02-13-2008, 11:21 AM | #21 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dallas
Posts: 22
|
You live in a strip mal? Just kidding
I did my tour with the Marines. Can't say it was fr me but it did teach me a lot. I was a young kid that thought he knew it all and though it was a shock at the beginning it was a great experience in my life. KSagal is right, there are doers and talkers. Unfortunately mostly talkers nowadays. |
02-13-2008, 12:29 PM | #22 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
But something all administrations have done, at least since I've been alive, is to infer to the population that something else is required to be a "true American" other than to simply be a legal resident of the United States. I realize some of the younger people who voted for the first time in the last cycle - or will be voting for the first time in this cycle - are unaware that the same line touted by the current Administration of negative comments about the Administration is tantamount to treason was also used by Johnson and Nixon during the Viet Nam war. For all I know, variants of the same lines were used during the Korea conflict, as well as WW II and WW I. And, like Bush, both Nixon and Johnson attempted to enshrine into law, at various times, that belief - speaking out against the President, during a time of war, would, simply, be illegal. The difference, of course, is that those other Administrations weren't openly "eavesdropping" on private communications between individuals. Nixon had people investigated by the FBI on whims; he also had his "Enemies list." And wiretapped phones... but didn't throw out a blanket to, potentially, reel in every American's phone conversations and mail - both of snail- and e- variety. This one has. Two years ago, I made a prediction from which I've still not completely backed down, though I admit the approval numbers for Bush and Company now make such a scenario much more unlikely: I predicted there would be some type of "terrorist attack" between August and October of this year, which would enable the President to declare martial law (temporarily, of course) and suspend the General Elections in November. |
|
02-13-2008, 12:31 PM | #23 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well... maybe not all things dangly... but a majority. |
||
02-13-2008, 12:35 PM | #24 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 655
|
Quote:
|
|
02-13-2008, 01:07 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
Quote:
The comparison has been made many, many times by many, many people including but not limited to those within the current administration. If you doubt that, you can google it yourself.
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. Last edited by quade; 02-13-2008 at 01:22 PM.. |
|
02-13-2008, 01:21 PM | #26 |
Super Crazy
Segway Geek Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,757
|
Sister Bluebird flying high above,
Shine your wings forward to the sun. Hide the myst'ries of life on your way. Though you've seen them, please don't say a word. What you don't know, I have never heard. Starship Trooper, go sailing on by, Catch my soul, catch the very light. Hide the moment from my eager eye. Though you've seen them, please don't tell a soul. What you can't see, can't be very whole. Speak to me of summer, long winters longer than time can remember, The setting up of other roads, to travel on in old accustomed ways. I still remember the talks by the water, the proud sons and daughter that, Knew the knowledge of the land, that spoke to me in sweet accustomed ways. Mother life, hold firmly on to me. Catch my knowledge higher than the day. Lose as much as only you can show. Though you've seen them, please don't say a word. What I don't know, I have never shared. |
02-13-2008, 01:31 PM | #27 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 655
|
Quote:
Not only my opinion - Pulitzer Prize winning reviewer Roger Ebert wrote of it: "``Starship Troopers'' is the most violent kiddie movie ever made. I call it a kiddie movie not to be insulting, but to be accurate: Its action, characters and values are pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans." And Kenneth Turan described it as "…jaw-dropping experience, so rigorously one-dimensional and free from even the pretense of intelligence." Quote:
ART. 88 - CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. and also see DoD Directive 1325.6: Guidelines for Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/132506p.pdf for further guidance. So, while I suspect you were making a statement about the general populace, there is a significant number that ARE constrained from making such comments. And the penalties can be significant -- loss of all pay and benefits as well as confinement in prison. Last edited by Five-Flags; 02-13-2008 at 01:45 PM.. Reason: Colored for legibility |
||
02-13-2008, 01:52 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
Quote:
What is does NOT do is prohibit them from criticizing the President, et al. for what they may or may not be doing. Ref
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. |
|
02-13-2008, 02:24 PM | #29 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 655
|
Quote:
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. ... From the Manual for Courts Martial: It is immaterial whether the [contemptuous] words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. ... and The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial. and the definition from The Military Judges' Benchbook, paragraph 3-12-1d: "Contemptuous" means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness. There's a lot of leeway there for the Court to decide whether or not that element has been met. |
|
02-13-2008, 02:28 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
Perhaps so, but traditionally they've pretty much come down on the side of the two line explanation that I've given. Essentially, you can, in fact, make a criticism of the President, et al., but you still have to frame it within reasonably respectful language. The article in question would pretty much never hold up as actionable in a Court of Military Justice.
Re-read the article and find the passage you think would apply. I certainly can't find one.
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. Last edited by quade; 02-13-2008 at 02:35 PM.. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|