HeloDude

The old "left" of Carter and Bill Clinton are no longer driving the agenda of the Dems today...the progressives are. Bill Clinton said he was very much against illegal immigration in the mid-90s. The progressive left desires much bigger government control, more social programs (which require higher taxes), etc. And when studies show that immigrants, specifically those from Mexico and Latin America, are much more likely to support an increase in government funded social programs...well, there you go. And the tradional GOP doesn't want to stop illegal immigrantion outright because that goes against cheaper labor. So here we are. And who loses: The middle class taxpayer, lower income Americans who work in construction, Americans who live in areas that have seen an increased amount of gang activity made up of illegal immigrants, etc. It's sad...but when you hate what America has mostly been over the last few decades and believe it needs fixing (ACA, public option, higher taxes, etc), then this is how you see the "change".

How about you respond to his question regarding income taxes?...you're intelligent enough to know the difference between income tax vs FICA taxes.

So if I believe our tax code is broke then I can intentionally not adhere to it (i.e. not pay my taxes) and progressives will support me in doing so? Haha--fat chance... Progressives want illegal immigration for future votes because they know that historical data clearly shows that immigrants (once they are given amnesty/apply for citizenship) and their children are much more likely to vote for politicians that support an increase of social programs. Plenty of research which discusses this in detail--let me know if you need the links. Businesses obviously support illegal immigration because of the cheap labor...something the traditional GOP always supported until the issue was made to the lower/middle class Americans.

Kind of defeats the purpose of the ACP ADSC, so (assuming no other larger circumstances), I don't see why the AF would allow it. As to your specific question, I know someone who tried doing this in 2012, and instead of being allowed to retire, he was given a 365.

No...you dont support deporting all illegal aliens, because this would include not supporting DACA, not allowing illegal aliens to attend public school, etc. And as for not "dehumanizing" them, what in the hell does that mean? You get caught be here illegally, then you get detained and deported--it's that simple (they need much stricter penalties for repeat offenders). The left does not support deporting everyone illegally here, hell, they can't even stomach using the term "illegal" when discussing these people; rather they had to invent a BS "undocumented" term.

Probably as much as you support not deporting illegal aliens.

I just don't believe you when you say that you want to help those people...because if you did, then you would it voluntarily. Most progressives I know are you like you: Tell people they're heartless if they don't want their taxes raised to help people but then refuse to voluntarily help those same people.

Hard to then take you seriously when you say you care about people less fortunate than yourself. But I appreciate your honesty!

"Irrelevant"? That's BS--according to US Code: "(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), an officer discharged under any provision of chapter 36 of this title for twice failing of selection for promotion to the next higher grade is not entitled to separation pay under this section if either (or both) of those failures of selection for promotion was by the action of a selection board to which the officer submitted a request in writing not to be selected for promotion or who otherwise directly caused his nonselection through written communication to the Board under section 614(b) of this title." So it's up to the AF to make that decision, but what leads to the separation is definitely not "irrelevant". I am pretty ignorant as to how the end process works, so I'll default to your knowledge on the process and if you read my earlier post, I agreed that it is up to the AF to figure out their own process. But when making a purchase and the cashier gives me back more money than I think is warranted, I at least ask the question as to whether or not the amount is correct...if the cashier responds yes, then I say ok and take the additional money.

Let us be honest here: Duck is not being separated against his will as he asked to be separated, so hardly "against his will". IVSP is there (by law) to provide severance pay for a member who had put in >6 years, was in good standing and did not want to leave, yet was told to leave anyway. In 2014 I was in a staff job where some non-rated guys actually wanted to stay in and yet got RIFd anyway...and hence deserved and received IVSP. There's a reason why VSP is different than IVSP. This all being said, I agree that it's up to the AF to legally determine if a separated member qualifies for IVSP, not the member itself. So legally, I think Duck would be fine applying, and as for the ethical piece of "should he apply", that's up to him to decide. In the end: Duck, thank you for your service and good luck to you man!

Kind of like how you defended Obama trying to work with Iran but not Trump trying to work with NK? Or is it just the returning of the salute thing that bothers you so much?

Outstanding! Though I didn't ask you (since supposedly you're against government welfare)...but since you mentioned the charity, how much do you give them per year?

So how much of your personal wealth are you voluntarily donating to charities that help provide healthcare/pay for healthcare expenses of those less foryunate than you? And which specific charities do you use?

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.

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.

Again, learn to make a better argument (one you actually can/want to defend), and you'll get a much better response.

Got it--you're for a maximum speed limit of 40mph.

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?

Don't get upset...learn to make a better argument.

So you're for making the maximum speed limit 40mph to minimize the effects of an accident?

Are you suggesting the Saudi King bowed first to Obama and Obama just returned the bow? If so, please post your source...

Funny how you conveniently left out the "returning" portion when discussing the salute. But to go with your post above, do you also then think they should not have shaken hands/greeted each other?...since their regimee is "responsible for terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people"? Also, just a few weeks ago you were praising how Obama dealt with Iran...who is also a sponsor of terror, murder, and unspeakable terror against its own people. Too funny lol.

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?

That is exactly what I meaon by further regulation. Health "insurance" stopped being "insurance" when the government forced people to enter into business where the business was forced to cover things it didn't want to cover. Here's a simple analogy you should be able to understand: Homeowners insurance. If the government forced the insurance business to take a new customer whose house had been burnt down last week and then also forced the insurance company to pay to replace this home after the fact...and then also force me to do business with said insurance company, then this is no longer insurance. It's government mandating that homeowners with insurance who have not had their house burnt down pay for someone's house who didn't pay into the insurance pool before it burnt down. Or even worse, forcing a homeowner who didn't want insurance to pay for the guy whose house burnt down. Like I said, this is not insurance. As for the rest of your post (which came across as quite emotional by the way), I'll gladly respond once we can understand each other as to what is and isn't insurance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2016/11/01/why-should-the-young-and-the-healthy-bail-out-of-obamacare/#309d294f1f69

I've been pondering ideas like this a lot lately (not saying I plan on failing a PT test anytime soon), but what's the incentive for someone who wants out and/or doesn't really care whether they stay in/get out and thus isn't concerned about rank...what's the incentive to do well/pass a PT test? Sure it's good to stay in shape, but those people would workout even if there wasn't a PT test. Failing a PT test is purely administrative. So if the AF is consistently working you 10-12 hours a day, some weekends, deploying you, etc, why workout if that's not your thing and you don't care about advancing your military career? And if someone brings up core values then I would argue the AF hasn't met their part of that obligation. Again, just some thoughts from someone who has been in quite a while...