Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

JD Barleycorn · 02-11-2013, 12:38 PM

It is strongly rumored that Obama will announce that he is going to reduce our nuclear stockpile unilaterally. So here is the question and I hope that our lefties can find their balls and answer. How much is too much? Do you support everything Obama tells you to support or do you have a mind of your own? So commit yourself now, before the speech, how much is too much? 1/3, 1/4, 1/2, 2/3, none, all!

i'va biggen · 02-11-2013, 02:01 PM

How come you didn't have the balls to say what reduction is correct?

TheDaliLama · 02-11-2013, 02:58 PM

He's asking YOU what is correct you stupid fuck.

I take that back....He's asking some one with at least a brain in his head.

You're excused.

TexTushHog · 02-11-2013, 03:12 PM

I think enough to blow the world up once or twice is enough. Ten times is too many. Frankly, a dozen subs with Trident II MIRVed missiles alone should do the job, but even in my wildest dreams, I don't think Obama has the balls to do that. He should, but he won't.

jbravo_123 · 02-11-2013, 05:15 PM

i'va biggen · 02-11-2013, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

He's asking YOU what is correct you stupid fuck.

I take that back....He's asking some one with at least a brain in his head.

You're excused.

Another dim bulb heard from.what is your answer tic turd?

WTF · 02-11-2013, 06:03 PM

JD is the rights answer to the lefts CodePink!

TheDaliLama · 02-11-2013, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Another dim bulb heard from.what is your answer tic turd?

Read the question again you illiterate nut guzzler.

The question was for YOU Penis Breath.

Take your time and read it again...if that's too hard for you to do then look over your shoulder and ask your boyfriend to read it for you.

i'va biggen · 02-11-2013, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Read the question again you illiterate nut guzzler.

The question was for YOU Penis Breath.

Take your time and read it again...if that's too hard for you to do then look over your shoulder and ask your boyfriend to read it for you.

You should get together with seedy,both of you are obsessed with the male genitals.Instead of the American flag you probably fly the rainbow flag.

Yssup Rider · 02-11-2013, 10:14 PM

Does that mean you guys will be expanding your bunkers to include running water?

JD Barleycorn · 02-11-2013, 10:44 PM

As I suspected, no guts, no glory for our lefties. Shit eating cowards afraid to take a stand. Why? My guess is that they know that Obama will go somewhere that they don't approve of right now. They don't want to have to criticize the chosen one.

Presidential Criticism
Recently several people have written to ask us about a viewpoint TR had on criticism of the presidency. This quote was part of an editorial he wrote for the "Kansas City Star" during World War I.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Yssup Rider · 02-11-2013, 10:52 PM

shit eating cowards????

Links please

Oh yeah, and proof of education/employment/union membership, King Fraud.

JD Barleycorn · 02-11-2013, 10:55 PM

Union??? Are fucking stupid? Nevermind, we know.

TheDaliLama · 02-11-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

.........You should get together with seedy,both of you are obsessed with the male genitals........

That's pretty funny coming from someone with the handle....."I'va biggen" unless your referring to your pussy.

We already know it's not your brain.

Munchmasterman · 02-12-2013, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As I suspected, no guts, no glory for our lefties. Shit eating cowards afraid to take a stand. Why? My guess is that they know that Obama will go somewhere that they don't approve of right now. They don't want to have to criticize the chosen one.

Presidential Criticism
Recently several people have written to ask us about a viewpoint TR had on criticism of the presidency. This quote was part of an editorial he wrote for the "Kansas City Star" during World War I.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

That's a good one.

jd of all people calling someone a shit eating coward.
Because they won't answer a question asked by a coward who can't answer his own poorly phrased question.
The cowardly liar.

But enough about her. Since jd has no balls, we'll let her off and not require an answer.

The answer is simple, even for an intel guy who claims he is a teacher (2 lies for the price of one).

We need as many as we need to carry out the assigned mission with a reserve that guarantees success of the mission and any unstated additional goals.

jd, in all of his assholishness, is asking a question that can't be answered with 1/2, or 1/3 or any similar number by anyone on this board because we don't know the requirements of the missions. If we knew the missions then wouldn't the people we would be attacking know what we were attacking. It's nice to be able to stack your defense.

We don't know what types or what delivery systems will be need to neutralize any given target.

I've said enough. Either you understand and know that you can't give a jd style answer to a complex subject or you will act like jd and pretend whatever the President says will be wrong.

Regardless of little you know about the subject.

My biggest question at this point is why is the douche lama afraid to answer a question someone as stupid as jd can ask? Why does that bald-headed little fuck WonK for jd?