HeloDude

Can't say without seeing a pic...

It's a little more than a movie line: https://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-dept-us-does-not-negotiate-terrorists I don't disagree that the federal government does things that they say they do not do--Snowden, anyone? But now it's kind of hypocritical to even say they don't do it with a straight face. This is also interesting. Laws...what laws? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html It's all good, man.

Agreed.

Nothing negative will happen to him...even if he did indeed desert/mess something up royally. If it turns out he was a deserter or at fault, then it will be an embarrassment for the military and the administration to allow the information to come out, especially when we let 5 bad guys go to get him back. As I said before, I'm glad he's back...especially happy for his family.

Irrelevant--we'll never hear about it. I'm still waiting to hear what happened with ol' Jill Metzger...anyone? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-a-hero-or-a-deserter/ I won't comment on the media released specifics of negotiating for his release...5 years after being captured. ln the the end, I'm glad he is back and gets to be with his family again. War is ugly.

I'm curious if the those AFSC's that have been entirely red through this whole force shaping debacle will be offered more than just the standard 5-year bonus (similar to the fighter bonus we saw last year). Probably wishful thinking on my part...

Some people who should watch The World Wars on History: (the video below is worth watching because of the hot chicks) https://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/28/south-won-civil-war-beach-babes-bomb-watters-world-memorial-day-quiz

Sexual orientation is not speech (unless people can mind read?)...but a gay wedding is speech, just like a straight wedding. If I kiss my girlfriend in public, it is speech (expression) just like if two gay people kiss. If a person walked into a cake store and said I need a cake that looks like X and we'll be over in a week to pick it up--how would the cake maker know the sexual orientation of who it was for? But when you literally add 'speech' on the cake, asking the cake maker to hear certain things they morally disagree with, it becomes speech and expression. Unless we can force black photographers to go to a KKK rally, as a hired photographer, and have to hear all the hateful things the photographer disagrees with as they take pictures. To me, I'm all about economics and whatever increases my profits (so I could care less about what kind of wedding it is)...but not everyone sees it this way. So if we can force businesses to do things against their conscience, where do you draw the line? And who gets to draw the line?

Holy mother fvcking shit balls--really?? Or are you just trolling? Anti-discrimination laws should 'only apply to people's physical features/sexual orientation'? Everybody else should 'change their views' (or keep them silent)? Change their views to what?? Just because you disagree with a certain faith, you are saying it is the fault of those who practice/believe that faith? The Catholic Church does not support gay marriage...do you believe that Catholics should be refused service/unemployment? Should a person wearing a t-shirt with a Catholic logo be refused service because they 'should change'? Do traditional black Baptist churches get a pass or do they have to conform as well (or never speak what is on their mind)? As a Libertarian, philosophically I believe a private business should be able refuse employment to anyone for any reason (as well as refuse service)...but until that happens, I believe you have to protect all views, not just the 'popular' ones at the moment. So tell us--what other faiths, organizations, groups should 'change' their views to suit a progressive agenda? Should Tea Party members have to conform to a certain view? What about Libertarians? What's s scary is that you're probably not trolling and that there is a growing movement of a strong minority who believes everything you posted.

Agreed...just saying that you don't need to make the hypothetical (and very unrealistic) slavery comparison. We have thousands of current laws/regulations keeping us from being truly free.

Wait...are you actually making the argument that citizens of this country currently have true freedom? Ok...go on... Fortunately we have the 13th Amendment, but unfortunately we have the thousands of other laws and regulations that limit and restrict personal Liberty.

Your liberal-side is once again showing, Vertigo--unless you think that O'Keefe's exposure of ACORN and Maryland voting officials allowing O'Keefe to vote for Eric Holder (because he said he was Holder and wasn't required to produce an ID) is all taken out of context? I applaud what he and his team does with these videos...hell, hidden audio exposed Sterling and people don't seem to have a problem with that situation.

I agree...however, this real example shows that a company 'can not' refuse to do buisness (ie hire, fire, refuse service) with someone because of what certain people say (even if the buisness believes the speech of their customers cause their buisness damage): https://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24687970/no-right-refuse-gay-couples-wedding-cake So who makes the rules?

I could argue that the 14th Amendment implies that a buisness should have to treat my speech as equally as it does another person's speech and thus can not fire me for what I say... (and yes, I'm making a point of a slippery slope) So if the NBA (a buisness) can ban a person from engaging in commerce with their organization because of what that person says...then why can't a cake company ban a gay couple from engaging in commerce with their buisness because of what the gay people say? I fully agree that scorn and ridicule from the public is where these issues should be dealt with, however, the government (ie public schools) loves to tell people what shirts can and can't be worn (ie an American flag shirt on May 5th) on certain days, all in name of 'safety'. Don't kid yourself, Vertigo, the government is very much involved in limiting the type of speech that they don't want being engaged at a certain time/place.

Since you're speaking of legalilty vs illegality here (not philosophical), per US Code, only citizens makeup the organized and unorganized militia (unless they have made a declaration of intention to become a US citizen)...which is interesting because you can enlist in the military without being a citizen. When you enlist as a non-citizen, do you have to make a declaration of intention to become an American citizen? (did some searching and couldn't find an easy/straightforward answer https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/non%20citizens%20in%20the%20enlisted%20us%20military%20d0025768%20a2.pdf) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

People shouldn't be surprised...

Philosophically, I agree with most of what Vertigo has said (sans the racist accusation part). The problem that he is failing to adequately describe, as others have written, is that with open immigration you have to entirely end the welfare state. That means the end to government funded schools (it is also a form of welfare), the end to ER's having to accept people who can not pay for their treatment, and of course the end of all food stamps, Obamacare, government housing, etc. Also, to maintain the integrity of the Republic, you would have to amend The Constitution to get rid of future anchor babies (this would become much less of an issue once you get rid of government welfare) and you would also need to end all minimum wage laws, implement the Fair Tax, and allow business owners to only employ whoever they want, regardless of any other factors (as Vertigo has also suggested). Once the above changes are fullly implemented, a more 'true' capitalist system can be economically achieved. Theoretically, the more raw resources and labor you have available, the more economic growth output...however we have many barriers to this economic model in our current system. As much as I would love to see all of the above occur, the odds of it happening in my lifetime (if ever) is essentially zero...and I would say that we are further getting away (overall) from more Liberty, than getting closer. The vast majority of this country's citizens do not want anything close to true freedom.

Slide Fire Stock using the new Tac-Con 3MR Trigger...not saying it makes sense tactically (or monetarily), but it definitely looks like a fun/sweet combo!

Got it. Reason I asked is because (as stoleit points out), they are used in the movie 'Lone Survivor' in which the true story took place in 2005 (yes, I realize it was a movie based off the book...but I wondered how much was accurate when I saw the movie in the theaters). I'm still waiting to try out the VCOG.

I agree with Nunya...I think it has to do with keeping a proper cheek weld. I have played around with an ACOG/RMR combo and it would definitely take some getting used to in terms of adjusting your head posistion when going from one to another. By the way, when did Trijicon release the RMR? A few minutes of google searches didn't help me out.

...anddddd...you just went there.

Nobody likes the debrief phase...

Pretty evident: To show off his junk.

Enough! Ban AF PT shorts!