Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.yeah and?they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.No, this would have been accurate:
"He will be found guilty by a jury, 1/3 of whom will be his peers, 2/3 will be officers".
Well, maybe not accurate, he might be found not guilty of desertion, and guilty of going AWOL.
A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.
Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.yeah and?they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.
A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.
Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
but they are all military correct? They all follow the same military rules right?what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.yeah and?they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.
A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.
Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
but they are all military correct? They all follow the same military rules right?what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.yeah and?A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.
Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
Bergdahl may well have served with honor and distinction prior to his desertion. A number of people have served with honor and distinction, only to go off the deep end a bit later. War does not have nice effects on the psyches of human beings.
Bush disaster. If he'd stuck with getting the job done in Afghanistan instead of being side tracked by Iraq, this never happens.
what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.yeah and?they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.
A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.
Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
Bush disaster. If he'd stuck with getting the job done in Afghanistan instead of being side tracked by Iraq, this never happens.
what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.yeah and?A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.
Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
Then you should have known that Military Justice under the UCMJ is different than the US Justice system.
"A general court-martial is the highest court level. It consists of a military judge, trial counsel (prosecutor), defense counsel, and a minimum of five officers sitting as a panel of court-martial members. An enlisted accused may request a court composed of at least one-third enlisted personnel. An accused may also request trial by judge alone."
Courts-martial in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but they are all military correct? They all follow the same military rules right?what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.yeah and?
Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
Wry Catcher is just blowing smoke to confuse the issue. Then again he may just be stupid. Nothing in the UCMJ says anything about a jury of their peers. The makeup of a military Court Martial is very specific in the code. One requirement is that all members must be of a higher rank than the accused.
The vote was to authorize the president to invade as president Bush believed necessary.Bush disaster. If he'd stuck with getting the job done in Afghanistan instead of being side tracked by Iraq, this never happens.
Maybe if Hillary, Kerry and the other Democrats hadn't voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq then we wouldn't have been sidetracked.
You do hold Hillary accountable for her support of the invasion and won't won't be voting for the bitch next year, correct?
Maybe if Obama hadn't escalated the war in Afghanistan then good ole honorable Muslim convert Bowe wouldn't have even been over there, right?
[
The vote was to authorize the president to invade as president Bush believed necessary.
The Congress threw that bomb into the president's lap and Bush, exercised it. It was Bush's baby, his decision.
Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision. Had they voted no on the authorization, they probably would still have supported the president.[
The vote was to authorize the president to invade as president Bush believed necessary.
The Congress threw that bomb into the president's lap and Bush, exercised it. It was Bush's baby, his decision.
Hillary voted to fund the invasion.
If it was wrong for Bush to authorize the invasion then wasn't it just as wrong for The Bitch to vote to fund it?
Why are you hypocritical about the invasion?
If you really think that the invasion was a bad thing then why in the hell would you throw out your convictions and vote for The Bitch that voted for the invasion just because she is the Presidential nominee of the Moon Bat Party?
I don't think you really have convictions. You are like most Moon Bats. You are either confused, delusional, hypocritical or low information. Maybe all of them.
Kind of makes you feel all the more comforted by Obama and his vetting process for refugees doesn't it? Kudos on the Bergdahl choice boys.COURT-MARTIAL FOR BERGDAHL
Army charges desertion, endangering unit by going AWOL in Afghanistan
LINK: Charges against Bergdahl referred to trial by court-martial | Fox News
Decorated / Celebrated Obama Hero Charged With Desertion, Endangering Unit, AWOL....
Get the 'political spin' and 'excuse-making' machines turned on and runnin', boys!
I think he'd rather steal her underwear and wear it himself.It looks likes Obama wants screw her, doesn't it?
Congress could have blocked the decision. Congress could have cut off funding at any time, endign the war. Democrats ran on that exact premise in 2006/ But they were too fucking chicken shit to take responsibility for a move like that so they voted a 100 times to condemn the war instead.Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision. Had they voted no on the authorization, they probably would still have supported the president.[
The vote was to authorize the president to invade as president Bush believed necessary.
The Congress threw that bomb into the president's lap and Bush, exercised it. It was Bush's baby, his decision.
Hillary voted to fund the invasion.
If it was wrong for Bush to authorize the invasion then wasn't it just as wrong for The Bitch to vote to fund it?
Why are you hypocritical about the invasion?
If you really think that the invasion was a bad thing then why in the hell would you throw out your convictions and vote for The Bitch that voted for the invasion just because she is the Presidential nominee of the Moon Bat Party?
I don't think you really have convictions. You are like most Moon Bats. You are either confused, delusional, hypocritical or low information. Maybe all of them.
Reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt sending the Great White Fleet on world tour with only enough fuel to go half way. Teddy sent the fleet anyway saying let the Congress get them back.
