(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

You cannot be both.

For the record, I am not big government.

(06-25-2014 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

You cannot be both.

Here we go again.

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

Really? Thought you were a big government guy?

(06-25-2014 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

You cannot be both.

Yes, you can.

I agree with you that one cannot be what YOU define as a social liberal and also be a fiscal conservative. But I do not believe that your definition of social liberal is the commonly accepted one.

That is, of course, based upon inferring your definition from your comments elsewhere. Perhaps you could provide an explicit statement of exactly what social liberal means to you.

Duh! Obviously it's the central front in the global war on terror. Don't you listen to the president?

we're screwed either way. we will have to fight our way in if we want to prevent a genuine, overt islamic state based on exporting global terror -- which is what one of the three pieces of what used to be iraq will turn into. there will be casualties on a decent scale.

if we ignore it, then in fairly short order, the islamic state exporting terror will keep their promise, and launch attacks on americans, if not actually on american soil. there will be loss of civilian life on an alarming scale. and then, we really will have to go back in, regardless of the cost, and re-win the sh!t obama gave away out of sheer petulance in 2012.

so, basically, we're phucking phucked either way. we're either phucked in the next sevral weeks, or we're ****** (conveniently for him) sometime after President Stupidfuck leaves office*.

it's hard to phuck something up as badly as this, but the obamites managed to pull it off.


*at which point, ironically, he will start blaming his successor for his massive and numerous failures.

(06-25-2014 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

You cannot be both.

Yes, you can.

I agree with you that one cannot be what YOU define as a social liberal and also be a fiscal conservative. But I do not believe that your definition of social liberal is the commonly accepted one.

That is, of course, based upon inferring your definition from your comments elsewhere. Perhaps you could provide an explicit statement of exactly what social liberal means to you.

how much longer are we going to have this weird -- not to mention boring -- tangent sprout up in every thread in the forum?

(06-25-2014 07:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

Really? Thought you were a big government guy?

Think of the smallest size government you can imagine. That is too big for me.

(06-25-2014 10:21 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Interesting how this thread has attracted the socially liberal

/fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

You cannot be both.

Yes, you can.

I agree with you that one cannot be what YOU define as a social liberal and also be a fiscal conservative. But I do not believe that your definition of social liberal is the commonly accepted one.

That is, of course, based upon inferring your definition from your comments elsewhere. Perhaps you could provide an explicit statement of exactly what social liberal means to you.

how much longer are we going to have this weird -- not to mention boring -- tangent sprout up in every thread in the forum?

Until Okie gets banned again.

(06-25-2014 10:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:21 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  /fiscally conservative. Should not be a surprise.

You cannot be both.

Yes, you can.

I agree with you that one cannot be what YOU define as a social liberal and also be a fiscal conservative. But I do not believe that your definition of social liberal is the commonly accepted one.

That is, of course, based upon inferring your definition from your comments elsewhere. Perhaps you could provide an explicit statement of exactly what social liberal means to you.

how much longer are we going to have this weird -- not to mention boring -- tangent sprout up in every thread in the forum?

Until Okie gets banned again.

okie's not doing it. but I wouldn't be completely shocked if he was the one that took the bullet. seems to be the way it works . . .

(06-25-2014 10:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:21 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You cannot be both.

Yes, you can.

I agree with you that one cannot be what YOU define as a social liberal and also be a fiscal conservative. But I do not believe that your definition of social liberal is the commonly accepted one.

That is, of course, based upon inferring your definition from your comments elsewhere. Perhaps you could provide an explicit statement of exactly what social liberal means to you.

how much longer are we going to have this weird -- not to mention boring -- tangent sprout up in every thread in the forum?

Until Okie gets banned again.

okie's not doing it. but I wouldn't be completely shocked if he was the one that took the bullet. seems to be the way it works . . .

Wut? Are you fckng kidding me?

(06-25-2014 10:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:21 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, you can.

I agree with you that one cannot be what YOU define as a social liberal and also be a fiscal conservative. But I do not believe that your definition of social liberal is the commonly accepted one.

That is, of course, based upon inferring your definition from your comments elsewhere. Perhaps you could provide an explicit statement of exactly what social liberal means to you.

how much longer are we going to have this weird -- not to mention boring -- tangent sprout up in every thread in the forum?

Until Okie gets banned again.

okie's not doing it. but I wouldn't be completely shocked if he was the one that took the bullet. seems to be the way it works . . .

Wut? Are you fckng kidding me?

absolutely.





got you

The Middle East is a hell hole. It's time we leave those people to their own devices.

(06-26-2014 12:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The Middle East is a hell hole. It's time we leave those people to their own devices.

Yes. To do that we need to get as self-sufficient for energy as possible.

That means conservation.
That means accelerating development and implementation of alternatives.
That means increased domestic production of conventional energy.

It means all three, can't do it without any of them.

(06-26-2014 06:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The Middle East is a hell hole. It's time we leave those people to their own devices.

Yes. To do that we need to get as self-sufficient for energy as possible.

That means conservation.
That means accelerating development and implementation of alternatives.
That means increased domestic production of conventional energy.

It means all three, can't do it without any of them.

I agree Owl, but how do you conserve without Government intervention. Soccer moms just love their Tahoes and Suburbans.

(06-25-2014 10:19 PM)EagleX Wrote:  we're screwed either way. we will have to fight our way in if we want to prevent a genuine, overt islamic state based on exporting global terror -- which is what one of the three pieces of what used to be iraq will turn into. there will be casualties on a decent scale.

if we ignore it, then in fairly short order, the islamic state exporting terror will keep their promise, and launch attacks on americans, if not actually on american soil. there will be loss of civilian life on an alarming scale. and then, we really will have to go back in, regardless of the cost, and re-win the sh!t obama gave away out of sheer petulance in 2012.

so, basically, we're phucking phucked either way. we're either phucked in the next sevral weeks, or we're ****** (conveniently for him) sometime after President Stupidfuck leaves office*.

it's hard to phuck something up as badly as this, but the obamites managed to pull it off.


*at which point, ironically, he will start blaming his successor for his massive and numerous failures.

If you support this mindset, I big fat plump DEA, tons of laws that lock people up b/c Jesus said we should. You support big government in my mind.

(06-25-2014 03:26 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Nice try but you got that one backwards. You cannot separate the ideology. You are referring to confused liberals.

I agree.

That said, it would put no America lives at risk and help a government we put in place if we used Drones to slow down the terrorists. Why not hit a few of their convoy's to help out? One thing to remember these are the same "freedom fighters" Obama wanted to assist/arm to help them overthrow Assad in Syria.

(06-26-2014 06:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The Middle East is a hell hole. It's time we leave those people to their own devices.

Yes. To do that we need to get as self-sufficient for energy as possible.

That means conservation.
That means accelerating development and implementation of alternatives.
That means increased domestic production of conventional energy.

It means all three, can't do it without any of them.

Obama just approved the sell of US produced crude to foreign countries because it will allow US producers to sell their crude for a higher price.... then import foreign oil to keep the US energy dependent.

Ha! I'm the opposite of who you asked to reply.

Don't go back into Iraq and get too involved. We have a major problem there that we helped create, so - to be fair - it is something we should at least consider looking at.