Just noticed your username. "Toss"? "Power Fap"? "Jack off on the flag"? You seem a little masturbation-preoccupied.

Well, as long as we all understand you don't have anti-military bias... John Wayne? Jack off on the flag? Your Freudian slip is showing, cementing your original statement in its ridiculousness. Despite your arrogant and vulgar conflagrations to the contrary, you are not digging yourself out of your hole, my…

Oh, I see, now. I should have inferred "The military also trains young people to kill justifiably, legally, and within rational moral confines" from your statement ""the institution that trains young people to murder." That is simple.

You said, "the institution that trains young people to murder."

"The expectation is that reading ebooks, listening to podcasts and watching videos should all be allowed, according to anonymous sources from within the panel. Elsewhere, it's expected that "making phone calls", "sending and receiving e-mails" or "using Wi-Fi" will remain off-limits."

1. Honor and virtue? You just moved the goalpost. http://goo.gl/JDL8vp Having served, I can say that you will find a fairly representative cross section of society serving, perhaps slightly more patriotic and honorable than John Q. Public.

The fact of the matter is, the person may be tried, convicted, and punished (or acquitted) in both places, and a finding of innocence or guilt in either place does not guarantee the same outcome in the other.

It is widely reported that her answer to question #1 is, "I don't remember." That would seem to indicate reasonable doubt.

So, all military casualties are murders, since that is what we train our military for, murder? Any veteran who has killed an enemy combatant is a murderer? Any support trooper or REMF who aids the warriors is an accessory to murder?

I was with Sprint for 11 years. In my last city, their service was acceptably good, I liked the unlimited data, and their share plan worked well for my family of 5 shared phones.

Or, better yet, a rifle.

Where it is confusing, for me, from a legal standpoint, is how to codify bad drunken behavior while allowing consensual drunken behavior. I'll draw an analogy to illustrate:

Another confusing language issue: How does one refer to a transgendered person's past, using pronouns? For instance,

What you wrote made me think of an idea that may be at root of the issue.

Independence, 94-97. Kennedy in 98. Sailed on but didn't fly from Ranger in 93. Whoooop whoooop, Hoover on the ball. :D

It's the double-edged sword of any action that "defends" an entity, the back side of the blade condemns the defended as one who needed protecting.

I believe one factor, more than any other, perpetuates the gender chasm: the omnipresent specter of a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Try living in the stateroom directly beneath the flight deck. When I was a new JO, I was on the top bunk of a three-man room that was on the O3 level, right under the wires. Every hour from 10 AM to 10 PM, we had takeoffs and landings happening literally feet from my nose.

The F-14 had coupled ACLS (automatic carrier landing system), and it would work if all the conditions were just perfect. Often, though, the weather, sea state, boat, or jet would be a little off, so the system would not respond quickly enough to make a safe pass. It was a tough jet to bring aboard, with difficult…

Yes, we do not "flare" in Navy jets. Flaring and waiting for the jet to settle to the deck is obviously incompatible with a landing zone that is 400 feet long. So, we come back on the power and let the jet pitch up and enter the region of reversed command. At this increased AOA while on glideslope, throttle…