House to Rethink Drilling for oil, Pelosi Says

[SUBMAN1]

Even the democrats are finially seeing the big picture. You can't have your dumb green energy policies and not have hydrocarbons. Duh! At least they are starting to show some semblance of a brain over there.

-S

WASHINGTON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/washingtondc/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) — Dropping her opposition to a vote on coastal oil exploration, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said Saturday that the House would consider expanded offshore drilling (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/offshore_drilling_and_exploration/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) as part of broad energy legislation when Congress returns next month....http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/washington/17pelosi.html?hp

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting news, but it would be nice if just once you could discuss it without being insulting and demeaning.

[Frame57]

I think that they know that the people are finally getting sick of the nonsense. They have to support a drilling proposal and quit blaming the oil companies for these so called windfall profits. Why do they not tell the public where the other 92 cents profit out of every dollar really goes? Even if they made 10 cents on the dollar, that is marginal at best. In order for the company I work for to survive and expand, we have to maintain a 26% profitability margin.

Subman, can you clarify if the areas the Oil CO's already have to drill actually can produce oil or not? I have heard that they have drilling rights but refuse to drill. If this is true then this also needs to be addressed. I hope it is not the case.

[SUBMAN1]

Interesting news, but it would be nice if just once you could discuss it without being insulting and demeaning.I'm insulting 'them' for being so slow to respond. The whole of congress for the last 8 years or so has been a pathetic waste of time.

And I will continue to insult them, thank you very much.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, can you clarify if the areas the Oil CO's already have to drill actually can produce oil or not? I have heard that they have drilling rights but refuse to drill. If this is true then this also needs to be addressed. I hope it is not the case.I wouldn't know at this point.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Here we go again......

[Frame57]

Interesting news, but it would be nice if just once you could discuss it without being insulting and demeaning.Steve! Pardon me for bustin in here, but....were you a military man once? If so then grab em and sound out and quit being offended. If this were my site I would ban you for being tooooo PC and a bit femenized.

[Digital_Trucker]

Interesting news, but it would be nice if just once you could discuss it without being insulting and demeaning.Steve! Pardon me for bustin in here, but....were you a military man once? If so then grab em and sound out and quit being offended. If this were my site I would ban you for being tooooo PC and a bit femenized.
Good thing it's not your site, then. He made a suggestion based on what he perceived to be an insulting and demeaning remark. I can see how he might have taken it that way. I might have taken it that way, too, given the right circumstances. So might many others. Chill:cool:

[Zachstar]

Here we go again......

Thankfully tho there is a chance Nancy will be defeated by the independent with her constant backing down to the repubs..

[SUBMAN1]

Here we go again......
Thankfully tho there is a chance Nancy will be defeated by the independent with her constant backing down to the repubs..It's by backing down that anything gets accomplished over there. Both sides that is. What you are advocating is never getting anything accomplished at all!

-S

[Digital_Trucker]

And there's a chance she won't get re-elected again if she doesn't do what makes sense. Just depends on how you want to look at what "backing down" is, IMHO.

Edit : It's not supposed to be an "us against them" situation. The two parties are supposed to do what makes sense for the good of all. Unfortunately, like so many other things, the pendulum doesn't stay in the middle, it has to swing widely one way or the other.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Steve! Pardon me for bustin in here, but....were you a military man once? If so then grab em and sound out and quit being offended. If this were my site I would ban you for being tooooo PC and a bit femenized.

I'm former military, too. That's no reason we can't be civil. Perhaps if you knew how uncivilized things can be you'd be a bit more appreciative of civility when it manifests itself.



-edit. Now that I look at it, that sounds a lot meaner than I had intended. All I meant to say was that civility is a good thing, not necessarily PC or feminized.

[Zachstar]

And there's a chance she won't get re-elected again if she doesn't do what makes sense. Just depends on how you want to look at what "backing down" is, IMHO.

She has backed down on almost everything from day one.. She has been the biggest failure of a speaker in the history on modern politics in my view..

Getting re-elected? She had absolutely no issue with that before she decided "Impeachment is off the table" starting a long line of failures.. Now she has Cindy in a position to dethrone her..

[Frame57]

I disagree! I have three hitches in two branches of the military. Former military do not act or speak this way. Unless we are dealing with wacs or waves. If you all think that what Subman said was offending or uncilvil, then what more can be said. It clearly was not and this is cleary a case of femenized "men" in need of a box of kleenex. I suspected this from this site. That I would run into wannabees who may or may not have been prior service. But it is easy to smoke em out because they act like you and speak like you. In fact you should be thanking me, because i am trying to salvage a veteran's manhood here. If you do not think that all this PC stuff is not keeping the bull in the pen then you are being deceived. Just allow someones freedom of speech in however they convey to come across without the panty whining. You are men, you can handle it!:nope:

[August]

It's not supposed to be an "us against them" situation. The two parties are supposed to do what makes sense for the good of all. Unfortunately, like so many other things, the pendulum doesn't stay in the middle, it has to swing widely one way or the other.

Truth.

[Digital_Trucker]

It's by backing down that anything gets accomplished over there.
-S
I can agree with every part of that statement (using my own definition of "backing down") except for the "over there" part. Does this imply that this concept of capitulation and cooperation doesn't apply anywhere but "over here"? Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

[Takeda Shingen]

I disagree! I have three hitches in two branches of the military. Former military do not act or speak this way. Unless we are dealing with wacs or waves. If you all think that what Subman said was offending or uncilvil, then what more can be said. It clearly was not and this is cleary a case of femenized "men" in need of a box of kleenex. I suspected this from this site. That I would run into wannabees who may or may not have been prior service. But it is easy to smoke em out because they act like you and speak like you. In fact you should be thanking me, because i am trying to salvage a veteran's manhood here. If you do not think that all this PC stuff is not keeping the bull in the pen then you are being deceived. Just allow someones freedom of speech in however they convey to come across without the panty whining. You are men, you can handle it!:nope:

Should you be so fortunate to be on this forum as long and be half as respected as Steve, you will see the foolishness of nearly everything that you have said in this discourse. You would certainly thank him for his example.

[SUBMAN1]

It's by backing down that anything gets accomplished over there.
-S
I can agree with every part of that statement (using my own definition of "backing down") except for the "over there" part. Does this imply that this concept of capitulation and cooperation doesn't apply anywhere but "over here"? Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.I mean in DC! Thats what I mean by over there! :D It probably applies anywhere!

[Onkel Neal]

Interesting news, but it would be nice if just once you could discuss it without being insulting and demeaning.Steve! Pardon me for bustin in here, but....were you a military man once? If so then grab em and sound out and quit being offended. If this were my site I would ban you for being tooooo PC and a bit femenized.

I disagree! I have three hitches in two branches of the military. Former military do not act or speak this way. Unless we are dealing with wacs or waves. If you all think that what Subman said was offending or uncilvil, then what more can be said. It clearly was not and this is cleary a case of femenized "men" in need of a box of kleenex. I suspected this from this site. That I would run into wannabees who may or may not have been prior service. But it is easy to smoke em out because they act like you and speak like you. In fact you should be thanking me, because i am trying to salvage a veteran's manhood here. If you do not think that all this PC stuff is not keeping the bull in the pen then you are being deceived. Just allow someones freedom of speech in however they convey to come across without the panty whining. You are men, you can handle it!:nope:

This isn't your site and you may want to cut Steve a little slack, he is entitled to his opinion. As for feminized men, it's easy to be a he-man on the internet. Calm down, we have friends here.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I disagree! I have three hitches in two branches of the military. Former military do not act or speak this way. Unless we are dealing with wacs or waves. If you all think that what Subman said was offending or uncilvil, then what more can be said. It clearly was not and this is cleary a case of femenized "men" in need of a box of kleenex. I suspected this from this site. That I would run into wannabees who may or may not have been prior service. But it is easy to smoke em out because they act like you and speak like you. In fact you should be thanking me, because i am trying to salvage a veteran's manhood here. If you do not think that all this PC stuff is not keeping the bull in the pen then you are being deceived. Just allow someones freedom of speech in however they convey to come across without the panty whining. You are men, you can handle it!:nope:




Here's a thought; take a friend, disembowel him and cut his legs off. Then spread what's left over the better part of an acre. Then clean all that up. Next, see if you have any respect for a bit of civility.

I'll be damned if I let some squid tell me or anyone else about "veteran's manhood".


edit- I'll welcome the brig for this one.

[SUBMAN1]

Chill out guys. :shifty:

-S

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by Frame57
I disagree! I have three hitches in two branches of the military. Former military do not act or speak this way. Unless we are dealing with wacs or waves. If you all think that what Subman said was offending or uncilvil, then what more can be said. It clearly was not and this is cleary a case of femenized "men" in need of a box of kleenex. I suspected this from this site. That I would run into wannabees who may or may not have been prior service. But it is easy to smoke em out because they act like you and speak like you. In fact you should be thanking me, because i am trying to salvage a veteran's manhood here. If you do not think that all this PC stuff is not keeping the bull in the pen then you are being deceived. Just allow someones freedom of speech in however they convey to come across without the panty whining. You are men, you can handle it!:nope:


...For the mark of a real man is being an internet tough guy. :rotfl:

[Digital_Trucker]

It's by backing down that anything gets accomplished over there.
-S
I can agree with every part of that statement (using my own definition of "backing down") except for the "over there" part. Does this imply that this concept of capitulation and cooperation doesn't apply anywhere but "over here"? Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.I mean in DC! Thats what I mean by over there! :D It probably applies anywhere!
Oh, that over there:rotfl:No offense to any sane individuals who live there:oops:I think it does apply just about everywhere.

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl:

Boy, I really pulled the pin on that one!

@ Subman1: It's not the insults that bother me, it's where they come from. Of course there is argument, and people disagree, and then usually work something out. The Constitution didn't get written by people calling each other names. They did do that, and worse, but they finally realized that something somewhere had to give. So the compromised. From Sean Hannity to Al Franken, I'm tired of people who "know" they're right, and "know" that their way is the only way, and if anyone disagrees then that person is not listening to logic and reason. Except where I can show actual facts in detail I don't "know" I'm right, and neither do you. It's all opinion, even when you're certain you've seen what works. There's actually a big difference between "I think they're idiots" and "They're idiots", because we may think they're idiots for disagreeing with us, but we don't know it.

@ Frame57: Same thing. Your opinion on what former military say and do is just your opinion. There are a lot of former military around here, and in a lot of other forums I've been to, and some of them like to pop off, and some of them are respectful of others. There's nothing manly about calling people names and 'salvaging their manhood', and asking for a real debate or expression of opinion rather than just slamming someone you think is wrong is not PC in the least. Bragging about your service and calling anyone who disagrees with you a "wannabe" does no one any good; least of all you. And you're not proving your manhood by saying things like this, no matter how strongly you believe them. Little kids in schoolyards call each other names and demean each other's - or their dad's - manhood. It has nothing to do with being a man, or with being a veteran.

My disagreement with Subman1 on this goes back a little further than just this thread, and has nothing to do with "panty whining." As I said to him, I don't fault his opinions on this or any other subject, I just see nothing to be gained from using name-calling as a debating tactic.

Sorry to have derailed this so badly. Now back to...what was the subject again?

[Platapus]

Like everything else in politics this is a matter of compromise. A compromise is not a position of weakness it is a pragmatic position of politics.

The Republicans want something - open up new leases for oil companies.

The Democrats want something. Actually they want four things

"No. 1, free our oil. [Meaning release some light crude oil from the SPR and replacing it with Heavy crude.]

No. 2, they want to drill. If they want to drill, we have 68 million acres in the Lower 48 that they can drill in that are permitted and all the rest.

Three, stop the speculation.

Four, renew -- invest in renewable energy resources, which will bring a faster return than drilling offshore, which will take 10 years and produce 2 cents' reduction in 10 years off the price at the pump."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/12/pelosi.qanda/index.html

Since the Republicans are not going to give up what they want, and the Democrats won't give up with they want, what is the solution? Sit in a dark conference room and pout? or come up with a compromise?

Pelosi's plan is to give the Republicans what they want and get what the Democrats want. Compromise. Nothing evil... nothing bad... .. no weakening of position.. no flip flopping....no conspiracy....just business as usual in Congress.

That's just how things are done in a Democracy. Comprimise. Where both sides win a little something and give up a little something.

[Skybird]

:rotfl:

Boy, I really pulled the pin on that one!

@ Subman1: It's not the insults that bother me, it's where they come from. Of course there is argument, and people disagree, and then usually work something out. The Constitution didn't get written by people calling each other names. They did do that, and worse, but they finally realized that something somewhere had to give. So the compromised. From Sean Hannity to Al Franken, I'm tired of people who "know" they're right, and "know" that their way is the only way, and if anyone disagrees then that person is not listening to logic and reason. Except where I can show actual facts in detail I don't "know" I'm right, and neither do you. It's all opinion, even when you're certain you've seen what works. There's actually a big difference between "I think they're idiots" and "They're idiots", because we may think they're idiots for disagreeing with us, but we don't know it.

@ Frame57: Same thing. Your opinion on what former military say and do is just your opinion. There are a lot of former military around here, and in a lot of other forums I've been to, and some of them like to pop off, and some of them are respectful of others. There's nothing manly about calling people names and 'salvaging their manhood', and asking for a real debate or expression of opinion rather than just slamming someone you think is wrong is not PC in the least. Bragging about your service and calling anyone who disagrees with you a "wannabe" does no one any good; least of all you. And you're not proving your manhood by saying things like this, no matter how strongly you believe them. Little kids in schoolyards call each other names and demean each other's - or their dad's - manhood. It has nothing to do with being a man, or with being a veteran.

My disagreement with Subman1 on this goes back a little further than just this thread, and has nothing to do with "panty whining." As I said to him, I don't fault his opinions on this or any other subject, I just see nothing to be gained from using name-calling as a debating tactic.

Sorry to have derailed this so badly. Now back to...what was the subject again?

:up:

To translate a german proverb: "the sound makes the music". I have one, two guys on ignore list: not because they most often totally disagreed with my opinions, but because of the insulting and cheating tone they picked just one time too often.

Behaving bad is not needed to make an opinion clear: clearness is sufficient. Where verbal bullying and trick-playing is taken, this neither proves any manhood worth to be called that (it more proves a ridiculous clichée), nor illustrates a reasonable and balanced opinion on the issue. In my real life, people behaving, like this I would (and have!) kicked out of my place. Why should I tolerate it in the virtual world? There are a few guys here with whom I occasionally keep on to debate in PMs or even Emails, and nin friendly and wellmeaning tone, even although we disagree. We enjoy it then, both of us, so: Politeness is possible. And should be mandatory in a forum.

[Frame57]

Bragging! Nope, just BTDT and have life experience to base how veteran's generally act. Not being a tough guy, I threatened no one, nor would. But I am making a point and i stand by it. People are so focused on their "feelings" it is becoming sickening. which of you "vets" have not been called everyname in the book in boot camp or basic??????? Did you cry? Did you call for the ACLU? Did you take it like a man and did it help you to become a sailor or soldier? Seriously, if I call Pelosi a "bonehead" or "Cheney" a "snake" because I am voicing how i feel, you are going to reply how it hurts your feelings rather than just not replying to the post.

I am not allowing you to place this "civil" rap on me. Because you were citing the original post to begin with, which was "civil" to begin with. I protested the touchy feely stuff that crept up and wondered what the hell that was all about, and yes, questioned the man's integrity. Because I have never heard another MAN behave this way and that is odd to you who claim to be prior service. Naturally I would question that. I know of no other senior NCO who would not. That is not being un civil but is being honest. Maybe it is just the military I came from and the pack of dogs I run with and if that is un-acceptable here I will be right at home with SUBVETS. :stare:

[SUBMAN1]

:rotfl:

Boy, I really pulled the pin on that one!

@ Subman1: It's not the insults that bother me, it's where they come from. Of course there is argument, and people disagree, and then usually work something out. The Constitution didn't get written by people calling each other names. They did do that, and worse, but they finally realized that something somewhere had to give. So the compromised. From Sean Hannity to Al Franken, I'm tired of people who "know" they're right, and "know" that their way is the only way, and if anyone disagrees then that person is not listening to logic and reason. Except where I can show actual facts in detail I don't "know" I'm right, and neither do you. It's all opinion, even when you're certain you've seen what works. There's actually a big difference between "I think they're idiots" and "They're idiots", because we may think they're idiots for disagreeing with us, but we don't know it.

....

My disagreement with Subman1 on this goes back a little further than just this thread, and has nothing to do with "panty whining." As I said to him, I don't fault his opinions on this or any other subject, I just see nothing to be gained from using name-calling as a debating tactic.

Sorry to have derailed this so badly. Now back to...what was the subject again?Let's put it this way - what 'have they accomplished in 8 years regardless of who has controlled the house and senate or what? I don't care the party. The Repubs couldn't do squat either!

And if this is the case, how exactly are they not idiots? They remind me of 2 year old children slinging mud across the aisle.

So quit being all high and mighty on this one and come down to reality (no offense of course). To say they are all sane normal people up there is completely pointless. It is actually a lie if you want to get technical. This bending as shown in the first thread is the first bit of light I have seen in a long time out of them.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

And if this is the case, how exactly are they not idiots? They remind me of 2 year old children slinging mud across the aisle.

So quit being all high and mighty on this one and come down to reality (no offense of course). To say they are all sane normal people up there is completely pointless. It is actually a lie if you want to get technical. This bending as shown in the first thread is the first bit of light I have seen in a long time out of them.
And again you miss my point entirely. I agree with you: I think they are for the most part morons, and the ones who aren't are usually liars, cheats and thugs, living off the public dole and accomplishing little; for which I'm usually grateful. But that's what I THINK, and my saying it doesn't make it so.

Bragging! Nope, just BTDT and have life experience to base how veteran's generally act.
Generally act? I had a friend, whom we liked to call the Crazy Ranger. His second tour in Vietnam ended when he was stitched up the back by eight rounds from an AK-47. While he was recovering his wife divorced him, sold his farm and then sued for alimony and child support. When he expressed a desire to go back for a third tour, a major cussed him out and called him an idiot. The major ended up in the hospital and my friend Dick got an invitation to resign from the army. Because of his record it was actually a polite invitation, with honors and all.

My point is that when I knew Dick he was indeed still a scrapper, and always eager for a fight. But, he was also one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever met. If you insulted him directly he was likely to apologize and offer to discuss it with you. If you offered him or his violence, he would at the very least hurt you, and if he felt he had to kill you it wouldn't bother his conscience a bit. But he was polite, and respectful, and yes 'civil'.

I too know, and have known, a lot of vets, and the vast majority of them are far different from the description you give of yourself and your "pack of dogs", as you call them.

Not being a tough guy, I threatened no one, nor would. But I am making a point and i stand by it. People are so focused on their "feelings" it is becoming sickening. which of you "vets" have not been called everyname in the book in boot camp or basic??????? Did you cry? Did you call for the ACLU? Did you take it like a man and did it help you to become a sailor or soldier? Seriously, if I call Pelosi a "bonehead" or "Cheney" a "snake" because I am voicing how i feel, you are going to reply how it hurts your feelings rather than just not replying to the post.
I never said it hurt my feelings, I said it was uncalled for. You projected that on me yourself. The point of civility is not to get people to be nicer to you, it's to discuss subjects and opinions with just a little respect for the other guy. A MAN (your emphasis, not mine) doesn't have to insult people to make himself feel like a man, or to prove a point.

I am not allowing you to place this "civil" rap on me. Because you were citing the original post to begin with, which was "civil" to begin with.
As I said, this goes back further than just this thread. No, the original post wasn't civil, it was biased and dismissive. In my opinion.

I protested the touchy feely stuff that crept up and wondered what the hell that was all about, and yes, questioned the man's integrity. Because I have never heard another MAN behave this way and that is odd to you who claim to be prior service.
I answered that already. In my world a man does stand up for what he believes, but he also realizes that he might just actually be wrong sometimes, and he accords the same rights to others, respecting their opinions even while he disagrees with them. You didn't question my integrity, you attacked it.

Naturally I would question that. I know of no other senior NCO who would not. That is not being un civil but is being honest. Maybe it is just the military I came from and the pack of dogs I run with and if that is un-acceptable here I will be right at home with SUBVETS. :stare:
Disagreeing and saying what you think is being honest. Being rude and insulting, calling people names and saying you don't see how they could be veterans is indeed being uncivil.

I don't have anything to do with running things around here; I'm not even a moderator. But arguing with people is usually accepted, if not exactly encouraged. What is usually not accepted is just plain fighting. We like to have actual discussions, and try to resolve problems without resorting to insult. It doesn't always go that way, but we try. If you think you're happier staying with people who think exactly like you do, so you can point fingers and laugh at those whom you consider inferior, then you probably won't like it here. If, however, you like to actually dig into problems and explore what others think, to teach and to learn, then I'm willing to shake hands and talk in a - if you'll excuse the expression - civil manner.

[SUBMAN1]

And if this is the case, how exactly are they not idiots? They remind me of 2 year old children slinging mud across the aisle.

So quit being all high and mighty on this one and come down to reality (no offense of course). To say they are all sane normal people up there is completely pointless. It is actually a lie if you want to get technical. This bending as shown in the first thread is the first bit of light I have seen in a long time out of them. And again you miss my point entirely. I agree with you: I think they are for the most part morons, and the ones who aren't are usually liars, cheats and thugs, living off the public dole and accomplishing little; for which I'm usually grateful. But that's what I THINK, and my saying it doesn't make it so.

Thanks for clearing that up. The only difference between you and I - I am not being PC.

I must say, you would do better up there in place of those idiots than they do today.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl:
Unfortunately, I'm about as unelectable as they come. We may have our differences sometimes, but I would never, ever dream of arguing with you about money, success, or computers. You'd with hands down every time.

[SUBMAN1]

:rotfl:
Unfortunately, I'm about as unelectable as they come. We may have our differences sometimes, but I would never, ever dream of arguing with you about money, success, or computers. You'd with hands down every time.Its all with whats upstairs. you can compete on any level you choose. Nothing better that a candidate that has 'been there'. I'd vote for you.

You far supercede many elected officials. The list is endless today from money laundering to child porn to prosittutes. As far as I know, you are 100x better than all of them. Try it. You may not be disappointed.

-S

[Digital_Trucker]

:rotfl:
Unfortunately, I'm about as unelectable as they come. We may have our differences sometimes, but I would never, ever dream of arguing with you about money, success, or computers. You'd with hands down every time.Its all with whats upstairs. you can compete on any level you choose. Nothing better that a candidate that has 'been there'. I'd vote for you.

-S
Too bad this didn't come up before. Then maybe we'd have someone to vote for instead of just having to vote against someone once again.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/Sgt-Smithy/Motivators/mj_popcorn.gif

You guys made my night. Keep shooting at each other.:up:

[Sailor Steve]

No, this is the part where everybody takes aim at you, just for posting that creepy picture.

[Digital_Trucker]

No, this is the part where everybody takes aim at you, just for posting that creepy picture.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:creepy isn't a strong enough word

[Frame57]

No SS. The point is somewhere in the middle here. I do not want to go off track anymore on this thread. I just think spirited debate is a good. It make one think even if angered, it makes you think. If our COB referred to us without using a few choice words, there was a problem. You see, colorful language is not always meant to offend, but to make a point. We knew that if the COB referred to us as "Petty officer..." that is when we were in trouble. We relished being called bilge rats and the sort. We knew we were OK when things went that way. It was no different when I was at FT. Leonardwood prior to that. This is just the way it was, and I guess I expect former military folk to understand this way. Maybe all do not. I just think that things are too PC for our own good and I do not think it is healthy in the long run for freedom of speech sake.

My nephew came to me crying (Yes 24 and crying over a girl, his Dad is no longer around by choice.) This young man wants to go into the Navy soon. The only thing I could think of to do was to slap the living **** out of him, so i did. He stared swinging on me, which was good and after a couple of bloody lips and a few beers later we were chums again and he aint crying over split tail anymore. I made him behave and act like a man. You know what his Momma would do? She would sign him up 200 dollar counseling sessions. So by an act of brutality and what seemed to be callousness on my part, my nephew is becoming a man who had some sense smacked into him, rather than letting some shrink let him get in touch with his femenine side. So, I stand by this code, this way, because it is good. I see this on a national scale as well. Frankly it scares me. I hope this is not the case with our current boot camps either. If anythin they needed to be tougher and not easier. Because war is hell and drill instructors are there to make men out of boys and soldiers and sailors out of recruits and want to keep em alive in doing so. But now I hear that they have to be "senseative" and pop a titty in thier mouth's before they tuck them in at night. Well, if that is true then we are producing mice and not men for combat situations. Do you see where i am coming from in all this? So if all I said does not apply, then i apoplogize

[SUBMAN1]

No, this is the part where everybody takes aim at you, just for posting that creepy picture.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:creepy isn't a strong enough wordMan that cracked me up! :rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl:

[Stealth Hunter]

No, this is the part where everybody takes aim at you, just for posting that creepy picture.

Oh come on! You know you like it...;)

I know you used to like Michael Jackson... before he DID get creepy and become a pedophile.

[Sailor Steve]

I just think spirited debate is a good.
Always, as long as it's spirited debate and not a catfight (though those can have their place as well).

Do you see where i am coming from in all this? So if all I said does not apply, then i apoplogize
Yes I do, and while I don't completely agree I do on a lot of points. I just see how easy it is for 'discussions' - especially political and religious - to get out of hand. My opinions are just as strong as the next guy's, but I see a need to recognize that fact-finding is better than mud-slinging.

And I agree with Subman's original thesis: Pelosi IS and idiot. Unfortunately I don't think much more highly of the Prez.

[Frame57]

I just think spirited debate is a good.
Always, as long as it's spirited debate and not a catfight (though those can have their place as well).

Do you see where i am coming from in all this? So if all I said does not apply, then i apoplogize
Yes I do, and while I don't completely agree I do on a lot of points. I just see how easy it is for 'discussions' - especially political and religious - to get out of hand. My opinions are just as strong as the next guy's, but I see a need to recognize that fact-finding is better than mud-slinging.

And I agree with Subman's original thesis: Pelosi IS and idiot. Unfortunately I don't think much more highly of the Prez.Hey, me neither! I was a republican for many years and now i am Independant. Both parties need a wake up call IMO. i agree your opinions are every bit as important as the next guys. I react to reactions and not if someone is a dem or repub or anything else for that matter. I have friends of all color and religions, but I treat em as equals. very much the equal opportunist. COB would say, "I treat you all the same just like whale ****" But ya gotta love it! You know when I was younger politics never bothered me, but now as I am getting a bit older, I see the corruption like never before. I try to approach it from an Independant point of view. The more people register as Independant the more that message is getting to both parties and hopefully they will someday start listening to the voice of the people. Anyway, Cheers to you:up:

[Sailor Steve]

Here's one of mine: Whenever someone pulls out the old saw "If you don't vote you don't have a right to complain!", my reply is "Yes I do, until they put in a box that says 'None of the above!'"