ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

god you're such a stooge. They screwed the pooch in one instance and then rolled over on it. And that's all you've got. But but but 'billion', you'll say.... It's one instance whether it was for a dollar or a billion dollars. And I recently saw something where dems had also been pointing out the vulnerability of those machines, I can't recall if it was posted here or I saw it elsewhere; but before you cry whataboutism, the point isn't that 'they' did it too, it's that I question the basis of the settlement.
I would expect you to question everything that threatens your world view. Actually, you'd be more inclined to deny it to your dying day.
 
I wanted Hulk Hogan as Secretary of Defense. I'm dead serious. I was hoping he would fill it all out with only professional celebrities with no experience in anything except being famous! Do it right!

We've had nothing but so called experts thus far. How has that been working out for everybody?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
We've had nothing but so called experts thus far. How has that been working out for everybody?
Everybody? I don't know. Is everybody here to answer that?

I mean, I know you're suffering more than anyone. Life is terrible for you, now, and you deserve people with no idea what they're doing to be in charge. I was just hoping for real ringers... like Hogan... Professional celebrities who only know how to entertain people. Oz was a pretty good choice. I want Mike Lindell in some kind of secretary of something job.

Why take your sick child to the doctor? So what if he has a... medical degree! He probably got that from some government agency. Take the kid down to the mechanic and let him tinker with his tonsils.
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
Not a fan.
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
I've never been in combat, so I defer to those who have had experience in it. I know a few women personally who served in the military, but they were in the Navy.

When I see film depictions like Hacksaw Ridge, or All Quiet On The Western Front, I don't think "why weren't women allowed to fight with these guys?" But, there's a history bias in that context.

I remember watching an HBO Special that James Gandolfini engineered called "Alive Day." It was about amputee vets from Iraq. There was a woman from Camden, SC, I think. She'd lost both legs below the knees. And another woman lost her arm up to her shoulder, I think. They both seemed like they were up to the challenge.
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
how in the world anyone could decide some women couldn’t do it is probably why i never thought about it…if the topic ever comes up i immediately think of “suck my dick master chief!”
 
Why take your sick child to the doctor? So what if he has a... medical degree! He probably got that from some government agency. Take the kid down to the mechanic and let him tinker with his tonsils.

I get it. I know that when I’m having a gender issue, I turn to those with gender studies degrees for help.
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
I view it kinda like I'd view sports. Caitlin Clark probably could have been a prolific scorer on a men's HS team, but would that have screwed up comraderie, cohesion, gelling? I have no idea though, never been there thank God.

There aren't any women SEAL's yet though I think one passed the tests, but there is a woman in delta force (and obviously army rangers). I'd love to hear the opinions of all her cohorts.
 
What "missing 20 million votes?" What was the conspiracy theory?
Nite one, when a large % of votes still hadn't been counted out west, some maga-morons were comparing Harris' vote totals to Biden's 2020 81 million votes. It was like 61 at the time, 66 another yelling "see, no way Biden's # we're legit, where were these 15 or 20 million"

 
Nite one, when a large % of votes still hadn't been counted out west, some maga-morons were comparing Harris' vote totals to Biden's 2020 81 million votes. It was like 61 at the time, 66 another yelling "see, no way Biden's # we're legit, where were these 15 or 20 million"

I think Trump got 77 million votes this time.
 
I would expect you to question everything that threatens your world view. Actually, you'd be more inclined to deny it to your dying day.
lol, reality is what threatens your crazy-quilt world view. It takes only a small dose to scare you into running off to see Alice in Wonderland where things seem more logical to you. I'm pretty sure you've never come back from there with anything that threatens my world view.
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
against it in general, but then it depends on the role. Absolutely against them being grunts on the ground. To me that's just about as sensible as allowing biological men to play on women's sports teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
Votes are still being counted, looks like Trump won fewer than 50% of Americans' votes, tightest margin of victory since Gore-Bush. Pollsters said it was going to be close.


House actually shifted blue by +2 seats. Tester and Manchin obviously flipped senate from blue to red (Pennsylvania is recounting that race).

Over two weeks later and they're still counting votes, lol. Maybe the process can be fixed next time but I doubt it.

Tightest margin of victory since Gore-Bush? This was a bigger blowout than either of the prior two Trump elections and Bush-Kerry. Assuming we're talking about what constitutes a "victory"; the EC. Pollsters got clowned again.

Trump got more total votes than Harris. Over 50% of the people that voted for a viable candidate and didn't torch their vote like @tarheel0910
 
Nite one, when a large % of votes still hadn't been counted out west, some maga-morons were comparing Harris' vote totals to Biden's 2020 81 million votes. It was like 61 at the time, 66 another yelling "see, no way Biden's # we're legit, where were these 15 or 20 million"

Tired Kevin James GIF by TV Land
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
I never served, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it. But...

If they want to go into combat, that's great, provided they don't endanger others. They should be able to meet the same physical requirements and abilities that anyone else would have to. I wouldn't want to get stuck in a foxhole with someone who couldn't meet the standard of being there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
Fox News is the best at peddling propaganda.
I find this type of statement to be rather humorous. First, I fully acknowledge that you well may be correct. But the question is, how on earth would you know? How can you make such a statement of fact/opinion? Is there some sort of rating or ranking service upon which you are relying and, if so, how is it that you can assure yourself that they themselves aren't "peddling propaganda"?

The main thing to consider though is how would you even be able to voice an educated position on the issue? You have routinely stated that you do NOT watch any of the so-called news services. Thus, you would have no basis to even make a comparison. And your postings on such things are 99% of the time to YouTube or others doing alleged comedy routines about news events. And if we've learned anything, those comedians/programs are part of the domination of media by the left agenda - so the jokes and routines aren't exactly what one would consider neutral or right leaning. That doesn't mean they aren't hilarious (Triumph is one of the funniest shticks ever done), but it doesn't make them news sources either.

Fox definitely has their leanings and they play to their audience. Since there are so many on the other side of things, it explains their huge audience as they are the one main "opposing" source that's carried on all the cable/tv services. But they are no better at "peddling" their leanings than anyone else. All your statement really demonstrates is your false flag of neutrality because Fox tends to be well right of where you really are and everyone else is just fine from your view. But just because you fully agree with them, that doesn't mean they aren't peddling or aren't really, really good at it.

Not picking a fight or anything, just asking that you take a step back and consider the circumstances around your belief before making such a sweeping statement. The mere fact that they had to pay a shit ton of money because they once chased a narrative that was false doesn't etch something in stone.
 
I find this type of statement to be rather humorous. First, I fully acknowledge that you well may be correct. But the question is, how on earth would you know? How can you make such a statement of fact/opinion? Is there some sort of rating or ranking service upon which you are relying and, if so, how is it that you can assure yourself that they themselves aren't "peddling propaganda"?

The main thing to consider though is how would you even be able to voice an educated position on the issue? You have routinely stated that you do NOT watch any of the so-called news services. Thus, you would have no basis to even make a comparison. And your postings on such things are 99% of the time to YouTube or others doing alleged comedy routines about news events. And if we've learned anything, those comedians/programs are part of the domination of media by the left agenda - so the jokes and routines aren't exactly what one would consider neutral or right leaning. That doesn't mean they aren't hilarious (Triumph is one of the funniest shticks ever done), but it doesn't make them news sources either.

Fox definitely has their leanings and they play to their audience. Since there are so many on the other side of things, it explains their huge audience as they are the one main "opposing" source that's carried on all the cable/tv services. But they are no better at "peddling" their leanings than anyone else. All your statement really demonstrates is your false flag of neutrality because Fox tends to be well right of where you really are and everyone else is just fine from your view. But just because you fully agree with them, that doesn't mean they aren't peddling or aren't really, really good at it.

Not picking a fight or anything, just asking that you take a step back and consider the circumstances around your belief before making such a sweeping statement. The mere fact that they had to pay a shit ton of money because they once chased a narrative that was false doesn't etch something in stone.
Dave Chappelle Gotcha GIF
 
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
I didn't serve either, so what do I know? My friends that did are mixed on the issue and there always seems to be a breakdown on lines of age. Older tend to be against it and younger are fine with it. I guess where I fall on it is that anyone in any given role needs to be capable of doing that role. So that would apply regardless of any particular characteristic. Figuring out those standards and making them consistent regardless of sex or other characteristics would seem to be the challenge in today's environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
To those saying Trump will never get his nominees confirmed, interesting opinion piece in Politico from someone who isn't exactly Orange friendly. Highlights:

“The last time a nominee was rejected on the floor of the Senate was in 1989.”
“Trump has consistently demonstrated his capacity to intimidate Republican legislators into doing his bidding.”
“[T]he Republican majority in the next Senate is wholly different from the majority Trump faced in his first term…”

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...6b83-75a8-486b-9b08-3fe1d6a16220&nlid=2758340
 
I find this type of statement to be rather humorous. First, I fully acknowledge that you well may be correct. But the question is, how on earth would you know? How can you make such a statement of fact/opinion? Is there some sort of rating or ranking service upon which you are relying and, if so, how is it that you can assure yourself that they themselves aren't "peddling propaganda"?

The main thing to consider though is how would you even be able to voice an educated position on the issue? You have routinely stated that you do NOT watch any of the so-called news services. Thus, you would have no basis to even make a comparison. And your postings on such things are 99% of the time to YouTube or others doing alleged comedy routines about news events. And if we've learned anything, those comedians/programs are part of the domination of media by the left agenda - so the jokes and routines aren't exactly what one would consider neutral or right leaning. That doesn't mean they aren't hilarious (Triumph is one of the funniest shticks ever done), but it doesn't make them news sources either.

Fox definitely has their leanings and they play to their audience. Since there are so many on the other side of things, it explains their huge audience as they are the one main "opposing" source that's carried on all the cable/tv services. But they are no better at "peddling" their leanings than anyone else. All your statement really demonstrates is your false flag of neutrality because Fox tends to be well right of where you really are and everyone else is just fine from your view. But just because you fully agree with them, that doesn't mean they aren't peddling or aren't really, really good at it.

Not picking a fight or anything, just asking that you take a step back and consider the circumstances around your belief before making such a sweeping statement. The mere fact that they had to pay a shit ton of money because they once chased a narrative that was false doesn't etch something in stone.
You've just dethroned @bluetoe . At least I may well be correct.
 
Imagine what would happen if the people who wanted another choice actually voted for another choice. I guess that two party dick taste too good for you guys.
I'd love to get away from the two party system. It's a paradox - not many people will vote for a 3rd/no party candidate that doesn't have a chance, and 3rd/no party candidates will never have a chance if not many people are willing to vote for them.

There's no way you believed whoever you voted for had a chance to get even 0.5% of the vote, right? If we could get some version of ranked choice voting then other candidates would be viable. I'd like to see that happen and would almost certainly have a non D or R as my top choice, but until then I see it as a waste. I don't believe that it proves some point, but some do.
 
You hear me bitching about the current administration's cabinet? I don't think so.
Let's make smallpox and polio great again!

A troll pick... for the director of HHS. America is going to be so great. I hope Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock get in there somehow. Idiocracy come to life.

Maybe he can. He says he can. He says he WILL do it.

I really don't know much about his appointees for intelligence offices. I know Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't know if she's qualified for that office. He will have very loyal folks around him this time.

If America gets kicked to the curb, and left out in the cold (I need more cliches)... then, Americans are to blame. They voted for him, they got a GOP-led everything. So, I'm looking forward to inflation disappearing, tariffs bringing vitality back the the US Economy, gas at $1 a gallon, all the global fighting to finally end. We get to pick all our own fruit, and have all the menial jobs that no one wants to do, go unfilled... that will lead to great economic prosperity. And, no more dogs and cats being eaten! 25 million wetbacks get sent wet-back-packing.

Tell the oncologist that RFK Jr. said "I can't trust you!" Hopefully, he tells them to go ahead and add some lead to their Jack-and-Cokes. Speed up the process.

I guess that was her token job for the support. I voted for her in the primary years ago.

Hey! Isn't Marjorie Taylor Greene going to get a cabinet position? She's been ultra-faithful... and Kari Lake, too!

I wanted Hulk Hogan as Secretary of Defense. I'm dead serious. I was hoping he would fill it all out with only professional celebrities with no experience in anything except being famous! Do it right!

Everybody? I don't know. Is everybody here to answer that?

I mean, I know you're suffering more than anyone. Life is terrible for you, now, and you deserve people with no idea what they're doing to be in charge. I was just hoping for real ringers... like Hogan... Professional celebrities who only know how to entertain people. Oz was a pretty good choice. I want Mike Lindell in some kind of secretary of something job.

Why take your sick child to the doctor? So what if he has a... medical degree! He probably got that from some government agency. Take the kid down to the mechanic and let him tinker with his tonsils.
You'd never do that...
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Gaetz might end up pulling his name once he realizes the extent of the FBI background check.
Looks like the report is going to come out anyway, but good call on him pulling his name. I assumed he would continue with his stubborn ways. Glad he is out of the way now.
 
I want to go ahead and start fretting over the cabinet that the 2028 President-elect is putting together. Why wait for them to suck? I’ll just assume it and start the hand wringing now!
 
I want to go ahead and start fretting over the cabinet that the 2028 President-elect is putting together. Why wait for them to suck? I’ll just assume it and start the hand wringing now!
If one of them was trans you'd be hoping for another insurrection. Maybe a reichstag fire.
 
I'd love to get away from the two party system. It's a paradox - not many people will vote for a 3rd/no party candidate that doesn't have a chance, and 3rd/no party candidates will never have a chance if not many people are willing to vote for them.

There's no way you believed whoever you voted for had a chance to get even 0.5% of the vote, right? If we could get some version of ranked choice voting then other candidates would be viable. I'd like to see that happen and would almost certainly have a non D or R as my top choice, but until then I see it as a waste. I don't believe that it proves some point, but some do.
I knew my vote would never win, but that's no different than voting Republican in Massachusetts or Democrat in Mississippi. I'm happy knowing I didn't contribute to the problem. Especially when two horrible candidates were my options.
 
To those saying Trump will never get his nominees confirmed, interesting opinion piece in Politico from someone who isn't exactly Orange friendly. Highlights:

“The last time a nominee was rejected on the floor of the Senate was in 1989.”
“Trump has consistently demonstrated his capacity to intimidate Republican legislators into doing his bidding.”
“[T]he Republican majority in the next Senate is wholly different from the majority Trump faced in his first term…”

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...6b83-75a8-486b-9b08-3fe1d6a16220&nlid=2758340
A part of me wonders if he's picking ridiculous people thinking they will drop out. Then he can pick someone who's a little less ridiculous, making people feel ok with the new person since it's not the other person.
 
A part of me wonders if he's picking ridiculous people thinking they will drop out. Then he can pick someone who's a little less ridiculous, making people feel ok with the new person since it's not the other person.
Yup. He’s a perv but he’s not stupid.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT