- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
northshorebamaman
| Favorite team: | US Army  |
| Location: | Cochise County AZ |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 37992 |
| Registered on: | 7/2/2009 |
| Online Status: | Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Boots on the ground look likely but not an invasion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/6/26 at 8:43 pm to BOHICAMAN
quote:Ok, well I guess was a bit confused when you said the 82nd and Rangers "exist" to back up SOF, which is a silly thing to say, especially when both formations predate SOF by decades. If anything, it's the other way around. A SOF team has far less war fighting capability than even a standard 'leg' line infantry platoon.
Well I was replying to the guy who said it would be a mistake to deploy the 82nd or Rangers. I’m aware of the missions and capabilities of both units.
1
re: Boots on the ground look likely but not an invasion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/6/26 at 7:14 pm to BOHICAMAN
quote:
82nd and/or a Ranger Regiment.
quote:
Why? Those guys pretty much exist to back up SOF guys
No :lol:
GWOT really fricked up a lot of people's idea of how these units are normally used.
re: Boots on the ground look likely but not an invasion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/6/26 at 7:04 pm to Jax Teller
quote:Waiting until we’re already deeply committed to a conflict before forming an opinion on it matters how? By that point the decisions have already been made and the range of options is much smaller. Debate is supposed to happen while choices are still actually open, not after we're locked in no matter what.
Let's let this thing play out and judge the result. If we occupy I'll voice my displeasure.
re: Study: people return to baseline weight within 1.5 years of stopping GLP-1s
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/6/26 at 5:00 pm to jchamil
quote:I'm not sure you're truly comprehending what “don’t eat garbage” actually means. A hundred years ago most people maintained a healthy weight without counting calories or worrying about metabolism, because the food environment was mostly whole foods instead of engineered junk.
Or having ridiculous metabolism
Not eating garbage doesn’t mean studying nutrition labels or swapping one processed thing for another. It means eating actual food. Whole or minimally processed stuff. Not deep frying everything, not putting cheese in and on everything, never or very rarely eating fast and/or ultra-processed food.
I lost 130 pounds in under a year doing exactly that. I didn’t count a single calorie, never did portion control, and ate until full as often as I wanted. I just focused on the food itself instead of the numbers attached to it. I’ve stayed around 155 (5'9") pounds for ten years the same way. There is nothing special about my "metabolism."
The problem is people hear “don’t eat garbage” and think it means gluten-free cookies, keto snacks, or swapping the fried patty for the grilled one at the same fast-food place. That’s still the same ultra-processed food system. It’s just a slightly different version of it.
re: Study: people return to baseline weight within 1.5 years of stopping GLP-1s
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/6/26 at 4:32 pm to greygoose
quote:This has been studied pretty heavily and it turns out it’s bullshite. Metabolism is basically stable from about age 20 to 60.
The point is, metabolism drops dramatically after 30. Very easy to gain weight, very hard to lose it.
What changes isn’t metabolism, it’s behavior. People move less, lose muscle from inactivity, sleep worse, drink more, and slowly eat a little more than they burn. Even a 100–150 calorie daily surplus adds up over years.
When someone stays active and avoids a lot of processed food, weight doesn’t magically become more difficult to maintain after 30. The “metabolism cliff” idea mostly just gets used to explain people becoming less active and eating worse as they get older.
re: Trump in favor of child sex changes with parental consent; EDIT: Trump edits post to “No”
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/5/26 at 9:53 pm to RollTide4547
quote:What you just did here was evade his point by swapping his hard example (a child locked in a closet with no food or water for three days) with a softer one (gettin' whooped on by muh diddy) that’s easier to defend, which you then tried to obscure even more with a personal anecdote that did nothing to address the topic at hand and served only to steer his example into a gray area.
I didn't like it when my dad used a leather plow strap on my arse, back and legs when I disobeyed him either. Some would call that child abuse. Looking back, I deserved it. Can honestly say, had he not done so I'd likely be in jail today.
Further, your claim that getting whipped on the back and legs is what kept you out of jail is just a self-indictment and adds nothing to your argument.
Just letting you know everyone could see it. :cheers:
re: Kristi Noem -DHS SECRETARY - FIRED
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/5/26 at 8:08 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Noem is special envoy to the security of America. A new initiative to be announced.
quote:
Could be a promotion, who knows?
She just got "promoted" from executive chef to liaison for future menu concepts that will never happen. :lol:
re: Federal Circuit clears path for tariff refunds
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/3/26 at 5:24 pm to udtiger
quote:You just mixed two different concepts together. Refunds and compensation for damages are not the same. A refund simply returns money that shouldn’t have been taken. Compensation for damages is payment for a proven loss.
He said could.
A party seeking damages has to prove:
a) they suffered the damage
And
b) the extent of that damage.
This is not hard.
Some businesses didnt pay full tariffs (exporter/foreign manufacturers ate some or all of it). Some businesses passed on some or all of the tariff to their customers. Thisnwould reduce or eliminate their claim for refund. This is more complex than is being represented.
Think of a lemonade stand. The kid running the stand goes to buy lemons and gets charged $2 per lemon when the price was supposed to be $1. Later the mistake is discovered. The fix is simple: the seller gives the kid $1 back for each lemon that was overcharged. Nobody asks whether the kid raised lemonade prices or made a profit that day. None of that matters. The kid paid money that shouldn’t have been charged, so the extra dollar is returned.
Now imagine one of the lemonade customers says, “Wait, you charged me more for lemonade because your lemons were expensive, so I deserve that dollar.”
That’s a completely different issue. The refund for the lemons is between the lemon seller and the kid who bought them. If a customer thinks the lemonade price harmed them, that dispute would be between the customer and the lemonade stand. It has nothing to do with the store correcting the original overcharge for the lemons.
The store doesn't issue the refund to the lemonade stand customers.
A refund corrects a mistaken charge by returning money to the person who paid it. These are refunds.
re: Did we just do in Iran in one afternoon what it took over a decade to do in Iraq?
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 7:58 pm to Pragmatist2025
quote:IDK. Being there didn't give me any insight a civilian doesn't have. In some ways, I had less.
Serious question, no disrespect to the soldiers (probably in this thread) who served in Iraq. Not personally, but collectively, what did the U.S. accomplish in Iraq?
I remember a few days into the invasion I got to use a satellite phone to call home. Everyone at my parents house jumped on the line asking for updates and 'what's really going on right now.' I said I could see something burning a few hundred yards ahead. Turn on the TV and tell me what the hell's going on.
re: Did we just do in Iran in one afternoon what it took over a decade to do in Iraq?
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 7:43 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
The complete unashamed 180s that this board has done on Epstein, foreign interventions, regime change and feeding the military industrial complex is completely staggering.
It wasn’t even a slow change. It was overnight minute to minute changes.
re: U.S. Races to Accomplish Iran Mission Before Munitions Run Out
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 4:43 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:I, for one, am glad we have a poster on the inside who was personally on the phone with Raytheon between negotiating offshore drilling rights and advising OPEC on quarterly output.
Citizen K told me
Last week was workshopping refinery construction timelines like he had a hard hat in the trunk of his Bentley. Now he’s pivoted to munitions throughput analytics. Incredible range. I assume he got the production numbers while finishing a quick call with Lockheed before brunch.
re: U.S. Centcom: 3 U.S. soldiers killed
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 3:43 pm to BOHICAMAN
quote:I agree.
We need to stay away from the regular Iranian army. Air defenses and the IRCG need to go though
If the last 20 years taught us anything, it’s that collapsing the wrong institutions creates more enemies than it eliminates. You don’t need to “pound the entire country” to dust. That’s how you turn a regime problem into a population problem.
Iraq wasn’t lost because the military couldn’t win fights. It was lost because we dismantled the state and created a vacuum. When you sideline the entire regular army and bureaucratic class, you manufacture an insurgency ecosystem.
The objective should be to degrade response capability by targeting the structures that actually project power. Not to burn down the whole system and hope something stable grows back.
Remove the organs that drive hostility. Avoid collapsing the spine that keeps the country functioning.
re: Did we just do in Iran in one afternoon what it took over a decade to do in Iraq?
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 3:25 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:I crossed the berm with 3ID on 3/20/2003 and by April Iraq looked “done.” The regime collapsed. Crowds lined the MSR's chanting "USA" and "George Bush" and waving American flags. We could drive around in single unarmored without escorts. shite, we were going on tours of local ruins on our off time.
I know the dust still has to settle but it seems like we basically have the same result without the huge loss of life and pissing off the population.
The initial spark that pissed off the population was idiot Bremer dissolving the military and putting hundreds of thousands of armed men out of work.
The real comparison isn’t how fast did it fall. It’s “what institutions remain intact afterward, and what armed networks are still embedded in society.”
If Iran’s state apparatus is intact and security organs remain cohesive, you’re not looking at Iraq 2003 at all. And if you think a result is permanent before you see what happens in month three or six, you’re repeating the same mistake people made in Baghdad.
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 2:21 pm to Narax
quote:I already tried that. We can can have a discussion when you tell me if YOUR quote is true or false.
Tell me when you want to actually discuss.
quote:
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
Or you can keep dancing. Up to you. :cheers:
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 2:15 pm to Narax
quote:true or false
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
keep dancing. :lol:
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 2:12 pm to Narax
quote:true or false?
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 2:06 pm to Narax
quote:true or false?
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
I'm loving all the effort you're putting into not saying if your own words are true or false. You can keep going and I'll just keep asking again. :rotflmao:
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 1:59 pm to Narax
quote:true or false?
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 1:37 pm to Narax
Can't answer yes or no to your own quote but you'll do an entire rage novel that no one read in response to a post that had nothing to do with you because you didn't read it.
You fricking idiot. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
You fricking idiot. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 1:12 pm to Narax
:lol: That post wasn't even a reply to you. I already told you we're done.
:rotflmao:
:rotflmao:
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted by northshorebamaman on 3/1/26 at 1:03 am to Magical Cajun
quote:You’re calling this a win because he re-issued tariffs under Section 122? Section 122 only allows temporary tariffs for 150 days and then requires Congress. It’s capped and time-limited.
Nope, he used a different , less broad act the first go round. They corrected it in less than 60 minutes and upped it just to stir the pot and show them who's boss.
So he's right back where he would have started had he just done that in the first place and with far less leeway.
He tried to use IEEPA as broad emergency authority. The Supreme Court said that statute doesn’t authorize tariffs. If IEEPA had worked, there would have been no need to switch.
So you're taking a victory lap over Trump falling back to a narrower, temporary option he always had after losing on the broader one. One he could have already have used?
My question again: if Section 122 was always available, why didn’t he use it in the first place instead of relying on emergency powers that got struck down and then using 122?
quote:
Research will help you in your future arguements, try it
Scrolling your X feed and YouTube aren't research, guy. :lol:
But you entered the thread with assumption people were arguing tariffs are illegal, so I can't say it's surprising you're so confidently uninformed.
Popular
24
