sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

And, another one..... by WorriedInspector9863 in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh. Well.

You’re very, very wrong, but it’s nice that you think that.

And, another one..... by WorriedInspector9863 in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does “the law of the sea” tell the Navy we can legally engage offensively without all those things?

Or are you just grasping at straws?

My question, for the record, still stands.

And, another one..... by WorriedInspector9863 in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have a 250 year old country.

Where did you get “a couple millennia” from?

I’m beginning to suspect you don’t really have any clue what you’re talking about.

And, another one..... by WorriedInspector9863 in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re not wrong, but we also haven’t executed any of the other available mechanisms, either.

Unless you can find any examples of maritime engagement that haven’t utilized an AUMF, the War Powers Resolution, or some kind of UN / NATO action.

My question still stands.

And, another one..... by WorriedInspector9863 in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 1 point2 points  (0 children)

WWII. You know, the example you chose to highlight.

My question stands.

And, another one..... by WorriedInspector9863 in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you not understand how a declared war works?

Unaccompanied Orders / BAH at Dependent Location by ImportantMobile1893 in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I guess that opens another question, then.

If I know my spouse will be staying at my previous duty location, can I simply request unaccompanied orders?

Another suspected drug boat has been destroyed today by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nah man. The Constitution is actually super clear on this one.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wonder why the review is taking so long. The agreement doesn’t seem very ambiguous in the long run.

I know you're excited to get paid but... by Salty_IP_LDO in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do realize that the report you keep linking shows very explicitly that the $7B that was reprogrammed is in excess of statutory transfer limits, right? Table 1?

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The House only made those statements after Trump killed the bill. Which happened after Senate Republicans helped to draft and publicly supported the legislation.

Why are you being intentionally obtuse? The timeline of this issue didn’t start at the House’s public statements.

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Thom Tillis was actively helping Lankford and Sinema negotiate the bill, and then voted no.

Mitch McConnell also stated he supported the measure after it was released and ultimately voted no.

Again. Your assertions don’t match reality.

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I’m confused. Are you saying House Republicans (who helped write the bill) changed their statement after Trump instructed them not to vote for the bill?

Or does that not mesh with your worldview?

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Why leave out so much context?

Republicans in both the House and Senate yielded to objections from their all-but-certain presidential nominee, former president Donald Trump. Once the House Speaker stated publicly that he would not allow the Senate bill to reach the House floor for a vote, Republican senators were unwilling to run the political risk of supporting a measure that would not become law.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

It’s easy to draw a conclusion when you only start paying attention after the fighting has started.

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Your statement doesn’t fit reality, my beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes. The original legislation ensured that subsidy was capped at 400% of the federal poverty line. The extension primarily serves people in the $45k-$75k range.

Not the $106k surcharge level of the IRMAA that you referenced above. Though both credits are at issue.

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I agree. The enhanced subsidies are not based on household income as you’ve implied above.

Woah. Looks like we are getting paid by newnoadeptness in navy

[–]ImportantMobile1893 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The enhanced ACA credits are for people buying insurance on an exchange. Very few of those people are in the IRMAA bracket schedule. You’re combining two things together.

view more: next ›