The Independents

Tonight on The Independents: 'Boots on the Ground'

|

Shrill. |||

What happens when you have an hour-long cable-TV discussion about U.S. intervention, only instead of the usual mix of Sabbath-gasbags and armchair hawks and doves, the conversation took place with military veterans? Tune into the Fox Business Network tonight at 9 p.m. ET (6 p.m. ET), and again three and five hours later, to find out. Spoiler alert: It's a helluva lot more real, funny, occasionally brutal, and frankly skeptical about war aims, politics, and funding than 95 percent of what you normally see on television.

Tonight's lineup on this special theme episode of The Independents includes:

*  Three-war veteran and former Army First Lieutenant Bryan Suits, now a KABC radio host, who will talk about the obfuscation surrounding the term "boots on the ground," and also the futility of turning the tip of the national spear into social-working nation-builders.

* Former Navy aviator and intelligence operations officer, and current Fox News correspondent Lea Gabrielle, who will offer some qualified support for President Barack Obama's military and rhetorical strategy against the Islamic State.

* Former Air Force Sgt. and current editor of Breach Bang Clear David Reeder, who will talk about the many different flavors of mission creep.

* Cato Institute defense/homeland-security research fellow Benjamin Friedman, who will talk about the problems associated with a huge military budget.

* Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who will talk about how defense spending should be reformed to help improve the existing military and its missions.

* Iraq War vet and former Marine Dan Caldwell of Concerned Veterans for America, who will talk about whether he would still advise young people to join the Armed Forces, and what the veterans' perspective is on Obama's latest war.

It's a frank and illuminating show, and I hope you tune in. For a taste of what it might be like, here's the duck-bearded military/law enforcement trainer Kyle Lamb from Wednesday night's episode:

Follow The Independents on Facebook at facebook.com/IndependentsFBN, follow on Twitter @ independentsFBN, and click on this page for more video of past segments.

Advertisement

NEXT: 1 in 6 California Construction Workers Labors 'Informally.' Can't Be the Lousy Business Environment, Can It?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Boots on the Ground
    Boots on the Ground
    Lookin’ like a fool
    With your boots on the Ground

  2. WHY IS THERE A U IN HARBOR?!

    1. COSMOTARIAN SPELLCHECK

    2. If u weren’t there, u wouldn’t understand.

  3. A kinda neat poster ruined by a “U”. WTF??

    1. Reason went Galt and inverted to Canada. God Save the Queen!

  4. The United States is spending millions of dollars to destroy U.S. equipment in Iraq and Syria ? gear the U.S. gave the Iraqi military that was later captured by ISIS forces.

    Once the U.S. destroys the equipment, it might have to re-supply the Iraqi military.

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/2…..?hpt=hp_t1

    I’d need to be a Hindu god to face palm sufficiently.

    1. Gonna be real fun for the troops when we ‘surge’.

      Drone Operator: ‘Is that an American convoy?’

      DO Sup: Better shoot it anyway, just to be sure. We’ll just call them ‘militants’ in the AAR.

    2. We have to supply the good guys now so that they can be the bad guys in the future, in case we kill all the bad guys. Got it now?

    3. That “aack” facial expression is worthy of Bill the Cat.

  5. Fox News correspondent Lea Gabrielle

    Loved her in Glee.

    1. Oops

  6. There will be boots on the ground, just not “boots” boots. They will be wearing crocs because the army is going “green”, or something.

    1. ‘OK Marines, the CinC has declared there will be no boots on the ground in Iraq. So I want all you Devil Dogs in your go-fasters by the time we land at the staging area in Masirah.’

    2. Fighting ISIS will combat climate change.

      /Any dumbocrat congress critter

      1. Fighting ISIS will combat climate change.

        What with all the depleted uranium shells we drop on them. Of course, it will!

        1. While DU is pretty heavy, dropping them on the enemy doesn’t do much beyond giving a headache.

          1. I am pretty sure that Agent Orange is made from depleted uranium.

  7. “Three-war veteran and former Army First Lieutenant Bryan Suits”

    There is clearly a need here for a weekly war-commentary segment titled, Knocking-Boots With Suits

    1. Suits on the Ground, perhaps?

      1. I’m all for ‘congress critters on the ground’.

    2. How do you leave as a 1LT after at least three tours? That’s O-2.

  8. OT: Airing of a Grievance

    Yesterday I went to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (aka Walmart) to buy some beer to drink while I watched Black Adder. The cashier asked for ID and asked me to smile, which I declined by saying “that’s a tall order”. Her mood quickly changed and she decided that she could not sell me the beer. She stormed off to the customer service desk. I followed and said “I understand if you don’t want to sell to me [I initially thought she was doing it out religion] but another cashier will.” She said that no one else would sell to me if she refused and then declared she could smell alcohol on my breath. I told her I hadn’t had anything to drink that day and asked her if she was a human breathalyzer. She left. Other cashier comes and rings me up. Other cashier says first cashier thought she smelled something. I said “yeah I smell something too- bullshit”. I raised my beer in victory as I walked out past the first cashier.

    I thought alcoholics prefer to buy a bottle of rot-gut as soon as the liquor store opens. It turns out that they actually prefer to drive to Walmart a few hours after work and buy a 6-pack of craft beer. Apparently when young men go to Walmart in the evening, they are expected to fill their shopping carts with Bible verse calendars and stuffed animals.

    I imagine the first cashier went home that night feeling like a hero for valiantly protecting a lost soul from the devil’s brew.

    Here endeth the tale

    1. OMG! Like how you not, like, smile for the nice lady? Like, ok? It’s just a smile.

      1. Its not just a smile, its a demonstration of *power*.

        1. re: “Power”

          Yes. Which is the funny (*as in ‘scary, sad’) part.

          People play little power-games all the time. “Do what I say”… to be ‘friendly’? Play the game with me. its like social *guanxi* = in exchange for my helpfulness, you give me something first

          Even ‘sane’ people can be pretty fucking crazy when their petty power games are ignored.

      2. How easy it was to imagine the voice of Quinn Morgandorfer as I read those words…

    2. Maybe she’s seeking a future career in the temperance movement. I mean where else can you go but up from being a cashier at Walmart?

      1. Oh, there’s plenty of down from there.

        You could be working as the night shift cashier/janitor at the 24 hour truck stop gas station /restaurant/sex shop.

        1. Hey, that was actually a decent job.

        2. I worked building websites in college (1998 or so) and I put one together for a gay porn site. HotBuddyz or something like that.

          Pay was decent.

    3. Your first mistake was going to Wal Marche in the evening.

      I’ll only go in the morning, and hang with the old geezers. We buy ammo and complain about kids these days.

      1. After 10pm, the walmart people wake up and come out of their … well wherever it is that they exist.

        It freaked my wife out a little the first time we went into our local Walmart at around 11am. First thing we saw was a 500+ lb couple wearing cartoon pajamas that were 3 sizes too small and fuzzy animal house slippers.

        1. Yeah, I won’t go to the local WM after 10am.

          1. I actually meant, 11pm. I’m on a type-o roll this evening.

        2. Hmm, we don’t have that problem out here – but then we’re short of rednecks and the Mexicans aren’t that slovenly.

          I did find out that WM (in Arizone) won’t sell you a bottle of wine before 6am though.

          1. I think the folks I am referring to are aka white trash, and there’s plenty of them in MD, not that there’s anything wrong with that…

        3. I’ve seen that!

        4. It freaked my wife out a little the first time we went into our local Walmart at around 11am. First thing we saw was a 500+ lb couple wearing cartoon pajamas that were 3 sizes too small and fuzzy animal house slippers.

          And yet I would trust those people much more readily than a crack team of Obama apparatchiks deployed to fix the economy.

          1. Bill Buckley’s “first 100 people in the phone book” principle.

    4. How retarded is the U.S. when it comes to alcohol? Wtf?

      1. How retarded is the U.S. when it comes to alcohol?

        In Virginia, you cannot purchase alcohol between 12am and 4am. On the flip side, we are able to purchase on Sundays.
        Also, to provide a frame of reference, consider that a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT banning alcohol managed to pass. So, we’re pretty fucked up on alc policy.

      2. Very. In Hoosierland you cannot buy alcohol on Sunday unless you are in a restaurant. Needless to say, Michigan liquor stores do brisk Sunday business.

      3. I’m pretty sure the other nine provinces of Canada are every bit as bad, if not worse, than most of the USA.

        When I lived there, Ontario’s liquor laws were about on a par with Utah’s.

  9. Muslim convert in Oklahoma beheads a guy….

    But hey, don’t worry, your chances of being beheaded by a muslim is much worse than being hit by lightning.

    Well, at least until Shariah law comes. But that’s a good 30-40 years…

    1. Hmm funny, yesterday it was a muslim convert in OK beheads a grandmother.

      Are you saying that OK is experiencing a rash of religious inspired murders?

      1. ‘Course it couldn’t possibly be that he killed these people because he was mentally fucked. He was muslim and that has to be the one and only reason, right?

        And now that we have this, let’s just go ahead and get rid of all our freedoms – whatever it takes to defend the homeland.

        1. Well, he killed the person with a knife. So we need to start by banning knifes. I mean the serfs should be able to get by with sporks, cause peasants have no biz eating the kings wildlife and all anyway. And then we’d all be more in compliance with the wookie queen’s dietary commandments. And global warming.

          1. And yes, I know the plural of knife is knives. But, there is no edit feature. Did I mention that before?

            1. Oh, I just thought you were one of those weird foreigners, like the people who spell harbor with a ‘U’.

              1. Get me that file and those wittles, or my friend will eat your liver, boy!

          2. Oh, I get it! Since someone once killed someone else in a similar fashion, Islam really IS a religion of peace that had nothing to do with this murder. Well, except blowback.

            He cut off someone’s head because of American Imperialism but NOT because that is what Islamists do to “infidels”. If only America hadn’t done X, this wouldn’t have happened.

            Science H Logic the guy is yelling “Allah Akbar” but it was all about knives or workplace violence? Talk about being purposefully obtuse.

        2. You know, when Buddhists go crazy, at most, all they do is light themselves on fire.

          Jus’ sayin’

          1. Eh, weren’t the Shaolin guys also Buddhist? And the Kamikazes?

            /nit-picker

            1. Shaolin is very Buddhist, and as you know, Buddhists are not pacifists. Self-defense has always allowed.

              As for Japanese Kamikaze pilots, it would be hard to pick out what in their philosophy was Shintoist and what was Zen Buddhist. Not to mention the fact that they believed they were acting in defense of their homeland. Again, not pacifist.

              1. OK, I’ll give you those.

                While Buddhists are less likely to do violence for their religion, it has happened. See Ikko-Ikki:

                http://www.samurai-archives.com/ikk.html

                1. Wow, that’s a very um…”one-sided”, shall we say, description of the Ikko-Ikki and their motivations that left out the very important fact that Nobunaga was sympathetic to the Jesuits (whether it was because he was a crypto-Catholic or just wanted access to Western technology is debatable) and had made it his mission to eradicate Buddhism from Japan through blade and fire.

              2. No true Scotsman, Buddhist version.

                Really? The Japs thought they were acting in defense of the homeland at Coral Sea and Midway?

                Do Muslims who consider Israel to be Muslim territory get a similar pass for acts they perpetrate against Jews?

                1. The Japs thought they were acting in defense of the homeland at Coral Sea and Midway?

                  Yes. And from the Japanese point of view, the military considered it a “preemptive strike”. Did I just take the wind out of the sails of your ship, the S.S. Self-Righteous Blowhard? I’m sorry. You might want to educate yourself on the basics of a historical period before you make an ass out of yourself again. I recommend starting with Japan’s War by Hoyt. Of course, I realize that reading isn’t your strong point. So I’ll also toss you this bone, then again since you’re ignorant of the context, I’m sure you won’t get the point.

                  1. HM – after Mamchuria in 36-39 can these really be pre-emptive in any sense?

                    1. I would agree that the Japanese were pulling the same trick as the Romans, but the center point of the earlier argument was about their mindset, and it is documented that the average Japanese brass really did believe America had aggressive designs against them during the 30’s by using the Pacific fleet to provoke them.

            2. And the Kamikazes?

              Shinto.

              Ancestor worship. God is in everything. Contemplate cherry blossoms etc.

              1. Which, by the way, if I were to glom onto any religion, that’d probably be the most likely.

          2. Well, except when their mobs attack muslim minorities in Myanmar or Bhutan expelling its Hindi minority in order to preserve its buddhist culture.

            Oh and there’s the Dalai Lama with his *very* pro-Marxist stance (in response to criticism that the previous buddhist government maintained a feudal society) – a system that we’ve seen elsewhere produce untold human misery. But, technically, he’s not actually gone crazy so this is something a perfectly sane buddhist supports.

            No offense, but buddhists are people and its impossible to find a philosophical/religious grouping that doesn’t have a goodly number of members willing to kill and maim anyone who is not part of their group.

            1. Every single poster after me has made the mistake of conflating sane people with insane people. If you read my original comment closely, you’ll note that I wrote “when Buddhists go crazy”. The rest of you decided to ignore that in your mock outrage and decided to construct your strawman to punch around. (With the exception of Derp, who might have just misread the original comment in good faith).

              So have at it; go argue against your shadow. When you feel like discussing the long history of Buddhist self-immolation and its possible effects on mentally unstable Buddhist devotees and compare that to the many references to beheading in the Quran and Hadith and its possible effects on mentally unstable Muslims, I’ll be happy to engage in that conversation with you.

              1. There are violent crazy people in every religion, but these days Islam seems to have more than their proportionate share, and far more than their share of clerics who are A-OK with it.

              2. I took the word “crazy” to mean “fanatical”. I thought what you meant was that in contrast to religions like Islam, Buddhist fanatics do not attack other people.

                Unfortunately, Buddhists, like many other groups, have used violence for reasons besides self-defense. The prime minister of Sri Lanka was assassinated by a Buddhist extremist in 1956.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talduwe_Somarama

                1. Unfortunately, Buddhists, like many other groups, have used violence for reasons besides self-defense

                  Of course. As pointed out above, Buddhists are just like any other humans. And added to the mix, in the “Old World”, religion and national/ethnic/racial identity are tied up in a way that just isn’t so in the Western Hemisphere.

                  Still, we have to distinguish between acts of violence engaged by a member/members of a particular religion, and acts of violence inspired/justified by the doctrines of a particular religion.

                  1. Yes, good point. I don’t think there is anything like jihad or “suffer not a witch to live” in Buddhism.

                    1. All this talk of “Well, some ____ists once committed religious violence, too” ignores the central truth: There is only one major religion that believes its destiny is to be a worldwide fundamentalist theocracy, by force if necessary, and treat non-believers like second-class citizens, if they are allowed to live at all. This “extreme” view is fully endorsed by their holy book, by vast numbers of their clergy, and (depending on how and where you count) 10-80% of the adherents.

                      There is simply no other religious threat to liberty even a tenth as dangerous as Islam. Not “radical Islam,” just regular-old Islam.

                    2. It was founded as a theocratic Total State, it has had “bloody borders” its entire existence, its core doctrine is one of dominance and control.

                      Its a “religion of peace” only if you regard death or submission to its authority as “peace”.

                      Sure, there are lots and lots of Muslims who aren’t barbarians. But there are plenty who are. And being Muslim is core to their barbarity.

                      Since, as a religion, it is currently incapable of any kind of reformation that purges its barbarian adherents, I fear that the moderate Muslims are going to take a lot of collateral damage when the non-Muslim world decides it has had enough.

    2. “Jeremy spoke in class today”

      I salute you dude – first class trolling.

    1. You are all kinds of fucked up when the molestation of a 12 year old is the *least* horrible thing you did.

    2. That is sad, disturbing, and funny, all at once. I feel ill.

    3. Yesterday there was a link at Marginal Revolution that quoted Judge Richard Kopf.

    4. Robert Chesters, 42, suspected of drugging daughter with Benadryl to have sex with her 12-year-old friend

      I’m… confused…

      How did she get on this ship?!!

  10. OT: Historicity of Jesus & Mohamed

    I was reading about King Arthur and how while he is said to have lived around the year 500, the first written record of him comes from more than 300 years later. This was also during a time when the Britons were fighting the Saxons, so it was in the interest of the Britons to claim to have the earliest ruler.

    I think King Arthur, Jesus, & Mohamed are legendary figures. They may be based on real people, but the stories we have are either great embellishments or complete fabrications of what actually happened.

    1. Didn’t you guys have this fight last year?

    2. Well, regardless of whether you’re a Christian, Muslim, or Limey, you’re going to hell, mister!

    3. What?

      Last i recall the Arthur legends were so much confabulated Norman (french) stories, ripped off and Anglicized in order to provide the Brits some fictionalized notion of ‘pre-history’ to help whitewash the fact that everyone was pretty much descended from someone who was raped by Vikings, or Saxons or whomever.

      (read: bastard offspring of angles raped by everyone who ever showed up over the past 100

      1. Yes. And perhaps the stories about Mohamed are just a whitewash of the fact that Islam began after the Arab conquests when the new rulers needed a religion to cement their rule.

        And perhaps the stories of Jesus are just a whitewash of the fact that after the Jewish revolts failed, there was a need for a new interpretation of the messiah story.

        1. well… i wasn’t saying that they existed entirely *because* of the need for a ‘divine pre-history’…but that it was simply convenient for such.

          …i just thought that was the actual consensus from historians. That “arthur” was french in origin.

        2. No way. The Mohammed whitewash would require a massive conspiracy among not only the rulers but the common people. They were far too spread out at that point to make it feasible.

          And Suetonius wrote about Christians in Rome during the reign of Claudius, in 49-50 AD, long before the Jewish Revolt.

          1. The first biography of Mohamed was written down 200 years after he died.

            I don’t get the relevance of the 2nd point. The existence of early Christians proves the authenticity of the Gospel?

            1. Of course not, but it contradicts the possibility of Christianity being invented as a result of the Jewish Revolt, which occurred in 68 AD.

            2. You know who else suffered a Jewish Revolt?

            3. “The first biography of Mohamed was written down 200 years after he died.”

              Yes, but weren’t the leaders of the faith (part of it, anyway) his descendants for a while? I mean, they almost certainly had a powerful ancestor, whether he talked to angels or not.

              It just seems too convenient. I imagine if Mormons become more powerful over the next 200 years, people will start questioning whether Joe Smith existed or was just a legendary figure.

              1. Here’s the difference: Plenty of non-Mormons wrote about Smith and the Mormons.

                In contrast, the only records we have of Mo come from other Muslims centuries later. And no chronicler during the Arab conquests wrote a single word about Islam, Muslims, Mohamed, or the Koran. They called the Arab invaders Saracens, Ishmaelites, or Hagarenes.

                Compare to Genghis Khan- he is mentioned by many non-Mongol historians and his descendants are well-documented.

                1. And note that the Koran, far from being the work of one man taking dictation from Allah, is known to have been assembled from various sources, edited, and many early variant versions intentionally destroyed.

                  1. And note that the Koran, far from being the work of one man taking dictation from Allah, is known to have been assembled from various sources, edited, and many early variant versions intentionally destroyed.

                    Unlike the Bible of course.

                    1. Well, duh, but the Bible is not the Koran.

                      The Bible is acknowledged to have been written by dozens of people in various languages and cultures over hundreds of years, all inspired by God. There were very public arguments about what to include.

                      The Koran, though, is said to a perfect copy of the one in Heaven, in the language Allah speaks. It was all supposedly dictated to Muhammad. Showing that the Koran has earlier sources, editing and editing errors, later additions, internal contradictions, etc. invalidates the central pillar of Islam in a way that all such similar problems in the Bible do not undermine Christianity.

                2. And no chronicler during the Arab conquests wrote a single word about Islam, Muslims, Mohamed, or the Koran.

                  I’m not sure that’s exactly true.

                  1. You are technically correct- the best kind of correct.

            4. Mohammed was a historical figure who ruled an empire – an empire that was in military conflict with states with deep (for the time) literary traditions.

              Mohammed is as likely to have been made up as Constantine or Tamerlane.

              Jesus I’ve often thought to be a pastiche of Osiris and the Buddha. But Mohammed? If he didn’t exist, just about our ENTIRE history of the years 500 – 800 is unreliable.

    4. I think King Arthur, Jesus, & Mohamed are legendary figures. They may be based on real people, but the stories we have are either great embellishments or complete fabrications of what actually happened.

      There’s a little bit of a disconnect there. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were real people, yet we have many probably apocryphal stories about them… I wouldn’t call them “legendary figures” for that reason.

      Mohamed was known to non-Muslims within 100 years of the Hegira, so it’s unlikely he was fabricated. As for Jesus, it was only in the 1960s that indisputable evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate was discovered, and he was a politician in charge of an entire province. It’s hard to claim that the lack of secular evidence of an impoverished executed carpenter/rural preacher’s existence implies he didn’t exist.

      1. No, but you can claim that the lack of evidence supports a belief that he didn’t.

        1. No. Lack of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of lack.

          1. Uh, wat.

            Yes it is. If you don’t have evidence of something, that’s evidence that you don’t have evidence of something.

            And if you don’t have evidence of something, its pretty stupid to believe that that something exists.

            At the very least you need a phenomena that the existence of that something would explain.

            1. Early Christians?

      2. We have letters of Lincoln and Washington in their own hand-writing as well as portraits from their own times. We also have written accounts from the same period of people who knew them. None of that is true for JC, Mo, or King A. For those guys, all we have are stories written down decades (JC) or centuries( Mo, King A) later.

        Note also that I’m not saying there was never a real person who was the basis of the stories.

        1. “Note also that I’m not saying there was never a real person who was the basis of the stories.”

          yeah, but when it comes down to it, everything is “legendified” if given enough time.

          Also, I think you’re wrong to lump in “King Arthur” with the prophets. There are actual secondary sources that give credence to the prophets as ‘actual people’, whereas arthur is an acknowledged cultural invention.

        2. Yeah, and I have a letter from Santa Claus. So?

          1. Lame rebuttal is lame.

            JC and Mo were real, but neither could be bothered to get something carved on a rock in their lifetime?

            Yeah, sure…

            1. yes, but by your own standard of ‘proof’, you could question the veracity of anything lacking x amount of contemporary documentation

              (TABLETS OR IT NEVER HAPPENED!)

              The fact you seem to want to ‘fictionalize’ these particular characters as opposed to others seems to be you just trying to find some niggling argument to apply to religion. Its been done before and its never been particularly convincing either way.

              Didnt PBS do some hostorical docos on Both JC and MO this year?

              1. “Didnt PBS do some hostorical docos on Both JC and MO this year?”

                I don’t doubt they did, but there is not one shred of evidence for an historical Jesus.
                Not one. Nowhere.

                1. “there is not one shred of evidence for an historical Jesus.
                  Not one. Nowhere.”

                  Except for “Early Christians”

                  if you want to make a stink that theres no dinosaur-bones jesus, more power to you. But its a stupid argument crafted to make athiests feel clever.

                  1. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 8:40PM|#
                    “”there is not one shred of evidence for an historical Jesus.
                    Not one. Nowhere.”

                    Except for “Early Christians””

                    Uh, those “early Christians didn’t bother to say or write much about the guy for several hundred years.
                    NOT evidence.

                    1. No, there was documentation about the Early Christians in the 1st century

                      Sevo = again (see below) – who cares? You are no expert on the topic, and experts have worked on this for lifetimes.

                      Why do you care, and why pretend that you have a point?

                    2. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 9:00PM|#
                      “No, there was documentation about the Early Christians in the 1st century”
                      I’ma ask for a cite. I’d have to go through Lost Christianities (Ehrman) again, but it seems he mentioned 3-400 years.

                      “Why do you care, and why pretend that you have a point?”
                      Uh, see below. Are you in favor or making up history?
                      Why do you care? and why pretend you have a point?

                    3. Cant you google shit yourself if you care so much?

                      http://en.wikipedia.org
                      /wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

                      “The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

                    4. “Tacitus’ work called the Annals (written c. 116) is important to Christianity because it is considered by many Christians to confirm the historicity of Jesus. Book 15.44 mentions Christ as a person executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign. However, as Tacitus does not disclose his source of knowledge and specific details are not given, the authority of Annals is controversial among Biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Charles Guignebert.”

                      3-1/2 generations later, no source, ‘so-and-so talked about this guy’..
                      You’re not proposing that as evidence I hope.
                      And didn’t you just tell me no one cares?

              2. The problem here is, assuming some guy named Jesus Christ existed – how different does he have to be from ‘Jesus’ before he’s not ‘Jesus’ anymore.

                Its like all the underwater ruins that are said to be Atlantis – how far from Plato’s description do you need to get before you concede that any particular set of underwater ruins is just a set of underwater ruins and not the site of legend?

                1. ‘Cause if he’s not ‘religious Jesus’ then he’s nobody.

                  Nobody cares about the existence of Jesus, we care about the existence of ‘religious Jesus’.

                  1. Agammamon|9.26.14 @ 8:52PM|#
                    “‘Cause if he’s not ‘religious Jesus’ then he’s nobody.
                    Nobody cares about the existence of Jesus, we care about the existence of ‘religious Jesus’.”

                    I’m not gonna bother looking him up but some bleever recently wrote a book, yielding the fact there is no evidence, and tried to pitch the ‘amalgam’ approach of one guy named Jesus who…
                    Sorry; no miracles, no Jesus. Son o’ God and all that.

            2. If there were a rock with Jesus’ name carved on it, purportedly from 33 AD, how would you determine its authenticity? Radioactive dating probably won’t help since any random rock you pick up in Israel is probably at least 10,000 years old to begin with.

              There is no way there could be evidence of a person’s existence from that era unless they were either in a very high position of power or of interest to such people. Look at how hard it was to find evidence of Pilate, and he was in charge of an entire province!

              1. Lt Womack|9.26.14 @ 8:33PM|#
                “There is no way there could be evidence of a person’s existence from that era unless they were either in a very high position of power or of interest to such people.”

                Really?
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

                1. Please explain what Julius Caesar’s wiki page has to do with this. If your point is that Julius Caesar has evidence for his existence, maybe you should read the post you’re responding to next time.

                2. I stand corrected; Ceasar was high position of power.

                  So:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..ilosophers

              2. “There is no way there could be evidence of a person’s existence from that era unless they were either in a very high position of power or of interest to such people.”

                Being a miracle-working god-man is not a position of power or of interest?

        3. The point I have seen made about the historicity of Jesus that I thought was pretty telling, was basically that we have as much or more evidence for his existence as we do for any number of other historical figures whose existence is not questioned.

          IOW, if your standard of proof is so high that you can’t recognize the existence of anyone from that era who doesn’t have multiple confirmed original contemporaneous written accounts, then your view of the pre-Christian and early Christian era must be very odd indeed.

      3. “It’s hard to claim that the lack of secular evidence of an impoverished executed carpenter/rural preacher’s existence implies he didn’t exist.”

        Why, by those standards, it’s hard to claim unicorns didn’t exist!
        I hope you’re joking; you don’t have to prove X ‘didn’t exist’. If there is a claim X did exist, we need to see the evidence for that.

        1. Going by that logic, the population of the Roman Empire in 33 AD was about 100.

          1. Lt Womack|9.26.14 @ 8:21PM|#
            “Going by that logic, the population of the Roman Empire in 33 AD was about 100.”

            So since we can’t prove some mythical character *didn’t* exist, you respond with this bit of lunacy?

          2. And those 100 people built all those roads, monuments, and aqueducts on their own with the help of Bobus Villius.

            Sure…

            1. So people existed, but no individual person did?

              1. Lt Womack|9.26.14 @ 8:34PM|#
                “So people existed, but no individual person did?”

                That bit of sophistry ought to embarrass you.

                1. It’s not sophistry at all.

                  The people who existed had names and did things, but the vast majority of them left no evidence of these names and deeds behind.

                  Therefore, claiming that no evidence of a name and a deed means the name and deed never existed, is fallacious.

                  1. Lt Womack|9.26.14 @ 8:40PM|#
                    “It’s not sophistry at all.”
                    Bullshit.

                    “The people who existed had names and did things, but the vast majority of them left no evidence of these names and deeds behind.”
                    This guy supposedly had followers, and not one wrote a thing about him when he supposedly existed.

                    “Therefore, claiming that no evidence of a name and a deed means the name and deed never existed, is fallacious.”
                    Bullshit.

                    1. Sevo, do you really think just saying “bullshit” is the greatest historical insight of the last 2 millenia?

                      Or are you being obtuse, just because?

                      Frankly i think it would matter far more for christians themselves to debate the topic. If you’re an a-religious person to begin with, why would you even give a fuck if a person who was used to base a God Cult around Did or Didn’t exist?

                      Meaning = so the fuck what? who cares. The only reason to try and argue “THERE WUZ NO JESUS” would be out of some idiotic attempt to ‘disprove’ or undermine a particular faith by claiming that it ‘lacks evidence’

                      The lack of evidence was never a problem for Christians over the last 2000 years. Do you expect it to matter to anyone NOW?

                    2. Didnt PBS do some hostorical docos on Both JC and MO this year?

                      You’re all wrong. I went to school with a guy named Jesus, and he was religious.

                    3. “You’re all wrong. I went to school with a guy named Jesus, and he was religious.”

                      Small world! He was working on my roof last week!

                    4. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 8:52PM|#
                      “Sevo, do you really think just saying “bullshit” is the greatest historical insight of the last 2 millenia?”
                      WHAAAT?!
                      What ‘historical insight’?

                      “Frankly i think it would matter far more for christians themselves to debate the topic.”
                      So?

                      “If you’re an a-religious person to begin with, why would you even give a fuck if a person who was used to base a God Cult around Did or Didn’t exist?”
                      Uh, because people use mythology to attempt to control your life and mine.
                      Have you read about this group of people who seem to kill others who don’t buy their mythological bullshit?

                      “The only reason to try and argue “THERE WUZ NO JESUS” would be out of some idiotic attempt to ‘disprove’ or undermine a particular faith by claiming that it ‘lacks evidence'””
                      Uh, so history is whatever anyone wants it to be? Facts are irrelevant?
                      Sorry, that flies with apologists, not rational people.

                    5. So you are being retarded and obtuse because you think that making this “never happened” case somehow delegitimatizes Christianity.

                      I thought you were less an idiot before.

                      I don’t care that you don’t make an argument that “Tacitus Lied! there were no early christians!” Despite your ‘certainty’ you don’t actually care enough about the topic to read about it.

                      which is basically the same as being a fucking jesus freak. You have your story and that’s that.

                    6. If Christians and Muslims claimed their religions were based on faith alone, that would be a different matter. However, what I see are various attempts by both to pass off their scriptures as history and fact, and tend to get angry when people examine them the way they examine other historical claims.

                      I cannot subscribe to the “let the wookiee win” school of interfaith relations.

                    7. both to pass off their scriptures as history and fact, and tend to get angry when people examine them the way they examine other historical claims

                      There’s a great quote by Harald Motzki,

                      At present, the study of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim community, is obviously caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography

                      Hmmm…and why would that be?

                    8. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 9:06PM|#
                      “So you are being retarded and obtuse because you think that making this “never happened” case somehow delegitimatizes Christianity.”
                      So you are being retarded because you think magical thinking is a good thing?
                      And, yeah, without a junior, there really isn’t much left.

                      …”which is basically the same as being a fucking jesus freak.”
                      Oh for pete’s sake! The claim of a bleever that not bleeving is haveing a religion!
                      Pathetic.

                    9. ” The claim of a bleever that not bleeving is haveing a religion!”

                      No = that you havent even bothered to spend any time ‘proving’ your claim.

                    10. Sevo doesn’t believe in freshman physics because he’s seen a torque wrench. You’re not dealing with a rational person.

                    11. Sidd Finch v2.01|9.26.14 @ 9:03PM|#
                      “Sevo doesn’t believe in freshman physics because he’s seen a torque wrench. You’re not dealing with a rational person.”

                      Stupid bleevers post stupid statements!
                      WIH is that supposed to mean?

                    12. You (not me) said that.

                      Also, I’m agnostic.

                    13. Sidd Finch v2.01|9.26.14 @ 9:08PM|#
                      “You (not me) said that.
                      Also, I’m agnostic.

                      So some stupid agnostics post stupid statements!

                    14. In the PM links one day I was trying to explain something and I pointed out that torque is a function of power and rpm. You hit-and-ran, saying that I was wrong because torque doesn’t have a time component. I quoted that and asked you to go on in a night thread. You said you knew that torque couldn’t be a function of power and rpm because you’d seen a torque wrench.

                      Aggressive ignorance to that degree is memorable.

                    15. Sidd Finch v2.01|9.26.14 @ 9:18PM|#
                      …”I quoted that and asked you to go on in a night thread. You said you knew that torque couldn’t be a function of power and rpm because you’d seen a torque wrench.”

                      So the fact that torque exists independently of RPM somehow means what?

                    16. unbelievable …

                    17. Let’s see, torque has units of ft-lb. RPM has units of minutes and power is ft-lb per hour, so rpm times a conversion factor times power also has units of ft-lbs.

                      If you have continuous rotation, torque is a function of rpm. If it’s a partial rotation, torque is not a function of rpm.

                      I think that’s right.

                    18. Power = torque x rpm is the rotational equivalent of power = force x velocity. (The units are slightly different but the concept is the same.)

                    19. whoops, rpm has units of *inverse* minutes.

                    20. Because I can’t stand seeing anyone be this stupid:
                      here’s a clue.

                    21. If you’re tightening a bolt, there comes a point where the wrench and bolt stop turning even if keep trying to tighten it. Maybe they turn by a very small amount, but practically speaking, there is no rotation and no rpm.

                      You can have torque without rotation, yes?

                    22. yes, just as you can have weight without movement

                    23. Sidd Finch v2.01|9.26.14 @ 10:00PM|#
                      “Because I can’t stand seeing anyone be this stupid:”

                      You stupid shit (from your link):
                      “Definition and relation to angular momentum
                      A particle is located at position r relative to its axis of rotation. When a force F is applied to the particle, only the perpendicular component F? produces a torque. This torque ? = r ? F has magnitude ? = |r|?|F?| = |r|?|F|?sin? and is directed outward from the page.
                      A force applied at a right angle to a lever multiplied by its distance from the lever’s fulcrum (the length of the lever arm) is its torque.”
                      Not a word about time. idjit.

                    24. Jesus Christ you’re fucking stupid.

                      torque = power (Nm/t)/ rmp (1/t)= Nm

                      There doesn’t need to be a time component for torque to be a function of power and rpm because … division, you fucking dumbass.

                    25. *rpm

                    26. Sidd Finch v2.01|9.26.14 @ 11:55PM|#
                      “Jesus Christ you’re fucking stupid.
                      torque = power (Nm/t)/ rmp (1/t)= Nm
                      There doesn’t need to be a time component for torque to be a function of power and rpm because … division, you fucking dumbass.”

                      Fail, asshole.
                      That is the torque AT AN RPM. Torque requires no time dimension at all.
                      I see you did fail at the course; no one could be that idiotic and hope to pass. Confusing the value for its use in a specific case leaves you in, at best, 9th grade.

                    27. Holy Shit you’re fucking stupid. You show that you don’t understand how division and units and shit work, and instead of slinking away you double down. Unbelievable.

                    28. Sevo:
                      (repeating to be nice)

                      Its great you’re not a christian. Neither am I (really).

                      Why the fuck do you care if there was or was not a skin-and-bones jesus?

                      Whether there was, or wasnt, doesnt matter: because *either way* it makes no difference to whether ‘Religion is Real’. Its not.

                      If its not, then why the fuck are you so adamant on insisting that there Was Not?

                      Because it makes no difference to ANYONE. it doesn’t undermine anyone who believes in the gospel, and has zero relevance to the lives of non-believers.

                      You see? You have no point.

                    29. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 9:14PM|#
                      …”Because it makes no difference to ANYONE.”

                      In which case, you have certainly spent a long time on ‘no difference’, so you’ll forgive me for seeing revealed preference.

                    30. so i’m lying when i tell you i’m not a christian?

                      that’s cute. This hole is getting deeper.

                    31. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 9:28PM|#
                      “so i’m lying when i tell you i’m not a christian?”

                      “Its great you’re not a christian. Neither am I (really).”
                      Sorta kinda, just enough to be really upset when someone says junior didn’t exist?
                      You keep making claims and then acting otherwise.

                    32. “You keep making claims and then acting otherwise”

                      Not agreeing with your juvenile and simple minded approach to history means I’m a Jesus Freak?

                      do tell.

                    33. “you’ll forgive me for seeing revealed preference”

                      When you just asset stupid shit, and people disagree and call you stupid… its revealing of *them*?

                      mm.

                      Why, out of curiosity, do you not rail daily about the historical lack of evidence for Buddha? because (like you) AFAIK, there’s no ‘evidence’

                      (aside from 1000s of years of Buddhists)

                    34. do you not rail daily about the historical lack of evidence for Buddha?

                      Pretty much any intellectually honest Buddhist admits that Shakyamuni Buddha is a composite character, part of which is based on the possibly historical prince Siddhartha Gautama. However, unlike the Abrahamic faiths, the beliefs of orthodox Buddhism don’t depend on a savior or prophet as it doesn’t claim to be a ‘revealed religion’.

                    35. Isnt your point just a confirmation of my earlier comment that the actual historical reality is irrelevant to the practice of religion itself, therefore a ‘materialist’ criticism is sort of pointless and self-serving?

                    36. actual historical reality is irrelevant to the practice of religion itself

                      I agree with that in principle, but I can see how questioning the historical reality of another’s religious founder, if that religion claims to be a revealed religion, would be useful for polemics.

                    37. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 9:32PM|#
                      “Why, out of curiosity, do you not rail daily about the historical lack of evidence for Buddha? because (like you) AFAIK, there’s no ‘evidence'”

                      For the same reason I do not “rail daily” at this superstition. You’ll notice I responded to another post.
                      And again, for someone claiming disinterest, why do YOU have such an investment in trying to prove mythology?

                    38. “why do YOU have such an investment in trying to prove mythology?”

                      Saying that you ‘fail’ to disprove anything by simply saying so is no an ‘attempt to prove’ something.

                      I don’t care.

                      My point is that

                      1- claims that X ‘person’ did or did not exist 2000 years ago is more or less impossible to “prove” either way, and all you have is a variety of secondary evidence. For which there is plenty on both sides.

                      2 – said claims whether X person did or didnt exist is irrelevant to any particular religion, even if said religion is based around that alleged person’s testimony. (see point above)

                      3 – assuming your un-researched assertions constitute a robust and compelling argument that is supposed to be the last word on a subject is silly.

                      My point was that this way of talking about the topic seems to be more about providing a juvenile materialist claim that “because X never existed, said ‘religion’ is *less valid*”

                      which is silly. No one who doesn’t believe cares whether dude 2000 years ago ‘existed’. if he did, he sure as fuck wasnt the son of god.

                      No one who does believe cares about your POV either. So who are you trying to convince?

                    39. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 9:53PM|#
                      “I don’t care.”
                      Bullshit; you’ve spent quite a bit of time proven otherwise.

                      “1- claims that X ‘person’ did or did not exist 2000 years ago is more or less impossible to “prove” either way, and all you have is a variety of secondary evidence. For which there is plenty on both sides.”
                      Bullshit. We can prove specific people lived at that time to the satisfaction of bleevers and non-bleevers. No one has ever shown one piece of evidence for Jr.

                      “2 – said claims whether X person did or didnt exist is irrelevant to any particular religion,”…
                      Bullshit; you have spent quite a bit of time proving it’s of great value to you.

                      “3 – assuming your un-researched assertions”
                      Bullshit.

                      “My point was that this way of talking about the topic seems to be more about providing a juvenile materialist claim that “because X never existed, said ‘religion’ is *less valid*””
                      My point is that infantile bleevers have a hissy fit when it’s shown there is no evidence. See? Two can play ‘poison the well.

                      “which is silly. No one who doesn’t believe cares whether dude 2000 years ago ‘existed’. if he did, he sure as fuck wasnt the son of god.”
                      So why are you arguing?

                      “No one who does believe cares about your POV either. So who are you trying to convince?”
                      So why are you arguing?

                    40. ” why do YOU have such an investment in trying to prove mythology?”

                      I am not trying to prove mythology. I am pointing out your “NEVER HAPPENED” is not a comprehensive debunking of 2000+ years of world history.

                    41. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 9:59PM|#
                      “I am not trying to prove mythology. I am pointing out your “NEVER HAPPENED” is not a comprehensive debunking of 2000+ years of world history.”

                      Try learning to read. I specifically said ‘no evidence’, which drives you and other bleevers nuts.

                    42. By the way, sevo =

                      You’re doing a great job here clarifying the difference between “Skeptic” and “Asshole”

                    43. GILMORE, the vibe I’m getting from you is that it is rude/pointless to question religious claims. I disagree.

                      Beliefs have consequences. Is it rude/pointless to question prog sacred cows like the minimum wage? I don’t think it is.

                      Should we stop criticizing progs or socons lest we be accused of being bullies?

                    44. “Derpetologist|9.26.14 @ 10:27PM|#

                      GILMORE, the vibe I’m getting from you is that it is rude/pointless to question religious claims. I disagree.”

                      Do not argue with “vibes”.

                      i dont think its rude to question ‘claims’. I don’t see any actual claims being debunked. there’s no argument being made that there is any other convincing explanation for the emergence of early christians. Just people moaning that they don’t have a Dinosaur Bone Jesus. Which is silly form of polemics. You can make an argument that Christianity or Islam are horrible and wrong and I’d probably agree entirely… *with that argument*

                      what i don’t agree is that you can make an armchair argument that ‘X person didn’t exist’ 2000 years ago. There is a mixed bag of information and none of it is conclusive one way or the other. Not that it matters much. I’m just saying its a stupid and ultimately ‘unprovable’ point which does nothing to actually undermine religion, stupid though any religion may indeed be.

                      similar to the very first point about ‘king arthur’ –

                      AFAIK it is well understood that the Arthurian legends originated as ‘stories’ first, and THEN became a kind of manufactured history.

                      this is not the case with the Abrahamic religions. There is quite a bit of ‘actual history’ tied up in there.

                      My original point was that you shouldn’t bother lumping the three together because it seemed like you *wanted* the religious figures to be more like Arthur stories than they really are.

                    45. To the point of ‘debunking religious claims’ –

                      what do you want to achieve? Convince people that they shouldn’t believe in any given religion…. because its *made up*?

                      This seems to me to reflect a very shallow understanding of what religion is and what people are doing when they adopt/accept/practice one.

                      As a sidebar:

                      Most kids realize there is no Santa Claus at a reasonably young age.

                      How old were you when you decided that since Christmas was a myth… that not only should you personally never give or receive gifts ever again…but that no one else should ever engage in it either

                      …Because *its a lie*?

                      Note: I do not believe in Santa Claus. However, I have never actually advocated the end of Christmas. Does this sound contradictory?

                      Maybe you’ll see my point better now

                    46. It’s possible to celebrate Xmas without any thought given to Jesus or Santa. The original holiday had nothing to do with either. Not sure what you mean.

                      Most religious people I know take most of their religion’s claims at face value. They really do believe in sin, heaven, hell, angels, etc.

                      You criticize my skepticism and then you go on to compare religion to Santa Claus.

                      Are you sure I’m the one who’s being disrespectful to believers?

                    47. Derpetologist|9.26.14 @ 11:33PM|#
                      …”Are you sure I’m the one who’s being disrespectful to believers?”

                      The HORROR of being ‘disrespectful’ to bleevers!

                    48. GILMORE|9.26.14 @ 10:03PM|#
                      “By the way, sevo =
                      You’re doing a great job here clarifying the difference between “Skeptic” and “Asshole””

                      Coming from an asshole who spent all evening claiming to be a saint, I’ll accept that compliment.

                    49. bless you my child

                      you shall inherit the kingdom of playskool polemics

                    50. Well, it’s somewhat satisfying to see someone other than me encounter the Sevo school of historicity.

                      I have had this exact… I guess you might call it an “argument” in the most academic sense, a dozen times. He may as well have ctrl-c/ctrl-v’d from those threads.

                      Literally no serious academic, secular or otherwise, from the last century holds Sevo’s view on the historicity of Jesus (or Mohammed). His rebuttal to that fact is: BLEEVER! CHRISTFAG! BLEEVER! DID I SAY BLEEVER?!?!

                      While an otherwise swell guy, Sevo sadly lacks enough blood to operate his religion boner and his brain simultaneously.

    1. OK.

      1. Why (no, *how*) is your cat surfing the internet?

      2. If I was that man’s neighbor I’d have taken his head by now. I *like* cats, but screw having a hundred strays running around.

      1. “2. If I was that man’s neighbor I’d have taken his head by now.”

        You’re not in Oklahoma anymore.

      2. 1. Why (no, *how*) is your cat surfing the internet?

        Joke re: finding “moderate rebels” to arm. Cat nation is only interested in cat national interest.

        2. If I was that man’s neighbor I’d have taken his head by now. I *like* cats, but screw having a hundred strays running around.

        50/50, you wouldn’t be that man’s neighbor anymore, because half the town fled the fighting, as per the article. Or maybe, up in you sniper nest, you might appreciate somebody taking care of your refugee neighbor’s cats?

        Is being able to appreciate a little aw-shucks human goodness in a fucking war zone too much to ask?

        1. Aw shucks human goodness stops at around 10 cats.

          1. This is a proven fact. More than 10 cats officially becomes a pest infestation, and it is perfectly humane to poison them.

            1. No one needs more than ten cats.

              1. Got it. Decacat is a Metric standard. Except in NY.

    2. Introducing the all new RoboCat.

      Robocat is fuzzy and life like, like a real cat.

      Robocat purrs, like a real cat.

      Robocat, you won’t be able to tell yours from a real cat, except:

      Robocat does not shed.

      Robocat does not need a litter box.

      Robocat never needs feeding.

      Robocat never pukes up a hairball.

      Robocat never scratches up your furniture.

      Robocat won’t eat the fish in your fish pond.

      Robocat never runs away if you let it outdoors.

      And best of all,

      Robocat serfs the intertoobs to find the best terrorists, worthy of US supplied arms.

      1. Robocat is, clearly, the BEST cat.

        1. Except the battery life sucks.

          1. You can solar charge him outside, and he won’t run away or slay the wildlife!

            1. Dude, don’t give in to the hype – those solar cells go bad quick and they’re expensive to replace.

  11. Prediction: Pretape

    1. (Shocked face)

      1. Thanks for playing along.

  12. Do American aviators not constitute “combat” troops?

    1. Which cuts to my question yesterday that no one answered, which left my ego bruised. Why are ‘no ground troops’ the magic elixir that makes us “not at war”?

      1. Why are ‘no ground troops’ the magic elixir that makes us “not at war”?

        I believe that “war” (i.e. hostile military actions) is war and (in the US) war must be declared by Congress. Until then, the President is not “Commander-in-Chief” of anything and does not have the legitimate authority to launch an offensive military operation of any kind.

        1. The president is always the CinC, that’s not a position that is dependent on war/not war – its simply one of his statutory duties.

          But he doesn’t (constitutionally anyway) have the authority to *start* hostilities.

          IMO, the War Powers Act was a horrible piece of legislation. The man shouldn’t have the power to even respond to ’emergencies’ unilaterally. If its an emergency, then Congress can drum up a AUMF right quick. There has not been a conflict in the history of the US that has required military response inside of 72 hours.

          1. . There has not been a conflict in the history of the US that has required military response inside of 72 hours.

            What about when the Ukrainians attacked Pearl Harbor? What about that?

      2. Why are ‘no ground troops’ the magic elixir that makes us “not at war”?

        Obama saying ‘no ground troops = we’re not at war’ is no different than Nixon saying ‘If the President does it, it isn’t against the law.’

        In my opinion.

        Which makes the left/democrats supporting the moral equivalent of Nixon.

        If they weren’t so poisonously destructive and blockheaded it would be funny.

        1. If they weren’t so poisonously destructive and blockheaded it would be funny.

          They’re the middle-managers of politics.

    2. Pilots don’t get killed like ground troops do. (in a place like Iraq, anyway)

      1. No, they get killed in the air.

        1. Meh, not in Iraq. Handful. They have no air defenses.

  13. If that’s the strategy, then it’s a fair one. For ONCE have them fight for their countries.

  14. I want them to get some skin in the game..

    Get some skin in the game, yourself then, beeotch. I’m tired of this war on wiminz. Equal rights for wiminz!

    GET.YOUR.FUCKING.ASS.ON.THE.FUCKING.BATTLEFIED. OR Shut the fuck up and bake me a nice turkey pot pie!

  15. Better looking than most fighter pilots.

    1. I’m too tall and too non-homoerotic to be a fighter pilot.

  16. So, which warmonger is up next? Where is this open discussion that is so much more than we will see on 99.999999999% of teevee? Ohhh, I get it, Kennedy, Matt, and Kmele are that percentage of the show!

  17. Master Sgt has an infinitely better grasp of warfare than our CinC.

    1. Actually, better than the last two CinCs.

  18. “There’s nearly 40 tribal …” Take a moment to ponder this…

  19. OT: FAA contract employee starts fire because they’re told they’re being transferred from the paradise that is Chicago to the shithole of Hawaii.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/n…..dstop.html

  20. What’s with all this punk and rap type music on the interdependerants?
    Play some metal, you fucking pussies!

  21. the military budget

    We could cut it in half and still field the most formidable fighting force in the world.

    1. IF, we change our national strategy.

      1. Implied is the notion that our military should only be a defensive force.

        1. Unfortunately, that becomes a matter of language… semantics.

          Every nation that ever went to a war was “defending itself”, including Germany when it rolled across Poland and entered France.

  22. Is that a Man or a Muncheechee?

    1. Wha???? Matt grew a stache finally? I can’t see it on my intertoobs… ):

  23. This guy makes a lot of sense. I liked the comment about winning the Cold War because Communism was a bad system(an idea that people cannot seem to learn). But I mean, really, we ARE going to waste money, and we ARE going to waste a LOT of it, why not waste it killing dirty uneducated brown people? It’s really fun!

  24. The Independents Attire Review, 26 September 2014

    Lost Horizon-Edition

    – Kennedy: I was sort of hoping that Kennedy was wearing a full blown ‘Church Choir’ outfit, and that Kmele would lead the group in a stirring Gospel rendition of “Down By the Riverside“*. Not gonna happen, apparently. We’re down with the shade, which because I am hungry for dessert I’ll call ‘Italian-Ice Raspberry’.

    – Matt: PowerMatt comes belated on Friday. Too late, we say. We like our conservative styles early in the week, and later we look forward to something a little more creative and unexpected. Lead with ‘Boring-But-Strong’, close with ‘Interesting/Weird’. I would think a man who used to play in rock bands would know how to put a set together. That said: this darker-red tie is pretty groovy.

    – Kmele: Snap! This is sharp-and-simple Kmele that always pleases. This is a good example of the difference between ‘Sport Coat’ and ‘Blazer’: with this being the latter, identifiable by the shrp, deep cut of the lapels. The match between tie and hanky is also nice, after a long series of less-aligned pairings.

    M goi

    *This was a germane reference, you see. Because of the “aint gonna study war no more”-bit.

    1. re: Matt’s tie.

      dont know why i missed it was the polka dot. I blame Skeleton Jesus

      I like it better than the ‘brighter red’ # FWIW

  25. When BarryO became president
    he said was different from the last resident
    “I’m not like Bush
    ‘coz I have a black tush”
    But change seems tiny and hesitant.

    1. Too bad I am a dirty unwashed parochial barbaric heathen that doesn’t understand poetry, ’cause that might actually be good.

      Or is that a limerick?

      1. oo bad I am a dirty unwashed parochial barbaric heathen that doesn’t understand poetry

        Whazup, bro?

        1. Did that come across as mean? If it did, sorry SusanM.

          It’s been a frustrating day.

          1. No, I thought it meant that you’re my kinsman, that’s why I called you bro.

            1. Ok, cool. I thought I was being an asshole there for a second.

              Since we are kinsman, we must drink.

              *drinks*

          2. No worries – this is HnR 🙂

  26. What? They let defense contractors write rules? NOOOOO!!!! Conspiracy theory! Bag Rucking Fea Tuckers!!!!

  27. Idiot. The F-22 isn’t a fighter-bomber.

    This fucker is a liar. The F-18 can’t hold a candle to the F-22.

    1. I concur. The F-22 is supposed to be our new “air-superiority fighter” to replace the F-15. The F-35 is the new “fighter-bomber” to replace the F-18.

      P.s.
      The following ‘Behind Enemy Lines’ scene is still cool.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8u_XzbSuQ

    2. Well, it’s got internal weapons bays and can be used for ground attack, so it’s not entirely wrong to call it a “fighter-bomber.”

      1. When I left, they were not dropping bombs. They have a very limited capability. It is, and was designed as, an air supremacy fighter. It does air-to-air and it is the most lethal machine ever created by man.

        Expensive? Yes. Failure? No, incredible success.

        1. incredible success

          Are they still ‘grounded’ for cockpit pressurization (or w/e) issues?

          (disclaimer: Fundamentally, I agree with you. I even did a presentation on them in HS. However, I try to acknowledge problems where problems arise.)

          1. It was a problem with the G-suit (Combat Edge), not the jet. They are no longer grounded.

          2. That was the JSF not the F-22.

            However – as to its designation, the AF is known to tack on designations that are more for public relations than accuracy.

            For example, the F-117, which was a shitty fighter but a great light attack craft.

            1. It was the F-22.

              The breathing regulator/anti-g (BRAG) valve, used to inflate the pilot’s vest during high G maneuvers, was found to be defective, inflating the vest at unintended intervals and restricting the pilot’s breathing.[206] The on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS) also unexpectedly reduced oxygen levels during high-G maneuvers.[207]

              Renaming the F-22 the FA-22 was mostly about funding.

              There is a legitimate A-G mission for the F-22 and that was to take out anti-access threats. But that isn’t what it was designed for. It was an afterthought.

        1. However, it can carry only two, different bombs, THE GBU-32 and GBU-53, so, very limited capability.

        2. The AF loves it some fighters but they realize that fighters are lilke nukes – gotta have ’em, probably not gonna use them.

          So if the F-22 isn’t doing *something* active in this shooting . . . whatever, then lot’s of people are going to start asking some very pointed questions vis a vis the AF budget.

          1. Politics. The right answer is there is no A-A threat in this conflict. Doesn’t mean there won’t be in the next.

            You are right, of course, but “lots of people” are ignorant.

  28. Welch wants to pull our troops out of Japan. I guess he forgot about the Lusitania.

    1. Welch is obviously a fat rucking bea fagger, and he wants the terrorists to win.

      And also, he doesn’t have a stache like Stossel and so cannot be trusted.

  29. I’m going to go right on, straight out, and say it.

    We cannot defeat radical Islam with bullets and bombs. It simply cannot be done. All we are doing is exacerbating the problem.

    Maybe they don’t even need defeating, in order to not be a problem for most of us, but if it is to be done, we are taking the wrong approach.

    1. I think there’s a strong case to simply *ignore* ISIS – thereby depriving them of an external enemy to rally their population against and force them to actually try to *run* a country.

      When the water’s not on, the electricity is iffy, and the army isn’t getting paid, let them try to maintain order without being able to point to the US as the cause.

      1. Amen.

        And even if they succeed, in running their new country, they are not a threat to America in any significant way.

      2. Shiite nuts have been running Iran for 35 years, and they seem to have no trouble maintaining order, rallying against an external enemy, supporting international terror groups, and making progress towards nuclear weapons. What makes IS more certain to fail?

        Radical Islam must be defeated if liberty is to prevail. Yes, bullets and bombs are flawed and incomplete. What’s your solution? Isolationism, appeasement, mutual coexistence are not practical options.

        You may not be interested in religious war, but religious war is interested in you.

        1. Why do you care what happens in Iraq?

          The ONLY interest they have in the US, is for the US to stop poking our finger in their chest.

          Dear god, the notion that they will commit acts of terror against a country that has no involvement with them is absurd. When was the last time Switzerland or Canada was attacked by terrorists?

          Please, Papaya, a little perspective.

          If I’m wrong, and they attack us, THEN you can go kill them. Under the right to self defense.

          1. If we turned into Switzerland overnight, they’d still have reasons to attack us. What was the reason for the Madrid bombings? Fanatics will always find an excuse, so it’s pointless to say “We just have to not give them an excuse.”

            They have already attacked us. That’s why we’re killing them now. (And let’s not quibble over who “they” are: they’re Islamic terrorists, so they’re all on the same side.)

    2. Hype, I agree that radical Islam can’t be defeated with bullets and bombs alone.

      Of course, I also don’t think radical Islam can be defeated without bullets and bombs.

  30. Sign Kennedy up. For Hero Squad.

    1. I can’t decide if I love her or hate her. It’s a love hate thing.

      1. Hate her would want to date her.

  31. Troops in Iraq??? Then they have a secondary mission of playing the most epic game of The Floor Is Lava so the president isn’t a liar.

  32. Professor Frink joined the army!

    1. What is wrong with that boys eyes? Someone hit him in the face with a rifle butt?

  33. Those troops who are questioning the mission are traitors. GET THEM, ATTACK WATCH!

  34. Why can’t everyone get over their war-boners by playing ETW or some other world domination game? (See: If it is a ‘game’, you can do w/e you want without consequence because it is not real.)

  35. Nothing wins hearts and minds like killing people.

    1. Actually there is a case for that.

      Its always been interesting to me how the Japanese reconciled so quickly with Americans, and shrugged off the fact that we firebombed a million of them to death, while Americans actually still rail against ourselves for that particular ‘war crime’

      1. I think the reason the Japanese and Germans shrugged it off was out of guilt for their own atrocities.

        1. To different degrees though, right? It doesn’t seem to me that the Japanese, as a nation, accepted war guilt like the Germans did. And, they do get to play victim every year on the anniversary of Hiroshima.

        2. Japanese… guilt?

          dude. uh, i don’t think so.

          1. There was an influential post-war Japanese Buddhist who wrote about Japan should accept guilt for the war crimes. I forget his name, but he and others like him were described in the book “Embracing Defeat” which I enjoyed.

            1. That book featured one of the greatest – and funniest – lines in historical writing:

              Douglas MacArthur – in whose mind the role of Supreme Commander and Supreme Being were often confused

              But, I still don’t think the Japanese accepted war guilt to the degree the Germans did. Although, the Germans didn’t really come to terms with it until the late (?) 1960s.

      2. Total war vs limited war. The bad actors in Iraq know full well that the US doesn’t have the political will to do what is necessary to defeat them. All they gotta do is hide till we leave.

        It was different in WWII. We demonstrated the will to do what was necessary.

        Apparently, our politicians never read them much Clausewitz.

        If you don’t have the political will to fight a total war against an enemy that does, ya probably shouldn’t be there.

        1. I’m sorry, I have to interject here.

          We don’t do ‘Total War’ anymore because we don’t have the political will to do so. We don’t do it anymore because it was a complete failure.

          We didn’t win WW2 because we firebombed the shit out of the Germans. If that worked the Germans would have won the war before we even entered.

          It became obvious that the huuge amount of money we were dropping on the Germans was a)not actually stopping war production – blow up a factory and a week later it was up and running again, and b)motivates the population to dig in end endure the hardships.

          You’ve been in the military – you should know that nothing builds unit cohesiveness like having a common enemy.

          1. I was referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

          2. Agamammon, we may have different definitions of total war.

            I don’t read it as requiring unrestricted attacks against civilians. I read it as a war to obtain the unconditional surrender of the opposing side and its eradication as an organization of any consequence whatsoever.

            We lack the will to do that. We have fallen into the bad habit of fighting wars of containment. Which never end, apparently.

            Its astonishing to realize that the entirety of WWII would fit into Barack Obama’s Presidency to date. That war was over that quickly because we fought it to defeat, not to contain, the Japanese and German empires.

  36. Wow. Way to trample all over their medieval customs.

    1. Is that our role in the world?

  37. I don’t like this guy, no matter how much the Reasonoid staff smile at him. I see douchebag. And no, you cannot make everyone else accept your culture. That’s part of our problem.

  38. Shuggie Otis? I think so

  39. They inCURRED into the KURDS.

  40. We could always start billing countries for our services. Pay up, Kurdistan!

  41. ISIS are bad guys, they want to kill us.

    Yeah, and we like totally created them, dude! How cool is that!

  42. DERRRBBBBZZZZZ!!!!!!

  43. D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DOBBS

  44. It’s Iranian men, hallelujah!

    1. +1

      I have never actually heard anyone say that. which surprises me.

          1. Doesn’t mean someone else didn’t think it up.

  45. Why are people arguing with Sevo? He thinks just calling someone a “Shithead” is a meaningful argument.

    1. To be fair, I’ve only ever seen him use such words with shreek.

    2. Upthread he just revealed that he doesn’t understand *division*. You don’t get comedy like that if you ignore the loons.

    3. I just learned that I am a Living Saint preaching the Good Word to you flocks of heathens.

      Which is fucking awesome.

      apparently this is because I refuse to accept, “NUH UH!” as a Logical Proof

  46. Fellow Reasonoids: I give you tonight’s sign that the apocalypse may be upon is. The KC Royals are in the post-season:

    http://espn.go.com/

    1. Fuck, I thought that night I turned down the wrong street in Baltimore was the sign….

  47. Speaking of Vice news, I just like to give that organization a huge amount of praise

    I know that cops are way way way more respected than journalists according to every poll out there, but I have so much massive respect for those guys in much the same way I do have for cops

    I certainly don’t think they are unbiased for example I think it’s pretty clear they are way too sympathetic towards his blah are overly critical of Israel etc.

    Setting aside the fact that I don’t think true unbiased journalism is even possible

    But they just do damn good work overall and just like when I think of police I just think they add so much to our culture when they get those stories out there for us to read and see

    So excuse me for being redundant but vice news gets a hell yeah

    1. Cocaine is a helluva drug.

      1. I think the jangly, wired tone of TakD’s posts definitely has a pharmaceutical component. Coke is at the top of my list of suspects, too.

        1. There is a fine line between natural genius and drug-induced genius

          Ask any musician

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.