Jump to content

Random Political/Social Posting


Eric
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • pipedreams

    47618

  • ChuteTheMall

    19565

  • Swampfox762

    10052

  • Schmidt Meister

    9511

1 hour ago, pipedreams said:

You are the company you keep...

image.png.e901f24b774b8848900227cdc8d2aca0.png

She does seem to be found in places where one finds serial pedophiles, doesn't she? Like I said before - the best part of Oprah went out in the FatWagon. 

<b>Oprah&#39;s</b> Top 20 Moments

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

Beep! Beep! FactCheckerNark here! Just wanted to point out that most tombs of that era did not have windows. Misinformation threatens our democracy...

And that door doesn't look like it could be rolled away.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ChuteTheMall said:

And that door doesn't look like it could be rolled away.

Early reports indicate the Centurian may be a shadowy figure named Davidius Ferrius, a known barbarian associate implicated in several uprisings and close friend of Kelly's boyfriend's dad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin Says Western Bases Hosting Ukraine’s F-16s

Would Be Legitimate Targets

If the F-16s are delivered to Ukraine, Russia could also strike NATO bases from which the jets would launch. The threat was issued by Vladimir Putin during a meeting with a group of pilots at Tver, northwest of Moscow. The Russian President said an escalation could be provoked by the delivery of the promised Fighting Falcon jets, for which training of Ukrainian pilots is underway.

“F-16s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and we will also need to take that into account while organizing our combat operations,” Putin said.

“Of course, if they are used from bases in third countries, they would be a legitimate target for us, no matter where they are,” he added.

However, the Kremlin believes not even the supply of these fighters will be able to change the course of the conflict, “We will destroy their warplanes just as we destroy their tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, including multiple rocket launchers”.

https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/28/putin-says-western-bases-hosting-ukraines-f-16s-would-be-legitimate-targets/

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pipedreams said:

Putin Says Western Bases Hosting Ukraine’s F-16s

Would Be Legitimate Targets

If the F-16s are delivered to Ukraine, Russia could also strike NATO bases from which the jets would launch. The threat was issued by Vladimir Putin during a meeting with a group of pilots at Tver, northwest of Moscow. The Russian President said an escalation could be provoked by the delivery of the promised Fighting Falcon jets, for which training of Ukrainian pilots is underway.

“F-16s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and we will also need to take that into account while organizing our combat operations,” Putin said.

“Of course, if they are used from bases in third countries, they would be a legitimate target for us, no matter where they are,” he added.

However, the Kremlin believes not even the supply of these fighters will be able to change the course of the conflict, “We will destroy their warplanes just as we destroy their tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, including multiple rocket launchers”.

https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/28/putin-says-western-bases-hosting-ukraines-f-16s-would-be-legitimate-targets/

The F-16, as well as the F/A-18 and F-35 all have hard points that can accommodate a B61 nuclear weapon.

They probably won't fit in the F-22, F-35 internal bays.

It's a pretty standard package.

What they can't do is arm a B61 weapon.  That was restricted sometime back in the 1960s in one of the many SALT agreements.

Putin is basically lying and he knows it, but Biden's Defense Department are idiots and are afraid of Putin's shadow.

No F-16s for Ukraine.

:upeyes:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What’s all the lawfare about?"   --  ESPN host Stephen A. Smith

"One charge after another, you got Letitia James … You’ve got the folks in Georgia with Fani Willis and others. You’ve got, you know, the Mar-A-Lago situation. You got … I mean, we’re really, really, really going to have a trial about hush money to a former porn star? That’s what we’re doing? That’s what we’re doing now?"  -- ESPN host Stephen A. Smith

"I’m like, are you kidding me? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that anybody should be above the law at any time. What I am saying is he’s the President of the United States, the former President of the United States. You talk to us about Russian collusion, you talk to us about a bevy of things over the years. Man is still running."  -- ESPN host Stephen A. Smith

"Four indictments, 91 counts and the man gets more campaign dollars, climbing in the polls, okay?" "And last time I checked, he still ain’t been in cuffs, he still ain’t been put behind bars. And he’s the presumptive GOP nominee."

"You can’t stop him. You cannot stop him," -- ESPN host Stephen A. Smith

"You had since 2016 to come up with somebody else, and you still can’t do it? That is pathetic. It is pathetic,"  "And there is no excuse for it whatsoever."  --  ESPN host Stephen A. Smith

"It is 2024. In eight years, you should have been able to find somebody that could compete with this man other than a soon 82-year-old incumbent."  -- ESPN host Stephen A. Smith

After Smith finished his rebuke of the party, Bet-David asked him if he still wants Democrats to win in 2024. Smith replied it was a "fair" question, and admitted it’s "hard to figure out."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/stephen-a-smith-declares-ashamed-democratic-party-not-replacing-biden-pathetic

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tous said:

What they can't do is arm a B61 weapon.  That was restricted sometime back in the 1960s in one of the many SALT agreements.

“They” who? Think most if not all of the SALT agreements have been nullified by Feds since signing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...