remember when people used to respect veterans
me either
me either
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
There are still poor people in wealthy neighborhoods. Still people without anything else better to do living in nice places.Cybargs wrote:
Yeah I guess those middle class white kids can't have any other opportunitiesMacbeth wrote:
The military is basically a jobs program meant for people who don't have any other opportunities in life. So I guess putting money into it is sort of like passing a stimulus.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
How Mr. Romney Would Force-Feed the Pentagon
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/ … ary-today/
I'm just trolling. I should get to work. Ignore me.
Ok, I'm done.
A moderator is supposed to be that way, stay quiet and let the politicians do the talking to eachother. While we're at it, woman moderators did plenty of having things slip, especially with Obama.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ha. haha. hahahahaha
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
e: Also, no. This guy let so much slip. Whatever happened to answering the god-damned question and not overrunning your allotted time?
.... You know, if you are gonna be exaggerating, at least be a little bit more realistic, just a tad more.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think our naval warplanes need bayonets so they can stab helicopters. Also, putting bayonets on our smaller vessels could make them useful for ramming Chinese cargo ships.
I have to admit though, the idea of airborne horses in power armor is awesome. We could give our guys maces and swords and shit and drop them over Iran too.
For example, having airplanes stabbing helicopters would require a collision, collision removes both aircraft and pilots. At least with a bayonet charge, the charger has a chance to actually survive and continue stabbing, aircraft wouldn't be reusable in such a "bayonet charge"
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
We're adding two more aircraft carriers to make up for any that are retired.War Man wrote:
Actually we are going to being retiring at least 1 aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. Which needs to go anyway. Possibly retiring 2 more carriers.ROGUEDD wrote:
The United States of America has the largest navy in the world, with a battle fleet tonnage that is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. It consists of 287 ships, 11 of which are nuclear powered supercarriers that have no equal. Also, the navy gets the most advanced technology we have to offer well before the other branches. Any notion that our navy is anything less the the largest of its kind and most effective method of projecting force anywhere on the globe at the drop of a hat is ridiculous.
Now explain how we need to throw more money at it.
The navy has a railgun, your argument is invalid.War Man wrote:
My reason is simple, the future is uncertain, and history constantly teaches us the lesson to always stay LEAGUES ahead of other nations and leave no opportunity to catch up. I do agree we need to get rid of almost all overseas military bases, starting with ones in Western Europe. We can easily create new bases on those areas if necessary compared to regaining lost military strength if we were to downsize our military.And the military wants more toysunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Probably why presidents are surrounded by military advisors.
E: Fuck, it's late. Good night and fuck off.
Last edited by ROGUEDD (2012-10-23 00:19:48)
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Moderators are also supposed to keep subject matter on track, keep dirty debate in check, prevent both parties from talking over one another and stop either side from overrunning their allotted time on an issue. That moderator was a human marshmallow.War Man wrote:
A moderator is supposed to be that way, stay quiet and let the politicians do the talking to eachother. While we're at it, woman moderators did plenty of having things slip, especially with Obama.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
e: Also, no. This guy let so much slip. Whatever happened to answering the god-damned question and not overrunning your allotted time?
...War Man wrote:
.... You know, if you are gonna be exaggerating, at least be a little bit more realistic, just a tad more.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think our naval warplanes need bayonets so they can stab helicopters. Also, putting bayonets on our smaller vessels could make them useful for ramming Chinese cargo ships.
I have to admit though, the idea of airborne horses in power armor is awesome. We could give our guys maces and swords and shit and drop them over Iran too.
For example, having airplanes stabbing helicopters would require a collision, collision removes both aircraft and pilots. At least with a bayonet charge, the charger has a chance to actually survive and continue stabbing, aircraft wouldn't be reusable in such a "bayonet charge"
1+ possibly 2 more = 3, replacing 3 with 2?ROGUEDD wrote:
We're adding two more aircraft carriers to make up for any that are retired.War Man wrote:
Actually we are going to being retiring at least 1 aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. Which needs to go anyway. Possibly retiring 2 more carriers.ROGUEDD wrote:
The United States of America has the largest navy in the world, with a battle fleet tonnage that is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. It consists of 287 ships, 11 of which are nuclear powered supercarriers that have no equal. Also, the navy gets the most advanced technology we have to offer well before the other branches. Any notion that our navy is anything less the the largest of its kind and most effective method of projecting force anywhere on the globe at the drop of a hat is ridiculous.
Now explain how we need to throw more money at it.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
War Man wrote:
While we're at it, woman moderators did plenty of having things slip, especially with Obama.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Both sides were being dirty anyway, subject matter shouldn't be as much of a problem, some issues require more talking than they are granted.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Moderators are also supposed to keep subject matter on track, keep dirty debate in check, prevent both parties from talking over one another and stop either side from overrunning their allotted time on an issue. That moderator was a human marshmallow.War Man wrote:
A moderator is supposed to be that way, stay quiet and let the politicians do the talking to eachother. While we're at it, woman moderators did plenty of having things slip, especially with Obama.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
e: Also, no. This guy let so much slip. Whatever happened to answering the god-damned question and not overrunning your allotted time?
You are right about the talking over crap, but if he did, it'd be in Romney's favor. Obama did all the talking over the other person. As for going over their alotted time, this moderator actually did a decent job, Obama only got 30-40 more than Romney, unlike the previous debates where Obama and Biden got 1-3 more minutes.
modedit: fixed incorrect name in quote -un13
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2012-10-23 03:01:22)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
America is going to become a bankrupt racist-supremacist apartheid theocracy populated by immgrants at war with every culture it has contact with.Ty wrote:
What the fuck does "I want the US to stand culturally with Israel" mean?
But we knew that already.
Fuck Israel
Yep.War Man wrote:
The one giving tax breaks to homeschoolers?AussieReaper wrote:
Warman, do you support Romney's homeschooling bill?
I for one, am against it. I think its dangerous and terrible to be encouraging anyone to ever consider homeschooling their child, let alone throwing a tax break at them. We need young adults with solid educations that will enable them to make it to college and advance in life.
Homeschooling just fills a person with the same ignorant and stupid concepts of the parent.
obama hates horses, he's unamerican.
Derailing the topic because you're too afraid to talk about it doesn't mean you're talking about issues that require more time than they're granted. And no, both politicians were talking over one another.War Man wrote:
Both sides were being dirty anyway, subject matter shouldn't be as much of a problem, some issues require more talking than they are granted.
You are right about the talking over crap, but if he did, it'd be in Romney's favor. Obama did all the talking over the other person. As for going over their alotted time, this moderator actually did a decent job, Obama only got 30-40 more than Romney, unlike the previous debates where Obama and Biden got 1-3 more minutes.
modedit: fixed incorrect name in quote -un13
Yeah, nothing like the ignorance and stupidity of getting a year ahead of the public school system by 6th grade.AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.War Man wrote:
The one giving tax breaks to homeschoolers?AussieReaper wrote:
Warman, do you support Romney's homeschooling bill?
I for one, am against it. I think its dangerous and terrible to be encouraging anyone to ever consider homeschooling their child, let alone throwing a tax break at them. We need young adults with solid educations that will enable them to make it to college and advance in life.
Homeschooling just fills a person with the same ignorant and stupid concepts of the parent.
He hates home schooling for two reasons:RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, nothing like the ignorance and stupidity of getting a year ahead of the public school system by 6th grade.AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.War Man wrote:
The one giving tax breaks to homeschoolers?
I for one, am against it. I think its dangerous and terrible to be encouraging anyone to ever consider homeschooling their child, let alone throwing a tax break at them. We need young adults with solid educations that will enable them to make it to college and advance in life.
Homeschooling just fills a person with the same ignorant and stupid concepts of the parent.
1) he thinks that every person that is home schooled is being brainwashed to become a religious zealot
and
2) public school unions are opposed and have spent a lot of effort in the media he reads and watches to have homeschooling marginalized and seen as backwards (same for charter schools).
You would think that someone who calls himself a liberal, and who undoubtedly professes a love for diversity, would recognize that public schooling is designed to destroy diversity and produce numbered machines ready for the assembly line. Yes, some people that come out of home schooling are weird. So what?
"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
I was home schooled from grade 7-10. My parents didn't know what to teach me so I spent hours teaching myself algebra, trig, basic calculus etc. from books. I completed three years' worth of maths in 18 months. When I went to grade 11 and back to school I realised I was actually very good at maths. I also taught myself year 12 English from a couple books. I never did much science so I'm sorely lacking in that area.
I did complete six years of public schooling prior to this and in grade 5 I was told, after a test, that out of 950 kids in my grade in the area (including other schools of course) I was number 31, in the top 3%, and subsequently was offered advanced tuition outside of my school with other bright kids. After going back to school I did grade 11, 12 and 13 (13 being an optional year that can be taken if you have subjects you could not complete in grade 12 - for me these subjects were pre-t audio design and VET music business).
The biggest areas you lack with home schooling is the social interaction with your peers. I was very shy and reclusive when I went back to school, but made friends easily enough, some of which I am very good friends with to this day. It was a different path I took for a while there but in all that there were certainly benefits, such as learning how to teach myself things (guitar and music theory is another) which later helped me when I myself became a guitar/bass tutor for nine years (quit early this year).
One of my mates was also home schooled right up to when we met in grade 11, though his was more formalised and he was regularly interacting with many other kids from all over the place. His parents are non-religious too, which I think helped him here as a couple other kids I met who came from very religious families ended up as pretty messed up adults.
I don't think home schooling deserves a tax break. Home schooling is a lifestyle choice in a first world country. I don't get tax breaks for living a healthy lifestyle (reducing my need for subsidised medication, bulk billed doctor's visits, public hospital access, etc).
I think home schooling can be dangerous when people do it for religious reasons. They tend to wind up with very narrow minded, brain washed clones who do not know how to think for themselves. Then again, there are people are like this everywhere who attended public schooling.
I did complete six years of public schooling prior to this and in grade 5 I was told, after a test, that out of 950 kids in my grade in the area (including other schools of course) I was number 31, in the top 3%, and subsequently was offered advanced tuition outside of my school with other bright kids. After going back to school I did grade 11, 12 and 13 (13 being an optional year that can be taken if you have subjects you could not complete in grade 12 - for me these subjects were pre-t audio design and VET music business).
The biggest areas you lack with home schooling is the social interaction with your peers. I was very shy and reclusive when I went back to school, but made friends easily enough, some of which I am very good friends with to this day. It was a different path I took for a while there but in all that there were certainly benefits, such as learning how to teach myself things (guitar and music theory is another) which later helped me when I myself became a guitar/bass tutor for nine years (quit early this year).
One of my mates was also home schooled right up to when we met in grade 11, though his was more formalised and he was regularly interacting with many other kids from all over the place. His parents are non-religious too, which I think helped him here as a couple other kids I met who came from very religious families ended up as pretty messed up adults.
I don't think home schooling deserves a tax break. Home schooling is a lifestyle choice in a first world country. I don't get tax breaks for living a healthy lifestyle (reducing my need for subsidised medication, bulk billed doctor's visits, public hospital access, etc).
I think home schooling can be dangerous when people do it for religious reasons. They tend to wind up with very narrow minded, brain washed clones who do not know how to think for themselves. Then again, there are people are like this everywhere who attended public schooling.
Last edited by Jaekus (2012-10-23 07:09:24)
Well, the basis for the tax break idea is that you shouldn't have to pay for something you don't use. Of course, then you'd have everyone without school aged kids saying they shouldn't have to pay school taxes either. They're right of course, it is a bullshit setup, but as long as public education is the law of the land there really isn't any other way to pay for it. Now if we could just prevent the teachers unions from continuously jacking up our property tax rates...
"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
You should pay for public education, regardless whether or not you have kids. The primary reason to have public education is because you want the kids of tomorrow producing a better future, rather only to those who can afford it.Jay wrote:
Well, the basis for the tax break idea is that you shouldn't have to pay for something you don't use. Of course, then you'd have everyone without school aged kids saying they shouldn't have to pay school taxes either. They're right of course, it is a bullshit setup, but as long as public education is the law of the land there really isn't any other way to pay for it. Now if we could just prevent the teachers unions from continuously jacking up our property tax rates...
Why would you expect someone that is 50 years old and has no kids to give a crap about the future? Long Island is now dotted with gated developments that cater to people that are 55+ because they don't have to pay school taxes.Cybargs wrote:
You should pay for public education, regardless whether or not you have kids. The primary reason to have public education is because you want the kids of tomorrow producing a better future, rather only to those who can afford it.Jay wrote:
Well, the basis for the tax break idea is that you shouldn't have to pay for something you don't use. Of course, then you'd have everyone without school aged kids saying they shouldn't have to pay school taxes either. They're right of course, it is a bullshit setup, but as long as public education is the law of the land there really isn't any other way to pay for it. Now if we could just prevent the teachers unions from continuously jacking up our property tax rates...
I'm not knocking publicly funded education as a concept. I understand that it is beneficial to society as a whole to assure that newly minted adults have a minimum set of knowledge in order to function in our society. What I am knocking is the premise that public education is the be-all, end-all. If that were the case people wouldn't be sending their kids to private schools or charter schools at the drop of a hat. If people feel they can give their kids a better education at home, so be it. We're currently paying too much money into a public school system that doesn't work. Spending has skyrocketed while results have flatlined.
I would love it if people would take the power to educate their children back from the state. I would love it if people set up their own small group education settings, hired tutors, or whatever they want to do. We would end up with a much more diverse society. Leaving it in the hands of bureaucrats just turns kids into a number in a spreadsheet with numerical values attached to their name.
"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
/facepalm.Macbeth wrote:
The military is basically a jobs program meant for people who don't have any other opportunities in life. So I guess putting money into it is sort of like passing a stimulus.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
How Mr. Romney Would Force-Feed the Pentagon
The military is just like any other public/private sector job. You have the gamut of low level to high level job opportunities. Mail room clerk equivalents, to high achievers going to West Point.
McDonalds has a small group of people working the corporate side while they have an army of minimum wage earners. Just because there are a few people on the top doesn't mean it isn't overwhelmingly for dead enders. The veteran unemployment rate agrees with me on this.
Nothing to do with the economy at all and the fact that most vets go to college straight after they EAS =.=Macbeth wrote:
McDonalds has a small group of people working the corporate side while they have an army of minimum wage earners. Just because there are a few people on the top doesn't mean it isn't overwhelmingly for dead enders. The veteran unemployment rate agrees with me on this.
Yes all of those vets showing up at homeless shelters are college students. Most of them are blowing their college assistance at for profit schools.