LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:37 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:18 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:01 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:50 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:42 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:32 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:15 am No, they're not all republicans.
Thanks for confirming my beliefs, fellas. Have mentioned before that I'm not too fond of the thank you for your service line you get from a lot of people when they find out you were/are in the service. I've always felt that the majority of them say it because they feel as if they're kind of supposed to say that for whatever reason and there's zero sincerity in their words. Exhibit A can be seen here. I hope you're never saying that to military people, just let them know you're one of their welfare contributors instead.

I assume this is in reference to a couple of other poster's retorts, not mine directly prior.

I think they're saying that about a particular sort of "military type" and referring that this "type" seems coalesced in the MAGA party.

It's hoisting them on their own petard rhetoric.

Same guys so angry about "welfare queens" and "commie socialists" don't recognize their own reliance or dependence on taxpayer choices, take those choices for granted, that they are entitled to such, wheearas others in society are not deserving of help.

I don't think they are referring to all or maybe not most "military types", but rather to a specific sort of mentality that some have adopted.

You do a remarkable job of inserting your own conclusions into things that were never said or even implied. I suppose when some posters are obtuse as to what they are trying to express your assistance in doing so is much appreciated.

I may be wrong and they're free to correct me, but based on context and their prior posting, I think my interpretation is likely pretty close.

But hey, maybe they really do think all military people are welfare queen whiners and they're also all Trump supporters. They'd be wrong.

But I'll put my money on you being wrong...

I thought you didn't gamble? I have to be a bona fide welfare queen. Tomorrow my social security check hits the bank. Now that is true blue welfare indeedy.

Yup, you and me both. Social Security and Medicare.
My wife just celebrated her Medicare birthday too...a good friend called to congratulate her on her now being on Medicare with those of us who've been on a year or so...

I bet a quarter or a dollar on Gilman vs McDonogh, a quarter or a dollar on a squash game, a quarter per box in cards...
I'll bet a quarter or a dollar I'm right and your'e wrong on this one.

My wife retired last week after 44 years of being a nurse. She won't get her first social security check until October. She is still working one day a week per diem. If she took her check for August it would have put her in the social security sin bin. She would have made more money than social security allows. We just learned the hard way how complicated the rules are if your not full retirement age. I'll take you up on your bet for a quarter. I have a feeling your conclusion will be verified 100%.

Yes, taking social security prior to retirement age is very costly to taxpayers given same expected lifespan and wasn't the point of the program, thus you get less per year. And subject to actually being retired. On the flip side, once you reach retirement age, there's no restriction on still working if you'd like.

Was your wife eligible for a pension? That used to be a major part of retirement strategy, getting to the point of pension eligibility. Still quite effective in government jobs if managed well. Some companies are still doing it.

As my wife and I have spent our lives primarily in entrepreneurial endeavors, pensions were never part of the strategy, just personal savings strategies.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:45 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:38 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:30 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:15 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:32 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:15 am No, they're not all republicans.
Thanks for confirming my beliefs, fellas. Have mentioned before that I'm not too fond of the thank you for your service line you get from a lot of people when they find out you were/are in the service. I've always felt that the majority of them say it because they feel as if they're kind of supposed to say that for whatever reason and there's zero sincerity in their words. Exhibit A can be seen here. I hope you're never saying that to military people, just let them know you're one of their welfare contributors instead.

I assume this is in reference to a couple of other poster's retorts, not mine directly prior.

I think they're saying that about a particular sort of "military type" and referring that this "type" seems coalesced in the MAGA party.

It's hoisting them on their own petard rhetoric.

Same guys so angry about "welfare queens" and "commie socialists" don't recognize their own reliance or dependence on taxpayer choices, take those choices for granted, that they are entitled to such, wheearas others in society are not deserving of help.

I don't think they are referring to all or maybe not most "military types", but rather to a specific sort of mentality that some have adopted.

Not directed at you, to this:

I am always amazed that military types refuse to recognize that they are welfare queens.

That's pretty clear. I always felt as I had earned my pay, pittance that it was. Again, this just confirms my belief.

I would have said "some" as in "some military types". I just suspect that was meant, they can clarify. That would have been arguably accurate and not lumped others into this whiner hypocrite status.

Pay is earned as promised.
And as a taxpayer I'm in favor of such compensation being ample, and particularly concerned with supporting those who have served and suffered any sort of trauma. Same for their families. We need to attract and keep good people in service.

I have a brother in law who is technically considered a veteran despite not finishing a single year at a service academy. When he calls himself a veteran, I cringe. When he gets a $500,000 mortgage for full value of a new home that he really can't afford, based on that status, I'm glad for him (and glad he's no longer going to be in my basement), but...

When he talks about welfare queens...personal accountability...

It's the hypocrisy that I object to strongly.
He's 'on the spectrum', thus some of his issues, so I do have some empathy for him...and I love my wife...

It seems like you finally got rid of one big headache.

Yes, at least not in my basement.

Not entirely, my wife feels very strongly about continuing to try to get his life in better order, particularly financially and will spend some energy on that; one of his problems is immense procrastination, simply opening mail is beyond him most of the time, so his issues pile up...he's actually a very nice person at his core, when he isn't going off on some emotional or political rant, which can swiftly get quite ugly. With never an apology. Again, on the spectrum...brilliant in math/computer science, but...difficult challenge.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:46 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:37 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:18 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:01 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:50 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:42 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:32 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:15 am No, they're not all republicans.
Thanks for confirming my beliefs, fellas. Have mentioned before that I'm not too fond of the thank you for your service line you get from a lot of people when they find out you were/are in the service. I've always felt that the majority of them say it because they feel as if they're kind of supposed to say that for whatever reason and there's zero sincerity in their words. Exhibit A can be seen here. I hope you're never saying that to military people, just let them know you're one of their welfare contributors instead.

I assume this is in reference to a couple of other poster's retorts, not mine directly prior.

I think they're saying that about a particular sort of "military type" and referring that this "type" seems coalesced in the MAGA party.

It's hoisting them on their own petard rhetoric.

Same guys so angry about "welfare queens" and "commie socialists" don't recognize their own reliance or dependence on taxpayer choices, take those choices for granted, that they are entitled to such, wheearas others in society are not deserving of help.

I don't think they are referring to all or maybe not most "military types", but rather to a specific sort of mentality that some have adopted.

You do a remarkable job of inserting your own conclusions into things that were never said or even implied. I suppose when some posters are obtuse as to what they are trying to express your assistance in doing so is much appreciated.

I may be wrong and they're free to correct me, but based on context and their prior posting, I think my interpretation is likely pretty close.

But hey, maybe they really do think all military people are welfare queen whiners and they're also all Trump supporters. They'd be wrong.

But I'll put my money on you being wrong...

I thought you didn't gamble? I have to be a bona fide welfare queen. Tomorrow my social security check hits the bank. Now that is true blue welfare indeedy.

Yup, you and me both. Social Security and Medicare.
My wife just celebrated her Medicare birthday too...a good friend called to congratulate her on her now being on Medicare with those of us who've been on a year or so...

I bet a quarter or a dollar on Gilman vs McDonogh, a quarter or a dollar on a squash game, a quarter per box in cards...
I'll bet a quarter or a dollar I'm right and your'e wrong on this one.

My wife retired last week after 44 years of being a nurse. She won't get her first social security check until October. She is still working one day a week per diem. If she took her check for August it would have put her in the social security sin bin. She would have made more money than social security allows. We just learned the hard way how complicated the rules are if your not full retirement age. I'll take you up on your bet for a quarter. I have a feeling your conclusion will be verified 100%.

Yes, taking social security prior to retirement age is very costly to taxpayers given same expected lifespan and wasn't the point of the program, thus you get less per year. And subject to actually being retired. On the flip side, once you reach retirement age, there's no restriction on still working if you'd like.

Was your wife eligible for a pension? That used to be a major part of retirement strategy, getting to the point of pension eligibility. Still quite effective in government jobs if managed well. Some companies are still doing it.

As my wife and I have spent our lives primarily in entrepreneurial endeavors, pensions were never part of the strategy, just personal savings strategies.

My wife was going to try and hold out until 66 and 2/3rds. She has 2 new knees and 2 new hips and has developed nerve condition in her shoulder. She can still run circles around all the other young nurses she works with. We are both fortunate because as true fiscal conservatives ( ) we have always lived within our means. We have no debts, everything we own is paid for. We reached what Bob Brinker has referred to as the land of critical mass. If my wife and I can limit our visits to the casino we are good until our mid 90s so our financial guru has told us.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:50 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:46 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:37 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:18 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:01 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:50 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:42 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:32 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:15 am No, they're not all republicans.
Thanks for confirming my beliefs, fellas. Have mentioned before that I'm not too fond of the thank you for your service line you get from a lot of people when they find out you were/are in the service. I've always felt that the majority of them say it because they feel as if they're kind of supposed to say that for whatever reason and there's zero sincerity in their words. Exhibit A can be seen here. I hope you're never saying that to military people, just let them know you're one of their welfare contributors instead.

I assume this is in reference to a couple of other poster's retorts, not mine directly prior.

I think they're saying that about a particular sort of "military type" and referring that this "type" seems coalesced in the MAGA party.

It's hoisting them on their own petard rhetoric.

Same guys so angry about "welfare queens" and "commie socialists" don't recognize their own reliance or dependence on taxpayer choices, take those choices for granted, that they are entitled to such, wheearas others in society are not deserving of help.

I don't think they are referring to all or maybe not most "military types", but rather to a specific sort of mentality that some have adopted.

You do a remarkable job of inserting your own conclusions into things that were never said or even implied. I suppose when some posters are obtuse as to what they are trying to express your assistance in doing so is much appreciated.

I may be wrong and they're free to correct me, but based on context and their prior posting, I think my interpretation is likely pretty close.

But hey, maybe they really do think all military people are welfare queen whiners and they're also all Trump supporters. They'd be wrong.

But I'll put my money on you being wrong...

I thought you didn't gamble? I have to be a bona fide welfare queen. Tomorrow my social security check hits the bank. Now that is true blue welfare indeedy.

Yup, you and me both. Social Security and Medicare.
My wife just celebrated her Medicare birthday too...a good friend called to congratulate her on her now being on Medicare with those of us who've been on a year or so...

I bet a quarter or a dollar on Gilman vs McDonogh, a quarter or a dollar on a squash game, a quarter per box in cards...
I'll bet a quarter or a dollar I'm right and your'e wrong on this one.

My wife retired last week after 44 years of being a nurse. She won't get her first social security check until October. She is still working one day a week per diem. If she took her check for August it would have put her in the social security sin bin. She would have made more money than social security allows. We just learned the hard way how complicated the rules are if your not full retirement age. I'll take you up on your bet for a quarter. I have a feeling your conclusion will be verified 100%.

Yes, taking social security prior to retirement age is very costly to taxpayers given same expected lifespan and wasn't the point of the program, thus you get less per year. And subject to actually being retired. On the flip side, once you reach retirement age, there's no restriction on still working if you'd like.

Was your wife eligible for a pension? That used to be a major part of retirement strategy, getting to the point of pension eligibility. Still quite effective in government jobs if managed well. Some companies are still doing it.

As my wife and I have spent our lives primarily in entrepreneurial endeavors, pensions were never part of the strategy, just personal savings strategies.

My wife was going to try and hold out until 66 and 2/3rds. She has 2 new knees and 2 new hips and has developed nerve condition in her shoulder. She can still run circles around all the other young nurses she works with. We are both fortunate because as true fiscal conservatives ( ) we have always lived within our means. We have no debts, everything we own is paid for. We reached what Bob Brinker has referred to as the land of critical mass. If my wife and I can limit our visits to the casino we are good until our mid 90s so our financial guru has told us.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:19 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:50 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:46 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:37 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:18 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:01 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:50 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:42 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:32 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:15 am No, they're not all republicans.
Thanks for confirming my beliefs, fellas. Have mentioned before that I'm not too fond of the thank you for your service line you get from a lot of people when they find out you were/are in the service. I've always felt that the majority of them say it because they feel as if they're kind of supposed to say that for whatever reason and there's zero sincerity in their words. Exhibit A can be seen here. I hope you're never saying that to military people, just let them know you're one of their welfare contributors instead.

I assume this is in reference to a couple of other poster's retorts, not mine directly prior.

I think they're saying that about a particular sort of "military type" and referring that this "type" seems coalesced in the MAGA party.

It's hoisting them on their own petard rhetoric.

Same guys so angry about "welfare queens" and "commie socialists" don't recognize their own reliance or dependence on taxpayer choices, take those choices for granted, that they are entitled to such, wheearas others in society are not deserving of help.

I don't think they are referring to all or maybe not most "military types", but rather to a specific sort of mentality that some have adopted.

You do a remarkable job of inserting your own conclusions into things that were never said or even implied. I suppose when some posters are obtuse as to what they are trying to express your assistance in doing so is much appreciated.

I may be wrong and they're free to correct me, but based on context and their prior posting, I think my interpretation is likely pretty close.

But hey, maybe they really do think all military people are welfare queen whiners and they're also all Trump supporters. They'd be wrong.

But I'll put my money on you being wrong...

I thought you didn't gamble? I have to be a bona fide welfare queen. Tomorrow my social security check hits the bank. Now that is true blue welfare indeedy.

Yup, you and me both. Social Security and Medicare.
My wife just celebrated her Medicare birthday too...a good friend called to congratulate her on her now being on Medicare with those of us who've been on a year or so...

I bet a quarter or a dollar on Gilman vs McDonogh, a quarter or a dollar on a squash game, a quarter per box in cards...
I'll bet a quarter or a dollar I'm right and your'e wrong on this one.

My wife retired last week after 44 years of being a nurse. She won't get her first social security check until October. She is still working one day a week per diem. If she took her check for August it would have put her in the social security sin bin. She would have made more money than social security allows. We just learned the hard way how complicated the rules are if your not full retirement age. I'll take you up on your bet for a quarter. I have a feeling your conclusion will be verified 100%.

Yes, taking social security prior to retirement age is very costly to taxpayers given same expected lifespan and wasn't the point of the program, thus you get less per year. And subject to actually being retired. On the flip side, once you reach retirement age, there's no restriction on still working if you'd like.

Was your wife eligible for a pension? That used to be a major part of retirement strategy, getting to the point of pension eligibility. Still quite effective in government jobs if managed well. Some companies are still doing it.

As my wife and I have spent our lives primarily in entrepreneurial endeavors, pensions were never part of the strategy, just personal savings strategies.

My wife was going to try and hold out until 66 and 2/3rds. She has 2 new knees and 2 new hips and has developed nerve condition in her shoulder. She can still run circles around all the other young nurses she works with. We are both fortunate because as true fiscal conservatives ( ) we have always lived within our means. We have no debts, everything we own is paid for. We reached what Bob Brinker has referred to as the land of critical mass. If my wife and I can limit our visits to the casino we are good until our mid 90s so our financial guru has told us.

I think all current recipients of the largesse of the New Deal (SS) and the Great Society (Medicare) are going to be unpleasantly surprised if Project 2025 (latest in a series of deconstructionist “reforms” by groups with great antipathy towards the structure if our current society) is instituted.

And even if Project 2025 passes by the wayside, the math doesn’t look good for SS and Medicare. Increasingly, in conversations with my children and their friends, I hear an unwillingness to continue the system under the current rules.

Going to be an “interesting” time to be alive. Bon voyage!

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:26 am

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:19 am



I think all current recipients of the largesse of the New Deal (SS) and the Great Society (Medicare) are going to be unpleasantly surprised if Project 2025 (latest in a series of deconstructionist “reforms” by groups with great antipathy towards the structure if our current society) is instituted.

And even if Project 2025 passes by the wayside, the math doesn’t look good for SS and Medicare. Increasingly, in conversations with my children and their friends, I hear an unwillingness to continue the system under the current rules.

Going to be an “interesting” time to be alive. Bon voyage!

I think we're going to continue to see these programs persist (absent Project 2025 craziness), but I do agree that we're likely to see modifications. Yes, younger folks don't have much expectation of them being there when they get there...

My experience with Medicare deepens my interest in universal healthcare, at least as a basic care program.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 3:00 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 2:17 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 2:10 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:38 am"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal,

That would be a stretch, from SoMD to Vegas. You give me too much credit. You should be a Senate staffer.

Sorry, that's not how it works, you're not paying attention to what you're advocating.

See....I get to throw around the charges. It's up to YOU to defend yourself. Doesn't matter if what I say is true or an exaggeration. 'It's up to the voters" to decide how big of a POS you are.

You see, this is a blanket party, where I beat the sh(t out of your reputation so that you don't get elected. Reality has NOTHING to do with the conversation.

This is what YOU want, not me. I can't believe you're denying that you were in Las Vegas after all that groping you did.

We should get Congress involved, and investigate these horrible things you did. Even worse, you're lying that you didn't do them.

Oh, btw, the Congressional hearings will stop on November 6th, if you lose the election. By then, no one will care whether or not you were in Las Vegas.

Isn't this neat? What was the term you gave it? Oh, that's right....I'm "weaponizing" your military service against you. Cool, right?

These same soldiers who served with Walz have been making these same claims since Walz first ran for Congress.
We just didn't hear about them until he became a candidate for national office.

He's had more than enough time to set the record straight, make amends with his former Battalion mates, & put the issue to rest.
He failed to do so & now he's paying the price. It's Walz's fellow soldiers from MN making the accusations.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 3:00 am Walz can turn this around & help himself if he'll sit down for an interview on a show like 60 Minutes & gave a heartfelt explanation about how he agonized over his retirement decision, but had to act when the opportunity presented itself to continue his service in a position from which he could do even more for his fellow soldiers. He should praise the soldiers who are criticizing him, saying he knew that his replacement would do an even better job than he could.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:24 am But you clearly don't get it that this was a culture that preexisted Tailhook, both the "miscreant behavior" and the cover-up, the closing of ranks. It was rampant, not isolated. It was misogynistic and sexist, and with alcohol and scale it devolved to a huge amount of concentrated sexual abuse and assault. And then the public learned about it.

And yes, you are indeed "blaming the victim". "She thought she was one of the guys. She had partied with many of them. That's not asking for it or blaming the victim. That"s a lack of situational awareness. It's risk assessment." And then you blame her blowing the whistle (which was and would have been ignored) for why the "miscreants skated". Uh huh, it wasn't really the Navy's fault, it wasn't really the misogynistic and sexist culture's fault, it wasn't really the fault of the chain of command...it was just the miscreants and a few immediate supervisors...

But you do understand that "By jumping the chain of command & going public, she destroyed any chance of ever being trusted by her peers or being accepted in a ready room or wardroom." You left out "by men", or really, "by misogynistic, sexist men".

But yeah, the issue was so large she "sacrificed her career" to address it when she lost confidence that the "chain of command" would do it. Instead, you blame the fact of the "stonewall" on the publicity her choice generated. Not on the culture to do so.

This is the cultural problem of "chain of command" I was referring to, this hyper attention to the bureaucratic progression of career and rules of command conformity. It has its positives, but it also has its negatives.

Okay, so let's talk funding. The budget is pretty straightforward: SS, Medicare, "Defense spending, and debt service. Even if all items are zeroed out it is bad.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:00 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 3:00 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 2:17 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 2:10 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:38 am"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal,

That would be a stretch, from SoMD to Vegas. You give me too much credit. You should be a Senate staffer.

Sorry, that's not how it works, you're not paying attention to what you're advocating.

See....I get to throw around the charges. It's up to YOU to defend yourself. Doesn't matter if what I say is true or an exaggeration. 'It's up to the voters" to decide how big of a POS you are.

You see, this is a blanket party, where I beat the sh(t out of your reputation so that you don't get elected. Reality has NOTHING to do with the conversation.

This is what YOU want, not me. I can't believe you're denying that you were in Las Vegas after all that groping you did.

We should get Congress involved, and investigate these horrible things you did. Even worse, you're lying that you didn't do them.

Oh, btw, the Congressional hearings will stop on November 6th, if you lose the election. By then, no one will care whether or not you were in Las Vegas.

Isn't this neat? What was the term you gave it? Oh, that's right....I'm "weaponizing" your military service against you. Cool, right?

These same soldiers who served with Walz have been making these same claims since Walz first ran for Congress.
We just didn't hear about them until he became a candidate for national office.

He's had more than enough time to set the record straight, make amends with his former Battalion mates, & put the issue to rest.
He failed to do so & now he's paying the price. It's Walz's fellow soldiers from MN making the accusations.

That's right. It was political then, and it's political now. You're playing dumb, pretending you don't know that service has NOTHING to do with what's happening here.

But let's keep playing this game. Let's go after officers and soldiers who served in combat zones, and made stupid mistakes that get their charges killed.

It's just "telling the truth" right? Let's get to work on that. Embed reporters, and broadcast to the world when soldiers think their leaders suck or are stupid. Let their families know their kid has blood on their hands and did more harm then they did good in a combat zone.

Let's do everything we can to punish those who serve, all so we get get guys like Trump elected. Cool.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 3:00 am Walz can turn this around & help himself if he'll sit down for an interview on a show like 60 Minutes & gave a heartfelt explanation about how he agonized over his retirement decision, but had to act when the opportunity presented itself to continue his service in a position from which he could do even more for his fellow soldiers. He should praise the soldiers who are criticizing him, saying he knew that his replacement would do an even better job than he could.

You're pretending to be SO stupid that you think that this can be fixed. Once the stones are thrown, that's it. You're done. Of course, you know this, and don't care because of Walz's magic letter D.

And you're pretending to not know that the ***hole "soldiers" who are throwing stones aren't registered Republicans.

Of course they are. This has NOTHING to do with service, and you're on here, drooling in your shoes, pretending you don't know that.

“He weighed that decision to run for Congress very, very heavy,” Allan Bonnifield, who served with Walz, told Minnesota Public Radio in 2018. “He loved the military, he loved the Guard, he loved the soldiers that he worked with, and making that decision was very tough for him. Especially knowing that we were going on another deployment to Iraq. He didn’t take that decision lightly at all.”

You still haven't responded to being called a Tailhook rapist. Can't believe you're denying it. You should "sit down in an interview" and deny it.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:10 pm You are acting like a moron. I've never attended a Tailhook.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:10 pm To the soldiers who served with Walz who are speaking out, it's personal, not political.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:19 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:10 pm You are acting like a moron. I've never attended a Tailhook.

You're acting like the truth matters.

Walz never lied about his service..... Vance told the world he did. Get it?

So sorry, you're back to being known as a tailhook rapist. And this is just "personal"....your fellow soldiers who are running for office lying about what you did at tailhook LV for political gain.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:10 pm To the soldiers who served with Walz who are speaking out, it's personal, not political.

Right. Lie much?

If it was personal, they'd keep it personal, not broadcast it to planet Earth.

What the F do you think the word "personal" means? Do you think press releases are involved?

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:29 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:19 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:10 pm You are acting like a moron. I've never attended a Tailhook.

You're acting like the truth matters.

Walz never lied about his service..... Vance told the world he did. Get it?

So sorry, you're back to being known as a tailhook rapist. And this is just "personal"....your fellow soldiers who are running for office lying about what you did at tailhook LV for political gain.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:10 pm To the soldiers who served with Walz who are speaking out, it's personal, not political.

Right. Lie much?

If it was personal, they'd keep it personal, not broadcast it to planet Earth.

What the F do you think the word "personal" means? Do you think press releases are involved?

Catching on.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:10 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:00 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 3:00 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 2:17 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 2:10 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:38 am"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal,

That would be a stretch, from SoMD to Vegas. You give me too much credit. You should be a Senate staffer.

Sorry, that's not how it works, you're not paying attention to what you're advocating.

See....I get to throw around the charges. It's up to YOU to defend yourself. Doesn't matter if what I say is true or an exaggeration. 'It's up to the voters" to decide how big of a POS you are.

You see, this is a blanket party, where I beat the sh(t out of your reputation so that you don't get elected. Reality has NOTHING to do with the conversation.

This is what YOU want, not me. I can't believe you're denying that you were in Las Vegas after all that groping you did.

We should get Congress involved, and investigate these horrible things you did. Even worse, you're lying that you didn't do them.

Oh, btw, the Congressional hearings will stop on November 6th, if you lose the election. By then, no one will care whether or not you were in Las Vegas.

Isn't this neat? What was the term you gave it? Oh, that's right....I'm "weaponizing" your military service against you. Cool, right?

These same soldiers who served with Walz have been making these same claims since Walz first ran for Congress.
We just didn't hear about them until he became a candidate for national office.

He's had more than enough time to set the record straight, make amends with his former Battalion mates, & put the issue to rest.
He failed to do so & now he's paying the price. It's Walz's fellow soldiers from MN making the accusations.

That's right. It was political then, and it's political now. You're playing dumb, pretending you don't know that service has NOTHING to do with what's happening here.

But let's keep playing this game. Let's go after officers and soldiers who served in combat zones, and made stupid mistakes that get their charges killed.

It's just "telling the truth" right? Let's get to work on that. Embed reporters, and broadcast to the world when soldiers think their leaders suck or are stupid. Let their families know their kid has blood on their hands and did more harm then they did good in a combat zone.

Let's do everything we can to punish those who serve, all so we get get guys like Trump elected. Cool.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 3:00 am Walz can turn this around & help himself if he'll sit down for an interview on a show like 60 Minutes & gave a heartfelt explanation about how he agonized over his retirement decision, but had to act when the opportunity presented itself to continue his service in a position from which he could do even more for his fellow soldiers. He should praise the soldiers who are criticizing him, saying he knew that his replacement would do an even better job than he could.

You're pretending to be SO stupid that you think that this can be fixed. Once the stones are thrown, that's it. You're done. Of course, you know this, and don't care because of Walz's magic letter D.

And you're pretending to not know that the ***hole "soldiers" who are throwing stones aren't registered Republicans.

Of course they are. This has NOTHING to do with service, and you're on here, drooling in your shoes, pretending you don't know that.

“He weighed that decision to run for Congress very, very heavy,” Allan Bonnifield, who served with Walz, told Minnesota Public Radio in 2018. “He loved the military, he loved the Guard, he loved the soldiers that he worked with, and making that decision was very tough for him. Especially knowing that we were going on another deployment to Iraq. He didn’t take that decision lightly at all.”

You still haven't responded to being called a Tailhook rapist. Can't believe you're denying it. You should "sit down in an interview" and deny it.

You are acting like a moron. I've never attended a Tailhook.

To the soldiers who served with Walz who are speaking out, it's personal, not political.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:46 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:26 am

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:19 am



I think all current recipients of the largesse of the New Deal (SS) and the Great Society (Medicare) are going to be unpleasantly surprised if Project 2025 (latest in a series of deconstructionist “reforms” by groups with great antipathy towards the structure if our current society) is instituted.

And even if Project 2025 passes by the wayside, the math doesn’t look good for SS and Medicare. Increasingly, in conversations with my children and their friends, I hear an unwillingness to continue the system under the current rules.

Going to be an “interesting” time to be alive. Bon voyage!

I think we're going to continue to see these programs persist (absent Project 2025 craziness), but I do agree that we're likely to see modifications. Yes, younger folks don't have much expectation of them being there when they get there...

My experience with Medicare deepens my interest in universal healthcare, at least as a basic care program.

Okay, so let's talk funding. The budget is pretty straightforward: SS, Medicare, "Defense spending, and debt service. Even if all items are zeroed out it is bad.

So, how are these big-ticket times going to continue? And please, spare me the growth resulting from tax cuts and other "trickle-down" voodoo economics (it's weird when I have such high regard for HW). Where will the money come from? There will have to be cuts and revenue increase. Unfortunately, the political process that would be necessary to arrive at some deal is, at the current time, irretrievably broken. That is the real danger of Magatism -- the inability to govern that Pig Newton brought us. Between St. Ronnie, Slick Willie, and Pig, the latter part of the 20th century sure "set us up for success."

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:52 pm BTW isn't trump supposed to be sentenced on September 18th. Gotta be hard to run for president if your behind bars?

Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 1:03 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:52 pm BTW isn't trump supposed to be sentenced on September 18th. Gotta be hard to run for president if your behind bars?

It has happened before

Socialist candidate Eugene V Debs received over 1 million votes in the 1920 election. He was serving a 10 year sentence for violating the Espionage Act during a speech in Ohio for speaking out against US entry into WWI at the time of the election.

Funny that Orange Fatso is currently charged for violating that same law.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:02 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:24 am But you clearly don't get it that this was a culture that preexisted Tailhook, both the "miscreant behavior" and the cover-up, the closing of ranks. It was rampant, not isolated. It was misogynistic and sexist, and with alcohol and scale it devolved to a huge amount of concentrated sexual abuse and assault. And then the public learned about it.

And yes, you are indeed "blaming the victim". "She thought she was one of the guys. She had partied with many of them. That's not asking for it or blaming the victim. That"s a lack of situational awareness. It's risk assessment." And then you blame her blowing the whistle (which was and would have been ignored) for why the "miscreants skated". Uh huh, it wasn't really the Navy's fault, it wasn't really the misogynistic and sexist culture's fault, it wasn't really the fault of the chain of command...it was just the miscreants and a few immediate supervisors...

But you do understand that "By jumping the chain of command & going public, she destroyed any chance of ever being trusted by her peers or being accepted in a ready room or wardroom." You left out "by men", or really, "by misogynistic, sexist men".

But yeah, the issue was so large she "sacrificed her career" to address it when she lost confidence that the "chain of command" would do it. Instead, you blame the fact of the "stonewall" on the publicity her choice generated. Not on the culture to do so.

This is the cultural problem of "chain of command" I was referring to, this hyper attention to the bureaucratic progression of career and rules of command conformity. It has its positives, but it also has its negatives.

Bullsh!t. I do get it. You don't. It's a culture that existed before Tailhook & it still does. It is not inherently misogynistic or sexist, any more than you going on all male hunting & fishing trips, or participating in all-male sports. The toxic behavior at Tailhook '91 was not inherent & did not take place at all prior Tailhooks & certainly has not taken place since Tailhook has resumed.

I have to take care what I say about the victim in question because she's still suing the Hilton & I don't want to be a litigation target.
She did not need to make herself the public victim face of Tailhook for justice to be done or for the resultant necessary reforms to take place.
She was just one of the women assaulted. The scandal should have played out in DC & in the cities & bases where the miscreants were stationed. Nobody from Pax River was involved in the gauntlet or other dubious activities. By going public, she made Pax River the focus of attention, the eye of the storm, & cost us one of the best Admiral commanders we ever had. He & his Deputy were quietly working to enable her to discreetly participate in the Navy-wide investigation, while protecting her from the blowback & preserving her future career prospects. She could have earned the admiration & loyalty of her future potential prospective squadronmates, rather than losing their trust in asvance. Justice would still have been done, more effectively, & the necessary Navy-wide reforms still instituted with much less collateral damage, including to her. She did not intentionally sacrifice her career for a higher cause. She acted out of anger & was not mature enough to understand the inevitable ramifications of what she was doing. She rejected the counsel of those who were trying to protect her from the inevitable negative personal consequences of her decision. The higher officials in the Chain of Command who she trusted more than her Admiral were all fired too.