AS your so fond of saying answer the freaking question..... Or are you going to quit the board as well and tell everyone you know to stay away because we dont play to YOUR rules....
WHO GETS TO DETERMINE IF THE CONTRACT IS STUPID...... Only you? or both parties? is only your opinion the one that matters????? Or do you NOT want to debate your stance......
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." -Dr. Randy Pausch
Death is lighter than a feather, Duty is heavier than a mountain
Yes I do, and its one that you signed and now your type are bitching and moaning about pay cuts. You want to throw the book at me because I got out but now your type are bitching, your bitching about the very thing you are so willing to throw the book at me for but oh its different now that it sucks for you thats what makes you a hypocrite.
This is what I am debating period.
Your wrong. Whether the contract is good or bad is a courts decision, not yours. And there aren't any pay cuts. There is only the usual dems trying to tell Bush what to do and trying to be commanders in chief. They will fail like they always have. And you will fail like you always have.
When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.
You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.
BTW thats the job of the legislative branch, thats why this is not a dictator ship or an empire. Thats what makes america so great is the balance of power and that is all the legislative branch is doing is balancing the power, if the troops suffer oh well, there blood will be on bushs hands for not executing the will of the people, the people put democrats in office for a reason and that reason was to stop the war. But you dont care about any of this you just want to flame.
That is absolutely INCORRECT. All that is necessary for a contract to exist is a "meeting of the minds". Hell, you wouldn't even need to sign, verbal would have sufficed. The military offered you training, pay and a career - you're initial showing up to serve would have been your acceptance. Any court in the land would see your signature to that contract as a "meeting of the minds" and that a valid contract existed that you became a party of. The time to contest said contract or argue about it would have been BEFORE you signed it. I tell everyone this who buy a used car "as is" without having it inspected first. When it dies 2 weeks later, enjoy your car! The time to fight over a contract is before you sign, you can't very well complain much later when things don't work out to your liking.
“You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock
The truth is now known! The Pentagon hates our troops and hates America.
I understand how thing traditionally work. The issue here is since the judicial branch wont empeach bush and are not electable the only thing the people can do is vote in legislators that will stone wall the president. Since the legislative branch does not have a quarm to all out stone wall the president through over riding his veto they have to take the back door which is cutting off his funding. The will of the people will be done, the troops are not the people, you are a small percentage of the over all population. The hardliner, hearlessness of the republican party as well as the total fiscal irrisponsibility is what totally sunk you, and I see nothing changes with republicans as they sit on this forum and spew out hard talk, swear words, inflamitory remarks and the like, the people are tired of this crap.
BTW no one anwsered the original question, people just said a bunch of words.
The executive branch doesn't control the money, Congress does. If Congress doesn't pay the troops, they'll get kicked out of office the next election. A vast majority wouldn't put up with playing politics with troops and their families. Only shitbag cowards like yourself who couldn't hack it in boot camp and hate everyone else that did make it through would want to see that happen.
PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
"Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
You can't spell Liberals without Lies.
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." -Dr. Randy Pausch
Death is lighter than a feather, Duty is heavier than a mountain
What it boils down to is I agree with contracts regarding financial commitments but I strongly disagree with contracts involving indentured servituded, the contract just by its nature is null and void as soon as either party no longer wants to hold to it, the constitution superceeds these contracts. The only reason the military gets away with these contracts and the draft is because of a single supreme court precedence which I think is total BS.
This is a new human rights act that applies to forign laborers but could easily be applied to the military: http://www.theorator.com/bills110/text/hr1763.html
The 13th ammedment protects us from indentured servitude. Even though the supreme court ruled in favor of military servitude, I dont agree with a single court presidence over riding the constitution.
That being said I believe you should have to repay any monitary bonuses you receive to satisfy your financial end of the contract but not physical presence as that is servitude (whether you signed up for it or not).
So now that also being said your type are the ones touting the signed on the dotted argument and now you bitch and cry about the book being thrown back at you.
Last edited by rppearso; 05-14-2008 at 02:54 PM.