In the middle of the night, 4-6 recruits hold down the Blanket of the recipient so he can’t move. Then most of the company (60-80 men) will pass by the bunk and either punch the victim or with a cake of soap in a sock, whack him.
It is an ancient tradition.
Usually the blanket holders are also changed with telling the victim why he is getting a blanker party.
Jim
I agree. There’s no way someone so stupid is getting laid; hence no fucking.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
To answer the question for you I must have your view on how an anti-religious bigot would react to this issue of military funding.
At the moment, those who oppose military funding for chaplains even amongst the athiests here are a small minority suggesting to me that if there is such a thing as bigotry towards religion within the SDMB population it will be expressed within the small population opposed to military funding.
If it walks like a duck…
However my sense is that the discussion here is somewhat frivolous without any political consequences because no one here even remotely believes we’ll see the day that the US armed forces will discontinue offering chaplains. No one here appears to make a big deal about it .
Your bio doesn’t really help either. You could be an active member in any religion and still be a religious bigot.
Now Otto, I have a hypothetical question for you.
If the military dropped the provision for chaplains, and all the religious people refused to enlist leaving the armed forces with atheists alone would you change your mind ? Just how deep is your opposition?
is this a bad thing? Sort of like a law that leaves the army with only straight people; how do they manage?
I just wanted to point out that the blanket goes over the victims head so that he can’t identify any assailants.
A good and vital point. Sorry I missed that.
Jim
Yet you won’t acknowledge that there is one, either
*Very * nice, Counselor. Let’s translate this from your native Weaselese into English, shall we?
“There might be some people around who think this, and if they do I know why they would, and I’ll go ahead and condemn them for their ignorant attitudes. But meanwhile I’ll hide from responsibility by acknowledging that they may not even exist.”
A most curious statement from someone who pleads for a clear reading of the text when doing so *supports * the conclusion he wants to reach. Here, however, since it doesn’t, a “purist” reading of the Constitution can only be an excuse, offered as a dishonest rationalization, for a position that happens to differ from the one you prefer. And you refuse to admit that you just might simply be wrong, much less than the propositions you claim to be principles for you could be mere flags of convenience.
Tell us, what’s the difference between you and Martin Hyde, other than selection of words? Simple, *he * knows who he’s talking about, and *he * stands by his statements. But, as you’ve also demonstrated in your “War on Christmas” thread that may hold the current record for silliness on this board, you and he are both equally a combination of Republican-partisan ideologue and fundamentalist-Christian zealot, equally unable to see that any other view can be honestly or thoughtfully held, and unfortunately you are equally hollow at the core.
Actually, what he’s demonstrated is a willingness to listen to what folks say and to change his mind when confronted with strong arguments. He’s also demonstrated a willingness to stay in a thread where he’s outnumbered a couple dozen to one. He’s got my respect on both counts.
Daniel
He could get credit for being willing to change his mind if he’d ever say why, or what his new position is, or for that matter leave the old one behind. In fact, it was not “strong arguments” but simply due to his cites being unanimously shown to be falsified that led to his “change of mind”, and as for a new position he’s simply changed “war” to “attack”.
Keeping the thread alive despite everyone, *everyone * else’s showing him he’s again full of shit could be charitably described as simple stubbornness, were it not for the obvious reasons he’s doing so.
If you wish to respect unprincipled weaseling, partisan ranting, and religious zealotry, you’re welcome to. But don’t pretend it’s anything more.
First, cites showing his position to be incorrect kinda qualify as “strong arguments.” Second, it is extremely disingenuous to characterize his change of position in the way that you did.
Believe me, I don’t respect unprincipled weaseling or partisan ranting, Elvislives. I also don’t pretend it’s anything more.
Daniel
No, and I don’t understand why you would think I would.
I reserve that appelation for arguments that involve reasoning and persuasion, not simply showing that he’s making bullshit up again and won’t admit it. That’s kinderspiel, but if it’s enough to get your respect, fine.
Direct quoting is *disingenuous * to you? Have you actually *read * that trainwreck?
Actually my statement referred to the “majority of this board.” I will retract that and clarify. The majority of this board is a huge number of posters, many of whom don’t post regularly or never to almost never post about political issues. I was overly broad in my statement because of that fact. A more proper way for me to have worded it would have been, “the majority of the politically outspoken dopers are…” insert the rest there however it grammatically fits.
Interesting.
This is why I’ll always be happy we can’t edit our own posts.
All you’ve done is clarify your target. The leftists of this board are not mentally ill. Unwashed and degenerate, maybe. Mentally ill, maybe. But we are not literally a cancer, for sure!
Take it back or defend it, don’t mince around like this. You’re letting me down, sweetiepie.
Jim Belushi gets this treatment in The Principal.
I did take back what I said, I don’t know the political standgins of most of the board, thus it was wrong for me to generalize.
However, I do know the political affiliation of the politically outspoken SDMB, and that population does indeed represent the worst in society, unwashed degenerates and the mentally ill.
You being a prime example of a mentally ill degenerate.
I have. If I quote his actual position to you, stated in his own words, and if it’s not what you said, will you apologize to Bricker and to me for misrepresenting him?
Danile