HeloDude

Slavery was supported by the government then too…

Depends who owns the land that someone is throwing their trash on. If you own the land, then sure, why not? If it’s not my land, then I need to respect the rules for whoever owns the land. But pretty far stretch to bring up littering when others on here don’t have a problem with sending people to die in war against their will or putting citizens in prison just because of their ethnic backgrounds.

So people can indeed (and do) vote for a government that forces people to do/not do things to their neighbors at the barrel of a gun. And I guess in your opinion this is just fine, unless I’m reading you incorrectly? If you’re sticking up for a forceful government over individual liberty, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Oh, and if you’re bored, take a look at what the US government did to Japanese Americans in the early 1940s…but hey, it was done by a President who was elected, so I guess it was alright.

They might get an extra seat for free, but are much more likely to not live as long and/or have the same quality of life as those who are not obese. What I find hilarious is how the “everyone is a victim” crowd says it’s not their fault for being obese, it’s hereditary, on medication, blah blah blah. Take a look at obesity rates from 50+ years ago…how much did generics change in that amount of time? Also, look at obesity rates overseas…how different are their genetics on the whole compared to ours? In the end, it will just make it more expensive for the rest of us. And if you think this is bad, wait until you find out another reason as to why our healthcare is so expensive.

You can’t be serious? The only power the government has is force at the ultimate barrel of a gun. Have you ever heard of a “victimless crime”? Let me know if you need just a few examples.

Nah, I just use logic and reasoning vs emotions. But I’m sure you subscribe to the “Liberty for me but not for thee” philosophy.

So send people off to die against their will…sounds like so much freedom and liberty. If enough people won’t voluntarily fight for something they believe in, then it’s not worth it. This is the litmus test…vs just voting for the government to force your neighbors at the barrel of a gun to go to war.

Is this including the college football thread?

Oh man…some of the most dangerous words I’ve heard or read. This means that my liberty and freedom only exist to what elected officials allow me to have…since they were voted in.

It’s always worse going back on what you said then never saying it in the first place.

So “customers of size” flying on SWA can now essentially book two seats for the price of one? Who gets to determine who is a “customer of size” and who isn’t? Because I have no problem identifying as a “customer of size” to always have an open seat next me at no additional cost. https://www.southwest.com/help/booking/extra-seat-policy

If not enough people voluntarily wanted to fight the Nazis, then no, to them it wasn’t worth it. You either have enough volunteers under the terms of an agreement (ie an enlistment) or you don’t. You can use whatever emotional arguments you want, but either you believe in personal freedom to go/not to go a war if asked, or you don’t believe in it. If freedom and liberty and can be suspended then you were never actually free. Don’t forget, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Conveniently you also left off the forced conscription for fighting in Korea and Vietnam. But to your direct point about WW2, yes, I’m also against conscription if we found ourselves in another world war. You are truly not free if you are told to pick up a gun and go to war, and if you won’t, the government will criminalize you for it. If a country is worth fighting for, then you’ll have enough people voluntarily willing to fight for it.

If the Ukrainians were willing to die for their country then you wouldn’t need forced conscription. And this goes for any country in a similar situation. This is the exact opposite of freedom by the way.

Progressives politicians: We need to give Ukraine tens of billions of dollars (money that we don’t have on top of the other tens of billions we have already given them), and if we don’t, Ukraine will fall to Russia and the US will have the blame. Oh and additionally we many have to send our own troops to fight in eastern Europe. Non-progressive politicians: Ok, well, as long as we can also add funding/make significant changes to our own border security and tighten illegal immigration rules/laws, then we’ll fund that and money for Ukraine. Progressive politicians: No

Pilot In Fire Extinguisher Incident Facing Misdemeanor Charges https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/pilot-in-fire-extinguisher-incident-facing-misdemeanor-charges/?fbclid=IwAR3SkWATMDyrvWLXtr_YyVcQg6WO5s9y7VNODPH0J06o1vxA0o_n19xIM6I_aem_Afo1r6RDCP0_xi5mnIFfDQufmuA5XI5Ps1El-sYzgBuc7uHYu-GcvkjE_bOiX2ITsz0

Nice man—I just don’t recall the old Vietnam era IPs making us do that at Rucker or the stage fields.

Like I said man, college football for me is entertainment. When I don’t like a how movie doesn’t end, I just go on with my life, which fortunately provides real joy.

You got me there man—sick burn.

But you’re not part of the competition of a football game—you’re a spectator who enjoys watching a good competition. And I know plenty of people who like watching a good competition who aren’t fighter pilots, or any kind of pilot for that matter. You can have the soccer game of a century and I wouldn’t watch…not because it’s not a good competition, but rather because I don’t enjoy watching soccer.

Totally depends on how you’re involved in it. A game by definition is a competition…but I’m not part of college football game. I’m just a spectator because I find it fun to watch, therefore it’s entertainment. Again, unless you are involved/connected with the FSU football team, they don’t even know you exist, literally. So why allow their success or failures to affect you tomorrow?

Not to quote Rudy (great movie even though I’m not a Notre Dame fan), but it does still matter. I’ll take learning great life skills and boys becoming great men any day over the score of some game.

Why play football? Well, in the end, it’s a game, isn’t it? I enjoy playing games and watching games—it’s a form of entertainment. As for why the college players play, I imagine they do it because they enjoy playing the game, they get some/all of their school paid for, and they’re also hoping they can play at the next level and make some serious money. I believe playing sports also teaches valuable skills about how to be on a team, hardwork, discipline, etc…though I don’t think the vast majority of us need to be collegiate or professional athletes to learn some of those important life skills (grade and highschool work). But if people can’t see that this is all a form of entertainment then I don’t know what to tell you. I know plenty of people who don’t watch/engage in sports of any kind and they find joy in other ways.

Well, I guess the committee thought differently. Like I said, I think it’s kind of messed up that an undefeated team doesn’t get in, but the job of the committee wasn’t to automatically put in an undefeated team.