- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
stuntman
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Florida |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 10711 |
| Registered on: | 1/19/2013 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: What advice, based on our national experience, would you give Iran re: new constitution?
Posted by stuntman on 3/3/26 at 1:10 pm to TigerAxeOK
Yeah, I was thinking long term.
Truthfully, my preferred method of getting idiots out of government is poll tests.
Truthfully, my preferred method of getting idiots out of government is poll tests.
0
re: What advice, based on our national experience, would you give Iran re: new constitution?
Posted by stuntman on 3/3/26 at 12:55 pm to HubbaBubba
Do not make the mistake we did and let women vote.
Here's what I'm watching it on;
I'm just getting to the part where they are asking him about specific individuals and if Clinton ever talked about Epstein or Ghislene w/ them.
He's wordy AF. Doesn't mean he's lying, but liars tend to do that.
He's wordy AF. Doesn't mean he's lying, but liars tend to do that.
re: How soon before "conservatives" call Matt Walsh a Leftist and want the DW to fire him?
Posted by stuntman on 3/2/26 at 2:35 pm to BrianKellysbuyout
quote:
but the difference is that it's not going to be endless wars this time, and Trump has shown that he would rather avoid wars.
I hope you're right. This is the ME we're talking about, so I have my doubts, but I would absolutely love it if this was over in a hurry and Iran comes out the other side much better off.
re: How soon before "conservatives" call Matt Walsh a Leftist and want the DW to fire him?
Posted by stuntman on 3/2/26 at 2:33 pm to Giantkiller
How familiar are you w/ Walsh? What has he ever said in the past that is counter to his post today? There may be something, but I'm not aware of it.
No clue.
As for me, in and of itself, that angle makes, sense. Then you realize this is another war in the ME. How "wonderful" have those been for the US?
The other problem in this war of choice, is that it never went through congress. I know that horse is out of the barn, but not even paying lip service to it anymore is just one more straw breaking the camel's back of this country.
As for me, in and of itself, that angle makes, sense. Then you realize this is another war in the ME. How "wonderful" have those been for the US?
The other problem in this war of choice, is that it never went through congress. I know that horse is out of the barn, but not even paying lip service to it anymore is just one more straw breaking the camel's back of this country.
quote:
When did Matt Walsh become an intelligence authority on global politics and the Iran situation?
Does arguing with trannies about fake dicks give you that expertise?
Are you saying only military generals should be allowed to question/critique what our military does, or a president's decision on what the military does?
I'm legit trying to understand if that's what you mean.
quote:
Trump said tbis was about Regime change
Its also about oil, hot chicks and clipping Chynas nutz
Why do the cuckservatives not understand this
You consider Matt Walsh a "cuckservative"?
re: How soon before "conservatives" call Matt Walsh a Leftist and want the DW to fire him?
Posted by stuntman on 3/2/26 at 2:06 pm to arktiger28
quote:
Walsh has had a significantly different foreign policy than Shapiro for a long time. Knowles kind of exists between the two. They literally have a show called Friendly Fire where they debate this stuff and do it pretty hotly. Could it be that maybe the DW is ok with its host not agreeing 100% on everything?
I 100% understand this. I'm talking about the people who support Trump's decisions, no matter what. I'm saying they will be the ones who will end up calling for the DW to fire Walsh.
re: How soon before "conservatives" call Matt Walsh a Leftist and want the DW to fire him?
Posted by stuntman on 3/2/26 at 1:56 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
That's generally the difference between the right and the left. You can never be left enough for a lefty. At least more often than on the left, the right can disagree with you on a certain issue but recognize that there is alignment on many others.
That's a fair point, and I realize this forum isn't the real world, but holy shite, you'd think Thomas Massie is Chairman Mao when reading some of the "conservatives'" opinions on him, or anyone who actually wants government put back in it's box, the Constitution.
How soon before "conservatives" call Matt Walsh a Leftist and want the DW to fire him?
Posted by stuntman on 3/2/26 at 1:51 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might have been, depending on who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to free the Iranian people, they are now free, or might be, depending on who seizes power, and we have no idea who that will be. The messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused.
The moment he started questioning Israel, it seems.
I think we're talking past each other, and admittedly, I haven't read this whole thread. Are you for it's existence or not?
Straight from the horse's mouth;
ssa.gov
quote:
The current Social Security system works like this: when
you work, you pay taxes into Social Security. We use the
tax money to pay benefits to:
• Retired workers
• Workers with qualifying disabilities
• Survivors of deceased workers
• Dependent spouses and children of beneficiaries
The money you pay in taxes isn’t held in a personal
account for you to use when you get benefits. We use
your taxes to pay people who are getting benefits right
now. Any unused money goes to the Social Security trust
funds, not a personal account with your name on it
ssa.gov
re: This plan would save social security *and* reduce elderly poverty. Your thoughts?
Posted by stuntman on 2/26/26 at 11:56 am to Diamondawg
They are absolutely welfare programs. :lol:
That money people paid in is sent right back out to current beneficiaries.
What happens to those "benefits" when someone dies before they can collect? Can they put it in a will?
It's not "your money". Government has done masterful job at making people believe it is.
That money people paid in is sent right back out to current beneficiaries.
What happens to those "benefits" when someone dies before they can collect? Can they put it in a will?
It's not "your money". Government has done masterful job at making people believe it is.
re: This plan would save social security *and* reduce elderly poverty. Your thoughts?
Posted by stuntman on 2/26/26 at 7:57 am to Diamondawg
My plan is politically unviable. :lol: if I could snap my fingers all social welfare programs from government would end today.
That said I think the only way it can really be done is first for the federal government to start running surpluses, and not through more taxation. By slashing government to the bone. Once that's done, then abolish the 16th amendment. Savings and purchasing power for people with skyrocket. Then all these social welfare programs, can be phased out by age bracket.
Even that plan is completely politically unviable. Entirely too many people in society are brainwashed into believing government isn't there just a secure rights, it's to fund their retirements, healthcare, food, housing, education...
It will take hyperinflation before people open their stupid eyes to see how much government is crushing their purchasing power, and imposing massive opportunity cost on them through every step of life.
That said I think the only way it can really be done is first for the federal government to start running surpluses, and not through more taxation. By slashing government to the bone. Once that's done, then abolish the 16th amendment. Savings and purchasing power for people with skyrocket. Then all these social welfare programs, can be phased out by age bracket.
Even that plan is completely politically unviable. Entirely too many people in society are brainwashed into believing government isn't there just a secure rights, it's to fund their retirements, healthcare, food, housing, education...
It will take hyperinflation before people open their stupid eyes to see how much government is crushing their purchasing power, and imposing massive opportunity cost on them through every step of life.
re: This plan would save social security *and* reduce elderly poverty. Your thoughts?
Posted by stuntman on 2/25/26 at 7:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Government social programs don't reduce poverty...ever. They exacerbate it.
I'm all for totally phasing it out. The messaging about how much these social welfare programs destroy your income and savings over time has been putrid. Intentionally so.
I know I didn't address your OP directly, but seems to me it's just more rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
And frick FDR.
I'm all for totally phasing it out. The messaging about how much these social welfare programs destroy your income and savings over time has been putrid. Intentionally so.
I know I didn't address your OP directly, but seems to me it's just more rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
And frick FDR.
re: Spec Play - HGRAF
Posted by stuntman on 2/24/26 at 10:28 am to dallastiger55
re: Bring Us Your Memes: 2024 Election Day and Beyond
Posted by stuntman on 2/23/26 at 4:05 pm to indianswim
Something tells me ADAM thinks women can have cocks.
Popular
17
