• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

At least 25 wounded in New York City blast

BobStackFan4Life said:
You think we did it on purpose?
Click to expand...

yeah, i think the US wanted to send a message to ISIS that we're ruthless and will put down our own if they're not willing to win at all costs. You're familiar with the Roman punishment of decimation, i presume.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
yeah, i think the US wanted to send a message to ISIS that we're ruthless and will put down our own if they're not willing to win at all costs. You're familiar with the Roman punishment of decimation, i presume.
Click to expand...
Well, I disagree, and am not all that familiar with what the Roman Empire did. I mean, I'm sort of familiar (I saw Bob Guccione's x-rated version of Caligula), but not familiar with that.
 
indeed

Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by senior commanders in the Roman Army to punish units or large groups guilty of capital offences, such as mutiny or desertion. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".[1] The procedure was a pragmatic attempt to balance the need to punish serious offences with the realities of managing a large group of offenders.[2]
Click to expand...
 
MysteryMen said:
Not sure I'd like to go down this rabbit hole, but I'd like to use this and the Minnesota attacks as Exhibit A to counter the gun-nuts: "if they banned guns they'd just use something else" line.

No deaths out of all of this when they used something else
Click to expand...

Good thing they didn't think to use a truck. (or an airplane for that matter)
 
beatrix said:
Post-lunch sleeps.. so I may be reading this wrong .. but your exhibit A doesn't counter the 'gun-nut assertions'.. it supports it. They *did* use something else.
Click to expand...

Right, they did use something else and it didn't kill anybody. That's the point, it's a hell of a lot harder to kill people without a gun than with one. Which is an argument for not having them
 
knowell said:
Good thing they didn't think to use a truck. (or an airplane for that matter)
Click to expand...

This proceeds from the false premise that it is just as easy to use a truck or an airplane to kill people as it is to use a gun
 
DistrictDeacon said:
You're all forgetting that Trump has time and again donated other people's money to charity.
Click to expand...

Clinton is any better? They are both awful human beings. By any sincere measurement they are both terrible. It's embarrassing to watch trump and Clinton defenders go back and forth on which human being is worse. They are both awful. Deal with reality.

Did I mention that Hilary and trump are both terrible people? Cause if I didn't I want to make that clear. They both are interested in only the promotion of self. Any attempts to appear altruistic are merely tools to advance themselves or their agenda. They are miserable human beings who don't deserve to be elected dog catcher much less president of the United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wrangor said:
Clinton is any better? They are both awful human beings. By any sincere measurement they are both terrible. It's embarrassing to watch trump and Clinton defenders go back and forth on which human being is worse. They are both awful. Deal with reality.

Did I mention that Hilary and trump are both terrible people? Cause if I didn't I want to make that clear. They both are interested in only the promotion of self. Any attempts to appear altruistic are merely tools to advance themselves or their agenda. They are miserable human beings who don't deserve to be elected dog catcher much less president of the United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Congrats on buying the Fox News talking points hook, line, and sinker.
 
Wrangor said:
Clinton is any better? They are both awful human beings. By any sincere measurement they are both terrible. It's embarrassing to watch trump and Clinton defenders go back and forth on which human being is worse. They are both awful. Deal with reality.

Did I mention that Hilary and trump are both terrible people? Cause if I didn't I want to make that clear. They both are interested in only the promotion of self. Any attempts to appear altruistic are merely tools to advance themselves or their agenda. They are miserable human beings who don't deserve to be elected dog catcher much less president of the United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Of course, one of these terrible persons can point to multiple instances of public service in her past, and the other one, well.................
 
So...Trump was right about this dude, wasn't he?
 
ChrisL68 said:
Of course, one of these terrible persons can point to multiple instances of public service in her past, and the other one, well.................
Click to expand...

Jerry sandusky has more experience with children than you do. Sometimes experience is overrated
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Congrats on buying the Fox News talking points hook, line, and sinker.
Click to expand...

I have literally never once watched an entire episode of anything on Fox News in my entire life. The closest it ever gets to me is playing in the background at the gym, but I always turn the channel in the room I am lifting (massive) weights in. Hard to buy into something you have never watched.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Of course, one of these terrible persons can point to multiple instances of public service in her past, and the other one, well.................
Click to expand...

I value her public service in the same light I view Trump's charitable donations. They are merely tools for self aggrandizement. Her public service was merely a means to gain power and influence. That isn't public service. That is using the public to serve oneself. Trust me, Trump is no better, but they are two sides of the same coin. Trump used money to gain power, and Clinton used politics. But they are both interested in only themselves which is why they were such powerful allies for so many years.
 
Wrangor said:
I value her public service in the same light I view Trump's charitable donations. They are merely tools for self aggrandizement. Her public service was merely a means to gain power and influence. That isn't public service. That is using the public to serve oneself.
Click to expand...


What Trump charitable donations? The ones where he took other people's money, donated it and claimed it for himself?

Clinton has been involved in public service since she was on law school. The distinction you are using is one that you can indiscriminately use against anybody you are prone to dislike short of Mother Teresa.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top