Gore delivers a verbal carpetbombing on Bush and Iraq

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-05-27 02:07am

Nathan F wrote:
Icehawk wrote:Their is the new 6.8mm round which is also undergoing testing, it will more than likely fire that.
Already undergone testing and is being produced commerically and for the US military for SpecOps.

Thanks, now I know. And knowing is half the battle!! *GI JOE theme plays in the back ground*

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-27 07:37am

Elfdart wrote:But they're insisting that the new rifle fire fire the same 5.56 round the M4/M16 uses. The original design called for a @6.5mm round that would be more powerful. Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Somalia) tried to dig out as many old M14s as they could scrape together because they need something with knockdown power and staydown power. My father and six of my uncles served in Vietnam and /or Korea and they disliked Jane Fonda -but they fucking HATED Eugene Stoner.

The M16's problems mostly arise from the M16A2 and above; after 'Nam they increased the twist in the rifling and started using a more stable Belgian 5.56 round. The result? Much more stable rounds able to penetrate body armor that we thought WARPAC's grunts would be wearing. Unfortunately this also meant it put little clean holes with minimal KE transfer in unarmored combatants like we've been seeing since Somalia. I don't know why we don't go back to lower twist in the rifling and a less stable round. The original would tumble on impact, transfering much more energy and therefore was a better manstopper, but a poorer armor-piercer.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-05-27 08:45pm

The justices who hijacked the election were all appointed by Republicans. "Quack-quack" Scalia's son was slated to be appointed to office if Bush won. The wife of Clarence "The Bitch Set Me Up" Thomas was part of Bush's team, too. O'Connor said publicly she was hoping for a Bush win because she didn't want to retire and leave Gore to pick her replacement. Rehnquist was one of Nixon's old cronies and got his start in Arizona politics by harassing black voters in order to prevent them from voting. Kennedy is just "Quack-quack" Lite.

And once again, you simply paint a scenario in which the only acceptable outcome in your opinion would be a victory for Al Gore. Yeah, you've sure got a balanced assessment right there.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-27 08:59pm

No, if the votes were counted honestly and Bush ended up with more... I wouldn't like it one bit, but those are the rules.

If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that their decision was only binding for this one case (In other words, if something similar happens this year and Kerry gets more votes in a state under fishy conditions, the Fraudulent Five won't apply their logic consistently and let Kerry keep the votes.), I wouldn't like it, but those are the rules.

If Congress had done what the Constitution allows and rejected the Electoral College because of Florida and decided the election themselves, I wouldn't have liked it, but...

Instead we have the SCOTUS intervening where they had zero jurisdiction and in spite of MAJOR conflicts of interest, twisting the meaning of the 14th Ammendment (which the FF ignore as often as possible in other cases), not allowing LEGAL votes to be counted as the law requires, ruling that their decision only applied to this one case, and allowing Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to Klu Klux the vote in a way that hasn't been seen since Jim Crow.

I didn't much care for Clinton, Bush Sr or Reagan, but they were elected legitimately -unlike Dubya.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-27 09:05pm

What do election irregularities and rifle calibres have to do with anything? The point here is that George W. Bush has led the USA off a cliff through his hubris and incompetence, and that Al Gore has finally found the voice he should have had 4 years ago.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-05-27 09:06pm

Yes, but your criticisms were very clear: because the Supreme Court was for the most part appointed by Republicans, any decision in favor of a Republican must somehow be illegtimate, in your book. That means you consider fair only those decisions in favor of the people you back. That's not a balanced assessment, it's an attempt to justify a crackpot conspiracy theory.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-27 09:43pm

It's not just that they were GOP appointees, it's the obvious conflict of interest, like Thomas' wife working for Bush.

It'd be funny if Kerry selects Gore for VP. Of course there's zero chance of that.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-05-27 10:33pm

It's not just that they were GOP appointees, it's the obvious conflict of interest, like Thomas' wife working for Bush.

And yet Thomas wasn't the only judge to vote in favor of Bush. Not that your explanations go any way toward making the situation any more balance - it's just that you'd rather the cards were stacked one way, and one way only.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-28 12:05am

It's not just that they were GOP appointees, it's the obvious conflict of interest, like Thomas' wife working for Bush.

Boo fucking hoo. Gore was the one responsible for the Supreme Court making the decision, not Bush.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-05-28 12:51am

Elfdart wrote:My father and six of my uncles served in Vietnam and /or Korea and they disliked Jane Fonda -but they fucking HATED Eugene Stoner.

You know why they hated Stoner? It wasn't any issue with the M16's stopping power, it was the monstrous teething problems early in the M16A1's service life, which resulted in the death of more than a few soldiers. First off, no cleaning kits were issued with the rifle at first, because they were seen as unnecessary for the M16 (which needless to say resulted in many rifles breaking down from lack of maintenence), and second, the wrong type of powder was used in the earlier 5.56mm cartridges (which left a grainy residue that tended to gum up the rifle, a problem further compounded by the lack of cleaning kits). Once these two problems were dealt with, the soldier's complaints about it went away for the most part.

BTW, it wasn't Stoner's fault that the M16 is a 5.56mm rifle. If the Army wanted a 7.62mm replacement for the M14, they could have just gone with the AR-10 (Stoner's original rifle from which the AR-15/M16 was derived. In fact, the first AR-15 was a modified AR-10).

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-28 01:49am

MKSheppard wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Its true. You took a huge speech and singled out a single point and dismissed it on that basis.
Would you rather me pick apart that speech over ten entire pages of
absolutely boring mind numbng bullshit?

No, Sheppard. The problem is you think that attack Gore on his ignorance of the procuration cycle for the Interceptor vests is grounds to dismiss the central point of that entire article. THAT is a nitpick, by definition.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-28 01:59am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:No, Sheppard. The problem is you think that attack Gore on his ignorance of the procuration cycle for the Interceptor vests is grounds to dismiss the central point of that entire article. THAT is a nitpick, by definition.

They say the mind is the first thing to go, Illuminatus. You've proved
that, by completely mixing up shit. Go back to my first post in this thread,
then come back........

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-28 02:20am

How does my point change if I meant your harping on his Geneva Convention complaints?

Is following the GC a bad thing? What do hollowpoints have to do with anything?

How does attacking his appeals to the GC refute his central point?

Oh that's right, it doesn't, because its a nitpick.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-28 03:24am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Oh that's right, it doesn't, because its a nitpick.

His entire rant reads like a recycled 1980s script against the evil, evil
Ronnie Raygun deploying those evil evil Pershing II and GLCMs to
Europe, in defiance of the Europeans who could be living in peace with
the Russkies if it wasn't for that evil Uncle Sam led by that alzheimer's
addled cowboy movie actor Ronnie Raygun.

Shit, it's fucking eerie how history is repeating itself in so many
ways twenty years later, the only thing different is the names in the
script. So why should I waste time rebutting what is essentially a
recycled argument from the 1980s that America is destroying their
reputation on the world stage by doing what is in America's best
interests?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-05-28 03:30am

MKSheppard wrote:His entire rant reads like a recycled 1980s script against the evil, evil
Ronnie Raygun deploying those evil evil Pershing II and GLCMs to
Europe, in defiance of the Europeans who could be living in peace with
the Russkies if it wasn't for that evil Uncle Sam led by that alzheimer's
addled cowboy movie actor Ronnie Raygun.

I'm not taking sides here, but damn, that was truly funny

.