a total loser (IMHO)

[Scott]

Dman,

Can you state 5 reasons that you stay in this country? I am really curious.

Thanks,

Scott

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

 

[dmancornell]

Dman,

Can you state 5 reasons that you stay in this country? I am really curious.

Thanks,

Scott

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

Hahaha, did I touch a nerve?

View attachment 138491

 

[Scott]

Hahaha, did I touch a nerve?

View attachment 138490

Hell no, I keep showing people what you write and we can't stop laughing..... Need a good read and laugh.

But don't ignore the question...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

 

[dmancornell]

Hell no, I keep showing people what you write and we can't stop laughing..... Need a good read and laugh.

But don't ignore the question...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. Maybe that's why you spent 30 months in theater and you still can't figure out why the natives were so hostile. Weird how history matters like that.

Maybe your friends can help you come up with some actual logical responses instead of posting irrelevant questions about residency?

 

[Scott]

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. Maybe that's why you spent 30 months in theater and you still can't figure out why the natives were so hostile. Weird how history matters like that.

Maybe your friends can help you come up with some actual logical responses instead of posting irrelevant questions about residency?

We have a lot of logical ideas and thoughts but we can't post them because of forum rules.

Oh but the natives, well we had fun with them. Rather hateful people and uneducated like you. You should not talk about things that you have not experienced.

You are very ambiguous in your post so stay on track.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

 

[dmancornell]

We have a lot of logical ideas and thoughts but we can't post them because of forum rules.

Oh but the natives, well we had fun with them. Rather hateful people and uneducated like you. You should not talk about things that you have not experienced.

You are very ambiguous in your post so stay on track.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

Indeed, I have not experienced murdering brown people for fun. Sounds horrible. Maybe the government told you some super secret reason why it's OK?

LOL @ hateful, I'm not the one justifying for eternal war with ludicrous reasons. Love how you brought up the Boston Bombings, I LOL'ed hard.

 

[Jamie6.5]

What is the point of legal obligations when one party is a criminal organization that breaks laws whenever it sees fit?

Translation:
"I don't like that law, because I don't trust the goobermint contract holders, so he should be free to walk."

Sorry Dman, it doesn't work that way, and you know it.
So from this point forward you're just making anti-government/military noise.

A contract is a contract, and Pvt. Munoz is breaking the one he made/signed with the military.
Don't like it?
Change the law.

 

[Certaindeaf]

WROL lol.

 

[Irishjester]

@dmancornell

I said we don't see eye to eye on the benefits of military service, as in what the majority of enlisted men and women gain from said service. Then you asked me to list those benefits, so I gave you a short list. Your response seemed to be all about big government and the actions of less than honorable men. Just FYI - Every person serving in the military has the choice to to not follow an order if they feel it is wrong. Also just like with gun owners, should the majority be punished or judged for the actions of the few? You previously stated that you had some friends that enlisted in 2000 with the hopes of helping people, but then were shipped off to murder brown people (your words). Are you still friends with these men? Did they tell you why, if they felt they were ordered to do something wrong, they did not object?

Actually never-mind, we are hijacking this thread and my original post was asking that if you don't have first hand knowledge of something then don't act like you do. You never served in the armed forces, so don't act like you know everything about it.

 

[dmancornell]

Translation:
"I don't like that law, because I don't trust the goobermint contract holders, so he should be free to walk."

Sorry Dman, it doesn't work that way, and you know it.
So from this point forward you're just making anti-government/military noise.

A contract is a contract, and Pvt. Munoz is breaking the one he made/signed with the military.
Don't like it?
Change the law.

"But it's the law" or "change the law" is just a cop-out excuse. Similar to "just following orders". You talk about contracts when his oath demands that he not follow unconstitutional orders, which you glibly ignore.

I suppose to some, honor means following criminal orders, not sticking with the oath to defend the Constitution.

 

[dmancornell]

Why not just give excuses to every drug addict and murder and rapist and child molester as it seems some of you want a world were no accountability is the rule. But hysterically you want your government to be accountable and not the people who work for it is insanity. Mr. Private was hired and paid to do a job he did not like it then do your term and leave or pay the price.

LOL @ comparing a person who decided he doesn't want to kill people for the government, to a child molester, as the moral accountability for both cases are the same. Have you no decency, sir?

 

[Scvette]

LOL @ comparing a person who decided he doesn't want to kill people for the government, to a child molester, as the moral accountability for both cases are the same. Have you no decency, sir?

There's one in every forum,also in every village. And your it. Idiot

 

[Jamie6.5]

"But it's the law" or "change the law" is just a cop-out excuse. Similar to "just following orders". You talk about contracts when his oath demands that he not follow unconstitutional orders, which you glibly ignore.

I suppose to some, honor means following criminal orders, not sticking with the oath to defend the Constitution.

But you're missing the whole point again Dman.

Following the oath to defend the Constitution doesn't qualify him for C.O. status.
You're mixing things up in your efforts at obfuscation.
Consequently, you're the one that's getting confused.

Following the Constitution and lawful orders would put him in direct opposition to a conscientious objector during times of war.
Whether you view that war as "legal" or not.

He's not a C.O. under his definition, your definition, or the legal definition.
So where does that leave him?
A quitter. Is he a quitter due to his political/racial/legal conscience?
Mebbe so.

But he's claiming the wrong reason for quitting.
If he wants to quit for the same ideological reasons you hold, he should just do that so people like you can hold him up as a shining example of your self-righteousness.

But a Conscientious Objector he ain't!

 

[dmancornell]

But you're missing the whole point again Dman.

Following the oath to defend the Constitution doesn't qualify him for C.O. status.
You're mixing things up in your efforts at obfuscation.
Consequently, you're the one that's getting confused.

Following the Constitution and lawful orders would put him in direct opposition to a conscientious objector during times of war.
Whether you view that war as "legal" or not.

He's not a C.O. under his definition, your definition, or the legal definition.
So where does that leave him?
A quitter. Is he a quitter due to his political/racial/legal conscience?
Mebbe so.

But he's claiming the wrong reason for quitting.
If he wants to quit for the same ideological reasons you hold, he should just do that so people like you can hold him up as a shining example of your self-righteousness.

But a Conscientious Objector he ain't!

Actually it's the law that is doing all the obfuscating. Quitting due to conscience makes him a C.O. in honest, plain language, not the corrupt legal language of the state.

Naturally the state would refuse to recognize a C.O. on the basis of their own illegal wars of aggression (or as you call it, pick and choose), because that would undermine the entire legitimacy of the military and its relation to the state. No sir, can't have that, even though that legitimacy is really what needs to be addressed (protip: the state has no legitimacy).

But I can go with conscientious quitter, if that makes you happy. Probably not.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Gee Dman, how in-citeful (play-on-words, not a misspelling) of you.
I guess you could indict 9 of the last 11 presidents, all their military chiefs of staff, and all of the upper echelon pentagon personnel in the last 60 years, on charges of constitutional violations.

That's how the deceitful go about things though.
Change the argument, change the definitions and when all else fails, change the rules.

When you grow up, feeling butt-hurt won't be as much of a problem.
Sometimes that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Kinda like the way your argument did.

 

[dmancornell]

Gee Dman, how in-citeful (play-on-words, not a misspelling) of you.
I guess you could indict 9 of the last 11 presidents, all their military chiefs of staff, and all of the upper echelon pentagon personnel in the last 60 years, on charges of constitutional violations.

One can dream.

That's how the deceitful go about things though.
Change the argument, change the definitions and when all else fails, change the rules.

That is exactly what the state does. Look at their re-interpretation of the Commerce Clause and eminent domain, the 16th Amendment, or their recent justifications of PRISM and drone assassinations. The state defines the rules, why should any of us play their rigged game?

When you grow up, feeling butt-hurt won't be as much of a problem.
Sometimes that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Kinda like the way your argument did.

Looking at the feverish responses on this thread, I'm not the butthurt party.

 

[Jamie6.5]

From the brig.

 

[dmancornell]

From the brig.

Military justice FTW, amirite? Fuhrerprinzip sure is wonderful.

 

[Scott]

Military justice FTW, amirite? Fuhrerprinzip sure is wonderful.

I believe you think Hitler was great. One leader and his law.

You still can't give 5 reasons why you stay here?

You are a fan of socialism I bet.

Plus you sound like Biden you you write......

Come on 5 simple reasons....

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

 

[Scott]

You have an answer for everything but refuse to answer why you want to stay here.

Are you collecting money from your so called criminal government?

Are they providing you with food?

And you believe the military just kills brown people for fun!

I would leave if I felt that way.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2