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

[RadiomanATL]

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.

I do not believe I was ever attempting to answer a question you raised. I was simply pointing out ignorance for my own amusement.

What was the question you raised?

 

[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

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

This asshole doesn't give up..... No bentdick that is not what the Directives say.

 

[LiberalNut]

It was the question that started this particular ball rolling. It went something like...

Can you imagine a group of US soldiers, in uniform, ignoring the rules and reciting the pledge simply to show how patriotic they were?

I can't imagine this thing. Can you?

Pointing out that there's a relatively new order regarding wearing the uniform at debates avoids the issue my question raises.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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?

Damned the rules of the debate. Someone asked if they were going to start with the pledge, that person later said he believed or assumed it would be done. The Audience took over from the word NO. I fail to see the problem.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

Also, FTR, Curvey is one of the posters who will metaphorically stick his fingers in his ears and go "la-la-la-la" when he is proven wrong.

*shrug*

I enjoy continually proving him wrong and witnessing his reaction. Part of his reaction is that the less you get worked up about him, the more he gets worked up and degenerates into an invective spewing puddle.

It's a shameful yet amusing hobby I have on this board.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It was the question that started this particular ball rolling. It went something like...

Can you imagine a group of US soldiers, in uniform, ignoring the rules and reciting the pledge simply to show how patriotic they were?

I can't imagine this thing. Can you?

Pointing out that there's a relatively new order regarding wearing the uniform at debates avoids the issue my question raises.

No, I can't see them ignoring the rules without some sort of consequence from the chain of command.

I wasn't avoiding your question, I was simply not really interested in it very much.

 

[LiberalNut]

I fail to see the problem.

And that sargeant is a conundrum. When I was active duty, no meant no and one didn't show up rule makers by defying the rules at public events, especially for a show of so-called patriotism. Sillyvilians can do that sorta shit but we're supposed to be more disciplined than that.

 

[manifold]

It was the question that started this particular ball rolling. It went something like...

Can you imagine a group of US soldiers, in uniform, ignoring the rules and reciting the pledge simply to show how patriotic they were?

I can't imagine this thing. Can you?

Pointing out that there's a relatively new order regarding wearing the uniform at debates avoids the issue my question raises.

A hypothetical non-sequitur is not a very compelling argument.

Can you do no better?

 

[LiberalNut]

I can and have. Any person not blinded by partisanship can see that the pledge is being used as a wedge here, I mean in this thread. Thinking people should be offended.

 

[teapartysamurai]

this country doesn't have justice for all because homosexuals can't be abortions??????

Not my words. I have a much better command of the language than that. Maybe you should go reread my words and try to actually comprehend them. I know it's hard cause the right wing noise machine might not have given you a patented response but really, so much the better. Maybe you could try to think on your own again. You used to be able to do it ya know.

And Jesus was a liberal.

Clearly. He spent his time opposing the estabished power structure didn't he? he preached tolerance and acceptance, didn't he? He threw out the money changers, didn't he? They, the powers that be, killed him for all of this, didn't they?

Not your words?

Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalNut
It's a pledge to the country.

No, it's a pledge to a flag and the Republic for which it stands. For you though, it's a pledge to an ideology fed to you by those who want you to vote against your own interests. How about that last line of the pledge...

"with liberty and justice for all"

Do you REALLY believe in that? Really? Liberty and justice for hispanic, liberal, homosexulas who get abortions?

And of course Jesus was a liberal, and he would have been all for homosexuals getting abortions or somemthing like that?

You really want to go there?

Trust me sonny. I always warn my prey, NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER debate the Bible with me. You will lose, LOSE BADLY and be furious when you do.

I always warn people, but they never listen. Just remember you have been warned, if you want to try and prove Jesus was a liberal. Believe me, I will pick you apart like a vulture on bones.

But be my guest.

You don't have the first ******* clue about the historical Jesus.

Bwahahahaaa!

The Jesus Seminar rears it's Christianity hating head. Trust me, my friend, you are dead wrong.

The "historical Jesus" as liberals put it, is the Jesus Seminar deciding without any evidence that "Jesus said this, he didn't say that" and also decided, AGAIN WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that Jesus could not have done miracles.

It's the brainchild of that nut Crossan who also claims Jesus studied in India, worshipped mushrooms and would have been for gay rights.

Historical, indeed!

Sorry, but one of the books on my shelves is a debunking of the Jesus Seminar.

All the Jesus Seminar and the "historical Jesus" is, is another example of liberal historical revisionism. When the real Jesus won't recite liberal pap, then make up a new Jesus that fits in more comfortably with the liberal closed mind.

Like I said. You don't wanna go there!

 

[manifold]

I can and have. Any person not blinded by partisanship can see that the pledge is being used as a wedge here, I mean in this thread. Thinking people should be offended.

who is offended?

The only partisans here are those shitting on the moderator and those shitting on Murphy.

Like I said, they both did the right thing IMO.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Do you recite it with them or refuse?

I would recite the pledge with them, they being real patriots in my estimation.

Now, here's a counter question...

Can you imagine a group of soldiers, in uniform, ignoring the rules of the debate they were attending and reciting the pledge to show everyone just how patriotic they were?

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.

Holy ****. Does the Queen of Cowards ever stop looking for excuses to say how long he milked a parasitic role in uniform?

You heard it here first. How liberals LOATHE those in uniform. It's "parasitic."

Remember THIS when you go to vote Tuesday!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Looks like the will of that crowd that wanted the pledge won out too!

And that's why liberals are frothing in this thread. It really has them bothered!

I mean liberals can keep denying they hate this country but their own protesting too much over the pledge makes it pretty obvious how they feel about the country.

And with great zeal they egg on it's total destruction to be transformed into something that they will regret. Even some in the EU are backtracking on their err...

And as usual liberals rush on proving how they are incapable of learning from history. I mean how many socialist/communist socities have crubled to ruins or are tottering on ruin? Yet liberals keep insisting that is the kind of society we need here.

It's not about helping people. It's about controlling them. They don't care if it brings all to ruin. As long as they controlled it all to the bitter end.

 

[The T]

Do you recite it with them or refuse?

I would recite the pledge with them, they being real patriots in my estimation.

Now, here's a counter question...

Can you imagine a group of soldiers, in uniform, ignoring the rules of the debate they were attending and reciting the pledge to show everyone just how patriotic they were?

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.

Holy ****. Does the Queen of Cowards ever stop looking for excuses to say how long he milked a parasitic role in uniform?

Defending Liberty is now parasitic>? Nice to know. You are truly defective.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The amount to which right wingers go for this faux-patriotism schtick is simply astonishing. They are for the big government forcing children to recite words they don't understand no less. If right wingers were computers, the internal inconsistencies would shut them down. Blue screen of death baby.

Truth is, right wingerism isn't about patriotism. It is in essense a religious movement. That's why they are all into these rituals and use them to define the in group from the out group. It's obvious to anyone with the capacity for independent thought but we all know the right wing doesn't encourage that.

Here we go again. Another screed about us all being knucking dragging rednecks.

Do you see the contempt and frothing vitriol in this? The rage?

They can't STAND that you say the pledge AND that you are going to vote Tuesday believing what you do!

Remember these liberal snobs on Tuesday and VOTE THEM OUT OF POWER!

This controversy has nothing to do with anything so melodramatic as "contempt" or "rage" or "frothing vitriol." It is simply a matter of basic reasoning, which is in the cerebral sense analogous to swimming. Everyone can do it but some people just never learn.

The fact is Liberal Nut is right. Reciting the Pledge, like reciting the Hail Mary at Catholic Mass, is meaningless ritual. It has nothing at all to do with what kind of person one really and truly is. Charles Manson can pledge allegiance to the flag and he can say the Hail Mary all he wants but he remains a murderous, degenerate sociopath, the major difference being people with your mentality would be fooled by it if you heard him doing it. You'd be impressed. You would think, He's one of "us."

The reason for that delusion is you've never learned to swim.

You know what I love about liberals? They will deny something is true (like the idea that we are all knucle dragging rednecks) and then CONFIRM they think that all in the same breath!

I mean it's "reasoning and cerebral" to agree with the liberal contempt for the pledge.

And our saying it is the same as Charles Manson reciting it.

Yeah it is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo schmart to openly display YOUR CONTEMPT FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE right before an election where the country is deciding if we want to choose socialism or the principles this country has enshrined for more than 200+ years.

Yeah, you guys are sooooooooooooooooooo brillliant and we just are delusional and knuckle dragging.

You go with that liberals. See you Tuesday!

 

[LiberalNut]

How liberals LOATHE those in uniform.

I'm a liberal who wore the uniform in the ******* sandbox, while the nation was at war. You can ******* stuff your stereotype. CurveLight is a sillyvilian and he can have and express whatever fucked up notion about the military he likes. I have sworn to fight to the death to protect such idiocy and I'm prepared to do exactly that. I would fight to the death to defend your idiocy as well.

But I will not have my patriotism questioned by a moron. Not without labelling the moron a moron that is.

 

[RadiomanATL]

How liberals LOATHE those in uniform.

I'm a liberal who wore the unifrom in the ******* sandbox, while the nation was at war. You can ******* stuff your stereotype. CurveLight s a sillyvilian and he can have and express whatever fucked up notion about the military he likes. I have sworn to fight to the death to protect such idiocy and I'm prepared to do exactly that. I would fight to the death to defend your idiocy as well.

But I will not have my patriotism questioned by a moron. Not without labelling the moron a moron that is.

A little background:

Curvey claims he served in uniform during desert storm, and was on the front lines.

And TPS is a drooling mouth breather, and only those with the mental capacity to handle binary thoughts/decisions enjoy what she has to say.

*Info brought to you by the USMB welcoming committee.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Not your words?



And of course Jesus was a liberal, and he would have been all for homosexuals getting abortions or somemthing like that?

You really want to go there?

Trust me sonny. I always warn my prey, NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER debate the Bible with me. You will lose, LOSE BADLY and be furious when you do.

I always warn people, but they never listen. Just remember you have been warned, if you want to try and prove Jesus was a liberal. Believe me, I will pick you apart like a vulture on bones.

But be my guest.

You don't have the first ******* clue about the historical Jesus.

Historical Jesus? Outside the bible there is no proof at all that Jesus of nasereth ever existed.
and even the bible covers almost none of Jesus's life. why is that?

Actually you are wrong. Josephus wrote of Jesus. There are several Jewish writers trying to smear Jesus who wrote of him.

And beside that the desire of liberals to dismiss the Bible as evidence of Jesus is agenda driven.

There are several instances of history in which there is only one source document for an historical event, like Ceasar crossing the Rubicon, yet there is no question it happened.

Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence Jesus existed.

As to why the Bible only covers Jesus until he is 12 years of age and then the last three years of his life.

Because it covers his ministry. That is what is important. And it's not unusual.

The Bible also doesn't cover much of Moses life until he is 80 years old!

The Bible doesn't cover the life of Jeremiah or Elijah until they were called by God.

This is not evidence they did not exist. The Bible is not a biographer. It deals with the ministery of these people, not what they did in "2nd grade."

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yeah soros was around in 1920 when the LWV was started?

Probably was, he is old as dirt. Besides since when do you have to be there at the begining? Obama wasn't there when the progressive movement started with teddy roosevelt and he is a progressive.
Progressive =socialist idiots

I thought Teddy was a guns rights republican kind of guy?

He was also for the government taking control of huge tracts of land which are still in the control of the federal government, in violation of the Constitution. These lands should be returned to their sundry states and that should have been done, a long time ago.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Outside the bible there is no proof at all that Jesus of nasereth ever existed.

Not so. There are the accounts of Flavius Josepheus and Pliny the Younger.

Well, on this, we agree!