I challenge Gunny

[Gunny]

(AFP) – 14 hours ago


LOS ANGELES — Two F-16 fighters were scrambled Thursday to intercept a light aircraft over Los Angeles, during a visit by President Barack Obama for a fundraising trip, officials said.

The military jets scrambled out of March Air Reserve Base in Riverside County, California, "to respond to a temporary flight restriction violation by a Cessna 182 aircraft over Los Angeles," said a NORAD statement.
"After intercepting the aircraft, the F-16s followed it until it landed without incident at approximately 12:30 pm MST, where the plane was met by local law enforcement," said the North American Aerospace Defense Command.


more ... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h1HM4hfzZCx_Vrac9RLssW28BnCA?docId=CNG.8b32a d461489ab05113fc900b5f26049.d91

Heaven forbid a Cessna single prop attack O-blah-blah.

Is it just me? Or is this shit getting old? Now you can't fly your unobtrusive, unarmed plane anywhere near his eminence? Like the f*ing Air Force is going to do anything anyway. If I was after someone I'd send Navy or Marine F-18s. They actually know how to kick some ass below 30,000 feet.

[ConHog]

more ... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h1HM4hfzZCx_Vrac9RLssW28BnCA?docId=CNG.8b32a d461489ab05113fc900b5f26049.d91

Heaven forbid a Cessna single prop attack O-blah-blah.

Is it just me? Or is this shit getting old? Now you can't fly your unobtrusive, unarmed plane anywhere near his eminence? Like the f*ing Air Force is going to do anything anyway. If I was after someone I'd send Navy or Marine F-18s. They actually know how to kick some ass below 30,000 feet.

What are you going on about? It's SOP to not have aircraft flying around wherever POTUS is. Didn't start with Obama.

PS - Much as I'd do away with the Air Force altogether, they were no doubt sent up because they were the closest to the incident, and their primary mission in that situation is to get the plane away from POTUS and hopefully landed, not to shoot them down .

[Gunny]

What are you going on about? It's SOP to not have aircraft flying around wherever POTUS is. Didn't start with Obama.

PS - Much as I'd do away with the Air Force altogether, they were no doubt sent up because they were the closest to the incident, and their primary mission in that situation is to get the plane away from POTUS and hopefully landed, not to shoot them down .

You want to stop your assumed crapping on my posts here and now, or you want me to light your ass up? I don't give a damn about SOP, nor that idiot Obama. If anyone in there right mind can't see a single engine Cessna has about about as much threat and firepower as you, they're blind.

You can end this right here and quit running your suck. Your choice. You ain't making yourself look anything but stupid.

[Thunderknuckles]

The Cessna may not have any firepower but what if the plane itself was used as a weapon by a suicidal crackpot looking to kill the President?

[Gunny]

The Cessna may not have any firepower but what if the plane itself was used as a weapon by a suicidal crackpot looking to kill the President?

Let's review "yellow journalism". The leftwing media wants to make this into something it's not. Fact is, some knucklehead was flying his bird around and I'll be damned if it was me that I'd keep up with where Herr Obama is.

And what if? All I'm seeing is a win/win here.

[ConHog]

You want to stop your assumed crapping on my posts here and now, or you want me to light your ass up? I don't give a damn about SOP, nor that idiot Obama. If anyone in there right mind can't see a single engine Cessna has about about as much threat and firepower as you, they're blind.

You can end this right here and quit running your suck. Your choice. You ain't making yourself look anything but stupid.

Huh? Light me up Gunny LOL doesn't change the fact that it is normal to force down planes that try to fly near the POTUS's location.

[Gunny]

Huh? Light me up Gunny LOL doesn't change the fact that it is normal to force down planes that try to fly near the POTUS's location.

I told you where to take it. That's the rules. You want a piece of me, the cage is available. Otherwise shut your f*ing mouth and quit messing up the threads.

If it's so normal then why is the leftwingnut media trying to make some big issue of it? Come on, bright boy, let's hear your answer.

[logroller]

What are you going on about? It's SOP to not have aircraft flying around wherever POTUS is. Didn't start with Obama.

PS - Much as I'd do away with the Air Force altogether, they were no doubt sent up because they were the closest to the incident, and their primary mission in that situation is to get the plane away from POTUS and hopefully landed, not to shoot them down .
That's just what those sneaky commies want you to believe.:poke::laugh2:
Seriously though, scrambled? I wouldn't be surprised if they're already in the air...contingencies contingencies...

[ConHog]

I told you where to take it. That's the rules. You want a piece of me, the cage is available. Otherwise shut your f*ing mouth and quit messing up the threads.

If it's so normal then why is the leftwingnut media trying to make some big issue of it? Come on, bright boy, let's hear your answer.

What are you babbling about? I didn't flame you. I disagreed with your post. Do you REALLY not understand the difference? Clearly it is YOU who is flaming.

As for why the media make a big deal of it, probably the same reason they made a big deal about some doof throwing a shoe at Bush, or about Tebow or about anything. Making a big deal out of things is what they do.

[Gunny]

What are you babbling about? I didn't flame you. I disagreed with your post. Do you REALLY not understand the difference?

Whatever you say. The President sucks. Regardless, if two USAF f-16s can't recognize an unarmed, single engine Cessna for what it is, fuck them. If I owned a plane, I'd fly it wherever the fuck I want.

Tell me, just WHAT makes it okay for you to cow to the government, neocon? The one that isn't supposed to be up our butts for whatever it desires? Aren't you supposed to be Mr Constitution? You damned sure missed the words in it.

Your compliance to an unconstitutional machine that reeks of P*ssy is echoed by your every word.

[logroller]

Whatever you say. The President sucks. Regardless, if two USAF f-16s can't recognize an unarmed, single engine Cessna for what it is, fuck them. If I owned a plane, I'd fly it wherever the fuck I want.

Tell me, just WHAT makes it okay for you to cow to the government, neocon? The one that isn't supposed to be up our butts for whatever it desires? Aren't you supposed to be Mr Constitution? You damned sure missed the words in it.

Your compliance to an unconstitutional machine that reeks of P*ssy is echoed by your every word.
Oh come on Gunny; i'm sure enforcing a no-fly zone around the Prez is SOP. Not to mention, US airspace, like, all of it that I'm aware, is controlled by the sovereign.

[Gunny]

Oh come on Gunny; i'm sure enforcing a no-fly zone around the Prez is SOP. Not to mention, US airspace, like, all of it that I'm aware, is controlled by the sovereign.

And? Let's start at the biginning of your reply. "US Airspace?" That would mean airspace available for use by US citzens to me. Nut OH FUCK NO ... we have a US government agency that can dictate what you're allowed to do in the sky. Imust have missed that in the Constitution.

Oh wait ... no I didn't ... after Lincoln violated almost as much of the Constitution as Obama has, it was decided by force of arms.

Right?

[ConHog]

Whatever you say. The President sucks. Regardless, if two USAF f-16s can't recognize an unarmed, single engine Cessna for what it is, fuck them. If I owned a plane, I'd fly it wherever the fuck I want.

Tell me, just WHAT makes it okay for you to cow to the government, neocon? The one that isn't supposed to be up our butts for whatever it desires? Aren't you supposed to be Mr Constitution? You damned sure missed the words in it.

Your compliance to an unconstitutional machine that reeks of P*ssy is echoed by your every word.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That a POTUS who you don't like shouldn't be afforded the same security as one you approve of? You do realize that they are protecting the OFFICE of the Presidency as much as they are protecting the man who holds that office don't you?

ALso, those AF drivers weren't the ones calling the shots, they don't get to decide which planes they will investigate and which ones they won't.

The rest of your post was just mindless flaming, please take it to the cage.

[ConHog]

And? Let's start at the biginning of your reply. "US Airspace?" That would mean airspace available for use by US citzens to me. Nut OH FUCK NO ... we have a US government agency that can dictate what you're allowed to do in the sky. Imust have missed that in the Constitution.

Oh wait ... no I didn't ... after Lincoln violated almost as much of the Constitution as Obama has, it was decided by force of arms.

Right?

The correct term is US controlled airspace, meaning of course that it is CONTROLLED, not just a free for all fly wherever you like whenever you like. HOWEVER, let me ask you this, without landing the plane and checking out the identity of the pilot how would they even know that he was a US citizen or not? Could have been a Russian spy flying the Cessna for all we know.

[Gunny]

The correct term is US controlled airspace, meaning of course that it is CONTROLLED, not just a free for all fly wherever you like whenever you like. HOWEVER, let me ask you this, without landing the plane and checking out the identity of the pilot how would they even know that he was a US citizen or not? Could have been a Russian spy flying the Cessna for all we know.

The correct term is unconstitutional. Controlled by force. I see a recurring theme here.

[Mr. P]

That's just what those sneaky commies want you to believe.:poke::laugh2:
Seriously though, scrambled? I wouldn't be surprised if they're already in the air...contingencies contingencies...

Possibly, but I don't think so here in the US. Outside maybe. My last class one of my students was a Norwegian F-16 pilot.
Remember the joke Noble peace prize Bama received? My student told me that he was in charge of air security for that visit and they had all their 16s up patrolling the entire boarder of Norway the entire time bambam was there. Oh, get this, even though tasked with protection they couldn't get within 20 miles of Air force one.

[Gunny]

Possibly, but I don't think so here in the US. Outside maybe. My last class one of my students was a Norwegian F-16 pilot.
Remember the joke Noble peace prize Bama received? My student told me that he was in charge of air security for that visit and they had all their 16s up patrolling the entire boarder of Norway the entire time bambam was there. Oh, get this, even though tasked with protection they couldn't get within 20 miles of Air force one.

Yeah, it's a joke. Nothing more.

[ConHog]

The correct term is unconstitutional. Controlled by force. I see a recurring theme here.

On what grounds do you declare that not allowing a plane to fly over wherever the POTUS is to be unconstitutional (Please say 10th Amendment :laugh2: ?)

[Gunny]

On what grounds do you declare that not allowing a plane to fly over wherever the POTUS is to be unconstitutional (Please say 10th Amendment :laugh2: ?)

Nah. How about you point out where it says in the Constitution that YOUR government has a right to control ANY airspace? You call yourself a conservative; yet, you're just a US Government suckup.

The US Government doesn't have the right, Constitutionally, to declare jack shit. Weaklings like you have allowed it to.

[ConHog]

Nah. How about you point out where it says in the Constitution that YOUR government has a right to control ANY airspace? You call yourself a conservative; yet, you're just a US Government suckup.

The US Government doesn't have the right, Constitutionally, to declare jack shit. Weaklings like you have allowed it to.

I would say that in light of the fact that the worst terrorist attack in US history occured via airspace, and considering the fact that our participation in WWII was precipitated by an event started in airspace, and in light of the fact that since the 1950s we have lived with varying degrees of concern about being attacked by ICBMs from the air, that a rock solid conclusion can be drawn that controlling our airspace is a matter of national defense which most certainly IS the realm of the federal government. Now are you going to debate that ? Probably not, probably just issue some more insults and pretend like a valid point wasn't just made.

As for me calling myself a conservative, I most assuredly have not . I HAVE said that I have predominantly conservative views , but not on everything. Not that matters here, because liberal or conservative has NOTHING to do with recognizing that the federal government has an obvious duty to keep the POTUS out of harm's way.

[Gunny]

I would say that in light of the fact that the worst terrorist attack in US history occured via airspace, and considering the fact that our participation in WWII was precipitated by an event started in airspace, and in light of the fact that since the 1950s we have lived with varying degrees of concern about being attacked by ICBMs from the air, that a rock solid conclusion can be drawn that controlling our airspace is a matter of national defense which most certainly IS the realm of the federal government. Now are you going to debate that ? Probably not, probably just issue some more insults and pretend like a valid point wasn't just made.

As for me calling myself a conservative, I most assuredly have not . I HAVE said that I have predominantly conservative views , but not on everything. Not that matters here, because liberal or conservative has NOTHING to do with recognizing that the federal government has an obvious duty to keep the POTUS out of harm's way.

I would say you just got schooled as the US Government suckup you are.

I'm SURE an ICBM leaves the same radar trace a Cessna does. NOT.

My conclusion is you're afraid. Just what the government preys on. You'll give your liberties freely to a government that promises to protect you. Even if it can't. Registered as a Democrat yet, or what?

[ConHog]

I would say you just got schooled as the US Government suckup you are.

I'm SURE an ICBM leaves the same radar trace a Cessna does. NOT.

My conclusion is you're afraid. Just what the government preys on. You'll give your liberties freely to a government that promises to protect you. Even if it can't. Registered as a Democrat yet, or what?

My conclusion is that you don't know how to debate. YOU stated it was unconstitutional for them to control airspace. I stated that it isn't , so the logical thing is for you to now state why you think it is.

See if the government WEREN'T controlling our airspace , there would be no radar trace of either a Cessna nor an ICBM, and I have NO , not one, not a single doubt that if an ICBM were to blow up say San Antonio with no warning that you would be blaming Obama for that.

[LuvRPgrl]

Could have been a Russian spy flying the Cessna for all we know.

hahahhaha, AND YOU CALL REV PARANOID ?

Typical us armed response, closing the barn door after the horse gets out

[Little-Acorn]

If I may intervene into this purse fight for a moment....

Fed control of airspace began in the 1920s and 30s when people started using airplanes to fly cargo, mail etc. from state to state. The Fed started funding and building airports under the Insterstate Commerce clause. Maybe they went too far when they started controlling airspace for planes that were NOT going state to state, in addition to the ones that were. Though how you would sort them out is a puzzle - unlike ground vehicles, you can't stop planes at the border.

BTW, some jihadi person with a towel around his head would find it fairly easy to rent (or steal) a Cessna 182 just like that one, pack a few hundred pounds of explosives into it (a 182 can lift more than a thousand pounds, including pilot, fuel, cargo etc.), take off when he knows Air Force 1 is coming, and stooge around outside the TFR zone until AF1 is on the ground at LAX; then come in and dive the 182 into AF1 on the tarmac. It would take him about 10 minutes to get from outside the TFR zone to AF1, maybe less.

Secret Service people have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and assorted other goodies to deal with attacks. But if it turns out to simply be some Sunday flier who didn't check the NOTAMS and didn't have his radio on the right frequency, he's guilty of nothing more than abject stupidity. Putting a Stinger up his ass seems to be a little extreme. The Fed would rather buzz him with an F16 to get his attention and politely lead him to the nearest secure facility. If he doesn't lead, THEN the Stinger (or simply some 20mm cannon shells) become a viable option. But at least they give the guy a chance.

Given the paranoia (which after 9/11 isn't quite so paranoid any more) over terrorists, the Fed responded with appropriate force AND restraint.

If, of course, their activities are within the Constitution.

Do we need a Constitutional amendment here?

If the Fed setting up Temporary Flight Restrictions (as they always do for Presidential travel) is not allowable, then how SHOULD they protect the President against the jihadi raghead in the Cessna, without indiscriminately shooting down Joe Sixpack who was merely stupid?

We now return you to your normal squalling, namecalling, and screechy chest-thumping.

[fj1200]

Do we need a Constitutional amendment here?

No.

[ConHog]

hahahhaha, AND YOU CALL REV PARANOID ?

Typical us armed response, closing the barn door after the horse gets out

LOL I was of course just using an example. I guess I should have used the typical "raghead" scenario instead. :laugh2:

To some extent you're of course right, there was no secret service prior to a few US POTUS getting whacked and there was far fewer restrictions prior to planes being used as weapons.

[LuvRPgrl]

and we didnt already know the planes were hijacked?
AND WE DIDNT KNOW THAT IT WAS ZERO'S ATTACKING US?
And if ICBM's were fired at us, we wouldnt be able to know they are ICBM's?
so, what do those attacks have to do with a single prop cessna?



I would say that in light of the fact that the worst terrorist attack in US history occured via airspace,.

THE planes were hijacked first, preventing hijacking has pretty much solved that problem, not having total authority over all air space. invol


and considering the fact that our participation in WWII was precipitated by an event started in airspace,.

the attack wasnt on our soil. And we all know that we were already well involved into WWII, AND with Japan, it was hardly a WORLD WAR, GERMANY is the one that effectively made it a world war, involving Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Japan was only involved in Asia.

in spite of that, it was a military base that was attacked, they already had control over that air space, so expanding their control over all the skies wouldnt have made any difference at all.


and in light of the fact that since the 1950s we have lived with varying degrees of concern about being attacked by ICBMs.

oh the horror, a cessna DROPPING ICBM's on us.


from the air, that a rock solid conclusion can be drawn that controlling our airspace is a matter of national defense .

again, controlling air space had nothing to do with alowwing those attacks to occur.
controlling militarized flying objects, and hijacking is what is needed.


which most certainly IS the realm of the federal government. Now are you going to debate that ? Probably not, probably just issue some more insults and pretend like a valid point wasn't just made..




As for me calling myself a conservative, I most assuredly have not . .

of course you arent a conservative, you are a fence straddler and go which ever way the wind blows you.

[LuvRPgrl]

If I may intervene into this purse fight for a moment....

Fed control of airspace began in the 1920s and 30s when people started using airplanes to fly cargo, mail etc. from state to state. The Fed started funding and building airports under the Insterstate Commerce clause. Maybe they went too far when they started controlling airspace for planes that were NOT going state to state, in addition to the ones that were. Though how you would sort them out is a puzzle - unlike ground vehicles, you can't stop planes at the border..

actually you couldn without disrupting the travel of us citizens, or those without ill will.


BTW, some jihadi person with a towel around his head would find it fairly easy to rent (or steal) a Cessna 182 just like that one, pack a few hundred pounds of explosives into it (a 182 can lift more than a thousand pounds, including pilot, fuel, cargo etc.), take off when he knows Air Force 1 is coming, and stooge around outside the TFR zone until AF1 is on the ground at LAX; then come in and dive the 182 into AF1 on the tarmac. It would take him about 10 minutes to get from outside the TFR zone to AF1, maybe less..

If it had been loaded with explosives, the F-16's wouldnt have stopped the terrorist attack, instead of killing oBUMa, possibly thousands of innocent citizens would have died, my choice is let the president die instead.


Secret Service people have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and assorted other goodies to deal with attacks. But if it turns out to simply be some Sunday flier who didn't check the NOTAMS and didn't have his radio on the right frequency, he's guilty of nothing more than abject stupidity. Putting a Stinger up his ass seems to be a little extreme. The Fed would rather buzz him with an F16 to get his attention and politely lead him to the nearest secure facility. If he doesn't lead, THEN the Stinger (or simply some 20mm cannon shells) become a viable option. But at least they give the guy a chance.

Given the paranoia (which after 9/11 isn't quite so paranoid any more) over terrorists, the Fed responded with appropriate force AND restraint.

If, of course, their activities are within the Constitution.

Do we need a Constitutional amendment here?

If the Fed setting up Temporary Flight Restrictions (as they always do for Presidential travel) is not allowable, then how SHOULD they protect the President against the jihadi raghead in the Cessna, without indiscriminately shooting down Joe Sixpack who was merely stupid?

We now return you to your normal squalling, namecalling, and screechy chest-thumping.

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL I was of course just using an example. I guess I should have used the typical "raghead" scenario instead. :laugh2:

To some extent you're of course right, there was no secret service prior to a few US POTUS getting whacked and there was far fewer restrictions prior to planes being used as weapons.
and most, if not all the new restrictions wouldnt have stopped 9/11, paranoid be free !

[ConHog]

and we didnt already know the planes were hijacked?
AND WE DIDNT KNOW THAT IT WAS ZERO'S ATTACKING US?
And if ICBM's were fired at us, we wouldnt be able to know they are ICBM's?
so, what do those attacks have to do with a single prop cessna?




THE planes were hijacked first, preventing hijacking has pretty much solved that problem, not having total authority over all air space. invol



If the feds have the authority to prevent hijackers from taking over planes then they certainly have the authority to dictate where those planes may fly.



the attack wasnt on our soil. And we all know that we were already well involved into WWII, AND with Japan, it was hardly a WORLD WAR, GERMANY is the one that effectively made it a world war, involving Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Japan was only involved in Asia.


Pearl Harbor was in fact on US soil. And it certainly drew us into WWII. That is inarguable.



in spite of that, it was a military base that was attacked, they already had control over that air space, so expanding their control over all the skies wouldnt have made any difference at all.


Obviously we did NOT have control of the air space above Pearl Harbor, else the entire event would not have been so catastrophic for us.


oh the horror, a cessna DROPPING ICBM's on us.


No one suggested that , ICBMS's by definition do not need to be transported via plane.




again, controlling air space had nothing to do with alowwing those attacks to occur.
controlling militarized flying objects, and hijacking is what is needed.




Yes because terrorists are surely going to fly only militarized planes. And as already stated if the government doesn't have the right to control our airspace they have no right to do anything in regards to airline safety other than make arrests after the fact if necessary.







of course you arent a conservative, you are a fence straddler and go which ever way the wind blows you.

I guess you feel emboldened by Gunny's flaming in this thread, I prefer you take it elsewhere and stick to the topic though.

[Little-Acorn]

If it had been loaded with explosives, the F-16's wouldnt have stopped the terrorist attack,
Not sure where you got this conclusion.


instead of killing oBUMa, possibly thousands of innocent citizens would have died,
Or this one.

Explain?

[Mr. P]

and most, if not all the new restrictions wouldnt have stopped 9/11, paranoid be free !

For you and CH...TFRs (Temporary flight restrictions) have been around a very long time they have nothing to do with 911.

[ConHog]

For you and CH...TFRs (Temporary flight restrictions) have been around a very long time they have nothing to do with 911.

I know they have been, I was only using 911 as an example of why we do such things. I also used Pearl Harbor for the same intent.

[LuvRPgrl]

If the feds have the authority to prevent hijackers from taking over planes then they certainly have the authority to dictate where those planes may fly..

not necessarily,,




Pearl Harbor was in fact on US soil. And it certainly drew us into WWII. That is inarguable..

HAwaii was NOT A state




Obviously we did NOT have control of the air space above Pearl Harbor, else the entire event would not have been so catastrophic for us..

hahhahahhah, thats so funny !!!!!!!!!!!!



No one suggested that , ICBMS's by definition do not need to be transported via plane..

so what then, does it have to do with controlling planes?





Yes because terrorists are surely going to fly only militarized planes. And as already stated if the government doesn't have the right to control our airspace they have no right to do anything in regards to airline safety other than make arrests after the fact if necessary..

quite possible. Do the feds do a pat down and screening of all passengers in all planes at all times? thought not, TSA is there for power and show onlly








I guess you feel emboldened by Gunny's flaming in this thread, I prefer you take it elsewhere and stick to the topic though.
Emboldened by GUnny ? hahah,
maybe he was emboldened by me. I was after all, the first one cited by a mod here for attacking you. I do not follow, lead, follow or get out of the way

[ConHog]

I quoted an empty quote from you because you so badly butchered the quote function and I only wanted to address one point.

Pearl Harbor was in FACT on US soil, whether Hawaii was a state or not.

[LuvRPgrl]

I know they have been, I was only using 911 as an example of why we do such things. I also used Pearl Harbor for the same intent.

we need national guard to patrol our streets cuz too many people are speeding

[LuvRPgrl]

I quoted an empty quote from you because you so badly butchered the quote function and I only wanted to address one point.

Pearl Harbor was in FACT on US soil, whether Hawaii was a state or not.

my quote function is not butchered.

pearl harbor on us soil, irrelevant.

now, go back and read carefully, you said it was started in air space, not soil, which is it? fence straddler, you cant have it both ways. Things only start once.
They did have total control over that air space, they chose to ignore the threat.

[ConHog]

we need national guard to patrol our streets cuz too many people are speeding


Oh for the love of God....................... We in fact need nothing of the sort, we already have State Highway patrols protecting the Highways. BUT legally speaking the states would have the authority to send the national guard to patrol the highways if they so desired. In fact that's the same authority they exercise to use the national guard to oh say fight the war on drugs.


my quote function is not butchered.

pearl harbor on us soil, irrelevant.

now, go back and read carefully, you said it was started in air space, not soil, which is it? fence straddler, you cant have it both ways. Things only start once.
They did have total control over that air space, they chose to ignore the threat.

traditionally, at least as far as air flight has existed, countries have always claimed the airspace over their soil as being their territory. So I am completely correct when I say Pearl Harbor began in US airspace because Pearl Harbor was US soil. It is NOT irrelevant. Well I guess technically the attack on PH began in Japan, but I digress.

As for chose to ignore the threat, take that shit to the conspiracy thread next to Rev's thread that Bush was behind 9/11 you loon.

[logroller]

And? Let's start at the biginning of your reply. "US Airspace?" That would mean airspace available for use by US citzens to me. Nut OH FUCK NO ... we have a US government agency that can dictate what you're allowed to do in the sky. Imust have missed that in the Constitution.

Oh wait ... no I didn't ... after Lincoln violated almost as much of the Constitution as Obama has, it was decided by force of arms.

Right?


Authorized by HR 658,ENR, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, from GPO website (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/cas/getdocument.action?billnumber=658&billtype=hr&congress=112&format=html),
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 1, Clause 3, and Clause 18. and I would have added Article III, Section 3:"..The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"

Anything else?

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh for the love of God....................... We in fact need nothing of the sort, we already have State Highway patrols protecting the Highways. BUT legally speaking the states would have the authority to send the national guard to patrol the highways if they so desired. In fact that's the same authority they exercise to use the national guard to oh say fight the war on drugs.



traditionally, at least as far as air flight has existed, countries have always claimed the airspace over their soil as being their territory. So I am completely correct when I say Pearl Harbor began in US airspace because Pearl Harbor was US soil. It is NOT irrelevant. Well I guess technically the attack on PH began in Japan, but I digress.

As for chose to ignore the threat, take that shit to the conspiracy thread next to Rev's thread that Bush was behind 9/11 you loon.

I was just using your own concept of why we need feds in all airspace.

[LuvRPgrl]

Authorized by HR 658,ENR, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, from GPO website (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/cas/getdocument.action?billnumber=658&billtype=hr&congress=112&format=html), and I would have added Article III, Section 3:"..The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"

Anything else?

That is pretty much an umbrella that covers everything and anything they want to do

[ConHog]

I was just using your own concept of why we need feds in all airspace.

Who said that? Have you seen me calling for roving airspace patrols? Weren't you in another thread chastising a poster for stating your posts say things they do not, when you do that very same things yourself as a matter of course?

[logroller]

That is pretty much an umbrella that covers everything and anything they want to do
You know, we've the ability to comment, on the record, whilst laws are first printed to the Federal Register. That time has passed, so you'd best call your Congressman, Issa right? He's the chairperson on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, so he certainly could investigate your claims. Of course he might be a little tied up with Fast and the Furious right now, but I guarantee he'd respond; probably gonna say thanks, BUT FAA laws make sense, and that abandoning them would make the citizens less safe. Which is pretty much what I'd tell you too; but at least there's a chance.:thumb:

[ConHog]

You know, we've the ability to comment, on the record, whilst laws are first printed to the Federal Register. That time has passed, so you'd best call your Congressman, Issa right? He's the chairperson on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, so he certainly could investigate your claims. Of course he might be a little tied up with Fast and the Furious right now, but I guarantee he'd respond; probably gonna say thanks, BUT FAA laws make sense, and that abandoning them would make the citizens less safe. Which is pretty much what I'd tell you too; but at least there's a chance.:thumb:

Just amazes me how many people think unconstitutional means "law I don't like" :laugh2:

[logroller]

Just amazes me how many people think unconstitutional means "law I don't like" :laugh2:

Were that the test, many of your postings would be found 'unconstitutional'.:poke::laugh2:

[ConHog]

Were that the test, much of your posting would be found 'unconstitutional'.:poke::laugh2:



Oh, I'm fairly certain Jim receives regular requests from his constituents to repeal me. :lol:

[logroller]

Oh, I'm fairly certain Jim receives regular requests from his constituents to repeal me. :lol:
Alas, he allows secession - me thinks hes an avid theatre- goer.

[Intense]

more ...

Heaven forbid a Cessna single prop attack O-blah-blah.

Is it just me? Or is this shit getting old? Now you can't fly your unobtrusive, unarmed plane anywhere near his eminence? Like the f*ing Air Force is going to do anything anyway. If I was after someone I'd send Navy or Marine F-18s. They actually know how to kick some ass below 30,000 feet.

Waste of fuel. :lol:

[LuvRPgrl]

You know, we've the ability to comment, on the record, whilst laws are first printed to the Federal Register. That time has passed, so you'd best call your Congressman, Issa right? He's the chairperson on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, so he certainly could investigate your claims. Of course he might be a little tied up with Fast and the Furious right now, but I guarantee he'd respond; probably gonna say thanks, BUT FAA laws make sense, and that abandoning them would make the citizens less safe. Which is pretty much what I'd tell you too; but at least there's a chance.:thumb:

there are other ways to accomplish the same thing without making ordinary; citizens feel like criminals, delay their travel and traumatizing many,

[LuvRPgrl]

Just amazes me how many people think unconstitutional means "law I don't like" :laugh2:
Just amazes me how many people think unconstitutional means "law I do like

[ConHog]

Just amazes me how many people think unconstitutional means "law I do like

Can you post a single example of someone declaring a law that they DO like is unconstitutional?

[OCA]

You want to stop your assumed crapping on my posts here and now, or you want me to light your ass up? I don't give a damn about SOP, nor that idiot Obama. If anyone in there right mind can't see a single engine Cessna has about about as much threat and firepower as you, they're blind.

You can end this right here and quit running your suck. Your choice. You ain't making yourself look anything but stupid.

LMFAO!:laugh2:
:laugh2:

[OCA]

I told you where to take it. That's the rules. You want a piece of me, the cage is available. Otherwise shut your f*ing mouth and quit messing up the threads.



OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:
:laugh2:

What rules were broken?

[ConHog]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:
:laugh2:

What rules were broken?

"Me Gunny, you wrong bumblee" :laugh2:

[OCA]

"Me Gunny, you wrong bumblee" :laugh2:

Wow, looks like we finally found something we agree on!

"quit posting facts and fucking up my threads!, take it to the cage where i'll light your ass up":laugh:
:laugh:

[ConHog]

Gunny believes both that he can beat me in a debate and that the United States government doesn't have the constitutional right to regulate the use of sovereign airspace. I challenge him to prove either with no flaming or threatening nor any other boorish behavior.

WHat say you Gunny?

[Gunny]

Gunny believes both that he can beat me in a debate and that the United States government doesn't have the constitutional right to regulate the use of sovereign airspace. I challenge him to prove either with no flaming or threatening nor any other boorish behavior.

WHat say you Gunny?

I reject your challenge, as you have no challenge to make. The US government has only the rights it has commanded by force of arms. Nothing more nor less.

How about you challenge OCA as to which of you is the dumbest fuck here? You keep thinking you're so damned smart and you're just a dumbfuck. My 6 years old could trash your ass in a debate. But he'd damned sure flame you about the head and shoulders, twit.

[ConHog]

coward

[Gunny]

You two idiots ever try to keep up on the intellectual side of an argument?

I didn't think so. Nice to see you two found some mutual reason to slob each other's knobs though. Too bad you both picked something neither of you can handle. individually or combined.

[ConHog]

You two idiots ever try to keep up on the intellectual side of an argument?

I didn't think so. Nice to see you two found some mutual reason to slob each other's knobs though. Too bad you both picked something neither of you can handle. individually or combined.

Oh shut up. I count 4 threads in the last 2 days where YOU have initiated the flaming then cried like a bitch that someone else is flaming.

Take THIS thread for example. I was debating THE TOPIC and you came in screaming that I was derailing....

[Gunny]

Oh shut up. I count 4 threads in the last 2 days where YOU have initiated the flaming then cried like a bitch that someone else is flaming.

Take THIS thread for example. I was debating THE TOPIC and you came in screaming that I was derailing....

Determined to ruin this thread, are you? You couldn't debate a topic if it was about your own ass.

You're the only bitch around here. Even OCA has balls. You're a crybaby. Wah! Jim ... somebody bent my f*ing eyelash. Wah!

I'd suggest you shut the fuck up. The only person who's protected you for the last 3 years is ME. Guess what YOU lost, sad sack? I've had enough of your whining and crying and bac-biting bullshit, you f-ing p*ssy.

[ConHog]

Determined to ruin this thread, are you? You couldn't debate a topic if it was about your own ass.

You're the only bitch around here. Even OCA has balls. You're a crybaby. Wah! Jim ... somebody bent my f*ing eyelash. Wah!

I'd suggest you shut the fuck up. The only person who's protected you for the last 3 years is ME. Guess what YOU lost, sad sack? I've had enough of your whining and crying and bac-biting bullshit, you f-ing p*ssy.

LOL Gunny ANYONE who can read can tell EXACTLY who first derailed this thread. As you say take your shit to the flame zone if you want to flame.

The REST of us want to discuss the actual topic of the thread.

[Gunny]

coward

Because I choose to not waste my time arguing with a little bitch that's NEVER wrong and crybaby's to whoever's in charge at every turn?

I think not. You just aren't worth the waste of time. douche-noodle.

[ConHog]

Because I choose to not waste my time arguing with a little bitch that's NEVER wrong and crybaby's to whoever's in charge at every turn?

I think not. You just aren't worth the waste of time. douche-noodle.

While I appreciate the comment that I'm never wrong, occasionally I am.

Doesn't change the fact that you're just making excuses to cover for the fact that you're skeered to debate me one on one. It's okay Gunny, everyone is afraid of something.

[Jess]

Let it go, CH. You requested a debate and he declined, stating clearly his reasons for such. Gunny is not scared of you/debating you. He has unbanned you elsewhere when people there would have let it stand, he continually has backed up your right to say what you like and argue with whomever you choose.

Nobody HAS to argue/debate/discuss anything with someone who "calls them out". We're grown-ups here ... well, adults by the legal standard anyway. We can have discussion without flaming, name-calling, etc. But it has to be voluntary.

If you push it, it will make you look less.

[Gunny]

While I appreciate the comment that I'm never wrong, occasionally I am.

Doesn't change the fact that you're just making excuses to cover for the fact that you're skeered to debate me one on one. It's okay Gunny, everyone is afraid of something.

You're a pussy and not worth arguing with. There is no debate with you one on one. The second your ass gets served you go whining to whoever's in charge claiming you got flamed. Trust me, when and IF I DO flame you, there'll be no mistake. You'll be running around like the little bitch you are trying to put the fire on your ass out.

Now I suggest you just shut the fuck up. Again. I have no desire to expose you for the loser you are, but you won't just shut the fuck up and go away. Crybaby. Do I need to borrow some Huggies for you from my granddaughter, or what?

[ConHog]

Let it go, CH. You requested a debate and he declined, stating clearly his reasons for such. Gunny is not scared of you/debating you. He has unbanned you elsewhere when people there would have let it stand, he continually has backed up your right to say what you like and argue with whomever you choose.

Nobody HAS to argue/debate/discuss anything with someone who "calls them out". We're grown-ups here ... well, adults by the legal standard anyway. We can have discussion without flaming, name-calling, etc. But it has to be voluntary.

If you push it, it will make you look less.

Eh, I'm just having some fun with his bad self. I'll be on the lookout for your comments to him about flaming me in threads where I haven't done started it..........

[Jess]

Eh, I'm just having some fun with his bad self. I'll be on the lookout for your comments to him about flaming me in threads where I haven't done started it..........

Why would I comment to him about flaming you? I didn't comment to you about flaming him. I mentioned flaming in general, with regards more specifically to whether or not we HAVE to turn every discussion or debate into a name-calling session. That was contained in a post, giving the gentle suggestion that you just let it drop.

For the record - for you and every other person on this board - I don't tell Gunny what he can or can't post any more than he does the same to me. Regardless of the fact that I could reach over and smack him upside the head if I don't think he should post something, I don't. Because he's a big damned boy and can post whatever he likes.

Any questions?:cool:

[Gunny]

Why would I comment to him about flaming you? I didn't comment to you about flaming him. I mentioned flaming in general, with regards more specifically to whether or not we HAVE to turn every discussion or debate into a name-calling session. That was contained in a post, giving the gentle suggestion that you just let it drop.

For the record - for you and every other person on this board - I don't tell Gunny what he can or can't post any more than he does the same to me. Regardless of the fact that I could reach over and smack him upside the head if I don't think he should post something, I don't. Because he's a big damned boy and can post whatever he likes.

Any questions?:cool:

:slap:

[Gunny]

LOL Gunny ANYONE who can read can tell EXACTLY who first derailed this thread. As you say take your shit to the flame zone if you want to flame.

The REST of us want to discuss the actual topic of the thread.

Anyone that can read knows I'm right. Anyone who is a slave to the US government and a dicksucking pussy is ... well ... you.

[Jess]

:slap:

Yep. Just like that.

Hmmm ... maybe I should practice some. :happy0203:

[Gunny]

Yep. Just like that.

Hmmm ... maybe I should practice some. :happy0203:

Mayhaps since he's your "friend" you might want to expalin just who and what I am and what I look like right now? I'm not some pathetic words on a screen fuckwit and you know it.

[ConHog]

Why would I comment to him about flaming you? I didn't comment to you about flaming him. I mentioned flaming in general, with regards more specifically to whether or not we HAVE to turn every discussion or debate into a name-calling session. That was contained in a post, giving the gentle suggestion that you just let it drop.

For the record - for you and every other person on this board - I don't tell Gunny what he can or can't post any more than he does the same to me. Regardless of the fact that I could reach over and smack him upside the head if I don't think he should post something, I don't. Because he's a big damned boy and can post whatever he likes.

Any questions?:cool:

and for the record, I've absolutely no problems with that whatsoever. But when you attempt to tell one person in a dispute how/what they should post then you should say the same to the other person, or you shouldn't say anything to EITHER.

That seems pretty simple.

Oh, and for the record as well, what Gunny did or didn't do 2 or more years ago may be appreciated but that doesn't give him license to behave badly today . So not even sure why that is brought up.

[pegwinn]

Why would I comment to him about flaming you? I didn't comment to you about flaming him. I mentioned flaming in general, with regards more specifically to whether or not we HAVE to turn every discussion or debate into a name-calling session. That was contained in a post, giving the gentle suggestion that you just let it drop.

For the record - for you and every other person on this board - I don't tell Gunny what he can or can't post any more than he does the same to me. Regardless of the fact that I could reach over and smack him upside the head if I don't think he should post something, I don't. Because he's a big damned boy and can post whatever he likes.

Any questions?:cool:

Hey Guns, I got your back if she don't quit smackin ya. Can't have no domestic violence y'know.

Caint everbuddy jus get along?

[Gunny]

Hey Guns, I got your back if she don't quit smackin ya. Can't have no domestic violence y'know.

Caint everbuddy jus get along?

In this forinstance just hold my Corona. I'll be right back for it.

[Jess]

and for the record, I've absolutely no problems with that whatsoever. But when you attempt to tell one person in a dispute how/what they should post then you should say the same to the other person, or you shouldn't say anything to EITHER.

That seems pretty simple.

Oh, and for the record as well, what Gunny did or didn't do 2 or more years ago may be appreciated but that doesn't give him license to behave badly today . So not even sure why that is brought up.

If you don't get my point by this time, nothing further that I say will make any difference.

[Jess]

Hey Guns, I got your back if she don't quit smackin ya. Can't have no domestic violence y'know.

Caint everbuddy jus get along?

Hey! I thought you big, tough jarheads were supposed to protect lil innocent wimmenfolk like me? :batteyes:

Aside from that, as long as I hit his head, I ain't gonna hurt anything.

[ConHog]

If you don't get my point by this time, nothing further that I say will make any difference.

I get your point completely, Gunny is your guy so no matter how big of a douche bag he acts like you will defend his actions. Is no problem. But I have a right to tell you that you are wrong to excuse his bad behavior while calling out those who say anything to him.

I don't fault you for that. I don't agree with it, but I can't fault you.

[ConHog]

Anyone that can read knows I'm right. Anyone who is a slave to the US government and a dicksucking pussy is ... well ... you.

Sober up Gunny. I liked you when you were sober.

[Gunny]

Sober up Gunny. I liked you when you were sober.

Because I might think twice before twisting your head off your spindly little neck? I wouldn't push my luck.

You just aren't worth a prison sentence.

[pegwinn]

Hey! I thought you big, tough jarheads were supposed to protect lil innocent wimmenfolk like me? :batteyes:

Aside from that, as long as I hit his head, I ain't gonna hurt anything.

We do. As long as the wimmenfolk are both lil and innersent.

True Story from the "This is no shit" file. The only case of domestic violence I had to deal with from any of my Marines was a case of the Marine being removed from Base Housing. She was pounding on him. She knew the SOP the MP's followed. She knew that He would be forced by the command to go to counseling while she could decline. She was a former Marine herself and played the system to make this poor guys life hell.

[Jess]

We do. As long as the wimmenfolk are both lil and innersent.

True Story from the "This is no shit" file. The only case of domestic violence I had to deal with from any of my Marines was a case of the Marine being removed from Base Housing. She was pounding on him. She knew the SOP the MP's followed. She knew that He would be forced by the command to go to counseling while she could decline. She was a former Marine herself and played the system to make this poor guys life hell.

I've heard those wimmen can be pretty vindictive.

The Marine that lives here is spoiled beyond belief. Rest easy, sir, he's in good hands. :halo9:

[Gunny]

I get your point completely, Gunny is your guy so no matter how big of a douche bag he acts like you will defend his actions. Is no problem. But I have a right to tell you that you are wrong to excuse his bad behavior while calling out those who say anything to him.

I don't fault you for that. I don't agree with it, but I can't fault you.

You want to stop now, or what? Or did you miss the point she made? I don't tell her what to post and she doesn't tell me what to post to pussies. The fact is, you're whiny, crybaby-ing ass is wrong. I tried to keep this private but you're so damned self-sanctimonious you can't be wrong. Well, wrong. You're an attention whore and YOU are screwing up this board with your fucking mouth.

You can stop or I'll stop you. You aren't more important than the board, pansy.

[ConHog]

You want to stop now, or what? Or did you miss the point she made? I don't tell her what to post and she doesn't tell me what to post to pussies. The fact is, you're whiny, crybaby-ing ass is wrong. I tried to keep this private but you're so damned self-sanctimonious you can't be wrong. Well, wrong. You're an attention whore and YOU are screwing up this board with your fucking mouth.

You can stop or I'll stop you. You aren't more important than the board, pansy.

SHut up dick head. What did or did not happen in private has NOTHING to do with this, and in fact it is YOU who brought that up , not me. THis had to do with your dumb ass in 3 thread flaming me and then screaming that I was flaming you and derailing the thread, YOU started the flaming. Funny thing is you did the same thing to another poster. All in the last few days.

You don't get to behave however you want and then scream that others are breaking the rules for responding to you.

[ConHog]

Because I might think twice before twisting your head off your spindly little neck? I wouldn't push my luck.

You just aren't worth a prison sentence.

It's the internet Gunny, what are you going to do, reach through my computer screen and grab me? Just shut up with your idiotic threats.

[pegwinn]

I've heard those wimmen can be pretty vindictive.

The Marine that lives here is spoiled beyond belief. Rest easy, sir, he's in good hands. :halo9:

Heh. Spoiled is good in this case. I'd threaten to keep an eye on ya, but then someone would accuse me of stalking.:coffee:

[Jess]

Heh. Spoiled is good in this case. I'd threaten to keep an eye on ya, but then someone would accuse me of stalking.:coffee:

Well, that and the fact that Gunny tends to break out the hogleg when he hears odd noises outside the windows ... :eek:

[Gunny]

It's the internet Gunny, what are you going to do, reach through my computer screen and grab me? Just shut up with your idiotic threats.

One, when I threaten you, Mr Crybaby, let me know,

Two, I don't male threats. I just show up at your door. Do you REALLY think your buddies from WWW.Backstab.com aren't going to get a "visit"?

Just biding my time. You can't always be first, but you CAN be NEXT .....

[pegwinn]

Well, that and the fact that Gunny tends to break out the hogleg when he hears odd noises outside the windows ... :eek:

If I live in Ill in Noise I'd keep a weapon by each window jus because.

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh shut up. I count 4 threads in the last 2 days where YOU have initiated the flaming then cried like a bitch that someone else is flaming.

Take THIS thread for example. I was debating THE TOPIC and you came in screaming that I was derailing....

so you can count to 4 !

[Gunny]

SHut up dick head. What did or did not happen in private has NOTHING to do with this, and in fact it is YOU who brought that up , not me. THis had to do with your dumb ass in 3 thread flaming me and then screaming that I was flaming you and derailing the thread, YOU started the flaming. Funny thing is you did the same thing to another poster. All in the last few days.

You don't get to behave however you want and then scream that others are breaking the rules for responding to you.

I don't sream like you do, little bitch. Fact is, YOU are disrupting this board with your whiny-ass bullshit. You get off my woman or I'll tell her boys you're picking on her. We'll see how long that lasts, pussy. I figure I'll find Zane with a shovel looking all innocent and shit with a mound beside the garage.

[ConHog]

so you can count to 4 !

Sorry sweetie, my dance card is full at the moment, if you'll take a number I'll take you for a spin around the dance floor as quickly as possible.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry sweetie, my dance card is full at the moment, if you'll take a number I'll take you for a spin around the dance floor as quickly as possible.

ahhh, admitting you got more than you can handle.

[Gunny]

ahhh, admitting you got more than you can handle.

As usual.

[Jess]

If I live in Ill in Noise I'd keep a weapon by each window jus because.

We have children. :laugh:

One wants to be a jarhead when he gets big.

One already acts like one.

One will call 911 after the fact.

Any questions?

[ConHog]

I don't sream like you do, little bitch. Fact is, YOU are disrupting this board with your whiny-ass bullshit. You get off my woman or I'll tell her boys you're picking on her. We'll see how long that lasts, pussy. I figure I'll find Zane with a shovel looking all innocent and shit with a mound beside the garage.

Bullshit Gunny. I got an idea why don't you stop talking about things that may or may not have happened in private.

What is fact is that in PUBLIC you have been accusing people of derailing threads that YOU derailed with your flaming and other bullshit.

As for Jess, SHE spoke to me first, that certainly opens her up to a response and I was not rude to her in anyway. So kiss my ass . You don't tell me who I can and can't post in response to.

As for your kids. Leave them out of this please.

[OCA]

You two idiots ever try to keep up on the intellectual side of an argument?

I didn't think so. Nice to see you two found some mutual reason to slob each other's knobs though. Too bad you both picked something neither of you can handle. individually or combined.

Gunny, seriously, its been weeks since you offered anything intellectual. Thats not flaming, thats just calling a spade a spade.

[OCA]

Anyone that can read knows I'm right. Anyone who is a slave to the US government and a dicksucking pussy is ... well ... you.

OMG PUT DOWN THE OLD GRAND DAD!:laugh2:

[shattered]

and for the record, I've absolutely no problems with that whatsoever. But when you attempt to tell one person in a dispute how/what they should post then you should say the same to the other person, or you shouldn't say anything to EITHER.

That seems pretty simple.

Oh, and for the record as well, what Gunny did or didn't do 2 or more years ago may be appreciated but that doesn't give him license to behave badly today . So not even sure why that is brought up.

God damn, just shut the fuck up and drop dead already. My 2 year old neice whines less than you do.

[OCA]

Because I might think twice before twisting your head off your spindly little neck? I wouldn't push my luck.

You just aren't worth a prison sentence.

*whistles*
"Hey tough guy.......how you doin'?":laugh2:

[ConHog]

ahhh, admitting you got more than you can handle.

Admitting that I don't WANT to handle more. You've already had your dance.

I swear sometimes being so popular at the ball is quite stressful.

[OCA]

One, when I threaten you, Mr Crybaby, let me know,

Two, I don't male threats. I just show up at your door. Do you REALLY think your buddies from WWW.Backstab.com (http://WWW.Backstab.com) aren't going to get a "visit"?

Just biding my time. You can't always be first, but you CAN be NEXT .....


:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:

I think you peeled too many potatoes and cleaned too many latrines in the Corps.

[ConHog]

God damn, just shut the fuck up and drop dead already. My 2 year old neice whines less than you do.

LOL look at Dis protecting Gunny , you go tough guy.

[ConHog]

:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:

I think you peeled too many potatoes and cleaned too many latrines in the Corps.

Really? I just think he drank too many fermented potatoes.

[OCA]

God damn, just shut the fuck up and drop dead already. My 2 year old neice whines less than you do.

Its not who you know but who you blow, eh?

[Gunny]

LOL look at Dis protecting Gunny , you go tough guy.

You're on your own, wuss-boy. Nobody on this side of the argument needs protection. You on the other hand, might want to hire Mr T. Not that'll it'll save your worthless ass, but at least you can claim you made the effort.

[ConHog]

You're on your own, wuss-boy. Nobody on this side of the argument needs protection. You on the other hand, might want to hire Mr T. Not that'll it'll save your worthless ass, but at least you can claim you made the effort.

What argument moron? I challenged you to a debate, you wet your pants and came up with a lame excuse. Dis whipped out her penis to defend you. That's not a debate ...:laugh:

[OCA]

I reject your challenge

Fucking pussy

[OCA]

Because I choose to not waste my time arguing with a little bitch that's NEVER wrong and crybaby's to whoever's in charge at every turn?

I think not. You just aren't worth the waste of time. douche-noodle.

"i'll hand you your ass down in the cage"

Well its the cage and you are running faster than Carl Lewis.

[ConHog]

"i'll hand you your ass down in the cage"

Well its the cage and you are running faster than Carl Lewis.

Of course he's running fast , he's operating on more alcohol than a Funny Car.:laugh2:

[OCA]

Let it go, CH. You requested a debate and he declined, stating clearly his reasons for such. Gunny is not scared of you/debating you. He has unbanned you elsewhere when people there would have let it stand, he continually has backed up your right to say what you like and argue with whomever you choose.

Nobody HAS to argue/debate/discuss anything with someone who "calls them out". We're grown-ups here ... well, adults by the legal standard anyway. We can have discussion without flaming, name-calling, etc. But it has to be voluntary.

If you push it, it will make you look less.

Jess on a serious note, something is wrong with Gunny, this ain't the same guy i've enjoyed on these boards for 7 years or so, what gives?

[LuvRPgrl]

Admitting that I don't WANT to handle more. You've already had your dance.

I swear sometimes being so popular at the ball is quite stressful.

you're confusing being popular with being here all the time.

[Gunny]

Jess on a serious note, something is wrong with Gunny, this ain't the same guy i've enjoyed on these boards for 7 years or so, what gives?


Really?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[ConHog]

you're confusing being popular with being here all the time.


Oh, I'm obviously popular : I can think of three dudes (you, Gunny, and Dis) who just have to come after me every time I am here.

[ConHog]

Jess on a serious note, something is wrong with Gunny, this ain't the same guy i've enjoyed on these boards for 7 years or so, what gives?

Careful, Gunny is very protective of who's allowed to post to Jess.

[Jess]

Jess on a serious note, something is wrong with Gunny, this ain't the same guy i've enjoyed on these boards for 7 years or so, what gives?

Apparently, I'm a bad influence on him would be my guess. Either that or I have yet to perfect imposing my will on him and manipulating him to do my bidding.

I'll have to work on it if I'm gonna be a chick, hmmm? ;)

[OCA]

Why would I comment to him about flaming you? I didn't comment to you about flaming him. I mentioned flaming in general, with regards more specifically to whether or not we HAVE to turn every discussion or debate into a name-calling session. That was contained in a post, giving the gentle suggestion that you just let it drop.

For the record - for you and every other person on this board - I don't tell Gunny what he can or can't post any more than he does the same to me. Regardless of the fact that I could reach over and smack him upside the head if I don't think he should post something, I don't. Because he's a big damned boy and can post whatever he likes.

Any questions?:cool:

Jess, Gunny thinks the rules pertain to others and not to him. He can't seem to grasp the fact that he STARTS the flaming on the upper part of the board then crys like a bitch when you drop a brick on his head.

[Jess]

Jess, Gunny thinks the rules pertain to others and not to him. He can't seem to grasp the fact that he STARTS the flaming on the upper part of the board then crys like a bitch when you drop a brick on his head.

You're gonna need something way bigger than a brick if you're intending to do some damage to his head. True story. :laugh:

[OCA]

Really?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yep, really. Maybe the failure at USMB damaged you, dunno.

[ConHog]

You're gonna need something way bigger than a brick if you're intending to do some damage to his head. True story. :laugh:

That doesn't change the FACT of what OCA is saying here. In what 4 instances over the last 2 days Gunny has taken a perfectly reasonable reponse to one of his posts , and flamed the person making it calling them every name in the book and THEN claiming that person started the flaming. That shit isn't right.

[OCA]

That doesn't change the FACT of what OCA is saying here. In what 4 instances over the last 2 days Gunny has taken a perfectly reasonable reponse to one of his posts , and flamed the person making it calling them every name in the book and THEN claiming that person started the flaming. That shit isn't right.

Tis true. Doesn't make sense to me but nonetheless its been his standard operating procedure for awhile now.

[Gunny]

To whom it may concern ..


Jess has on the hottest jammies. Y'all can kiss my ass. You and your words on a screen just ain't THAT important.

[OCA]

To whom it may concern ..


Jess has on the hottest jammies. Y'all can kiss my ass. You and your words on a screen just ain't THAT important.

You'll be back.........my guess is in 3 minutes.

[ConHog]

Tis true. Doesn't make sense to me but nonetheless its been his standard operating procedure for awhile now.


To be honest I'm more concerned with his threats. And I don't care how he fucking tries to play it talking about showing up at someone's home, twisting their head off and burying them is a threat. A weak stupid threat, but a threat nonetheless.

I think he's became unstable and am praying for him.

[ConHog]

You'll be back.........my guess is in 3 minutes.

woohoo someone is gonna get some foreplay tonight. :laugh2:

[Jess]

You'll be back.........my guess is in 3 minutes.

You obviously don't know me. Or him. :batteyes:

[OCA]

You obviously don't know me. Or him. :batteyes:

My guess is the whiskey will get in the way.:laugh2:

[Jess]

My guess is the whiskey will get in the way.:laugh2:

Nothing gets in the way. ;)

And it's great that y'all are concerned and thinking about us but it's really not necessary. We've been doing just fine. No outside help needed. :cool:

[ConHog]

Nothing gets in the way. ;)

And it's great that y'all are concerned and thinking about us but it's really not necessary. We've been doing just fine. No outside help needed. :cool:

Gunny isn't fine. You should encourage him to get a FULL evaluation when he goes in to get his knee worked on.

[OCA]

Nothing gets in the way. ;)

And it's great that y'all are concerned and thinking about us but it's really not necessary. We've been doing just fine. No outside help needed. :cool:

Gunny ain't ok, his posts are erratic at best and he lives in these online visions of grandeur. I'm thinking intense psychotherapy.

[ConHog]

Gunny ain't ok, his posts are erratic at best and he lives in these online visions of grandeur. I'm thinking intense psychotherapy.

My admittedly amateur diagnosis is either

A) Getting sober and staying sober
B) shock therapy

[Jess]

Hmmmm ... do you really think he's doing anything the two of you weren't doing last week or two weeks ago? We could take a poll ...

But at least you guys are united now, right? Best buds almost.

[OCA]

Hmmmm ... do you really think he's doing anything the two of you weren't doing last week or two weeks ago? We could take a poll ...



Yes.

[ConHog]

Hmmmm ... do you really think he's doing anything the two of you weren't doing last week or two weeks ago? We could take a poll ...

But at least you guys are united now, right? Best buds almost.

In fact yes he is. I don't remember either myself or OCA flaming the other in a post in the regular forums and then accusing the other person of starting the trouble in that thread as Gunny has done on MULTIPLE occasions.

And f course all the threats about twisting heads off and such, oh and of course the obvious that Gunny acts like a douche in a thread and then gets all Moddy when its given back to him.

And OCA and I are hardly best of friends, just both recognize that Gunny's current behavior is ridiculous.

[ConHog]

So I guess the sight of Jess in her jammies was too much and Gunny had to go masturbate since he said he had to go yet Jess is still posting. :laugh2:

[Jess]

Yes.

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion, of course.

[Jess]

So I guess the sight of Jess in her jammies was too much and Gunny had to go masturbate since he said he had to go yet Jess is still posting. :laugh2:

Not at all. I was wrapping up a conversation with a friend. But now I'm heading off.

Good night to you. :sleep:

[ConHog]

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion, of course.

It's not an opinion Jess. Look at THIS thread as an example. Can you show me an analogous thread where either OCA or myself went ballistic the way Gunny did in this thread flaming and then accusing the other person of being the flamer?

[OCA]

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion, of course.

Jess its not opinion, I can point you to two seperate threads to illustrate my point.

[ConHog]

Not at all. I was wrapping up a conversation with a friend. But now I'm heading off.

Good night to you. :sleep:

Hope he didn't finish too early.

Goodnight Jess.

[Shadow]

So I guess the sight of Jess in her jammies was too much and Gunny had to go masturbate since he said he had to go yet Jess is still posting. :laugh2:

That remark was over the line. You are starting to sound like crazy ass Madaline now...please stop.:slap:

[ConHog]

That remark was over the line. You are starting to sound like crazy ass Madaline now...please stop.:slap:

you know what? I've about had it with you telling me you don't want to get involved and yet here you are EVERY fucking time calling me out when you think I say something wrong. How about for once you either call it both ways or just shut up. I'm serious. Try reading some of things that fucking idiot Gunny has said to me over the last two or three days and tell me some of them aren't over some line.

Serious I don't care how much this pisses you off, I'm sick of the calling one person out and ignoring the other person's behavior, and I've tried asking nicely.

[Shadow]

you know what? I've about had it with you telling me you don't want to get involved and yet here you are EVERY fucking time calling me out when you think I say something wrong. How about for once you either call it both ways or just shut up. I'm serious. Try reading some of things that fucking idiot Gunny has said to me over the last two or three days and tell me some of them aren't over some line.

Serious I don't care how much this pisses you off, I'm sick of the calling one person out and ignoring the other person's behavior, and I've tried asking nicely.

I don't really give a shit if you,Gunny and OCA go at it with each other. This goes back to that other discussion about being an ass to the girlfriend or wife. I don't care if you know Jess or not...making rude remarks about their relationship and sex life (which is none of your concern) is low class.

[ConHog]

I don't really give a shit if you,Gunny and OCA go at it with each other. This goes back to that other discussion about being an ass to the girlfriend or wife. I don't care if you know Jess or not...making rude remarks about their relationship and sex life (which is none of your concern) is low class.

I didn't make a rude remark about their relationship. Sheesh "hey don't start without me" is funny.

And even if you DID find it low class, that has no bearing on the fact that if you claim to not want to be involved then you need to not get involved at all.

I'm absolutely 100% confident that Jess would have no problem telling me my remark was below the belt on her own if she thought it was.

[Shadow]

I didn't make a rude remark about their relationship. Sheesh "hey don't start without me" is funny.

And even if you DID find it low class, that has no bearing on the fact that if you claim to not want to be involved then you need to not get involved at all.

I'm absolutely 100% confident that Jess would have no problem telling me my remark was below the belt on her own if she thought it was.

Yes..Mr "I can comment on whatever I want...whenever I wan't...but you can't".

Oh and BTW...and weren't you the one just lecturing Gunny on talking about things discussed in "private" on the board too? :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Yes..Mr "I can comment on whatever I want...whenever I wan't...but you can't".

Oh and BTW...and weren't you the one just lecturing Gunny on talking about things discussed in "private" on the board too? :rolleyes:

Comment on whatever you want, just don't expect anyone to believe that you don't want to get involved when you're clearly okay with getting involved SOMETIMES.

What did I discuss that was said in private? I've asked you nicely ON THE BOARD several times to either make remarks to everyone, or to no one .

[Shadow]

Comment on whatever you want, just don't expect anyone to believe that you don't want to get involved when you're clearly okay with getting involved SOMETIMES.

What did I discuss that was said in private? I've asked you nicely ON THE BOARD several times to either make remarks to everyone, or to no one .

I actually said I would "try" to stay out of your squabbles...but, I wasn't making any promises. So...really...I already told you I had no problem getting involved "sometimes". ...not my fault you don't understand the concept of disclaimers. You really need to stop taking everything so personally too. Are you really going to defend your pissy little comment to Jess to the death? Was it that important to you? :rolleyes:

[WayInstain]

should have rammed the asshole .

[Gunny]

Oh, I'm obviously popular : I can think of three dudes (you, Gunny, and Dis) who just have to come after me every time I am here.

Really? Those 3 "dudes" ignore you ass but for the fact you ALWAYS have something to say. You WISH you were that important. Fact is, and again, you just won't shut the fuck up. You shut your big fucking no-nothing mouth and get off my coat tails and I GUARANTEE yoou I've got NOTHING to say to yuour stupid ass.

Odd isn't it you're ALWAYS the victim? Someone's always flaming you or picking on you. Wah. Get a clue.