Leatherneck

Yeah that is funny. Especially watching Senators from his own party hit themselves in the jaw:

The flawed curriculum material is absolutely a problem. To say otherwise is absurd.

You got a link for that ?

From and older leather neck to another... well said!

As suggested above, I'd submit a complaint with FB, surely FB would not tolerate threats.
I would not be too concerned with threats to have you undergo a sputum regimen. The need for such must be medically justified and documented, starting with an x-ray. A medical professional would be risking his/her career, reputation, license, and employment with SLEC if caught ordering sputum testing that was not medically necessary.
.
.

I have said this before and I will say it again.
You can't leave behind someone who left you already.
He is a deserter in a time of war, he should be punished as such, but we should have never traded 5 high level commanders for a PFC. People died looking for him, He needs to be punished to the maximum extent under UCMJ.

http://http://allenbwest.com/2014/05/9-conundrums-left-answer/#CYgtPobgRTCpsyEG.99
SNIP
The word conundrum is defined as a complex problem that is often puzzling or confusing. Here are six conundrums of our contemporary United States of America:
1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet almost half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet politicians (mostly progressive socialists) claim they want America to become more like those other countries.
And consider these following three observations about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:
1. We are advised not to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are admonished to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works, as we see the liberal progressives already jumping on the tragedy from Santa Barbara California. So what about the three victims who were stabbed to death, should we ban knives?
2. We constantly hear about how Social Security is running out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps on the verge of running out of money? Maybe the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t. It is a simple case of printing money for political bribery and extortion.
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, giving no pay raises for our military and cutting our forces to a level lower than before WWII, but are expanding and increasing the benefits to illegal aliens? It is all about pandering for votes – and who cares about national security or veterans dying at the hands of their own Veterans Administration?
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/05/9-conundrums-left-answer/#CYgtPobgRTCpsyEG.99

Of course they have, but negotiating prisoner swaps with terrorists, not exactly. The more serious question and the biggest problem rational folks have with this, why release those particular five terrorist? I agree with not leaving Bergdahl behind, if for no other reason, so he can answer why he left the outpost. Now, if only the far left could bring themselves to admit Obama broke the law and releasing those particular five was a bad idea.
Putting aside the issues regarding Bergdahl going AWOL, It's not that hard to see that releasing those five terrorists is problematic, for U.S. national security and for the people of Afghanistan. However, a lack of plain ole common sense, blind support of Obama and his actions, or both would cause some to see things differently or not see at all.

Once again, you read what you wanted to read and came up with the wrong answer.
The question of whether President Obama broke the law that he signed is most definitely not political. It is a question of law.
The predictable Republican response, on the other hand, is absolutely politics. Add in the six months I mentioned, until the mid-term elections, and I think we can safely say it's politics as usual.
I agree that we should never leave behind a POW. Only the US military did not view him as a POW, but as a probable deserter and possible collaborator and nixed the armed rescue scenario, which is how it should have been done. Now, we have one man returned, while they have five, and every subsequent death for which any of those five are responsible is on the President's head. It did not need to be so.
Prisoner swaps between governments have happened for decades. Not trades with terrorists. It really doesn't matter which President does it, we should not negotiate with terrorists, because it sets a precedent for the to do the same thing in the future, only more often and for bigger stakes. It is a dangerous route to take.

Bergdahl was never classified as a POW, until it became politically expedient.
Yeah, and Charles Manson is a guest at Corcoran State Prison.

Speculation -: ideas or guesses about something that is not known
We have a lot more than speculation
We know for a fact Obama broke the law
We know for a fact that these 5 Taliban leaders were high in the organization
We know for a act they had committed many atrocities and murdered 1000;s
We have the internal Army investigation that concluded Bergdahl left his post
We have countless testimony of his fellow soldiers
We have intercepted Radio traffic indicating he was looking for the Taliban

It is not partisan politics to understand that the President violated a law that he signed only last year. He may have not agreed with a part of it and acted on that, but that will soon enough end up in the Supreme Court, of that I have no doubt. You can rely on the GOP hammer on this for the next ... oh, six months (almost to the day). To the average US serviceman and, for that matter, any Allied serviceman, the problems are twofold.
First, they want to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether Sgt. Bergdahl is, in fact, a deserter. The non-disclosure agreements signed by his company, the relentless innuendo about their being "psychopaths" and lacking discipline, dripping out from those associated with this Administration, all contribute to lowering morale and eroding their confidence that this Administration supports its service personnel. Because, from what I hear, there is little doubt that his release is a political distraction. That and even if he is found not to have deserted, he has been tainted as such and his reputation is irreparably damaged. The handling of this whole affair has been shockingly awful.
Secondly, every serviceman in Afghanistan and everywhere else that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a reach knows they have just become more of a target. Capture a soldier, trade them for 5, 10, or even 100 prisoners. The precedent set here is most dangerous. And the effect on morale is just the same as the first concern - not good.
The US knew where Sgt. Bergdahl was being held and had reliable on-the-ground intelligence about the situation. On a number of occasions, a rescue operation was considered and rejected. On what grounds is unconfirmed, but the suspicion is that he was considered a deserter and not worth the possible additional loss of life. An armed rescue mission would have been the way to retrieve Sgt. Bergdahl, in the eyes of the US Armed Forces. Servicemen know that they are putting their life on the line and are fully prepared to do so, especially if it means bringing one of their own home.
The trade off here will be to wait and see whether these 5 Taliban return to killing, terrorizing and kidnapping, or whether Afghanistan makes progress toward peace. If the latter comes to pass, this trade may come to be seen as worth it, deserter or not. On the other hand, if more people die as a result of this trade, if more US servicemen get captured for trading, this will be seen as a very, very bad deal.
Comparing President Obama's actions to those of President Reagan is a distraction. The "he did it, so why can't we?" line of reasoning misses one important fact. The scandal and subsequent fallout of the Iran-Contra affair seriously damaged the Reagan presidency. Do they think this President should get off without the same level of investigation and, if he or his Administration is found to have violated the law, consequence?
If the President is seen as not following the law, a law he signed, then why should anyone else?

This thread is a real eye opener. It's amazing to me that there's folks out there that don't see anything wrong with this. They'll blindly support Obama no matter what he does. I'd bet they'd support him if he decided to abolish the military entirely.

Anyone not honest enough to admit that Obama deliberately violated a law that he signed, and that releasing those five wonderful, nice fellas won't further the cause of muslim terrorist, is rather far left wing, has lost touch with reality, and what happens when such nice guys can again ply their trade.

I had a nice, healthy breakfast.

Somehow I doubt that will be enough for some here.

I don't think we should swap 5 enemy leaders for any one soldier.

Well aren't we a fresh breath of live-and-let-live.

I'd argue that Obama weakened the position of the U.S. far more than any "right-winger" ever could have. He's sent a crystal clear message that he's willing to negotiate with terrorists in order to get a hostage released. Not only that he's willing to release FIVE terrorist leaders in exchange for one American. Any terrorist with an IQ over 50 now knows that if he wants to get other terrorists released from custody, all he has to do is kidnap an American. If I were a consular official in an unfriendly country (Pakistan or Iraq for example) I'd start looking for another line of work.

Whoever made that phone call, is uninformed and can't cite any law or regulation supporting such a claim.

Do you guys just cut and paste all these smarmy remarks? Its like I read the same exact comments every time.. At least change it up a bit, my entertainment is at stake.

Of course not. But it's ok to make fun of gun owners and yet get angry about comments concerning angry female posters. It depends who is being made fun of whether it is ok or not. I believe you said something like that about a comment I made a week or two ago.

Funny thing is, I see it as you not understanding it. I still have the original Cheerios post since it was a reply to one of my post. The "b" word wasn't used in the post. The post that caused the controversy meant the same thing as saying someone got up on the wrong side of the bed. That's it. You paraphrased that post, inserted the "b" word and that was ok, because it was satire, even though it changed the meaning of the post. Most people didn't get to read the original post as it was quickly whisked away even though it didn't violate TOS. And to boot, the person who posted the Cheerios comment can't even respond to your paraphrase of his comment to clarify it, and I'll leave it at that. And no, he didn't get suspended or in trouble for the comment.
He wasn't making fun of anyone for their gender. He was commenting on an attitude prevalent in many posts, just like people comment on the attitude of the pro gun crowd, anti gun crowd, anti black, anti Christian, etc. This was about one thing, negative attitude, not gender. All the +1's on that post were from men, all the +1's on your paraphrase were from women. The men weren't offended and took it for what it was, some people were posting like they were always in a bad mood. The female side took it an insult against women. See how that went? There are posters of both sexes here who have a bad attitude according to many people here. So pointing that out was offensive, yet making fun of someone else for something different is ok, because according to yours standards, it's "not as bad as" something someone else said.
I brought up the issue because it wasn't settled nor was the OP permitted to attempt to settle it. Of course you find it boring, you chose not to see the other side of it. I'm not riding the white horse pretending that I'm without fault and denying that I too post post to stir the pot. I can admit it, can you? And how about this, I'm not upset or angry with you and have no intention of any harm by bringing this up. I am not insulting you in these posts. I'm just trying to clarify things. As you said, maybe I'm not smart enough to see things as you do. If no one likes the issues I bring up, I would appreciate them letting me know. Teddy didn't like my signature so I changed it. If you don't like the new one, I'll change it. If everyone hates sigs, I'll can it. How's that?

No and I don't think one would rob a bank either. your point ?