- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:28 am to No Colors
quote:
the Nobel Committee lauded Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. Emphasis was also given to his support - in word and deed - for the vision of a world free from nuclear weapons.
This is literally from the Nobel website
Anybody who followed W Bush and wasn't an aggressive NEOCON was going to be a Nobel Prize-winning international hero. McCain even probably would've gotten it...
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:32 am to BugAC
quote:
Here’s more good news for those you cheerleading this war…
Biden approves sale of land mines to Zelensky
let the Russians walk the same road they've mined.
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:33 am to doubleb
quote:Well by all means quote your position. Perhaps I missed it.
WRONG
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:33 am to Lee B
quote:
Trump and Elon were born wealthy... that plays the biggest part in their "making it," because it has allowed them to get financing after failures way beyond what you would ever be allowed.
Not from actual banks. There is regulation as to what formula is used, cash flow matters as much as value of assets. Say I am worth $50 million but my cash flow is $500 per month. No bank is going to loan me diddly squat because it is illegal due inability to service the debt.
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:43 am to Lee B
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:44 am to OGtigerfan87
quote:Same challenge, since you elected to inject your presupposition. Instead of saying "nuh uh," just quote his "clear position." Simple enough?
No he has definitely made his position clear
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:51 am to CitizenK
quote:
quote:
Trump and Elon were born wealthy... that plays the biggest part in their "making it," because it has allowed them to get financing after failures way beyond what you would ever be allowed.
Not from actual banks. There is regulation as to what formula is used, cash flow matters as much as value of assets. Say I am worth $50 million but my cash flow is $500 per month. No bank is going to loan me diddly squat because it is illegal due inability to service the debt.
No, not from banks...
In Elon's case, from investors and venture capitalists...
In Trump's case, after he blew through the money he inherited and he was too toxic for banks to to touch in the 90s, from Russia
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Well by all means quote your position. Perhaps I missed it.
I AM AGAINST PUTTING OUR SOLDIERS IN HARM’s WAY.
I’m not for NATO getting directly involved either.
Putin started the war and all the stuff about protecting Russia from NATO, Nazis, bio weapons and the CIA is just propaganda.
Posted on 11/20/24 at 10:59 am to Kjnstkmn
Nice, convenient above-ground tombs holding 52 dead Russians each after a Nuclear attack. 48 Hours? And from what we've seen of the Russian QC on anything, that actually means 48 minutes... "Security Theater," nuclear cope cages.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 11/20/24 at 11:03 am
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:13 am to Lee B
Luckily the USSR collapsed and there are only 144,498,000 Russians. They only need to build about 2,675,000 shelters assuming there are already some shelters in place for Putin and his henchmen.
They need to get busy.
They need to get busy.
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:18 am to doubleb
quote:
I AM AGAINST PUTTING OUR SOLDIERS IN HARM’s WAY.
I’m not for NATO getting directly involved either.
Putin started the war and all the stuff about protecting Russia from NATO, Nazis, bio weapons and the CIA is just propaganda.
I'm against putting our troops UNNECESSARILY and UNJUSTIFIABLY in harm's way. But when you sign up for military duty, you are signing up to be put in harm's way. Isn't that why some people are screaming that women are not fit for combat duty?
If US troops, by whatever unlikely scenario, are deployed in this conflict... it would be over in a day and a half. It would be a massacre... this isn't fighting Al Qaeda or insurgents in a relatively urban environment where our troops couldn't tell who was who among a large civilian population. How long would it take to establish air dominance?
But there would be no need for US troops... because Poland is begging for the chance to be the ones who do it.
But if a nuke is launched, that would be the moment... and that's why Putin sent his tactical nukes to Belarus, to put them closer to Kyiv and closer to Poland.
This post was edited on 11/20/24 at 11:20 am
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:33 am to doubleb
quote:Right.
I AM AGAINST PUTTING OUR SOLDIERS IN HARM’s WAY.
I’m not for NATO getting directly involved either.
In response to those statements, I asked "Why?"
The reason I ask, is we are empowering decisions out of our total control, decisions which could ultimately lead to nuclear war. They are also decisions in which Ukrainian interests may not jibe with our own.
Good fortune allowed the world to survive similar mistakes during the Cuban Missile Crisis brinkmanship. This Administration, and unfortunately many in this thread, seem unburdened by that past.
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:36 am to Lee B
quote:Brilliant!
If US troops, by whatever unlikely scenario, are deployed in this conflict... it would be over in a day and a half.
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:38 am to NC_Tigah
Can the Russia bros decide whether giving Ukraine mines and ATACMS permission is:
1) Meaningless and will have zero impact on Russia's imminent victory, or
2) An extraordinary escalation that will result in WWIII?
It would be really nice if y'all would pick. Thx.
1) Meaningless and will have zero impact on Russia's imminent victory, or
2) An extraordinary escalation that will result in WWIII?
It would be really nice if y'all would pick. Thx.
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:38 am to doubleb
quote:
Luckily the USSR collapsed and there are only 144,498,000 Russians. They only need to build about 2,675,000 shelters assuming there are already some shelters in place for Putin and his henchmen.
They need to get busy.
I get the feeling those are just for Russian Elites or some Russian troops...
Putin has a few giant underground fallout shelter cities (built in the Soviet era to hold 100,000 people, though I'm sure they won't invite that many) and every Oligarch with a mansion has one...
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:39 am to Lee B
quote:
If US troops, by whatever unlikely scenario, are deployed in this conflict... it would be over in a day and a half.
Imagine saying this with a straight face
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:39 am to CitizenK
quote:That is referred to as collateral.
Say I am worth $50 million
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:42 am to GOP_Tiger
How would you describe it?
Is it a provocation? Is it significant? Is it largely a nothingburger?
And based on that, how much increased risk is posed to the US and her interests as a result of that answer?
Is it a provocation? Is it significant? Is it largely a nothingburger?
And based on that, how much increased risk is posed to the US and her interests as a result of that answer?
Posted on 11/20/24 at 11:44 am to Pettifogger
quote:
quote:
If US troops, by whatever unlikely scenario, are deployed in this conflict... it would be over in a day and a half.
Imagine saying this with a straight face
Make your case for why it wouldn't, based on what we've seen of the conventional Russian military over the past 3 years struggling to defeat a smaller military that does not have air dominance.
Page 4285 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News