Andy9o8

Members
  • Content

    24,277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Andy9o8

  1. Chlorine takes that blood right off in a second...which reminds me, i once used chlorine on my bathroom floor right after a.... You forgot the "winkie" icon so any newbies reading it will realize you're joking. Of course, never ever get bleach on your canopy.
  2. Sounds to me like your DZ has some shit rental gear. Is it all that way?
  3. That's really consistent w/the point I was trying to make. But you're right, it's about pork - in this instance, the industrial side, of the military-industrial side, of pork.
  4. "I don't care if she has man hands; I'm telling you that's a chick."
  5. The Abrams tanks are food stamps, for the military-industrial complex and the politicians who suck off their teat. except the army is offering to cut that spending voluntarily and the government is forcing them to take their symbolic food stamps..... can you say the same for a welfare queen? Are you calling subsidized farmers welfare queens?
  6. Not me; I'd shoot a Moozlim. Not me; I'd shoot his lawyer. Wheres the like button? Only lawyers get to push them.
  7. Not me; I'd shoot a Moozlim. Not me; I'd shoot his lawyer. All lawyers have lawyers. And haven't you heard? there's an ammo shortage.
  8. Because the military will always find a way of spending money allocated to it, and rationalize it quite convincingly. At some point the US military becomes a saturated sponge, and after that, all the additional money spent on equipping and staffing it does not go to true "defense", it goes to boondoggle. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm sick of American tax dollars being spent for the security umbrella over Europe, freeing up the European taxpayers' money so they can all afford their social service nets. Unlike in the US, when a European gets laid off, he & his family aren't faced with loss of their health insurance. This is why. So no, don't just spend it on something else the Army will tell us it "needs", spend it on something outside the military.
  9. That's because the military-industrial complex's momentum isn't driven just by the military, it's also driven by the industrial. Who do you think contributes to political campaigns? And who do you think gives politicians the means to enrich themselves via insider trading? The military? Nope.
  10. Huh? Isn't the Tsarnaeva family the ultimate victim? Nope, it's law-abiding citizens whose 2nd Amendment rights are being trampled upon. Yay! It's a gun thread!
  11. Welfare queens ARE America. Love it or move to North Korea. Yeah, that's about the value of your OP.
  12. Question: Do you think that the related crime would be less if prostitution were legal? Research has shown that those crimes actually go up when its legalized. You just going to leave that sentence hanging there? No citations/links to specific supporting research? And that's only half the job, because you're also going to have to acknowledge, and then rebut, counter-concluding research. Do the due diligence, then come back and see us.
  13. Yeah, the mom's news conferences have been beyond belief. If anyone's had the need to STFU, she has. Being in denial is understandable (Oswald's mom had wild theories, too, for example), but this goes beyond that. The real outrage is she jumped bail on that shoplifting rap. Pretty shocking stuff.
  14. Yes. Shakedown cruise, and all that. Anyhow, I've already pinged Meso & described it in the Errors & Bugs forum.
  15. I wondered how many posts it would be until somebody turned this into a gun thread. 11 posts. Not bad; usually it's w/i 6 or 7.
  16. Pretty much anything Paul McCartney's done after he left the Beatles. Especially Wings
  17. You mean you hate them. If you don't know the difference between sick and hate, then I would suggest using a dictionary. People who twist what others say, especially when they do it for a living, make me sick, also. Yeah, I know, I hate that.
  18. Further discussion of the issue here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=71119#71119
  19. Just to digress a sec, the fairly frequent use of that vaguely mocking term is going to be viewed as rhetorical chickenshit - a sort of thinly-veiled name-calling - by the large number of as-yet undecided moderates and fence-sitters. Bad form and counter-productive, and (IMO) beneath someone like yourself, who is blessed with intelligence and the ability to articulate well. Just a little coaching; and you don't even have to cover my slot. Can I call them Handgun Control, Inc? That was their first name after all, and a much more honest declaration if intent and purpose. Another one of their precursor names was Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Insidiously seditious, eh?