Eturnalshift wrote:
Quote:
You weren't "fighting".
How wasn't I?
You're using the word "fighting" in a military context trying to establish a certain cadence. In this case, though, not only is it not literally true, it's also a faulty metaphor since the intent was to take the path of least resistance - i.e., get the freebie rather than work for what you want or take out a loan.
Eturnalshift wrote:
I'm talking to a law student about reviewing a contract which was already reviewed by the JAG, which is as good as, if not better, than his review. Hell, I even hired another lawyer outside the military to review everything to make sure I wasn't getting forced out illegally. I wasn't saying, "I talked to Military JAG so that makes me more legit." You're an idiot if that's what you took away from that.
So? Adds up to the same thing which is just talking to people, something that has no bearing on the merits of your claim.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Who said I think they should be? If a public sector employee (or anyone) has something written into their contract and if one side of the contract isn't honored then the contract should be reviewed. If not, what's the point of any contract?
So you don't think bureaucrats, tenured liberal arts professors and other useless govt people should be fired for "budgetary constraints"?
Isn't that how you think the budget deficit is best fixed...by firing government personnel, closing agencies, etc? Isn't that your criticism of the Greeks and other EU people, a bunch of govt people bitching about their perceived entitlement to a paycheck? How are you different?
Eturnalshift wrote:
I don't need to know what law gives them the authority to do their job. I'm assuming that my enlistment and contract was approved by someone higher than the SSgt. that came to my house since I did join the military. As far as the tuition being written into the contract, I was advised that all promises be written into the contract. Before I signed anything I ensured that happened. PS: You don't know shit about the situation, the military, enlistment or their protocols - stop trying to second-guess the people who are doing their jobs because you think you know how to do it better.
If I don't know then enlighten me. If you don't know then you have no case. A contract isn't valid if the signer never had the authority to make the claims he did.
Eturnalshift wrote:
The Armory is the facility in which the weapons were stored, therefore, when I was issued my weapons and general issue it was provided by the Armory. "Hurhur, but it was provided by the tax payers!" Well, fuck you, stupid. My toys were actually provided by the Federal Reserve because it printed the money the tax payers used to pay taxes on... and the Federal Reserve is beholden to the planet for providing materials to print money. So, my toys were provided to me by Planet-fucking-Earth. Planet-fucking-Earth doesn't depreciate because it's made of matter and that can't be created or destroyed.
Entropy. Can't destroy matter, but can put it beyond use. Thousands of years ago, gold was much more abundant than it is today; a lot has been lost over the centuries to irrecoverable loss every time it's melted down, etc.
Anyway, the point stands. Taxpayers paid for that shit. Guns have to eventually be replaced. From an accounting perspective, using the guns costs money. Military chest-beaters pretend their shit comes out of thin air.
Eturnalshift wrote:
The TLDR of all your shit is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about... but you think you do, so that's all that matters.
In what respect don't I? I've stuck entirely to your own claims. I haven't introduced any claims of my own, merely pointed out flaws in your reasoning.