HeloDude

Let's deny medical treatment for alcohol related incidents-it's their choice to partake, so why should I have to pay for their drunken stupidity... I definitely agree! Sadly I don’t think that you would support such a measure…or maybe you would?

How about we remove government regulations from healthcare all together and allow people and those in healthcare decide who they want to treat and who they don’t, at what cost, etc? Because if you’re proposing that those who are unvaccinated not be allowed medical care for COVID, then why should medical folks provide care for HIV, overdoses, etc to those who use drugs? Why allow those who are not married be treated for STDs? This is what happens when you pick and choose. This is also why I’m against shared healthcare expenses, forcing insurance companies to except pre-existing conditions, etc.—healthy and responsible people have to shoulder the financial burden for those who are not. And before some of the progressives on here bring their emotional counterarguments, nothing would prohibit you from voluntarily giving money and/or providing care to those you want to help.

Hey…this was a lawful order, and if you don’t support lawful orders then you’re not for freedom…or something. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation#background

Smith & Wesson just announced that they’re moving its HQ and most operations from Massachusetts to Marysville TN. Well done! https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/smith-wesson-relocate-headquarters-tennessee-130100893.html

Soooo…here we are again? Kind of? Maybe? Any guesses on what’s going to happen in Congress over the next few days to several months? My bet is that the debt ceiling will of course be raised—the only interesting question is by what means? Will the GOP cave and vote to raise it and if they do, will they get something they want out of doing so? Or will the Senate Dems need to change the Senate rules to allow the debt to be raised on a simple majority vote? As for avoiding a government shutdown, I’m betting that both houses pass a short term CR while the Dems try to find a way to get their $1.2T infrastructure bill and/or $3.5T bill passed. But unless Manchin and Sinema cave, the AOC types don’t seem to want to budge. Pass the popcorn!

So it seems Gen Milley didn’t deny much of anything today when questioned by the Senate.

Exactly. I laugh when someone tells me that ABC, Wash Post, etc are “balanced/non-partisan”. Progressives are clearly against enforcing border security and immigration laws, so if they have the opportunity to paint the false story that border patrol law enforcement officers were using scary horses and whipping a poor/defenseless black man who wasn’t doing anything wrong, then they’re going to do it…especially when they can tie it to slavery and “systemic racism” in law enforcement. The people who run these “news” outlets want this story to be true (along with the majority of their readers/viewers), so they’re going to report that way, facts be damned. By the way, MSNBC has been doing this for years…see the link below if you forgot/never caught this one: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/08/17/original-msnbc-host-paints-rick-perry-as-racist-n662043

Here’s what it comes down to and there is no refuting this: If you work in the federal government and take legitimate action while carrying out the duties of your job, if the optics and/or politics of what you did is politically bad for the administration, you will be blamed/not protected, especially if it can help the administration save some face. Let me know if you need an example.

If you don’t think there are bad things happening at higher levels of the DoD then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Wait, what? I thought being an officer was about “supporting and defending the Constitution”? Now I’m hearing that it’s about money and power? What ever happened to “core values” and the other services’ commitments to integrity?

Did Truman not commit “mass murder”? I remember the left saying Bush was committing mass murder as well…without reasonable cause.

And yet Milley is saying we have to get rid of the “extremism” in the military…when (if this is true) he’s by far the worst extremist we have if he’s not willing to follow orders from POTUS for political reasons.

One of the worst/deadliest wars in human history started because of a person with a handgun. And more people died in one night of fire bombing Tokyo than died from the dropping of two nuclear bombs. Either our President has the legal ultimate authority to nuke whoever he wants and at his will or he doesn’t.

Presidents allow for (and order) the bombing of random people all through history…civilians as well. Other than the number of people dying, what’s the difference? Is there a number of people dying where it changes from a lawful order to war crime? Have any of the bombings done by the US in our history been a war crime? Why even have nukes if using them would be a war crime?

Here’s a quick point worth asking/mentioning: Hypothetically, if Trump had directed ICBMs to be launched at X (name your country) on 19 Jan 21, would he have been wrong (in terms of not have the power/ability) to do so as the Commander in Chief? If Milley had discussions with other military officers to ensure this would not have been able to happen without his awareness and/or concurrence then would that not be considered insubordination and worthy of some form of action against him? Also what if Milley would have attempted to stop Trump’s order?

Well more people in the country today seem to care about football than what happened in Afghanistan…

If you want to fly U-2s, go be a T-6 IP. I know a couple 11Rs who got accepted to the U-2 after a T-6.

If you’re all about going to McGuire for family reasons then I wouldn’t be mentioning the U-2 at Beale. Stick with what you really want (especially for family reasons?), and then if that doesn’t work out then apply for Beale. Or just apply for the U-2 as soon as you can and if it doesn’t work then ask for McGuire. But wanting both tells me that the family desire isn’t really a top priority.

I’m still waiting for motorcycles to be banned…you know, for public safety.

Combat Rescue Helicopter…because only using the word “Rescue” would be a disservice.

Dude, the government literally has said that Pfizer offers more protection than JJ. So no, it’s not “the same”. Once again, you’re struggling with your counter arguments.

I’m literally asking this simple question that you still haven’t answered: If Pfizer is the only one that is currently FDA approved and is the most effective, then why now allow people to still choose? Why not just say anyone who hasn’t had the shot must get Pfizer, since it’s fully approved and offers the best protection?

IMO the state department in recent (ie last 20-30) years has always seemed to be more the progressive side of our international arm, whereas the military was more the conservative side. Now that the military is going more towards the progressive side as well, I imagine we’ll see more failures wrt our international interests.

You’re missing my question, and it’s a simple one: If only one vaccine is approved outside of emergency use, and if it’s more effective than the others, then why not just mandate that everyone gets the best one and the one that has final/full approval?

Here’s an honest question for the pro-big government types on here: Now that military members are being forced to take a covid shot (or risk the negative consequences if no approved waiver), why then isn’t the military mandating members take the Pfizer vaccine vs taking the Moderna or JJ? According to big-government, Pfizer is more effective than JJ, so why give someone the option of taking a less effective shot that isn’t even the one fully approved by the FDA? If the entire reason for the mandated vaccine is that it protects us, why wouldn’t the DoD want us to take the best one?