User Controls
Why can't non whites use stores correctly
-
2020-02-24 at 1:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL No, not everyone here is "totally retarded". They simply disagree with you. There's a difference.
there's a difference but as this site proves, they're not mutually exclusive, either. in fact, i've learned that there's a definite affinity for being retarded and disagreeing with me (as far as this website goes. in my career and life people often disagree with me without being retards, and vice versa, and we have mutual respect for each other.) -
2020-02-24 at 1:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib there's a difference but as this site proves, they're not mutually exclusive, either. in fact, i've learned that there's a definite affinity for being retarded and disagreeing with me (as far as this website goes. in my career and life people often disagree with me without being retards, and vice versa, and we have mutual respect for each other.)
So, it's the respect you're after. -
2020-02-24 at 1:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Splam If you achieve your goal you have won. Else where does it end? You either loose or you conquer the world? That mentality sounds like Ricky Bobby, if you're not first, you're last!
Their goal was a united, sovereign Vietnam. They achieved that. At a cost. By your definition everyone in war is a looser. They fucking won. USA fucking lost. Get over it.
Only half of Vietnam won. The other half lost.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-02-24 at 1:29 AM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 1:30 AM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 1:30 AM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 1:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib why would i want to be respected by people i don't respect?
clearly, you don't even know what respect is. because if you did, you'd know that being respected by people you don't respect is actually insulting.
Clearly you are the only one on this site that knows anything about everything. -
2020-02-24 at 2:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib you can't win by defending. you can only keep what you have. that isn't winning. that's surviving… at a cost.
unless you're attacking, you can't win. there's no such thing as 'defensive victory', that's just a modern euphemism politically correct term for 'well, we still exist, i guess' after being fucked with.
the only path to victory is by unrelenting attack.
no.
you clearly forgot german invasion of asstria.
no attack. nein. -
2020-02-24 at 3:02 AM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 11:05 AM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 12:31 PM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 1:31 PM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 6 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker There are no real winners in a civil war.
but they are in the ar15 hunting / not hunting rifle argumemt.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny
Originally posted by Speedy Parker You are full of wrong even when you are actually trying to be right.
1954: The ArmaLite Company is Founded
1954-1956: ArmaLite Begins Designing Rifles In 1954, the first weapon was the AR-5. A bolt-action rifle with a .22 Hornet round was developed as a survival rifle for the flight crew in the U.S. Airforce.
1955: The U.S. Army Seeks a Replacement Rifle Armalite submits the AR 10 but does not get a contract.
1956-1959: International Licensing Agreement For The AR-10
1959: ArmaLite Sells the AR-15 Design to Colt who begins production for civilian sales as a hunting rifle.
1961: Eugene Stoner leaves Armalite and joins Colt as a consultant.
1963: The M-16 is born but not adopted by the US military who refuses to give up the inferior M14 for various reasons.
1965: The M-16 Becomes the Primary Service Rifle. Despite the continued resistance to the M16 production problems with the M-14 forced the hands of Robert McNamara, the U.S. Secretary of Defense. The United States needed a rifle that could be used in all four branches of service. The M-16 would be this weapon.
no, your source is wrong.In 1958, ArmaLite submitted ten AR-15s and one hundred 25-round magazines for CONARC testing.[7] The tests found that a 5- to 7-man team armed with AR-15s has the same firepower as 11-man team armed with M14s.[36] That soldiers armed with AR-15s could carry three times more ammunition as those armed with M14s (649 rounds vs 220 rounds).[37] And, that the AR-15 was three times more reliable than the M14 rifle.[7] However, General Maxwell Taylor, then Army Chief of Staff, "vetoed" the AR-15 in favor of the M14.[7] In 1959, ArmaLite now frustrated with the lack of results and suffering ongoing financial difficulties, sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt.[6]
main purpose was/is military weapon.Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 in 1964.[3]
tell me my sauce is lying. -
2020-02-24 at 6:29 PM UTCDing. It was designated as an AR-15 in 1958 already. Long before any semi-auto variants were made.
-
2020-02-24 at 8:48 PM UTC*canned silence*
*canned chirpping*
*canned silence* -
2020-02-24 at 10:25 PM UTCModern wars and invasions exist solely to generate trillions of dollars in corporate profits. Nothing more. There's absolutely nothing at all else to them. People have no clue how warped and bizarre and incredibly evil the situation really is. They just can't believe that their own government is directly and wholly in the back pockets of a bunch of profiteering conglomerates, who don't care how many they kill or who gets hurt, as long as their off-shore, tax-free, numbered accounts keep getting filled.
-
2020-02-24 at 10:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Modern wars and invasions exist solely to generate trillions of dollars in corporate profits. Nothing more. There's absolutely nothing at all else to them. People have no clue how warped and bizarre and incredibly evil the situation really is. They just can't believe that their own government is directly and wholly in the back pockets of a bunch of profiteering conglomerates, who don't care how many they kill or who gets hurt, as long as their off-shore, tax-free, numbered accounts keep getting filled.
There was a recent study that found that the British Empire and various imperial engagements cost England more money than it ever generated.
I assume the same thing is true for the US.
Some people like to point to the wars and attribute the British/US industrial base to them, but in reality they existed despite, not because of, the wars. -
2020-02-24 at 10:44 PM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 10:45 PM UTC
-
2020-02-24 at 10:46 PM UTC
