19-20-21. The National Guard Is Prepared

Matt Dillon said:
Oh? Crowd size seemed to be a big thing in 2012 and 2016, now all of a sudden it's just irrelevant?
Biden had less people than George Washington show up. Please do not expect anyone to believe he got 15 million more votes than the most votes ever. Seriously.

Whoops, guess you're not black, huh? My bad.
Click to expand...

Crowd size doesn’t mean shit never has.

I don’t expect a snot rag like you to believe anything, nor would I want you too. Don’t believe that Biden won? I wouldn’t want you to. Pretend that trump is still the president. :rofl2: dumb as a turd.
 
blackascoal said:
Crowd size doesn’t mean shit never has.

I don’t expect a snot rag like you to believe anything, nor would I want you too. Don’t believe that Biden won? I wouldn’t want you to. Pretend that trump is still the president. :rofl2: dumb as a turd.
Click to expand...

According to "the narrative" Biden won, but he really didn't. The numbers support that, and if you look at it objectively, there's no way Biden won with that many votes.

I'll see your "snot rag" and raise you a "rotten cumbreath motherfucker", k?
 
Matt Dillon said:
PS: One blast from a 20 gauge takes that out of the air.
Click to expand...

If you notice, it was the balloons that took it out of the air. :rofl2:

Here's a few funny comments on that video:

"A 10 cent balloon took out an 8000 dollar drone. Ha!"

"looks like I need to go stock up on balloons for the apocalypse"

"KILLERDRONE VS KILLERBALLOON = KILLERBALLOON WINS"
 
AProudLefty said:
If you notice, it was the balloons that took it out of the air. :rofl2:

Here's a few funny comments on that video:

"A 10 cent balloon took out an 8000 dollar drone. Ha!"

"looks like I need to go stock up on balloons for the apocalypse"

"KILLERDRONE VS KILLERBALLOON = KILLERBALLOON WINS"
Click to expand...

20 gauge shells aren't that much more, and can be aimed with precision.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Waaaay down at #10 is suicide at 48K, half of which are gun suicides which liberal assholes use to fluff up their "gun death" numbers.
Click to expand...

Or conservative assholes likes to downplay the gun deaths by splitting them. They divide deaths into four categories murders, legal homicides, suicides, and accidents. Better gun control does seem to reduce all four types.

IMPORTANT SIDE POINT: Gun control is different than gun bans. There are several countries with better gun control, but more individuals with guns.

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals obviously reduces murders. Making it legally dangerous for people to carry guns reduces the chances that they will make a sudden decision to kill someone.

Reducing the murders also reduces the number of people that use guns in self-defense. But also fewer guns being cavalierly carried reduces the number of mistaken self defenses (legal, but not needed homicides). Other countries do not have stand-your-ground, or even castle doctrine laws, so there is a obligation to retreat, that really reduces the number of legal homicides.

Gun control reduces accidental deaths as people are more careful with the guns that are used.

You would think gun control does not reduce suicides, but it appears that would be wrong. About half the people who would have used guns to kill themselves do find another way to kill themselves, but the other half come to their senses while they have time to think.
 
Walt said:
Or conservative assholes likes to downplay the gun deaths by splitting them. They divide deaths into four categories murders, legal homicides, suicides, and accidents. Better gun control does seem to reduce all four types.

IMPORTANT SIDE POINT: Gun control is different than gun bans. There are several countries with better gun control, but more individuals with guns.

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals obviously reduces murders. Making it legally dangerous for people to carry guns reduces the chances that they will make a sudden decision to kill someone.

Reducing the murders also reduces the number of people that use guns in self-defense. But also fewer guns being cavalierly carried reduces the number of mistaken self defenses (legal, but not needed homicides). Other countries do not have stand-your-ground, or even castle doctrine laws, so there is a obligation to retreat, that really reduces the number of legal homicides.

Gun control reduces accidental deaths as people are more careful with the guns that are used.

You would think gun control does not reduce suicides, but it appears that would be wrong. About half the people who would have used guns to kill themselves do find another way to kill themselves, but the other half come to their senses while they have time to think.
Click to expand...
Agreed with the sidepoint, but that requires trust. Not being screwed every few years by encroachment.

It's just another situation where city Democrats are dictating their solutions to their problems to all rural Republicans. It's wrong to broad brush others with your own problems.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
After getting the US into WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, I would hope the fuck so.
Click to expand...

Vietnam is a bit more complex. The war started under Eisenhower, with promises of unlimited support made by VP Nixon. In many ways, Nixon was the alpha and the omega of the Vietnam War. But both Kennedy and Johnson went along with those promises, even though with 20/20 hindsight they should not have. It was their decision.

Since 1993, Democratic military intervention has been "lead from behind", with some air support, or even special forces support. It has avoided almost all American casualties, but has meant we have less say in what follows the war.

Bush was more interested in the dozen invasions of the Neo-Cons. Each invasion was supposed to setup a "seedling democracy" in the region, and also fund the next invasion. The Neo-Cons, and more particularly the Vulcans, thought that if they picked the right countries, they could flash nation build them in a few months. Afghanistan was not one of the right countries, but supposedly Iraq was.

trump was all over the place in foreign policy. The Tongo Tongo Ambush is instructive on this. trump sent troops to Niger to fight ISIS, maybe local rebels, or who knows who. They had no air support, because trump was sure he could convince someone else to provide air support if they were attacked. When they were attacked, trump was too busy playing golf to try to get air support. A couple of months later he called one of the widows and said, "he[the dead soldier] knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyways..."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so are the demmycunts finally prepared to admit the Republicans didn't attack today?.....can the Guard stop sleeping on marble floors?.......can the razor wire and barricades be taken down.......
Click to expand...

The problem with figuring out if overwhelming security was needed or not is that it many times discourages terrorists from attacking. Maybe the Alt Right realized that they would be overwhelmed by the National Guard, and that is the reason they did not attack.

Even if it did not discourage an attack, I would almost always rather be over prepared than under prepared.
 
Walt said:
Vietnam is a bit more complex. The war started under Eisenhower, with promises of unlimited support made by VP Nixon. In many ways, Nixon was the alpha and the omega of the Vietnam War. But both Kennedy and Johnson went along with those promises, even though with 20/20 hindsight they should not have. It was their decision.

Since 1993, Democratic military intervention has been "lead from behind", with some air support, or even special forces support. It has avoided almost all American casualties, but has meant we have less say in what follows the war.

Bush was more interested in the dozen invasions of the Neo-Cons. Each invasion was supposed to setup a "seedling democracy" in the region, and also fund the next invasion. The Neo-Cons, and more particularly the Vulcans, thought that if they picked the right countries, they could flash nation build them in a few months. Afghanistan was not one of the right countries, but supposedly Iraq was.

trump was all over the place in foreign policy. The Tongo Tongo Ambush is instructive on this. trump sent troops to Niger to fight ISIS, maybe local rebels, or who knows who. They had no air support, because trump was sure he could convince someone else to provide air support if they were attacked. When they were attacked, trump was too busy playing golf to try to get air support. A couple of months later he called one of the widows and said, "he[the dead soldier] knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyways..."
Click to expand...

Times change. The point is to learn from our mistakes. Obviously with 70ish million voters hating 80ish million voters, at least according to several on this forum, whatever we've been doing ain't working. Time for something new...or old as the case really is.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Dude, if you can't comprehend the difference in abilities between a state-supported terrorist group and some asshole psycho working on his RV, then, like the wise man said,
Click to expand...

The worst terrorist attacks on the USA have not been state-supported terrorist groups. Al Qaeda was not a state, and McVeigh was not even foreign.

Political realists, which from Kissinger on was a major political ideology in the Republican Party, believed that the only actors on the international scene was states. I think that fell apart on 9/11. They tried their best to link Al Qaeda to Iraq, but the two were not linked. Even Political realists would admit that domestic actors do not need to be states.
 
Walt said:
Worried? Concerned? Cautious? On guard?

I do not respect idiots, but I realize they can be dangerous not just to themselves but to others(including me).
Click to expand...

Looks like how some people approach potential dangers.

Two examples: being around an active volcano and skiers skiing down an avalanche prone mountain.

It is just a matter of perspective.
 
AProudLefty said:
At least the McDonald's hamburgers. :D
Click to expand...

Maybe if Hillary Clinton went on Democratic Party TV (DPTV) leading every American in mandatory morning Tai Chi, the Democrats could save half a million American lives every year. ;)

4umsqf.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Times change. The point is to learn from our mistakes. Obviously with 70ish million voters hating 80ish million voters, at least according to several on this forum, whatever we've been doing ain't working. Time for something new...or old as the case really is.
Click to expand...

Lead from behind still seems like a good strategy. It is far from perfect, but the low number of American deaths is pretty good. Also the lack of blame on America is good.

There were no combat deaths in any of the military operations started by Clinton. Let that sink in for a minute.
 
Walt said:
LMAO!!! I think you are joking.

America has twice the murder rate of any other first world country. We have failed.
Click to expand...

That's because all of those "old country" nations are citified sissy boys.
cowboy.gif


Just because the international equivalent of "But Moooommm, all the other kids are doing it" pleases you doesn't excuse Democrats jamming American city problems across every square inch of our nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top