• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine recruiting station under attack... again

Did you cheat on your ASVAB test to get in the military,did the military start allowing high school dropouts who haven't even got a good enough diploma(GED) to join the military?

Actually, my score was so high I was moved into further testing with some others who excelled as well.


But thanks for once again showing how the pro-war crowd rely mainly on ad homs. Take those away and you'd probably have about 4 posts per year.



Are you trying to argue that a military contract is not legal?


First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged. Die hard liberals like yourself wouldn't dare challenge the government but thank goodness not everyone serving or who has served is a dyed-in-the-wool Lib.


"He had already completed in June the eight years he promised to serve in the Oregon National Guard. But the Army told him in October it would reactivate him under its stop-loss rule, sending him for the first time overseas, away from his wife and family."


"Santiago is one of more than a dozen U.S. soldiers challenging in court the way the administration is using the stop-loss rule. Under federal law, the Pentagon can involuntarily extend the deployment of any reserve officer who's on active duty, if the president believes it's essential to national security."



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."


"The policy has been controversial. Republican Sen. John McCain has called it a "backdoor draft" as have many Democrats."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/stop-loss_2-24.html
 
Actually, my score was so high I was moved into further testing with some others who excelled as well.


Was that when they gave you your "m16's and nines"? :doh:lol:


But thanks for once again showing how the pro-war crowd rely mainly on ad homs. Take those away and you'd probably have about 4 posts per year.


Says the guy who name calls and attacks in pretty much 100% of his posts. :lol:





First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged. Die hard liberals like yourself wouldn't dare challenge the government but thank goodness not everyone serving or who has served is a dyed-in-the-wool Lib.


"He had already completed in June the eight years he promised to serve in the Oregon National Guard. But the Army told him in October it would reactivate him under its stop-loss rule, sending him for the first time overseas, away from his wife and family."


"Santiago is one of more than a dozen U.S. soldiers challenging in court the way the administration is using the stop-loss rule. Under federal law, the Pentagon can involuntarily extend the deployment of any reserve officer who's on active duty, if the president believes it's essential to national security."



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."


"The policy has been controversial. Republican Sen. John McCain has called it a "backdoor draft" as have many Democrats."
Online NewsHour: Soldiers Challenge Military's Stop-loss Order -- February 24, 2005




:lol: I see opinions, I see no judgments.



EPIC FAIL
 
Actually, the problem here is one of perception and image. The Marines are doing it all wrong, and are out of date and tacky.

If you want to recruit in places like Berkeley, Oakland, San Fransisco, and other similar areas, you have to have an updated image.

Meet the new image:

funkyunclesam.jpg


The folks at Berkley will now no longer be attacking the recruiting station there. In fact, they will now be tripping over each other to join up. And Uncle Sam can thank me for the advise by sending me money. Hell, this crap is worth a hell of a lot more than advice from stockbrokers and bankers, and look at all the money Uncle Sam gave to them. Now I want my cut.

:mrgreen:
 
First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged. Die hard liberals like yourself wouldn't dare challenge the government but thank goodness not everyone serving or who has served is a dyed-in-the-wool Lib.
Please provide an example of any military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.
 
What you fail to understand that is that even if the person making the point is hypocritical in doing so, that alone does not invalidate the point.

And so, rather than address the point, you misdirect the conversation towards the supposed hypocrisy.

If -I- had no way of effectively addressing the heart of the matter, I'd do what you're doing -- using obfuscation and misdirection to change the focus of the discussion.



Okay. I condemned the vandalism long ago so how am I changing the focus of the discussion? Sometimes I think about more than one issue at a time...is that discouraged here?
 
Nope, the argument is logically sound. I don't give a crap who your hero is. It's not an American patriot, that's certain, and that's all that matters.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams round out the top of my list. Jefferson in particular because I love his political philosophy and mandates on the restrictions upon government. Theodore Roosevelt is up there too cause he was a bad ass.

I could if I could recall the number of the resolution authorizing the president to use force to remove Hussein from Iraq.

As I told you, the Constitution doesn't define what form a "declaration of war" has to take.

You'll get over it. The Constitution is supposed to be read carefully.

I do that.

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. 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. 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 ***** move by a bunch of spineless, big government aristocrats and nothing less.

Then you can explain why you can't understand that the Constitution doesn't specify the format of the declaration of war.

You can do that, can't you?

I could, if I was interested enough to bother.

Needless to say, you've lost your argument because you don't have one anymore. It's been shot out from beneath you.

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.
 
Actually, my score was so high I was moved into further testing with some others who excelled as well.

For some reason I doubt that. IF you are intelligent as you claim to be then you wouldn't be claiming the following-

-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



So either you are dumbass,you are liar and making **** up as you go along, or you are Jessie MacBeth(someone who enlisted but didn't complete basic,so he made up stories to milk *****fist for fame).Which is it? You are on the internet posting on a public forum so anything you have previously said can be pulled up.






First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged.

What are the forms? Can you provide some examples. If I can pull up dd form 4/1 then you should be able to pull up additional contracts. You should be able to provide some numbers seeing how the military gives you a copy of everything you sign.Those forms should be it your little do not throw away packet.



"He had already completed in June the eight years he promised to serve in the Oregon National Guard. But the Army told him in October it would reactivate him under its stop-loss rule, sending him for the first time overseas, away from his wife and family."
Considering the desperation of the anti-war left, one has to wonder if this story is true or if this is just a clerical error that was later cleared up.


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."


Online NewsHour: Soldiers Challenge Military's Stop-loss Order -- February 24, 2005


If his contract reads like everyone else's in the military then he is a fool full of **** for trying to make this claim.


"The policy has been controversial. Republican Sen. John McCain has called it a "backdoor draft" as have many Democrats."


Because a bunch of liberals say so then it must be true?How are you going to be running around calling me of all people a liberal and then try to cite what they say as some sort of proof? Yes I am calling a McCain a liberal, when it comes to republicans he is the worst one to try to use.That man has tossed more salad than a inmate at Rikers.
 
Please provide an example of any military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.


Why would I need to provide that example? I never made that claim. Here is what I did say:

"First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged."

I've already provided examples of that.
 
Why would I need to provide that example? I never made that claim. Here is what I did say:

"First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged."

I've already provided examples of that.
So, you admit that there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.

Your exception to the legality of military service contracts, and its support of your claim that stop/loss is slavery, is thus removed.
 
For some reason I doubt that. IF you are intelligent as you claim to be then you wouldn't be claiming the following-

-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



So either you are dumbass,you are liar and making **** up as you go along, or you are Jessie MacBeth(someone who enlisted but didn't complete basic,so he made up stories to milk *****fist for fame).Which is it? You are on the internet posting on a public forum so anything you have previously said can be pulled up.








What are the forms? Can you provide some examples. If I can pull up dd form 4/1 then you should be able to pull up additional contracts. You should be able to provide some numbers seeing how the military gives you a copy of everything you sign.Those forms should be it your little do not throw away packet.




Considering the desperation of the anti-war left, one has to wonder if this story is true or if this is just a clerical error that was later cleared up.





If his contract reads like everyone else's in the military then he is a fool full of **** for trying to make this claim.





Because a bunch of liberals say so then it must be true?How are you going to be running around calling me of all people a liberal and then try to cite what they say as some sort of proof? Yes I am calling a McCain a liberal, when it comes to republicans he is the worst one to try to use.That man has tossed more salad than a inmate at Rikers.


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 cited those examples of challenging the Stop Loss to show it isn't as cut and dry as some claim.


Well, iam smart enough to not care what you think. The only thing worse than a flaming lib is a dishonest one.
 
Nice another red herring.

Face it you are wrong. YOu were ignorant of your contract and you want to call all of us who served "slaves" because of stop-loss, when all you had to do was read your contract.


I never said everyone who served were slaves. What is it with this constant lying? Is this the only way the pro-war crowd can discuss an issue?


The war was not illegal. We are sovereign not subservient to the UN global socialists/.


Never said we are subservient. But I do love how this exposes yet another hypcritical leg of the pro-war crowd. Most of you LOVE to scream how often Iraq violated UN Resolutions....so the UN is good enough to reference when it's convenient to defend the invasion but the UN is meaningless in any other respect.

Our own Constitution states all Treaties we sign are the supreme law so when we violated our Treaty with the UN we also violated our own Constitution.

Article 6

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html


It also violated the Nuremberg Charter (Article VI) and United Nations Charter (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Article 39) and U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.


Even richard perle admitted it was illegal! Lol


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/1120hawk.htm


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2005/1222belligerent.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2005/0324wilmshurst.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0916illegal.htm


(Our former US ambassador to the UN)
"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/issues/iraq/document/2002/1108usstat.htm
 
So, you admit that there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.

Your exception to the legality of military service contracts, and its support of your claim that stop/loss is slavery, is thus removed.

What is this? Strawman central? I never said:

"...there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance."


Why ignore what I said then put words in my mouth on top of that? Blimy. My argument is Stop Loss is a form of slavery. Can you understand what that means?
 
What is this? Strawman central? I never said:
"...there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance."
Do you disagree with that statement?

Blimy. My argument is Stop Loss is a form of slavery.
Yes - and, given that all of the members of the -all volunteer- military voluntarily sign a contract that includes having their enlistmenst extended as necessary, its an argument you cannot support.
 
Last edited:
Yup, i don't think the marines would like that very much.

I recall a story a while back when a marine caught a liberal vandalizing his car, because he had a Marines bumper sticker.

Turns out that that fine guy was a liberal, and tried to sue him for detaining him.


Er, i mean turns out he was a lawyer
 
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:
+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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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 ***** move by a bunch of spineless, big government aristocrats and nothing less.

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

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....

:roll:
 
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.
 
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.

crushing_your_head.jpg
 
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....

:roll:

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom