Paul Won Iowa
01-05-2012, 06:48 PM
#24
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
"I WISH THE US GOVERNMENT WOULD PAY OFF ALL THE NATIONAL DEBT SO THAT I CAN HAVE DOLLARS FOR MY US TREASURIES! Especially the 10-year bonds I bought in 2007 that are paying a 4.75% coupon."
Reply
0
0
01-07-2012, 11:25 PM
#25
well apparently it is illegal to endorse a politician while in military uniform
a rather bs law if you ask me but a law nonetheless
http://www.infowars.com/army-conside...with-ron-paul/
a rather bs law if you ask me but a law nonetheless
http://www.infowars.com/army-conside...with-ron-paul/
The US Army said Wednesday that it is considering disciplining Reserve Corporal Jesse Thorsen, the soldier who spoke out against a militaristic foreign policy at Ron Paul’s post-Iowa caucuses rally.
After being cut short during a CNN interview Thorsen, who has served two tours in Afghanistan and was due to head back for a third, was invited on to the stage by Paul himself to address Paul’s cheering supporters.
“If there’s any man out there that’s had a vision out there, it’s definitely [Ron Paul],” Thorsen said. “His foreign policy is by far, hands down better than any other candidate’s out there, and I’m sure you all know that. We don’t need to be picking fights overseas and I think everybody else knows that, too.”
Apparently someone within the military infrastructure did not take kindly to Thorsen’s remarks, and set about attempting to punish the 10-year veteran for his words.
Detractors are now going to great lengths to point out that because Thorsen was in uniform, he was technically in breach of military protocol when he praised Paul’s foreign policy positions.
Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 permits troops to attend political activities so long as they are not in uniform.
“It’s not in keeping with the spirit of the letter of the DoD directive,” Army spokesman George Wright said in a statement, without directly addressing the issue of Thorsen’s appearance.
“The soldier that spoke tonight on behalf of Ron Paul is gonna be in a bit of trouble,” wrote Paul Rieckhoff, founder of the veterans’ advocacy organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
“Politics in uniform is a big no-go. And Paul and his campaign should know better. Troops are bound by the (Uniform Code of Military Justice).” Rieckhoff added.
The Department of Defense policy states that active duty troops wearing a uniform are expected to avoid activities that “imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement” of political figures.
The directive also states that active duty uniformed soldiers may not “speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause” or “participate in any radio, television or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate or cause.”
Those who wish to see the Army throw the book at Thorsen may be disappointed, however, given that he is not currently on active duty.
According to the Washington Post:
Maj. Angel Wallace, a spokeswoman for the Army Reserve command, said Thorsen was not on active duty as of October, according to the available records. Still, she said, his commanders are in the process of determining which regulations, if any, were violated, and what the penalty might be.
His chain of command, Wallace said, is “determining the next steps.”
As we noted yesterday, CNN cut short an interview with Thorsen when he praised Ron Paul and began to speak out against an aggressive military stance abroad. As started to explain that he felt Israel is capable of looking after itself when it comes to Iran, “static” interference interrupted the feed.
After being cut short during a CNN interview Thorsen, who has served two tours in Afghanistan and was due to head back for a third, was invited on to the stage by Paul himself to address Paul’s cheering supporters.
“If there’s any man out there that’s had a vision out there, it’s definitely [Ron Paul],” Thorsen said. “His foreign policy is by far, hands down better than any other candidate’s out there, and I’m sure you all know that. We don’t need to be picking fights overseas and I think everybody else knows that, too.”
Apparently someone within the military infrastructure did not take kindly to Thorsen’s remarks, and set about attempting to punish the 10-year veteran for his words.
Detractors are now going to great lengths to point out that because Thorsen was in uniform, he was technically in breach of military protocol when he praised Paul’s foreign policy positions.
Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 permits troops to attend political activities so long as they are not in uniform.
“It’s not in keeping with the spirit of the letter of the DoD directive,” Army spokesman George Wright said in a statement, without directly addressing the issue of Thorsen’s appearance.
“The soldier that spoke tonight on behalf of Ron Paul is gonna be in a bit of trouble,” wrote Paul Rieckhoff, founder of the veterans’ advocacy organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
“Politics in uniform is a big no-go. And Paul and his campaign should know better. Troops are bound by the (Uniform Code of Military Justice).” Rieckhoff added.
The Department of Defense policy states that active duty troops wearing a uniform are expected to avoid activities that “imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement” of political figures.
The directive also states that active duty uniformed soldiers may not “speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause” or “participate in any radio, television or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate or cause.”
Those who wish to see the Army throw the book at Thorsen may be disappointed, however, given that he is not currently on active duty.
According to the Washington Post:
Maj. Angel Wallace, a spokeswoman for the Army Reserve command, said Thorsen was not on active duty as of October, according to the available records. Still, she said, his commanders are in the process of determining which regulations, if any, were violated, and what the penalty might be.
His chain of command, Wallace said, is “determining the next steps.”
As we noted yesterday, CNN cut short an interview with Thorsen when he praised Ron Paul and began to speak out against an aggressive military stance abroad. As started to explain that he felt Israel is capable of looking after itself when it comes to Iran, “static” interference interrupted the feed.
Reply
0
0
01-07-2012, 11:36 PM
#27
It is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice to support anything or anyone while in uniform, or to represent yourself as a member of the United States miliatary while doing anything political, as explained to me by my recruiter. This isn't stupid at all, the military is supposed to be apolitical. If a member of the military likes or dislikes the President it does not matter, he or she still has to salute him and follow his command as he is the Commander and Chief. If you see somebody waring a military uniform while at a political event, they are probably not currently active duty, once your out you can do whatever you please.
Reply
0
0
01-07-2012, 11:36 PM
#28
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
It is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice to support anything or anyone while in uniform, or to represent yourself as a member of the United States miliatary while doing anything political. This isn't stupid at all, the military is supposed to be apolitical. If a member of the military likes or dislikes the President it does not matter, he or she still has to salute him and follow his command as he is the Commander and Chief. If you see somebody waring a military uniform while at a political event, they are probably not currently active duty, once your out you can do whatever you please.
Reply
0
0
01-07-2012, 11:40 PM
#29
active duty or not i think the law is on some bs.
we understand that this man is not the military
he is just a member
we aren't that stupid yet (keyword yet)
yes of course he should salute, respect, ect the commander in cheif
but i think it is really important for us to know how our troops feel about the war
and it makes a bigger impact when his uniform is on
that's just my .02
we understand that this man is not the military
he is just a member
we aren't that stupid yet (keyword yet)
yes of course he should salute, respect, ect the commander in cheif
but i think it is really important for us to know how our troops feel about the war
and it makes a bigger impact when his uniform is on
that's just my .02
Reply
0
0
01-07-2012, 11:41 PM
#30
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
active duty or not i think the law is on some bs.
we understand that this man is not the military
he is just a member
we aren't that stupid yet (keyword yet)
yes of course he should salute, respect, ect the commander in cheif
but i think it is really important for us to know how our troops feel about the war
and it makes a bigger impact when his uniform is on
that's just my .02
we understand that this man is not the military
he is just a member
we aren't that stupid yet (keyword yet)
yes of course he should salute, respect, ect the commander in cheif
but i think it is really important for us to know how our troops feel about the war
and it makes a bigger impact when his uniform is on
that's just my .02
Paul brings up a non-active duty service member. Said person proceeds to catch all sorts of hell.
Yeah, I'm sorry. This is ------- retarded.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2012, 05:30 PM
#33
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
Before I get examples, as per the recent argument about abortion where I couldn't pin them the ---- down on what they meant....
Does someone in uniform acting as a supporter for McCain and standing near him in a rally count as a supporter to you, Scrappy? Or are we talking full on CNN video about someone in uniform advocating that strongly for a political candidate?
'Cause I'll tell you right now, I doubt I can find the latter. But I'll leave it up to you to draw the line. To me, the line is "Any kind of political activity in support of a candidate."
Does someone in uniform acting as a supporter for McCain and standing near him in a rally count as a supporter to you, Scrappy? Or are we talking full on CNN video about someone in uniform advocating that strongly for a political candidate?
'Cause I'll tell you right now, I doubt I can find the latter. But I'll leave it up to you to draw the line. To me, the line is "Any kind of political activity in support of a candidate."
Reply
0
0
01-08-2012, 06:07 PM
#34
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
Before I get examples, as per the recent argument about abortion where I couldn't pin them the ---- down on what they meant....
Does someone in uniform acting as a supporter for McCain and standing near him in a rally count as a supporter to you, Scrappy? Or are we talking full on CNN video about someone in uniform advocating that strongly for a political candidate?
'Cause I'll tell you right now, I doubt I can find the latter. But I'll leave it up to you to draw the line. To me, the line is "Any kind of political activity in support of a candidate."
Does someone in uniform acting as a supporter for McCain and standing near him in a rally count as a supporter to you, Scrappy? Or are we talking full on CNN video about someone in uniform advocating that strongly for a political candidate?
'Cause I'll tell you right now, I doubt I can find the latter. But I'll leave it up to you to draw the line. To me, the line is "Any kind of political activity in support of a candidate."
A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in
subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof),
management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without
respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.
Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator.
Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in
subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof),
management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without
respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.
Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2012, 07:50 PM
#35
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
This is exactly why I was asking for a line to be tangibly drawn, FRT, but very well.
Well? IIRC, Stan Spears' endorsement was questioned at the time, but nothing came of it from anyone. There's a few more examples, but I'm going to take a bit to remember them.
Secondly, as was covered, he was not active duty at the time of the endorsement. No one is even certain what he may have violated, but you've got serious political pressure coming down on him for endorsing Paul.
...endorsed John McCain for President of the United States at a press conference in Columbia, South Carolina. These distinguished leaders supporting John McCain come from all branches of the armed services and include former POWs, Medal of Honor recipients and former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
....
Major General Stan Spears...
....
Major General Stan Spears...
Secondly, as was covered, he was not active duty at the time of the endorsement. No one is even certain what he may have violated, but you've got serious political pressure coming down on him for endorsing Paul.
Last edited by blaen99; 01-08-2012 at 08:12 PM.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2012, 09:48 PM
#36
His active duty status matters a lot less than the fact he was in uniform. All service members know (or should know) that you're not supposed to do basically anything political while in uniform, as it implies a military endorsement. I don't know what McCain got away with, but it doesn't excuse CPL Jackass.
Also, RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012!!!!
(I'm not in uniform right now.)
Also, RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012!!!!
(I'm not in uniform right now.)
Reply
0
0
01-08-2012, 10:36 PM
#37
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
Even if he was National Duty/Reserve/IRR etc.. he could still have been Active Duty at the time anyways.
And as Koto put it, basically you have to be pretty dumb to do that, it's common knowledge not to do anything political in uniform.
Now is it Ron Paul's fault? No. The CPL should have declined to go on stage. I don't think Ron Paul knowingly put this guy in a bad position.
But I will say just about every friend I have in the military supports Ron Paul (out of uniform of course).
And as Koto put it, basically you have to be pretty dumb to do that, it's common knowledge not to do anything political in uniform.
Now is it Ron Paul's fault? No. The CPL should have declined to go on stage. I don't think Ron Paul knowingly put this guy in a bad position.
But I will say just about every friend I have in the military supports Ron Paul (out of uniform of course).
Reply
0
0
01-09-2012, 01:19 AM
#38
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
FRT, every article on the subject states that he was not active duty at the time, and is consistent. The spokesperson for his commanding officer states he was not active duty. Even the quoted article on it from Jared states quite clearly that he is not active duty.
I was under the understanding that those not on active duty could hold political opinion in such a fashion as demonstrated here. As an example, a retired member could wear their uniform to a political function in support of a political candidate.
As an example, a hugely politicized talking point of McCain's is that he was endorsed by over 100 admirals and generals, of which a couple were not retired at the time. Do I not understand this correctly? I.e., is wearing your uniform, even if not on active duty and even if you are retired, banned no matter the circumstance?
I was under the understanding that those not on active duty could hold political opinion in such a fashion as demonstrated here. As an example, a retired member could wear their uniform to a political function in support of a political candidate.
As an example, a hugely politicized talking point of McCain's is that he was endorsed by over 100 admirals and generals, of which a couple were not retired at the time. Do I not understand this correctly? I.e., is wearing your uniform, even if not on active duty and even if you are retired, banned no matter the circumstance?
Reply
0
0
01-09-2012, 01:35 AM
#40
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
Maj. Angel Wallace, a spokeswoman for the Army Reserve command, said Thorsen was not on active duty as of October, according to the available records. Still, she said, his commanders are in the process of determining which regulations, if any, were violated, and what the penalty might be.
Reply
0
0
