Pearls before swine, Felonious. I wouldn't bother trying to educate this one, as he's made it apparent in his handful of posts where he stands on the position.

Whether I like the guy or not, I apologize FOR HIM to all the other Americans on SG. By & large, our Air Force is better than this. There are always a few with "dings" that make it out of the factory, though. To our foreign friends: ENFORCER99 may reinforce a few stereotypes about us Yanks, but his kind are more & more being pushed to the margins of America. Don't let it reflect poorly on the rest of us whatever ignorant things he may say.

i disagree,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist
"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races"
I dont have anh of those therefore i am not a racist. If i post a picture that i think is funny with a white person will you still call me a racist? cause your beliefs here are just stupid

So am I to get this right, are you saying ignore it and it will go away, 'cause that's exactly what it sounds like to me.

While I'll side with humor being completely subjective and geared towards a certain audience, there is and always have been limits to it's sensibility depending on the forum upon which it is delivered. Certainly, it is the delivery here which is in question. Comedians typically deliver their schtick to a captive audience who've often paid to be amused, humiliated and/or offended (by attending a show or subscribing to a program). Thier level of political correctness is expected to be drastically different then that of a public broadcast, a syndicated radio or television program or even a simple email sent by a public official. If you don't like someone's humor then you don't have to go to the comedy show, look on their website or tune in to Comedy Central. However, if a public servant (who is held to an entirely different standard then a comedian) makes derogatory remarks (or in this case, circulates offensive imagery), then it's bound to make some waves (and land them on their asses). It's a pretty simple concept you don't seem to appreciate. Sure there is free speech, you can say any damn thing you want. However, that doesn't mean you can make a complete ass of yourself and expect people not to notice.

Furthermore, hiding behind the troops is such a tired old tactic. Granted not all troops are the same (I have family who've served and still serve in the military, however I don't subscribe to the notion that all are as good or perhaps bad as they). I believe that while overgeneralized, Weatherpunk's comments may hinge on the evidence that there has been disturbing trend among recruitment of newer troops in the military. For further explanation, try reading this SG blog, chew on it for a bit and feel free to comment:
Don't Ask, Don't Heil.

As far as what you find humorous, if you find something funny that another finds disparaging, then leave it at that. You obviously come from an audience that appreciates what others find offensive, now why do think that is? (And what exactly do you find funny about the image in the first place, because I don't get it.)

im not saying ignore it im sayin im confortable with it. I also didnt bring any military comments into this, weatherpunk did so post towards him. And another thing i never said the guy who posted or made the picture wasnt racist, i never sided with him in anyway. all i did was say i laughed at it. There are numerous people in here that are just to butt hurt about everything in my opinion, this being one of them.

So you're saying that despite being butt hurt, they should just take it like a low-level drug offender in the state pen? Great... This is what I call being insensate to sensitivity (not just being insensitive). Here's what I have a problem with, one person says something offensive to another, then, rather then exploring and understanding why the other person is offended, the offense is further compounded because the offended party is simply dismissed as being too sensitive (typical narcissistic response). And yet you think Obama's picture is "funny as fuck", care to elaborate? Oh well I don't know fuck all about anything, do I? Different strokes for different folks, I'll leave it at that.

Go ahead and post the image at work Mr USAF flight mechanic, I don't really care about your job either. By the way, those taxes you complain about, they pay your bills.

where were you when everyone was ragging on Sarah Palin, like there wasnt racist + sexist comments thrown in on that one. O yea now i know you probably didnt say shit cause shes not a LIBERAL. Thats all there is to this, so please dont waste time with a reply

Other people's poor actions don't excuse the absolutely disgusting bullshit coming out of you.

False. Nearly all attacks on Sarah Palin were about her politics, her lack of intelligence, and about her being a general fool. None of which have any bearing on her gender.

Those few who attacked her gender were wrong. But this is just another example of conservatives creating attacks on themselves where none exist. It is possible to dislike Sarah Palin because of her politics and corruption. But anytime someone criticizes her for being an idiot, we get the knee-jerk reaction "You hate women!!!" which is pure bullshit.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_buzz_log:eaaff7802839108e3970f5c1b7de3934/Obamas-Headed-for-Vineyard-Vacation?cpm=1

is this not disgusting, read the comments those are coming from REAL people

I'm sorry. That has nothing to do with you being a thick headed racist troll.

Non sequitur, the link is irrelevant to this thread as is Sarah Palin. Besides, the web page you linked to should have clued you in: "Yahoo Buzz".

Oh my god! Why didn't we stop them? I...I can't go on living, knowing that I allowed those all of those transgressions to transpire.

It costs much less money to attempt to enforce child support than it does to actually raise a child. Child services also gets a percentage of the child support taken. They are somewhat self reliant, when you pay child support a certain amount is actually taken by the agency. (at least in Ohio)

If i sat down and tallied everything from birth to now, my daughter has cost me a little over $150,000 including medical bills.

There is no such thing as "cost effective" when you're dealing with the health of a child. I have, and would do it again, gone into extreme debt in order to ensure my daughter is healthy.

It's much more cost effective to ensure that the obliged parties are paying and sticking to their obligations. Kids are not cheap.

The system is inherently flawed and very easy to abuse. Subrosa may argue with me, but the local agency here makes automatic assumptions that are highly insulting to parents, especially fathers, when dealing with them.

What I mean by cost effective is this - if at any point the agency is putting in more money than is actually being recovered in child support, it would be more effective to simply give that money to the custodial parent to help raise the child. And I don't know what kind of money we're typically talking about when it comes to deadbeat parents, either spent to recover child support, or actually recovered in child support. If the latter figure is low enough in a given instance, it doesn't seem to me that it would matter if the agency's expenses were enough by themselves to raise a child - it's still inefficient.

Fuck!! I SPECIFICALLY said that this is ENTIRELY up to the woman in my first post. NO legislation should be involved. Maybe you should refrain from posting if you're not going to actually READ the posts. Again, YOUR choice of course. I'd hat e for you to have to come to me to sign off. heh
And, once again coyotemike, that comment was meant to be at YOUR expense. Really? You're going to "GIGGLE" for hours? Wow.