Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Subic Bay Philippines
  • Interests
    Billiards, Darts

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:

Profile Fields

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Like the Europeans bringing small pox to the Americas? Trump and anyone that voted for him is a fool.
  2. The answer is simple John, most of Trump's supporters (evangelical or otherwise) are hypocrites. Comedy icon John Cleese has a pair of tough questions for evangelical voters who support President Donald Trump. White evangelicals have been among Trump’s most ardent backers. A poll released earlier this month found 71 percent of them approve of the president. That led to two questions from Cleese, sent via Twitter over the weekend: When one person wrote that they voted for Trump solely due to his opposition to abortion, Cleese fired back: Cleese has become a vocal Trump critic both on social media and at his performances. Earlier this year, Cleese said some Trump supporters have walked out on his act after he’s made jokes about the president. His response? He gets the audience to applaud them as they leave.
  3. Not surprising, all most every thing that comes out of the "fake news" president's mouth is baseless. President Donald Trump started out his Monday morning by claiming, without providing any evidence, that “criminals” and “unknown Middle Easterners” are marching in the caravan with immigrants from Honduras. He also spelled “emergency” creatively. "Sadly, it looks like Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States. Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in. I have alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emergy. Must change laws!"
  4. Build a wall around the transgenders, and make the transgenders pay for it. It's got a ring to it. Maybe he'll use it on the campaign trial in 2020? 🙋‍♂️
  5. Transgender kunts are "weird" plain and simple. But they are still human beings, even if they are republicans. What does this mean for Senatora Lyndsey Graham's future in the GOP? Jordan Evans, 27, is a town constable and an elected library trustee in Charlton, Mass. She’s a Republican, as are most of the people in her hometown, a rural community where about 54 percent of voters cast their ballots for Donald Trump in 2016. Evans is also transgender, as are about 1 million other adult Americans, according to rough estimates. Few combine the two identities. Evans is believed to be the lone openly transgender elected Republican — “my cross to bear,” as she puts it. The tension involved in her unusual profile became acute over the weekend, when the New York Times reported that the Trump administration is weighing a move to define gender as strictly biological, denying the very basis of transgender identity. According to the Wall Street Journal, the scope of the new rules is unclear. The news drew condemnation from activists and advocacy groups. The American Civil Liberties Union threatened legal action. The National Center for Transgender Equality planned a protest outside the White House. “We #WontBeErased, we will fight back,” pledged the Transgender Law Center. For Evans, the news was alarming, though not entirely surprising. It’s in line, she observed, with the president’s attempt to ban transgender troops — an order repeatedly blocked by the courts. The administration has also prohibited officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using the word “transgender” in official budget documents, as The Washington Post reported in December, and the Department of Health and Human Services has archived a page that outlined services available for LGBT people. In February, the government revoked Obama administration protections for transgender students that allowed them to use bathrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that matched their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth. “I am afraid,” the Republican politician said in an interview. “I’m absolutely distraught.” “Not so much afraid for me," clarified Evans, who has been embraced by those closest to her since she first came out as transgender in 2013 and began to medically transition in 2015. "I’m afraid for people who are younger than me — people who don’t have the kind of experiences in the world that I’ve had. They see this, and they’re rightfully terrified.” Evans said the move would be “shortsighted of the administration.” The country is growing more accepting of transgender people, she said, as the president is moving the government in the opposite direction. “As a Republican, it’s disgusting to see my party continue to push these types of things through in a world that’s changing. If we don’t change with the world, we are ultimately going to lose.” Evans said she has been encouraged by the swift response from the transgender community. “Trans people have been under attack by this administration from day 1 and in state legislatures for years now,” Laverne Cox, the transgender “Orange Is the New Black” actress, wrote on Twitter on Sunday. “Let’s join together America and assert #TransRightsAreHumanRights.” She added, “#TransIsBeautiful.” Both rallying cries were trending on social media over the weekend. Politicians joined the chorus against defining sex as immutably male or female and requiring genetic testing to settle any disputes. By and large, however, those who have spoken out differ from Evans in a notable way. They don’t share her partisan affiliation. “We will always protect our transgender brothers and sisters,” Democratic Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts wrote on Twitter. “We must transcend hate every day. And we must transfer power on Election Day.” The Democratic attorney general of New York saidher office would “do everything in our power to protect transgender New Yorkers.” Transgender politicians who have gained a measure of national prominence also weighed in. Christine Hallquist, a Democrat of Vermont and the first openly transgender major party nominee for governor, used colorful language to describe how she would respond if elected. The Virginia House Democrats tweeted its support for Danica Roem, the first openly transgender lawmaker in a U.S. statehouse. Evans acknowledged being envious of the outpouring of support on the other side of the partisan divide. “Every so often,” she said, she is tempted to abandon the Republicans. “It would be easier, wouldn’t it?” Where she stands now, she is held at arm’s length by both of the communities that are most important to her. “I’m met with disdain from Republicans because of my identity and suspicion from the transgender community because of my affiliation,” she said. Though she voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president in 2016, she acknowledges that Trump is "the head of the party” to which she has been loyal almost her entire adult life, but which is increasingly hostile to her, she said. But she has no plans to jump ship. She sees an advantage in sticking with a party that remains less welcoming of transgender people. She enjoys access to people whom the movement most desperately needs to convince — people unreachable by her Democratic counterparts. Evans also reasons that her views, while consistent with many of the aspirations of the Democratic Party, arise from conservative principles. Her work, she said, lies in persuading other Republicans to adhere to these principles, which mainly revolve around a commitment to limited government. “For trans people to be phased out of existence, that would be a violation of individual rights,” she said. “How can we stand for individual liberties if we are ready and willing to use the force of government — completely antithetical to what Republicans believe — to deny someone’s ability to exist in our society? As Republicans, we should be appalled at that.” But Evans strained to name fellow Republicans who have voiced outrage at the news that the Trump administration could seek to write transgender people out of existence. “It’s still pretty recent,” she ventured, hopeful that more would speak out. But she also struggled to list Republicans at the national level who shared her perspective. “We’re losing Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,” she said, referring to the Florida congresswoman whose son is a transgender activist — and who is set to leave Congress. “We lost Charlie Dent,” she added, referring to the Pennsylvania congressman who bucked his party on LGBT rights — and who abruptly left Congress this past spring. “We’re probably going to lose Tom MacArthur,” she continued, referring to the New Jersey congressman who split with Trump on LGBT issues — and who is in a tight reelection battle against Democrat Andy Kim. Part of the burden of being a transgender Republican, Evans said, is to recruit more transgender candidates to run for office. But it’s a small pool. “I’ve been called the unicorn before,” she said. Running in Republican circles as a transgender person can be a lonely, and sometimes frightful, experience, she said. At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual summit for conservative officials and activists, Evans was confronted by someone from what she described as a “far-right nationalist group.” “He called me the downfall of the West to my face,” she recalled. This encounter was jarring, however, precisely because it wasn’t representative of her overall experience. She has been attending CPAC for years, she said, and has found support from some of the people she has met there, especially younger conservatives. Evans vowed early on that she would praise Trump when he did something well and speak out against him when he acted in ways that were contrary to her interests and beliefs. She said it was “tough” to oppose a president who wields so much power within the party. But she criticized other elected officials for simply bowing out — leaving the party or leaving office all together. “If we’re going to change the party, if we’re going to steer it away from the direction it’s going, we can’t leave,” she said.
  6. DennisTheMenace

    Army using drug waivers, bonuses to fill ranks

    I wonder if the Army is waiving faux bone spurs these days as well?
  7. DennisTheMenace

    Army using drug waivers, bonuses to fill ranks

    Folks that score low on their ASVAB are generally slated for Army training, it's the least preferred branch of the uniformed services. That's a fact Jack.
  8. This is window dressing, we all know Vlad and Don are still chums. President Donald Trump said Washington will exit the Cold-War era treaty that eliminated a class of nuclear weapons due to Russian violations, triggering a warning of retaliatory measures from Moscow. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, negotiated by then-President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, required elimination of short-range and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles by both countries. "Russia has not, unfortunately, honored the agreement so we're going to terminate the agreement and we're going to pull out," Trump told reporters on Saturday after a rally in Nevada. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Sunday that a unilateral U.S. withdrawal would be "very dangerous" and lead to a "military-technical" retaliation. U.S. authorities believe Moscow is developing and has deployed a ground-launched system in breach of the INF treaty that could allow it to launch a nuclear strike on Europe at short notice. Russia has consistently denied any such violation. Trump said the United States will develop the weapons unless Russia and China agree to a halt on development. China is not a party to the treaty and has invested heavily in conventional missiles, while the INF has banned U.S possession of ground- launched ballistic missiles or cruise missiles of ranges between 500 and 5,500 km (311 and 3,418 miles). Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, will visit Moscow next week. Ryabkov, in comments reported by state-controlled RIA news agency, said if the United States withdrew, Russia would have no choice but to retaliate, including taking unspecified measures of a "military-technical nature." "But we would rather things did not get that far," RIA quoted him as saying. TASS news agency quoted him as saying withdrawal "would be a very dangerous step," and it was Washington and not Moscow that was failing to comply with the treaty. He said the Trump administration was using the treaty in an attempt to blackmail the Kremlin, putting global security at risk. ."..We will, of course, accept no ultimatums or blackmail methods," Interfax quoted him as saying. British defense minister Gavin Williamson, in comments reported by the Financial Times, said London stood "resolute" behind Washington over the issue, and that the Kremlin was making a mockery of the agreement.
  9. Will Mitch ever get those teeth fixed? He's from Kentucky, probably not. As the 2018 midterm elections draw nearer, and as reports suggest that the Republican Party's monopoly on power in Washington could be in jeopardy, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell sat for a series of interviews this week in which he promised Americans that if they give his party another two years of unified government, he'll try once more to do all of the things that made them hate him so much in the first place. From Reuters: Right now, there is a seven-point spread between those who favor the Affordable Care Act and those who disfavor it, and the law reached its peak approval ratings in 2017, when Republicans' diligent repeal efforts went down on the thumb of the late John McCain. Especially for Democratic senators scrapping to defend their seats in deep-red Trump states—and there are plenty of them—this makes for a fine stretch-run pitch to voters: Remember when Republicans nearly succeeded at taking health care away from poor people? If given the opportunity next year, they'll happily try it again. Apparently not content to bring up just one plank of his party's wildly unpopular platform, McConnell also floated the idea of slashing Social Security and Medicaid benefits—a hot topic in Washington this week, after it was announced that the federal deficit had ballooned to a cool $779 billion, a 17 percent hike over the fiscal year. "Entitlements are the long-term drivers of the debt," he told Reuters; in a conversation with Bloomberg News, he blamed this figure on Democrats' unwillingness to negotiate entitlement reforms on a bipartisan basis in this most recent Congress. Curiously, the potential culpability of the $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, which the GOP assured skeptics would not affect the deficit because it would pay for itself via economic growth, seems not to have occurred to him. The Republican Party's most vexing problem is always that the thing about which its elected officials care the most—reducing the effective corporate tax rate—is also deeply unpopular with critical chunks of the electorate on which they depend for political power. This need to cobble together a viable election-winning coalition is why Donald Trump promised not to touch entitlements during his campaign, and why his party is so fond of championing various forms of bigotry and xenophobia whenever they find it politically expedient. McConnell's vision for the 116th Congress is the subtler, more insidious half of their approach to governance: Slash vital social programs on the grounds that they are too expensive; pass the ensuing savings on to the wealthy; and then, when doing so blasts a new hole in the deficit, find some other line-item to cross out, and resume the performance from the beginning. It is not the case that this country "cannot" afford Medicare, or Medicaid, or Social Security, or food stamps, or low-cost insurance, or the like. It is that the Republican Party chooses not to pay for them. Over the past six-ish decades, its politicians have worked to gradually whittle down the tax base on behalf of their donors, taking every opportunity to hamstring the government's ability to ensure that the most vulnerable Americans can lead healthy, dignified lives. McConnell's proclamations are disingenuous lies, and his promises about his agenda for 2019 and beyond are great reasons to vote people like him out of office forever.
  10. A fine upstanding selfless American Bill Walker is. Well done sir. 👍 Alaska Gov. Bill Walker announced Friday he is dropping his bid for re-election, and threw support to Democrat Mark Begich over Republican Mike Dunleavy. Walker, elected as an independent, made the surprise announcement at the Alaska Federation of Natives annual convention, three days after former Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott abruptly stepped down from both his office and the re-election campaign over unspecified "inappropriate comments" he made to a woman. With less than three weeks until Election Day and with more than 23,000 absentee ballots already mailed to voters, Walker's decision to step away from his campaign marks a significant, last-minute change in the battle to become Alaska's next governor. The three-way race has now become a two-way fight between Begich, a former U.S. senator, and Dunleavy, a former state senator. How this complicates voting is not yet completely clear. Some Alaskans have already sent in their voted ballots. Walker had been scheduled to attend a candidate forum at the AFN convention Friday afternoon with his competitors Begich and Dunleavy. Instead, he went on the stage at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center — before the forum started — and told a crowd of hundreds from across the state: "Every decision I have made as your governor, I have made on the basis of what I believe is best for Alaska. With that said, effective today, I am suspending my campaign for the re-election as governor." There were gasps and shouts from the audience. An emotional Walker, in a blue kuspuk, said that with only 18 days until the election, "it has become clear, we cannot win a three-way race." This week, he said, he talked to "many, many, many Alaskans" about who had a better chance of competing against Dunleavy. The determination was made that, at this point, Begich has the better odds," Walker said. [Read Gov. Bill Walker's full remarks about why he's dropping his campaign for re-election] Both Begich and Dunleavy were in the crowd watching, along with their families and campaign staff. Dunleavy watched the speech intently, leaned forward, showing no reaction. He stood during a standing ovation when Walker introduced his wife, First Lady Donna Walker. He remained seated at the end of the speech as the crowd gave Walker an ovation. Soon after Walker's announcement, Dunleavy told the Daily News that he will still win the election. "That's the goal. That's the plan," he said. "I'm still trying to take all this in. This is news to me. " His team plans to forge ahead, he said.
  11. Women shouldn't be in combat billets, no question about that. They simply can't pull their weight compared to men. PRT (Physical Readiness Test) for example, the split-tails do pushups from their knees, they get more time to run the course etc...All this EO BS has no place on the battle field. No one wants to be in a foxhole (it's called defensive fighting position these days) with a hysterical menstruating woman. The military is a Man's World, women are there for comfort reasons. Aside from the “is he in or is he out” speculations, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has largely avoided the major controversies that have plagued his fellow Trump cabinet members. But if the reaction to his recent remarks at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) are any indication, his luck may have begun to run out. During a September visit to the military school, Mattis offered his thoughts on women serving in combat infantry jobs, later interpreted by the Associated Press as a “dim view” of their prospects. The comments were further panned by those advocating the integration of women into combat, who characterized Mattis as “poisoning the well” and “sabotaging” efforts to integrate women. Other reactions, some from veterans, were even less flattering. Are these reactions justified? Better yet, what exactly did Mattis say? A male VMI cadet, who went to bat for his female classmates, asked the secretary about his thoughts on women in combat. The following quotations are part of a longer reply, but these appear to be the most contentious points: His message seems to be: be careful what you wish for. There are far-reaching consequences to allowing anyone and everyone to serve in combat. The military’s effectiveness and well-being come first. Though he never expresses opposition, it is clear that Mattis is skeptical of women in combat. He echoes a concern that proponents and the public do not fully appreciate the unrelentingly brutal and lethal realities of combat and, far too willingly, dismiss the lessons of those who express objections borne of bitter experience that comes only in a shooting war. While women have been serving unofficially in combat for decades and do so with bravery, courage, and honor, this misses the point, critics say. Men and women are different, and if women cannot physically carry their injured comrades off the field, for example, then they are a detriment to the unit, no matter how willing they might be to sacrifice their own lives in battle. Furthermore, allowing women to serve in combat positions carries social costs and implications the American people may be unwilling to bear. We can already see a bit of this whenever the idea of requiring women to register for Selective Service rears its head. By law, all women would have to share the responsibility of defending the nation when called upon to do so, something the equal rights-endorsing public seems greatly uncomfortable with. Mattis’s comments strike a nerve because they run counter to prevailing public narratives, which downplay the differences between men and women and promote the belief that all should have the opportunity to pursue whatever career they desire. The nature of the military as an institution and its mission requires it to conduct business in a fashion vastly different from that of civilian society. It is made even more difficult by America’s military preeminence, intensifying social pressure for the military to “get with the program,” and the fashioning of combat as just another workplace—as opposed to the uniquely lethal environment that it is. The idea that the military will ultimately be judged on the number of women in combat roles and units—that is, fulfilling “quotas”—only fuels the perception that advocates are motivated by something other than a desire to effectively defend the nation. Only months before being appointed secretary of defense, Mattis, alongside Kori Schake, co-authored a book in which he expressed sentiments consistent with his recent remarks: Mattis and Schake drew these conclusions in part from an essay authored by Tod Lindberg, published in the same book. Lindberg found a glaring disconnectbetween the self-described “very liberal” and not only the military but the broader society. Apart from the “very liberal,” a majority of the public, regardless of political or social outlook, agreed the military is a unique institution with a special mission and therefore reserves right to conduct itself in a fashion vastly different from the society it serves. The concern, of course, is that the “very liberal” represent a vocal minority that nonetheless dominate critical institutions in society, such as academia, media, and policymaking. Therefore, they possess a greater ability to influence culture and policy because their views occupy a larger percentage of the discourse. Though the military strives to remain above the fray, the pervasiveness and toxicity of culture war is making it difficult to do so. The military is increasingly at risk of becoming another institution afflicted with partisanship because it has been often viewed as a vehicle for social change. Arguments concerning “battlefield lethality” may ultimately fall on deaf ears, for example, because as far as the culture warriors are concerned, there is far more at stake. Akin to the debate surrounding homosexuals in the military in the 1990s, those most in favor or against the proposition did not see it solely as an issue of military effectiveness, but a decision that “would have profound consequences for society at large.” Those in favor of women in combat believe such a policy would be the ultimate symbol of women’s rights, embodied in the acceptance that they are just as capable of fighting and dying for their country as men. Gallup found this past summer that the public still trusts the military over all other institutions. That means Americans should trust the military to make the right decisions on issues like women in combat. They should discourage practices that would place undue pressure on the military to deliver specific policy outcomes not out of a belief that a better fighting force will result but that it will aid in creating what they deem to be a “better” society. The reason? The men and women in uniform will ultimately bear the brunt of the consequences, good or bad, of any policy change. Civilians may issue the orders, but the military is responsible for their implementation and success or failure. Very few know for certain what it takes to perform in combat. The brutal, “evil” realities of war are such that we ought to be extremely discretionary about whom we entrust with the responsibility of directly engaging with the enemy and enduring the tremendous discomfort, pain, and suffering that comes with the profession. The public ought to be far less glib about seeing anyone, much less women, in combat. Society may view it as an issue of equal rights, but warfighters do not. In the end, the military serves the public. Should the day ever arrive where the two find themselves at an impasse, the protectors must bend. But to prevent the sacred relationship from fraying, there must be trust. The military must trust that the public seeks to not undermine their norms and traditions, nor cast upon them additional pressures that could have a detrimental effect. In exchange, the military must commit to transparency and candidly engage in dialogue with the American people to foster greater understanding and unity between two worlds that, for good reason, must remain disparate. Without public support, the military is an illegitimate institution. A dysfunctional civil-military relationship is something the country can ill afford.