[gratelady1]

I have to apologize in advance for all who may be offended by this thread, but my personal belief is that no U.S. Soldier or his immediate family should be using their affiliation and or post, for politcal gain and or to place their opinions on a higher pedestal than any other American. GWB has made a career so far, of manipulating and taking advantage of both victims of his policies and their relatives aka-(The night of the State of the Union address). Notice that the claim by the administration and all the pundits was "that it was not orchestrated". But think for a second- supposedly the Iraqi woman had just returned from voting in the Iraqi election (a matter of just a couple of days, less if you take into consideration she crossed the date line)- this should have sent up a few flags- like how could she do that- did she ride on Airforce one?, And how could any Iraqi have more justifcation to be at our proceedings than any of the rest of us, or any other of the tens of thousands of wounded soldiers and families of fallen soldiers. Dont they have more right to that seat than her? And why were these specific folks chosen? And how did their connections relate to a state of the union address- We all know that it was just bragging and prpoganda on the Prez's part, but he got away with it and still to this day nothing has been investigated or even questioned (except for the immediate post address clatter of course). But back to the point, the conservatives like to set the folks we have serving for us and their sacrifice above the same populace that these young brave folks have sworn to serve and protect. This is what led to the fascism that was predominant during the 1940s. I will get jumped on for comparing conservatives to fascist, but if we allow ourselves to place the military on too high a pedestal, where will we be in a few years? Is it too late? You be the judge. One young cadet at Texas A&M University's Corp of Cadets, slammed the students for challenging the tradition that corps of cadets deserved better and unlimited seating at football games, due to the fact that some day they would go and possibly make the ultimate sacrifice. As a Vet. and parent of a current enlisted soldier, I was offended by his arrogant pre-suppositions. When I answered the "mail call" (article in the school paper) my response was never published and the issue died a quick death. Now I ask you all again is it too late? Are these young cadets in the mentallity like Hitler's youth? Maybe someday he might get a commission, and someday he may get a command, and maybe someday he might get to lead my son, and maybe he may do his duty, but till then it is just that- maybe. Is this even a problem? Or am I just too paranoid? Is it too much to ask our military to think as I did when I served- first dont endanger yourself or your family by promoting that you are a soldier and who your relatives are- Anyone with experience knows the dangers envolved and how this could compromise their mission, next we were supposed to keep our political views to ourselves- for or against the commander's policies. And finally just shut up and serve, if you are previledged enough to be allowed to serve and represent us abroad.

[rimbaud402003]

Very solid points. Thank you and your family for serving our country. God bless.

[gratelady1]

Thank you Rimbaud, and I have been greatly blessed, When my son hands me his copy of his DD-214, I will hang it next to mine and we both will have some fun comparing, then and now. And in part from all who have served, it is a previledge, and an honor to wear the uniform you have so bestowed us- the trust that the conscious collective instill in any soldier (when you consider who could have been chosen in your place of the millions willing and capable) should not be taken lightly or dishonored.

[gratelady1]

I asked my son how he felt about the incident with the Italian journalist, and about U.S. accountablity- He made a simple statement to me- no matter what, we did kill her rescuer and there is no adequate, acceptable, plausible excuse (for the Italians). I wonder why that was not GWB's first statement? Instead he will wait for an investigation, and in the end have to admit that we did kill her rescuer and injured her and why would he need an adequate, plausible excuse?

[gratelady1]

It's been years now and with every newscast, there is an average of two stories of and about Iraq, and the continued problem they are having over there. Well I called the local tv station here to complain about the constant reference to problems of other countries, leaving just a few minutes to our problems here. I hate to be callous, with my son ready to deploy overthere in a few weeks, but I am tired of hearing about it. Why the constant deluge? Why cant we be allowed to just care about our country and let those in the Middle East hammer it out their own way? Why cant there be better organized protests against our continued envolvement over there?

[gratelady1]

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#917.%20ART.%20117.%20PROVOKING%20SPEECHE S%20OR%20GESTURES

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Of course these are only a few links to prove- first and foremost, that there is such a thing as the Armed Forces Uniformed Code of Military Justice also known as the UCMJ.

These are the legal articles which are produced as formal charges once someone has been charged with a more broad or general mis-conduct as related by local command's Code of Conducts.

For those with little or no knowledge of military justice (beyond contemporaryTV), some basic common beliefs must be straightened out.

The military if not a democracy! It is completely authoritarian and maintains dicipline through specific chains of command.

The structure is built in chains or echalons with clear delieniations of duty. Orders are sent from top to bottom.

Having understood that, I suggest for your amusement the following hypothetical case;
Snowdog goes to the local EMC (enlisted mans' club), and decides to wear his "I am queer for "W" t-shirt". He runs into the infamous G-lady- and she has just lost her boyfriend in Iraq- she tells her best friend this _________ _____ _____ should know better than bring that stupid shirt into this place "Of all places" He turns to her overhearing the statement and apologizes and begins to remove his shirt, his buddy calls him a wuzz, and flips snowhound "the finger".

The next morn the "Seargent at Arms" comes to collect snowdog's buddy, and his buddy is amazed- he cant believe snowdog filed charges!

Come to find out, snowdog did not file the charges but G-lady did, as she was offended by snowdog's buddy's opinion.

A hearing is set and the incident is confirmed to have happened, by over twenty witnesses- all friends of everybody. One by one, each give testimony that in fact, the buddy, had comttied a crime, but to save honor, as the military never allows such behaviorist to enlist, the service has to prove that this person is an anomaly, there is more behind that gesture, that opinion, so other charges are submitted, like "conduct un-becoming", and since the buddy knew it was wrong to do such a thing and did it anyway, we must throw in "conspiracy", and the list goes on and on, because the corp must police itself and explain the anomally.

So there you have it, the sequence that repeats itself over and over and the only time out-siders learn of it, is when "trumped up charges" gets your "opinionated" son or daughter washed out of the service with a "Dishonorable discharge"- of course its always "their fault", not your son's or daughter's.

The point- shut up and serve- something they teach from the time you dis-embark at bootcamp, and you learn your general orders, and learn to keep your mouth shut, with the exception of when your with those you can trust.

Every local unit makes sure you know what's acceptable and what is not, this is why you dont have smart, clean cut kids, expressing their points of view in public when they are in the service, they just shut up and serve.

The Coast Guard has a standing order that no Commanding Officer can implement policy to prevent servicemen from decedence, but with the exception of such conduct that poses a risk to the functional capacity of the unit- aka. decipline.

There are rules governing involvement with underground publishments, and entities, there are rules governing publicized statements and mass-media, all restrict such participation to those who are authorized to do so and trained.

The silly thing is, all this is easily researched and verified, and more importantly, it is ethically important because it keeps the Sean Hannities and Rush Limbaughs of the worlds from using this type of rhetoric to promote a fascist state. The people who serve us are not allowed to self empower themselves over the populace that they serve.

These neocons- conservatives, republicans, whatever- Nazis, have slowly been taking over this country over the last twenty years and when they start bringing out letters from active service men, stating "how they dont want to be protested against or called baby-killers"- even when they admit they did it- as it is "unavoidable in war", then they have just reached the point of dangerous propogandist and need to be investigated by the FCC.

[snowdog]

Here we go again, Your taking it out of context. If YOU are a capt, US Army and
you ask me what I thought about the war...and I am say an E-4 and I tell you
that I think the war is wrong. Thus, giving you my OPINION.... THere is
NO. article in the USMJ that makes it illegal. YES If I flip you off, that is
A GESTURE. Hell here in Wa if you do that to someone driving. That is
considered ROAD RAGE! and YOU will BE cited.

There HAS to BE strict rules in the MIlitary in order to maintain disipline, and
to maintain cohesion, moral, etc. If YOUR OPINION is offensive, IE
Snowdog, I think your nothing more than a big #$%@ ! well that is not getting
you introuble because of your opinion.... that is because you offended someone.

Which goes on every day and people get fired from WAL-MArt, K-Mart, Sears
etc.

[gratelady1]

Here we go again, Your taking it out of context. If YOU are a capt, US Army and
you ask me what I thought about the war...and I am say an E-4 and I tell you
that I think the war is wrong. Thus, giving you my OPINION.... THere is
NO. article in the USMJ that makes it illegal. YES If I flip you off, that is
A GESTURE. Hell here in Wa if you do that to someone driving. That is
considered ROAD RAGE! and YOU will BE cited.

There HAS to BE strict rules in the MIlitary in order to maintain disipline, and
to maintain cohesion, moral, etc. If YOUR OPINION is offensive, IE
Snowdog, I think your nothing more than a big #$%@ ! well that is not getting
you introuble because of your opinion.... that is because you offended someone.

Which goes on every day and people get fired from WAL-MArt, K-Mart, Sears
etc.


So you are admitting at this point that there is a Sectgion 917 art. 117?

And that if you piss people off in the serivce they can find a way to
use that article against you- even for something as slight facial expressions?

And thus you were a liar and wrong about the whole issue concerning the UCMJ?

[gratelady1]

I wonder if you would admit once and for all, that Fascism is Anti-American?

Anyway, if you think you can go to someone in the military and give them your opinion- when it is not solicited- especially someone ranked above you, is acceptable- you are wrong- The problem here is you do not undertand that "insubordination" is a worse crime than sharing your opinion or just making gestures.

If in a "Captains Mast" when the captain asks you why you were "flipping off" your superior, then you would be wise to just say you were just expressing your stupid opinion and did not mean anything (you believed the Ensign should go screw himself), you might just get some extra duty, reduction in grade, and pay cut, but if you were just sharing your offensive opinion- "freedom of speech", and demeaning your superior, the penalty, is much worse- in the Coast Guard, if convicted of insubordination, all the previous would still apply- why you were waiting to to transferred to Leavenworth to be Butt chunked till "Bubba" got tired of you.

In a war scenario- in combat, you would just be shot on the spot!

The example I gave in my previous post, was a general example of how the UCMJ, can be used against you- Like I said- you have to understand the process- aka. how things are in real life- versus your ideal world.

I served on lots of Captain's masts because I worked as the "Master at Arms" during many of them, and served to keep everything under control, and to give hours of advice to enlisted men (up to 175 attached to our 378' cutter) as to proper protocol, and what to say how, to stand at attention, where to stand, how to keep their eyes in the boat, and speak only when directed to. That was the worse thing I ever did, and did not want to really remember all that- thank you very much!

But now with GWB actually violating ethical and moral standards- with his Fascist attempt to put the U.S. Military on some kind of pedestal, above the people they serve, with his scripted- staged, video conference SNAFU, these issues do present opportunity to discuss how Fascism works and how it begins it's festering growth in the American culture.

[Adolph]

Or am I just too paranoid?
Judging by many of your threads I would say that could be distinct possibility. Paranoia, or some other pathology. :(

[gratelady1]

Judging by many of your threads I would say that could be distinct possibility. Paranoia, or some other pathology. :(


Some of the greatest minds in the world have stated "that the pathology to your real existence, is only a pigment of the imagination"- undertanding that, how real do you think I am?

At least I was not stupid enough to pick a tag like "ADOLPH"?- talking about pathological! Who do you really wish to be?

[Adolph]

There is nothing wrong with the name of Adolph. I like the name. I still like the name Joe too, even though he was a bigger mass murderer.

[gratelady1]

There is nothing wrong with the name of Adolph. I like the name. I still like the name Joe too, even though he was a bigger mass murderer.

Yabul- mi furer Lo!!!

[snowdog]

So you are admitting at this point that there is a Sectgion 917 art. 117?

And that if you piss people off in the serivce they can find a way to
use that article against you- even for something as slight facial expressions?

And thus you were a liar and wrong about the whole issue concerning the UCMJ?


And if you piss people off working at wal-mart they can find a way to punish
you. NO the US Military has NOT SHOT anyone for their opinion> hasn't
been a CM resulting in Death by firing squad since WW2

At what point did I admit anything about sec 917 art.117? You just keep
giving your son your advise glady... I'll give my son my 23 years of experience.

[gratelady1]

And if you piss people off working at wal-mart they can find a way to punish
you. NO the US Military has NOT SHOT anyone for their opinion> hasn't
been a CM resulting in Death by firing squad since WW2

At what point did I admit anything about sec 917 art.117? You just keep
giving your son your advise glady... I'll give my son my 23 years of experience.

Ok, Bill Clinton "want a be", there is no intern under the desk waiting her term to satisfy you, can you answer a simple question or not?

Is there a Section 917 Art. 117 or not?

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate...20OR%20GESTURES

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Of course these are only a few links to prove- first and foremost, that there is such a thing as the Armed Forces Uniformed Code of Military Justice also known as the UCMJ.

These are the legal articles which are produced as formal charges once someone has been charged with a more broad or general mis-conduct as related by local command's Code of Conducts

[snowdog]

Ok, Bill Clinton "want a be", there is no intern under the desk waiting her term to satisfy you, can you answer a simple question or not?

Is there a Section 917 Art. 117 or not?

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate...20OR%20GESTURES

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Of course these are only a few links to prove- first and foremost, that there is such a thing as the Armed Forces Uniformed Code of Military Justice also known as the UCMJ.

These are the legal articles which are produced as formal charges once someone has been charged with a more broad or general mis-conduct as related by local command's Code of Conducts

thank you for proving my point.... "a provoking Speech" or a "gesture" is much
different than giving ones opinion. Surely you should know that. I should also
mention, that Captains Mast and an article 15 are both forms of Non-judicial
punishment, and that the accused has the right to trial. A Captains Mast is
NOT A TRIAL.

A good example of this is when I attempt to explain something to you Glady1,
I say it calmly, and do my utmost best to say it in a manner that is not to
offend you. You, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to offend when
giving your opinion. Good manners is always helpful.

"SFC ED", to his Plt Co, Sir I really don't believe that there ever were WMD's
in Iraq as Pres Bush has told us." That is an opinion and is NOT punishable
under the UCMJ. now if I say that and call Mr. Bush names, or my CO names,
or I say it by addressing a large crowd of people, then, It could be considered
provoking or such.

[gratelady1]

thank you for proving my point.... "a provoking Speech" or a "gesture" is much
different than giving ones opinion. Surely you should know that. I should also
mention, that Captains Mast and an article 15 are both forms of Non-judicial
punishment, and that the accused has the right to trial. A Captains Mast is
NOT A TRIAL.

A good example of this is when I attempt to explain something to you Glady1,
I say it calmly, and do my utmost best to say it in a manner that is not to
offend you. You, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to offend when
giving your opinion. Good manners is always helpful.

"SFC ED", to his Plt Co, Sir I really don't believe that there ever were WMD's
in Iraq as Pres Bush has told us." That is an opinion and is NOT punishable
under the UCMJ. now if I say that and call Mr. Bush names, or my CO names,
or I say it by addressing a large crowd of people, then, It could be considered
provoking or such.

Is that your final answer-
Is there a Section 917 Art. 117 or not?

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate...20OR%20GESTURES

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Of course these are only a few links to prove- first and foremost, that there is such a thing as the Armed Forces Uniformed Code of Military Justice also known as the UCMJ.

These are the legal articles which are produced as formal charges once someone has been charged with a more broad or general mis-conduct as related by local command's Code of Conducts

[gratelady1]

For unequivacal expertise in mastery of political rhetorical opining, the following award is presented to Snowdog;


To all these presents greetings,

This is to ceritfy that Snowdog, is here by given the Rudolph Hess "VAPO" award, for compete and utter persistance in stifiling all would be opiners, with his complete unswerving comittment not to define operant defintions, and maintaining strict adherance to "Vagueness", "Ambiguity", "Propoganda" and "Obscurity", in the pursuit of complete total world domination for his mighty Furer George Will rule everyone in the Bush.

With all due honor and respect.

Presented this day of our lord, October 20, 2005

By forced duty;

Gratelady1, Senior member

[gratelady1]

For unequivacal expertise in mastery of political rhetorical opining, the following award is presented to Snowdog;


To all these presents greetings,

This is to ceritfy that Snowdog, is here by given the Rudolph Hess "VAPO" award, for compete and utter persistance in stifiling all would be opiners, with his complete unswerving comittment not to define operant defintions, and maintaining strict adherance to "Vagueness", "Ambiguity", "Propoganda" and "Obscurity", in the pursuit of complete total world domination for his mighty Furer George Will rule everyone in the Bush.

With all due honor and respect.

Presented this day of our lord, October 20, 2005

By forced duty;

Gratelady1, Senior member

Oh and BTW,
For all those who dont completely undertsand the above, or those in Realinda,
huh, yeah, sure it means snowdog is one bad-ass, Moe Foe! I promise, no I really mean it, come-on it could happen!
:cool:

[snowdog]

Oh and BTW,
For all those who dont completely undertsand the above, or those in Realinda,
huh, yeah, sure it means snowdog is one bad-ass, Moe Foe! I promise, no I really mean it, come-on it could happen!
:cool:

Ummmmm...could you maybe stay on the issue?

[gratelady1]

Is that your final answer-
Is there a Section 917 Art. 117 or not?

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate...20OR%20GESTURES

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Of course these are only a few links to prove- first and foremost, that there is such a thing as the Armed Forces Uniformed Code of Military Justice also known as the UCMJ.

These are the legal articles which are produced as formal charges once someone has been charged with a more broad or general mis-conduct as related by local command's Code of Conducts

Sure can you answer this last post?

[snowdog]

Sure can you answer this last post?

Yes, Glady1, I thought I answered that before, If not.. I apologize. So
Finally ya got that out LOL. But what does it change? A person can still,
in the military voice their opinion. as long as it is not offensive or disruptive.
and they can do it without fear of punishishment. Maybe you had some
trouble in the Coast Guard... LOL, if you voiced your opinion in your Coast
guard years, as you do on here, Yes I can see where you would, without doubt,
be standing before the CO. Unfortunetly, you haven't figured it out yet.

[gratelady1]

Yes, Glady1, I thought I answered that before, If not.. I apologize. So
Finally ya got that out LOL. But what does it change? A person can still,
in the military voice their opinion. as long as it is not offensive or disruptive.
and they can do it without fear of punishishment. Maybe you had some
trouble in the Coast Guard... LOL, if you voiced your opinion in your Coast
guard years, as you do on here, Yes I can see where you would, without doubt,
be standing before the CO. Unfortunetly, you haven't figured it out yet.

What? you actually really answered a question- out-right? Damn!! the Astros may have a chance after-all, and Jesus may actually come back some day and maybe someday hell will freeze over!

Now that you admit there is in fact a section/ article/ regulation, that can be used against you for even the slightess percieved infraction, and thus how any military forces maintain decipline, then we can actually move to your other mis-guided misconceptions.

Originally I posted that it was not right, inmoral and unethical for anyone in the military to openly voice thier opinion (how you implied "I had trouble in the Coast Guard"), you see- you re-enforced my arguement.

I did not say there was a reg. that prevented you from freedom of speech- I stated a soldier should keep the possiblitiy of someone "in position to do so", using the UCMJ against you, because you are a trouble-maker and big-mouth, and this is instilled in you in bootcamp, to keep you "deciplined", throughout your career in the military.

All this, because you just want to twist the reality, of what is concidered acceptable "American military tradition", into a more Fascist form of government which would centralize power through the military, and thus through "Patriotism"- ala Hitler-Nazi style, and add that to a promised "National security" and a more "policed state" and folks like you- who need a government to protect you, are happy. Thus why I say you are a coward, anti-American, and pro-fascist.

[snowdog]

!

Now that you admit there is in fact a section/ article/ regulation, that can be used against you for even the slightess percieved infraction, and thus how any military forces maintain decipline, then we can actually move to your other mis-guided misconceptions.

I did not say there was a reg. that prevented you from freedom of speech- I stated a soldier should keep the possiblitiy of someone "in position to do so", using the UCMJ against you, because you are a trouble-maker and big-mouth, and this is instilled in you in bootcamp, to keep you "deciplined", throughout your career in the military.

All this, because you just want to twist the reality, of what is concidered acceptable "American military tradition", into a more Fascist form of government which would centralize power through the military, and thus through "Patriotism"- ala Hitler-Nazi style, and add that to a promised "National security" and a more "policed state" and folks like you- who need a government to protect you, are happy. Thus why I say you are a coward, anti-American, and pro-fascist.

This is why I at first didn't want to respond to your question, I knew you'd
twist it a bit. there is no article in the UCMJ that covers " the slightest perceived infraction". just as there is no article that makes me giving my opinion
in the military a crime of ANY sort. As for the Facism, and Hitler-Nazi thing...
For what ever reason, you obsessed with those words. why is that?
Again glady1, please keep the discussion on issue.


make up your mind glady1... ya rant about the Katrina thing and how "terrible"
the govt responded, and such things as that, Now your telling me I need the
govt to protect me. as for the name-calling, you left out a few.......I take
it I am "improving" in your eyes. So I guess I should say thank you for
recognizing that my views aren't quite so bad after all :)

[gratelady1]

This is why I at first didn't want to respond to your question, I knew you'd
twist it a bit. there is no article in the UCMJ that covers " the slightest perceived infraction". just as there is no article that makes me giving my opinion
in the military a crime of ANY sort.

Read Section 917 art. 117 as I have already provided it for you, or research it yourself, and then say my conclusions are false.

Is there a Section 917 Art. 117 or not?

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate...20OR%20GESTURES

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES

[snowdog]

Read Section 917 art. 117 as I have already provided it for you, or research it yourself, and then say my conclusions are false.

Is there a Section 917 Art. 117 or not?

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate...20OR%20GESTURES

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES

You need to understand that an OPINION doesn't have to be a Provoking
speech or gesture. what part of that don't YOU get?

[snowdog]

You need to understand that an OPINION doesn't have to be a Provoking
speech or gesture. what part of that don't YOU get?

Oh yea, I forgot, Yes your conclusions are false. :eek:

[gratelady1]

Oh yea, I forgot, Yes your conclusions are false. :eek:

Huh, you are argueing with yourself again, do you need to be left alone with yourself again? Need yall own room?

[snowdog]

Huh, you are argueing with yourself again, do you need to be left alone with yourself again? Need yall own room?

I tried to be nice again.... but you won't allow it glady1, now I have to make
a fool out of you yet again. Look up US Army AFTER ACTION REVIEW

This is the manual which covers an AAR "After Action Review" which is a
formal or informal get together where the commander asks for imput on
how a mission went, and how the mission could of went better. It is preferred
that the participants are subordinates, as THEIR VIEWS and OPINIONS are
criticle in making sure that future missions, will go better. Read it and then
come back and tell me that the UCMJ does not allow Soldiers to give their
"opinions".

Hell, ask your son about an AAR.

[gratelady1]

Since Snowdog has an understanding problem (poor cognitive skills), I will continue despite him- To close this issue, let me re-iterate a few points I have already made and can be reviewed by scrolling through the thread.

No command can make policy to prevent freedom of speech by thier troops-period!
They can regulate stuff that can be detrimental to the command- read that as you will.

This is not what I said, or even implied, I simply stated the obvious- Over a million U.S. Servicemen do not go out in public, be it at work or otherwise, and state thier opinion, noone can argue this fact. You dont see miltiary staff going on Oprah saying they hate Bush, it just aint done. Simpletons like snowdog and Rush et-al, simply say that "since no military speak out against Bush- then everyone must like him". This is simply not the case.

They could do it, if thier local command approved it, but they wont and there are strict policies about TV and Radio interviews and the like.

I stated originally that every serviceman should remember the UCMJ, because it can be used against you- by someone who knows how and hates you- it dont take much, so it is best to keep your opinions to yourself and not make enemies, this is why every military personnel goes through some sort of bootcamp, and they are tought the basics of decipline. Basically to shut up and serve!!!

There are inscrupulous members of the Bush admin, and conservative talkshow hosts that harp the importance of supporting our troops- and I do- enough to realize that I am supposed to protect them from incompetent leaders with my vote!

I dont support the war- this has nothing to do with supporting the troops- snowman and his ilk, say "if you dont support the war, then you cant support the troops, if you dont support the President, you dont support the troops", this is pure and simple propoganda, mainly begun by Hitler and other Fascist just to centralize political power and control the dissent. Works pretty good to- check out Adolph and snowdogs posts.

It is accepted by most folks, that it is unethical and immoral for a military to be self promoting (thier opinions-political views etc.), especially above the folks they serve. This is very un-American and is not to be tolerated, this is why we have a civilian commander and chief. To prevent circular propoganda designed to put the military on a pedastal above the citizens that pay thier salaries.

Once again, if your in the military, remember the UCMJ can be used against you- in many ways, so SHUT UP AND SERVE!

[snowdog]

Since Snowdog has an understanding problem (poor cognitive skills), I will continue despite him- To close this issue, let me re-iterate a few points I have already made and can be reviewed by scrolling through the thread.

No command can make policy to prevent freedom of speech by thier troops-period!
They can regulate stuff that can be detrimental to the command- read that as you will.

This is not what I said, or even implied, I simply stated the obvious- Over a million U.S. Servicemen do not go out in public, be it at work or otherwise, and state thier opinion, noone can argue this fact. You dont see miltiary staff going on Oprah saying they hate Bush, it just aint done. Simpletons like snowdog and Rush et-al, simply say that "since no military speak out against Bush- then everyone must like him". This is simply not the case.

They could do it, if thier local command approved it, but they wont and there are strict policies about TV and Radio interviews and the like.

I stated originally that every serviceman should remember the UCMJ, because it can be used against you- by someone who knows how and hates you- it dont take much, so it is best to keep your opinions to yourself and not make enemies, this is why every military personnel goes through some sort of bootcamp, and they are tought the basics of decipline. Basically to shut up and serve!!!

There are inscrupulous members of the Bush admin, and conservative talkshow hosts that harp the importance of supporting our troops- and I do- enough to realize that I am supposed to protect them from incompetent leaders with my vote!

I dont support the war- this has nothing to do with supporting the troops- snowman and his ilk, say "if you dont support the war, then you cant support the troops, if you dont support the President, you dont support the troops", this is pure and simple propoganda, mainly begun by Hitler and other Fascist just to centralize political power and control the dissent. Works pretty good to- check out Adolph and snowdogs posts.

It is accepted by most folks, that it is unethical and immoral for a military to be self promoting (thier opinions-political views etc.), especially above the folks they serve. This is very un-American and is not to be tolerated, this is why we have a civilian commander and chief. To prevent circular propoganda designed to put the military on a pedastal above the citizens that pay thier salaries.

Once again, if your in the military, remember the UCMJ can be used against you- in many ways, so SHUT UP AND SERVE!

Keep trying glady1, but everyone knows.............You boo booed again.

[gratelady1]

Keep trying glady1, but everyone knows.............You boo booed again.

Ok so prove it, lazy Nazi. :p

[snowdog]

I already have proven it dingleberry, Any one with a brain that reads your
previous post about military members getting into trouble because of stating
their opinions. If a member talks as you do, in a offensive way to anyone,
not just higher ups, will be punished. As they would in Wal-mart, K-mart,
BurgerKing....etc. You need to do a bit more of your research there kid,
as the UCMJ is not just a tool to punish subordinates, but also to protect
them.

[haus]

I've got (what I think is) a funny story on this topic.

I decided in '03 that the "President" and the American people had gone nuts and I wasn't going to fight any more wars for them until they got their heads out of their butts. So, that October, I got out of the Navy.

On your last day, you have to go through a procedure called "checking out," a series of interviews with this guy and that guy and finally the ship's captain. Also, on your last day, you're likely to be mentally and physically exhausted and have a very low tolerance to B.S.

That is not the funny part. The funny part is this: on that day, W himself was to float around the harbor in a little boat and we were ordered to get all dressed up in our prettiest uniforms and stand outside our ships and render him honors for a couple of hours.

This left me in, to say the least, a terrible quandry. My last hours in the Navy were to be spent paying honor to this goon that ordered me to rain fiery death on a bunch of Iraqis that never did anything to anyone.

So, I was in with the Captain, and at the end of the interview, he asked me if there was anything else I wanted to talk about. I requested permission to speak freely. He granted it.

"Skipper," I said, shakily, "I have an issue with rendering honors this afternoon."

He told me that he didn't understand.

"I have nothing but contempt and hatred for the president, sir. I think it would be extremely hippocritical for me to render honors to him, sir."

He was astonished that anyone would have anything but the deepest respect for the man. Never fully emerging from a sort of shocked trance, he directed me to go hang out in the lounge for a couple of hours. I did, kind of giddily, and read an Al Franken book.

Now, had I been an officer, he totally could have gigged me on Article 88 of the UCMJ and put a black mark on an otherwise spotless career. As it is, he could have gigged me on Article 134 (the nefarious "catch-all" clause). From http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15991&archive=true :

“None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense or the president of the United States,” [General John] Abizaid said. “Whatever action may be taken, whether it’s a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, is up to the commanders on the scene.”

But, in this case, he didn't. Tee hee. :)

[haus]

Well rats, looks like I was guilty...

(from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d134410_080204/d134410p.pdf):

-------------
DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces,"
[...]
E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not:
[...]
E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (reference (b)), or participate in activities proscribed by references (c) and (d)
----------

And, for completeness' sake, 10 U.S.C. 888 is, in fact, article 88 of the UCMJ (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC888), so the "President" is covered by it.

[snowdog]

THe article you pasted, concerns "commisioned Officers" who have
a bit of a different set of rules. I was 23 yrs in the enlisted ranks. I
cannot honestly say what the situation there is. One thing that should
be noted however, in writing Evals, and Couseling statements. The person
who is counseled, or given the eval, has a block to write their response to
what ever is written for or against them. They have the option to respond.
or not respond. ANd by law, unless it is an offenseve remark or one of
a threatening nature. That person cannot be punished for it. For instance...
If I were to receive a counseling statement from the Command Master CHief
that I was "gundecking" a weeks worth of logs. and he told me to sign it.
I am within my rights to reply in the block.. that "the Command Master Chief
So and So is either lying or does not have all the facts". There is NO punishment that Can be given to me for that comment, will it piss of the CMC
hell yes. but that block is MY responce. NOT FOR ANYONE TO TELL ME WHAT
TO WRITE OR NOT WRITE. WITHIN REASON.

How many years did you put in Haus? I had met quite a few friends on
the Lehty-Gulf (excuse the spelling) the gettysburg, and that new high
tech boat they got back in 98 or 99. Arligh-burke class. anyways I'm just
curious. as we may have run into each other. Politics aside, I again thank
you for your service.

[-V-]

I too thank you for your service, haus. But unlike, snowdog, I believe there was no greater service that you rendered for your country than that last day when you left your captain devastated in the wake of Hurricane Truth by having the courage to say, "I have nothing but contempt and hatred for the president, sir. I think it would be extremely hippocritical for me to render honors to him, sir." I salute you sir, and if I could, I would award you the Medal of Honor.

[snowdog]

I too thank you for your service, haus. But unlike, snowdog, I believe there was no greater service that you rendered for your country than that last day when you left your captain devastated in the wake of Hurricane Truth by having the courage to say, I salute you sir, and if I could, I would award you the Medal of Honor.

Mr. -V-. Thats fine if you want to commend Haus of his "claimed" responce
to his CO. but Please understand what the Medal of Honor is before you start
awarding it for ones politicle views. Men have died, or been crippled doing what
was considered above and beyond the call of duty for their country to earn that
award. Haus like myself has done NOTHING as the recpients of Past medal
awardees, have done. To even mention an award with the bravery and courage
behind it as the MOH, be given to someone for their political views is
extremely insulting. shame on you. You think I or any other service member
want to "salute" and show respect to that person because they don't like GWB?

If you understood the military tin.... You would NEVER have made that comment. I think Haus would at least agree to that.

[snowdog]

[QUOTE=haus]I've got (what I think is) a funny story on this topic.

So, I was in with the Captain, and at the end of the interview, he asked me if there was anything else I wanted to talk about. I requested permission to speak freely. He granted it.

"Skipper," I said, shakily, "I have an issue with rendering honors this afternoon."

He told me that he didn't understand.

"I have nothing but contempt and hatred for the president, sir. I think it would be extremely hippocritical for me to render honors to him, sir."

He was astonished that anyone would have anything but the deepest respect for the man. Never fully emerging from a sort of shocked trance, he directed me to go hang out in the lounge for a couple of hours. I did, kind of giddily, and read an Al Franken book.

Now, had I been an officer, he totally could have gigged me on Article 88 of the UCMJ and put a black mark on an otherwise spotless career. As it is, he could have gigged me on Article 134 (the nefarious "catch-all" clause). From http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15991&archive=true :



Haus, I'm sorry but I have to question your statement, Your either lying to
glorify your greatness or You simply have no clue as to what you are talking
about. as "Rendering Honors" is not about GWB but the office in which he
holds. Your captain was either a complete idiot, or had dealt with you on
different issues in your past to which he felt that, your getting out. Had I
been him, I would of at least been concerned with the Health and Morale of the
rest of the crew. You come off as being so "brave" and able to speak up. about
hurting the poor lil Iraqi's, if that is indeed the case. why did you go to the
persian gulf and be be part of the crew that showered missles on them? why
did you not speak out then? reading your post about confronting your CO
maybe if you spent
a bit more time in the military, you would of understood the traditions, customs/
coutesies a bit better as well as the rank structure. You served in the Us Military,
for that you should be commended. But don't come off telling me a ret E-8 your
BS story about telling your CO you don't want to render honors. that don't
fly, People
like 1 -V- who have not much knowledge of the Military I can accept that.
but don't try to play that ol routine equal to that of " I got pissed at my C/O
and punched him out". That don't fly with ANYONE who has served. Speaking of
Al Franken....is it true that while he bashed the GWB adminsitration about
affirmative action, that out of the 120 people he employs ONE of them Is Black?

[gratelady1]

Mr. -V-. Thats fine if you want to commend Haus of his "claimed" responce
to his CO. but Please understand what the Medal of Honor is before you start
awarding it for ones politicle views. Men have died, or been crippled doing what
was considered above and beyond the call of duty for their country to earn that
award. Haus like myself has done NOTHING as the recpients of Past medal
awardees, have done. To even mention an award with the bravery and courage
behind it as the MOH, be given to someone for their political views is
extremely insulting. shame on you. You think I or any other service member
want to "salute" and show respect to that person because they don't like GWB?

If you understood the military tin.... You would NEVER have made that comment. I think Haus would at least agree to that.

I only served four years and am now very proud of that, more than anything, my rationale- if serving 23 years equals the mentality of the snowdog- then I can only say- either something was fundamentally wrong- cognitively- before he enlisted or something went completely wrong during his tenure.

I say to anyone, if you read most of snowdogs' posts- he tends to attack the messenger- thus attempting to defend or protect GWB, and or conservative views- which are basically flawed- and he has not the intelligence to understand why- simple point; if he was so smart- why did he need to stay in the service so long?- After 4 years, I understood I could do more for myself, my country, family and friends on the outside, by using my God given talents to be more productive and prosperous.

In the military you will not get rich and there are many persons that can only succeed in the military, they need Uncle Sam to take care of them and need the structure, provided by such a system. So to brag about spending 23 years being in the military- has multiple dimensions of end results- such as you are admitting to social acceptance problems, cognitive problems, creativity problems and overall self-actualization problems.

Anyone who has the gumption would not stay in the service, once you understood the limitations- It is nice to be free to act as you please!

This is not a swipe at "lifers"- my brother is an AirForce Lifer, My son looks like he is going to be a Army Lifer, but then again, I say to them, if you think you can achieve what you can in the military, imagine what you could achieve with complete freedom, if only you had more faith and belief in yourself!

I know snowdog will counter something to the effect "that his desire to serve his country was strong and blah-blah- dah......", But then again, what if an idiot had that same arguement... what kind of military would you have, if all the "Lifers", were like that? You end up with "Group-think" infected morons like snowdog, who wont get out after twenty, screwing up the entire military, and making it hard on those with greater intelligence, who get out simply because we understand how that institution got so screwed up. :cool:

[haus]

Mr. -V-. Thats fine if you want to commend Haus of his "claimed" responce to his CO... I think Haus would at least agree to that.

I think you'll find that I'm painstakingly honest, Dog. But I'll let you make up your mind about that.

What I did doesn't merit any sort of millitary award, least of all a MOH. The only thing it gives me is a nice anecdote to carry around for the rest of my life.

Finally, Dog, did you read the Stars and Stripes article I pointed out? This is a 2003 version of a canceled 1990 policy. I read it carefully, read a long argument about it on millitary.com, and fully believe it applies to enlisted members.



Haus, I'm sorry but I have to question your statement, Your either lying to
glorify your greatness or You simply have no clue as to what you are talking
about. as "Rendering Honors" is not about GWB but the office in which he
holds. Your captain was either a complete idiot, or had dealt with you on
different issues in your past to which he felt that, your getting out. Had I
been him, I would of at least been concerned with the Health and Morale of the
rest of the crew.


I did it alone in his stateroom with about 4 hours left in my hitch.


You come off as being so "brave" and able to speak up. about
hurting the poor lil Iraqi's, if that is indeed the case. why did you go to the
persian gulf and be be part of the crew that showered missles on them? why
did you not speak out then?


When we started the WestPac, we were going to Pakistan in support of the Afghanistan campaign. I've never had any strong feelings against the Afghanistan campaign. We stayed there for a couple of weeks and then our battle group got moved over to the Northern Arabian Gulf. We had faith that our government had sent us over there for a reason. So we did the job. We came back. And then we started looking for the reasons.

And, no I never punched out an officer or any other member. And it makes me wince when I hear that kind of sea story.

p.s. QM? Me too. :)

[-V-]

I do not accept your diminishment of haus's action, snowjob.

"Sometimes raising your voice for your country is more patriotic than raising your rifle" - -V- 11/5/05

[snowdog]

well Haus... I guess I shouldn't comment, as I was not in the Navy. I put
the question to my wife who just hit her 12th year....she along with 2
E-7's found it hard to believe that a CO would act in such a way. I guess
it sounds as though I am flat out calling you a liar. Which I have no right to
do. But please answer one thing.. Do you not think actions such as that
would affect the moral of the rest of the crew?

-V-. please explain your military background that gives you any
knowledge on the subject.

[snowdog]

I say to anyone, if you read most of snowdogs' posts- he tends to attack the messenger- thus attempting to defend or protect GWB, and or conservative views- which are basically flawed- and he has not the intelligence to understand why- simple point; if he was so smart- why did he need to stay in the service so long?- After 4 years, I understood I could do more for myself, my country, family and friends on the outside, by using my God given talents to be more productive and prosperous.

I know snowdog will counter something to the effect "that his desire to serve his country was strong and blah-blah- dah......", But then again, what if an idiot had that same arguement... what kind of military would you have, if all the "Lifers", were like that? You end up with "Group-think" infected morons like snowdog, who wont get out after twenty, screwing up the entire military, and making it hard on those with greater intelligence, who get out simply because we understand how that institution got so screwed up. :cool:

Umm glady1 who is attacking who? I choose the military, I choose to be a lifer,
you choose to work at an abortion clinic. as for wealth, hell no a person doesn't
get rich in the Military. but I own a home in Jacksonville, Fl....about to buy a home here in Wa state. have a great retirement fund. have the funds to put
both my kids thru College. My wife and I enjoy taking off on our 2001 Harley
Davidson FLHT when the weather permits. I pretty much do as I please. I am
43 yrs old and do not, and will not work anymore. Where are you at in this point
of your life? Oh yea, should also be noted I have 3 Microsoft network certs,
my comptia A+ certification, level 5 in CISCO. and a BAC. I am quite proud
of my accomplishments. You don't sound as if you are. I have done more and
seen more in my 43 years than you EVER will. Who is the moron now?

[snowdog]

Haus did you or did you not, take this oath when YOU joined (were not
drafted, you joined of your own freewill)

I, ___________________________________, do solemly 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Now what part of that statement didn't you undrstand?


Please with all your illustrious intellegence Glady1, please explain to me your
problem with a person with 20 yrs or more in the military is. I would really love to hear you explain how 20 yr vets "screw up the military" Oh you mean for promotions? maybe you should have studied for that test a bit better, there are plenty of study guides available I would of recommended Northstar. And I might add, Haus talk with his CO kinda blows your arguement away about not being able
to give an opinion......Doesn't it? LOL, I am actually responding to a person
about my military background to someone who feels that it is almost degrading
to be a "lifer" in the military and seemsto think that those in the military are
not very intellegent and could do more........and this person does 4 yrs gets out
(kicked out? unable to Re-enlist?) and works in an abortion clinic. Bet your
real proud of that aren't ya Glady1? Oh...I'm sorry you had a previous
post in which you, yourself stated that you weren't very proud of that didn't you?
I'm pretty proud of my accomplishments glady1, You don't appear to be though.
your a very sad person, I wish you could find a way to be more proud of yourself.

I don't know how long you been "out' there lady. but todays military is much more intelligent than it was 4yrs ago. Are you even aware now of the College
degree needed to be advanced from E-6 and upwards? Do a bit more of your
famed research. know what your talking about before you attempt to school me
on the US military. You got a long way to go kid.

[haus]

Sure I took the oath. I don't, however, see your point.

[snowdog]

Sure I took the oath. I don't, however, see your point.


Well ummm Haus.....re-read the oath.... now does it seem a bit odd that
you choose not to "render-Honors? You held your R hand up, and I'll
assume your swore not to do that....."So help me God."

I have searched a bit, and I cannot find it anywhere that there is ANY other
part that says...."unless I do not agree with the Presidents policies To which
I then can forego any allegience because MY OPINION overrides the "stupid"
oath I took upon VOLUNTEERING FOR THE US MILITARY"
Perhaps you could enlighten me and tell me where that part is.

[snowdog]

I do not accept your diminishment of haus's action, snowjob.

"Sometimes raising your voice for your country is more patriotic than raising your rifle" - -V- 11/5/05


-V-man....how long did you serve to understand what the military is about?

Ya see, you not accepting my diminishment of Haus actions is a moot point
Hause can tell you about how important (especially on board a ship with 154
other sailors) it is to keep up the morale of the crew. But you wouldn't
understand that would you? as long as its a GWB bashing it works for you
doesn't it? Ya see, Haus said the hell with the crew, and thought only of
himself. I have on several occasions commended you on your service Haus.
do you not think that actions such as what you pulled harms the morale of the
crew? I'm sure there were others who felt the same way as you. But they
had to pull your weight because you refused your duty. I had mentioned
this act to my wife and 2 chiefs as I previously mentioned. One of the chiefs
made it clear that he WOULD never allow an act like that, under his watch. He
informed me you would be dealt with by "the navy way" I guess he was saying
that old addage of "we take care of our own."

[haus]

I talked to my girlfriend, who works with routers, and she doesn't believe you have a wife. Hence I call you a liar. :) Oh heck, that's kind of a weak argument, isn't it?

Anyway, yeah, crew morale is important. I don't know how much extra weight anybody had to pull: it's not like we were humping stores or anything. I just can't (and didn't) see anybody crushed to tears by my sitting around in the lounge for a couple of hours, while they were standing around on the rails. The only other conversations I recall that morning, after I recieved my Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal, were along the lines of "Where's the party tonight?" and "They're not gonna make you man the rails are they? That's bull----!"

Finally, there's no possible way you can assert that I "refused to follow an order."

[Adolph]

I say to anyone, if you read most of snowdogs' posts- he tends to attack the messenger-

I have read through many of Snowdogs posts as well as yours greatlady.

It is you that has the penchant for attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, not Snowdog.

[snowdog]

I talked to my girlfriend, who works with routers, and she doesn't believe you have a wife. Hence I call you a liar. :) Oh heck, that's kind of a weak argument, isn't it?

Anyway, yeah, crew morale is important. I don't know how much extra weight anybody had to pull: it's not like we were humping stores or anything. I just can't (and didn't) see anybody crushed to tears by my sitting around in the lounge for a couple of hours, while they were standing around on the rails. The only other conversations I recall that morning, after I recieved my Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal, were along the lines of "Where's the party tonight?" and "They're not gonna make you man the rails are they? That's bull----!"

Finally, there's no possible way you can assert that I "refused to follow an order."

Ummm. Haus, my young man.... I never said you refused to follow an order.
Haus, you renigged on what you took an oath to do. that is fact, not my
opinion, or view it is fact. And again I think you for the service to your
country. Perhaps if you had spent a bit more time in the service, you would
understand my point a bit better... but just the same, your Service is
greatly appreciated

[haus]

Show me the particular clause of the oath you're talking about. I still don't see it.

[snowdog]

Show me the particular clause of the oath you're talking about. I still don't see it.


"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers "


I guess it a bit hard to find being in the middle of the oath and all....

Please tell me what it means to bear "true faith and allegiance" as I
could be wrong but you VIOLATED that young man.

[haus]

[QUOTE=snowdog]"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers "
...[QUOTE]

So you're saying one of the following three things:

1) that sitting in the lounge was unconstitutional
2) that I disobeyed an order from POTUS, or
3) that I disobeyed an order from an officer

Which one? They're all three malarkey.

[snowdog]

[QUOTE=snowdog]"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers "
...[QUOTE]

So you're saying one of the following three things:

1) that sitting in the lounge was unconstitutional
2) that I disobeyed an order from POTUS, or
3) that I disobeyed an order from an officer

Which one? They're all three malarkey.


I am disappointed in you haus I thought you could catch on better.
none of the three listed above. do you know what allegiance means?

a moot point anyways, how bout we end this topic in saying that in my
opinion....you were wrong. In your opinion (although still a bit wet behind
the ears) your actions were fine and leave it at that. I respect your
opinion, I would appreciate the same towards me. :D

[haus]

I am disappointed in you haus I thought you could catch on better.
none of the three listed above. do you know what allegiance means?

a moot point anyways, how bout we end this topic in saying that in my
opinion....you were wrong. In your opinion (although still a bit wet behind
the ears) your actions were fine and leave it at that. I respect your
opinion, I would appreciate the same towards me. :D


Reread the oath: the allegience is to the Constitution. And yeah, I'm getting really tired of this thread too.

[snowdog]

Reread the oath: the allegience is to the Constitution. And yeah, I'm getting really tired of this thread too.


thats cool, it is getting no where. as I am stating my opinion and you are
stating yours. .........NEXT......... :)

[gratelady1]

Umm glady1 who is attacking who? I choose the military, I choose to be a lifer,
you choose to work at an abortion clinic. as for wealth, hell no a person doesn't
get rich in the Military. but I own a home in Jacksonville, Fl....about to buy a home here in Wa state. have a great retirement fund. have the funds to put
both my kids thru College. My wife and I enjoy taking off on our 2001 Harley
Davidson FLHT when the weather permits. I pretty much do as I please. I am
43 yrs old and do not, and will not work anymore. Where are you at in this point
of your life? Oh yea, should also be noted I have 3 Microsoft network certs,
my comptia A+ certification, level 5 in CISCO. and a BAC. I am quite proud
of my accomplishments. You don't sound as if you are. I have done more and
seen more in my 43 years than you EVER will. Who is the moron now?

There is a problem with your math;
43 years old now- 23 years in the military+ you admit noone gets rich in the military- regardless of rate and rank, thus about 2-4 years average out of the military= you got mega-rich illegally or your still just an exagerating liar, and thus put your foot in your mouth yet again. :p

[gratelady1]

I have read through many of Snowdogs posts as well as yours greatlady.

It is you that has the penchant for attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, not Snowdog.

I do admit I tend to question many poster's conclusions, this is not attacking them- as for snowmutt, he is to busy attacking and fighting with himself and his proposed alligances, that he has not time left to allow me to attack him adequately.

I do wonder why you would bother to stand up for your Nazi butt buddy?
Dont get mad- get even- and besides, I wont have so much time to help him trash himself anymore, so relax your Fascist joint-hunta is safe.

[snowdog]

I do admit I tend to question many poster's conclusions, this is not attacking them- as for snowmutt, he is to busy attacking and fighting with himself and his proposed alligances, that he has not time left to allow me to attack him adequately.

I do wonder why you would bother to stand up for your Nazi butt buddy?
Dont get mad- get even- and besides, I wont have so much time to help him trash himself anymore, so relax your Fascist joint-hunta is safe.

Hi glady1 as I mentioned in another forum... I said a few words for you and your
unfortunate circumstances, at church yesterday. Best of luck to you in
maybe getting into another farm situation. I think I would enjoy that kind of set up.
:)

[gratelady1]

Hi glady1 as I mentioned in another forum... I said a few words for you and your
unfortunate circumstances, at church yesterday. Best of luck to you in
maybe getting into another farm situation. I think I would enjoy that kind of set up.
:)

I do have to admit that was very kind of you, and to be so poised, as to not kick this horse when it is down.

I am proud to share with you, that my neighbors, showed a lot of class, one who is also a deacon/co-pastor at a Black Baptist Church, shared a roll of hay with me and my 2 cows, thus helping them stay alive, till I can decide what to do next. "He boldly told me that if I tried to pay him, he would not help me!", It really touched my soul, and made me see a new complexity of my micro-world. I also had other nieghbors come by and offer to help, but I told them I would not know where to start, and I am too busy right this instant, just trying to survive and keep my animals alive day to day, much less determine, what I would do for the immediate next few months.

[snowdog]

I do have to admit that was very kind of you, and to be so poised, as to not kick this horse when it is down.

I am proud to share with you, that my neighbors, showed a lot of class, one who is also a deacon/co-pastor at a Black Baptist Church, shared a roll of hay with me and my 2 cows, thus helping them stay alive, till I can decide what to do next. "He boldly told me that if I tried to pay him, he would not help me!", It really touched my soul, and made me see a new complexity of my micro-world. I also had other nieghbors come by and offer to help, but I told them I would not know where to start, and I am too busy right this instant, just trying to survive and keep my animals alive day to day, much less determine, what I would do for the immediate next few months.

Glad the church is giving you a hand. somehow...I get the feeling that you
will find a way to come thru the termoil. Best of luck to you.. we can still
despise each other...LOL but I don't wish bad luck like that on anyone. Hang
in there! :)

[gratelady1]

Glad the church is giving you a hand. somehow...I get the feeling that you
will find a way to come thru the termoil. Best of luck to you.. we can still
despise each other...LOL but I don't wish bad luck like that on anyone. Hang
in there! :)


Well I found a way to come through the turmoil, I quit my job and joined the growing unemployment rate, yes- believe what you want, but the old fashioned, trickle down economics, pushed by Reagan and his kind, is coming back to haunt the simple-mined "Middle class", whom always seem to feel that if they support "Coporate America", then hopefully they will have a job.

If you believe we have to police Iraq for the Iraqis, then I guess you will believe, the Bush Admins. rhetoric about the low unemployment rate, yet I know of two other family members who are being layed off- as we post.

Well guess what, CEOs and FSOs have decided to buy thier islands and thier yachts on the Medditerain, and could give a damn, if anything trickles either way- up or down, They made their bucks and they are running, before the Tax breaks for the rich, are reversed in a few months.

The jokes on America yet again, The Saudis flew panes into the towers and we go after Afganistan and Iraq.

Bank accounts across the world have inflated, while we poor folks still have to go to the dollar stores.

The continued strife in the Middle East has run up fuel prices so high- we are happy to pay 2 dollars for a gallon of gas, to go to work to make 5 bucks an hour!

Oh happy days! :o

[snowdog]

"Well guess what, CEOs and FSOs have decided to buy thier islands and thier yachts on the Medditerain, and could give a damn, if anything trickles either way- up or down, They made their bucks and they are running, before the Tax breaks for the rich, are reversed in a few months." glady1


No kidding, Did Ted Kennedy ever buy that additional 15 acres along his
estate in Fl? Instead of buying islands or Yachts... The Gov of New Jersey
buys himself an election! How bout the steelers playning in "KERRY-HINES"
field !!

PS...GLad to hear things are getting a bit more positive for ya Glady1

[gratelady1]

When I asked my baby brother to put down his feeling about the Iraq conflict on paper or e-mail, and send it to me- he replied "he could not do it, because it would be considered that he was speaking for the AF", as he understood "he can not vocalize his political opinion- it would not be right".

We perosnally discussed it at length, but he would not go any further than that- If he can understand this, why cant everyone?

Our military should just shut up and serve!

[gratelady1]

Today on Laura Ingram, Laura interviewed 2 sailors and asked them "thier opinion on how the "War was going in Iraq"

This continues to be a problem that the Right has never addressed- No U.S. military personel are allowed to do interviews- Morally- it is unethical, and it would be as they were speaking for the Navy- and thus they need "Authorization" to do so, so if they got "Authorization"- who gave it to them and why?

Another thing, Laura admitted she did not know of any "U.S. AirForce envolvement in Iraq", a few callers called in to testify, as to the AF's roles and responsiblities on the ground and in the air in Iraq- This goes to prove if she does not know what she is talking about- and has no knowledge or working experience on the subject, then how can she give any kind of intelligent input on the subject?