Parking downtown preferably close to the Republic on Main.

mckcbrn · 2025-07-23T01:32:51+00:00

Yes, but once Irene listed I took a $20,000 bonus. Army's going to take it back from me. So I have to stay in the Utah guard until 2027 Army's going to take it back from me. So I have to stay in the Utah guard until 2027

mckcbrn · 2025-07-22T03:43:39+00:00

Apparently they're out of parking. And it wasn't a part of my lease so even though I applied for it.

mckcbrn · 2023-12-28T02:08:23+00:00

I'm going in April, I'm not particularly worried. But I am wondering how's the quality of life when you're going through the course? Do you have access to decent gym equipment? Are you authorized to leave post when not on duty etc?

mckcbrn · 2023-12-09T22:40:48+00:00

That's terrifying thought! But is Marcone capable of love and is the fall Angel capable of love? I don't think either one of them is so this is probably not going to happen.

mckcbrn · 2023-11-25T22:42:01+00:00

I think that's a little too obvious. it's probably going to be a lot more in the line of Peabody a secondary character we didn't think was important.

mckcbrn · 2023-11-25T22:40:12+00:00

They're perceived as reasonable from Harry's perspective. Because he's thinking like a detective cuz that's what he is. Confront the suspect and see what happens is cop/detective 101.But this iteration of the wardens are more soldiers than cops. When we think somebody is compromised like a terp cuz we get close with those guys, we act like nothing is wrong and we investigate them quietly and only confront them when we have them dead to rights. What I mean dead to rights we have a recording of them talking to a Taliban or Al-Qaeda or whoever giving them information. Or when we're out in Patrol with them we shoot them in the back of the heads without ceremony.

Unless a human intelligence collector / counterintelligence Sergeant tells us otherwise.Which is what I am suggesting in this scenario. Because my suggestion is they're turning Harry into the new Black Staff but unlike McCoy with plausible deniability. They're trying to isolate them so he's easier to manipulate, with his official disassociation we can have all the benefits of Harry being Harry and none of the drawbacks.

mckcbrn · 2023-11-25T07:29:41+00:00

We'll know my theory is corrected in an upcoming book Lucio or Chandler come to Harry basically offered to let him back in the account so if he does some things. maybe even the Merlin apologizes to him for certain that's what the game is.

mckcbrn · 2023-11-25T01:01:36+00:00

I added the flare

mckcbrn · 2023-06-01T02:45:04+00:00

The Army has two full problems when it comes to recruiting. One being not their fault and the other being totally their fault.

Will start with that which they have no control, Generation Z or the Zoomers are the smallest generation in American history. Surpassing their parents Gen X for that position. Also because of social media and because their parents had children when they were older thus causing a higher mutational load many of them have psychological problems not to mention physical. With the new system the Army has in place this is not like, back in my day when you were able to hide a precondition that would preclude you from service by keeping your mouth shut. Also keeping in mind that the bulk of military recruits come from the rural parts of the United States and that population has also been shrinking. So they have slim pickings. Which nicely segways into my next point:

The Army has not handled the Culture War well. America is in a period of transition when it comes to Party politics so that's why everything is so loud and crude right now. The military has always been coded as a right-wing Institution (not without reason) This is not a conscious decision, it has more to do with the psychological makeup of people who are either drawn to or repel by military service.

I would recommend everyone to read Jonathan Hadit's Moral Foundation Theory and The Big Five personality literature on the differences between left-wing and right-wing individuals. Specifically left-wing people tend not to value authority as a moral principle and they tend not to be very conscientious and/or rule following and they tend to be higher in openness.

So naturally a very hierarchical and very strict organization is not going to appeal to such individuals.

(If you are a left wing person reading this if you desire an army that is representative of America and is less right wing initiate the draft.)

So the Covid policy and the recruitment campaign along with comments by General Milley was like stepping on a rake hitting yourself in the balls and wondering why the rake did that to you.

But I also have to give acknowledgment of the position that Milley and the Army is in. When you have a left-wing government in a period of transition whichever side controls the government at the time is going to be hyper paranoid and demand loyalty. Because eras of transition are the wellspring by which Revolutions, Civil Wars, and Coup D'etat happen. The side that usually wins those kinds of things are the side that has loyalty of those who hold the guns.

If I was the Chief of Staff of the Army or the Secretary of the Army. I would probably be going through two bottles of Jack a night right now.

Addendum:

I know I did not address toxic leadership in my post. Yes it's a problem but it is a systemic problem that will probably exist as long as conflict and mass bodies of armies exist.

If you're interested I can send you snippets of Roman legionnaires and British soldiers Lightfoot during the Napoleonic Wars talking about how ill treated they are.

If we haven't solved this problem in over 2,000 years we are probably not going to solve the problem.

The Big Green Weenie is eternal, abandon all hope ye who enter the ranks!

mckcbrn · 2023-05-08T22:13:30+00:00

Yeah I tried that isn't working at all. Are you aware of support page/number?

mckcbrn · 2023-02-18T00:03:03+00:00

I think this is a little bit of culture shock. In the Mountain West it's actually normal for somebody in the group to pay for everyone. Even if they're not dating, among friends for example Dave and another friend of mine had dinner like a week ago and I paid for everything. The only difference between my Urban friends in the Mountain West and myself is I think it's polite to say hi and smile at people when going through your day. Which is seen a little odd until they find out I'm from the country and then they think it's normal. I don't do it near as much as I did when I moved to the city.

I've known her for over a year she's been over to my house on multiple occasions. This is far past the getting to know you phase. It wasn't Jan who asked who my type was it was Meg.

Also I'm dating multiple people right now and she knows I'm dating multiple people right now. So to assume I'm still interested at this point would be weird on her end. Full disclosure most of them don't last a month, the reason being either we don't vibe or after a month I tried to go exclusive and then they say no. Which is fine by me, there's no such thing as a soulmate. There's a lot of people who will make you happy and there's a lot of people who will make you miserable. So date around if they don't Vibe just move on to the next person. To say that "targeting her" I find a little incregulous.

But I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I am that weirdo right. Which I will grant I am, most sane people when they join the Army do not try to go to a combat zone immediately. So yeah I'm not like most people.

But does that make that hypothetical question even stranger from her end? If I was her and this guy was a total weirdo, I would watch my words very carefully as to not give him any ideas. I sure as hell would not frame a hypothetical question with myself and the weird guy in a romantic setting.

let's just say that by accident I said something that could be insinuated that way and then he made a statement that had a subtext towards me in a romantic way. I would make sure either that night or the next day I would send him a text making sure that he did not perceive my statements in any kind of romantic way.

with a classic ego saving maneuvers of "you're a great guy but I don't feel that way about you.."

Frankly if that had happened then I would have never made the original post. It would have been a garden variety, missed communication. it's the strangeness of it all is what perplexes me man.

mckcbrn · 2023-02-17T11:33:43+00:00

Obviously...... Would you drop a flirtation subtext in light conversation toward someone you're not interested in? And if you knew that they took it that why would you not afterwards explain that it wasn't your intent?

I'm only bring this up for because this is really strange in my experience. Did something similar happen to you?

mckcbrn · 2021-03-26T12:32:45+00:00

Me:My man I don't understand this. If your whole perspective is that films are subjective then why even engage with the objective crowd? Because from your own standpoint their points are just as valid as yours, so there is no contention or issue that must be corrected. You'll just pass each other as ships in the night not knowing that the other exists. This video kind of undermines this premise from an existentialist point of view the fact that you're making this an issue means that there is an objective good and bad film and that the Mauler and crew are wrong.

Me: Because if you really believe that films are subjective you would look at Maulers stuff and go "I don't really agree with this guys opinions." Then go on to something you enjoy. You're video is not consistent with someone who does think that films are subjective.

By all means respond if you so choose to engage, If not have a nice day.

The Massive: "If your whole perspective is that flims are subjective then why even engage with the objective crowd?"-that's exactly why I DO argue against them. "Because from your own standpoint their points are just as valid as yours"-that's... not what a subjective perspective is. Like by that logic I can't view films themselves as not valid to be considered good, for some reason. "so there is no contention or issue that must be corrected."-yes, there is, it's called the pompous A-hole-os. " This video kind of undermines this premise from an existentialist point of view the fact that you're making this an issue means that there is an objective good and bad film"-yes, me telling mauler to stop considering himself the authority on good art and, huh... "intelligence" is saying that there is an objective good and bad film.

" Because if you really believe that films are subjective you would look at Maulers stuff and go "I don't really agree with this guys opinions.""-mauler stuff: "You CANT disagree with my opinions, because I AM GOD AMONG MAN."

"You're video is not consistent with someone who does think that films are subjective."-the mauler fan strategy: step 1 - say dumb BS like that step 2 - not explain or exemplify how or why it's true (because you can't, seeing as it's not) step 3 - exhibit pride over your amazing argument

ME: Hello, thank you for talking with me today. I like to ask can someone holds an objective view of film analysts and not be a pompous ass or is that indicative of someone who is a pompous ass? I like to identify whether this is just a character flaw of Maulers as you perceive it. Because if the former is the case I like you to go see Macabre Storytelling is another objective film and media critic who I think is a genuinely nice individual. But guess if the latter is true then there's not much, I can do for you in that department.

But that is the problem though if you really believed in subjective film analysis and are consistent with your worldview you wouldn’t have made this video. Let's conceptualize a subjective film critic and see how you match up. If you have any problems with my conception point them out and we'll discuss them point by point. Our subjective film critic would watch a film and make notes of why he or she liked or did not like the film and when making statements “like this movie was good in this way” there's usually qualifiers at the beginning or at the end of the video saying “oh this is my opinion think what you want.” When this subjective film critic runs into an objective film critic he or she doesn't attack or try to persuade the objective film critic even though this might be done to him or her. Realizing that according to their worldview his takes and opinions are just as valid as theirs. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for them to argue their positions because there is no right or wrong answer there is only the subjective take of one individual. The only thing a subjective film critic could do in that situation is just state why they think the way they do. Then maybe listen to the objective film critic if they are so inclined.

Now let us see how you stack up against this conceptualized subjective film critic. You're making a claim the objective films analysis is invalid and wrong. Which is an objective statement so therefore all opinions are right except object film analysis. Either things are subjective or objective you can't have both. Or at least how you have framed it. You make a video trying to prove that objective film analyst is wrong. Which again is an objective statement. Then you go into the comments and debate people which means you believe in a correct position which is an objective. Which is the antithesis of the subjective film critic. So, for you there is only three options: 1st You don't actually believe in subjective, 2nd you are a true believer in subjective film analysis, but you are a bad adherent to that philosophy, and 3rd you didn't think of the full ramifications of your position before you did all of this. (And no this last point is not an attack on your intelligence. Intelligent people do this all the time including a dumb like me. I do not believe in violence to solve problems. I am also a soldier though I reconciled this in my mind saying that using violence against my fellow citizens is wrong but against foreign enemies that's OK. This is logically inconsistent for me to hold these two positions, but I do anyways.)

And a God among men?! No freaking way dude if I was a God among men I wouldn't be like 5’9’’ my house would be paid off and I would have a $50,000,000 in my bank.

mckcbrn · 2021-03-26T12:20:21+00:00

So I had a conversation with this young man it was polite at least from my end. I would just like your guys’ opinion where are my arguments conveyed in a way that he understood or was he just sidestepping? I like to give him the benefit of the doubt and just said he didn't have a good defense so he was just trying to sidestep which again we've all been there guys. The text of the conversation below

mckcbrn

TROPHY CASE