Jump to content

Mark1

Supreme User
  • Posts

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Mark1 last won the day on June 12

Mark1 had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Mark1's Achievements

Flight Lead

Flight Lead (3/4)

197

Reputation

  1. If you want to criticize the FBI, go ahead, but you've got no case complaining about Twitter/'BigTech' or the DNC. You're upset that the DNC was trying to manipulate things in their favor? That's literally their reason for existence. Same as the RNC. They're private organizations and can do whatever they like within bounds of the law. Is it scummy? Sure. Is being a scumbag illegal? Unfortunately not. As for Twitter, we all know conservative Citizens United has established that corporations have the same rights as a person when it comes to political support. They're free to write a billion dollar check to a SuperPAC of their choice for the expressed intent of electing their preferred candidate. Running a business in a way that subtly supports a particular candidate or party is much less direct than monetarily funding a campaign, and it's just as legal. So let's not throw terms like 'freedom of speech' around where they don't belong. You know damn well MSNBC/Fox News/etc run their organizations with a policy of the same kind of "information suppression" so why are you singling out 'BigTech' as a boogeyman? Do laws need to change to account for the information age? Maybe. Is Citizens United kicking themselves for setting a precedent that currently favors their political opponents (through support of pinko commie lib media), probably. But there is no scandal with the DNC or 'BigTech'. The only thing that's clear is that last week Trump, for any slow learners that hadn't figured it out a decade ago, literally and explicitly declared himself an enemy of the Constitution. And since that's a bit of a conflict with the commissioning oath nobody on this forum will ever sing his praises again. Right....guys?
  2. Right. So once there's a single fuck up (even if it's just subjectively labeled such by a discrete group) you have to actively orchestrate every subsequent situation to also be a fuck up so that everything is fucked up in an equitable way. Great approach to life. I guess double homicide has been decriminalized ever since the whole O.J. situation. You should let the DOJ know they've been violating the fundamental principle of successful societies for decades with that one.
  3. Fixed that for you. Nobody fired randomly into the crowd. A reasonable, and quite forgiving, threshold for (proxy) self-defense was established by the officer and she found herself in position to be first to test it out. She was very deliberately targeted and she alone suffered the appropriate consequences. Nothing random about it. A completely disingenuous comparison as there is no reasonable expectation of threat to life. Do our enemies know that they can just waltz onto Whiteman and steal a nuke because SF can't actually do anything about it? It's just trespassing and theft, right?
  4. I don't know. You ever see his leadership presentation where he starts off saying he's only got one slide and then proceeds to pack 90 slide transitions into a single slide? How could the Chair Force ignore a talent like that?
  5. Not to inflame the mental break you experienced there, but the irony of decrying "liberal mask pussies" while simultaneously condemning a piece of cloth for destroying your entire life is rich.
  6. I would gladly defend religious freedom with my life while simultaneously acknowledging its absurdity and the fact that it is the single greatest source of evil in the history of humanity. The defense is of freedom, not religion. There's no dissonance there, and no grounds to feel like a fraud. Defending someone's right to make a choice for themselves that you wouldn't make for yourself is an amazing thing. Religion is contemptible. That doesn't extend to a believer as long as they aren't using their faith to justify causing harm. I'm aware of the awesome power of indoctrination. The doctrine/church/organization deserves contempt, but for the faithful it's pity.
  7. Why would you seek accommodation to remain part of an organization that is actively sanctioning and promoting use of something that spits in the face of god? Even if they accommodate your individual objections, they are pushing it on the masses that don't share your enlightenment, and that is the work of the devil. Seeking individual religious accommodation does nothing to redeem the organization that you would continue to be a part of. Seems you're pursuing exemption for the sake of money/safety/comfort at the expense of your righteousness. Wouldn't the righteous thing be to resign rather than seek accommodation? I'm sad that I'll never live to see it, but it gives me great comfort to know that religious delusion is gradually losing out to the true enlightenment of reason, and though it will never disappear altogether, my great-great-great grandchildren will live in a world where it is so utterly insignificant as to be meaningless. Praise god.
  8. That's great my man. Seems like you attibuted the entire universe to my very simple statement. I said nothing about COVID. I made zero assumptions as they were all made inside the declarative statement of yours that I responded to. I offered no agreement or disagrement to the assumptions and said only that the statement as made, is objectively false. A very small change (on a percentage basis) in the exponent of a population growth model, has massive implications on the ultimate rate of spread...the end. A sensible post. Congratulations. That's a rare breed in this thread. I agree on all (and it's not in conflict with my previous post).
  9. You might want to gain a cursory understanding of exponential/logistic growth dynamics before you accidentally say something as absurd as this again.
  10. SECDEFs Nov 30th memo made it clear that unvaccinated guardsmen would be barred from participating in drill, training, or other duty. The fact that they wouldn't be paid for services not rendered was included as a secondary remark. So lets not pretend that you're sticking it to the man.
  11. Yep. The legal filings are totally in good faith, and not a litigious stall tactic that skirts the actual issue. And since they imply that even the plaintiffs agree the order is lawful in principle, as long as Comirnaty labeled doses are offered, I would pay large money to see the government show up to court with nurses ready to administer shots to the plaintiffs out of vials with that divine piece of paper stuck to them that makes all the difference. It'd be a sight to see that courtroom clear as if somebody fumbled a live grenade onto the floor. Mere seconds before nothing but the dignity of the plaintiffs was left behind. Outside of stating that I oppose public mandates, I've made no mention of the vaccine. This has nothing to do with a vaccine and everything to do with a group of people that has made clear they only follow orders when it serves them personally. That's a cancerous thing in military command structure, and if they don't have the integrity to self-eliminate from the service, then they should be forcibly removed. Interesting take given I'm in that group. Damn, I'm like a self-hating black man. Always wondered how that dissonance could develop and now I'm living it. You got me.
  12. I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires. Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.
  13. I wouldn't expect you to have questions. I made it clear which group I belonged to in the first word of my first post. Is this Bizarro World? A lot of people disagree? Do any of them have CSAF appended to their name? I wasn't aware that mliitary command structure had shifted to anarchism where everybody just issues their own personal orders based on what they think is prudent. A person with the authority to determine military necessity has made that call. Opinions on the validity of that determination from subordinates are meaningless. I am not, and would not, call anyone a snowflake over a difference of opinion. Feel free to think whatever you'd like about the order. I actually hold a person in higher regard who disagrees with an order and carries it out faithfully in service to their duty anyway. It's when someone disobeys an order based on selfish motives because they think they're entitled to not experience psycological discomfort that they become a snowflake. I assume that you've told all the E-3s under your command that since you don't understand the nuance of their perspective on showing up to work on a daily basis, that if they personally disagree with the expectation of a 5 day work week, they can just work a few hours here or there as they see fit?
  14. Concerned about their personal health? WTF. Are you telling me it's acceptable to disobey an order if it's a threat to your personal health (which doesn't apply in this scenario, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument)? Taking Hamburger Hill was a threat to personal health. Landing at Normandy was a threat to personal health. Helicopter infil onto Takur Ghar to recover Neil Roberts was a threat to personal health. Stepping outside the wire for a routine low-risk patrol is a threat to personal health. Spending countless hours breathing aircraft exhaust, exposed to loud noises and high speed heavy machinery that could end you at any moment, is a threat to personal health. You mean to tell me every individual military member is empowered to refuse to do all of those things (and literally every other fucking thing the military does) because they might get hurt? Shit, I must have missed that memo. The foundation of military service is literally a concept of sacrificing personal well-being for a collective good. As I said...snowflakes.
  15. Agreed. And for those who joined the military voluntarily and have come to believe that they're entitled to resist orders based on personal opinion and desire; they can fuck right off on their high horse of self-righteousness too. Snowflakes.
×
×
  • Create New...