USS GABRIELLE GIFFORDS ??????? WTF !!!!!!!

The only thing you heard was the hamster in your head turning that squeaky little wheel, lol.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

LOL and you called me childish.

You only ASSume such a thing happens because you're just barely bright enough to realize you're too damn stupid to formulate a cogent argument of you own, you mentally crippled Yankee jackass.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ah yes, the Confederate sympathizer, who changes the subject every time his arguments go wrong, calls me "mentally crippled" while writing "you own" instead of "your own".

And I see you still like to emphasize "ass" in words, tranny fuckee. More than a little Freudian, homo.

The USS Gabby will have an all female crew..........

Re-read this part of Post No. 56:

"Re-read above. The 5 year period is NOT political if it is applied to everyone.

And while the selection AFTER death may still be political, that is a different issue. The 5 year period avoids an unpleasant situation where a nominee disgraces himself or herself - regardless of their party."

I never said it would NOT be political after 5 years. In fact I said the OPPOSITE.

You are STILL trying to put words in my mouth. You really ARE getting to be like IBLying. Originally Posted by ExNYer

And you are having trouble with comprehension.

My point is the 5 year waiting period is useless. No matter how long you wait , the selection will always be political.

That means if we try and name a ship for a person who hasn't been born yet....it will be political.

If we try and name a ship for a living person ....it will be political.

If we try and name a ship for a dead person....it will be political.

If we wait five years after they are dead ....it will be political.

On this we appear to agree.

So WTF is your point about waiting five years (or ten years or two weeks?) after someone has died to name a ship after them if it will be political no matter what?

A gangbang in their past? Hell that's why JD joined the Navy!

erNYer, you're a smart man but you are acting like a stubborn dumb fuck sticking to that dead plus x number of years bullshit.

You want to make it apolitical...throw everybody name into a hat and randomly draw one. Have to be a big hat though! The USS WTF kinda has a nice ring to it.

And you are having trouble with comprehension.

My point is the 5 year waiting period is useless. No matter how long you wait , the selection will always be political.

No, the 5 year period is NOT useless. It prevents a still living honoree from disgracing himself and having the embarrassment of having a ship named after him or her. You are deliberatly missing that point rather than concede it has some value, IBHankering.

What if we had named a ship after Larry Craig and THEN his bathroom toe-tapping came out? What if we named a ship after Anthony Weiner and then his dick pix texting came out? Don't you think the ship naming votes MIGHT go differently if that occurred before they decided to name the ships?

That means if we try and name a ship for a person who hasn't been born yet....it will be political. Not to mention impossible, idiot. What is his/her name?

If we try and name a ship for a living person ....it will be political. Just like I said. I'm not arguing that point, no matter how hard you try to pretend I am.

If we try and name a ship for a dead person....it will be political. Just like I said. I'm not arguing that point, no matter how hard you try to pretend I am.

If we wait five years after they are dead ....it will be political. Just like I said. I'm not arguing that point, no matter how hard you try to pretend I am.

On this we appear to agree.

So WTF is your point about waiting five years (or ten years or two weeks?) after someone has died to name a ship after them if it will be political no matter what?

As stated above, ad nauseam, It prevents a still living honoree from disgracing himself and having the embarrassment of having a ship named after him or her. It has nothing to do with the "politicalness" of the selection after death.

A gangbang in their past? Hell that's why JD joined the Navy!

erNYer, you're a smart man but you are acting like a stubborn dumb fuck sticking to that dead plus x number of years bullshit.

Read above. The only stubborn one here is you. Also, there are already laws in some states that have similar requirements that a person must be dead before things can be named after him/her. Why do you think that is so? Or is that a bullshit requirement?

You want to make it apolitical...throw everybody name into a hat and randomly draw one. Have to be a big hat though! The USS WTF kinda has a nice ring to it.

I never said I was going to make it apolitical. That isn't possible - AS I HAVE SAID. I think you can reduce political pressure somewhat - especially from the no longer living politician himself. Originally Posted by WTF

But you can definitely eliminate the possibility the honoree will do something disgraceful AFTER you named the ship after them.

OR DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT?

LOL and you called me childish. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are childish.


Jim

You are childish.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Apparently my comment on#69 hit too close to home, you are floundering. Dismissed nojo sinking.

The USS Gabby will have an all female crew.......... Originally Posted by eaglehorse

I have never served in the Navy but had I done so that is the ship I would want to serve on.

But you can definitely eliminate the possibility the honoree will do something disgraceful AFTER you named the ship after them.

OR DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? Originally Posted by ExNYer

I do not disagree with that! LOL

But you may find out they were a poon hound a 100 years later.


U.S. President Thomas Jefferson Fathered Child With Slave, DNA Study Shows.(Sally Hemings)

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53268563.html

Apparently my comment on#69 hit too close to home, you are floundering. Dismissed nojo sinking. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Don't flatter yourself.


Jim

I do not disagree with that! LOL

But you may find out they were a poon hound a 100 years later.

U.S. President Thomas Jefferson Fathered Child With Slave, DNA Study Shows.(Sally Hemings)

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53268563.html Originally Posted by WTF

True, but the hidden shit can come out any time - before or after death or after death + 5 years.

Nothing is guaranteed. The best you can hope for is harm reduction.

Don't flatter yourself.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Tinker toy time for you sonny .

Ah yes, the Confederate sympathizer, who changes the subject every time his arguments go wrong, calls me "mentally crippled" while writing "you own" instead of "your own".

And I see you still like to emphasize "ass" in words, tranny fuckee. More than a little Freudian, homo. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You have absolutely no credibility, you ignorant Yankee jackass, considering how one of your recent arguments evolved from "nothing to do with the desert tortoise" to your adopting the "desert tortoise issue" as the mainstay to your ignorant argument.

You have absolutely no credibility, you ignorant Yankee jackass, considering how one of your recent arguments evolved from "nothing to do with the desert tortoise" to your adopting the "desert tortoise issue" as the mainstay to your ignorant argument. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Re-read that thread tranny fucker.

I said - and still do - the desert tortoise doesn't mean shit. The federal government can raise the grazing fees OR COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN the grazing area with NO reference to the desert tortoise.

YOU diverted the conversation into a discussion about "arbitrary action", clearly demonstrating you do not know what "arbitrary" means with respect to government action.

I only responded to your stupidity to say that the issue of the desert tortoise is NOT arbitrary, as you think it is.

You seem to think a government action has to be "correct" or "justified" in order to avoid being arbitrary. It doesn't tranny fuckee.

A government action that doesn't involve protected classes (e.g,, race, gender, ethnicity) only needs a "rational basis".

And rational basis does NOT mean "correct" before you make that mistake. If Congress has ANY rational basis for the action, it is LEGAL from a constitutional point of view.

If you do not think the rational basis is good enough, your only remedy is the ballot box, NOT the courts.

That is why Bundy lost in court. He had 20 years to attack the actions of the BLM and, among other things, his lawyers could not demonstrate that government action did not pass the rational basis test and was therefore arbitrary.

And that is why YOU have no credibility. You are out of your depth.

If Congress passes a law saying sneakers cannot be yellow in color (just because), THAT is arbitrary.

If Congress prohibits more than a certain level of grazing on a piece of federal land because they want to preserve water, or prevent pollution, or prevent soil erosion, or protect some animal, that is NOT arbitrary. They have a rational basis.

If you want to attack the rational basis because you believe the soil won't erode, or the water won't be affected, or the animal won't be harmed, the courts won't listen to that line of attack. The ballot box is your remedy.

I'm sure this will make no difference to your retarded Confederate brain, but if it wasn't true, why did Bundy lose REPEATEDLY for 20 years in federal courts?

Answer THAT question tranny fuckee.

Re-read that thread tranny fucker.

I said - and still do - the desert tortoise doesn't mean shit. The federal government can raise the grazing fees OR COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN the grazing area with NO reference to the desert tortoise.

YOU diverted the conversation into a discussion about "arbitrary action", clearly demonstrating you do not know what "arbitrary" means with respect to government action.

I only responded to your stupidity to say that the issue of the desert tortoise is NOT arbitrary, as you think it is.

You seem to think a government action has to be "correct" or "justified" in order to avoid being arbitrary. It doesn't tranny fuckee.

A government action that doesn't involve protected classes (e.g,, race, gender, ethnicity) only needs a "rational basis".

And rational basis does NOT mean "correct" before you make that mistake. If Congress has ANY rational basis for the action, it is LEGAL from a constitutional point of view.

If you do not think the rational basis is good enough, your only remedy is the ballot box, NOT the courts.

That is why Bundy lost in court. He had 20 years to attack the actions of the BLM and, among other things, his lawyers could not demonstrate that government action did not pass the rational basis test and was therefore arbitrary.

And that is why YOU have no credibility. You are out of your depth.

If Congress passes a law saying sneakers cannot be yellow in color (just because), THAT is arbitrary.

If Congress prohibits more than a certain level of grazing on a piece of federal land because they want to preserve water, or prevent pollution, or prevent soil erosion, or protect some animal, that is NOT arbitrary. They have a rational basis.

If you want to attack the rational basis because you believe the soil won't erode, or the water won't be affected, or the animal won't be harmed, the courts won't listen to that line of attack. The ballot box is your remedy.

I'm sure this will make no difference to your retarded Confederate brain, but if it wasn't true, why did Bundy lose REPEATEDLY for 20 years in federal courts?

Answer THAT question tranny fuckee. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You're one moronic Yankee fucktard if you think you can deny how your POV mutated when you had your dumb-Yankee ass skewered by facts, you dopey Yankee buffoon.

Here's your original stated position, you mentally impotent Yankee prick.

Bundy's dispute with BLM goes back, what? 20 Years? That was BEFORE any issues arose with solar plants (located 200 miles away) or desert tortoises. Originally Posted by ExNYer

And here is your mutated position where you make the desert tortoise the central theme of your argument after you initially and ignorantly denied the tortoise was a factor, you unintelligent Yankee cock-sucker. BTW, even your ignorant Yankee ass should be able to see, nobody put words in your ignorant Yankee, cock-sucking mouth; so you'd better exam WTF you're chewing on, asshole.

How many desert tortoises were in Nevada - and how much range area did they cover - when the Spaniard first brought cattle in 500 years ago? And how many [desert tortoises] are left NOW and how much range area do they cover?

Why do you think the opinions of the ranchers who profiteer from grazing on those lands are an unbiased opinion about desert tortoises welfare?

Listening to her or other ranchers explain that their cattle don't do any damage to the habitat is a little like listening to coal mining companies explain that stripping overburden off the tops of mountains and maintaining huge slag pools doesn't really harm the rivers around the mines.

The ranching operations damage the land (water pollution, stripping forage, killing native species) and require fences and other infrastructure. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Even the desert tortoise is smarter than you, you ignorant Yankee mick. The desert tortoise managed to coexist with the American Bison and cattle for hundreds of years in their chosen habitat; whereas, your dumb Yankee ass was run out of New York, and now your pretentious and disgruntled Yankee ass is forced to coexist, much to your moronic dismay, with Texans who think you're a dim-witted Yankee prick.