The NY Times discuses a silver lining in the Supreme Courts decison to hear (and presumably endorse) a Federal right to gay marriage:
Gay Marriage Case Offers G.O.P. Political Cover
WASHINGTON — The news Friday that theSupreme Court will rule on same-sex marriagebrought elation from gays and lesbians who are hopeful the justices will grant them the constitutional protections they have long sought.
But another group also saw a possible reason to celebrate if the court does indeed rule that way: Republicans.
If the high court resolves the issue as expected in June, it could deliver a decision that has the benefit of largely neutralizing a debate that a majority of Americans believe Republicans are on the wrong side of — and well ahead of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries.
To have the question disposed of and dispensed with, many Republicans say, could make their opinions on the matter largely moot, providing a political escape hatch that gives them an excuse to essentially say: “It’s been settled. Let’s move on.”
But then again...
With the center-right 2016 hopefuls expressing a certain sense of acceptance that same-sex marriage in all 50 states could be a foregone conclusion, there is an opening for socially conservative candidates like Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, and Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, to make gay rights a wedge.
The impact of a decision allowing gay couples to marry could also echo beyond that narrow question, prompting greater demands on the right for commitments from candidates about who they would or would not appoint to the bench.
“A decision redefining marriage will highlight even more the importance of Supreme Court appointments,” said Russell Moore, a senior official with the Southern Baptist Convention. “Evangelicals and other social conservatives will want to hear from candidates what sort of judicial philosophy they will look for in making appointments. The usual clichéd slogans won’t be enough.”
Surely the apparent importance of judicial nominees will be affected by just how many of the current justices end up supporting a right to gay marriage. In the unlikely event of a 9-0 ruling, it will be hard for any candidate to insist that they won't nominate softies and activists like Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
OK, 9-0 is not likely - Scalia was unhappy with Lawrence v. Texas and unhappy with Windsor, so he is likely to deliver another blistering dissent this summer. But there were three dissents in Windsor (Scalia, joined by Thomas and Roberts in part, Roberts and Alito) and Roberts will be voting with at least one eye on the history books, so Supreme Court savants can tell me whether the right to gay marriage has a shot at seven or more votes.
I didn't think of that, Jim Miller,
the first book of Romans was uncannily prescient about our current circumstances,
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 07:51 PM
Danube, Extraneus,
JESUIT. That's all you need to know.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 07:51 PM
as usual he fails to give any scriptural support, in part because Matthew 5:10, argues against,
we know same sex marriage is only the first way station on the deviance train,
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 07:54 PM
very interesting, of course, gets in the way of the narrative,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-Jan-2015/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-in-afghanistan
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 07:58 PM
Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him.
Each time when the answer was yes He told Peter "Feed [or tend] my sheep."
What makes Pope Francis think sheep eat or thrive on secular tripe that the world already dispenses enough of to fill St Peter's ten times over daily?
Do they do recall elections on Popes?
Posted by: Iggy | January 19, 2015 at 08:02 PM
>>>Posted by: Extraneus | January 19, 2015 at 06:54 PM<<<
that pic reminded me of this ...
"Winnie-the-Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/253azovf.asp
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 19, 2015 at 08:03 PM
--Iffy @ 4:34...--
I need a ruling from Janet; is iffy better than sketchy?
Posted by: Iggy | January 19, 2015 at 08:04 PM
Good gawd, the local press is in near orgasmic delerium over Precious coming to town. Puke.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 08:05 PM
more ...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/19/the-obamapooh-photoshop-collection/
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 19, 2015 at 08:06 PM
lyle-
why BSU? he got what 30% of the vote in Idaho?
hope he doesn't call you all the Vandals or yammers on about it being a community college (my understanding is that both are touchy subjects) ...
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 19, 2015 at 08:08 PM
Silver Linings Handbag?
Here's one for daddy if he hasn't seen it yet.
More bodies discovered in Greek tomb. (hint: it was the butler)
LUN
Posted by: matt | January 19, 2015 at 08:10 PM
maryd-james mentioned my post but your point on single parenting is part of the reason why that new purpose is so horrifying. Beyond the mind arson, it destroys the benefits of doing parenting right and selflessly.
Posted by: rse | January 19, 2015 at 08:12 PM
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 07:51 PM-
being Argentinian seems to be the bigger determinant.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 19, 2015 at 08:14 PM
I know, like teaching a pig French,
http://therightscoop.com/wolf-blitzer-keeps-pestering-bobby-jindal-about-no-go-zones-in-europe-but-jindal-wont-back-down/
someone should ask Feinstein and Burr and all these other notables, we know that sleeper cells are here, what are we going to do about it,
btw, returning Saleh al Marri to Qatar is not the answer.
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 08:14 PM
rse,
Over the last few years I have been thnking about older people, now gone, and how they lived.
I have started to model my daily life around the actions of those people. This includes tasks like cleaning closets and cupboards, planing my vegetable garden, cooking from scratch with whatever is on hand, etc.
It is quite satisfying as I get a sense of accomplishment and feel a tie to my grandparents.
I really think a curriculum incorporating stuff like this would be good for students. It would give them a sense of independence and confidence in their abilities.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 08:16 PM
I know it's Politico, but the quotes seem legitimate:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/ted-cruz-114368.html
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 08:17 PM
this is the same fellow, referred in the Daily Times link
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/01/ex-guantanamo_detain_2.php
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 08:20 PM
Welp, I'll do my best to be a "non consumer" of local media tonight.
Which will make it like pretty much every other night.
Posted by: Eric in Boise | January 19, 2015 at 08:24 PM
MM: planting my vegetable garden
MM, an elementary school in our area with the lowest economic demographics works with kids to plant a vegetable garden each year.
Teaches the virtues of hard work, deferred gratification, and a sense of one’s time and place. More important lessons than many mandated skills.
Posted by: sbw | January 19, 2015 at 08:24 PM
lyle - I am looking forward to your report on any traffic problems Obama causes.
I have been fascinated by the way Obama's visits are treated by reporters here in the Seattle area. They gush over his visits as if he were -- insert pop star name here -- and they were "tweener" would-be groupies.
And then they mention, without much emotion, just what his visit has done to traffic.
(A couple of times, I have done some guesstimates on how much damage he has done and, assuming some reasonable guesses about how much people value their own time, it always comes to way more than what he raises at his fund raisers. So, in principle, the area would be better off if we paid him to stay away.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 19, 2015 at 08:28 PM
sbw,
Exactly. This is why I think this stuff should be in school curricula.
Also understanding checking accounts, compound interest, cooking from scratch, understanding retail sales, basic civics, taxes, and a bunch of other stuff.
The satisfaction of hard work is a really good thing to learn.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 08:29 PM
For a long time I have generally agreed with the constitutional conservatives on the constitutional aspects of the gay marriage issue, and have been pretty much undecided as to the social aspects. I do feel that gay marriage has been disingenuously pushed by the left as a political matter, but what isn't? Mostly I really never cared much about it one way or the other.
Until our youngest son told us he is gay.
Now I am still somewhat ambivalent about it as a purely intellectual matter, but since it's not a big deal to me and it is to my son I'm going to side with him (on this one), constitutional principles and intellectual qualms be damned.
I do not think that in the long run that when and if he meets someone he wants to spend his life with it will make much difference to his happiness that it is "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever, but to him it is a question of societal acceptance, which is how most of his peers including his brother and sister see it and I don't think that for his generation and younger that is ever going to change. I certainly understand that one need not "hate" gays to be opposed to gay marriage as a matter of belief or principle, but I don't think many members of the younger generation, and fewer and fewer members of my own generation, see it that way. The arguments drawing a connection between the breakdown of traditional marriage and the acceptance of gay marriage simply don't resonate. I think that up until recently the polls have shown strong majorities against gay marriage but that seems to have changed in a hurry. Which is why I think the Supremes will manufacture a constitutional "right" and why I agree that they may be doing the Republicans a favor.
I am thankful that he lives in a time when, for the most part, gays are accepted and tolerated--certainly it is night and day from when I was his age. He is a quiet, sensitive young man and I am happy that he doesn't feel like he needs to pretend he is someone else than who he is.
One aspect of gay marriage which does concern me very much as a father is: who pays for these things?
Posted by: boatbuilder | January 19, 2015 at 08:29 PM
Single mother used to be "divorced mother." Otherwise it was unmarried mother--quelle horreur! The change came about, I believe, to protect the unmarried mothers from being stigmatized and, of course, the children of the unmarried mothers: les bâtards.
Posted by: Frau Unsichtbare Hand | January 19, 2015 at 08:37 PM
It would be one thing if government provided one institution for opposite sex, same sex, polygamy, etc and called it "civil union", but nobody wants that. It would be obvious that something's being taken away.
Re-branding "civil union" for everyone as marriage does the same thing but is easier to impose since language makes it difficult for people to say what's being taken from them. Postmodern linguistic jujitsu.
When professor Cleo gives every student in class an A the good students can't complain about their grade without sounding whiny or stuck up.
"Ya got an A so whadda ya complaining about ya big baby"
Posted by: boris | January 19, 2015 at 08:38 PM
boatbuilder,
My nephew is gay. Wonderful guy, his partner is a joy. They got married in San Francisco this summer. I love them both.
However, my Church doesn't agree with it because in the Catholic Church, Christ is the third party in the sacrament of marriage.
This is why I support civil unions (can be called marriages) and an allowance for churches to marry those couples or not. Episcopalians will, Catholics won't.
I still think that gay marriage is being used as an attack on churches. It doesn't mean I hate gays, but a lot of this stuff is an effort to drive a wedge in the faith communty.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 08:38 PM
or, widowed mother.
Posted by: Frau Unsichtbare Hand | January 19, 2015 at 08:39 PM
boatbuilder: to him it is a question of societal acceptance
As it is to me, too. Gender attachment is personal, first. The personal surroundings, second. And the government, not at all.
In other words, the government has not the leverage to force societal acceptance, however hard it might try.
Which brings me back to what I said above. Is the government’s interest increasing the population, managing the family, or not at all.
Policy should be refined accordingly now that the church’s marriage is no longer the major gravity in the arrangement.
And, as far as your son is concerned, were I there, I’d give him a hug of support for finding -- and then acknowledging -- where he is most comfortable now. Since I’m not there, you can give him a hug for me.
Thanks for mentioning your experience.
Posted by: sbw | January 19, 2015 at 08:45 PM
'gag me with a spork'
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/19/finally-we-have-another-run-of-the-mill-obama-speechwriter-to-deify/
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 08:47 PM
Miss Marple, I've already shared that in Germany we had the civil ceremony for the state and the church wedding for the folks. it didn't seem like a bother. I doubt that many still have the church wedding. Too bad.
Posted by: Frau Unsichtbare Hand | January 19, 2015 at 08:47 PM
Frau - In France, the law used to allow a woman to be married, even if her husband had died before the marriage.
The idea, I assume, was to allow women who had, shall we say, rushed some aspects of marriage, to bear legitimate children -- even if they had lost their man in a battle.
(I have no idea whether they still have that law -- but wouldn't mind, if they did.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 19, 2015 at 08:48 PM
MM, I think you are right, that activists manipulate “gay rights” as an attack on the institutions that have brought cultural stability. It’s the game of turning private behavior public for political reasons.
While I may not agree with all the Pope has, especially recently, said. I give him credit for explaining church policy that can love gays without agreeing with them. It disarms the identity politicians.
Individual diversity is to be valued, while identity politics demeans people by treating them uniformly.
Posted by: sbw | January 19, 2015 at 08:52 PM
@henry: Just because you played soccer, brew your own beef and recognize a top-flight bass riff when you hear one doesn't immunize you from Inner Nerd Syndrome (INS). I'd say that I suffer from INS myself, except I embrace every minute of it!!
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2015 at 08:52 PM
Frau,
I remember seeing couples doing both (carriage to cicil ceremony and then to church) back when I lived in West Berlin (1967-68).
It is true that some will skip the church ceremony. On the other hand, if you want to go down the aisle in a gown with attendants, you will have to sign on to the church regulations.
I foresee wedding halls which will provide the decor and ceremony without the strictures of the church.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 08:53 PM
"Is the government’s interest increasing the population, managing the family, or not at all"
ISTM the obvious answer is it's people's interest that children be raised by the adults that made them because people believe that's what children want and that's what's best for them. If you need something abstract, the people want marriage and that's all that's necessary for a government of the people by the people.
How that came to be defined as one man one woman is left as an exercise for the rational.
Posted by: boris | January 19, 2015 at 08:53 PM
beef = beer!! lol
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2015 at 08:53 PM
Yowsah, sbw @ 8:52.
Posted by: Frau Unsichtbare Hand | January 19, 2015 at 08:55 PM
Beasts,
I was wondering about how you brewed beef! LOL!
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 08:55 PM
rich, most BSU fans/alum ignore the vandulls and the JuCo slur is receding faster than dUI's relevance. Jim, it goes without saying Boise is not Seattle re traffic, but given the media tongue bath, I'll assume they'll gloss over any inconvenience to us locals. Mrs lyle got a personal invite from the president's office for two. She's taking her mom, who also is no fan of 404. Have I been ignoring the wife's penchant for self inflicted pain nigh all these years??
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 08:55 PM
Boris: it's people's interest that children be raised by the adults that made them because people believe that's what children want and that's what's best for them.
Indeed, a better phrasing for the middle option.
A culture, represented by government, can want citizens to procreate and maintaining the family and, accordingly, offer tax breaks.
But I see no reason for government to offer tax breaks for “marriage” otherwise.
Posted by: sbw | January 19, 2015 at 08:58 PM
the Court will deliver more 'sound and fury, signifying nothing told by an idiot'
Scalia who was prescient so many years ago, will be ignored, and another institution will fall, much as with Boumedienne, or NFIB vs, Sibelius,
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 09:00 PM
Heading to bed.
Nytol!
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 19, 2015 at 09:00 PM
"A culture, represented by government, can want citizens to ..."
My quibble is that like birth, and death, marriage is a pre-existing condition that came with being an organization of humans.
The government has to deal with birth, not because it "wants" to or has some "interest". It has no choice but to deal with birth.
The government has to deal with death, not because it "wants" to or has some "interest". It has no choice but to deal with death.
Ditto marriage. (ISTM)
Posted by: boris | January 19, 2015 at 09:06 PM
I've heard rumors that henry brews beef in his sling trebuchet, but that's a topic for another day, Miss Marple! ;)
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2015 at 09:07 PM
she does have a way with words:
http://conservatives4palin.com/2015/01/gov-palin-god-bless-troops-especially-snipers.html
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 09:08 PM
Maybe the GAY justices will recuse themselves.
Anyone know which ones are teh gay?
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 09:08 PM
Before I forget - If you are at all interested in nutrition and diets, check out my 2:12 PM post.
Especially if you are Tom Maguire.
(Please note: I am calling for replication of the study, because the findings were so surprising.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 19, 2015 at 09:10 PM
Another 60+ degree day on tap for tomorrow! Think I'll hit the hay and be ready to enjoy the glorious funshine!!
Nytol
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 19, 2015 at 09:10 PM
Beasts, the beef is next door (that's a rural next door, ~750 yds) at the dairy farm. Out of range of the trebuchet... for now. ;)
Posted by: henry | January 19, 2015 at 09:12 PM
on that other point:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/debra-burlingame-senate-betrayal-article-1.2064223
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 09:15 PM
I will watch and listen to not a single sedond of the SOTU. I will watch and listen to not a single second of pre-SOTU commentary. I will watch and listen to not a single second of post-SOTU commentary.
Lots of time catching up with Breaking Bad, and abundant (if unspeakably tedious pre-Super Bowl coverage.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 19, 2015 at 09:28 PM
I think the Iranian ferret's plan is to stick a thumb in the eye of a red state by coming here. Scrunt.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 09:30 PM
The ads on the networks promise a mere 85 hours of SB coverage for the next two weeks, Danube. It'll feel like three times that.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 09:33 PM
sorry about that lyle. hope the traffic isn't too bad.
I remember watching one of the BSU blow outs of the Vandals a few years back ... they don't play the series anymore iirc.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 19, 2015 at 09:33 PM
Beasts, I've been to Henry's Castle. He brews beef too.
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 09:33 PM
lyle,
Will there be a brief stop in Sand Point? Just askin'...
BTW how about an honest report on the number of people watching the SOTU. I see that DoT and I will be otherwise engaged.
Posted by: Frau Unsichtbare Hand | January 19, 2015 at 09:40 PM
GUS - perhaps a JOM convention at Henry's is called for. I thought about AliceH's but it's all in the same general area, interstate close?
Posted by: Frau Unsichtbare Hand | January 19, 2015 at 09:42 PM
they don't play the series anymore iirc.
Nope. The Candles* are in a different conference now. If they don't improve soon they probably shouldn't be in FBS.
*Get blown out regularly
Posted by: Eric in Boise | January 19, 2015 at 09:44 PM
Frau,
If Jane and Daddy agree to do complimentary tag team commentary, I promise I'll read it in real time. I've never listened to BOzo for longer than it takes to tune him out and that ain't gonna ever change.
Posted by: RickB | January 19, 2015 at 09:44 PM
No, we don't play them anymore, rich. Don't miss it. But then they're possibly the worst football team in the country. They need to go back to the Big Sky conference but they're too stupid to admit it.
As far as this week is turning out, I should have stayed in Sun Valley until Thur when I'm getting together with Eric and Publius for the first ever Idaho JOM meet-up.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 09:45 PM
I'm guessing nobody is watching. Why bother--they already leaked everything he's going to say.
Posted by: anonamom | January 19, 2015 at 09:46 PM
Bingo, anonomom.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 09:48 PM
"But I see no reason for government to offer tax breaks for “marriage” otherwise."
Do they offer tax breaks for married couples? I do believe we pay more in taxes because we are married. I have mentioned this to my spouse, but quickly add, "...and worth every penny!"
Posted by: JerryRigged | January 19, 2015 at 09:51 PM
Frau, I doubt there's any stop in N. Idaho planned. But, in truth, there's few if any whitey supremacist types up there any more. They decamped to E. Oregon quite a while ago.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 09:51 PM
yet another success story:
http://www.libyaherald.com/2015/01/18/ansar-launches-rocket-attacks-in-benghazi/
that 'roman a clef' I've referred to earlier, had some rather fantastic elements
which I thought the author had invented, like the ruthless crni labudovi, 'the black swans' Bosnian paramilitaries, which figure in the plot, turns out they were real,
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 09:52 PM
Frau, Henry lives close enough to I-94 and I-43 and their "tributaries". I think a meet up at his place would be great. Of course we are inviting ourselves!!! Henry has a really really REALLY cool home and property. I'd certainly help him "host'. I don't know how well he cooks, but I certainly could cook, while he brews up a nice batch.
Henry is a very successful man, and he is an extremely humble and nice dude. And bright.
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 09:57 PM
Boris: It has no choice but to deal with birth
Actually, government can encourage or discourage it.
With a 1.8 birth rate, government has been manipulating the economy and abortion law to discourage it when 2.0 is at least static.
Posted by: sbw | January 19, 2015 at 09:59 PM
Boatbuilder,
Who pays for what things?
Posted by: Jane on Ipad | January 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM
WTF would entice any sane person to watch Oblahblah regurgitate more Commie clap trap??
He's going down in flames, and he's trying to scorch America as he goes down.
What we are seeing now, is WHO OBAMA IS. The COMMIE is not pretending anymore. Unforunately the GOP is rudderless and not Conservative.
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 10:05 PM
I do believe we pay more in taxes because we are married.
Married couples with two incomes generally pay higher taxes than if they were single. A married person whose spouse does not work (or whose income is relatively low) will pay lower taxes than if he or she were single.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 19, 2015 at 10:09 PM
If I agree to blog the SOTU I have one rule - I blog what I hear, not what he says. You may not like that.
Posted by: Jane on Ipad | January 19, 2015 at 10:10 PM
sbw - Quibble: For Western societies, 2.1 is usually given as the static fertility rate. That allows for accidents and the fact that boys outnumber girls, at birth, even without help from abortionists.
(In the past, some Christian thinkers saw divine providence in the greater number of boys. There were enough,they thought, to make up for the inevitable losses in wars.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 19, 2015 at 10:11 PM
"Maybe the GAY justices will recuse themselves."
They shouldn't, any more than the straight ones should.
Nytol.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 19, 2015 at 10:12 PM
OT: My step daughter's water has broken. Grandkid in a few hours. Stella.
Posted by: DrJ | January 19, 2015 at 10:13 PM
Congrats, Dr, J.
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2015 at 10:16 PM
If the government wished to discourage baby killing it need only publish and promote studies showing the correlation between baby killing and breast cancer. The Center for the Spread of Incurable Disease uses the correlations for prediction of the future increase of breast cancer cases, just as the NHS does in the UK. The modeling has proven very accurate and does not need to be gruberized.
Posted by: RickB | January 19, 2015 at 10:17 PM
it is a question of societal acceptance,
Well that is true.
Now the majority of the nation that does NOT want to redefine marriage are the unacceptable ones. At least according to those running the media stage.
"By insisting that something unpopular was popular often enough, they made it popular. And by insisting that something popular is really unpopular, they did the opposite." - Sultan Knish
Posted by: Janet | January 19, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Lighten up Danube. There are no gay justices.
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Rick, why do you hate wymyn?
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 10:27 PM
I will match DoT and Frau and will not even going to read Jane as she blogs it.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 19, 2015 at 10:29 PM
My local tv news just did a blurb on an Annapolis fire of a 'mansion ' . Any details from locals ?
Posted by: BB Key | January 19, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Looks like I changed words there huh
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 19, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Jane,
I only care about what you hear. He has never read anything out loud which was worth listening to.
Posted by: RickB | January 19, 2015 at 10:33 PM
A friend sent me this in an email last week. I've really enjoyed it. Maybe it will give a few of you a smile:
Marine Corps Rules:
1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
2. Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.
3. Have a plan.
4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.
5. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a '4.'
7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal preferred.)
9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
10. Flank your adversary. When possible, protect yours.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. In ten years, nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating your intention to shoot..
Navy SEAL Rules:
1. Look very cool in sunglasses.
2. Kill every living thing in sight.
3. Adjust Speedo.
4. Check hair in mirror.
US Army Rangers' Rules:
1. Walk in 50 miles wearing 75 pound rucksack while starving.
2. Locate individuals requiring killing.
3. Request permission via radio from 'Higher' to perform killing.
4. Curse bitterly when mission is aborted.
5. Walk out 50 miles wearing a 75 pound rucksack while starving.
US Army Rules:
1. Curse bitterly when receiving operational order.
2. Make sure there is extra ammo and extra coffee.
3. Curse bitterly.
4. Curse bitterly.
5. Do not listen to 2nd LTs; it can get you killed.
6. Curse bitterly.
US Air Force Rules:
1. Have a cocktail.
2. Adjust temperature on air-conditioner.
3. See what's on HBO.
4. Ask 'What is a gunfight?'
5. Request more funding from Congress with a 'killer' Power Point presentation.
6. Wine and dine ''key' Congressmen, invite DOD and defense industry executives.
7. Receive funding, set up new command and assemble assets.
8. Declare the assets 'strategic' and never deploy them operationally.
9. Hurry to make 13:45 tee-time.
10. Make sure the base is as far as possible from the conflict, but close enough to have tax exemption.
11 Always have ICE CREAM
US Navy Rules:
1. Go to Sea.
2. Drink Coffee.
3. Deploy Marines
Go Navy!
And the next... (God bless and love the military.)
U.S. Navy Directive 16134 (Inappropriate T-Shirts)
The following directive was issued by the commanding officer of all naval installations in the Middle East .
(It was obviously directed at the Marines.)
To: All Commands
Subject: Inappropriate T-Shirts
Ref: ComMidEast For Inst 16134//24 K
All commanders promulgate upon receipt:
The following T-shirts are no longer to be worn, on or off base, by any military, or civilian personnel, serving in the Middle East:
1. 'Eat Pork or Die'
[Both English and Arabic versions]
2. 'Shrine Busters'
[Various. Show burning minarets or bomb/artillery shells impacting Islamic shrines. Some with unit logos.]
3. 'Goat - it isn't just for breakfast anymore.'
[Both English and Arabic versions]
4. 'The road to Paradise begins with me.'
[Mostly Arabic versions, but some in English. Some show sniper scope cross-hairs.]
5. 'Guns don't kill people. I kill people.'
6. 'Pork. The other white meat.'
7. 'Infidel'
The above T-shirts are to be removed from Post Exchanges upon receipt of this directive.
In addition, the following signs are to be removed upon receipt of this message:
1. 'Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range at 0800 Daily.’
2. 'Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?'
All commands are instructed to implement sensitivity training upon receipt.
Posted by: Joan | January 19, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Love it, Joan.
Posted by: lyle | January 19, 2015 at 10:49 PM
I certainly understand that one need not "hate" gays to be opposed to gay marriage as a matter of belief or principle, but I don't think many members of the younger generation, and fewer and fewer members of my own generation, see it that way.
So I'm supposed to just roll over because it's the popular thing to do? That's not happening. Ever.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 19, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Capn', the MORON SQUAD....a.k.a LIV's and LIBTARDS have no need to THINK anymore. Their MASTERS, like Al Gore, do their thinking for them. You just HATE HATE HATE.
But there is good news. We have 47 MILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLION people (Americans and MEXIGUATAMALHONDURABELIZIANS) on Food Stamps. And 99 weeks of UNEMPLOYMENT BENNIES have run out making the UNEMPLOYED....poooooof....INVISIBLE, and HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HUNGRY!!!
Yet you and I HATE.
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 11:37 PM
As I've pointed out before, you're now considered a "bigot" if you hold the same position on this issue that Obama held up until May 9th, 2012.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 19, 2015 at 11:48 PM
--So I'm supposed to just roll over because it's the popular thing to do?--
Depends on whether you are a dedicated follower of fashion or follow the eternal.
...and every man did what was right in his own eyes.
That verse, by the way, is the last verse of Judges the chaos of which led the Israelis to demand a king to subjugate them.
Posted by: Iggy | January 19, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Dave, if you disagree with the COMMIE LEFT, you must be silenced. Hypocrisy has no meaning to them. They are not interested in your thoughts nor opinions. Obama is a COMMUNIST. He is emotionally disturbed and also has DADDY issues. He has ZERO interest in anything other than completing his MARXIST quest.
GOOD NEWS THOUGH!! You get FREE, MISSSHHHHELLE Obama approved Breakfast Lunch and Dinner at your new 2 YEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE!!!
No job after.
Posted by: GUS | January 19, 2015 at 11:57 PM
For the record, I know a couple people who've been in homosexual marriages; one worked out and the other didn't. They're both my friends and I don't have to agree with what they did to still like them; the one that didn't work out so well had a hell of a time dissolving the union since they moved to a non homosexual marriage state (Ahia). Both of them are good people who wouldn't think of imposing what they believe on somebody else, I guess.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 19, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Capn. Gay people CANNOT be MARRIED. As GUS has so eloquently mentioned before, a shit sandwich is NOT roast beef.
I don't hate HOMOSEXUALS. And I don't hate ROAST BEEF.
Being HOMOSEXUAL is generally accepted by the American Public. I wish God's blessings on HOMOSEXUALS.
Marriage is an institution that for thousands of years has been a UNION of a MAN and WOMAN.
Posted by: GUS | January 20, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Gus, on a completely different topic, are Wisconsin and Maryland going to fight it out for Big 10 basketball supremacy? My Terps are back!
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2015 at 12:17 AM
I hope so Capn. DO not forget, I am from HAGERSTOWN.
Posted by: GUS | January 20, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Let me explain LIBTARDS like Michael Moore.
I sure hope that FAT FUCKING MEDIA WHORE FROM FLINT DIES A TERRIBLE DEATH choking on a CHICKEN BONE!!! I hope his fat wife, and ugly children witness the HORRID death and see the blood gurgle out of the FAT FUCKS TRIPLE CHIN.
Posted by: GUS | January 20, 2015 at 12:37 AM
Not once did I mention that MICHAEL MOORE was the FAT FUCKER I was referring to.
See how it works for LIBTARDS??
I wasn't talking about Michael Moore.
Posted by: GUS | January 20, 2015 at 12:39 AM
I'll never forget where you're from, Gus. I'm going to bed but here are my boys doing what they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThrVQlCP02U&hd=1
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2015 at 12:57 AM
If LIAM NEESON was the star of Sniper...........................................what would LIBTARDS say??
Posted by: GUS | January 20, 2015 at 01:33 AM
Stella was born at 12:01 on 20 Jan 2015. Mom and baby are doing well.
Posted by: DrJ | January 20, 2015 at 07:05 AM
Congratulations!
Posted by: anonamom | January 20, 2015 at 07:14 AM
Joan@10:46 - Those Air Force rules are obviously fake. They never mentioned their Officer's Clubs! ;)
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 20, 2015 at 07:26 AM