Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

    Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future

    It seems that Col. Benson and Ms. Weber have ruffled some feathers with this piece.

    The basic scenario is that Tea Party type insurgents take over Darlington, SC and the military responds.

    It's actually a pretty interesting read no matter what your political bent and I would highly recommend that folks give it a good read before jumping on their bandwagons.

  • #2
    Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

    Originally posted by lutherf View Post
    It's actually a pretty interesting read no matter what your political bent and I would highly recommend that folks give it a good read before jumping on their bandwagons.
    I read it.

    I see nothing in it that is out of the ordinary for a study of the scope this one has. It stops before talking about the order of battle and doesn't address any field maneuvers.

    Nor does it address rules of engagement. (One assumes that written in 2010, and given a Tea Party adversary, ROE would be 'shoot to kill')

    Which of course is the 'shocking' part of the report. Of course, just changing the study to say:

    In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest.

    would end with the words: "After 24 hours, the Governor called out the National Guard to get the dead OWS bodies off of the hoods of red neck pickup trucks driving around in the city."

    Then again...

    In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement takes over part of lower Manhattan, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest.

    would end with the words: "After 24 hours, the Governor called out the National Guard to get the dead OWS bodies out of the basements of police stations throughout Manhattan.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

      The way I read it was that there was no "order of battle" because there were no real battles expected. The emphasis was that any overt military action would be tempered due to media scrutiny, which stands to reason.

      Personally, I really doubt that a direct insurgency such as what was described would generate the response described. I sincerely believe that a second Civil War is a distinct possibility but I really doubt that it will sprout from a local insurgency. My guess would be that a negotiated separation would occur before any military action began.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

        Originally posted by lutherf View Post
        I sincerely believe that a second Civil War is a distinct possibility but I really doubt that it will sprout from a local insurgency. My guess would be that a negotiated separation would occur before any military action began.
        This is pretty much how I see it. My prediction is that it will not be some group that starts the crisis but it will be a state. I'll even go as far to say that I believe that state will be Texas. I think it will come down to either some kind of legislation that the federal government passes that a state will refuse to accept, regardless of what the federal government says, or a state will pass a law that the federal government doesn't like and says is invalid but the state will ignore them anyways (eg. this almost happened with the Texas anti-TSA groping law).

        The next stage will involve the normal thing the federal government does to keep the states in line...cut federal funding. Here's the problem with that, where does the federal government get the money from to begin with? The state will have to recuperate that money so they could cut federal government out of the tax loop. This would be much more efficient than getting federal funds to begin with so they'd come out on top. I also believe it would be a catalyst for many other states to do the very same thing. I believe all of the southern states from Arizona to North Carolina and almost the entire mid-west would join.

        The final stage would be two outcomes:

        1. The federal government will back down and the states will gain back most of their rightful authority and the size and scope of the federal government will shrink accordingly. The country will more closely reflect the Constitution. I believe this is the most likely scenario and it is the one I prefer.

        2. Civil war breaks out and winner takes all. I see this as very unlikely and I would hate to see it.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

          Originally posted by lutherf View Post
          The way I read it was that there was no "order of battle" because there were no real battles expected. The emphasis was that any overt military action would be tempered due to media scrutiny, which stands to reason.

          Personally, I really doubt that a direct insurgency such as what was described would generate the response described. I sincerely believe that a second Civil War is a distinct possibility but I really doubt that it will sprout from a local insurgency. My guess would be that a negotiated separation would occur before any military action began.
          Well... the title of the report is: "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland:"

          Full Spectrum, would seem to indicate to me that it means a Full Spectrum response that would include some type of armed confrontation.

          Then I (finally) found the underlying Army report: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf

          This report addresses these domestic issues only very broadly and the Tea Party not at all. It seems as though our authors of the article originated that part, not the government. Or at least not in that quoted document. That document goes only this far:

          As part of a joint force with interagency and multinational partners, Army forces conduct combined arms maneuver and wide area security within the context of full-spectrum operations to defeat enemies and stabilize environments. Army forces prevail in a wide range of contingencies at home and abroad to include defeating adaptive enemies in major combat operations, responding with civil agencies to attacks or natural disasters, supporting and stabilizing fragile states facing internal or external threats, and preventing human suffering.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

            Why would the government act to put down an armed insurrection by the people?

            Is that not their right to kill all the politicians as enshrined in the second amendment?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

              Well, the scenario did mention armed conflict (kind of) but it did so in a roundabout way. This -

              Combat units will conduct overt Show of Force operations to remind the insurrectionists they are now facing professional military forces, with all the training and equipment that implies. Army and Marine units will remove road blocks and check points both overtly and covertly with minimum essential force to ratchet up pressure continually on insurrectionist leadership.
              roughly translates to targeted unconventional operations against strategic positions with the intent of demoralizing opposition leadership. It's a way of saying that, since the cameras will be everywhere, the goal will be to only make a definite show of force when it's "optically favorable". Airdropping a battalion of Rangers on a 5 man roadblock and shooting everyone in sight probably won't happen but sending a Mechanized Company to visual range of the roadblock and then making a phone call very well might happen. It might also "happen" that the morning after the 5 man roadblock is confronted that 15 men who sure look like insurgents will raise the white flag for the cameras.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                You're translation is a bit off, Luther. In military circles "unconventional" indicates, more often than not, deployment of Special Operations Forces. Considering the scale of operations being discussed, any movements/strikes would be tactical vice strategic. Still, the rest of what you said is probably pretty spot on.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                  Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
                  You're translation is a bit off, Luther. In military circles "unconventional" indicates, more often than not, deployment of Special Operations Forces. Considering the scale of operations being discussed, any movements/strikes would be tactical vice strategic. Still, the rest of what you said is probably pretty spot on.
                  Actually, Special Ops are exactly what I was talking about.

                  The piece specifically discussed taking out the roadblocks. The way that would be accomplished would be with a massive show of force for the media and psychological effect but operators would also play a significant role in that they would be used to take a "hands on" approach with the militia. They would neutralize the smaller groups and then, for psychological effect, make a show of surrender which would look absolutely spectacular to the cameras. That's what the "take out 5 men" and "watch 15 surrender" was all about.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                    Originally posted by lutherf View Post
                    Actually, Special Ops are exactly what I was talking about.

                    The piece specifically discussed taking out the roadblocks. The way that would be accomplished would be with a massive show of force for the media and psychological effect but operators would also play a significant role in that they would be used to take a "hands on" approach with the militia. They would neutralize the smaller groups and then, for psychological effect, make a show of surrender which would look absolutely spectacular to the cameras. That's what the "take out 5 men" and "watch 15 surrender" was all about.
                    Ok, I see you're point. Still, I would caution reading too much into what has been written. Typically, if they mean Special Operations Forces they'll say as much.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                      Originally posted by lutherf View Post
                      Actually, Special Ops are exactly what I was talking about.

                      The piece specifically discussed taking out the roadblocks. The way that would be accomplished would be with a massive show of force for the media and psychological effect but operators would also play a significant role in that they would be used to take a "hands on" approach with the militia. They would neutralize the smaller groups and then, for psychological effect, make a show of surrender which would look absolutely spectacular to the cameras. That's what the "take out 5 men" and "watch 15 surrender" was all about.
                      In 1975 I was assigned to the 5th Special Forces. As a member of a special ops team it was my job to go in with a team to take over an enemy communications central operations (or radio station) put it back together or make one out of what was left to use for broad cast to the local national population. I also taught classes on how to take simple things like an auto battery and coil to create a simple CW transmitter for doing an SOS which was capable of transmitting 10 miles or so. (Spark gap is very relative). When I went to VN the last time in 1970 I was a Plt Ldr of an Avionics Rpr Plt and taught at the Phoenix program how to do simple things like the CW transmitter as well.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                        I'm sitting here trying to envision Civil War 2.0 and can't envision the left picking up arms to fight a civil war. I can see some on the right doing it, but not the left.

                        Never happen.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                          Originally posted by dnsmith View Post
                          In 1975 I was assigned to the 5th Special Forces. As a member of a special ops team it was my job to go in with a team to take over an enemy communications central operations (or radio station) put it back together or make one out of what was left to use for broad cast to the local national population. I also taught classes on how to take simple things like an auto battery and coil to create a simple CW transmitter for doing an SOS which was capable of transmitting 10 miles or so. (Spark gap is very relative). When I went to VN the last time in 1970 I was a Plt Ldr of an Avionics Rpr Plt and taught at the Phoenix program how to do simple things like the CW transmitter as well.
                          You McGyver types always amazed me. I swear that some of you guys could make lobster dinners out of C-rats.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                            Originally posted by lutherf View Post
                            You McGyver types always amazed me. I swear that some of you guys could make lobster dinners out of C-rats.
                            Don't knock my C-Rations. Those meat balls and beans were fit for a king But I was not a real Special Forces guy because I was not Air Borne. We walkers had to do some specialty jobs because there were not enough fully drop trained with special training. The era of the helicopter gave some of us walkers an opportunity which was not available before 1965.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: SWJ piece on Military v. Tea Party

                              Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                              ...The next stage will involve the normal thing the federal government does to keep the states in line...cut federal funding. Here's the problem with that, where does the federal government get the money from to begin with? The state will have to recuperate that money so they could cut federal government out of the tax loop. This would be much more efficient than getting federal funds to begin with so they'd come out on top. I also believe it would be a catalyst for many other states to do the very same thing. I believe all of the southern states from Arizona to North Carolina and almost the entire mid-west would join.
                              Most of those states (particularly New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana) receive considerably more in Federal funding then they pay in Federal taxes; in some cases by better than 2-to-1. Texas might be able to break even or slightly better, but most of them couldn't, even assuming some increased efficiency.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X