Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump threatens to pull federal funds for US schools allowing ‘illegal protests’
#31
(03-12-2025, 06:56 AM)Waterboy Wrote: Yeah, who needs enemies when you have friends like our "allies".  Pretty good gig for them when they get free defense and the ability to tariff us to death with none on them.   You're right, we should continue down that path.  lol

Every allied soldier that lost his/her life while standing with us against terror, etc, shows the complete lack of intelligence in your post.

A new low, it's kinda incredible.
Build on 14-3, take back the NFCN, break the ****ing curse. Simple.
Reply

#32
(03-12-2025, 02:17 PM)Zanary Wrote: Every allied soldier that lost his/her life while standing with us against terror, etc, shows the complete lack of intelligence in your post.

A new low, it's kinda incredible.
I guess we still owe the Russians for WW2 under your formula.  I love how you take it to the extreme and you’re still wrong. lol.

(03-12-2025, 02:17 PM)Zanary Wrote: Every allied soldier that lost his/her life while standing with us against terror, etc, shows the complete lack of intelligence in your post.

A new low, it's kinda incredible.
I guess we still owe the Russians for WW2 under your formula.  I love how you take it to the extreme and you’re still wrong. lol. We don’t owe our allies free military protection forever. We can be allies without footing an improportionate % of the bill.
Reply

#33
(03-12-2025, 05:02 PM)Waterboy Wrote: I guess we still owe the Russians for WW2 under your formula.  I love how you take it to the extreme and you’re still wrong. lol.

I guess we still owe the Russians for WW2 under your formula.  I love how you take it to the extreme and you’re still wrong. lol. We don’t owe our allies free military protection forever. We can be allies without footing an improportionate % of the bill.

You going to WWII Russia to defend your "point" is, again, a new low while also a new level of pathetic. Dude, I figured ignoring you for a good many days would help the situation...but yeah, your part is just broken.

Though, given that you've defended the orange stain, of COURSE Russia would be on your mind. That is VERY on brand!

So, again, "free"...involving loss of life, investments of billions (despite what lying pinheads want to believe) and decades with us in real battles...? Not "Free", by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact that you can whine, piteously, for days about a single dead insurance CEO that openly worked to deny Americans care they needed but disregard the people that stood in solidarity with us and our military is...wow, absolute junk.

Just go back to posting "I don't understand...Fauci!" and that'll seem more intelligent.
Build on 14-3, take back the NFCN, break the ****ing curse. Simple.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zanary's post:
  
Reply

#34
(03-12-2025, 06:47 PM)Zanary Wrote: You going to WWII Russia to defend your "point" is, again, a new low while also a new level of pathetic. Dude, I figured ignoring you for a good many days would help the situation...but yeah, your part is just broken.

Though, given that you've defended the orange stain, of COURSE Russia would be on your mind. That is VERY on brand!

So, again, "free"...involving loss of life, investments of billions (despite what lying pinheads want to believe) and decades with us in real battles...? Not "Free", by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact that you can whine, piteously, for days about a single dead insurance CEO that openly worked to deny Americans care they needed but disregard the people that stood in solidarity with us and our military is...wow, absolute junk.

Just go back to posting "I don't understand...Fauci!" and that'll seem more intelligent.

Wow, you're back in form I see.  I laid out how your argument was factually wrong and gave an example how your form of logic was totally flawed.  Instead of learning something, you went back to form and became a rambling mess again.  God bless ya dude.  lol
Reply

#35
(03-13-2025, 09:23 AM)Waterboy Wrote: Wow, you're back in form I see.  I laid out how your argument was factually wrong and gave an example how your form of logic was totally flawed.  Instead of learning something, you went back to form and became a rambling mess again.  God bless ya dude.  lol

You're the only one that needs clarification...still true, today.

That's always been the funniest thing on this board...!
Build on 14-3, take back the NFCN, break the ****ing curse. Simple.
Reply

#36
(03-13-2025, 03:14 PM)Zanary Wrote: You're the only one that needs clarification...still true, today.

That's always been the funniest thing on this board...!

Do either of you plan to contribute anything to the topic before you are both removed?
Why isn't Chuck Foreman in the Hall of Fame?
Reply

#37
(03-13-2025, 04:58 PM)JimmyinSD Wrote: Do either of you plan to contribute anything to the topic before you are both removed?

I'd still love an explanation of how our allies get "free" defense despite lives lost and billions invested, but...the last time I asked him to defend a point, you wandered in then, too.

Any chance of him explaining that "free" bulls**t?

Just one of many reminders, easily searched within seconds...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics...14513.html
Build on 14-3, take back the NFCN, break the ****ing curse. Simple.
Reply

#38
(03-13-2025, 06:27 PM)Zanary Wrote: I'd still love an explanation of how our allies get "free" defense despite lives lost and billions invested, but...the last time I asked him to defend a point, you wandered in then, too.

Any chance of him explaining that "free" bulls**t?

Just one of many reminders, easily searched within seconds...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics...14513.html

Once again you are confused,   my only previous posts were to neither of you nor on your want.

Stay on a topic and off each other or you're gone.
Why isn't Chuck Foreman in the Hall of Fame?
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 Melroy van den Berg.