EBSB52

Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Jen Alchohol - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing cholesterol - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing saturated fats - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing television - There are strict FCC regulations on this. Hell, can't even say, "shit, fuck or many other words for fear of offense prescription drugs - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing. Even with this, there are huge FDA restrictions on this. It costs almost a billion dollars and years to certify some drugs ciggs - Can't be done in the company of other without involuntarily sharing. A multi-hundred billion dollar agreement was reached and the results were that smoking is addictive and deadly, but the cigg companies could keep making a product claimed to be so by both parties so long as the states get a cut. Total Fascist decision betwen the gov and cig companies that goes against every cannon of product liability, so apparently the legislative reaction is to ban it in many places as opposed to outlawing it. Look at all the drugs that are banned due to dangerous eventual side effects, yet cigs are deemed deadly and allowed to be sold. I understand your emotion, but you have yet to cast an argument that justifies killing people due to your compulsion, especially killing kids.

Ya, what the other 2 guys said. Not only that, but whatever authority, in this case the US Sup Ct, can change their mind at any time. The Department of Justice issued an extensive report that very clearly and definitely shows that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights, so where's the news here? As I've asked before and was never answered, What is a well regulated militia? If it's well regulated then that opens the door to all kinds of.... let's say, regulation; we can't call regulation anti-Constitutional. Next point: The Const was written at a time when we had no staning army, so the word, "necessary" alotted us rights then and now relieves any need for private gun ownership now. It's one of those rights that could easily fade in and out, based upon need. Don't get me wrong, if asked my opinion I would come off more extreme than Kennedy, but this is objective argumentation. It's fine to be passionate about issues, but don't let them cloud objectivity. Also, the best way to argue for your position is to learn how to argue against it, that way you can perceive what the opposition might throw at you and be prepared. As of now I can't find an answer to the 2 issues I posed.

If you think this admin doesn't want tons of illegals to compete with and displace our labor... guess again. As Kallend wrote: "Well, reducing the flow of illegals would be bad for business, wouldn't it? Can't have that." There are a lot of facades out there where it appears the current admin wants to crack down on a lot of things when in reality it's profit before people, lives, rules, etc.... Don't be blinded by how you think the party is or how the party should be.

is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone. Gravitymaster, Phreezone, Bikebabe and the articles posted by you and the graph posted by me all corroborate the fact that they are now proposing base closures and personnel reduction. Will you quit resisting the truth and answer these posts? Naw, just pretend you don't see them.

No, but I think he told you WHY he was not giving an opinion....which you are proving to be true. Sheesh. People get hassled for the opinions they give and then they get hassled for the opinions they don't. The way I see it: He posted an article of interest that he thought might spark some conversation. That's it. The way I see it: if you find something interesting enough that you want people to talk about it, you ought to have the courage to voice your own opinion on the subject, and stand up for it. And you're still going on about it late in the thread. See, what John is doing is to divert attention from the argument/issue: Do high ranking military officials have immunity? Enough of the cross-bickering over whether an opinion should have been inserted - let's talk about military officer criminal immunity.

I do use that often, because that introduces my subject, and explains where it comes from, so that no one thinks that it is my own writing. Then, after the introduction, I also go on to support or defend my subject matter. When I start a thread, I stick around to defend my position. So, your comment doesn't really say anything, as usual. Even if he had started with "In the news", it wouldn't have done anything towards contributing his own personal opinion. John, in organized argumentation a person's personal opinion is generally unimportant. If you criticize a person as a basis for an argument versus criticizing the merit of the argument you have committed an Ad Hominem. In a skydiving forum, who cares, but it isn't constructive, intillectual argumentation to focus on the author. There are few exceptions, but if your meat-n-potatos of an argument is spelling/grammar (absent total illiteracy) or a person's character then you have done nothing to refute the merits of the issue at hand - Ad Hominem. With that, I understand your position that no one will desicrate your flag, your country. You were a 20 year veteran of teh Marines if I understand correctly. I'm not evaluating the argument based upon that, just understanding your paradigm. I believe the argument to this thread is that of rank elitism / criminal immunity. I would argue that the government treats organized crime differently depending upon whether it's intra-gevernmental or extra-governmental. John Ghotti and Sammy the Bull; they let the lower guys go on 19+ counts of 1st degree murder to snag the big guy. However, there seemed to be some immunity with the Catholic Preiests scandal up high. It seems to be present within military rank and file too. Presidentially there was a lot of that with Iran-Contra, but Clinton was impeached for his doings. It's not absolute, but there seems to be a trend in immunity up high with crininal matters within governmental structures and the reverse outside. So I don't think there is any conspiracy here, just good ole American protocol.

It's a time of war; can you understand that? The venue for these soldiers to work is a temporary one, that is unless Bush has his way and has 100's of thousands stationed over there permanently. There are small cuts being made now, and as Phreezone stated the Marines and Army can't get enough, while the other branches are furloughing. The reason for this is obvious - we are at war and we need ground-pounders to fight hand-to-hand. Now, as for my assertion and website I posted as to whne we started the wind-down of military personnel, it started in the mate 80's per both your article and my site, which agree with each other. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf During Korea and Viet Nam there was a spike in Army personnel, yet a decline or early decline in Air Force and Navy, much like we see now. My point for this entire thread is that the blame I continually hear against Clinton for weakening the military was actually started before he entered office by 3-4 years and they were initiated by Congress. I understand why you are done, you can't refute the arguments posted in this thread, or hell, even the ones I just summarized in this post.

Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Perhaps if your noodle had 10% of the firsthand knowledge I do you might be a little less inclined to write crap like that. Now, they can use words/terms like: reconfigure, promote cooperation, changing threats and other flowery concepts, but whne they used terms like, "bese realignment" in the 90's it's the same thing. Consolidation and reduction have some of he same elements with different definitions. IOW's consoiidation is a form of reduction. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. Never supply information against your own argument. This is the crown jewel of my argument. Many people say that Clinton closed the bases, essentially by himself, when they were starting in the late 80's as posed by the graph I just posted in the previous post and this. NAFTA and base closures were a Bush 1 thing that Clinton went along with - that's my original argument with this thread. Don't you find it odd how Bush 1 and Clinton are now swapping spit in the media? They were more alike than we ever thought. -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. No reduction in military personnel???? -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. I worked on the B-1B in manufacturing and offsite for Rockwell at Ellsworth onthe Birdstrike mod for 6 months. I am well acquainted with all this stuff. I was in with many of the current and past crew chiefs of the B-1B, as we were B-52 crew chiefs together.

Damned the coitus interruptus

Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Perhaps if your noodle had 10% of the firsthand knowledge I do you might be a little less inclined to write crap like that. Now, they can use words/terms like: reconfigure, promote cooperation, changing threats and other flowery concepts, but whne they used terms like, "bese realignment" in the 90's it's the same thing. Consolidation and reduction have some of he same elements with different definitions. IOW's consoiidation is a form of reduction. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. Never supply information against your own argument. This is the crown jewel of my argument. Many people say that Clinton closed the bases, essentially by himself, when they were starting in the late 80's as posed by the graph I just posted in the previous post and this. NAFTA and base closures were a Bush 1 thing that Clinton went along with - that's my original argument with this thread. Don't you find it odd how Bush 1 and Clinton are now swapping spit in the media? They were more alike than we ever thought. -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. No reduction on military personnel???? -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. I worked on the B-1B in manufacturing and offsite for Rockwell at Ellsworth onthe Birdstrike mod for 6 months. I am well acquainted with all this stuff. I was in with many of the current and past crew chiefs of the B-1B, as we were B-52 crew chiefs together.

Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. First of all if I was accusing you of something I would have directed my statement at you. I was refering to the gathering storm of dissent which will occur soon. Second of all I don't think the reason nobody has disputed your claims of Fascism has anything to do with their inability to do so. In my case I haven't responded because it's such a stupid claim. I think most of us were aware of that. I thought you just said it was about base closings and referred us to the title of the thread. Now you are saying it's also about NAFTA? Thats not in the title. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. Well, given your history, I should probably stop now, but I'll try one more time. With Clinton it wasn't about Base closings, it was about reduction in the number of Military personel which led to the closings. With Bush, it is consolidation and the only people losing their jobs are civilians ie cafeteria workers, janitors, house keeping etc. The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Which Democrats also signed on to. I don't remember. It's your thread, why don't you tell me? Lack of personnel to fight a war if necessary. Why do you think we are depending so heavily on the Nat'l Guard? Part of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union. First of all if I was accusing you of something I would have directed my statement at you. I was refering to the gathering storm of dissent which will occur soon. Second of all I don't think the reason nobody has disputed your claims of Fascism has anything to do with their inability to do so. In my case I haven't responded because it's such a stupid claim. 1. You're going to speak/write for everyone. 2. One word..... acquiescence..... noted. I think most of us were aware of that. Ok, then why does every dime store conservative blame Clinton for what I believe at best a bipartisan Congress did? I thought you just said it was about base closings and referred us to the title of the thread. Now you are saying it's also about NAFTA? Thats not in the title. It is about base closings and the blame associated with the president when it's a Congressional act. I can't use the NAFTA example as a legislative parallel? Sorry, didn’t mean to waive shiny keys at ya. Well, given your history,... This is a precursor to an Ad Hominem...... Why not answer the question with the merit of the question in mind as opposed to the author? ...I should probably stop now, but I'll try one more time. With Clinton it wasn't about Base closings, it was about reduction in the number of Military personel which led to the closings. With Bush, it is consolidation and the only people losing their jobs are civilians ie cafeteria workers, janitors, house keeping etc. Reduction in personnel, base closings.... didn't you read Pheezone’s post about this being a reduction as well? Furthermore, reductions is expenditure can be of people and/or of equipment or some combination of both. The military toys still continued to be built under Clinton, so what's your point? Another aspect of this is that of: who is out to get us now that the myth of Russia's Evil Empire is debunked. Reagan = Russia is Evil Empire Bush 2 = Saddam. OBL are Axis of Evil Do these guys have the same bullshit writer? Come on, give us some new material o at least new acronyms. Which Democrats also signed on to. Ok, so why do you continue to harp on this rhetoric about Clinton cutting military personnel and Bush cutting bases. Bush/Congress can't afford to cut people right now due to his hobby in the desert, so we would need to see what happens if this murder-fest ever ends. I don't remember. It's your thread, why don't you tell me? That was a rhetorical question; I believe the base reduction in the 90's started in Congress. I don't see that as a normal executive power. Lack of personel to fight a war if necessary. Why do you think we are depending so heavily on the Nat'l Guard? Because that is Bush's little tactic to retain full-timers and utilize guard and reservists when it is very unusual to do so. Part of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Well if Reagan was so patriotic he would have retained all the full-timers he could. Here’s an interesting graph: http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf Looks like the downturn in active duty military personnel started in the late 80’s. Hmmmm, Bush 1 raised taxes and started cutting forces……..

Not sure where you are coming from. If I said that the NBA is mostly black because it's easier to train monkeys, then that would be racist. The whole concept of spectator sports in this country is pretty much nothing but a joke. IMO, fans place far too much value on what amounts to a trained circus act. I respect athletic accomplishments but I don't think anyone deserves to make millions based on athletic performance. Same goes for the people who promote and televise these events. The fact that the NBA keeps a bunch of guys too busy to pursue their criminal careers full-time is worth something to our culture, but not worth nearly as much as fans are willing to pay. I'd love to see people boycott these sporting events until the ticket prices and salaries more realistically reflect their value. No way should a professional basketball player or football player make more than a firefighter, trash collector, mail carrier, or teacher. Walt I wholly agree. The fact that the NBA keeps a bunch of guys too busy to pursue their criminal careers full-time ... Bahahahaha. Right, the guy feeding the homeless at the shelter is a schuck; the guy dunking a ball or hitting a little ball 300 yards into a cup with the fewest strokes is what's worth celebrating. It's the foundation of this country to celebrate the wrong people for the wrong things, and then we create people like Michale Jackson, OJ, and a myriad of others and wonder why. The emphasis of our priorities is wayyyyy out of whack.

At what point? The point of this thread was whether racism was present in the giving of MVP to Nash. My question was when was the last time a white guy received the MVP. Of course there could be racism even if it was 50 yeards ago when a white guy won, but I was just curious when that was. As I wrote before, worst to first in 1 year, Nash was the only important addition, I think it's warranted.

If you are going to devote all of your online threads to fighting evil American fascists, you ought to at least learn how to spell it. "all" ... ah yes, American conservatism at its finest. All,none, never, always as a staple of the American conservative diet. As for missing a letter in that word, of all the times I have spelled, "Fascism," find another that is misspelled. Must suck to have no argument against it and to have to resort to looking for spelling errors thru other than ignorance for defense of it.

Enjoy your mirror time with that. Actually, you did not post.

A lot of it is show of force, or, as it would be technically entitled, ..... Imperialism. Since there is no more need for the Cold War show of force, we should close some bases.

Without researching the total proposition of Congress, that's plausable considering there will be fewer bases with which to work. There has to be some proportion between base closures and personnel reduction...... I agree.

The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. I realize, of course, that your life is filled with fascist demons: fascist cops, fascist corporations, fascist Presidents, fascist CEO's, and your latest - fiscal fascists. So I understand that in your world, there are fascists hiding in every corner. Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. Oh geez, if you wrote it then it must be true. I have only addressed the fiscal Fascsim that is very present in the US today, I have never addressed the rest of the elements of Fascism. I will start a thread where we can discuss that and only that. BTW, the site I posted detailed elements of Fascism other than just the fiscal aspect that could easily be paralleled with the US. Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. That's it, post sarcasm whenever you get stuck - I expect it from many. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Cutbacks are cutbacks. Something has to give, whether it be people, machines, bases, whatever. I worked for Douglas/Boening during the latter part of the Clinton Admin - I worked on the Apache Longbow, the primary weapon over there now, so again, I don't see your point that Clinton desicrated the military.

Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. Right, but you made inferrences that I was screaming about it and shouldn't post this thread. Maybe some on here scream about it, but not me. I have a bigger issue with the distribution of wealth the way it is, which lends to the argument of Fascism which no one has even tried to refute. The sole purpose of this thread was to indicate that: A. The base closures of the 90's were initiated by Congress, signed by Clinton. Who controlled the House and Senate during the 90's during the 4 sessions? B. Clinton was awarded blame for the closiures when he was a part of them, but not solely responsible. Clinton signed NAFTA after Bush 1 initiated it - is that all his doing/fault too? Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. So was it the same in the 90's when Congress initiated the base closures and Clinton signed it.... a step in the right direction? Or no, because you dislike Clinton, therefore offload the blame? The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Bush can't reduce the size of the military due to his hobby in the Middle East. Again, did Congress write and Clinton sign the reduction of force? Also, what was the harm done to the military's reduction on force? I was in the Air Force in the early 80's and there was a program called, "Palace Chase" that allowed full-timers to turn their active duty time into reserve time..... that was during the Reagan Admin.

I don't scream about gov spending. Furthermore, look at the title to the thread

Military bases are not welfare. They should be founded upon military necessity, not in providing a government financial windfall for towns.Total defense savings, combined with those anticipated by realigning U.S. forces worldwide, would be $6.7 billion a year and $64.2 billion after costs over 20 years, the Pentagon said.Do you want to cut costs or not?Coinciding with the domestic base-closing process, the Pentagon is working on plans to shift roughly 70,000 troops stationed abroad, primarily in Europe but also from South Korea, back to domestic U.S. bases.As it should be. Those nations should support their own self defense, instead of relying upon America to do it for them. Oh boy, more fascists! If you don't have the capacity to refute the notion that the US is Fascist, at least have the decency not to attempt a misdirection. If you look at the thread title, you will see that I'm drawing a parody between the rhetoric about all base closures of the 90's were all Clinton's fault/doing versus the current proposals being Bush's doing/fault. These things almost always start in Congress and get signed by the pres., so I thought it was ignorant of people to blame Clinton for military cutbacks then and who will they blame now???????

If a person isn't motivated enough to cut-n-paste the URL - they aren't motivated enough to read the article

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050513/pl_nm/arms_usa_bases_closing_dc

That's funny shit, you "bastard!!!" Jerky boys part 5

Funny how the flag-wavers can't refute contemporary American Fasism, not that this topic has anything to do with Fascsim, but they just joke about it. One word..... Acquiescense