Another Debate Audience Recites Pledge when Moderator says "no!"

[CurveLight]

I suggest you research the difference between a claim and a fact. Unless you wish to further embarrass yourself.

My guess is that you will choose the latter.

Why doesn't your dumbass post the evidence that unilaterally bars an active duty soldier from attentding a political debate in uniform?

Because he didn't claim that?

Soldiers in Uniform would not be attending a political debate. At least they shouldn't be attending. And in 22 years on active duty the only times I remember reciting the pledge in uniform was at formal Military dinners. The Military follows strict protocol.There is no debate.

'would not' and 'should' not appear.

Nowhere does he say there's a regulation universally barring ti.

Lol...dumbass...that is exactly what he meant which is why he admitted that is his claim and why he tried, but utterly failed, to provide the evidence to back it up.

 

[CurveLight]

#1 is furthering a political interest.

You lose. Again.

Attending a debate is furthering an interest?

isn't that a bit of a stretch?

Not according to the military.

Lol....no fukwad. That is according to you. Go back to your childish videos because your dishonesty impedes your ability to discuss an issue.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Attending a debate is furthering an interest?

isn't that a bit of a stretch?

Not according to the military.

Lol....no fukwad. That is according to you. Go back to your childish videos because your dishonesty impedes your ability to discuss an issue.

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

You lose. Again.

 

[CurveLight]

What uniform do you wear?

Though I don't think it would fit anymore, my uniform would be that of a staff sgt. in the USAF. My question is, can I wear my uniform to a debate, yes or no.

And, my original question still stands. Would you expect a bunch of uniformed folks like myself to ignore the rules and recite the pledge to show how patriotic they are? Yes or no.

You see, you've deliberately sidetracked the discussion cause you don't want to face the truth here. You, as someone who took the oath to support and defend, should be offended by the way these folks are trying to use the pledge. But you aren't.

Why?

If you received an honorable discharge there are occasions that would permit wearing the uniform to a political debate.

 

[CurveLight]

Not according to the military.

Lol....no fukwad. That is according to you. Go back to your childish videos because your dishonesty impedes your ability to discuss an issue.

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

You lose. Again.

Lol....you don't know how to ******* read.

"3. 1 .2 . During or in connection with furthering political
activities, private employment or commercial interests , when
an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest
may be drawn."
http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=BWPN...FQjCNHP_19FT8wduTKg-wzNRmzgKCcprQ&sqi=2&sqi=2

Simply being in the audience does not infer official sponsorship. But hey, ignore the facts and just declare victory like the predictable dumbfuck you keep proving to be.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Lol....no fukwad. That is according to you. Go back to your childish videos because your dishonesty impedes your ability to discuss an issue.

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

You lose. Again.

Lol....you don't know how to ******* read.

"3. 1 .2 . During or in connection with furthering political
activities, private employment or commercial interests , when
an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest
may be drawn."
http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=BWPN...FQjCNHP_19FT8wduTKg-wzNRmzgKCcprQ&sqi=2&sqi=2

Simply being in the audience does not infer official sponsorship. But hey, ignore the facts and just declare victory like the predictable dumbfuck you keep proving to be.

Oh, but is does Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

 

[CurveLight]

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

You lose. Again.

Lol....you don't know how to ******* read.

"3. 1 .2 . During or in connection with furthering political
activities, private employment or commercial interests , when
an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest
may be drawn."
http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=BWPN...FQjCNHP_19FT8wduTKg-wzNRmzgKCcprQ&sqi=2&sqi=2

Simply being in the audience does not infer official sponsorship. But hey, ignore the facts and just declare victory like the predictable dumbfuck you keep proving to be.

Oh, but is does Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

Look at reference (c) at the top of your linked pdf file. Then look at the pdf file I quoted and linked. Like I said, you don't know how to read. I sourced the actual effective directive which was last updated in october 2005. Your pdf file does not supercede the 1334.1 directive. Dumbass.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Lol....you don't know how to ******* read.

"3. 1 .2 . During or in connection with furthering political
activities, private employment or commercial interests , when
an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest
may be drawn."
http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=BWPN...FQjCNHP_19FT8wduTKg-wzNRmzgKCcprQ&sqi=2&sqi=2

Simply being in the audience does not infer official sponsorship. But hey, ignore the facts and just declare victory like the predictable dumbfuck you keep proving to be.

Oh, but is does Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

Look at reference (c) at the top of your linked pdf file. Then look at the pdf file I quoted and linked. Like I said, you don't know how to read. I sourced the actual effective directive which was last updated in october 2005. Your pdf file does not supercede the 1334.1 directive. Dumbass.

Oh, but is does Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

 

[CurveLight]

Oh, but is does Curvey:



You lose.

Again.

Look at reference (c) at the top of your linked pdf file. Then look at the pdf file I quoted and linked. Like I said, you don't know how to read. I sourced the actual effective directive which was last updated in october 2005. Your pdf file does not supercede the 1334.1 directive. Dumbass.

Oh, but is does Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

Hahahaha...dumbfuck. you ignored the actual directive.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Look at reference (c) at the top of your linked pdf file. Then look at the pdf file I quoted and linked. Like I said, you don't know how to read. I sourced the actual effective directive which was last updated in october 2005. Your pdf file does not supercede the 1334.1 directive. Dumbass.

Oh, but is does Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

Hahahaha...dumbfuck. you ignored the actual directive.

No, I didn't Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

 

[Full-Auto]

Sorry Full-Auto, I can't answer a question without enough info.

But if you have a problem pledging allegiance to a country, then maybe you shouldn't live in that country.

Maybe, but the USA that I know does not place its citizens on a kill list. If you wish to kiss that governments ass. do so on your own. But dont tell the rest of us how we should feel or do. When you do you are no better then the left. A big government suck up.

OK, now that you have confused me with someone else, feel better now?

There was no confusion. Your words were clear. Maybe you need a refresher course in understanding the differences between love of country and love of government.

 

[LiberalNut]

Maybe you need a refresher course in understanding the differences between love of country and love of government.

What, it's the dirt that you love?

Please enlighten us oh admirer of automatic weapons. Define the "country" that you love.

 

[Full-Auto]

Maybe you need a refresher course in understanding the differences between love of country and love of government.

What, it's the dirt that you love?

Please enlighten us oh admirer of automatic weapons. Define the "country" that you love.

Your reply could be humorous if you had any idea what the discussion actually involved.

 

[CurveLight]

Oh, but is does Curvey:



You lose.

Again.

Hahahaha...dumbfuck. you ignored the actual directive.

No, I didn't Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

Let me charitable since you are obviously having comprehension problems. The pdf you reference states when active may attend political events. No where does it say that being a spectator in uniform constitutes official endorsement. That is why I cited the actual ******* directive. The reason you keep ignoring the actual directive is because it proves you wrong. Unless you have the balls to address the actual directive there is nothing more to say.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What uniform do you wear?

Though I don't think it would fit anymore, my uniform would be that of a staff sgt. in the USAF. My question is, can I wear my uniform to a debate, yes or no.

And, my original question still stands. Would you expect a bunch of uniformed folks like myself to ignore the rules and recite the pledge to show how patriotic they are? Yes or no.

You see, you've deliberately sidetracked the discussion cause you don't want to face the truth here. You, as someone who took the oath to support and defend, should be offended by the way these folks are trying to use the pledge. But you aren't.

Why?

If you are retired there are DOD directives that govern when you may wear your uniform. Mine has also shrunk a few sizes by the way.

What rules would you be ignoring in reciting the pledge? I fail to understand. And I am offended by those who claim the Pledge is anything other than a reaffirmation of your loyalty and devotion to the USA. What else should offend me?

FYI:
"The governing directive, Air Force Instruction 36-2903, states that Air Force retirees may wear the uniform at occasions of military ceremonies, which include military funerals, weddings, memorial services, and inaugurals, patriotic parades on national holidays and at other military parades or ceremonies in which any active or Reserve U.S. military unit is taking part."
Air Force Retiree Uniform Wear

 

[RadiomanATL]

Hahahaha...dumbfuck. you ignored the actual directive.

No, I didn't Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

Let me charitable since you are obviously having comprehension problems. The pdf you reference states when active may attend political events. No where does it say that being a spectator in uniform constitutes official endorsement. That is why I cited the actual ******* directive. The reason you keep ignoring the actual directive is because it proves you wrong. Unless you have the balls to address the actual directive there is nothing more to say.

Stumbling over the word "and" there, huh?

You lose.

Again.

 

[LiberalNut]

What rules would you be ignoring in reciting the pledge?

The rules of the debate made by the sponsors of said debate of course.

I fail to understand.

That much is apparent.

And I am offended

No, you don't appear to be and the question is why, or perhaps why not? The pledge is obviously being used as a wedge here. You should be offended. Why aren't you?

 

[CurveLight]

What uniform do you wear?

Though I don't think it would fit anymore, my uniform would be that of a staff sgt. in the USAF. My question is, can I wear my uniform to a debate, yes or no.

And, my original question still stands. Would you expect a bunch of uniformed folks like myself to ignore the rules and recite the pledge to show how patriotic they are? Yes or no.

You see, you've deliberately sidetracked the discussion cause you don't want to face the truth here. You, as someone who took the oath to support and defend, should be offended by the way these folks are trying to use the pledge. But you aren't.

Why?

If you are retired there are DOD directives that govern when you may wear your uniform. Mine has also shrunk a few sizes by the way.

What rules would you be ignoring in reciting the pledge? I fail to understand. And I am offended by those who claim the Pledge is anything other than a reaffirmation of your loyalty and devotion to the USA. What else should offend me?

FYI:
"The governing directive, Air Force Instruction 36-2903, states that Air Force retirees may wear the uniform at occasions of military ceremonies, which include military funerals, weddings, memorial services, and inaugurals, patriotic parades on national holidays and at other military parades or ceremonies in which any active or Reserve U.S. military unit is taking part."
Air Force Retiree Uniform Wear

Anyone with an honorable discharge from any branch can wear the uniform at those listed events.

 

[LiberalNut]

FTR, Curvelight is being obtuse. Though the directive itself is referenced, the order offered is binding in and of itself. I didn't know about that order because i was long since seperated in 2008. When I was active duty, the rules weren't that way. Indeed, I have actually attended politcal debates, in uniform, with my commander no less.

In any case though, the whole schpiel is a useless sidetrack that avoids the issue my question raised. So, Radioman and SFC are being obtuse as well.

I'll chalk it up to many years of debate and hard feelings on both sides.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Hahahaha...dumbfuck. you ignored the actual directive.

No, I didn't Curvey:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

You lose.

Again.

Let me charitable since you are obviously having comprehension problems. The pdf you reference states when active may attend political events. No where does it say that being a spectator in uniform constitutes official endorsement. That is why I cited the actual ******* directive. The reason you keep ignoring the actual directive is because it proves you wrong. Unless you have the balls to address the actual directive there is nothing more to say.

For the last ******* time, The DOD Directive which was updated in 2008 (not 2005) specifically says

"]4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform

Now if this is too difficult for Bentdick to understand that is his problem. In plain English an active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United States may not wear their Uniform to a political debate.


It is not difficult to understand for most people.


as a spectator when not in uniform

Bentdick is simply wrong and wants to argue a stupid point that he cannot win. I'm done with him in this thread. Someone else can kick him.