Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


cbae cbae
  • What, no Romney/Obama thread?

    , TexasToast wrote

    There is nothing wrong with the US spending on military. The US military is not only for the US.  It protects South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada (you Canadians know this is a big positive for you), Israel, Saudia Arabia, etc.    So Harlequin I disagree with you it is not killing us but allows other countries to concentrate on other things.   I know the Canadians would NOT have govnment healthcare if they had to fund a military to actually protect their entire country.  (4 old submarines what a joke) 

    If there's nothing wrong with US spending on military, then don't complain about the deficit or national debt.

    Romney is not that religious but in the US you still have to play that card for alot of people that not have caught up to modern thinking.   Dont worry he won't do anything to take us backwards in that area. 

    "Don't worry"--That's hilarious. I didn't know you were a comedian. If rational voters have anything to say about it, we won't have to worry because Mittard won't even get a chance to take us backward. Or to planet Kolob or wherever his wishy washy mind wants to take us.

    I think the 250k limit for paying more taxes is absurd.   It has to be at least 1 million a year. 

    Was it absurd during the Clinton administration when we actually had a budget surplus before Dumbya looted the federal coffers? What's absurd is that you think it's absurd to raise the highest marginal tax rate by a mere 3% on what amounts to the top 2% of all federal tax payers after 12 years of deficits caused by 2 tax cuts and 2 wars.

  • Microsoft Surface RT Reviews

    , mawcc wrote

    This one's positive, although not really enthusiastic (8 out of 10): http://www.wired.com/reviews/2012/10/microsoft-surface/

    Still you find sentences like "The 720p HD cameras — front and rear — are junk. There's no other way to put it.". Of course the cameras are not very important in a device like this, but would it have been so hard to include "decent" cameras, not "junk" cameras?

    8 out of 10 isn't "enthusiastic"? Really?

  • What, no Romney/Obama thread?

    , dahat wrote


    Yes... it was juvenile. It is beneath the Office of the President to speak to anyone in such a demeaning manor, let alone a candidate for that office... granted, there is little that this President seems to think beneath his office.

    Speaking of misrepresented arguments... look what you did there!

    Think about this for a moment... do you really think that Mitt Romney honestly thinks that or implied that the US Navy is weaker today than it was 100 years ago? Really?

    I don't know what he thinks because he changes his mind every 2 days. All I know is that he has zero foreign policy experience and he just parrots whatever John Lehman tells him.

    There are more than a few ships in the modern US Navy that could, on their own take out every single US Navy ship of 1919... in fact... I seem to remember a movie with a similar concept.

    Do you know what a blue water Navy (like that of the US) is for? Projection of force!

    Really? Wow! You're such a military genius! I had no idea! Projection of force? Who'd a thunk that's the reason we spend more on defense than nearly the rest of the world combined?

    What happens when you have fewer ships today (even if vastly more powerful than those of old)? The area over which you are able to project force is reduced.

    Riiiight.  We project less force now because fewer ships automatically means we cover less water. Never mind that our nuclear powered ships have so much greater range now than before. Never mind that that those things called "aircraft carriers" allow us to "project force" with far greater range than before because of those things called "aircraft" that can take off from and land on these carriers.

    If Willard actually laid out some quantitative figures about our current "projection of force" compared to that of other navies instead of just making a point about only the absolute number of ships, then he might not have sounded like such a retard.

    Let's just say he's not one that "projects himself" as one with much common sense. It's kind of hard for him to do that when he can't even understand why airplane windows don't open.

    Simple, eh?

    Yeah, it is. Your boy simply got schooled on a topic about which he's completely out of his depth.

    Granted, the 2-MTW doctrine has been under attack for quite some time... and a smaller Navy is a way to achieve that end.

    Now... if you would like a weaker military... please say so... but don't try to so clearly misrepresent what was said.

    If a weaker military means more money can be spent at home, then, yes, I want a weaker military. We don't need to spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined in order to maintain the most formidable military in the world, and any claim that we're currently not spending enough on the military is laughable.

    Flip Flopney made a stupid claim and deserved whatever ridicule that he received from Obama.

  • What, no Romney/Obama thread?

    , TexasToast wrote

    @cbae: Maybe he is one of these very high intellectuals that some average humans like yourself cannot comprehend yet.  He might even have the answers to how we all were created.  Just because he says things beyond your mental capabilities should not give you a right to call him a bot.  Big Smile

    Says the guy whose namesake state is the laughingstock of education and elected a governor who couldn't name 3 cabinet departments during in a debate. Yeah, I'm sure you're all about intellectualism.

  • My app made it to the store.

    @Bas: Did you create this on behalf of the retailer? Or on behalf of yourself? Smiley

  • What, no Romney/Obama thread?

    Maddus railing against government in another thread. Gee, what a surprise. At this point, I'm starting  to wonder whether he's actually a human or a posting bot created by a wingnut over on Free Republic.

  • What, no Romney/Obama thread?

    , TexasToast wrote

    @evildictaitor: As a US President he needs to make a statement as you did comparing apples to oranges and that we do not need as many ships because each ship is so much more capable than before.     The bayonet remark is very juvenile.  I was waiting for him to say "My dad is bigger than your dad".    I think Obama is running scared and his Chicago boys gave him some one liners.  The thing that gets to me is people (at least 47% ) think that this was so clever even though it is all staged. 

    No, it wasn't juvenile. It needed to be said because Romney's implication that our Navy is weaker or even comparatively weaker than it was in 1916 is ludicrous.

  • Things are not looking good for Win RT

    @fanbaby: I don't know what you're so happy about. Confusion about Windows RT won't make Android tablets suck * any less. LOL.

  • Do you have romnesia?

    , dahat wrote

    @sysrpl:ahh more spinning and attempts to deflect and rationalize while trying to put plenty of words in my mouth.

    I will not play along.

    My sole point was the hilarity of the double standard at play here... someone accusing someone else of they very sort of behavior that the first has engaged in for years.

    You don't seem to know what "double standard" means. Obama was for DOMA while he was running for this first term and still won. He didn't change his mind because he thought it would improve his chances for election.

    As for the individual mandate, it was put into the ACA to make it more palatable to right-wingers. It was, after all, first proposed by the Heritage Foundation. It's the two-faced GOP that decided call it "unconstitutional" once Obama supported it for the ACA. The truth is Obama still prefers having a public option, and I'll go so far as to say he'd still prefer a single payer system, but he knows something like that would never have passed with the crazed lunatics on the right side of aisle ready to scream "Socialism!" at the drop of a hat.

  • Do you have romnesia?

    , TexasToast wrote

    Obama and the UN want to tax the Internet.   Romney Ryan will win big.  I know Chicago Dirty politics and even though Obama is a good guy but his entourage is dirty.(Yes unemployment numbers were rigged for October and that story comes out soon)

    I think you're Romlusional.