Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on January 03, 2012, 06:57:27 PM
-
Damn, this is going to viral. Soilder and Ron paul voter was killing the criticism Paul gets, (bring troops home, Isreal can take care of itself) and boom, gone. I can't believe they just killed the feed like that.
-
Youre kidding? That better blow up, thats insane. Dont agree with the us, oh well no biggie, fuck you we'll just turn you off
-
i was watching it live when it happened, inconclusive about whether it was intentional or not but thats the first thing my brother said lol.
Let's not go CT over this shit.
How does a shithead like Rick Santorum get ahead of the pack like that? Its fucking irritating.
-
They shit themselves. The guy was in Iraq and Afghanistan, had a tattoo of the towers on his neck. The reporter asked him how he feels about Ron bringing the troops home and wouldn't that be dangerous. The guy said it would be more dangerous to start new wars and that Isreal can take care of itself and then they cut him off.
-
i was watching it live when it happened, inconclusive about whether it was intentional or not but thats the first thing my brother said lol.
Let's not go CT over this shit.
How does a shithead like Rick Santorum get ahead of the pack like that? Its fucking irritating.
The media has been pushing him for days.
-
i was watching it live when it happened, inconclusive about whether it was intentional or not but thats the first thing my brother said lol.
Let's not go CT over this shit.
How does a shithead like Rick Santorum get ahead of the pack like that? Its fucking irritating.
Exactly what i was saying!
WTF!?
If he winds up winning the nomination, its going to be black Obama vs White Obama, epic fail.
Both big spenders.
Both believe populous too stupid to make the right decisions
Both feel that the government is resposible for telling the citizens how to live their lives.
WTF!!
-
It's probably the religious/social issues vote he's riding on and he's been campaigning pretty hard in the state. No worries yet, 50% of the vote count to go.
-
It's probably the religious/social issues vote he's riding on and he's been campaigning pretty hard in the state. No worries yet, 50% of the vote count to go.
I know, but after hearing the GOP come out and say they flat out wont let Paul win, kinda brings the whole thing into question.
-
I know, but after hearing the GOP come out and say they flat out wont let Paul win, kinda brings the whole thing into question.
thats fucked up
-
Remember there hasnt been one lost video feed all night except here.
-
So now, after years railing against the wars, the media is now apparently pro-war. Already lining up the excuses already.
-
So now, after years railing against the wars, the media is now apparently pro-war. Already lining up the excuses already.
Im not making any excuse for where Paul sits in the poll, just find this more then odd.
-
So now, after years railing against the wars, the media is now apparently pro-war. Already lining up the excuses already.
Honestly Im pretty happy with how Paul is doing. I didnt expect him to win, it would have taken a miracle with everything stacked against him like it is.
Im hoping he builds some momentum, but lets be honest, no one expects Paul to win the nomination.
-
Honestly Im pretty happy with how Paul is doing. I didnt expect him to win, it would have taken a miracle with everything stacked against him like it is.
Im hoping he builds some momentum, but lets be honest, no one expects Paul to win the nomination.
Iowa has correctly predicted the nominee something like once or twice since 1980. It's not over and like Bindare said in another thread, it's time for Santorum to step up to the plate and get the vetting that everyone else has. In the end I still think it comes down to Romney and Paul.
-
definitely not lining up excuses or forming a CT. The GOP brought this all into questionable territory before tonight even started.
Basically saying, if you vote Paul, forget that extra cash brought to your state the next time around. and then just flat out saying if it looks like Paul is going to win, they have ways to make sure that doesn't happen. Not cool.
-
I wouldn't worry too much about Santorum. He will fall on his face before the next New Hampshire debate. Once he starts getting the top tier scrutiny he won't be able to hang. Ron Paul is a very strong second in NH and will continue to steadily rise in polls.
I think Obama would destroy Santorum in the general election, he would be the worst pick for Repub. I don't believe any Independents would go his way.
-
santorum got his moral victory, but has no team or money to go beyond that.
it's really looking like ron paul is the ONLY candidate with the money and structure to beat Romney.
Which would you rather have, guys? Mitt or ron paul?
-
Good. Idiot. Shouldn't be talking about that kind of crap in uniform on camera. And he's a corporal (E4) with ten years of service? How is that? ???
-
Good. Idiot. Shouldn't be talking about that kind of crap in uniform on camera. And he's a corporal (E4) with ten years of service? How is that? ???
Soldiers can't have an opinion?
If he's been fighting, he can say any god damn thing he wants to.
-
Good. Idiot. Shouldn't be talking about that kind of crap in uniform on camera. And he's a corporal (E4) with ten years of service? How is that? ???
Yep, he's probably going to have problems since he's in uniform. And if he's active duty, he's in the shithouse. I'm not sure if there's any way to know if he's active duty, but HH6 might be able to tell us.
-
Beach...good catch and Skip...u hit hit bud. He was in uniform.....its waaaaaaaay against regs. He's a reservist and I'm not sure he'll get smoked. I would crush him, regardless of who he was supporting. This is just like Hugo bitching about the Patriot Act...turns out he was right, sort of a slippery slope.
4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)
4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.
4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.
4.1.2.4. Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.
4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.7. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.
3
-
http://www.stripes.com/news/soldier-on-stage-with-ron-paul-could-face-punishment-for-politicking-1.165130
I blame Paul's people.
Soldier on stage with Ron Paul could face punishment for politicking
WASHINGTON — An Army reservist who appeared in uniform on national television in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul during Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses could face harsh penalties from the Defense Department for violating military rules against politicking.
Service officials confirmed Wednesday that they are looking into possible violations of the department’s rules governing troops’ political participation by Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, an Iowa-based reservist.
Thorsen was interviewed on CNN, speaking in support of Paul’s campaign. Later, at a post-caucus rally, Paul identified Thorsen as a 10-year soldier who “has been with us in our campaign for a few years,” and invited Thorsen on stage to tell the crowd why he supports Paul’s foreign policy plans.
Thorsen could not be reached for comment. Army Reserve officials would not release details of Thorsen’s service record, but the reservist told CNN that he has served in Afghanistan.
Potential penalties could range from a letter of reprimand to a reduction in rank or dismissal from the service.
Military rules prohibit participation in “partisan political” events as a speaker or organizer and mandate that servicemembers avoid media interviews in which they advocate “for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.”
Troops are allowed to attend political events as spectators, but not while in uniform.
Joel Arends, executive director of the political action organization Veterans for a Strong America, called Thorsen’s decision to appear in uniform “irresponsible.” But he also blasted the Paul campaign for either being unaware or blatantly ignoring the military’s rules on troops politicking.
“We need troops and veterans at the table, and we need them to be part of the election process,” he said. “But we don’t need troops to be violating regulations. It’s all about common sense, and most troops understand that we cannot mix the use of a military uniform with political campaigns.”
Last week, Veterans for a Strong America criticized the campaign for using a photo of troops in uniform wearing “Veterans for Ron Paul” T-shirts in pre-caucus fliers distributed throughout Iowa, calling it exploitative.
Officials from Paul’s campaign could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
-
http://www.stripes.com/news/soldier-on-stage-with-ron-paul-could-face-punishment-for-politicking-1.165130
I blame Paul's people.
Soldier on stage with Ron Paul could face punishment for politicking
WASHINGTON — An Army reservist who appeared in uniform on national television in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul during Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses could face harsh penalties from the Defense Department for violating military rules against politicking.
Service officials confirmed Wednesday that they are looking into possible violations of the department’s rules governing troops’ political participation by Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, an Iowa-based reservist.
Thorsen was interviewed on CNN, speaking in support of Paul’s campaign. Later, at a post-caucus rally, Paul identified Thorsen as a 10-year soldier who “has been with us in our campaign for a few years,” and invited Thorsen on stage to tell the crowd why he supports Paul’s foreign policy plans.
Thorsen could not be reached for comment. Army Reserve officials would not release details of Thorsen’s service record, but the reservist told CNN that he has served in Afghanistan.
Potential penalties could range from a letter of reprimand to a reduction in rank or dismissal from the service.
Military rules prohibit participation in “partisan political” events as a speaker or organizer and mandate that servicemembers avoid media interviews in which they advocate “for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.”
Troops are allowed to attend political events as spectators, but not while in uniform.
Joel Arends, executive director of the political action organization Veterans for a Strong America, called Thorsen’s decision to appear in uniform “irresponsible.” But he also blasted the Paul campaign for either being unaware or blatantly ignoring the military’s rules on troops politicking.
“We need troops and veterans at the table, and we need them to be part of the election process,” he said. “But we don’t need troops to be violating regulations. It’s all about common sense, and most troops understand that we cannot mix the use of a military uniform with political campaigns.”
Last week, Veterans for a Strong America criticized the campaign for using a photo of troops in uniform wearing “Veterans for Ron Paul” T-shirts in pre-caucus fliers distributed throughout Iowa, calling it exploitative.
Officials from Paul’s campaign could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Good. He should have known better.
-
yeah he should of. I am surprised.
-
Its there as much to protect soldiers as it is for the endorsement aspects etc. I loved Bush but I would never have appeared at a rally for him in uniform. I did some stuff for McCain but I never ID'd myself as a soldier.
-
Good. Idiot. Shouldn't be talking about that kind of crap in uniform on camera. And he's a corporal (E4) with ten years of service? How is that? ???
If he has said, "we wanna fight and win. blah blah blah." You wouldnt be so harsh, if at all.
-
If he has said, "we wanna fight and win. blah blah blah." You wouldnt be so harsh, if at all.
I doubt he would say that, but what he shouldn't be doing is attending some political rally making speeches while in uniform.
-
Its there as much to protect soldiers as it is for the endorsement aspects etc. I loved Bush but I would never have appeared at a rally for him in uniform. I did some stuff for McCain but I never ID'd myself as a soldier.
Agreed.
-
this law doesn't apply to law enforcement appearing in uniform, does it?
the lee county FL sheriff did that at the 2008 palin rally - calling out "Hussein" by name while introducing her. Her took a lot of heat for wearing uniform while doing it.
-
this law doesn't apply to law enforcement appearing in uniform, does it?
Dunno.
But there's no restrictions on men dressed in drag so you should be just fine. Get out there and sell it.
-
Dunno.
But there's no restrictions on men dressed in drag so you should be just fine. Get out there and sell it.
thanks man
-
Beach...good catch and Skip...u hit hit bud. He was in uniform.....its waaaaaaaay against regs. He's a reservist and I'm not sure he'll get smoked. I would crush him, regardless of who he was supporting. This is just like Hugo bitching about the Patriot Act...turns out he was right, sort of a slippery slope.
4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)
4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.
4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.
4.1.2.4. Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.
4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.7. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.
3
What does that section say.
-
Its there as much to protect soldiers as it is for the endorsement aspects etc. I loved Bush but I would never have appeared at a rally for him in uniform. I did some stuff for McCain but I never ID'd myself as a soldier.
Agree. And if that dummy has ten years of service he had to know better. It's common sense.
-
Rules restrict political activity by DOD personnel
January 5, 2012
By Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON (Jan. 5, 2012) -- With election activity steadily picking up, defense officials are in the process of issuing regular election-year guidance to remind military and Defense Department civilians that they're subject to rules regulating their involvement in political activities.
This issue -- one the department regularly addresses during election periods -- came to light earlier this week after an Army Reserve Soldier in uniform appeared endorsing a political candidate.
Several sets of rules help to protect the integrity of the political process, DOD officials said. DOD Directive 1344.10 applies to members of the armed forces, whether they serve on active duty, as members of the reserve components not on active duty, as National Guard members in a non-federal status and military retirees.
In addition, the Hatch Act applies to federal civilian employees and employees also are subject to widely published DOD guidance that discusses participation in political campaigns and elections.
These rules are designed to prevent military members' or federal civilian employees' participation in political activities that imply -- or even appear to imply -- official sponsorship, approval or endorsement, officials said. The concern, they explained, is that actual or perceived partisanship could undermine the legitimacy of the military profession and department.
That's not to imply, however, that military members and civilian employees can't participate in politics. In fact, DOD has a longstanding policy of encouraging members to carry out the obligations of citizenship, officials said. DOD encourages its military and civilian members to register to vote and vote as they choose, they said. Both groups can sign nominating petitions for candidates and express their personal opinions about candidates and issues.
However, officials emphasized, they can do so only if they don't act as, or aren't perceived as, representatives of the armed forces in carrying out these activities.
Beyond that, the list of do's and dont's differs depending on whether the employee is a member of the armed forces, a career civil service employee, a political appointee or a member of the career Senior Executive Service, officials said.
Military members, for example, may attend political meetings or rallies only as spectators and not in uniform. They're not permitted to make public political speeches, serve in any official capacity in partisan groups or participate in partisan political campaigns or conventions.
They also are barred from engaging in any political activities while in uniform.
A combat engineer assigned to the 416th Theater Engineer Company potentially violated these rules Jan. 3 when he stepped onto a stage at Ron Paul's headquarters in Ankeny, Iowa, during the Iowa Caucus to offer a personal endorsement. Although he was wearing his uniform, the Soldier was not in an active status at the time, Maj. Angela Wallace, an Army Reserve spokeswoman, confirmed.
Wallace emphasized that the Soldier "stands alone in his opinions regarding his political affiliation and beliefs, and his statements and beliefs in no way reflect that of the Army Reserve."
His chain of command is aware of the issue and is considering appropriate disciplinary action to take, she said.
Most civilian DOD employees, whose political activities are governed by the Hatch Act, are permitted to be active in and speak before political gatherings and serve as officers of political parties or partisan groups, officials said. These activities, however, cannot involve fundraising.
Civilian employees also are permitted to manage campaigns, distribute literature, write political articles or serve as a spokesperson for a party or candidate.
There are, however, exceptions to this, including but not limited to Senior Executive Service.
While the do's and dont's concerning political activity may vary, the basic tenets hold true for all DOD employees.
The bottom line, officials said, is that they should steer clear of any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating DOD or the military with a partisan political activity, or that "is otherwise contrary to the spirit or intent" of the rules described.
http://www.army.mil/article/71574/Rules_restrict_political_activity_by_DOD_personnel/