HeloDude

Bullying Complaint After Lopsided Football Score The liberals have gone full retard--you never go full retard.

Yes, yes I would and will. Doesn't make me feel more comfortable about living there. Agreed, though why live in a City/State (ie Chicago or Illinois) that makes it worse? It doesn't have to be the 'Redoubt Movement' as a lot of people don't agree with that philosophy (I agree with some of their points, others, not so much), but just where you want to be in general when things start going wrong.

Buys us getting out of Afghanistan, maybe? One can hope!

Well, I thought the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government was charged with enforcing all US laws...but this administration (and ones before it) seems to have a bit of a trouble doing that. Or are you going to tell me that the President and his departments are fully enforcing all of our immigration laws? Sorry, but when it comes to the federal government, I don't trust what they say just because it was written in some 'law'. By the way...when is my sister and her family going to see a $2500 decrease in their health insurance premiums? The liberals can't seem to answer that question.

Yes, they are both college educated and have been working in their professions for close to 15 years, so fortunately they make more money than what you described. Keep in mind, people like my sister and brother-in-law, they're not asking for a government subsidy, however their rates will indeed go up anyways because of the new federal government regulations put on their insurance companies and employers. You cannot force insurance companies to cover parents' children longer, cover pre-exisiting conditions (and not charge them what the market says to charge them), force more coverage at no charge (ie birth control), etc without raising the rates for almost everybody else--there are not enough 'healthy/young' people (with money) to bring into the system to cover all these new outrageous expenses. So either the insurance company intentionally loses profit, employers pay more, and/or premiums and deductibles go up for people. It's another form of wealth redistribution and the people who will feel the tightest squeeze are the ones who work hard and don't qualify for subsidies (or enough subsidies to really make a big difference) and who aren't wealthy enough that paying an extra $3-5K/yr is no big deal. At this point, the government should have just passed another FICA type tax that put the poorest of the poor on Medicare and left everybody else's insurance alone. Then everybody would see the tax on their pay stubs and you'd have less government regulation on the insurance companies. That being said, even a program like this would bust eventually...just like Medicare. The problem is that there are millions of Americans who want something for nothing, and that something has to come from somewhere. You can keep raising taxes (assuming you don't cut anything else) to pay for these programs, but I think the myth of taxing your way into prosperity has been debunked. I also keep hearing 'well, other European countries make this work'...having spent a little time in Europe and having friends who are local there, I've learned that a more-so socialist type system only even at least somewhat works when you either have A) Nearly everyone on board with the system, from the top down and who work hard to good of community (something closer to Germany), or B) At the pointy end of a gun (former Soviet Union). Maybe we'll be closer to option A in the future, but we're definitely not there now. If not everyone is on board with the more 'communal' type system, then you run the risk of the thought experiment where everyone in class gets the same grade--eventually the really smart kids are less incentivized to do their best, the kids who rarely study are happy, and the kids in the middle realize that it's easier to be the kids who rarely study, and overall, everybody does worse. I'm not saying that this would happen over night, or ever get 100% to the point of full destruction, but I think it's safe to say that there is a growing culture in the US who are realizing that you don't have to work very hard to have a minimum standard of life which is decent (ie a roof over your head, food in your belly, a basic phone to communicate, some sort of healthcare, on and on)--and I don't think this helps you grow economically and as a society. And what makes it worse is that these people breed, and they breed quite a bit. And why? One reason is because there are even more government incentives to have children (I know it doesn't make sense to us, but a lot of people do see it this way). Anyways, I think people are going to see a big change in the healthcare world in the next few years. There will be more demand with not as much of an increase in supply, premiums will go up for many and will affect the people I mentioned above the hardest, and businesses will have a reduced incentive to grow their business to increase their profit. I'm sure the liberals will have somebody else to blame and then will argue for a single-payer type system which will then put us all on Medicare essentially...again, this single-payer type system struggles to work in cultures where this is more accepted (everybody goes along to get along)--not so much here, which I'm sure will mean it will be worse. Agree 100% on this one.

My sister and her husband will not receive any subsidies to offset their large premium increase because they don't qualify as low-income earners. Again, still waiting for someone to tell me when her family will see a $2500 decrease in their insurance costs...

Lear--you answered my question...with another question. To penalize you, I'll ask you another question: Has or would a military leader (Sq/CC, OG, WG, whatever) ever 'willingly sacrifice a subordinate's career to appease' one of their own military leaders/commanders?

Learjetter, you're not telling me that politics and public appearance had anything to do with this final decision, are you?

Looks like she's back: S&W MP-15 at Bud's LE for $759 and then you can get the $100 rebate. Still one of the best values around IMO. https://www.budspolicesupply.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=170

Let's just say quite a bit more than your 'cyber pay' Haha!

Lt. col. granted clemency in sex assault case to retire as major Lucky for me, you didn't take the bet and I get to keep my month's flight pay. Looks like you had the right call on this one man. That being said, I still think retiring him as a Major is BS...they're doing this because of his conviction that was thrown out (and the outrage caused because of it), not because of his affair 9 years ago. That's the military for you.

I'm still wanting to know when my sister's health insurance premiums will go down $2500/year? And if it won't, then why not? I'll wait for an answer.

Liberals have yet to get rid of it when they have been in charge...though I'll at least hand it to Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana...step in the right direction, but yes, definitely still a 'war on drugs' on the State level as well as the National level. Conservatives/Republicans are no better when it comes to this issue, and I would argue that they are usually much worse. But to answer your question directly, it's the liberal's war too if they don't stop it.

There's little arguing that the wealth gap between the top 10% and bottom 10% (or even bottom 80-90% for that matter) has widened over the years. Look at the stock market booms in the mid/late 90's, around 2006-2007, and the one over the last 1-2 years--if you had your money in the market odds are you made some good cash, especially if you bought low. But little is stopping even the young Airman from living below his means, saving money/putting some away in the market, taking advantage of opportunities (free school, etc), and then bettering himself in the long-run. Will he ever be in the top 1%?...doubtful. Will be in the top 20%, definitely a possibility if he plays his cards right. Same can be said with the poorest of Americans even if they don't join the military. If they live below their means, take advantage of the opportunities (scholarships, government aid and grants, etc) and is always trying to live below their means and doesn't get himself in trouble (substance abuse, run-ins with the law, knocks a chick up) then he can definitely better himself as well. Sure, he'll have to work harder for it than someone born to a family where both parents make $100K+, but the fact is that the guy who started off poor can definitely improve his life. Hell, today the government gives out quite a bit of welfare (subsidized, and for the very poor, free healthcare), so they have that going for them as well, though I think that keeps in the lower class. Check out the table: It shows how the wealthy is increasing their wealth at a greater pace after the last 2 recessions..but it is also showing that there is growth outside of the 'top 1%' (skip to the very end if you're not seeing my point). No doubt the last few years have been tough, especially for the folks at the bottom, but unfortunately that's what happens with a weak recovery. Also, we have spent TRILLIONS of dollars on the 'War on Poverty' only for the poverty level to be documented as mostly un-changed. That being said, those 'living' in poverty are much better off than they were 40 years ago. Here's an interesting chart done by PA's Dept of Welfare which shows that in some cases, there is definitely a reduced incentive to better yourself. And with the top wage earners in the US paying the most taxes, the country would be worse off if that wealth was truly 'spread around' with our current tax system. The Dems and the GOP are all about the corporate welfare--funny, under President Obama the richer are getting richer than they were before and the income gap is ever increasing...though like I said, the bottom half of the people still live better today than they did 40 years ago. I think the late Margaret Thatcher explains liberalism and socialism pretty well and better than I ever could:

Cool story. I'll still chose a firearm over 's' words.

Philadelphia is ran by a Democratic mayor and their city council is made up of over 80% democrats, and together they run the city, to include the police. Liberals typically vote democrat, so I'm still not sure where the your question arrises? And as for the guys getting harassed...well, they're black, and I'm willing to bet my flight-pay that at least one of them voted democrat (odds are both did as black Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat), though to be fair, it sounds like one of the guys was from NJ...another gem of a place. You get the government you vote in and thus deserve.

Gun laws are a big one...but it's not just about gun laws or lack there of. The 2nd Amendment is only a symptom of the greater issue--Rights, Liberty, and Freedom. If I have no means to protect myself, my family, and my property, and I have to rely on the government to protect me, then I can easily lose everything I have (my life, my family, my property) because the government can't be everywhere, they don't have an obligation to protect me or you (at least here in the US in regards to the police/LE), and they can also turn on you if they see fit...internment camps for Japanese Americans quickly comes to mind. But it's not just about the 2nd Amendment, it's also about being able to live the way I see fit as long as it doesn't take away that same ability from somebody else. In Germany, it's illegal to homeschool your children, with very rare exceptions. I call this a barrier to liberty. In the UK, they don't have the same/equivalent '5th Amendment' type Rights that we do here in the US, and what they do have isn't nearly as protective. Taxes also have to do with freedom and liberty--the more you take from what someone has earned, the less opportunity they have to do with it as they chose (ie liberty), especially if that money is taken only to be redistributed to somebody else. (Here's a study that George Mason University does every so often on the 'freedoms in the 50 States' and details what States are best in terms of respecting Rights and Liberties. It's State comparison vs international, but it details what I'm describing pretty well ) I could go on and on, but I think you guys get the idea. So going back to Japan--no 2nd Amendment type Rights, their current constitution continually discusses 'public welfare' and states that human rights are subject to restriction when it interferes with the public welfare, it states that people are obligated to work, and have very strict rules on the education of children. Articles 25 states: "All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living. In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health." I'll at least give it to the Japanese...they come out and directly say they are for entitlements in their constitution instead of how we do it here in the US...but either way, they require more taxes to fulfill this constitutional right, which leaves less money to the people to make their own decisions. Oh, and Article 26 states, "All people shall have the right to receive an equal education correspondent to their ability, as provided by law."...sounds to me the law has a lot to say in how people receive their education...not so much in our Constitution. Let's see, what else...the country does not recognize gay marriage, their marijuana laws/sentences are much more strict than in the US (and hell, it's legal here in some places), they also have stricter environmental laws, have higher personal taxes (especially when compared to States with low tax rates)...ok, I'll stop there. BL: Chida, I could care less where you live man. If you want to live in Japan, Australia, Nigeria, wherever...I'm all about people making their own personal decisions. But if you say something like 'the weather in Antarctica is better than in the lower 48 States', then I'm going to call you out and raise the bullshit flag. It's a tough argument to make that 'Japan is the same in the freedom dept'--so either clarify, or be called out. And like I said in an earlier post, I'm not a 'America--fvck yeah!' kind of a guy as I believe our country is going down the shitter. So I'm not picking on Japan or anywhere else, rather I'm just calling it like I see it. ETA: Forgot to answer your question, no, I have not been to Japan, though hopefully I'll get the opportunity some time to visit. Most of my time overseas has been spent in Europe and in our other glorious locations that we get sent to. Fortunately Japan's constitution was available via google as well as other articles describing things in their country. By all means, let me know if I missed something--if there's more Liberty in Japan than in the US, I may just have to join you there some day.

Here you go liberals...you asked for more government and less liberty. How does it taste.

I just spoke to my sister this weekend and she said they are being told that their premiums (their health insurance from her husband's job) are going up around 55-60%. What ever happened to people saving $2500/year? David Ramsey explains it pretty well here:

You must be joking here...

Thank God he stopped you from having that dip in on the flight line--who knows what could have happened!!

So you're telling me if the movie was a historical documentary...that they would just go with this book, hands down, that's it? Or would they go further than the book and do some more research? When it's a movie 'based off a true story', they can switch it up quite a bit (or just go off of a single book) in order to satisfy the theatrical story they are trying to portray. Have you seen the movie 'Argo'? Are you going to tell me that it was historically accurate to the last detail?

Whatever the definition is...after the military, I'd be more than happy to leave the US to permanently live in another country if: I had the same amount of Liberty/Freedoms/Rights as I do here in the US, that the other country was at least as stable economically as here, that taxes weren't any worse than here, that healthcare was as good/adequate as here, that I would have enough other like-minded folks close to me compared to living here, and that I believed the security of the country (against invading forces, against a potential coup, etc) was as adequate as here. I know those are quite a few serious demands, but this is what is important to me and for my family. IMO, the reason these other countries people are mentioning are starting to look as a better choice is not as much because they're improving so much, but rather because the US is in such a decline. Right now, even if I was retired/able to leave, I'd still stick with the US because I don't see another country that meets my demands. I have heard, and also read up, of people who are considering relocating to Panama...but that country's not too distant history of dangerous government does not calm my fears. I've now picked the area of the US I want to be when I'm done with the AF...we'll see how that bet pans out. So when it comes to retirement, I'll stick with the US until there's a better option...right now she wins by default, which is pretty sad. And by the time it gets so bad here that there's a better option elsewhere (ie meeting my above demands), I think we'll already be in such a horrible situation, and it will be more about where you are in the US (ie which State, which community of people you've surrounded yourself with, etc) vs trying to get out and live somewhere better.

What do you know...Hollywood types change the true story to make their film look better--say it isn't so!! All I have to say in regards to being a civilian crew member in international waters (especially where pirates are known to be) and being unarmed--fvck that! I could care less what the statistics show in terms of actually being killed--I don't want my life riding on the mercy of an asshole pirate.

Hagel, like all appointees (whether under a Dem or a Republican), are essentially puppets for the person who put them in that position. So more than likely if you disagree with the POTUS and his policies, you will probably also disagree (at least somewhat) with his appointees and their policies. Oh, and why do some people always use the word 'hate' just because someone may disagree with someone's policies and/or leadership style? I think you need to research the word 'hate' and apply it differently next time. I know a lot of people who dislike the President's policies, but I have never once heard someone say that they 'hate' him.