Mass Shooting at Florida Gay Club

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
The ball is rolling downhill to an eventual conclusion. Its roll started when GWB invaded. Obama has been dealing with a hot mess with no clear answers. One of his best moments was to get our troops out of Iraq and let Iraq's own people decide their destiny. As long as we were there, we would be a common enemy and seen as the invaders that we were. Iraq is starting to pull together. We'll see what happens but whatever it is, the US should not commit major troop strength to the region. It's up to the people of Iraq determine what happens there.

Air power support and carrier presence are needed to warn off Iran, that's some good we can do.

People like you seem to think that US military might conquers all. But short of glassifying the region, there is only so much an invading army can do. Exxon won't let that happen, not that I want it to happen either.

If you think what W was doing was the full use of his Military, you`re high. He used it as a tool. He stripped Commanders of their roll and replaced them with puppets. Even during Obama`s rein, Commanders hands were tied.

It was and still remains a clusterfuck.

Powell and Norman showed how it`s done because Commanders and Captains were allowed to make decisions on the battlefield. W and Barry would have no part of that because it would ruin the agenda.

When we moved on Iraq the first time, Iraq took a week to do with little loss. Norman insisted we finish the job, but when the bulk was done, they were ordered to stand down. Just like Powell warned, it would come back to bite and it did.
 

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
The reason the US was there was bullshit to begin with. I can't recall any isis terrorists there when saddam ran it. America destroys countries, kills tens of thousands of people, wipes out any infrastructure in underdeveloped can have, find nothing and leave with an ooopps my bad. I cant imagine why people that have lived and grown up there could not like the US after all we've done for them.

We went there when Saddam took Kuwait. We did not finish the job we started.

I agree that since WWII, our services have become a tool. They are a last resort by design, but our leaders have been using it as a bully.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
If you think what W was doing was the full use of his Military, you`re high. He used it as a tool. He stripped Commanders of their roll and replaced them with puppets. Even during Obama`s rein, Commanders hands were tied.

It was and still remains a clusterfuck.

Powell and Norman showed how it`s done because Commanders and Captains were allowed to make decisions on the battlefield. W and Barry would have no part of that because it would ruin the agenda.

When we moved on Iraq the first time, Iraq took a week to do with little loss. Norman insisted we finish the job, but when the bulk was done, they were ordered to stand down. Just like Powell warned, it would come back to bite and it did.
Containment. Better answer to what GW did. A million or more are dead because of that CF. Why did GWB invade anyway?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
That young gentlemen is just doing his job. Why mock him? Have you "identified" him as a Mexican?

You've let every bit of dignity fade revealing the crippled mind of a damaged idiot child.

Loco a half wit, bigot sage.
Lol, not mocking HIM. It's you, get it? A halfwit serving me a burrito.

I was actually searching for a retard dropping the mic, when I stumbled across this gem. Perfectly fits my "you're an idiot working at Taco Bell" theme. I felt it was necessary to spell it out for you since your post clearly shows it sailed over your head.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Not to be infringed is clearly stated on that document.
your literalist interpretation has never ever been considered by the supreme court and it never will be. it's a retarded concept.

the constitution also says speech may not be abridged but go try yelling "bomb" on an airplane you silly clueless gun nut.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.
no thanks.

i'd rather not join militant white supremacy groups like you and crow on for months about how polling is a liberal conspiracy.

it was nice seeing you leave for months out of embarrassment though. you should consider doing that again.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Hahaha i didnt catch that.

I think hillary would win the woman vote if she banned her husband lol.
she's already about 25 points up with women. if that holds, you don't even need to turn on your TV on election day. it's impossible to overcome that kind of a margin with 52% of the voting population.

get ready for hillary, ya racist POS.
 

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
your literalist interpretation has never ever been considered by the supreme court and it never will be. it's a retarded concept.

the constitution also says speech may not be abridged but go try yelling "bomb" on an airplane you silly clueless gun nut.
I'm not a gun nut.

I own a few.

I support background checks and not letting criminals and mentally ill have guns.

I support closing gun show loops. I don't like the idea of 80% receivers.

Besides a couple that were inherited I have bought every one of my guns from a ffl.

I support any law abiding citizen owning any firearm they want.

Fully automatic weapons have never been illegal, just really expensive.

I'm not a cow boy, I do not wish to be a hero. I do not want to take a life.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.

In the grand scheme of things long guns are not a problem. Far, far, far more people are killed with pistols.

I am sorry that this tragic event happened.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I'm not a gun nut.

I own a few.

I support background checks and not letting criminals and mentally ill have guns.

I support closing gun show loops. I don't like the idea of 80% receivers.

Besides a couple that were inherited I have bought every one of my guns from a ffl.

I support any law abiding citizen owning any firearm they want.

Fully automatic weapons have never been illegal, just really expensive.

I'm not a cow boy, I do not wish to be a hero. I do not want to take a life.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.

In the grand scheme of things long guns are not a problem. Far, far, far more people are killed with pistols.

I am sorry that this tragic event happened.
just saying your literalist interpretation is extreme wacky and will never come to fruition.
 

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
just saying your literalist interpretation is extreme wacky and will never come to fruition.
It may not.

I don't take my argument as far as being able to own anything including what the military has.

We both have drawn an arbitrary line on what weapons can and can not be owned.
 

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
I'm not a gun nut.

I own a few.

I support background checks and not letting criminals and mentally ill have guns.

I support closing gun show loops. I don't like the idea of 80% receivers.

Besides a couple that were inherited I have bought every one of my guns from a ffl.

I support any law abiding citizen owning any firearm they want.

Fully automatic weapons have never been illegal, just really expensive.

I'm not a cow boy, I do not wish to be a hero. I do not want to take a life.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.

In the grand scheme of things long guns are not a problem. Far, far, far more people are killed with pistols.

I am sorry that this tragic event happened.

I'm with you on several of these points. I'm not a gun owner - I strongly dislike them, in fact - but I'm also not a clueless fool; I realize that there are some very repellent/ill 'people' out there, and I'd willingly defend my family and friends to the death if need be.

When it comes to guns, I'm with Batman and this guy:

 

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
@Fogdog
View attachment 3708015


Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails


Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

The reports indicated that the decision as to whether to reveal the intercepts would be made by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it was possible that the release would, if made, be through a third party, such as Wikileaks. The apparent message from Moscow, through the intelligence community, seemed to indicate frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the so-called server scandal, which seemed to offer prima facie evidence that U.S. law had been violated by Mrs Clinton’s decision to use a private server through which to conduct official and often highly-secret communications during her time as Secretary of State.

U.S. sources indicated that the extensive Department of Justice probe was more focused on the possibility that the private server was used to protect messaging in which Secretary Clinton allegedly discussed quid pro quo transactions with private donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy.

The Russian possession of the intercepts, however, was designed also to show that, apart from violating U.S. law in the fundamental handling of classified documents (which Sec. Clinton had alleged was no worse than the mishandling of a few documents by CIA Director David Petraeus or Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger), the traffic included highly-classified materials which had their classification headers stripped. Russian (and other) sources had indicated frustration with the pace of the Justice Dept. probe, and its avoidance of the national security aspects of intelligence handling. This meant that the topic would be suppressed by the U.S. Barack Obama Administration so that it would not be a factor in the current U.S. Presidential election campaign, in which President Obama had endorsed Mrs Clinton.

Moscow’s discreet messaging about a possible leak of the traffic, in time to impact the U.S. elections, was designed to pressure faster U.S. legal action on the matter, but was largely due to Russian concerns about possible U.S. strategic policy in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Apart from the breach of U.S. Federal law in the handling of classified material, the Clinton private server was, according to GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs analysts, always likely to have been a primary target for foreign cyber warfare interception operations, particularly those of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and North Korea (DPRK), but probably also by others, including Iran.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-14/russia-reportedly-set-release-clintons-intercepted-emails
Good, fuck her face.
 
Top