GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Hail Bush!
If I was a Blue Angels pilot I'd find that guy's house and make sure to crank up the afterburner over his house.san fran lawmaker wrote:
... the performances cause "noise pollution."
Man the nuts are really running the asylum these days. Between this post about the pinkos trying to take government money but not let the Marines have a recruiting station, and the one about the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to allow sharia law into British courts, I think the whole fucking world has gone insane. Sooner or later the rational among us need to get together and decide on one final act of irrationality in the name of future rationalism, and that's to just go on a full on killing spree and start eradicating these idiots.
just sounds like a whole lot of dissenting opinions. what do you have against freedom of speech, you nut?Dersmikner wrote:
Man the nuts are really running the asylum these days. Between this post about the pinkos trying to take government money but not let the Marines have a recruiting station, and the one about the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to allow sharia law into British courts, I think the whole fucking world has gone insane. Sooner or later the rational among us need to get together and decide on one final act of irrationality in the name of future rationalism, and that's to just go on a full on killing spree and start eradicating these idiots.
a dare you to go on a killing spree mr rational...
Honestly, lowing, no matter how absurdly ultra-conservative some of your views may be, I try to keep an open mind when reading your comments. You could at least offer me the same. The only thing I've said, repeatedly and in very clear langauge, is that unconditional funding should be unconditional, and that conditional funding should be conditional. I've been very clear and concise in what my opinions are, but once again you show that you're looking for confrontation in everything. You twist, turn and seemingly deliberately misconstrue everything into being an attack against you and your values, and you use those same twisted, turned and misconstrued interpretations to attack people for things they've neither said nor implied.lowing wrote:
Actually I think I made my self quite clear. It was clear that Berkeley is anti military. It is clear that they were going to get their funding cut off. The reasons why were clear. It was clear they backed down becasue they dcided to sell out their opinions and hard stance at the first sign of resistance ( just like a liberal) for cash..mikkel wrote:
Not really, no. I was trying to get around all your accusatory conclusions that went completely contrary to everything I posted. I don't know if you have a grudge against me, or if you're just looking for conflict, but you definitely weren't answering my questions.lowing wrote:
He knew what I was saying, he was just being a bubbaloian smart ass......
You have made it clear that you think govt. funding should be unconditional. I think I have mqde it clear that that notion is completey absurd.
The way I see it, you are only one left in the dark.
The world isn't against you, lowing. Give it a rest.
sounds good...............lets start in Ireland.Dersmikner wrote:
Man the nuts are really running the asylum these days. Between this post about the pinkos trying to take government money but not let the Marines have a recruiting station, and the one about the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to allow sharia law into British courts, I think the whole fucking world has gone insane. Sooner or later the rational among us need to get together and decide on one final act of irrationality in the name of future rationalism, and that's to just go on a full on killing spree and start eradicating these idiots.
The only thing keeping me from something about like that is the fact that I don't want to face the consequences. I like my home, my company, my money and my lifestyle, but you can BET that if I were omnipotent and able to wipe them out with a thought, and no possibility of reprisal, they'd all be gone tomorrow, right after coffee and a cigarette.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
just sounds like a whole lot of dissenting opinions. what do you have against freedom of speech, you nut?Dersmikner wrote:
Man the nuts are really running the asylum these days. Between this post about the pinkos trying to take government money but not let the Marines have a recruiting station, and the one about the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to allow sharia law into British courts, I think the whole fucking world has gone insane. Sooner or later the rational among us need to get together and decide on one final act of irrationality in the name of future rationalism, and that's to just go on a full on killing spree and start eradicating these idiots.
a dare you to go on a killing spree mr rational...
If you have read me for any length of time you will know that I am unwavering in my beliefs and more importantly I am consistent.mikkel wrote:
Honestly, lowing, no matter how absurdly ultra-conservative some of your views may be, I try to keep an open mind when reading your comments. You could at least offer me the same. The only thing I've said, repeatedly and in very clear langauge, is that unconditional funding should be unconditional, and that conditional funding should be conditional. I've been very clear and concise in what my opinions are, but once again you show that you're looking for confrontation in everything. You twist, turn and seemingly deliberately misconstrue everything into being an attack against you and your values, and you use those same twisted, turned and misconstrued interpretations to attack people for things they've neither said nor implied.lowing wrote:
Actually I think I made my self quite clear. It was clear that Berkeley is anti military. It is clear that they were going to get their funding cut off. The reasons why were clear. It was clear they backed down becasue they dcided to sell out their opinions and hard stance at the first sign of resistance ( just like a liberal) for cash..mikkel wrote:
Not really, no. I was trying to get around all your accusatory conclusions that went completely contrary to everything I posted. I don't know if you have a grudge against me, or if you're just looking for conflict, but you definitely weren't answering my questions.
You have made it clear that you think govt. funding should be unconditional. I think I have mqde it clear that that notion is completey absurd.
The way I see it, you are only one left in the dark.
The world isn't against you, lowing. Give it a rest.
I could not care less if everyone is "against me" or not. Am I looking for confrontation in this forum, you bet. who isn't? Why would I want to come in here and agree with everyone or look for people to agree with me? Wha fun is that? I rarely ( however it does happen) get very emotional in this forum. I do tend to spark somewhat of an outrage in those that do not like what I have to say. Not my problem.
As far as this thread goes. You seem to be against Berkeley getting cut off from govt. funding. and that govt. funding to Berkeley is unconditional.
My argument is and has been, I think if Berkeley does not have the nations interests in mind then they should be cut off. If they do not want to support those that protect them fine then the protection should go away. Where do you get this notion that govt. funding is unconditional?
It's no big secret that you stand by what you believe, and I'm not commenting on that. I know that you're looking for confrontation, and I haven't anywhere asked you to agree with anyone. What you need to stop, though, is turning everything into an attack against you. It's unproductive, wholly unnecessary, gets in the way of actual debate, and franky is pretty annoying. The world isn't black and white, and we aren't all hiding extremist views behind our words.lowing wrote:
If you have read me for any length of time you will know that I am unwavering in my beliefs and more importantly I am consistent.mikkel wrote:
Honestly, lowing, no matter how absurdly ultra-conservative some of your views may be, I try to keep an open mind when reading your comments. You could at least offer me the same. The only thing I've said, repeatedly and in very clear langauge, is that unconditional funding should be unconditional, and that conditional funding should be conditional. I've been very clear and concise in what my opinions are, but once again you show that you're looking for confrontation in everything. You twist, turn and seemingly deliberately misconstrue everything into being an attack against you and your values, and you use those same twisted, turned and misconstrued interpretations to attack people for things they've neither said nor implied.lowing wrote:
Actually I think I made my self quite clear. It was clear that Berkeley is anti military. It is clear that they were going to get their funding cut off. The reasons why were clear. It was clear they backed down becasue they dcided to sell out their opinions and hard stance at the first sign of resistance ( just like a liberal) for cash..
You have made it clear that you think govt. funding should be unconditional. I think I have mqde it clear that that notion is completey absurd.
The way I see it, you are only one left in the dark.
The world isn't against you, lowing. Give it a rest.
I could not care less if everyone is "against me" or not. Am I looking for confrontation in this forum, you bet. who isn't? Why would I want to come in here and agree with everyone or look for people to agree with me? Wha fun is that? I rarely ( however it does happen) get very emotional in this forum. I do tend to spark somewhat of an outrage in those that do not like what I have to say. Not my problem.
As far as this thread goes. You seem to be against Berkeley getting cut off from govt. funding. and that govt. funding to Berkeley is unconditional.
My argument is and has been, I think if Berkeley does not have the nations interests in mind then they should be cut off. If they do not want to support those that protect them fine then the protection should go away. Where do you get this notion that govt. funding is unconditional?
Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-11 02:54:01)
I live in the Bay Area and the Mayor of Berkeley is gonna issue an "apology" to the Marines (or already has). . . .
If I was the US military I would let the Bay Area in particular Berkeley and San Francisco get bombed due to the venom and intollerance they spit at the recruiters and personnel as a whole. . . .
Liberals love to evoke free speech and the right to "live side by side" with one another, yet the Branches of service that LET THAT VERY RIGHT EXIST cant recruit peacfully amongst its citizens??? Shameful!!
If I was the US military I would let the Bay Area in particular Berkeley and San Francisco get bombed due to the venom and intollerance they spit at the recruiters and personnel as a whole. . . .
Liberals love to evoke free speech and the right to "live side by side" with one another, yet the Branches of service that LET THAT VERY RIGHT EXIST cant recruit peacfully amongst its citizens??? Shameful!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2008-02-11 01:50:44)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330419,00.htmlfadedsteve wrote:
I live in the Bay Area and the Mayor of Berkeley is gonna issue an "apology" to the Marines (or already has). . . .
If I was the US military I would let the Bay Area in particular Berkeley and San Francisco get bombed due to the venom and intollerance they spit at the recruiters and personnel as a whole. . . .
Liberals love to evoke free speech and the right to "live side by side" with one another, yet the Branches of service that LET THAT VERY RIGHT EXIST cant recruit peacfully amongst its citizens??? Shameful!!
The City Council is going to "review" their position.
They should review their damn position. . . . ignorant liberal fucks!!SgtHeihn wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330419,00.htmlfadedsteve wrote:
I live in the Bay Area and the Mayor of Berkeley is gonna issue an "apology" to the Marines (or already has). . . .
If I was the US military I would let the Bay Area in particular Berkeley and San Francisco get bombed due to the venom and intollerance they spit at the recruiters and personnel as a whole. . . .
Liberals love to evoke free speech and the right to "live side by side" with one another, yet the Branches of service that LET THAT VERY RIGHT EXIST cant recruit peacfully amongst its citizens??? Shameful!!
The City Council is going to "review" their position.
The Marines should be able to recruit UNIMPEDED by anyone! This is liberalism run a muck as I have said! The US Military deserves a full apology! If I were the feds I would threaten to take federal monies away from the city of Berkeley for any future chicanery regarding the recruitment of our military ESPECIALLY the Marine Corps.
Absolutely fucking SHAMEFUL on the part of that shithole (believe me I know! Berkeley is a toilet) city!!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
fucking hippies.Kmarion wrote:
http://i28.tinypic.com/o5nseb.gif
The Irony is they are exciting and unusual people. Maybe some Marine will take their advice and kill them.RoosterCantrell wrote:
fucking hippies.Kmarion wrote:
http://i28.tinypic.com/o5nseb.gif
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The dean at Berkeley missed a major opportunity.
The VA is backed up on Veteran's health-care with a lot of 2nd rate facilities in the mix.
Berkeley medical school has some of the best facilities in the world.
They don't want recruiting centers near the campus/town.
But they need to "support the troops"...and get apparently "conditional Federal funding".
Seems like an easy win for "the troops" and Berkeley to me.
The VA is backed up on Veteran's health-care with a lot of 2nd rate facilities in the mix.
Berkeley medical school has some of the best facilities in the world.
They don't want recruiting centers near the campus/town.
But they need to "support the troops"...and get apparently "conditional Federal funding".
Seems like an easy win for "the troops" and Berkeley to me.
internal US issue that doesn't affect me. I'll therefore refrain from commenting.
Oh, I musta mis-understood being called, bigot, racist, war monger, Nazi, Islamophobe, paranoid, stupid, ignorant, war profiteer, asshole, etc..... as personal attacks. Not to say I have not on the rare occasion done the same thing. I love it though and am rarely offended.mikkel wrote:
It's no big secret that you stand by what you believe, and I'm not commenting on that. I know that you're looking for confrontation, and I haven't anywhere asked you to agree with anyone. What you need to stop, though, is turning everything into an attack against you. It's unproductive, wholly unnecessary, gets in the way of actual debate, and franky is pretty annoying. The world isn't black and white, and we aren't all hiding extremist views behind our words.lowing wrote:
If you have read me for any length of time you will know that I am unwavering in my beliefs and more importantly I am consistent.mikkel wrote:
Honestly, lowing, no matter how absurdly ultra-conservative some of your views may be, I try to keep an open mind when reading your comments. You could at least offer me the same. The only thing I've said, repeatedly and in very clear langauge, is that unconditional funding should be unconditional, and that conditional funding should be conditional. I've been very clear and concise in what my opinions are, but once again you show that you're looking for confrontation in everything. You twist, turn and seemingly deliberately misconstrue everything into being an attack against you and your values, and you use those same twisted, turned and misconstrued interpretations to attack people for things they've neither said nor implied.
The world isn't against you, lowing. Give it a rest.
I could not care less if everyone is "against me" or not. Am I looking for confrontation in this forum, you bet. who isn't? Why would I want to come in here and agree with everyone or look for people to agree with me? Wha fun is that? I rarely ( however it does happen) get very emotional in this forum. I do tend to spark somewhat of an outrage in those that do not like what I have to say. Not my problem.
As far as this thread goes. You seem to be against Berkeley getting cut off from govt. funding. and that govt. funding to Berkeley is unconditional.
My argument is and has been, I think if Berkeley does not have the nations interests in mind then they should be cut off. If they do not want to support those that protect them fine then the protection should go away. Where do you get this notion that govt. funding is unconditional?
As far as the world being black and white. You are correct. It isn't. But if you do not stop insisting that EVERYTHING is gray, and stop trying to please everyone, ( PC), you will never move forward on anything.
Berkeley rescinded the letter in a 7-2 vote.
Now they oppose the war but "support the troops." Sorry guys, I don't buy it. Please don't think that people are idiotic enough to believe that the city council went from calling the Marines "unwelcomed intruders" to supporting them in a few days.
If you want to prevent people from protecting you, you have a right to your opinion. DO NOT impede others from excercising their rights! Their actions fly in the face of everything that "tolerant liberals" are supposed to stand for.
Now they oppose the war but "support the troops." Sorry guys, I don't buy it. Please don't think that people are idiotic enough to believe that the city council went from calling the Marines "unwelcomed intruders" to supporting them in a few days.
If you want to prevent people from protecting you, you have a right to your opinion. DO NOT impede others from excercising their rights! Their actions fly in the face of everything that "tolerant liberals" are supposed to stand for.
Since .50's aint legal in cali anymore, A .308 will do the job just fine.
That's their right, as long as they own it. They are merely displaying their own stupidity and close-mindedness, IMO.Locoloki wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2008/02/13/vo.irpt.berkeley.protests.ireports
now they are burning US flags
Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC wrote:
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the the flag.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-02-13 17:05:47)
Im proud to be from a country where a person has the freedom to be a complete asshole. People who do that further isolate themselves from those whom they want support from.Locoloki wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2008/02/13/vo.irpt.berkeley.protests.ireports
now they are burning US flags
Not much different from our militant friends from al-Qaeda.Locoloki wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2008/02/13/vo.irpt.berkeley.protests.ireports
now they are burning US flags
Why don't they burn a picture of Bush, Pelosi etc? The politicians are the problem.
I am bumping this because Of an awesome item I got sent by google ads,
http://www.rangerup.com/macorestbesh.html
Plus the thing the Daily show did was classic!
http://www.rangerup.com/macorestbesh.html
Plus the thing the Daily show did was classic!