Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-05 20:54:29

#401

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6429|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

It is, mostly.
Says the guy whose concept of service is how efficiently his next meal gets put in front of him...
LOL whatever you say.

Still, I'm a taxpayer, whereas you're a tax sponge.

Last time I checked, I paid a pretty hefty tax bill. And I worked well over 40 hours a week for my paycheck...which is quite a bit less than I would get paid for comparable work in the private sector. Pretty sure that's not "sponging".

Now, if you're referring to the civil service, you may very well have a point...

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-11-06 00:40:43

#402

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

Military is the civil service.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-11-06 05:40:05

#403

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6429|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Military is the civil service.

Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-11-06 09:19:05

#404

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6488

excellent curtis, as ever.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2 … am_on.html

The protest movement that began with Occupy Wall Street is very clear about what it is against - an international capitalism that is cruel, unfair and untenable. But the movement refuses to say what it is for. Much of this refusal comes from a belief that modern capitalist society is extremely skilful at co-opting dissent and that any discussion with the media is the first step in being reabsorbed into 'the system'.

It also has the added benefit of irritating mainstream journalists and commentators.

I want to tell an odd, romantic, but ultimately very sad story that shows where this fear of possession on the left comes from. It is set during last the time that British, European and American students tried to be a vanguard for revolution. It shows how that fear can easily lead to a pessimistic belief that all one's dreams for a better future are just illusions - and how that pessimism then came to paralyse the left in Britain throughout the eighties and nineties.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-11-07 00:10:38

#405

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Military is the civil service.
Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.

And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-11-07 00:11:58

#406

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6734

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Military is the civil service.
Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.
And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?

depends on your MOS

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2011-11-07 06:27:38

#407

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5376|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Military is the civil service.
Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.
And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?

Pretty much all.

"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

2011-11-07 06:31:26

#408

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6734

Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.
And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Pretty much all.

not if you're an admin pog XD

but if youre mos is deployable, you'd pretty much get deployed.

2011-11-07 16:14:51

#409

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6429|'Murka

Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Pretty much all.
not if you're an admin pog XD

but if youre mos is deployable, you'd pretty much get deployed.

There aren't any MOSs/AFSCs that aren't deployable. At least not any that I've run into in the past 16+ years. I've even met a handful of civvies who have deployed.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-11-07 16:24:49

#410

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6732|US

I know one guy in the Army NG who does not deploy. His unit is a homeland NBCR response team.
It's pretty darn rare though.

2011-11-07 16:28:37

#411

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5376|London, England

RAIMIUS wrote:
I know one guy in the Army NG who does not deploy. His unit is a homeland NBCR response team.
It's pretty darn rare though.

You could do what 1/2 of the females in my unit did and find out you're pregnant two weeks before you're supposed to deploy

"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

2011-11-07 16:48:13

#412

NeXuS: Shock it till ya know it; +375|6359|Atlanta, Georgia

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Military is the civil service.
Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.
And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?

Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.

2011-11-07 17:06:09

#413

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5376|London, England

NeXuS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.
And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.

We are, of course, not counting the Chair Farce or Swabbies as military men. They get lumped in with the pregnant Army females.

"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

2011-11-07 20:03:44

#414

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6429|'Murka

Jay wrote:
NeXuS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.
We are, of course, not counting the Chair Farce or Swabbies as military men. They get lumped in with the pregnant Army females.

Right. Because no Air Force or Navy members have been wounded or killed in the past ten years.

Like on Chinooks that get shot down or anything.

RAIMIUS wrote:
I know one guy in the Army NG who does not deploy. His unit is a homeland NBCR response team.
It's pretty darn rare though.

But his MOS could deploy (probably chem? 74 series, IIRC). That was the point.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-11-07 20:08:18

#415

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5719|College Park, MD

lol I've never seen Chair "Farce" before

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-11-08 00:31:19

#416

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

NeXuS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Wrong. Civil service is the civilian employees of the government.
And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.

I mean actually get close to it, not might possibly hypothetically.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-11-08 01:04:39

#417

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6166|'straya

Jay wrote:
NeXuS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.
We are, of course, not counting the Chair Farce or Swabbies as military men. They get lumped in with the pregnant Army females.

Lol righto RAMBO

2011-11-08 02:45:25

#418

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6429|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
NeXuS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.
I mean actually get close to it, not might possibly hypothetically.

Here's an article answering the question from 2005. Now extrapolate the progression for six more years and think about areas beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

955,609 (about 36%) of our total Active Duty/Reserve/National Guard forces of 2,656,300 have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan during this period. 651,622 (24.5%) have one deployment during this period, and 303,987 (11.4%) have deployed more than once.

For active duty, 708,428 (48.2%) of the force has deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. 494,482 (33.6%) have deployed once, while 213.946 (14.6%) have deployed more than once.

For the National Guard and Reserves, 247,181 (20.8%) have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. 157,140 (13.3%) have one deployment and 90,041 (7.5%) have multiple deployments.

A Little Historical Perspective

DoD estimates that about 31 percent (about 1,790,000) active duty members served in the combat theator during the Korean War, from 1950 to 1953.

About 3,400,000 military members (about 39 percent of active duty) served in Soutyheast Asia during the Vietnam War, from 1955 to 1975.

Or, I can go ahead and do the math for you: in four years, roughly half the active duty force had deployed, at one time or another, to Iraq or Afghanistan. Now move forward six years. What do you think the numbers are? Much, much higher than half. How many have been around at least (inbound) indirect fire? Pretty much every one of them.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-11-08 03:55:51

#419

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

Again, actually got close to combat, not simply deployed overseas.

Even then the highest recent figure is 36%, 21% for reserves, how many of them actually got close to combat?
If the support/combat ratio is somewhere between 1:2.5 and 1:7 then its somewhere between 4 and 14%.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-11-08 04:09:09

#420

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6734

Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, actually got close to combat, not simply deployed overseas.

Even then the highest recent figure is 36%, 21% for reserves, how many of them actually got close to combat?
If the support/combat ratio is somewhere between 1:2.5 and 1:7 then its somewhere between 4 and 14%.

Even pogs like jay go outside the wire quite a bit.

2011-11-08 05:17:29

#421

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5376|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
NeXuS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.
I mean actually get close to it, not might possibly hypothetically.

Why does that matter in the slightest? The guy working in the supply depot that makes sure the front line troops get fed, clothed, and have enough ammunition is just as important as the man in the foxhole. This isn't Napoleonic warfare where 95% of the troops serve in line regiments. What a ridiculous argument.

"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

2011-11-08 10:10:51

#422

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6429|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, actually got close to combat, not simply deployed overseas.

Even then the highest recent figure is 36%, 21% for reserves, how many of them actually got close to combat?
If the support/combat ratio is somewhere between 1:2.5 and 1:7 then its somewhere between 4 and 14%.

Read the last sentence of the post you responded to.

Then facepalm yourself.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-11-08 18:02:51

#423

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6397|MN

Jay wrote:
NeXuS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

And how many people in 'the military' ever get close to combat.
Is it 1:100?
Hell (almost) everyone has the chance to see combat. You could be on a fob and get mortared and over run with taliban and most wouldnt think that it would happen on their fob. I just had a sgt tell me of an R&R fob that got over run by over 100 taliban. Their were 40 there at the time. So really it all depends on the circumstance.
We are, of course, not counting the Chair Farce or Swabbies as military men. They get lumped in with the pregnant Army females.

Bitch Please! I take offense to that. Navy sub force FTW. Former MT2 here.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2011-11-08 18:12:04

#424

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5603

Lowing being a helicopter repairman. Jay going to school on a military scholarship. FEOS still working the in the air force...

Why are the people most in favor of small government on this forum the same ones that rely the most on the government funded military industrial complex? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Dil may be trolling but I agree that our military is as much a jobs program as it a military.

2011-11-08 20:23:43

#425

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6429|'Murka

Macbeth wrote:
Lowing being a helicopter repairman. Jay going to school on a military scholarship. FEOS still working the in the air force...

Why are the people most in favor of small government on this forum the same ones that rely the most on the government funded military industrial complex? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Dil may be trolling but I agree that our military is as much a jobs program as it a military.

Small government is about the government doing what it is supposed to do, as stated in the Constitution, vice what social scientists think it should do, via expansionist policies. One of the few things expressly stated as a role of the federal government is national defense.

There's no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. At least, not if one has a clue what small government means and what the Constitution actually says. When you swear an oath to give your life to defend something, you tend to pay attention to what that thing is.

Not that I would expect you to have a clue about anything like that.

So troll harder.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Occupy Wall Street

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

NeXuS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

NeXuS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

NeXuS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

NeXuS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

NeXuS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

NeXuS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

NeXuS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Board footer