Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 That thing is riidiculously ridiculous, but as a humor tool, I get it. How many 1st ladies are on the repub side? 2 on there for dems. I watched 41. BBush wasn't a horrendous troll as a young girl, but she was never a looker and got worse with age. Nancy Reagan resembled the crypt keeper with a wig. That really is a right staple, the red herring. They should probably have a Straw man, holding a fishing pole with a red herring at the end. That would actually paint an accurate picture of the party. Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 The religiously repressed are the freakiest ones. Just the Catholics, no? Well, I did here a number of stories about the local college, Palm Beach Atlantic, located right on the water in West Palm Beach, and the girls would save themselves by only doing oral and anal. Who knows? Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 That really is a right staple, the red herring. They should probably have a Straw man, holding a fishing pole with a red herring at the end. That would actually paint an accurate picture of the party. Both parties, Ron, both parties. Everybody sucks. That's my take. Doubt I'll vote. Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Oh, Maybe I haven't made that clear. They both aren't good. Totally agree. Obama has been a disappointment, for sure. Hey, all I do know is that the right has a continued ban on online gambling/poker in their platform and I can't go for that. So I gotta vote left. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,311 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Both parties, Ron, both parties. Everybody sucks. That's my take. Doubt I'll vote. The US needs something like the Rhinoceros Party http://en.wikipedia....hinoceros_Party Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Have we covered voted id fraud bills around here? At first, I was totally with the right. Get some damn ID. As a banker, it annoys me when people try to do business without an ID. I was on board with needing an ID to vote. But there is another side to it. Nowadays, you need a birth certificate, proof of address, marriage license, all kinds of other stuff to get your Id. Plenty of people don't have the resources to get all that stuff. It cost me $200 to get a passport. If your poor and from the country, the middle of nowhere, this is probably a big deal. I wanted to make is a simple black and white issue (not skin color, I mean simplicity) but there are shades of gray to everything. Also, the numbers on the amount of fraud is completely negligible. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 If in-person voter fraud was an actual problem, then I'd be fine with making poor people jump through the hoops to get ID. Since every actual study done has concluded that in-person voter fraud is rarer than being struck by lightning, it's just a new way to suppress the vote of people who mostly vote Democrat. http://urbanmilwauke...aud-is-so-rare/ http://www.kansascit...are-survey.html http://www.minnpost....ly-non-existent The Brennan Center did an exhaustive study of voter fraud and concluded “it is both irrational and extremely rare…Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.” Examining elections in 2004, it found that voter fraud happened 0.0009% of the time in Washington State and 0.00004% in Ohio. The Center also studied 250 cases of alleged voter fraud presented before the Indiana Supreme Court and found not one proven case of a fraudulent vote that photo ID could prevent. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I'm all for making it hard to vote. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Telling that you need to photoshop some of the women to make them ugly. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I think Ann Coulter is the only one who looks photoshopped. She's not exactly naturally stunning. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 To be fair though, until the bottom row, none of the 'hot' democrats are even close to being anything but average or ugly. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I think Ann Coulter is the only one who looks photoshopped. She's not exactly naturally stunning. She's political hot..or better than average. She does have unusually long limbs Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 So what's Obama to do about Egypt? He's just started giving them a billion for a new submarine, and they invade our embassy? Maybe Hillary's aide can get her mother to talk to her best friend's husband...the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood? Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Not to go all Ron Paul, but we really should cut most everyone off. Is that suicide? Would we be Anti-Semitic if we cut off Israel along with everyone else? I know that's a hot button country everyone panders to. How does a country 16 trillion in debt reconcile giving all this money away? I'm not much of foreign policy guru so someone explain to me why this has to happen? Quickly searched this and I still don't like it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianwingfield/2011/01/29/making-sense-of-u-s-foreign-aid-to-egypt-and-elsewhere/ Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Not to go all Ron Paul, but we really should cut most everyone off. Is that suicide? Would we be Anti-Semitic if we cut off Israel along with everyone else? I know that's a hot button country everyone panders to. How does a country 16 trillion in debt reconcile giving all this money away? I'm not much of foreign policy guru so someone explain to me why this has to happen? Quickly searched this and I still don't like it. http://www.forbes.co...-and-elsewhere/ it seems to me at a minimum it should be cut back by 35 to 50% - i am not sure of the arguement against it but it seems pretty reasonable to me. it is not like they would be cut off entirely right away but why we continue...I can't imagine BHO having a major problem cutting of Isreal - being Muslim and all... Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Foreign aid is like 0.4% of our budget. Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Oh, don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we should slash the defense budget damn near in half. I realize thats a sweeping generalization because I don't actually have the budget in front of me, but we can blow up the world 10 times over and spend more than the next 11 countries combined. Enough already. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Part of me would love to stop underwriting the military border protection of most of Europe and all the rest of the world. I believe that most of the more socialist countries would be forced to face reality that their free healthcare is being paid for by American tax payers paying for a super strong military, thus freeing up their home budgets to spend much much less on their military. On the other hand what we are doing is accepting that the world is not a peaceful place. If and when hotspots arise, we are able to respond very quickly. That has a very strong calming effect on actions of people who have desires to conquer their neighbors. If we did cut back say 50%, what we would in effect do is say that we will patrol the Pacific and Atlantic above the equator, and have the ability to bomb anywhere within 30 hours. It is kind of like firemen. You decide your budget based on what you want your response time to be. Accepting that a slower response time will always result in more people dying. Or in the case of the Military, we change our response from: "Send in a Carrier Battle Group and 50,000 soldiers" to "Launch bombers" One lets us control collateral damage better, as well as control the situation better. The other means we just accept that innocent people die when bad stuff happens. No easy answer. I see the value of both sides. Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 In this day and age, are 50k soldiers on the ground really necessary? I'm no military tactician, but don't we just bomb the balls off of people now? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 In this day and age, are 50k soldiers on the ground really necessary? I'm no military tactician, but don't we just bomb the balls off of people now? Boots on the ground are always necessary too accomplish most military goals. We can for sure bomb anywhere anytime. But we didn't bomb Bin Laden because we had to know, and for that we needed to have the Seals go in. But for a lot of things, we can definitely just bomb. And UAVs are becoming bigger force multipliers, without putting people in harms way. Of course the biggest problem to really exploring this is that all branches of the military argue that their role is most critical. Every military action is fought over by each branch to have their people do the job, making it really hard for the layman to value each branch fairly. I'm an Air Force brat, so I always lean air power. My BIL was a 3 star admiral, so I got a lot of Naval Power perspective. I also like the Kick ass Marines. The Army is the backbone. Iraq was a good example of the infighting. In Iraq 1 we sent in 500,000 men, took 6 months to build up that force, and swarmed the border. That is a WW2 mindset of having massive troops. Iraq 2 was done with less than half the forces, build up was about a month, quick strike special forces etc controlled oil fields, we used smart bombs to target specific target. Many in the military ( Army mostly ) who want to have tens of thousands of tanks etc accused Franks of going in without enough troops. Of course we accomplished all goals ahead of schedule, but that accusation stuck: Bush went into Iraq without enough troops. Those military leaders want big armies. More room for extra stars for the generals, more postings to get promoted into, etc. Clinton got a huge economic boon when he got to cut lots of waste from post cold war bases. It balanced his budget. But when the troops needed armored Humvees there were none. Cut the budget today, you'll probably find you needed it later. But then again, maybe not. Having the political will to bomb the crap out of places to slow them down is something else we are kind of short on though. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 And can we all agree: Someone should be fired over this: At the DNC during a tribute to veterans, they showed a navy armada sailing through the waters. The problem is, those are Russian ships. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 lol Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 That's funny. Fired though? No. Bitch slapped? Definitely. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,311 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 They needed a balloon drop Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now