Nitrox

Are you retarded, Bill? because you certainly sound like it when you spew your libertarian nonsense. I am not for big or small government, I am for the government necessary to do the job properly. Sometimes, in some sectors, significant government intervention is absolutely necessary. Somewhere, at some other time, no so much. If you don't like the social contract as interpreted in your region, you can move to an unincorporated area far away from infrastructure and communities that expect basic services like fire protection. There are still plenty of isolated places in North America and you won't be mooching off services provided by our tax dollars.

Never seen such a whiny, needy, bitch as j_b in all my life. For fucks sake, you're an embarrassment.

Pull up your big boy pants and quit whining.

I like it, a voluntary tax. I bet a lot more people pay the $75 after hearing the story though. I bet after the homeowner takes Obion county to court everyone's property taxes go up regardless of who wins.

A speeding ticket in California is more like $300. I'd rather get busted with weed. Imagine how much the state would save if they legalized and taxed it. Illegal plants, what brilliance!

Its both funny and disingenuous to see you try to act as though you suddenly care about soldiers or servicemen. You are only defending this person person because anything less puts the ACLU in the light of an opportunistic selfserving organization that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars forcing the Airforce to take back an unfit officer. Its obvious this case was never about Maj Witt, as you said. Just because someone is a decorated serviceman doesn't mean they are less of a shitbird. I served with a soldier that received a few decorations right before he was sentenced to five years in a military prison for stealing from fellow soldiers. While in the service I watched soldiers put out for DADT, and while I don't agree with DADT in principle I never saw anyone get kicked out for just being gay. The soldiers I saw get the boot were FTA'ing druggy idiots who also like to advertise they were also gay. While DADT was used they were clearly in need of getting discharged regardless of their sexual orientation. A friend of mine is a retired Marine, we talked about this a few times and he mentioned he chapter'd out a Marine for DADT. Much like the instances I saw, the Marine in question was the same type of druggy shithead who tried to blow his roommate when he thought he was passed out. Being gay was the least of his problems. In the context of this case, IIRC I believe that Maj Witt concealed the nature of her affairs and it wasn't until the ACLU case that she finally admitted she had been involved with the spouses of fellow airmen. Like the instances I witnessed, Maj Witt also had the tell tail personal problems that initiated her inevitable discharge. She was an officer and as such is/was held to a higher standard than some dumb 19yo enlisted kid. She knew better and still acted counter to the UCMJ that she agreed to abide by when she was voluntarily sworn in as an officer. There are a few members here that have been through divorce as a result of a spouse's infidelity and I'm sure they can attest to how fucked up it is. Imagine then that the involved party is your boss, coworker, or subordinate and that you can't fire the person or quit your job to escape. There is a damn good reason why Adultery is taken pretty seriously in the military. The fact that it happens frequently has little bearing on how disruptive to a military command and how seriously it is taken when it can be proved. DADT just happened to be the easiest means to get Witt out, and a copout by her command (IMO). Witt was and is a shitbird, congrats to the ACLU for forcing the Airforce to take her back. Also funny how silent Barry is on this issue. No real surprise to either though.

He got you to listen to him, whose the real moron?

They turned him into batman?

Ever the one dimensional excuse maker, at least you're consistent.

Strange bit of narcissism considering it was "your side" that enacted DADT and "your side" that hasn't done anything legislatively to stop it. And to think, I was never in favor of DADT. I guess I've really lost on this one.

She admitted to it under oath, the AF doesn't need to prove anything. She either faces adultery or perjury. The military usually prosecute adultery under UCMJ with non judiciary punishment. However, in this case it'd be multiple counts so Maj Witt would more likely be facing Conduct Unbecoming. Its funny how the ACLU glommed onto this shitbird just so they could get a crack at DADT, they certainly didn't pick the exemplary officer in the AF. Probably because an exemplary officer wouldn't be trying to nail the spouses of other soldiers/officers. Witt shouldn't have been an AF officer in the first place, this long drawn out court battle seems to highlight that.

Here is a link to some of the back story: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/opening-arguments-testimony-heard-in-margaret-witt-dadt-trial.html I agree with the judge, the AF should reinstate Witt as an officer...and then the AF should prosecute her under the UCMJ for adultery (which she admitted to under oath). She was, and is, unfit to be an officer in the USAF for a lot reasons, least of which was her sexual orientation. I think booting her for DADT was a cop out by command because they didn't want to embarrass other officers whose spouses had affairs with her. She deserved to go but not for DADT.

I thought the world liked Barry? Huh, maybe another apology will do the trick.

They're still not going to take you though because of your age.

From my limited experience, your mom.

I used the public school spelling so you'd felt more comfortable while you masturbated.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci0pPDtZj8U

You care.

I have some boots listed for sale if you run out of your own to putting them in your mouth.

This thread took a turn for the awesome.

Funny, I was thinking she sounded more like j_b Not enough hail damage on her ass to be j_b.

I'm out for the evening, have a nice night fellas.

Your own link supports what I said. Arggghh...this is like talking, err, typing, to a brick wall. "In addition to these sources, the department aggressively pursues other sources of funding revenue" does not mean it is the primary means of funding. It means exactly what it says: that they also pursue other forms of funding in addition to being financed by our tax dollars. How can you possibly NOT understand that? I never said they didn't also use those means, but you flat out said most departments are primarily internally funded, and they are not. You have yet to provide anything that contradicts what I said. Your own sources support my position. Here is what you originally latched onto because you can't seam to wrap your head around exactly how much money PD's generate (and contribute to the General Fund which intern pays their budget in addition to other sources). The context of the conversation is essential services verses nonessential services (like lottery, liquor, and IMO ferries). PD's were brought up but as I said they largely (read: most) support themselves. I even showed that some departments are used to help cure state deficits (VSP) which sure would indicate the department was creating a large revenue.

Funny, you lecture reading comprehension but then turn around fail yourself. I never said they generated 2.2B with written tickets, just that they were "digging the state out of a 2.2b deficit with written tickets". It emphasizes the revenue generating potential of large departments that the state would call on the department in such a manner. Obviously its a single example (which you seam to like) but still the norm in states like OR and WA. Touche, you got me, "digging out" indeed...the same way one could dig our new highway 99 under-city tunnel with a little kid's beach sand shovel and some day complete it. The point is you were completely and totally incorrect with your assertion, and despite both common sense and evidence to the contrary you keep going. This came right out of the link you provided, however, you edited out most of the paragraph. Your own link supports what I said.