This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Luciana
Pages: 1 ... 394395396 397398 ... 441
11851
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:06:38 PM »
I might vote for Rand Paul to be honest. Keeping an eye on him.
Only problem is that I also am strongly in favor for nationalized health care.
Yeah. Rand Paul is seeming better the more I look at his views.
I have no desire to vote for Hillary, and was honestly considering going 3rd party.
But he also wants "small government" which means no nationalized health care, and we're the only developed western nation to not have it. At least not on the scale places like Europe does.
11852
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:05:36 PM »
I've seen numerous reports though saying that this bill hasn't even once caught a terrorist act. Again, why are you using that narrow metric? That isn't the only thing which defines the efficacy of intelligence, and it's a bad metric nonetheless because there rarely ever is a "smoking-gun" you can point to; intelligence gathering is the tedious construction of numerous matrices, not the hangman's noose for every wrongdoer.
I'm kinda using only that point because that's the NSA's excuse for collecting the data. Saying they'll keep us safe by doing this, but it hasn't done a single thing.
11853
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:01:31 PM »
All reports say the same thing.
That's just false. The collection of metadata is recognised, virtually across the board in the intelligence community, as valuable.
I've seen numerous reports though saying that this bill hasn't even once caught a terrorist act. They WOULD eventually report it to justify it, but since it's been around I haven't seen or heard anything.
11854
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:00:24 PM »
I might vote for Rand Paul to be honest. Keeping an eye on him.
Only problem is that I also am strongly in favor for nationalized health care.
11855
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:49:00 PM »
Fair enough, but many would argue you needed that in wartime.
Regardless, it's no secret that if the founding fathers were around, they'd call for revolution.
Which circles back to my point that things can still be useful even if their intentions are not explicitly fulfilled.
Yeah but I guess SOME of the constitution still works. Freedom of speech, press, and other shit. the NSA thing has failed to do anything as of yet, so I don't really see a point. All reports say the same thing.
11856
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:47:44 PM »
Ronda Rousey is pretty cute btw
11857
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:46:26 PM »
LOL
if you're gonna do it, do it right. Also it's
L O L
O
L
pleb
Get the fuck out of the Serious forum with your ignorance and weeb shit.
Now you sound mad in your words LOL
11858
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:45:53 PM »
Still has my vote.
You're fucking pathetic.
FUCKING PATHETIC!!!!!
11859
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:45:19 PM »
But the Constitution protects American's human rights, sooo... kinda a bad example.
It's also supposed to prevent executive over-reach, which has been happening pretty much constantly since FDR.
Fair enough, but many would argue you needed that in wartime. Regardless, it's no secret that if the founding fathers were around, they'd call for revolution.
11860
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:44:04 PM »
Seeing as this bill has never once caught or held up a terrorist act, then yes. I think it needs to end.
If it's not doing what it's intended for, it doesn't need to be around.
Because the NSA is going to release how many terrorists and attacks they've stopped so the terrorists can't catch on to how they're stopping them.
I swear it's fucking disgusting just how brain dead the majority of you are, and you can't help just vomiting your uneducated bullshit all over the place.
The irony
Out of toilet paper. The irony ;~;
11861
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:43:02 PM »
Seeing as this bill has never once caught or held up a terrorist act, then yes. I think it needs to end.
If it's not doing what it's intended for, it doesn't need to be around.
Sweet, let's abolish the Constitution since it's clearly failed to do what it intended.
The only way you've even managed to justify ending the programme is by taking a very narrow view of its efficacy; I really don't care if Bush ran around promising an end to domestic terrorism. If the programme provides a net benefit to security and intelligence, then it deserves to stay.
But the Constitution protects American's human rights, sooo... kinda a bad example.
11862
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:41:45 PM »
LOL
if you're gonna do it, do it right. Also it's L O L O L pleb
11863
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:39:11 PM »
> SJW
I'll default to Cindy on this one to handle what I'll say as well. Challenger I hope you never have kids.
11864
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:33:58 PM »
The fact that men are stronger on-average than women means that women can't be as physically fit as men from a military standpoint!!!!
Duhhhh
That's not even my biggest worry though. Saying women can't kill as well, or feel more for their children is just retarded.
11865
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:29:26 PM »
You really are just daft.
This is the Serious forum, Einstein. If you don't have a proper rebuttal to try and argue your point of view with, vacate the forum.
We don't need any more people that can only argue by repeating their rebutted argument over and over then resort to petty insults.
Your rebuttals consist of repeating the same first post when faced with evidence women fight and just "LOL".
I'm just calling you daft because you really are just retarded.
I never said women can't fight. I said the majority of women are terrible at it.
Fact.
Your logic here is that it's because women get raped. That alone is proving why you're off the deep end. The Republican party needs sexist idgits like you.
11866
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:21:30 PM »
You really are just daft.
This is the Serious forum, Einstein. If you don't have a proper rebuttal to try and argue your point of view with, vacate the forum.
We don't need any more people that can only argue by repeating their rebutted argument over and over then resort to petty insults.
Your rebuttals consist of repeating the same first post when faced with evidence women fight and just "LOL". I'm just calling you daft because you really are just retarded.
11867
« on: May 31, 2015, 11:53:14 AM »
You really are just daft.
11868
« on: May 31, 2015, 11:40:26 AM »
Seeing as this bill has never once caught or held up a terrorist act, then yes. I think it needs to end.
If it's not doing what it's intended for, it doesn't need to be around.
11869
« on: May 31, 2015, 11:38:54 AM »
"But they're women so I bet their kill count was lower."
11870
« on: May 31, 2015, 11:38:00 AM »
I think I'm beginning to understand how Challenger works here.
Laugh at things without making statements behind em and look incredibly stupid.
11871
« on: May 31, 2015, 11:35:04 AM »
A woman would fall for it easier than a man.
Lol "A woman would fall for it more than men already fall for it, and I have no statistical evidence to prove it, but I'll make it sound like fact anyway." It's called having empathy. Both male and female have it. Unless you're a sociopath or have been running into kids blowing you up left and right, of course you will hesitate. Man AND woman would, there is no difference on that.
11872
« on: May 31, 2015, 11:33:51 AM »
Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.
There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it.
"I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."
Nothing's wrong with black folks though. I'm not being racist.
Women don't have the killer instinct, stamina, physical and mental strength etc.
I'm well aware women aren't as physical strong as males. That's just common sense and biology.
And that's extremely important if you need to carry your buddy out of the shit so he doesn't get captured.
But killer instinct and mental strength? You're sounding little sexist. You say this like a woman can't fight or kill as like a man, but they easily can. LOL
Sorry, but no. That's how this species is. The females would stay back and the males would go out and kill for food. Now that we're a little more civilized, a lot of males don't really have that killer instinct anymore and females sure as hell aren't tough enough to be on the frontline.
Lots of women could easily kick anyone's asses here. Stop being so ignorant, mang. Because everybody here is a fucking dweeb excluding like 3 or 4 people.
Kicking someone's ass =/= Killing someone
Taking a life is not easy. It's even less easy for a female. I don't trust a female to not be tricked by a little kid crying then turning out to have a grenade because her motherly instincts kick in and she let her guard down.
I'm disregarding front line shit at this point (as I said before) because you just sound so blatantly sexist. You still sound incredibly dumb saying women don't have killer instinct. That whole "man hunting female staying behind" is a terrible excuse to try and support your argument. If you don't think women can't kill people like men, you really are stupid.
11873
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:03:27 AM »
Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.
There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it.
"I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."
Nothing's wrong with black folks though. I'm not being racist.
Women don't have the killer instinct, stamina, physical and mental strength etc.
I'm well aware women aren't as physical strong as males. That's just common sense and biology.
But killer instinct and mental strength? You're sounding little sexist. You say this like a woman can't fight or kill as like a man, but they easily can. Lots of women could easily kick anyone's asses here. Stop being so ignorant, mang.
This is actually a fair point. History even dictates it. Women serial killers. Or murderers. They do exist. In fair lower quantities than men. But it doesn't negate the presence. People are all wired differently and like it or no, there are exceptions to both cases.
So, the rule should stand. If any woman can meet the military standard, then they're in.
Yeah I'm not even talking about women on infantry at this point, so much as just blatant sexism.
Oh well sorry, my apologies. Let me just amputate a very small portion of my post that's really rather irrelevant to the main body to make it fit with your current line of thought.
No I got you lol. I just didn't wanna seem like I was coming off as "women are just as good as men!" I think they are, but I mean, there are just some things that naturally women can't match men in, and vice versa. Nothing sexist or wrong about it.
11874
« on: May 30, 2015, 10:45:49 PM »
Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.
There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it.
"I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."
Nothing's wrong with black folks though. I'm not being racist.
Women don't have the killer instinct, stamina, physical and mental strength etc.
I'm well aware women aren't as physical strong as males. That's just common sense and biology.
But killer instinct and mental strength? You're sounding little sexist. You say this like a woman can't fight or kill as like a man, but they easily can. Lots of women could easily kick anyone's asses here. Stop being so ignorant, mang.
This is actually a fair point. History even dictates it. Women serial killers. Or murderers. They do exist. In fair lower quantities than men. But it doesn't negate the presence. People are all wired differently and like it or no, there are exceptions to both cases.
So, the rule should stand. If any woman can meet the military standard, then they're in.
Yeah I'm not even talking about women on infantry at this point, so much as just blatant sexism.
11875
« on: May 30, 2015, 10:01:29 PM »
Well sexing her u is pretty nasty, m8.
Anyway, reason she's liked is for two raisins.
1. Bush's two terms and modern republicans are seen as backwards, thus making it easier for Dems to appeal to the masses
2. Her husband is basically the modern day FDR
11876
« on: May 30, 2015, 09:56:52 PM »
Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.
There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it.
"I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."
Nothing's wrong with black folks though. I'm not being racist.
Women don't have the killer instinct, stamina, physical and mental strength etc.
I'm well aware women aren't as physical strong as males. That's just common sense and biology. But killer instinct and mental strength? You're sounding little sexist. You say this like a woman can't fight or kill as like a man, but they easily can. Lots of women could easily kick anyone's asses here. Stop being so ignorant, mang.
11877
« on: May 30, 2015, 09:31:22 PM »
Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.
There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it. "I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."
11878
« on: May 30, 2015, 09:26:55 PM »
i was bored
11879
« on: May 30, 2015, 09:26:17 PM »
11880
« on: May 30, 2015, 09:23:27 PM »
Do I have to explain this again?
Jesus Christ
I missed this so If you don't I'll proceed to recite "Tru's anus".
Pages: 1 ... 394395396 397398 ... 441
|
Show Posts
