My Patriot Supply

User Profile: cydog

cydog

Member Since: December 01, 2010

Comments

  • June 11, 2013 at 6:43pm

    Ted Cruz is right to reserve judgement. It is more about knowing the actual facts before spouting something off and it turns out to be wrong. I’m happy this guy came out, but something is not right about him and I am not sure what it is. So I too am reserving judgement because I smell something fishy going on.

  • June 3, 2013 at 6:30pm

    They are not interested in senate ratification, at least not yet. Step one – sign it. Step two – start the infrastructure through policy, administrative and executive orders that align with the treaty. Step three – oppose many different challenges in the supreme court to get as much court approval as possible. Step four – in 4, 5 or twenty years, ratify the treaty with certain “exceptions.” Step five – ignore the exceptions and harass manufacturers until they go along with whatever regulatory obstacles are set up.

    When this is all complete look for the path of Australia and England. It may take longer, but they will do it.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 6, 2013 at 10:52am

    Used iphone for a thousand bucks???? I don’t get that part when you can buy a new one much cheaper.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 4, 2013 at 6:00pm

    I saw a movie once where only the government had guns. It was called “Schindler’s List.”

  • April 17, 2013 at 6:43pm

    Petulant child

  • April 2, 2013 at 8:37am

    I’ve been cut a break several times in the past and I am just an average joe. Thanks to that stupid legislator I guess no one will ever get a break from the Highway Patrol now.

  • March 25, 2013 at 10:37am

    @Red falcon, Yes, I understand that, but many do not. Thanks for clarifying.

  • March 24, 2013 at 6:07pm

    Not to get into a lot of detail, but I’ve spent 26 years in Special Operations with over 5 years on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it simply Petraeus was successful because he backed his strategy up with hard force. COIN works in some settings and not others. To me, it is more of a tactic and not a strategy to overall victory. Everything hinges on what your ultimate goal is and on the enemies motivations (i.e. political vs religious). There is a blend of conventional and nonconventional tactics for an overall strategy.

    The hard truth is that to win an absolute victory you must totally defeat your enemy militarily, morally and emotionally, along with his motivation to fight. This includes not only the fighters but more importantly the civilian population that supports the fighters. In truth, we do not have the political will nor the public backing for such an undertaking. This route would cost many many more lives than the public is willing to sacrifice for that part of the world. The best we can hope fore is an unsteady peace between rival groups. COIN may be just enough to pacify for a short time, but until that part of the world is utterly conquered (militarily or otherwise) by a different ideology, the same islamist stench will continue to spew

    Responses (3) +
  • March 2, 2013 at 11:28am

    Since it has no statement from the principle except the suspension referral slip, I will not prejudge before hearing from the school the thought process. It may have been more of a protective measure to make sure there was not some sort of retaliatory violence. Until all the facts were known and assessed it’s hard to say the principle did the wrong thing. he may have wanted to make sure the students involved were safe from reprisal.

  • February 28, 2013 at 1:04pm

    @TxGranny73 – Yes, the main culprit being government benefits. I wonder how much clamoring for “gay marriage” would be occurring if there were no such thing. I get very tired of this argument because of the complete loss of perspective some people have. Changing definitions of words to fit your own political agenda is another one. Kind of like JC Roberts defining a penalty as a tax. Or those that say if it “does not pick your pocket” argument. Get the government out of the benefits business or from telling me what benefits I have to provide my employees and you can call yourself married all you want for all I care.

  • February 28, 2013 at 8:09am

    A right is inherent to you, and you alone and does not require the participation of anyone else. A right to speak but not make one listen, a right to practice your religion, but not to force someone into your church. Marriage (at the state level, not religious) is a contract between two people and are hence regulated by state law as to what makes a legal contract. The goal here with this case is to get the federal government as the overall authority on what is marriage. This is tyranny. Marriage is clearly a state level contract law that the feds have no say in. If the feds regulate marriage at that level, then you will be forced to accept their definition. This should scare those for and against ‘gay marriage’.

    Responses (2) +
  • February 27, 2013 at 3:32pm

    If they are going to shut him down, they are going to be busy since I see a lot of rural homes look worse than this one. They should see the country house I grew up in! no indoor plumbing, fireplace for heat, no cooling system, I would be taken to a foster home in today’s world! Thank God I remember when america was free.

    Responses (3) +
  • February 26, 2013 at 5:01pm

    Here is the problem, it does pick your pocket. Marriage is a contract that is regulated by the state. The state does not care if you “love” each other. The problem with the pro gay marriage crowd is they want the federal government to force this issue when it is clearly a state issue under contract law. How does it pick your pocket? Benefits. will the state require insurance to cover gay marriage? Will the state require businesses to provide these benefits? Military benefits? It is all coming. If it is purely about love, I’m sure their is some church out there that will “marry” gay couples, but it is not. This is all about benefits. Take the state out of providing benefits to married couples and see how hard they fight for gay marriage then. Heck if the state neither provides nor forces others to provide benefits to couples (gay or strait) go ahead, call yourself married for all I care, it’s your life. But, as long as my tax dollars support benefits and the state requires certain benefits from employers, it falls under contract law in which the state has every right to regulate marriage. Hence you can’t marry your sister, or under a certain age or whatever.

  • March 7, 2012 at 12:03pm

    May “The Lord Bless you and keep you!
    The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you!
    The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace”

    This old former SF guy sheds tears of sadness.

  • December 18, 2010 at 6:23pm

    Here it comes.

    Authorization for off base housing for partners _ BAH (what a way for two people to get out of the barracks and get extra money
    Authorization for on base housing for partners – you can’t discriminate
    Medical benefits for partners
    dependent ID cards for partners
    Base BX/PX privileges for partners
    and don’t forget “Gay Pride Week” on base as a military sponsored activity. You can’t say no that would be discrimination.

    As I said in an earlier post, this has nothing to do with being gay and serving in the military. It has everything to do with furthering a progressive mindset into the military. The military is very conservative and probably the only remaining conservative part of the government. Liberals/progressives are seeking to change it and they won, in ten years you will not recognize it.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:06am

    I served 24 years in the Army and all but three of those were in special operations. There is no doubt in my mind that the study is flawed. I am sure I have served with members who have kept their private life just that, private. In order to have a functional military you must rely on good order and discipline. it is not a right to serve, but a duty and a privilege if you meet the requirements. To me this is all about changing the culture of the military. It is very conservative now but they are doing their best to change it.

    Responses (2) +