Free Republic

"Your freedoms that are given by God and protected by the constitution do not include the 'right to incite'"

GOOD FRIGGIN' LINE!! I'm gonna use that one in the future, if you don't mind!

I used to be addicted, but some people on here seem to want to attack the people on their side for ridiculous reasons. Too many virtual tough guys...I prefer to debate in person, where there is always the option of slapping an idiot.

I AM an athiest, and I still think the guy should have been knocked off the stage, because I am an ATHIEST, not an ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATEMONGER. I believe that any religion or belief system based on love is a good thing, I just don't believe that particular one. It, however, is nothing to be hated or feared or discriminated against.
A classroom is meant to teach you facts, not assault your beliefs. An academic forum is an appropriate place to debate political opinions (as long as the professor does nnot assert his/her opinion, thereby influencing those with differing opinions to not share them)but opinions and beliefs are two worlds apart.
To truly LEARN about politics, a young mind should be presented with both sides and allowed to form their OWN OPINION. A professor preaching one side is not something that tuition money should pay for.

I was the one that forwarded it to him, and when I got it it was about a SEAL. I don't care if you change it to a Coastie, it is still a great story!

This report includes more incidents of abuse than Abu Ghraib, but do you think there will ba the same "moral outrage" from the left?

No, this is excusable. You can't indict the U.N. as an entity for the misdeeds of their employees, especially since the U.N. itself brought this to light, right?

1--The U.N. didn't bring this to light until it was leaked by the press. 2--Halliburton told the government of the overcharging going on within their organization, without media prompting I might add, but they're still evil.

Also take a look at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285609/posts for the movement to kick the U.N. out of the U.S.

I wonder if this idiot will dispell the urban myth of voter intimidation in the 2000 election?

“'Yea I screwed up on WMD’s, I also screwed a hooker last night, her dead body is in my closet right now! But I WILL PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY FROM TERROR,'"

HAAAAA!!!! I just laughed out loud at work...not exactly the slickest way to get paid to surf the net.

I think he should start calling kerry "pilgrim". Play up that John Wayne-cowboy thing.

AH! It seems that a military man should have enough practice with such things to be able to figure them out...but no.

Actually, off the subject, but that is one of my big things that I tell privates, especially reserve and guard. There are alot of abbreviations and what-not in the military and I want to make sure that they know that if they don't know what something means, they should ask. Chances are that most of the people in the formation don't know either.

Pardon my ingorance, but "OIF"? wuzzat?

I hope for my country and especially my active duty counterparts that this won't ever pass. With the TRADOC regs currently in place, its already impossible to train the ones that WANT to be there! (Last time I was at Ft. Jackson, the worst political correctness perpetrator of all, I heard that as I was rotating out another training Bn. was getting a Bn. Commander that had actually told them that they weren't allowed to YELL at the soldiers...we arent allowed to call the "privates" anymore either.)

But realistically, this was just a way for Rangel to wrangle some media exposure and favor with his fellow misery merchants. Its not going anywhere.

Also, I don't believe that it was a dem plot to plant the rumor in order to use it against the President...it was brought up too long ago. That would be some Count-of-Monte-Cristo-stuff, and we can tell from their love for quick-fix tax hikes that the dems don't plan that far ahead :)

From World Net Daily at
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30736


"When Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called for the return of the military draft to prevent black soldiers from dying on the front lines in disproportionate numbers, hardly anyone questioned his premise.

Maybe he was wrong about the draft, but few argued that blacks served on the front-lines in higher percentages than whites.

It turns out that premise, too, is dead wrong.

In fact, it's whites who serve on the front-lines in disproportionate numbers.

Thank USA Today, of all sources, for nailing down the numbers..."

"I heard Rangel brought this up so as to stir up folks against the Iraq War."


Yes and no. I was watching t.v. and saw him present this. I'm sure it was a way to stir folks up against the war, but he presented it slightly differently than it has been portrayed.

He ranted that minorities are dying in disproportionate numbers in Iraq because they are forced to join the military of a country that doesn't want them if they want to escape the horrible life that they are all leading.

He claimed that a draft would force the rich white kids to fight and die for their country as well.

I think it was Glenn Beck who did the research that I heard on the radio...according to the military the percentages in which the ethnicities were dying in Iraq at the time were almost EXACTLY matching their percentages of the U.S. population as a whole. Actually, blacks had a 1% advantage when it came to the death percentages.

It was just Rangel demagoguing and attempting to whip the country into a frenzy about the racist nature of the war.

I don't think my half-vietnamese girlfriend would appreciate the "gook" label...besides that fact that it doesn't apply to arabs.

Look, you can spew your liberal conspiracies about how all conservatives are racist all you want, but the fact remains that those people are not freedom fighters...well, Iguess since they ARE fighting freedom, may be they are. I mean, have you ever been on one of their websites? They rant about how they will die before they let their people follow a set of laws that are not centered around their religion.

In fact, they sound EXACTLY like what you and your ilk would have the world believe that American Christians sound like. Funny though...I haven't heard you speaking out against the violently enforced religious oppression over seas. I mean I know that you want freedom FROM religion here, but they don't even have freedom OF religion over there. Its alot worse over there than just having to sit at a high school football game and listen to a prayer to a god that you do not worship. (And I, by the way, am a godless heathen, I'm just not a whiney one, and I am TRULY respectful of others rights to choose.)

I find that when liberals have no real argument, they attack the character of their opponent. So, of course, I must be a racist since I support the freeing of the people from another culture to allow them to choose their own religion.

Him wearing the uniform, even in the right context and right manner, would "bring discredit upon" the Navy.

I never noticed. But his "reporting for duty" salute at the dnc convention was for crap--his wrist was bent, his thumb and fingers were not "smartly alligned", and you could see the palm of his hand.

- a bit-o-trivia for those of you who may not know- We are the only country, or atleast major country, in the world who does not show the palm of our hand when we salute because to do so would symbolize that we have lost a war in our history.
Kerry, I think, means to change that.

You are right, I think I was reading the dress uniform reg. This is the most convoluted reg Ive ever seen. I always go by that old poster when I need to know something specific-it covers all the highlights.

Okay, Im going to stop obsessing over this now...this guy is so insignificant...but his hat says "U.S. Army Veteran" (or U.S. Army something-that-ends-in-"ran")

So, his IS correct:

"Captain. The subdued grade insignia is two silver-colored bars, each ? inch in width and 1 inch in length, with a smooth surface. The bars are spaced ¼ inch apart and are worn lengthwise on shirt collars, parallel to the shoulder seam on shoulder loops."

HOWEVER...I did find the following reg stating why he IS wrong.


"Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.
(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.


BUT I also just noticed that his uniform has the big collar-What we used to call the disco collar. Those have not been issued or authorized for a few years now. So he is either an old vet, or got this at the Army Navy store.

Actually, I may be brainfarting with that...let me look it up. Off to the book shelf. Back in a minute.