Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Want To Be A [Birther] In The Military? Hope You Like Making Little Rocks

13»

Posts

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jokerman wrote: »
    I was glad I wasn't going into the Airforce at the moment, the urge to give them a blanket party would have been high.

    D:

    It seems I have some self-restraint skills to learn. Excuse me...

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    I was glad I wasn't going into the Airforce at the moment, the urge to give them a blanket party would have been high.

    D:

    It seems I have some self-restraint skills to learn. Excuse me...

    Yeah me too. Two more years till I get my degree and commission. In your Junior year, they really drill diversity issues into your brain. It's painful to see the double standard happening in active duty.

    steam_sig.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I have to say...and I don't think this is just my unfamiliarity with some of the nuisances of American life...but that pretty much boggles the mind. I mean, I could, under certain circumstances, I can understand thinking this, but it takes a certain amount of gumption or something to actually say it out loud.

    When you think you're surrounded by like-minded company, you feel more comfortable saying some pretty terrible things, because you think that others will agree. And when you're talking people who tend to be at the perfect nexus of young and dumb, you also get an element of one-up-manship in there.

    "I think poor people are lazy."

    "Yeah, well I think they're all lazy and stupid."

    "Yeah, well I think they're lazy and stupid and should be sterilized so they don't breed even more stupid lazy poor people."

    "Yeah, well I think they should be skullfucked, too."

    "Man, I skullfucked three poor people on my way to work this morning."

    "Yeah, well I skullfucked four of them at the same time. I hate them so much I sprouted three extra dicks through sheer force of will."

    And so on.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I have to say...and I don't think this is just my unfamiliarity with some of the nuisances of American life...but that pretty much boggles the mind. I mean, I could, under certain circumstances, I can understand thinking this, but it takes a certain amount of gumption or something to actually say it out loud.

    When you think you're surrounded by like-minded company, you feel more comfortable saying some pretty terrible things, because you think that others will agree. And when you're talking people who tend to be at the perfect nexus of young and dumb, you also get an element of one-up-manship in there.

    o_O

    And so on.

    This example should be used as citation for all further "Brosef" conversations.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Is there any legal precedent to refuse an order based on questioning the Commander in Chief? I'm really trying to understand what possible angle an attorney could come at a case like this from, and I'm coming up with nothing.

  • JokermanJokerman Love is careless in its choosing. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    Is there any legal precedent to refuse an order based on questioning the Commander in Chief? I'm really trying to understand what possible angle an attorney could come at a case like this from, and I'm coming up with nothing.

    the only way you're allowed to disobey an order is if it's unlawful.

    Chanus wrote: »
    the best asians are white people
    My blog about Beer!
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Such as "torture your captives."

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    And since the orders go through the chain of command, the president did not order that man to deploy. Someone lower down did. No legal standing to refuse that order.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Nucker wrote: »
    Is there any legal precedent to refuse an order based on questioning the Commander in Chief? I'm really trying to understand what possible angle an attorney could come at a case like this from, and I'm coming up with nothing.

    the only way you're allowed to disobey an order is if it's unlawful.

    And it had better be pretty fucking obvious that it's unlawful, or else you're going to get assfucked something fierce. I mean, if your superior tells you to dig a ditch that you think might be against the local zoning codes, shut the hell up and dig the damned ditch.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Nucker wrote: »
    Is there any legal precedent to refuse an order based on questioning the Commander in Chief? I'm really trying to understand what possible angle an attorney could come at a case like this from, and I'm coming up with nothing.

    the only way you're allowed to disobey an order is if it's unlawful.

    And it had better be pretty fucking obvious that it's unlawful, or else you're going to get assfucked something fierce. I mean, if your superior tells you to dig a ditch that you think might be against the local zoning codes, shut the hell up and dig the damned ditch.

    Actually if it's possibly dangerous you check with the safety guy first. At least you should if you suspect it is. Otherwise you end up like the four guys at my job who ended up passing out while painting with paint that used formaldehyde in an enclosed room.

    Which generally is an option if your in a place that you're worrying about zoning codes.

    PSN: allenquid
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    DID YOU ORDER THOSE MEN TO DEPLOY TO AFGHANISTAN?!

    557184_f260.jpg
    YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I went to school with a girl named Orly. In Hebrew, it means "my light".
    Does Taitz mean "is out" in Hebrew?

    edit: or "Dim" would work too.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    What would happen if the judge agreed with this guy and demanded obama's birth certificate?


    There aren't judges in a court martial proceeding

    And no this would never happen. And will never happen

    Evander wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    As for the doctor - sure, he's getting used, but you'd think that being a doctor, he would have been smarter.

    The scary thing is that being a doctor does not necessarily require smarts, but instead a good capacity for memorization. Now, to be a good doctor, that requires smarts.

    As for this guy, I hope he gets court-martial'ed up the rear.

    There was a great SMBC strip I wish I could find that basically pointed out that being an expert in one area doesn't mean ANYTHING AT ALL about the validity of your opinions in unrelated areas.

    You posted that in response to one of my posts. I had the word 'alaska' in mine. I'll try and find it.

    Found it! <3 Evander
    Evander wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    the millitary is a convervative institution by nature

    what does that mean?

    It means that there's a large amount of right wing politics ingrained into the millitary at a base level, ESPECIALY if you're an Officer. If you vote democrat, and you let other people know, then you can pretty much expect not to become higher then Captain.

    why? how long has it been this way?

    partisanship goes directly against what the military stands for. if it has infected the ranks of the military, then something obviously needs to be done to purge it.

    This isn't really true; You'll make rank, a lot of it, even if you're like the liberalest liberal to ever liberal. You probably won't make something super insane high like, say, general or something, but those promotions are so rare and so political in nature (I'm saying "political" in the sense of who you know and who owes whom favors, etc) that it'd be pretty difficult to assume that it's your political beliefs that fucked you over for promotion to NORCOM commander or some shit like that

    Anyways you can make O-5, O-6 easy even taking into account your political beliefs and if you're somehow really brazen about it

    And since the orders go through the chain of command, the president did not order that man to deploy. Someone lower down did. No legal standing to refuse that order.

    ...Except that's how orders are authorized, dude. I mean, that's how, for instance, all (lawful) NCO commands are legal- technically the POTUS authorizes the SecDef who authorizes the Join Chiefs who authorizes the Army CoS who authorizes the general in charge of whatever COM I'm in (I think it's CENTCOM right now, not sure) and on and on and on down to my battalion commander authorizing my battery commander authorizing my battery 1SG authorizing my platoon sergeant authorizing my section chief, who then orders me to like, clean the barracks or some shit. I mean, the reality of it is it's my section chief who does it, but in the a legal sense every lawful order he makes is at the discretion of POTUS, whether trivial or not, and thus that is how all lawful orders are legal and must be followed

  • AeolusdallasAeolusdallas Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    the millitary is a convervative institution by nature

    what does that mean?

    It means that there's a large amount of right wing politics ingrained into the millitary at a base level, ESPECIALY if you're an Officer. If you vote democrat, and you let other people know, then you can pretty much expect not to become higher then Captain.

    why? how long has it been this way?

    partisanship goes directly against what the military stands for. if it has infected the ranks of the military, then something obviously needs to be done to purge it.

    The a lot of members of the military have distrusted the Democrats and "hippies" in particular sense Vietnam. They are seen as anti military, weak, bleeding heart, and unpatriotic. While officially members of the military and officers in particular are never supposed to take sides in politics, unofficially I can definitely see a lot of members of the military having personal issues with self described democrats in the service. However there are democrats in the military. Not many but they do exist. Including several at the highest ranks.

  • AeolusdallasAeolusdallas Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    the millitary is a convervative institution by nature

    what does that mean?

    It means that there's a large amount of right wing politics ingrained into the millitary at a base level, ESPECIALY if you're an Officer. If you vote democrat, and you let other people know, then you can pretty much expect not to become higher then Captain.

    Yeah, most of the military are hawk conservatives -

    The fact that a vast majority of the army is < 30 and makes <60k a year, and one of the huge selling points of recruitment is that by joining you get government healthcare, government access to education, and government retirement planning pretty much makes this the most hilariously ironic thing ever.

    Conversely when you might fucking die for your country, I'd kind of expect that to be a reasonable thing to give them. It doesn't make them not wrong, but I do feel it dampens the irony.

    There's no "right" or "wrong" - the simple fact is they are conservative as a body, and generally against the public getting what they have. Their solution for the issues of healthcare, education, and retirement is "work for the government" and they majority self identify with political platforms that decry government healthcare, education, and retirement as "socialist"

    They should be COMPENSATED for their dangerous job. The fact that we as a nation do so largely through benefits economized by scale instead of cash is EXACTLY the point I'm making. They aren't being "given" anything - they are being paid directly in benefits to a greater degree then anyone else because they are in such a huge employment pool, and it's an avowed selling point used by conservative military brass who say they hate socialized services to convince a young worker body (who are convinced they also hate socialism) to do the job.

    There's irony in play there.
    Except that the military sees those benefits as a just reward for their service to the state. As far as they are concerned, they earned them. It's not ironic for them to be opposed to people who don't serve to get similar "rewards".

  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Except that the military sees those benefits as a just reward for their service to the state. As far as they are concerned, they earned them. It's not ironic for them to be opposed to people who don't serve to get similar "rewards".

    I think what he meant was was that it's dumbfuck retarded to rail against socialism when you are in one of the most successful socialist enterprises of all time

  • AeolusdallasAeolusdallas Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Except that the military sees those benefits as a just reward for their service to the state. As far as they are concerned, they earned them. It's not ironic for them to be opposed to people who don't serve to get similar "rewards".

    I think what he meant was was that it's dumbfuck retarded to rail against socialism when you are in one of the most successful socialist enterprises of all time

    If they see there benefits as payment for services rendered, there is no reason they can't rail against payment for services not rendered. in other words The don't see military benefits as "socialism" they probably define socialism as giving things to people who have not "earned" them. I am not saying they are right but it's not ironic. It's all tied up in perception. In the US in general socialism is much more likely to be seen as giving money to "lazy" people.
    The big issue is that in the 60's the military in large decided that "dirty hippies" and democrats were the same thing and aligned themselves unofficially with the Republicans. Before that more military members would have been Democrats than Republicans. Republicans were isolationist and hated giving any money to the military. The Democrats were much more inclined to support the military.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I have to say...and I don't think this is just my unfamiliarity with some of the nuisances of American life...but that pretty much boggles the mind. I mean, I could, under certain circumstances, I can understand thinking this, but it takes a certain amount of gumption or something to actually say it out loud.

    When you think you're surrounded by like-minded company, you feel more comfortable saying some pretty terrible things, because you think that others will agree. And when you're talking people who tend to be at the perfect nexus of young and dumb, you also get an element of one-up-manship in there.

    "I think poor people are lazy."

    "Yeah, well I think they're all lazy and stupid."

    "Yeah, well I think they're lazy and stupid and should be sterilized so they don't breed even more stupid lazy poor people."

    "Yeah, well I think they should be skullfucked, too."

    "Man, I skullfucked three poor people on my way to work this morning."

    "Yeah, well I skullfucked four of them at the same time. I hate them so much I sprouted three extra dicks through sheer force of will."

    And so on.

    Come inside her mind!

    steam_sig.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I have to say...and I don't think this is just my unfamiliarity with some of the nuisances of American life...but that pretty much boggles the mind. I mean, I could, under certain circumstances, I can understand thinking this, but it takes a certain amount of gumption or something to actually say it out loud.

    When you think you're surrounded by like-minded company, you feel more comfortable saying some pretty terrible things, because you think that others will agree. And when you're talking people who tend to be at the perfect nexus of young and dumb, you also get an element of one-up-manship in there.

    "I think poor people are lazy."

    "Yeah, well I think they're all lazy and stupid."

    "Yeah, well I think they're lazy and stupid and should be sterilized so they don't breed even more stupid lazy poor people."

    "Yeah, well I think they should be skullfucked, too."

    "Man, I skullfucked three poor people on my way to work this morning."

    "Yeah, well I skullfucked four of them at the same time. I hate them so much I sprouted three extra dicks through sheer force of will."

    And so on.

    The thing is, I can't imagine reaching that level of "likewise company" comfort. Even in the military. Especially in a military. I mean, don't people think other people are listening? That certain things you say are documented? One wouldn't scream, "I am ______, and I think poor people need to hurry up and die!" in a crowded restaurant for the same reason. Nor would you say, "I am Rifleman, First Class ____, and I think the commander-in-chief and the minister of defense deserve to be sodomized repeatedly!" in a military barracks. Because in either case, there'd be repercussions.

    That being said, I served as a conscript in a military that advertised the role of political commissars (there's probably a better English word for it, I just can't think of it) and informants, so maybe the chilling effect is good enough. It's sort of like all the other discipline that is inevitably learned.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The a lot of members of the military have distrusted the Democrats and "hippies" in particular sense Vietnam. They are seen as anti military, weak, bleeding heart, and unpatriotic. While officially members of the military and officers in particular are never supposed to take sides in politics, unofficially I can definitely see a lot of members of the military having personal issues with self described democrats in the service. However there are democrats in the military. Not many but they do exist. Including several at the highest ranks.
    Without conscription, the military is going to draw from a sub-set of the population that isn't representative of the nation as a whole. First, it's going to be much more male than the general population, and guys are generally more GOP/conservative-leaning than women. It's going to draw more from rural areas, especially in the combat arms, since a lot of the stuff the military does (living outside, shooting) is more common to rural folks than city slickers. Also, the nature of the military is going to eliminate pacifists, many homosexuals and other liberal-leaning demographics from the recruitment pool. Also, membership in the military tends to be a family thing, in a lot of cases, so you're going to see similar values from generation to generation. Finally, more liberal colleges tend to be pretty ant-military. So, youtr officer corps is more likely to come from a military-friendly (read: more conservative) college than liberal bastions of higher learning.

    So, if you're looking at a recruit pool that is more male, rural and Southern and less urban, homosexual and female than the population as a whole, you're going to end up with a singificantly more conservative group of people.
    Synthesis wrote: »
    The thing is, I can't imagine reaching that level of "likewise company" comfort. Even in the military. Especially in a military. I mean, don't people think other people are listening? That certain things you say are documented? One wouldn't scream, "I am ______, and I think poor people need to hurry up and die!" in a crowded restaurant for the same reason. Nor would you say, "I am Rifleman, First Class ____, and I think the commander-in-chief and the minister of defense deserve to be sodomized repeatedly!" in a military barracks. Because in either case, there'd be repercussions.
    Members of the US military are allowed to voice their political and social opinions, with the caveats of not protesting while in uniform, not messing up discipline etc. Voicing that you dislike poor people is fine, in that context. Saying bad things about the CIC and other government officials is more limited, though soldiers are certainly free to disagree with government policies and the like.

    Servicemen aren't required to be opinionless robots in the US.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The a lot of members of the military have distrusted the Democrats and "hippies" in particular sense Vietnam. They are seen as anti military, weak, bleeding heart, and unpatriotic. While officially members of the military and officers in particular are never supposed to take sides in politics, unofficially I can definitely see a lot of members of the military having personal issues with self described democrats in the service. However there are democrats in the military. Not many but they do exist. Including several at the highest ranks.
    Without conscription, the military is going to draw from a sub-set of the population that isn't representative of the nation as a whole. First, it's going to be much more male than the general population, and guys are generally more GOP/conservative-leaning than women. It's going to draw more from rural areas, especially in the combat arms, since a lot of the stuff the military does (living outside, shooting) is more common to rural folks than city slickers. Also, the nature of the military is going to eliminate pacifists, many homosexuals and other liberal-leaning demographics from the recruitment pool. Also, membership in the military tends to be a family thing, in a lot of cases, so you're going to see similar values from generation to generation. Finally, more liberal colleges tend to be pretty ant-military. So, youtr officer corps is more likely to come from a military-friendly (read: more conservative) college than liberal bastions of higher learning.

    So, if you're looking at a recruit pool that is more male, rural and Southern and less urban, homosexual and female than the population as a whole, you're going to end up with a singificantly more conservative group of people.

    I don't know the details, but in my town just one of our female cadets was called a baby-killer in uniform. That was a shocking minority incident from our perspective. But hey, this is Central Florida. I heard it's more common in other places.

    steam_sig.png
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The a lot of members of the military have distrusted the Democrats and "hippies" in particular sense Vietnam. They are seen as anti military, weak, bleeding heart, and unpatriotic. While officially members of the military and officers in particular are never supposed to take sides in politics, unofficially I can definitely see a lot of members of the military having personal issues with self described democrats in the service. However there are democrats in the military. Not many but they do exist. Including several at the highest ranks.
    Without conscription, the military is going to draw from a sub-set of the population that isn't representative of the nation as a whole. First, it's going to be much more male than the general population, and guys are generally more GOP/conservative-leaning than women. It's going to draw more from rural areas, especially in the combat arms, since a lot of the stuff the military does (living outside, shooting) is more common to rural folks than city slickers. Also, the nature of the military is going to eliminate pacifists, many homosexuals and other liberal-leaning demographics from the recruitment pool. Also, membership in the military tends to be a family thing, in a lot of cases, so you're going to see similar values from generation to generation. Finally, more liberal colleges tend to be pretty ant-military. So, youtr officer corps is more likely to come from a military-friendly (read: more conservative) college than liberal bastions of higher learning.

    So, if you're looking at a recruit pool that is more male, rural and Southern and less urban, homosexual and female than the population as a whole, you're going to end up with a singificantly more conservative group of people.

    I don't know the details, but in my town just one of our female cadets was called a baby-killer in uniform. That was a shocking minority incident from our perspective. But hey, this is Central Florida. I heard it's more common in other places.

    It's not so much that as ROTC availability and support.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Servicemen aren't required to be opinionless robots in the US.

    Given that the Defense Department seems capable of requiring rather extreme standards of behavior be followed in other departments*, I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been a stronger chilling effect.

    *And here I'm thinking--and I realize it's a poor comparison--sexual orientation.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    ...Except that's how orders are authorized, dude.

    I'll concede the point.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Except that the military sees those benefits as a just reward for their service to the state. As far as they are concerned, they earned them. It's not ironic for them to be opposed to people who don't serve to get similar "rewards".

    I think what he meant was was that it's dumbfuck retarded to rail against socialism when you are in one of the most successful socialist enterprises of all time

    If they see there benefits as payment for services rendered, there is no reason they can't rail against payment for services not rendered. in other words The don't see military benefits as "socialism" they probably define socialism as giving things to people who have not "earned" them. I am not saying they are right but it's not ironic. It's all tied up in perception. In the US in general socialism is much more likely to be seen as giving money to "lazy" people.
    The big issue is that in the 60's the military in large decided that "dirty hippies" and democrats were the same thing and aligned themselves unofficially with the Republicans. Before that more military members would have been Democrats than Republicans. Republicans were isolationist and hated giving any money to the military. The Democrats were much more inclined to support the military.

    The rhetoric, including that of service members, is that socialism inherently doesn't work because the incentive structure and utopianism of a socialist model is broken, and the free market is the only viable solution. The irony is that the armed forces are a prime example of how the state can run things well and efficiently. How you have to pay your dues to start getting socialist benefits is not the issue.

    fwKS7.png?1
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Sadly, yes.

    The correct response is "Yah rly".

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Is there really someone named Orly?
    Ya rly.



    (I don't know what's wrong with you people, there was only one correct answer to that).

    Seriously.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    The thing is, I can't imagine reaching that level of "likewise company" comfort. Even in the military. Especially in a military. I mean, don't people think other people are listening? That certain things you say are documented? One wouldn't scream, "I am ______, and I think poor people need to hurry up and die!" in a crowded restaurant for the same reason. Nor would you say, "I am Rifleman, First Class ____, and I think the commander-in-chief and the minister of defense deserve to be sodomized repeatedly!" in a military barracks. Because in either case, there'd be repercussions.
    Members of the US military are allowed to voice their political and social opinions, with the caveats of not protesting while in uniform, not messing up discipline etc. Voicing that you dislike poor people is fine, in that context. Saying bad things about the CIC and other government officials is more limited, though soldiers are certainly free to disagree with government policies and the like.

    Servicemen aren't required to be opinionless robots in the US.

    Hadn't seen it mentioned yet, so I thought I'd jump in and point out Article 88 of the UCMJ. Contempt toward public officials. Applies on and off duty, but only applies to commissioned officers. Which, of course, the fuckstick on the OP happens to be.

    I'll also point out that this is an article I'd really like to see used more often. Most officers I've served under were good about it, but I fucking hate when brass decides to use the bully pulpit for a one-sided political conversation, which does happen from time to time.
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Is there really someone named Orly?
    Ya rly.



    (I don't know what's wrong with you people, there was only one correct answer to that).

    Srsly.

    Fixed.

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.