or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VOTE today - Page 21

post #301 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:25:44 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:


>But it is nice that (in your mind) picking out two extremists from a
>group of hundreds of millions allows you to demean them all.


>
>You know nothing about the average Christian - not even a hint. If
>you think most of us think of Robertson and Falwell as "our leaders"
>you're either seriously misinformed or delusional. But don't let that
>keep you from YOUR bigotry.


Like there's no other examples of wacky, intolerant, mean spirited
"Christians" besides Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Are you truly
living in a bubble, do you have your head in the sand, or are you
being deliberately obtuse?

Do you recognize this quotation:

"Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Personally, I would not belong to any club who had so many highly
visible adherents who so plainly simply talk the talk and do not come
close to walking the walk. I would be shamed and embarrassed.

And don't give me that crap about how you are all imperfect sinners
striving to become better. This concept of "simple grace" or whatever
it's called - permitting people to be regular assholes all week, then
getting forgiven every weekend - it unadulterated bull****.

Here's an idea: Actually act like Jesus, or STFU in the meantime. I
bet there would be many, many more followers of a Faith which had
followers who were TRUE examples of the teachings, as opposed a Faith
consisting of mostly a bunch of phonies spouting words and finding
fault in everyone else, but being normal losers.

Here's another quote:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's
eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how
wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine
eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out
first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly
to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

You know this, right?
post #302 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Doug Taylor wrote:
> Do you recognize this quotation:
>
> "Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that
> saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
> he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven."


Just words to Mark.

That much is obvious - he supports waterboarding, and that'd be some
fairly bitter fruit to be known by.

Jesus: "Mark, why did you support the torture of my children?"

I'd love to be there to hear Mark say, "Waterboarding isn't torture,
according to **** Cheney."

Mark's idea is to kill all the Samarians. After all, they aren't like
us.

E.P.
post #303 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:28:23 -0500, Doug Taylor
<dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

>And don't give me that crap about how you are all imperfect sinners
>striving to become better. This concept of "simple grace" or whatever
>it's called - permitting people to be regular assholes all week, then
>getting forgiven every weekend - it unadulterated bull****.


The term I was searching for is "cheap grace."

Google it Mark.
post #304 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
> > Do you recognize this quotation:
> >
> > "Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that
> > saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
> > he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven."

>
> Just words to Mark.
>
> That much is obvious - he supports waterboarding, and that'd be some
> fairly bitter fruit to be known by.
>
> Jesus: "Mark, why did you support the torture of my children?"
>
> I'd love to be there to hear Mark say, "Waterboarding isn't torture,
> according to **** Cheney."
>


Jesus: Why do you invoke the opinion of the Dark One?
post #305 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > > Doug Taylor wrote:
> > > > Do you recognize this quotation:
> > > >
> > > > "Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that
> > > > saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
> > > > he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven."
> > >
> > > Just words to Mark.
> > >
> > > That much is obvious - he supports waterboarding, and that'd be some
> > > fairly bitter fruit to be known by.
> > >
> > > Jesus: "Mark, why did you support the torture of my children?"
> > >
> > > I'd love to be there to hear Mark say, "Waterboarding isn't torture,
> > > according to **** Cheney."
> > >

> >
> > Jesus: Why do you invoke the opinion of the Dark One?

>
> And, in the role of Faust, George Walker Bush.


That's giving him a bit too much credit, dontcha think? Who'll play
Mephisto anyway? How about a suit built for two with Richard Perle
playing the ass section, and your choice of interchangeable Condi or
Rumsy heads!
post #306 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Chisholm wrote:

>
> >> You can paint it any way you
> >> want, but it remains that you chose to not serve in any capacity,
> >> unless you want to enlighten us.
> >>
> >> Yeds, I am talking about you now, Tom.

> >
> >Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> >
> >Peter Chisholm should realize that resorting to personal attacks it the
> >sign that one has lost the argument.

>
> Actually, I think you just surrendered. You're the one who just
> admitted that "not serving in any capacity" is "an attack" in your
> eyes - leading me to believe that you see not serving as a negative
> thing (since Peter never said that).
>
> Game, set and match to Peter.


Hey Mark,

Don't be a dope. Point out where Peter Chisholm convincingly
demonstrated that only those with military service are fit to be US
President. Lincoln, Wilson and F. Roosevelt all lacked military
experience, yet the lead the country in war to conclusive victories.
Point, set and match.

Peter Chisholm could not back up his original argument, so he changed
the subject to contend he was superior to me because his military
service. Duh!

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #307 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Chisholm wrote:

> >
> >>> You can paint it any way you
> >>> want, but it remains that you chose to not serve in any capacity,
> >>> unless you want to enlighten us.
> >>>
> >>> Yeds, I am talking about you now, Tom.
> >>
> >> Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> >>
> >> Peter Chisholm should realize that resorting to personal attacks it
> >> the sign that one has lost the argument.

> >
> > Actually, I think you just surrendered. You're the one who just
> > admitted that "not serving in any capacity" is "an attack" in your
> > eyes - leading me to believe that you see not serving as a negative
> > thing (since Peter never said that).
> >
> > Game, set and match to Peter.

>
> Readers of {yada yada}:
>
> Mark Hickey sums it up nicely.
>
> Third personly, BS <eg>


Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

A "ditto head" for Mark Hickey - that sums up BS nicely.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #308 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1163569465.716545.192780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1163553889.905096.205550@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1163469953.152570.163880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <1163390979.325960.43570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > <1163373013.075290.15450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > > > > > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > > > > > > > > president.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > > > > > > > > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > > > > > > > > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > > > > > > > > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mr. Press:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
> > > > > > > > > > combined with implied insult. [Yawn]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See my reply to Bill Sornson.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You must obey a lawful order given by a police officer.
> > > > > > > > > Commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers
> > > > > > > > > have better things to do than micro-manage their troops.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The authority of police officers is limited to enforcing laws. A
> > > > > > > > commanding officer can control every minute of a subordinates life if
> > > > > > > > he/she so desires.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
> > > > > > > > > > maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
> > > > > > > > > > also have something to offer to society.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Everybody knows me as a dupe of the most recent special
> > > > > > > > > interest group to persuade me with their program.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You ever watch movies that trade in a subject you have
> > > > > > > > > mastered? Sickening, is it not? You talk as if
> > > > > > > > > everything you know about the military you got from
> > > > > > > > > movies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was never claiming to be an expert in military life. However, some
> > > > > > > > things are evident based on deduction from available (and basically
> > > > > > > > undisputed) facts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you dispute that there is little alternative but to obey an order
> > > > > > > > given by a commanding officer when one is on active duty service?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure. That commanding officer is going to have trouble
> > > > > > > when his efficiency reports are written and he comes up
> > > > > > > for promotion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is not the ultimate purpose of the military to settle disputes by
> > > > > > > > violent means?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, whatever.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You deduce, argue, and dispute from your facts, but you
> > > > > > > do not know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. Press [1] fails to contradict with facts my point about the
> > > > > > relative lack of control over one's life in military service compared
> > > > > > to civilian life, and also does not answer the question about the
> > > > > > ultimate purpose of the military.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] Your opportunity to complain about third person reference, Mr.
> > > > > > Sornson.
> > > > >
> > > > > I failed to contradict fact. Now _there_ is an
> > > > > indictment. You talk and argue and dispute, but you do
> > > > > not know.
> > > > >
> > > > > I reckon that most people in the military have better
> > > > > control over their lives than you do.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Are military personnel at will to quit the military anytime
> > > > they want?
> > >
> > > Military people sign contracts, the same as civilians.
> > > The contracts can be renegotiated, the same as
> > > civilians.

> >
> > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> >
> > Most employees in many countries (in particular the US) have no
> > contract, but are at will employees. For example, I have the right to
> > walk off my job at any time, and similarly, my employer has the right
> > to terminate my employment without notice, and for any reason other
> > than those specifically prohibited by law.
> >
> > Do US soldiers in Iraq have the ability to terminate their contracts
> > and leave the service? I think not. In fact, the Department of Defense
> > has issued "stop loss" order requiring soldiers to serve BEYOND their
> > contractually agreed upon term.
> >
> > > > Do civilians get sent to jail if they quit their jobs?
> > >
> > > Civilians also suffer the consequences of breaking a
> > > contract.

> >
> > Except for a few high level professional positions in the US (since
> > this discussion started out with the US as the relevant country),
> > contractual arrangements for employees in the US are almost unheard of.
> > The only action that can be taken against an "at will" employee for
> > quitting a job is denying unemployment compensation payments.
> >
> > > The military prefers to discharge any person
> > > that prefers not to be there, rather than housing and
> > > feeding him.

> >
> > Not if it wants to set an example to keep other soldiers fighting in an
> > unpopular war (e.g. Iraq).
> >
> > > That discharge under less than honorable
> > > conditions may eventually persuade the recipient that
> > > he would rather have spent the remainder of his
> > > enlistment in the stockade than be refused those jobs
> > > on civvy street.

> >
> > A very different situation from leaving a job in civilian employment -
> > especially if one accepts a job offers from a new employer before
> > quitting the current job (a common and accepted practice in the US).
> >
> > > But this is all legalese. A man gives his word, and
> > > lives up to it.

> >
> > And women...?
> >
> > What if the other party makes false or misleading promises? Is the man
> > or woman still bound by his or her promise?

>
> Yes.


Nuremberg Principle IV does not agree in the case of the soldier being
asked to participate in a war of aggression (e.g. the US conquest of
Iraq).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #309 of 311

Re: VOTE today

In article
<1163732251.073975.120850@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1163569465.716545.192780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1163553889.905096.205550@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
> > > > ,
> > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <1163469953.152570.163880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <1163390979.325960.43570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <1163373013.075290.15450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > > > > > > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > president.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > > > > > > > > > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > > > > > > > > > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Press:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
> > > > > > > > > > > combined with implied insult. [Yawn]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See my reply to Bill Sornson.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You must obey a lawful order given by a police officer.
> > > > > > > > > > Commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers
> > > > > > > > > > have better things to do than micro-manage their troops.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The authority of police officers is limited to enforcing laws. A
> > > > > > > > > commanding officer can control every minute of a subordinates life if
> > > > > > > > > he/she so desires.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
> > > > > > > > > > > maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
> > > > > > > > > > > also have something to offer to society.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Everybody knows me as a dupe of the most recent special
> > > > > > > > > > interest group to persuade me with their program.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You ever watch movies that trade in a subject you have
> > > > > > > > > > mastered? Sickening, is it not? You talk as if
> > > > > > > > > > everything you know about the military you got from
> > > > > > > > > > movies.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was never claiming to be an expert in military life. However, some
> > > > > > > > > things are evident based on deduction from available (and basically
> > > > > > > > > undisputed) facts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you dispute that there is little alternative but to obey an order
> > > > > > > > > given by a commanding officer when one is on active duty service?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure. That commanding officer is going to have trouble
> > > > > > > > when his efficiency reports are written and he comes up
> > > > > > > > for promotion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is not the ultimate purpose of the military to settle disputes by
> > > > > > > > > violent means?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, whatever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You deduce, argue, and dispute from your facts, but you
> > > > > > > > do not know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. Press [1] fails to contradict with facts my point about the
> > > > > > > relative lack of control over one's life in military service compared
> > > > > > > to civilian life, and also does not answer the question about the
> > > > > > > ultimate purpose of the military.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] Your opportunity to complain about third person reference, Mr.
> > > > > > > Sornson.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I failed to contradict fact. Now _there_ is an
> > > > > > indictment. You talk and argue and dispute, but you do
> > > > > > not know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I reckon that most people in the military have better
> > > > > > control over their lives than you do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Are military personnel at will to quit the military anytime
> > > > > they want?
> > > >
> > > > Military people sign contracts, the same as civilians.
> > > > The contracts can be renegotiated, the same as
> > > > civilians.
> > >
> > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > >
> > > Most employees in many countries (in particular the US) have no
> > > contract, but are at will employees. For example, I have the right to
> > > walk off my job at any time, and similarly, my employer has the right
> > > to terminate my employment without notice, and for any reason other
> > > than those specifically prohibited by law.
> > >
> > > Do US soldiers in Iraq have the ability to terminate their contracts
> > > and leave the service? I think not. In fact, the Department of Defense
> > > has issued "stop loss" order requiring soldiers to serve BEYOND their
> > > contractually agreed upon term.
> > >
> > > > > Do civilians get sent to jail if they quit their jobs?
> > > >
> > > > Civilians also suffer the consequences of breaking a
> > > > contract.
> > >
> > > Except for a few high level professional positions in the US (since
> > > this discussion started out with the US as the relevant country),
> > > contractual arrangements for employees in the US are almost unheard of.
> > > The only action that can be taken against an "at will" employee for
> > > quitting a job is denying unemployment compensation payments.
> > >
> > > > The military prefers to discharge any person
> > > > that prefers not to be there, rather than housing and
> > > > feeding him.
> > >
> > > Not if it wants to set an example to keep other soldiers fighting in an
> > > unpopular war (e.g. Iraq).
> > >
> > > > That discharge under less than honorable
> > > > conditions may eventually persuade the recipient that
> > > > he would rather have spent the remainder of his
> > > > enlistment in the stockade than be refused those jobs
> > > > on civvy street.
> > >
> > > A very different situation from leaving a job in civilian employment -
> > > especially if one accepts a job offers from a new employer before
> > > quitting the current job (a common and accepted practice in the US).
> > >
> > > > But this is all legalese. A man gives his word, and
> > > > lives up to it.
> > >
> > > And women...?
> > >
> > > What if the other party makes false or misleading promises? Is the man
> > > or woman still bound by his or her promise?

> >
> > Yes.

>
> Nuremberg Principle IV does not agree in the case of the soldier being
> asked to participate in a war of aggression (e.g. the US conquest of
> Iraq).


What are you talking about? This is not responsive.

All your theory and disputation do not change the fact
of the matter: you do not know.

--
Michael Press
post #310 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1163732251.073975.120850@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1163569465.716545.192780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1163553889.905096.205550@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > ,
> > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <1163469953.152570.163880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > <1163390979.325960.43570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > <1163373013.075290.15450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > president.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Press:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
> > > > > > > > > > > > combined with implied insult. [Yawn]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > See my reply to Bill Sornson.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You must obey a lawful order given by a police officer.
> > > > > > > > > > > Commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers
> > > > > > > > > > > have better things to do than micro-manage their troops.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The authority of police officers is limited to enforcing laws. A
> > > > > > > > > > commanding officer can control every minute of a subordinates life if
> > > > > > > > > > he/she so desires.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
> > > > > > > > > > > > maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
> > > > > > > > > > > > also have something to offer to society.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Everybody knows me as a dupe of the most recent special
> > > > > > > > > > > interest group to persuade me with their program.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You ever watch movies that trade in a subject you have
> > > > > > > > > > > mastered? Sickening, is it not? You talk as if
> > > > > > > > > > > everything you know about the military you got from
> > > > > > > > > > > movies.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I was never claiming to be an expert in military life. However, some
> > > > > > > > > > things are evident based on deduction from available (and basically
> > > > > > > > > > undisputed) facts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you dispute that there is little alternative but to obey an order
> > > > > > > > > > given by a commanding officer when one is on active duty service?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sure. That commanding officer is going to have trouble
> > > > > > > > > when his efficiency reports are written and he comes up
> > > > > > > > > for promotion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is not the ultimate purpose of the military to settle disputes by
> > > > > > > > > > violent means?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yeah, whatever.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You deduce, argue, and dispute from your facts, but you
> > > > > > > > > do not know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mr. Press [1] fails to contradict with facts my point about the
> > > > > > > > relative lack of control over one's life in military service compared
> > > > > > > > to civilian life, and also does not answer the question about the
> > > > > > > > ultimate purpose of the military.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] Your opportunity to complain about third person reference, Mr.
> > > > > > > > Sornson.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I failed to contradict fact. Now _there_ is an
> > > > > > > indictment. You talk and argue and dispute, but you do
> > > > > > > not know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I reckon that most people in the military have better
> > > > > > > control over their lives than you do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? Are military personnel at will to quit the military anytime
> > > > > > they want?
> > > > >
> > > > > Military people sign contracts, the same as civilians.
> > > > > The contracts can be renegotiated, the same as
> > > > > civilians.
> > > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > Most employees in many countries (in particular the US) have no
> > > > contract, but are at will employees. For example, I have the right to
> > > > walk off my job at any time, and similarly, my employer has the right
> > > > to terminate my employment without notice, and for any reason other
> > > > than those specifically prohibited by law.
> > > >
> > > > Do US soldiers in Iraq have the ability to terminate their contracts
> > > > and leave the service? I think not. In fact, the Department of Defense
> > > > has issued "stop loss" order requiring soldiers to serve BEYOND their
> > > > contractually agreed upon term.
> > > >
> > > > > > Do civilians get sent to jail if they quit their jobs?
> > > > >
> > > > > Civilians also suffer the consequences of breaking a
> > > > > contract.
> > > >
> > > > Except for a few high level professional positions in the US (since
> > > > this discussion started out with the US as the relevant country),
> > > > contractual arrangements for employees in the US are almost unheard of.
> > > > The only action that can be taken against an "at will" employee for
> > > > quitting a job is denying unemployment compensation payments.
> > > >
> > > > > The military prefers to discharge any person
> > > > > that prefers not to be there, rather than housing and
> > > > > feeding him.
> > > >
> > > > Not if it wants to set an example to keep other soldiers fighting in an
> > > > unpopular war (e.g. Iraq).
> > > >
> > > > > That discharge under less than honorable
> > > > > conditions may eventually persuade the recipient that
> > > > > he would rather have spent the remainder of his
> > > > > enlistment in the stockade than be refused those jobs
> > > > > on civvy street.
> > > >
> > > > A very different situation from leaving a job in civilian employment -
> > > > especially if one accepts a job offers from a new employer before
> > > > quitting the current job (a common and accepted practice in the US).
> > > >
> > > > > But this is all legalese. A man gives his word, and
> > > > > lives up to it.
> > > >
> > > > And women...?
> > > >
> > > > What if the other party makes false or misleading promises? Is the man
> > > > or woman still bound by his or her promise?
> > >
> > > Yes.

> >
> > Nuremberg Principle IV does not agree in the case of the soldier being
> > asked to participate in a war of aggression (e.g. the US conquest of
> > Iraq).

>
> What are you talking about? This is not responsive.
>
> All your theory and disputation do not change the fact
> of the matter: you do not know.


Right now there are people in the US in prison because they insisted in
quitting the military. Please cite a case where a civilian has been
sent to prison for quitting his/her job.

Do you dispute that a person in the military can receive punishment
including prison or death for disobeying orders? The most that can be
done to a civilian employee for disobeying orders is termination of
employment, and in a very few cases, so financial compensation for
violating fiduciary responsibility. Does anyone dispute this?

The basic facts are clear, and do not require military experience to
obtain, no matter how much some want to belabor the point.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #311 of 311

Re: VOTE today

In article
<1163765518.583603.56150@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1163732251.073975.120850@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1163569465.716545.192780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <1163553889.905096.205550@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <1163469953.152570.163880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <1163390979.325960.43570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > <1163373013.075290.15450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > president.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Press:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > combined with implied insult. [Yawn]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > See my reply to Bill Sornson.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You must obey a lawful order given by a police officer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers
> > > > > > > > > > > > have better things to do than micro-manage their troops.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The authority of police officers is limited to enforcing laws. A
> > > > > > > > > > > commanding officer can control every minute of a subordinates life if
> > > > > > > > > > > he/she so desires.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
> > > > > > > > > > > > > also have something to offer to society.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Everybody knows me as a dupe of the most recent special
> > > > > > > > > > > > interest group to persuade me with their program.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You ever watch movies that trade in a subject you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > mastered? Sickening, is it not? You talk as if
> > > > > > > > > > > > everything you know about the military you got from
> > > > > > > > > > > > movies.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I was never claiming to be an expert in military life. However, some
> > > > > > > > > > > things are evident based on deduction from available (and basically
> > > > > > > > > > > undisputed) facts.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you dispute that there is little alternative but to obey an order
> > > > > > > > > > > given by a commanding officer when one is on active duty service?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sure. That commanding officer is going to have trouble
> > > > > > > > > > when his efficiency reports are written and he comes up
> > > > > > > > > > for promotion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is not the ultimate purpose of the military to settle disputes by
> > > > > > > > > > > violent means?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, whatever.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You deduce, argue, and dispute from your facts, but you
> > > > > > > > > > do not know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. Press [1] fails to contradict with facts my point about the
> > > > > > > > > relative lack of control over one's life in military service compared
> > > > > > > > > to civilian life, and also does not answer the question about the
> > > > > > > > > ultimate purpose of the military.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] Your opportunity to complain about third person reference, Mr.
> > > > > > > > > Sornson.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I failed to contradict fact. Now _there_ is an
> > > > > > > > indictment. You talk and argue and dispute, but you do
> > > > > > > > not know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I reckon that most people in the military have better
> > > > > > > > control over their lives than you do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really? Are military personnel at will to quit the military anytime
> > > > > > > they want?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Military people sign contracts, the same as civilians.
> > > > > > The contracts can be renegotiated, the same as
> > > > > > civilians.
> > > > >
> > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > >
> > > > > Most employees in many countries (in particular the US) have no
> > > > > contract, but are at will employees. For example, I have the right to
> > > > > walk off my job at any time, and similarly, my employer has the right
> > > > > to terminate my employment without notice, and for any reason other
> > > > > than those specifically prohibited by law.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do US soldiers in Iraq have the ability to terminate their contracts
> > > > > and leave the service? I think not. In fact, the Department of Defense
> > > > > has issued "stop loss" order requiring soldiers to serve BEYOND their
> > > > > contractually agreed upon term.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Do civilians get sent to jail if they quit their jobs?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Civilians also suffer the consequences of breaking a
> > > > > > contract.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except for a few high level professional positions in the US (since
> > > > > this discussion started out with the US as the relevant country),
> > > > > contractual arrangements for employees in the US are almost unheard of.
> > > > > The only action that can be taken against an "at will" employee for
> > > > > quitting a job is denying unemployment compensation payments.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The military prefers to discharge any person
> > > > > > that prefers not to be there, rather than housing and
> > > > > > feeding him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if it wants to set an example to keep other soldiers fighting in an
> > > > > unpopular war (e.g. Iraq).
> > > > >
> > > > > > That discharge under less than honorable
> > > > > > conditions may eventually persuade the recipient that
> > > > > > he would rather have spent the remainder of his
> > > > > > enlistment in the stockade than be refused those jobs
> > > > > > on civvy street.
> > > > >
> > > > > A very different situation from leaving a job in civilian employment -
> > > > > especially if one accepts a job offers from a new employer before
> > > > > quitting the current job (a common and accepted practice in the US).
> > > > >
> > > > > > But this is all legalese. A man gives his word, and
> > > > > > lives up to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And women...?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if the other party makes false or misleading promises? Is the man
> > > > > or woman still bound by his or her promise?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Nuremberg Principle IV does not agree in the case of the soldier being
> > > asked to participate in a war of aggression (e.g. the US conquest of
> > > Iraq).

> >
> > What are you talking about? This is not responsive.
> >
> > All your theory and disputation do not change the fact
> > of the matter: you do not know.

>
> Right now there are people in the US in prison because they insisted in
> quitting the military. Please cite a case where a civilian has been
> sent to prison for quitting his/her job.


It is a matter of contracts. When enlisting in the
military one agrees to certain terms. Since you know
the terms of enlistment, we may take for granted that
military personnel knew the terms.

As for those people in prison, have you read the
court-martial record? Have you talked with those
peoples comrades in arms? What do you know? Huh? Other
than what some third party has told you?

>
> Do you dispute that a person in the military can receive punishment
> including prison or death for disobeying orders? The most that can be
> done to a civilian employee for disobeying orders is termination of
> employment, and in a very few cases, so financial compensation for
> violating fiduciary responsibility. Does anyone dispute this?
>
> The basic facts are clear, and do not require military experience to
> obtain, no matter how much some want to belabor the point.


What do you know, other than your facts? And what do
you mean to convey by reiterating them? About military
life you do not know, and you do want to know.

--
Michael Press
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today