Rule 34.5: Proof that you can find anything on the Internet. "Cats that look like Hitler" site:

http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl

http://mashable.com/2016/05/07/economics-professor-math-terrorist/#UcQ2f6kbcuqb

Flight held up because of math. And the passenger next to him "thought he was a terrorist b/c she couldn't read what he was writing."

Unbelievable. Makes me want to scribble in Aurebesh or tlhIngan Hol on every flight I take...

I haven't been this shocked since Boy George came out of the closet, but former Facebook workers reveal their former employer's liberal bias.

TL;DR She wants all of the rights but none of the resposibilities.

http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/1120821/drafting-women

Dang, Patrick, be careful with that.

The Republican trope is that liberals are socialists and anti-military, too.

Next thing you know Zuckerberg and Kerry will be running corporations and serving in the military!

@Gog,

A good measure on who is going to be next POTUS is to notice how compliant Tech companies are with the U.S. government/Justice department:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/twitter-tells-us-intel-agencies-to-do-their-own-data-mining/

Sixclaws, and she seems to think that the only option in the military is a combat MOS. Who said conscription necessarily means combat?

My MOS wasn't combat. I was an interrogator.

And as we make greater strides in technology, combat jobs are less and less important. And I have no doubt that they will one day be obsolete.

Of course, a lot of gung-ho infantry types who insist that combat jobs will never be obsolete. I've heard this speech many times while I was in the army, which makes me think that part of the training for 11B (infantry) is memorizing this speech.

"A country isn't conquered until the first infantry boots have been put down on it..." blah, blah, blah.

To which I reply, "Japan, World War II. Two atomic bombs settled the dispute, infantry boots not needed."

To which I reply, "Japan, World War II. Two atomic bombs settled the dispute, infantry boots not needed."

The exception that proves the rule. Of course, being able to use "special weapons" with a free hand helped. Otherwise, I would respond with:

Tarawa
Guadacanal
Iwo Jima
Saipan
Kwajalein
Okinawa

That doesn't include the naval engagements, or the losses in the air war. All of that paved the road for the Enola Gay and Bockscar to make unchallenged approach to their targets.

And even then, the war almost didn't end, if the hardliners had succeeded in overthrowing the Emperor.

White, female privilege:

http://injo.com//2016/05/601223-louisiana-teacher-admits-to-having-sex-with-15-year-old-boy-its-unbelievable-how-long-she-will-be-in-jail/

"To which I reply, "Japan, World War II. Two atomic bombs settled the dispute, infantry boots not needed."

Amazingly self-centered. The entire decision to use the bombs was based on the casualties which would result if invasion occurred. By people with boots. As you may recall, I was Navy. I'm not sounding my own horn here.

I wonder if you think the Founders - or an American army at any time in the future - will be able to argue their way to victory. Apparently, that's what some think today if they are confronted with openly hostile government forces, even if they're our own. No combat, right?

How's the drone war going?