SOLDIER STEALS CARS TO AVOID IRAQ

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:53:29 GMT, "Kevin Cunningham"
> wrote:

>
>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:45:11 -0700, Garth Almgren >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Around 7/18/2006 10:53 PM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea)
>>><http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:13:36 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is very sad, for me, to read stories about people shirking
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like George Bush who lied us into holocaust in iraq??
>>>
>>>I thought you said you didn't believe in holocausts...
>>>
>>
>> Never said that though I do doubt if the jewish holocaust of the 1930s
>> and 40s ever happened.
>
>This is why most folks think your an idiot. The holocaust happened. Every
>psycologist was killed, every psychiatrist was killed, gypsy's were killed,
>poles were killed, 6 million jews were killed. In my small southern town I
>knew 3 people who's lives were changed by the murderous nazis.

So 3 people had there lives changed by the nazis and that proves the
nazis killed 6 million jooz????????? HAHAHAHAHAHA. You are pathetic.

Loco laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE proud graduate of the South Hampton
Institute of Technology ****ted this bull**** in rec.autos.driving:

> HAHAHAHA. You are an idiot. And i bet you also believe the official
> story on 9-11 despite the little evidence it's true and the wealth of
> evidence it's false. Like all sheep you just accept whatever the govt
> and media tell you. Pathetic.

You mean like you blindly accept all that "speed kills," crap that the
govt spews forth to justify revenue patrols???? Pathetic.

--
Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend defends a known *DRUNK DRIVER*:

"Teddy went off a single lane bridge with no guard rail at night.
The real killer was the idiot who built the bridge. Next question."
--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE
June 20th, 2006
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/zlnyz
Message ID:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:19:14 -0400, necromancer
> wrote:

>Loco laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE proud graduate of the South Hampton
>Institute of Technology ****ted this bull**** in rec.autos.driving:
>
>> HAHAHAHA. You are an idiot. And i bet you also believe the official
>> story on 9-11 despite the little evidence it's true and the wealth of
>> evidence it's false. Like all sheep you just accept whatever the govt
>> and media tell you. Pathetic.
>
>You mean like you blindly accept all that "speed kills," crap that the
>govt spews forth to justify revenue patrols???? Pathetic.

I don't know that the govt says it, but i believe it because it's
true. It was proven in 1974 when america went to the 55 and overnight
highway fatalities dropped 16%. THINK

"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:19:14 -0400, necromancer
> > wrote:
>
> >Loco laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE proud graduate of the South Hampton
> >Institute of Technology ****ted this bull**** in rec.autos.driving:
> >
> >> HAHAHAHA. You are an idiot. And i bet you also believe the official
> >> story on 9-11 despite the little evidence it's true and the wealth of
> >> evidence it's false. Like all sheep you just accept whatever the govt
> >> and media tell you. Pathetic.
> >
> >You mean like you blindly accept all that "speed kills," crap that the
> >govt spews forth to justify revenue patrols???? Pathetic.
>
> I don't know that the govt says it, but i believe it because it's
> true. It was proven in 1974 when america went to the 55 and overnight
> highway fatalities dropped 16%. THINK
>

Wow. Talk about blindly accepting government propaganda. The government
intentionally concealed the fact that fatalities actually went up so that
people would accept the lower speed limits and provide the revenue patrols
opportunities to hand out tickets. That 16% figure was made up to placate
the gullible. You are truly naive.

In article . com>,
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote:

> gpsman wrote:
> >
> > ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
> > Any person subject to this chapter who--
> > (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
> > (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of
> > the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the
> > order; or
> > (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
> > shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
> >
>
> The key word there is "lawful". A soldier can make a strong argument
> that this war is unlawful and he can thus refuse to serve in it. THINK

Actually, considering that there's no draft in the United States, anyone
who doesn't want to serve in Bush's oil war can simply not enlist.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:15:06 -0400, Shawn Hirn >
wrote:

>In article . com>,
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote:
>
>> gpsman wrote:
>> >
>> > ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
>> > Any person subject to this chapter who--
>> > (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
>> > (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of
>> > the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the
>> > order; or
>> > (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
>> > shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
>> >
>>
>> The key word there is "lawful". A soldier can make a strong argument
>> that this war is unlawful and he can thus refuse to serve in it. THINK
>
>Actually, considering that there's no draft in the United States, anyone
>who doesn't want to serve in Bush's oil war can simply not enlist.

What about the many soldiers who joined before the iraq holocaust
started.?

>> The key word there is "lawful". A soldier can make a strong argument
>> that this war is unlawful and he can thus refuse to serve in it. THINK
>
> Actually, considering that there's no draft in the United States,

By 2010, there will be. Stop-loss can only work for so long, and the
numbers of enlistees are dropping fast while new enlistments are also
dropping fast. We have two choices...
1) pull everyone out of Iraq and Afghanistan soon, and don't invade Iran
2) Implement a draft

Which do YOU think is more likely to happen? -Dave

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:15:06 -0400, Shawn Hirn >
> wrote:
>
> >In article . com>,
> > "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote:
> >
> >> gpsman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
> >> > Any person subject to this chapter who--
> >> > (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
> >> > (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of
> >> > the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the
> >> > order; or
> >> > (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
> >> > shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The key word there is "lawful". A soldier can make a strong argument
> >> that this war is unlawful and he can thus refuse to serve in it. THINK
> >
> >Actually, considering that there's no draft in the United States, anyone
> >who doesn't want to serve in Bush's oil war can simply not enlist.
>
> What about the many soldiers who joined before the iraq holocaust
> started.?

They joined of their own accord.

gpsman wrote:
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: <crosspost adjusted>
> > gpsman wrote:
> > >
> > > ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
> > > Any person subject to this chapter who--
> > > (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
> > > (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of
> > > the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the
> > > order; or
> > > (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
> > > shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
> > >
> >
> > The key word there is "lawful". A soldier can make a strong argument
> > that this war is unlawful and he can thus refuse to serve in it. THINK
>
> Duh. It doesn't matter if the war is lawful or not. If the US
> military is in it, and you are a member of the military, your
> obligation is to follow lawful orders and not to debate the lawfulness
> of the military action. That's considered more than a tad beyond the
> scope of duties of a Specialist 4th Class... and will not fly.
>
> Obviously you've never served in the military. Military law is more
> different than similar to civilian law. READ. Then THINK.
>
> An honorable man takes the oath and abides by it, regardless of his
> personal feelings or hazards to his personal being. No excuses are
> tolerated. You are allowed to be an idiot for all the world to see
> thanks to men who chose to serve with honor. That might be something
> for you to think about.
>
> The time to decline service is before enlisting of your own free will
> into an entirely volunteer army and taking advantage of military
> training, housing, pay and benefits.
>
> "Uptain told Todd Monday that he wanted to plead guilty to the two
> counts of felony theft and other charges because ''of my strong
> religious beliefs and I know exactly what I've done.''
>
> Typical idiot with "strong religious beliefs". My strong belief is
> that his nutcase religious ass is going to have a Kansas address for an
> extended period, once he's released from Deer Lodge prison.

I do not want to live in Kansas. But if my choice is between Kansas
and Iraq, I would also choose Kansas.

>
> If I am alive when he dies I'll make a special trip to **** on his
> grave. If yours happen to be nearby and I have a little leftover
> urine...
>
> My opinions of this case are in no way intended to indicate that I
> don't feel the current actions in Iraq/Afghanistan are not being
> directed from the top by imbecilic criminals. There is no discernable
> honor between the White House and the Pentagon. Even the Supreme Court
> can see that.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Billzz wrote:
> "gpsman" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Shawn Hirn wrote: <brevity snip/crossposts adjusted>
> >> This guy is a world-class idiot. First off, anyone who volunteers to
> >> serve in the National Guard in any state in this day and age is a fool.
> >> If that guy wanted to evade military service, all he had to do is tell
> >> his superior officer that he is gay and he wants to make passionate love
> >> to President Bush! If he had done that, he would have been bounced out
> >> of the military quickly, quietly, and without going to jail!
> >
> > First of all, he didn't want to avoid serving in the military, he just
> > wanted to avoid combat zones. Unfortunately for him, that has been the
> > feeling of most soldiers since the dawn of war and probably many who
> > may sit at his courts martial.
> >
> > Obviously you've never served in the military.
> >
> > One cannot lie their way out of their obligation once they've sworn the
> > "Oath of enlistment". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment
> >
> > ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS
> > Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs
> > any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official
> > document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official
> > statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial
> > may direct. http://www.army.mil/references/UCMJ1.html
> >
> > ART. 84. UNLAWFUL ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION
> > Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment or
> > appointment in or a separation from the armed forces of any person who
> > is known to him to be ineligible for that enlistment, appointment, or
> > separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall
> > be punished as a court-martial may direct.
> >
> > ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
> > Any person subject to this chapter who--
> > (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
> > (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of
> > the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the
> > order; or
> > (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
> > shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
> >
> > ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
> > Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and
> > neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed
> > forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
> > forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject
> > to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a
> > general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and
> > degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that
> > court. http://tinyurl.com/q4wep
> >
> > Military law is more different than similar to civilian law and every
> > man should be subject to it during a period of their lives.
> > -----
> >
> > - gpsman
>
> Very well stated, and very well researched.
>
> I served from private to colonel, and when I told my wife I had orders to
> Vietnam, she went into labor, and some six weeks later we (including our
> new-born son)were on an airplane from Germany to the states. I went to
> Vietnam, saw my son in Hawaii, after six months, for R&R, for his first
> haircut, then back to the Mekong Delta. We did not *want* that. But we
> knew that eventually the call would come. And there was no question, in
> either of our minds that, I would *not* go. Whether it was a *good* war or
> a *bad* war was not even in our thinking. We got off the airplane in time
> to hear President Johnson decline to run, and we knew what that meant, but
> there was no question that I would not go.

Just because you are stupid, doesn't mean everyone is stupid. No sane
person would travel to a combat zone.

>
> It is very sad, for me, to read stories about people shirking
> responsibility. The facts are (and I did some operations research/systems
> analysis) that there exists a large probablility that the individual will
> not be in a combat unit, and even if that, that the unit will see combat,
> and even if that, that any one individual will be KIA, MIA, or WIA. And I
> served with a special operations force (not SF myself) been on fifty ground
> operations, and another two hundred hours in helicopter command and control
> and never lost a person. Maybe lucky, but the odds are (given a reasonable
> unit) that one will survive combat.

The odds are that one will survive a round of Russian Roullette, but
only idiots play it.

>
> Anyway, this has nothing to do with rec.autos.driving. I did have an XK-140
> and an E-type Jaguar, both of which I had to sell, because of military
> moves, but I can't dwell on the past. Been across the country a number of
> times in my Jeep Grand Cherokee with GPS, laptop computer, cellphone, and
> radios. Good trips. Now thinking of another Jaguar XK8 or even a Lotus
> Exige, just for a little country-road driving, nothing serious. Just gets
> us back to talk about rec.autos.driving. Maybe the 2006 Corvette!