T1B

Dinsdale wrote:The Osprey sucks.

No, it doesn't. It had teething problems like most new systems but it has an excellent operational service record.

we don't need to engage in a military spat with the chinks. just close our ports and tell them to jam a few trillion in US bonds up their ass sideways. this would collapse their economy in about a week and give ours a nice boost as we might actually get back to that novel concept of building our own shit.

smackaholic wrote:we don't need to engage in a military spat with the chinks. just close our ports and tell them to jam a few trillion in US bonds up their ass sideways. this would collapse their economy in about a week and give ours a nice boost as we might actually get back to that novel concept of building our own shit.

Tariffs would fix things in a hurry -- but ain't-a-one douche in DC with the balls to even mention the word, much less draw up a plan.

Let's just continue to tax American businesses out of existence, but not charge China a dime, even though they're the ones making all the money. Brilliant strategy.

Dinsdale wrote:Let's just continue to tax American businesses out of existence, but not charge China a dime, even though they're the ones making all the money. Brilliant strategy.

The corporate globalists who actually run this country wouldn't have it any other way.

Speaking of...


WTF?

Globalists (translation: America haters) get a huge tax break to send our jobs overseas... but they have to pay a bigazz repatriation tax if they want to bring the money back to the USA?

While no one was paying attention, the globalists shoved a huge prosthetic cock up Americans' ass.

I mean, think that one through -- pay people (essentially) to kill American manufacturing, and penalize them if they so much as try to benefit Americans in any way with the money they made by exporting jobs.

Who are these tools in DC working for again? Because to a casual observer (or anyone capable of basic logic) it sure wouldn't appear to be the American People.

i'll bet another ross perot type would go over well right about now.

a slightly less crazy version version would be nice though.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:The Osprey sucks.

No, it doesn't. It had teething problems...

Dinsdale wrote:

Martyred wrote: Like the F-22 or the Osprey?

Only drawback with the Raptor is the expense -- if you think there's any plane in the world that can shoot one down, you're sorely mistaken.

Then why the F-35?

That was a rhetorical question.

Martyred wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Martyred wrote: Like the F-22 or the Osprey?

Only drawback with the Raptor is the expense -- if you think there's any plane in the world that can shoot one down, you're sorely mistaken.

Then why the F-35?

Different roles.

Martyred wrote:

Then why the F-35?

Much cheaper.

And I believe it's kind of the de facto replacement for the F-16 -- cheap, and not so dominating that we can't share it with the lesser countries... like canada, for example.

The Raptors stay right here... so we can remove F-16s and F-35s from the sky at will.

I remember the days when the US sold Iran F-14A Tomcats. How are those aircraft doing these days? Avionics, spare parts, AND tactical pilot training? Not one of these hack countries have the game and they have no chance.

Also, when mvscal made a quick comment about the Chinese swimming to Taiwan... you might want to check out what he meant. Explain to me how powerful the Chinese Navy is.

The only chance they have is our corrupt government continually selling out the citizens they've already thrown under the "Hope and Change" bus.

Dinsdale wrote:

Cuda wrote:The US is not going to "pull out all the stops" on anybody. Ever. And especially not with Obluegums in the White House.

Oh, I dunno -- OneBigAssMistakeAmerica has sure offed a lot more people-per-day than the "warmonger" he replaced.

First off you have no idea what a 'warmonger' is do you? Bush ginned up at least one war and probably two. BHO has not ginned up a single war.
Second, aside from the 'warmonger' angle, why must you right wing tards LIE all the time. Bush 'killed' 4881 Americans in 8 years in office. That is 610 a year. BHO has 'killed' 1041 in 2 years or 507 a year.

Moving Sale wrote:BHO

You desperately yearn to have his cock in your mouth.

Yet you reduce your saviour to three letters.

Trying to make EVERYBODY short, eh?

Three sentences containing one homo reference, some appearance smack and a false tie to the Democratic leader and not one fucking word about the topic being discussed.

You might be a Carson but you are not Bill Carson.

It took you six years to figure that out?

You are one stupid piece of shit.

...and how dare you use Democrat and leader in the same phrase, liar.

Moving Sale wrote:Bush 'killed' 4881 Americans in 8 years in office. That is 610 a year. BHO has 'killed' 1041 in 2 years or 507 a year.

I see. So, fewer of your high school dropout rapists have died in Obama's imperialist aggression, so that makes it "better".

Kill yourself.

Moving Sale wrote: First off you have no idea what a 'warmonger' is do you? Bush ginned up at least one war and probably two. BHO has not ginned up a single war.
Second, aside from the 'warmonger' angle, why must you right wing tards LIE all the time. Bush 'killed' 4881 Americans in 8 years in office. That is 610 a year. BHO has 'killed' 1041 in 2 years or 507 a year.

So, you don't know how many he "ginned up"?

The point he was making is that Afghanistan has gone to shit since Barry took over. It is a much smaller country, population wise than Iraq. And unlike Iraq, it is a dirt poor shithole that should be left to fester. Iraq on the other hand is rich and was run by a POS that had a nasty habit of attempting to take over the entire region.

Anyone with so much as a shred of honesty and a few functioning brain cells realizes that going into Iraq made way moer sense that going into Afghanistan. All we should have done there was nuke the beejeezus out of the area we suspected Bin Laden was in.

If there is a place that needed taking over more than Iraq, I'd say it was Saudi, but, those fukkers have our pols bought and paid for, on both sides of the isle.

Carson wrote:It took you six years to figure that out?

You are one stupid piece of shit.

...and how dare you use Democrat and leader in the same phrase, liar.

More obfuscation. Try back when you can keep up with the topic at least a little bit.

~~~~~~

Martyred wrote:So, fewer of your high school dropout rapists have died in Obama's imperialist aggression, so that makes it "better".

Show me where I said better? Fallacy much? He lied about the Evidence and you come after me?

Kill yourself.

Likewise I'm sure.

~~~~~~

smackaholic wrote: So, you don't know how many he "ginned up"?

Ok he ginned up two, ya got me.

The point he was making is that Afghanistan has gone to shit since Barry took over.

I don't give a crap what point he was trying to make, he lied when presenting his evidence. Are you that blind to the truth?

It is a much smaller country, population wise than Iraq. And unlike Iraq, it is a dirt poor shithole that should be left to fester. Iraq on the other hand is rich and was run by a POS that had a nasty habit of attempting to take over the entire region.

You have a nasty habit of typing non sequiturs.

Anyone with so much as a shred of honesty and a few functioning brain cells realizes that going into Iraq made way moer sense that going into Afghanistan.

Neither made any sense war chicken.

All we should have done there was nuke the beejeezus out of the area we suspected Bin Laden was in.

Blah blah blah nuke blah glass blah blah blah.

If there is a place that needed taking over more than Iraq, I'd say it was Saudi, but, those fukkers have our pols bought and paid for, on both sides of the isle.

Why don't you head on over and get the party started war chicken?

Bill Carson? Not that motherscratcher. BILL PARKER!