Posted on 09/14/2006 10:59:33 PM PDT by goldstategop
Are you the Super Troll? Bwahaha...
Don't call it supertroll. You may appeal to its lust for attention :D
LOL!!!!!!!!!
He's sure got one heck of a ping list going.
This is the third time he's pinged me today.
What makes you think we care?
That's just a subtrefuge. Everybody knows what drew their attention ~ now, this thread is already started earlier. This is a duplicate.
Please remove me from your ping list. Thanks.
No one got court-martialed.
WorldNetDaily is the cyber equivilent of the Weekly World News in print. I wonder where the Space Alien and Bigfoots Love Child stand on the issue.
And if one of the members of the honor guard had held up a sign saying that the president launched an illegal war in Iraq then what do you suppose would happen to them?
Wearing a uniform at a political event is still not a problem. Never has been.
"Their", "they're", "there". Their are three forms. There easy to misuse as they're spellings are different but their pronounced the same. Be shoor to yuse the rite phorm. (Fer cryin' out loud...)
What would you think of it?
Wearing a uniform at a political event is still not a problem. Never has been.
I beg to differ with you:
11002. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS
1. Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations:
a. Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). The wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
(1) At any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to E.O. 10450, as amended as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under The Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.
(3) Except when authorized by competent Service authority, when participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration (including those pertaining to civil rights), which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
(4) When wearing of the uniform would tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
(5) When specifically prohibited by regulations of the department concerned.
So? You will have to explain, in detail, exactly what part of those rules is violated by which actions.
Fur Shur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.