When did the Republican Party become the party that hates authority???

[martybegan]

Hmmmm

Are you saying that the SCotUS has never gotten it wrong?

Cough... Plessey V Fergueson... Cough Cough.

Truthie also hates Citizens United, but her ability for doublethink allows her to ignore that part.

yes I dont like how some of it was decided but unlike you fools I dont pretend I have the right to claim the decisions never happened

aaand you officially lose the argument. You dont win the grand prize, but you do get a copy of the home game.

 

[Truthmatters]

The soctus has said the second contains the right to own a gun.


They aslo said gun laws are prefectly constitutional.

Yet you fools just keep pretending these things were not already decided and flail and scream about how the right is going to ban all guns.

THEY CANT


the scotus has decided that already.

but facts never stop you idiots from lying out of both sides of your mouths

 

[Truthmatters]

Roe v wade

already decided

 

[Truthmatters]

Stop pretending these things are unconstitutional

 

[ArmyCowboy]

The "conservatives" became anti-authoritarian the minute a democrat was elected POTUS.

Eventually, if a republican ever gets into the WH again, they will lose their current anti-authoritarian bent and demand that we all respect the office of the president.

 

[Pogo]

The "conservatives" became anti-authoritarian the minute a democrat was elected POTUS.

Eventually, if a republican ever gets into the WH again, they will lose their current anti-authoritarian bent and demand that we all respect the office of the president.

This is true. Remember when "support the troops" morphed overnight into "Obama's war"? I do.

 

[martybegan]

Roe v wade

already decided

Again, show me the words Abortion and right next to each other in the document.

 

[martybegan]

The soctus has said the second contains the right to own a gun.


They aslo said gun laws are prefectly constitutional.

Yet you fools just keep pretending these things were not already decided and flail and scream about how the right is going to ban all guns.

THEY CANT


the scotus has decided that already.

but facts never stop you idiots from lying out of both sides of your mouths

Only if they dont infringe on your right to own a gun (non felon).

What is being proposed by democrats is infringing on the right to own guns.

Which is the left, idiot.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

The "conservatives" became anti-authoritarian the minute a democrat was elected POTUS.

Eventually, if a republican ever gets into the WH again, they will lose their current anti-authoritarian bent and demand that we all respect the office of the president.

This is true. Remember when "support the troops" morphed overnight into "Obama's war"? I do.

Absolutely.

I also remember having my patriotism questioned, when on another board I stated that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

The ironic thing was I was actually in Iraq at the time and was being called out by a bunch of chickenhawks sitting at home on their fat asses.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Roe v wade

already decided

Again, show me the words Abortion and right next to each other in the document.

To which document are you referring?

 

[martybegan]

Roe v wade

already decided

Again, show me the words Abortion and right next to each other in the document.

To which document are you referring?

The actual consitituion.

And before we get to it, I have no problem with Abortion On Demand (with limits) myself, and would not vote to Ban Abortion.

What I dont see is a consitutuional right to it. If Mississippi wants to ban it, I dont see the Federal Consitution stopping this from happening.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Again, show me the words Abortion and right next to each other in the document.

To which document are you referring?

The actual consitituion.

And before we get to it, I have no problem with Abortion On Demand (with limits) myself, and would not vote to Ban Abortion.

What I dont see is a consitutuional right to it. If Mississippi wants to ban it, I dont see the Federal Consitution stopping this from happening.

You realize the constitution does not grant rights, nor is it a complete list of rights.

 

[Truthmatters]

roe v wade.


its been desided.

so has gun rights and the constitutionality of gun laws.

they brain dead just refuse to accept these cold hard facts

 

[martybegan]

To which document are you referring?

The actual consitituion.

And before we get to it, I have no problem with Abortion On Demand (with limits) myself, and would not vote to Ban Abortion.

What I dont see is a consitutuional right to it. If Mississippi wants to ban it, I dont see the Federal Consitution stopping this from happening.

You realize the constitution does not grant rights, nor is it a complete list of rights.

Yes, but it only protects those rights explicitly listed in it from the federal government (and the states in some cases via the recontruction amendments) . If the federal or state governments are not explicitly prevented from ruling on something, the fate of that issue rests with the legislatures.

Rights are inherent, I agree, but unless quantified by the consitution, should be adjucated by legislative action.

 

[martybegan]

roe v wade.


its been desided.

so has gun rights and the constitutionality of gun laws.

they brain dead just refuse to accept these cold hard facts

Just like Plessy V. Fergueson was decided, and Citizen United has been decided right?

 

[Dubya]

From thw wikipedia article:

On 18 February 2011, Marine Commandant General James Amos indicated Marine MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan surpassed 100,000 flight hours and were noted as having become "the safest airplane, or close to the safest airplane” in the Marine Corps inventory.[117] The average V-22 mishap rate based on flight hours over the past 10 years, has been approximately half the accident rate for the USMC aircraft fleet. The V-22's accident rate is the lowest of any Marine rotorcraft.[118] Wired Magazine has reported that the recent safety record has been achieved only by excluding V-22 ground incidents; one such incident claimed the life of one crew member.[119] The Marines responded that MV-22 reporting is done by the same standards as all other aircraft in the Department of the Navy.[120]

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to be working pretty good now, with some minor issues. For such a radical new type of aircraft, it doesnt seem too bad.

I also find your "better ships, not more ships" comical as the ships authorized at the time were better than almost anything on the oceans for any other navy.

And please publish your "analysis" of Reagans' military spending. probably a term paper from your high school days.

and did I get the tutu color wrong for when you turned of your rep? Is it a lime green?

Try examining the whole thing for a change!

It should be obvious why the need for a troop transport to bring troops quickly to an area was and is important. The only thing that existed was the Boeing CH-47 Chinook, which has obvious limitations. The V-22 Osprey was proposed after the failed Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980. Posting some article about being pleased that a 30 year program has finally produced some results is rather meaningless, because the reality is the only other option is to use the CH-47 Chinook.

If I wanted to take advantage of the technology that existed in those days, I wouldn't be building what is essentially another helicopter. Both vertical take off and stealth technology existed then, so why wouldn't I incorporate that technology? Why build a helicopter when you can build a jet transport? Transports only require multiple jet engines working together and the technology to do that existed then. Why not incorporate stealth technology to erase the radar signature, instead of making something that has to fly low to avoid radar and is very loud and slow moving? If Reagan wanted to spend money on the military, why not produce a product that can quickly get elite forces deep into enemy territory and do it without being noticed? The technology existed, but the vision didn't, because Reagan was little more than a B movie draft dodger during WWII. Reagan could act military, but he couldn't do it. All of Reagan's concepts for the military produced shitty results and wasted government spending. If you think Reagan's military spending impress the Soviets, their analysts must have been saying: Look at these Americans, they'll waste money on everything!

The V-22 Osprey program was a disaster. I can't think of any program that costed more than originally estimated to accomplish or took longer to complete. Sophisticated weapon's systems and aircraft were developed much faster than the Osprey. So what if this Jurassic Park program has finally gotten off the ground, we could have had a Holocene (age of mankind) program after all that amount of time. The V-22 Osprey is 30 years of wasted time developing a dinosaur technology that has detracted from our military readiness.

Have you ever seen the ships Reagan wanted to use for his 600 ship navy? I've seen the mothballed WWII fleet that Reagan tried to rebuild, instead of building modern ships. It was totally a waste of money trying to get worthless quantity, instead of quality. That's what happens when you don't allow the experts running the show and have some deranged old man calling the shots. War isn't an acting job and I don't think Reagan ever learned the difference.

Because jet engines are far less efficent than turboprops, reducing the amount of cargo the TRANSPORT can carry. Transports are also designed for areas of air superiority, thus stealth is less important. Stealh coatings also increase maintenance requirements. Having a harrier hover for a bit is one thing, having a transport be able to lift, drop, or hover on a dot is something else.

Plenty of those "WWII" ships were actually Cold War ships, only the Battleships had real WWII pedigrees, and those worked just fine as Cruise missile platforms and gun batteries.

You can type all the bullcrap you want, the end result is you hate Reagan, and you make up crap just to justify your position.

And I guess I got your tutu color wrong again. Puce?

I've seen the ships, dumbass, and know what a WWII destroyer looks like. I've been in and seen plenty of the largest transports in the world and those C5s don't use props.

The whole purpose of making a troop transport is to quickly get in and out of hostile areas and you might not have air superiority over that enemy territory. All your justifications for what Reagan did are bogus.

You're trying to justify the actions of the oldest President we ever had. Reagan avoided combat because he was nearsighted and the fact that around 80% of the Japanese people are nearsighted should indicate it isn't a very good reason to avoid combat. The fact that Reagan gets tranferred to the Army Air Corps, which has the most exacting standard for eyesight of any branch of the service should tell you something. Reagan spent his time making PR films and he is just like all you Republicans who only give a fuck about their own hides. There were plenty of actors who took their chances and went to war. Why do you people always admire the scumbags who don't?

 

[Blooper]

Deregulation
Indefinite preventative detention
Military spending increases and the need to further establish the US as a dominant world power
Prohibition of abortion, various drugs and SSM

To name a few.

Anyone who tells you the Republican Party is against authority is most likely just intentionally ignoring their policies.

 

[uscitizen]

When did the Democratic party become the party of execution without trial? We now have a President who can order the killing of a American citizen living overseas and being suspected of being involved with terrorism with a drone strike emphasis on suspected. I'm guessing that mindset started coming into play on January 20th 2009.

bush could do it too.
Obama is just Bush III.

 

[Truthmatters]

roe v wade.


its been desided.

so has gun rights and the constitutionality of gun laws.

they brain dead just refuse to accept these cold hard facts

Just like Plessy V. Fergueson was decided, and Citizen United has been decided right?

And if another scotus decides they decided them wrong than that will be the law.


Do you understand you can not reverse roe v wade by making abortion illegal?


it would never get implimented and no scotus is going to reverse roe v wade.


They may reverse citizens united some day.

then that will be law.

Until then I accept the scotuses decision.

Get it?

 

[Truthmatters]

When did the Democratic party become the party of execution without trial? We now have a President who can order the killing of a American citizen living overseas and being suspected of being involved with terrorism with a drone strike emphasis on suspected. I'm guessing that mindset started coming into play on January 20th 2009.

bush could do it too.
Obama is just Bush III.

on this issue he is