Vertigo

Previous wrongs doesn't make it right. I mentioned WWII because you had brought it up earlier in regards to draftees.

Funny how we've managed to stay free since 1783 with an all volunteer force. Do you HONESTLY believe that without draftees in WWII we would have lost that war? Feel free to argue with our founding fathers whether or not Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are God given rights or if you should have to "earn" it first by forced labor. What's the point of fighting for those principles if we're just going to ignore them anyways "for the greater good"? They just become hollow catchphrases with no real meaning. Either we're a nation founded on the ideal that we each make our own way through life with the freedom to decide what that path is, or we're an authoritarian nation in which you can only be free if you first sacrifice your free will to the government. "If I abide by a law I disagree with, I accept it." Patently false. There are a few laws I don't agree with, but that the penalty for disobeying is too great to risk non-compliance. That doesn't mean I accept that law, it just means I don't want to go to prison or pay a steep fine. So instead I lobby, or support groups that lobby, to change these laws.

What makes you believe I accept them? How do you know I don't work towards deregulating such laws? Maybe I comply with them, for fear of punishment, but that doesn't mean I accept them in principle.

Correct. I don't expect it of others. I made my choice so that they can make theirs. You don't "earn" the right to have the freedoms we have in this nation. You are born with it - "endowed by their Creator" and these rights are "unalienable", meaning they cannot be taken away.

180 days of active duty time outside of training (i.e. you get a deployment tasking for 6 months) during your 20 year career. https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article-View/Article/1038989/guard-and-reserve-members-receive-veteran-status/

MEST is the official term for "seasoning" days. After completion of tech school you'll get a set number of days on orders, at your home station, to start working on your upgrade training in your AFSC. The number of days varies by AFSC.

One's liberty extends until it infringes on the rights and liberty of another. That's the boundary.

What I'm saying is forced labor is the exact OPPOSITE of liberty, which is the principle on which this nation was founded. That fire is being constantly tended by our all volunteer force. If we have the need for a larger force, then we must offer better incentives for people to join or stay in. Do you not think you'd be degrading our security and vigilance by forcing people to join the military against their will? How much resentment towards the government would some of these people start to harbor? How many would then turn to extremism? We have enough issues with discipline of those that voluntarily joined, imagine how much time we'd be wasting having to manage those that do not want to be in.

Than you all for making my point for me. You're pissed about being forced to pay taxes, forced to pay for health insurance, but you're ok with forced labor. Isn't listed anywhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. The word Liberty is. Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.

Forced public service under the threat of what? Prison? I mean there would have be to some form of punishment for not complying right? What do you call forcing someone to do a job they didn't agree to do or else you'll throw them in jail?

Instead of focusing on "shithole", focus on the "why". "Why do we want all these people from shithole countries coming here?" "We should have more people from places like Norway here" As if the nation of your birthplace determines your capabilities and your worth. The implication of his statement is those that come from a nation with a bad economy, or a horrible government are not worth letting in, but those from a Northern European nation are good to go with no needed justification. Why does someone from a poor Caribbean nation have to give more of a justification as to why they want to be an American than someone from Norway? Maybe that comment isn't about race (though it's an odd coincidence he specifically picked out nations whose populations are black/brown as undesirable nations, and specifically named a nation whose population is 97.3% Caucasian as an ideal immigrant). Maybe that comment was more about those coming from poverty. Taking that one statement doesn't necessarily paint the President as a racist. Taking his past statements and actions, then we can start forming a picture of who he is an what his ideals in regards to race are. 1- His real estate company avoided renting to black people and gave preferential treatment to whites in the 70's. 2- His statement on black employees in his casino: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it.... I think the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks." 3- The Central Park 5. He was still arguing in 2016 they were guilty despite DNA evidence proving their innocence 10 years before. 4- Mexicans coming into the U.S. are "rapists". But some, he assumes, are good people. (nice backtrack) 5- The judge in the Trump University case couldn't be impartial because he is "of Mexican heritage". 6- 15,000 recent Haitian immigrants "all have AIDS" 7- The 40,000 Nigerians "would never go back to their huts" in Africa after seeing the U.S. 8- His quickness to highlight crimes by those of color, while remaining silent on hate crimes committed by whites. 9- Puerto Ricans, who have criticized the hurricane response, are "ingrates". 10- He has often retweeted white supremacists. 11- But that doesn't matter, because amongst white supremacists are some "very fine people" 12- When Indians wanted to open up casinos, which would compete with his casinos, he took out ads stating that "...Indian record of criminal activity is well documented" and that "organized crime is rampant" on Indian reservations. 13- "Pocahontas" 14- Referring to a Hispanic Miss Universe contestant as "Miss Housekeeping" 15- Wondering, out loud, why a Korean-American intelligence analyst was working on Pakistan policy and not North Korea policy. I'm sure there are other examples out there. You can dismiss, or excuse away any or all of them. But to others, the pattern is quite clear. "

Do employers not pay more in their share of health insurance costs for those with family coverage than those with single coverage? There's one example, and it happens nationwide in all businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. Sure the employee doesn't see the extra cost in their paycheck, but the employer pays it just the same.

Your BAH isn't going to drop unless you have a significant life event (divorce, birth, PCA). You're grandfathered into your old BAH rate until as such a time as you do have a significant life event or your PCS, in which case your BAH would change regardless.

Your BAH isn't going to drop unless you have a significant life event (divorce, birth, PCA). You're grandfathered into your old BAH rate until as such a time as you do have a significant life event or your PCS, in which case your BAH would change regardless.

Sorry it was Smokin that made the comment on 9/29, not you.

Someone has to play devil's advocate in this circle jerk of conservatism. What good is a debate if everyone is arguing the same points?

So because I'm able to understand progressives arguments (not that I agree with them) that labels me as a progressive. Noted. I guess I should stop trying to understand the viewpoint of others and only speak in the echo chamber of libertarianism or risk having others label me.

Give those who are determined to commit crimes easy access to the tools to commit those crimes and expect they'll commit those crimes with ease. I have a rule in my house that my kids can't eat candy past 9pm when they brush their teeth and go to bed. What do you think would happen if I put a bowl of candy on their nightstand? How about if I put the bowl of candy in a cabinet above the refrigerator? Or if I had no candy in the house at all?

Your comment was made on 9/29 - when at the time Jerry Jones had made no statement and was debunked as a hoax. It wasn't until October 9th that he had came out and said players would "sit". Also notice you said fired... which is what the hoax said. He never said anything like that, and in fact I believe he lead his team in a kneel down to show solidarity with those who had been protesting. So on 9/29- when you made your comment- there was a hoax saying Jerry Jones was going to fire those who knelt. He then lead his team in kneeling (reference your own article) and remarked he never said such a thing. It wasn't until VP Pence left the game that he came out with a policy that those who knelt would sit during the game.

So no one is willing to answer the question straight up. Telling.

A- Thus proving the adage "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". By not complying with the law you then have made the decision to become a criminal. B- Hence my use of hypothetical. Now can you answer the question? If, hypothetically, a gun ban law was passed in legislation that repealed 2A, was signed, and cleared SCOTUS. What then?

1- Same question... can you point out to me a time when some dude killed 59 people and wounded 500 more with a rock? 2- So what would happen, hypothetically, is a gun ban law was passed? Would you fight those enforcing the law? Do you no longer believe "blue lives matter" at that point?

I need some help with this comparison... can you point me out an article where 59 people died and another 500 were wounded by a man with a jug of acid? I can't seem to find any.

ONE horrific incident? Was I dreaming up Sandy Hook elementary? Columbine? Aurora? Orlando? Ft Lauderdale? San Bernardino? Roseburg, OR? Chattanooga? Charleston? Isla Vista, CA? Ft Hood? Washington Navy Yard? Santa Monica? Newtown? Binghamton, NY? Omaha shopping mall? Virginia Tech? Salt Lake mall? Pennsylvania amish school? Red lake high school? Lockheed Martin? Santee high school? Wakefield, MA? That's just in the 2000's.

That's the same BS argument used when gay marriage was being debated "People will marry their dogs, or their toasters". When someone wants to discuss reasonable, common sense, gun control measures, it's disingenuous to reframe it as a discussion about abolishing firearms.