"Social Security Will Go Broke in 1988" - Bush

[The Mullinator]

So... You're pretty much agreeing that he shouldn't be trusted?

Well yes, but my point was that you shouldn't use this as a reason to trust Bush any less than any other politician.

 

[Bodacious]

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of privatizing (or whatever bush is wanting to do with it) SS?

The advantages are that privatizing SS would give the taxpayer greater control over his or her money. A small protion of thie FICA tax (3-6%) would go into 1 of 5 retirement accounts of their choice, like and IRA or mutual fund. This would mean a greater return when the individual retired.

The problem is that the small percentage being taken out to go into private accounts isn't going into SS. Because of that the government has to make up the difference to pay the current benefits and is going to cost 1 to 2 trillion over the next decade.

 

[No Limit]

The advantages are that privatizing SS would give the taxpayer greater control over his or her money. A small protion of thie FICA tax (3-6%) would go into 1 of 5 retirement accounts of their choice, like and IRA or mutual fund. This would mean a greater return when the individual retired.

The problem is that the small percentage being taken out to go into private accounts isn't going into SS. Because of that the government has to make up the difference to pay the current benefits and is going to cost 1 to 2 trillion over the next decade.

Don't forget the many benefit cuts, you always seem to forget about that part.

 

[Bodacious]

Why the hell are you bringing up My Lai? We are talking about what Kerry participated in. This is what you do, I want to discuss social security you bring up Kerry's vietnam record, I want top talk about HIS record you bring up My Lai, what the hell is wrong with you? Honestly.

You are saying Kerey participated in what was "Published US Policy." My Lai goes against published US Policy. That proves that a lot of things over there were against published US policy.

Why do you even make that argument when kerry says himself that what he did was illegal according to the geneva conventions? Are you saying Kerry is wrong? Honestly, I think I will take his word for it over yours, seeing as you have never served in the armed forces and have failed to produce anything supporting your claim that what kerry did was illegal.

If you were truly in the military you would know what bullshit that is. You do as you are told, especially when it is PUBLISHED US POLICY to do so.

If you were in the military you would now what BS your argument is. I will scan my dd214 for you and prove you wrong. You need to understand that a soldier has the right to refuse orders if ordered to do anything illegal or anything that is intentionally sending them to their death for vindictive reasons. Even then, there are other avenues of protest like Request Mass. Kerry could have brought the issue of commiting atrocities up the chain of command and they would have put a stop to it.

Maybe because I only posted my rebuttle of your idioitc talking point just now.

Then how can you claim, that "there are a number of logical people on this board," when they haven't even given their thoughts on the issue?

 

[Bodacious]

Don't forget the many benefit cuts, you always seem to forget about that part.

What benefit cuts? You can't produce anything to support your claim at all.

I will say there is a formula recalculation in the future that will cut SS benefits but the benefits that are cut will be made up by the payment from the private accounts. In reality the retiree will get more from SS benefits than they would today.

Also, the idea that there will be benefit cuts is a democrat scare tactic.

 

[CptStern]

I will scan my dd214 for you and prove you wrong. You need to understand that a soldier has the right to refuse orders if ordered to do anything illegal or anything that is intentionally sending them to their death for vindictive reasons.

tell that to Jeremy Hinzman

 

[No Limit]

You are saying Kerey participated in what was "Published US Policy." My Lai goes against published US Policy. That proves that a lot of things over there were against published US policy.

If you truly were in the US military I really hope they threw you out as you don't seem to have any understanding.

What happened at my Lai was not part of published US policy. No where does it say that you can round up hundreds of civillians and then kill each one. The soldiers that were there refused to do this and Calley had to kill those people himself. This is a war crime. What Kerry did was participate in burning down villages which is what every soldier HAD to do because it was US policy to do so. Do you honestly fail to see this logic with your 'military background'.

Bush is currently trying to allow certain things that are considered torture and are illegal under the geniva conventions. Are you telling me that the 1000s of soldiers that are currently doing what Bush tells them to are commiting atrocities and should not be doing it?

 

[Bodacious]

tell that to Jeremy Hinzman

He wasn't ordered to commit atrocities.

He tried to claim consciensous objector status based on BS and the military called him on it. But hey, the military was wrong and now he is a canadian ( or wants to be).

He should have been awarded CO status in my opinoin, if that is what he believes. In reality he should have never joined the army in the first place.

However, he is guilty of desertion.

 

[CptStern]

he was CO because he said the war in iraq is illegal, and no he's not a canadian ..in fact canada will probably deport him once his refugee status is done with

 

[No Limit]

He wasn't ordered to commit atrocities.

He tried to claim consciensous objector status based on BS and the military called him on it. But hey, the military was wrong and now he is a canadian ( or wants to be).

He should have been awarded CO status in my opinoin, if that is what he believes. In reality he should have never joined the army in the first place.

However, he is guilty of desertion.

There we go you are officially an idiot. Him not wanting to participate in killing Iraqis is how different than Kerry not wanting to kill vietnamese? Now that Cpt Stern is here please do your self a favor and leave before you make a total ass of yourself (might be too late); Stern has a lot more patience than I do.

 

[CptStern]

heh only sometimes ..and even then I just go out and grab the first person I see and beat the living tar out of them before I respond to someone's post

man you should see what I do before I have to answer seinfeldrules posts *cracks knuckles and eyes person in next cubicle *

 

[Bodacious]

If you truly were in the US military I really hope they threw you out as you don't seem to have any understanding.

Nope, got an honorable discharge. You'll see that on my DD214 when I post it tonite.

What happened at my Lai was not part of published US policy. No where does it say that you can round up hundreds of civillians and then kill each one. The soldiers that were there refused to do this and Calley had to kill those people himself. This is a war crime. What Kerry did was participate in burning down villages which is what every soldier HAD to do because it was US policy to do so. Do you honestly fail to see this logic with your 'military background'.

Show me where it was policy for what Kerry described himself doing to be legal.

Like I said, by Kerry's own admission what he did was considered illegal by the geneva conventions. Are you saying Kerry is wrong? I think I would take Kerry's word over yours seeing as you have never served.

Bush is currently trying to allow certain things that are considered torture and are illegal under the geniva conventions. Are you telling me that the 1000s of soldiers that are currently doing what Bush tells them to are commiting atrocities and should not be doing it?

That depends. I know for a fact there aren't soldiers participating in free fire zones and targetting civillians on purpose. That being said I think things need to be handled by a case by case basis. I would like to see what Bush has authorized that is considered tortue by the geneva conventions. As of now I haven't seen anything, but then again I haven't put much research into the current torture happenings. Also, I do agree that every soldier should follow the genevia conventions to the letter of the law, and those who don't should be punished, and the ones who have have been punsished.

 

[Bodacious]

he was CO because he said the war in iraq is illegal, and no he's not a canadian ..in fact canada will probably deport him once his refugee status is done with

Then you havn't read what I have read because the first time he claimed CO was because of some religeous thing. Let me find the article.

 

[No Limit]

depends. I know for a fact there aren't soldiers participating in free fire zones and targetting civillians on purpose. That being said I think things need to be handled by a case by case basis. I would like to see what Bush has authorized that is considered tortue by the geneva conventions. As of now I haven't seen anything, but then again I haven't put much research into the current torture happenings. Also, I do agree that every soldier should follow the genevia conventions to the letter of the law, and those who don't should be punished, and the ones who have have been punsished.

Are you listening to yourself? Do me a favor, read your remarks in the last couple pages as I think you will see what an ass you are making of yourself. You say the guy in Canada said the war was illegal based on BS. The UN and pretty much everyone around the world says this war was illegal. So you say in this case he shouldn't pay attention to geniva while all other soldiers should? What the hell is wrong with you buddy? You still haven't told me.

 

[No Limit]

Then you havn't read what I have read because the first time he claimed CO was because of some religeous thing. Let me find the article.

He originally claimed conscientious objector status because that is the only thing he could do; you can not get out of a war by saying it is illegal. Honestly, even if you were in the military your lack of understanding is incredible.

 

[CptStern]

Then you havn't read what I have read because the first time he claimed CO was because of some religeous thing. Let me find the article.

that was afghanistan if my memory is correct

 

[Tr0n]

that was afghanistan if my memory is correct

Well you're old...so no your memory won't be correct.

(kidding kidding)

 

[CptStern]

Well you're old...so no your memory won't be correct.

(kidding kidding)

you sound like my wife :E

 

[Bodacious]

he was CO because he said the war in iraq is illegal, and no he's not a canadian ..in fact canada will probably deport him once his refugee status is done with

Source

Read it right there. It is even on his website.

They attended Quaker meetings in Fayetteville, where they found friends and a spiritual approach to violence in the world that, says Ms. Nguyen, "felt very right."

He was attending Quaker meetings and was using that as a basis to gain CO status. He might have thought the war was illegal but that wasn't the officail basis for his requesting CO.

And what I meant was, he wants to be canadian. If he had his way he would become canadian, would he not?

There we go you are officially an idiot. Him not wanting to participate in killing Iraqis is how different than Kerry not wanting to kill vietnamese? Now that Cpt Stern is here please do your self a favor and leave before you make a total ass of yourself (might be too late); Stern has a lot more patience than I do.

So why didn't Kerry refuse just as Hinzman did?

You say the guy in Canada said the war was illegal based on BS.

Fine, let me correct myself. Hinzman started going to Quaker meetings one day and claims CO status the next. His basis for CO was religeous reasons. Now I don't know what the CO was thinking but if one of your troops starts attending church and then wants CO status that is a little fishy. Had he been a quacker from the get go he probably would have gotten CO status. But no, he was scapegoating because he disagreed. Now he is doing what he thinks is the right thing. I don't think any less of him for upholding his convictions.

So you say in this case he shouldn't pay attention to geniva while all other soldiers should? What the hell is wrong with you buddy? You still haven't told me.

No you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that and I don't know how you think I implied that. Hinzman never committed atrocities and was never orderd to do so. I don't see how you make that correlation.

He originally claimed conscientious objector status because that is the only thing he could do; you can not get out of a war by saying it is illegal. Honestly, even if you were in the military your lack of understanding is incredible.

Is that not what I said? "Because of some religeous thing"

 

[Tr0n]

you sound like my wife :E

:|

I don't know how to respond to that.

 

[CptStern]

"yes dear" ..would suffice :E

 

[Tr0n]

"yes dear" ..would suffice :E

**** you is all that I can think of.

 

[CptStern]

well thankfully my wife doesnt say that ..replace "you" with me ..might be a bit more accurate :naughty:

 

[Bodacious]

This is what didn't get Hinsman his CO status, from the link above:

Three of his sergeants testified that he was a good soldier who "embodied Army Values." But one of them, First Sgt. James Carabello, said he couldn't understand how Mr. Hinzman, with all his training, could suddenly decide he was a conscientious objector.

"He fully knew what our mission is, and that is to do an Airborne Assault onto an objective and destroy the enemy. This did not become an issue until it was apparent we were going to deploy to Afghanistan."

That wasn't true. He had applied several weeks before learning about the deployment.

Hinzman is doing what he thinks is right, and I think that is admirable. He might get jail time in the end, but that doesn't mean his fight is any meaningless.

 

[No Limit]

You totally ignored my point, great. He HAD TO CLAIM CO status. You can not say a war is illegal and get out of it, you have to go!!!!!

From your own source:

He has in principle the basis for a refugee claim. He believes that the invasion of Iraq is an international human-rights violation in which he cannot morally take part; he says he will be subjected to persecution for this belief if sent back: imprisonment and dishonourable discharge, leading to discrimination in the job market. ("They were always telling us, 'You get dishonourable discharge and you're going to be flipping burgers your whole life.' ")

Bottomline, he though war was illegal and the only legal way to get out of it was to claim CO status; when that failed he fled the country which is illegal.

No you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that and I don't know how you think I implied that. Hinzman never committed atrocities and was never orderd to do so. I don't see how you make that correlation.

By your reasoning where you claim Kerry did commit atrocities Hinzman would also be commiting atrocities if he went to war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is considered illegal, do you understand that? Therefore it breaks geniva convetion rules as I already pointed out to you on numerous occasions (the use of torture for example).

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker yet you continue to repeat the exact same thing without actually listening to the facts.

 

[CptStern]

I think he lost his refugee claim ..which was on the basis that the war was illegal ..canadian authorities said he couldnt use that justification in his refugee hearing.

 

[No Limit]

4 warning points for dealing with this guy, oh well, I guess that's the price you pay . I honestly wish I could keep a calm attitude like you stern when people make idiotic claims and won't admit they are wrong. I swear, you must be on some kind of toxins for dealing with them the way you do .

 

[CptStern]

you got 4 points from this thread? may I ask why?
really, I dont have all that much patience ..I usually just walk away for awhile

 

[No Limit]

you got 4 points from this thread? may I ask why?
really, I dont have all that much patience ..I usually just walk away for awhile

I'm not sure why but I'm not going to disagree with the decision; I was being disrespectful to him to a degree because of my huge frustration of repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again. Kind of like that damn nelly song.

 

[CptStern]

ya I can see how you were frustrated but I agree, the mod thought it was justified so I guess you'll have to live with it

 

[Bodacious]

You totally ignored my point, great. He HAD TO CLAIM CO status. You can not say a war is illegal and get out of it, you have to go!!!!!

Where have I disagreed?

Bottomline, he though war was illegal and the only legal way to get out of it was to claim CO status; when that failed he fled the country which is illegal.

Again, where have I disagreed?

By your reasoning where you claim Kerry did commit atrocities Hinzman would also be commiting atrocities if he went to war in Iraq.

What have I said that made you think I think that? That is not my reasoning at all. Just by going to war does not mean Kerry comitted atrocities. There is a big difference in fighting a war and comitting atrocities. And Kerry is guilty by his own admission of comitting atrocities.

The war in Iraq is considered illegal, do you understand that? Therefore it breaks geniva convetion rules as I already pointed out to you on numerous occasions (the use of torture for example).

Just because a few atrocities were comittied does not invalidate the entire war as being illegal. The individual actions are illegal, not the war. The world might consider it illegal, but that doesn't make it so.

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker yet you continue to repeat the exact same thing without actually listening to the facts.

What facts? All you are doing is twisting what happened to fit your agenda. All of this stuff wouldn't happen if you would admit you were wrong about Kerry not comitting atrocities.

 

[CptStern]

Just because a few atrocities were comittied does not invalidate the entire war as being illegal. The individual actions are illegal, not the war. The world might consider it illegal, but that doesn't make it so.

yes it's technically illegal

"When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

 

[No Limit]

That is not my reasoning at all. Just by going to war does not mean Kerry comitted atrocities

But it is your reasoning. By going to war Kerry has to follow the US Army code even if it is illegal. Same thing is happening here; if he goes to war he has to do what the Army tells him (torture). If a family of 5 approaches a check point and doesn't stop the Army code is to kill everyone in that vehicle. When it turns out nothing was in that vehicle are you telling me that the soldiers that fired commited atrocities?

 

[Kommie]

yes it's technically illegal

"When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Stern, Thank you.
I feel kind of left out of this because bodacious is on my ignore list. :|

 

[Bodacious]

But it is your reasoning. By going to war Kerry has to follow the US Army code even if it is illegal.

That is where you are wrong. No soldier can be orderd to do somethign illegal. And if he is, he can protest. If the army says he is wrong, he should desert and do whatever is necessary to not compromise his beliefs. It is called conviction.

Same thing is happening here; if he goes to war he has to do what the Army tells him (torture).

But that isn't what happened is it? Hinzman was never orderd to torture anyone. He worked in kitchen while in afghanistan and when faced with going to Iraq he stood by his convictions and did the only thing he could do.

If a family of 5 approaches a check point and doesn't stop the Army code is to kill everyone in that vehicle. When it turns out nothing was in that vehicle are you telling me that the soldiers that fired commited atrocities?

No, they aren't committing atrocites, as long as he vehicle was given fair warning before being shot. I was witness to several of these exact same actions you describe, and like I said as long as the vehicle is given fair warning they are well withing the laws of war to kill everyone in that vehicle.

 

[Bodacious]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Read it right here

 

[Bodacious]

yes it's technically illegal

"When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

What weight does the UN have? Oil for palaces scandal ring a bell?

Give me a break. Kofi Anan's opinion mean nothing to me or America, obviously. Kofi Anan's opinoin doesn't make it illegal

 

[CptStern]

No, they aren't committing atrocites.

there are quite a few examples of atrocities being committed ..the shooting of civilians at military check points may or not have been technically justifiable but not morally ..I mean how many Iraqis speak english? in some cases women and children were killed

events such as these give do more to rally the opposition more than anything ..especially when most iraqis see troops guarding this instead of this

there's also a video of an american soldier killing a wounded iraqi to the cheers of his mates ...I dont feel like posting it cuz some dies in it

 

[CptStern]

What weight does the UN have? Oil for palaces scandal ring a bell?

Give me a break. Kofi Anan's opinion mean nothing to me or America, obviously. Kofi Anan's opinoin doesn't make it illegal

then why did you sign this?

 

[Bodacious]

there are quite a few examples of atrocities being committed ..the shooting of civilians at military check points may or not have been technically justifiable but not morally ..I mean how many Iraqis speak english? in some cases women and children were killed

I can't speak for all of the cases but the ones I can speak of they innocents killed were given fair warning. English doesn't matter, you have to be pretty dense to disregard someone waving at you to stop from a heavily armed checkpoint. I am aware of cases where entire families were killed.

Morally? Are you prepared to give your life and be resonsible for your mates deaths if you wrongly assume that what might look like a family running a checkpoint but in reality is a car bomb?

When it is all boiled down it is you or them and your mates. Do you risk your life and your mates or do you stop the possible oncoming threat? You will never know until the last round is fired and the car inspected, but that is how things are.

events such as these give do more to rally the opposition more than anything ..especially when most iraqis see troops guarding this instead of this

Bush might not have admitted it but I know some gernerals on the ground have acknowledged that mistake. I acknowledge that mistake.

Truth is the troops weren't prepared to be a police force. I am pretty sure the DoD acknowledges that shortcoming.

there's also a video of an american soldier killing a wounded iraqi to the cheers of his mates ...I dont feel like posting it cuz some dies in it

PM me the link if you wish.

Either way, these are single cases and I doubt in all of these people are ordered to commit these things.