pilot Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Just now, Vertigo said: I don't believe the President is beholden to AFIs or Army regs. He's a damn civilian. Heads of State do not salute or return salutes from foreign military. 1. General salutes then offers handshake. 2. HoS nods then accepts handshake. Also, wtf do you think a bow is? It's a display of respect. The president isn't beholden to shit. He can do whatever he wants. As the CiCs, it is their prerogative to make the choice whether or not to return salutes. But since Reagan, presidents have returned salutes from those who salute them, out of respect, since not returning a salute is typically thought of as a sign of disrespect. A bow is a sign of submission and not a military custom or courtesy. Big difference. Furthermore, obama initiated a bow, he didn't do it as a response to being bowed to. He initiated a bow to a king who then just shook his hand. Do you seriously not see the difference here, or are you trying to push an agenda?
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 11 minutes ago, Vertigo said: Also, wtf do you think a bow is? It's a display of respect. Are you suggesting the Saudi King bowed first to Obama and Obama just returned the bow? If so, please post your source...
pilot Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, HeloDude said: Are you suggesting the Saudi King bowed first to Obama and Obama just returned the bow? If so, please post your source... I'll save him the trouble. 1
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 hours ago, HeloDude said: By your logic/scenario above, cars shouldn't be able to drive faster than 40 mph since people have died in car accidents driving faster than 40. Or does "mitigating potential risk" not also work in your own given scenario? Maybe I was obscure in my example. As it relates to global warming making the argument that science hasn’t proven human Co2 production (speed) is causing global warming (accident) there does seem to be a pretty substantial correlation. Dial back the Co2 production (speed) and we may prevent or minimize the effects of global warming (accident).
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, Snooter said: Maybe I was obscure in my example. As it relates to global warming making the argument that science hasn’t proven human Co2 production (speed) is causing global warming (accident) there does seem to be a pretty substantial correlation. Dial back the Co2 production (speed) and we may prevent or minimize the effects of global warming (accident). So you're for making the maximum speed limit 40mph to minimize the effects of an accident?
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, HeloDude said: So you're for making the maximum speed limit 40mph to minimize the effects of an accident? No I’m for restricting your right to drive, sit down...
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 23 minutes ago, Snooter said: No I’m for restricting your right to drive, sit down... Don't get upset...learn to make a better argument.
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 13 minutes ago, HeloDude said: Don't get upset...learn to make a better argument. I was trying to be humble, feigning understanding and asking leading questions to prove your point isn’t helpful.
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 13 minutes ago, Snooter said: I was trying to be humble, feigning understanding and asking leading questions to prove your point isn’t helpful. You're the one who said we need speed limits to mitigate the risks of an accident at higher speeds...so I would just like to know why you're not advocating for an even further reduction in allowable speeds to further mitigate the risks afte an accident? Or is this no longer your argument?
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 It was a metaphor for climate change, the risk to the environment of continuing to output the amount of Co2 that we have been over the past century as opposed to the risk to the economy of maintaining those industries in their current state is significantly higher. If you dial it back and go slower ie institute controls (your 40 mph speed limit) you may not prevent all the potential fatalities but you can prevent some if not most.
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, Snooter said: It was a metaphor for climate change, the risk to the environment of continuing to output the amount of Co2 that we have been over the past century as opposed to the risk to the economy of maintaining those industries in their current state is significantly higher. If you dial it back and go slower ie institute controls (your 40 mph speed limit) you may not prevent all the potential fatalities but you can prevent some if not most. Got it--you're for a maximum speed limit of 40mph.
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, HeloDude said: Got it--you're for a maximum speed limit of 40mph. I bet you’re the life of the party... Enjoy your drive, wish I wasn’t in the car with you... Edited June 14, 2018 by Snooter
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, Snooter said: I bet you’re the life of the party... Enjoy your drive, wish I wasn’t in the car with you... Again, learn to make a better argument (one you actually can/want to defend), and you'll get a much better response.
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, HeloDude said: Again, learn to make a better argument (one you actually can/want to defend), and you'll get a much better response. At least I brought something other than snide remarks and pointed questions. Hey quick, I think Hannity’s on!
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, Snooter said: At least I brought something other than snide remarks and pointed questions. Hey quick, I think Hannity’s on! No, you originally used an analogy that further reduction of X results in a correlated decrease in Y. If this were the case anything that is perceived as "bad/harmful" should be eliminated...and this is a childish argument, at best. If you want to argue that further government regulation with regards to energy production, etc is better for the environment, regardless of the negative impacts to the economy then I would just say that is purely an opinion of yours and not rooted in factual economic science.
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 11 minutes ago, HeloDude said: No, you originally used an analogy that further reduction of X results in a correlated decrease in Y. If this were the case anything that is perceived as "bad/harmful" should be eliminated...and this is a childish argument, at best. If you want to argue that further government regulation with regards to energy production, etc is better for the environment, regardless of the negative impacts to the economy then I would just say that is purely an opinion of yours and not rooted in factual economic science. What is your solution, do you think there’s even a problem?
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 5 minutes ago, Snooter said: What is your solution, do you think there’s even a problem? Read what Lord Ratner said--his posts are pretty close to my views. Truthfully, when progressives move away from the coastal cities for fear of the effects of climate change, then I'll be worried. 1
17D_guy Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, HeloDude said: Read what Lord Ratner said--his posts are pretty close to my views. Truthfully, when progressives move away from the coastal cities for fear of the effects of climate change, then I'll be worried. Or even North/South. Happened in Oregon, used to be fairly red, then all the awful Cali yuppies (note: my home state) moved up their and shifted the politics to what it is today. You know, having to buzz in customers at the Portland burger joints to ensure the homeless don't shit on the floor or OD in the bathroom. Edited June 14, 2018 by 17D_guy
brickhistory Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Snooter said: -I bet you’re the life of the party... Enjoy your drive, wish I wasn’t in the car with you... -At least I brought something other than snide remarks and pointed questions. Hey quick, I think Hannity’s on Ah, yes. The ol' defensive egg. Never gets old watching it deploy...
brickhistory Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Best aspect of the Donald saluting (manly courteous gesture)/bowing (feminine/subservient) whole picture thing is... President Hillary is not in it. And that has made all the difference.* *Apologies to Robert Frost 1
Snooter Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, brickhistory said: Ah, yes. The ol' defensive egg. Never gets old watching it deploy... Man I’m glad I got to this before you read my original response. I said something mean, but you don’t deserve that, you’re just trying to egg on a scenario because that’s what you’ve been taught to do. I hope you have a good weekend. Edited June 15, 2018 by Snooter
brickhistory Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Meant mine as generally good natured. As an observer, the exchange between you and Helo seemed to be going downhill and getting personal on your end. I have no dog in that exchange other than his logic seemed to be irritating you in your replies. Tried to interject some humor in an internet exchange. Nothing personal intended. Still glad it's not Hillary in the White House.
drewpey Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 20 minutes ago, brickhistory said: Still glad it's not Hillary in the White House. Hypothetically speaking...for those who keep saying this...is there anything that could be uncovered about your god-emperor that would change your mind or are you doing incensed by Clintons you're willing to blind yourself to potential illegal/immoral/unethical/shitty actions? Collusion...money laundering...human trafficking...abortions...conspiracy against the US...treason...establishes universal healthcare, UBI and repeals the second amendment? It seems to me the "at least it's not Hillary" mantra is just the y'all quaeda reminding themselves that nothing really matters to them as long as their team won.
brickhistory Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 My God is not in the White House. But neither is Hillary. Both of those facts are important to me. Nor is there an emperor. Just a strange guy who isn't part of the entrenched on both side political machinery. One who beat 16 other GOP candidates who were various iterations of the same ol' same ol', and defeated Hillary. Who was given a run for her suspiciously gained money by someone who wasn't even a real Democrat. And neither side listened to the massive numbers of people who don't like DC and its circle-jerk shenanigans.
drewpey Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Maybe military folks with dependents should be required to sacrifice more for the increased costs of dependents on TRICARE? Additional deployments, longer ADSCs, more Friday night morale lines. Then we could allow TRICARE to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Sorry about that heart murmur kid...tell your parents to stop being poor and pay cash! Tricare isn't the greatest, but ultimately it keeps people generally alive and helps them be a productive member of society. It's in the US's best interest to do so. Same goes for the general populace...if we can afford it. The debate used to be about whether it was possible to do given the costs...now it has devolved into "they don't deserve it". It's sad to see people's lives be destroyed because they lost the health lottery, and even sadder to see such a large amount of people have no empathy for those who are caught in the tail spin. I agree we can't give everyone everything for free, but people shouldn't be going bankrupt for health issues outside their control. More healthy people means more production, more tax revenue.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now