McDad
I can't brain today; I has the dumb.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 61,648
- Likes
- 132,632
Did it?The information comes from an anonymous source that the AP can't independently verify so of course it's real.
The database, which was confirmed by U.S. officials and published by AP, includes more than 26,000 images that have been flagged for removal across every military branch. But the eventual total could be much higher.
It's one of the images in the database. Not like this is newI read that as the database and 26,000 images flagged for removal has been confirmed. Nothing in regards to the Enola Gay or any of the other crap they mentioned in the article.
A Marine Corps official stated that all flagged images within their database had either been removed or would be removed soon.
They're just hitting everything with a hammerHowever, the process has been slow because of limited personnel numbers. The Marine Corps has only one civilian employee handling the removals, and an estimated 1,600 military-related social media accounts remain under review.
That's dumb...both on the tuskegee point and the "all flagged images will be removed" point.It's one of the images in the database. Not like this is new
![]()
The Tuskegee Airmen Are Not DEI, As Air Force Reinstates Curriculum On First Black Pilots
President’s Trump's push to eliminate DEI from Federal agencies through Executive Orders almost took out the story of an unlikely casualty: The Tuskegee Airmen.www.forbes.com
From another article
![]()
Military to remove 'Enola Gay' photos for violating DEI rules
A photo of Army biologists was on a list of images to be purged, seemingly because it mentioned they were recording data about fish that included their gender.www.newsweek.com
They're just hitting everything with a hammer
There's the concept in gov't bureaucracy akin to "Malicious Implementation". If you have to do it, and you hate the one asking you to do it, do it in the most asinine, bludgeoning, counter-productive way, interpreting the letter of the law so that you can say, "I did it", but doing it in such a way that it defeats the purpose or makes the mandate look stupid.That's dumb...both on the tuskegee point and the "all flagged images will be removed" point.
There's the concept in gov't bureaucracy akin to "Malicious Implementation". If you have to do it, and you hate the one asking you to do it, do it in the most asinine, bludgeoning, counter-productive way, interpreting the letter of the law so that you can say, "I did it", but doing it in such a way that it defeats the purpose or makes the mandate look stupid.
I've seen this play out in private sector bureaucracy too.There's the concept in gov't bureaucracy akin to "Malicious Implementation". If you have to do it, and you hate the one asking you to do it, do it in the most asinine, bludgeoning, counter-productive way, interpreting the letter of the law so that you can say, "I did it", but doing it in such a way that it defeats the purpose or makes the mandate look stupid.
Is that people making $1M or more each year or those that have accumulated more than $1M over their years of employment? If it’s the latter, then you’re talking a wealth tax, which would dumb at that level. If it’s the former, then you should get familiar with the marginal tax rates. What would be an acceptable top marginal tax rate to you and what would those income limits be? Would you have a higher rate, but starting at a higher income threshold (e.g. 40-42% above $1M as the next bracket)?When have I been against the middle class? I'm all for taxing millionaires and billionaires more; but that's not the middle class.
Grateful for that, too. Recently fired my property manager after 90 days of no results.
It’s been a rule but DOJ hasn’t consistently made motions to enforce it (because most of them would be denied).Then why would an EO be necessary?
I don't see where that requires a monetary sum. Also unsure how the executive is making rules about how the judicial needs to operate.
Lefty can't steal enough of your money.Is that people making $1M or more each year or those that have accumulated more than $1M over their years of employment? If it’s the latter, then you’re talking a wealth tax, which would dumb at that level. If it’s the former, then you should get familiar with the marginal tax rates. What would be an acceptable top marginal tax rate to you and what would those income limits be? Would you have a higher rate, but starting at a higher income threshold (e.g. 40-42% above $1M as the next bracket)?
View attachment 726393
I don't know how their spines contort without breaking as they try to ignore the civil and human rights abuses. When people say MAGA, they don't mean it in an "All lives matter" way...well, maybe as the dogwhistle.Oh yeah that was a truly great time to be black in America. They had their own schools, bathrooms, seats on the bus, etc.
if you want to argue they are exactly the same why aren't you treating them the same? especially if you are wanting to argue the Constitutional basis for it.No gotcha to it. It's the perfect plan.
Do any of you feel as if the defense is not grotesquely bloated?
Who do you believe is actually more interested in reducing the size of government?
The right or the left?
Conservatives or liberals?
Avoid the copout, impossibility of an answer "they are EXACTLY the same".