RE: Bergdahl

RE: Bergdahl (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 10:10:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Been that way since christ was a corporal. Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 10:12:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Been that way since christ was a corporal. Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission. I was thinking Cpl was a bit low. Maybe he decided to start at the bottom to gain respect?

dcnovice -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 10:15:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Been that way since christ was a corporal. Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission. He did. [:)]

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 10:17:38 AM)
Good point.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 10:22:43 AM)
So, where exactly did you say anything about articles 85-87 in that post? This is the sort of dishonest bullshit you are famous for. Articles 85-6-7 had already been discussed so why would it be necessary to readdress them? Is it in code or something? Does "jack" stand for missing movement? So now you are saying that you have no clue as to the term to "jack" someone?[8\|][8\|] I'm sorry if my ignorant opinion can't decipher the intricacies of your being caught in a lie. That clearly is your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. So, either it can be used to convict (jack) anyone of anything, as you said here, or no one can ever be convicted of desertion with less then 30 days absent as you've said repeatedly in other posts. The criteria for desertion have already been posted. That you have no ability to understand them is your problem and not mine.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 10:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So, where exactly did you say anything about articles 85-87 in that post? This is the sort of dishonest bullshit you are famous for. Articles 85-6-7 had already been discussed so why would it be necessary to readdress them? Is it in code or something? Does "jack" stand for missing movement? So now you are saying that you have no clue as to the term to "jack" someone?[8\|][8\|] I'm sorry if my ignorant opinion can't decipher the intricacies of your being caught in a lie. That clearly is your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. So, either it can be used to convict (jack) anyone of anything, as you said here, or no one can ever be convicted of desertion with less then 30 days absent as you've said repeatedly in other posts. The criteria for desertion have already been posted. That you have no ability to undeerstand them is your problem and not mine. Ahhh, here we go. When caught in a lie, change it around. Everyone but you is known for their dishonest bullshit, while you're pure as the driven snow. You insist that everyone else PROVE everything. That links be provided. You jump on the slightest inaccuracy and try to discredit an entire post. You insist on the exact accuracy of every post. Yet somehow you're exempt from the same rules? In this thread you've made two statements that can't both be true. Either the UCMJ is written so that anyone can be convicted of anything, OR it's not possible to convict someone of desertion if they are absent for less then 30 days. Both of those can't be true. That's not opinion, regardless of how much you might try to make it be one. It's not possible for two mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time. So either you were using hyperbole to make your claims sound better, or you're just a liar. Oh, by the way, here's a link to a thesaurus. (http://thesaurus.com/) Maybe find another way of saying "ignorant unsubstantiated opinion". I've lost track of how many times you've spouted that exact same line. Makes you sound like a whiny teen trying to sound like an adult. (Oh and that is my opinion.)

mnottertail -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 11:04:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted As I've said, yes, it can work that way. It often does. But it doesn't have to. Yes, under most circumstances, under 30 days they hit you with AWOL, and it's left at that. But there is no requirement to do so. I know a lot about the UCMJ. I went in the Army at 18 with a big mouth and a piss-poor attitude. I had a 1st Sergeant who didn't like me very much, thinking back on it, likely with good reason. At one point he threatened me with desertion, among other lesser charges, so I did a lot of reading on the subject. Since I made it out with nothing worse then an article 15, and that for nothing worse then a bit of extra duty, I must have known what I was doing. As it happens, I know a great deal about the UCMJ. I went in and out (and via some intimate knowledge of UCMJ and inner workings of the military, did not receive any article 15's but fucked off a whole lot more than you did) (nothing special, just your average NCO) And, I am gonna by god tell you, if it is policy (and that 30 day rule is and was policy since before my birth) it shakes out into two things... Policy has the effect of law in the military. And it isn't anecdotal, it is synecdoche, because it is policy. Sgt. Melby (operations and training NCO) variously S2 and S3.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 11:24:23 AM)
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted Ahhh, here we go. When caught in a lie, This would be your ignorant opinion. change it around. Everyone but you is known for their dishonest bullshit, Not everyone just the ones who try to pass off bullshit as fact. while you're pure as the driven snow. I am right more often than I am wrong. You insist that everyone else PROVE everything. Yup That links be provided. You jump on the slightest inaccuracy and try to discredit an entire post. When that slight inaccuracy is the bassis for the overall lie. You insist on the exact accuracy of every post. Yet somehow you're exempt from the same rules? Nope In this thread you've made two statements that can't both be true. Either the UCMJ is written so that anyone can be convicted of anything, OR it's not possible to convict someone of desertion if they are absent for less then 30 days. Both of those can't be true. Had you the reading comprehension of a third grader you would not try to play that silly word game. Show me where I ever said anyone could be convicted of anything I said that they could be jacked for anything....you know haseled[8\|]charged, incarcerated, restricted and then charges dismissed.[8\|] Show me where I said one could not be convicted of desertion if they were gone for less then thirty days. I said show me where it has happened. That's not opinion, regardless of how much you might try to make it be one. It's not possible for two mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time. So either you were using hyperbole to make your claims sound better, or you're just a liar. The criteria for being charged with desertion have been listed. The criteria for being charged with awol have been listed. The criteria for being charged with missing a movement have been listed. With the information you can prove which of the above can he be charged with? With the information you can prove is it possible that he could be charged with any of the three? If he is charged with one could he be charged with more than one? Now that I have explaned the stupidity of your symantic arguement try to answer the questions I have asked you? Like why do you feel it is ok for you to call me names when I have never done so to you? I have accused you of ignorance and deciet and have proved both but still I have not resorted to name calling while you snivel about how I talk to you. Try learning how to be civil. Try learning what the motherfucking word liar means. Because you are unable to understand a concept you label others as a liar in an effort to lend some scrap of credibility to your igorant rantings. If you don't like your opinions being challanged perhaps you should research them more thoroughly before committing them to print. Oh, by the way, here's a link to a thesaurus. (http://thesaurus.com/) Maybe find another way of saying "ignorant unsubstantiated opinion". I've lost track of how many times you've spouted that exact same line. Makes you sound like a whiny teen trying to sound like an adult. (Oh and that is my opinion.) Ignorant,peurile and unsubstantiated as usual.

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 11:40:39 AM)
When y'all get done debating the letter of military law . . . There's a lot more to this story than is being discussed in this thread. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/after-release-from-taliban-bowe-bergdahl-suffers-from-skin-and-gum-disorders-but-is-physically-sound.html

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 12:07:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery When y'all get done debating the letter of military law . . . There's a lot more to this story than is being discussed in this thread. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/after-release-from-taliban-bowe-bergdahl-suffers-from-skin-and-gum-disorders-but-is-physically-sound.html So it would appear that some of his mates did not look upon him with a negative aspect. It would appear from first hand accounts that he was an aggressive infantryman. Holy shit dude what the fuck do you mean posting opinion buttressed by facts?

cloudboy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 1:45:13 PM)
You fail to account for the fact that 95.8% of all publications, views, broadcast media, and amateur internet posters are far-left of Sanity -- a man who has declared himself as being under siege by "affirmative action" while living in Idaho.

MrRodgers -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 2:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Forget all the crap about whether this soldier is a deserter or not many Americans would still be upset with this deal even if this were a hero. This goes against what Americans feel is the right thing to do... It makes no difference that we have done this very type of thing in the past to many of us this was at best a poor decision. I agree it's a bitter pill, Butch, but if a deal was the only way, then it needed to be done. I'm troubled though, by reports I've seen that we had good intel on where he was being held, and even the composition of the guard forces, and that someone chose not to act on that. I want to know if the risks to a potential rescue mission were higher than the risks of letting these detainees back into the game. And even if you make a deal you don't give them 5 generals for one of our privates Generals ? You mean the Taliban ranks these guys ? Read... don't know if the were petty officers but 4 of them they were anything but terrorists.

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 3:14:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Been that way since christ was a corporal. Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission. Jesus started off as a seaman. We were in boot together. He was a great guy. Tough little bastard from San Antonio.

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 3:26:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted As I've said, yes, it can work that way. It often does. But it doesn't have to. Yes, under most circumstances, under 30 days they hit you with AWOL, and it's left at that. But there is no requirement to do so. I know a lot about the UCMJ. I went in the Army at 18 with a big mouth and a piss-poor attitude. I had a 1st Sergeant who didn't like me very much, thinking back on it, likely with good reason. At one point he threatened me with desertion, among other lesser charges, so I did a lot of reading on the subject. Since I made it out with nothing worse then an article 15, and that for nothing worse then a bit of extra duty, I must have known what I was doing. As it happens, I know a great deal about the UCMJ. I went in and out (and via some intimate knowledge of UCMJ and inner workings of the military, did not receive any article 15's but fucked off a whole lot more than you did) (nothing special, just your average NCO) And, I am gonna by god tell you, if it is policy (and that 30 day rule is and was policy since before my birth) it shakes out into two things... Policy has the effect of law in the military. And it isn't anecdotal, it is synecdoche, because it is policy. Sgt. Melby (operations and training NCO) variously S2 and S3. We had guys UA all the time and they'd get NJP. The one that would get the hammer dropped was missing movement. It only happened to one guy I knew but he got a year in prison and a dishonorable and he got to the pier before we actually untied. There were easier ways to get out if you wanted out than desertion when I was in, fail a piss test for instance. But really I have never heard of anyone being charged with desertion who wasn't gone for less than 30 days since at least WW2.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 5:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Been that way since christ was a corporal. Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission. Jesus started off as a seaman. We were in boot together. He was a great guy. Tough little bastard from San Antonio. Jesus started off as a semen...when joe found out he fired the pool boy.

Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 5:06:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy You fail to account for the fact that 95.8% of all publications, views, broadcast media, and amateur internet posters are far-left of Sanity -- a man who has declared himself as being under siege by "affirmative action" while living in Idaho. Ah, yes.. LOL Leftist frustration is palpable If only bitterly lashing out at conservatives could make Obama half intelligent... (And make him quit doing moronic shit, like trading five Osama bin Ladens for one traitor)

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 5:11:56 PM)
We had guys UA all the time and they'd get NJP. The one that would get the hammer dropped was missing movement. It only happened to one guy I knew but he got a year in prison and a dishonorable and he got to the pier before we actually untied. I have seen guys charged with missing a movement for not being on the right fucking bus...everybody got to where they were suppose to be at the appointed time but 1st sgt fuckwad needed to show how big his dick was.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 5:16:01 PM)
ORIGINAL: Sanity (And make him quit doing moronic shit, like trading five Osama bin Ladens for one traitor) The american soldier you are calling a traitor was captured as a pfc and released as a sgt. If the army felt he was a deserter why did they continue to promote him while he was a pow?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 6:42:47 PM)
FR... I guess we will find out when the most transparent Presidential administration in United States history OKs the court-marshal.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 6:43:59 PM)
That should make for a really productive Lame Duck tenure huh...

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875