Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry applications surge
City sees fewer homicides, robberies, burglaries, car thefts as Illinois residents take arms
Anybody not think obesity being labeled a disease was just another ploy to push more prescription drugs on the (m)asses?
I especially like the quote by the doctor(quack) who said diet and exercise are ineffective methods for treating obesity.
And not really PWI
Is this real life ??
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
Is this real life ??
So what? You don’t want long hairs and trouble makers in the military do you?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
Is this real life ??
So what? You don’t want long hairs and trouble makers in the military do you?[/quote]
Non-believers are now trouble makers? Should being a follower of a certain religion be a prerequisite for national service?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Non-believers are now trouble makers?
[/quote]
No. But smart arses who refuse to sign a document because it has the word “God” in it are trouble makers.
[quote]
Should being a follower of a certain religion be a prerequisite for national service? [/quote]
Not at all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Non-believers are now trouble makers?
[/quote]
No. But smart arses who refuse to sign a document because it has the word “God” in it are trouble makers.
I’m an admitted “liberal” and “statist”? I’m a moderate whose views span the political spectrum and I’m a supporter of a strong, centralized government. Ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. I’m a strong supporter of the military as a national institution. I was actually enlisted in the U.S. Army for a short period before I was medically discharged. I don’t understand why non believers should be legally forced to call for the aid of a deity in what should be a decidedly secular institution. Allowing such individuals to follow their conscience I hardly social engineering. We aren’t discussing allowing women access to the combat arms out of some naive sense of democratic equality.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Non-believers are now trouble makers?
[/quote]
No. But smart arses who refuse to sign a document because it has the word “God” in it are trouble makers.
[quote]
Should being a follower of a certain religion be a prerequisite for national service? [/quote]
Not at all.[/quote]
I believe it was an oral oath at the end of the reenlistment ceremony where the airman in question had to legally state “so help me God”. He omitted that section believing that it violated his integrity and was subsequently denied reenlistment.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Non-believers are now trouble makers?
[/quote]
No. But smart arses who refuse to sign a document because it has the word “God” in it are trouble makers.
[quote]
Should being a follower of a certain religion be a prerequisite for national service? [/quote]
Not at all.[/quote]
I believe it was an oral oath at the end of the reenlistment ceremony where the airman in question had to legally state “so help me God”. He omitted that section believing that it violated his integrity and was subsequently denied reenlistment.[/quote]
How would it “violate [his] integrity?”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Non-believers are now trouble makers?
[/quote]
No. But smart arses who refuse to sign a document because it has the word “God” in it are trouble makers.
[quote]
Should being a follower of a certain religion be a prerequisite for national service? [/quote]
Not at all.[/quote]
I believe it was an oral oath at the end of the reenlistment ceremony where the airman in question had to legally state “so help me God”. He omitted that section believing that it violated his integrity and was subsequently denied reenlistment.[/quote]
How would it “violate [his] integrity?”[/quote]
By being coerced into declaring a belief that he does not hold and one that is wholly irrelevant to fulfilling his job requirements.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Non-believers are now trouble makers?
[/quote]
No. But smart arses who refuse to sign a document because it has the word “God” in it are trouble makers.
[quote]
Should being a follower of a certain religion be a prerequisite for national service? [/quote]
Not at all.[/quote]
I believe it was an oral oath at the end of the reenlistment ceremony where the airman in question had to legally state “so help me God”. He omitted that section believing that it violated his integrity and was subsequently denied reenlistment.[/quote]
How would it “violate [his] integrity?”[/quote]
By being coerced into declaring a belief that he does not hold and one that is wholly irrelevant to fulfilling his job requirements. [/quote]
Saying the words “so help me God” does not constitute being “coerced into declaring a belief he does not hold.” The Star-Spangled Banner includes the words “In God is our trust.” People in Britain sing “God save the Queen” without “violat[ing their] integrity.” British parliamentarians of both houses begin sittings with prayers. None of these things constitute theocracy or diminishment of integrity.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I was actually enlisted in the U.S. Army for a short period before I was medically discharged. [/quote]
Section 8?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Saying the words “so help me God” does not constitute being “coerced into declaring a belief he does not hold.” [/quote]
If the oath said “so help me Satan”, would you take it?
Not in any verse I sing.