first statement is insensitive and stupidunnamednewbie13 wrote:
"I killed them in the army, I don't need to meet them!"
"You racist prick!"
Both statements are stupid.
second statement is justified offense.
second statement is justified offense.
But technically incorrect. "Bigot" would have been accurate.
Considering Islam is not a race, why do people say racist?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
first statement is insensitive and stupidunnamednewbie13 wrote:
"I killed them in the army, I don't need to meet them!"
"You racist prick!"
Both statements are stupid.
second statement is justified offense.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
What do you say about the people who did sign up knowing they'd be going to Iraq after it was clearly a Bush/Cheney adventure and had nothing to do with 'defending freedom'?Jay wrote:
When I joined, Clinton was president, 9/11 was a year away, and the biggest thing going on was Kosovo. Yes, I thought I would serve in a defensive role, or on a humanitarian mission. I did not expect to go to war with Iraq, and I was, and still am, opposed to that invasion. To somehow blame me for being sent overseas is what I find to be abject stupidity on the part of certain forum members. Like seriously, seriously, stupid and just petty in the worst possible way. It doesn't make me look bad, it makes them look bad for holding the opinions they do. But, these are people that respect nothing and do nothing that isn't completely self-serving so why should I expect otherwise? Whatever.
I think its one thing to show respect for people who volunteered for national service of some kind, somewhat different when it was simply one of a series of jobs on a planned career path.
Fuck Israel
I thought they were morons, but there's two sides to every argument, isn't there? At the time, people thought that there were indeed WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein posed a real danger to America and our allies. Most of them signed up to avenge 9/11, and at the time, Afghanistan was the big one. The Iraq invasion came towards the end of my enlistment, and I had the pleasure of having my contract involuntarily extended so I could participate in the cleanup. Yay me.Dilbert_X wrote:
What do you say about the people who did sign up knowing they'd be going to Iraq after it was clearly a Bush/Cheney adventure and had nothing to do with 'defending freedom'?Jay wrote:
When I joined, Clinton was president, 9/11 was a year away, and the biggest thing going on was Kosovo. Yes, I thought I would serve in a defensive role, or on a humanitarian mission. I did not expect to go to war with Iraq, and I was, and still am, opposed to that invasion. To somehow blame me for being sent overseas is what I find to be abject stupidity on the part of certain forum members. Like seriously, seriously, stupid and just petty in the worst possible way. It doesn't make me look bad, it makes them look bad for holding the opinions they do. But, these are people that respect nothing and do nothing that isn't completely self-serving so why should I expect otherwise? Whatever.
I think its one thing to show respect for people who volunteered for national service of some kind, somewhat different when it was simply one of a series of jobs on a planned career path.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ask your teacher as she tucks you in tonight.War Man wrote:
Considering Islam is not a race, why do people say racist?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
first statement is insensitive and stupidunnamednewbie13 wrote:
"I killed them in the army, I don't need to meet them!"
"You racist prick!"
Both statements are stupid.
second statement is justified offense.
I don't get tucked in, fuck off and give a proper answer.AussieReaper wrote:
Ask your teacher as she tucks you in tonight.War Man wrote:
Considering Islam is not a race, why do people say racist?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
first statement is insensitive and stupid
second statement is justified offense.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
it's just semantics, war man. 'racism' may be technically incorrect, but it's quite obviously just a shorthand in everyday conversational speech, meaning 'bigot' or 'one who commits a hate-crime / subscribes to a hateful ideology'. what do you want him to say? "you're a faithist prick"? it doesn't really matter, does it. his meaning and anger are clear - and conveying meaning is all that language is meant to do. it's not like him calling the bigoted veteran a "racist" was confusing.War Man wrote:
I don't get tucked in, fuck off and give a proper answer.AussieReaper wrote:
Ask your teacher as she tucks you in tonight.War Man wrote:
Considering Islam is not a race, why do people say racist?
Like I said before, "bigot" would do fine. Much better than "you don't like women/octogenarians/gays/Canadians/alcoholics/Mormons/Wiccans/Catholics/Scientologists/Baptists/etc.? What are you, a racist?" I know it's just semantics, but it's a bit that gets on my nerves. Even if the etymology is a bit specific for it to be a catch-all, it's already established as such and still better than "racist."Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's just semantics, war man. 'racism' may be technically incorrect, but it's quite obviously just a shorthand in everyday conversational speech, meaning 'bigot' or 'one who commits a hate-crime / subscribes to a hateful ideology'. what do you want him to say? "you're a faithist prick"? it doesn't really matter, does it. his meaning and anger are clear - and conveying meaning is all that language is meant to do. it's not like him calling the bigoted veteran a "racist" was confusing.War Man wrote:
I don't get tucked in, fuck off and give a proper answer.AussieReaper wrote:
Ask your teacher as she tucks you in tonight.
I wonder what "greeting a prison official" entails in Russia.13/f/taiwan wrote:
stay classy russiaThe penal colony opposed her request, saying she had failed to "repent" and had received reprimands for failing to greet a prison official while she was in hospital and refusing to go for a walk at a Moscow jail.
Depends on the job you're specifically aiming for.-Whiteroom- wrote:
To be honest, who thinks they are joining the American military in a defensive role?
forgive an indignant kid in a moment of street-rage for not carefully choosing his exact terminology. jesus fucking christ. anal retard.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Like I said before, "bigot" would do fine. Much better than "you don't like women/octogenarians/gays/Canadians/alcoholics/Mormons/Wiccans/Catholics/Scientologists/Baptists/etc.? What are you, a racist?" I know it's just semantics, but it's a bit that gets on my nerves. Even if the etymology is a bit specific for it to be a catch-all, it's already established as such and still better than "racist."Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's just semantics, war man. 'racism' may be technically incorrect, but it's quite obviously just a shorthand in everyday conversational speech, meaning 'bigot' or 'one who commits a hate-crime / subscribes to a hateful ideology'. what do you want him to say? "you're a faithist prick"? it doesn't really matter, does it. his meaning and anger are clear - and conveying meaning is all that language is meant to do. it's not like him calling the bigoted veteran a "racist" was confusing.War Man wrote:
I don't get tucked in, fuck off and give a proper answer.
He has the right to be indignant and the right to abuse the language in a far less severe fashion than how many Americans habitually abuse proper structure. But I also have the right to be annoyed when a pet peeve of mine is tripped; and one I've had long established. "You don't like my religion? You racist."
(even if there's a good chance that he is)
(even if there's a good chance that he is)
to be honest the guy said he "killed those in the desert", which could equally apply to arabs/brown skinned people as much as it applies to muslims. petty semantic differences aside, i think we can all agree that veteran is a fine and upstanding example of those "who do public service" and seek the noble and lofty aims of "defending the nation".
Eh, he looked at a sign that said "meet a Muslim person" and said "I killed them when I was in the Army, I don't need to meet them." But yes, he is a douche.
Glad to see all the sacrifice our soldiers made over there is paying off so well. Freedom of speech and all.
For all we know, that guy could be just talking shit and isn't a soldier, possibly a wannabe soldier that didn't volunteer or make it.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
to be honest the guy said he "killed those in the desert", which could equally apply to arabs/brown skinned people as much as it applies to muslims. petty semantic differences aside, i think we can all agree that veteran is a fine and upstanding example of those "who do public service" and seek the noble and lofty aims of "defending the nation".
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
How does someone become a wannabe soldier? They take anyone. They have lower recruiting standards than McDonalds.
ever heard of posers? people too pussy to join the military yet make up all these stories that they served.Macbeth wrote:
How does someone become a wannabe soldier? They take anyone. They have lower recruiting standards than McDonalds.
It's not that easy to join the military anymore macb, they just don't accept any dickhead like they used to and up the standards due to A. iraq and a-stan is dying down, B. the economy is in the shitter.
yeah, the economy being down the shitter is really pinching the military, what with its 60%+ share of the federal budget and all. i'm sure recruitment is just terrible. more chance getting a job at google.Cybargs wrote:
ever heard of posers? people too pussy to join the military yet make up all these stories that they served.Macbeth wrote:
How does someone become a wannabe soldier? They take anyone. They have lower recruiting standards than McDonalds.
It's not that easy to join the military anymore macb, they just don't accept any dickhead like they used to and up the standards due to A. iraq and a-stan is dying down, B. the economy is in the shitter.
They restricted recruitment a lot more. Did you not here about the sequestration? Not saying the budget isn't bloated, but they aren't exactly giving gangbanger ramirez and hill billy ricky bobby waivers anymore so they can shoot at mooslims. Poolee waiting period is about 1 year before they can ship to boot camp as well. It's just theres a larger influx of recruits than people they need.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah, the economy being down the shitter is really pinching the military, what with its 60%+ share of the federal budget and all. i'm sure recruitment is just terrible. more chance getting a job at google.Cybargs wrote:
ever heard of posers? people too pussy to join the military yet make up all these stories that they served.Macbeth wrote:
How does someone become a wannabe soldier? They take anyone. They have lower recruiting standards than McDonalds.
It's not that easy to join the military anymore macb, they just don't accept any dickhead like they used to and up the standards due to A. iraq and a-stan is dying down, B. the economy is in the shitter.
that doesn't make the entry requirements anything more really than 'barely sapient'.
Words, its really important you use them properly.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah, the economy being down the shitter is really pinching the military, what with its 60%+ share of the federal budget and all. i'm sure recruitment is just terrible. more chance getting a job at google.
Fuck Israel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 … 77836.html
CINCINNATI — A student at an all-male parochial high school pulled out a gun in a classroom Monday morning and shot himself in an apparent suicide attempt, police said.
wtf
CINCINNATI — A student at an all-male parochial high school pulled out a gun in a classroom Monday morning and shot himself in an apparent suicide attempt, police said.
wtf
