o r a n g e l o v e r s
don't get to call anyone
foolish - giving money to a 'billionaire'
or
a tool - Jan 6 was a sea of mallet heads
(used for dirty work)
nor
imply others are more malleable than themselves (inspired to meaningless violence, told to 'guard' ballot boxes - like toothless people trying to chew gum - actively ignoring the plethora of graft (& other crimes), while listening to hate mongers trying to gaslight all the criminal/obnoxious/thuggish behavior. is enough to make baby Jesus cry.

that and PHAWK nuzz 🦜
is the height of unearned arrogance.



Blah Blah Blah?

Sheer poetry

Explain please.

The first wrong was being a Nazi youth invader attacking their neighbors and trying to subjugate or eradicate them....IMO that's actually three wrongs at a minimum, but I digress.

What's the second wrong? Using POWs this way was common practice then....no Geneva convention yet banning it. Most POWs were treated exponentially worse, starved and tortured to death or used as slave labor and worked to death on dangerous projects. By comparison, these Hitler youths were coddled.

Being forced to clean up a small mine field before release is hardly on par with that....there are still allegedly POWs alive in Vietnam and elsewhere....They would jump at the chance to clear mines and be released.

And what's the alternative? Leave the mines to kill civilians? Have the victims of invasion do the dirty work of cleaning up the mess the invading Nazis left? I think forcing the invaders to clean up the mess they made is the ONLY right move, anything else is wrong....like what we do, dropping hundreds of thousands of mines on foreign soil from the air with no idea where most end up and just leaving them to disable a country for generations. That is wrong....this isn't even harsh IMO.

The joke to Seinfeld at 6:50 or so (and continued later) is very much a reworking of one that Norm did in Dirty Work: (about 1:30 for the specific joke)

This was nothing more than self promoting b.s.. if this was in any way real, we would have a wonderful video of Trump picking up dog shit...that there wasn't that shot is proof enough to me that he only did the parts he found palatable and someone else did all the dirty work.
A bit funny to see him excited that a vacuum picks up lint, like he's never seen it happen before.

I'm with you, but it wouldn't work because Socialism is a dirty work in the US even though there are tons of examples such as the military, cops, roads, streetlights, ...

#2 and related is that everything has to be seen under the lens of capitalism which is short for ponzi scheme where a very small number of people at the top get filthy rich while everyone else bends over and pretends that they could be that guy at the top some day.

I find your second point more convincing.

Animals are serial rapists. I'm not sure why our diets should be informed by them. Clearly our teeth, and a great many other things, are pretty good clues to what we have historically eaten.

However. I love bacon, but I'm pretty sure I'd eat a lot less bacon if I had to occasionally slaughter a pig to get it. I don't have a moral objection to eating meat, I have an objection (and I am a hypocrite here to boot) with the almost hedonistic way we pay others to do the dirty work so that we might satiate our appetite. Where once our appetite for meat served as the necessary motivation in the face of the considerable effort we had to expend to get it, now I walk for 10 minutes, pay the equivalent of perhaps 10 minutes of my wage, and voilà, chicken ready to eat.

All of this would be "so what" if it were not for the environmental and health impacts this imbalance might cause, as well as the suffering we cause animals in our pursuit to ever drive down the price of flesh.

But yeah, if you have a small list of things you can eat affordably, and meat is one of them then, yeah, it's a bit different. I am fortunate enough to be fairly unrestricted in what I can eat...and yet I still choose to buy animal corpses wrapped in plastic. I'm trying to cut down though!

I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.

I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.

The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.

As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).

Um...Ok.
The Iranian 'revolution' was a surprise to most, including the Iranians. Carter didn't cause it.
Iran/Iraq war wasn't our problem, or fault. Regan getting involved and backing Saddam ended with atrocities and the US/Iraq wars to remove him later...should have let Iran do the dirty work.
Panama was a lease, which ran out. You think we should have gone to war with Panama and stolen it? Oh man.
We should have let the soviets 'take' Afghanistan, otherwise known as the graveyard of empires. We certainly should have stayed the hell out of there ourselves. Often invaded, never held, that's Afghanistan.
I'll just ignore the rest of your post. It needs no reply....except to note that your attempted insult of 'peanut farmer' (a noble career itself) ignores that he's also a Nuclear Sub Executive Officer/commanding officer AND designer.

"Abusing the voting system"

Wow. Disgusting. This is the problem here. Not Trancecoach or the other handful of users you all think are too "right wing" to belong here.

No, it's comments like this, and the environment of intolerance they create.

The elitism derived from this comment alone is so grossly appalling and disgusting. It sounds a helluva lot like censorship, to be honest. You, invoking @dag, to carry out some ideological dirty work for you? It's beneath the integrity of this site. And beneath all of us here.

"Though your conscience is in the right place you also have a pragmatic streak and generally aren’t afraid to do your own dirty work! You’re no shrinking violet - but no daredevil either. You generally have little trouble seeing things from another person’s perspective but, at the same time, are no pushover. ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life."

48 %

Ch Ch Chingalera comes outta the wood works channeling choggie and calls BS On Cenk Uyguuur and his brand of pontificous diversion disguised as some analgesic vegetable lozenge that so many walking-aneurisms seem to fawn over........Fuck him AND fuck Tom Brokaw


Cenks a douchebag, and his editorializing sucks balls and follows a well-scripted formula...he sucks at what he does..dirty work for assholes.-

Yes and i just want us to keep to ourselves for a while. This doesn't concern us. If ecuador have seen fit to grant him asylum for protection from the swedish or american government, then we should respect their choice and allow him to leave britain. Anything else is just utterly wrong, and an insult to many hundreds of years of british tradition. It's between them and sweden (and potentially america), not us.

If the olympics has told me anything it's this; why does britain need to change and become more modern at all? Why must this country chase people around the planet in the name of freedom like some psycho vigilante? Because the american government are?

I want us to just be happy with who we are; quaint, friendly, intelligent and skilled. These things will become increasingly useful as time goes by. That's how i propose to fix "broken britain". Focus on our own development.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
Curious: who is "we"? Are you British?>> ^dannym3141:
Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.
Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.
Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

Curious: who is "we"? Are you British?>> ^dannym3141:
Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.
Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.
Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

>> ^messenger:

With Ecuador? In the UK? That'd be even shorter than the Anglo-Zanzibar War, and we'd have streaming footage of the whole thing. That'd be cool.>> ^gwiz665:
UK's gonna start a war if they do.



Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.

Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.

Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho: