Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #211
    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
    None of what you have said has changed the fact that the last time we issued a declaration of war was for WW II.
    Except for the fact that we issued a war authorization to invade Iraq, which is just fine and meets the Constitutional requirements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    You're right. The Constitution doesn't specify any other formats.

    The Constitution doesn't specify ANY format.

    Argument done.

    You lost, I'm bored with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You say that if it's not in the Constitution, the government is free to do what it likes.
    You need to learn how to read. Start with the Tenth Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    You haven't refuted it. The purpose of reserving the power to declare war to the Congress was to ensure the People's wishes were being followed and that we weren't being dragged into a war by a monomaniacal despot. That purpose was served by Congress's actions prior to our invasion of Iraq.

    I've already told you this.

    You could try reading the Federalist Papers sometime. It explains a lot of the Constitution you clearly don't understand at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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 have a truly misguided view on my view of the Constitution. However, I understand the document, you, and your president, do not.

    Argument over.

    Won.

    Done.

    Don't bother to respond further.

  2. #212
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    It was the UN that gave us the authority in 1990, it was the UN that authorized the cease fire in 1991, and as I've already proven, no UN Resolution since then has granted unilateral military action to invade/occupy iraq.

    I'm not sure what the hurdle is here...I've quote the relevent parts of the Constitution, the UN Charter, a few legal experts, so maybe we could address those?
    The U.N. gave the U.S. authorization to act if the cease fire was breached. It was numerous times by Iraq in the no-fly zones.

    Again, the U.S. had the right to act and attack, however, I don't think it should have.

    The reality of the situation is not that the U.s. didn't have the right to act, the problem is the U.S. chose to.

    There was nothing illegal in the Iraq war, but just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right which is the stance I take.

  3. #213
    Professor
    Travelsonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:40 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,376

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Argument over.

    Won.

    Done.

    Don't bother to respond further.
    Why, because you are arrogant and refuse to see what others are saying... some reason to believe you can dictate the path of a discussion. /s
    Nationalism in high dosages may be hazardous to your health. Please consult a psychiatrist before beginning a regular regimen, and if feelings of elitism and douchbaggery continue, discontinue immediately before you become unable to do so on your own.

  4. #214
    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 Travelsonic View Post
    Why, because you are arrogant and refuse to see what others are saying... some reason to believe you can dictate the path of a discussion. /s
    I'm not dictating the path of any discussion.

    I announced that one particular discussion was over as far as I'm concerned. Since the discussion in question involved my participation, that discussion is in fact over, and any further discussion on that particular topic will involve some other participants, and not myself, so it will, in fact, be a different discussion.

    I did not dictate the path of the discussion.

    I put a dead-end sign at the end of the path.

  5. #215
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The U.N. gave the U.S. authorization to act if the cease fire was breached. It was numerous times by Iraq in the no-fly zones.

    Again, the U.S. had the right to act and attack, however, I don't think it should have.

    The reality of the situation is not that the U.s. didn't have the right to act, the problem is the U.S. chose to.

    There was nothing illegal in the Iraq war, but just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right which is the stance I take.


    What we have here is a failure to communicate. The UN never authorized the US to take unilateral military action. Once again, from the mouth of our former US Ambassador to the UN regarding Res 1441:


    "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1108usstat.htm


    Iam providing rock solid evidence proving the US was never given a blanket green light. Do you have any evidence in response?

  6. #216
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    You charged me as saying:


    -Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks (Marine recruiting station under attack... again)


    I never said that yet you claimed I did to justify your accusations iam lying or a dumbass or something equally brilliant.
    This is your statement not mine,click on the link it is your post-


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

    Hell no I didn't read the whole thing...even if you wanted to your enlistment would be over by the time you finished. It's like a metro phonebook for NYC, LA, Tokyo, and Russia all wrapped in one. My recruiter told me about the IRR but the way he explained it was this:






    I never changed my claim. I pointed out it is not a static part of the contract.
    You claimed it was not part of your contract and not only that in the same post you claimed that the military can call you back to service after your last day of service.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970450-post55.html


    Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract.
    It is something that can be instituted or withdrawn at anytime, which is why Second of Def Gates has recently rescinded the program. If it was "part of the contract" it would not be carte blanche. There is a part of the contract for IRR committments (inactive ready reserves) which means once your enlisted term is up and you've left the military it can call you back to active duty for up to 8 years after your last date of service.

    I also never said it was "buried in a phone book sized contract.".
    How are you going to claim you didn't say those things? IS someone else posting as you?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

    Hell no I didn't read the whole thing...even if you wanted to your enlistment would be over by the time you finished. It's like a metro phonebook for NYC, LA, Tokyo, and Russia all wrapped in one. My recruiter told me about the IRR but the way he explained it was this:


    Then you accuse me of assuming nobody on here has served?
    Then why make up a bunch of bull **** that contracts are the size of phonebooks,that there is no stoploss in your contract?DO you have a dd 214?

    Stop changing what I've said. Please.
    No one is changing what you said.It is you who is changing what you said. First you claim stop loss is not part of your contract and then you claim its buried and then when it is pointed out to you that it is not you still stick to your claim it is slavery.

    I pointed out those examples to show not all Vets agree with each other.
    You made bogus claims support one your liberal notions that stop loss is a back door draft.




    You misquote me,
    No one misquoted you.

    accuse me of changing claims,
    You did change your claims.

    .
    -military contracts are a back door draft

    -Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks

    -the military is making you stay longer than your enlistment

    -stop loss is not part of the contract


    -you can be called back to service up to 8 years of your last date of service


    -Stop loss is slavery



    imply iam not a Vet,
    Surely a vet wouldn't imply all the bull**** you just stated. My contract wasn't the size of a metropolitan phone books and I am sure no one else's was either. If you really did serve then you should have a little packet with all your forms/contract in it or at least copies of those things in it and you can see that what you said is bull ****.



    make several other false accusations then you have the audacity to claim iam dishonest? Lol

    You are making dishonest claims like the ones above as well as the idiotic leftist lie that this war is illegal and then you are claiming that somehow what you said are examples of what other vets have stated. You are the one being dishonest. We can pull up your past post on this site.If I click on your user name a menue pops up and I can select "find more post by SkyCore" or I can just read this thread. So you should try very hard not to lie.



    And yes, you're a flaming lib like hellpuppy and goobie. You guys are just hiding behind a Conservative mask but you all support some of the most liberal policies in action today. Don't be ashamed to be a lib! Be proud!
    You tried to use McCain as some sort conservative reference to support your claim that stop loss is controversial, you are making the claim that stop loss is a back door draft(only libs do those things) and you are uttering the liberal lie that the war in Iraq is illegal(only libs do those things), who the hell are you to call anyone a liberal?
    "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

  7. #217
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    You charged me as saying:


    -Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks (Marine recruiting station under attack... again)


    I never said that yet you claimed I did to justify your accusations iam lying or a dumbass or something equally brilliant.






    I never changed my claim. I pointed out it is not a static part of the contract. I also never said it was "buried in a phone book sized contract.". Then you accuse me of assuming nobody on here has served? Lol. What joke.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html


    Hell no I didn't read the whole thing...even if you wanted to your enlistment would be over by the time you finished. It's like a metro phonebook for NYC, LA, Tokyo, and Russia all wrapped in one. My recruiter told me about the IRR but the way he explained it was this:


    Funny I never have seen a contract for the military that big.

    So lets review, your asvab score was so high that the put you in for "extra testing"

    You signed a "triple phone book contract" that you didnt read.


    You used a dead Iraqi's AK in the gulf war when you were bogged down for 18 hours after you ran out of ammo for your "m16's and nines"


    Did I get all this right?

    EPIC FAIL



    And yes, you're a flaming lib like hellpuppy and goobie. You guys are just hiding behind a Conservative mask but you all support some of the most liberal policies in action today. Don't be ashamed to be a lib! Be proud!



    I suspect a sock puppett here, can we get an ip check on aisle three...
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 03-26-09 at 07:26 AM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #218
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    This is your statement not mine,click on the link it is your post-


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

    Hell no I didn't read the whole thing...even if you wanted to your enlistment would be over by the time you finished. It's like a metro phonebook for NYC, LA, Tokyo, and Russia all wrapped in one. My recruiter told me about the IRR but the way he explained it was this:







    You claimed it was not part of your contract and not only that in the same post you claimed that the military can call you back to service after your last day of service.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970450-post55.html


    Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract.
    It is something that can be instituted or withdrawn at anytime, which is why Second of Def Gates has recently rescinded the program. If it was "part of the contract" it would not be carte blanche. There is a part of the contract for IRR committments (inactive ready reserves) which means once your enlisted term is up and you've left the military it can call you back to active duty for up to 8 years after your last date of service.



    How are you going to claim you didn't say those things? IS someone else posting as you?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

    Hell no I didn't read the whole thing...even if you wanted to your enlistment would be over by the time you finished. It's like a metro phonebook for NYC, LA, Tokyo, and Russia all wrapped in one. My recruiter told me about the IRR but the way he explained it was this:




    Then why make up a bunch of bull **** that contracts are the size of phonebooks,that there is no stoploss in your contract?DO you have a dd 214?



    No one is changing what you said.It is you who is changing what you said. First you claim stop loss is not part of your contract and then you claim its buried and then when it is pointed out to you that it is not you still stick to your claim it is slavery.


    You made bogus claims support one your liberal notions that stop loss is a back door draft.





    No one misquoted you.



    You did change your claims.

    .
    -military contracts are a back door draft

    -Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks

    -the military is making you stay longer than your enlistment

    -stop loss is not part of the contract


    -you can be called back to service up to 8 years of your last date of service


    -Stop loss is slavery




    Surely a vet wouldn't imply all the bull**** you just stated. My contract wasn't the size of a metropolitan phone books and I am sure no one else's was either. If you really did serve then you should have a little packet with all your forms/contract in it or at least copies of those things in it and you can see that what you said is bull ****.






    You are making dishonest claims like the ones above as well as the idiotic leftist lie that this war is illegal and then you are claiming that somehow what you said are examples of what other vets have stated. You are the one being dishonest. We can pull up your past post on this site.If I click on your user name a menue pops up and I can select "find more post by SkyCore" or I can just read this thread. So you should try very hard not to lie.





    You tried to use McCain as some sort conservative reference to support your claim that stop loss is controversial, you are making the claim that stop loss is a back door draft(only libs do those things) and you are uttering the liberal lie that the war in Iraq is illegal(only libs do those things), who the hell are you to call anyone a liberal?


    I never said it was "impossible to read the contract." Good freaking grief. When I responded to stryker and made the phonebook comment it was simply hyperbole. Do you know what that means? I didn't literally mean it was as big as a metro book and didn't think anyone would take that seriously but now I realize some go on constant "gotcha!" snipe hunts. Should I explain each statement so you will know the diff between hyperbolies and literal statements? Let me know what I can do to help you read.

    As for the contract...for the fifth time, stop loss is not a static part of the contract. Why do you ignoring the fact I have repeated that? When I said it wasn't part of the contract I was pointing out it's not a standing order. Obeying the UCMJ is a static part, but not Stop Loss. Thay was my point. Either you can't understand that or you are purposefully being obtuse.


    As for iraq being illegal...nice job ignoring all the evidence I posted, including the fact Perle admitted it was illegal years ago. Is this how it works with you? Change what others say, make false accusations and then ignore factual information out of convenience? No wonder it isn't understand why you are a liberal.


    Then you add more lies. I never said "military contracts" are a backdoor draft. I said stop loss is a backdoor draft. Then you claim I used mccain as a "conservative" reference point. I never made that claim either. He was simply one person from the linked article that disagrees with the policy.

    Go ahead and lie some more because it's funny to watch the pro-war crowd make themselves look so ridiculous they not only ignore every inconvenient fact but they have to continuously lie just to have something to say.
    Last edited by SkyCore; 03-26-09 at 08:47 AM.

  9. #219
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    I never said it was "impossible to read the contract." Good freaking grief. When I responded to stryker and made the phonebook comment it was simply hyperbole. Do you know what that means? I didn't literally mean it was as big as a metro book and didn't think anyone would take that seriously but now I realize some go on constant "gotcha!" snipe hunts. Should I explain each statement so you will know the diff between hyperbolies and literal statements? Let me know what I can do to help you read.

    oh so now it was "hyperbole"..... given that, are you also saying your war story was hyperbole as well?



    As for the contract...for the fifth time, stop loss is not a static part of the contract. Why do you ignoring the fact I have repeated that? When I said it wasn't part of the contract I was pointing out it's not a standing order. Obeying the UCMJ is a static part, but not Stop Loss. Thay was my point. Either you can't understand that or you are purposefully being obtuse.
    There is only one person being "obtuse" here. it is you.

    "Stop-loss, in the United States military, is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date. It also applies to the cessation of a permanent change of station (PCS) move for a member still in military service. Stop-loss was used immediately before and during the first Persian Gulf War. Since then, it has been used during American military deployments to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror.

    The policy has been legally challenged several times, however federal courts have consistently found that military service members contractually agree that their term of service may be involuntarily extended."

    Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




    As for iraq being illegal...nice job ignoring all the evidence I posted, including the fact Perle admitted it was illegal years ago. Is this how it works with you? Change what others say, make false accusations and then ignore factual information out of convenience? No wonder it isn't understand why you are a liberal.
    Well if Perle admitted it!


    Then you add more lies. I never said "military contracts" are a backdoor draft. I said stop loss is a backdoor draft. Then you claim I used mccain as a "conservative" reference point. I never made that claim either. He was simply one person from the linked article that disagrees with the policy.

    Go ahead and lie some more because it's funny to watch the pro-war crowd make themselves look so ridiculous they not only ignore every inconvenient fact but they have to continuously lie just to have something to say.



    you sure do complain about "lies" a lot and thats not very irie mon.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #220
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html


    Hell no I didn't read the whole thing...even if you wanted to your enlistment would be over by the time you finished. It's like a metro phonebook for NYC, LA, Tokyo, and Russia all wrapped in one. My recruiter told me about the IRR but the way he explained it was this:


    Funny I never have seen a contract for the military that big.

    So lets review, your asvab score was so high that the put you in for "extra testing"

    You signed a "triple phone book contract" that you didnt read.


    You used a dead Iraqi's AK in the gulf war when you were bogged down for 18 hours after you ran out of ammo for your "m16's and nines"


    Did I get all this right?

    EPIC FAIL








    I suspect a sock puppett here, can we get an ip check on aisle three...


    Wow. You guys are like the Three Musketeers of Lying. Like I've already pointed out, I was being hyperbolic about my contract size when I signed it. I think that is known but you're desperate to personally attack others when facts aren't on your side.

    I also never said I used AK's from "dead iraqis" so what is that? About the tenth lie you straight up told? Do you get paid to lie because you practice the art of it like a pro. I also never said we "were bogged down" for 18 hours. What I did say is we used captured AK's because we ran out of ammo because our butterball had the wrong radio frequencies which left us out of touch with the main body for 18 hours. There were only 11 of us on the FWC and I didn't personally have a nine but three other guys did. But why am I wasting time? I know you'll continue to keep lying because that is what liars do.

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 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
  •