popsjumper 2 #26 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote Nice to see those of us that DID serve, understand it, accept it, and respect it. Where are the people who didn't serve not accepting it? I dunno. Hiding? Playing hooky? *sigh* Read the article. Do some research. Hint: You might start with his lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the congressman. I have no sympathy for the fool. He got what he was asking for and now he's crying about it. The Bozo.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #27 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Nice to see those of us that DID serve, understand it, accept it, and respect it. Where are the people who didn't serve not accepting it? I dunno. Hiding? Playing hooky? Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, a former Marine, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista. Oh wait, Hunter served. I guess that theory bites the dust.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #28 April 26, 2012 Quote You might start with his lawyers, Yeah... they're his lawyers. It's their job to be on his side. Quote the American Civil Liberties Union, Yeah... they're the ACLU. 'Nuff said. Quote the congressman. Which one? 'Cos as far as congressmen go it's apparently a dead heat between the one that served and the one that didn't. Quote I have no sympathy for the fool. He got what he was asking for and now he's crying about it. Makes him another guy that DID serve that doesn't get it, huh?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #29 April 26, 2012 Quote the congressman. Quote Which one? 'Cos as far as congressmen go it's apparently a dead heat between the one that served and the one that didn't. Well, good. Evidently you found the answer to your question....one who didn't serve. Quote I have no sympathy for the fool. He got what he was asking for and now he's crying about it. Quote Makes him another guy that DID serve that doesn't get it, huh? Yes. But, oh, he's going to get it alright...rightfully so.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,046 #30 April 26, 2012 Hi normiss, While it has been a couple of lifetimes since I got out of the service; back then, just below Honorable was a General discharge. A General discharge, back then, did not preclude any rights what-so-ever; it was simply less than an Honorable discharge. You could still work for the US gov't & DoD. Things may have changed since then. Thoughts, anyone?????? JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 April 26, 2012 You've got entry-level, which only applies in the first 180 days of service and doesn't characterize service. Then, in administrative discharges you have Honorable, General and Other Than Honorable, which do characterize service. After that, you have the punitive discharges: Bad Conduct and Dishonorable.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 April 27, 2012 QuoteYou've got entry-level, which only applies in the first 180 days of service and doesn't characterize service. Then, in administrative discharges you have Honorable, General and Other Than Honorable, which do characterize service. After that, you have the punitive discharges: Bad Conduct and Dishonorable. so basically it's a C in soldiering? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loch1957 0 #33 April 27, 2012 I did not serve. But I'm not that stupid. He did show definite signs of stupidity. I support free speech but he has a definite problem. He was expecting a different out come than what he got? Hes not in Leavenworth so he should be happy. He like you and others took am oath. He chose to break that oath, he wasn't forced to break it. Quote"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly 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 over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." How he can cry over this is beyond me, he broke three parts of his oath. A-he said he wouldn't obey the presidents orders. B-he did not stop when he was ordered to do so. C-he broke the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Maybe I look at things a tad simpler than some civilians do, but he was given chances to stop so he got exactly what he asked for. if you poke at a snake long enough he will bite. He defiantly poked once to often. To ones that did or are serving, THANK YOU.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 April 27, 2012 QuoteI did not serve. But I'm not that stupid. He did show definite signs of stupidity. I support free speech but he has a definite problem. He was expecting a different out come than what he got? Hes not in Leavenworth so he should be happy. He like you and others took am oath. He chose to break that oath, he wasn't forced to break it. Quote"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly 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 over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." How he can cry over this is beyond me, he broke three parts of his oath. A-he said he wouldn't obey the presidents orders. B-he did not stop when he was ordered to do so. C-he broke the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Maybe I look at things a tad simpler than some civilians do, but he was given chances to stop so he got exactly what he asked for. if you poke at a snake long enough he will bite. He defiantly poked once to often. To ones that did or are serving, THANK YOU. A minor quibble - it was reported upthread that he would not obey UNLAWFUL orders. That *is* upholding his oath and the UCMJ and could, in fact, be used in his defense depending on how he is charged. Disrespect to officials (UCMJ article 88) only applies to commissioned officers, not NCO's. Disobeying a direct order is covered under Articles 90-92, but the orders have to be lawful. He'll probably be charged under the catch-all, Article 134, conduct prejudicial to good order.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #35 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou've got entry-level, which only applies in the first 180 days of service and doesn't characterize service. Then, in administrative discharges you have Honorable, General and Other Than Honorable, which do characterize service. After that, you have the punitive discharges: Bad Conduct and Dishonorable. so basically it's a C in soldiering? I would say a D+. D is still passing, right? Honorable means at worst, you were useless but didn't get into any trouble to at best, you walked out with a Medal of Honor. Very broad._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loch1957 0 #36 April 27, 2012 QuoteA minor quibble - it was reported upthread that he would not obey UNLAWFUL orders. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11396769-marine-who-criticized-obama-on-facebook-i-wish-i-could-take-it-back No idea how accurate these news articles are but in that link it was said QuoteOn March 1, Stein wrote on a closed forum for active-duty meteorologists and oceanographers that he would say "Screw Obama" and not follow all orders from him, according to Courthouse News. He later clarified his remarks to say he wouldn't follow unlawful orders from the president, Still was a dumb move either way.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #37 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteA minor quibble - it was reported upthread that he would not obey UNLAWFUL orders. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11396769-marine-who-criticized-obama-on-facebook-i-wish-i-could-take-it-back No idea how accurate these news articles are but in that link it was said QuoteOn March 1, Stein wrote on a closed forum for active-duty meteorologists and oceanographers that he would say "Screw Obama" and not follow all orders from him, according to Courthouse News. He later clarified his remarks to say he wouldn't follow unlawful orders from the president, Still was a dumb move either way. Funny. He would not "follow unlawful orders" but at the same time, break lawful orders. So much for consistency._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksimsf 0 #38 April 27, 2012 Quote Whether or not he agreed with the 'company policy' (and Im not saying I do or don't) - he violated it, and continued to do so after multiple warnings. In the corporate world, that'll get you fired too - I'm not sure what the big deal is. I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't guarantee me the 'right' to keep my job. Now, a more appropriate question to ask is: Why is this policy there in the first place, and does it still have merit? Of course, that takes the political nature out of it - and where's the fun in that Ian +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #39 April 27, 2012 QuoteWell, good. Evidently you found the answer to your question....one who didn't serve. Oh, right. So you've got one guy who didn't serve who doesn't get it, counterbalanced by one guy who did serve who doesn't get it, so it's obviously a natural springboard for someone to say 'at least those who DID serve get it' even though some of them don't.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #40 April 27, 2012 QuoteOh, right. So you've got one guy who didn't serve who doesn't get it, counterbalanced by one guy who did serve who doesn't get it, so it's obviously a natural springboard for someone to say 'at least those who DID serve get it' even though some of them don't. I dunno. You asked the question. In post #23: QuoteWhere are the people who didn't serve not accepting it? You found one and now you want to complain that you didn't find more? Keep looking. Simple as that. Maybe you should ask a question more relevant to where you are going with this. I missed the part where the statement you are arguing against said "all". You're free to insert that into your reading if you like. Besides that...who gives a damn about the trivialities of how many on one side or the other? Not me so you need not ask me anything more about that. The guy screwed up. Plain and simple.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #41 April 27, 2012 The ACLU has joined the defense team. That is a good thing. The ACLU works to use the system (litigation to establish if something is, or is not, constitutional, and correctly applied) to establish precedent and clearly define the law. This one may piss off the extreme left and extreme right. So it goes. The fact is that this case is perfect for establishing a just exactly how limited an active duty service person's "free speech" rights are, compared to a private citizen. Just as the ACLU helped Lush Rimjob keep his personal medical records private, this kind of litigation establishes, once and for all, what exactly is or isn't allowed by law. The system isn't perfect, but it is what we have and we supposedly respect (unless the decision goes against your beliefs) the outcome of the decisons reached as the result of the litigation. The ACLU defends both far right causes, and far left causes. The case where the evangelical church in the south wanted to use a public park for baptismal ceremonies is a prime example of the breadth of the ACLU's commitment to defining the boundaries of the law. In that case, the ACLU won and the church was allowed to apply for and get permits to use public land for occasional religious ceremonies. I agree with the discharge. You can't get away with that kind of thing if you are active duty military. He isn't getting axed for a first offense. He was ordered to stop, and didn't. Pull that in the military and you MUST be out on your ass ASAP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou've got entry-level, which only applies in the first 180 days of service and doesn't characterize service. Then, in administrative discharges you have Honorable, General and Other Than Honorable, which do characterize service. After that, you have the punitive discharges: Bad Conduct and Dishonorable. so basically it's a C in soldiering? I would say a D+. D is still passing, right? Honorable means at worst, you were useless but didn't get into any trouble to at best, you walked out with a Medal of Honor. Very broad. C- is generally the lowest passing grade. I suppose the real measure would be found by identifying the number in each of these 5 categories. Do the great majority get an honorable discharge? If so, why so many other categories? And what's the difference between Bad Conduct and Dishonorable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #43 April 27, 2012 Quote The ACLU works to use the system (litigation to establish if something is, or is not, constitutional, and correctly applied) to establish precedent and clearly define the law. This one may piss off the extreme left and extreme right. So it goes. The fact is that this case is perfect for establishing a just exactly how limited an active duty service person's "free speech" rights are, compared to a private citizen. It is an obvious case for them to take - their charter is to expand all freedoms (***) as far as possible for the citizens of the country. Freer speech for employees and normalized rights for military would be part of that. *** - the obvious exception is gun rights, for reasons that no sane person can rationalize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #44 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou've got entry-level, which only applies in the first 180 days of service and doesn't characterize service. Then, in administrative discharges you have Honorable, General and Other Than Honorable, which do characterize service. After that, you have the punitive discharges: Bad Conduct and Dishonorable. so basically it's a C in soldiering? I would say a D+. D is still passing, right? Honorable means at worst, you were useless but didn't get into any trouble to at best, you walked out with a Medal of Honor. Very broad. C- is generally the lowest passing grade. I suppose the real measure would be found by identifying the number in each of these 5 categories. Do the great majority get an honorable discharge? If so, why so many other categories? And what's the difference between Bad Conduct and Dishonorable? Vast majority get Honorable. In reality, all others are quite rare, about one of the other four per command of 300. This based on my expierence on seven different commands(Navy. Results may vary in other services.) Why so many others? Certain benefits not allowed after the discharge, for one. Bad Conduct and Dishonorable, are results of Courts Martial with Dishonorable considered a shame to service and loss of all VA benefits regardless of how many acts of Valor you have. Will do a lot of time. Bad Conduct, lesser but serious convictions, with time served. Very basic description. It really has a lot to do with which type of Courts Martial is being convened; General, Special, Summary, but the differences need explaination that requires a lot less alchohol and a much larger post._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
