DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on May 24, 2013, 01:39:21 AM
-
US road bridge collapses into Skagit River, Washington
First images from the scene of the river showed cars in the water
Part of a road bridge has collapsed into the Skagit River in the US state of Washington, officials say.
Police said some vehicles were in the water after a section of the Interstate 5 highway collapsed.
The four-lane bridge is near Mount Vernon, about half way between the state's main city Seattle and the Canadian city of Vancouver.
A state trooper reported that cars and people were in the water but it is not known if there are any casualties.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22650268 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22650268)
-
And this is specifically "Republican neglect", how again?
-
*cue the crickets*
-
*cue more crickets*
-
Last I heard, this particular bridge was not rotten or neglected.
Martin adds that the bridge, which was built in 1955, was not on a "watch list" for spans considered to be dangerous or in need of immediate attention. But, according to the Times:
"The bridge is classified as a 'fracture critical' bridge by the National Bridge Inventory.
"That means one major structural [failure] can ruin the entire bridge, as compared with a bridge that has redundant features that allow one member to fail without destroying the entire structure."
That inventory also lists the bridge's type of construction as "functionally obsolete," which KING-TV in Seattle says means "the design is outdated, such as having narrow shoulders."
The newspaper adds that "the bridge is used by an average of about 70,000 vehicles per day, 12 percent of which are trucks."
Updated at 5:35 p.m. ET. Officials Blame Semi-Trailer For Collapse.
Washington State Patrol spokesman says the "sequence of events" that led to the bridge collapse was set in motion by a semi-trailer with an oversized load hitting a support beam.
-
So....I guess we can take from this that the original charge, per the title, was a complete hoax. Glad we got that cleared up 8)
-
So....I guess we can take from this that the original charge, per the title, was a complete hoax. Glad we got that cleared up 8)
Axelrod blamed the GOP. Though i seem to recall one of the stimuli packages was aimed at infrastructure. This bridge apparently didn't make the cut.
And i would think the bridge would be a state responsibility. Don't recall Washington being a red state.
-
Indeed
-
Fortunately Obama hasn't neglected our military, like Bush lied and people died did, or that would have collapsed also. Hopefully we'll elect another Democrat in 2016 so that we can continue to remain as strong in that regard.
BSB
-
The bridge is on I-5, a major Interstate highway. The collapse occurred when a large truck rammed one of the girders.
-
The bridge is on I-5, a major Interstate highway. The collapse occurred when a large truck rammed one of the girders.
Was the driver of the truck a Republican?
-
Fortunately Obama hasn't neglected our military, like Bush lied and people died did, or that would have collapsed also. Hopefully we'll elect another Democrat in 2016 so that we can continue to remain as strong in that regard.
BSB
We'll go ahead and skip the erroneous deflection reference to the Bush lied crap, since that was layed to rest long ago, and go back to the original question, that not so surprisingly remains unanswered........ this is specifically "Republican neglect", how again?
Shall we go ahead and cue the crickets now?
-
Seems obvious to me that if Obama's budget kept the military strong then it is Obama's budget that kept the infrastructure weak.
But then again it seem obvious that this thread is not about budgets at all.
It is about helping Buddhists stay on their path.
-
Indeed
-
Well, keeping the military strong doesn't necessarily require tinkering with the budget. Bush lied and people died left the military in shambles out of improper use. Obama has strengthen the military by using it properly. The military is a tool that requires reading the instructions before use. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, all apparently suffered from dyslexia.
BSB
-
..And again with the Bush lied garbage that was debunked ever so long ago. But hey, if it makes you feel better as a Buddah, trying to deflect from backing up your own original, and apparently hoax of an accusation, go for it
*cue the crickets*
-
What does a man who states that the Navy doesn't need as many ships as it used to because the Navy doesn't use as many horses and bayonettes as it used to really know about the maintenence of the armed forces?
-
A hell of a lot more than you.
BSB
-
Really?
If I were asked about the necessacery number of ships , I would not answer with the recent invention of submarines and carriers.
I might not make a perfect or correct answer , but I think I could make an answer that was not a nonsequiter.
The only thing more disapointing is that the asker of that question did not shoot this fish in its barrell.
-
Sirs claims to "know" soooo many things that are totally untrue. He is a huge whacking JOKE.
The Navy does not need as many ships, because the rest of the world's navies have shrunk. Perhaps we need more hospital ships and more ships to support drones. Clearly we need no more battleships.
-
See?
Even XO can make a better answer than our commander in cheif could.
-
Sirs claims to "know" soooo many things that are totally untrue.
So, provide just ONE example. Go for it
He is a huge whacking JOKE.
Jokes are largely relegated to folks building responses out of strawmen, arguing points never made, and throwing insult after insult........like the one above. Along the lines of a proper diet, "you are what you type"
Clearly we need no more battleships.
*cue the latest strawman*....And who's advocating the need for more battleships??
-
Obama has been CIC for what, 5 years now, but Plane knows more then he does. Jesus Christ, and you wonder why no one bothers to post in here anymore?
BSB
-
And Bush was CnC for 8. Naaa....its crap posts like this (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/why-post-at-all/msg153934/#msg153934) that helps steer folks away, far more than one's educated opinions on the best course of action regarding our military levels
-
Obama has been CIC for what, 5 years now, but Plane knows more then he does. Jesus Christ, and you wonder why no one bothers to post in here anymore?
BSB
Is there a reason to think that President Obama is very knowledgeable of military concerns?
Has there been an Obama Military success that results from an Obama initiative?
Is there an instance of President Obama demonstrating that he knows what the ships he is reducing in number are for?
Has he learned now how to pronounce "Corpsman"?
-
Remember now, Plane is the guy that was advocating that the run of the mill soldier, sailor, or marine, should be able to walk around bases, in the US, with fully loaded firearms. That's how rational he is about military matters.
BSB
-
I am sure that our president knows how to pronounce "corpsman". Who the hell cares?
It is a lot harder to get a country OUT of a war than IN one. The President is getting us out of TWO wars. Has any president ever done that?
And Juniorbush & Company DID tell a bunch of lies to get this country into Iraq. Sirs is too full of shit to see this, and he will ever remain full of it. Shit is to sirs as potatoes are to Mr Potatohead.
-
So, not only can Xo NOT provide some example of sirs "knowing everything" that isn't true, he's now going to parrot the already debunked notion that Bush lied/people died crap without any support either. And with the SOP use of insults to boot. Priceless
Here's a far more valid claim...Obama lied, the country died
-
I am sure that our president knows how to pronounce "corpsman". Who the hell cares?
It is a lot harder to get a country OUT of a war than IN one. The President is getting us out of TWO wars. Has any president ever done that?
And Juniorbush & Company DID tell a bunch of lies to get this country into Iraq. Sirs is too full of shit to see this, and he will ever remain full of it. Shit is to sirs as potatoes are to Mr Potatohead.
I think that the President is going to learn that a war may start when one side declaires it , but a war is not over untill both sides accept it, aaaaand ... he is learning this the hard way.
XO you answered the question in question much better than Barak Obama did, can you type fast enough to operate a teleprompter? I see a good job for you where you fill a real need.
-
Remember now, Plane is the guy that was advocating that the run of the mill soldier, sailor, or marine, should be able to walk around bases, in the US, with fully loaded firearms. That's how rational he is about military matters.
BSB
State in the clear why giving a soldier a wepon is a bad idea.
-
I am sure that our president knows how to pronounce "corpsman". Who the hell cares?
It is a lot harder to get a country OUT of a war than IN one. The President is getting us out of TWO wars. Has any president ever done that?
I think that the President is going to learn that a war may start when one side declaires it , but a war is not over untill both sides accept it, aaaaand ... he is learning this the hard way.
XO you answered the question in question much better than Barak Obama did, can you type fast enough to operate a teleprompter? I see a good job for you where you fill a real need.
Touche', Plane 8)
-
There is no touché. Gimme a break. President Obama is vastly better than Juniorbush, and more to the point, better than Insane McCain or Moneybags Romney.
-
It's always nice to know how much Plane, or anyone else I happen to give a touche' to, is spot on, when Xo comes out immediately to claim how it wasn't 8)
Obama lied, the Country died
-
Mucking Foron.
-
Like clockwork 8)
-
"State in the clear why giving a soldier a wepon is a bad idea."
Why is it a bad idea to let every GI Joe and Mac Marine run around U.S. bases with fully loaded firearms? Gee, I can't imagine?
Not only do friends and family of people like this poster suffer, but society at large suffers. They're a drag on all who work toward the making of an intelligent and well ordered republic.
BSB
-
Are GI Joes and Mac Marines fully armed at base camps overseas?
-
"State in the clear why giving a soldier a wepon is a bad idea."
Why is it a bad idea to let every GI Joe and Mac Marine run around U.S. bases with fully loaded firearms? Gee, I can't imagine?
Not only do friends and family of people like this poster suffer, but society at large suffers. They're a drag on all who work toward the making of an intelligent and well ordered republic.
BSB
Does this indeed cause suffering ?
You may imagine that it does, but I cannot see why.
99% of soldiers are quite well trustworthy when armed, and the less than one percent are therefore held in check.
When the very few who wish to be traitors commit sabotage or violence, how does the rest of the brigade being unarmed help?
-
"Are GI Joes and Mac Marines fully armed at base camps overseas?"
Well I'd be very surprised if you didn't know the answer to that question but I'll play along.
Overseas where? Overseas Germany? Overseas South Korea? Overseas Iraq? Overseas Afghanistan? And on what kind of Base? An FOB (Forward Operating Base)? Central Command? Fire support base? And what's the MOS of the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine in question? Are they 11 Bravos? 0311s? Rules, there are all kinds of rules. That's the way an ordered society, and an ordered military works. Rules, laws.
BSB
-
Rules, there are all kinds of rules. That's the way an ordered society, and an ordered military works. Rules, laws.
Rules and laws also change as conditions dictate. Usually when an ordered society ceases to deliver on their promise.
-
"Are GI Joes and Mac Marines fully armed at base camps overseas?"
Rules, there are all kinds of rules. That's the way an ordered society, and an ordered military works. Rules, laws.
BSB
Not really.
Rules are usefull or not , depending on the nature of the rule.
They are all usefull to people who disreguard them and thereby cheat up an advantage.
Disarming soldiers on bases did not stop any wave of crimes , it merely makes them dependant on the SP , AP or contract cops that patroll the base.
Crimerates on base are generally low , both wherre the soldiers have sidearms and where they don't.
-
Well I live in Massachusetts and we are a commonwealth of laws not men. I don't know how dumbass ratwing jesusfreak rednecks run their states.
BSB
==========================
Article XXX [edit]
In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
-
I don't know how dumbass ratwing jesusfreak rednecks run their states.
You should learn. It might pepper your posts with facts instead of simple assertions.
-
Where's the fun in that?
BSB
-
Where's the fun in that?
BSB
If you don't take yourself seriously, why should we?
-
"why should we?"
We[sic] huh. Monolithic are you?
BSB
-
No.
But the question(s) still remain.
-
At one time he could be taken seriously, by all sides of the ideological spetrum. Now that this forum is nothing more than a zen buddha rant ring, I can see why its more fun being intellectually lazy vs dealing/discussing/defending serious issues with facts.
-
Aristotle:
"Law should govern"
"It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws."
-
You mean like the Constitution? You should check that out sometime for some good legal reading. But until that time, hope the zen practice is working out for yas
-
I don't know how dumbass ratwing jesusfreak rednecks run their states.
BSB
==========================
I would say this is an assertion of real fact.
-
sirs' state is run by Democrats, ably governed by Jerry Brown. I doubt if sirs approves. He would prefer a governator or somesuch creature.
The military is wise to prevent soldiers, sailors and Marines to be universally armed on duty. While perhaps 99.9% of them would never fire a weapon, there is always the possibility that one unhinged member of that remaining .01% might do so. If no one is armed, there is a 100% chance that this will not happen, provided all follow the regulations, of course.
It would be a bad idea for every employee of the Pentagon to be packing heat, in my opinion.
-
And sirs state is bleeding to death, ala Greece, by the union beholden Brown, as businesses leave by the boatload, leaving less and less of 'the rich" to pay for everyone else. I do appreciate Xo helping to bring to light what can happen to a state completely controlled by hard core liberal Democrats, thank you very much.
-
"The military is wise to prevent soldiers, sailors and Marines to be universally armed on duty."
Wise is an understatement. The idea is laughable in it's absurdity.
BSB
-
"The military is wise to prevent soldiers, sailors and Marines to be universally armed on duty."
Wise is an understatement. The idea is laughable in it's absurdity.
BSB
Yeah it about as absurd as requiring cops to carry arms. on duty or off.
-
"Yeah it about as absurd as requiring cops to carry arms. on duty or off."
The comparison of an E4 cook at say, Ft Dix NJ, to say, a Boston Police officer, in terms of carrying a loaded weapon around is so absurd it boggles the mind.
BSB
-
Why? Explain please why the cook shouldn't have a similar access? Has he not been trained to use one.....by the military of all folks?
-
Why on earth would want every soldier at Ft Dix to be walking around with a loaded weapon? They didn't even allow that on the major bases in Vietnam, and for good reason. Do you know how dangerous is it is to have every Tom, Dick, and Jane, packing? Do you know how many accidents occur even in a combat infantry unit? Just off the top of my head I can think of two wounded and one killed via firearms accidents in the units I was in. And that only scratches the surface or reasons not to allow it.
The military doesn't allow it because they know better. Don't believe me? Go ask someone in todays military, they'll tell you.
This is really an asinine topic folks.
BSB
-
Why on earth would want every soldier at Ft Dix to be walking around with a loaded weapon?
Why not??
They didn't even allow that on the major bases in Vietnam, and for good reason. Do you know how dangerous is it is to have every Tom, Dick, and Jane, packing? Do you know how many accidents occur even in a combat infantry unit? Just off the top of my head I can think of two wounded and one killed via firearms accidents in the units I was in. And that only scratches the surface or reasons not to allow it.
Ahh, I appreciate you using some facts and experience, vs just trying to convey how superior in knowledge you appear to think yourself to be. So, the biggest reason appears to be some "accident". I suppose from a mathematical standpoint, that makes some sense. Less packing, less accidents.
I can post the same level of facts and experience that produce #'s, in this country such as.....the greatest # of gun crimes occur in areas with the strictest gun laws/restrictions.....with the connected level of decreased gun crime, in areas with more permissive gun laws......that the predominant form of gun used in murders are handguns, not Bushmasters,....and that wonderful recent revelation, that despite the increase in the #'s firearms owned, and more people exercising their right to own a firearm, that we've actually had a DECREASE in violent crime, over that same time.
Outside of Zimmerman, who was the last person with a CCW that "went off" on some mass murder spree??
Glad we had this conversation
-
"superior in knowledge"
When it comes to being around lots of people with loaded weapons my knowledge is superior. But the real superiority lies in the possession of common sense. I've never seen a group so devoid of common sense as you, BT, Plane, and CU4. It's tragic. I can't imagine trying to face the world as handicapped in that regard as you all are. Amazing.
BSB
-
"superior in knowledge"
When it comes to being around lots of people with loaded weapons my knowledge is superior. But the real superiority lies in the possession of common sense.
That's more about experience than knowledge, especially since your focus appears to be on accidents, as the reason folks should be disarmed. Its no wonder we're your equal......you have so little practical grasp of it (common sense) and current reality, as it relates to gun crime, and how exponentially more often guns are used to save a life, than to take one......at least in this country
...and no answer to the last CCW holder that went "nutzo"? Ahhhh, bummers
As I said, glad we had this conversation
-
The people that make the rules in the military are in this case infinitely smarter than the gun-obsessed sirs.
-
Strawman alert!!.....who's talking about military rules? I'm talking about the Constitution. I was merely asking why the military are seen as some 2nd rate persons, unworthy to be allowed to be armed on base. And apparently the answer is they're one big bunch of keystone-cop like soldiers.
-
sirs' state is run by Democrats, ably governed by Jerry Brown. I doubt if sirs approves. He would prefer a governator or somesuch creature.
The military is wise to prevent soldiers, sailors and Marines to be universally armed on duty. While perhaps 99.9% of them would never fire a weapon, there is always the possibility that one unhinged member of that remaining .01% might do so. If no one is armed, there is a 100% chance that this will not happen, provided all follow the regulations, of course.
It would be a bad idea for every employee of the Pentagon to be packing heat, in my opinion.
You are beginning indeed to catch on.
Much better than 99% behave well whether armed or not and less than .1% make trouble armed or not.
But how does a rule against bearing arms handicap someone who wants to break the rules against violence?
Not at all of course, that .01% guy will arm himself and commit his violence and the rules to the contrary are not worth mentioning to him.
The singular thing accomplished is that one has made the common man vunerable to those rare individuals, that is 100% of the effect acheived.
-
touche', Plane 8)
-
"The singular thing accomplished is that one has made the common man vulnerable..."
In fact it's just the opposite. One of the main reasons you don't allow the common soldier to carry a loaded weapon apart from the firing range, or apart from the extremely rare live fire exercise, is to protect him from both himself and other good common soldiers. The fewer armed soldiers you have on a U.S. base the safer the common soldier is. But again, the military knows this. They are experts in the proper use of firearms. They have to be, weapons are a tool of their trade.
BSB
-
When in fact, reality says otherwise, in the U.S. Mass murderers picking locations that are largely gun free zones, cities with the highest gun crimes also have the most restrictive gun ownership laws. Exponentially more lives saved with a gun, than those taken by one. Plane's point is reinforced across the country. I mean, I realize how these facts completely tear down your template of "common sense" B, but that, I'm afraid, is the current reality, that you seem to be wholly attempting to avoid like the plague
-
This isn't a town moron, these are military bases where thousand of men and women are rubbing elbows 24 hours a day. They aren't going to change their weapons safety procedures because of one incident at Ft Hood. The military doesn't panic and go compound an error by making another one.
More shit from sirs.
BSB
-
Speaking of BS, one need only look at the latest deflective sludge.....I'm referring to THE COUNTRY, not specifically military bases. I suppose I can see why the weak Xo-like effort to make it about military bases...tidal wave of facts, reality, and yes, commen sense, to the contrary of one's made up mind regarding guns, so, the best one can do is throw deflective BS, and make this about military bases. When YOU yourself made it painfully clear the big issue is "accidents", as a reason to disarm folks. The less people who have guns, the less accidents. Here's a news flash, ACCIDENTS HAPPEN. You don't deprive folks of their constitutional right based on what might accidentally happen. At least not in this country
OR, is your deflective tact here an effort to advocate that we need to adopt a life of living on a military base. Is that it? Or do you want to make this strictly about people allowed to carry outside of their home, as in a CCW. How's that search coming along for the last CCW holder who went postal??
-
Ha ha, but sirs this is about military bases, and you responded to a post about military bases.
Just more shit from sirs.
BSB
-
Military bases are not the U.S. Rules on military bases are different than laws affecting civilians in the U.S. You don't deprive folks of their constitutional right based on what might accidentally happen. At least not in the U.S.
So, is your tact here an effort to advocate that we, as in the U.S. citizenry, need to adopt a life of living on a military base? Or do you want to make this strictly about people allowed to carry outside of their home, as in a CCW?
-
The effect of rules like this are negative, not positive.
The people obeying the rules are more vunerable thereby.
The people who abandon the rules are handed an unearned advantage.
There may be an illusion produced of safety , but there is no evidence.
-
"The singular thing accomplished is that one has made the common man vulnerable..."
In fact it's just the opposite. One of the main reasons you don't allow the common soldier to carry a loaded weapon apart from the firing range, or apart from the extremely rare live fire exercise, is to protect him from both himself and other good common soldiers. The fewer armed soldiers you have on a U.S. base the safer the common soldier is. But again, the military knows this. They are experts in the proper use of firearms. They have to be, weapons are a tool of their trade.
BSB
I do not feel that you have refuted anything by just restating your opinion without any logical or factual underpinning.
Soldiers are necessacerily armed quite well for training and for combat, what makes them safe from themselves then?
People who can't be trusted by their comrades really should not be soldiers at all.
-
There's nothing to refute. The military doesn't allow for it and for good reason. You're just talking to yourself.
BSB
-
Good thing this country doesn't operate like a military base.....all those accidents
-
military personnel are often under a lot of stress, they tend to be of the age in which people are at their most violent. Such people are more likely to go crazy than the average citizen. The Pentagon wisely decided to prevent such attacks by barring weapons from people who do not need them for their own protection.
-
Priceless.....so those in the military can just go......"postal", anytime, anywhere, because they're just "of that age". Yea, that's why the Pentagon did what they did. :o But so nice to know we have those superior than thou leftists who can decide for others who needs what
-
The Pentagon decided long ago that having soldiers, sailors and Marines packing heat on domestic bases was a dumb idea. The Pentagon, like any employer, has the right to tell its employees that they cannot run about armed.
In this case, I deem that they are smarter than you, sirs.
They are certainly not taking orders from me.
There are even several species of lesser primates that they share this advantage with.
-
The Pentagon decided long ago that having soldiers, sailors and Marines packing heat on domestic bases was a dumb idea.
Yea, BnonameB already address that....they're a bunch of keystone-like cops....accidents abound. You've now added they can go "postal" anytime as well. Interesting hypothetical combination
The Pentagon, like any employer, has the right to tell its employees that they cannot run about armed.
Strange how no one has said otherwise..........can we say "strawman"?
-
At the beginning of the Korean War the Commander of an Airborne Brigade at Fort Hood decided to have a practice night jump somewhere out on the vastness of that fort. The brigade jumped and there were so many injuries, broken legs etc., that the brigade never made it to Korea. The idea of arming soldiers here in the US is made out of the same folly. Practice jumps are made on prepared drop zones. Loaded weapons are used on firing ranges.
BSB
-
Because of course, the military is a bunch of accident prone crazies....or so we're being led to believe
-
Yeah well, the right has lost it. Only a few short years ago I was a Republican, than the right lost their collective mind and I moved on. WMD, mushroom clouds, arming all the soldiers on US bases, the Pee Party, homophobia, it'd be funny if there wasn't so much at stake.
BSB
-
Know-it-all leftists sure have a tragic grasp of what freedom means. It means people have the freedom to choose x. Not that they are to have x (in how you're erroneously trying to portray it in conservative Republicans) or can't have x, because someone else thinks they don't need it (in how liberal Democrats function)
(x is whatever, such as firearms, but you can put pretty much anything else in that spot)
Kinda glad your kind left the GOP. We would rather have folks that truely support the notion of freedom, and what that means
-
There's nothing to refute. The military doesn't allow for it and for good reason. You're just talking to yourself.
BSB
I guess you win by refusing to debate , or think.
-
Only a few short years ago I was a Republican, than the right lost their collective mind and I moved on.
Are you equating the right with Republicans or are you saying the GOP of your youth, the Rockefellers, Lodges, Dirksens, Welds, Nixons and Bush's no longer exists?
-
Well obviously neither Bush1, or Bush2, or Weld, were elected to their top posts while I was in my youth. And obviously the Republican party is to the right of the Democratic party. Any more post U.S. Civil War, states rights, Pee Party, redneck, deep south, questions?
BSB
-
Well obviously neither Bush1, or Bush2, or Weld, were elected to their top posts while I was in my youth. And obviously the Republican party is to the right of the Democratic party. Any more post U.S. Civil War, states rights, Pee Party, redneck, deep south, questions?
BSB
You really didn't answer my question at all. My mistake for showing interest (even temporarily) in what you had to say.
Carry on, take those pot shots from the ridge old timer. Vote your conscience, that is all anyone can really do.
-
"You really didn't answer my question at all."
Sure I did, you just didn't like the facts. And is there any place in here to shoot from besides the ridge? Of course not. That's what these forums are. Their the ridge. That's why you set it up.
BSB
-
I set these forums up because yahoo was abandoning Clubs and i didn't think MSN was going to back their version of clubs over the long haul. Those are the facts.
-
"You really didn't answer my question at all."
Sure I did, you just didn't like the facts.
And what facts are those?.......and please provide some evidence to back them up, not just your say so. If no evidence, then there's no facts, I'm afraid to say
-
I set these forums up because yahoo was abandoning Clubs and i didn't think MSN was going to back their version of clubs over the long haul. Those are the facts.
Yes, that's part of the story. But the other part is that you're a ridge shooter, always have been. Now, sure, I came to these forums and said, ok, that's a game I can play to. But, I gave a lot to these forums. I shared a lot of hard earned knowledge. I'd do that still, but as we both know BT other forms of social media have taken over and this place has emptied out. To bad, but true.
BSB
-
I'd do that still, but as we both know BT other forms of social media have taken over and this place has emptied out. To bad, but true.
I don't see how that justifies this:
Any more post U.S. Civil War, states rights, Pee Party, redneck, deep south, questions?
But if all you are here for is to insult full time active members, i don't see how your contribution is necessary.
-
If want to give me the heave ho, be my guest. Jesus christ, do whatever you want. Good lord BT.
BSB
-
If want to give me the heave ho, be my guest. Jesus christ, do whatever you want. Good lord BT.
BSB
What i would like to see happen are more quality posts and less drive-by insults.
-
I'll do what I can......though I can't promise to be wholly consistent in resisting responding to drive-by insults
-
If want to give me the heave ho, be my guest. Jesus christ, do whatever you want. Good lord BT.
BSB
What i would like to see happen are more quality posts and less drive-by insults.
Ok, that's certainly a reasonable request.
BSB