Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #191
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Hmm...so let's see...you re-write my posts to fit your agenda, ignore other relevent things I have said and use that to make several false accusations?
    I didn't rewrite your post, I do not have the ability to edit someone else's post.

    I cited those examples of challenging the Stop Loss to show it isn't as cut and dry as some claim.
    You cited those examples because that is what you believed. Or you made up your claims assuming that no one on this forum had served in the military and therefore couldn't contradict your bogus claims. When you were called on your accusations you changed your story from there was no stop loss in the contract to its buried in a contract the size of a phone and even when you were shown that it is plain as day on your contract you are still trying to make the claim that stop loss is slavery.

    Well, iam smart enough to not care what you think.
    You must care to a certain degree what someone thinks or you wouldn't be posting on a public forum for everyone and their mom to see.


    The only thing worse than a flaming lib is a dishonest one.
    I am no liberal and the only one I see being dishonest is you. Do you even have a dd 214?
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-25-09 at 04:09 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #192
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by bilbus View Post
    Er, i mean turns out he was a lawyer
    Thanks. That makes a lot more sense now. I was like "Holy ****! The liberal turned out to be a liberal! Who knew?"

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    +1



    I read the contract. the whole contract. I always do. The fact that he thinks they screwed him because he failed at due diligence is rather humorous.
    I seem to recall a fragment of a marching song that had the refrain "my recruiter screwed me too".

    He didn't read the contract, it's his problem.

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    Well, personally I think it's stupid and completely misguided to attack a recruiting station as if they put us in the war. The recruiters are just doing their job. Nobody is forcing people to enlist. Then again, how can one expect the people who would vandalize a recruiting station as sign of protest to have a level head?
    I most certainly expect people who vandalize a minor store-front office as a protest against a national policy to have some of the flattest heads you've ever seen. Right about there, low enough that their height is measured by their ears sticking up.

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Being paid a wage doesn't mean slavery cannot be present as some slaves and serfs have been paid while enslaved. Also, not all signed contracts are legal so the excuse of "the contract is voluntarily signed!" fails to recognize there is an entire division of the legal world where lawyers and courts focus specifically on the legality of contracts.

    Finally, it's somewhat strange because it seems many who keep screaming "contract" are also the same groups that ignore the fact the Bush admin broke the law with invading iraq. So in one arena, the letter of the contract is paramount, but in a different arena, the legality of contracts are irrelevent.
    Cain't ignore no facts that don't exist.

    Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq, Iraq got invaded. End of that argument.

    The contract those sojers sign? That there be a legal contract.

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Exactly, the Constitution is to be read carefully. There are declarations of war, these are official declarations. They come in one form and that is for Congress to officially declare war against another state.
    If you read the Constitution carefully, as you have just claimed to done, please cite the clause that specifies that Declarations of War must be accompanied by a US State Department Form XW-23d4-F to be valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We have no had a declared war since WW II. The declaration is specific, and can only take that form. If it's not in the Constitution, the government doesn't have the power.
    The Constitution doesn't specify what form that declaration takes. Therefore you argument that the war authorization granted the president by Congress is not a "declaration of war" is unsupportable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So when the founders wrote that only Congress can declare war they meant that only Congress has the ability to issue a declaration against another state. Authorizing military action is not a declaration, it's a pussy move by a bunch of spineless, big government aristocrats and nothing less.
    Sophistry. Looks real purty...but not supported by any facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You're the one that doesn't understand. The Constitution is very specific, Congress issues Declarations of War, it doesn't specify format because it doesn't get any other format besides an official declaration, the likes have not been issued during WW II. No other format is allowed.
    Yes, the Constitution specifically does not say what form the "declaration of war" takes. Also, the intent of that clause is to put the power to commit the nation to war in the hands of the Congress, not the president. THAT's the key constitutional issue at stake. That issue was satisfied. That we didn't e-mail Saddam a little note saying I-DE-CLARE WARRRRR! isn't relevant.

    You see, once you get around to actually reading the Constitution, you need to understand it. You're mssing that part.

    "Format" of a declaration of war...yeah, find that in the Constitution, go right ahead....


  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    JIM KLIMASKI: "That's what the contract says, real clear. Try it for one year, see if you like the Reserves or the National Guard, it fits with your schedule. And if you don't like at the end of one year, you are gone. However, all of those people who signed up under that program discovered that it was a fraud."
    Damn! I knew there was a reason I never joined the Navy Reserve after completing my requird six year active duty enlistment....that, and the fact that I know what the primary purpose of reserves are....to toss in front of the enemy while the nation mobilizes to train a real army.

  8. #198
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I most certainly expect people who vandalize a minor store-front office as a protest against a national policy to have some of the flattest heads you've ever seen. Right about there, low enough that their height is measured by their ears sticking up.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    If you read the Constitution carefully, as you have just claimed to done, please cite the clause that specifies that Declarations of War must be accompanied by a US State Department Form XW-23d4-F to be valid.



    The Constitution doesn't specify what form that declaration takes. Therefore you argument that the war authorization granted the president by Congress is not a "declaration of war" is unsupportable.



    Sophistry. Looks real purty...but not supported by any facts.



    Yes, the Constitution specifically does not say what form the "declaration of war" takes. Also, the intent of that clause is to put the power to commit the nation to war in the hands of the Congress, not the president. THAT's the key constitutional issue at stake. That issue was satisfied. That we didn't e-mail Saddam a little note saying I-DE-CLARE WARRRRR! isn't relevant.

    You see, once you get around to actually reading the Constitution, you need to understand it. You're mssing that part.

    "Format" of a declaration of war...yeah, find that in the Constitution, go right ahead....

    None of what you have said has changed the fact that the last time we issued a declaration of war was for WW II. The Congress isn't given different formats, it only has one; a declaration of war. It doesn't specify other formats so no other format is open to the Congress. I read the Constitution and understand it. This is the difference in what we say:

    I say that if it's not in the Constitution, the government does not have that power. When the Constitution says that Congress can declare war, it means that they are the only body that can issue a formal declaration of war and that it is a declaration of war and not some pansy, backdoor "authorization" so politicians can go back and claim they did something else instead of authorizing war. They declare war, they are the only body which can, and they must do so through a declaration of war.

    You say that if it's not in the Constitution, the government is free to do what it likes. There's no specific form, so they government can make whatever form it wants and claim that's good enough and it's all hunky dory.

    In the end, this is our main difference. I see the Constitution as a restriction upon the government. It lists what the government can do, empowered by the People; and anything not mentioned doesn't belong to it. You seem to see the Constitution as a vague, non-specific road map of government power. If the People and States did not specifically reserve something, it belongs to the Federal government regardless as to whether or not that power was specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution. For this reason, we shall never agree. The Constitution restricts the government, not the People.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #200
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    Wow! Goin' old school with the Kids in the Hall. "I crush your head!"

Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •