Not Stupid
brinktk
Active member
Your profile says 3 years btw, might want to update it if that is the case. 6 years and only an E4? Hmmm...
'60-'63 took a break went back in '65-'68 , started all over again pvt.to E-4 rank didn't mean much to me and in aviation I couldn't be promoted to E-5 because a gunner couldn't out rank a grew chief , hell I don't have to tell you this you already know everything and what you don't know ain't worth knowing .
crazytanker
Active member
Are you REALLY this thick headed? If you want tge founding fathers' values, you don't get to pick and choose which ones. The sad truth is that the founding fathers of this country were slave owners. The founding fathers were far from perfect. But since we're going with their values, we'll take away a woman's right to vote or own property. Women voting was definitely NOT a value of the founding fathers. He did not say a small central government running things. He said go back to the ways of the founding fathers.
brinktk
Active member
Who said I know everything, you seem to make enough bold, unsubstantiated statements for all of us. I'm just asking for clarifications. YOU put 3 years on YOUR profile...WTF do you expect? Your ineptitude in filling out a basic profile is actually supporting what WE are saying...you are terrible at getting your point across and you leave A LOT to interpretation.
I tell my subordinates and cadets that interpreted orders will get you interpreted results every time...the same applies here. Most, or even all of the people here, are not interpreting things that you post in the way you mean for them to be interpreted. Instead of clarifying things, you're an a**hole about it. Actually, you're pretty much an a**hole in general.
Also, regarding Tet...you should clarify, you DIDN'T get to go everywhere...perhaps in III Corps you did, maybe even into areas of IV Corps...but according to what you wrote, you never made it up to the Central Highlands or the DMZ. According to the research I've done, the longest and hardest fighting occurred in I Corps, not just during Tet either.
If casualties are a measure, May of 68 was actually worse than Tet...guess where over 50% of the casualties came from during Tet AND during mini Tet in May...you guessed it, I Corps. Just a little food for thought.
Why would you allow your happiness to be controlled by events. These events make many Americans proud, but don't control my well being. This doesn't make sense. Your happiness should result from achievements, family, knowing you did your best.
Also what does that have to do with facing a problem head-on. That's often the best way to tackle a problem is straightway, but it has nothing to do with your earlier happiness statement. Try and gather your thoughts and use the edit function. On occasion my post need correction so I EDIT THEM
brinktk
Active member
10 level skills are covered from E-1 to E-4.
20 level is E-5
30 level is E-6
40 level is E-7
At E-8/9 you lose the "Bravo" identifier and become a "Zulu" or a Senior Sergeant.
According to AR 611-1 it has been that way for about 50 years...
ALSO
You're is a contraction of you are. It has no other uses. This is a 100% rule. If you cannot expand it to you are in your sentence, then it is wrong.
The word your sits before another word (usually a noun or a pronoun) to show that it belongs to "you" (e.g., your car, your arm), is of "you" (e.g., your picture, your photograph) or is related to "you" (e.g., your uncle). It is possessive and an adjective.
So if you want me to nit pick, I could do it about YOUR terrible grammar, which YOU'RE clearly unaware of which reflects on a lot of other things outside of YOUR grammar. <<<<Now that's nitpicking.
Last edited:
brinktk
Active member
I treat people as they should be treated. If you're gonna act like a whiney 19 year old kid, then I'm gonna treat you as such. You have disrespected almost everyone on here since joining this forum. What makes you think we are just going to sit here and take it?
If you want diologue, take the chip off your shoulder and tone down the constant whining or complaining about one thing or another. Offer some substance to your posts with links or evidence through surveys, statistics, or research to prove valid points and you might actually get a comversation out of this. But, if you are just gonna state one liners that make no sense to anybody but you, then big f*ckin surprise if nobody knows what the hell you're talking about and don't respond to your insults well when you get pissy about nobody understanding you.
I thought with age there was supposed to come wisdom. Of which I have seen almost zero from you since joining the forum. Just a little bit of humility would go a helluva long way. The balls in your court chief.
Highly debateable about who's thick headed. All or nothing, brilliant! why do people always go off the deep end? Well, @ least you didn't equate a call for smaller govt with anarchy!
crazytanker
Active member
Actually, that's exactly the point. The Founding Father's Values were slavery, white property owning males. Those ARE their values. I'm not sure how that's not understandable? You can't just pick and choose which values you'd want back - otherwise there's no point in bringing them back. We still have some of the values - we've moved on and developed new values. If we reset so to speak, we lose what progress we've made.
WHO the F--k is sooo stupid to think that morals and values equate to slavery ? , any idiot knows that at least half or more of the founding of whom ALL were White did not own Slaves did not like Slavery , in those days it was a political issue , it has not been a political issue for last 150 years except to the few that are out of touch and wants to free someone who is already free .
brinktk
Active member
Well, the bible, therefore the Christian god, candidly and openly advocate for slavery. So the 70% of Americans who claim Christianity as their faith of choice either overtly or covertly condone slavery if they profess a belief in the "god" of Abraham...
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"
I love this next one in particular, great family values in addition to the slavery with that whole entrapment bit!
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)"
So it really wouldn't be a stretch to believe that someone who bases their morality on the "god" of Abraham could clearly condone any type of disgusting behaviour and pass it off as morality.
Last edited:
crazytanker
Active member
What of women not voting or owning property? That was DEFINITELY not a part of their values. If it were, at least one of those signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been a woman. Actually, during the period, women were expected to keep the home and raise the children. They did not enlist into the military (at least not with permission). However currently women make up roughly 15% of the Army. So I'll guess we'll just give that 15% of the US Army the axe...? "Sorry, can't be here!"
Or perhaps owning property being a requirement to vote? Until 1850, just over a decade before the start of the US Civil War, owning property was a requirement to vote. Even then, it was still limited to caucasian males. This, of course, was set by the States, not the Federal gov't. It should be noted, of course, that the same general group of people running the States where running the Federal - white, male, property owners. It wasn't even until 1920 when Women had the right to vote in any elections. It wasn't even until the mid-sixties when the voting taxes were eliminated. It was essentially a property tax - without being a property tax.
So I guess I'm confused. Exactly which values would you like to see? A small centralized gov't? Isn't that what was there before the start of the US Civil War? The Federal gov't leaving most of the day to day functions to the States?
Or perhaps owning property being a requirement to vote? Until 1850, just over a decade before the start of the US Civil War, owning property was a requirement to vote. Even then, it was still limited to caucasian males. This, of course, was set by the States, not the Federal gov't. It should be noted, of course, that the same general group of people running the States where running the Federal - white, male, property owners. It wasn't even until 1920 when Women had the right to vote in any elections. It wasn't even until the mid-sixties when the voting taxes were eliminated. It was essentially a property tax - without being a property tax.
So I guess I'm confused. Exactly which values would you like to see? A small centralized gov't? Isn't that what was there before the start of the US Civil War? The Federal gov't leaving most of the day to day functions to the States?