Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Anyone have an opinion on this?

I'm a bit mad, to be honest.

Not really surprised. But its not helping anything really. At least the military still gets paid.

Oh, that just made EVERYTHING BETTER! :P

OH NO THE PANDA CAM! Because that is so much more important than the military :P

 

Hey, I have several family members working in the army and they work hard for all that money. Not that all those other people dont deserve there money either. Im just saying.

Not saying thee army isn't important. It's exactly what you said: "Not that all those other people dont deserve there money either.".

Military is more important than the zoo, sorry.

Remind me to not have.a conversation with some of the people on this site...

Agreed.

I don't see what the problem is with the damn republicans, it isn't hard to agree on a budget. See what they are doing right now is using fear and disorganization to further their agenda, or in other words, terrorism . . . and as we love to say - "We don't negotiate with terrorists." And this is because of what? Obama care? Well republicans, it can work, because that's how Massachusetts and California have been doing it for a while now! 

That's what I think . . . feels good to let off some steam lol 

And look how great the golden state that miraculously rusted has done!

And the Infamous Taxachussets!

Taxachussets is my home state, and our health care system is not the reason we are infamously drained of cold hard $$, can't speak for Cali though, so eat your heart out on that one!

 

And i don't mean to be offensive, if that's how I'm coming off!

Pretty sure California is in the pits, and owes a lot of money.

No idea about Massachussets, but since you mentioned it I put that in.

Sorry to offend your home state, Not trying to be offensive either, trying to put up some sources...

It's probably part of the reason. :P 

California has a large population, gives away the Medicare, and screws everything up. Taxaxhesets stays standing due to lots of borrowed cash. The fact that you have it is part of the reason you are in debt. :P

Here we go for CA-

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/13/local/la-me-state-debt-20130114

Oh yeah, you're all fucked. (And, since Canada is the magnificent octupus mind leech attacked to America's money leaking brain, so are we)

REVOLUTION!!! 

Meh, I'm hopefully moving to Israel. Economically it's probably a bit safer, and we could always stage a coup there. 

just watch out for the Islamic nukes . . .

Meh, I suspect the whole world (aside for africa, which is barely a country, and Israel, which seems to survive everything :P)will collapse in the next 2-4 decades, then some kind of change will happen, and there will be some sort of libertarian society formed. (Just a personal theory)

Of course, that's without a religion thing kicking and saving us all, but that's for a different thread.

MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS.

Shut up you damn libertarian nut. XD

Heinleinian Jew Boy, thank you very much 

I'm honestly not that surprised i mean they are 17 trillion dollars in debt. Besides that if everyone quit arguing about making everyone happy (I mean its never going to happen!) and tried to get shit done it might happen! Fun fact if we decreased our military by 85% the US would still have the largest army in the world.

Seems more fun than fact. Show a source man.

Especially considering that china and North Korea have like, a million man army :P

I think he meant strongest, not largest (At least, I hope he did, since Chinca could easily conscript an army larger than America's population if needed...).

Which could techinically be true, since infantrymen are becoming more and more redundant in modern warfare.

What do you mean strongest?

According to a google search, the whole military is 1,417,140, 85% of that is 1,417 140 - 1 204 569 = 212 571 =not so strong.

True though, infantry men will be less useful. But personally, (though I may be basing this on starship troopers) I think that we'll always need troops on the ground.

Numbers does not a strong army make (not since the invention of nuclear bombs anyways)

and drones and robotically operated war vehicles don't require infantrymen (and as far as I can tell, are better in almost every way)

Eh,currently robotic stuff aren't really all too good. (at least, robot troops aren't). 

We will always need troops since you can't control territory with tanks and drones, as well as the fact that trained humans react faster then robotics. 

Why would you need to control territory, other than your own? (Which you could do with far less troops than the current army)

How do you think any contrey won a war? In order to win, you need to control the territory of your foe (be it by destroying it completely (with nukes) or taking control of it with troops) the only reason for war though, is to gain land (or kick the ass of the person trying to gain aland from you). Taking control over their cities is imperative. 

True, but (large) amounts if troops aren't needed for this. Most of it can be done by machines and bombs. The infantry are there to get what's left.

Again, bomb shelters to stop bombs. 

The only reason for war is to gain land. Destroying it is Worthless. Tanks destroy, but can't leave a place in tact. Troops are for crowd control, something machines can't stop (also, using machines requires oil, which is always pricy and if we go to war with a specific group of nations, it'll be nearly impossible to keep up)

Many other reasons for war...

also, that's not the argument I'm making, my point is that the US army would still be the strongest after losing 85% of it's army, based purely on it's mechanical army and it's bombs. (The war crimes that would be committed and the civilians killed don't apply, going purely on army strength here.)

Why? Russia, China all have nuclear weapons as well. If we cut spending, they still have their aresenal. 

Because US's arsenal is bigger? (Shrugs), US isn't considered the most powerful country because of it's big bad infantrymen, it's considered the most powerful because of it's big bad bombs. Total army strength is based more on the bombs than the soldiers.

20 nukes will destroy the earth. :p having a alarge aresenal means nothing when an smaller amount does the same damage (which to be fair, it doesn't, but 20 nukes will destroy America and the rest of the world. 50 nukes just makes it end faster.)

Comparing strength from nukes is not wise, since total devastation is possible with a smaller amount of nukes. (especially Witt modern day nukes)

Not the point.

The point is, to put it as eloquently as possible:

Mo' nukes mo' power.

But it's not true. Since Power you can't use isn't really power at all. 

Except you can use nukes.

And destroy yourself. 

Let's assume, a Max amount of nukes useable without causing a nuclear holocaust. 

If its 20, the remaining 30 are worthless. 

I guess, but then all you need is one guy and 50 nukes and you're the most powerful army ever by that logic :P

Drones, are like golems, (artificial intelligence is different though) they can only follow orders. Nowadays, our drones aren't good enough (I think) plus,  Humans can occupy areas, make orders, until our technology goes way off into sci fi, troops are needed. And even then, we'd have powered armor, so we won't have to bother with the problem of Hal 9000 or the terminator.

A guy with 50 nukes could destroy the world (or at least deal a fuck load of damage to it), that's enough of an army for me...

Not talkin about programmed drones, talking about piloted drones (with humans behind the wheel, fairly sure those exist)

Also, If U.S was attacked by an army outnumbering them by so many millions, I have very little doubt they'd toss out nukes by the bucketful at their enemy.

Then yeah, a couple of guys with nukes are always going to be powerful, even with 85% of them gone. The problem with nukes is the radiation, if you nuked surrounding millions, there wouldn't be much of anything left :P

 

Oh yeah, piloted drones, sure, those are still men behind it. Though I don't think drones can help with crowd control, only humans can do that.

That's the point, the radiation kills off the survivors. No more people left to invade you. 

Yeah, and... Yup, there goes the rest of the planet, aside from US that is. 

Hey, it's still arguably the most powerful army In the world, even while having lost 85% of it's army. That's the point, it's strength doesn't come from it's numbers.

Power one can't use isnt power at all. 

Yeah haha

Yeah it is...

If the country gets attacked, and it gets desperate, I can easily see it reacting with nukes, it's definitely a power you can use, it just comes at a price.

The point is that other countries know this, and won't attack out of fear. Therefore, the army's power is keeping then at bay.

Why though?  America is dependant on other countries, without them, they'll be dead too. Plus, in that case, we'd be nuked too :P

Plus nuclear winters are a bitch.

That's not the point, I'm not arguin this argument, I'm saying that their power is not in the infantry, so you can cut the infantry.

Border patrol, meddling with other countries

That's what the 14.99% is for.

Infantry is used when you don't want the whole world to be in ashes OK?

Yes. (Drones too)

but the point is that bombs=power, so if the US cut it's army by 85%, it would retain most of it's power

Okay, power, unusable and cataclysmic and wasteful power, but power nonetheless. A power that other countries also have :P

Not in as large quantities. Not that it matters, but as I said above.

mo' nukes mo' power. (And dead people)

And a nuclear holocaust. America would probably not use that on everyone, cuz then they're dead anyways :P

And be destroyed since America doesn't want to create a nuclear holocaust. :P

Again not the point.

Then there is no point. Since the whole point of saying we should deduct 85% of millitary budget is that we'd still be most powerful, destroying ourselves is stupid. 

I never said Hugo was right in that we should do it, I just said that he was right in that US would retain most of it's power. Not that anyone would attack US while it had nukes, just out if fear of retaliation.

Yes they would, since US can't use nukes without fear of being destroyed themselves. 

If Us is already being invaded, it's already being destroyed. 

Not necessarily.

Argh, can we continue this tomorrow? My thumbs are tired from typing on my phone.

Sure man, just post here tomorrow :P

What? If its being invaded, it's already being destroyed? What does that mean? 

I'm sorry, typing out detailed explanations are harder on phones...

I agree with Aman on this one. Let's say the cafeteria at a school has the power to control what food it's students eat, since it makes all of the lunches. If the student brings in a packed lunch, do they still have power over what that student eats?

Why 85% might as well be 99.99%?

Border control, meddling with other countries.

(you need at least a few thousand troops for that)

And then creates a nuclear winter, destroying you. 

Strongest yeah that what I meant we have some very large tech weapons.

Also, what "shit" do you think needs to be done Hugo?

Cast a magic spell and give everyone free money? 

Biden can do that...

Or we could just print more money and everyone would be millionaires!

That couldn't possibly backfire though...

Ever...

MAGICAL PINK.

YES! FINALLY! ANARCHYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

I am going to say this once and very simply, if you have never served you do not know and could never know the value of one man on the ground compared to threats of weapons that are very easily reprogrammed,shot down, and defensible. So for you pieces of shit that have the nerve to say our troops shouldnt get paid gladly go and stand in front of us next time we are deployed.

I salute you good sir! Here's hoping infantry services will become less necessary in the coming decades, no one should have to go through that kind of shit.  

I didn't say that infantry men shouldn't be paid, just that they aren't what makes up the total strength of an army...

then I am not talking to you.

Then you're not talking to anyone, as i'm the only one who came remotely close to saying something like that.

 

I hope you realize that I was sarcastic...

@Aman and Tanstafl.

You're trying to argue with me on a subject completely unrelated to the one that is being discussed.

Aman, you're saying that nuclear weapons shouldn't be used because using them will result in worldwide destruction.

Tant, you're hoping onto the Aman train and saying that Nuclear weapons will result in worldwide destruction.

Your points, while true, are completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed.
We're not talking about the consequences of an action, or whether it's worth it or not. We're talking about pure, unadulterated or censored power.

The power that 50 nuclear bombs would possess is larger than that of a 1 204 569. The benefits of using one over the other are unimportant and irrelevent, since we're tlaking about pure power.

Aman, you said that to destroy the world, you would only need 20 nuclear bombs, making the other 30 worthless. That's not important, it is not the point, the point is that those 50 bombs will cause more destruction than those 20, making the people who hold them more powerful than people with less of these bombs.

The fact that you can destroy the world with only 20 nuclear bombs is why you don't see people throwing them around willy nilly at each other, because people are afraid to attack each other when everyone possesses that kind of firepower. 

The fact that you need infantrymen to hold territory is irrelevent. The fact that those bombs come with a large cost is completely irrelevent. 
What's important is that in terms of power, 50 nuclear bombs is so powerful that 1 204 569 infantry being deducted from an army that retained literally everything else in it's arsenal, would still keep it in the position of the strongest army in the world, regardless of the amount of soldiers.

Okay, then yes you are correct. 

The fact that your whole point doesn't matter, is also true, but on pure undiluted power, yes you are corrct. 

What do you mean "The fact that your whole point doesn't matter"? The entire conversation was started when Hugo said that the U.S army could lose 85% of it's soldiers and still be the largest army in the world.

Tant called BS because, you know, China, Russia, India, Japan, Massive populations and/or massive armies.

So I said that Hugo was possibly referring to the country's military power. My point matters completely, as the conversation was based completely on that one sentence by me.

.... Because we can't use that power :P

Learn the definition of can't dammit!
You shouldn't use that power, not can't. 

And again, completely irrelevent to the discussion. You saying my point doesn't matter when the entire discussion was based on the power of an army after losing most of it's infantry would make no sense. 

Your point doesn't matter since we cant  use the power since it would destroy us (unless we are sucidal). It's a uselss bit of information. 

So, you're saying that possessing nuclear missiles is useless?

I'm going to agree with Drakilian, M.A.D. is a valid power

Possesing more then would destroy the world.

20 destroy world, the remaining 30 are useless. (since 20 destroy the world already). 

unless you consider the distribution of power, if one country had all 50, they wouldn't hesitate to use one or two, but with many countries all having a few, none what to anger the others - M.A.D. 

.............................

Yes, I know. Let's say everyone has 20 nukes, and the US has 50 (20 destroy world)

Us won't attack, since the others can destroy as much as they can.

No, he saying that using so much (enough to destroy everyone surrounding us) is retarded, and not going to be used. Nukes are a good threat, no one expected us to bomb Hiroshima OR Nagasaki, but we did, and we kicked ass. Still, it did so much damage that we're still paying for it. Using it next to us would be retarded, we wouldnt use that much. We have power, but only as a bluff or mass destruction kind.

And you think that's not more than enough? That's a fuck load of useable power right there. It acts passively, deterring attacks, and as a last result, it will be the ultimate revenge against your attackers. Whether or not they're launched, their power is still being used. You have an army of 10 000 000 soldiers, and the enemy country won't hesitate to attack you.

You have a few nukes, and suddenly, you'll find everyone is much less reluctant to send attackers in your direction.

Nuke power is more than infantry power.

You have a few nukes,

We aren't arguing against nukes being powerful. We are arguing that 50 nukes vs 20 (where 20 destroy world) means nothing. That's all we are saying. 

well it means you have more nukes . . . kind like 'who's got the biggest penis?' of the political world =P

I have more nukes then you TROLOLOLOLOLOLO?

It's not how many, it's how you use them!

no, no, it is really about how big it is XD

On the subject of "Who's got the biggest penis of the political world" you'd do well to notice the shape of Norway and Sweden on a map....

They're just compensating for having small penises, phallic symbols and the such =P

with predator drones and gps lead cruise missiles . . . I think the power is plenty useful

Have you seen China's new drones, they're catching up in the tech department might quick =(

Yes, but Power that we can't use without destroying ourselves isn't a useful meter to determine wheter Hugo's statement is valid. 

The argument is true, but it can't defend Hugo's statement. 

Hugo's statement (The largeness of the army) was inherently wrong due to his wording.

 

Aman, let me ask you this. If you know that a guy has the power to destroy the entire world, and that if you attack him ,in his dying throes he will do so, would you attack him? 

in his dying throes he will do so

No country (unless you're talking about a completley Jihadist country) would.  Therefore it's useless.

Really? So you're saying that nuclear missiles are completely useless? Is that really what you're saying?

NO.

I'm saying having more then would create complete death and destruction is. 

Yeah. And guess who else knows this?
Every living human being in the world.

All a country has to do is declare that if it's attacked, it will nuke the attacking country, all other countries be damned. Would you call that country on it's bluff?

Having a large nuclear arsenal ensures that others are too afraid to call you on your bluff. There's a reason the cold war never escalated to an actual full-out nuclear war. Both countries, powerful as they were, knew that attacking each other would result in their mutually assured destruction. 

So it's a bluff, not useable really though. :P

..... Yes. But having 50 nukes when 20 will destroy everything means the remaining 30 are worthless. 

I'm not saying having nukes are worthless, I'm saying having infinite nukes are worthless. 

Having a big enough aresenal. If 20 is big enough, the added 30 is worthless.

Nukes can be shot down.

Also: Bragging rights. (I have more nukes than you do, Russia! Haha!)

Not really. Radar jammars have been invented. Can't shoot them down if you are being smart. (the one defense we were building on them was dropped by Obama)

(I suppose you can brag about that, but we can brag about everything (Ha Ha Russia! Communism Failed!) 

Jet fighters could (attempt) to fly and shoot them down, with good o'l bullets. Or EMPs could be launched. 

or you could shot a nuke at a nuke . . . . SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY! EPIC NUKE BATTLES OF HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, Radar jammars. How did you find these Nukes? (we don't have jet planes flying everywhere at all times. They cost gasoline, whic, if we are fighting the one group of people who are threatening us, will blockade us from purchasing it)

If you are smart, it doesn't matter. 

Drones? I vote drones. Also, satellite imaging (Does that work like that?)

satellites are too slow to be effective, drones might do the trick though

Drones? I vote same thing as Jets. (as in, gasoline)

our drones are always in the air anyway, our government seems incapable of conserving resources =P

Since we have gasoline (from the middle east)l without it, it falls down. :p

Alaska mate, bloody frickin Alaska and it's oil

Oh yes, and, may I ask, why don't we have it right now? 

Unless this whole discussion is in the event America is a Totaltarian country (making it even more worthless as a discussion, since hypotheticals are worthless when discussing stuff like this), we don't have that, nor will we have that for many, many years. 

well, in theory we aren't opening Alaskan oil reserves because we plan on saving it till the middle east runs out and then making a huge profit, but we really just can't get it effectively =P, though I would put it past the military to spend trillions on geting it if we run out of sellers =P

Um, no, we aren't using Alaskan oil SINCE POLAR BEARS

as if the military cares =P (I care, just a btw)

Again, I'm assuming we don't live in a Totaltarian society. ;P

and I'm assuming I'm the queen of France =P hehe

sonar maybe? if you where really smart you'd buy Mc Donalds and ship the nuke to the closest Mc Donalds to the white house =P

people have done stupid, selfish things before, nothing will stop them from doing it again  

People have done selfish things. problem is, the people don't want to kill themselves. :p 

Yup, that's why they're selfish.

but they will do anything to take revenge for their own undoing, if we had another crusade (for example) and the Christians were about to paint the dome for the rock red with Islamic blood, be assured they would detonate an atomic bomb if they could get one. This isn't without saying there are people who don't care about any life period, complete psychopathic murderers who might not even realize just how powerful these bombs are. Oh! and rednecks don't seem to get the whole 'blow up the world thing' . . .

..... Again, I don't see what you are arguing. 

I'm saying having extra nukes is worthless. 

You're saying psycopaths will use nukes.

I don't care. If a psychopath has 20 nukes, he'll destroy the world. If he has 50 nukes, he'll destroy it too. :P

Yeah, I guess I'm just clutching air here, YOU WIN THIS TIME MUSTACHE!!! =P

I salute you, at least you have the sense to know when the battle is lost (or won in Aman's case) unlike someone here...

Yeah, but if I only have 20 I MIGHT miss New Zealand (or Madegascar)  and I can't have that.

Better to have 50 just in case.

XD

might as well over do it and have 10000000000000000000000000000, cause why the hell not?

:P

Lol I can reply to this!

drones are usable, so is every other branch of the army hehe, like the artillery divisions, the armored divisions, the airforce, the navy . . . we can lose a couple of infantry men, they have the worst job anyways

Have you read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein? 

is it related to the movies =P

The movie was horrible, the book was fantastic.

well, from what the movie showed me (besides tits XD) is that the infantryman's job is absolutely horrid so . . . I'm thinking they changed the meaning from the book or something?

No, it shows that even more in the book, but the book is also 100% clean of 'tits', which is why a huge + in a book (what I think personally).

Oh, well this I got to read, and I don't think there's ever been a book that shows 'tits' (excuse my terminology, I'm a teenager). "Today kids we are reading 'Red Fish, Blue Fish, One Fish, Tits Fish' =P"  

Well, there are plenty books that cover erotica material, even if not called that in genre.

And some sex ed books for one :P

And magazines would have the pictures you're looking for.

Internet?

or I could not be a loser and get a girlfriend =P

Irrelevant to your upper statement.

true, but neither is the internet, magizines (NOT BOOKS) comics (I don't consider them books, some do, i don't), but i guess sex ed books work =/ 

What about regular fantasy books, that have those scenes depicted, though only in passing, as most of it is really about fighting dragons etc.

there is supposively a book about gay sex between dragons . . . . . . . .

Why?

because they wanted to I guess

eww

*shudder

but point made.

Manga/ comics

If you bomb someone with 20 nukes, you destroy the world.

If you bomb someone with 50 nukes, you destroy the world.

Since both actions have the same outcome, there is no difference in the amount of power possessed.

Wait a second- What makes you think it's possible to jam a country's military radar(s)? I've just looked that ish up online and other than people saying radar jammers don't work, i've also found only sites that say stealth might not be possible, due to how advanced radars are becoming...

Since there is such a thing as a stealth jet?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology

lets not forget the stealth battleships America is making lol, or the stealth bombers =P 

Stealth technology also termed LO technology (low observable technology) is a sub-discipline of military tactics and passive electronic countermeasures,^[1] which cover a range of techniques used with personnel, aircraft, ships, submarines, and missiles, to make them less visible (ideally invisible) to radar, infrared,^[2] sonar and other detection methods. It corresponds to camouflage for these parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

---

They haven't actually managed to make themselves invisible to radars, that's only the ideal situation. 

It would (greatly) vary depending on the country in question's radar technology... (as in, no bombing Russia, but maybe (insert country who's name I don't know) wouldn't see it coming)

Less visible. If smart, just nuke Russia when they aren't expecting it. 

Which would be never...

Am I the only one who sees Russia as a paranoid country that would still be watching (very closely) to see if they were being nuked?

they are too busy participating in shirtless sports and hatin on gays

Not really. Putin is smart, not a paranoid idiot. 

ANYWAYS, point is, the extra nukes wouldn't be completely useless, there's always the chance of some kind of failure, and those extra few nukes raise your chances of success.

I think failure of a nuke is fixed by a sniper or another (not atomic) bomb actually

Depends on your goal. 20 nukes destroy the whole world. If you are trying to destroy everything, sure, maybe one or two would be good. But, I assume no one's goal is to do that. (plus, detonating Nuckelar explosions would expell radiation, and would p, if done right, destroy the ecosystem, and destroy the country your aiming for) 

Really? America and russia detonated way more than just 20 nukes in their own territory throughout the cold war (Nuclear testing, spreading radiation since 1945).

EDIT: Nope, sorry, you said if done right (As in, strategically detonated in certain places, my mistake)

usually in pits and deserts, so only a lot of harm done =P - GORJILLA !!!! (Godzilla is supposively a result of nuclear tests in godzilla 2000 - btw)

(yeah, heard about that. (that Godzilla was referencing nuclear destruction))

the only good byproduct of nuclear war =P

And the post-apocalyptic genre. 

well, technically zombies are post-apocalyptic, but nuclear war definitely adds some spice (never thought I'd ever say that =P) 

Farnham's freehold, by Robert Heinlein

(just as a side note, it take WAY more then 20 nukes to destroy the world. But we have WAY more then 50 nukes, so I downsized it to make it more manageable) 

yeah, but they have made them look like birds to radar - its a bird, its a plane, its . . . A FUCKIN NUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jamming radars aren't easy to accomplish on a large scale I believe, but perfectly do able in the smaller scale

You know what is even more important than armies and nukes . . . THE FRICKIN CDC IS BEING CUT DOWN!!!! and the FDA and EPA are being downsized too. You don't take down the regulators of food, drugs, environment and frickin life threatening diseases!

Well if the CDC is being cut down, you guys can stop arguing about how many nukes you need to destroy the world and start arguing about how many bio-weapons you need to wipe out humanity instead.

1 you detonate a large bomb in the atmosphere full of spanish flu. World over. (Spanish flu =bubonic plague)

Smallpox is better.

Or if you can find a way to make Ebola airborne, that works too.

So Spanish Ebolapox, got it.

or you could just use your zombiefication biotoxin, EndMaster =P

I know this is a little late, but...

Kwism...

Did you just admit to losing a fight on the internet?

HONOR BE TO YOU! HONOR ON YOU AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD! HONOR ON YOUR WIFE! HONOR ON YOUR SISTER! HONOR ON YOUR BROTHER! HONOR ON YOUR PARENTS! HONOR AND GLORY! HONOR TO WHATEVER YOU HAPPEN TO BE HOLDING IN YOUR HANDS RIGHT NOW! HONOR TO WHATEVER BODY PART YOU TYPED THAT WITH! HONOR ON YOUR CHILDREN! HONOR TO YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN! HONOR TO YOUR CAR! HONOR TO YOUR COW! CROWN HIS BROW WITH LEAVES OF LAUREL, ADORN HIM IN THE FLAG OF HIS COUNTRY! HONOR, HONOR, HONOR! 

If this were any other less mature site, It would have taken, at the very least, 32,000.5 balls in order to back down from an argument, or at least that many ungiven fucks, and yet you did it here without the slightest trepidation or shitheadedness! You are officially one of us! (not that I'm one to dictate whether or not you are, but I guess it makes the site look cooler to newcomers if it looks like we had epic secret tests...)

Pfft, stole part of that from a past post.

On a youtube comment I think you may have copypasted, the parents, and children, if my memory serves me, as well as the flag and laurel, were not in it originally, neither was any of the black text below it. The "And whatever you happen to be holing in your hands right now" as well as "And your sister!" were stolen from a flash troll game called "The Game" In which the context was "SCREW YOU! AND YOUR SISTER! AND YOUR COMPUTER! AND WHATEVER YOU HAPPEN TO BE HOLDING IN YOUR HANDS RIGHT NOW!"

The "And whatever body part your typed that with" was entirely made up, and ripe fodder for cheap sexual jokes.

ah cheap sexual jokes, the best kind of jokes =P

thank you =P

ANARCHY who i'm going to loot first.

kidding

actually, I believe I loot you first

 

Not Kidding =P

I am kind of confused about what happened. Did the U.S declare bankruptcy? 

no our government won't agree on Obama Care, so they shut done lol =P

"Shut Down" ?

I don't follow. I thought someone came saying "Obama care has made a large deflict we are bankrupt" bs thingy.

The republicans got into a fight with themselves about how bad obamacare is (pretty good actually), and almost everyone disagreed so they decided to shut the government down. Now the democrats are trying to get people out of congress and get new people in so we have our government back in 20 days.

There's pretty much no laws in DC now though...

"....how bad obamacre is (pretty good actually)..."

That's your opinion. Number one rule on the internet: do not post your political, sexual, e.c.t. opinions on the internet.

You seem to forget that this in the CYS corner of the blogosphere. :) We have several threads on our opinions, mostly religious and political.

Also respone to G-shutdown: *Push restart button*

Yeah, CYS is pretty mellow about that at this point in time. I mean, I'm a moderate conservative Jew, who isn't opposed to stating he believes acting open gay feelings is a sin, and no one bashes me constantly. :P

(though, if one wants to see my full opinion on the matter, go to the gay thread (*snicker). What I said here is very far away from my full opinions on the matter)

Here specifically:

http://chooseyourstory.com/forums/the-lounge/message/7688

And here for religion

http://chooseyourstory.com/forums/the-lounge/message/10006

Wow Aman, Wow

.

It was more amusing if you were there when the thread was active.

Welp, I'm here now haha. And I can't leave, nor plan to leave, until the Nippon frame finishes, and even then I'll probably stick around haha.

While I'm sure some of them were joking, but when the government first shut down, a few people seemed to be seriously laboring under the impression that the country was going to be experiencing a situation like in that movie The Purge where you could just go out a commit crime until the government was back up.

which could be cool...

I got an opinion.It scares me a bit. If we owe so much money that we cannot pay back, the other countries might get angry and possibly start WorldWar3. o-o Imagine that

it would take centuries to stabilize if America fell. literally centuries, everything in the world is impacted by U.S.A. though I am sure there are plenty upon plenty of people who would be ok with that. Plenty.

Yeah. I understand. The U.S.A seems to, but not really have most control over what other countries do.

But most countries aren't looking for a fight thankfully. And we are still allies. 

"Look, this guys don't have money to pay us back so we will waste countless money and lives to take that money back."

Yeah, the world doesn't work that way. A more likely scenario would be China buying US

Since purchasing nations is the same as purchasing a computer. 

Might I offer you the nation of America? Bidding starts at 900000000000$ US. 

*sarcasm

Call now and you'll get the entire package for 810 000 000 000$, that's a discount value of 90 000 000 000$!

Just call-

911 right now and claim your Us of A!

there's a $10 000 000 000 000 000 000 and jail toll on that line >=( how dare you not declare that !!

And I'm pretty sure it's taxed...

DAMN YOU ALL!! I'm a penny short!!

Sorry but i wouldn't want to have to fix America. Maybe if you gave me that with about ten more zeros on the end I "might take it off your hands. 

so you're the garbage collector? =P

-

I imagine the USA is going to have some major changes within at most 20 years from now.

I don't like to think about it...... but I guess I kind of have to. It's my future....

Yep, you get to be part of the revolution/problem/solution/future/end/whatevermachyouwatacallits...

the whatevermachyouwatacallits sounds like maybe a little fun.... :P