SaltSong @ SaltSong @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

599

Joined

7 mo. ago

Again, it's one thing to expect them to reject orders they know are illegal, such as firing on civilians. It's another thing entirely to expect them to reject orders the legality of which may be a supreme court case next week.

It’s not the military’s duty to protect protestors.

The path of enlistment starts like this:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

Peaceful protest is our constitutional right.

This isn’t complicated. You either choose to obey an illegal order and threaten/attack other American citizens, or you don’t.

Would you be willing to risk ten years in prison that a military judge will agree that an order to go stand somewhere is illegal?

As much as i hate what Trump is doing, I don't expect any enlisted man to refuse orders to go somewhere. The legality of that order is debatable, but following it does not cause any immediate harm. It's not a good risk to take.

Refusal to follow orders will come when the order is so clearly illegal that there can be no question, and when following that order is something that can't be undone. An order to fire into the crowd, for example.

Of course, no such order will be given. I assume we have all seen Andor, yes?

I bet I could put on an awesome democratic military parade. Give awards to whichever group built the best float around their tank. March the color guard intermingled with the local high school color guard. Have the infantry throw candy to the crowd. Let the marching band rock out.

But I agree that, in general, military parades are not a good look.

Not really. Honestly, the "sanctuary cities" were humane compared to what the Trump Administrating is trying to do.

Walmart released a statement to Newsweek saying, "The advertisements from Christy Walton are in no way connected to or endorsed by Walmart. She does not serve on the board or play any role in decision making at Walmart."

Oh, infuriating, certainly.

That's amazing is it? That they (grudgingly) take care of us while we are doing what they want, and hurt us until we fall in line when we don't?

Seems a bar has been lowered while I wasn't looking.

I'll make an exception for uploaders.

That's because they banned the accounts.

Anyone who has an account on pornhub deserves their ban.

You can just order a bullet proof vest from Amazon.

Not sure I world trust my life to it, but it's not exactly a controlled item.

Be not ashamed. Be enlightened.

I mean that she has really big boobies. If she just straight up asked for a hug, from literally anyone she can see at any given moment, some 85% or more of men would hug her just too feel those glorious breasts pressed against them.

I suspect a higher percentage of women would give her a hug, either for the same reason, or because they would just want to comfort the person who needs a hug badly enough to ask strangers.

If you were to use their network to take advantage of the features for anything that the “predator” behind doesn’t care, you’re fine.

But what will the predator care about tomorrow? Or next year? And how confident are you that aggregate data is not what they want, for whatever reason?

That girl is not wanting for hugs.

That's "most wanted" material? I figured you had to at least kill a few people to qualify for that.

I've never know a happy Southern Baptist. I'm not interested in being as miserable as them.

It actually comes from artillery, but it’s the same idea.

I question the accuracy of this statement. Archers existed long before black-powder artillery. At the same time, though, I don't know if anyone would have been concerned with that measurement, way back when.

EDIT: Wikipedia suggests that the term did, in fact, originate with muzzle-loaded artillery. Good on you for correcting me.