posted on May 28, 2001 11:00:19 PM new
Ha! When I arrived in Vienam to Bien Hoa airfield, they hustled us out of the plane and across the field to a bunkered up area surroundded by sandbag walls. A planeload of kids-none of knew what to expect. After a while they loaded us all onto busses with heavily sandbagged floors and wire mesh in the windows to be taken to the army replacement depot at Long Bin. Along the road there were 20 ft high walls of corrugated steel painted OD. Dusty, hot, dirty. All of us were staring not sure what any of it meant. About halfway there we saw a very strange thing. A white guy in swimming trunks appeared over the top of the wall and walked a little way. Then he bounced up and down and disapeared. Another one did the same a couple of secoonds later. Some one said "they're diving into a swimming pool!" And they were. We all felt a little bit like maybe that whole thing might not be so bad after all.
At Long Bin some old sergeant told us that that had been an air force compound.
posted on May 28, 2001 11:39:49 PM new
uaru has his holidays askew. This is a day set aside in memorium of the United States war DEAD. He could come back with his opportunistic attempts to attack me on Nov. 11.
posted on May 28, 2001 11:44:31 PM new
Thank you again, deuce for your answers. I am happy to hear that your COL during Clinton was as much as 3.6%. The Congress never allowed anyone on Social Security to have a COL higher than 2% during those years -- and they don't get their meals, housing, clothing, medical, transportation, etc. provided by the governement either. My parents would love a 2.0+% COL raise anyday!
I understand your attention to the UCMJ and how it does limit you in your replies. I'll try to keep that in mind here as we go along.
I have thought up what I hope is an appropriate question for you: your oath binds you to obey the chain-of-command and the Commander-in-Chief primarily. Now, since the US Supreme Court last December 12th, illegally ruled the Presidential election vote count to be stopped (it's a state's right - no federal juridiction there) and had the count of all votes had been allowed to continue unabated, that Gore would have won by an estimated 15,000 to 25,000 votes in Florida, are you obligated to follow the orders of George W. Bush, Jr.? In light of these facts, any order given by George W. Bush, Jr. is not a legal order, as he was not elected President. In fact, you have no Commander-in-Chief, as anyone so appointed by this illegal President also gives no legal orders. How are you and your fellow officers reconciling this taking orders from an illegal President and illegal chain-of-command? Is a 4.6% increase in your pay worth overlooking the obvious? I wonder.
posted on May 29, 2001 05:41:10 AM new
KRS, can you please point to a single instance where I'm trying to "seek sympathy"? You stated that the military loses many people during a healthy economy and keeps them during lows. While I agree, I was trying to point of the extremety of the past few years' exodus. You inquired about my promotion opportunities and why I shouldn't thank Clinton for that. I was simply stating they do not come without a cost.
Would my words mean more to you if I were enlisted? I'm not here to say the USAF is the best branch of service, or where the military should head. I simply replied to the original question of why I voted the way I did.
I do take issue with "since I've little inclination to agree that even doing the work of ten air force officers would be overly difficult for a competent person struggling in the work a day world outside of the military." I know I've never met a lazy civilian!
You have your opinions, and boy are they a generalization. Yes, there are NCOs and officers alike which have more than their fair share of free time, and a lot of folks would have it no other way, but there are MANY fine, hard-working, forward-thinking professionals in my office alone. I have two of the finest Senior NCOs known working for me. These SMSgts have both put in 24-years, and for you to categorize them, and myself, so generally, is wrong.
Again, I WAS NOT trying to seek any form of sympathy (or anything other than debate) from you or anyone else.
posted on May 29, 2001 06:12:15 AM new
You can take exception to whatever you like, of course, but you may want to reread the structure of my sentence to which you now so object with particular attention to the use and placement of the word "if" in "You are certainly talking to the wrong person if you seek sympathy..."
posted on May 29, 2001 08:57:13 AM new
krs, I understood perfectly what you said. Surely you felt I was trying to ellicit sympathy for my situation or you would not have brought it up. I explained that was not the case, to qualify your "if".
My "particular attention" was not towards that but rather your generalization that military members are slackers, from your statement regarding one civilian doing 10 military members' job.
One other thing...you said No one in the military works very hard.... Can you please qualify this? I don't see the words "Few in the military" or "almost no one" but exactly no one.
Borillar
That's easy. Al Gore has not taken the oath of office of the Presidency as Bush did. Saying that, I would fully accept any decision that Al Gore would have made had he been sworn in as President.
And forgive me for not keeping up on this, but don't I remember a wire service reporting that a final count had been done and Bush would have indeed won by a slim margin in Florida? I could be wrong be do remember hearing that not too long ago.
posted on May 29, 2001 09:32:39 AM new"Surely you felt..." oh, I felt. This is mindreading?
In context I said:
[i]"No one in the military works very hard when compared with the people who work
in industries in which every day on the job may be their last. It's extremely competitive and requires a high level of competence to survive in today's industry and a flight on a commuter airliner any day of the week will show any observer just how tough it is. The pressures to meet the expectations of managers is enormous, and the price is not increased work but no work at all"[/i]
if that isn't clear enough, I believe that attached at the end of my statement was that little phrase "in my opinion".
posted on May 29, 2001 10:56:17 AM new
krs, a reasonable person could assume that if you brought up the point, then it probably crossed your mind. While I can hardly read minds, is it safe to deduce that if you were typing those words out then you perhaps thought them?
I have reread your statement, and by qualifying, I am asking if you truly feel that there is not a single man or woman serving in the military as stated in your opinion, that compares to the civilian lifestyle. That's all. No other motives. We've bantered back and forth, and I'm curious to know if that statement was meant as written verbatim or not.
As an aside, I can honestly say, from my point of view, and opinion, there are many, many military people who could not hold a candle to their civilian counter-parts. But I can say the exact same thing about many of the civilian workers that I've encountered as well. It's a two-way street. There are plenty of hard working folks in all walks of life, as sell as slackers. I know I've seen more than my share of ROAD servicemembers (Retires On Active Duty), but the good ones outnumber them by far.
posted on May 29, 2001 12:40:32 PM new
Oh. Well, if all you are asking is " I am asking if you truly feel that there is not a single man or woman serving in the military as stated in your opinion, that compares to the civilian lifestyle. That's all. No other motives", then I would say yes, all of them compare to the civilian lifestyle, as compare is exactly what I did in stating what I have stated.
posted on May 29, 2001 01:27:44 PM new
krs: Fair enough. While we certainly don't agree on the statement, I do appreciate your candor and professionalism. All too often I've seen people take things personally on these boards. It is refreshing to be able to debate without the name-calling, etc.
For that, I thank you.
Borillar
You've yet to answer my question:
Tell me where Wm Clinton gained his foreign policy after 150 days?
To state that George W. is a foriegn policy flunkie, how did any other incoming president rank without the much-needed, but lacking, foreign policy knowledge. I say it comes via his cabinet and support staff, and obviously, experience. I'd argue that any President has a better grasp of issues with foreign policy as his term(s) come to a close.
v/r
Deuce
Spelling!
[ edited by deuce on May 29, 2001 01:29 PM ]
[ edited by deuce on May 29, 2001 01:30 PM ]
posted on May 29, 2001 02:42:14 PM new"I say it comes via his cabinet and support staff, and obviously, experience."
Sure ... with someone of at least average intelligence. And I know that simply telling you that Dubya is more than a little bit on the slow-side won't convince you that it's true. However, that much is not a secret and there is a lot of testimony from individuals who have met and dealt with him that are scared stiff that he made it to President. If I had a relatively unbiased source to point you at covering the matter of how low his IQ is, I would put it here for you. Maybe KRS can pull out another one from his seemingly Horn Of Plenty Of URLs.
We all know that Cheney was put into office as Vice-President because Dubya was weak in foreign policy. If it is to be Cheney and the cabinet who will be running foreign policy, then what of the president? Simply by having a solid team backing you up while you learn on-the-job is SOP for all past presidents, but you must admit that a person has to have the mental capacity with which to go somewhere with what intelligence that God gave them. I don't have any fantasies about Dubya ever being anything in history, other than Greatest Puppet President America Ever Knew, knocking Ronald Reagan off his caisson
In the meantime, both our allies and our enemies have been sizing up this situation, seeing humiliation upon humiliation heaped upon both Dubya and America, it won't be long before EVERYONE is going to want concessions - concessions that we wouldn't have had to make if Al Gore would have been in office.
Quid-Pro-Quo, Deuce. Now how about attempting to answer my seemingly irrational question posed earlier to you concerning the chain-of-command and legitimate orders. If you can not answer because of the UCMJ, I will understand. Please know that this forum is not secure as your vital account info is shared with any number of "partners" with AW. I shouldn't doubt that that includes the FBI and the Secret Service, but that' s just a guess. Better safe than sorry.
I thought I had answered that. My orders come from the man who is sworn in as President. On the steps of the Capital with hand on Bible and all! Al Gore has not had that done. George W. has.
And from an earlier post of mine: And forgive me for not keeping up on this, but don't I remember a wire service reporting that a final count had been done and Bush would have indeed won by a slim margin in Florida? I could be wrong be do remember hearing that not too long ago.
posted on May 29, 2001 03:24:54 PM new
Well, Borillar, I would only hazard to guess that he would take his orders from the Commander in Chief who is President Bush.
Al Gore conceded, if I remember right.
If Bush is an illegal President, selected thru the U.S. Supreme Court, who also did something illegal , with all this illegal crap going on, when is the trial set for?
If I may ask---how does net work figure into your daily duties? You seem to have an unusual ability to master the ambiguities of the system used here for editing and altering the character of type.
posted on May 29, 2001 04:16:53 PM new
krs, yes the net does figure into my work life, however, I'm actually on leave. We just had our 4th child. Back to work soon though.
I didn't think I was a UBB master however. I remember a long time ago realizing it's just about the same as the HTML I use for my auctions, just with a different bracket.
v/r
Deuce
added as you asked HOW not IF...
deal a lot with our intra-net, among several different units and contractors. That's what sits at my desk. We also have access to the normal unclassified internet and e-mail, but we have many filters to many sites. For example, I can check threads from work, but cannot log in, same at eBay. I don't actually do any programming, just interact all day on the LAN.
[ edited by deuce on May 29, 2001 05:30 PM ]
posted on May 29, 2001 06:05:21 PM new
Thanks for the link. An interesting read.
One other note, and please don't construe this as a "spelling correction", but rather a name one. It's deuce. Not duece. u before e except after d, or something like that.
posted on May 29, 2001 08:42:09 PM new
I noticed that, Deuce, after I posted the message. The problem with editing a post is that not everyone takes that post seriously afterwards. For some reason, credibility is shot out through the window when you go correct yourself; or, at least that's been my impression so far.
I also want you to know that I am severely dyslexic and while I usually try to remember to write my responses in a word processor for spell checking, I sometimes get lazy, especially when I think it'll be a quick reply.
====
Now, with that momentous step out of the way, let's discuss Bush's legitimacy.
First, it should be clear to you by now that not only did a majority of American voters place their vote for Al Gore, even in Florida the majority of votes were for Al Gore.
If the Supreme Court had stepped aside as they should have on the issue of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling on the recount, it would have been discovered that Al Gore was the winner of the election.
Since the Federal Supreme Court stepped in, and thereby overstepping it's US Constitutional Authority, they halted the normal, legal process of a Presidential Election by this nation's citizens.
The question of the legality of the Federal Supreme Court's action, combined with a high emotionally charged America and the GOP in Florida stating that they would send Republican Electors no matter what the outcome, Al Gore decided not to pursue his legitimate right to put the proper man into the office of the President. He did not want a civil war to start, which it really looked like it might at the time, and decided to concede the election to Bush.
Bush, therefore, became President by having the winning candidate pressured out of office for the good of the nation, but he was never voted into office!
====
That being said, there are those who do not and will not accept Dubya as a legal and legitimate President. The reasons being that only a vote of the American People can place a candidate into office, the electors notwithstanding. The US Supreme Court, in it's illegal act, invalidated the vote of the people. Therefore, Bush was never elected into office and so, can not be legitimate.
So, you will obey the orders of: " My orders come from the man who is sworn in as President. On the steps of the Capital with hand on Bible and all!"
I'll go onto the steps and take the same Oath of Office and it will carry EXACTLY the same legal weight that the one that Bush took; albeit without the press and the mob of politicians strewn about. Nevertheless, the press and the other politicals can not make Bush President -- only by the complete vote of the American People can do that. So, Deuce, will you take my orders from now on, then?
posted on May 29, 2001 11:30:22 PM newBorillarI'll go onto the steps and take the same Oath of Office and it will carry EXACTLY the same legal weight that the one that Bush took...
posted on May 29, 2001 11:51:52 PM newuaru, when Presidential Candidate Al Gore stepped down for the race, the LEGAL answer was not to put the other candidate into office - the US Constituion does not allow for that. The legitimate process is to hold another election, because only a full, legal vote of the American people is the only legitimate way allowed by the US Constitution to place someone into the Presidency! Therefore, the action that put Bush into the White House is a complete farce and We, the People, were entirely robbed of our due process and our participation in our own government. Now, if that doesn't mean a damned thing to you, I can't believe that you take any pride in being an American!
I have no doubt that what you wrote you truly believe. Let me say that I really don't want to start a diatribe regarding the Florida election after if has been done, done, and over-done.
That said, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Their job is to rule on Constitutionality. Their ruling is really the only one that counts. Whatever they rule cannot, by virtue of the process, be deemed illegal. It can however, be overturned by a subsequent decision. They ruled; Gore backed down, and the Electoral College voted in Bush. Legally making him the President-elect, at the time.
I do not see the current sitting President as an "illegal president". He is simply (no pun intended for you) the President.
So I'll have to simply agree to disagree with your passionate feelings on this issue. And I'll say it again; if events had occurred differently, and the President was named Gore, I would provide him with the same loyalty in regards as the Commander-in-Chief.
As an aside, an interesting point you made regarding editing of posts. People really think less of posts that have been edited? I guess I never approached it in that light. Guess I'll have to leave those mis-spellings to gain any respect.
posted on May 30, 2001 10:06:18 AM new
Borillar-where in the Constitution does it say, when a candidate concedes that another full national election be held.
As thats what it looks like in your post?
Maybe someone can do an chronology of events from Nov. 8 to Dec 12.
Gore wanted manual HAND recounts in only 3 counties, after there had been a count and a recount.
Democrats charged that Bush in his own state signed a bill 3 years earlier, on manual recounts, HOWEVER, in TX he set exact standards to go by. In FL there were different standards or none in each county.
So Gore took this to the lower courts in FL, and was ruled he could NOT do hand counts, ant then lawyers ran to the FL Supreme court to have them decide. What the FL S.C. did was not consitutional, and that is why it went to the Federal level of the Supreme court. The Federal level supercedes any state level. So what they did, cannot be considered illegal. They are Judges
If a judge rules in any court, and you do not agree, its tough luck. That is what the judge rules. A higher court can overturn a lower court however, and that is what happened.
