Grabby

Load, Ever heard the old axiom "How do you eat an elephant"? Or, if you'd like another description of what these new EO's and proposed/enacted state legislations are regarding an eventual unarmed populous...

Load, Are you on drugs, trying to be satirical, ignorant, or dumb?

Gone

I totally agree with your first paragraph, as long as you change the context of the bolded line. I just understand the consequences of adjusting a government to both appeal to, and go into extreme debt for, the wants of those who do not contribute in any way themselves. As far as your second paragraph...you're a ######. ETA - ###### = F.A.G.

Unfortunately this mentality is exactly what will lead to our failure. Running campaigns on "hope" doesn't address the actual problems plaguing our nation. Not believing that failure is possible is great in movies, but short-sighted and ultimately disastrous for great nations. Think about it, every single great nation has fallen. History teaches us this is inevitable. I think Lloyd, like most on this board, are trying to make sure we take steps to ensure we remain great for another ~300 years, rather than talk about holding out hope yet enacting laws which are all short-sighted in an effort to continue successful reelection percentages.

Destroy ourselves from within, unless we finally realize how destructive an overly PC outlook is to a modern society. The endgame for America right now is either a non-superpower nanny state with abysmal values and a defunct economy, or a lot of hard work and sacrifice to re-realize what the American dream always was, which has no room for unwarranted entitlement. Those unwilling to contribute to society will eventually acclimatize or completely fail at life.

Absolutely I am. The end result of the liberal design is not something I will support, and the road there, by nature, must be insidious. This is the first vote I've seen in Colorado which is, in my mind, a definitive move towards that. Hence, I'll put my revenue into a different state. I'd rather move, keep what I feel is not the CO state governments to take, along with my money, than have a "Molon Labe" bumper sticker but abide and begin the slow journey towards an unarmed populous.

Joe, The disgust is not towards a specific race or wealth class. It's towards a mindset. If 100 million people (by your math) out of ~275mil do nothing but take, then demand even more to be handed to them, how in the ###### is this sustainable? It has become an outright epidemic which will destroy our country in short order if not taken care of ASAP. I think most of the lemmings feel an entitlement, and based off the fact that they are either American, or are at least living here, that somehow they are exempt from both under-consuming as well as the consequences of their repeated poor decisions. You site the poor plight of a single woman with two kids and a shitty job. Well guess what, if you don't graduate high school and have multiple kids out of wedlock before the age of 20, you probably are going to be in a shitty situation. By bantering to the absolute lowest common denominator, your perpetuate the ideal that non-contributors mistakes will be covered by those that sacrifice and achieve. Unfortunately in the real world (a non-socialist world, at least), eventually when you take too much for too long from those who make sound choices in life, the incentive to continue working hard and "paying in" disappears, and there is either a dramatic fall in the overall self-worth of a populous, or a mass exodus. Either way the outcome is the same: the lazy and selfish reap what they sowed. So how would I tell a single mother she needs to prioritize her expenditures, to include Medicaid? The same way I would to my son if he was ever dumb enough to put himself in the same boat..."You made continuing truly awful decisions which, as hard as they are to accept at the moment, You have to live with. Hopefully, in time, you will accept these as personal responsibilities, and make better choices in the future". Daniel Patrick Moynihan foreshadowed the current state of our nation decades ago - "A declining society accepts as normal the bad things that are not normal"

It really is a damn shame. You can't go anywhere on the east side of Denver without watching your back for those mentioned above. What sucks the most for me is two months ago, within the same week, I had been hunting, fishing, skiing, climbing, paragliding, mountain biking, golfing, to an NFL game, and camping all within an hours drive from my house. And I can do the quick tour of the Coors factory (3 free beers) anytime I want if I have 20 free minutes. Fvck this blows. Glad I decided to rent for a year to get a feel for the area. Makes it a lot easier to pull chocks.

They passed. Time to get the ###### out of Dodge. What a waste of beautiful country.

I don't think this directly pertains to the discussion this thread is geared towards, but I'll bite. As far as making completely false allegations entailing wide-ranging repercussions for many people who have done nothing wrong, all for the sake of minimizing their own shortcomings? ABSOLUTELY.

That's the issue. You are not, and never have been, on the ground. Every article posted so far that opposes this move, which has been authored by someone who is/was a ground pounder, has been readily ignored by you. It all comes down to you espousing endlessly about "fairness", and myself and almost everyone else on this board would argue that the frontline of a battlefield is one place that fairness matters absolutely none. As far as what my son called me when he was younger, it was "Daddy". My point is that you refer to yourself that way in a post that will only be read by a bunch of extremely competitive, "my dick is bigger than yours" dudes who want to kill the enemy with impunity. I believe that is a psychological indicator of you being more emotionally sensative than most military members who have been in combat. Guess not. And my credentials are the same as many on this forum. Prior, commissioned, pilot, retired. No "genuine badass" by any stretch, just disenchanted with the way the military is heading, and hoping you (being well-read and also concerned with our nations well being) will understand the fundamental differences between what the military actually needs vs. what certain politically-motivated engines want.

nsplayr, You keep using the same irrelevant arguments. Women employed in military jobs that don't require high physical strength (yet they still necessitate lower standards) does not equate to women equaling men on any realm of physical scale. And siting the Canadian military as a benchmark? Stop trying to be so "progressive" and realize what you're saying: i.e. that the greatest military the world has ever seen should take clues from a lesser military in the name of a liberal-leaning, social equality agenda that has nothing to do with mission effectiveness. You know damn well that the standards will be adjusted for woman. You keep arguing that this is a good idea, as long as the pre-reqs don't change, yet there is no way women will make it through an elite ground forces most basic course unless they are graded on a different scale. If you don't realize this then you are a moron. You've argued that women can be CEO's, pilots, submariners, etc. We get it, they are amazing. Yay for girls. But every post you make readily ignores the physical strain that this new liberal endeavor requires. I realize you care more about feelings than military efficiency, and I've come to understand that ultimately you're a very different man than most on this site. The vast majority of guys here want to talk about fighting, fvcking, and beer. You seem to want the focus of a forum designed for pilots/type A personalities to center on how unfair it would be that your young daughter may not be able to do everything a man can. And you referred to yourself as her "Daddy". I guess it's not fair to expect you to understand what being militant entails.

###### me. Future wife right there. Now I have to break the bad news to the current one.

This idea that women have served as front line defense for millennia is a bit of a reach. No world-class military has, by choice, utilized women in their front lines. Have they been used as a last resort? Sure. But to try and say that women have proven their ability to fight, face-to-face, efficiently with an all male, highly trained adversary is a farce. Also, women in the US DoD who are dying in direct combat are dying because they have been engaged by the enemy, not because they have actively sought and engaged the enemy. There is a big difference. One is circumstantial, the other by design.

Are you fvcking serious? Dude, some of your arguments in the past seemed quasi-plausible based on the fact that you're well read and fairly eloquent, but right now you are showing the true colors of what makes liberals so destructive. What is wrong with what Dempsey said? Well, the fact that prior to this bullshit policy change, not meeting the well-defined standards was a sufficient enough reason to not let males enter specific, frontline career fields where lives are on the line daily. No second guessing the standards, just a well defined line that will separate those who want to be in certain career fields to those who are actually able to hack it. Day one of UPT we were told we weren't at Disney World, and that no one gave a shit what our dreams were. The only thing that would get us through and into any jet was our ability to study, fly, and be a solid bro. No great military has ever existed as a tool to make dreams come true for wistful youth, yet we are now in a downward spiral bent on curtailing ourselves and our combat effectiveness for the sake of "progression". It's the military. Why the hell is it not OK to still be militant? Entry standards have existed because we were damn good at killing people and those who have BTDT determined what baseline it took to be effective after extensive money and training was later invested. Now those same standards are to be mulled over as possibly too extreme because it negates the weaker sex. UFB.