? (I can't remember) did we continue to use our home field advantage or did we go fight some place else? Who won that war? Damn if only I had some evidence? What was it that happened in nagisaky(yea that's probably misspelled)and hiroshima? Was that home field advantage? What was patton and chest puller famous for? I don't think it was for waiting for someone else to attack. When I said iraq, I was talking about the state of their country after a war was held there not the strength of their militatary. 911 was an example of the cost in civilian lives and the money to rebuild after two planes crashed in new york, not even a bomb but a fucking plane. Why do we always go there to fight? To protect civilians. That's what it means when the military sais they fight so we don't have to. You probably joined the air force for college money after cursing the men coming back from vietnam.

By the way, yes we painted our tanks, and had to change from jungle colers, where is this fucking US jungle we were prepared to fight in. What climatic advantage do we have hear? Vietnam was our first endeavor in jungle warfare, how do you think we would fair now? You said we beat somebody because we had so much more technology right? Well that technology comes from research that is done with the military funding you liberals always bitch about.

Yes I'm on a phone and I own my home and no computer. I know I should have kept renting and put my money toward the important shit like a computer and a big screen tv and a stereo first. typical liberal thinking, big ass escalade and no gas money, gucci wallet with no money in it. Wake the fuck up boy, that shit that everyone thinks you just gotta get is all shit you will have to buy again in five or ten years?

I know your a big time FAA man. I know that because you keep throwing it up like it makes you better than someone. How old are you 45? 50? My only question is what do you want to be when you grow up? All those classes and courses and where has it gotten you. Must drive someone like you nuts to know that a thirty year old with three kids and a high school diploma is further along in what you called the american dream. And I'm not talking about some fucking shack, we are talking 2500 sq ft of 15 year old brick and a two car garage on 3.5 acres, there's you some reality for you to smoke and some truth to sniff. But that kind of shit comes at a cost, I have never in my life been on vacation other than a 3 day trip to galveston on thanksgiving 2.5 years ago. All because I want my kids to have the things I didn't. That's my american dream. And yes there are things like my fiero I spend money on but it is 20 to 1 on more important things.
But I'm the dipshit? Is the value of my house low right now? I don't know because it doesn't matter, if it goes up in ten years it doesn't matter. I will still be living here no matter what the fucking market does. The only thing fucking it up is when some dumbass thinks he should raise my property taxes. And you think that I'm the dopehead.
I didn't even know drinking tea helped pass a dope test, your the one from the dope head generation so I'm not surprised you knew? I don't use drugs, and if I did who would test their boss.

[slowpoke]

Hey nevermind, I just saw that your done, fantastic, me too

[Shaun41178(2)]

hahahha slowpoke owned eb.

yea some young buck has a nice house on a plot of land, and eb is homeless and mooches off of his girlfreind and lives at her house because he is poor and life owes him something because he hasn't been smart enough to provide it for himself!!! bwehahahhaha

[EBSB52]

Hey nevermind, I just saw that your done, fantastic, me too

I'm done with the other idiot, I am now going to answser your convoluted mess. You want to be done, as I have owned you on several fronts, namely that you don't even know the composition of congress and guaranteed us that the Dems controlled congress from 1955 to 1995 and you don't have teh character to own up to it.

[EBSB52]

hahahha slowpoke owned eb.

yea some young buck has a nice house on a plot of land, and eb is homeless and mooches off of his girlfreind and lives at her house because he is poor and life owes him something because he hasn't been smart enough to provide it for himself!!! bwehahahhaha

Written by a loser who lives at home with his mom and works at the circle K. Smart enough? I have 1 degree and am working on a second, you have yet to graduate high school and haven't contested that yet.

[EBSB52]

Here we go with the namecalling and bullshit, …

And you didn’t first write, “I don't have much time but you said something so idiotic …” and, “…are you on crack …” and, “What the hell have you been smokin?” But now you wanna cry about name calling?

shut me down on some stuff? Did the democrats have a congretional majority or not?

I included the link at least twice where it indicates that the Dems had senate majority from 55-95 with the exception of 81 to 87, where the Repibs owned the Senate. These were the worst years of that stretch too, where the debt blew up.

You said it was becoming dishonest that I wouldn't address the issue of contract labor or something, so I did imediately, and you shut up about it because you either didn't fucking understand my first post or were to fucking ready to throw some insults to read the damn thing.

What are you talking about? Go back and post what you are taking about. I didn’t post anything of the such, I have yet to concede to you on any point. If you made a good point I would, I have yet to read one, hell, you won’t even click on my links yet you claim victory.

You said I was wrong because republicans had congress during bush. I never said the last forty years, then you say I'm still wrong because of the senate during reagan, well the truth is the democrats still had a congressional majority, you fuckin know it and you avoid it, how many democrats were president during those 40 years, all that time, the debt fell twice, ok so why did we even still have a debt if there so fuckin great?

God, there’s like 6 issues with that mess. You come off as an irrational woman. I don’t mean that as an insult, but a little college will teach you critical thinking which requires you to separate the issues.

- I said you were wrong because republicans had control of congress during Bush?

-----OK, in case you’re new at this, we’ve had 2 Bush’s, the first a war hero that reduced the size of the military and raised taxes to curb the debt, the second a drug addicted piece of trash that ruined country; which are you referring to and then make an entire thought.

- As for the last 40 years and Dem controlled congress.

-----We ironed that one out a long time ago, you clarified it was for the 40 years prior to the mid 90’s, so I reposted the data from 1955 to 1995 and found that the Republcians controlled the senate from 81 to 87.

- When you say the Dems had a congressional majority, were you refering to the 55-95 period or the Reagan era?

-----During the Reagan era, the first 6 years where the debt blew up, the Dems owned 1 side (House) and the Repubs owned the other (Senate). So I fucking know what? I spent time posting a tutorial, I don’t think you read it, you see to operate off irrational emotion like a good jar head.

- How many Dems from 55 -95?

-----I’ll list them, but first a note: the fact that you don’t know makes you in the naïve category, you could look it up yourself, but this s/b common knowledge.

* 55-61 R-Eisenhower - 6 years R
* 61-69 D-JFK / LBJ - 8 years D
* 69-77 R-Nixon / Ford - 8 years R
* 77-81 D-Carter - 4 years D
* 81-89 R-Reagan - 8 years R
* 89-93 R-Bush - 4 years R
* 93-95 D-Clinton - 2 years D

So the total is 14 years Dems and 26 Repub.

- As for why did we even have a debt? Stupid POS, when I have no clue about an issue, I ask, I don’t just out as if I know. We were established as a debtor nation, we have never not been in debt. During Jackson in the early 1830’s we almost paid it off. But we have always been a debtor nation. I could post graph sites to establish certain points, but the dumb jarhead wouldn’t read them anyway.

Before you go into a partisan rant, Eisenhower, where the debt fell via policy, was one of the greatest president of all time. The debt fell in 1969, the transition between LBJ and Nixon, that was reportedly more about VN fund excesses. But GHWB worked to reduce the debt and raised taxes to do so, I think GHWB was a great president too. So try to keep your jarhead partisan idiocy to yourself, neither party is best, they are just better at a given time than another, right now the Repubs have been uncovered as the turds.

My grandfather worked for the city in a town with a population of 3000, you do the math dipshit, piss rich? Get real, why should those of us that work our asses off get fucked out of our hard earned money to later support a bunch of lazy fucks that didn't go to work and pay the shit in. And I mean social security.

Again, what was your original point? You don’t post my quote or make any reference to anything. As for your taxes so-called paying for others, get a clue, there is no correlation between tax collection and social expenditure, NONE, ZERO. Now you might have a bond measure to build freeways, but not for military or social expenditure, the largest spending we have. They collect what they can and spend what they want. So don’t walk by a poor person and think your taxes are supporting them, it’s a myth.

Hell stupid why would I go to a site you post if right after the site you tell everything it says? I said I would take your word for it.

1) I support my assertions, it’s a little thingy we educated people do, it’s called a bibliography. I guess jarheads just grunt it out.

2) Even if that were true that you take my word for it, you have already made contrary claims of the composition of congress that I posted 55-95, so you don’t take what I say, even if I support and site them.

Here is one I haven't already said anything about, you keep talking about the fucking unions, there was a time when unions did a great service for the workers of this country, then many of the stuarts and reps became very corrupt and fucked many workers they were supposed to represent. Next you get honest but greedy unions like the ones at ford manufacturing plants. 50 an hour for working a rivett gun? No thanks we are moving this shit to mexico. To damned greedy. You don't want anyone to cross your fucking picket line and fuck you over, but your willing to let people pay in their hard earned money to social security and fuck them over later because you fuckin libs decide they don't need it. Explain that one for me. Government programs is code for let those that have worked pay for those that have not.

That’s the tired rhetoric about unions once being needed. 1 in 6 have no medical coverage, the US used to have as practice for employers to provide it, now they don’t. Virtually every country in the world has the government provide it, we don’t. There is gap, employee protections have been hammered, there is s great need for union participation, but that’s not my issue, my issue is that your heroes, GWB and Reagan have overstepped federal law and used their executive office to illegally oppress union laws. I’m not saying unions s/b mandatory, just that the right to collectively assemble be protected. If a company wants to close their door, lock the workers out, great, but if they illegally interfere with employee’s right to organize that’s the rub. Your opinion or mine of unions is irrelevance, I’m talking federal law prevalence.

As for so-called $50 hour, I see they have no problem paying CEO’s millions, yet they have a hard time paying workers well. Of course when the CEO’s are the ones writing the pay schedule, it’s not a mystery.

As for your idiocy about hard pay into SS and later decide it’s not needed, WTF are you talking about? The Dems want to increase SS benefits, the Nazi’s, your party wants to curb them.

About Gov programs being code for people who work paying for what those who have not worked. So you mean like the little girl in the wheelchair with MS? I see, what a sponge she is. I guess you could also mean the bevy of military funding, AKA corporate welfare, funding trillions of dollars over the years providing a military way more potent than we need. That’s welfare.

Oh and hear is a question for you, what happened after pearl harbor? (I can't remember) did we continue to use our home field advantage or did we go fight some place else? Who won that war? Damn if only I had some evidence?

Stupid POS, here:

- although it was a territory, it wasn’t a state, hence no true home field

- If you read my last post, I clearly stated that home field only counts with an established, long sustained war, not a sneak attack. The homefield issue started with Russia have=ing home field over Germany, as Germany pushed north into them. You have to be smoking dope to not have seen that.

What was it that happened in nagisaky(yea that's probably misspelled)and hiroshima? Was that home field advantage? What was patton and chest puller famous for? I don't think it was for waiting for someone else to attack.

As I also wrote, these were 2 tiny countries, Germany and Japan (ignoring Italy) fighting the rest of the world, they were at a huge disadvantage. Japan was primarily fucking with the US and China and at the same time going all over the South Pacific eating up all these little islands. You have a country probably the size of California fucking with China and the US, they were simply outmatched. When I used the Germany into Russia home field advantage example, we’re talking a small country driving into a huge country so the huge country had all the advantages, climate, size, distance, etc. Yet Russia lost 10.5 million troops, Germany lost 6 million. Not to mention most of Europe and the US was all over Germany too and Russia still lost almost twice that of Germany, that was my example as to how impotent Russia has always been. As well, I had already established that technology overwhelmed our lack of geographical disadvantage, I think you simply do not read.

When I said iraq, I was talking about the state of their country after a war was held there not the strength of their militatary.

OK, you know, it’s really nice when you quote so I have an idea of which of your drivel you refer to.

911 was an example of the cost in civilian lives and the money to rebuild after two planes crashed in new york, not even a bomb but a fucking plane. Why do we always go there to fight? To protect civilians. That's what it means when the military sais they fight so we don't have to.

911 was an example of a rogue organization not affiliated with any country, using our obvious lapse in security against us. The outcome was the lost lives and property, but the outstanding example was that of security lapse compounded by arrogance. We go to the ME to fight because they have oil. We went there in the 50’s due to the moralists wanting to defend Israel, the new state. As for your rendition, you’re a brainwashed jarhead repeating what they tell you.

You probably joined the air force for college money after cursing the men coming back from vietnam.

You’re ignorant assumptions exemplify you. I join, as most did, because my homelife sucked.

By the way, yes we painted our tanks, and had to change from jungle colers, where is this fucking US jungle we were prepared to fight in. What climatic advantage do we have hear? Vietnam was our first endeavor in jungle warfare, how do you think we would fair now? You said we beat somebody because we had so much more technology right? Well that technology comes from research that is done with the military funding you liberals always bitch about.

Stupid, my example of the tanks and gear, climate was to illustrate how our lack of home field makes us adapt, that’s it. Gee, really, FDR signed the funding of the Manhattan Project, Truman pushed the button. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about you’re just dumber than I thought could be possible. BTW, who started 4 of the 5 wars in the 20th century? Oops, there goes your argument about libs.

By technology, I mean we have far more potent weaponry, not some laboratory testing, just more weapons and more potent weapons.

Yes I'm on a phone and I own my home and no computer. I know I should have kept renting and put my money toward the important shit like a computer and a big screen tv and a stereo first. typical liberal thinking, …

How is that liberal or conservative thinking? Dude, you are out there. A computer is like 300 bucks, you don’t have a computer because you are an idiot.

...big ass escalade and no gas money, gucci wallet with no money in it. Wake the fuck up boy, that shit that everyone thinks you just gotta get is all shit you will have to buy again in five or ten years?

Boy, I was just called, boy by an illiterate jarhead. You think I’m a trendy guy? Try again. Tying in trendy BS to liberals is idiocy, both parties have their flamboyance.

I know your a big time FAA man. I know that because you keep throwing it up like it makes you better than someone. How old are you 45? 50?

I’m not an FAA representative, just licensed several ways. I’m 46. It doesn’t make me better, but I have worked for my human capital and am proud of it.

My only question is what do you want to be when you grow up? All those classes and courses and where has it gotten you. Must drive someone like you nuts to know that a thirty year old with three kids and a high school diploma is further along in what you called the american dream. And I'm not talking about some fucking shack, we are talking 2500 sq ft of 15 year old brick and a two car garage on 3.5 acres, there's you some reality for you to smoke and some truth to sniff. But that kind of shit comes at a cost, I have never in my life been on vacation other than a 3 day trip to galveston on thanksgiving 2.5 years ago. All because I want my kids to have the things I didn't. That's my american dream. And yes there are things like my fiero I spend money on but it is 20 to 1 on more important things.

Right, that’s your American dream. Having kids would be an American nightmare to me. Nothing wrong with it, just wrong for me. I had a house for 4 years, it’s a great purchase, I will have one again. You’re 30, you have in front of you several disasters, perhaps a divorce, a foreclosure a bankruptcy, one of your kids getting ill, etc. you’re young and idealistic, but life happens and even tho you watch you shit, bad shit can happen that you have no control over. You’ll disagree, but you a re a kid in many ways, best of luck, but you’ll see the odds of everything going peachy are slim.

But I'm the dipshit? Is the value of my house low right now? I don't know because it doesn't matter, if it goes up in ten years it doesn't matter. I will still be living here no matter what the fucking market does. The only thing fucking it up is when some dumbass thinks he should raise my property taxes. And you think that I'm the dopehead.

I think you’re a dumbshit because you can’t organize your thoughts. You convolute (mix together) several assertions at one time and try to argue it. Take a college class or two and underrates how educated people converse.

I didn't even know drinking tea helped pass a dope test, your the one from the dope head generation so I'm not surprised you knew? I don't use drugs, and if I did who would test their boss.

Then you’re not only naïve, but just plain stupid. They advertise all kinds of shit for idiots who use drugs, to conceal their habit.