(04-02-2026 09:42 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  It's funny how some people are more worried about gas prices than worrying about Iran who doesn't care if they live or die because of martyrdom having atomic bombs. These people can't see beyond their noses and you could actually say without lying that they are stupid as Schiff. Oh, and did I say gullible? Yes, they are uber gullible too. The View is who they actually listen to. LOL

So if you're saying I agree with everything Trump is doing because of MAGA, no I don't. I'm not sold on troops on the ground especially if they're put on Kharg Island, they'll be sitting ducks there. But, I don't know what the plans are so I'll keep an open mind on that idea.

I'm not worried about gas prices at all, because I don't drive that much and I can afford them. I am more worried about trump's reckless actions as president that are weakening our country and threatening our democracy, than I am about nuclear destruction.

I am not now nor have I ever been worried about Iran shooting a nuke at us, unprovoked. And I also am fairly confident they don't even have the capability now, or have ever had it.

(04-02-2026 10:04 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Good grief. Look above. I'm talking specifically about your post that starts "Sorry for your loss." THAT one, the one I replied to with that comment. Not any of the others.

Dude, you don't know how this site works. It only nests a few comments when you quote someone, because if not, the posts would be so long as to be unreadable. I quoted the post and replied. I changed nothing. Go cry to GTS if you don't like it.

EDIT: And in fact, my post contains your original comment. Your reply to it doesn't because it gets chopped off for being older.

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 08:42 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 08:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Right...that was going to happen in two weeks. And in no way would that have then resulted in the complete annihilation of their country. It's common sense after all.

Right because religious zealots who think they are doing the work of their god act rationally when they feel their reward will be immortality. Iran has been behind a large part of the terrorist activity against us. Everyone prior to Trump tried appeasement or sanctions which did nothing. Doesn't matter the timetable of when they had an operational nuke, had it happened it would have been a threat.

Yet it hasn't happened in 47 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump was president for 4 years before Biden, right? Pakistan, India, and NK all have nukes and aren't exactly run by doves. But they have nukes, like the other countries, as a deterrent. We still have been shown NO evidence that they were anywhere close to a deliverable weapon. And trump supposedly obliterated their capability not even a year ago...but we're supposed to believe that they were going to shoot a nuke at us in a week or two, which would undoubtedly result in the complete destruction of their country.

It's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous is comparing Iran to India or Pakistan neither of which have stated their goal is to destroy the west, who haven't financed terrorists to attack us, and neither have seized our citizens or embassies. 47 years means not a thing as it takes time to develop the weapons and delivery system. Guess it would take a mushroom cloud over our country or an ally to prove it to you but fortunately Trump took preemptive action.

Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

I'm going to start over. Here is your full post that I'm referring to:

Tom: "Sorry for your loss and thanks for service, but I fail to see how that provides you with the ability to make a joke about any of this excursion being entertainment without any criticism."

You criticized my comment without saying what the comment was (which was far gone by then, on another page), thus making it difficult for anybody to evaluate the dispute without scrolling back through the thread.

You're not obligated to do that, but that's what I meant by "chopped out." Bad phrasing on my part. I meant you didn't show it in that reply. Maybe I should have just repeated my original post that you were criticizing at that point.

And again, I NEVER said the war was entertaining. I said Tanq's comments were. HUGE difference.

And as I said before, if you have been in the military and watched people actually die in front of you, as I have, then you wouldn't get so exercised about a silly comment that was obviously about Tanq, not about the war. I would never be flippant about any war, so your interpretation of that is just plain dead wrong.

THAT's what I got upset about. Now if you can't understand that, then I give up.

Gas locally has officially hit over $4. Right now at 4.15/gal.

Now WTI is trading at a higher level than Brent. Go figure. Money being made hand over fist.

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 08:42 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Right because religious zealots who think they are doing the work of their god act rationally when they feel their reward will be immortality. Iran has been behind a large part of the terrorist activity against us. Everyone prior to Trump tried appeasement or sanctions which did nothing. Doesn't matter the timetable of when they had an operational nuke, had it happened it would have been a threat.

Yet it hasn't happened in 47 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump was president for 4 years before Biden, right? Pakistan, India, and NK all have nukes and aren't exactly run by doves. But they have nukes, like the other countries, as a deterrent. We still have been shown NO evidence that they were anywhere close to a deliverable weapon. And trump supposedly obliterated their capability not even a year ago...but we're supposed to believe that they were going to shoot a nuke at us in a week or two, which would undoubtedly result in the complete destruction of their country.

It's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous is comparing Iran to India or Pakistan neither of which have stated their goal is to destroy the west, who haven't financed terrorists to attack us, and neither have seized our citizens or embassies. 47 years means not a thing as it takes time to develop the weapons and delivery system. Guess it would take a mushroom cloud over our country or an ally to prove it to you but fortunately Trump took preemptive action.

Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

Maybe only slightly more so than China or North Korea. Nuclear weapons to them are most likely deterrents for states like Israel and us. Nuking countries next door to them makes no sense and nuking us, which would result in their destruction makes no sense either.

But the bottom line, again, is that they're nowhere near a deliverable one based on anything we know.

(04-02-2026 10:41 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm going to start over. Here is your full post that I'm referring to:

Tom: "Sorry for your loss and thanks for service, but I fail to see how that provides you with the ability to make a joke about any of this excursion being entertainment without any criticism."

You criticized my comment without saying what the comment was (which was far gone by then, on another page), thus making it difficult for anybody to evaluate the dispute without scrolling back through the thread.

You're not obligated to do that, but that's what I meant by "chopped out." Bad phrasing on my part. I meant you didn't show it in that reply. Maybe I should have just repeated my original post that you were criticizing at that point.

And again, I NEVER said the war was entertaining. I said Tanq's comments were. HUGE difference.

And as I said before, if you have been in the military and watched people actually die in front of you, as I have, then you wouldn't get so exercised about a silly comment that was obviously about Tanq, not about the war. I would never be flippant about any war, so your interpretation of that is just plain dead wrong.

THAT's what I got upset about. Now if you can't understand that, then I give up.

I completely understand that and that's fine...and I know you weren't making light of any deaths in reality.

But again, no, when you hit the quote button your duty to add back any nested quotes the site culls for brevity, is over. I'm under no obligation to go add back and add any comments. Especially since it wasn't even on my radar to notice the site truncating it.

(04-02-2026 10:41 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm going to start over. Here is your full post that I'm referring to:

Tom: "Sorry for your loss and thanks for service, but I fail to see how that provides you with the ability to make a joke about any of this excursion being entertainment without any criticism."

You criticized my comment without saying what the comment was (which was far gone by then, on another page), thus making it difficult for anybody to evaluate the dispute without scrolling back through the thread.

You're not obligated to do that, but that's what I meant by "chopped out." Bad phrasing on my part. I meant you didn't show it in that reply. Maybe I should have just repeated my original post that you were criticizing at that point.

And again, I NEVER said the war was entertaining. I said Tanq's comments were. HUGE difference.

And as I said before, if you have been in the military and watched people actually die in front of you, as I have, then you wouldn't get so exercised about a silly comment that was obviously about Tanq, not about the war. I would never be flippant about any war, so your interpretation of that is just plain dead wrong.

THAT's what I got upset about. Now if you can't understand that, then I give up.

TripleA, it's best to limit the amount of arguing with the trolls. They're annoying and they enjoy annoying everyone that doesn't see the world the same way that they do. Especially the nonsensical, TDS afflicted, radical left cult member trolls. The only thing worth saying to anyone that thinks that Biden was a good or even an acceptable president - or that Kamala would have been - is "Bless your heart".

(04-02-2026 12:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:41 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm going to start over. Here is your full post that I'm referring to:

Tom: "Sorry for your loss and thanks for service, but I fail to see how that provides you with the ability to make a joke about any of this excursion being entertainment without any criticism."

You criticized my comment without saying what the comment was (which was far gone by then, on another page), thus making it difficult for anybody to evaluate the dispute without scrolling back through the thread.

You're not obligated to do that, but that's what I meant by "chopped out." Bad phrasing on my part. I meant you didn't show it in that reply. Maybe I should have just repeated my original post that you were criticizing at that point.

And again, I NEVER said the war was entertaining. I said Tanq's comments were. HUGE difference.

And as I said before, if you have been in the military and watched people actually die in front of you, as I have, then you wouldn't get so exercised about a silly comment that was obviously about Tanq, not about the war. I would never be flippant about any war, so your interpretation of that is just plain dead wrong.

THAT's what I got upset about. Now if you can't understand that, then I give up.

I completely understand that and that's fine...and I know you weren't making light of any deaths in reality.

But again, no, when you hit the quote button your duty to add back any nested quotes the site culls for brevity, is over. I'm under no obligation to go add back and add any comments. Especially since it wasn't even on my radar to notice the site truncating it.

I agree. I thought it was up there when I replied, and then later noticed it wasn't.

(04-02-2026 12:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yet it hasn't happened in 47 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump was president for 4 years before Biden, right? Pakistan, India, and NK all have nukes and aren't exactly run by doves. But they have nukes, like the other countries, as a deterrent. We still have been shown NO evidence that they were anywhere close to a deliverable weapon. And trump supposedly obliterated their capability not even a year ago...but we're supposed to believe that they were going to shoot a nuke at us in a week or two, which would undoubtedly result in the complete destruction of their country.

It's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous is comparing Iran to India or Pakistan neither of which have stated their goal is to destroy the west, who haven't financed terrorists to attack us, and neither have seized our citizens or embassies. 47 years means not a thing as it takes time to develop the weapons and delivery system. Guess it would take a mushroom cloud over our country or an ally to prove it to you but fortunately Trump took preemptive action.

Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

Maybe only slightly more so than China or North Korea. Nuclear weapons to them are most likely deterrents for states like Israel and us. Nuking countries next door to them makes no sense and nuking us, which would result in their destruction makes no sense either.

But the bottom line, again, is that they're nowhere near a deliverable one based on anything we know.

Based on anything you know but I would bet Israel and American intelligence services know a bit more. You also cannot compare religious zealots with communists. Communist worship government. Theocracies operate under the illusion that they are doing Allah's will and will be protected or rewarded for their actions.

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 08:42 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Right because religious zealots who think they are doing the work of their god act rationally when they feel their reward will be immortality. Iran has been behind a large part of the terrorist activity against us. Everyone prior to Trump tried appeasement or sanctions which did nothing. Doesn't matter the timetable of when they had an operational nuke, had it happened it would have been a threat.

Yet it hasn't happened in 47 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump was president for 4 years before Biden, right? Pakistan, India, and NK all have nukes and aren't exactly run by doves. But they have nukes, like the other countries, as a deterrent. We still have been shown NO evidence that they were anywhere close to a deliverable weapon. And trump supposedly obliterated their capability not even a year ago...but we're supposed to believe that they were going to shoot a nuke at us in a week or two, which would undoubtedly result in the complete destruction of their country.

It's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous is comparing Iran to India or Pakistan neither of which have stated their goal is to destroy the west, who haven't financed terrorists to attack us, and neither have seized our citizens or embassies. 47 years means not a thing as it takes time to develop the weapons and delivery system. Guess it would take a mushroom cloud over our country or an ally to prove it to you but fortunately Trump took preemptive action.

Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

The issue posed prior to your response wasnt the retort to replied with, mind you.

The issue is the imminent threat, sir. Not your broad generalized comment that you think is quite the comeback. Again, note the issue of *imminent* that you simply shelved in your rush to try and post some form of comeback.

To answer your separate question -- a nuclear armed iran *could* be a threat to us or our allies. Which is *not* the issue posed, that is 'is a necear armed Iran a viability in the urgency to smack them'?

If you want to extend the length of time to encompass your general reply, I think the country of Angola if armed with nukes *could* be a threat to us or our allies -- to simply highlight the issue for you. In no way do we need to stop that effort with a month+ special military operation. Just like what is happening with Iran presently.

(04-02-2026 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yet it hasn't happened in 47 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump was president for 4 years before Biden, right? Pakistan, India, and NK all have nukes and aren't exactly run by doves. But they have nukes, like the other countries, as a deterrent. We still have been shown NO evidence that they were anywhere close to a deliverable weapon. And trump supposedly obliterated their capability not even a year ago...but we're supposed to believe that they were going to shoot a nuke at us in a week or two, which would undoubtedly result in the complete destruction of their country.

It's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous is comparing Iran to India or Pakistan neither of which have stated their goal is to destroy the west, who haven't financed terrorists to attack us, and neither have seized our citizens or embassies. 47 years means not a thing as it takes time to develop the weapons and delivery system. Guess it would take a mushroom cloud over our country or an ally to prove it to you but fortunately Trump took preemptive action.

Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

The issue posed prior to your response wasnt the retort to replied with, mind you.

The issue is the imminent threat, sir. Not your broad generalized comment that you think is quite the comeback. Again, note the issue of *imminent* that you simply shelved in your rush to try and post some form of comeback.

To answer your separate question -- a nuclear armed iran *could* be a threat to us or our allies. Which is *not* the issue posed, that is 'is a necear armed Iran a viability in the urgency to smack them'?

If you want to extend the length of time to encompass your general reply, I think the country of Angola if armed with nukes *could* be a threat to us or our allies -- to simply highlight the issue for you. In no way do we need to stop that effort with a month+ special military operation. Just like what is happening with Iran presently.

Hard to reply to this as it appears to be the incoherent ramblings of someone who seems to think he can read other people's minds.

(04-02-2026 03:07 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Ridiculous is comparing Iran to India or Pakistan neither of which have stated their goal is to destroy the west, who haven't financed terrorists to attack us, and neither have seized our citizens or embassies. 47 years means not a thing as it takes time to develop the weapons and delivery system. Guess it would take a mushroom cloud over our country or an ally to prove it to you but fortunately Trump took preemptive action.

Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

The issue posed prior to your response wasnt the retort to replied with, mind you.

The issue is the imminent threat, sir. Not your broad generalized comment that you think is quite the comeback. Again, note the issue of *imminent* that you simply shelved in your rush to try and post some form of comeback.

To answer your separate question -- a nuclear armed iran *could* be a threat to us or our allies. Which is *not* the issue posed, that is 'is a necear armed Iran a viability in the urgency to smack them'?

If you want to extend the length of time to encompass your general reply, I think the country of Angola if armed with nukes *could* be a threat to us or our allies -- to simply highlight the issue for you. In no way do we need to stop that effort with a month+ special military operation. Just like what is happening with Iran presently.

Hard to reply to this as it appears to be the incoherent ramblings of someone who seems to think he can read other people's minds.

That's the way he Rolls. He likes to muddy the water so to speak. That's why he said "The issue is the imminent threat" He sounds like he's not worried until they pull the triggers. In his world it has to be imminent for him to worry about it.

(03-31-2026 11:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 11:29 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:07 AM)gdunn Wrote:  PrEsIdEnTs DoN't AfFeCt GaS pRiCeS iF tHeY'rE a DeMoCrAt. OnLy RePuBlIcAnS aNd TrUmP aFfEcT gAs PrIcEs If It GoEs Up.

Wars certainly do.

Right.

And as a reminder, what I have said in the past and will continue to say since it's true, the normal actions of presidents don't cause any real change in gas prices. It's a globally priced commodity.

So yeah,

Releasing huge amounts of oil from the SPR...
Starting wars...
Slapping on huge tariffs...
Signing bad oil deals...
Signing huge stimulus bills that lead to inflation...

These things will cause gas prices to change.

Chaos is as chaos does.

(04-02-2026 01:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 12:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Ridiculous is comparing Iran to India or Pakistan neither of which have stated their goal is to destroy the west, who haven't financed terrorists to attack us, and neither have seized our citizens or embassies. 47 years means not a thing as it takes time to develop the weapons and delivery system. Guess it would take a mushroom cloud over our country or an ally to prove it to you but fortunately Trump took preemptive action.

Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

Maybe only slightly more so than China or North Korea. Nuclear weapons to them are most likely deterrents for states like Israel and us. Nuking countries next door to them makes no sense and nuking us, which would result in their destruction makes no sense either.

But the bottom line, again, is that they're nowhere near a deliverable one based on anything we know.

Based on anything you know but I would bet Israel and American intelligence services know a bit more. You also cannot compare religious zealots with communists. Communist worship government. Theocracies operate under the illusion that they are doing Allah's will and will be protected or rewarded for their actions.

Israel is led by Bibi
US is led by trump.

You can't trust a word either one says when it comes to Iran.

(04-02-2026 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 01:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 12:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yeah, thanks trump for stopping that assured happening that was only a week or two away!

So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

Maybe only slightly more so than China or North Korea. Nuclear weapons to them are most likely deterrents for states like Israel and us. Nuking countries next door to them makes no sense and nuking us, which would result in their destruction makes no sense either.

But the bottom line, again, is that they're nowhere near a deliverable one based on anything we know.

Based on anything you know but I would bet Israel and American intelligence services know a bit more. You also cannot compare religious zealots with communists. Communist worship government. Theocracies operate under the illusion that they are doing Allah's will and will be protected or rewarded for their actions.

Israel is led by Bibi
US is led by trump.

You can't trust a word either one says when it comes to Iran.

Really? Did you trust Biden? Harris? Blinken? Austin? Garland? Buttigieg? Mayorkas?

Hell, I never trust any politician about anything. Either side.

(04-02-2026 04:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 01:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 12:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

Maybe only slightly more so than China or North Korea. Nuclear weapons to them are most likely deterrents for states like Israel and us. Nuking countries next door to them makes no sense and nuking us, which would result in their destruction makes no sense either.

But the bottom line, again, is that they're nowhere near a deliverable one based on anything we know.

Based on anything you know but I would bet Israel and American intelligence services know a bit more. You also cannot compare religious zealots with communists. Communist worship government. Theocracies operate under the illusion that they are doing Allah's will and will be protected or rewarded for their actions.

Israel is led by Bibi
US is led by trump.

You can't trust a word either one says when it comes to Iran.

Really? Did you trust Biden? Harris? Blinken? Austin? Garland? Buttigieg? Mayorkas?

Hell, I never trust any politician about anything. Either side.

Right there with you, my good man.

(04-02-2026 04:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 01:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 12:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2026 10:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  So you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to us or our allies? You would be one of the few.

Maybe only slightly more so than China or North Korea. Nuclear weapons to them are most likely deterrents for states like Israel and us. Nuking countries next door to them makes no sense and nuking us, which would result in their destruction makes no sense either.

But the bottom line, again, is that they're nowhere near a deliverable one based on anything we know.

Based on anything you know but I would bet Israel and American intelligence services know a bit more. You also cannot compare religious zealots with communists. Communist worship government. Theocracies operate under the illusion that they are doing Allah's will and will be protected or rewarded for their actions.

Israel is led by Bibi
US is led by trump.

You can't trust a word either one says when it comes to Iran.

Really? Did you trust Biden? Harris? Blinken? Austin? Garland? Buttigieg? Mayorkas?

Nope. Not blindly.

I don't think very many here do that, either. Many of us question Trump on a regular basis.

Not meant to be personal, but I don't recall you criticizing Biden.