Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - leadfoot4

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Racing Discussion / The Crummy Weather
« on: April 01, 2018, 11:44:17 AM »
I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard a rumor that the Easter Bunny saw his shadow this morning. That means 6 more weeks of cold weather!!



Just a joke, of course (I hope!!!), and Happy Easter to all.

2
Racing Discussion / Snow Tires at Martinsville?
« on: March 24, 2018, 11:30:21 AM »
What do y'all think......stock cars or snowmobiles at Martinsville, tomorrow

3
Off Topic Discussion / Danica at Daytona
« on: February 13, 2018, 09:11:10 AM »
A priest, a rabbi and a man with a dog walk into a bar.

 The race is on the TV and when the announcer says Danica is up to 25th the dog jumps up and runs around the bar 25 times.

 Awhile later they annonce that Danica is up to 10th, and the dog races around the bar 10 times.

 After awhile they announce Danica's up to 3rd and the dog races around the bar 3 times.

 The bartender sez That's amazing! What'll he do if Danica wins?

 And the man says I dunno, I've only had him for seven years.

4
Off Topic Discussion / The Ventriloquist Touring Sweden...........
« on: January 30, 2018, 03:18:19 PM »
                            A young ventriloquist is touring Sweden. One night, he's doing a show in a small rural town. With his dummy on his knee, he starts going
                            through his customary dumb-blonde jokes.

                            Suddenly, a blonde woman in the fourth row stands on her chair and starts shouting, "I've heard enough of your ***** blonde jokes.

                            What makes you think you can stereotype Swedish blonde women that way?

                            What does the color of a woman's hair have to do with her worth as a human being?

                            It's men like you who keep women like me from being respected at work and in the community, and from reaching our full potential as  people.

                            It's people like you that make others think that all blondes are dumb!

                            You and your kind continue to perpetuate discrimination against not only blondes, but women in general... pathetically, all in the name of
                            humor!"

                            When the embarrassed ventriloquist begins to apologize, the blonde shouts... "You stay out of this! I'm talking to that little jackass on your lap!"

5
Off Topic Discussion / Super Bowl Tickets...
« on: January 25, 2018, 05:21:10 PM »

I know it's late notice, but a friend of  mine has two tickets for the Super Bowl in Minneapolis, MN at the new U. S. Bank Stadium on Sunday, February 4th. 

They are box seats and he paid $3,500 per ticket, which includes the ride to and from the airport, lunch, dinner, a $400.00 bar tab and a pass to the winners locker room after the game.  What he didn't realize when he bought them last year was that it's on the same day as his wedding. 



If you are interested, he is looking for someone to take his place.  It's at St. Paul's Church at 3 p.m.  Her name is Ashley.  She's 5'4", about 115 pounds, very pretty, a good cook, loves to fish and hunt and will clean your truck.  She'll be the one in the white dress.

6
Off Topic Discussion / Charlie Manson dies
« on: November 20, 2017, 07:30:10 AM »

Hooray!!!


That pile of crap, that California has spent millions on, keeping him alive, for the last 45 years, has finally kicked the bucket. Good riddance!

7
Off Topic Discussion / A message from Charlie Krauthammer
« on: October 26, 2017, 10:22:44 AM »
A friend e-mailed this to me today. I thought I'd share it........


Wonder why this is not considered SUBVERSION

In case you have not learned about this, please read this very important, intelligently written, true account of what is happening in our Democracy daily!

A somewhat long read but an eye opener.....


By Charles Krauthhammer

 New York Post:

I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy
established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in
history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called "Organizing for Action" (OFA).

OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our
current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization
goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?

If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!

Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration's top dogs over to Organizing for Action.

OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the
resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across
America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.

OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for "progressive" change.
Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual
equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.

OFA members were propped up by the ex-president's message from the shadows: "Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond."

OFA's website says it obtained its "digital" assets from the
ex-president's re-election effort and that he inspired the movement.
In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.

Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House."

Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow
government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide. The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his wife will oversee the operation from their home/ office in Washington DC.

Think about how this works.. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. All of this happens from the ex-president's signal that he is heartened by the protests.

If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.

If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.

So, do your part. You have read it, so at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a "PERFECT TARGET" for our enemy!

Charles Krauthammer

8
Off Topic Discussion / Money Talks
« on: October 16, 2017, 07:38:34 AM »
According to some newly released information, regarding the Harvey Weinstein debacle, it appears that he liked to contribute to political campaigns/politicians. Among the better known, on his list of contribution receptors were:
1)Elizabeth Warren, the self-proclaimed, "Native American" candidate in the 2016 Presidential election;
2)New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, a well known, Democratic "rabble rouser";
3)Nevada Senator, Harry Reid....he needs no introduction;
4)Former President (UGH!!!) Barack Obama;
5)Hillary (I NEVER refused a contribution) Clinton;
6)Our very own State Senator, Chuck Schumer.......we're SO proud of him!

9
Off Topic Discussion / News Flash!
« on: October 05, 2017, 04:42:43 PM »
This just In..........

 

 

The Chicago Police Dept. has replaced all squad car sirens with recordings of the National Anthem, to force suspects to stop running and take a knee.

10
Racing Discussion / Department of HUH???
« on: September 17, 2017, 06:13:36 PM »
I just finished watching the NASCAR race from Chicago (great win, "east coast modified graduate", Marty Truex!!), and during the race, the NBC commentators were discussing Stewart-Haas' decision to cut Danica loose. The commentators were saying that the way she first talked about this development, they interpreted it as she was "retiring" from racing.

She then clarified it, and stated that she meant that she didn't want to continue UNLESS she could secure a competitive ride.

HUH??

She's had "competitive rides" for the last 5-6 years, ever since she came to NASCAR, and if she finishes 15th, for her it's a great day............

11
Racing Discussion / What's the situation at Spencer's today?
« on: June 30, 2017, 03:21:18 PM »
I've been running errands around the Rochester area this afternoon, and have been driving in and out of rain. Been home here, in West Webster, and it's been raining off and on for a little while, with the sun beginning to peek out.

Haven't read anything official, yet, and it's nearing 3:30PM.............

12
Racing Discussion / The "DOGFIGHT" website
« on: June 13, 2017, 07:24:10 AM »
I'm sure that many of you fans of the 50s-70s modifieds remember when there was a section of the H.A.M.B. website devoted to this era of oval track racing. The moderators at that site were very picky about keeping it within that era, and as the photos being posted started to creep into the 80s, they shut it off, and moved everybody over to the 'DOGFIGHT' website.

The DOGFIGHT site was up and running for a couple of years, but it appears, at least to me, that the site has shut down, as I can't access it anymore. Has anyone else visited that site in the past, and is now experiencing this, too?

13
Off Topic Discussion / Former AG, on Loretta Lynch
« on: June 10, 2017, 01:21:01 PM »

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Friday accused former President Barack Obama's attorney general, Loretta Lynch, of turning the Justice Department into "an arm of the [Hillary] Clinton campaign."

"What makes it egregious is the fact — and I think it's obvious that it is a fact — that the attorney general of the United States was adjusting the way the department talked about its business so as to coincide with the way the Clinton campaign talked about that business," Mukasey said on Newsmax TV.

"In other words, it made the Department of Justice essentially an arm of the Clinton campaign," said Mukasey, who served as the nation's top law enforcement official under former President George W. Bush.


But...but...but......Trump is "obstructing justice"!!


The eternal depths of "the swamp" is slowly coming into view.



In a sweeping testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, fired FBI Director James Comey claimed that Lynch directed him to refer to the FBI's probe of Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State as a "matter," as opposed to an investigation.
"At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me," Comey told lawmakers.

He added that the directive was one of several that prompted him to make the unusual move of side-stepping the Justice Department in the July announcement that his bureau closed the Clinton investigation.

"I don’t know whether it was intentional or not, but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate," he said.

14
Off Topic Discussion / Charlie Daniels on Chuck Schumer
« on: May 24, 2017, 03:12:20 PM »
By Charlie Daniels | May 24, 2017 | 12:17 PM EDT

Sen. Schumer, I don't live in your constituency, but in the larger picture, you live in mine and every other legal, taxpaying American citizen who is affected by the power you hold in your political party, your blind allegiance to it and the obstructionist posture to anything that doesn't directly benefit it.
There's something sinister about seeing you bent over the lectern in the Senate Chamber, your countenance resembling what I would imagine Edgar Allen Poe's would look like reciting one of his macabre tales of doom and gloom, as if there is not one drop of happiness in your life, forecasting a dismal future for America if anything President Trump proposes passes both houses, is signed and becomes law.

I know you're disappointed. I know you had the balloons ready to fall and the corks halfway out of the champagne bottles on election night. And I know you just can't face the truth that what happened in the election was exactly the same thing you continue to do: you forgot about the working people; you forgot about the empty factories of the rust belt; you took for granted the high crime, low employment, inner cities you've made un-kept promises to for decades. Instead of looking inward at the real cause for your party's loss, you had to find a scapegoat, and if it hadn't been Russia, it would have been something else.

Sen. Schumer, will you do me and America a favor? Will you lay your hand on a Holy Bible and tell America that you believe in your heart that Donald Trump has actually colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government to the detriment of the United States of America?

You see, sir, everything you've come up with so far, and you've been at it since well before the election, has been superficial. And I believe that anything your special counsel will come up with will also be superficial, guilt by association, the fires of triviality fanned and proliferated by a tilted, hate-filled media and super partisan politicians.

Sen. Schumer, what goes around truly does come around, and if, or should I say when, this pendulum starts swinging back the other way, do you realize that Mr. Mueller could actually find a lot more dirt on prominent Democrats than they do Trump and his staff?

You have opened Pandora's Box, sir, and basically thrown away the lid.

Now it’s time to chop the log and let the chips fall where they will.

If President Trump has actually colluded with the Russians or any other foreign government, or sold out my beloved nation in any way, I definitely want to know about it, and if he has, he should be impeached and thrown out of office in disgrace. But right now, you're a hell of a long way from proving even one iota of your accusations.

Now let's turn this coin over.

Did or did not Hillary Clinton sign off on allowing a Russian agency to purchase a company holding up to 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity?

Who leaked the classified information that started this ball rolling? For the investigation to be valid, that has to come out.

Did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's State department, through incompetence, indifference or both, allow four American citizens to die in Benghazi?

Be careful how you answer this one because the jury and some explosive evidence are still out there, and it all could well be brought to light in a few months.

Did or did not Hillary Clinton, by using an unsecured server and allowing Huma Abedin to email copies to her husband, Anthony Weiner, expose classified documents?

Was there collusion between the Obama administration and the IRS to disallow tax free status to conservative organizations?

If not, why did Lois Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment and retire with full benefits?

You see, sir, Pandora is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and what is revealed in the coming months could well be a two-edged sword.

Be careful what you wish for.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels..............

Charlie Daniels is a legendary American singer, song writer, guitarist, and fiddler famous for his contributions to country and southern rock music. Daniels has been active as a singer since the early 1950s. He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry on January 24, 2008.

15
Off Topic Discussion / The "hits" continue...
« on: March 08, 2017, 09:09:11 AM »
In an effort to the Trump Presidency, the left continually attempts to discredit anyone and/or everyone associated with him. This has recently happened to a potential Trump Administration member, journalist/broadcast personality, Monica Crowley.....

hotair.com/.../2017/02/02/...of-plagiarism-on-monica-crowley

17
Off Topic Discussion / Sound Familiar???
« on: February 01, 2017, 01:11:19 PM »

 https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu


............yet the "left-wing liberals" are tripping all over themselves, skewering Trump for his stand on immigration. Two-faced bas**rds.......

18
Racing Discussion / A Sobering Thought...
« on: January 26, 2017, 04:57:14 PM »
I just received the February 2017 issue of 'Speedway Illustrated' magazine in the mail, and I skimmed through it. One of the featured articles was about Doug Coby, a 4 time NASCAR Whelen Tour champion. The thing that really hit me, was the sidebar discussion with his car owner, Mike Smeriglio. According to Mr. Smeriglio, ironically the owner of an accounting firm by occupation, the cost of competing on the tour car run anywhere from $85,000 to $300,000. And that's above and beyond the initial cost of acquiring the basic equipment.

I seem to recall, at one time, the modified class was primarily made up of "weekend warriors". Men who held full time jobs and raced on the weekends, and on occasion, went to a "big show". Now, the "grass roots" racers are being priced out of the sport......how many racers can afford to spend that kind of money?

19
Racing Discussion / Merry Christmas To All.........
« on: December 24, 2016, 12:28:40 PM »

........as well as a Happy New Year!!

20
Off Topic Discussion / Another Civil War......or not??
« on: November 30, 2016, 02:14:58 PM »
Got this from a friend, in an e-mail.....interesting read.



So I'm reading through the interview and this FBI guy puts out an embedded link. I click on it and end up here, where I can download "RED TEAM PLANNER" in my Word document. Thought I'd share....



The United States Government has extensively studied the concept of second American Civil War (along the assumption that it will be left versus right. HMM. I WONDER WHY THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY DO THAT.)

Their conclusion is as follows: They don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning. The moment civil war is declared, the government loses. No scenario or outcome ends in their success. Period. It’s just a matter of how long it takes.

A longer analysis will follow, but here are the salient points.

30% of the American population will actively revolt.

This alone is enormous and damning. Historically, you only need 10% of the population to actively participate in a rebellion to successfully overthrow the establishment: We only had 15% of the population actively attempting to throw out the British during the Revolutionary War; roughly 70% of what remained was neutral and simply stood by. By contrast, 30% of Americans in modern America would support a revolution to stop their own government if it happened tomorrow That’s how discontent the people are and how much the people don’t support the government.

The government would need infrastructure more than rebels would.

Already working with significant handicaps, the establishment would need electricity, access to the Internet, bridges, and airports to coordinate any active campaign against the rebellion. By contrast, the rebellion can work in the dark. Considering how easy it would be to sabotage US infrastructure, one of the first things the rebellion would do is collapse bridges, destroy, or seize power plants, and cover the Interstate in IEDs. This is relatively simple to accomplish, and it would inflict enormous damage on the establishment’s ability to restore order. It would also cost an enormous amount of time and effort to fix any sabotage, because the establishment would need to provide military protection to any workers attempting to rebuild, which is a drain their active fighting personnel resources that they could not afford.

Taking America in a land war is almost impossible.

The United States is absolutely full of natural terrain chokepoints, making marching an army across it against armed resistance almost impossible, and it is large enough that no sustained air campaign would be possible. The Japanese Admiralty realized this themselves during WWII, which is why many of them were against attempting to invade. Also, by an interesting coincidence, most of those chokepoints are in hard conservative states, where the resistance would be strongest. The government would lack the ability to reclaim its own land by force, especially when the previous point about infrastructure is taken into account. President Lincoln, on the matter of potential European involvement in the first American Civil War, stated, “All the armies of Europe with a Bonaparte as a commander, could not take a drink from the Ohio.”

A significant majority–between 55 and 70%–of the military would defect to the side of the citizens.

The problem with suppressing the people with a military, that literature and fantasy tend to overlook or ignore, is that the military is the people, too. In order to get any military to fight their own, you first have to convince them that it is necessary to do so–that it is justified. The Communists also ran into this problem, but they overcame it with psychological conditioning and creating a dog-eat-dog atmosphere within the military. The American government having actively recruited people who are patriotic, practical, brave, who have civilian families, and having reinforced those values throughout their training process, lacks the ability to convince the majority of their fighting force to engage against their own people. The moment a civil war breaks out, over half of the American military will defect to the rebel side. They will bring military gear with them and, more dangerous, military training. lt only takes one Navy Seal or Army Ranger to potentially train hundreds of civilians into a dangerous resistance force. They’ve done it before, in other nations. You can be damn sure they can do it on their own home turf.

But it gets better.

At least 10% of the people who defect to the civilian side would not do so openly, and they would not abandon their posts.


The moment a civil war starts, not only does America lose over half its military to the cause, but their own command structure will suddenly be infested with moles, plants, and “traitors.” There would be almost no way of knowing who is actually on their side and who is supporting the uprising. Worse yet, if one of those people happens to be the captain of one of the nuclear submarines on standby in dark water, the civil war is already lost before it even gets started.

Russia has already publicly stated that it will support any rebellion in the United States against the established government and will send troops and aid to support the resistance. This is pretty self-explanatory. The last thing the government would need during a civil war is Russia breathing down its neck, but they would get exactly that. To supplement two-thirds of their own military leaving and civilians being trained by military elites, Spetsnaz would drop in and the resistance would get armor and air support from the only other nation on the planet that stands a decent chance of fighting us openly and winning.

The media fearmongers because it’s profitable.

The media, for all of its paid shillery, would give coverage of everything the resistance does because it is immensely profitable for them to do so. It would be guaranteed views. The only response the establishment would have would be to either allow it or order a total media blackout on the rebellion. Either way they lose, because both outcomes would awaken hundreds of thousands–if not millions–of people. We can only win on the media arena, and they can only lose. It’s merely a matter of what they think will minimize their losses.

American civilians are armed and dangerous.

In spite of all of the illegal attempts from the political left to disarm the American people, there are approximately 89 guns for every 100 Americans. Furthermore, we are one of the top three arms manufacturers on the planet (the others being Russia and France). The establishment would be in trouble even if their opponents were unarmed, but any rebellion of the people in America is, by definition, an armed one. They could be easily armed further by stealing weapons or even outright being given them by sympathetic interests (unsurprisingly, an overwhelming number of weapons manufacturers on American soil are deeply traditionalist, and the odds are good that many minor–and at least one major–would side with the rebels).

The last resort Catch 22.

The United States has an enormous stockpile of munitions and explosives, up to and including a massive number of nuclear warheads. But they cannot use any of this in this Civil War. The establishment has to play a game of “we’re the good guys” with the rest of the world while this is all taking place. There will be lines they cannot cross, because to do so would elevate the issue from being an internal matter to an international one. The moment they throw an ICBM at Ohio or drop a nuke on Austin, Texas, it stops being a civil war and becomes an international relief effort where the other militaries of the other first world nations come to save the American people from their own out-of-control and tyrannical government. The rebellion, meanwhile, is not nearly so limited re: the hypothetical nuclear submarine captain. The rebels could threaten–without bluffing–to nuke Washington DC, but the establishment has no equivalent threat they could return.

Former red team planner for the government here.
 
If there was a revolution in the US, the rest of the world would get involved, fast. Depending on the type of uprising, there is a large chance that it would not be a quick affair. It would be brutal, it would be bloody, and the US government could start a global scale war. Here are the top ten issues that came up.

1) The US power grid can be taken down by a series of “surgical strikes” with the exception of the Texas grid. By surgical strikes, I mean a few marksmen (US army-tier Marksmen–the minimum requirement) hitting certain spots on the grid would **** a lot of the military and government because they need the grid more than Bubba and his friends do. Additionally, while all government agencies have backup generators, they will be hard pressed dealing with the resultant looting and other madness that would come with power outages. This would effectively create another front for the military. It would also turn the people against the government more quickly and paralyze the government’s propaganda machine. Worse still–the key points of the US power grid are publicly obtainable information, and not only are the points too many to be effectively guarded, they are not guarded anyway.

2) The estimated desertion rate in case of a civil war is 75% in the case of a left-wing president. 50% of that would be assumed to immediately betray the president. The remaining (treasonous) military would be fighting its own. Yet another front created in the war. Additionally, there is an assumed 25-50% desertion or outright betrayal rate in "three letter" government agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, ATC, TSA, etc.). Additionally, it is assumed that 5% of the initial 50% betrayers would stay in their job and become saboteurs. 10% of that 50% would contain key information that would be of critical danger to the US government. Of that 10%, 1% would be able to deliver that information to the US’ foreign enemies. What you should get from this is that the second the United States government declares war on its own is the second it ceases to exist as the state we know it.

3) “Tea baggers,” “right-wing extremists,” and “oath keepers” which are considered untrained racists who aren’t “good with a gun” often are A) veterans who now have more time to have fun at the range, sometimes more than some Army units or Marine units. In addition to previous military training, B) often camp and do other outdoor activities–more than many in the military do, as the focus has gone away from field exercises, and C) often have better equipment–outside of armor and heavy weapons–than the military. However, C) is kind of irrelevant because many of the places in which these people could hide would make the kind of war the US fights with the equipment they use pointless.

4) Outside influence is a huge problem. Russia has already stated they would back a Texas separatist movement, and right now we already have enough problem keeping Islam in check. The second the US has to fight in a “civil war” is the second it becomes a proxy war between NATO and whoever wants to mess with America. While America has amazing nuclear and air defense, if it comes to a civil war you have to assume that in a best cast scenario the US military is going to be operating at 50% capacity at best. ***** would go down. Hard. And fast. And if Russia–spoiler alert: one of the best militaries in the world at fighting in an urban environment–sent trainers and helpers to rebels, you can reliably bet that they would also possibly deliver weapons to them. So instead of fighting “Timmy TeaBagger,” you are fighting “Timmy TeaBagger who is buddies with Vlad.”

5) A civil war is not just the US versus the rebels. There will be looting. There will be rioting. Cities will burn. The National Guard cannot fight both the rebels and rioters in a city that would also cut off their supplies. Additionally, if you don’t think that the rebels will send in instigators into the cities–or worse, stand alone actors (A Lone Wolf on steroids. Think Timothy McVeigh, but instead of one van they have a whole fleet of them. A good movie example would be Bane)–you would be mistaken. If the US government cannot even help its own people, why would its own people support the remaining (treasonous) military? Worse yet, if someone emptied out prisons (There are more prisoners in the US than there are people in the entire Chinese Army), you would have more crime than the police could ever handle.

6) Logistics and infrastructure in the US are crumbling and failing. Any war fought against a rebellion in the US would be a logistical nightmare, even before the rebels started going full Al-Qaida and putting IEDs in the road. A retired general who was contracting with us on the team said, “The only thing holding together the US’ infrastructure is duct tape and the will of the Department of Transportation. And often enough, there isn't enough duct tape.” Your most loyal cities to the US government, as we polled, are also the most logistically easy to cut off. NYC? San Fran? L.A.? D.C.? Baltimore? Most of them require crossing water to enter, from certain directions. Most of them have critical airports. Some of them have critical ocean ports. If anything happened to just TWO of the cities on the list, it would create a logistical cluster****.

7) Your “Johnny Reb” and “Timmy TeaBagger” states (i.e., “red” states) all have something most of your “oh so progressive,” “Aren’t we so European,” “Oh my god, we are just like Sweden,” blue states don’t. Blues are mainly consumer states. Reds are producer states. Urban areas don’t have farms. The second that ***** goes down, realize a lot of those blue areas are likely to starve. In a civil war scenario, we predicted that at least 10,000 people would die of starvation if the war was not finished in a year. The numbers get worse after that. Or better, rather, for the country after the war.

8) The US has way too many choke points, and the government forces would often be on the wrong side of them. This ties into the logistical nightmare, but it also has to do with an odd phenomena. Liberals like to live near the ocean. Many of the dividers of the country, like the Rocky Mountains, the Mississippi River, Appalachia, the Missouri River (fun fact: the biggest choke point for the US government is in Missouri) are red state areas. Sure, air travel is a thing, but a majority of the US government's needs would have to travel by ground. Even still, many of the major airports are outside of the city. Of course, the US would use military base air fields, but if civil war did break out… which bases would be safe? Which ones would have fallen to the deserters?

9) PR Nightmare. Every rebel killed on CNN would be spun as “the US government killed X Civilians today in a strike” on foreign news and pirate media not owned by the government. That is–as pointed out earlier–if the US media could even function in a civil war or uprising. Your “rebel scum” know that the main thing that holds together the US–nay life in the US as we know it–is the 24 hour news cycle and the media. The second it's gone, you are going to have urban anarchy. If you are from America, can you imagine a day without TV, newspaper, or Internet? Your average urban youth can’t. If you don’t think that isn’t going to cause rioting, you must have a real high regard for how much restraint they have. Assume in a civil war that your ability to talk to the people is compromised. Also assume that in the case of a civil war that rebels may know how to monitor conversations like the US does, as there are manuals online on how to do so.

10) This one is either 1 or 10, depending on who is asked. The US will never nuke its own. The second it does, they have lost the civil war and other countries will come to “liberate” the US from its own “repressive regime.” Additionally, if any general, minuteman, nuke tech, or nuke sub captain decided to side with the rebellion, the US government is immediately SOL.

In short: The second that a “civilian uprising” or “extremist group terrorist attack” turns into “civil war” is the second the US loses. As a result, you will never see a civil war. You will see Waco, you will see Bundy Ranch, you will see all sorts of militant group confrontations and maybe even some skirmishes. But the US government fears its own people way the **** too much to ever start a civil war.

As an American, I want all other Americans here to remember this. The government is against you, almost openly now, but they also know that they cannot win if it comes to open war. We have a trump card they cannot match. If it comes to a fight, THEY WILL LOSE, so there are elements in the establishment who will do absolutely everything in their power to prevent it from coming to that. The US Government is not in support of its people, and the people are not in support of the government.

It is within the means of certain interests to start World War III simply as a distraction to avoid an American Civil War, because, by their reckoning, it is better to ruin other “lesser” nations like Syria and spill the blood of patriots than lose their own grip on power.
 
 
**YOU HEARD RIGHT. WORLD WAR III ITSELF COULD BE A DELIBERATE FALSE FLAG TO PREVENT A POWER CHANGE IN AMERICA. REMEMBER THIS.**

21
Off Topic Discussion / Has a nice ring to it.....
« on: November 09, 2016, 05:57:17 AM »
.............doesn't it. PRESIDENT TRUMP!!

22
Off Topic Discussion / The WOMAN who could be the POTUS...
« on: November 06, 2016, 12:59:54 PM »
Do we REALLY need somebody this careless, running our country??


REALLY??


This is from Fox News, via Yahoo News, today, Sunday, November 6th, 2016


As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, D.C., e-mails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material.

In fact, Marina Santos was called on so frequently to receive e-mails that she may hold the secrets to E-mailgate — if only the FBI and Congress would subpoena her and the equipment she used.

Clinton entrusted far more than the care of her D.C. residence, known as Whitehaven, to Santos. She expected the Filipino immigrant to handle state secrets, further opening the Democratic presidential nominee to criticism that she played fast and loose with national security.

Clinton would first receive highly sensitive emails from top aides at the State Department and then request that they, in turn, forward the messages and any attached documents to Santos to print out for her at the home.

Among other things, Clinton requested Santos print out drafts of her speeches, confidential memos and “call sheets” — background information and talking points prepared for the secretary of state in advance of a phone call with a foreign head of state.

“Pls ask Marina to print for me in am,” Clinton emailed top aide Huma Abedin regarding a redacted 2011 message marked sensitive but unclassified.



The ENTIRE WORLD knows many of the inner secrets of the United States, thanks to Hillary......and she isn't even the POTUS. Want to vote her into office, and give her even MORE leeway??



23
Off Topic Discussion / Hillary Clinton and Benghazi
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:23:12 PM »


OPINION

What the Benghazi attack taught me about Hillary Clinton

 By Gregory N. Hicks
 Published September 11, 2016



 Last month, I retired from the State Department after 25 years of public service as a Foreign Service officer. As the Deputy Chief of Mission for Libya, I was the last person in Tripoli to speak with Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was murdered in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on our Benghazi post. On this, the fourth anniversary of the Benghazi tragedy, I would like to offer a different explanation for Benghazi’s relevance to the presidential election than is usually found in the press.




Just as the Constitution makes national security the President’s highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs "to provide for the security … of all United States personnel on official duty abroad.” This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.




 The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure. It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi. Thus, according to the Report, “there were no surplus security agents” to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens “without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.”




Had Ambassador Stevens’ July 2012 request for 13 additional American security personnel (either military or State Department) been approved rather than rejected by Clinton appointee Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, they would have traveled to Benghazi with the ambassador, and the Sept. 11 attack might have been thwarted.
 U.S. law also requires the secretary of state to ensure that all U.S. government personnel assigned to a diplomatic post abroad be located at one site. If not, the secretary — and only the secretary — with the concurrence of the agency head whose personnel will be located at a different location, must issue a waiver. The law, which states specifically that the waiver decision cannot be delegated, was passed after the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, when deficient security was blamed for that debacle under Bill Clinton's presidency.




When asked about security at Benghazi on Sept. 11, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly asserted her lack of responsibility. Initially, she said that she never read any of the reporting on security conditions or any of the requests for additional security, claiming that “she delegated security to the professionals.” More recently, she stated that “It was not my ball to carry.” But the law says otherwise. Sound familiar?




 Her decision to allow the Benghazi consulate to be separate from the CIA annex divided scarce resources in a progressively deteriorating security environment. U.S. personnel assigned to Benghazi tried to overcome this severe disadvantage through an agreement that the security personal from each facility would rush to the other facility’s aid in the event it was attacked. The division of our security resources in Benghazi is the root cause of the “stand down” order controversy so vividly portrayed in the movie “13 Hours.”Notably, one of the primary goals of Ambassador Stevens’ fatal visit was to begin consolidating our Benghazi personnel into one facility, which would have concentrated our security posture in Benghazi’s volatile and violent environment.




There are no punitive measures for breaching these two laws. Mrs. Clinton will not have to appear before judge and jury to account for her failures. Is this why she felt these laws could be ignored? Because she is now the Democratic presidential candidate, only the American electorate will have the opportunity to hold her accountable.




 Candidate Clinton and her campaign point to her record as secretary of state as a positive qualification for the presidency.
 However, the record shows that Secretary Clinton persuaded the president to overthrow Qaddafi and advocated maintaining a diplomatic presence in Benghazi after the Libyan revolution. And then she abandoned her diplomats by ignoring her security obligations. She sent Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi during the 2011 revolution and then induced him to return in the first few months of his tenure, which accounted for his September visit there. Despite the fact that Sidney Blumenthal had alerted her to the increasing danger for Americans in Benghazi and Libya, Mrs. Clinton apparently never asked security professionals for an updated briefing on the situation in Libya. Either she could not correlate the increased tempo of attacks in Libya with the safety of our diplomats, demonstrating fatal incompetence, or she was grossly negligent.




If Mrs. Clinton was unable to fulfill her security obligations to the federal employees she was legally obligated to protect as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t

24
Off Topic Discussion / Hillary wears an earbud, during Matt Lauer Forum
« on: September 08, 2016, 11:25:28 AM »

Apparently, the self proclaimed, "most qualified person for the job", needs "off stage" help, to get through a simple, "softball" question and answer interview. What a joke!!


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cry_sZdUEAEBYv5.jpg

25
Racing Discussion / Ryan Newman docked 15 points........
« on: September 08, 2016, 11:16:30 AM »
What a poor joke!!

Race cars are inspected AFTER a 400 mile race, and a car is penalized because a "toe-in" setting isn't "within spec" (especially when said car had contact with the wall during the race!!)??????


This is getting more and more like Professional Wrestling.........

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8