Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you are a confused Moon Bat.
The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress
The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress
These fucking republicans never stop..
My point was that in your first example your number was distorted and showed a lack of understanding of what you were attempting to convey. Your response was to post an irrelevant chart that did not back up your claim. The simple fact was that you spoke with authority about something you were totally wrong about and when it was time to back up your claim you failed. We can go right down your list to show all of your assessments are distorted, taken out of context or simply false. The topic is low information voters. Your post to attempt to prove you where highly informed about a list of topics is instead what I said it was, and example of poorly informed, or low information.Stockpiled is not the same as "aimed at US". The Soviets had enough pointed at us to destroy us, but that did not require tens of thousands of war heads. Most of the stockpiles were useless because they have shelf lives and their reliability becomes questionable. What counted was the ability to produce new warheads and capable delivery systems. The Soviets had plenty of both and still do. Just not accurate to say they had or have tens of thousands of nukes aimed at us. It is a distortion made to fear monger and mislead.That whole post is a sterling example of low information. Mostly all talking point nonsense from the first sentence to the last. From "tens of thousands of nuclear warheads" to "Islamic terrorism is not our fault".And of course, USA had no missiles aimed at USSR, correct?
USSR stockpiles topped out at about 40,000 Warheads.
If by "low information" you mean, "completely right" then, yes, that's me.
Mmm, so you point is that they might of only had "THOUSANDS" of warheads aimed at US, and it might have taken them hours or days to target the rest of that 40K warheads at US, and some of them might not have worked so, any "fear" is uncalled for "fear mongering"?
<A-hem> I respectfully disagree. I think fear was a valid response to either situation, even in your low ball scenario.
Funny, you lecture about low information and call people dumbasses (you can't even spell dumb asses correctly) and you think bureaucrats get elected. You don't even know what a bureaucrat is, or the difference between a bureaucrat and and elected official.i swear libs are idiots.
you want to talk about low-information voters? NOBODY keeps themselves willingly ignorant, or low-information as left-wing voters do
'
left-wing nutjobs ranted about Bush's drone strikes; obama has TRIPLED THEM, and CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF "MILITANT" to low-ball the numbers of innocent civilians killed in the strike-zone............ all you hear is crickets about that
left-wing nutjobs try to brag obama made historical deportations; but obama simply changed the DEFINITION of a deportation to include people merely turned away at the border
Liberals are so low information that they are under the impression that when bureaucrats, elected by special interest groups, take money from people that earned it and give it to people that didn't earn it then the economy will somehow magically prosper.
Then they wonder why we ridicule them for being dumbasses.
Keep lecturing about how the other guy is low information. Continue to show off your superior knowledge and intellect.
Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.My point was that in your first example your number was distorted and showed a lack of understanding of what you were attempting to convey. Your response was to post an irrelevant chart that did not back up your claim. The simple fact was that you spoke with authority about something you were totally wrong about and when it was time to back up your claim you failed. We can go right down your list to show all of your assessments are distorted, taken out of context or simply false. The topic is low information voters. Your post to attempt to prove you where highly informed about a list of topics is instead what I said it was, and example of poorly informed, or low information.Stockpiled is not the same as "aimed at US". The Soviets had enough pointed at us to destroy us, but that did not require tens of thousands of war heads. Most of the stockpiles were useless because they have shelf lives and their reliability becomes questionable. What counted was the ability to produce new warheads and capable delivery systems. The Soviets had plenty of both and still do. Just not accurate to say they had or have tens of thousands of nukes aimed at us. It is a distortion made to fear monger and mislead.That whole post is a sterling example of low information. Mostly all talking point nonsense from the first sentence to the last. From "tens of thousands of nuclear warheads" to "Islamic terrorism is not our fault".
USSR stockpiles topped out at about 40,000 Warheads.
If by "low information" you mean, "completely right" then, yes, that's me.
Mmm, so you point is that they might of only had "THOUSANDS" of warheads aimed at US, and it might have taken them hours or days to target the rest of that 40K warheads at US, and some of them might not have worked so, any "fear" is uncalled for "fear mongering"?
<A-hem> I respectfully disagree. I think fear was a valid response to either situation, even in your low ball scenario.
That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.
I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.
#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.
Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.My point was that in your first example your number was distorted and showed a lack of understanding of what you were attempting to convey. Your response was to post an irrelevant chart that did not back up your claim. The simple fact was that you spoke with authority about something you were totally wrong about and when it was time to back up your claim you failed. We can go right down your list to show all of your assessments are distorted, taken out of context or simply false. The topic is low information voters. Your post to attempt to prove you where highly informed about a list of topics is instead what I said it was, and example of poorly informed, or low information.Stockpiled is not the same as "aimed at US". The Soviets had enough pointed at us to destroy us, but that did not require tens of thousands of war heads. Most of the stockpiles were useless because they have shelf lives and their reliability becomes questionable. What counted was the ability to produce new warheads and capable delivery systems. The Soviets had plenty of both and still do. Just not accurate to say they had or have tens of thousands of nukes aimed at us. It is a distortion made to fear monger and mislead.USSR stockpiles topped out at about 40,000 Warheads.
If by "low information" you mean, "completely right" then, yes, that's me.
Mmm, so you point is that they might of only had "THOUSANDS" of warheads aimed at US, and it might have taken them hours or days to target the rest of that 40K warheads at US, and some of them might not have worked so, any "fear" is uncalled for "fear mongering"?
<A-hem> I respectfully disagree. I think fear was a valid response to either situation, even in your low ball scenario.
That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.
I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.
#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.
Claiming Afghanistan contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union in more low information nonsense unless you can explain how leaving Afghanistan in 1988-89 caused the USSR to dissolve in 1991. Go ahead and try to explain how the empire was brought down because of a small war that cost them 15,000 soldiers.
You can post your own historical certainties all you want, but there is no way to refute that destabilizing Afghanistan has not blown back on us, or that the neocons taking the shiaa side in a civil war between they and the sunni has not give a "boost" to ISIS.
You can post your own historical certainties all you want, but there is no way to refute that destabilizing Afghanistan has not blown back on us, or that the neocons taking the shiaa side in a civil war between they and the sunni has not give a "boost" to ISIS.
Afghanistan wasn't exactly the beacon of stability before we decided to hunt down the bearded sociopaths that declared war on us. You can just as easily claim there was blow back after we failed to fill the vacuum after the soviets left, or even call WW2 blow back from the asinine globalism after WW1.
We can either stay engaged in world affairs as a force of good, or slink back inside our borders and let despotic regimes flourish.
To be honest I'm leaning toward the latter thanks to the ingratitude of the rest of the world. Especially since most of the problems in the world stem from the euroweenie colonialism of the last 400 years. To have those douchebags undermining our efforts is insulting.[/QUOTE
.
The poll also reflects that 29% of ALL polled think Obama is Muslim.
-Geaux
-------------
From the OP
"Overall, 29% of Americans say they think the President is a Muslim, including 43% of Republicans."
Lets see?
43% of Republicans believe he is Muslim, half the country is Republican. That means 21% of the 29% are Republicans
Talk about low information voters
You are still just guessing. I have stated they had enough to do the job, but you insist on pretending to know what you are talking about. The number was nowhere near even 10k. Do you even know how to get to a reasonable estimate? You are just confirming your low information status. Why wouldn't you have taken a few minutes to research to topic and come back with a solid number and a reliable source? Plus you refuse to admit there is a difference between a stockpile figure and a actively ready and loaded figure.Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.My point was that in your first example your number was distorted and showed a lack of understanding of what you were attempting to convey. Your response was to post an irrelevant chart that did not back up your claim. The simple fact was that you spoke with authority about something you were totally wrong about and when it was time to back up your claim you failed. We can go right down your list to show all of your assessments are distorted, taken out of context or simply false. The topic is low information voters. Your post to attempt to prove you where highly informed about a list of topics is instead what I said it was, and example of poorly informed, or low information.Stockpiled is not the same as "aimed at US". The Soviets had enough pointed at us to destroy us, but that did not require tens of thousands of war heads. Most of the stockpiles were useless because they have shelf lives and their reliability becomes questionable. What counted was the ability to produce new warheads and capable delivery systems. The Soviets had plenty of both and still do. Just not accurate to say they had or have tens of thousands of nukes aimed at us. It is a distortion made to fear monger and mislead.
Mmm, so you point is that they might of only had "THOUSANDS" of warheads aimed at US, and it might have taken them hours or days to target the rest of that 40K warheads at US, and some of them might not have worked so, any "fear" is uncalled for "fear mongering"?
<A-hem> I respectfully disagree. I think fear was a valid response to either situation, even in your low ball scenario.
That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.
I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.
#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.
Claiming Afghanistan contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union in more low information nonsense unless you can explain how leaving Afghanistan in 1988-89 caused the USSR to dissolve in 1991. Go ahead and try to explain how the empire was brought down because of a small war that cost them 15,000 soldiers.
1. It was a ball park number based on memory and it was correct. YOu might not have been afraid, because "only" 10k nuclear warheads were on ICBMs that could reach us in under an hour, but everyone else was.
2. Really? Ok. Russia has a history of changing regimes after lost wars undermine confidence. The military and budget strains hit during a period when the Sovs were already struggling and were trying to reform.
Hey, the avatars are doing what they're supposed to do, drive you rwnjs nuts.These fucking republicans never stop..
LOL
LWNJ Clown Avatar Posse
You are still just guessing. I have stated they had enough to do the job, but you insist on pretending to know what you are talking about. The number was nowhere near even 10k. Do you even know how to get to a reasonable estimate? You are just confirming your low information status. Why wouldn't you have taken a few minutes to research to topic and come back with a solid number and a reliable source? Plus you refuse to admit there is a difference between a stockpile figure and a actively ready and loaded figure.Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.My point was that in your first example your number was distorted and showed a lack of understanding of what you were attempting to convey. Your response was to post an irrelevant chart that did not back up your claim. The simple fact was that you spoke with authority about something you were totally wrong about and when it was time to back up your claim you failed. We can go right down your list to show all of your assessments are distorted, taken out of context or simply false. The topic is low information voters. Your post to attempt to prove you where highly informed about a list of topics is instead what I said it was, and example of poorly informed, or low information.Mmm, so you point is that they might of only had "THOUSANDS" of warheads aimed at US, and it might have taken them hours or days to target the rest of that 40K warheads at US, and some of them might not have worked so, any "fear" is uncalled for "fear mongering"?
<A-hem> I respectfully disagree. I think fear was a valid response to either situation, even in your low ball scenario.
That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.
I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.
#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.
Claiming Afghanistan contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union in more low information nonsense unless you can explain how leaving Afghanistan in 1988-89 caused the USSR to dissolve in 1991. Go ahead and try to explain how the empire was brought down because of a small war that cost them 15,000 soldiers.
1. It was a ball park number based on memory and it was correct. YOu might not have been afraid, because "only" 10k nuclear warheads were on ICBMs that could reach us in under an hour, but everyone else was.
2. Really? Ok. Russia has a history of changing regimes after lost wars undermine confidence. The military and budget strains hit during a period when the Sovs were already struggling and were trying to reform.
You little synopsis about why the USSR dissolved is laughable. That is how you explain your contention of how the Afghan war brought down the USSR? Doesn't seem real academic and scholarly. There were a lot of reasons for the collapse. If you want to include the war in Afghanistan, go ahead, put it on the list, but somewhere at the bottom.
Afghan has never been stable. That was the nexis of my dislike of what Carter and Reagan did in the first place. That, and my belief that the Soviets in the 1980s were less a threat to the US and global stability than fundamentalist muslims, both shiaa and sunni. I don't think we can go back to isolationism, but arming countries that have hundreds of years of being little more than the 8th century Caliphate and choosing sides in civil wars is .... nuts
Obama certainly acts like a Secular Muslim.
He doesn't shout "Allah", but his decisions support the spread of Radical Islam.
IMO, he is an atheist. His support of Radical Islam is just his anti-colonialist agenda of reducing American power benefiting our enemies.
That's why I said SECULAR, bub. He doesn't believe in the "spiritual" foundation, but it is a useful tool to TRANSFORM America.
Ah, sorry, multi-tasking.
The poll also reflects that 29% of ALL polled think Obama is Muslim.
-Geaux
-------------
From the OP
"Overall, 29% of Americans say they think the President is a Muslim, including 43% of Republicans."
Lets see?
43% of Republicans believe he is Muslim, half the country is Republican. That means 21% of the 29% are Republicans
Talk about low information voters
Let's examine your post.
21% of the 29% are Republicans.
Congratulations dumb shit, you just wrote that 71% of the people polled who think Obama is a Muslim are NOT Republicans.
Funny, you lecture about low information and call people dumbasses (you can't even spell dumb asses correctly) and you think bureaucrats get elected. You don't even know what a bureaucrat is, or the difference between a bureaucrat and and elected official.i swear libs are idiots.
you want to talk about low-information voters? NOBODY keeps themselves willingly ignorant, or low-information as left-wing voters do
'
left-wing nutjobs ranted about Bush's drone strikes; obama has TRIPLED THEM, and CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF "MILITANT" to low-ball the numbers of innocent civilians killed in the strike-zone............ all you hear is crickets about that
left-wing nutjobs try to brag obama made historical deportations; but obama simply changed the DEFINITION of a deportation to include people merely turned away at the border
Liberals are so low information that they are under the impression that when bureaucrats, elected by special interest groups, take money from people that earned it and give it to people that didn't earn it then the economy will somehow magically prosper.
Then they wonder why we ridicule them for being dumbasses.
Keep lecturing about how the other guy is low information. Continue to show off your superior knowledge and intellect.
I was confused. I use dictionary definitions. I forgot I was dealing with one of you low information types that makes up definitions as they go. Graduates of the University of Babel Tower.Funny, you lecture about low information and call people dumbasses (you can't even spell dumb asses correctly) and you think bureaucrats get elected. You don't even know what a bureaucrat is, or the difference between a bureaucrat and and elected official.i swear libs are idiots.
you want to talk about low-information voters? NOBODY keeps themselves willingly ignorant, or low-information as left-wing voters do
'
left-wing nutjobs ranted about Bush's drone strikes; obama has TRIPLED THEM, and CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF "MILITANT" to low-ball the numbers of innocent civilians killed in the strike-zone............ all you hear is crickets about that
left-wing nutjobs try to brag obama made historical deportations; but obama simply changed the DEFINITION of a deportation to include people merely turned away at the border
Liberals are so low information that they are under the impression that when bureaucrats, elected by special interest groups, take money from people that earned it and give it to people that didn't earn it then the economy will somehow magically prosper.
Then they wonder why we ridicule them for being dumbasses.
Keep lecturing about how the other guy is low information. Continue to show off your superior knowledge and intellect.
Bureaucrat. You mean like Bernie Sanders that has been in the fucking government his entire adult life? Joe Biden that has never worked a day in his life except being a government bureaucrat? How about Bill Clinton who was in government his entire life? It doesn't make any difference if you are elected or get appointed to the job the shit is the same.
I think it is apparent that you are the one that is confused.
You Moon Bats are confused about a great many things.
EXACTLY what has President Obama done that you are against?
