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

[RadiomanATL]

If you think we 'have liberals in charge', you don't know what Liberalism is

Yeah, I forgot! You guys are still waiting for Karl Marx to rise from the grave!

Do you even know what you're babbling about?

That would be a resounding "no".

 

[RadiomanATL]

TPS isn't PI, FYI.

Both are looney, but PI displayed a higher level of intelligence in his own twisted way. He could nuance the English language to death in order to make his views known.

TPS is a mouth-breather.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

The military is a big place so there are going to be conflicting Regs and when that happens the primary directive always wins. The 2008 directive linked by radioasswipe does not negate nor replace the primary directive last updated in october 2005. It's not being obtuse to link the actual directive. It's called backing up a claim with the most accurate available information.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Twenty ******* two years of milking the service and you still don't know how to read Refs. What a ******* embarrassment. The actual directive on wearing the uniform is 1334.01 that was last updated in October 2005. That is why the pdf file radioasswipe linked has to reference it. Also dumbfuck, when a regulation is updated and supercedes a previous directive, it will literally say it in the directive. That is why the october 2005 directive states the previously updated version of March 2005 is (hereby canceled).

Believe me Queen of Cowards, I am not surprised that after you got kicked out of the military after 22 years you still don't know how to read regs. Probably a main reason why you never got past E-7 you ******* joke.

That would be 22 years of honorable service to the country dickweed.

The DOD Directive was updated Febuary of 2008 dipshit. When are you going to learn not to argue military points with me?
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf
It does reference the Directive which you want to use though......

You see we are not talking about wearing the Uniform in general but wearing the uniform at a political activity. Which brings in DOD directive 1334.10

I didn't look at Radiomans link, I had posted this link about the same time. which is the directive I would go by in this instance.

Now anytime you want to attack my service please go ahead, after all I spent most of my adult life giving you that right. I'm sure all the other veterans and retirees on this board are happy to know that you are exercising those rights....

 

[JBeukema]

You're sure? I swear the whole 'I win because you're a communist liberal lolololololololololololololololol' bit is taken straight from PIs playbook.

Maybe they both just took it from the same playbook?

 

[RadiomanATL]

You're sure? I swear the whole 'I win because you're a communist liberal lolololololololololololololololol' bit is taken straight from PIs playbook.

Maybe they both just took it from the same playbook?

Same playbook. It's a pretty common one.

TPS just isn't smart enough to interject cherry picked historical or political facts in order to prop up her argument. PI was.

 

[The T]

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.

Twenty ******* two years of milking the service and you still don't know how to read Refs. What a ******* embarrassment. The actual directive on wearing the uniform is 1334.01 that was last updated in October 2005. That is why the pdf file radioasswipe linked has to reference it. Also dumbfuck, when a regulation is updated and supercedes a previous directive, it will literally say it in the directive. That is why the october 2005 directive states the previously updated version of March 2005 is (hereby canceled).

Believe me Queen of Cowards, I am not surprised that after you got kicked out of the military after 22 years you still don't know how to read regs. Probably a main reason why you never got past E-7 you ******* joke.

That would be 22 years of honorable service to the country dickweed.

The DOD Directive was updated Febuary of 2008 dipshit. When are you going to learn not to argue military points with me?
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf
It does reference the Directive which you want to use though......

You see we are not talking about wearing the Uniform in general but wearing the uniform at a political activity. Which brings in DOD directive 1334.10

I didn't look at Radiomans link, I had posted this link about the same time. which is the directive I would go by in this instance.

Now anytime you want to attack my service please go ahead, after all I spent most of my adult life giving you that right. I'm sure all the other veterans and retirees on this board are happy to know that you are exercising those rights....

Bravo Sir!

 

[JScott]

And? You are telling us something new here?

Well by your estimation a person isnt American if they refuse to recite it, youd be wrong but you have the right to the wrong opinion. I think thats something new to you.

No, not what I said, and I'm not too proud to admit that many of my opinions could be wrong. You don't know me at all do you?

To clarify for you I said they are not (in my eye) 100% American. In other words they are lacking, as obviously you are.

Well by your estimation a person isnt a full American if they refuse to recite it, youd be wrong but you have the right to the wrong opinion. I think thats something new to you.

 

[JBeukema]

You're sure? I swear the whole 'I win because you're a communist liberal lolololololololololololololololol' bit is taken straight from PIs playbook.

Maybe they both just took it from the same playbook?

Same playbook. It's a pretty common one.

TPS just isn't smart enough to interject cherry picked historical or political facts in order to prop up her argument. PI was.

That, of course, is PC's specialty

That and masterful quotemining

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Twenty ******* two years of milking the service and you still don't know how to read Refs. What a ******* embarrassment. The actual directive on wearing the uniform is 1334.01 that was last updated in October 2005. That is why the pdf file radioasswipe linked has to reference it. Also dumbfuck, when a regulation is updated and supercedes a previous directive, it will literally say it in the directive. That is why the october 2005 directive states the previously updated version of March 2005 is (hereby canceled).

Believe me Queen of Cowards, I am not surprised that after you got kicked out of the military after 22 years you still don't know how to read regs. Probably a main reason why you never got past E-7 you ******* joke.

That would be 22 years of honorable service to the country dickweed.

The DOD Directive was updated Febuary of 2008 dipshit. When are you going to learn not to argue military points with me?
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf
It does reference the Directive which you want to use though......

You see we are not talking about wearing the Uniform in general but wearing the uniform at a political activity. Which brings in DOD directive 1334.10

I didn't look at Radiomans link, I had posted this link about the same time. which is the directive I would go by in this instance.

Now anytime you want to attack my service please go ahead, after all I spent most of my adult life giving you that right. I'm sure all the other veterans and retirees on this board are happy to know that you are exercising those rights....

You got kicked out after 22 years because you qualified as dead weight under the drawdown.

The pdf linked by radioasswipe does not replace the october 2005 directive you dumbfuck. I even explained it already and you still don't get it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Twenty ******* two years of milking the service and you still don't know how to read Refs. What a ******* embarrassment. The actual directive on wearing the uniform is 1334.01 that was last updated in October 2005. That is why the pdf file radioasswipe linked has to reference it. Also dumbfuck, when a regulation is updated and supercedes a previous directive, it will literally say it in the directive. That is why the october 2005 directive states the previously updated version of March 2005 is (hereby canceled).

Believe me Queen of Cowards, I am not surprised that after you got kicked out of the military after 22 years you still don't know how to read regs. Probably a main reason why you never got past E-7 you ******* joke.

That would be 22 years of honorable service to the country dickweed.

The DOD Directive was updated Febuary of 2008 dipshit. When are you going to learn not to argue military points with me?
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf
It does reference the Directive which you want to use though......

You see we are not talking about wearing the Uniform in general but wearing the uniform at a political activity. Which brings in DOD directive 1334.10

I didn't look at Radiomans link, I had posted this link about the same time. which is the directive I would go by in this instance.

Now anytime you want to attack my service please go ahead, after all I spent most of my adult life giving you that right. I'm sure all the other veterans and retirees on this board are happy to know that you are exercising those rights....

You got kicked out after 22 years because you qualified as dead weight under the drawdown.

The pdf linked by radioasswipe does not replace the october 2005 directive you dumbfuck. I even explained it already and you still don't get it.

No dumb ass, you don't get it. DOD Directive 1334.10 expressly says that you may attend a political debate if you are not in Uniform. Hands down, there is no sane argument against it.

And for your information, I had 2 years left on my contract when I requested retirement. I had to wait 6 months for my replacement before my request was approved. Not that I expect you to believe the truth or anything. And not that I give a royal **** if you do or not. Just figured you should know. Anything else I can explain for you?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh damn, I just realized something else, your DOD Directive 1334.01 isn't even a DOD Directive. It is a DOD instruction.

Directives seem to go into much more depth.

 

[CurveLight]

What can you expect from people who also don't have a problem with burning the American flag? I'm glad the audience recited the Pledge.

Quote:

THAT's why liberals find this bad. Can't have people feeling pride in their country!

Well it starts with the fact that we have a President who is ashamed of this country.Doesn't he have a wife after all who until just recently hated it as well?

And when they do? The 'Nazi' ephitets are unleashed by the left for expressing such pride in Liberty.

Now that is projection.

 

[CurveLight]

That would be 22 years of honorable service to the country dickweed.

The DOD Directive was updated Febuary of 2008 dipshit. When are you going to learn not to argue military points with me?
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf
It does reference the Directive which you want to use though......

You see we are not talking about wearing the Uniform in general but wearing the uniform at a political activity. Which brings in DOD directive 1334.10

I didn't look at Radiomans link, I had posted this link about the same time. which is the directive I would go by in this instance.

Now anytime you want to attack my service please go ahead, after all I spent most of my adult life giving you that right. I'm sure all the other veterans and retirees on this board are happy to know that you are exercising those rights....

You got kicked out after 22 years because you qualified as dead weight under the drawdown.

The pdf linked by radioasswipe does not replace the october 2005 directive you dumbfuck. I even explained it already and you still don't get it.

No dumb ass, you don't get it. DOD Directive 1334.10 expressly says that you may attend a political debate if you are not in Uniform. Hands down, there is no sane argument against it.

And for your information, I had 2 years left on my contract when I requested retirement. I had to wait 6 months for my replacement before my request was approved. Not that I expect you to believe the truth or anything. And not that I give a royal **** if you do or not. Just figured you should know. Anything else I can explain for you?

No you ******* coward. You are confusing 1344 for 1334. You can't keep up. At all.

 

[LiberalNut]

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.

But any historian worth their salt would tell you that it is the quality as well as the quantity of source(s) that matters. Nobody claims that Beleraphon rode Pegasus to Olympus and talked to Zeus based on the accounts of Homer for instance.

 

[JScott]

You don't know how stupid it is to equate the pledge with nationalism do YOU?

So, since you dont know Ill explain. Not that youll pay attention..........or learn anything.

Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation.

Conversely, nationalism might also be portrayed as collective identities towards imagined communities which are not naturally expressed in language, race or religion but rather socially constructed by the very individuals that belong to a given nation.[6] Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to a national past, and sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass.

National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols.

Definition of NATIONALISM
1
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
2
: a nationalist movement or government
Examples of NATIONALISM

1. The war was caused by nationalism and greed.
2. <Nazism's almost epic nationalism appealed to downtrodden Germans still suffering the humiliation of being defeated in World War I.>

And of course, you forget one little thing:

patriotism noun

/&#712;pæt.ri.&#601;.t&#618;.z&#601;m/, /&#712;pe&#618;.tri-/

/&#712;pe&#618;.tri-/ n

when you love your country and are proud of it

But I guess you were too busy hating America to bother to look that one up!

Nope, that entry was also present with my definition. What I was trying to do was to educate you on the evils of nationalism. I knew, however, it would fly over your head. Partisanship is like that. You are unable to grasp the whole picture of any given subject because of your partisanship.

Nationalism in moderation is good but people like you take it to another level, that can be dangerous.

 

[JScott]

Oh get this! I'm a "nationalist" because I'm for saying the pledge.

And of course that's bad because it might make people want to vote for the COUNTRY instead of socialist goodies like Obama offers.

THAT's why liberals find this bad. Can't have people feeling pride in their country!

Noooooooooooooo, can't have that!

Keep this up liberals. Tuesday is coming!

No, you are a nationalist because you wear your pride on your sleeve.

What you mean is, I'm a "nationalist" because I'm going to vote against your socialist ilk this Tuesday, and saying the pledge is an outward expression of this.

That's why you libs are having such a fit about this.

Why keep lying about it, when it's obvious?

If the people elected are like you, they wont last.

 

[The T]

What can you expect from people who also don't have a problem with burning the American flag? I'm glad the audience recited the Pledge.

Quote:

THAT's why liberals find this bad. Can't have people feeling pride in their country!

Well it starts with the fact that we have a President who is ashamed of this country.Doesn't he have a wife after all who until just recently hated it as well?

And when they do? The 'Nazi' ephitets are unleashed by the left for expressing such pride in Liberty.

Now that is projection.

Nope. Observation. Big difference.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You got kicked out after 22 years because you qualified as dead weight under the drawdown.

The pdf linked by radioasswipe does not replace the october 2005 directive you dumbfuck. I even explained it already and you still don't get it.

No dumb ass, you don't get it. DOD Directive 1334.10 expressly says that you may attend a political debate if you are not in Uniform. Hands down, there is no sane argument against it.

And for your information, I had 2 years left on my contract when I requested retirement. I had to wait 6 months for my replacement before my request was approved. Not that I expect you to believe the truth or anything. And not that I give a royal **** if you do or not. Just figured you should know. Anything else I can explain for you?

No you ******* coward. You are confusing 1344 for 1334. You can't keep up. At all.

Awe I made a mistake and put down the wrong number. It still says the same thing. You are still wrong, be a better person and admit it and move on now.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Don't you get tired of being ***** slapped?

Retirees and veterans may wear their uniforms in appropriate settings as
described in the Department of Defense Instruction 1334. 01 "Wearing of the
Uniform ."
Wearing Medals, Awards, and Decorations - Military Benefits - Military.com

Did ollie ever address this or is it another **** up he's avoiding?