Hank

Juju, I sent you a trade request.

I think Kentucky wins at home.

Not as much as you might think, troops get paid the same no matter where they are or what they're doing.

Ah, gotcha! Was a little slow on that one ?

How is that at all relevant to what I said?

I do that sometimes. It is fun!

??? That boomers part was funny as ***** to me. I LOLed.

You misunderstand. Army guy and American wife. That child is a German citizen with German birth certificate. They'll also have naturalization paperwork and have duel citizenship, but a German birth certificate.

For what it's worth, when a military servicemember stationed in Germany has a baby in a local hospital (not a hospital on a military base) that baby is a German citizen.

It's a joke between me and Aud, lighten up.

You mind telling me what that is? I'm too lazy to look it up.

Nope, nothing to contribute. Just felt like throwing a little snark your way ?. All in good fun my friend!

Do you have a better solution? Aside from just hope people act right?

I'll use myself as an example of entitlements. When 9/11 happened I was a single parent of two boys, one in diapers. My older boy didn't handle that first deployment very well and attempted suicide. I was sent home. The Army decided if I couldn't deploy they couldn't use me. I moved to Olean, applied for unemployment and lived in income based housing. I didn't have the education I do now but I still had plenty of job opportunities at a decent wage. But, when you subtract daycare and medical/dental/vision and factor in the income based housing my net was just slightly more than I was getting sitting on my ass enjoying time with my boys. I was able to get by just fine like I was. It wasn't WORTH IT getting a full time job. It wasn't until my unemployment was close to running out that I took a job. I think this is common, and I don't blame people for doing it. The easier it is to get by on entitlements/benefits, the less incentive there is to work.

The problem with relying on police is they are only called after a crime has happened. The Rabbi seems to believe that legally armed members (not guards) could be a deterrent. Could this not be viewed as proactive? Why do you feel it would be bad?

No. We should NOT trim the military budget. Entitlements SHOULD be cut.

The sky is blue, water is wet, Aud is bitching about Pegula. Nothing to see here.

I think this is very interesting. Is the Rabbi right? Is he wrong? Thoughts?

Funny. I've never seen you post this regarding the many alt left links.

I read they think it was a mechanical failure. It doesn't appear anyone on the ground was injured. I assume car park = parking lot?

Maybe, maybe not, you may be right. These people, when they're planning out their horrific events, may be planning on suicide by cop. Or maybe in the moment they figure death is better than a lifetime in jail. We're not able to ask them after the fact. But, these people aren't choosing to shoot up places with a large police presence and/or armed guards (I acknowledge there are exceptions, exceptions don't prove the rule). Maybe for these people, instead of fear of death, the deterrent would be they may not be able to inflict the greatest amount of damage that they want. It's still a deterrent.

Yes, yes he did. Armed guards may not have helped here. No, I don't want armed guards in churches, including mine. Yes, they are an effective deterrent.

Your interpretation of what you think he meant is different from "he said it". It's possible I misunderstood your meaning. Please explain it to me so I can understand.

1. He never blamed the congregation, this is an outright lie. 2. Hope people act right? That's your answer? There's evil people in the world. Hoping they act right is keeping your head in the sand, which allows them to do evil things.

You're right, I could be nicer. Snark aside, I truly believe you're purposefully misconstruing what he said. Nobody, including me. But what's a better alternative to prevent this? I don't know.