I'd disagree. I once took a shit the size and shape of the Pope. I think it started after I ate a grilled cheese sandwich I bought on Ebay with the burned image of Jesus on it.
People came from miles away to worship my Holy Shit!
Holy Toledo is actually a euphemism for the act of felching. It originated in Ohio. Lot's of felching takes place there. Not big on the tourist scene for some reason......
Anything but fake, I'm sorry but only a moron would claim fake on this one! Funny, as I watch this it's storming outsiZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzHOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!
AND.....his grandfather served in Patton's Third Army in WWII, and libreated a couple of death camps.
Funny how you leave THAT part out, huh pacman? You sly little backwoods, illiterate, inbred, incestuous, bigoted, swamp-dwelling, redneck sonofathousand trailor-park whores shithead, you.
I fully and completely appreciate the service and sacrifice of Obama's grandfather. That don't mean the current Obama has done jack shit. I mean Obama strikes me as a nice guy, I don't agree with his politics, but I'd probably like the guy as a person.
But how do you prove your patriotism for something your grandfather did? If my grandfather was a Nazi (not that he was) does that make me unpatriotic? McCain actually served and proved his patriotism. And while I'm sure Obama is a nice guy, you just can't take credit for what someone else did. Is patriotism supposed to be hereditary?
Canuck, if your grandfather was say... a complete asshole... that doesn't really say anything about you does it?
Same as having been shot down over Vietnam does not give you the necessary background to be a president of the USA.
And what is that stupid patriotic thing you US Americans are so fond of? Is it so important that you properly go through all the empty ceremonies, say the stupid hollow words? Would it not be more important to really care for the country, like in trying to run it well, to make sure the economy gets on track again, unemployment drops, and relations to other countries are good so the nation is secure?
On the other hand is it patriotic to ruin the economy by expending outrageous amounts of money into a military adventure that has nothing to do with national security? Is it patriotic to lower the taxes for a rich elite while having the majority of the people are losing their houses due to a financial debacle generated by the very elite that received the tax cuts?
Exactly who are the US citizens who count? Those with an income of >500k?
That's true, being shot down does not make one a good president, or a good pilot. But it does demonstrate his patriotism and service, which Obama has not demonstrated.
As for your class warfare rant, that's another subject all together. The housing crunch was created by both sides, as all the politicians got kickbacks and political donations from Fannie and Freddie, even Obama, or maybe especially Obama. But McCain is no saint either. In a time of war and international instability, I chose the leader with military and foreign policy experience. I don't believe either president can really do anything other than hurt the economy, which tax increases would do.
As for only the wealthy getting tax cuts, well how much tax would you say is fair for the wealthy to pay? The top earners in America easily pay twice the tax rate over poor people. What's fair? Should we just "tax the rich, and feed the poor, till there are no rich no more"? That results in a dead economy. You do remember that the economy and unemployment were far better then Germanies for the past 7 years, well probably even longer.
I don't think that one's patriotism is what we should base our elections on. Obviously, one is patriotic if they are running for the motherfucking president of the United States of America. That's a "fucking duh" situation there. It's whether they have consideration for your Average Joes' well being. And as Mr. McCain has proven, that our middle class needs more taxation and loss, while those found in his tax bracket need less taxes and thus more gain. over the past 20 years, statistics show that the top 1% of Americans have gained wealth most steadily.
Well that top 1% gains wealth, because they know what the fuck they're doing. That doesn't mean they aren't paying 40% income tax. Should all prosperity, ambition, and initiative be taxed into non-existance? If they worked hard, and built an empire employing thousands of people, good for them. They're already paying way more tax than most Americans, how much is too much seriously? Should we just tax everyone making over $250k at 80% until there are no more rich?
That wa a really nice dig at me, helldiver, but once again, you missed my POINT...completely.
You ever stop to think that because of who Obama's grandfather was, that he might have instilled those same core values in his grandson? You know.....the same grandson that's running for President right now? That ever enter into your equation? Huh? No. Anytime you right-wing hack-jobs say ANYTHING about him, it's always the same fuckin' thing: "He's a muslim"; "He' ain't patriotic enough"; "He don't wear a lapel pin"; "He don't like saying the Oath of Allegiance"; "He's ultra-liberal"; "He's a terrorist"....and blah-blah-blah-fucking-blah..........
Plus, he:
1. Wrecked 5 Navy aircraft prior to being shot down, meaning he was just a lousy fucking pilot?
2. Was shot down and captured and held for 5 years after his "misssion"....meaning he FAILED in his mission?
3. Cheated on his wife when he got home, finally leaving her because she'd been in a car accident and wasn't PURDY NO' MOH? And then went and married a rich drug addict?
4. Graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy? (out of a class of around 800).
5. Didn't do shit in the 25 years he was in Washington. SHIT.
ok that article that canuck posted basically said that Hinzman-is worse than a ratbastard...He signed up to do a job...no not signed up to do a job-he commited to do a service-he knew what he was getting into-he and everyone else knew before the war started-that it wasnt what pretty boy bush said it was-yet he still commited to be government property to do their bidding-he knew what he was getting into-his "eyes" were opened somewhere during his detail. Hinzman deserves his due treatment-theres other ways he could have gotten out without running to canada and getting court-martialed nad possible prison for 5 years-he is a discredit to the military
For those of you who are video-taping lightning, please be prepared with the appropriate comment immediately following: "Holy Shit!". Repeat as necessary
Canuck, you liberals are funny! Everything has to be taken to the extreme, and you like to guess my thoughts. Absolutely Obama's grandfather MAY have instilled some of those beliefs in little Barack, or he may not have discussed weighty subjects like war and service to your nation with a little kid. I don't know, and you don't know either. I never said Obama was unpatriotic, a Muslim, or a terrorist. You assumed I think that way because I'm conservative, and expressed a preference for McCain. Making assumptions is a bad way to go through life, it frequently makes you a dumbass.
I do know McCain gave 22 years of military service to his country, some of it very extreme, and another 20 years service (or maybe self-service) as a senator. He has proved patriotism and service, and doesn't need to rely on "well maybe his grandpa instilled it in him".
As for McCain wrecking aircraft, well maybe he was a lousy fucking pilot! I'm not defending his pilot skills. It takes more guts to fly into battle if you're a lousy pilot. If being a pilot doesn't qualify him for president, than being a lousy pilot doesn't disqualify him. I do enjoy how you're trying to make him look like a misfit, because he took great risks in the line of duty.
I am aware of him leaving his first wife, who suffered a very bad car wreck. That's not his most stellar performance, but being a slimeball doesn't disqualify you from being president. Take Clinton for example.
As for not doing shit in the Senate, that's not true. McCain has been deeply involved in many infamous scandals, the SNL crisis for example. And of course he wanted to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
I still trust him more than Obama, who doesn't done shit in his entire life. Please name me one accomplishment of Barack. Are you voting for Obama, or just voting against the right-wing?
McCain is quite old and not of the best health, becoming president would be the culmination of his life, not much more going to come after this. Obama is not exactly young or old, he is of good health and has children who are still young enough to depend on their father. After two terms as president he would not even be at retiring age.
So which one of the two will think in longer terms?
McCain is a son of an admiral who was son of an admiral. Much of what he is he achieved because of his father. Obama did achieve what he has on his own, his father was not even around when he grew up.
So which one do you think is more fit for life?
Patriotism and service are not necessarily good qualities for a president. Patriotism can make you do silly things for principle and service, hm, being in the military does not exactly require independent thinking?
I would only care about McCain's health if I did not like his VP candidate, which I do. So let the old bastard croke in office. I'm not against Obama, I like the guy. But when it comes to government, I'm a firm believer in smaller government, less socialism, fewer taxes, balance budget (purely from reducing wasteful government spending) and a strong military. McCain is very liberal, but he's less so than Obama.
Frankly none of our politicians thinks long term, they all dance for the ratings. If Bush get credit for anything, (and he doesn't) it's for sticking to his guns regardless of public opinion. The things he's done have made him very unpopular, but their longterm legacy will be huge, good or bad.
Another cold war? :-o Guess we better keep those US troops in Germany.
The Russians don't want another cold war. They just need to slow down the oil and natural gas flowing into Europe, and blame it on technical problems. You European sheep are now suckling the wolf's tit.
The one that depends on europe to keep suckling for its revenue? Would that be the one you mean?
Mutual dependence as opposed to mutual destruction is actually what you just outlined. Sure as fuck the US ain't gonna supply Europe with oil...
The russians SURE don't want another hot war either so take a long hard look at who's really ramping up the propaganda
Remember they lost a huge percentage of their population in the last war so they have a bigger fear of repeating that next time around. However we ALL know when battle rages they are FULLY committed - their death toll showed this pretty well last time dontcha think?
This means one simple thing. When they begin to complain about NATO encirclement and US imperialism needing a Russian response then we'd better fucking listen because they are not saying this lightly
They don't want to risk the hair trigger that is the US military response, but the do feel they NEED to say something before it all gets out of hand.
This is not a playground spat between kids over who's dad is bigger
How does a european wolf (russia included) in sheep's clothing grab you?
Bit tough to access those oil routes now ain't it ? Guess you'd have to invade canada for the oil shale...
Not much to add to that mako. Only the question wht purpose does the stationing of anti ballistic missiles in Poland and other eastern European states serve? Not only Russia is pissed about this, the western EU members are too.
Mako, when did I say its ok to poke the bear with a stick? Nobody, not I, was talking about a hot war with Russia. I'm quite certain I did not say that.
The Russians can stop the flow of oil briefly, without long term economic hardship. They did it to Ukraine just fine. They could also chose to sell their oil to china and India. Europe is more dependent in this deal, especially since Russia can divide and conquer. Russia can cut off oil/gas to one European area, and the other European nations all double over kissing Russia's ass.
Did you notice when Russia invaded Georgia, that Europeans said very little, for fear of upsetting their biggest oil supplier? Maybe you missed that? The oil trump card has already influenced Russian-European relations, very much to Russia's benefit.
And if you're implying Russia and Europe will ever converge into one political entity, well that's not gonna happen without Russian tanks rolling through Europe. But live the dream baby!
I have no idea which news you may be watching, but France and Germany were among the first to start negotiating in the Georgia crisis and (though I don't like her very much) our chancellor did express quite clearly that the German position was that Russia has to withdraw immediately.
And I don't think Russian tanks will roll through Europe. If the USA continues to economically fold in as they do now they will not be a significant factor in world politics any more. There is a good chance that the EU and Russia will move much closer.
You're right, it may never be a political entity Helldiver but it sure as shit could develop into a business one
Like China and the US...but with less of a ring of aggression about it
Suckling the wolf's teat? Don't take the troops out of Europe? Hmm, that's framed in a way which makes it feel like you're more scared than you'd perhaps care to admit?
Yes France and Germany asked Russia to withdraw from Georgia, with a big pretty please on top. But they were extremely hesitant to retalliate economically with sanctions, because Russia could cut off their fuel. The oil/gas Russian trump card did limit European response. Not that America could do a hell of a lot either, but at least the threat of economic retalliation had some teeth to it.
Even if the US has another great depression, our military power will still be considerable. While US decline only gives Russia and China benefit, that's probably not a good thing for Europeans or the rest of the world.
Mako, I can't imagine being more scared of Russia now, then we were during the height of the cold war. But as much as Russia and China develop economically, they're still very authoritarian societies, very powerful, and very much believe individual life is cheap. You can do business with them, but you shouldn't trust them.
I'm not sure where you live Mako, but are you sure Europe is getting the better end of this business relationship with Russia? Russia gets rich and powerful, Europe gets poorer and more dependent. If I were European, I'd be pushing for energy independence. And I realize Europeans are greener than America. But even though America is addicted to oil, at least we are more powerful then our suppliers.
Anyway, if America does go into another great depression, that only adds incentive to pull our troops from Europe. European military power is insufficient, to put it kindly. I'm not the one who should be scared. Russian tanks can't reach us.
Helldiver, nice to have a discussion that isn't all about dick waving and posturing!
I see what you mean from a european point of view - however europe will never in the short term be energy dependent. Gas is insufficient, oil too and the only energy that could work are renewables like tidal, hydro and some part solar. These need a combined regional effort to go forward - I think it's rich enough as a region, and the populace has a greener mentality so renewables might work quicker than the US in terms of going green but that aint gonna happen soon
Short term tho, europe needs oil. They don't look on russia as a wolf, in the same way russia won't look at europe as a sheep. If the 'sheep' stop suckling then russia loses revenue and has a much harder job supplying china or india. Its not worth it for them as they can't put the volume in that direction right now, the infrastucture isn't there
Its a mutually dependent relationship economically, and there should be no reason for military might to come into play. That said, you shouldn't underestimate a combined (essentially NATO) force that's trained together, been equipped primarly with very good US weaponry, and after WWII realised how much there is to lose, facing an invading force from russia (highly unlikely in any case as russia have massive resources and are actually sat in a strong defensive position)
Remeber too, if russia were ever to be stupid enough to invade, they know they would be the aggressor in that case. This puts them in a much weaker position than the european opfor in terms of troop moral, rationale and world opinion (not that that ever matters in a total war situation)
Russian tanks would not be bothered to reach you, encircling the US would be enough if it ever came to pass that the US refused to get involved (wouldn't happen)
An addiction to oil (which is what powers the US war machine) means your military only remain powerful while that oil flows -it's why your admin is so strongly of the opinion you should remain in the middle east. No where else provides the sheer flow required. Frankly it's a bit of a dilemma - the war machine in iraq and afghanistan is now such an oil consuming animal that it needs to stay there to sustain itself
Personally I feel if the US does find a way to self sustain (whether via oil or not) then it would do the world a lick of good in terms of preventing other oil wars - although the corrollary of that is that europe would no longer have what you suggest would be american protection. Europe may have realised this long before you and I start to discuss it, hence there is a hedge bet.
Geo-strat politics takes time, plus pulling US troops out of redundant positions may well help the standing of the US in the eyes of the rest of the world!
By the way I was born in africa, lived in the UK and the US (for a short while) and now live in asia under the (frankly unassumed but we all know it's there) protective belt of China. Russia is not seen as a threat here as it will get it ass kicked if it steps out of line in this direction. Russia knows it too hence we see HUGE inflows of development money and no vitriol
Only reason russia is being a little more outspoken to the west is because its freshly rich from oil and is sick of being condescended to by the US admin who are right now going down the pan.
I hope you're right about Russia's friendly intentions, and Europe's strength. But I remember that combined European forces make up only a small fraction of coalition forces in yugoslavia. I don't believe combined European forces could repel Russia in all out war, but that is almost inconceiveable.
What is conceiveable, is Russia telling Germany (or whatever other country has upset Russia) it has technical problems delivering oil to it, while sending plenty to the rest of Europe. Obviously those other European neighbors see the clear threat, and probably appease Russia, especially if Russia can claim its accidental. I just don't trust the bastards.
US weaponry is already evolving to hybrids, simply because they can generate more electrical power for the gadgets. And while I don't see military vehicles switching to all electric or hydrogen anytime soon, they may get more efficient. But you're right that the military runs on oil. You just can't move a 50 ton tank at 50mpg. That said, Saudi Arabia is our #4 oil supplier, preceded by Canada, Venezuala, and Nigeria. So even if all oil stops from the ME, we still have enough oil for critical military functions, probably even from domestic sources only. That doesn't mean the economy wouldn't crash. But civilian cars can switch to non-oil vehicles more easily. Semis not so easily. Just one more reason why I support off-shore drilling here, to increase domestic supply. We also have that really large strategic petroleum reserve, which isn't shit for civilian needs, but could keep the military going for a long long time.
Maybe you don't know this, but the US gets no oil from Afghanistan or Iraq, even for military uses. The US has to transport military fuel in from Kuwait, at a higher cost than Iraqi civilians pay for gas.
Military vehicles go to hybrid for better range, not to save fuel for any ecological or economical reasons, it is just to extend the refueling cycles and have more operating time and range between them.
War with Russia is not a realistic szenario unless the USA do cause it.
Military vehicles are not designed to be good for the environment or economical to operate. They are designed for ruggedness, performance, and survivability. I didn't suggest the military is going hybrid for environmental or economic reasons. Lets worry about our carbon footprint, as we destroy shit and pump DU into the ground.
I think you like to argue, even when you don't really have a point.
Comments (72)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.