Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Umm. poor logic that. One does not prove the other.
Howeeeever, I agree with your last line.
Hillary can't be trusted
- Thread starter Flaming Pie
- Start date
- Status
Howeeeever, I agree with your last line.
Rizlared
Well-Known Member
Poor logic...to you
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
hillary is the most honest candidate in america besides obama.
trump is the most prolific liar to ever run for office.
sorry about facts, retard.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'll take that as you're still in denial.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
You missed me. Admit it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i just want to see your meltdown when trump loses.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You make an if - then statement that isn't true.
If the polls show low favorability for both candidates
then the electoral system failed.
There are no "popularity" statistics . There are favorability and unfavorability ratings. Is that what you are referring to?
Favorable/unfavorable Those metrics are used to predict outcomes in an election. Favorable/unfavorable ratings don't predict that a successful candidate will be any good. Success or failure of the electoral system depends on whether or not it produced a good president.
We've had wildly high favorability ratings on successful candidates and they sucked as President. GW Bush for instance. Pretty much everybody saw his presidency as a failure to some degree. Guess what happened in 2000 when the electoral process produced GW. The electoral process produced a president who failed and a large percentage of the left did not vote. Thus disproving just about everything you said.
Last edited:
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Lol.
Twilightbud
Member
I don't think USA will be starting any wars anytime soon there military structure is falling apart.
Obama made sure of that , China Russia are unloading US treasury bonds soon other countries will follow .
You need money to start a war and truth is
federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans — 148 years after the conflict ended. lol
At the 10 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, more than $40 billion a year are going to compensate veterans and survivors from the Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the two Iraq campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And those costs are rising rapidly.
And with countries now not lending America money what does this mean ??? economic horror in next few years ..
The saying goes corner a pit bull an poke it it will tear you apart shortly ..
Kinda whats happening in Ukraine presently
Nato pushing Russia in a corner ??? now Russia addedt 40 ballistic Nuclear weapons pointing west ward kinda puts a real scare into the scenario..
Can only push for so long before someone says Fuck this .
Like Russia is ,, Now i know both sides lose, least that is what we think right ???
Think about it USA nukes are stuck in the 70's Russia's nukes are newer and way more devastating google average american balistic nuke in ki size or TNT equivalent
Russia's nukes are like 100 times up to 1000 times more destructive who wins ????
Could it be the winner is the first one to get them off the ground and blow the incoming before they reach you Well that is what Russia can do remember Russia rocket or cruise missile tech is 15 - 20 years ahead of USA's there missiles are mach 23 lol
Again google fastest american missile
On paper, newer, more complicated, more fearsome weapons comprise Russia's nuclear arsenal. Russia'sRS-24 Yars Intercontinental ballistic missile(ICBM), introduced in the mid 2000s, can strike anywhere in the US with what some report to be ten independently targetable nuclear warheads.
These ten warheads would reenter the earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, around 5 miles a second.China has developed a similar platform, and the US simply has no way to defend against a salvo of such devastating nukes.
In comparison, the US's Minuteman III ICBMalso reenters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but carries just one warhead, and was introduced in the 1970s. now try defending 1000's of war heads lol
US really can't defend against Russia's most advanced, diabolical nuclear weapons as "the problem is just that the math never works."
A Russian nuclear ICBM would blast into orbit, turn around, break into individual reentry vehicles, and drive towards their individual targets at Mach 23. The US simply can't afford or design a system that would destroy ten nuclear warheads traveling at those mind-bending speed toward the the US.
"[The US has] never scaled a missile defense to the size of a Russian attack. It sounds like a really great idea on paper, but when you’re looking at 1000 warheads… 100 times more destructive then our pay loads
USA does this putting a missile on a pin point target Russia on other hand
AS SEEN IN SYRIA will destroy it all civilians and all they dont fuck around WAR IS WAR
Last edited:
testiclees
Well-Known Member
I don't think USA will be starting any wars anytime soon there military structure is falling apart.
Obama made sure of that , China Russia are unloading US treasury bonds soon other countries will follow .
You need money to start a war and truth is
federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans — 148 years after the conflict ended. lol
At the 10 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, more than $40 billion a year are going to compensate veterans and survivors from the Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the two Iraq campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And those costs are rising rapidly.
And with countries now not lending America money what does this mean ??? economic horror in next few years ..
The saying goes corner a pit bull an poke it it will tear you apart shortly ..
Kinda whats happening in Ukraine presently
Nato pushing Russia in a corner ??? now Russia addedt 40 ballistic Nuclear weapons pointing west ward kinda puts a real scare into the scenario..
Can only push for so long before someone says Fuck this .
Like Russia is ,, Now i know both sides lose, least that is what we think right ???
Think about it USA nukes are stuck in the 70's Russia's nukes are newer and way more devastating google average american balistic nuke in ki size or TNT equivalent
Russia's nukes are like 100 times up to 1000 times more destructive who wins ????
Could it be the winner is the first one to get them off the ground and blow the incoming before they reach you Well that is what Russia can do remember Russia rocket or cruise missile tech is 15 - 20 years ahead of USA's there missiles are mach 23 lol
Again google fastest american missile
On paper, newer, more complicated, more fearsome weapons comprise Russia's nuclear arsenal. Russia'sRS-24 Yars Intercontinental ballistic missile(ICBM), introduced in the mid 2000s, can strike anywhere in the US with what some report to be ten independently targetable nuclear warheads.
These ten warheads would reenter the earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, around 5 miles a second.China has developed a similar platform, and the US simply has no way to defend against a salvo of such devastating nukes.
In comparison, the US's Minuteman III ICBMalso reenters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but carries just one warhead, and was introduced in the 1970s. now try defending 1000's of war heads lol
US really can't defend against Russia's most advanced, diabolical nuclear weapons as "the problem is just that the math never works."
A Russian nuclear ICBM would blast into orbit, turn around, break into individual reentry vehicles, and drive towards their individual targets at Mach 23. The US simply can't afford or design a system that would destroy ten nuclear warheads traveling at those mind-bending speed toward the the US.
"[The US has] never scaled a missile defense to the size of a Russian attack. It sounds like a really great idea on paper, but when you’re looking at 1000 warheads… 100 times more destructive then our pay loads
USA does this putting a missile on a pin point target Russia on other hand
AS SEEN IN SYRIA will destroy it all civilians and all they dont fuck around WAR IS WAR
You getting cleaned out by enema? @Illinois Enema Bandit
you're tripping if you imagine anyone is gonna read those turds.
your stench is unacceptable
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I don't think USA will be starting any wars anytime soon there military structure is falling apart.
Obama made sure of that , China Russia are unloading US treasury bonds soon other countries will follow .
You need money to start a war and truth is
federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans — 148 years after the conflict ended. lol
At the 10 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, more than $40 billion a year are going to compensate veterans and survivors from the Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the two Iraq campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And those costs are rising rapidly.
And with countries now not lending America money what does this mean ??? economic horror in next few years ..
The saying goes corner a pit bull an poke it it will tear you apart shortly ..
Kinda whats happening in Ukraine presently
Nato pushing Russia in a corner ??? now Russia addedt 40 ballistic Nuclear weapons pointing west ward kinda puts a real scare into the scenario..
Can only push for so long before someone says Fuck this .
Like Russia is ,, Now i know both sides lose, least that is what we think right ???
Think about it USA nukes are stuck in the 70's Russia's nukes are newer and way more devastating google average american balistic nuke in ki size or TNT equivalent
Russia's nukes are like 100 times up to 1000 times more destructive who wins ????
Could it be the winner is the first one to get them off the ground and blow the incoming before they reach you Well that is what Russia can do remember Russia rocket or cruise missile tech is 15 - 20 years ahead of USA's there missiles are mach 23 lol
Again google fastest american missile
On paper, newer, more complicated, more fearsome weapons comprise Russia's nuclear arsenal. Russia'sRS-24 Yars Intercontinental ballistic missile(ICBM), introduced in the mid 2000s, can strike anywhere in the US with what some report to be ten independently targetable nuclear warheads.
These ten warheads would reenter the earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, around 5 miles a second.China has developed a similar platform, and the US simply has no way to defend against a salvo of such devastating nukes.
In comparison, the US's Minuteman III ICBMalso reenters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but carries just one warhead, and was introduced in the 1970s. now try defending 1000's of war heads lol
US really can't defend against Russia's most advanced, diabolical nuclear weapons as "the problem is just that the math never works."
A Russian nuclear ICBM would blast into orbit, turn around, break into individual reentry vehicles, and drive towards their individual targets at Mach 23. The US simply can't afford or design a system that would destroy ten nuclear warheads traveling at those mind-bending speed toward the the US.
"[The US has] never scaled a missile defense to the size of a Russian attack. It sounds like a really great idea on paper, but when you’re looking at 1000 warheads… 100 times more destructive then our pay loads
USA does this putting a missile on a pin point target Russia on other hand
AS SEEN IN SYRIA will destroy it all civilians and all they dont fuck around WAR IS WAR
whack job wing nut who has no clue whatsoever about defense capabilities.
that shit you read on the internet is shit on the internet. you aren't in the loop.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This presidential campaign season has brought out the best and brightest. Yours was a triumph of logic. Right up there with Mad Magazine's I-Spy cartoons.I don't think USA will be starting any wars anytime soon there military structure is falling apart.
Obama made sure of that , China Russia are unloading US treasury bonds soon other countries will follow .
You need money to start a war and truth is
federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans — 148 years after the conflict ended. lol
At the 10 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, more than $40 billion a year are going to compensate veterans and survivors from the Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the two Iraq campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And those costs are rising rapidly.
And with countries now not lending America money what does this mean ??? economic horror in next few years ..
The saying goes corner a pit bull an poke it it will tear you apart shortly ..
Kinda whats happening in Ukraine presently
Nato pushing Russia in a corner ??? now Russia addedt 40 ballistic Nuclear weapons pointing west ward kinda puts a real scare into the scenario..
Can only push for so long before someone says Fuck this .
Like Russia is ,, Now i know both sides lose, least that is what we think right ???
Think about it USA nukes are stuck in the 70's Russia's nukes are newer and way more devastating google average american balistic nuke in ki size or TNT equivalent
Russia's nukes are like 100 times up to 1000 times more destructive who wins ????
Could it be the winner is the first one to get them off the ground and blow the incoming before they reach you Well that is what Russia can do remember Russia rocket or cruise missile tech is 15 - 20 years ahead of USA's there missiles are mach 23 lol
Again google fastest american missile
On paper, newer, more complicated, more fearsome weapons comprise Russia's nuclear arsenal. Russia'sRS-24 Yars Intercontinental ballistic missile(ICBM), introduced in the mid 2000s, can strike anywhere in the US with what some report to be ten independently targetable nuclear warheads.
These ten warheads would reenter the earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, around 5 miles a second.China has developed a similar platform, and the US simply has no way to defend against a salvo of such devastating nukes.
In comparison, the US's Minuteman III ICBMalso reenters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but carries just one warhead, and was introduced in the 1970s. now try defending 1000's of war heads lol
US really can't defend against Russia's most advanced, diabolical nuclear weapons as "the problem is just that the math never works."
A Russian nuclear ICBM would blast into orbit, turn around, break into individual reentry vehicles, and drive towards their individual targets at Mach 23. The US simply can't afford or design a system that would destroy ten nuclear warheads traveling at those mind-bending speed toward the the US.
"[The US has] never scaled a missile defense to the size of a Russian attack. It sounds like a really great idea on paper, but when you’re looking at 1000 warheads… 100 times more destructive then our pay loads
USA does this putting a missile on a pin point target Russia on other hand
AS SEEN IN SYRIA will destroy it all civilians and all they dont fuck around WAR IS WAR
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Good highlighter work!
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
At least show uncle buck your toes.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, i never thought of it this way. Very good point.
Twilightbud
Member
Americans have short memories. Russians don’t. It’s only been 25 years since the Wall came down, but in Russia’s mind the Cold War didn’t end. If Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t enough of a heads-up, then maybe their new generation of tactical nuclear weapons is.
Russia's tactical nukes are now better than both ours and NATO’s. NATO member countries have only 260 older tactical weapons. Sited in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey, the U.S. has 200 nuclear bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons. France has 60 atomic bombs.
The US has 300 tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but this does not touch the imbalance. The United States cannot improve this situation as we have destroyed many of our Cold War tactical nuclear missiles, land-based missiles and sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles. And we pinned ourselves with our own treaties. The recent START 3 treaty was overwhelmingly favorable to Russia.
Russia has developed long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.
The U.S. State Department admitted as much ina reportpublished at the beginning of September, stating that Russia has passed us in nuclear weapons capability for the first time in 40 years.
Letting our nuclear arsenal fall into disrepair is one thing (Washington Post), but allowing Russia to build a new strategic nuclear weapons force more advanced than ours is another thing altogether. And they even have a new generation of missiles.
So Russia does think it has the upper hand. And they might, if Putin and the hard-liners are willing to use force as much as they seem lately.
Maybe it’s just coincidental that Russia plans to send long-range bombers to the Gulf of Mexico “just for practice”. Russia has decided not to participate in scheduledjoint nuclear security effortswith the United States. Russia is boycotting a U.S.-hosted international security summit meeting in 2016.
When the heads-of-state gave Putin too much grief about the Ukraine at the G-20 meeting last week, he just got up and left.
The decline in U.S.-Russian relations is symptomatic of many things and can be dangerous as isolation can breed misinterpretations (NYTimes). Russia views our Congress as weak and ineffective, hamstringing our Commander-in-Chief. Russia is paranoid that they themselves will be seen as weak. And Kremlin hard-liners are reticent about letting U.S. experts into their nuclear sites.
Which would be bad enough if our weapons actually worked well and were ready if we ever needed them.
Lets hope them floppy disks still work
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Americans have short memories. Russians don’t. It’s only been 25 years since the Wall came down, but in Russia’s mind the Cold War didn’t end. If Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t enough of a heads-up, then maybe their new generation of tactical nuclear weapons is.
Russia's tactical nukes are now better than both ours and NATO’s. NATO member countries have only 260 older tactical weapons. Sited in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey, the U.S. has 200 nuclear bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons. France has 60 atomic bombs.
The US has 300 tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but this does not touch the imbalance. The United States cannot improve this situation as we have destroyed many of our Cold War tactical nuclear missiles, land-based missiles and sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles. And we pinned ourselves with our own treaties. The recent START 3 treaty was overwhelmingly favorable to Russia.
Russia has developed long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.
The U.S. State Department admitted as much ina reportpublished at the beginning of September, stating that Russia has passed us in nuclear weapons capability for the first time in 40 years.
Letting our nuclear arsenal fall into disrepair is one thing (Washington Post), but allowing Russia to build a new strategic nuclear weapons force more advanced than ours is another thing altogether. And they even have a new generation of missiles.
So Russia does think it has the upper hand. And they might, if Putin and the hard-liners are willing to use force as much as they seem lately.
Maybe it’s just coincidental that Russia plans to send long-range bombers to the Gulf of Mexico “just for practice”. Russia has decided not to participate in scheduledjoint nuclear security effortswith the United States. Russia is boycotting a U.S.-hosted international security summit meeting in 2016.
When the heads-of-state gave Putin too much grief about the Ukraine at the G-20 meeting last week, he just got up and left.
The decline in U.S.-Russian relations is symptomatic of many things and can be dangerous as isolation can breed misinterpretations (NYTimes). Russia views our Congress as weak and ineffective, hamstringing our Commander-in-Chief. Russia is paranoid that they themselves will be seen as weak. And Kremlin hard-liners are reticent about letting U.S. experts into their nuclear sites.
Which would be bad enough if our weapons actually worked well and were ready if we ever needed them.
Lets hope them floppy disks still work
testiclees
Well-Known Member
Cringe, flush , if your floppy penis worked you could JO for real instead of beating off in this thread, pussy.Lets hope them floppy disks still work
- Status