Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Military doesn't back ObamaFollow

#127REDACTED, Posted: Jul 16 2009 at 7:14 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#128 Jul 16 2009 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
What if it's just one guy who's already known to be kinda whacked out and a cynical and opportunistic attorney?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#129 Jul 16 2009 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Samira wrote:
It's court-martial, by the way, as in martial law.


True, I wrote with my mouth, not my brain :)
Quote:
What if half the military refuses? What if 75% refuses?


Then democracy is dead anyway. This is the reason why military coups are a bad thing, Varrus. They don't need a reason to turn rogue; but before it happens, the defectors will be "taken care of."

Edit: And that's the point. There's no reason here. The guy could have revoked his own orders; the military simply looked at him, said "Well, if you're dumb enough to say this, it's not like we'd twist your arm," and signed off. Good riddance to bad garbage.

Edited, Jul 16th 2009 11:18am by LockeColeMA
#130REDACTED, Posted: Jul 16 2009 at 7:26 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#131 Jul 16 2009 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
Then democracy is dead anyway.


Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. 51% of the people telling the other 49% how they're going to live.


The military is not 51% of the population. YOUR statement was what if the majority of the military went rogue. Then democracy is dead anyway. Thank you for a completely irrelevant comeback, and showing your apparent disdain for democracy, though!

Quote:
That's not how the military works. And i'd be very curious to find out on whose order those orders were revoked. Funny on how no one in the msm is asking this question.


It's how this guy's assignment did. Glad you're so informed!

Edited, Jul 16th 2009 11:30am by LockeColeMA
#132 Jul 16 2009 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. 51% of the people telling the other 49% how they're going to live.

However, we live in a Republic. Here, 49% can tell the other 51% how to live so long as they win Florida.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Jul 16 2009 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... no court update yet but apparently the "soldier" in question has been fired from his job. Turns out he worked for a civilian defense contractor which wasn't too pleased with his nutty antics.
Quote:
Plaintiff Major Cook called his civilian boss, the CEO of Simtech, Inc… The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated. Grice told the Plaintiff that he would no longer be welcome in his former position at SOCOM but that Grice wanted to see whether he could find something within the company (Simtech, Inc.) for Cook. The upshot was that at this time Grice did not have anything for Plaintiff to do. Grice told Plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become “nutty and crazy”, and that Plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old position.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Jul 16 2009 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
teh article wrote:
The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated.


Why on earth would it take more than one conversation? Smiley: laugh

I suppose the CEO had his "this guy is litigious" alert up.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#135 Jul 16 2009 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Case dismissed.
Quote:
A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.

Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook's suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.

"Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

Since Cook asked (as he had every right to do) that his orders be revoked and the army revoked them, there was no standing for the case. Now Orly Taitz has hooked a couple new guys onto her suit and is going to try again.


Edited, Jul 16th 2009 12:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#136 Jul 16 2009 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Land is a Bush appointee, so obviously they've gotten to him.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#137 Jul 16 2009 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Land's gunning for a sweet, sweet stimulus check!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Jul 16 2009 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
*
98 posts
Regarding citizenship, what about unusual cicumstances like:

A U.S. citizen visting a foreign country and gives birth early? Is that child denied U.S. citizenship?

A U.S. citizen is living in England, has a fiance visa to marry a British national, and concieves and gives birth in England? Does it matter if she marries him before or after giving birth?



#139 Jul 16 2009 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Blusician wrote:
Regarding citizenship, what about unusual cicumstances like:

A U.S. citizen visting a foreign country and gives birth early? Is that child denied U.S. citizenship?

A U.S. citizen is living in England, has a fiance visa to marry a British national, and concieves and gives birth in England? Does it matter if she marries him before or after giving birth?


It's not citizenship that's the matter; it's the wording "natural-born." Those situations would result in US citizens (at least the first, not positive on the second).
#140 Jul 16 2009 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Using my anecdote as data, my wife's father moved to the U.S. (well prior to her birth) and gained US citizenship while working in the States. He later returned to Peru and, while living there, my (now) wife was born. She was still automatically a U.S. citizen based on the status of her father despite her being born on Peruvian soil and to a Peruvian mother.

Based on that sturdy legal evidence, I'd guess that the kid in Example #2 would be a citizen.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141REDACTED, Posted: Jul 16 2009 at 11:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#142 Jul 16 2009 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Quote:
I can see why you went to an undeveloped nation to get a bride. We're more alike than you realize. Scary isn't it.

:oyvey:
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#143 Jul 16 2009 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
*
98 posts
I suddenly realised why I am slightly annoyed by Varus. Instead of replying directly to an assertion he re-directs/mis-directs by personal attacks, character attacks on public officials, and/or general BS aimed at democrats/liberals. It annoys me because my son did this **** (redirecting the blame/issue) all the time when he ****** up and we called him on it; but he's 23 now so he doesn't do this **** anymore (too much).
#144 Jul 16 2009 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
That's why the real question is who cancelled the order and under whose authority.


Even Fox News has said that the Reservist in question can cancel his own orders.

Link

Quote:
Incidentally, Cook did not have to hire a lawyer to refuse his orders to go to Afghanistan. As a reserve soldier and volunteer, he has the right to revoke his deployment orders.
#145REDACTED, Posted: Jul 16 2009 at 11:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#146 Jul 16 2009 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
That's why the real question is who cancelled the order and under whose authority

Cook requested that his orders be revoked. They were. I don't get what the confusing part is here.
As quoed earlier, Fox News wrote:
Incidentally, Cook did not have to hire a lawyer to refuse his orders to go to Afghanistan. As a reserve soldier and volunteer, he has the right to revoke his deployment orders.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 Jul 16 2009 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Blusician wrote:
I suddenly realised why I am slightly annoyed by Varus. Instead of replying directly to an assertion he re-directs/mis-directs by personal attacks, character attacks on public officials, and/or general BS aimed at democrats/liberals.

Yeah, hi. Welcome to life with Varus
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Jul 16 2009 at 11:29 AM Rating: Default
Blusic,

Quote:
suddenly realised why I am slightly annoyed by Varus


Only slightly? It's obvious i'm not trying hard enough.


Quote:
personal attacks


lmao...I'd like you to re-read this thread and count how many personal attacks were aimed at this reservist and compare it with how many personal attacks i've aimed at Obama. Take into consideration requesting the President to make available his birth certificate is not a personal attack.

#149 Jul 16 2009 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Blusician wrote:
I suddenly realised why I am slightly annoyed by Varus. Instead of replying directly to an assertion he re-directs/mis-directs by personal attacks, character attacks on public officials, and/or general BS aimed at democrats/liberals. It annoys me because my son did this sh*t (redirecting the blame/issue) all the time when he @#%^ed up and we called him on it; but he's 23 now so he doesn't do this sh*t anymore (too much).


Varus is like the human punching bag. You think you land a good punch on him, he goes flying over, then bounces back up and smacks you with his lunacy again. And it just. Never. Stops.

Honestly, he probably has more posts than me, but he's been banned so many times they keep reseting.

In a similar vein, are we rating him down again? I thought we reached a conclusion that once his posts get Unrated within a couple of posts it gets frustrating to read his tirades. He's almost sub-default as a base now.
#150 Jul 16 2009 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Incidentally, Cook did not have to hire a lawyer to refuse his orders to go to Afghanistan. As a reserve soldier and volunteer, he has the right to revoke his deployment orders.


Did he? Or was did the order come from the top?

Inquiring minds want to know.




He requested it. Request was granted.

End of story.

EDIT: Smiley: laugh Heaven forbid I read what I'm quoting.

Edited, Jul 16th 2009 2:32pm by Belkira
#151 Jul 16 2009 at 11:35 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
As a reserve soldier and volunteer, he has the right to revoke his deployment orders.


Now is that the same as;

Quote:
As a reserve soldier and volunteer, Cook revoked his own deployment orders.


See the difference?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 514 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (514)