Racial Slurs

[Mr. Flopnuts]

We're having some posts being reported for the use of racial slurs in this forum. While it is widely known that there is some racism that goes on in this forum, those users have found a way to dance around the issue enough that the majority of moderators of this website have deemed the behavior fine for now.

It's really not okay to me at all. I don't believe that people of color should be subjected to that shit over political affiliations. That said, I'm a firm believer in a majority consensus so it is what it is at this point.

That said, overtly racial slurs will result in bannings. It is a bullet point in the TOS of this website, and not much is out of bounds. One user has already been banned, and another one has been warned. If you insist on trying to dance around racist comments, please be prepared for a vacation if you use a term that is deemed racist by the moderators. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

I agree, the sad part is the Liberals either do not think there is anything wrong or turning a blind eye & deaf ear with any of it.

You agree with her that we should not have gone into Libya?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

I agree, the sad part is the Liberals either do not think there is anything wrong or turning a blind eye & deaf ear with any of it.

Because when it's their guy's invasion, military strikes or war are okay to many of them.

Don't forget that Republicans like Lindsey Graham,Charles Krauthammer, McCain supported the Libya intervention too. Even Marc Rubio. Now radical Islamists allied with al-Qaeda have been installed in Tripoli and Benghazi using NATO air power and all three of them were thrilled about it. These are your classic NeoCons.These guys need to go.

A war on Iran will benefit Israel and SA—not us. Our solidiers blood will be spilled and our treasury will be even worse off—as well as the rest of the country.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

You agree with her that we should not have gone into Libya?

No, we should have already been out of the embassy and consulates. If our allies were smart enough to pull out before it got heated, we should have been leading them, not following.

Product of a failed administration ...... Don't you agree ?

Or will you not answer this one ?

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Because when it's their guy's invasion, military strikes or war are okay to many of them.

Don't forget that Republicans like Lindsey Graham,Charles Krauthammer, McCain supported the Libya intervention too. Even Marc Rubio. Now radical Islamists allied with al-Qaeda have been installed in Tripoli and Benghazi using NATO air power and all three of them were thrilled about it. These are your classic NeoCons.These guys need to go.

A war on Iran will benefit Israel and SA—not us. Our solidiers blood will be spilled and our treasury will be even worse off—as well as the rest of the country.

Is a nuclear Iran a safe option ?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

Is a nuclear Iran a safe option ?

The idiot you are talking to is pro Iran~

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

No, we should have already been out of the embassy and consulates. If our allies were smart enough to pull out before it got heated, we should have been leading them, not following.

Product of a failed administration ...... Don't you agree ?

Or will you not answer this one ?

So you uhhh didn't agree with her.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

Is a nuclear Iran a safe option ?

That's a hypothetical. Israeli and even US intel consensus is that they're not. It's a third rate military power. But the way some people are acting in our govt, they could be pushed into becoming one.

I prefer that no additional countries get nuclear weapons. But I do think MADD works. Currently, Pakistan is more of a nuclear threat and is now an US enemy.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's a hypothetical. Israeli and even US intel consensus is that they're not. It's a third rate military power. But the way some people are acting in our govt, they could be pushed into becoming one.

I prefer that no additional countries get nuclear weapons. But I do think MADD works. Currently, Pakistan is more of a nuclear threat and is now an US enemy.

Well maybe not....


Iran has expanded its enrichment capacity and is enriching uranium at a pace that would bring it to what Israel has declared an unacceptable red line in just over seven months, according to a report by the UN nuclear watchdog.

The International Atomic Energy Agency also found that Iranian technicians had removed the fuel rods from the country’s only functioning nuclear power station at Bushehr, suggesting the new reactor has serious problems. Iran did not tell IAEA inspectors what those problems were.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear programme was released just days before the expected launch of a new diplomatic initiative to resolve the international impasse over the issue.

It also comes soon after Israeli official stated that the red line drawn by Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, during his UN appearance in September, represented 240kg of 20%-enriched uranium, enough to make a warhead if further enriched to weapons grade.

The sensitivity of 20% uranium figure is that it can be turned into weapons grade relatively fast and easily.

The last time the IAEA inspectors drew up a report, three months ago, Iran had made 189kg of 20% uranium but had used nearly 100kg for civilian purposes, leaving an outstanding 96kg.

Keep reading…http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...hment-red-line

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Well maybe not....


Iran has expanded its enrichment capacity and is enriching uranium at a pace that would bring it to what Israel has declared an unacceptable red line in just over seven months, according to a report by the UN nuclear watchdog.

The International Atomic Energy Agency also found that Iranian technicians had removed the fuel rods from the country’s only functioning nuclear power station at Bushehr, suggesting the new reactor has serious problems. Iran did not tell IAEA inspectors what those problems were.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear programme was released just days before the expected launch of a new diplomatic initiative to resolve the international impasse over the issue.

It also comes soon after Israeli official stated that the red line drawn by Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, during his UN appearance in September, represented 240kg of 20%-enriched uranium, enough to make a warhead if further enriched to weapons grade.

The sensitivity of 20% uranium figure is that it can be turned into weapons grade relatively fast and easily.

The last time the IAEA inspectors drew up a report, three months ago, Iran had made 189kg of 20% uranium but had used nearly 100kg for civilian purposes, leaving an outstanding 96kg.

Keep reading…http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...hment-red-line

Nope. That's been debunked too. It's here in other threads.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

So you uhhh didn't agree with her.

I was on record for saying a long time ago we shouldn't fool with Libya. Once there, we didn't leave fast enough, got kicked in the teeth with 4 dead Americans because of a failed leader.

What's you take on going to Libya and leaving with 4 dead Americans due to the inability of our current administration to get them help before and during the attacks?

Grow a pair of balls Zach and answer that question, we want your take!

[BucEyedPea]

"But all you are is mean
All you are is mean and a liar and pathetic...
And mean, and mean, and mean, and mean"

[munkey]

This thread has "Epic Fail" written all over it...

[Brock]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

I was on record for saying a long time ago we should fool with Libya. Once there, we didn't leave fast enough, got kicked in the teeth with 4 dead Americans because of a failed leader.

What's you take on going to Libya and leaving with 4 dead Americans due to the inability of our current administration to get them help before and during the attacks?

Grow a pair of balls Zach and answer that question, we want you take!

Outrage over 4 dead americans in Libya, but 4000 americans dead in Iraq a necessary sacrifice.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

I was on record for saying a long time ago we should fool with Libya. Once there, we didn't leave fast enough, got kicked in the teeth with 4 dead Americans because of a failed leader.

What's you take on going to Libya and leaving with 4 dead Americans due to the inability of our current administration to get them help before and during the attacks?

I'm surprised you feel that way, since Bush accepted him once again as an ally. Gaddafi even got rid of his nukes. See where that got him?

You realize that as a NATO operation, it's under the UN. I take it you think we should police the world under global governance. If that is the case, don't you think this could be done to us someday?

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I'm surprised you feel that way, since Bush accepted him once again as an ally. Gaddafi even got rid of his nukes. See where that got him?

You realize that as a NATO operation, it's under the UN. I take it you think we should police the world under global governance. If that is the case, don't you think this could be done to us someday?

Gaddafi was a rouge dictator anyway and what happened over Lockerbee ( spelling ) was by him, screw Gaddafi, he got what he needed, just later than sooner.