I'm a bit late to the party & it appears that everyone has gotten drunk without me. I would just like to say that if Sarn's initial post was merely a roundabout way of saying that he'd prefer it if there were more transparency in government, then I think that many of us would agree with him. However, it's a bit silly for someone in the media (e.g., Cafferty) to pretend that he's surprised that we've established a permanent presence in Iraq. As of 2003, the US had bases in over 36 countries worldwide. Anyone that has studied American history even semi-seriously knows that it's unlikely that we'd ever fight in a country & then completely "desert" it afterwards. I don't give the average American much credit when it comes to intellect but I don't think that many of them would be at all surprised that leaving doesn't actually mean leaving. In American military terms, "leaving" merely means "we're leaving behind enough of the right people to ensure our current & future interests".

Yup, you're being forced to participate! You had no choice at all. You definitely didn't join in 2008 at the height of war in Iraq and you definitely didn't implicitly support the war by agreeing to possibly fight in it. And you definitely don't explicitly support the current broken US government by agreeing to serve it, kill for it, and even sacrifice your life to protect it.

OH WAIT, NO, THAT IS ALL WRONG. YOU ARE JUST A BAD PERSON.


Actually the only thing I'm trying to incite is some kind of "introspection" on your part, which is something of which you should probably be capable if you are even slightly as intelligent as you claim you are (hint: you aren't, which is why it is not possible.)

If people would only join their country's armies on the condition that they agree with their governments 100% then that would not be so good for the armies.

How about at all? Look, all I'm saying is that maybe one of these people should think when they say something like:



that maybe they shouldn't have accepted a job that would require them to be active participants?

Yeah, durr, the government shouldn't invade other countries and kill millions of people and rack up billions in debt *shoots Iraqis, cashes paycheck, is literally doing these things he is whining about.*

You have a point. It still seems to me that we ought to be able to discern the spirit of the law to prevent the abuse of technicalities. Simple laws make this much simpler. I'm thinking, for example, like chucking all U.S. tax law and going to a flat tax.



You use the word 'apathy' like you think it's bad. In truth, I don't have the same level of enthusiasm for a particular subject as you (knee-jerk politics) and therefore I am labeled as having a problematic attitude that is ruining America. As I said earlier, the opposition we face with these insensible bills has an underlying cause. I'd rather bypass these endless battles and fix the problem that is causing them (particularly regarding patent law and the war industry). I think this approach makes me more sensible than apathetic, but whatever.

Stepped taxes are based on the decreasing marginal value of income; a flat tax would radically increase the tax burden on people with low incomes. It's also a simple idea and very little of any tax code is devoted to defining it. A higher priority should be retiring certain deductions and eliminating exceptions based on the types of income.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps I've already gone through some introspection on the subject? Now put yourself in my shoes. You've decided you disagree with the direction the US is taking in the war. But you already signed, already swore, already agreed. What do you do now?

What I've done (along with many other military members that you're currently condemning) is decided to make my position and opinion known, and to encourage people to DO SOMETHING about the path our nation is taking. You're trying to tell me that's not appropriate?

Also, for the record, I've never shot an Iraqi. Or anyone else for that matter.

Ok, that sounds great. How do we do that?

Refuse to obey illegal orders, even if it means taking a bullet in the head for insubordination. Otherwise I guess I really didn't care all that much.

Illegal orders? By whose definition of illegal? The very problem is that the government is gaining more and more "legal" powers at the expense of our freedoms.
(Note that I said "our" freedoms. I am not government. I am an US citizen whose rights are being systematically destroyed along with everyone else's.)

Also, keep in mind that even refusing to obey an order you believe to be morally corrupt is a moral dilemma in and of itself. Because it means you're going against your oath. Signing that paperwork is an emotionally and morally complicated decision. It's not an easy decision to make. And, the decision to break that decision is equally complicated.

I haven't thought much about the subject of oaths until it was mentioned in this thread. It seems a bit ridiculous to have teenagers & young adults swearing oaths, before their minds are "fully" developed & likely before they've had the opportunity to learn much of anything. I suppose that it could be argued that this is one of the many advantages of using children, instead of men.

Well, the Military Commissions Act slipped by without a peep because Americans were largely happy to deny habeas corpus for dirty foreigners. That was 5 years ago. Now at least your law is consistent in this regard.

People still can't agree on the "spirit" of the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or any of the amendments, but surely those are poorly written. Reading comprehension is unfortunately subjective and this is why such great lengths are taken to get the language right and eliminate any ambiguities possible.

"Thou shalt not kill" Hurrr, it doesn't say anything about hiring someone to do the killing for me!

Cafferty is just CNN's big troll. He serves no other purpose. I'm pretty sure he knows that the majority of the things he says are just supposed to piss people off, but it's his job to be a instigating prick.



You don't have civilian rights. You are not a civilian.

This. Way too often I see people (for example, most of the Republican primary field) using the number of brackets in the income tax as a proxy for the tax's complexity. This is the stuff you cover on the first day of any class on the income tax.

Tax brackets suck. Instead we should have a smooth curve.

How? Money is discrete. That would effectively be a different tax bracket for every dollar.

Yep.

First, I said citizen, not civilian. Two different things. 2nd, my rights as a citizen are not diminished or negated by the additional laws (UCMJ) I am subject to.

Above: Taking a good idea too far.

Maybe. But it would be nice to get rid of the gaps at the top of each bracket where donating a few hundred to charity saves you thousands in taxes.

what

lol. he doesn't know how tax brackets work.

Here's how it works, JM:

The first 10k are taxed at a certain rate. 10%, say.
Then, the next 10k are taxed at a different rate. 20%, say.

So if you make 20k a year, you are effectively paying 15% tax.

You do not make less money if a raise pushes you into a higher bracket. That is not how taxes work.

Just. Hit. Edit. Please. For once in your miserable life.

Sorry, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, NDAA. Hideously unconstitutional, won't last. We have a Supreme Court for a reason. If someone wants to create an unconstitutional law, they have to draft an amendment to do it, which is of course even more difficult. But then, that's the whole idea.

-Also, I think there are good reasons to get into wars, but I have very little patience in treating economics as one of those reasons. If my neighbor's house is on fire, I have no compunction on breaking in and helping get his kids out, but if I just don't think I'll be able to pay the credit card bill this month, then obviously I'll have to find some other method.

You'll have to excuse me, I usually only get "pissed" at JLee posting things like this. It's not that you completely support the government and its policies 100%. It's that you're one of the cogs that directly affects the "civies" and their way of life, and as such, we don't care if you disagree, you're still the one behind the wall of "official policy."

Sure.

-If you stop doing this.

Hey, if I give both of you guys all my semicolons will you both stop using apostrophes for a bit.

Thinking about it some more, I think JM's half-mistaken idea for a continuous and smooth marginal tax rate could be an improvement. The 5% of Americans who aren't too stupid to compute an integral would be able to do their taxes in several seconds, and the rest would go to jail (like they aren't in jail already, am I right?)

Then we'd have to pay even more taxes to fund the prison system full of people who didn't take calculus. And rich people would still be able to pay people to do their calculus for them. Jon`C, why do you want to destroy poor people. Are you the 1%?

Yeah, but that's only because of non-violent drug offenses and "persons of minority."

Hey, it's roach.

Shhh...

Ironic that you would say that right when some bugger steals your question mark...