What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Congressional approval is now at 10% When I took the SATs I got 12.5% just for spelling my name correctly.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Priceless said:
Congressional approval is now at 10% When I took the SATs I got 12.5% just for spelling my name correctly.
Click to expand...

You don't get that 12.5% for taking the GMAT, which I imagine many of these obviously over-educated dorks in Congress have taken at some point. :rolleyes:
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

SteveP said:
Yep. Also want to keep one of the jobs I still have here. :D
Click to expand...

Although it might have been fun if somebody in a gay little uniform with a billy club approached him. I doubt his body guards would have thought it wasn't intimidation.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

FlagDUDE08 said:
Remember folks, this is now OK because of the Patriot Act: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131006/DA98DR7G0.html
Click to expand...

The question is: What were they supposed to do according to those who had time to think these things out? Meaning, someplace there is a policy, did they follow it? Why is that the policy? Did they say that officers should disregard the proportion of 1 person to many officers if the person is driving a vehicle and it is not known if the vehicle could be carrying a baby, a bomb, or both.

In terms of the article suggesting the driver may not have presented a real risk...sure, until she detonates a trunk load of fertilizer and kills 100 people, then everyone wants to know why they didn't neutralize her when they had the chance.

Is that the "terrorists winning"? Perhaps, but the Secret Service can't say after the fact that perhaps they should have reacted more decisively before the person blew up the whole street. In this environment, where we want nobody to ever be hurt...no single event can go without a lawsuit, a cry for more prevention etc. what does the public expect from our law enforcement protecting the president? No shootings of individuals or no bombings killing hundreds?

As an aside, they did a terrible job of blocking her car in and the video of them chasing her around the fountain was Sellers-esque. Why the second police car went around the circle instead of just blocking her exit from the circle is an example that in the heat of the moment, not everybody can think with armchair QB accuracy.

If they block her car in effectively, I suspect they figure out she is an upset mother, not a terrorist.
 
pirate said:
The question is: What were they supposed to do according to those who had time to think these things out? Meaning, someplace there is a policy, did they follow it? Why is that the policy? Did they say that officers should disregard the proportion of 1 person to many officers if the person is driving a vehicle and it is not known if the vehicle could be carrying a baby, a bomb, or both.

In terms of the article suggesting the driver may not have presented a real risk...sure, until she detonates a trunk load of fertilizer and kills 100 people, then everyone wants to know why they didn't neutralize her when they had the chance.

Is that the "terrorists winning"? Perhaps, but the Secret Service can't say after the fact that perhaps they should have reacted more decisively before the person blew up the whole street. In this environment, where we want nobody to ever be hurt...no single event can go without a lawsuit, a cry for more prevention etc. what does the public expect from our law enforcement protecting the president? No shootings of individuals or no bombings killing hundreds?

As an aside, they did a terrible job of blocking her car in and the video of them chasing her around the fountain was Sellers-esque. Why the second police car went around the circle instead of just blocking her exit from the circle is an example that in the heat of the moment, not everybody can think with armchair QB accuracy.

If they block her car in effectively, I suspect they figure out she is an upset mother, not a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Having been there, done that and got the t-shirt I could not have said it better.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

So, the Boner admits to being a liar after all!

"On the budget impasse, the speaker acknowledged that in July he had gone to the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and offered to have the House pass a clean financing resolution. His proposal would have set spending levels $70 billion lower than Democrats wanted, but would have had no contentious add-ons like changing the health care law.


Democrats accepted, but they say that Mr. Boehner then reneged under pressure from Tea Party conservatives."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101090944

That's great. Make a deal and then reneg on it because you don't have the balls to stand up to 30 knuckledraggers in your own caucus. Funny because he did the same thing with the congressional staffers health care, demanding in public that it not be done while working in private to allow employer contributions for staffers buying insurance on the exchanges. And Obama's supposed to negotiate with this guy?

Once again, conservatives have the credibility of sh ! t and the popularity of used car salesmen. Anybody wonder why?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Rover said:
So, the Boner admits to being a liar after all!

"On the budget impasse, the speaker acknowledged that in July he had gone to the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and offered to have the House pass a clean financing resolution. His proposal would have set spending levels $70 billion lower than Democrats wanted, but would have had no contentious add-ons like changing the health care law.


Democrats accepted, but they say that Mr. Boehner then reneged under pressure from Tea Party conservatives."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101090944

That's great. Make a deal and then reneg on it because you don't have the balls to stand up to 30 knuckledraggers in your own caucus. Funny because he did the same thing with the congressional staffers health care, demanding in public that it not be done while working in private to allow employer contributions for staffers buying insurance on the exchanges. And Obama's supposed to negotiate with this guy?

Once again, conservatives have the credibility of sh ! t and the popularity of used car salesmen. Anybody wonder why?
Click to expand...

That should have been being reported immediately during the countdown to the shutdown. It was common knowledge. The media gave the Republicans cover on it and not enough people know about it.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

SteveP said:
Working today at the PSU Sports Museum when a phalanx of black SUVs roll up. Out pops the AG himself. Checking out the school with his daughter on parents weekend.

I have no respect for him, but I do for the position so I shook his hand and welcomed him.

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/544088_10152232017684307_576448966_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Upon further review..... :mad:

The ATF agent who blew the whistle on Operation Fast and Furious has been denied permission to write a book on the botched anti-gun trafficking sting "because it would have a negative impact on morale," according to the very agency responsible for the scandal.
Click to expand...
 
ScoobyDoo said:
That should have been being reported immediately during the countdown to the shutdown. It was common knowledge. The media gave the Republicans cover on it and not enough people know about it.
Click to expand...

The lack of honestly is breathtaking. I don't recall Republicans running on a "we'll default if we have to in order to stop Obamacare" platform in the elections last year. Anyone considering a vote for a Republican for federal office needs to give this some thought. Not saying don't ever vote that way, but think about if they're going to say all the right things up to election day, then once in office start down a radical destructive path. Its sorta like what happened in NC but on a national scale. I believe that guy ran on a business platform, not an anti-abortion anti-voting rights one.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Rover said:
The lack of honestly is breathtaking. I don't recall Republicans running on a "we'll default if we have to in order to stop Obamacare" platform in the elections last year. Anyone considering a vote for a Republican for federal office needs to give this some thought. Not saying don't ever vote that way, but think about if they're going to say all the right things up to election day, then once in office start down a radical destructive path. Its sorta like what happened in NC but on a national scale. I believe that guy ran on a business platform, not an anti-abortion anti-voting rights one.
Click to expand...


Same thing happened here in Wisconsin where we also now have vaginal ultrasounds to go along with the union busting, school vouchers and DNR castrating.


That's why I'd pretty much never vote Republican again as their ideas that I agree with are far outweighed by the crap that they'll really do once they get power. I don't trust their motives.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Gurtholfin said:
Same thing happened here in Wisconsin where we also now have vaginal ultrasounds to go along with the union busting, school vouchers and DNR castrating.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's bait and switch. They're not running on social issues but they are governing on them.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Rover said:
The lack of honestly is breathtaking. I don't recall Republicans running on a "we'll default if we have to in order to stop Obamacare" platform in the elections last year. Anyone considering a vote for a Republican for federal office needs to give this some thought. Not saying don't ever vote that way, but think about if they're going to say all the right things up to election day, then once in office start down a radical destructive path. Its sorta like what happened in NC but on a national scale. I believe that guy ran on a business platform, not an anti-abortion anti-voting rights one.
Click to expand...

The Gov promised before the election that he would not sign a bill that restricted abortion. However, when Republicans attached abortion restrictions to a motorcycle safety bill (because the two issues align so closely) he signed it.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

ScoobyDoo said:
Exactly. It's bait and switch. They're not running on social issues but they are governing on them.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much as "Jobs" as it is "hand-jobs" - at least in Virginia.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Can I burn down your house?

No

Just the 2nd floor?

No

Garage?

No

Let's talk about what I can burn down.

No

YOU AREN'T COMPROMISING!</p>— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) <a href="https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/statuses/385468973971951616">October 2, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top