Guard Dog

Law enforcement is a profession I have lost a lot of respect for over the years. The common belief is that 90% of cops are decent contentious people just trying to do a good job and 10% are that badge heavy abusive jack boot thug dirt bags. I think the reverse would be closer to reality than that. The biggest problem in law enforcement is the belief that so many of them have that that little plastic badge on their shirt makes them a better human being than everyone else.

I get my proteins from the graveyard. Not really fresh but I guess you can't beat the price

Absolutely no proof of that, at all. If there's a Satan, or some such entity, they are laughing with glee at you and all those who think similar. Anyone on this planet long enough that doesn't regularly go hunting for sandworms head first and that truly thinks, knows that stable families are the bedrock of a stable civilization. It's a 101 concept in pretty much all of the humanities and life. The evidence of this is everywhere. And it's something that many do still realize, both those who want the stable society and those who want to bring it down. The latter seem to sadly be winning, and they are laughing with glee as well. IF there is a satan, and there is no more proof he exists than any other form of divine being, with a totally different style of morality than what we have.So, I'll take that chance. I might've spoken to soon though, for claritys sake, what do you define as a stable family? White Christians who live in compounds in remote areas to avoid the creeping influence of the Lizard Jews. Waitjustabloodyminutehere..... Those are Lizard Jews???? I thought they were Argonians! I though I was playing Skyrim so much it was starting to become real to me!

It is kind of interesting how our policy in WW1/WW2 worked super well for us, and then we never did it again. Oh well. That has more to do with the shift in philosophy brought on by FDR than any change in attitude in the US. The moment the US government became a partner in businesses is the moment it had a stake in the future success of a business. With a few exceptions all of our post WW2 foreign entanglements have been more about money than the stated goals.

Wow, that was ugly. And is it just me or is Peyton Manning playing with a fire in his heart? I was reading on SB Nation that they think this might be it for him, especially if they win the SB. God, I hope not. Mostly because I hope Saints win this year, and the fact that I am almost certain that all the time spent talking about Manning would be replaced with Manziel, and Manning doesn't irritate me... at all, really. Ha! Manziel has flameout written all over him. Prediction by 2017 he will be out of the NFL. He flipped off the Redskins bench last night he was so frustrated by his poor play. Inaccurate passers don't survive in the NFL and running quarterbacks tend to have short careers anyway.

You think the US is popular in the world now? You must be watching different news sources than I am. I'm getting the distinct impression most other nations think us weak and indecisive. So we went from being overbearing and a bully to weak and indecisive. The former is really bad and the latter is not an improvement. Personally I think North and South America should draw a line down the Atlantic east of Brazil and west of Guam and tell the rest of the world this is our side, that is yours. But since I'm not in charge of anything I'd settle to a Pre-WW2 stance of non-interventionism.

Wow, that was ugly. And is it just me or is Peyton Manning playing with a fire in his heart? I was reading on SB Nation that they think this might be it for him, especially if they win the SB.

You know I bet you're the only poster on this board who's ever climbed Mt. Motherfu--er. And you probably ran up it with a pack and rifle I'm guessing. No sir, not the only one. I was also at Pendleton in 1991. January through to April for training and SOI. I live now within a few miles of the base. Once in a while I can hear (more like feel) ordnance. No kidding? I did not know that. Or I forgot if I did. I stand corrected then my Brother!

You know, the offseason is over. Is someone going to make a new thread?

Interesting, so what is the relevance of Pendleton? Is that a mountain that is part of the training, do you have to camp on it or climb parts of it? Mt. Motherf----r and Old Smokey are two hills in the San Onfree training area that are used for PT and forced march and infantry training. Mt. Motherf----r is shorter but longer than Old Smokey. I believe it's considered to be the worst of the two. Old smokey is taller and a near vertical climb but you get to the top quicker. I've never run up either but I did drive by them once when I was stationed at Camp Pendleton briefly in 1991.

You know I bet you're the only poster on this board who's ever climbed Mt. Motherfu--er. And you probably ran up it with a pack and rifle I'm guessing. I've blocked out nearly all of my time at Pendleton but l can gladly say that I never had to go all the way to the top of that particular beast I never wanted to go hiking or camping for some years after that What are you guys talking about? Some kind of marine training exercise? It's Marine Corps Boot Camp. Since Shady is from west of the Mississippi he went to MCRD San Diego and then to Camp Pendleton. Thirteen weeks of sun & fun in southern California with three charming tour guides to make sure you have a good time.. I was from east of the Mississippi so I went to Parris Island. That was thirteen weeks of sun, fun and sand (lots of that) in the glorious Carolina coastland with three charming tour guides to make sure you have a good time. Although the training is exactly the same it is actually a very different experience due to the difference of geography. It is a running debate amongst Marines which experience is tougher. The truth is they both have their challenges. We called the west coast guys Hollywood Marines. If they have a term for the Parris Island Marines I've forgotten it.

You know I bet you're the only poster on this board who's ever climbed Mt. Motherfu--er. And you probably ran up it with a pack and rifle I'm guessing.

Wow, a whole thread to say happy birthday to yourself. You aren't a Dark Raven alt are you? Just kidding, Gabrielle was way more snarky than you. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

As I was saying: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-evangelicals-in-republican-party-are-feeling-left-out-see-no-standard-bearer/2014/08/16/77c380e8-224e-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

I hope you will reconsider that position in the future. Drugs have been legal for the majority of our history and banning them undermines our founding principles on every level. Legalizing drugs would not increase how commonly it's used, and if they were legal they'd be cheaper. If they're cheaper expect that the odds of drug addicts committing crimes to fund their habit to decline dramatically. I agree with you for the most part and see no issue with legalizing recreational drugs such as Marijuana or Cocaine. But psychoactive drugs like PCP, LSD, etc can easily lead to a user freaking out and injuring a innocent person. I don't care what someone does to themselves and neither should anyone else. I do care what they might do to others and psychoactive drugs raise the risk to a level that makes their legalization unacceptably risky. By the way, say MJ & Coke were legal and an employer wishes to test for it an not hire or not retain people who use that is perfectly OK too.

I hope you will reconsider that position in the future. Drugs have been legal for the majority of our history and banning them undermines our founding principles on every level. Legalizing drugs would not increase how commonly it's used, and if they were legal they'd be cheaper. If they're cheaper expect that the odds of drug addicts committing crimes to fund their habit to decline dramatically. I agree with you for the most part and see no issue with legalizing recreational drugs such as Marijuana or Cocaine. But psychoactive drugs like PCP, LSD, etc can easily lead to a user freaking out and injuring a innocent person. I don't care what someone does to themselves and neither should anyone else. I do care what they might do to others and psychoactive drugs raise the risk to a level that makes their legalization unacceptably risky.

Why? We can adopt it and then force everyone else to follow it and then kill them if they refuse!

Your freedom ends the instant it intrudes on someone else. Killing & stealing affect other people. Consenting adults marrying whoever they want does not. c'mon, you know better than that! as far as drug use I would not go so far as to legalize all drugs because with some there ARE significant public safety concerns. But is a gay couple moves in next door and you don't like them being there... move. You are free to move, to ignore them etc. No one is forcing you to like anything.

I planted pumpkins in the garden last month. They are really coming along! Today I'm cleaning out the rabbit cages, playing with Sunny & Tommy and tonight I'm taking my wife out for dinner. Gonna be a good day.

No what it does is allow the government to intrude into areas where people really don't need to be governed. I know we are going to have to agree to disagree on this but I'm standing by my point here. The narrative from the left is You Must Do this, You Can't Own That, You Must Buy This, You Can't Read That. If we value or future as a free country we have to defeat that. It's only going to happen by providing a clear and contrasting alternative. Not something equally oppressive but in a different way. Being Christian, being a moral person is a choice you make for yourself. You can't make it for anyone else. I am a Christian and for the most part I have tried to live my life in such a way that Jesus will be happy with me when I do meet Him. But aside from leading by example that is a choice I can only make for myself.

You see WoD the biggest problem with that is a philosophical one that is tearing the GOP in two. How can the GOP be in favor of smaller government while half of it wants the government to be the arbiter and enforcer of morality? How can you be in favor of more freedom while at the same time opposing more freedom? What the religious right fails to understand about the Christian faith is that no one can be compelled to follow it. Jesus wanted people to follow his example by choice, not because the government compelled them to do so. If you oppose abortion, don't have one. Encourage others not to, provide an alternative, but in the end you don't get to tell someone else what they can't do simply because you don't believe in it and you don't get to use the government as a stick to force people to behave in a certain way. That is what is so vile and repugnant to me about democrats. The really believe the proper role of government is to control every aspect of our lives. It is borne in the arrogant notion that they are smarter than us and better than us therefore it's proper that they rule over us. To me that sums up Barack Obama's attitude in a nutshell. The religious right would behave in the same way. The Christian religion is unique in that you can only be Christian by actually BEING Christian. If your faith opposes gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person. Don't go to their wedding, don't send them a gift. But you don't get to tell them they can't because you don't believe in it and you certainly don't use the government to do it for you. What they religious right needs to realize is that by using government to control people they are becoming the flip side of the same ugly coin as the democrats.

Libertarians are too obsessed with states rights for my tastes. That said; sure you CAN vote libertarian, but everyone knows that a vote for a third party is a waste of a vote. I'm hoping the republicans will drop the big government aspects of the party and adopt a small government stance on those issues. If only for the party's survival; the republicans MUST end the drug war, support gay marriage, and change their platform of foreign entanglements. The fact that doing so will actually coincide with their message of small government and be good for the country is a bonus. They don't have to be as extreme as the libertarians, but a move in that direction would give them some kind of future. I also feel I should note that their pro-life stance is one I oppose, but it is actually good for the party's future. After all, Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the country and they are usually pro-life. So while I support abortion; I am certain remaining pro-life is a good idea. Actually if Republicans want to survive they should become more libertarian rather than democrat-lite. The democrats are all about big government, more regulations, more taxes, less freedom. The best way to defeat that is to offer a choice that is completely opposite rather than more of the same just not as much.

Your articles are just someone's opinion that happens to correspond to your own. We have plenty of unemployed people who could use those jobs. To say illegal immigration doesn't cost us anything is ridiculous, 20 years ago Harry Reid ranted that 25% of births in California public hospitals was to illegals. Who's paying for those births? Every child of illegals born in the US is an immediate US citizens, eligible for all welfare benefits. All they have to do is have half a dozen kids, then live high off the hog on the US taxpayer. And what's the rate now, 50%? 80%? California has 4 times as many poor as any other state, where do you think those poor are coming from? Education is free for them, medical services are free, often housing is. Who's paying for all that? Just to deal with the current immigration crisis, Obama asked for 4 billion dollars just as a supplement, just for a short time, that's more than the entire 2000 mile fence, assuming 2 million dollars per mile. Do you know that the government actually gives tax id numbers to illegals, theoretically so they could pay taxes (lol), but they actually use them to fraudulently obtain billions of dollars from the government by filing fake tax returns. Not to mention all the other crimes they're committing, all the social problems they create. Just a few days ago here an apparent illegal killed a family of four in a car accident trying to escape the police. Normally a society tries to eradicate poverty, we're intentionally importing it. As far as overstaying visas, I already said they have to start tracking the visas, go find the people doing it and revoke their visas forever. Do you really see lots of Americans doing the low income jobs that many Hispanics are prepared to do? Like construction, cleaners and domestic maids. My experience has been these are jobs most Americans aren't really prepared to do? As I pointed out above Bruce, once these folks are legal these jobs won't be so low income anymore. Employers won't be able to get away with paying below minimum wage under the table.

You know the irony here is all the different groups who want to give these folks legal status want something different and all those ends are in opposition to each other. Businesses want cheap and legal labor but once they are legal they won't be able to abuse these folks by underpaying anymore. They will be subject to wage laws and taxes just like everyone else. So there goes the cheap labor. Democrats want them to be able to vote because they think these folks will love big government and taxpayer handouts they will vote for them and are trying to get the republicans to go along. Republicans think since most of these folks are religious they will favor them so that is their motive. Unions see millions of potential new members which will dilute the labor pool and lower everyone's wages but the truth is Unions stopped caring about that a log time ago. Now they are all bout their dues and politics. La Raza and other Hispanic hate groups want to flood the southwestern states and break away from the US to form their own banana republic so they are pushing hard to get 12 millions more folks they thinks will follow their thinking. All of these groups in favor of amnesty are like wolves fighting over a piece of meat and they all have 2 things in common, 1) they don't really care about the people they claim to be trying to help, only how they can exploit them and 2) The don't care about any potential negative impacts on the country or the people already living and paying the taxes here.

So, how's that hopey changy thing working for everyone? Well, at least this was the one campaign promise he did keep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak