Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dr. Gobbler

Members
  • Content Count

    3,193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dr. Gobbler

  1. What would happen to Christo if he is sitting in two seats? Does half his body parachute down in one spot and the other half land elsewhere?

    I smell a lawsuit.

    First Class passengers get jet packs.
    Southwest tells all of the people sitting in the first two rows that the Jumbo Bag of Rold Gold pretzels is a jet pack. The first two rows is for fatties, it's not first class Christo!!!!

    I'm a FBG. I don't fly Southwest. I guess we know another reason why you don't fit in around here, welcher.
    That is the highest compliment you could pay me!

    Now let's see your big beautiful man ####.

  2. What would happen to Christo if he is sitting in two seats? Does half his body parachute down in one spot and the other half land elsewhere?

    I smell a lawsuit.

    First Class passengers get jet packs.
    Southwest tells all of the people sitting in the first two rows that the Jumbo Bag of Rold Gold pretzels is a jet pack. The first two rows is for fatties, it's not first class Christo!!!!
  3. We managed to fly to the moon. Virgin is going to have commercial space flights soon. There was that RedBull guy who jumped from like Jupiter. How can we be so obtuse about this?

    If you think putting every passenger in a pressurized space suit is plausible, then, yes, it is definitely possible. Enjoy the 12 hour pre-flight suit fitting, the three hour strap in process, and the extra $500k+ in your ticket price.

    OK, how about the wings fall off and a gigantic parachute that will allow the plane to safely float down? Keep everything inside safe. I have to assume most of the time it is engine malfunction or some type of engine troubles, just make the cockpit and cabin stay intact and allow the rat of the plane to fall off, float everyone down to safety ;)

    We can do this folks, we have the technology.

    Designing the wings so they fall off would probably kill more people than your system could potentially save. One thing that makes air travel so safe is that wings are well engineered to stay on. A parachute system for a large commercial aircraft would probably be about the size of a half-dozen football fields. The plane could probably not carry any passengers once the system is installed.

    Your plucky can-do attitude is what has made America great.
  4. 787>747

    FriendlySkiez

    StewardessDreams

    Caulkpit

    JumpseatJimmy

    Capn'Munch

    MillionMiler

    People died and you people are making up Screen Names for Christo on Flight Blogs????

    Unbelievable!!

    UnshavedRewardPointsLover

    HairyBusinessClass

    CheckInMyLuggage_CheckOutMyManBag

    IBuy2Seats

    I fly First Class.
    Just because you sit in the first row on Southwest doesn't make it First Class.
  5. If we do nothing, here are the two things that really bother me:

    1. If this guy used poison gas on innocent men, women, and children, I don't think he should be able to get away with it.

    2. If the President of the United States, WHOEVER that happens to be, says publicly that something is wrong and needs to be dealt with, I don't think we can then just decide to do nothing. To take no action now, after Obama publicly stated that we need to take action, is an embarrassment to the USA- not just to the President, but to all of us.

    Like I wrote before, I have a very bad feeling that any action we take will achieve no good result. It may make things even worse, or (and I HATE admitting this part) it may even lead to an escalation of events- I refuse to use that other phrase.

    But at this point taking no action really bothers me as well.

    Horrible reason for taking any action.

    I don't give a #### about what someone in Syria, or Iran, or anywhere else thinks about America. If we should act, then we should act. And, if we should stay out, then we should stay out. Maybe these countries that want our support should start paying for it - starting with Israel and Saudi Arabia imo.

    Saudi Arabia has offered to foot the bill
    Yes because they want to topple Assad because he won't allow a SAUDI PIPELINE through Syria that goes to Europe. The chemical weapons were supplied by Saudi Arabia, Prince Bandar to be exact. I wish you guys knew how to Google, there is a wealth of truth in there.
  6. Putin just said Russia will assist Syria if they are attacked. Not sure what "assist" means, but it doesn't sound good. I figured this would all blow over, and was just more empty rhetoric, but it appears to be getting dicey.

    And Iran says they'll attack Israel and American troops in Iraq.

    This is going to get nasty, and we've put ourselves right in the middle of it.. Anything other than a peaceful resolve at this point is a loss. But I doubt seriously the rebels or Assad are going to be willing to make peace..

    We should have been peace makers right from the start, but since the US and Saudi's likely started this war to begin with, over a pipeline, I doubt that was an option for us..

    I don't know about peace makers, but if we going to act, it should have been two years ago. Now, it's just an impossible situation. I agree that if we act in any manner, it will stir the hornet's nest against us ...there will be a response, knowing we have no desire to get our hands dirty (or boots on the ground). If we don't act, it tells the world (friends and enemies) that we are no longer willing to step in, and that's a very dangerous move. The Commander in Chief really screwed the pooch on this one.

    We should not pursue Plan A (shots across the bow) unless we have a Plan B (military counter to the all-but-sure response). What will we do if further chemical weapons are used in response? If people are slaughtered or refugee camps bombed by Assad? U.S. interests attacked? Will we say, "hey, stop it!" or will we go after Assad? Such a dilemma. :kicksrock:

    I agree with most of this. Lets not get all uppity 2 years and 100,000 dead bodies later. That has been my problem all along. We were ok with the regime killing the masses the good old fashioned way. In fact we have been encouraging the rebels to go off and get themselves killed. Now that someone may have used ..lets just call it poison..and killed a few hundred more...now theres a problem. It's laughable.

    Disagree. This is more than about Syria. It's about not allowing the use of chemical weapons to become an acceptable norm around the world. If you accept it here, how can you oppose it the next time?
    Then why don't you go after Saudi Arabia? They supplied the unmarked chemical weapons to the rebels!!!! Do you people seriously not know how to Google?

    Why don't you pay Tim?
    His money is sitting in the 'Timschochet Thread About Nothing'. If he would ever use it he would find it sitting there.
  7. Putin just said Russia will assist Syria if they are attacked. Not sure what "assist" means, but it doesn't sound good. I figured this would all blow over, and was just more empty rhetoric, but it appears to be getting dicey.

    And Iran says they'll attack Israel and American troops in Iraq.

    This is going to get nasty, and we've put ourselves right in the middle of it.. Anything other than a peaceful resolve at this point is a loss. But I doubt seriously the rebels or Assad are going to be willing to make peace..

    We should have been peace makers right from the start, but since the US and Saudi's likely started this war to begin with, over a pipeline, I doubt that was an option for us..

    I don't know about peace makers, but if we going to act, it should have been two years ago. Now, it's just an impossible situation. I agree that if we act in any manner, it will stir the hornet's nest against us ...there will be a response, knowing we have no desire to get our hands dirty (or boots on the ground). If we don't act, it tells the world (friends and enemies) that we are no longer willing to step in, and that's a very dangerous move. The Commander in Chief really screwed the pooch on this one.

    We should not pursue Plan A (shots across the bow) unless we have a Plan B (military counter to the all-but-sure response). What will we do if further chemical weapons are used in response? If people are slaughtered or refugee camps bombed by Assad? U.S. interests attacked? Will we say, "hey, stop it!" or will we go after Assad? Such a dilemma. :kicksrock:

    I agree with most of this. Lets not get all uppity 2 years and 100,000 dead bodies later. That has been my problem all along. We were ok with the regime killing the masses the good old fashioned way. In fact we have been encouraging the rebels to go off and get themselves killed. Now that someone may have used ..lets just call it poison..and killed a few hundred more...now theres a problem. It's laughable.

    Disagree. This is more than about Syria. It's about not allowing the use of chemical weapons to become an acceptable norm around the world. If you accept it here, how can you oppose it the next time?
    Then why don't you go after Saudi Arabia? They supplied the unmarked chemical weapons to the rebels!!!! Do you people seriously not know how to Google?
  8. 1. Why is no one talking about the origin of the chemical weapons?

    2. Why is no one talking about the multiple reports from inside Syria, even from the Rebels themselves that state the weapons were supplied by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia and the weapons were not labeled chemical?

    3. Why is no one connecting the dots after Saudi Arabia has offered to pay for us to bomb Syria?

    4. Why is no one talking about the pipeline that Saudi Arabia wants to put through Syria to reach Europe but has been opposed by Assad?

    5. Why can't you people get it through your thick skulls that is a set up to sway Americans to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia?

    • Like 1
  9. I can't believe the way you people fight over minutiae the way you do.

    What you should be talking about is how Saudi Arabia wants to build a pipeline through Syria to Europe but Syria has refused time and time again. Why? Because that would be economically detrimental to their ally Russia. There are a ton of reports that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia has met with Putin and even tried to bribe him to convince Syria to allow it, without avail. Oh and recent reports name the same Prince Bandar as the person who supplied the weapons to the Syrian rebels but forgot to tell them that oh some of that may be chemical. So what happens, the rebels think they are firing off one thing but something else happens. Oh, and according to many reports, from independent journalists inside Syria, what they were firing off malfunctioned and ended up gassing the rebels themselves. Now lets put it all together for you... Saudi Arabia wants that pipeline through Syria. Assad says NO. The only logical recourse is to get rid of Assad. But how? Lets try to overthrow him. But Assad is smart and isn't going down without a fight. Saudi Arabia is giving weapons to the rebels and just so happens to slip them a faulty chemical weapon, unbeknownst to the rebels that it was chemical,which blows up in their face and kills a bunch of Rebels. Al Arabiya, a Saudi owned news agency, who just happens to be owned by the same people trying to get that pipeline built, report that Assad gassed his people when nothing could be further from the truth. But, it's the only way to get America involved because now they have a story to feed the sheep. And you can't bomb innocent people for an oil pipeline unless you have a good story.

    Now, you just wait for what comes next. Go ahead America, bomb them. You'll see what happens when you #### with Russia's money.

    But by all means everyone keep fighting amongst yourselves over unimportant BS. And whatever you do don't take the time to contact your Representatives and voice your opinion directly to them. I'm sure your Senators and Congressmen are mind readers.

    • Like 2
  10. So this I what I've gathered so far. Prince Bandar from Saudi Arabia supplied the rebels with the chemical weapons however according to the rebels they did not know what they had were chemical weapons, Assad was not responsible. Al Arabiya was the news agency that broke the story on chemical weapon use in Syria. Al Arabiya, a Saudi owned news agency, is owned by the same people who have been trying to topple Assad for years. Prince Bandar is the same guy who supplied the WMD in Iraq intelligence to the Bush Admin. The UN inspectors were invited in by Syria, Assad, and were there the same day as the chemical weapons were used. Why would Assad do that?

    So that's what I've gathered, these 'facts' are being reported around the world. There are independent journalists inside Syria that are reporting the same.

    Do with it what you will.

  11. Rumors heating on the Internet that the source of the chemical weapons attack was Saudi based.

    This has major legs. Prince Bandar starting some $&@& to increase gas prices. I'm beginning to think if we want peace in the Middle East the two places we should be pointing our missiles are Saudi Arabia and Israel.

    Hey, look, the welcher

    You say it like that word has any weight.
  12. Rumors heating on the Internet that the source of the chemical weapons attack was Saudi based.

    This has major legs. Prince Bandar starting some $&@& to increase gas prices. I'm beginning to think if we want peace in the Middle East the two places we should be pointing our missiles are Saudi Arabia and Israel.
  13. You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

    #1 Eat a twinkie and then breathe in some sarin gas. While you are lying on the floor, twitching, vomiting and defecating in your pants, you can think about the evil twinkie.

    #2 There are chemicals in our food? The food itself is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is made of chemicals. Everything is a chemical. So just because you call something a chemical, that does not mean it is bad.

    psssst..... I'm eating Doritos right now... will I glow in the dark?
    You guys can be trite all you want. I'm just saying enjoy your Gatorade with fire ######ant as one of the ingredients. Enjoy your oranges spliced with frog genes. Enjoy your GMO wheat products with that little opiate called gliadin or the or the new allergies being generated by the new alpha amylases of modern wheat. Enjoy the glyphosate from your Round Up ready corn and soy products. We'll be seeing your posts shortly enough with titles like 'I have the big Casino' and 'My kid is all ###### up'.

    Carry on you big beautiful monkeys.

  14. You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

  15. Ask the son if the girl has any other friends with daddy issues?Sidle up to the wife with a remember when we were young comment while holding a cucumber.You gonna let your son be the only male in the house posting up colored dots today?Game on!!

    you're quite the ladies man.
    When you've got a good inside game, you don't need to shake and bake, you just take it to the hole!!!!
  16. To all of those who are wondering how this can be legal.

    Here's why the reporter's actions aren't protected by the First Amendment: The law entirely is content-neutral. That is to say, the law is against leaking confidential information, not against publishing it. It doesn't matter one iota what the journo would have done with it once he got the information--he'd be punished even if he just took it home as bathroom reading. He'll be punished for having conspired to leak confidential information, not for having published it. The prohibition doesn't directly touch on protected conduct, so it doesn't infringe on the freedom of the press. Again, had the leaker come to him with the information, he absolutely could have published it with impunity. But taking an active role in the leaking itself is what's going to get him in trouble.

    Also Assange never actively solicited for information, but only offered a means for it to be delivered.

    Weird however how I didn't hear anyone on the right defending Assange when his information embarrassed the Bush Administration but when its a Fox reporter now all of a sudden its the biggest deal in the world.

    So what is stopping the gubmint from making every piece of information that is important/detrimental/shameful from being deemed classified? It seems an easy way to make the populace even more uninformed. Just make all things classified and then we can get back to the more important news of Kim Kardashians pregnancy.
×
×
  • Create New...