Vol8188
revolUTion in the air!
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 51,558
- Likes
- 51,004
Please....WTH what? Ask him. You were asking me.
Also, too. Too dumb. (I don't usually play the spelling nazi, but misspelling 'too dumb' across multiple posts is just a chef's kiss.
I believe he did believe that. He said so and I have no reason to believe otherwise--especially considering that one of them is a SCOTUS that has recently been called all but a dumb-*** by the other judges in joint opinions. Charlie didn't seem to be the only person on the planet that thinks they are dumb.
But that's the big point here. You would have to call him a liar and infer things that he didn't say in order to convince us that it was a racist statement. That's a losing proposition, basing the entire argument on your own personal incredulity--a personal incredulity that seems bent on thinking the worst of him.
And a personal incredulity that will invent motives to attack the integrity of a recently murdered man who can't defend himself. IMO, it's a **** look, but you do you.
Would that be “to dumb” or “too dumb?” My degree is engineeringMe - So he actually believed they were to dumb to succeed on their own merits?
WTH?????
Do you believe that he believed they were to dumb????? Because that seems to be exactly what you were saying in your first post.
Because that is the root of the whole discussion.
I've seen people getting upset about posting Kirk quotes as out of bounds. Be careful with this.
Dont be sad for him. He wouldn't want it. Gun deaths are worth it, he said it himself. That's all.
<eyeroll> It was a summary, which I expanded with quotes and detail. Just stop.Please....
If this is CK's conclusion............Thus, the logic is: "Oh, so by your own admission, you didn't have the brain power to get the job on merit." which you claimed it to be, then he reached an inaccurate, inflammatory, and divisive conclusion.
We can only speculate as to why........it's understandable how some would see it as "maybe racist".
Please....
If this is CK's conclusion............Thus, the logic is: "Oh, so by your own admission, you didn't have the brain power to get the job on merit." which you claimed it to be, then he reached an inaccurate, inflammatory, and divisive conclusion.
We can only speculate as to why........it's understandable how some would see it as "maybe racist".
I’d be interested in a study that shows how long on average those who join undecided on their future actually stays in 20 years. My guess is you’re one of the rare ones but I could be 100% wrong on thatIt sucked. I was told to go. So I went.
I didn’t intend on doing 20. I only joined to do something after HS. Ended up liking it.
Most don’t retire, hence why they
changed the retirement system about a decade ago.
The king of relative truth is claiming his opinion about people that he doesn't know is more factual than the dead guy that can't defend himself from the character assassinations he's inventing from scratch.LG has criticized Justice Thomas' intelligence - should we understandably see that as LG being racist?
Also, the other justices on the SCOTUS have all but called one of these women a dumbass repeatedly in their opinions--even from the liberal side. Charlie's opinion was not his alone. But by all means, the SJWs seem to know how dangerous he is in his death, so they want to try to drag his corpse through the square to try to stop what's coming. It's disgusting.LG has criticized Justice Thomas' intelligence - should we understandably see that as LG being racist?
You thought he was “that” Bernard King?
It’s hard because there’s certain things that obviously shouldn’t be said on national TV, but on the other hand it feels wrong for the government to regulate it and feels like a potential slippery slope. Mark Zuck said he was threatened to suppress certain stories on FB or face repercussions, that’s 100% wrongInteresting.
I’d venture that 60-70% don’t stay longer than the initial contract (regardless of their “undecided“ future). I know the crayon eaters (Marines) were at 75% a few years ago.I’d be interested in a study that shows how long on average those who join undecided on their future actually stays in 20 years. My guess is you’re one of the rare ones but I could be 100% wrong on that
I get it. You're not wrong in my opinion. Just about every absolutist has a breaking point which contradicts the absolutism. It's interesting how we individually decide where that breaking point is.It’s hard because there’s certain things that obviously shouldn’t be said on national TV, but on the other hand it feels wrong for the government to regulate it and feels like a potential slippery slope. Mark Zuck said he was threatened to suppress certain stories on FB or face repercussions, that’s 100% wrong
I tend to lean towards the opinion that people should be allowed to do whatever they want if it’s not infringing on someone else and the government to be as little as possible
See that just seems like such a high number and a big reason I’d advice against my child joining (unless they’re 100% certain to make it their career) you join for a few years make little money just to restart where you were after HS?I’d venture that 60-70% don’t stay longer than the initial contract (regardless of their “undecided“ future). I know the crayon eaters (Marines) were at 75% a few years ago.