Browse By

I'll Pay For Up To 100 Percent Of Your Next Pizza

Driving through the misty Mohawk River valley, a commercial on the AM radio gave me more confirmation that the military doesn’t have much respect for the people it asks to kill and be killed. The National Guard promised that it will pay “up to 100 percent” of the cost of a college education for those who enlist.

It seems that the National Guard has a new mission that requires special skills like the ability to work free of little distractions such as mathematical reasoning. “Up to 100 percent” would include absolutely nothing.

I wonder what other interesting little promises military recruiters are making these days.

18 thoughts on “I'll Pay For Up To 100 Percent Of Your Next Pizza”

  1. qs says:

    Wood’s did you see that article I posted for you?

    I wonder if an invasion of Iran would hurt Obama’s reelection.

  2. JD says:

    Peregrin, If you were in charge of the military, what would your top priorities be?

    1. qs says:

      Disarming it?

      1. JD says:

        Would a disamred US military be a good idea?

        1. qs says:

          Heck ya.

          No standing army for the president that way the states could nullify S.C. rulings.

          1. JD says:

            I don’t like how the federal gov. has usurped states rights but I think we have a more secure country with an armed federal military than we would with only state malitias.

            1. F.G. Fitzer says:

              You mean, you want the Articles of Confederation back, rather than the Constitution?

              1. qs says:

                Ya that would be good, we’ve had state nullification used under the Constitution before.

                Won’t work as long as the president has a standing army though.

            2. JD says:

              F.G. If you were asking me instead of qs, no, not what I mean. I’ll take the constitution. It gives the president the position of commander in chief of the army. But I think the congress has passed laws and provided states funds with strings that go far beyond insuring the domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. For instance, I don’t see how a seat belt law forced on the states with highway money falls in any of these categories.

              1. qs says:

                The Constitution only allows congress to fund a standing army for a maximum of 2 years.

                He’s not supposed to get a permanent standing army.

              2. JD says:

                qs I believe you reference section 8; “The Congress shall have Power… To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use hall be for a longer Term than two Years” This doesn’t mean that the standing army was only to be in existent from 1776-1778 or only the first two years of a president’s term in office. It clearly means that congress has to appropriate the money at least every two years. Congress has to sit down and budget the money for the military within a two year period instead of in perpetuity.

              3. JD says:

                qs, A few minor corrections in what I wrote;
                I believe you reference section 8; “The Congress shall have Power… To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” This doesn’t mean that the standing army was only to be in existence from 1788-1790 or only the first two years of a president’s term in office. It clearly means that congress has to appropriate the money at least every two years. Congress has to sit down and budget the money for the military within a two year period instead of in perpetuity.

              4. JD says:

                qs, The dates 1776-1778 should be 1788-1790 because this could not have applied until the constitution was ratified in 1788. But none-the-less, the constitution does provide for a permanent standing army.

  3. qs says:

    Were gearing up for an attack on Iran. All quiet on the liberal blogs.

    1. Jim says:

      All not seeing what you’re seeing and watching and paying attention. TALKS are opening this week.

      1. qs says:

        I keep reading all these awful articles about Hillary Clinton in AmCon.

        The more I think about that lady, the more I think the last election turning out good. She seems exactly like John McCain to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?