bmags

Alright. seriously. What the f*** are you guys complaining about. You want the GOP thread to have more posts? Post more. I'm not going to apologize for posting a lot in the dem thread with the posters i like. What are the mods supposed to do? Delete posts in the dem thread? You all seem to equate more posts in the dem thread with more hate...it's not. And there are quite a bit of posts in there with random posts form righters here that are just "hey nancy pelosi sucks! but i hate Bush too, so i'm fine!". We read a lot of blogs. We post them. THey are left leaning blogs. We post them in the dem thread. That's the point. It's the point of the dem thread. To have dem things in it. And not clog up the forum. You want to know the difference? When you guys talk about liberals and dems, we don't take it personally, because there is a large part of it we don't identify with. When we identify the f***in crazy sending nooses to congressman, Kap goes off about OOOHH SO I AM A RACIST RIIIIGHT WELL NONE OF THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED blah blah blah.

so many defensive lapses is what happened. This f***ing team. ugh.

it's not that we insist apples can't get viruses, it's that we don't, and it's nice. I don't give a f*** if it's because people don't care since less people use them, it's still brilliant to have had a laptop for 5 years with absolutely zero problems when my friends with dells have gone through 2 or 3.

well...that was painful. Thornton is a god. but the indians had a good game plan vs. peavy - take a lot of pitches. The dude just cannot do anything unless he's thrown 8 pitches per at bat. And then they looked low and hey. But yeah, when our 2-3-4 aren't doing anything, we're f***ed.

nvm i'm gonna go to a bar for this so my sisterinlaw can watch AMERICAS NEXT TOP MODEL

think i'm early.

Truth.

does any other fan base have as big of a love affair with their groundsman?

I had lots of problems with soxtalk in brazil with firefox. It's since deceased so i assumed it was due to my higher connection speeds. But no i'm stupid i have no idea what the probs is.

back to meteorology, so i was completely wrong.

cray cray. Has there ever been a big signing that has worked out for the skins under snyder?

This is totally the opening day/week weather i'm used to. Whoever picked alexei for PTC...i think you made an unwise move. Get your crow ready for me, of course.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 10:19 PM) The people who really wanted to do it finally had the political capital to go all in. Mix it with some dubious intelligence and it became relatively justifiable to a lot of people. Bring up the question of why we didn't just do it all back in the early 90's, but that doesn't change any of the realities surrounding the '03 invasion. no, that doesn't bring up the question...it just goes to show my point that YES, indeed ten years ago if you asked who we were most likely to go to war with, Iraq would have been numero uno.

steve, you commute with public transportation right? Do you really not see yourself within the next ten years (in ANY fashion) picking up a slate-type computing device while you are on the train or bus? I mean, i think right now it's hard to see that market. But electronics in the US are very cheap, and in ten years, this will be very cheap, or in the same price range with WAY more power and memory. But for my hour spent on the express bus each day, hell yeah i'd love to bust out a small slate and read my blogs instead of just listening to music. edit: said laptop...no way i'm takin out a laptop's bulky/openy s*** on public transport.

Someone once explained to me, i think when I was housepainting, that 20% chance of rain doesn't mean that there is a 2 in 10 chance that you will see rain, but that, like, 20% of the area will get rained on. So 40% was really high and work would usually be delayed. did i make this up?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 10:07 PM) That sounds like the kind of stuff you'd like fairly modern stealth aircraft for? We were just keeping Saddam where we wanted him, not because he was a threat in 1998, but because we didn't want him to become one again like he sort of was in Kuwait. which is why we invaded 5 years later even though his military had not been rebuilt. Because we had him right where we wanted and hadn't been obsessed with him for more than a decade.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 08:49 PM) So why not try and push for a complete overhaul of our ground forces? Why didn't he try to find a new standard combat rifle? Defense contractors would've been ecstatic with any of those. It's all about credible threats, and neither of those countries posed one towards us prior to 9/11. There's nothing saying we cant get it wrong again and find ourselves too busy countering insurgents while China starts trying to expand. The best you can do is cover your ass in as many reasonable scenarios as you can, or elect bmags, who can apparently see it all coming. are you seriously saying no one saw the middle east as the biggest threat 10 years ago? Give me a f***ing break, Iraq was a huge topic in the debates, and in the clinton administration. Even your mentors Kristol and Friedman wanted Iraq pre 9/11

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 08:39 PM) We were definitely getting away from that though. Bush campaigned on stopping nation building and his biggest defense initiative was upgrading the missile shield before 9/11. Either way, Iraq and Afghanistan thoroughly outclass Mogadishu, Panama and the Balkans in scope and length, the conflicts are barely comparable. semantics. Fighting urban warfare against small low-level low-paid guerrilla groups has been what we've been looking at for a while now. I'm not talking about the iraq army fight, but the post-war conflicts in iraq and afghanistan are not at all a surprise. People have been harking this shift of money since 1991.

hatas gon hate.

duh, dude. April Showers bring May flowers.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 09:21 PM) http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp Remember 10 years ago wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not part of the "foreseeable future", but things change rapidly and if you're ill-prepared to combat them you get stuck in quagmires or, even worse, lose. Disagree. Completely.

raining again. sigh.

yeah, i'm goin with AJ today. I think he hits a 3 run bomb.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 07:15 PM) Cold War arms races are much cheaper in both money and lives than shooting wars, Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that pretty well. The stronger the US military is the more peace there will be between great powers. I get antsy when I agree with Kap but the world will not look at defense cuts as a peaceful gesture. They'll see it as a sign of weakness and an opening to be more aggressive, first regionally and then globally. This is absurd. We are spending more on our military than any other country by a lot. A lot a lot. A lot a lot a lot a lot. Cutting back on one plane program doesn't signal to the russians that their opening is there if they start spending 35% more for ten more years to catch up. They don't have that money. And frankly we don't have that money. But we are in conflicts now that don't have a hell of a lot of use for F-22s. And for the foreseeable future, it's going to be these types of conflicts. And these war groups don't give a f*** about our technology or our numbers. So I'd rather have a more efficient military with the trillions we spend on defense, then one that's f***ing great in your fake UN war games.

every time i see it now it's that b****face dan lebetard