|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
You see progress, I see another agency that was 'forced' into bending it's right to assembly.
Sadly this is the kind of crap that bothers me most. I don't care if your gay or bi- or whatever wack terms for not normal you want to identify with. It's a free country, or at least it used to be. What I have a problem with is that, now groups that want to cater to a certain demographic are being discriminated against. Soon all-boy groups will be under attack by women who say they are being discriminated against.
Here's a message to all the gay (or w/e term for not normal you want to use)
Go be the X group and do the same thing as the original group that didn't want anything to do with you.
IE 'Gay boy scouts of America'
'Multi-gender scouts of America'
'etc scouts of America'
I really don't care. I'm just sick of people who support the norm being villianized.
Sorry I don't care that your gay. Sorry I don't care if your not-gay. Well actually I'm not sorry.
I don't care if your gay. I don't care if your not gay. If I want to be in an organization that is all people 6 feet tall and above, why should I let someone who isn't 6' in? You don't meet the requirements-- I'm not preventing you from doing whatever activity, I just don't want to do it with you.
The whole discrimination argument is stupid.
Everyone discriminates.
We discriminate against people who aren't 21 in America by not allowing them to drink/gamble
If you aren't 17 you can't see a rated-R movie.
That's age discrimination.
We do the something for sex. It's illegal for a male to walk into a bathroom marked fe-male.
You may not be a fe-male priest in the Catholic faith.
You must be married to be a preacher in the Church of Christ (Christian sect)
That is sexist.
Anything that you use to identify yourself can be used for/against you.
So just stop it.
If a group doesn't want you- go make your own group. Stop forcing yourself onto others- you just make everyone suffer.
|
If you think that the Boy Scouts of America are a typical "private group" then you are sadly mistaken.
|
On May 24 2013 08:27 farvacola wrote:
If you think that the Boy Scouts of America are a typical "private group" then you are sadly mistaken.
In what way is that relevant?
|
On May 24 2013 08:30 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:27 farvacola wrote:
If you think that the Boy Scouts of America are a typical "private group" then you are sadly mistaken. In what way is that relevant?
In the way that they get government funding, therefore they aren't actually a "private group" and don't get to discriminate. You want your straight only boy scouts then don't take dime one from the government, be 100% privately funded.
|
United States42983 Posts
If you think military spending in any country outside North Korea is a state secret you're very much mistaken. It's the kind of thing taxpayers like to know. For that matter opposition parties like to know it too so they can attack the spending they disagree with. And policy advisors so they know what they're dealing with. And military contractors so they know what they're dealing with.
Like I'm literally not sure how you got to the point in your life where you thought that was something nobody knew, especially given that you had heard about the US budget being compared to others.
Okay, just as an intellectual exercise, I looked up this paper.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP06-53
found it under a complete list of our defence research briefs made available on our online national archives.
|
Obama has got to get rid of Holder, he has to. Even the Huffington Post is calling for his resignation.
|
On May 24 2013 08:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Obama has got to get rid of Holder, he has to. Even the Huffington Post is calling for his resignation.
If he does resign this year, it will be quite belated. His testimony during the Fast and Furious investigation was mired in confusion and blocked documents and nobody held accountable. The "too big to prosecute" was apparently something he believed in when it came to banks financing drug cartels and terrorist institutions ...
"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”"
Memos from his Justice Department and speeches from him asserted that its okay to use drone strikes to kill US citizens, saying
“Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
I know the AP scandal finally started some outrage from the mass media. I don't know if this is enough for Obama to drop Holder. The earliest would be when the IRS scandal dies down.
|
On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag  .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves).
And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them.
Did you meet the country just north of US ?
EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise.
|
I really don't care. I'm just sick of people who support the norm being villianized.
Sorry I don't care that your gay. Sorry I don't care if your not-gay. Well actually I'm not sorry.
I don't care if your gay. I don't care if your not gay. If I want to be in an organization that is all people 6 feet tall and above, why should I let someone who isn't 6' in? You don't meet the requirements-- I'm not preventing you from doing whatever activity, I just don't want to do it with you.
Your first point, that an organization that is only composed of people 6 feet tall and comparing that to the BSA is simply an errant comparison. BSA is the boy scouts of America, not the straight scouts of America. Their identity is not that they are of a particular (as you would point out, the normal) sexual orientation. Also, "I just don't want to do it with you" is appalling. You have your right to an opinion but if as a society we just call gays icky and try not to associate with them, we have a problem. I see and talk to gay people everyday. I have a gay teacher. I have gay peers. They aren't very different from the population as a whole, and we can't take away opportunities simply because we don't want to associate with them. They are not sub-standard human beings, just different in what is a relatively small aspect of their lives.
Everyone discriminates.
We discriminate against people who aren't 21 in America by not allowing them to drink/gamble
If you aren't 17 you can't see a rated-R movie.
That's age discrimination.
You are correct, and I would agree with that discrimination. However, there is a difference between that and gay rights. The drinking and gambling laws stem from the idea that younger people are more irresponsible and would be more likely to spend all their money/ go beyond their limit. Those laws should probably be set at 18 but they still are designed to protect young people from their own stupidity. The 17 year-old R movie isn't even correct. Any parent simply has to consent to their child watching the movie. The line has to be drawn somewhere- we don't want 5 year old exposed to sex and violence- and it just so happens to fall at 17 (again, it should probably be lowered).
This has nothing to do with being gay. Yes, discrimination is sometimes good. That doesn't mean discrimination is always, good. You simply can't make that logical leap.
We do the something for sex. It's illegal for a male to walk into a bathroom marked fe-male.
You may not be a fe-male priest in the Catholic faith.
You must be married to be a preacher in the Church of Christ (Christian sect)
That is sexist.
1. This is probably to prevent sexual harassment. Also, is this really illegal? I could see it as grounds for removal from a building but just standing in a bathroom doesn't seem like it would be illegal.
2. That's a private institution that does not receive government funding.
3. See above.
BSA receives public funding so it must be subject to the same policies as the government. Currently, the fed gov. does not discriminate based on orientation. This is not even about morals or personal opinions. The BSA would have lost funding sooner or later if it had not changed policy.
If a group doesn't want you- go make your own group. Stop forcing yourself onto others- you just make everyone suffer.
Holy shit, dude. Gays being in the same group as you is hardly suffering. You aren't being persecuted; you aren't the victim.
|
On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise.
The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat.
Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers.
|
On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers.
"I talked to an Australian once, therefore I can speak on the general quality of Australian military wages." Are you serious?
|
On May 24 2013 08:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Obama has got to get rid of Holder, he has to. Even the Huffington Post is calling for his resignation.
I think the search was justified as part of a last resort to identify the source of the classified leak (assuming that it was only used to identify the leak). The charges as a co-conspirator are completely and absolutely outrageous.
Obama's statement about the leaks and press freedom in his speech today made a lot of sense. He basically said that classified leaks that threatened national security should be investigated, and that he was concerned about charging reporters and that the press should be free to do it's job.
|
Your first point, that an organization that is only composed of people 6 feet tall and comparing that to the BSA is simply an errant comparison. BSA is the boy scouts of America, not the straight scouts of America. Their identity is not that they are of a particular (as you would point out, the normal) sexual orientation. Also, "I just don't want to do it with you" is appalling. You have your right to an opinion but if as a society we just call gays icky and try not to associate with them, we have a problem. I see and talk to gay people everyday. I have a gay teacher. I have gay peers. They aren't very different from the population as a whole, and we can't take away opportunities simply because we don't want to associate with them. They are not sub-standard human beings, just different in what is a relatively small aspect of their lives.
Appalling? We enjoy spending time with the people we enjoy spending time with. I feel much more connected to some peoples as opposed to others. I already stated earlier- I really don't give a flip what your sexual orientation is. It's irrelevant to me, sorry you don't seem to understand that. I would just rather talk to a progamer than a baseball player. Sorry guess I'm a bad person! I wonder if you are really appalled or if you simply using strong verbage because you want to play victim as if someone is actually offending you.
Taking an opportunity away? Well this is life- you make opportunity. I don't follow/can't follow that type of thinking. It's asinine at best. Sorry I don't believe that you are reduced to what is around you. We are human beings. We alter our environment, we aren't stupid animals. Perhaps if we were talking about individuals with an extra 21 chromosome I would have a change of mind- but competent/capable people will receive no pity from me.
You are correct, and I would agree with that discrimination. However, there is a difference between that and gay rights. The drinking and gambling laws stem from the idea that younger people are more irresponsible and would be more likely to spend all their money/ go beyond their limit. Those laws should probably be set at 18 but they still are designed to protect young people from their own stupidity. The 17 year-old R movie isn't even correct. Any parent simply has to consent to their child watching the movie. The line has to be drawn somewhere- we don't want 5 year old exposed to sex and violence- and it just so happens to fall at 17 (again, it should probably be lowered).
This has nothing to do with being gay. Yes, discrimination is sometimes good. That doesn't mean discrimination is always, good. You simply can't make that logical leap.
I didn't make that logical leap- be careful with assumptions.
Also again it's about the right to be around people you want to me, and away from people you don't. Regardless of the reason. If I see a bunch of thugs walking on the street at night, I won't walk on that street. I'm bad for choosing not to associate myself with that behavior? Moral judgments aside. I will gravitate towards people I want to gravitate towards, and away form those I don't. Who are you to force me to do otherwise?
Again you forcing a one way street. If I was a boy scout (Thank God I never was) I now have to be around gay people- maybe I care, maybe I don't. A gay person on the other hand doesn't have to be around me. So how's that fair? How's that equal? It's not--but because society tells you and directs you toward an action that forces inclusion on that one way street you follow it. Again. I'm asking for equality- TRUE EQUALITY. If I want a group of all Asian people, I would have no issue of an all white group forming. That's equal. What would be UNEQUAL is for you to say- there can be a group off all Asians, but don't have a group of all Whites. Which is in essence what is happening now- and that's wrong imho.
Most people can't follow that train of thought. When you think you are on the side of Equality- you rarely stop and think what is really EQUAL. Sometimes I want to draw math equations out and show people both sides of the "=" so they can see the sides aren't balanced.
1. This is probably to prevent sexual harassment. Also, is this really illegal? I could see it as grounds for removal from a building but just standing in a bathroom doesn't seem like it would be illegal.
2. That's a private institution that does not receive government funding.
3. See above.
It is in the military. UCMJ (law doc that governs military members, much more strict than the rights of regular citizens)
Is funding your issue here? If that's the core of your argument, why not lobby for any of the examples I gave you.
'Gay boy scouts of America' Go make a lobby, get funding. I see no problem here.
BSA receives public funding so it must be subject to the same policies as the government. Currently, the fed gov. does not discriminate based on orientation. This is not even about morals or personal opinions. The BSA would have lost funding sooner or later if it had not changed policy.
So again, ruin it for the original group, rather than seek funding for group X? I'm sure plenty of liberals would support such a fund and help set up a lobby if one merely tried.
If a group doesn't want you- go make your own group. Stop forcing yourself onto others- you just make everyone suffer.
Holy shit, dude. Gays being in the same group as you is hardly suffering. You aren't being persecuted; you aren't the victim.
Says who? How am I not a victim? I'm being forced to have my group make up compromised.
(Again, I'm not a boy scout, just taking the plight as my own)
I would support and defend a gay groups right to have only gays as members, or whatever non-normal orientation said group identifies with.
Why won't X group do the same?
|
On May 24 2013 09:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers. "I talked to an Australian once, therefore I can speak on the general quality of Australian military wages." Are you serious?
1) Please don't use quotation marks that way. I never said those words.
2) I do feel that actually talking to soldiers is better than reading some report about it.
3) I speak in terms of opinion not fact. I know everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes--but I try to throw in a few IMHO to remind people that opinion is opinion and when I state things as fact I say it is fact.
1-3 are FACT.
|
Well, it's interesting to see how a principled institution was finally given the works and forced to buckle. As an Eagle Scout, it kind of makes me sad. 6 years ago almost no politician cared about "gay rights" (or were explicitly for one man one woman), but now a classic religious organization has been abused by political groups with a flat out deceptive or mistaken view of the first amendment. I didn't know that every group that received federal funding was supposed to then become an arm of the government, obeying its every rule and regulation. They got govt. money because they are a worthwhile and wholesome organization, all this crap is truly sickening. I don't believe for a second that this furor would go away if that funding is cut, it's just that some of these groups cannot stand the fact that a nationally recognized and admired organization was not bending to their will. (if I'm making them sound "evil" it's because I have very little respect for groups that call bigots those who are reluctant to change one of humanity's oldest and most core institutions in the blink of an eye. An institution that, as John Roberts pointed out, was not formed to be discriminatory at it's founding, it just developed to be the way it is). I bring up the marriage bit because (A), this is the end goal, it's what is being fought over in the nation at large, and (B), because this WILL eventually lead to them allowing gay leaders, that much is obvious.
Well, they outlasted the president, who was like "oh, I need money for my campaign! What new group can I get?", and went all LB "give them enough to make them vote for us" J on them.
I wonder if they were threatened with an audit 
|
On May 24 2013 10:09 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 09:43 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers. "I talked to an Australian once, therefore I can speak on the general quality of Australian military wages." Are you serious? 1) Please don't use quotation marks that way. I never said those words. 2) I do feel that actually talking to soldiers is better than reading some report about it. 3) I speak in terms of opinion not fact. I know everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes--but I try to throw in a few IMHO to remind people that opinion is opinion and when I state things as fact I say it is fact. 1-3 are FACT.
So it's a fact that everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes....quite the grasp of facts and opinions you have.
In other news, which I suppose I ought to declare as fact.......
WASHINGTON — Embroiled in scandal, the IRS has replaced the official who supervised agents involved in targeting Tea Party groups.
Lois Lerner, IRS director of exempt organizations, refused to answer questions by a House committee Wednesday, saying she did nothing wrong but was nevertheless invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify against herself.
"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules and regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee," Lerner said.
She was replaced Thursday by Ken Corbin, a 27-year IRS veteran who had a deputy director in the wage and investment division.
In announcing the change in an e-mail to IRS employees, the agency's new acting commissioner, Danny Werfel, did not mention Lerner. Administration and congressional sources told news organizations that she was placed on administrative leave.
The move came hours after Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., who lead the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent Werfel a letter urging him to suspend Lerner "immediately."
Lerner was the IRS official responsible for the office in Cincinnati that created a "be on the lookout" list for tax-exempt applications from groups using the words "tea party," "patriot" and "9/12 project" in their names. Those applications were held up for more than a year while applications from liberal groups requesting similar status were routinely approved, a USA TODAY review found.
An audit by the IRS inspector general found that Lerner tried to immediately correct that list when she learned about it in 2011 but replaced it with criteria that included groups "critical of how the country is being run." Members of Congress from both parties want to know why she never informed Congress — even under direct questioning.
Levin and McCain wrote that they believe that Lerner "failed to disclose crucial information concerning the IRS's inappropriate targeting of some conservative ... organizations" during the committee's investigation into how the IRS enforces the law for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups.
IRS replaces official involved in Tea Party controversy
It was only a matter of time, though I most certainly do not envy Ken Corbin lol.
|
On May 24 2013 10:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 10:09 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:43 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers. "I talked to an Australian once, therefore I can speak on the general quality of Australian military wages." Are you serious? 1) Please don't use quotation marks that way. I never said those words. 2) I do feel that actually talking to soldiers is better than reading some report about it. 3) I speak in terms of opinion not fact. I know everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes--but I try to throw in a few IMHO to remind people that opinion is opinion and when I state things as fact I say it is fact. 1-3 are FACT. So it's a fact that everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes....quite the grasp of facts and opinions you have.
And look at how the topic got derailed. Funny soon as someone loses grasp on what is at play, they immediately attack a technicality. For example "I know everyone on TL" is an obvious exaggeration and play off of the fact comment, and you completely missed it. Rather than address the topic- which you failed to do-- this is the post that gets pasted on the website.
Stick to the discussion, lay off unmerited technicalities.
The point still stands, talking to people and listening to what they have to say allows us to form an opinion about said person/idea.
EDIT: PS: Nice edit fix to your post.
|
On May 24 2013 10:20 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 10:12 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 10:09 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:43 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers. "I talked to an Australian once, therefore I can speak on the general quality of Australian military wages." Are you serious? 1) Please don't use quotation marks that way. I never said those words. 2) I do feel that actually talking to soldiers is better than reading some report about it. 3) I speak in terms of opinion not fact. I know everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes--but I try to throw in a few IMHO to remind people that opinion is opinion and when I state things as fact I say it is fact. 1-3 are FACT. So it's a fact that everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes....quite the grasp of facts and opinions you have. And look at how the topic got derailed. Funny soon as someone loses grasp on what is at play, they immediately attack a technicality. For example "I know everyone on TL" is an obvious exaggeration and play off of the fact comment, and you completely missed it. Rather than address the topic- which you failed to do-- this is the post that gets pasted on the website. Stick to the discussion, lay off unmerited technicalities. The point still stands, talking to people and listening to what they have to say allows us to form an opinion about said person/idea.
It is not an unmerited technicality to point out the stupidity in going off of anecdotal experiences insofar as judging large organizations or groups of people is concerned. Your claim to understanding the Australian military and it's soldier compensation is based on, according to you, a conversation you had with an Australian during some military exercise. This individual event does not even come close to matching the standard one must meet in order to describe the whole of the Australian military. Even the clarification of your statement as opinion instead of fact does not somehow avoid the issues that arise alongside an implementation of an Availability heuristic. It is incumbent upon you to provide something more than "this one time, this guy said" if you want anyone to take your opinions at all seriously.
|
On May 24 2013 10:11 Introvert wrote:Well, it's interesting to see how a principled institution was finally given the works and forced to buckle. As an Eagle Scout, it kind of makes me sad. 6 years ago almost no politician cared about "gay rights" (or were explicitly for one man one woman), but now a classic religious organization has been abused by political groups with a flat out deceptive or mistaken view of the first amendment. I didn't know that every group that received federal funding was supposed to then become an arm of the government, obeying its every rule and regulation. They got govt. money because they are a worthwhile and wholesome organization, all this crap is truly sickening. I don't believe for a second that this furor would go away if that funding is cut, it's just that some of these groups cannot stand the fact that a nationally recognized and admired organization was not bending to their will. (if I'm making them sound "evil" it's because I have very little respect for groups that call bigots those who are reluctant to change one of humanity's oldest and most core institutions in the blink of an eye. An institution that, as John Roberts pointed out, was not formed to be discriminatory at it's founding, it just developed to be the way it is). I bring up the marriage bit because (A), this is the end goal, it's what is being fought over in the nation at large, and (B), because this WILL eventually lead to them allowing gay leaders, that much is obvious. Well, they outlasted the president, who was like "oh, I need money for my campaign! What new group can I get?", and went all LB "give them enough to make them vote for us" J on them. I wonder if they were threatened with an audit
1) Whether politicians use homosexuals as tools for increasing their popularity is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the cause itself.
2) "wholsome" organizations do not discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, especially when sexual orientation has exactly nothing to do with the existence of the BSA to begin with.
3) Once you strip away the whole "oh but this isn't about gay people it's about some ulterior agenda" from your argument, you have nothing. You literally can't give one single good reason as to why excluding homosexuals is a practice that should be preserved.
|
On May 24 2013 10:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 10:20 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 10:12 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 10:09 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:43 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers. "I talked to an Australian once, therefore I can speak on the general quality of Australian military wages." Are you serious? 1) Please don't use quotation marks that way. I never said those words. 2) I do feel that actually talking to soldiers is better than reading some report about it. 3) I speak in terms of opinion not fact. I know everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes--but I try to throw in a few IMHO to remind people that opinion is opinion and when I state things as fact I say it is fact. 1-3 are FACT. So it's a fact that everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes....quite the grasp of facts and opinions you have. And look at how the topic got derailed. Funny soon as someone loses grasp on what is at play, they immediately attack a technicality. For example "I know everyone on TL" is an obvious exaggeration and play off of the fact comment, and you completely missed it. Rather than address the topic- which you failed to do-- this is the post that gets pasted on the website. Stick to the discussion, lay off unmerited technicalities. The point still stands, talking to people and listening to what they have to say allows us to form an opinion about said person/idea. It is not an unmerited technicality to point out the stupidity in going off of anecdotal experiences insofar as judging large organizations or groups of people is concerned. Your claim to understanding the Australian military and it's soldier compensation is based on, according to you, a conversation you had with an Australian during some military exercise. This individual event does not even come close to matching the standard one must meet in order to describe the whole of the Australian military. Even the clarification of your statement as opinion instead of fact does not somehow avoid the issues that arise alongside an implementation of an Availability heuristic. It is incumbent upon you to provide something more than "this one time, this guy said" if you want anyone to take your opinions at all seriously.
Sadly, what you find to be of greater merit doesn't scale well with me. I could link you to a website like this:
http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/militarypaytables.html
and then do a compare/contrast with an applicable Russian/Australian one.
Perhaps more people would find that to their liking. I do not. I enjoy and value personal experiences, of both myself and of others. If all I wanted was spreadsheets, I would have no reason for conversation with you or anyone else.
Also what I said was correct- pay and quality of life of an American solider is extremely high. It would be different if I based my judgments on only seeing a person. But via conversation, you'd be surprised at what you can find out.
Don't be so foolish as to underestimate conversation. I tend to find there is substantially more truth in talking to people, than all the talking heads we are exposed to. Want to have an interesting conversation ask a Russian solider what they think of Iran. Amazing how the view is near opposite of mine. But then again, perhaps if we sold weapons to Iran instead of Iraq, Israel, UAE, and SA my view would be different as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
