Which makes it perfect for politifact. I believe they did the same thing in 2012 where the Romney campaign lied their ass off all year and the picked a democratic one because BOTH SIDES BAD!
You probably should have checked before you said that.
I always find it disturbing that all the women on Fox are blondes. Obviously not all of them are naturals, which makes me think that they are either required or pressured into dying their hair.
Which I think is creepy if true.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I believe the term is bleaching their hair, dying is darkening. And I'm sure its required.
I saw last night at the gym there was a story fox was running about a marine captain facing charges for reporting something, so of course Kelly had on war criminal Allen West to talk about how unfair the Obama admin is.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I always find it disturbing that all the women on Fox are blondes. Obviously not all of them are naturals, which makes me think that they are either required or pressured into dying their hair.
Which I think is creepy if true.
What makes it ultra-creepy is that they all seem to have the same hairstyle as well. It's as if Fox does all their recruiting in the Village Of The Damned.
I always find it disturbing that all the women on Fox are blondes. Obviously not all of them are naturals, which makes me think that they are either required or pressured into dying their hair.
Which I think is creepy if true.
What makes it ultra-creepy is that they all seem to have the same hairstyle as well. It's as if Fox does all their recruiting in the Village Of The Damned.
No, it's more convenient for them to go to Stepford.
poltical cartoons are possibly the least informative media device in human history
Twitter. I mean, realistically I dont consider political cartoons to inform, usually because you have to have an idea on what the thing is already portraying to laugh at it.
Or as Samuel L Jackson said portraying a white street thug Gin Rummy on the boondocks (paraphrasing)"nothing of any importance in the history of mankind has been typed using only thumbs"
Twitter is actually pretty informative in the sense that so many people shoot their mouths off on it without thinking so you get completely honest reactions from people that they later try to go back and delete or say they didn't mean, or say that it was taken out of context, or say that it was misunderstood because they Tweeted without thinking to filter their self first.
Twitter is actually pretty informative in the sense that so many people shoot their mouths off on it without thinking so you get completely honest reactions from people that they later try to go back and delete or say they didn't mean, or say that it was taken out of context, or say that it was misunderstood because they Tweeted without thinking to filter their self first.
I actually use it to inform on my game server news. I can instantly say "hey It's going down for 15 minutes for an update" or "were back up", etc. I am just screwing around. But it is a scalpel that people misuse frequently. It's still a needle in the haystack kind of thing, just with a super efficient method for sorting the hay.
Political cartoons though... like if you don't know enough about the cartoon to find it funny, it's not going to teach you anything. If you think it informs things like "ROMNEY/OBAMA BAD" through the use of caricature in obvious negative light, I would assume people already made that decision and are saying "eh" or "yeah, he totally is!" without actually knowing whats going on.
Edit I assume we get specific on "inform" and politcal cartoon being those one panel monstrosities that are the equivilent of 2 and a half men style comedy. Like the fact that the one linked above had to have a caption that repeats what the comic shows, is kind of horrifying.
That's fucking insulting, which means it will be in the budget deal.
I fail to see why reducing manpower costs is insulting. I feel pretty strongly that current servicemembers should be grandfathered in to any cuts in benefits, but slowing pay growth and perhaps finding savings in benefits for future servicemembers? Not crazy talk. That it's seen as such is, I think, another failing of the ol' political media. Soldier pay shouldn't be a third rail, it should be something that can be legitimately discussed. I say this as somebody who would be directly affected.
As it is right now, an E-4 with two years in the service, stationed in my county, is getting paid $43K a year if they have dependents. That's after two years, with nothing more than a high school diploma. And $18K or so of that is tax-free allowances, so it's effectively closer to $50K. For a single servicemember, you're only looking at about $25K a year, but that's with room and board paid for (and at that rate you pay little if anything in taxes). $25K goes a long way when you don't pay rent, I was a single E-3 once so I'm speaking from experience.
Top it off with generous health benefits, ridiculous education benefits, and potentially one of the best retirement packages any non-CEO can expect in this nation (provided you go the distance)....yeah, the military is quite decently compensated.
I doubt the average person arguing one way or another about soldier pay even knows what soldiers make. I rarely see any numbers (for individual pay) mentioned when the issue comes up.
That's fucking insulting, which means it will be in the budget deal.
I fail to see why reducing manpower costs is insulting. I feel pretty strongly that current servicemembers should be grandfathered in to any cuts in benefits, but slowing pay growth and perhaps finding savings in benefits for future servicemembers? Not crazy talk. That it's seen as such is, I think, another failing of the ol' political media. Soldier pay shouldn't be a third rail, it should be something that can be legitimately discussed. I say this as somebody who would be directly affected.
As it is right now, an E-4 with two years in the service, stationed in my county, is getting paid $43K a year if they have dependents. That's after two years, with nothing more than a high school diploma. And $18K or so of that is tax-free allowances, so it's effectively closer to $50K. For a single servicemember, you're only looking at about $25K a year, but that's with room and board paid for (and at that rate you pay little if anything in taxes). $25K goes a long way when you don't pay rent, I was a single E-3 once so I'm speaking from experience.
Top it off with generous health benefits, ridiculous education benefits, and potentially one of the best retirement packages any non-CEO can expect in this nation (provided you go the distance)....yeah, the military is quite decently compensated.
I doubt the average person arguing one way or another about soldier pay even knows what soldiers make. I rarely see any numbers (for individual pay) mentioned when the issue comes up.
The reason it's insulting is simple - if you want to get cost savings out of the defense budget, there are vastly more deserving targets. Furthermore, your argument is a classic example of crab thinking.
People that sign up to die for their country should be compensated accordingly. If you like soldier benefits so much, nothing prevents you from joining the army other than age at this point.
Maybe instead of tearing down others in merica we should seek to lift our own stations up.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
People that sign up to die for their country should be compensated accordingly. If you like soldier benefits so much, nothing prevents you from joining the army other than age at this point.
Maybe instead of tearing down others in merica we should seek to lift our own stations up.
I am an Iraq veteran, still serving in the reserves. I intend to draw a military retirement.
I've done my share of ramp ceremonies, and nearly caught a few IEDs and mortars of my own. Save your snark.
EDIT: Which is to say I'm not "tearing down others." I'm talking about my own benefits as well. And at no point did I say they were excessive, just that they were better than decent, and that talking about where savings could be had is something we should be able to rationally do.
And personally I think that savings for the fed should come from subsidies to industries like oil, farming, and other bullshit money give aways to millionares and billionares. Soldiers benefits and federal workers in general are decidedly middle class. 50k is not some obscene amount of money for one person to be making, especially if they have dependents.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
People that sign up to die for their country should be compensated accordingly. If you like soldier benefits so much, nothing prevents you from joining the army other than age at this point.
Maybe instead of tearing down others in merica we should seek to lift our own stations up.
I am an Iraq veteran, still serving in the reserves. I intend to draw a military retirement.
I've done my share of ramp ceremonies, and nearly caught a few IEDs and mortars of my own. Save your snark.
EDIT: Which is to say I'm not "tearing down others." I'm talking about my own benefits as well. And at no point did I say they were excessive, just that they were better than decent, and that talking about where savings could be had is something we should be able to rationally do.
The point is this - soldier pay doesn't go anywhere near the table until all the stupid procurement skullduggery is dealt with. There is no reason to even look at it when you have weapons being procured that the military neither needs nor wants.
And personally I think that savings for the fed should come from subsidies to industries like oil, farming, and other bullshit money give aways to millionares and billionares. Soldiers benefits and federal workers in general are decidedly middle class. 50k is not some obscene amount of money for one person to be making, especially if they have dependents.
Never said it was obscene. It is a precisely median income for my county. For a 20-year-old, with nothing more than a high school education, that's still pretty damn good. Which, again, is not to say it is excessive. It's just to say that it's good enough that discussing areas of savings there shouldn't be a third rail. I think we could absolutely slow growth of general military pay and allowances (and perhaps increase hazard/hardship pays instead), or make other adjustments to military benefits.
Ignoring your whataboutery, what I'm seeing here is the standard emotional reaction to any such discussion, from both sides. Even though I still don't think 95% of the population has any idea what soldiers make (and the media doesn't report it in connection with such discussions). All they know is that no matter how much they make, it surely isn't enough. Which is not a rational position.
Both military pay and civilian pay are decent. Better than average, in most fields. Not obscenely high, and I certainly don't suggest "slashing" them. But they also are not particularly low either, so marginal adjustments to either (particularly if we're just talking about slowing growth) are something that should always be on the table in a budget discussion.
To me there are much more important higher savings areas than the pay of people making 50k mcdermott. That's my point. Its much more of a third rail to talk about pulling oil subsidies than having middle class federal workers take it on the chin. I mean how many government jobs have had pay raise freezes for how long? Yes the Oil subsidies continue the same as they always have even post BP.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
To me there are much more important higher savings areas than the pay of people making 50k mcdermott. That's my point. Its much more of a third rail to talk about pulling oil subsidies than having middle class federal workers take it on the chin. I mean how many government jobs have had pay raise freezes for how long? Yes the Oil subsidies continue the same as they always have even post BP.
And yes, my civilian pay has been frozen for some time now. All of these are issues that directly affect me.
I would agree that there are things in the Wide World of Budgeting that need cutting more. That's not the point.
It is to me, because the middle class is getting fucked and I don't think anything middle class should be on the table. We live in a time of absurd poverty gap, and no politician should be pointing to anyone who makes 50 to 200k as part of that problem in america, nor talking about cutting jack shit. There are places the belt can be tightened that are far more deserving and with a lot more fat on the bone than military/civilian pay, and so those should remain third rail policies forever.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
To me there are much more important higher savings areas than the pay of people making 50k mcdermott. That's my point. Its much more of a third rail to talk about pulling oil subsidies than having middle class federal workers take it on the chin. I mean how many government jobs have had pay raise freezes for how long? Yes the Oil subsidies continue the same as they always have even post BP.
And yes, my civilian pay has been frozen for some time now. All of these are issues that directly affect me.
I would agree that there are things in the Wide World of Budgeting that need cutting more. That's not the point.
Your point is Villagesque gooseshit. Saying "everything should be on the table" does not make you "serious", it just shows that you're willing to inflict pain to those least capable of withstanding it. There is nothing wrong with saying that we should be looking at corporate giveouts first before eying anything for individuals.
I am contintually amazed at how much the beltway is still asshurt the rest of the country still blames Bush for being a bad president. I mean jesus their attempts to drag Obama down to his level are fucking pathetic.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
You probably should have checked before you said that.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/dec/12/lie-year-2012-Romney-Jeeps-China/
pleasepaypreacher.net
She has a foreign accent therefore...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Which I think is creepy if true.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I saw last night at the gym there was a story fox was running about a marine captain facing charges for reporting something, so of course Kelly had on war criminal Allen West to talk about how unfair the Obama admin is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
She may not be from Real America, but she's one of the Good Ones from Shitty America.
Look dumbassistan will never be part of my america! SHES FOREIGN!
pleasepaypreacher.net
What makes it ultra-creepy is that they all seem to have the same hairstyle as well. It's as if Fox does all their recruiting in the Village Of The Damned.
No, it's more convenient for them to go to Stepford.
Twitter. I mean, realistically I dont consider political cartoons to inform, usually because you have to have an idea on what the thing is already portraying to laugh at it.
Or as Samuel L Jackson said portraying a white street thug Gin Rummy on the boondocks (paraphrasing)"nothing of any importance in the history of mankind has been typed using only thumbs"
I actually use it to inform on my game server news. I can instantly say "hey It's going down for 15 minutes for an update" or "were back up", etc. I am just screwing around. But it is a scalpel that people misuse frequently. It's still a needle in the haystack kind of thing, just with a super efficient method for sorting the hay.
Political cartoons though... like if you don't know enough about the cartoon to find it funny, it's not going to teach you anything. If you think it informs things like "ROMNEY/OBAMA BAD" through the use of caricature in obvious negative light, I would assume people already made that decision and are saying "eh" or "yeah, he totally is!" without actually knowing whats going on.
Edit I assume we get specific on "inform" and politcal cartoon being those one panel monstrosities that are the equivilent of 2 and a half men style comedy. Like the fact that the one linked above had to have a caption that repeats what the comic shows, is kind of horrifying.
I fail to see why reducing manpower costs is insulting. I feel pretty strongly that current servicemembers should be grandfathered in to any cuts in benefits, but slowing pay growth and perhaps finding savings in benefits for future servicemembers? Not crazy talk. That it's seen as such is, I think, another failing of the ol' political media. Soldier pay shouldn't be a third rail, it should be something that can be legitimately discussed. I say this as somebody who would be directly affected.
As it is right now, an E-4 with two years in the service, stationed in my county, is getting paid $43K a year if they have dependents. That's after two years, with nothing more than a high school diploma. And $18K or so of that is tax-free allowances, so it's effectively closer to $50K. For a single servicemember, you're only looking at about $25K a year, but that's with room and board paid for (and at that rate you pay little if anything in taxes). $25K goes a long way when you don't pay rent, I was a single E-3 once so I'm speaking from experience.
Top it off with generous health benefits, ridiculous education benefits, and potentially one of the best retirement packages any non-CEO can expect in this nation (provided you go the distance)....yeah, the military is quite decently compensated.
I doubt the average person arguing one way or another about soldier pay even knows what soldiers make. I rarely see any numbers (for individual pay) mentioned when the issue comes up.
The reason it's insulting is simple - if you want to get cost savings out of the defense budget, there are vastly more deserving targets. Furthermore, your argument is a classic example of crab thinking.
Maybe instead of tearing down others in merica we should seek to lift our own stations up.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I am an Iraq veteran, still serving in the reserves. I intend to draw a military retirement.
I've done my share of ramp ceremonies, and nearly caught a few IEDs and mortars of my own. Save your snark.
EDIT: Which is to say I'm not "tearing down others." I'm talking about my own benefits as well. And at no point did I say they were excessive, just that they were better than decent, and that talking about where savings could be had is something we should be able to rationally do.
pleasepaypreacher.net
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The point is this - soldier pay doesn't go anywhere near the table until all the stupid procurement skullduggery is dealt with. There is no reason to even look at it when you have weapons being procured that the military neither needs nor wants.
Never said it was obscene. It is a precisely median income for my county. For a 20-year-old, with nothing more than a high school education, that's still pretty damn good. Which, again, is not to say it is excessive. It's just to say that it's good enough that discussing areas of savings there shouldn't be a third rail. I think we could absolutely slow growth of general military pay and allowances (and perhaps increase hazard/hardship pays instead), or make other adjustments to military benefits.
Ignoring your whataboutery, what I'm seeing here is the standard emotional reaction to any such discussion, from both sides. Even though I still don't think 95% of the population has any idea what soldiers make (and the media doesn't report it in connection with such discussions). All they know is that no matter how much they make, it surely isn't enough. Which is not a rational position.
Both military pay and civilian pay are decent. Better than average, in most fields. Not obscenely high, and I certainly don't suggest "slashing" them. But they also are not particularly low either, so marginal adjustments to either (particularly if we're just talking about slowing growth) are something that should always be on the table in a budget discussion.
Well then I guess it doesn't matter anyway.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And yes, my civilian pay has been frozen for some time now. All of these are issues that directly affect me.
I would agree that there are things in the Wide World of Budgeting that need cutting more. That's not the point.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Your point is Villagesque gooseshit. Saying "everything should be on the table" does not make you "serious", it just shows that you're willing to inflict pain to those least capable of withstanding it. There is nothing wrong with saying that we should be looking at corporate giveouts first before eying anything for individuals.
In a shocking turn of events Ron Fournier continues to be fucking awful.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net