U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2012, 02:01 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,890,734 times
Reputation: 1114

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
Well allow to amend my statement - it's a violation if the military member is in uniform. So I will concede that I was wrong in my initial statement.

However, the military is and always will be neutral in terms of supporting one candidate or party over the other. Their job and goal is the defense of the nation and people therein. Defend all of America's citizens without regard to what the individuals may think.

So in that regard, you are wrong in the fact that the military can NOT support whoever they want because it'll get down to the point where a military member won't defend a Muslim American or a homosexual person just because they don't agree with their life style choices.
Military members can support whom ever they choose because they are US citizens. This is not the first event military members have been involved in nor will it be the last. Honoring the lives of deceased military members is considered very important to most people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2012, 05:46 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,690,061 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Military members can support whom ever they choose because they are US citizens.
100% correct. They can vote however they want, donate to whoever they want, can have bumper stickers on their own private vehicles supporting any candidate, they can participate in campaign rallies in civilian clothing, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,375 posts, read 2,749,311 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
100% correct. They can vote however they want, donate to whoever they want, can have bumper stickers on their own private vehicles supporting any candidate, they can participate in campaign rallies in civilian clothing, etc.
Right, right. I ought to have been more clear and I apologize that I wasn't. My statements come from the uniform thing as far as supporting whomever and all that. I'm not denying the individuals anything whatsoever.

The military as a whole can't give their support to a certain candidate because that'll go against their mission, so to speak.

It's just of my opinion that people who choose to walk against the POTUS/Commander in Chief do so at the violation of the Oath they took and the fact they swore to uphold and obey all orders handed down by the POTUS. Personal feelings and quoting the 'foreign and DOMESTIC' aside, that's really my only issue with the whole thing. Not the reasons behind the protest or march, but the action itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:12 PM
 
3,083 posts, read 3,420,113 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
Right, right. I ought to have been more clear and I apologize that I wasn't. My statements come from the uniform thing as far as supporting whomever and all that. I'm not denying the individuals anything whatsoever.

The military as a whole can't give their support to a certain candidate because that'll go against their mission, so to speak.

It's just of my opinion that people who choose to walk against the POTUS/Commander in Chief do so at the violation of the Oath they took and the fact they swore to uphold and obey all orders handed down by the POTUS. Personal feelings and quoting the 'foreign and DOMESTIC' aside, that's really my only issue with the whole thing. Not the reasons behind the protest or march, but the action itself.
Should they then disregard their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States if they believe their current Commander in Chief is failing to uphold his promise to do the same?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Location: NC
1,946 posts, read 1,538,881 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Why Does the Military Love Ron Paul?
  • The troops who fight on the ground in the godforsaken Middle Eastern desert-lands knows firsthand the brutalities and the uselessness of our wars and foreign policy, rather than some empty suit in Washington who had probably never served himself, but who has no qualms in sending off others to slaughter.
  • .
  • The troops took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, but soon realize that just about everything they are forced to do is unconstitutional.
  • .
  • The troops realize that we create our own enemy, and then fight them, and the fights then create more enemies, thus creating a vicious endless cycle.
  • .
  • The troops realize that war is a racket run by the ruling class, which enriches a few and impoverishes many.
  • .
  • The troops realize that a war transfers wealth from the middle-class and the poor to the rich. The rich gets the wealth and the poor gets the taxes and inflation.
  • .
  • The troops realize that our foreign policy is the biggest excuse for the government to expand itself in the name of national security, which undermines liberties at home.
  • .
  • The troops realize that the politicians who push for more wars usually have big financial investments in the military industrial complex, and thus have a vested, financial interest to keep the wars going.
  • .
  • The troops realize that if we adopt a saner foreign policy, we will be more secure, not less.
  • .
  • The troops want to defend the U.S., not Israel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,375 posts, read 2,749,311 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv View Post
Should they then disregard their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States if they believe their current Commander in Chief is failing to uphold his promise to do the same?
That's the thing though - what concrete proof that Obama isn't holding up the Constitution and doing all that he can to protect it? Maybe there's a method to his madness, maybe not. I won't sit here and attempt to convince you of that because I don't have the wherewithal to do so.

It's all opinion at this point in time whether or not he is an enemy of the state. I'm not here to argue that. What I'm saying is that don't you think that a Republican controlled Congress/House (one of those two anyway) would jump on the first chance to try and impeach Obama if indeed he did go against the Constitution?

Again maybe there's some personal discussions going on up in DC that we don't know about and maybe not. That's not for me to say nor is it the topic of this thread.

To violate the Oath and commit insubordination is to against the very fabric of what makes the military what it is - an overall force to be reckoned with if challenged and to defend the American way of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,375 posts, read 2,749,311 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving_pains View Post
  • The troops who fight on the ground in the godforsaken Middle Eastern desert-lands knows firsthand the brutalities and the uselessness of our wars and foreign policy, rather than some empty suit in Washington who had probably never served himself, but who has no qualms in sending off others to slaughter.
  • .
  • The troops took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, but soon realize that just about everything they are forced to do is unconstitutional.
  • .
  • The troops realize that we create our own enemy, and then fight them, and the fights then create more enemies, thus creating a vicious endless cycle.
  • .
  • The troops realize that war is a racket run by the ruling class, which enriches a few and impoverishes many.
  • .
  • The troops realize that a war transfers wealth from the middle-class and the poor to the rich. The rich gets the wealth and the poor gets the taxes and inflation.
  • .
  • The troops realize that our foreign policy is the biggest excuse for the government to expand itself in the name of national security, which undermines liberties at home.
  • .
  • The troops realize that the politicians who push for more wars usually have big financial investments in the military industrial complex, and thus have a vested, financial interest to keep the wars going.
  • .
  • The troops realize that if we adopt a saner foreign policy, we will be more secure, not less.
  • .
  • The troops want to defend the U.S., not Israel.
You can blame Bush for that. He started the whole thing to begin with. True Obama could have done more to end it, but that's not the issue here. If anyone is to blame for this mess in its entirety, It's Bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:29 PM
 
3,083 posts, read 3,420,113 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
That's the thing though - what concrete proof that Obama isn't holding up the Constitution and doing all that he can to protect it? Maybe there's a method to his madness, maybe not. I won't sit here and attempt to convince you of that because I don't have the wherewithal to do so.

It's all opinion at this point in time whether or not he is an enemy of the state. I'm not here to argue that. What I'm saying is that don't you think that a Republican controlled Congress/House (one of those two anyway) would jump on the first chance to try and impeach Obama if indeed he did go against the Constitution?

Again maybe there's some personal discussions going on up in DC that we don't know about and maybe not. That's not for me to say nor is it the topic of this thread.

To violate the Oath and commit insubordination is to against the very fabric of what makes the military what it is - an overall force to be reckoned with if challenged and to defend the American way of life.
At this point it's a matter of opinion on the part of the troops and I'd argue they've more than earned the right to express their opinions. Disagreeing with the actions and policies of the current Commander in Chief and supporting a different candidate in no way equals insubordination.

I see no violation of their oath on the part of the troops that are opting to exercise freedom of speech in supporting someone other than Obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:34 PM
 
Location: NC
1,946 posts, read 1,538,881 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
You can blame Bush for that. He started the whole thing to begin with. True Obama could have done more to end it, but that's not the issue here. If anyone is to blame for this mess in its entirety, It's Bush.
I did blame Bush for it till 2008, and I supported Obama in 2008 exactly to end all this B.S. If it was a case of Obama sincerely trying to keep his promises, but somehow fell short, then I would have been more forgiving. But Obama did NOTHING. Not only that, he made everything WORSE and started _new_, undeclared wars. He went 180į to his campaign promises and turned out to be WORSE than Bush. Bush would be proud of his heir.

So don't sing your Obama love-song to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,375 posts, read 2,749,311 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv View Post
At this point it's a matter of opinion on the part of the troops and I'd argue they've more than earned the right to express their opinions. Disagreeing with the actions and policies of the current Commander in Chief and supporting a different candidate in no way equals insubordination.
Of course it doesn't in relation to the insubordination. Disagreeing is fine and well but it's the very action of taking a march on Capitol Hill and doing the about face and whatnot that I have issue with. Where were these guys during the Bush era? Why is Obama the only one catching flak for this? I agree with the fact that they (yourself and I included) have more than earned the right to express their view points and beliefs. There are different ways to go about it rather than marching against the POTUS in DC.

Quote:
I see no violation of their oath on the part of the troops that are opting to exercise freedom of speech in supporting someone other than Obama.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Maybe it's because I'm young (24 years old) and a year out of the service that I feel as strongly as I do about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top