HeloDude

It's not supposed to be up for debate, regardless of how her constituents feel about the 2nd Amendment. I respect her military service and appreciate that she stands on her principles...but she, like almost all politicians, have selective outrage and are hypocrites. Just realize that they don't truly care about your Liberty when it's in conflict with their ideology.

Yeah, my timing is off--damn it, I was wrong, my bad. I knew it was practiced in times of David, etc but I thought Jewish law had outlawed polygamy by the time of Christ (ie ancient Judaism) because the Romans were't really cool with polygamy. Further research (ie google) gives a more common answer of 1000 AD and also of note, polygamy wasn't non-existent in the very beginning of the Christian Church. Thanks for the correction.

Pretty sure ancient Judaism was one man and one woman too, which would pre-date Christianity, though I could be wrong. Who says they get to wear any shoes at all?

So is anybody else following the Zimmerman trial on the news--as in keeping up with the highlights? The 'star' witness the prosecution had up on the stand yesterday and today was a piece of work to say the least. It was entertaining to watch some of the highlights...entertaining as a train wreck. I'd say her credibility is blown.

Well if it's mil dating mil, shear numbers prevented this from happening as much as it could happen now, just a fact. If I were a young E wanting to get out of the dorms, I personally would feel more comfortable entering into a "fake" marriage with a good buddy vs with a girl who I am friends with. If 2 dudes aren't gay and marry then there is less of an opportunity for one person to get upset when the other person is banging somebody else. Plus, as a straight guy, there are a lot more guys I would trust to not fvck me over than most girls--female friends get psycho once in a while, my guy friends, not so much.

If guys haven't actually separated, they can always pull back their separation papers/request to stay on. If the AF is that hard up on pilots, I'm assuming most, if not all, would be approved to stay on. Exactly...who wouldn't take extra money for doing the same job you were going to do anyway?

Shack. I know it may not have been with their legal lanes/precedent per se, but SCOTUS should have just ruled all entirely on the subject of gay marriage and been done with it. Now it's just going to be legal battles after legal battles and more tax money wasted on clogging up the courts. I will say one thing though--it will make an interesting debate on where States' Rights play into the whole mess. Abortion can not be purely banned but different States can have different limits, same with gun rights, etc...have to see how this one plays out.

While she's at it, she should go after the millions of people on food stamps, govt housing, etc who don't need it either...guarantee that won't happen. I applaud her for at least doing something right, but make no mistake--she picks and choses where to go after people who are receiving benefits who do not truly deserve/need them.

Lawsuit? For enforcing the regs and standards in the AFI? I doubt it.

Getting a little emotional there bud...I'd have a drink if I were you. I'm not saying it 'should' be null and void--I think you'll see from my postings over the last year or so that I believe SCOTUS should rule that you can't discriminate amongst any makeup of groups when it comes personal unions/contracts based on the 14th Amendment. That being said, Oklahoma has still said that they will not recognize a gay marriage, and unless I'm mistaken, nothing ruled on today changes that. Now, if a civilian gay couple who was legally married in Massachusetts moves to Oklahoma and become Oklahoma residents, will their new State allow them to file their taxes as a married couple or won't they? I have no clue...maybe it's already happened? By all means if someone has an article/info on this issue then please share. You're trying to say just because a State currently recognizes other marriage licenses from all the other States that they can't all of a sudden change their law. That being said, I think it would be unConstitutional if they did...but in that regard, then why have any State laws when it comes to marriage laws and just a national standard? Maybe that's where we're headed? I'm watching it unfold just as everyone else, but it is far from a done deal.

It doesn't work for Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses. It also doesn't automatically work for various professional licenses (ie pharmacists, lawyers, etc).

Brick is retired, and I thank him for his service. He has a different opinion on the matter and I say he's more than able to share it here. I'm sure he welcomes the spirited debate. There are a lot more issues and problems the country is facing, and I would argue that gays serving and gay marriage and the like is not one of those problems. The liberals cheering for 'Liberty and Justice' are liars as they want neither Liberty and/or Justice for all.

I know you were man. But the comment still stands!

Exactly--hypocrites on both sides of the argument.

By your logic men and chicks should be able to share a room together...but wait, it doesn't happen.

The left in this country will never support benefits being taken away...especially now to that they will be extended to people in their base. Same goes with the majority of those on the right. It's the destruction of the country IMO. I'm talking purely fiscal issues here.

I'm assuming that those with valid marriage licenses will get benefits and those without will not. As for the Texas example, I'm also then assuming that the State won't recognize the marriage, so if you're a Texas resident, you'll have to file your taxes a singe person, erc but the military (federal govt) will still give you dependent BAh, put them in DEERs, etc. It definitely opens the door to more issues...but hey, if I get stationed in Illinois, they won't recognize my CCW license from a different State--same thing.

To me it's not about marriage, it's about contacts. You can say you're married to whoever you want, but it all comes down to what the government recognizes in the form of a contract and then subsequently gives out benefits for being in such a contract (the root of the problem IMO). Here's the problem--social Conservatives don't want gay marriage and liberals/left moderates do. The problem is that the majority of both of those groups don't truly want Liberty.

Just looked it up (I'm bored)--according to AFI 26-2903 page 15, males are not authorized to wear nail polish. You should have said something. And as for Pawnman's comment: I hear you in that we want competent folks, but why can't we have competent folks who are also adhering to the regs and standards? Has the Air Force gotten that bad?

Uniform standards are still uniform standards regardless of who he banging or getting banged by. No shaving waiver--then he has to shave, period dot. You would have been totally within your lane to say something to him and/or his supervisor. As for the nail polish--you're saying he was wearing nail polish in uniform too?

Well contrary to what stupid PETA-type people believe, animals don't have Rights. And it's kind of hard to enter into a personal contact if there is not another person. I seriously don't understand the difference between gay marriage and plural marriage, marriage amongst siblings, etc.

Constitutionally it was the correct call. I'm actually somewhat surprised it wasn't a 6-3, 7-2 decision with Roberts crossing over, along with Thomas merely on Constitutional grounds. As for Prop 8...no clue how that will be ruled--it will probably be a 5-4 decision either way. What's funny is that the libs were calling SCOTUS a Right-Wing court after yesterday's VRA ruling where as today the libs are saying the Court was correct--bunch of hypocrites.

I was talking about attention/agenda from the left--as in the Administration and the high ranking civilians and Generals at the Pentagon. Are you honestly going to tell me that men getting sexually assaulted is what is driving this issue in Congress, the Administration, and the Pentagon?? No, it's not what is driving the conversation. What is driving the conversation are the women being assaulted--ie the Wilkerson case, the AF SARC getting charged with sexually assaulting a woman, the assaults against women at Lackland, women getting harassed and assaulted by recruiters, on and on. Politicians and upper level leadership (who might as well just be politicians) only use the men cases just to drive up the overall statistics. Fixing the problem of men getting sexually assaulted doesn't doesn't weigh as much compared to fixing the problem of women getting assaulted...you know, it has to do with that whole 'war on women' political discussion. I'm not saying women getting assaulted isn't an important issue and shouldn't be dealt with, just saying that it also fits the political narrative when you try to solve the problem. As for the media, most of television media favors the left and they're going to mostly report on whatever the political left is throwing up as the most important issue of the day. Since the men getting assaulted isn't receiving the political attention, no reason for the media to make it the front and center story.

Anybody take the moment to read the handful of comments? Not surprising, they're all pretty much negative in basically saying that they AF is screwing over the E's to give the pilots more money blah blah blah. I have actually tried to explain to some non-rated folks (O's and E's) why the AF gives the bonus, and though some actually get it from a fiscal sense (that it's cheaper for the AF to give the bonus) many still think it's BS. Given the current fiscal climate it will be interesting to see how the rest of the AF reacts to this one.

Nanny Cam Shows Intruder Beating NJ Woman Near Kid Pretty fvcked up. The only good thing is that it was all caught on tape so hopefully they can catch the asshole. Shame she didn't have a gun. I always keep my doors locked while I'm inside and if I hear something strange, I'm heading straight for *one* of my firearms...then I go investigate what I heard. Same thing when I hear a knock or ring at the door, unless I know someone is coming over...and even then, I may throw the little pocket pistol in the pocket. Poor Joe1234, he just can't believe something like this actually happened!