Basejumper.com - archive

* edit to add *:
NEW LINK up again 2 posts below .

YouTube has playing :
2016 Obama's America . ( full movie ) .
.
http://www.youtube.com/...ed&v=tDY6v8KdSYs
.

Well Damn !
that did not last long & ' got Pulled ' from YouTube for copyright claims .
Good documentary & I believe still showing in theaters in limited engagements in the US .
.

YES
BACK UP AGAIN

http://vimeo.com/49978202
.

BUMP one more time. for this Non-fiction Documentary .

2016: The Movie" documentary - is still in the top 20 during its eleventh week on the chart for the weekend of September 21-23.
its Gross total-to-date to an astounding $32 million since its release in mid-July .

.
http://vimeo.com/49978202
. cant last much longer & is really a treat for those who live far from the theaters that are showing this film .

.

Pulled & GONE AGAIN .
-
Sorry, "2016 Barry Soetoro's America" was deleted at 5:37:39 Tue Sep 25, 2012.

We have no more information about it on our mainframe or elsewhere.
.

 
I hope you have a good cry when he gets reelected.

Hey it's possible . Who would have thought that a guy with a resume lacking in credentials to hold the office would be elected President of the USA ?
May the 'Hope & Change' be with you .
.

LOL.

He was a sitting US Senator, a former civil rights attorney, a former constitutional law professor with a law degree from Harvard Law School, and the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

But yeah, completely lacking in credentials!

You cant Bate me into a non-productive political argument . So give it up chump .
.

 

Hahaha, in your world facts == "baiting". Yup, that's pretty much what I expected from you.

You are not very smart.

So, will you be having a good cry if he doesn't get re-elected?

What you have listed as his qualifications for President, is equally as dumb as McCain saying, "I've been tested."

Being a shitty pilot, getting shot down (after being SENT on a mission - not ordering THE mission) and becoming a POW, doesn't qualify you for President and establish experience or knowledge base in making military and National Security decisions.

You have NOT been tested, "my friend". You have been, Beaten... and I do feel bad for you for that.


Both men, were, and still are, an absolute joke.

Romney just promised to open up half dome, so suck on that!

 
Yes.

Well then, let me be the first to offer...

http://www.kleenex.com/UltraSoft.aspx

History will be again made with this election. Hopefully the first Mormon President, doesn't suck like the first Black President.

If he does, we will likely, and finally, have a third party.

So you know what it's like to fly a combat mission? Or what it's like to rot away for years in the Hanoi Hilton, getting the shit beat out of you every day, while fellow citizens back home call you a baby killer? No one is saying that every POW would make the best president, but please consider showing a little more respect for his sacrifices.

There are only 3 constitutional criteria to be "qualified" for the Presidency: Natural born citizen, age 30 or older, and at least 14 years resident of the U.S.

Whether you like his politics or not he (like Obama) is probably one of the least dishonest and most consistently centrist politicians in D.C., Although these days, that relative distinction is not very hard to achieve.

And I'm not sure what you'd call a former RINO from Massachussetts who mandated health care and signed gun-control bills, yet calls himself "severely conservative." Tell me convincingly where he stands on a single solitary issue. But many people don't seem to care, as long as you call him, "not Obama."

"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite." -Joseph de Maistre

»He won't win. Obama will take Ohio, and Romney will have to take the reamaining 7 swing states to win, all of which voted for Obama in 2008 and which he will be unable to do.

Wisconsin opens up an interesting possibility. Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin and if Romney can take it, then the whole electoral map changes.

Every small swing state becomes important, because of the possibility of a 269-269 electoral vote split.

If a split happens, Congress chooses the next President. And the congress is Republican. Romney wins.

Your forgot to list his amazing capability to get gullible people to vote for him.

Bottom line is he's not the second coming of Christ. He's just another lying politician who makes empty promises to the masses and whose influence is for sale to the highest bidder.

Ever look at opensecrets.org to see who his owns him?

What I want to know is if *anyone* who voted for him actually looked at his voting and attendance record and, if so, why the hell they considered it acceptable to hire someone whose pathetic work performance would get any of us with real jobs fired?

Also, why do his supporters conveniently ignore the "Fast and Furious" fiasco? Dozens of people have been murdered with those weapons. Is it ok because nearly all of them were Mexican citizens? If any us regular citizens did what Obama's people did, we would probably receive multiple life sentences, and rightfully so.

Unreal.

Walt

I looked at it. I still voted for him and I will again. What specifically is your concern with his senate record, have you looked at his entire tenure, and was he worse than McCain? Edited


Were you this furious with Reagan and Bush Sr. over the Iran-Contra scandal? Or when the Abu Ghraib story broke? Or when Clinton's philandering was exposed?

I'd call it rationalization. If the president is "one of us," the scandal is just one of the inevitable scandals of any presidency. If he's "one of them," it's holy murder and damn him all the way to the ballot box. I think we all do it.

The difference between an Obama voter and a Romney voter? Obama voters for the most part genuinely admire the President and are pleased to have him in office. Romney voters just want someone, anyone, who's not the current president. Which is kind of like the Democrats were in 2004, no?

Also edited

It's been a while (since the last presidential election) so I don't recall the details off the top of my head but the three main things I look for are 1) where does a candidate's money come from 2) does he actually show up and do the work and 3) what is his voting record on guns and spending. Obama sucked on all counts. McCain was slightly better--at least he wasn't prone to shitting all over the 2nd amendment at every possible opportunity. I voted for McCain for the same reason I will vote for Romney--yes, because Obama needs to go and I would vote for Satan to get him the hell out of there.

BTW, I think it was a senator from Maine that had the best record for showing up and doing the work when I last looked.

Yes, I realize that the lesser of two evils is still evil and am completely disgusted with both major parties. The system is badly broken and I would very much like to see both parties dismantled.


That's a very good question and the answer has a lot to do with my attitude toward Obama.

My reaction to Iran-Contra was similar to my reaction to the Watergate scandal in that they were delayed. Breaking laws to achieve political objectives is something we, as a country, should not rationalize or tolerate.

The reason my reaction to Nixon's dirty work was delayed had a lot to do with the political climate in the country. Much like we are experiencing currently, the country is very divided and the simple truth that we had a president who considered himself above the law was lost (at least to me) in all the political grandstanding.

The reason my reaction to Iran-Contra was delayed is my respect for the military. When Colonel North used the line about American lives being put at risk because of the hearings, my gut reaction was they needed to stop the witch hunt and pursue the charges in a less open way. After a while, though, the inescapable truth was that we had an administration that considered itself to be above the law.

Having had those experiences, I see Obama's arrogance and eagerness to shit all over the constitution and the laws and I am a lot less inclined to think we should handle it gently. Simply put, I think he and Eric Holder belong in prison.

I did not like Clinton but did not think impeachment was the answer. What bothered me most is that he lied. I thought he was a slimeball but I would have gained a lot of respect for him had he simply said, "Hell yes I banged an intern--it's nice being king!". I would not have like his actions but I would have applauded his honesty.

Do you not find it disturbing that there are "inevitable" scandals with each presidency? Have we really set the bar *that* low? I think we can do a *lot* better than that.


I cannot help but feel that anyone who genuinely admires Obama is doing it for reasons that I would consider either extremely shallow or outright wrong (as in incorrect kind of wrong, not morally wrong).

I think we have hit a serious low point in our country if he is the best our system can come up with.

No, I don't think Romney is the answer--he's just a bandaid fix. We desperately need a viable third party in this country and need to investigate, prosecute, and imprison dishonest elected officials in this country regardless of political party affiliation.

Enough ranting. It's getting late.

Walt

Mmm... yeah, I’d say so, as much as a civilian could.

My grandpa was a gunner on a bomber in WW2. He too was shot down, and spent a nice chunk of time in a raft before rescue.

My next-door neighbor, who is like a third grandpa, is a retired Navy fighter pilot: Captain and a CAG(!). Have had plenty of conversation with both, and both knew my desires. And of course there are countless TV programs I’ve watched (past and present tech). I have loved watching anything on the History Channel about air combat and WW2 stuff, especially when with my grandpa at my side.

From a young age, up until about 20ish, I wanted to be a pilot for the sole desire of getting into the space program. I was one of those kids that ACTUALLY wanted to be an astronaut ("actually", being said through serious research and study, not just “being a kid”, and I was quite uninterested in things like Space Camp), which was in addition to my father’s stories of skydiving (he stopped right around when squares were coming out - I got him back in and also taught him BASE), where I knew not only that when I was 18 I would be skydiving for the rest of my life, but that that would be my only way in if so, through being a pilot.

It was a BASE jumper and F-(?)14(?) pilot that told me about a lot of the BS you deal with, and how little time you actually get to spend in the cockpit...(among other things like training, mission planning, weapon systems, ect.)...that began to change my desires. I already knew only the best could get into the space program, but with everything we talked about, that career in itself had become even less desirable.

Oh well... I do love Emergency Medicine.

So yeah, unless you are going on the emotions and stressors aspect that come with flying combat missions, but again, doesn't mean you are qualified to be President. Though I would definitely prefer military experience over none.

Character, is far more important.


That really has nothing to do with anything... and I did say I felt bad for him.


Morons... hate the men in power for sending them, not the soldiers.

Even more so with a draft... jeez.


Yeah, but he WAS saying that... and that’s crap.

I voted for him, that’s all the respect I need to give him. McCain went from a POW, to a public person... and if you are going to be a Progressive douche bag who idolizes Teddy, I’m gonna call it like I see it.

You were NOT tested, you were beaten.

And as far as his skills... I did more research back then, but a quick re-search gave me this: http://articles.latimes.com/...6/nation/na-aviator6


So, you're saying Obama isn't eligible?



"Shaking Head"... Good Shit.

He was TOTALLY born in Hawaii... and his mentor (white grandpa approved) was a card carrying Communist (#47544) who had a thick FBI file and could have immediately been arrested if war with the Soviet Union broke out.


Yeah... that's laughable.

Sorry, but, there is no such thing as a "centrist."

That is Progressive manipulation. Bush was not a "Center Right (R)"... he was a Progressive.

Tyranny is on the left ... Anarchy on the right.

Communism, Fascism, Nazism (National vs Global Socialism - Marx was a globalist, not a nationalist like Mr. Mustache), Maoism, Crony Capitalism, P.S.X... it's all the same, Tyranny, and all on the same side... the Left.

Federalism and the Constitution... are on the left side of the Articles of Confederation, which was too close to anarchy and failed.

McCain is a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive... same basic goals, Same Cancer, just a slower route around the Constitution; just with an R instead of a D.

When Obama says, "the policies of the past"... he is not talking about Limited Government, the Constitution, and Federalism. He is talking about Big Government Progressivism, with an R. Its the difference between Bud and Bud Light.

Read what Washington said in his Farewell Address about parties... RUN, from them!

McCain is not a protector of the Constitution. And Obama, has overseen the most corrupt administration in History. To those who called Cheney Darth Vader... yeah, Valerie Jarrett is far worse, and they grew up together. And if you don't know about her father, you have not done your homework.


No, its pretty simple... its called Progressivism.

It is the Cancer of America.

Teddy, Wilson... and FDR. Two D's and an R.

Hilary Clinton... (0:48 - 0:55)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc

Don't listen to her itemized explanation... just do your homework on the Progressive Era.


A Progressive. Even Jimmy Carter said it.

“You’d be comfortable with a Romney presidency?” host Chris Jansing asked.

“I’d rather have a Democrat,” Carter said. “But I’d be comfortable. I think Romney has shown in the past in his previous years as a moderate – a progressive – that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics. As you know he’s a good solid family man.”

http://www.theblaze.com/...a-romney-presidency/

Reagan was also a Progressive, who then began to dabbled in Founding Principles.


Okay!

The Federal Reserve... this man clearly gets it.

And Obama has clearly shown, he has no balls.

When in private and when he thinks no one is listening... Obama tells our enemy, "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Wow!

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir."






Mitt Romney...

When he thinks he is in private, he says (in response to a question):

"Yeah, it's interesting...the former head of Goldman Sachs, John Whitehead, was also the former head of the New York Federal Reserve. And I met with him, and he said as soon as the Fed stops buying all the debt that we're issuing-which they've been doing, the Fed's buying like three-quarters of the debt that America issues. He said, once that's over, he said we're going to have a failed Treasury auction, interest rates are going to have to go up. We're living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money. You know, we borrow this extra trillion a year, we wonder who's loaning us the trillion? The Chinese aren't loaning us anymore. The Russians aren't loaning it to us anymore. So who's giving us the trillion? And the answer is we're just making it up. The Federal Reserve is just taking it and saying, "Here, we're giving it.' It's just made up money, and this does not augur well for our economic future.

This is, Profound... and from a Major Presidential Candidate.

Yet the "media" only paid attention to the 47% part.

Cowards.

Currently, after the Fed... the Japanese now hold most of our debt, not the Chinese. They have been getting out of US bonds. Selling them off and buying tangible resources (gold, oil, minerals).

China, Does Not Need the USA.


I raise you, Sir...

"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - Washington


Edit: sp

Can we stop comparing current and future presidents to recent shitty progressive presidents... and start comparing them to, say, George Washington?


Because Obama voter's generally do not know Founding Principles.

Just like with many Republican voters who nominate people like McCain.

And McCain is a coward... where unlike his daughter, who is just a moron, has ACTUALLY said, "I'm a Progressive Republican." Although she pulls a Hillary and given an explanation, that is NOT what a progressive is.

Like Father, Like Daughter.

OMG, I'm Like, totally pro-sex and a progressive republican. Like, OMG!

Sigh...


Which is really dumb... D and R alike.

Thats not quite true. The political -isms might be left wing, but the whole definition of dictatorships are a right wing invention. I also find it hard to believe that you would call Augusto Pinochet or Fulgencio Batista for left wing politicians.

The distance between extreme left and extreme right are far closer than people on any of the sides like to admit.

Dictatorship = Total/Absolute Power = Tyranny.

On the Spectrum, as observed by the Men of the Convention... left and right is defined by the scope of influence of government.

Total/Absolute Power is on the left... no government, Anarchy, is on the right.

The Constitution gave the central government more power, but was narrow and specific, Limited, in order to bind the hands of power and insure the states remained strong as under the AoC, but gave the central government enough power to maintain its Limited Powers.

People need to stop saying Small Government... its not about size, it is about scope of influence.

Limited Republican Government... Federalism.



As far as Founding Principles go, you are incorrect.

Over there... call it whatever you want.

Over here... you are incorrect.

As there are no 100% definition of the terms left and right in politics people tend to put what they want into the terms in order to justify their own opinions. Here is Wikipedias definition (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics):


This is a pretty opposite definition or yours. Here Anarchists are placed in the left, while Nazis and fascists are on the right.

The fact that we disagree on such basic definition of what an Nazi is just proves my opinion that the extremes are closer connected than they appear.

Great points.

Obama and McCain both appear to have had pretty good attendance records except when they were running for president... I'll cut them some slack there, apparently that is a time-consuming endeavour.

http://www.govtrack.us/.../barack_obama/400629
http://www.govtrack.us/...s/john_mccain/300071

I mostly care about their record in energy & civil liberties, foreign policy skill, and their personal science literacy. Economy takes a back seat for me, because I don't think a president has nearly as much control over the economy as he gets credit for. On the other hand, a completely gridlocked government, I can see causing huge economic dysfunction.

Either way I bet employment is 4-5% in 4 years, and whoever is president will surely take credit for that.

I think Fast-n-furious needs a better public investigation, and that woulda happened, if the budget crises hadn't taken front and center stage in Washington. I'm not going to jump to conclusions about anyone's guilt in the meantime, though.

I totally share your disappointment with the current moral standards, but I'm not sure what it will actually take to fix the system. "Just vote em out" doesn't seem to work with a distractable electorate. Maybe we need an independent watchdog but that's a constitutional issue.

In the interest of brevity, forgive me if I focus on just a few points...

FYI there are civilians ("government contractors") in SWA right now, flying balls-to-the-wall combat missions. What would you say to someone who hasn't got first-hand experience, but thinks that watching videos & conversation is enough to make fully informed judgements?


Well, why do ya think they were beating him... it wasn't purposeless. It was full-on torture interrogation and propoganda mining. Those POWs who gave in--or in some cases, even collaborated--were treated accordingly. If that's not a test, I don't know what is.

I highly recommend checking out this book: Honor Bound. (It was actually co-authored by one of my former professors)

I read the article about McCain's flying, but I don't think it supports your point at all. I would suggest judging pilots of the 1960s by the standards of the 1960s, which are worlds apart from today's. This is drifting pretty far off topic, but if you start a new thread I'd be happy to take it there instead.

You know, people throw around inflammatory terms like "coward," "moron," and "nazi" quite readily, and often it only provokes emotional responses, and intelligent debate suffers. I do think its part of the polarization problem today.

I will also modify my statement that Obama is a centrist politician. According to govtrack.us he voted "far left" during his senate career. Also the DW-NOMINATE data (as interpreted by xkcd) puts him squarely "left," though not far left. So data wins, he wasn't a centrist senator. I think he was a little more centrist as president but again it depends where your "center" is. And we'll probably have to agree to disagree on a lot of the rest of it...

We desperately need a viable third party in this country and
need to investigate, prosecute, and imprison dishonest elected
officials in this country regardless of political party affiliation.

I agree.

As long as elections are televized pageants paid for by
lots and lots and lots of money from companies and a
bunch of wealthy people wanting to buy influence...
well the shitty soap opera of American politics will
continue as scheduled.

FYI -- bills dealing with spending start in the Ways and
Means committee, then goes to the 435 Representatives
in the House, then to the 100 people in the Senate, and
then does it go to the President, per the US Constitution.

That is something I could not get past, and that criticism applied to all the candidates in 2008. Would most employers tolerate it if someone did not show up to work very often because they were too busy trying to get a job they wanted more than their current job? To me what the candidates were doing in full public view seemed very brazen and conveyed a sense of entitlement and arrogance. My thoughts have not changed.

Thankyou for posting these links. I had not seen this website before. I have bookmarked it and will be taking a closer look.


Even though we have differing views, I respect the fact that you have specific criteria you look for and you look at the available data instead of simply getting starry-eyed because of some campaign speech you happened to like. Good on you for that.

I think you are overly optimistic on the economy but I hope you are right and I am wrong. Agreed on whoever is president at the time taking credit!

What I cannot get past is the lack of accountability. As a gun owner I am very sensitive to the fact that media use gun-related crime to try and sway public opinion toward more restrictive gun laws. To law-abiding gun owners, the fact that the U.S. government intentionally committed major felonies that resulted in dozens of deaths is unimaginable. There is no excuse.
Agreed.

FWIW, here is some data from opensecrets.org. It's pretty easy to look at the 2008 data and see the conflicts of interest both Obama *and* McCain had with the financial industry at a time when the phrase, "too big to fail" was the excuse for bailing out large financial corporation whose out-of-control greed put them at risk. Remember when both McCain and Obama temporarily stopped their campaigning so they could return to Washington D.C., to vote on (I think) TARP because it was so "important to the country"?

It is interesting to see the change in Obama's 2012 major contributors. Personally, I wouldn't care if Jesus and his disciples were the top contributors--I would not vote for him because of his actions while in office.

Overall, when you look at the candidates major contributions, it paints a very corrupt picture.

Obama's major contributors (2012 election)
------------------------------------------
University of California: $1,092,906
Microsoft Corp: $761,343
Google Inc: $737,055
US Government: $627,628
Harvard University: $602,992
Kaiser Permanente: $532,674
Stanford University: $473,372
Deloitte LLP: $430,084
Columbia University: $411,894
Time Warner: $408,512
DLA Piper: $393,102
Sidley Austin LLP: $377,133
University of Chicago: $325,256
Comcast Corp: $320,366
IBM Corp: $318,645
US Dept of State: $308,926
University of Michigan: $308,410
US Dept of Justice: $300,455
Wells Fargo: $288,804
Apple Inc: $270,856

Romney's major contributors (2012 election)
------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs: $994,139
Bank of America: $921,839
Morgan Stanley: $827,255
JPMorgan Chase & Co: $792,147
Credit Suisse Group: $618,941
Wells Fargo: $598,379
Deloitte LLP: $554,552
Kirkland & Ellis: $496,722
Citigroup Inc: $465,063
Barclays: $428,250
PricewaterhouseCoopers $421,085
UBS AG: $400,390
HIG Capital: $385,500
Blackstone Group: $360,225
Ernst & Young: $293,067
EMC Corp: $288,440
General Electric: $287,495
Elliott Management $281,925
Bain Capital $279,220
Rothman Institute $263,700


Obama's major contributors (2008 election)
------------------------------------------
University of California: $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs: $1,013,091
Harvard University: $878,164
Microsoft Corp: $852,167
Google Inc: $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co: $808,799
Citigroup Inc: $736,771
Time Warner: $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP: $600,298
Stanford University: $595,716
National Amusements Inc: $563,798
WilmerHale LLP: $550,668
Columbia University: $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al: $543,539
UBS AG: $532,674
IBM Corp: $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295


McCain's major contributors (2008 election)
------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch: $375,895
JPMorgan Chase & Co: $343,505
Citigroup Inc: $338,202
Morgan Stanley: $271,902
Goldman Sachs: $240,295
US Government: $202,929
AT&T Inc: $201,938
Wachovia Corp: $199,663
UBS AG: $187,493
Credit Suisse Group: $184,153
PricewaterhouseCoopers: $169,400
US Army: $169,020
Bank of America: $167,826
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: $160,346
Blank Rome LLP: $155,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP: $147,437
US Dept of Defense: $146,356
FedEx Corp: $131,974
Lehman Brothers: $126,557
Ernst & Young: $114,506

Enough ranting. I will be glad when this election is over. May the least evil candidates, whoever they may be, win.

Walt

Looks to me like Obama has a debt to repay to the tech sector and higher education, while Romney will have to make all those bank's investments worthwhile.

Choose your poison, external influence is never good. That being said, when was the last time Harvard or Google sent the nation's economy in a nosedive...

"Choose your poison, external influence is never good."

Very well said. That pretty well sums up our elections and why the system is so badly broken.

Walt

You have a way with words. I would like to see these words repeated over and over by political candidates and by the "political analysts" on television.

Walt

"hate the men in power for sending them, not the soldiers."

Why not? By definition, soliders are signing up to be used as a tool by politicians - I don't think that's smart or moral.

It might be different if the US were actually under a legitimate military threat, but that's a hard argument to make considering we have by far the strongest military.

I think there's an unquestioning idolatry of the military that is not healthy.

I somewhat agree with your reasoning but not your conclusion. Among the people I hang with and including me, it's not unquestioning idolatry--it's respect that comes from seeing the sacrifices our military people make and their commitment to what we consider to be an honorable profession.


I wholeheartedly agree with the above.

The reason I said I somewhat agree with your reasoning is that signing up to serve at the whims of the kind of scum that run this country is not very smart for most people and may be on questionable moral ground when you look at it from that perspective, but in my opinion it is at worst a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

I do not view them in that light, though. I view them as people who for their own reasons have chosen to take on an honorable but very tough and often thankless job and put everything they have on the line to watch our collective backs.

I regularly skydive at Skydive Temple in Salado, Texas, which is the closest DZ to the largest military base in the U.S., so I have friends who serve and have been through multiple deployments. The other DZ where I regularly jump, Skydive San Marcos, in Fentress, Texas, has a lot of current and ex-military people also.

If you are around, I'll be happy to introduce you to some of the finest people I know who happen to be current or ex-military.

If my view of our military is unhealthy, that's ok--I will wear that label proudly.

Walt

 
I appreciate your measured and thoughtful reply.

Personally, I just can't see it as an honorable profession because they are signing up to (essentially) kill someone else when a politician tells them to do it.

And there's no doubt that they make sacrifices, but it's also true that many people enter the military just because they want a free college education or because they simply don't have any other options.

I also hear that there are lots of military people who cringe when people "thank them for their service", because they know they're just a tiny cog in a gigantic machine, and are usually not the tip of the spear but rather doing some incredibly mundane job.

Thankyou for your posts. Though we disagree, you have obviously put some thought into your views. I respect that.

Regarding whether it is an honorable profession, I understand your views and respect your reasoning behind them and think that one of our differences is that I am more willing to accept some of the moral hypocrisy that is inherent in having a military force.

I'm sure you remember the incident widely reported as the "Tailhook scandal". The short version is that an association of Naval and Marine aviators had an annual bash that included some very wild partying--drinking, hookers, party girls, etc. A great number of them had their careers cut short by (gotta love the irony of this) the Clinton administration.

It brought the moral hypocrisy into the spotlight. Let's see--we hire people to kill on command and give them the skills and equipment to do it on a mass scale, and yet we expect them to be choir boys.

Fuck that--that is not anywhere close to being realistic. I don't think being in the military gives anyone a free pass on bad behavior but we need to accept the fact that people are *not* machines and when we put people in situations where right and wrong become very blurred, then we need to accept the consequences that go with that.

I *want* a strong military to have our backs. I appreciate the fact that there are people willing to take on that task at high personal cost. I respect them and yes, I think they are honorable in their professions, though not necessarily every single thing they do. That applies to most people, I think. Maybe that's a rationalization, but I'm ok with it.

Unfortunately, our military is misused because we do them the disservice of electing corrupt "leaders" to employ them judiciously and in a moral way. It is not working.

You are correct in your reasons why some join the military and I have no qualms with that. Our military people deserve whatever benefit they get from serving.

You are also correct in that many military people cringe or feel a little embarrassed when they are thanked for their service. I think it comes from the fact that they did not choose to serve because of me or you--they did it for their own reasons. Still, what they do helps me sleep better at night knowing the caliber of people who have signed up to protect us and I think they deserve to be thanked and respected.

To put a face on it, I have attached some pics I took of a few of the guys that have our backs at one time or another.

You can call them dishonorable, immoral, or anything else you choose. I proudly call them friends.

Sorry about the thread drift, guys.

Walt

I'm only replying to this because I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this other than distractions and levity, particularly regarding veterans, most likely veterans of foreign wars...

google the terms youtube, eddie murphy, legion, VFW, veterans, foreign, wars, SNL, 198... and you will laugh if Eddie's first SNL skit is played.

Chris, could not find yours...

Obama Mother-Fucker:
http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

Eddie as Marley:
http://youtu.be/ClLWcQ6W6NU

And my personal favorite:
http://youtu.be/MLWs_nog2hQ