65,000 More troops of 3 years...

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 12 Jan 2007 12:01

What, the, fuck. I thought that speech was about deciding between, no more troops, or 20,000, not between, 20,000 and 65,000.

It's absolutely nuts. My friend John was activated and leaves in September for Iraq, because Bush decided to up the amount of troops by 65,000. What a fucking dick.

The 20,000 troop increase was a step in the wrong direction, but this... this is us falling down a cliff with no gear, no pretection pads, and no cell phone to call for help once we smack the rock hard ground.

Ugh.. can't wait for a new president, because no matter what the new one does, it's going to be in a better direction that this...

PegLegHolly · Post by **PegLegHolly** » 12 Jan 2007 13:41

i wonder what his popularity rating is at this point.

i too am counting down the days until the next election.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 12 Jan 2007 14:16

PegLegHolly wrote:i wonder what his popularity rating is at this point.

i too am counting down the days until the next election.

It's less than 30% that last time I saw a popularity vote.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 13 Jan 2007 09:03

More troops is bullshit, when they will just be handcuffed and blindfolded like all the rest of our troops, sent down the back-alleys of Fallujah, with a liberal anti-war Army attorney AND an embedded CNN reporter, holding a knife to the neck of our troops.

Bush wants all possible troops in Baghdad, so any of a dozen enemies or "allies" can anonymously lob a tactical nuke into the green zone.

Yeah and, wait for the next president, to keep the troops there forever.

Just like the newly-elected Dems are working to expand the police state, they will keep troops in Iraq for 10 more years.

Why would they do that? Because 5,10, 25 years of meat-grinding failure in Iraq can be blamed on Bush.

All of you (and most of the country) will probably blame Bush for he war, forever, even if it gets run by Dems for the next 10 years.

It seems to me like it is being setup that way.

If we lose in Iraq, Dems win.

If the MAX number of U.S. troops are killed over there, the Dems win.

The troops can never come home, because they would revolt, and the Bush's, Clintons', Pelosis' etc...etc...would all hang by the neck.

-n

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 13 Jan 2007 10:02

I would expect this from Bush. Doesn't shock me a bit. It sucks since I have a have family member over there. Pray for your loved ones out there.

beenjammin · Post by **beenjammin** » 13 Jan 2007 14:59

Bush Rocks!

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 13 Jan 2007 16:32

blurryben wrote:Bush Rocks!

Go suck a railroad spike.

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 13 Jan 2007 19:02

blurryben wrote:Bush Rocks!

I hope you're joking.

I still don't understand why we are still there =/ Hell I don't understand why we went there in the first place

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 14 Jan 2007 09:44

HighDemonslayer wrote: 5,10, 25 years of meat-grinding failure in Iraq can be blamed on Bush.

This statement is true, and would be the case even if the Republicans had kept control of Congress. Bush fucked up in Iraq, there's no denying it. The fact that you claim the Democrats would willingly sacrifice thousands of American soldiers lives to emphasize this point is moronic.

HighDemonslayer wrote: All of you (and most of the country) will probably blame Bush for he war, forever, even if it gets run by Dems for the next 10 years.

This is also completely true. This reminds me of a metaphor somebody used on the daily show around the 2004 election. He likened Bush to somebody who runs his truck off the road into a ditch, and then argues that he is the only person qualified to get the truck out of the ditch. This last congressional election shows that the American public doesn't have faith in the Republicans to get the truck out of the ditch (Iraq war) the Republicans got them into, but now that the Democrats are stuck with this crappy situation the Republicans created, the Republicans want to pass the blame onto the Democrats, because they can't fix the situation created by Republican incompetence.

Nate, if you won't come out and play footbag with me when I live next door to you, then you might as well just post on some political forums somewhere else because its hard for me to believe that you even play this sport. If you don't play footbag, don't post here.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 14 Jan 2007 18:59

Yea Nate.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 14 Jan 2007 20:04

C-Fan wrote:Nate, if you won't come out and play footbag with me when I live next door to you, then you might as well just post on some political forums somewhere else because its hard for me to believe that you even play this sport. If you don't play footbag, don't post here.

I don't know, Ken, I like having Nathan around. I don't usually agree with his position (once in a while, I'm surprised to find that I do, though), but I don't visit political forum, and I don't want to. I do, though, like a little bit of political discussion here. And if everybody here were simply of the same opinion on everything, there wouldn't really be any discussion. I thought your last post was a very interesting little read, but if HighDemonSlayer hadn't given us his assessment of the situation I'm afraid I'd never have gotten to read yours, if you see what I'm saying.

I prefer to think that this forum is made up mostly of serious footbag players, but I don't think it has to be 100% exclusive. And besides, I suppose if we were to make exceptions, than former footbag players would be first on the list of those allowed. I mean, what if some better-known former kicker where to drop by occasionally and post in some non-footbag related topic? What if Tim Kelly, Paul Munger, Dennis Jones, or Josh Casey felt like offering their opinion on politics, music, or the NBA? Would you tell them to get lost too?

Don't let this get personal just because Nate's opinions can seem offensive to you and because he doesn't want to shred with you. Maybe he kicks but is intimidated by your skills. I personal feel some reluctance to kick with certain shredders because it can be a humbling experience, and there are one or two legends of this sport who were known to be exceptionally shy - so shy few ever even met them despite there strong feestyle skills.

Whatever. There are other former/non players on here, and actual/current players, that are more offensive than Nathan. At least he stays on topic, doesn't introduce alot of unnecessary drug talk, and doesn't offer much in the way of personal attacks (personal attacks against forum members, I mean. I don't usually care about personal attacks on some distant political figures). Don't go, HighDemonSlayer!

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 14 Jan 2007 22:15

i love it how C-Fan always likes to spin what I write, and then try to associate me to groups or people that I fundamentally disagree with.

In this case , it's "republicans blaming Dems for Iraq".....

I am predicting, not blaming,.....a future course of failure, based on military naiviety, and appeasement.

Nate, if you won't come out and play footbag with me when I live next door to you,

then you might as well just post on some political forums somewhere else because its hard for me to believe that you even play this sport. If you don't play footbag, don't post here.

Come out and play footbag with you? Thats funny.

Why drive for 3 hours to kick with a shredder ,who I sometime argue with online?

I dont let that get in the way of my footbag circle manners, though.

I mean you're just a shredder, who kicks with the locals when they come to visit you, so its convenient.

I only do a kick session like 4 times a month right now anyway, why the hell should I go out of my way?

I would get to kick with J Baldwin,though, so that would be worth it.

AZ footbag does just fine, whether you are drifting through , or not.

I'll come to Tucson ,to kick, when I fucking get around to it.

Oh, and don't use anything from the Daily Show as arguments. Jon Stewart is a stupid ass clown, and would appear more so without his laugh- track.

" Ken is an expert on all things political.....why? because he is great at Footbag."

-n

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 15 Jan 2007 08:09

My post was... unnecessary sarcasm, if you didn't notice.

But I agree. Don't be bashing on someone else's opinion just because you disagree with it and the person doesn't like to shred with you.

Modified should be place where anyone that still enjoys the sport, whether they play it, or just simply like watching it, should be allowed to visit. I had a few months were all I did was watch videos, because I didn't feel like playing, ever. Now, during those months, I was a peice of shit, to say the least, but now I'm playing again. I have to get 8 more hours of recorded (Recorded as in, written down times and signatured by a witness.) play for my guided study class. I am getting 1.5 credits in school for playing Footbag in my free time.

Now, just because I had a few rough months, does that mean I don't deserve to come here, and speak my opinion here or there, respectfully of course. (To say the least, I'm not a peice of shit on the side of a cooking highway anymore.)

Back to the topic now.

I don't beleive I need to offer any explanation for my opinion on this matter. 65,000 more troops is just bullshit. Plain and simple. We should not be there, let alone a 45% increase in man power there.

I'm not even fucking kidding when I say this, I am so looking into moving to the UK. Socialism, fuck yea.

I talked to my RSP Coordinator today, and I requested a discharge for Army Value Infractions. There are seven, Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Honor, Selfless Service, Integrity, Personal Courage. I no longer have the Duty or Respect required to pass their standards, meaning, I don't respect my Chief in Command (AKA Bush fuck face.), so I'm not going to fight his war, and I no longer agree to do the duties they're ordering me to do. I'm not going to go to Iraq to fight this pointless fucking war.

I'm also questioning my "Loyalty" to the US. Why the hell should I fight for a bunch of stupid asses that put this ape in the White House in the first place, and then turn around just to be fucking shafted by both my medical insurance and auto insurance. Can't drink, but I can run over to a foriegn country to die because Bush wants to please his daddy, work full time while going to school, just so I can pay my auto insurance, because seeing as I have a penis, I'm more likely to get in an accident, supposedly. And my medical insurance dropped half of my medications because their supposedly considered cosmetic. And now they say I have to pay them back for the past year of the supply they insured me for. All of this, and the ARNG is taking 90% of my pay for the next 4 months, because I fell during a Night Infiltration Course in Basic Training, and the butstock hit a rock, and made a small crack on the end of it. (Rifle works fine, and it was in better shape than the ones that other companies got that had rattling parts inside them. My rifle was brand fucking new, and in better shape than just about anybody's.) So they fined me $2000, to fix it, even though, it was part of a TRAINING mission, and I'm not legally responsible for it. But I can't sue them over it, because they have all the paper work to make it legal for them to do it.

I'm sorry, I got carried away again. But I'm not the only one. This is happening to alot of people around my area right now. Lots of insurance claims being dropped, medical and auto. 2 people in my unit lost their bonus money, I don't know why, but they didn't do anything wrong to lose it... I don't know. It's just not worth fighting for. I've already got 3 grand in the bank, saving to move. Even if it's just to Canada.

/rant.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 15 Jan 2007 17:11

I wasn't giving Nate shit for disagreeing with me, or not being good at footbag. I was giving him shit for spending so much time posting in political threads on a footbag forum, when he doesn't post in any footbag threads, or show any evidence of even playing footbag.

Frankly, I think that anybody who posts in the kicking circle or discussion sections of modified is a loser. But at least footbag players have an excuse to be here in the first place. Arguing about politics on a hackey sack internet forum? I post on and read modified because I play footbag. Has Nate ever posted in any place other than here? Does he even still play footbag?

If Condoleeza Rice could only do toe stalls, but was really into it, and started posting things here that I disagreed with, I wouldn't question her right to post here. But Nate has never shown any dedication to the sport, or any reason to be here.

HighDemonslayer wrote:i
" Ken is an expert on all things political.....why? because he is great at Footbag."

Never claimed either of those things, but at least I have a reason to even be here: I play footbag.

What kind of loser spends his time arguing politics on an internet hackey sack forum, when he doesn't even play?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 15 Jan 2007 21:58

Chaos theory holds that no one has any idea whether the surge in troops will work, or fail. Anyone who tries to tell you that they know what is going to happen in Iraq is a fucking idiot (Ken specifically). Yes, a fucking idiot, which I'm allowed to call him if he can call me a loser for posting here, you fucking idiot.

PegLegHolly · Post by **PegLegHolly** » 15 Jan 2007 22:09

bwahahahahahahahaha

my twin bro is signing up for the marine corp to run away from his problems here. i really hope that he doesnt have to go over there.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 15 Jan 2007 22:28

BainbridgeShred wrote: Anyone who tries to tell you that they know what is going to happen in Iraq is a fucking idiot (Ken specifically). .

Where did I say I knew what was going to happen in Iraq? Learn to read.

And yeah, if you don't play footbag and only come on these forums to post in this subforum, then I think you are also a big loser. That goes for everybody who falls in this category.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 15 Jan 2007 23:12

Ken wrote:

I was giving him shit for spending so much time posting in political threads on a footbag forum, when he doesn't post in any footbag threads, or show any evidence of even playing footbag.

I'm pretty sure he was evident at the Las Vegas Jam I attended, because we shredded together. I can attest to the fasct that he was a basic guiltless player a few years ago. In any case, he just posted a few scrolls up that he shreds about 4 time monthly. Don't let your temper get the better of you.

If Condoleeza Rice could only do toe stalls, but was really into it, and started posting things here that I disagreed with, I wouldn't question her right to post here.

I would, and then I'd tell that bitch to go learn some fucking tricks from the .org forum before she started cluttering up MY forum with useless topics that already exist.

. . .anybody who posts in the kicking circle or discussion sections of modified is a loser. But at least footbag players have an excuse to be here in the first place.

There's NO excuse for posting here

This regulation brought to you by Senor Grommet

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 15 Jan 2007 23:53

Code: Select all

The 20,000 troop increase was a step in the wrong direction, but this... this is us falling down a cliff with no gear, no pretection pads, and no cell phone to call for help once we smack the rock hard ground.

Where did I say I knew what was going to happen in Iraq? Learn to read.

Comparing the decision to falling off of a cliff leaves quite an impression. Don't go back on your point (The point of your entire thread really) just to try and make some kind of point to make me look stupid. Like said, don't let your temper get the better of you.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 15 Jan 2007 23:56

Senor Grommet wrote:
C-Fan wrote:If Condoleeza Rice could only do toe stalls, but was really into it, and started posting things here that I disagreed with, I wouldn't question her right to post here.
I would, and then I'd tell that bitch to go learn some fucking tricks from the .org forum before she started cluttering up MY forum with useless topics that already exist.

Nice, Jeremy, very nice.

(I'm mostly just replying because I thought that was pretty funny, and also because I wanted to take a crack at puttng a quote within a quote, something I have never successfully done before - thanks to Jeremy O'Wheel for teaching me, if this actually works, otherwise, "Curse you, O'Wheel!

" )

(It worked! But it took me three tries

)