<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Jun 4 2004, 06:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Jun 4 2004, 06:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And not only that, but we're talking about the president of a country. Being able to speak well in public is rather important don't you think ? How can someone lead if they can't communicate ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, I know it isn't exactly desirable, and I'm still wavering on whether or not I'd vote for Bush, I was just saying that despite anything else you might say about him, he isn't stupid.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Jun 4 2004, 12:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Jun 4 2004, 12:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The whole "Bush is a raving idiot" line Talesin keeps pushing is a load of carp. For starters, recognize that you can't judge someone's intelligence by how they speak in public. Though his slip-ups are rather embarrassing, intelligence doesn't automatically mean you are an excellent orator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not to mention his bare 'C' GPA at Yale, and his testing out of the officers' training exam in the 25th percentile.. the lowest possible passing grade. Or his cocaine addiction earlier in life. Or mixing metaphors, blank look in his eyes when he speaks, referring to the Sep 11th hijackers as 'folks'... <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More importantly, if you claim that Bush is mental or whatever, you also claim that basically 50.1% of the US is just as dumb or dumber than he is. He <u>is</u> the president, yes? <u>We</u> elected him. I'm still confused about what exactly happened with Florida, but even if he should have lost Florida he still got enough votes to make it look close - 50% of the population. So gj for saying half of America is retarded. He may be a fool, but if he is he sure fooled a lot of us, so his intelligence really shouldn't be an issue. Forget whatever else he's done, if he was a moron, he wouldn't be president. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A surprising and scary fact: 50% of all the people in the world are of below-average intelligence. Also, when the recount was no longer delayed (after the supreme court placed Bush in office) it was revealed that Gore actually won the vote by over 6%. Big numbers considering the number of people involved. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh yeah, repeatedly calling someone a "raving smacktard" doesn't prove your point so much as it just portrays YOU as a raving liberal. Once again, gj.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, no... I don't particularly hate conservatives, hug trees, vote to go bail out third-world countries.. I have a low tolerance for stupidity is all. And it does tick me off to no end when we have a moron representing us as Americans to the rest of the world. I dislike having to APOLOGIZE for my nation of birth when I meet a new friend internationally, and do my best to prove that we do in fact have more than two brain cells to rub together.
Now I have two things to set a good example as... showing that you don't have to be afraid that a homosexual will whip out a dress and start dragging Celine Dion at any moment, and that an American can think independently, and doesn't scarf down cheap fast food and steaks all day long while getting fatter and fatter.
Lets face it, Kerry is a yesman, he says he votes for something when the time is good for the public hes AROUND, and then he changes his opinion to another crowd for when the time is right. I would not trust this guy at all.
Bush, fortuantely, has a plan. The economy has not only improved, but things in Iraq are quieting down so I imagine that by the end of his last term then it might be well and over, or nearly over. Besides, this pesky stuff about mistreating terrorists prisoners is stupid. Rule numero uno!
Terrorists have a right to a bullet in the head. You forfeit your rights when you become a terrorists with the intent to hurt or kill other people. So, instead of worrying about feeding you and clothing you and having the media **** about putting underwear on their heads while they are sawing off peoples heads, I would just as soon cap yer' ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A surprising and scary fact: 50% of all the people in the world are of below-average intelligence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you are going to be a smart **** about it at least be right. It would be 49.9999999999999% (just put a line over that last 9 to show it continues forever)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, when the recount was no longer delayed (after the supreme court placed Bush in office) it was revealed that Gore actually won the vote by over 6%. Big numbers considering the number of people involved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are refering to Florida's vote (Because thats the only place the recount mattered), I seem to remember that every independent recount(run by left and right organizations) showed bush to be the winner. The popular vote does not matter, you cannot change the rules when the result does not reflect what you like.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually there was a debate about it afterward (and a couple of other states did recounts as well, leading to the 6% tally) but the supreme court refused to reverse their ruling after appointing him, even admitting that Gore had won.
And yes, though if I wanted to be a smart-aleck I'd actually go and look up the world population statistics and see if it was divisible by 2. If so, then 50% would be correct. If not, then it'd take a good few numbers to get the correct percentage off of somewhere upward of six billion. Which is all relative given that there is no one person exactly on the 'average intelligence' point other than by serendipity... what you're thinking of would be the mean intelligence. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Stupid math tricks.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 5 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 5 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually there was a debate about it afterward (and a couple of other states did recounts as well, leading to the 6% tally) but the supreme court refused to reverse their ruling after appointing him, even admitting that Gore had won.
And yes, though if I wanted to be a smart-aleck I'd actually go and look up the world population statistics and see if it was divisible by 2. If so, then 50% would be correct. If not, then it'd take a good few numbers to get the correct percentage off of somewhere upward of six billion. Which is all relative given that there is no one person exactly on the 'average intelligence' point other than by serendipity... what you're thinking of would be the mean intelligence. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Stupid math tricks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you guys want to talk about <i>median</i> intelligence. Means are greatly influenced by outliers. You could have 25% of the world have below average intelligence.
However, ~50% of the world will always have below median intelligence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 5 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 5 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually there was a debate about it afterward (and a couple of other states did recounts as well, leading to the 6% tally) but the supreme court refused to reverse their ruling after appointing him, even admitting that Gore had won.
<!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Jun 4 2004, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Jun 4 2004, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More importantly, if you claim that Bush is mental or whatever, you also claim that basically 50.1% of the US is just as dumb or dumber than he is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's all and well, but Bush didn't win 50.1% of the American votes, Gore did. Kind of funny how even though more of the nation wanted Gore in power, we still got Bush. A flaw in the system? Maybe.
Did you just completely ignore the post above yours or are you completely unable to accept that Bush is lawfully president? If there is a flaw it would be the system it's self, but I think it worked fine in this instance.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 4 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 4 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still waiting for your facts, Marine. Hand us a link to the portion of the law supporting your claim. I've already handed you four sites (and have plenty more) stating that he is a deserter. You should be able to find at least one resource to support your claim. Beyond that, your argument boils down to 'no he isn't!!'.
Facts. Bring 'em. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I see, you wanted a link. Well you asked, and handman, living up to his name, was extremely handy and provided it for me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 4 2004, 04:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 4 2004, 04:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still waiting for your facts, Marine. Hand us a link to the portion of the law supporting your claim. I've already handed you four sites (and have plenty more) stating that he is a deserter. You should be able to find at least one resource to support your claim. Beyond that, your argument boils down to 'no he isn't!!'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will do it for him since he is borrowing my post.
Here is a PDF file, pretty lengthy, describing policies on AWOL, desertion, and military personnel involved in civilian court.
I draw your attention to the third page under the applicability section
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Applicability. This regulation applies to Active Army, Army National Guard of the United States, and United States Army Reserve personnel <b>lawfully ordered to active duty or active duty for training under the provisions of title 10</b>, United States Code. This regulation is applicable during mobilization.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If am not mistaken, Bush's unit was never activated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The facts have been brought. Unless you can find proof his unit was activated, (and that would be weird considering it was still in the States doing little) my claims pertaining to the suspicious nature of overemotional Bush-beating stand. Its propaganda aimed at a man, designed for the small mind.
One quote encompassing both the Idol + Big Brother phenomona, and irrational, emotion driven Bushbeating - /pats self on back.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm getting really tired of everyone saying its FOR DEMOCRACY when true democracy hasn't been practiced in how long? People preach and preach its for a good cause, well, that starfish? Yeah the guy who tossed the starfish back to the ocean didn't kill a man to get there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some starfish wont survive the 10 second flight to freedom. Some Iraqi's wont survive the war for their freedom. Either way its the greatest good for the greatest number. Oh, and I hope to God you never get a licence to drive, because in the event you hit someone, you'll just keep driving. You helped cause their pain remember - best to just keep on driving and put the past behind you. Never forget you could possibly hurt them more when you put them in your car to take them to hospital, it is infinitely preferable to leave him bleeding on the roadside.
Also striking was the way you whine about true democracy... while sitting at a computer.... typing in a forum using reading and writing skills you learned in school... in a city where you can voice your opinion without being bundled off to the local prision...in a country where you have medical help if you need it, fresh clean running water, abundant supplies of cheap food etc etc etc The list of what a great democracy has given you goes on, and its hypocritical to complain about what a failure it is when you live in the top 10% of the worlds wealthy thanks too it.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Jun 5 2004, 12:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Jun 5 2004, 12:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if you are going to be a smart **** about it at least be right. It would be 49.9999999999999% (just put a line over that last 9 to show it continues forever) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, if you really want to be a smart donkey, 49.99999 repeating is exactly equal to 50. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Not exactly. It's just a uselessly fine infinite that's defined as being rounded up to the next number. You can deal with it if you get into imaginary math. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And Marine, why act so smug when you didn't have to look it up yourself, or do any work to get an answer?
Also.. it'd take a lot of work to classify in-process officers' training to maintain flight status as 'not active'. Does that mean that if I join the national guard, I'm allowed to bugger out of boot camp whenever I feel like it? COOL! I'll just follow the example and head out to the beach until activation comes around, then report in promptly. After all, they can't prosecute me for that, apparently.
Oh, wait. That's right! <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Applicability. This regulation applies to Active Army, Army National Guard of the United States, and United States Army Reserve personnel lawfully ordered to active duty <b>or active duty for training</b> under the provisions of title 10, United States Code. This regulation is applicable during mobilization. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He was still in the process of dealing with the flight training when he went AWOL/deserted. He also missed a physical exam (*coughcocainecough*) and was not given the boot. The good ol' boys' network runs deep, it would seem. There are signed admissions by both COs stating that he was supposed to be at the other base. Having transfer papers from your CO to report in to your destination transfer is not a legal obligation? You can just say 'screw this' to a standing set of orders from your CO, without repercussion?
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 4 2004, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 4 2004, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And it does tick me off to no end when we have a moron representing us as Americans to the rest of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A nation that's killing itself by eating too much is a nation of morons...
You seem to have no interest in discussing Bush's "AWOL" status. I have pointed it out in bland and white. You cannot go AWOL or Desert in the reserves unless your unit is federalized. Bush's unit was never federalized, thus he was never AWOL. If you want to say he was irresponsible for not showing up for training, than that is fine. IF you want to argue that Bush went into the reserves to avoid military service, that is fine. You arguement that Bush went AWOL holds no water, you can quote all the articles you want; the reporters who wrote the article either were to lazy to research how the law applies to the reserves or they have a seperate agenda. If, however, the document i provided that clearly states the law is not enough, than go find someone in the reserves and ask them about it.
As for him being at the wrong base, the thing about the reserves is there is no wrong base. Reservist train on bases close to where they work. If you are a reservist in Pennsylvania and move to New York for a job, you report to a New York base for your training. Bush was suppose to change to a different base in Texas, but got a job in alabama. That is why he was at the wrong base. In short the reserves cannot move you away from your job.
<!--QuoteBegin-Recoup+Jun 5 2004, 02:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Recoup @ Jun 5 2004, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Terrorists have a right to a bullet in the head. You forfeit your rights when you become a terrorists with the intent to hurt or kill other people. So, instead of worrying about feeding you and clothing you and having the media **** about putting underwear on their heads while they are sawing off peoples heads, I would just as soon cap yer' ****.
I'd vote for Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.
Remember, one of the reasons why terrorists are evil is because they <i>don't</i> distinguish between military and civilian. If you want to walk down that path, be my guest, but don't fool yourself into believing for a second that you're still on the high road.
<!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Jun 5 2004, 12:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Jun 5 2004, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A nation that's killing itself by eating too much is a nation of morons... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only morons are the ones who think we're killing ourselves by eating too much. Stupid media and its ability to blow the stupidest things way out of proportion, but that’s another topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.
Remember, one of the reasons why terrorists are evil is because they don't distinguish between military and civilian. If you want to walk down that path, be my guest, but don't fool yourself into believing for a second that you're still on the high road.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but didn't we release nearly all of the prisoners determined to be innocent? And lets be honest, it's allot easier to determine the difference between a soldier in uniform from a civilian. These guys don't wear uniforms, and everyone has a gun in that bloody country. Better to be safe then sorry, whats so good about the moral high road? It's been my experience that the person who takes the moral high ground loses big in the end. I guess the US has forgotten how to win a war.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 5 2004, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 5 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Jun 5 2004, 12:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Jun 5 2004, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A nation that's killing itself by eating too much is a nation of morons... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only morons are the ones who think we're killing ourselves by eating too much. Stupid media and its ability to blow the stupidest things way out of proportion, but that’s another topic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess that's what you say if you're fat and don't want to own up to your problem. Obesity is about to pass smoking as the number one preventable cause of heart disease, and you blow it off as liberal media? Let's see, an addictive drug vs. eating too much, which is dumber to die from. We are FAT damn it, too fat for our own health and WAY too fat considering how many people are starving in other countries. A world where people die from eating too much right next to people not eating enough, the answer seems pretty clear to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think the confusion is our fault at all. The terrorists put their own countrymen at risk with their guerilla warfare, because we simply can't distinguish between a fighter and a civilian on the battlefield, which quite often happens to be a city.
Can someone answer this question: Are the fighters/terrorists in Iraq right now Iraquis that support Saddam, misguided patriots who just want a foreign power out of their country, or fighters from other countries who don't care about the Iraqui people and just want to fight us because we're Americans?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
I see nothing about being federalized in that PDF you'd sent. It does, however, include 'under active training' which is what Bush was doing. Unless 'lawfully ordered to active duty for training' covers that. Though... as far as I know, a commanding officer's order to report for training detail is a lawful order to report for duty.
Funny how shorthand can grow to 'federalized', when the actual documents don't mention it. Or even include the word at all.
1. To unite in a federal union. 2. To subject to the authority of a federal government; put under federal control. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
That's all well and good, but the state military also has laws on desertion. Which does not require being actively placed under federal control... they'll just as easily throw you in jail for ten with a DD as the federal government would by deserting any 'official' branches of the armed forces (though.. how the National Guard is not 'official' is a bit difficult to swallow).
Also, you appear to have ignored my prior post. He was in an officers' training school at the time. Undergoing training. And VANISHED COMPLETELY for over a year. No sign of him, hide, hair, or blank stare. I can't help but find it amusing that it'd appear you haven't even read your own 'bland and white' PDF.
I'll say it once more, slowly. He was under legal orders to report for training. That places him as being subject to the rules and laws put forth in that document, as well as more pertinent local ones. Therefore, he is a deserter.
<!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Jun 5 2004, 04:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Jun 5 2004, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess that's what you say if you're fat and don't want to own up to your problem. Obesity is about to pass smoking as the number one preventable cause of heart disease, and you blow it off as liberal media? Let's see, an addictive drug vs. eating too much, which is dumber to die from. We are FAT damn it, too fat for our own health and WAY too fat considering how many people are starving in other countries. A world where people die from eating too much right next to people not eating enough, the answer seems pretty clear to me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> One, I'm skinny, to the point of unhealthiness, this makes me rather unsympathetic to the poor over eaters. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Two, I did not blow it off as "liberal" media, I simply said media, don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea how incredibly annoying it is to have this "America is Fat", "We are all fat, and we're going to die because of it!" garbage shoved in my face. Speak for yourself, honestly people CAN control their weight, there are some that are born that way and what can you do? If someone is too stupid to not realize they are eating too much they deserve to be fat, it's not that hard to stay in shape.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Marine, why act so smug when you didn't have to look it up yourself, or do any work to get an answer? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HA! Judging from your postings in this thread, I thought smugness and overbearing arrogance was the order of the day. In actual fact I DID do work to find that. To quote the relevant portion of my pm to handman:
I'm arguing in a thread about everyone's favourite President Bush, and to counter a "deserter" claim I used your claim that you cannot desert from a National Guard unit unless it had been federalized. I was then asked for a link, and spent a fruitless hour trying to find the relevant military law.
Can you link me to anything credible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oops, wrong again... Forgive me for resenting the obvious insinuation when you demanded the "facts" from me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Funny how shorthand can grow to 'federalized', when the actual documents don't mention it. Or even include the word at all.
1. To unite in a federal union. 2. To subject to the authority of a federal government; put under federal control. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suggestion, open google and type in "federalized USAR". You'll see it refered to several times interchangably with mobilised. I fail to see the relevance of federalized becoming shorthand.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I see nothing about being federalized in that PDF you'd sent. It does, however, include 'under active training' which is what Bush was doing. Unless 'lawfully ordered to active duty for training' covers that. Though... as far as I know, a commanding officer's order to report for training detail is a lawful order to report for duty. That's all well and good, but the state military also has laws on desertion. Which does not require being actively placed under federal control... they'll just as easily throw you in jail for ten with a DD as the federal government would by deserting any 'official' branches of the armed forces (though.. how the National Guard is not 'official' is a bit difficult to swallow).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I understand, when a National Guard unit is mobilised, it becomes like any other part of the military. All members are ordered to report for active service immediately, are housed by the military, are subject to military law, and then either trained or deployed. When they are NOT in active service, then members are required to do certain amounts of training each year. You dont have to do it specifically with your NG unit either - you can do it somewhere else, which is exemplified by two officers each thinking Bush was at the other states NG unit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The records show that National Guard officials credited Bush with enough points to meet minimum requirements for the 12-month period ending May 26, 1973, the period of the original alleged "gap" in his records. An Air Force "Reserve Personnel Record Card" shows Bush received a total of 9 points for active duty training, 31 points for inactive duty training, and 15 points awarded for his membership in the reserves. The points total 56, exceeding the 50-point requirement for satisfactory service during the period, though barely.
This is what happened to Bush. Like I quoted earlier, if you are in the National Guard, and its not mobilised, then if you dont show up, you dont get paid.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The records also show that Bush was credited with very little service during the period when he was in Alabama working on the unsuccessful 1972 Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blunt. Bush was paid and also got retirement credit for 30 days in the first four months of 1972, through April 16. But then begins a six-month gap.
During those six months Bush got permission from his National Guard superiors to attend non-flying drills in Montgomery. Also during that time he was officially grounded after he failed to take an annual physical examination required to maintain flying status. But the records show Bush received no pay or credits between April 16 and late October.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, you appear to have ignored my prior post. He was in an officers' training school at the time. Undergoing training. And VANISHED COMPLETELY for over a year. No sign of him, hide, hair, or blank stare. I can't help but find it amusing that it'd appear you haven't even read your own 'bland and white' PDF. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Over a year? Please, he had a six month gap, for which he was not paid, yet still lived up to the minimum requirements set by the National Guard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On February 10 Boston Globe reporter Walter V. Robinson -- who first reported four years ago that there was a year-long gap in Bush's record of National Guard service -- reported he had obtained two new documents that partially filled in that gap: "The personnel records. . . . constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time."
Didnt see hide, hair or blank stare of him eh? If you insist on going after Bush with such a passion, perhaps you should keep your research a little more up to date and rely less on those who refuse to let the facts get in the way of some good ol' fashioned Bush beating.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll say it once more, slowly. He was under legal orders to report for training. That places him as being subject to the rules and laws put forth in that document, as well as more pertinent local ones. Therefore, he is a deserter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll say it again quickly. He was not subject to the rules and laws put forth in that document, and if he was (which you have yet to actually prove), then he still fullfilled his obligations. Therefore, he is not a deserter.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 5 2004, 01:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 5 2004, 01:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did you just completely ignore the post above yours or are you completely unable to accept that Bush is lawfully president? If there is a flaw it would be the system it's self, but I think it worked fine in this instance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> wait, wait. did you say it worked fine? do you mean to imply that: when more than half of a (i'm starting to have doubts) democratic nation wishes for someone to represent them, and the other person is lawfully appointed, everything is ok?
i believe these links will be of intrest: <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy' target='_blank'>defenition of democracy</a> specifically defenition 4: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Majority rule.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> and <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=majority' target='_blank'>defenition of majority</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Jun 5 2004, 11:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Jun 5 2004, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wait, wait. did you say it worked fine? do you mean to imply that: when more than half of a (i'm starting to have doubts) democratic nation wishes for someone to represent them, and the other person is lawfully appointed, everything is ok?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well if you want to be nit picky, you can make an argument that nether president would truly represent the majority, given the large number of people that didn't vote.
Again, under US law, which is the only relevant thing when discussing this matter at the time, Bush won the election. He won the more important states, got the larger electoral vote, if you have a problem with it take it up with our countries founders.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually reasa... under the final count, Gore won Florida and two other states that were initially marked to Bush. It's just that the final count was not permitted to be completed until after Bush had been appointed. Hail to the thief, baby.
Marine, he did not live to the standards of the NG, as he was under ACTIVE TRAINING when he disappeared. He was transferred, arrived and reported in. Everything happy. Then he was transferred *back*. He didn't report in... so each of his COs thought he was at the other base, when in fact he was off dicking around somewhere that he will not admit to. He did not live up to the NG standards, as he missed a scheduled physical and refused to take the previous one. He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.
He was on active training detail, and he vanished. I don't know how much clearer I can make it that he was legally required to be on-site, but disregarded that and was never punished for it. The doublethink is apparently too strong to be overcome, even with facts that slap you across the face. But then... what else is new?
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 5 2004, 12:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 5 2004, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Jun 5 2004, 12:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Jun 5 2004, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A nation that's killing itself by eating too much is a nation of morons... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only morons are the ones who think we're killing ourselves by eating too much. Stupid media and its ability to blow the stupidest things way out of proportion, but that’s another topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.
Remember, one of the reasons why terrorists are evil is because they don't distinguish between military and civilian. If you want to walk down that path, be my guest, but don't fool yourself into believing for a second that you're still on the high road.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but didn't we release nearly all of the prisoners determined to be innocent? And lets be honest, it's allot easier to determine the difference between a soldier in uniform from a civilian. These guys don't wear uniforms, and everyone has a gun in that bloody country. Better to be safe then sorry, whats so good about the moral high road? It's been my experience that the person who takes the moral high ground loses big in the end. I guess the US has forgotten how to win a war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I completely agree with reasa, we should arrest at least half of the population and put them in prison because thats what democracy was founded upon, guilty until proven innocent. Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle. I love how democracy has no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment. Democracy definately seems to be working in Iraq!!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marine, he did not live to the standards of the NG, as he was under ACTIVE TRAINING when he disappeared. He was transferred, arrived and reported in. Everything happy. Then he was transferred *back*. He didn't report in... so each of his COs thought he was at the other base, when in fact he was off dicking around somewhere that he will not admit to. He did not live up to the NG standards, as he missed a scheduled physical and refused to take the previous one. He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some things you are saying there serve to give me the impression you aint reading my posts :/. He failed to arrive for a physical test, and for that he was grounded. Notice they GROUNDED HIM, not hauled before a military tribunal - that doesnt constitute desertion. He forefilled the requirements of active training, as clearly evidenced by my quotes in the earlier post. He recieved 9 points for active training, and 31 points for inactive training.
There are two sourced quotes below in my post disputing your claim they saw nothing of him for twelve months. These quotes are based around material released in 2004. You simply cant claim he didnt live up to NG standards when he fullfilled the minimum requirements of a Guardsman - when he got the required 50 points. He may have been grounded for failing a physical by non attendance - but he passed overall requirements.
To requote me and then you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On February 10 Boston Globe reporter Walter V. Robinson -- who first reported four years ago that there was a year-long gap in Bush's record of National Guard service -- reported he had obtained two new documents that partially filled in that gap: "The personnel records. . . . <b>constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you not reading what I am typing - or is this blanket denial? The Boston Globe where the ones that initially made the claims he was absent for 12 months - now they have taken that BACK.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, I completely agree with reasa, we should arrest at least half of the population and put them in prison because thats what democracy was founded upon, guilty until proven innocent. Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle. I love how democracy has no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment. Democracy definately seems to be working in Iraq!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, soooo much ignorance, so little time. Where to start. First of all, our entire legal system is based around the suspicion of guilt until proven innocent - which is why the cops arrest people BEFORE they appear in court. You choose to run around in Afghanistan packing an AK-47, a Koran and a tshirt with Taliban forever written on the front, dont be too surprised if they pack you off to prison for questioning. This is a war zone where the enemy deliberately dress like civilians to a)encourage US troops to shoot civilians to encourage civilians to resent them and b)as a form of camouflage. The US military does not do a random sweep of civilians and haul a select number off to Cuban prisons for fun. Now to deal with the mindblowing stupidity behind:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please explain to me how democracy made several rogue soldiers abuse prisoners? Go on, I dare you. Explain how a system whereby the people elect representatives to rule over their country made several soldiers do sick things to prisoners? Explain to me why in a country with "no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment" that the soldiers that did this are being prosecuted in American military courts. Explain why freedom of the press is rampant in Iraq, why productivity levels are climbing back to normal, why children are now attending schools again.
Dont worry, those were rhetorical requests. You'll be just as silent now as you were in this thread previously when I tore your "its an illegal war" argument to shreds.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Interesting, given that the two signed reports stand on file, Doonesbury has a $10,000 USD reward for any evidence, and other sources have $20 and $30K rewards for same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, I completely agree with reasa, we should arrest at least half of the population and put them in prison because thats what democracy was founded upon, guilty until proven innocent. Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle. I love how democracy has no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment. Democracy definately seems to be working in Iraq!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same laws that exist in a democracy do not exist in an occupied country where there is still resistance. It is a situation down there where if you let one guy go because you don't have enough evidence, you could be bury 30 people the next day because the guy came back with a bomb on his chest. That said the prison scandle was bad and those responsible should be held accountable. I do believe it to be blown out of scale when people are comparing it to 9/11. Given the choice between being burned alive or humiliated, i think a majority of the world would rather behumiliated.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 6 2004, 09:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 6 2004, 09:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, soooo much ignorance, so little time. Where to start. First of all, our entire legal system is based around the suspicion of guilt until proven innocent - which is why the cops arrest people BEFORE they appear in court. You choose to run around in Afghanistan packing an AK-47, a Koran and a tshirt with Taliban forever written on the front, dont be too surprised if they pack you off to prison for questioning. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, come on. Prisoners in the US have rights, and you know it. You cannot be held for more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime, you have access to a lawyer etc. That very clearly isn't going on in Iraq. I'm not going to argue that it should be, but please don't act like it is the same thing.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 7 2004, 02:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 7 2004, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, come on. Prisoners in the US have rights, and you know it. You cannot be held for more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime, you have access to a lawyer etc. That very clearly isn't going on in Iraq. I'm not going to argue that it should be, but please don't act like it is the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Prisoners in the US have rights as US citizens. These people are NOT US citizens, they are illegal combatants. They refuse to wear uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers of an army, and as such are unprotected by the Geneva convention statutes pertaining to the treatment of Prisoners of War - see <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
I was just trying to show that his statement was stupid when applied to both A) the situation in the American Democracy and B) the Iraq conflict.
Comments
Oh, I know it isn't exactly desirable, and I'm still wavering on whether or not I'd vote for Bush, I was just saying that despite anything else you might say about him, he isn't stupid.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to mention his bare 'C' GPA at Yale, and his testing out of the officers' training exam in the 25th percentile.. the lowest possible passing grade. Or his cocaine addiction earlier in life. Or mixing metaphors, blank look in his eyes when he speaks, referring to the Sep 11th hijackers as 'folks'...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
More importantly, if you claim that Bush is mental or whatever, you also claim that basically 50.1% of the US is just as dumb or dumber than he is. He <u>is</u> the president, yes? <u>We</u> elected him. I'm still confused about what exactly happened with Florida, but even if he should have lost Florida he still got enough votes to make it look close - 50% of the population. So gj for saying half of America is retarded. He may be a fool, but if he is he sure fooled a lot of us, so his intelligence really shouldn't be an issue. Forget whatever else he's done, if he was a moron, he wouldn't be president.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A surprising and scary fact: 50% of all the people in the world are of below-average intelligence.
Also, when the recount was no longer delayed (after the supreme court placed Bush in office) it was revealed that Gore actually won the vote by over 6%. Big numbers considering the number of people involved.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Oh yeah, repeatedly calling someone a "raving smacktard" doesn't prove your point so much as it just portrays YOU as a raving liberal. Once again, gj.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, no... I don't particularly hate conservatives, hug trees, vote to go bail out third-world countries.. I have a low tolerance for stupidity is all. And it does tick me off to no end when we have a moron representing us as Americans to the rest of the world. I dislike having to APOLOGIZE for my nation of birth when I meet a new friend internationally, and do my best to prove that we do in fact have more than two brain cells to rub together.
Now I have two things to set a good example as... showing that you don't have to be afraid that a homosexual will whip out a dress and start dragging Celine Dion at any moment, and that an American can think independently, and doesn't scarf down cheap fast food and steaks all day long while getting fatter and fatter.
Bush, fortuantely, has a plan. The economy has not only improved, but things in Iraq are quieting down so I imagine that by the end of his last term then it might be well and over, or nearly over. Besides, this pesky stuff about mistreating terrorists prisoners is stupid. Rule numero uno!
Terrorists have a right to a bullet in the head. You forfeit your rights when you become a terrorists with the intent to hurt or kill other people. So, instead of worrying about feeding you and clothing you and having the media **** about putting underwear on their heads while they are sawing off peoples heads, I would just as soon cap yer' ****.
I'd vote for Bush.
if you are going to be a smart **** about it at least be right. It would be 49.9999999999999% (just put a line over that last 9 to show it continues forever)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, when the recount was no longer delayed (after the supreme court placed Bush in office) it was revealed that Gore actually won the vote by over 6%. Big numbers considering the number of people involved.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are refering to Florida's vote (Because thats the only place the recount mattered), I seem to remember that every independent recount(run by left and right organizations) showed bush to be the winner. The popular vote does not matter, you cannot change the rules when the result does not reflect what you like.
And yes, though if I wanted to be a smart-aleck I'd actually go and look up the world population statistics and see if it was divisible by 2. If so, then 50% would be correct. If not, then it'd take a good few numbers to get the correct percentage off of somewhere upward of six billion. Which is all relative given that there is no one person exactly on the 'average intelligence' point other than by serendipity... what you're thinking of would be the mean intelligence. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Stupid math tricks.
And yes, though if I wanted to be a smart-aleck I'd actually go and look up the world population statistics and see if it was divisible by 2. If so, then 50% would be correct. If not, then it'd take a good few numbers to get the correct percentage off of somewhere upward of six billion. Which is all relative given that there is no one person exactly on the 'average intelligence' point other than by serendipity... what you're thinking of would be the mean intelligence. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Stupid math tricks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you guys want to talk about <i>median</i> intelligence. Means are greatly influenced by outliers. You could have 25% of the world have below average intelligence.
However, ~50% of the world will always have below median intelligence.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm</a>
Well according to this Bush had 47.87% of the popular vote.
Gore had 48.38%.
The difference is small, very small.
Now for the electoral vote, Bush got 271, Gore got 266.
According to US law Bush is the legal president of United States.
He simply won more important states then Gore did.
If there’s one thing that is sadly plain about these numbers it’s that not enough people voted that election, hopefully more people will this year.
That's all and well, but Bush didn't win 50.1% of the American votes, Gore did. Kind of funny how even though more of the nation wanted Gore in power, we still got Bush. A flaw in the system? Maybe.
Facts. Bring 'em. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I see, you wanted a link. Well you asked, and handman, living up to his name, was extremely handy and provided it for me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 4 2004, 04:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 4 2004, 04:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still waiting for your facts, Marine. Hand us a link to the portion of the law supporting your claim. I've already handed you four sites (and have plenty more) stating that he is a deserter. You should be able to find at least one resource to support your claim. Beyond that, your argument boils down to 'no he isn't!!'.
Facts. Bring 'em. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will do it for him since he is borrowing my post.
Here is a PDF file, pretty lengthy, describing policies on AWOL, desertion, and military personnel involved in civilian court.
<a href='https://www.perscomonline.army.mil/tagd/cmaoc/funeralhonors/r630_10.pdf' target='_blank'>Here</a>
I draw your attention to the third page under the applicability section
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Applicability.
This regulation applies to Active Army, Army National Guard of
the United States, and United States Army Reserve personnel <b>lawfully ordered to active duty or active duty for training under the provisions of title 10</b>, United States Code. This regulation is applicable during
mobilization.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If am not mistaken, Bush's unit was never activated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The facts have been brought. Unless you can find proof his unit was activated, (and that would be weird considering it was still in the States doing little) my claims pertaining to the suspicious nature of overemotional Bush-beating stand. Its propaganda aimed at a man, designed for the small mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
-- Laurence Peter<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One quote encompassing both the Idol + Big Brother phenomona, and irrational, emotion driven Bushbeating - /pats self on back.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm getting really tired of everyone saying its FOR DEMOCRACY when true democracy hasn't been practiced in how long? People preach and preach its for a good cause, well, that starfish? Yeah the guy who tossed the starfish back to the ocean didn't kill a man to get there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some starfish wont survive the 10 second flight to freedom. Some Iraqi's wont survive the war for their freedom. Either way its the greatest good for the greatest number. Oh, and I hope to God you never get a licence to drive, because in the event you hit someone, you'll just keep driving. You helped cause their pain remember - best to just keep on driving and put the past behind you. Never forget you could possibly hurt them more when you put them in your car to take them to hospital, it is infinitely preferable to leave him bleeding on the roadside.
Also striking was the way you whine about true democracy... while sitting at a computer.... typing in a forum using reading and writing skills you learned in school... in a city where you can voice your opinion without being bundled off to the local prision...in a country where you have medical help if you need it, fresh clean running water, abundant supplies of cheap food etc etc etc The list of what a great democracy has given you goes on, and its hypocritical to complain about what a failure it is when you live in the top 10% of the worlds wealthy thanks too it.
Actually, if you really want to be a smart donkey, 49.99999 repeating is exactly equal to 50. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And Marine, why act so smug when you didn't have to look it up yourself, or do any work to get an answer?
Also.. it'd take a lot of work to classify in-process officers' training to maintain flight status as 'not active'.
Does that mean that if I join the national guard, I'm allowed to bugger out of boot camp whenever I feel like it? COOL! I'll just follow the example and head out to the beach until activation comes around, then report in promptly. After all, they can't prosecute me for that, apparently.
Oh, wait. That's right!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Applicability.
This regulation applies to Active Army, Army National Guard of
the United States, and United States Army Reserve personnel lawfully ordered to active duty <b>or active duty for training</b> under the provisions of title 10, United States Code. This regulation is applicable during
mobilization.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was still in the process of dealing with the flight training when he went AWOL/deserted. He also missed a physical exam (*coughcocainecough*) and was not given the boot. The good ol' boys' network runs deep, it would seem.
There are signed admissions by both COs stating that he was supposed to be at the other base. Having transfer papers from your CO to report in to your destination transfer is not a legal obligation? You can just say 'screw this' to a standing set of orders from your CO, without repercussion?
A nation that's killing itself by eating too much is a nation of morons...
You seem to have no interest in discussing Bush's "AWOL" status. I have pointed it out in bland and white. You cannot go AWOL or Desert in the reserves unless your unit is federalized. Bush's unit was never federalized, thus he was never AWOL. If you want to say he was irresponsible for not showing up for training, than that is fine. IF you want to argue that Bush went into the reserves to avoid military service, that is fine. You arguement that Bush went AWOL holds no water, you can quote all the articles you want; the reporters who wrote the article either were to lazy to research how the law applies to the reserves or they have a seperate agenda. If, however, the document i provided that clearly states the law is not enough, than go find someone in the reserves and ask them about it.
As for him being at the wrong base, the thing about the reserves is there is no wrong base. Reservist train on bases close to where they work. If you are a reservist in Pennsylvania and move to New York for a job, you report to a New York base for your training. Bush was suppose to change to a different base in Texas, but got a job in alabama. That is why he was at the wrong base. In short the reserves cannot move you away from your job.
I'd vote for Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.
Remember, one of the reasons why terrorists are evil is because they <i>don't</i> distinguish between military and civilian. If you want to walk down that path, be my guest, but don't fool yourself into believing for a second that you're still on the high road.
The only morons are the ones who think we're killing ourselves by eating too much. Stupid media and its ability to blow the stupidest things way out of proportion, but that’s another topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.
Remember, one of the reasons why terrorists are evil is because they don't distinguish between military and civilian. If you want to walk down that path, be my guest, but don't fool yourself into believing for a second that you're still on the high road.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but didn't we release nearly all of the prisoners determined to be innocent?
And lets be honest, it's allot easier to determine the difference between a soldier in uniform from a civilian. These guys don't wear uniforms, and everyone has a gun in that bloody country. Better to be safe then sorry, whats so good about the moral high road? It's been my experience that the person who takes the moral high ground loses big in the end. I guess the US has forgotten how to win a war.
The only morons are the ones who think we're killing ourselves by eating too much. Stupid media and its ability to blow the stupidest things way out of proportion, but that’s another topic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess that's what you say if you're fat and don't want to own up to your problem. Obesity is about to pass smoking as the number one preventable cause of heart disease, and you blow it off as liberal media? Let's see, an addictive drug vs. eating too much, which is dumber to die from. We are FAT damn it, too fat for our own health and WAY too fat considering how many people are starving in other countries. A world where people die from eating too much right next to people not eating enough, the answer seems pretty clear to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the confusion is our fault at all. The terrorists put their own countrymen at risk with their guerilla warfare, because we simply can't distinguish between a fighter and a civilian on the battlefield, which quite often happens to be a city.
Can someone answer this question: Are the fighters/terrorists in Iraq right now Iraquis that support Saddam, misguided patriots who just want a foreign power out of their country, or fighters from other countries who don't care about the Iraqui people and just want to fight us because we're Americans?
Funny how shorthand can grow to 'federalized', when the actual documents don't mention it. Or even include the word at all.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
fed·er·al·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fdr--lz, fdr-)
tr.v. fed·er·al·ized, fed·er·al·iz·ing, fed·er·al·iz·es
1. To unite in a federal union.
2. To subject to the authority of a federal government; put under federal control.
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
That's all well and good, but the state military also has laws on desertion. Which does not require being actively placed under federal control... they'll just as easily throw you in jail for ten with a DD as the federal government would by deserting any 'official' branches of the armed forces (though.. how the National Guard is not 'official' is a bit difficult to swallow).
Also, you appear to have ignored my prior post. He was in an officers' training school at the time. Undergoing training. And VANISHED COMPLETELY for over a year. No sign of him, hide, hair, or blank stare.
I can't help but find it amusing that it'd appear you haven't even read your own 'bland and white' PDF.
I'll say it once more, slowly. He was under legal orders to report for training. That places him as being subject to the rules and laws put forth in that document, as well as more pertinent local ones. Therefore, he is a deserter.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
One, I'm skinny, to the point of unhealthiness, this makes me rather unsympathetic to the poor over eaters. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Two, I did not blow it off as "liberal" media, I simply said media, don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea how incredibly annoying it is to have this "America is Fat", "We are all fat, and we're going to die because of it!" garbage shoved in my face. Speak for yourself, honestly people CAN control their weight, there are some that are born that way and what can you do? If someone is too stupid to not realize they are eating too much they deserve to be fat, it's not that hard to stay in shape.
I?m going to start a separate topic for this.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HA! Judging from your postings in this thread, I thought smugness and overbearing arrogance was the order of the day. In actual fact I DID do work to find that. To quote the relevant portion of my pm to handman:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hey,
I'm arguing in a thread about everyone's favourite President Bush, and to counter a "deserter" claim I used your claim that you cannot desert from a National Guard unit unless it had been federalized. I was then asked for a link, and spent a fruitless hour trying to find the relevant military law.
Can you link me to anything credible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oops, wrong again... Forgive me for resenting the obvious insinuation when you demanded the "facts" from me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Funny how shorthand can grow to 'federalized', when the actual documents don't mention it. Or even include the word at all.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
fed·er·al·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fdr--lz, fdr-)
tr.v. fed·er·al·ized, fed·er·al·iz·ing, fed·er·al·iz·es
1. To unite in a federal union.
2. To subject to the authority of a federal government; put under federal control.
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suggestion, open google and type in "federalized USAR". You'll see it refered to several times interchangably with mobilised. I fail to see the relevance of federalized becoming shorthand.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I see nothing about being federalized in that PDF you'd sent. It does, however, include 'under active training' which is what Bush was doing. Unless 'lawfully ordered to active duty for training' covers that. Though... as far as I know, a commanding officer's order to report for training detail is a lawful order to report for duty.
That's all well and good, but the state military also has laws on desertion. Which does not require being actively placed under federal control... they'll just as easily throw you in jail for ten with a DD as the federal government would by deserting any 'official' branches of the armed forces (though.. how the National Guard is not 'official' is a bit difficult to swallow).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I understand, when a National Guard unit is mobilised, it becomes like any other part of the military. All members are ordered to report for active service immediately, are housed by the military, are subject to military law, and then either trained or deployed. When they are NOT in active service, then members are required to do certain amounts of training each year. You dont have to do it specifically with your NG unit either - you can do it somewhere else, which is exemplified by two officers each thinking Bush was at the other states NG unit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The records show that National Guard officials credited Bush with enough points to meet minimum requirements for the 12-month period ending May 26, 1973, the period of the original alleged "gap" in his records. An Air Force "Reserve Personnel Record Card" shows Bush received a total of 9 points for active duty training, 31 points for inactive duty training, and 15 points awarded for his membership in the reserves. The points total 56, exceeding the 50-point requirement for satisfactory service during the period, though barely.
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=140' target='_blank'>source</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what happened to Bush. Like I quoted earlier, if you are in the National Guard, and its not mobilised, then if you dont show up, you dont get paid.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The records also show that Bush was credited with very little service during the period when he was in Alabama working on the unsuccessful 1972 Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blunt. Bush was paid and also got retirement credit for 30 days in the first four months of 1972, through April 16. But then begins a six-month gap.
During those six months Bush got permission from his National Guard superiors to attend non-flying drills in Montgomery. Also during that time he was officially grounded after he failed to take an annual physical examination required to maintain flying status. But the records show Bush received no pay or credits between April 16 and late October.
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=140' target='_blank'>source</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, you appear to have ignored my prior post. He was in an officers' training school at the time. Undergoing training. And VANISHED COMPLETELY for over a year. No sign of him, hide, hair, or blank stare.
I can't help but find it amusing that it'd appear you haven't even read your own 'bland and white' PDF.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Over a year? Please, he had a six month gap, for which he was not paid, yet still lived up to the minimum requirements set by the National Guard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On February 10 Boston Globe reporter Walter V. Robinson -- who first reported four years ago that there was a year-long gap in Bush's record of National Guard service -- reported he had obtained two new documents that partially filled in that gap: "The personnel records. . . . constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time."
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=140' target='_blank'>source</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didnt see hide, hair or blank stare of him eh? If you insist on going after Bush with such a passion, perhaps you should keep your research a little more up to date and rely less on those who refuse to let the facts get in the way of some good ol' fashioned Bush beating.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll say it once more, slowly. He was under legal orders to report for training. That places him as being subject to the rules and laws put forth in that document, as well as more pertinent local ones. Therefore, he is a deserter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll say it again quickly. He was not subject to the rules and laws put forth in that document, and if he was (which you have yet to actually prove), then he still fullfilled his obligations. Therefore, he is not a deserter.
wait, wait. did you say it worked fine?
do you mean to imply that: when more than half of a (i'm starting to have doubts) democratic nation wishes for someone to represent them, and the other person is lawfully appointed, everything is ok?
i believe these links will be of intrest:
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy' target='_blank'>defenition of democracy</a>
specifically defenition 4:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Majority rule.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=majority' target='_blank'>defenition of majority</a>
do you mean to imply that: when more than half of a (i'm starting to have doubts) democratic nation wishes for someone to represent them, and the other person is lawfully appointed, everything is ok?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if you want to be nit picky, you can make an argument that nether president would truly represent the majority, given the large number of people that didn't vote.
Again, under US law, which is the only relevant thing when discussing this matter at the time, Bush won the election. He won the more important states, got the larger electoral vote, if you have a problem with it take it up with our countries founders.
Marine, he did not live to the standards of the NG, as he was under ACTIVE TRAINING when he disappeared. He was transferred, arrived and reported in. Everything happy. Then he was transferred *back*. He didn't report in... so each of his COs thought he was at the other base, when in fact he was off dicking around somewhere that he will not admit to.
He did not live up to the NG standards, as he missed a scheduled physical and refused to take the previous one. He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.
He was on active training detail, and he vanished. I don't know how much clearer I can make it that he was legally required to be on-site, but disregarded that and was never punished for it. The doublethink is apparently too strong to be overcome, even with facts that slap you across the face. But then... what else is new?
The only morons are the ones who think we're killing ourselves by eating too much. Stupid media and its ability to blow the stupidest things way out of proportion, but that’s another topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the people in prison were terrorists or insurgents. I've seen estimates in the 60-70% range for those who were simply detained and later determined to be innocent.
Remember, one of the reasons why terrorists are evil is because they don't distinguish between military and civilian. If you want to walk down that path, be my guest, but don't fool yourself into believing for a second that you're still on the high road.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but didn't we release nearly all of the prisoners determined to be innocent?
And lets be honest, it's allot easier to determine the difference between a soldier in uniform from a civilian. These guys don't wear uniforms, and everyone has a gun in that bloody country. Better to be safe then sorry, whats so good about the moral high road? It's been my experience that the person who takes the moral high ground loses big in the end. I guess the US has forgotten how to win a war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I completely agree with reasa, we should arrest at least half of the population and put them in prison because thats what democracy was founded upon, guilty until proven innocent. Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle. I love how democracy has no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment. Democracy definately seems to be working in Iraq!!
He did not live up to the NG standards, as he missed a scheduled physical and refused to take the previous one. He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some things you are saying there serve to give me the impression you aint reading my posts :/. He failed to arrive for a physical test, and for that he was grounded. Notice they GROUNDED HIM, not hauled before a military tribunal - that doesnt constitute desertion. He forefilled the requirements of active training, as clearly evidenced by my quotes in the earlier post. He recieved 9 points for active training, and 31 points for inactive training.
There are two sourced quotes below in my post disputing your claim they saw nothing of him for twelve months. These quotes are based around material released in 2004. You simply cant claim he didnt live up to NG standards when he fullfilled the minimum requirements of a Guardsman - when he got the required 50 points. He may have been grounded for failing a physical by non attendance - but he passed overall requirements.
To requote me and then you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On February 10 Boston Globe reporter Walter V. Robinson -- who first reported four years ago that there was a year-long gap in Bush's record of National Guard service -- reported he had obtained two new documents that partially filled in that gap: "The personnel records. . . . <b>constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you not reading what I am typing - or is this blanket denial? The Boston Globe where the ones that initially made the claims he was absent for 12 months - now they have taken that BACK.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, I completely agree with reasa, we should arrest at least half of the population and put them in prison because thats what democracy was founded upon, guilty until proven innocent. Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle. I love how democracy has no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment. Democracy definately seems to be working in Iraq!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, soooo much ignorance, so little time. Where to start. First of all, our entire legal system is based around the suspicion of guilt until proven innocent - which is why the cops arrest people BEFORE they appear in court. You choose to run around in Afghanistan packing an AK-47, a Koran and a tshirt with Taliban forever written on the front, dont be too surprised if they pack you off to prison for questioning. This is a war zone where the enemy deliberately dress like civilians to a)encourage US troops to shoot civilians to encourage civilians to resent them and b)as a form of camouflage. The US military does not do a random sweep of civilians and haul a select number off to Cuban prisons for fun. Now to deal with the mindblowing stupidity behind:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please explain to me how democracy made several rogue soldiers abuse prisoners? Go on, I dare you. Explain how a system whereby the people elect representatives to rule over their country made several soldiers do sick things to prisoners? Explain to me why in a country with "no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment" that the soldiers that did this are being prosecuted in American military courts. Explain why freedom of the press is rampant in Iraq, why productivity levels are climbing back to normal, why children are now attending schools again.
Dont worry, those were rhetorical requests. You'll be just as silent now as you were in this thread previously when I tore your "its an illegal war" argument to shreds.
Yes, I completely agree with reasa, we should arrest at least half of the population and put them in prison because thats what democracy was founded upon, guilty until proven innocent. Also I love how democracy loves to make prisoners commit sodomy with other fellow prisoners with a gun pointed at their head. Or make prisoners stand on a bucket and electrocute them every time they move a muscle. I love how democracy has no rule that restricts cruel and unusual punishment. Democracy definately seems to be working in Iraq!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same laws that exist in a democracy do not exist in an occupied country where there is still resistance. It is a situation down there where if you let one guy go because you don't have enough evidence, you could be bury 30 people the next day because the guy came back with a bomb on his chest. That said the prison scandle was bad and those responsible should be held accountable. I do believe it to be blown out of scale when people are comparing it to 9/11. Given the choice between being burned alive or humiliated, i think a majority of the world would rather behumiliated.
Oh, come on. Prisoners in the US have rights, and you know it. You cannot be held for more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime, you have access to a lawyer etc. That very clearly isn't going on in Iraq. I'm not going to argue that it should be, but please don't act like it is the same thing.
Prisoners in the US have rights as US citizens. These people are NOT US citizens, they are illegal combatants. They refuse to wear uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers of an army, and as such are unprotected by the Geneva convention statutes pertaining to the treatment of Prisoners of War - see <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
I was just trying to show that his statement was stupid when applied to both A) the situation in the American Democracy and B) the Iraq conflict.