Lindaland
  Global Unity
  For US Military members (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   For US Military members
carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 04, 2007 05:16 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Upon entering the military, you take an oath. This oath reads as follows.
"I, _____, 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."
First and foremost, you are are told to support and defend the US Constitution.

My question for you is....
Will you refuse an order that is in direct conflict with the US Constitution?

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2007 05:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Only if you're certain you'll win in court. I would think most would be more likely to follow orders than interpret the constitutionality of the order.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 04, 2007 06:44 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Which is just sad.

Defending our rights SHOULD come first over everything.

IP: Logged

yourfriendinspirit
unregistered
posted October 04, 2007 07:17 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

The most approptriate question may be:
Who decides who the enemies are and what exactly qualifies?

Neat subject carlfloydfan!

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2007 10:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
CFF,

That's not how the military works, though. They have a very strict heirarchy, and you're expected to trust your "superiors" to guide you with honor and dignity. Of course I can't say that that always happens, but that is the assumption you're expected to adhere to.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 06, 2007 03:52 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
wonderful, so an army may very well take on the orders to go up against peaceful protesters.

Like what is going on in Myanmar. I don't doubt for a second that it could very well happen someday in the USA, with all these new laws being appointed to Bush in case of emergencies. There are many instances, vague ones at that, where he could declare marital law, and send troops into different states to stomp dissent. Gun confiscation after Katrina was a practice run (bet you didn't hear about that - look for my thread).

So these soldiers would listen to the command rather than defending peoples rights? IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR TO BEGIN WITH, FREEDOM??? Are they so brain washed that they can not think for themselves and tell right from wrong and defend the constitution? That they blindly follow any and all orders including obviously illegal ones?

Well following orders, that is no excuse, the Germans were just following orders too during WW2. At some point you need to say "you know what, this is screwy, NO." Would our soldiers ever get to that point? Where they would reject an order, I sure as he!l hope so. Or has any sense of concisenesses been squeezed out of the lot during rewiring, I mean boot camp? Are they prepared to enforce marital law, if it arises? Including the negation of basic rights? Because they are just following orders from above? That excuse doesn't fly anymore these days, that is for sure!!

People are dying for protesting in Myanmar for freedom, and we can't even get up and peacefully protest (while we still can) in the USA? That is sad too. Much love and admiration to the monks in Myanmar.

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2007 08:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
carlfloydfan, do you know a significant number of US military members in real life? Or a place where you might be able to meet some? I think actually having an opportunity to speak to a group of people before you make up your mind about them or "judge" them (ie, brainwashed, this is how they would obviously react, etc) would be more realisticly just. You might want to get to know some of them first. I don't know if any military forums or forums that have a high military attendance are available on-line to non-military members either but if you can find some it might be a more accurate way to find out what they, as people, really think and feel. I think it would be much more accurate than this, at least, where few military members are known to participate themselves.
You know, the same way asking some "liberals" if they really support "killing babies" (abortion) instead of just assuming they do and getting to know how their perspective might be different would be more fair? Just a suggestion.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2007 12:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Utter crap of the leftist moron set.

No one is being arrested in the United States for peacefully assembling to redress grievences against the government.

If they are arrested, it's for disrupting scheduled speakers, for tresspass, for destruction of private and public property, for assault and battery on police officers and others...etc, etc, etc.

Now, leftists believe they are constitutionally protected to say anything, anywhere, to anyone, at any time.

Leftist morons have not so much as read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

To that end, let me clarify for leftist morons WHO may not infringe your rights to free speach...or your right to "peaceably assemble".

Whoops...it's CONGRESS who SHALL pass NO LAW infringing the right to free speech or peaceful assembly.

Leftist twits are forever casting about for some issue where they can "play the victim", adopt an "air of moral, intellectual or spritual superiority" where in reality, leftist twits are deficient in all those areas....generally. Their outrage about everything is selective and therefore phony as hell.

The United States Military is the most respected and trusted institution in the United States. So says 85% of those Americans interviewed...over and over through the years.

To leftist morons, the US military is the enemy and they never miss an opportunity to bash military service personnel or lie, twist and distort reality.

Up theirs.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2007 01:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
So these soldiers would listen to the command rather than defending peoples rights? IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR TO BEGIN WITH, FREEDOM??? Are they so brain washed that they can not think for themselves and tell right from wrong and defend the constitution? That they blindly follow any and all orders including obviously illegal ones?

That's a bit out of perspective. That could happen, but more often a soldier won't get an illegal order in the first place.

quote:
Well following orders, that is no excuse, the Germans were just following orders too during WW2. At some point you need to say "you know what, this is screwy, NO." Would our soldiers ever get to that point? Where they would reject an order, I sure as he!l hope so. Or has any sense of concisenesses been squeezed out of the lot during rewiring, I mean boot camp? Are they prepared to enforce marital law, if it arises? Including the negation of basic rights? Because they are just following orders from above? That excuse doesn't fly anymore these days, that is for sure!!

No, your conscience is not squeezed out in boot camp...at least not in Navy boot camp. You are taught to follow orders, but you are also taught the principles by which your service branch run (which are positive traits they'd like to see in the military).

The extent to which you bend your will to meet military desires is all individual. I'd say the youngest recruits were, in my estimation, the most impressionable. Older recruits took all the negative things with a grain of salt.

Martial law in the U.S. could or would start a civil war, so I'm not sure that a President would want to go there.

Jwhop,

Carlfloydfan is not a leftist, but if you're showing him what a rightist is all about I'm sure he's not interested in being one.

He didn't say that people couldn't protest, but that they should while they still have the freedom to do so.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 06, 2007 01:38 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwop quit it with your left/right bull. I am so sick of it.

I am neither left nor right FYI.

I don't even bother with your posts past the first sentence these days. Like a broken record. How you haven't been banned is beyond me with all the insults you throw out.

I dislike Hillary as much Bush as much as Obama as much as McCain as much as ALL major politicians. They are all shills who cater to the elite behind the scenes. Simply yes men. People get sick of Bush, so they will vote for someone "from the other side" as if people have a choice. All these candidates are groomed and carefully selected by the elite.

how dare you even throw me into this stupid left right box. I want no part of it! Politics are simply a smoke screen, something given to the public to keep them from the truth on how things really are and who really runs the show:

at the top, there are the international bankers, like Rockefeller, Rothschild, the Hapsburgs, the Llewellyn family, the Van Duyn family and many unknowns even! There is no left or right for them. They control both sides of the left right argument, both sides of armed conflicts and control entire countries. As an international banker, You loan countries money. This is great, because countries offer repayment in many interesting ways, more interesting than money even, including say in policy! What guarantees a nations quick borrowing of money? why of course war (and of course, more say in policy to these bankers). So these bankers are known to lend countries money, on both sides of the conflict. And drop funding of one side for desired outcomes. every conflict since the French revolution was funded on both sides by the same damn people!!! These people control the printing of our money. Since 1913, and the birth of the Federal reserve, our money has been in private hands. so these bankers can print whatever the heck they want! And charge interest on it as well and KEEP ON lending it!!! Hence the decline of the dollar. It is worth 4 cents now compared to what it was in 1913, when it was actually backed by something, GOLD! But I don't want to get to much into this now...

...You haven't read any of my long posts obviously.

Okay, so, again, put a sock in it. I don't want to hear it. I am anything but a liberal, or conservative. I see past that smoke screen. So take your mud slinging, straw man, ad hominem BS arguements elsewhere, I DO NOT care. enjoy your chip dude.

end.

Yes, I know military people Eleanore. My brother is part of the air force, for instance. My cousin joined the marines too, among other folks. I am just against this war. And this war is not about oil. It is about bringing these countries, Iraq, Iran, etc into the same fiat money system as the west. Another stepping stone in a global one world government.

PS If I did vote, Ron Paul would get my vote. He is the only real candidate.

everyone: I do have many books that can aid you in your research, if you so choose.


IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 06, 2007 01:42 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AG

Thanks for your level headed response. I am fed up with the great divide in this country, that is all. Anything that divides us, like this war or left right nonsense is negative in my eyes. politics is just so artificial, the way it is sold to us. That is how I see it.

My message is more of worst case scenario.

A 'what if'.

Martial law in the U.S. could or would start a civil war, so I'm not sure that a President would want to go there.

----

But if that happened, the president now has the power to declare a national emergency and use troops within the USA. So I don't know how much civil unrest there would be.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2007 02:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Get your guns while you still have that right as well. You may need them.


(And it was Eleanore asking you to meet some military members.)

I thought about mentioning the fact that you were the first to endorse Ron Paul in GU, but by now Jwhop may consider Ron Paul a liberal as well.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 06, 2007 04:59 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh well, labels suck. I don't care what Paul personally labels himself as, he is legit from what I have seen. The thing is, he is the only one who has not sold out to any major interests, which is why he is not mentioned in the mainstream. Because all mainstream news is controlled by a few powerful men. I'll post an interesting article on that later.

Sorry Eleanore!

Guns, yes, guns are good if used properly. I wish people would be trained, at a younger age, to use them more responsibly. Canada and Switzerland set a good example for us. Most citizens there have them, but it is just another tool to them, next to the hammer and screw driver. I don't know why there is such a huge movement against guns. So what? govt. and crooks should be the only ones with them? Look for my Katrina post, about cops going around New Orleans and taking guns away from honest citizens. It really is an untold story and it is screwy.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 06, 2007 05:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This guy I talk to on another forum says it better than I can:

"Ron Paul is a traditional libertarian-conservative. Unlike what we see with the neoconservatives (who come from a Leftist background) in the Republican party today, traditional conservatives believe in minimal government and personal freedom. They also generally don't believe in pre-emptive war and entitlements to multinational corporations as the neocons do. Today's mainstream Republicans are really no different from Democrats, as they both believe in big government socialism (each with a different face, but same underlying agenda). The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Dems pretend to be against the war. (They also use social issues as a smoke screen to make you think the two parties are different -- ie. gay marriage, multiculturalism, etc.) As you can see the Democrats can't really be against the war since nothing has changed since they took control over the House and Senate following last November's elections. It's all smoke and mirrors and there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, both of which answer to the same globalist masters at the top.

Dennis Kucinich is a socialist and believes in big government. He believes the government exists to take care of you from cradle to grave and basically be your daddy. This might sound good to a lot of people, until you understand the history of governments throughout time. Along with the government handouts eventually comes the loss of freedoms and then tyranny, and by nature, the bigger government is, the more tyrannical it becomes. People would never accept huge government and massive bureaucracies lording over them unless they felt there was something to gain from it, and this is the illusion of big government socialism; the idea that the government is your daddy and wants to take care of you by providing you with free medical care, etc (which is never free when you consider the taxes). Governments have always been parasitic in nature, and the more tax money they can take from you in the name of "social programs" and such, the more overbearing these governments become until you eventually have no say in anything, which is what we have today."

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 06, 2007 06:23 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Title 10, Chapter 15, Section 333
Whenever the president considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2007 06:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your friend's premise is a bit flawed, though. The reason Democrats in Congress haven't changed anything is because they haven't had the power. Anything they pass that Bush doesn't like gets vetoed, and the Democrats don't have enough votes to overcome that veto. This Child Healthcare thing is the first veto they might be able to override if they can gain enough bipartisan support (it's the Republican vote that will make the difference).

Their inability to effect change doesn't make them equal to Republicans.

IP: Logged

Dervish
Knowflake

Posts: 625
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted October 07, 2007 04:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dervish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Democrats PROMISED to change things. And then once they got elected in on that promise, they refrained. Either way, they betrayed those who voted for them based on their promises to stop Bush. I've seen plenty of blogs and heard from people who said they want their vote to the Democrats back.

They don't have the power? What about Speaker Pelosi? She has the power to begin investigations, impeach Bush, and practically could starve the war financially if she wanted. It was promised that she WOULD do things like this, but once she was in then it was, "I'll take the high road and not do what was expected of me." That is, she becomes a partner with Bush and friends.

I'm just pointing out that the Democrats aren't innocent victims of the Republican meanies like they pretend to be.

And for the sake of argument, even if they didn't have the power, couldn't they even try? Besides their long history of voting for the wars, voting for the USAPATRIOT Acts, and the like, they CONTINUE to do so even though they PROMISED to stop Bush. Just one example (and there are others):
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/06/1340209

quote:
Democrats Capitulate to President Bush as Congress Gives Government Broad New Powers to Conduct Warrantless Surveillance on American Citizens

Plenty of other things spring to mind. Like the blurred lines involving illegal aliens in the Democrat/Republican divide. The window dressing is that the parties are divided (even if Bush is one of the Republicans to side with Democrats for amnesty), but the issue isn't about illegals (as opposed to LEGALS, something very different yet overlooked) but rather big business getting very cheap non-union labor (ie, bypassing everything that the Left has gained--from minimum wage laws to unions--in past decades). Interesting, or at least ironic, no?

All in all, I don't see how anyone who hates Republicans (especially Bush) can defend the Democrats as innocent bystanders.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 07, 2007 02:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Democrats installed a troop withdrawal timeline into their funding bill, and it got vetoed.

I'm not sure that "trying" would make much of a difference if it's only going to lead to defeat after defeat. That could do as much to tarnish their image as doing nothing at all.

You're right that they could initiate investigations and hearings, but even those are calculated risks. If you lose then you're wasting tax payer dollars.

IP: Logged

Dervish
Knowflake

Posts: 625
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted October 07, 2007 10:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dervish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Then the campaign slogan should've been, "We can't do much, it will just lead to defeat. Vote Democrat anyway on moral principles."

And if they lost? So what? They can't do much of anything. Republicans would've pretty much just repeated the voting record of the victorious Democrats anyway.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 08, 2007 11:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmmm, if it talks like a leftist...quackery, rational people will say, it's a leftist.

Where is leftist pride in declaring themselves to be exactly what they are?

Just say, I'm a leftist and damned proud of it.

I would vote for Ron Paul who may be against the war but IS for repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, restoring the power of control over our money to Congress and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service which is the collection agency for the Federal Reserve.

He is also for a Declaration of War by Congress...if Congress IS approving war and he's against Congressional Resolutions to authorize military force....instead of actually declaring war.

There's a lot of reasons to like Ron Paul and vote for him...if he wins the Republican nomination...which is unlikely.

Every banker, tax attorney and accountant, every tax shelter manager, every union and every member of the so called journalistic elite, almost every member of Congress and every marxist in America would oppose him...not to mention most federal employees.

After all, the income tax and Federal Reserve are marxist ideas straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 08, 2007 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl was his first vocal proponent here.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted October 08, 2007 06:49 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwop, you sure are thick. You simply do not get it! why place labels on everything? why do you feel the need?? I am against labels! I think outside the box. Politics is BS, period, everything as it is, is junk!

I will say this, I like ron paul and what he stands for, limited government, along with everything you mentioned.

I also dislike all this PC jargon. So I will say **** left. **** right. period.

How dare you tell me what I am. Who do you think you are? KNOCK IT OFF.

How much more do I have to emphasize to you??? USUALLY people get it by now..but some people, you really need to hold there hand throughout:

I am sick and tired of people demanding I put labels on myself. Did you even bother to read my last drawn out post where I bash both sides of the spectrum? THEY ARE BOTH WINGS ON THE SAME DISEASED BIRD. Murdock, Rothschild, Hapsburg, etc, are all greedy globalist people who could care less about US. it is not right/left, it is us versus these rich elite globalist jerks. They are dividing us with these phony left/right sides.

Got it?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 09, 2007 01:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Spoken like a leftist...who doesn't want to be seen as a leftist but off whose keyboard comes leftist ideas and concepts.

I know leftists don't want to be labeled "leftists". There's a great deal to be running away from.

Labels are such handy little things. They permit us to catagorize people and things without spending endless words, paragraphs and pages of descriptive language to make our meanings clear.

Leftist: One who has his/her head up the ass of Karl Marx, Stalin, Lenin or Mao.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 09, 2007 02:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

The first to write a thread supporting Ron Paul is suddenly a leftist? I guess this should come as no surprise considering the precedents.

IP: Logged

Dervish
Knowflake

Posts: 625
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted October 09, 2007 10:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dervish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When I was 17, I was called a right wing extremist by a Clintonista (she actually worked to get Clinton elected and was working on getting Gore elected in 2000).

About a month later, a Rush Limbaugh dittohead called me a loony leftist.

Why? For basically saying the very same thing, saying that the Bill of Rights was the contract that allowed the government to legitimately exist, and by acting against that (from restricting guns that violated the 2nd to forcing drug tests that violated the 4th and 5th amendments), that the government ceased to be the government and simply became a band of outlaw thugs.

Confused by this, I ask someone (the one who first introduced me to books by Linda Goodman, btw) about this and she told me it was the "frog spell." By calling me a brainwashed puppet of the other side, they didn't have to think about what I said. All my words became meaningless croaks to them.

Since then, I've seen it used a lot, by many who claim to be on the left and those who claim to be on the right. It's the same thing as some Christian fundies saying those that don't agree with them have been misled by the devil (insert Bible verse).


Perhaps the most amusing was when I saw someone being verbally dogpiled on at the shooting range I belong to and pointed out that she had a point in criticizing Bush. That is, all the powers Bush seized while they cheered would one day be inherited by someone like Hillary.

For this--I'd dared to criticize Bush--I was said to be a socialist that wanted Hillary to take our guns. Luckily, most at that shooting range were too smart believe that line of bull, and one even said I could shoot better than all those guys anyway, despite that they have decades more practice than me. :-D

The most recent, I think late August, someone gushed on how Hillary would stop the war, undo the USAPATRIOT Act, and a bunch of other things like stop the Christian Right from trampling civil liberties. I politely reminded her that Hillary voted for these things, that she'd been a supporter for many of these things in the 90s, and that she still claimed to be for these things. About the only problem she had with all of it that I could see is that it was Bush at the top instead of her. I also pointed out how Hillary joined with conservatives in moral crusades against video games, how her husband was the one to sign the Defense Of Marriage Act into law (thus making sure that the "civil unions" to replace gay marriage aren't anything at all like marriage, or the equivalent between the water fountains for white people and colored people in the 50s false touted as "separate but equal"), and that her It Takes A Village (ghost written as it was) sounded like something a sunday school teacher would've written (and Tipper Gore wrote and even "better" one called Raising PG Kids in a X-Rated Society). Plus, Hillary is a Methodist, just like Bush (the last I added simply because it amused me, though it's true enough).

She replied to all of this with something about my "blind love of Bush." Why? Because she didn't want to THINK about what I said. So she cast the "frog spell" on me, and by claiming I was brainwashed puppet of Bush, my pointing out the facts became, "ribbet, ribbet," to her. Just meaningless croaks so that she could keep on believing what she wanted to believe, her security in her tribe sincere.

IP: Logged


This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a