Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prog and Con

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ya, about that...do you think that when those guys (and women, I suppose these days...) raise their hands and swear a loyalty oath to protect the United States of America, to the point of actually laying down their lives (so help them god), that they should automatically be considered citizens of said US of A as long as they perform due diligence (learn to speak the vernacular, are familiar with laws, government and history)?
    ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
    IN MARE IN COELO

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
      Ya, about that...do you think that when those guys (and women, I suppose these days...) raise their hands and swear a loyalty oath to protect the United States of America, to the point of actually laying down their lives (so help them god), that they should automatically be considered citizens of said US of A as long as they perform due diligence (learn to speak the vernacular, are familiar with laws, government and history)?
      I would think it would be appropriate at the end of their service, if performed honorably.
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post

        To God, Corps and Country.

        When did it become necessary to separate American from Marine in your view?
        Royal Marines




        royal
        Danish marines, traditional uniform...
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

          It does mean you can be a smart conservative and a smart progressive at the same time.
          You won't be considered a 'true' conservative by the die-hards.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
            You SHOULD know. All Marine are not American
            No kidding, the oldest Marines are the Spanish Marines, what's your point?
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              Absolutely correct. There are Marines who are not US citizens and are motivated to serve anyways. I had some in my units.
              Are you claiming that green card holders are not American Marines?

              What are they; Dutch Marines in the American Marines?
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                No kidding, THE OLDEST MARINES are the Spanish Marines, what's your point?
                inadequate SPANISH PENSIONS
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                  Anarchy vs totalitarianism are not the two options.
                  Taking an extremist view like that is not the option.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                    inadequate SPANISH PENSIONS
                    No.....these guys:
                    Attached Files
                    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                      Have you considered the possibility that your (US American) "conservatives" might be already be quite "progressive" by "Old World" standards ?



                      Any more than I have problems with Jews, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons or Quakers,

                      nothing better than a good, old-fashioned, drunk, pagan though is there




                      Oh and I don't want the Irish either.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0BcQTIr4c
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        A smart conservative wants to keep whats good.
                        A smart progressive wants to change whats bad.

                        It does mean you can be a smart conservative and a smart progressive at the same time.

                        Is that the way forward to diminishing current polarization of US politics ?
                        You do realize that none of these terms are set in stone. I mean, a hundred years ago workplace safety and health regulation was seen as a "progressive" issue.



                        So too was the Interstate Highway Act, even the Erie Canal at one time was viewed as "progressive." Nowadays, so-called "conservatives" say brilliant things like this:





                        The truth has nothing to do with ideology, or even much to do with aforementioned ideological labels. It's all about interest: advancing or protecting some interest, almost always a self-interest. There are three issues at play rendering today's political climate so apparently polarized:

                        1) The nature of government spending is zero-sum. To fund Peter, government has no alternative than to take from Paul, since government as an enterprise generates no profit, ie wealth;

                        2) Ego, pride, hubris are all examples of self-interest. They're not necessarily rational self-interests, but they're interests nonetheless, and it seems that people are willing to go to quite some lengths to ensure that they're not getting sh*t upon symbolically while at the same time ensuring that they're symbolically sh*tting on some one else. It's a condition endemic to Homo sapiens as you've no doubt observed (sort of ties in to TactiKill J.'s observation about "identity politics" earlier in this thread);

                        3) If one can construct ratios representing knowledge-to-population and wisdom-to-affluence throughout history, one will find that our species is experiencing rather an historic nadir. Never before in human history has the greatest share of the species had real access to wholesome food, clean water, basic medical care, elementary and higher education, transportation, not to mention the accumulated body of human knowledge -- and we're actually getting dumber, not smarter, and certainly not wiser. We're evolving in reverse. A little over a century ago we thought ourselves on the cusp of a great age, wherein technology and wealth would rise up and bring out the best in every man. It turns out that we're morphing into little monkeys -- not the wild antediluvian variety, but some kind of semi-domesticated breed, spoiled beyond all belief. Maybe we're destined to be some superior species' pets.

                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                          Almost everyone is dependent on one thing or another, whether prog or con.
                          True, but being dependent upon things that don't work is a dead end.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            You do realize that none of these terms are set in stone. I mean, a hundred years ago workplace safety and health regulation was seen as a "progressive" issue.



                            So too was the Interstate Highway Act, even the Erie Canal at one time was viewed as "progressive." Nowadays, so-called "conservatives" say brilliant things like this:





                            The truth has nothing to do with ideology, or even much to do with aforementioned ideological labels. It's all about interest: advancing or protecting some interest, almost always a self-interest. There are three issues at play rendering today's political climate so apparently polarized:

                            1) The nature of government spending is zero-sum. To fund Peter, government has no alternative than to take from Paul, since government as an enterprise generates no profit, ie wealth;

                            2) Ego, pride, hubris are all examples of self-interest. They're not necessarily rational self-interests, but they're interests nonetheless, and it seems that people are willing to go to quite some lengths to ensure that they're not getting sh*t upon symbolically while at the same time ensuring that they're symbolically sh*tting on some one else. It's a condition endemic to Homo sapiens as you've no doubt observed (sort of ties in to TactiKill J.'s observation about "identity politics" earlier in this thread);

                            3) If one can construct ratios representing knowledge-to-population and wisdom-to-affluence throughout history, one will find that our species is experiencing rather an historic nadir. Never before in human history has the greatest share of the species had real access to wholesome food, clean water, basic medical care, elementary and higher education, transportation, not to mention the accumulated body of human knowledge -- and we're actually getting dumber, not smarter, and certainly not wiser. We're evolving in reverse. A little over a century ago we thought ourselves on the cusp of a great age, wherein technology and wealth would rise up and bring out the best in every man. It turns out that we're morphing into little monkeys -- not the wild antediluvian variety, but some kind of semi-domesticated breed, spoiled beyond all belief. Maybe we're destined to be some superior species' pets.

                            I think you're projecting your personal political biases onto others, which is pure "identity politics".
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              I think you're projecting your personal political biases onto others, which is pure "identity politics".
                              With which portion of my post do you disagree?
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                                No.....these guys:
                                SO sorry so sorry- you meant ,I think, oldest marine CORPS.....
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X