Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 28, 2016, 10:55:13 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 679 680 681 682 683 [684] 685 686 687 688 689 ... 872
17076  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Can anyone defend the Doc in the Cali octuplet dealy on: February 19, 2009, 05:28:48 am
This is the slowest train wreck ever.  Guess who will be homeless soon?
link
Quote
Wow, this just keeps getting better….(Insert eye roll here)

Octomom Nadya Suleman and her 14 kids are soon to be homeless.

Extra has obtained documents stating that Suleman’s mother, Angela Suleman, has fallen 10 months behind in payments for her 3-bedroom home in Whittier, California and owes the mortgage company $23,225!

In 2006, Angela borrowed $453,750 from IndyMac Bank, agreeing to make monthly payments on her loan, but last May she stopped making the payments.  In 2008, Angela filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, claiming she has between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in liabilities.  The bankruptcy case was later dismissed.

Extra caught up with Suleman and asked her about the house where she responded:

“It’s not my home. I got to move.  Yeah, I need a new house.”
17077  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: W is screwing us one last time on: February 19, 2009, 03:58:37 am
Aye.  You are correct.  It was wrong of me to forget to blame Congress and the jerks that actually wrote the law.
17078  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you be friends with a person who voted for the other candidate? on: February 19, 2009, 12:50:30 am
Of course.  Only a jackass would say otherwise.
17079  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Issue, part 23 on: February 19, 2009, 12:49:26 am
Hard no.  Why should they be?  If your job is so easy that any jackass off the street can do it "good enough", then you probably don't deserve a raise.  Get a skill if you want more money.
17080  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 12:55:17 pm
I was assuming a last man standing kind of thing.  It would take years of course either way.  Shorter if our aim was just to force govts to surrender and play ball (and also assuming our answer to revolt was very, very 'stern').

Either way, controlling the Western Hemisphere would be the likely first step and it shouldn't be challenging (other than those first couple of days admittedly).

I think you're forgeting the play of satellites and spy planes in war.  The "world" wouldn't be able to build up forces, we'd see it, and bomb it.  The longer it lasts, the better off the US would be.
17081  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 12:39:05 pm
And can also be bombed by B2s there as well.

If the world doesn't take the skies in the opening days, the world doesn't stand a chance.  As far as I can tell.  If further evidence is brought forth I could change my mind.
17082  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 12:20:41 pm
Why are you so sure America will control the skies and seas? There are huge armies out there like the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians with lots and lots of planes and ships, and this is 4 countries/regions. Imagine what the whole firepower of the world coudl do. We have the best technology no doubt, but its not as if these armies are pieces of sh**t or anything like that. If this was 1950 then America would have a good chance of winning, but today the world is a different place. Your opinion/ignorance of it is hilarious. Anyways I don't think the world or America would win in the end. I think only a religion such as Buddhism can win from a scenario such as this.
Military expenditures by nation
1  United States               713,100,000,000 2009
—  European Union Total 311,920,000,000 2007
2  France                          61,571,330,000 2008-2009
3  United Kingdom            61,280,890,000 2008
4  PRC                               61,090,000,000 2008
5  Russia                          50,000,000,000 2009
6  Japan                           48,860,000,000 2008
7  Germany                      45,930,000,000 2008
8  Italy                             40,050,000,000 2008
9  Saudi Arabia                31,050,000,000 2008
10  Turkey                       30,936,000,000 2008


 World Total                1,470,000,000,000


The world's only chance is air superiority in the opening couple of days by using extremely overwhelming force.  I think the US air shield is strong enough to win that.  Getting past the Navy will be hard.  Getting past the SAM sites that will quickly encircle our nation will be hard.  Getting past the thousandsF16s,F15s and F22s will be impossible.  But lets say a few squadrons sneak in amid the chaos and bomb...what?, a couple of runways/infrastructure?*  They won't make it back.  The US Navy is far beyond the rest of the world.  The USAF is far beyond the rest of the world.  The US Army is battlehardened and there is a nation of potential NCOs that have gotten out in the last few years that would join right back if we were fighting for our survival.  Don't get me started on the Jarheads. 

You're right, this isn't 1950.  Everybody was much closer then.  It ain't close today.




*What they bomb I suppose would depend on the stipulations of our "game".  If it's a fight to the death, then they would bomb the best military target they can hit.  If it's a fight to surrender, they'd still probably hit the military target, but a population center wouldn't be out of the question.
17083  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 10:55:27 am
A.South American countries would need to use the waters to transport troops to NA.  There is a huge chunk of Panama that you couldn't transport troops and equipment through.

B.You're discounting air superiority.  On the other hand, I may be discounting the absolute numbers of aircraft the world will have at their disposal the first several days of the war.  On the other hand, much of that aircraft rely heavily upon US satellites and other tech/intel that they suddenly would no longer have access to.  If the air shield can hold for a few days, we should be alright.  The longer it lasts, the better off the US becomes.  Unless of course....

C.We run out of some resources.  I can't think of any and nobody has given specifics.  What are they?  It wouldn't be oil.  And even if there are some, what's to stop us from going and getting it?  (unless of course we lose the air superiority war in the opening days, in which case we won't have time to run out of any resources)
17084  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Candidate Declaration Thread on: February 18, 2009, 09:50:31 am
I too will be accepting write in votes for the Midwest Senate seat.
17085  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: dead0man will accept write in votes for Midwest Senator on: February 18, 2009, 09:49:05 am
I suppose doing all three couldn't hurt Smiley
17086  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: What's the last movie you've seen? on: February 18, 2009, 09:47:07 am
No Country for Old Men-it was good, not great.  I liked the non-Hollywood ending.

Tommy-I always forget how strange the songs are compared to the album.  The Wall strays at times, but for the most part it's pretty close to the album.  Not here.  Still great though.  I love The Who so I'm biased.  I can certainly understand non Who fans not digging this film.  Especially if you don't like 70s camp.
17087  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / dead0man will accept write in votes for Midwest Senator on: February 18, 2009, 07:32:47 am
For the Record


(if this is in the wrong place or in the wrong format, let me know)
17088  General Politics / International General Discussion / Cross-breezes, сквозняк, tocht, ventilatie, techenie, Es zieht, corrente on: February 18, 2009, 06:35:47 am
I just read that many many people in Europe (primarily the mainland) believe you will get sick if there is a breeze in the house.  Is this true?  Have they never heard of the Germ Theory of disease?  Please, fight my ignorance.
17089  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Is it wrong to think we shouldn't teach abstinence at all? on: February 18, 2009, 06:09:15 am
The "third way" huh?  If that's what I think it is (and I'm sure it is), I find it overrated...but that's probably because I'm married.  (and she's not keen on the idea)

Wait, isn't that even worse as far as catching ...ahem.... sh**t you don't want to catch?
17090  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Is it wrong to think we shouldn't teach abstinence at all? on: February 18, 2009, 05:53:07 am
..and that's all that matters really.  If you're happy, you're doing something right.


Still, I think I'd be getting more hummers and fewer pokings of the hairy oracle if I was wearing your shoes.  Sure you can still get a nasty thing while getting your nob gobbled, but it's way safer than the ole hatchet wound.  Especially considering you give no concern to the lady getting her rocks off.  At least one would assume you don't.  I wouldn't.
17091  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Is it wrong to think we shouldn't teach abstinence at all? on: February 18, 2009, 05:28:43 am
How safe is it to bag "working girls" in Thailand without a hefty bag on your junk?  Seems kind of risky to this gringo.
17092  General Politics / International General Discussion / Canada takes 3 steps backwards on: February 18, 2009, 04:55:26 am
link
Quote
A judge in Canada has ruled that Internet users have no expectation of privacy and police can use track people through Internet protocols without warrants.
much more at link
17093  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Is it wrong to think we shouldn't teach abstinence at all? on: February 18, 2009, 04:48:24 am
All sensation?...nah, just 93% of it Smiley  I'd rather have sex wearing a condom than have no sex at all.*

But I agree.  Condoms suck.  That's why the wife got "fixed" after the last rug rat.



*It's been 8 years since I wore a Jimmy Hat.  You?
17094  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 04:44:21 am
Yeah...or release a super bug that is easily beatable with modern medicine and let the chips fall where they may.  Even that wouldn't wipe out all non-Ameircans though (and would likely wipe out a lot of Americans). 

But yeah, if winning required killing everybody else, we would probably never fully win.
17095  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / W (and congress) is screwing us one last time on: February 18, 2009, 04:38:32 am
by taking away motorbikes away from children
link
Quote
Manufacturers and dealers are growing a bit frantic over the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which would effectively ban the sales of small motorcycles and off-road vehicles intended for children under 12 years old beginning next week.

The new regulations, which are set to take effect on Feb. 10, require products intended for children to meet strict limits on lead content, such as in toys. Industry advocates said that certain internal components in motorcycles, including battery terminals and brake parts, contain enough lead to be effectively banned from sale. A letter issued by the American Motorcyclist Association on Tuesday says:

…although the C.P.S.C. has published proposed procedures for seeking exclusion from the lead limits, there is no practical way for manufacturers and distributors of A.T.V.’s and off-highway motorcycles to seek and obtain exclusions prior to the February 10 effective date… Unless the C.P.S.C. acts immediately to grant the manufacturers and distributers of motorcycles and A.T.V.’s emergency relief and a temporary exclusion from the lead limits for certain applications, a severe and unwarranted disruption in the supply of youth-model vehicles will occur.

The act also requires that products intended for children under 12 must be certified by testing laboratories as within the legal lead-content limits. But the implementation of this requirement was delayed for one year by the safety commission on Friday, after an uproar among retailers and manufacturers (and librarians), who pointed out that third-party testing facilities for some products are exceedingly expensive or not available.

On Wednesday, the Motorcycle Industry Council, a group representing manufacturers, called for an e-mail campaign to urge the commission to delay the rule’s implementation. The council has also filed a request for exemption to the new rules and signed a letter [pdf] alongside other members of the National Association of Manufacturers requesting an emergency stay.
This is why I kneejerk react negativly to anything that sounds like "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act".  There is always bullsh**t in something named in such a way.  They aren't even banning them because they are dangerous (which would still be a stupid reason), they are banning them because they contain lead and you never know when a 3 year old will try to swallow a motorcycle.
17096  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Can anyone defend the Doc in the Cali octuplet dealy on: February 18, 2009, 04:26:40 am
Now she has an agent.  As a bonus, it's the same agent Rick Warren has.  linky goodness
17097  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 04:18:50 am
Anyway as others have stated very well above, air power and military transport capability are hugely in the american favor.  In the short term the US would win very decisively.  The question for the overall win would be whether, without nukes, we could prevent the rest of the world from eventually building military hardware and mobilizing to their full potential (which could be of course overwhelming).
Are we going to relax while they do this?  What advantage would a bombed to sh**t world have the second go around that they didn't have the first time?
17098  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 04:16:18 am
The world wins no doubt. We should remember that we have been selling all our wonderful technology around the world, and the russians have been doing the same. The world will just have way more resources than we will in the end.
Name the technology.  Explain HOW they beat us.  What resources? 

Yes we sell tech, but we don't sell the BEST tech.  Some nations come up with their own tech that is better than ours, but just because you have a better rifle or missles doesn't mean dick if you can't do anything with it.

Resources as in everthing??? You do need money and wealth for war. As for technology, we may have the best but it only goes so far. Also it depends on what constitutes a "victory". It is just more plausible to see the world defeating America than the world being overrun. How would that even be possible?
What resources would the US need though?  We have well more than enough oil to run a war for a long time.

"winning" might be a difficult task if we must kill everybody else on the planet.  Still, we aren't losing.  Whomever controls the sky and the sea wins this fight and I've yet to see anything that gives the world the advantage in either.
17099  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 04:01:09 am
The world wins no doubt. We should remember that we have been selling all our wonderful technology around the world, and the russians have been doing the same. The world will just have way more resources than we will in the end.
Name the technology.  Explain HOW they beat us.  What resources? 

Yes we sell tech, but we don't sell the BEST tech.  Some nations come up with their own tech that is better than ours, but just because you have a better rifle or missles doesn't mean dick if you can't do anything with it.
17100  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: U.S.A. vs The World. no nukes on: February 18, 2009, 03:57:55 am
If China gets its anti-satellite missiles...

But yeah, the US might be able to just launch enough mid and long range missiles to destroy a lot of ships quickly
Which satellites do they shoot down?  The GPS ones?  I don't think they can (they are REALLY high).  The "spy" ones?  Good luck, God only knows how many we have up and where they are.

This is one of the side benifits to our military budget being so freaking huge.  We win all the forum wars of imagination.
Pages: 1 ... 679 680 681 682 683 [684] 685 686 687 688 689 ... 872


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines