Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 21)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Alright, the House comes back, and says; our national security trumps Obamacare. Sign here...

Obama will comply, correct?

Why don't they go directly to the chase?

The House comes back and says: our national security trumps your Administration. No funding until you resign. Sign here...

It's blackmail either way, right?

As stated before, the sequestration was a compromise to make sure "balancing the budget" was not simply a way to force Democrats to cut programs the Republicans didn't like (while leaving the ones they did like alone). If Congress can't reach a compromise that is acceptable to all parties, including the President, then it is still Congress' fault.

They are the ones responsible for coming up with an acceptable bill, not Obama.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

Are we dependent on foreign oil in a way that life-threatening consequences follow from a prolonged interruption of that flow?

Your response to that question will answer the other one.

Not really, certainly not to the degree that we can look at having 12 carrier groups as being more than very distantly related to our national defense.

The reason we have those carrier groups is so we can project US power quickly to places like Somalia or Taiwan. I can't believe this is something we're arguing about.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PolitiFact labels Gov. Romney's statement on the Navy "pants on fire".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

quote:
Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

As for the Air Force, many U.S. planes may be old, but they "have been modernized with amazing sensors and munitions even when the airframes themselves haven’t been," said Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Human factors matter, too. "The vast superiority of the U.S. Air Force has little to do with number of planes, but with vastly superior training, in-flight coordination and control, as well as precision targeting and superior missiles," said Charles Knight, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Institute.

Ruehrmund and Bowie write in their report that "although the overall force level is lower, the capabilities of the current force in almost all respects far exceed that of the huge Air Force of the 1950s. Today’s Air Force can maintain surveillance of the planet with space and air-breathing systems; strike with precision any point on the globe within hours; deploy air power and joint forces with unprecedented speed and agility; and provide high-bandwidth secure communications and navigation assistance to the entire joint force."

Increasingly crucial today are pilotless aerial vehicles, some of which are more commonly known as drones.

Obama Was Right On Navy, Says Former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/obama-navy-richard-danzig_n_2005201.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009


quote:
"The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

"The Navy is stronger than it's ever been," he added.


Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As stated before, the sequestration was a compromise to make sure "balancing the budget" was not simply a way to force Democrats to cut programs the Republicans didn't like (while leaving the ones they did like alone). If Congress can't reach a compromise that is acceptable to all parties, including the President, then it is still Congress' fault.
Lol, no. That's not how it works. If someone's being unreasonable, then the person who's being unreasonable is to blame. I'm not saying this is the case in your hypothetical, but it's not congress's fault if a hypothetical president acts ridiculous.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD is it the lack of a hypothetical presidential veto which is ridiculous in this hypothetical situation? Or something else?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Josh is right, the unreasonable party is the one to blame.

The problem is that, today, we all can't agree on what is unreasonable. [Frown]

Which is why my alternative to noel's hypothetical is not so far fetched. [Frown] [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

We have found carrier attack groups to be very useful in projecting political power, but that is not how they were originally conceived, nor is that how they would be deployed in a national crisis. They are purpose built to keep sea lanes open.


Kmbboots,

Your fact checkers are only measuring half of the equation. Carrier groups have kept a slower pace in advancements than countermeasures.

As an example; there is good reason to believe that the Kursk was killed bu a U.S. attack sub defending a second attack sub from a hyper-velocity torpedo launch by the Russian sub. We still have no defense against that weapon other than preemption.

As an aside; the Russians were demonstrating this torpedo for a sales contract to the Chinese.

[ October 23, 2012, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you note the part about ships going up during President Obama's administration?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

As an example; there is good reason to believe that the Kursk was killed bu a U.S. attack sub defending a second attack sub from a hyper-velocity torpedo launch by the Russian sub. We still have no defense against that weapon other than preemption.

As an aside; the Russians were demonstrating this torpedo for a sales contract to the Chinese.

Do you have a cite? Wikipedia indicates it was an accident, though the language suggests there are competing "theories."
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you know that ship count goes up on a time delayed construction cycle?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel

I think we're talking around eachother about the carriers. Anyway I'm not arguing they go into dry dock. As long as we're carrying the global burden for defense of democracy, liberty ect we have to maintian them at current levels.

Now second point...
You're saying the Kursk was sunk by a US sub defending another US sub that the Kursk had fired on? Do you have a source you can talk about on that?

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noble hunter,

The best evidence that I have seen is the perfect hole punched through the outer hull of the Kursk... roughly the diameter of our type 54, and the chronology of sonic signatures recorded as far away as Norway.

The accidental explosion of a peroxide torpedo propulsion system just does not fit the sequence of events.

[ October 23, 2012, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As an example; there is good reason to believe that the Kursk was killed bu a U.S. attack sub defending a second attack sub from a hyper-velocity torpedo launch by the Russian sub. We still have no defense against that weapon other than preemption.

As an aside; the Russians were demonstrating this torpedo for a sales contract to the Chinese.

I'm curious why you believe this, as opposed to the (IMO far more likely) original claim that the Kursk collided with the Memphis and ripped off a portion of the latter's conning tower, which is what necessitated the Memphis' later emergency dry-dock repairs. This narrative would also explain why Soviet surveillance craft followed the Memphis to the edges of Norwegian airspace, and why the U.S. paid to fly the wives of some Memphis crewmen to Norway following its arrival in Bergen (which took five days, a remarkably slow pace that would be understandable from a heavily-damaged submarine but is difficult to explain otherwise.)

The Russians are almost certainly selling rocket torpedoes to the Chinese, but I think it's fairly ridiculous to say that they were shooting at an American sub to demonstrate this ability; rather, I think one of the handful of American subs that were in the area to witness the exercise simply got too close and rammed the Kursk from below with its conning tower, ripping a hole in the underside of its bow (which might help explain why the bow was cut away from the salvage and left on the seafloor, then destroyed with explosives.)

[ October 23, 2012, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Do you know that ship count goes up on a time delayed construction cycle?

Certainly. Especially as it is mentioned in the link I posted:

quote:
"Ships are so expensive that they have to be built over long periods of time, and at a pace that accounts for the retirement from service of other ships as well," Janda said. "We also have to space the building out over long periods of time to keep our major shipyards working at a rate that’s sustainable over several decades, because you can’t let them go under and then try to reform them in time of war. So Congress and the president make decisions each year regarding the needs of the Navy that do not come to fruition for decades, making it ridiculous to give blame or praise to the president for the current situation."
Bolding mine.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

It is virtually certain that the Memphis did collide with the Kursk, but that is not what caused the fatal explosion.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting.

I might look into it more when I have the time. Might be the elusive quarry of the true "conspiracy theory".

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward Son said
quote:
No, Josh is right, the unreasonable party is the one to blame.

The problem is that, today, we all can't agree on what is unreasonable.

Romney's newfound moderation is obviously an implicit repudiation of the unreasonableness and radicalism of the entire Tea Party era of conservatism. Remember when the House wanted a balanced budget amendment - a change to the fundamental law of the land - as a condition to raising the debt ceiling? It's crazy in retrospect, and based on the last few weeks, a theoretical President Romney would never demand such a drastic measure.

If the Republican party continues to follow Romney's recent center-right direction - modest cuts to discretionary spending, minor tweaks to the welfare state, and so on - the 112th Congress will go down as one of the most radical in US history.

And I hope Republicans do follow Romney's direction. But it's exasperating to see conservatives abruptly stop acting unreasonably, pretending they've been acting reasonably all along.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except for the teeny fact that the "newfound" moderation matches Romney's actual political record as governor ...
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bingo!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Except for the teeny fact that the "newfound" moderation matches Romney's actual political record as governor ...

When he was beholden to a democratic congress that repeatedly proved that it was able to override his veto.

If both houses of the US Congress were similarly 80-90% democratic, you can be certain that he'd have an equally moderate recorde by the time he was done.

And, really, if we want a center-right president, why vote for the one that may possibly be sliding back toward that position over the one that's already firmly established himself to be sitting there that we already have?

[ October 23, 2012, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
But it's exasperating to see conservatives abruptly stop acting unreasonably, pretending they've been acting reasonably all along.

This precisely sums up how I feel. When it comes down to it, winning is more important to them than principles, and the ends justify the means, particularly if that end is beating Obama. They'll hush up until after the election, at which point if they lose you'll see a circular firing squad, and if they win... well, let's just say I think the Tea Party will mysteriously call in sick for 4 years.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, it is telling that the good folks of Massachusetts are really dead set against putting such a paragon as their former governor in the White House.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... if we want a center-right president..."...


... Then you want someone who is not waiting for the completion of this election cycle to behave with more "flexibility" for Vladimir.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"... if we want a center-right president..."...


... Then you want someone who is not waiting for the completion of this election cycle to behave with more "flexibility" for Vladimir.

Putin is a center-right figure as well.

(And no being an ex-commie doesn't preclude being a center-right figure now. The GOP is run by movement founded by ex communists who turned to center-right figures.)

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really hope Obama tries to package his KGB buddy that way.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Putin's a social conservative who supports traditional religion, particularly Christianity, commerce, the military, and is tough on crime. He's as much center right as his son of the CIA buddy George W Bush.

THe guilt by association with Putin tactic was lame when Clinton was trying to use it to smear Bush and it's lame when you try and use to smear Obama.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Again, it is telling that the good folks of Massachusetts are really dead set against putting such a paragon as their former governor in the White House.

Telling of what, exactly? If you are trying to say that fact excuses us from looking at what he precisely did in MA, his public record, that sounds like an awful cop-out. On a "don't confuse me with the facts" level.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

... And he willingly relinquishes, and shares, power with political opponents in the long-standing democratic tradition of Mother Russia. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Telling of how responsible Gov. Romney was for any successes in Massachusetts. What he was responsible for doing or initiating and where he was just passive and let the democratic legislature do things and where he was unsuccessful at stopping the democratic legislature from doing things that he is now taking credit for doing. I think that the people in Massachusetts would know these things better than we do and they are not terribly enthusiastic about him.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually Kmbboots, that is some cause for hope.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hope that we can't really trust the record that Gov. Romney is now trumpeting?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, hope that liberals from MA are giving an accurate read on his political compass.

I really hope they are correct as it relates to social issues.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which would mean that Gov. Romney will say just about anything, yes?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is some concern that he goes through timely conversions... much like Barry's disavowal of Reverend Wright.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you understand the difference between a change of heart due to a change of circumstance or new information and rewriting history?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh boy do I... have you read Barry's autobiographies?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think that the people in Massachusetts would know these things better than we do and they are not terribly enthusiastic about him."

He's still down 15 points. Not very favorite for a son. In Michigan where Romney was born Obama is still up 6 points. He must have made a hell of an impression.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
PolitiFact labels Gov. Romney's statement on the Navy "pants on fire".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

PolitiFact, yeah. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Counting the number of ships doesn't pass the giggle test and the Politifact goes on to count the ships. Think through that one a bit, it's what really doesn't pass the giggle test.


quote:
Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

As for the Air Force, many U.S. planes may be old, but they "have been modernized with amazing sensors and munitions even when the airframes themselves haven’t been," said Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Human factors matter, too. "The vast superiority of the U.S. Air Force has little to do with number of planes, but with vastly superior training, in-flight coordination and control, as well as precision targeting and superior missiles," said Charles Knight, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Institute.

So as we make the count after all and talk about how advanced these all are, what are we missing in our little count? Carriers, amphibs, subs. We got them all? Not hardly and what this, and Obama, demonstrate with their little count is a basic misunderstanding of the military. They're talking about the power of the Navy from a tactical perspective. Here's a phrase that's relevant, "Amateurs Talk Tactics, Professionals Talk Logistics". When we talk about the numbers of ships, we're talking about a lot more than our tactical abilities.


quote:

Increasingly crucial today are pilotless aerial vehicles, some of which are more commonly known as drones.

This demonstrates another significant misunderstanding of military power and its ability. Drones are great and all but they're no replacement for ships and men, at least not yet.


quote:
"The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

"The Navy is stronger than it's ever been," he added.

Still counting something that doesn't
pass the giggle test". You know why? To keep you distracted, so you don't focus on just how poorly they understand military power.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Give it up, kmbboots. If Obama walked on water Noel would fault him for not wiping the bottoms of his feet first.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are not enough ships for the War on Facts.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1