liberal bias

[Gaffer]

Found this on one of my regular read sites. Can we say in the tank for obamanation.

This from Major General (ret) Buckman.

My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud , Iraq was assigned, with others of her detachment, to be escort/guard/watcher for Martha Raddatz of ABC News as she covered John McCain’s recent trip to Iraq.

Katelyn and her Captain stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GI’s walking past. They kept count of the GI’s and you should remember these numbers. She asked 60 GI’s who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4 for Obama, and 2 for Hillary.

Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad to watch ABC news the next night because she was standing directly behind Raddatz and maybe they’d see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and emailed all the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn.

Well, of course, we all watched and what we saw wasn’t a glimpse of Katelyn, but got a hell’uva view of skewed news. After a dissertation on McCain’s trip and speech, ABC showed 5 GI’s being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in November; 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton .. No mention of the 54 for McCain.

Ah, the irony of American Patriots protecting the press from harm while the reporter prepares a completely misleading story about which candidate the soldiers prefer. The reporter obviously thought her escort was comprised of brainless morons who wouldn’t see what was going on in front of them. Wouldn’t be the first time a reporter in the MSM turned out to be the brainless moron.

http://www.floppingaces.net/


They went through 60 people in order to get the ones they wanted.

[GW in Ohio]

Yeah, McCain is screwed, isn't he?

Not only is he old and plodding and pedestrian (Strike one), the liberal news media is against him (Strike two).

Want more?

He wants to continue the Bush Iraq policy (Strike 3).

He's a Republican. (He's already struck out swinging. Now he falls down and can't get up.)

[krisy]

Yeah, McCain is screwed, isn't he?

Not only is he old and plodding and pedestrian (Strike one), the liberal news media is against him (Strike two).

Want more?

He wants to continue the Bush Iraq policy (Strike 3).

He's a Republican. (He's already struck out swinging. Now he falls down and can't get up.)


GW, I would hope that media bias helping someone to loose an election would be something that ALL parties should be against.

Do you really think this is right to leave out such important info? It completely takes away any credibility to this "reporter's" story.

Would you blow this off it Sean Hannity had done it?

[Gaffer]

The reporter is a lib so she gets a pass from gw. He's as bias as the media.

[GW in Ohio]

GW, I would hope that media bias helping someone to loose an election would be something that ALL parties should be against.

Do you really think this is right to leave out such important info? It completely takes away any credibility to this "reporter's" story.

Would you blow this off it Sean Hannity had done it?

No, I don't think media bias is a good thing. But it's fun to listen to conservatives whining about it.

I'm not surprised that the overwhelming majority of soldiers serving in Iraq support McCain. And I think it's unethical and dishonest for a journalist to distort her reporting to hide the fact that most of our soldiers over there support McCain.

[Sitarro]

The reporter is a lib so she gets a pass from gw. He's as bias as the media.

I think that the story is that they could actually find 5 soldiers wanting to vote for those two morons after questioning only 60 ....... also, where were all of the ones voting Libertarian?:laugh2: Guess most of the military understands that a third party vote is voting for Obama.

[gabosaurus]

I can't see why anyone in the military would vote for McCain:
"Vote for me and thousands more of you will die over the next four years."
Note to mention McCain's total contempt for veteran's rights.

[darin]

I can't see why anyone in the military would vote for McCain:
"Vote for me and thousands more of you will die over the next four years."
Note to mention McCain's total contempt for veteran's rights.

is EVERYTHING you say a lie, or do you pick-and-choose when a particular post will be a lie?

[Sitarro]

I can't see why anyone in the military would vote for McCain:
"Vote for me and thousands more of you will die over the next four years."
Note to mention McCain's total contempt for veteran's rights.

Do you have a link to a source that isn't populated by nut cases that documents any of your accusations? Wouldn't the people in the military be the ones most knowledgeable about your anti-veteran anti-military accusations against Senator McCain, certainly they would be warned by others, right?

[krisy]

No, I don't think media bias is a good thing. But it's fun to listen to conservatives whining about it.

I'm not surprised that the overwhelming majority of soldiers serving in Iraq support McCain. And I think it's unethical and dishonest for a journalist to distort her reporting to hide the fact that most of our soldiers over there support McCain.

Glad to hear it.

[GW in Ohio]

I can't see why anyone in the military would vote for McCain:
"Vote for me and thousands more of you will die over the next four years."
Note to mention McCain's total contempt for veteran's rights.

gabo: If you're in the military and you get deployed to Iraq, you'd better buy into the mission, for your own sanity.

Here in the states, we've got the luxury of looking at Iraq more objectively, and can see it for the cluster-fuck that it is.

[April15]

It is a violation of your oath to disrespect a superior officer. I would think a congressman would be considered a superior officer. Why you think only retired generals badmouth the president on his war policy and actions?

[5stringJeff]

It is a violation of your oath to disrespect a superior officer. I would think a congressman would be considered a superior officer. Why you think only retired generals badmouth the president on his war policy and actions?

Just FYI: Congressmen are not officers of the United States. In fact, it is unconstitutional for a Congressman to be an officer of the US.

[April15]

Just FYI: Congressmen are not officers of the United States. In fact, it is unconstitutional for a Congressman to be an officer of the US.Thanks. I didn't know that. But the generals part is correct?

[Gaffer]

It is a violation of your oath to disrespect a superior officer. I would think a congressman would be considered a superior officer. Why you think only retired generals badmouth the president on his war policy and actions?

An active general or any other officer can't disrespect the commander in chief. They can disagree with him. After they retire they can say what ever they want about him, as they are no longer in the chain of command.

A congress person is not in the change of command and has no authority over even a private. He can give any order he wants and it does not have to be obeyed anymore then an order from Joe Shmoe on the street. He will be told, in a respectful manner, to go suck an egg.

[5stringJeff]

Thanks. I didn't know that. But the generals part is correct?

Yes, Gaffer covered it quite well, but...


An active general or any other officer can't disrespect the commander in chief. They can disagree with him. After they retire they can say what ever they want about him, as they are no longer in the chain of command.

A congress person is not in the change of command and has no authority over even a private. He can give any order he wants and it does not have to be obeyed anymore then an order from Joe Shmoe on the street. He will be told, in a respectful manner, to go suck an egg.

While Congress certainly is not in the "chain of command," Congress writes the law, and so when Congress tells the executive branch to do something, especially in the context of appropriations, the executive branch is generally obliged to comply.

[April15]

So a soldier may just figure that he better say he wants the military guy even if he doesn't just to cover his ass?

[5stringJeff]

So a soldier may just figure that he better say he wants the military guy even if he doesn't just to cover his ass?

A soldier can support whomever he wants to support, and can voice those opinions without fear of reprisal. However, some may feel that they "should" say they support one candidate over another.

However, the military as a whole tends to be more conservative than the American population at large, especially the officer corps.

[namvet]

A soldier can support whomever he wants to support, and can voice those opinions without fear of reprisal. However, some may feel that they "should" say they support one candidate over another.

However, the military as a whole tends to be more conservative than the American population at large, especially the officer corps.

ever hear of the UCMJ????

[namvet]

Yeah, McCain is screwed, isn't he?

Not only is he old and plodding and pedestrian (Strike one), the liberal news media is against him (Strike two).

Want more?

He wants to continue the Bush Iraq policy (Strike 3).

He's a Republican. (He's already struck out swinging. Now he falls down and can't get up.)

dems voted out of office in NOV. strike 1 2 & 3. don't take it so hard.

[April15]

ever hear of the UCMJ????
Isn't that used when someone gets caught doing everyday evil by a news man? Calley I think got reamed by it. Ollie should have been hung by it.

[5stringJeff]

ever hear of the UCMJ????

Yes. Where in the UCMJ are you barred from stating your support for a political candidate?

[Psychoblues]

Conservative whining? It's called denial and projection.



No, I don't think media bias is a good thing. But it's fun to listen to conservatives whining about it.

I'm not surprised that the overwhelming majority of soldiers serving in Iraq support McCain. And I think it's unethical and dishonest for a journalist to distort her reporting to hide the fact that most of our soldiers over there support McCain.

Have you been listening to the latest from the con camp? They think America is a nation of whiners!!!!!!!!!!! Who'd a thunk it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Gaffer]

UCMJ is the law in the military. It covers everything from minor BS to major offenses like rape and murder. It also says what a soldier can talk about and when he can say it. Giving an opinion of who he plans to vote for is not against the UCMJ. If it was, the reporter would not have been allowed to ask the question. The real meat of this story is that the media only showed the ones voting for obamanation and clinton with no mention of the ones voting for McCain. That is serious one sided reporting.

And Ollie North was the fall guy for a bunch of politicians. He did an end run around congress and they didn't like it. He supplied arms to the anti-communist Contra forces. The dems, who supported the communists, were pissed.

[namvet]

Isn't that used when someone gets caught doing everyday evil by a news man? Calley I think got reamed by it. Ollie should have been hung by it.

look it up fucktard. then get back to us.

[Gaffer]

look it up fucktard. then get back to us.

They are always so anxious to condemn the military. Calley was outed by soldiers that were there. The media didn't know a thing about it until a year after it happened.

[namvet]

Yes. Where in the UCMJ are you barred from stating your support for a political candidate?


A soldier can support whomever he wants to support, and can voice those opinions without fear of reprisal.

prove it dipshit. ill wait

[namvet]

They are always so anxious to condemn the military. Calley was outed by soldiers that were there. The media didn't know a thing about it until a year after it happened.

he brought that up because of my avatar. but he stuck his finger up his ass and im gonna keep it there till it bleeds.

[Psychoblues]

I can't quote it chapter and verse, jeff, but the UCMJ does forbid political and especially partisan participation. It also forbids what many of us call "scrounging" but I will guarantee you that without "scrounging" not very many units could exist. Some go to Fort Leavenworth (depending muchly on politics) and others are promoted. If you can figure it out please forward your analyses to me, OK? I've wondered about it for YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Abbey Marie]

prove it dipshit. ill wait

Come on, NV. Jeff is far from a dipsh*t.

[5stringJeff]

prove it dipshit. ill wait

DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces," Paragraph 4.1.1.:

"A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may: Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces."

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

[namvet]

Come on, NV. Jeff is far from a dipsh*t.

you don't mind i'd like to hear it from him. so far he's acting like a juvenile delinquent

[5stringJeff]

you don't mind i'd like to hear it from him. so far he's acting like a juvenile delinquent

Please check post 31. How 'bout them apples, newbie?

[namvet]

Please check post 31. How 'bout them apples, newbie?

no shit sherlock. but you said an active member of the armed force.
newbie

[namvet]

DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces," Paragraph 4.1.1.:

"A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may: Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces."

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

your word dipshit:

A soldier can support whomever he wants to support, and can voice those opinions without fear of reprisal.

still got your finger up your ass????

[namvet]

times up stringy. im finished with your ass

[5stringJeff]

your word dipshit:


still got your finger up your ass????

The link I posted explictly backs up the claim I made. If you're too much of a dumbass to see that, then you have the issue, not me.

[Abbey Marie]

The link I posted explictly backs up the claim I made. If you're too much of a dumbass to see that, then you have the issue, not me.

It's clear to me that your cite backs up your claim. The only condition is that the opinion not be expressed as being the military's.

Is there something in the water today?

[namvet]

The link I posted explictly backs up the claim I made. If you're too much of a dumbass to see that, then you have the issue, not me.

I see they hand out moderator jobs here like social disease's

[5stringJeff]

I see they hand out moderator jobs here like social disease's

Great ad hominem. Now, if you'd like to show some evidence that my claim was actually wrong, feel free to do so. In fact, I won't be back until tomorrow, so you've got lots of time to look.

[Yurt]

http://chanamiller.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/05/huh.gif

[Abbey Marie]

I see they hand out moderator jobs here like social disease's

Aww, we're not so bad. Really. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/246.gif

[namvet]

Great ad hominem. Now, if you'd like to show some evidence that my claim was actually wrong, feel free to do so. In fact, I won't be back until tomorrow, so you've got lots of time to look.

good. don't go away mad. just go away !!!!!!!!!!

[namvet]

Aww, we're not so bad. Really. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/246.gif

no offense meant to you or others................

[5stringJeff]

good. don't go away mad. just go away !!!!!!!!!!

And, seeing no evidence to contradict my proof that soldiers can speak freely about the political candidates they support, without fear of reprisal, I'll just assume that you concede the point.

[namvet]

And, seeing no evidence to contradict my proof that soldiers can speak freely about the political candidates they support, without fear of reprisal, I'll just assume that you concede the point.

under the UCMJ the military is NOT allowed political views in pubic. I took that oath. so its pretty much in your pimple face

ASSUME - broken down means.........ass........u.........me. there ends your lesson. ass.

[5stringJeff]

under the UCMJ the military is NOT allowed political views in pubic. I took that oath. so its pretty much in your pimple face

ASSUME - broken down means.........ass........u.........me. there ends your lesson. ass.

Please post proof of your assertion, in the form of a paragraph in UCMJ that says that you can't state your political views in public. I took much the same oath as you did, and I was never told I could not state my political views. In fact, when I was a lieutenant, my Brigade XO noted the campaign sign in the back of my pickup truck, supporting Bush (this was back in 2000), and said nothing.

[namvet]

Please post proof of your assertion, in the form of a paragraph in UCMJ that says that you can't state your political views in public. I took much the same oath as you did, and I was never told I could not state my political views. In fact, when I was a lieutenant, my Brigade XO noted the campaign sign in the back of my pickup truck, supporting Bush (this was back in 2000), and said nothing.


I took much the same oath as you did

no you didn't. it was an offense punishable by jail time. in my war. maybe yours is more liberal?????

[5stringJeff]

no you didn't. it was an offense punishable by jail time. in my war. maybe yours is more liberal?????

First of all, you have no idea which oath I took - but here it is, anyway:

I (insert name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Second of all, you still have NO PROOF of your baseless assertion.

[namvet]

First of all, you have no idea which oath I took - but here it is, anyway:

I (insert name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Second of all, you still have NO PROOF of your baseless assertion.

so you swore your allengence but you didn't read the UCMJ or have anyone explain it to you???? which country are you supporting anyway????

we were told by a JAG officer NO POLITICS IN PUBLIC !!!!
this case is closed

[5stringJeff]

so you swore your allengence but you didn't read the UCMJ or have anyone explain it to you???? which country are you supporting anyway????

we were told by a JAG officer NO POLITICS IN PUBLIC !!!!
this case is closed

So a JAG officer told you something in a briefing once back in 1965. Great. In 2008, the DoD policy is that one MAY express their political opinions, in public, without fear of reprisal. You are obviously unable to grasp the fact that policies change from time to time, and that DoD policy currently EXPRESSLY ALLOWS the type of behavior that you swear is forbidden.

And, FYI, not only did I read the UCMJ, I recommended punishment for some of my soldiers under UCMJ.

If "this case is closed," it is only due to a lack of mental comprehension on your part.

[namvet]

So a JAG officer told you something in a briefing once back in 1965. Great. In 2008, the DoD policy is that one MAY express their political opinions, in public, without fear of reprisal. You are obviously unable to grasp the fact that policies change from time to time, and that DoD policy currently EXPRESSLY ALLOWS the type of behavior that you swear is forbidden.

And, FYI, not only did I read the UCMJ, I recommended punishment for some of my soldiers under UCMJ.

If "this case is closed," it is only due to a lack of mental comprehension on your part.

oh if you say so sir. but we already coved this?????

you an officer. not a fuckin' chance.

[April15]

I guess those in red are ok now?

Sub Chapter X. Punitive Articles

Article 77. Principals.
Article 78. Accessory after the fact.
Article 79. Conviction of lesser included offense.
Article 80. Attempts.
Article 81. Conspiracy.
Article 82. Solicitation.
Article 83. Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation.
Article 84. Unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation.
Article 85. Desertion.
Article 86. Absence without leave.
Article 87. Missing movement.
Article 88. Contempt toward officials.
Article 89. Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer.
Article 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.
Article 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 93. Cruelty and maltreatment.
Article 94. Mutiny or sedition.
Article 95. Resistance, breach of arrest, and escape.
Article 96. Releasing prisoner without proper authority.
Article 97. Unlawful detention.
Article 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules.
Article 99. Misbehavior before the enemy.
Article 100. Subordinate compelling surrender.
Article 101. Improper use of countersign.
Article 102. Forcing a safeguard.
Article 103. Capture or abandoned property.
Article 104. Aiding the enemy.
Article 105. Misconduct as prisoner.
Article 106. Spies.
Article 106a. Espionage
Article 107. False official statements.
Article 108. Military property of United States-- Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition.
Article 109. Property other than military property of the United States-- Waste, spoilage, or destruction.
Article 110. Improper hazarding of vessel.
Article 111. Drunken or reckless driving.
Article 112. Drunk on duty.
Article 112a. Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances.
Article 113. Misbehavior of sentinel.
Article 114. Dueling.
Article 115. Malingering.
Article 116. Riot or breach of peace.
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures.
Article 118. Murder.
Article 119. Manslaughter.
Article 120. Rape and carnal knowledge. (Note: Effective October 1, 2007, this article is retitled, Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.)
Article 120a. Stalking.
Article 121. Larceny and wrongful appropriation.
Article 122. Robbery.
Article 123. Forgery.
Article 123a. Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds.
Article 124. Maiming.
Article 125. Sodomy.
Article 126. Arson.
Article 127. Extortion.
Article 128. Assault.
Article 129. Burglary.
Article 130. Housebreaking.
Article 131. Perjury.
Article 132. Frauds against the United States.
Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Article 134. General Article.

Sub Chapter XI. Miscellaneous Provisions

Article 135. Courts of inquiry.
Article 136. Authority to administer oaths and to act as notary.
Article 137. Articles to be explained.
Article 138. Complaints of wrongs.
Article 139. Redress of injuries to property.
Article 140. Delegation by the President.

Sub Chapter XII. Court Of Military Appeals

[namvet]

I guess those in red are ok now?

Sub Chapter X. Punitive Articles

Article 77. Principals.
Article 78. Accessory after the fact.
Article 79. Conviction of lesser included offense.
Article 80. Attempts.
Article 81. Conspiracy.
Article 82. Solicitation.
Article 83. Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation.
Article 84. Unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation.
Article 85. Desertion.
Article 86. Absence without leave.
Article 87. Missing movement.
Article 88. Contempt toward officials.
Article 89. Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer.
Article 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.
Article 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 93. Cruelty and maltreatment.
Article 94. Mutiny or sedition.
Article 95. Resistance, breach of arrest, and escape.
Article 96. Releasing prisoner without proper authority.
Article 97. Unlawful detention.
Article 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules.
Article 99. Misbehavior before the enemy.
Article 100. Subordinate compelling surrender.
Article 101. Improper use of countersign.
Article 102. Forcing a safeguard.
Article 103. Capture or abandoned property.
Article 104. Aiding the enemy.
Article 105. Misconduct as prisoner.
Article 106. Spies.
Article 106a. Espionage
Article 107. False official statements.
Article 108. Military property of United States-- Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition.
Article 109. Property other than military property of the United States-- Waste, spoilage, or destruction.
Article 110. Improper hazarding of vessel.
Article 111. Drunken or reckless driving.
Article 112. Drunk on duty.
Article 112a. Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances.
Article 113. Misbehavior of sentinel.
Article 114. Dueling.
Article 115. Malingering.
Article 116. Riot or breach of peace.
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures.
Article 118. Murder.
Article 119. Manslaughter.
Article 120. Rape and carnal knowledge. (Note: Effective October 1, 2007, this article is retitled, Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.)
Article 120a. Stalking.
Article 121. Larceny and wrongful appropriation.
Article 122. Robbery.
Article 123. Forgery.
Article 123a. Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds.
Article 124. Maiming.
Article 125. Sodomy.
Article 126. Arson.
Article 127. Extortion.
Article 128. Assault.
Article 129. Burglary.
Article 130. Housebreaking.
Article 131. Perjury.
Article 132. Frauds against the United States.
Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Article 134. General Article.

Sub Chapter XI. Miscellaneous Provisions

Article 135. Courts of inquiry.
Article 136. Authority to administer oaths and to act as notary.
Article 137. Articles to be explained.
Article 138. Complaints of wrongs.
Article 139. Redress of injuries to property.
Article 140. Delegation by the President.

Sub Chapter XII. Court Of Military Appeals

this from the UCMJ???? see my issue was what they can't do. his is what they can. yeah red will put you behind bars. also a warning issued here:

Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics :

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.


source (source)

the miitary should stay OUT of politics period. to much danger of repercussions from topside. do your job, shut up and go home.

[April15]

this from the UCMJ???? see my issue was what they can't do. his is what they can. yeah red will put you behind bars. also a warning issued here:

Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics :

source (source)

the miitary should stay OUT of politics period. to much danger of repercussions from topside. do your job, shut up and go home.I looked it up so you and 5string would or could calm down.

[Yurt]

this from the UCMJ???? see my issue was what they can't do. his is what they can. yeah red will put you behind bars. also a warning issued here:

Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics :

source (source)

the miitary should stay OUT of politics period. to much danger of repercussions from topside. do your job, shut up and go home.

so wear a uniform and lose your freedom of speech?

[namvet]

so wear a uniform and lose your freedom of speech?

raise you right hand and see. best experience of my life.

[Yurt]

raise you right hand and see. best experience of my life.

so then...your answer is yes. the law jeff pointed out seems to contradict your view. the law appears to read that you do not in fact lose your 1st amendment rights.

is the "open letter" to the troops a command?

[namvet]

so then...your answer is yes. the law jeff pointed out seems to contradict your view. the law appears to read that you do not in fact lose your 1st amendment rights.

is the "open letter" to the troops a command?

yes of course you do lose some but not all your freedoms. your not a slave here. understand??? I take it for granted you DO understand the diff between military and civilian life. why is this so difficult for you to understand??? its really a great experience. my opinion. and many others.
--yes. you do lose some 1st amendment rights. you are NOT free to give your opinion unless its ask for by a higher authority. its call the chain of command.
--my argument is you are prohibited from giving you political views and opinions OPENLY about the government. or criticizing it or the military. fastest way to jail.


is the "open letter" to the troops a command??

sure sounds like it to me. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . obey or else.

[red states rule]

yes of course you do lose some but not all your freedoms. your not a slave here. understand??? I take it for granted you DO understand the diff between military and civilian life. why is this so difficult for you to understand??? its really a great experience. my opinion. and many others.
--yes. you do lose some 1st amendment rights. you are NOT free to give your opinion unless its ask for by a higher authority. its call the chain of command.
--my argument is you are prohibited from giving you political views and opinions OPENLY about the government. or criticizing it or the military. fastest way to jail.



sure sounds like it to me. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . obey or else.

During the Monica issue, the US military sent out orders that banned Clinton jokes. Any member of the US military that told one could be charged

I thought the order was a joke - but the military is based on taking and obeying orders

[Yurt]

yes of course you do lose some but not all your freedoms. your not a slave here. understand??? I take it for granted you DO understand the diff between military and civilian life. why is this so difficult for you to understand??? its really a great experience. my opinion. and many others.
--yes. you do lose some 1st amendment rights. you are NOT free to give your opinion unless its ask for by a higher authority. its call the chain of command.
--my argument is you are prohibited from giving you political views and opinions OPENLY about the government. or criticizing it or the military. fastest way to jail.



sure sounds like it to me. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . obey or else.

of course i understand the difference. i never joined the military because i chose to listen to my father (who was in the military) who told me never to join because it can stifle personal freedom. that was his experience and his alone. i listened. if i knew then what i know now, i would have joined. but it was my choice.

seems to me you are the kind of person my dad was talking about. DMP and Jeff are both in the military and both have given me a very different view of the military. DMP has not joined in this thread, so i do not know his opinion of this matter, but jeff has stated that his opinion is that you do not lose your first amendment rights, when speaking on your behalf - unofficially and the law supports his view.

you have an open letter, i asked you if this is a command. you answered...sounds like it. not good enough. and i did not read in the letter that one could have an opinion about politics when speaking unofficially. the letter seems to be speaking to those who engage in politics officially.

do you have any law that supports your viewpoint?

[Yurt]

During the Monica issue, the US military sent out orders that banned Clinton jokes. Any member of the US military that told one could be charged

I thought the order was a joke - but the military is based on taking and obeying orders

i would posit that taking away 1st amendment rights with regards to political speech is different than telling jokes about the commander in chief. the joke purposefully undermines the commander, solely for spite. having a political opinion on your own, is not soley for spite.

the value of the speech is different.

[red states rule]

i would posit that taking away 1st amendment rights with regards to political speech is different than telling jokes about the commander in chief. the joke purposefully undermines the commander, solely for spite. having a political opinion on your own, is not soley for spite.

the value of the speech is different.

When in the military Yurt, you have to learn (and accept) things are very different.

I remember a high ranking General expressed his personal feelings about Clinton, and was raked over the coals. Again, he was not joking (I can't rememebr his name) and I saw the video on the news

I do not rememebr if he had to leave the military, but it was not pretty

[namvet]

During the Monica issue, the US military sent out orders that banned Clinton jokes. Any member of the US military that told one could be charged

I thought the order was a joke - but the military is based on taking and obeying orders

I wonder is Osama will even have a military. great time to go over the hill. i would. im not taking any orders from a cheese dick like him

[namvet]

When in the military Yurt, you have to learn (and accept) things are very different.

I remember a high ranking General expressed his personal feelings about Clinton, and was raked over the coals. Again, he was not joking (I can't rememebr his name) and I saw the video on the news

I do not rememebr if he had to leave the military, but it was not pretty

for officers their gvien the choice. retire or be court martialed. for the good of the service.

[Yurt]

When in the military Yurt, you have to learn (and accept) things are very different.

I remember a high ranking General expressed his personal feelings about Clinton, and was raked over the coals. Again, he was not joking (I can't rememebr his name) and I saw the video on the news

I do not rememebr if he had to leave the military, but it was not pretty

ok, but IMO, we are not talking about the same "speech"

one is purposefully undermining the commander in chief. the other is political views. i did not clarify.... IMO, political views are not about undermining the CIC. it is about the freedom to express your opinion about political events. while i concede that war can be and is a political event, expressing your unofficial opinion about the war's political aspects, is not a violation of the law...according the law jeff cited.

let me ask you this, is the law jeff cited wrong? or is jeff's interpretation of the law wrong? here it is:


A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may: Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces."

[red states rule]

ok, but IMO, we are not talking about the same "speech"

one is purposefully undermining the commander in chief. the other is political views. i did not clarify.... IMO, political views are not about undermining the CIC. it is about the freedom to express your opinion about political events. while i concede that war can be and is a political event, expressing your unofficial opinion about the war's political aspects, is not a violation of the law...according the law jeff cited.

let me ask you this, is the law jeff cited wrong? or is jeff's interpretation of the law wrong? here it is:

I think the General was talking about either Bill's draft evasion or Monica - again I can't recall what the topic was

As far as the law, the way I am reading the post - any member of the military can express his/her political beliefs but not in uniform. If they go to a rally or make a speech they can't were their uniform

That seems fine to me

If I did the same, I could not wear my employee ID badge while doing so

[Kathianne]

ok, but IMO, we are not talking about the same "speech"

one is purposefully undermining the commander in chief. the other is political views. i did not clarify.... IMO, political views are not about undermining the CIC. it is about the freedom to express your opinion about political events. while i concede that war can be and is a political event, expressing your unofficial opinion about the war's political aspects, is not a violation of the law...according the law jeff cited.

let me ask you this, is the law jeff cited wrong? or is jeff's interpretation of the law wrong? here it is:

My understanding, which mirrors what Jeff already cited from UCMJ, we have 'citizen soldiers', they may vote, speak, write for or against any politician they care to, but not as soldiers, but as citizens. Thus no mention of their rank while active, etc. No showing up in uniform.

Jeff can correct if I'm wrong.

[namvet]

of course i understand the difference. i never joined the military because i chose to listen to my father (who was in the military) who told me never to join because it can stifle personal freedom. that was his experience and his alone. i listened. if i knew then what i know now, i would have joined. but it was my choice.

seems to me you are the kind of person my dad was talking about. DMP and Jeff are both in the military and both have given me a very different view of the military. DMP has not joined in this thread, so i do not know his opinion of this matter, but jeff has stated that his opinion is that you do not lose your first amendment rights, when speaking on your behalf - unofficially and the law supports his view.

you have an open letter, i asked you if this is a command. you answered...sounds like it. not good enough. and i did not read in the letter that one could have an opinion about politics when speaking unofficially. the letter seems to be speaking to those who engage in politics officially.


[QUOTE]is the "open letter" to the troops a command?


YES !!

[Yurt]

I think the General was talking about either Bill's draft evasion or Monica - again I can't recall what the topic was

As far as the law, the way I am reading the post - any member of the military can express his/her political beliefs but not in uniform. If they go to a rally or make a speech they can't were their uniform

That seems fine to me

If I did the same, I could not wear my employee ID badge while doing so

yes, exactly.

of course, a sticky situation could arise where you are at a rally in civies and someone comes up and gets your opinion (press) and asks or knows you are in the military.....

1. they know this and later quote you as a military source
2. they know this, tell you during the interview/questions... oh, you are military, so what is your opinion and you do not clarify that this is solely your opinion
3. same as two save you do clarify

3 is what i am talking about. 1 cannot be helped and while it may be a problem, the problem should not stifle the first amendment. 2 is what i (think) the open letter is referring to as well as those who do actually wear the uniform and give an opinion at the same time.

[Yurt]

YES !!

authority?

nevertheless, what exactly is it about the letter that contradicts jeff's authority?

[red states rule]

yes, exactly.

of course, a sticky situation could arise where you are at a rally in civies and someone comes up and gets your opinion (press) and asks or knows you are in the military.....

1. they know this and later quote you as a military source
2. they know this, tell you during the interview/questions... oh, you are military, so what is your opinion and you do not clarify that this is solely your opinion
3. same as two save you do clarify

3 is what i am talking about. 1 cannot be helped and while it may be a problem, the problem should not stifle the first amendment. 2 is what i (think) the open letter is referring to as well as those who do actually wear the uniform and give an opinion at the same time.

As long as you do not mention you are in the military, do not wear your uniform, and decline to say if you are in the military - I do not see how you have viiolated the regulation

CO's know how the liberal media are out to smear the military, so I would hope they would take that into sonsideration

[namvet]

authority?

nevertheless, what exactly is it about the letter that contradicts jeff's authority?


authority?


answer: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff


nevertheless, what exactly is it about the letter that contradicts jeff's authority?

what letter????

yurt: who are the joint chiefs of staff????

can you complain about being given an order????

[gabosaurus]

http://i38.tinypic.com/rw84uv.jpg

[red states rule]

http://i38.tinypic.com/rw84uv.jpg

Now you are anti semitic Gabby?

[gabosaurus]

I am almost as anti-semantic as you are racist. Not quite, though.

[red states rule]

I am almost as anti-semantic as you are racist. Not quite, though.

You attack the man's Religion Gabby because he strayed from the Dem party on ONE issue

What a warm and fuzzy liberal you are

[gabosaurus]

No, this is a better reason why I dislike McCain.

http://i37.tinypic.com/2m2z6v8.jpg

[red states rule]

No, this is a better reason why I dislike McCain.

http://i37.tinypic.com/2m2z6v8.jpg

So he betrayed the US over his desire to defend the US from terrorists? For not wanting to surrender in Iraq?

Will the messiah be a traitor if he flips, and does not retreat from Iraq?

[gabosaurus]

Duh. McTraitor betrayed his country by collaborating with the enemy. He should be known as McFonda.

[red states rule]

Duh. McTraitor betrayed his country by collaborating with the enemy. He should be known as McFonda.

My you are getting desperate with the messiah's lead in polls shrinking

[gabosaurus]

As a Hillary supporter, I know why you dislike Obama so much. But you shouldn't be supporting a man who betrayed his country and his fellow veterans.

[red states rule]

As a Hillary supporter, I know why you dislike Obama so much. But you shouldn't be supporting a man who betrayed his country and his fellow veterans.

I am not a Hillary or a McCain supporter

Obama is nothing more then a tax and spend lib. McCain is a liberal as well.

[Yurt]

namvet;270321]answer: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

so the chairmen trumps the UCMJ?


what letter????

uh, the letter YOU posted:


The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.


yurt: who are the joint chiefs of staff????

can you complain about being given an order????

your point....

[Yurt]

As a Hillary supporter, I know why you dislike Obama so much. But you shouldn't be supporting a man who betrayed his country and his fellow veterans.

you support a liar

ho hum

[namvet]

so the chairmen trumps the UCMJ?




uh, the letter YOU posted:




your point....

can't use the board????


uh, the letter YOU posted:



Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
DiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

By THOM SHANKER
Published: May 26, 2008
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

Admiral Mullen’s essay appears in the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal that is distributed widely among the officer corps.

The essay is the first Admiral Mullen has written for the journal as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar “all-hands” letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.

The essay can be seen as a reflection of the deep concern among senior officers that the military, which is paying the highest price in carrying out national security policy, may be drawn into politicking this year.

The war in Iraq has already exceeded the length of American involvement in World War II and is the nation’s longest conflict fought with an all-volunteer military since the Revolutionary War.

In particular, members of the Joint Chiefs have expressed worries this election year about the influence of retired officers who advise political campaigns, who have publicly called for a change in policy or who serve as television commentators on the war.

Among the most outspoken were those who joined the so-called generals’ revolt in 2006 demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as well as former officers who have written books attacking the Bush administration’s planning for and execution of the war in Iraq.

While retired officers have full rights to political activism, their colleagues still in uniform fear its effect on those trying to carry out the mission, especially more junior officers and enlisted personnel. Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from taking part in partisan politics.

“As the nation prepares to elect a new president,” Admiral Mullen wrote, “we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.”

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Admiral Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting military personnel around the world. He said their questions included, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?” and, “Do you think it’s better for one party or another to have the White House?”

“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “What I am suggesting — indeed, what the nation expects — is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”

He noted that “part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 28, 2008
An article on Monday about a warning from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to all troops that they should not become involved in partisan politics referred incorrectly to the length of the Iraq war. It has not lasted longer than World War II. ( The Second World War began in September 1939 with the invasion of Poland and ended in August 1945 with Japan’s surrender. The Iraq war began in March 2003. The United States’ five-year involvement in Iraq, however, has indeed been longer than its four-year involvement in World War II.)

[Yurt]

can't use the board????

huh... go back and read my post

you provided no authority, answered no questions. your post above is waste.

[Yurt]

namvet: your authority....


“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “What I am suggesting — indeed, what the nation expects — is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”

He noted that “part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests.”

you do realize that your "authority" substantiates jeff's POV.

:poke:

[namvet]

namvet: your authority....



you do realize that your "authority" substantiates jeff's POV.

:poke:

im not infallible BUT who posted this???? no me. if I did which thread?????

[Yurt]

this from the UCMJ???? see my issue was what they can't do. his is what they can. yeah red will put you behind bars. also a warning issued here:

Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics :

source (source)

the miitary should stay OUT of politics period. to much danger of repercussions from topside. do your job, shut up and go home.


im not infallible BUT who posted this???? no me. if I did which thread?????


remember your link...the post above about the open letter....guess you didn't bother to read the whole story and took only the part you agreed with.


“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote.

[namvet]

remember your link...the post above about the open letter....guess you didn't bother to read the whole story and took only the part you agreed with.


Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”

my argument

[Yurt]

“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote.

[namvet]

“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote.

can they go public with it. in uniform?????

[Yurt]

i've already said and jeff's authority states, that no, not in uniform, not officially if wearing the uniform makes it official.

[emmett]

As a Hillary supporter, I know why you dislike Obama so much. But you shouldn't be supporting a man who betrayed his country and his fellow veterans.

What EXACTLY did he do to have you say this?

[emmett]

OK, I'll chime in and play arbitrator.

NAM: claims a person loses his right to express opinion about politics in public when enlisted in the US military and calls Jeff an ass because he disagrees.

JEFF: Lays down a pretty good argument in support of his case but is (I hate to say this buddy) WRONG!..............on THAT segment of the issue.

NAM: Claims Jeff is not an officer. .................WRONG! He most certainly is!

JEFF: Claims the UCMJ does not limit a soldiers right to free speech. He is right. The issue is somewhat gray. (Imagine that, the writers of the UCMJ left a cloud over this issue..............well.............in a way they did.) Nam is right that military personnel should abandon themselves from politics in public. A directive from the Joint Cheifs IS policy. You know this Jeff.

Now, the meet! Nam you claimed after reading us the riot act about discipline and so forth that you would not serve under Obama. Nam! Come on dude. If you were in the field and actively engaging the enemy and the inaguration took place while this was happening, you are saying that you would just throw down your arms and all of sudden abandon those hardliner beliefs in discipline AND the UCMJ. I think not!

All articles in the UCMJ are elastic just as are laws in civilian life. An officer (as Jeff can tell you) recieves in depth training about how to get the best from their soldiers, sailors etc,... The standards by which those skills are applied are elastic as hell. Nam, you know you at times weren't always able to keep that gigline straight, keep your ears buzzed when in the field for weeks and maybe a few other things. Jeff knows, as does any officer that one must choose how to apply discipline and when. This in itself is a violation of the UCMJ. You don't ride the ass of your best field soldier because he needs a haircut. Instead, and the training manunals used to teach this philosophy even say that it is under certain circumstances a good idea to use these oppurtunities to make a joke about military bearing to enhance morale with your soldiers. A statement such as "Hey Bob, you keep covering our ass like that brother and I'm for letting you grow that hair to your ass".

A military man has to be a thinker. None of the UCMJ was ever designed to limit a persons ability to do this. Even "Failure to follow a lawful order" has a great deal of elasticity. Don't make me go there! We ain't got time for it and you besides, I believe you both will concede that one as OBVIOUS!

The fact is, military personnel are allowed to vote. They are allowed to discuss politics at the dinner table, right? Or are they only if they are not in uniform at the dinner table. You see, technically, wearing your uniform at home, at the dinner table is unauthorized, according to uniform regulations.

Now, where i feel Jeff is incorrect is about the sign. If it is in the back of your pick up, riding down through the middle of the base, it's wrong. Don't click the ignore button on me yet buddy, let me finish. Nam is right because of this. The law doesn't say we can't chew gum. At morning muster, you MAY NOT chew gum. It isn't against the law to smoke but you cannot smoke at morning muster. You can support a political candidate, but you cannot do it while on duty.

Now, NAM, apologize to Jeff for calling him an ass. That was tacky. Jeff stayed above namecalling. Good job Sir!

A salute to both of you!

[namvet]

OK, I'll chime in and play arbitrator.

NAM: claims a person loses his right to express opinion about politics in public when enlisted in the US military and calls Jeff an ass because he disagrees.

JEFF: Lays down a pretty good argument in support of his case but is (I hate to say this buddy) WRONG!..............on THAT segment of the issue.

NAM: Claims Jeff is not an officer. .................WRONG! He most certainly is!

JEFF: Claims the UCMJ does not limit a soldiers right to free speech. He is right. The issue is somewhat gray. (Imagine that, the writers of the UCMJ left a cloud over this issue..............well.............in a way they did.) Nam is right that military personnel should abandon themselves from politics in public. A directive from the Joint Cheifs IS policy. You know this Jeff.

Now, the meet! Nam you claimed after reading us the riot act about discipline and so forth that you would not serve under Obama. Nam! Come on dude. If you were in the field and actively engaging the enemy and the inaguration took place while this was happening, you are saying that you would just throw down your arms and all of sudden abandon those hardliner beliefs in discipline AND the UCMJ. I think not!

All articles in the UCMJ are elastic just as are laws in civilian life. An officer (as Jeff can tell you) recieves in depth training about how to get the best from their soldiers, sailors etc,... The standards by which those skills are applied are elastic as hell. Nam, you know you at times weren't always able to keep that gigline straight, keep your ears buzzed when in the field for weeks and maybe a few other things. Jeff knows, as does any officer that one must choose how to apply discipline and when. This in itself is a violation of the UCMJ. You don't ride the ass of your best field soldier because he needs a haircut. Instead, and the training manunals used to teach this philosophy even say that it is under certain circumstances a good idea to use these oppurtunities to make a joke about military bearing to enhance morale with your soldiers. A statement such as "Hey Bob, you keep covering our ass like that brother and I'm for letting you grow that hair to your ass".

A military man has to be a thinker. None of the UCMJ was ever designed to limit a persons ability to do this. Even "Failure to follow a lawful order" has a great deal of elasticity. Don't make me go there! We ain't got time for it and you besides, I believe you both will concede that one as OBVIOUS!

The fact is, military personnel are allowed to vote. They are allowed to discuss politics at the dinner table, right? Or are they only if they are not in uniform at the dinner table. You see, technically, wearing your uniform at home, at the dinner table is unauthorized, according to uniform regulations.

Now, where i feel Jeff is incorrect is about the sign. If it is in the back of your pick up, riding down through the middle of the base, it's wrong. Don't click the ignore button on me yet buddy, let me finish. Nam is right because of this. The law doesn't say we can't chew gum. At morning muster, you MAY NOT chew gum. It isn't against the law to smoke but you cannot smoke at morning muster. You can support a political candidate, but you cannot do it while on duty.

Now, NAM, apologize to Jeff for calling him an ass. That was tacky. Jeff stayed above namecalling. Good job Sir!

A salute to both of you!

I wasn't in the field emmett. I was at sea. and in the middle of the pacific ocean there's a good reason to keep officers seperated from enlisted. :salute:

[5stringJeff]

this from the UCMJ???? see my issue was what they can't do. his is what they can. yeah red will put you behind bars. also a warning issued here:

Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics :

source (source)

the miitary should stay OUT of politics period. to much danger of repercussions from topside. do your job, shut up and go home.

Here's an excerpt from that article (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i50/5.pdf) (emphasis mine):


A professional armed force that stays out of the politics that drive the policies it is sworn to enforce is vital to the preservation of the union and to our way of life.
I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues. Nor would I deny them the opportunity to vote or discuss . . . or even to debate those issues among themselves. We are first and foremost citizens of this great country, and
as such have a right to participate in the democratic process. As George Washington himself made clear, we did not stop being citizens when we started being Soldiers.
What I am suggesting—indeed, what the Nation expects—is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room. We do not wear our politics on our sleeves. Part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests.

Again, the CJCS is not disallowing personal political opinions, or the discussion thereof. Only in the execution of military duties is political partisanship not allowed.

[5stringJeff]

My understanding, which mirrors what Jeff already cited from UCMJ, we have 'citizen soldiers', they may vote, speak, write for or against any politician they care to, but not as soldiers, but as citizens. Thus no mention of their rank while active, etc. No showing up in uniform.

Jeff can correct if I'm wrong.

That is exactly my point.

[5stringJeff]

OK, I'll chime in and play arbitrator.

NAM: claims a person loses his right to express opinion about politics in public when enlisted in the US military and calls Jeff an ass because he disagrees.

JEFF: Lays down a pretty good argument in support of his case but is (I hate to say this buddy) WRONG!..............on THAT segment of the issue.

NAM: Claims Jeff is not an officer. .................WRONG! He most certainly is!

JEFF: Claims the UCMJ does not limit a soldiers right to free speech. He is right. The issue is somewhat gray. (Imagine that, the writers of the UCMJ left a cloud over this issue..............well.............in a way they did.) Nam is right that military personnel should abandon themselves from politics in public. A directive from the Joint Cheifs IS policy. You know this Jeff.

Now, the meet! Nam you claimed after reading us the riot act about discipline and so forth that you would not serve under Obama. Nam! Come on dude. If you were in the field and actively engaging the enemy and the inaguration took place while this was happening, you are saying that you would just throw down your arms and all of sudden abandon those hardliner beliefs in discipline AND the UCMJ. I think not!

All articles in the UCMJ are elastic just as are laws in civilian life. An officer (as Jeff can tell you) recieves in depth training about how to get the best from their soldiers, sailors etc,... The standards by which those skills are applied are elastic as hell. Nam, you know you at times weren't always able to keep that gigline straight, keep your ears buzzed when in the field for weeks and maybe a few other things. Jeff knows, as does any officer that one must choose how to apply discipline and when. This in itself is a violation of the UCMJ. You don't ride the ass of your best field soldier because he needs a haircut. Instead, and the training manunals used to teach this philosophy even say that it is under certain circumstances a good idea to use these oppurtunities to make a joke about military bearing to enhance morale with your soldiers. A statement such as "Hey Bob, you keep covering our ass like that brother and I'm for letting you grow that hair to your ass".

A military man has to be a thinker. None of the UCMJ was ever designed to limit a persons ability to do this. Even "Failure to follow a lawful order" has a great deal of elasticity. Don't make me go there! We ain't got time for it and you besides, I believe you both will concede that one as OBVIOUS!

The fact is, military personnel are allowed to vote. They are allowed to discuss politics at the dinner table, right? Or are they only if they are not in uniform at the dinner table. You see, technically, wearing your uniform at home, at the dinner table is unauthorized, according to uniform regulations.

Now, where i feel Jeff is incorrect is about the sign. If it is in the back of your pick up, riding down through the middle of the base, it's wrong. Don't click the ignore button on me yet buddy, let me finish. Nam is right because of this. The law doesn't say we can't chew gum. At morning muster, you MAY NOT chew gum. It isn't against the law to smoke but you cannot smoke at morning muster. You can support a political candidate, but you cannot do it while on duty.

Now, NAM, apologize to Jeff for calling him an ass. That was tacky. Jeff stayed above namecalling. Good job Sir!

A salute to both of you!

Thanks dude! :)

And, just so everyone is clear, I am a former Army officer, not a current one. I left active duty in 2003 and resigned my commission fully in 2006.