tvashtarkatena

"The CF-18, build for the Canadian Air Force by the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, is differentiated from the F-18 via the addition of a mid-section..."

Seems to this country boy that targeting middle class workers is a shitheel's game in a society with an already dire wealth concentration problem. Tax the rich it's really not that hard. Jayb's suggestion of turning each middle class job into 2 below poverty line jobs is par for a movement that favors cruelty and punishment over kindness and incentive. Gotta wonder about a movement bent on destroying the middle class and the liberal values that created it. Seems like we need to start dealing with this, our greatest threat to national security, with a more appropriately harsher response.

Give me another month and i could have a thousand ijits dogpiling on my next sig.

From esprit de corps to Esprit decor in a single stroke of a pen.

Both you and Nitrox share the trailer trash's way of agreeing with me on an issue.

It's a good thing he's suddenly no longer worried about marines winding up at Bethesday 'without legs' because they were 'distracted' by some sushing tush. Certainly no hyberbole there, boyz. At least he knows how to follow orders.

Oh noes!

I know, right?

I only used the M60 cuz, like, my nephew was an M60 machine gunner in the regular army a mere 8 years back...BUT WE NOW KNOW THAT'S GOTTA BE A FUCKING LIE.

Yes folks, the M60 IS a machine gun, it IS still in service, and the ever-so-slightly reworded (and sexed up with kewl, Hot-off-the-mess-line miljarg!) Wiki entry IS as true as any other...all at the same time! No Innernutz LOLcat Fight required! If it helps maintain focus on the topic, however, simply substitute the term "Johnny 7 OMA" for "M60" as needed.

I spoke to my friend's son recently, who was on leave with the Navy. It was interesting to get his view of things. He spend the last year on ships with hundreds of Marines in the Gulf. His take was that basically nobody cares except the politicians and the upper brass who need to be politically sensitive. The guys on the ships have had it figured out for decades. The saying is "Queer on the pier but no one is gay when we're underway" - which of course they all just laugh at. And the marines were lining up to go see "Tina" - a Navy guy who loved to sing Tina Turner songs, as he had a side business keeping the troops in good morale. As always in regard to social change, Congress was behind the curve in public opinion and saw the changes coming. "Hey, soldier, would you rather have a) a gay person or b) no person on that M60?" Even the most strident gaytred fails this quiz.

No poll was taken among the rank and file military at the time of DADT, so the data as to how folks in that organization felt about it isn't doesn't exist. I don't remember any resignations of any rank that would really matter. I would wager that the reaction in the military matched societal attitudes of the day: mixed.

Gettin colder!

riveting!

Saw the total eclipse for the few seconds the clouds parted for it.

Prior to DADT homosexuals were barred from military service. Interestingly, Republicans wrote DADT and Clinton signed it into law. However, in 1993 Democrats had a majority in the house and senate. Its fun to watch each side (Democrats and Republicans) blame the other for DADT when it's viewed negatively but take credit when discussing how DADT allowed gays to actually serve. DADT was a compromise - a backlash to Clinton's first salvo in office - to allow gays to serve unrestricted, which met with such fierce REPUBLICAN backlash that DADT, a compromise, was struck. since then, the Rfucks have fought against equal protection under the law for gays at every step, but society at large has passed their medieval sensibilities by. DADT a decade and a half and two wars later stands as a glaring insult to everyone in uniform - what was a compromise then is now a gangrenous vestigial remnant of that time's bigotry and our time's resurgence of the same. Anyone who argues that the anti-gay movement doesn't find its bosom in the Party of Reagan is either a fucking moron or a liar.

Condolences. What a waste.

Me girl enjoys rollin wit a fat fook as well!

FYI: Two types of taxes are currently charged for advertising: state sales tax at the time of sale and state and federal income tax when revenue from advertising sold is reported.

One word: Netflix.

It already is.

Aren't nearly all news media funded by advertising? Ban that, and you've got wholly owned corporate media and government run media. Hmmmm...... You can always turn Little Johnny's fucking PC/TV off. Now there's a thought.

The ACLU did tackle Citizens United: we argued in favor of that non-profit's right to free speech. That the Supreme Court extended that ruling to lift restrictions on corporate contributions to uncoordinated campaigns was, of course, far outside the ACLU's limited 1st amendment agenda. The organization is still discussing its policy on contributions as speech in light of the new ruling. The ACLU is currently focused (and fully booked up - thank you JayB for actually recognizing real world constraints for once) on drug policy reform, privacy, equal protection for committed couples, and several other issues more core to a human rights focus than property rights.

Bitchez.

As far as I know, no policy or press releases have been issued on this issue from the ACLU. The ACLU has weighed in on the Health Care Bill's restrictions on abortion and funding of abstinence-only education. Generally, there are other groups that are more on top of property rights issues in general and the commerce clause in particular. The ACLU's primary agenda focus lies elsewhere.