Barack Obama, our next President

[John Galt]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>So, you've read each and every contract for each and every pro athlete and/or sports franchise employee? Doc Rivers? Have you read his? Jim Leylands?
I really shouldn't even waste my time with your stupid azz.
You know dk.

Taxation is not a subject that can be modified by contracts.

[Eman]

Nuculur option wrote:

Why should Lily do your work for you, nitwit??
She said it did.
You have to prove her wrong by pointing out the wording of the legislation that proves her wrong. DUH
You can't argue if you don't know what it says!!
You failed 'Google for Dummies', didn't you??
<quoted text>

So, in your world, if someone makes a claim, others can't ask that they prove what they claim? "She said it did" is all the proof you need? Then why are you always brow beating carol?

Only a dummy would need google when lily provided the link to the legislation. Your daily attempts at childish exchanges bores me. Go play with someone else.

[John Galt]

lily boca raton fl wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, those are the result of the war on drugs. This guy will be charged with first degree murder. He's in for life.

The guy who recently executed four people in Northridge had been released from prison by Governor Brown.

[Nuculur option]

Quit whining.

Those are union jobs, why would you care??

You didn't care when your party was willing to let the American Auto Industry go out of business??

The auto business sells to consumers.

The defense industry has only one customer. The Government.

You complain about over paid people?? Wages in the defense industry are among the highest.

The defense industry is a drag on the overall economy, wasting resources.

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
Cuts in defense spending effect more than just the military. Lots of cities depend on the military for their economies. I don't see any "right whiners" advocating military spending cuts. The problem with you "left whiners" is that you tend to forget just where "right whiners" want cuts to happen.

[Not Surprized]

RUSH10ME wrote:

<quoted text>Let me guess , he set off your gaydar didn't he ?

WAXTURD Sockpuppet!!!

[Nuculur option]

So now we shouldn't cut spending??

What sort of idiot are you??

We're either broke or we aren't.

It's stupid to assume the most wasteful spending should not be cut. We spend far too much, and have been less secure since Bush set the Middle East on fire.

Cut it to the bone!!

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you feel better when you call people names? i hope so, but the cuts we are seeing is part of obama's military strategy he announced last year.
"The new military strategy includes $487 billion in cuts over the next decade...Obama said that the military will indeed be leaner, but the U.S. will maintain a budget that is roughly larger than the next 10 countries' military budgets combined."

[John Galt]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Yep lily, heavy duty drugs, no one is immune. Not even the grandsons of billionaires and who are attending Texas Christian University.

On the other hand, it's difficult to count all the Kennedy children who had gone to drug rehab and/or died of drug overdoses.

[Eman]

Nuculur option wrote:

Quit whining.
Those are union jobs, why would you care??
You didn't care when your party was willing to let the American Auto Industry go out of business??
The auto business sells to consumers.
The defense industry has only one customer. The Government.
You complain about over paid people?? Wages in the defense industry are among the highest.
The defense industry is a drag on the overall economy, wasting resources.
<quoted text>

Your opinion is duly noted.

[Waxman]

Democrats:

Debts don't matter!

[John Galt]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
Where do you want these cuts to take place.
Cuts in spending means buying less, just like the military would buy less. Cuts in spending cuts government job, just like cuts in military spending cuts jobs.

Start by cutting all government salaries by 10%.

Then cut them another 10% next year.

Bet you will still have people lined up for government jobs.

[RUSH10ME]

Not Surprized wrote:

<quoted text>
WAXTURD Sockpuppet!!!

Regular turd period.

[Chicagoan by Birth]

RealDave wrote:

I watched some of the Congressional hearings on guns.
Why do those against any of the measures such idiots.
LaPierre once again was an idiot. He said criminals don't try to buy guns at gun stores because of the background check. Yet he says we don't need the checks at gun shows. I guess he wants criminals to be able to buy guns at gun shows.
This guy is an idiot. I predict he will be gone within 3 months. Even the NRA must see what a fool he is making of himself & the NRA.
Lindsay Graham. Says you need a 15 round clip in case two people invade your house. What if there are 20 & they have a tank.
And of course, why have any laws because criminals don't obey them. Wow.

That's why Lapierre is head of the NRA, and you sit behind a computer screen, with a six pack? Guess which one is the lowest on the mental scale?

[Eman]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
On the other hand, it's difficult to count all the Kennedy children who had gone to drug rehab and/or died of drug overdoses.

Aren't they billionaires and Christians also?

[Eman]

Nuculur option wrote:

So now we shouldn't cut spending??

<quoted text>

That wasn't the discussion. Yawn.

[Nuculur option]

Well, you mention 2 new jets, which have what to do with ships??

Other than show your desperation.

That Aircraft Carrier you mention?? It's a Russian discard, purchased from Ukraine in 1998.

It's a show off piece for China, designed to impress it's neighbors.

Here's what our folks said;

""American military planners have played down the significance of the commissioning of the carrier. Some Navy officials have even said they would encourage China to move ahead with building its own aircraft carrier and the ships to accompany it, because it would be a waste of money.

Other military experts outside China have agreed with that assessment.

“The fact is the aircraft carrier is useless for the Chinese Navy,” You Ji, a visiting senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore, said in an interview.“If it is used against America, it has no survivability. If it is used against China’s neighbors, it’s a sign of bullying.”

Vietnam, a neighbor with whom China has fought wars, operates land-based Russian Su-30 aircraft that could pose a threat to the aircraft carrier, Mr. You said.“In the South China Sea, if the carrier is damaged by the Vietnamese, it’s a huge loss of face,” he said.“It’s not worth it.”""

Did you see that thing??

It's like a Carrier Escort, with a ski jump flight deck, no catapult.

a real threat.

HAHA

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
"China achieved a military milestone when its fighter jet landed on its new aircraft carrier in November, extending a modernization bid that’s recorded advances in submarines, cyber warfare and in outer space"
" CNN has obtained detailed photographs of a new stealth fighter being tested in China.
It is the second such stealth fighter China has tested in as many years and appears destined to become the communist nation's future aircraft carrier-based fighter jet, according to weapons analysts."
"Russia intends to strengthen its security on sea with a heavy air-capable cruiser of a new generation. The cruiser is expected to be put to use in the Russian navy in 2020"
"Russia’s T-50 stealth fighter prototype, the first radar-evading warplane outside the U.S. when it debuted in January 2010, is slightly less stealthy than the American F-22 and about equal to the smaller F-35. But in several other respects the new warplane from the Russian Sukhoi design bureau is actually superior to the American models."
i guess folks in Russia and China didn't get the memo.

[sonicfilter]

No Surprize wrote:

<quoted text>My people skills are just fine... It's my tolerance for losers and gun toting idiot liberals that needs work. Not Google...

gun idiot toting libs?

oxymoronic.

and i'm not laughing.

[Nuculur option]

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>That's why Lapierre is head of the NRA, and you sit behind a computer screen, with a six pack? Guess which one is the lowest on the mental scale?

Lapierre, fer sure!!

That idiots as dumb as a stump.

Almost as dumb as you.

You lose on magazines and backround checks, which 90% of Americans approve of.

Getting your assault rifles will take a bit longer, but it will happen.

Handguns and hunting rifles will be left alone.

Next step is 'smart guns', that need fingerprint recognition.

Solves a lot of problems.

[Nuculur option]

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
That wasn't the discussion. Yawn.

So why did you post this;

"The new military strategy includes $487 billion in cuts over the next decade...Obama said that the military will indeed be leaner, but the U.S. will maintain a budget that is roughly larger than the next 10 countries' military budgets combined."

You moaned about cuts in defense spending.

Do you seriously believe we must cut our spending but leave defense alone??

Are you quite serious??

Because that's just not gonna happen.

[OldRaider]

Wayne Lapierre rejects the concept of background checks even though over 70% of NRA members believe its a good idea. Is there any doubt who the NRA represents? Its not gun owners or sane Americans.$$$$$$ for big business donors.

[John Galt]

Nuculur option wrote:

He's taking the advice of his Admirals.
Surface ships, esp. Aircraft Carriers, are what is referred to as LST's, an older Navy landing ship.
LST stands for 'LONG SLOW TARGET', among other things.
The Chinese likely have a surface to surface missile system, either land based or on a small craft, like a Destroyer.
Did I mention what a Chinese Drone strike,using hundreds of drones, would do to an Aircraft Carrier??
Neutralizing our Aircraft Carriers.
The Navy Jets are helpless against Drones. They're too damn slow to track.
You don't get out much, do you??
Just as the Aircraft Carrier replaced the Battleship, a small missile replaces the Aircraft Carrier.
Surface ships, except for smaller craft, are toast.
The biggest ship in our Navy should be a Tin Can.
<quoted text>

If Chinese drones sank a U.S. aircraft carrier, the U.S. would obliterate China.

But wait, Obama occupies the White House, meaning that the U.S. would apologize.