I wonder who most Texans are REALLY ashamed of?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
quote:Originally posted by JOY4567:
The Chicks learned - the hard way - that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean that there may not be a 'cost' for what you say.
Fallen off the map...quote:Originally posted by tcf531:quote:Originally posted by JOY4567:
The Chicks learned - the hard way - that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean that there may not be a 'cost' for what you say.
5 grammys in 2007
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
quote:Originally posted by wtrfb2010:
Now that is funny! Doesn't she know that celebs are to get all dolled up when they go out in public.....some kind of ugly. Where is TMZ when you need them?
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
quote:Originally posted by tcf531:quote:Originally posted by JOY4567:
The Chicks learned - the hard way - that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean that there may not be a 'cost' for what you say.
5 grammys in 2007
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:
I wonder who most Texans are REALLY ashamed of?
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?
quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.
quote:Originally posted by interventor12:
"What constitutes "winning" the war on terror? How do you win a war on an ideology?"
We won the war against fascism, national socialism and Japanese imperialism, all ideologies, by destroying their societies and killing enough so they either weren't enough to bother with, or they changed their views.
We won the Cold War against communist ideology by driving them into the ground, thru economic and military means.
quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.
REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.
quote:With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.
quote:Originally posted by seeweed:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?
I'm sure he was referring to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with our problems with Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam detested Al Qaeda and kept Iran in check. Invading Iraq did much damage to our country's security.
quote:Originally posted by interventor12:
You stated wars against ideologies couldn't be won. Yet, state I noted that were destroyed were flawed ideologies and were defeated.
Do you consider the ideology of the jehadim to be a more perfect and correct ideology?
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.
REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3
quote:With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.
Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by seeweed:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?
I'm sure he was referring to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with our problems with Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam detested Al Qaeda and kept Iran in check. Invading Iraq did much damage to our country's security.
Are you accusing him of being as dense as you? I would be extremely upset if I were cadoofus.
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.
REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3
quote:With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.
Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.
How old are you, cadoofus?
quote:Originally posted by interventor12:
There was no increase in nuclear weapons, period!
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.
REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3
quote:With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.
Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.
How old are you, cadoofus?
Says the one that is name calling over the internet? Seriously if anything your age should be called into question
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?
Neither did George Bush, fool.
Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there.
As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.
REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3
quote:With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.
Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.
How old are you, cadoofus?
Says the one that is name calling over the internet? Seriously if anything your age should be called into question
11? 12? No wait. My great nephew is that age and he's got more common sense than you. Of course you are a "party member" of chairman obama. Intelligence is the last thing required of a "party member."
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:
As a matter of fact I am not a "party member." I don't prescribe to any party but if I had to choose it would probably be the libertarian party. So please tell me where my common sense comes in to question at any point, or my age for that matter.
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:
There was no increase in nuclear weapons, period!
I did not say there was an increase in weapons, but why pursue unbanning something if you have no interest in possibly restarting production?
quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:
There was no increase in nuclear weapons, period!
I did not say there was an increase in weapons, but why pursue unbanning something if you have no interest in possibly restarting production?
As the item, was already in the inventory, it would have required a simple modification -- allowed by the treaty.
quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:quote:Originally posted by Caduceus:quote:Originally posted by interventor12:
There was no increase in nuclear weapons, period!
I did not say there was an increase in weapons, but why pursue unbanning something if you have no interest in possibly restarting production?
As the item, was already in the inventory, it would have required a simple modification -- allowed by the treaty.
I just think that it is foolish to support a weapon that irradiates ground water. What are your views on nuclear weapons?