I'm sorry you dint seem to understand what a officer like him is supposed to do and rules he has to follow.Got something for you
I'm sorry you dint seem to understand what a officer like him is supposed to do and rules he has to follow.Got something for you
No it's just when others don't follow the rules, they get away with it and you don't complain. but of course they go after this guy because he might lean right wing... And it's the military so OF COURSE you're first in line to lick boot and defend it.I'm sorry you dint seem to understand what a officer like him is supposed to do and rules he has to follow.
Think the sentient is. Either there was a law or there was a 'law' amounting to 'don't make the boss look bad'. Either way don't think the people angry about it care much.I'm sorry you dint seem to understand what a officer like him is supposed to do and rules he has to follow.
The problem is that they selectively enforce it.Both of you stop that. Did the LtCol break UCMJ by speaking like this? According to the laws of the US military, yes, and he is getting his day in military tribunal for that. Is the reason for why this is happening likely reprehensible? Also yes. It is the catch 22 of any military member. You can break UCMJ, or you can remain silent on the inadequacies of your peers or superiors. We saw something similar happen with Captain Crozier last year with the "leak" from his ship regarding the lack of medical assistance. There is no good option here, especially as the laws against speaking out in the first place are nominally in place to prevent politicians from forcing soldiers to do things for their agendas. That they have been perverted to force people who object to bad ideas into silence is the flaw with any kind of law, that it will be twisted to the point of the spirit being broken, while remaining within the letter.
What.The problem is that they selectively enforce it.
People like Zach don't complain much about the lefties getting away with breaking the rules. (And even defend THAT,) But someone who might not agree with the left establishment does, and he's in line to lick boot over it.
I don't have to agree with how it works.What.
I am telling you how this shit works.
Ot takes people above you to file UCMJ charges.
So all those people that are for the left? They are often to high up.
Those that are lower will probably get it though.
It just doesn't make the media and Court Martials are not publicly viewed
Why hasn't Milley been put in front of a firing squad for high treason yet?I'm sorry you dint seem to understand what a officer like him is supposed to do and rules he has to follow.
Okay.I don't have to agree with how it works.
"This is just how it works," is not an excuse for people getting away with shit who shouldn't, and people getting punished for shit who shouldn't.
"This is just how it works," isn't a justification for SHIT.
Because the people above him won't do that.Why hasn't Milley been put in front of a firing squad for high treason yet?
US Military will (has?) ultimately become an/the instrument used to oppress the American people.
It is known.
Zach, for the millionth time, it's not that we don't understand, it's that we don't AGREE with some of the decisions being made.Okay.
The military UCMJ makes it so the Military have specific things they have to follow, and only those above you can charge you for UCMJ
The military is a top down leadership, with exceptions.
For instance, an NCO can tell an officer they will not order someone to do something, and soldiers can tell NCOs the same.
Because as much as none of you seem to understand, we have some free will in the military.....
Because the people above him won't do that.
Unless there is an independent review into what Milley did, or someone goes to the IG that what is happening goes against DoD/DA/etc policies and UCMJ.
Nothing will be done to Milley.
Why is it hard for you all to understand this?
Why is it hard to understand that Milley also has ZERO direct power over troops?
Why is it hard to understand what you are all freaking out about, not showing up with the two mostly combat arms branchesm
Pretty sure he does, Zachowon complained plenty about Milley and said personage getting away with it. He just understands that there's nothing to be done at this stage because Milley's above the rank of any military fixing it, that's the job of the civilian oversight and until we get a president who cares it won't happen.The problem is that they selectively enforce it.
People like Zach don't complain much about the lefties getting away with breaking the rules. (And even defend THAT,) But someone who might not agree with the left establishment does, and he's in line to lick boot over it.
He's defending the corrupt system that allows this shit to happen, and supports not doing anything to Milley because it's easier to wait for someone new, and let him get away with no consequencesPretty sure he does, Zachowon complained plenty about Milley and said personage getting away with it. He just understands that there's nothing to be done at this stage because Milley's above the rank of any military fixing it, that's the job of the civilian oversight and until we get a president who cares it won't happen.
Doesn't even need to be fuck you levels of money.People competent enought to accrue fuck you levels of money or inherited a support base from parents competent enough to accrue it and successfully pass it on to their children generally can run circles around policies written by two bit hacks pulling stunts to induce bribes in the first place. Who saw that coming?
That just sounds like an estate tax with a 100% bracket. If the issue is that the super-rich create and abuse loopholes, eliminate the loopholes; that's a different problem from the basic structure of the tax. Admittedly it's a fucking huge problem and there is an argument to be had that it's easier to just burn the whole thing down and build from scratch.
No, the core of my argument is the assumption that the government uses tax revenue. As long as revenue is to be raised there is a debate to be had over what ways are better or worse to raise that revenue by. And what standards we should use to judge better and worse. Where the money is spent is a different issue entirely.
Fuck you levels of money is whatever level of money you require to no longer care about what others idiots think. It can be a billion dollars or it can be 2 grand. Depends on the person honestly.Doesn't even need to be fuck you levels of money.
Do it right and your entire fortune can be passed on in such a way that you don't get dinged with any death taxes and your descendants have to start filing tax returns before their first or second birthday and continuing until they get their first job telling the IRS "I don't make enough to owe taxes".
Its always falling apart for the opposition. Especially when its falling upward.It seems it's all falling apart for the Dems.
I am not in favor of redistributionism per se, for its own sake. But I am generally for progressive taxes as opposed to flat taxes as the main source of government revenue raised from the population on the theory that, dollar for dollar, taxes do relatively less harm to the richer than to the poorer. This goes for income tax and, yes, a wealth tax that is assessed once per lifetime on the wealthiest 0.1% or whatever the hell it is.
TAXATION IS THEFTWhether or not the rich can 'afford' it more, is irrelevant to the fact that it is immoral to punish people for being productive and successful.
Your money is your money. It is not the government's money that you are allowed to use for a time, it is your money.
Property rights are essential to a healthy civilization, because ultimately property rights are human rights.