Govt possibly banning smoking for soldiersFollow

Yeah, but I bet you sweat like a ***** in church when you're just fUcking sitting there, you enormous cUnt. People can smell you, all the time. You reek like dirty feet and ***-crack sweat. And I'd wager you eat for more than five minutes every hour, you disgusting epitome of sloth.

I don't go to church. I'm insulted now.

Meh, they'll just go back to dipping.

This is what happens when you let Democrats run the military. They focus on things like this instead of what's actually going on in the red zones.

This would be a nightmare to enforce.

As long as cigs are legal, it seems unjust to ban them, outright, from military personnel.

I bet I can get more acheived through the power of thought on a 5 min smoke break than you manage all week. Only bottom feeding jobs measure productivity in output per minute.

'sup Asylum?

This.

As for the OP: I don't feel any moral justification supporting the imposition of constraints at people who are prepared to step in front of bullets for us.


Evenin' Pat

That has absolutely no bearing on reality.

Witty one-liner works better than facts I guess...


Hint: If Gates was behind the idea, why is it going to be pitched to him? It's pretty apparent that some anti-smoker Liberal was put into a policy position at the VA and cooked this up. Don't you agree? It has just the right degree of absolute moronicness...

Given that most liberal positions are expressed via jokes and end out influencing people anyway, forgive me if that's not a valid response.



You're the one who felt the need to make a "joke" that it was a Republican appointee behind all of this Joph. I'd suggest that you check that partisan plank in your eye first...

Oh, boo-hoo. Given that I was the one telling the joke, forgive me but it was. The fact that it drove you to fly off half-cocked doesn't change that.

Yeah, I was fucking around with Varus. But it's great though that Gbaji ran off to put on his GOP Avenger tights and run onto the scene yelling "INVALID JOKE!!!!"



God, you're a tool.

Oh BS! You didn't say that as a "joke" Joph. You darn well intended to deflect attention away from the assertion that this idiocy was almost certainly the direct result of the ideology of the party you support and the president you voted for. You can say "I was just joking!" after the fact all you want, but if everyone had bought the idea that it was Robert Gates behind this, you'd have been absolutely fine with that. Very convenient...


The larger issue is that this is exactly the sort of thing we conservatives say is "wrong" with the liberal agenda, and to which you all insist over and over doesn't happen or wont happen. We conservatives constantly caution against a government with too much involvement in our day to day lives because we know that once government is involved it will inevitably attempt to control the things (people in this case) it is involved with.

Government has a vested interest in keeping their soldiers healthy, so Liberals see no harm in restricting the activities of soldiers in order to keep them healthier (like banning smoking for instance). Sure, you'll all dance around the idiocy of this and joke it off, but the underlying ideology is very real and very serious.


Ask yourself this question: Do you want the government telling *you* what activities you can partake in? Whether it's smoking or some other risky behavior, it's your right to do it and take the risks. Now, lets imagine we put the government in charge of paying for all of our health care. Doesn't the argument expressed above suddenly make it seem reasonable to limit the actions of individuals in order to reduce health care costs? Why yes! It does...


The way to avoid this is to *not* put the government in the position of care in the first place. Now, with soldiers that's unavoidable, but we shouldn't subject the rest of us to the same potential for government control. That's the core conservative argument against big government. This story provides us with a very relevant example of why we fight against this sort of thing.


It's funny because just today I responded to a post by Pensive insisting that demanding that the government provide us benefits doesn't in any way result in said government gaining control over us. This is clear evidence to the contrary. Once government is paying for something, it's going to want to control whatever it's paying for. It's kinda obvious, but some people are slow I guess...


And no. It's not a joke.

Edited, Jul 13th 2009 7:38pm by gbaji

I find it hilarious that either of you would bother to maintain such a thin facade of bipartisanship.