Babs34
Well-Known Member
I reciprocated by dividing up extra profits equally (in cash).
I'm guessing they couldn't find their social security card.
Time to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
- Thread starter upnorth2505
- Start date
I'm guessing they couldn't find their social security card.
Babs34
Well-Known Member
You know a lot of "legal" Mehican's that have a ranch back home to send that money to?........alrighty.
CrackerJax
New Member
FDD... I know what you wrote and I know what I wrote.
There is no crossover. You implied illegals...I did not.
I am a man of principles.... you may not always agree with them...but I do not veer from them when it suits me.
Illegal immigration is WRONG. It's cutting in line. It cheats the folks doing it the CORRECT way.
I would NEVER hire an illegal ... I'm much more likely to pick up the phone and get them a one way ticket HOME.
Oh ... and Babs is insane.
There is no crossover. You implied illegals...I did not.
I am a man of principles.... you may not always agree with them...but I do not veer from them when it suits me.
Illegal immigration is WRONG. It's cutting in line. It cheats the folks doing it the CORRECT way.
I would NEVER hire an illegal ... I'm much more likely to pick up the phone and get them a one way ticket HOME.
Oh ... and Babs is insane.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Somebody suggested to me maybe the real question should be why do we have the military in the FIRST place? Is it to defend the country from foreign invasion or is it to invade other countries and try to run other people's lives?
Gee...I wonder what the constitution says about this?
Gee...I wonder what the constitution says about this?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Article 1. Section 8. The Congress shall have the power to...
Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces;....
CrackerJax
New Member
Asked and answered.
The USA military almost always ONLY shows up because a region has ALREADY destabilized.
The USA military almost always ONLY shows up because a region has ALREADY destabilized.
Babs34
Well-Known Member
You need a new strain.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Johnny, I'm familiar with the authority of congress to raise armies etc., but thanks for the reference.
My question speaks more to the practicality of whether the army should be an offensive unit as in "world police" or a defensive unit. Besides when was the last time Congress declared war? I'm thinking it was WWII . Since then there's been an awful lot of shooting going on that wasn't exactly in the "defense" of this country. Viet Nam for instance had little to do with defending anybody in this country, yet Congress appropriated money for it. Why?
It's no coincidence that protecting military contracts and jobs are now seen as ways to get reelected. Yet the very same spending is part of the fiscal problems here in a country that has to borrow money to fund anything. Large armies can make a country go broke just as well as large entitlement programs. When combined you get what we have now...$trillions in debt. Is a country that is bankrupt any safer ? I don't think so.
And not to derail the thread....If you're gay and want to join the army, I don't care. I'm not asking for you to kill people on my behalf though.
My question speaks more to the practicality of whether the army should be an offensive unit as in "world police" or a defensive unit. Besides when was the last time Congress declared war? I'm thinking it was WWII . Since then there's been an awful lot of shooting going on that wasn't exactly in the "defense" of this country. Viet Nam for instance had little to do with defending anybody in this country, yet Congress appropriated money for it. Why?
It's no coincidence that protecting military contracts and jobs are now seen as ways to get reelected. Yet the very same spending is part of the fiscal problems here in a country that has to borrow money to fund anything. Large armies can make a country go broke just as well as large entitlement programs. When combined you get what we have now...$trillions in debt. Is a country that is bankrupt any safer ? I don't think so.
And not to derail the thread....If you're gay and want to join the army, I don't care. I'm not asking for you to kill people on my behalf though.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Every high school should organize educational tours of Detroit. Being here is an eye opener, learning experience and something that improves ones world view.
When you are in a city with an unemployment rate that is consistently about 3X the National average; nearing 50% right now by some estimates, and you still have a hard time finding viable candidates for employment it is really an eye opener. When the crime rate is actually immeasurable because most of the victims have warrants for their arrest and can not even report crime, it really gives you a new perspective on things.
Knowing this, it is almost comical to hear people discuss hiring illegals and socialized medicine. We have monumental unemployment and yet are importing workers - how does that math work? And then we discuss forcing people to pay for the health care for an entire city of people who flat out refuse to work and who if given a job might very well steal everything that isn't bolted down and rob the other employees and owners just as soon as finish out the week.
And people think they all want to work, that the Mexicans are stealing their jobs and that they work so hard and can't afford health care. I've got news for you - while some do work hard, many do nothing but sit around thinking of ways to steal and blaming "the man" for their predicament. The watch these Mexicans cutting lawns and they only think they are fools and chumps.
Hiring illegals has its ethical issues, but the question we ought to be asking is why are our own people not filling these jobs. Could it be it is easier for them to sit around and collect welfare and that the Left only perpetuates the problem with their well intended but misguided policies?
What we ought to do is tell them to show up wearing their tomato picking gloves if they want their check and health care. Illegal immigration - solved. Welfare problem - solved. Health care problem - partially solved. But I guess forcing people to earn their keep in immoral in the eyes of some.
Yep, a little time spent in the neighborhoods of Detroit can provide a lot of insight.
When you are in a city with an unemployment rate that is consistently about 3X the National average; nearing 50% right now by some estimates, and you still have a hard time finding viable candidates for employment it is really an eye opener. When the crime rate is actually immeasurable because most of the victims have warrants for their arrest and can not even report crime, it really gives you a new perspective on things.
Knowing this, it is almost comical to hear people discuss hiring illegals and socialized medicine. We have monumental unemployment and yet are importing workers - how does that math work? And then we discuss forcing people to pay for the health care for an entire city of people who flat out refuse to work and who if given a job might very well steal everything that isn't bolted down and rob the other employees and owners just as soon as finish out the week.
And people think they all want to work, that the Mexicans are stealing their jobs and that they work so hard and can't afford health care. I've got news for you - while some do work hard, many do nothing but sit around thinking of ways to steal and blaming "the man" for their predicament. The watch these Mexicans cutting lawns and they only think they are fools and chumps.
Hiring illegals has its ethical issues, but the question we ought to be asking is why are our own people not filling these jobs. Could it be it is easier for them to sit around and collect welfare and that the Left only perpetuates the problem with their well intended but misguided policies?
What we ought to do is tell them to show up wearing their tomato picking gloves if they want their check and health care. Illegal immigration - solved. Welfare problem - solved. Health care problem - partially solved. But I guess forcing people to earn their keep in immoral in the eyes of some.
Yep, a little time spent in the neighborhoods of Detroit can provide a lot of insight.
CrackerJax
New Member
You keep repeating that.... but I have no idea what you are babbling about.You need a new strain.
CrackerJax
New Member
Heh.... let's just say the military drinks the kool aid and sets up an ALL GAY Division.
You know what would happen? They wouldn't get all queeny...no, they would do the exact opposite.
They would become so BUTCH, as a matter of pride, that no one could tell the difference.
They would defeat their own argument!
You know what would happen? They wouldn't get all queeny...no, they would do the exact opposite.
They would become so BUTCH, as a matter of pride, that no one could tell the difference.
They would defeat their own argument!
beardo
Well-Known Member
was it the Greeks or the Romans??...they were crazy gay warriorsHeh.... let's just say the military drinks the kool aid and sets up an ALL GAY Division.
You know what would happen? They wouldn't get all queeny...no, they would do the exact opposite.
They would become so BUTCH, as a matter of pride, that no one could tell the difference.
They would defeat their own argument!
CrackerJax
New Member
I'm not sure, but i do know the cultural differences between them back then and us today is a very wide chasm. In Rome...it was quite common to have a statue of male genetalia hanging over the street doorways. I don't think you can find that even in San Fransisco.
I don't think you can find that even in San Fransisco.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I once worked with a couple gay guys - one was my supervisor. They were very "in your face" with their lifestyle and sometimes inappropriate. And they created an atmosphere in which our acceptance of them was tested and an issue was made of how gay friendly we were. I remember the one guy receiving flowers and making a big spectacle of it by putting them out front in a high traffic area as a conversation piece.
Anyone who thinks getting rid of DADT will not create similar aggressive, "in your face" conduct has poor insight into the reality of life in America. And then there are the law suits.
Anyone who thinks getting rid of DADT will not create similar aggressive, "in your face" conduct has poor insight into the reality of life in America. And then there are the law suits.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Most straight people don't realize how 'in-your-face' their actions are because heterosexuality is commonly accepted.
Would you expect a woman who received flowers from her beau to hide them, too?
Man and woman kiss on a public street. Accepted.
Man and man kiss on a public street. In-your-face.
Heather has a Mommy and a Daddy. Accepted.
Heather has two Mommies. In-your-face.
Would you expect a woman who received flowers from her beau to hide them, too?
Man and woman kiss on a public street. Accepted.
Man and man kiss on a public street. In-your-face.
Heather has a Mommy and a Daddy. Accepted.
Heather has two Mommies. In-your-face.
Babs34
Well-Known Member
...just a click away.
...out
______________________________________
If I'm rough on you ... it's because I like you.
Confess your love. kiss-ass
1 a. 1 alineage ancestry
group of presumed common ancestry with clear-cut physiological but usually not morphological distinctions - a high-yielding ∼ of winter wheatbroadlya specified infraspecific group (as a stock, line, or ecotype)c. ckind sort - discussions of a lofty ∼having a haughty overbearing manner
literally, high (and highly self-deluded )
(recommending new "strain" for medication)2 a. 2 ainherited or inherent character (character/aka my cheap entertainment), quality(?), or (antagonizing)& hostile disposition - a ∼ of madness in the familyb. btrace streak - a ∼ of fanaticism
3 a. 3 atune airb. ba passage of verbal or musical expressionc. ca stream or outburst of forceful or impassioned speech
4 a. 4 the tenor(habitual condition), pervading note(to become diffused throughout every part of), burden, or tone of an utterance or of a course of action or (bad)conductb. (new "strain" needed to enhance "bad" mood...(questionable) temper
Don't strain yourself now, ya hear?
In short, every sense of the word
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
You really think that is a valid comparison? We have no choice but to accept that which is necessary for life. Heterosexual sex is necessary for their existence as well as everyone else's, so it technically can not be "in their face."
Think clearly, not from dogma.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
That is clear thinking, you simply can't recognize it.
Dogma. What dogma? Everyone is equal. The Constitution guarantees it.
Straight marriage. Accepted.
Gay marriage. In-your-face.
If you can't see the difference; it is not the comparison which is invalid, it is your critical thinking.
If procreation is the basis for the open acceptance of heterosexual couples, then why are people rendered infertile either by age or infirmity allowed to marry without scorn? When they marry, it is not in-your-face.
God's Balls
Active Member
Every time I hear the word "awareness," I put my hand on my wallet.