The Sir

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 5, 2011 -> 12:29 PM) Im sure that people in England called American revolutionaries morons for protesting taxes from the crown. If you dont think there is something wrong with our current system, that is fine. I think there's problems that could be improved upon. I also don't think these idiots have any of the answers. And I absolutely believe that capitalism, while imperfect, is the best system for finding prosperity. Socialism, Marxism and big government are not. Your analogy is idiotic. In trying to accuse me of being some numbskull who opposes any change whatsoever, you try to guilt trip me by pointing to a group you correctly suspect that I admire. Yet I'm not against change and I'm not against protests. I am, however, against protests launched by morons who have no idea what they're talking about. I don't want the change these assholes want, I don't want the change you want, I don't want the change Obama wants. You guys are clueless. But the American revolutionaries? That's change I could have gotten behind.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 5, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) You are not suppose to respect that moron. How many of the protesters are also like that moron? In my view, a LOT of them. I'm gonna be here all day if I link every single moron found at these protests.

And then there's this. How am I supposed to respect these morons?

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 5, 2011 -> 04:28 AM) So a few misbehaving occupiers allows you to reject all of them, but we're suppose to look past that marine? People are unemployed, some for a very long time. Yes, they are not paying taxes now, they lost their jobs. Some very good people were out of work for months, even years. They see billions get tossed at corporations who then use predatory practices against them. As Americans they utilize their rights of free speech to protest. Yes, some are really wacked, just like your fellow marine. But there are some with some very valid points, even if I disagree with them. Using the logic I hear from a lot of people, only employed people can protest against unemployment As far as the drug use from this marine, any organization that needs to test 100% of their employee on a monthly basis has a huge problem. He can't be the only one. Again, I get their base complaints. The economy sucks, unemployment is out the wazoo, banks got bailed out etc. But I fail to see how the answer to high unemployment is to sit in a park for six weeks. And I definitely know that the answer to bank bailouts (which is socialism) is not more socialism. Or communism. And smashing store front windows and fighting the cops and spitting on service members and demanding free college and student loan debt forgiveness and showing other signs of horrible entitlement attitudes isn't going to win respect from me and many other Americans. I've seen too many videos and pictures of these guys to feel like I'm cherrypicking, I've read numerous articles describing the heavy influence of communism at these events, I've even been sent videos of supposedly reasonable protesters who say that we need to focus on the bankers and forget about this "Solyndra nonsense". If these guys were able to concentrate on ending crony capitalism and corruption in government, and not doing it in dirty, absurd ways, I'd possibly be supportive. But alas, that is not the case. As for drug testing in the Army, we went over this already. And yeah, Olsen isn't the only one. I don't get what your point is there. He's not the only one, and we need to find the others and eliminate them because they don't deserve to be Soldiers. Is it a huge problem? No, because we keep it under control. FYI, there is one guy in my company who is getting chaptered out for drug use. We still need to continue testing to make sure such problems don't arise.

Bummer. Maybe this doucher won't go to violent, crime-ridden protests in the future. And Scott Olsen, the "Marine" who founded the now defunct IhatetheMarineCorps.com and (as annotated on the same site) had drug-related disciplinary issues in the military, was actually injured by projectiles thrown by protesters. Having worn the uniform doesn't make this dickhead a Marine. He was just some punk who caused problems, acted like a brat and got filtered out like the trash he is. Likewise, I wouldn't be calling myself a Soldier if I was some fatass, drug-using dips*** who copped an attitude with every one of my superiors. My ACUs don't make me a Soldier; my attitude and my behavior do. I don't give a f*** about the Occupiers. I do think they're so incredibly stupid that they make good comic relief. I like watching them riot, and use/sell drugs, and generally misbehave, since it totally discredits their already stupid ideas. Oh and then there's the rapes and death. But that part's not so funny. They can go out there and protest all they want. But they can't demand any of my hard earned wealth while not contributing on their own. I've seen enough of this protest to know a large majority of them are just the "have nots" being pissy at the "haves". If they left it at simply ending corporate welfare, I'm game. After all, that's true capitalism! Let the good businesses win and the bad ones fail. I'm down with that. But they are carrying a lot of baggage, ranging from ideas that I will never agree with to actions that I despise. And for those reasons, I will never join them.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Nov 3, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) If that person is an addict...it's not that easy to just not use them. And whose fault is that? Not mine nor yours.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Nov 2, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) Unfortunately...they won't have that dime, which will lead to other crime, such as theft, burglary, robbing banks, stealing cars, etc. A harsh reaction to a bad sort of behavior doesn't become unjust simply because the subject (who has free will, mind you) decides he must now resort to an even worse sort of behavior. If you can't use drugs on your own dime, don't use 'em at all. If you commit armed robbery to fund your habit, then you go to prison. It's that simple.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 30, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) Damn, they spend a lot on drug testing. It's for a worthwhile cause. People who use drugs shouldn't be Soldiers. We need to filter them out and eliminate them from our ranks.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 30, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) I'm curious, how often are you drug tested? I think we're now doing 10% of the company (~150 personnel) every Monday and 100% once every month. I'm not sure though, because I don't really keep track.

I don't have any interest in subsidizing unproductive members of society so that they can poison their bodies and continue being unproductive. They don't have to go to prison. They just don't get any benefits. Use that garbage if you'd like, but do it on your own dime. And you try to make that argument about being for the children. Do you really think drug addicted welfare recipients are incredibly worried about using their benefits to provide for those kids? If you want to protect these children, have CPS scoop them up (and yeah, this opens a whole other nanny-state can of worms that I'm not sure I'm OK with). But it's foolish to believe that giving money to these deadbeat parents will ever, at least in any substantial form, reach the hands and mouths of their children.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 07:31 AM) T-Paine. Pre-Marx Marxist.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 07:02 AM) That is of course the real rub when I put that number out there...The DOD direct war appropriations are only a slice of the total war costs. The retirement benefits, health benefits, etc., count also. Hell, the Foreign Aid budget is >1/3 made up of aid to Iraq and Afghanistan that isn't counted in the military budget. Retirement benefits? As in, my benefits? Those would be there whether we were in Afghanistan or not. If you want to talk about our massive military spending (which is still less than we spend on pensions, healthcare and education), that's one thing. But don't inflate our actual costs in the sandboxes by including things that would exist with or without our involvement in said sandboxes. Military budget =/= costs of Afghanistan.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 09:10 PM) Seriously not being a smart ass but I'm not sure that's true. Do you have something on that one? No, he doesn't. According to my link, Iraq and Afghanistan combined receive $14 billion of the $48 billion. That's not overwhelming, not in my book. So, even with that amount taken out, we spend on the war in Afghanistan in one year the same amount we spend on foreign aid in sixteen months. Not exactly this "few weeks" garbage that Balta threw out back there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 08:03 PM) Just to note...the amount this country spends on foreign aid is less than the amount we spend in a couple weeks in Afghanistan. The Iraq war could pay the non-war foreign aid budget for something like 150-200 years. My foreign aid statement was directed at foreign policy, and not at ways we can cut spending. But since you want to go there, according to CostofWar.com, we have spent $468 billion on the Afghan War in ten years and $800 billion on the Iraq War in eight years. Now, according to this government website that publishes the Greenbook, foreign aid in 2009 totalled $48 billion ($34 billion in economic assistance and $14 billion in military assistance). I don't know if being truth challenged carries over to being math challenged, so I'll help you. That's $46.8 billion a year on the Afghan War. $100 billion per year on the Iraq War. We spent more on foreign aid in 2009 than we do on average each year in Afghanistan. So you're lying, once again. And if you take the overall payment for Iraq and spend it on solely economic foreign aid instead , you can pay the bills for 24 years. Of course, if you go year-to-year, which is much more fair, you pay the bills for three years. Tell me, does it hurt when you pull these ridiculous facts out of your butt? Your ability to tell the truth stinks worse than Eric Holder's.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 07:59 PM) if it were Greece alone, the problems would be easy enough. The big problems are because it was French and German banks that gave them all that money and jut like here, those firms can't lose money...and those same firms have much larger exposures to Italy, Spain, and Portugal. I don't know, dude. It looks like several of those other nations you mention have some pretty bad debt/deficit issues. And you were caught lying only a few minutes ago.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 07:36 PM) Several of the countries having the biggest problems in Europe had no out of control spending. Spain, Ireland, and Portugal, for example, had solid budget surpluses for years prior to the collapse. Tey just had huge financial industry fed housing bubbles. Greece had out of control spending. From everything I'm reading, they're the most screwed out of anyone.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 07:38 PM) Ok I'm really really confused. So "Libya is about to fall to radical Islam" but it's fine to give them military aid even though "Appeasement never works?" Not trying to be a jerk at all, I tried to not to quote of context at all there. I'm just really confused by this collection of viewpoints. I'm not advocating military aid for them so they like us more or to make them think America is totally great. I'm advocating it in return for something that I want for America. Beyond that benefit of getting to watch al-Megrahi die in our hands, f*** 'em. They can vote for sharia or a liberal democracy for all I care. I just want Megrahi. Frankly, we should use foreign aid in a more controlling way. Cut people off when they start acting a fool. Why does Pakistan still get money from us? Or the PA? These people suck. Let's cut them off until they stop acting like little assholes.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 07:23 PM) Do you think the last 2 statements make you sound smart? (most just want to be like Europeans and liberal idiots) Maybe one day people wont care whether they are a liberal or a conservative and will drop all the s*** and focus on making the US the best nation in the world and doing everything that we can to make sure that it stays that way. Unfortunately too many people would rather snipe and make jackass remarks than actually sit down and figure things out. Because neither side is right, its just that simple. Good luck guys, Ill take my European idiocy elsewhere. No, I don't want to follow a model that endorses out-of-control spending that results in near-bankruptcy and widespread riots. The European model has failed, and if you want to refer to my comments pointing out, in perhaps a snarky tone, why it has failed as jackassery, then so be it. I do want to keep the United States the greatest nation on Earth. This is my home and I would die for it. And I will never believe, having seen what I've seen in Europe and its failures, that your ideas will do anything to maintain my beloved country's success. So yeah, please take your European idiocy elsewhere. I appreciate it.

And don't forget the Geert Wilders trial. It ended in acquittal, thank God, but the idea that a man gets put on trial for expressing an opinion shows how far down the drain our supposedly civilized European friends have gone.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 07:11 PM) And most here want to be just like them. Yeah, because Europe's all so famous for its financial successes as of late. And then there's the Sharia enforcement zones, the widespread rioting and so on. I don't anticipate that the idiots of the left will ever learn.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 06:55 PM) (Imo) He was released in an attempt to prevent another appeal where it was possible he would have been found not guilty and the rest of the Western world would have gone ballistic on Scotland for basically having no clue who was really responsible. If you read about the story, his case was granted an appeal, but it sounds like in consideration for dropping the appeal, Scotland granted his release. Heh. Europeans are wimps.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 06:48 PM) However, releasing this guy from a "western world" standpoint didn't do s***, nor will it ever, on gaining any type of sympathy from terrorist organizations. In fact, it makes them more bold, which has been proven time and time again. Absolutely agree. Appeasement never works. I don't know if it was the intention, but releasing 1,000 Palestinian terrorists for Gilad Shalit didn't ease Palestinians' hatred for Israel. It only made them dance in the streets and demand more Shalits be kidnapped and held for random. I'd use that old phrase about mice, milk and cookies, but I don't want to insult mice by comparing them to Palestinians so instead, I'll warn that if you give a maggot a s***brick, he's gonna want a pile of diahrrea.

He was speaking to the media this month! Your news crew found him "comatose" in August. I call bulls*** on you. The dude's coherent enough to talk to the media. Your "unconscious" claims are lies.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 06:25 PM) Frankly...no. Having someone else get their jollies off on te shell of a terrorists body sickens me quite a bit. If he ever regains consciousness, then the uk should demand his return from the new government (won't happen, see previous reason). Otherwise, it's a shell, not a person any more. FYI, I was joking about torturing him. You used that word. But I would like him on his deathbed in a Western prison. Only in a liberal's mind would that be considered torture for someone who murdered 270 people. You're unbelievable. Please explain why al-Megrahi should be allowed to die with his family when his victims did not receive such privileges.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 06:05 PM) He shouldn't have been released, but the uk wanted to secure petroleum access. Yeah, I read this. f*** BP. You don't have to then. Give him to me and I'll torture him enough for the both of us. Deal?