New Unit: USRSF
|
Posted:Dec 14, 2015 8:37 am
Last Updated:Apr 22, 2016 9:03 am 10139 Views
|
The Pentagon announced today the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces (USRSF) from Mississippi.
These boys will be dropped off in Iraq, and have been given only the following facts about ISIS:
1. The season opened today
2. There is no limit
3. They run around just like chicken
4. They don't like beer, bacon, BBQ, pickups, nude women, country music, or Jesus,
5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt!
The Pentagon expects the problem in the Middle East to be over by Friday.
.
--LOL!
GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
3
Comments
|
|
I'm taking the month off to whine about wimpy fools
|
Posted:Nov 30, 2015 4:20 am
Last Updated:Dec 11, 2015 6:21 pm 9470 Views
|
Am I the only one who sees thru the phoniness of one liberal's convictions when he resorts to personal attacks after he's been shown to be a fool on so many numerous occasions?
Walt Disney's cricket was much more intelligent than that.
Shall we all take this opportunity to list our reasons why and how we admire and respect such a chatter as that?
I'll start with a couple of my reasons first:
#1. He's shutting up for a month.
#2. He's shutting up for a month.
#3.
I'll add more of his finer qualities as they come to mind.
GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
Laquan McDonald Video
|
Posted:Nov 25, 2015 9:27 pm
Last Updated:Nov 30, 2015 7:03 pm 9202 Views
|
Hi folks.
I'm sure there's more to the story that will come out and eventually clarify things for me, but I must say I found the video of the shooting of Laquan McDonald, taken by itself, less than compelling.
I'll cede that it does make a mockery (and rightfully so I think) of any claims of "self-defense" made by the officer(s), but as I've watched it several times, I can only discern one time the young man was shot. That would be the moment he falls to the ground. Any officers on the scene, are for the most part off camera, and even when they make an appearance I can't know if they are firing at him or not. I'm not even sure if more than one or two had guns drawn.
As he's laying there, it becomes obvious that no one is in a hurry to approach him, and I'm not sure what to deduce from that because any twitches or slight movements he makes from this camera angle are uninterpretable for me. I can't tell if he's writhing in pain, pointing a weapon, or if the wind is blowing him. And I can't see anyone shooting him, or his body shaking from any impacts.
I'm not saying the wasn't shot 16 times as the coroner's report says. I'm just saying I can only assume from the video he was shot once, I didn't see the shooter do it, and I can't see anyone else shooting him for the next long moments while he's laying there. If all I had to go on was this video and the other evidence made public so far, I might assume the other 15 bullets were fired much later! Maybe even on the coroner's slab!
I don't mean this as a critique of either the police, or of those who are protesting them. But I do mean it as a critique of those who would say this video proves much about the heinousness of this event. Again, this is the media stirring emotions in the community via a morbid fascination with violence.
I agree the case against the officer charged seems very strong, and the Chi Police Dept has a lot of questions to answer. But I don't see this video as being conclusive of much on it's own. And if all they had in evidences was this video, I think the case against the officer would be very weak.
GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
Yup. I'm serious
|
Posted:Nov 24, 2015 1:00 am
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2016 3:34 am 9458 Views
|
Hi folks.
A few hours ago, I read some responses to a comment I made on another blog, and later it occurred to me that maybe I haven't made my viewpoints known in the past on what I've come to believe about Barack Obama these last few years.
Sure it's just my opinion. But it's not without some basis in fact and logic. So folks are free to take it for what it's worth.
Altho, if you whine or get angry at me for it, take it personal, or stoop to insults then I think your insecurities will be obvious and will explain your bias much better than any other points you may raise on the topic.
So here's my view:
I believe that Barack Obama is deliberately trying to bring about the downfall of the USA. I believe that is why he defies logic and makes every calculation in a way that will aid and abet those who seek to destroy our way of life, even if they have to kill us to do so. I believe that is why his policies are so consistently in opposition to our National Security, economy, and western civilization in general.
And I think it's all intentional. I think he's known all along what he's doing. He's not incompetent or simply naïve or arrogant. Those are simply masks he wears to hide the fact that he is our enemy.
Not going to attack those who disagree with me (unless they attack me first, and then it will depend on my mood at the time and whether I think you've harmed yourself more than me or not.) It's just my opinion and those who disagree are free to hold to theirs.
GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
23
Comments
|
|
When is America going to war?
|
Posted:Nov 19, 2015 5:30 am
Last Updated:Nov 25, 2015 9:29 pm 8010 Views
|
Rhetorical question actually.
Politicians are fools to promise that America will always stay out of wars. Since 9/11/2001, the wars have come to us. -Actually, long before that. Our current enemies declared war on us during the Clinton Administration. (If u factor in Iran, then it started under Carter.)
Once an enemy has declared war on us, like it or not, we are at war. We may choose not to fight, but that doesn't mean we aren't at war. The war is happening even if we try to pretend it's not.
Politicians can STRIVE to avoid wars, but they can't promise to stay out of them.
So once we find ourselves at war, we need to decide how to cope with it.
Personally I'm in favor going on the offensive in today's world. Any diplomacy or negotiations broke down years ago. At this point it just encourages those who want to destroy us. They see nothing to lose by continued aggression, and nothing to gain by stopping. We need to enlighten them.
I'd give specific names to our enemies. -ISIS, Al Queda, etc,, and it would include the names of any other organizations with the intent of harming us or our allies. Ultimately it may include some other nations too.
I'd be extremely cautious about trusting those peoples for whom there may be enemies of ours in their midst, whether identified or not. (Yes, I believe in profiling.)
I'd take great pains to minimize collateral damage, but wouldn't feel guilty for those we inflict. Our enemies AIM for innocent people, and if innocents must die, I'd rather it be on their side than ours. So bombing would be done surgically, but more often I'd use small cells of infiltrating troopers, many of them undercover operatives, and crossing borders would be a minimal concern.
JMHO and GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
Syrian Refugees
|
Posted:Nov 17, 2015 9:28 pm
Last Updated:Nov 21, 2015 8:18 am 7354 Views
|
Still thinking about the Syrian refugee problem, and the controversy over letting them come to the USA.
It occurs to me, that perhaps some of the dispute is caused by misunderstandings from both sides of the issue.
I've said I'm opposed to allowing them here right now, but I'm wondering if I should have clarified my position, cos I bet a lot of others who agree with me would say my clarifications also fit with their opinions too, and moreover, I think those in favor of letting them in may be more open to our side too.
I'm not saying I'd never let any of them in. Where I differ from those who want to open our doors to them, is in the timing and patience applied to our security.
So what I mean, is that yes, they could come here, but before they'd be allowed to roam freely, they should be treated reasonably, but confined to certain areas. And only released from there after we can properly vett each one to minimize the risks to ourselves. Admittedly, this process is even further greatly compounded by the fact that it is currently impossible to properly vet most of them. That doesn't mean they can never be vetted. But it does mean that it will take even longer before we can be sure they are safe to allow in.
I realize that may mean some wait years before we fully accept them, and even decades in many instances. Even tho most of them are probably not a risk to us anyway we have a lot to lose for each time we let someone in who we shouldn't have. I feel sorry for them, but that's life. We didn't create this situation in Syria. Assad and ISIS did. (Not gonna get into any debates about whether we created the environment leading up to the civil war in Syrian or the power vacuum in Iraq, because any blame beyond a recognition of what the refugees are fleeing from isn't productive to this discussion.)
So I'm going to rephrase my position on this issue now. From this point on, I'm in favor of letting them in, but only VERY SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY.
GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
6
Comments
|
|
Dem Debate 11/14/15
|
Posted:Nov 14, 2015 8:32 pm
Last Updated:Nov 17, 2015 11:38 am 7051 Views
|
Hi folks.
Just finished watching the Democratic Candidates debate, and this conservative has to admit that CBSN did a fine job. This was not a love fest. The questions were substantive and often challenging to the candidates, and I noticed the atmosphere often became much more intense between the candidates than I recall the first debate.
I think the standings will remain the same basically, altho I think O'Malley definitely raised his stature. And if I'm correct, that means he drew some support away from Hillary and Bernie, but I can't say which of the latter was hurt the most by it. My guess is they are still both going to be neck and neck with each other for the top position, with Hillary holding a slight lead. But now they will be fighting over a bit smaller piece of the overall pie.
I'm still disinclined to think O'Malley can come out on top by Convention time, but I can't see him dropping out of the race just yet. He had a good night, while Bernie and Hillary, altho not embarrassing themselves, did nothing to really further their standing among Dem voters.
O'Malley's best applause came when he called Donald Trump an "Immigrant bashing carnival barker" (I may not have the quote exactly correct, but that was the gist of his jibe) Personally, I think that's unfortunate for him, because he had some other more substantive comments during the night worthy of more respect for his thinking and abilities, that may be quickly forgotten as a result.
Compared to the Republican debate last week, I sensed more lofty sounding platitudes and rhetoric this evening, BUT! In fairness, that may be simply due to my subconscious inability to notice any similar trend among the Republicans due to my conservative leanings.
All of the candidates took some hits, and all of them scored some points against one another. I think it was a good debate.
I guess the thing that I (as a conservative) am most pleased about is that it appears the mainstream media has felt the burn from the debacle conducted by bias and cheap-shot tactics of the moderators at the second Repub debate, and have learned from that mistake.
In that regard, I think the American people are the winners, both liberal and conservative.
JMHO, and GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
12
Comments
|
|
My patio project completed
|
Posted:Oct 22, 2015 4:22 pm
Last Updated:Nov 14, 2015 11:11 pm 7471 Views
|
Hi folks
For those of you interested, here are some photos of the project that I've been working on this summer. Most of them are taken during the various stages, and not necessarily in chronological order. But the last 2 are the project completed for this year. (Will do more over the winter and next year.)
Thanks and GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
Some of my lovers hanging out in my living room.
|
Posted:Jun 22, 2015 1:41 pm
Last Updated:Jun 24, 2015 12:53 pm 7518 Views
|
L to R: #1 My dad's old Kay, circa 1930-1940. #2, The instrument that finally made me a guitarist and musician, a Garcia grade C classical guitar that I bought new in 1974 for $140.00. #3 (Picture) A graphic illustration of a 3D Cartesian Crossword Puzzle done by my Trevor. #4 An Alvarez Yairi I bought new in 1978. #5 Ibanez 12 string semi-hollow body electric I bought in 2013 to fill out my studio collection with at least one 12 string. #6 A small short-neck bass I bought for the same reason in 2012.
GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
6
Comments
|
|
Follow-up to Maize's blog and why so many liberals are turning to conservative media.
|
Posted:Mar 24, 2015 7:35 pm
Last Updated:Nov 23, 2015 4:55 am 7758 Views
|
My initial comment on Maize's blog:
Conservative media is winning for one simple reason: Time and time again, they turn out to be right, and the liberal media is found to be wrong. People eventually want news they can rely on, so they go where they can get the WHOLE story, from sources that have a proven track record.
GBU all,
Gavin
Quoting Rentier1:
The conservative media were right about invading Iraq and Afghanistan?
I don't think so.
I don't necessarily agree with the liberal media but at least the causes they trumpet don't kill and main American .
My response:
Yes they were right. Iraq and Afghanistan really were invaded. By the USA in fact. Maybe your liberal media missed it?
You see, it's not EITHER media's function to "trumpet" anything. Just report, and make some effort to be unbiased. Conservative media makes a better effort at non-biased reporting than the mainstream liberal media. They have to. That's because they are not the majority, and for them to succeed they have to prove more accurate over the long run. Fortunately, the liberal media is so much more biased and makes no effort to show either the truth or even mention the opposing viewpoints, that conservative media is beating them out in the ratings.
PEOPLE WANT NEWS THEY CAN TRUST, EVEN MORE THAN THEY WANT NEWS THAT SUPPORTS THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS.
(End quote)
Today, more and more Liberals are turning to conservative media, because they have learned they often wind up looking foolish if they only get one side. That doesn't mean they become conservatives. It means they are better informed and make better judgments before they make fools of themselves. They learn which liberal positions are worthy of defending, and which ones they should not. As a result, they are better able to support valid liberal causes.
GBU all,
Gavin
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
