It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Military Issues Warning to Ron Paul Supporters

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Ummmm people do realise most modern militaries are a feudal dictatorships right?




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


I think you missed the point. He is implying that the order was issued because Ron Paul is the candidate most popular with military personnel. I actually don't get how you came to your thinking on this? He isn't saying it should be different for Paul, but simply that the order wouldn't have been issued if it was known that someone else was most popular with the military.

I don't know if it's true, but I would bet that the military isn't fond of having a lot of their personnel subscribing to libertarian ideology.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
Ummmm people do realise most modern militaries are a feudal dictatorships right?


Ummmmm people do realize that most intelligent conversations do not start with a mildly form of passive aggressive ridiculousness.

If you have a valid point, spit it out and sway your audience. What the hell is happening to the world?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrSpad
 


I think you missed the point. He is implying that the order was issued because Ron Paul is the candidate most popular with military personnel. I actually don't get how you came to your thinking on this? He isn't saying it should be different for Paul, but simply that the order wouldn't have been issued if it was known that someone else was most popular with the military.


Then the implication is misplaced. Just because the Department of Defense reminds certain personnel about a directive doesn't mean it has anything to do with a candidate. We were constantly reminded that Mexico was off-limits...even though they told us the year before.



I don't know if it's true, but I would bet that the military isn't fond of having a lot of their personnel subscribing to libertarian ideology.


Absolutely you wouldn't know if it is true and I would take that bet and double-down that you are wrong in your ill-fated assumption.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


What learning difficulties you may have is not really my concern to be honest.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by filosophia
So lets recap: soldiers are allowed to be openly gay but not allowed to exercise their first amendment right. Yep sounds about right for amerika.


Show me where they are being denied their First Amendment rights that they haven't voluntarily allowed certain restrictions upon themselves?


Sounds like classic double think here. Rights can not be waived. It is voluntary only if it is not coerced. Being told its a violation of dod bla bla bla makes it no longer voluntary.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


What learning difficulties you may have is not really my concern to be honest.


And what lack of comprehension and ability to engage in meaningful discussion to further the human race does concern me to be honest.

How is a modern military equate to a feudal system? In what ways are they similar? Dissimilar? I know these are questions that require some critical thinking...



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by filosophia
So lets recap: soldiers are allowed to be openly gay but not allowed to exercise their first amendment right. Yep sounds about right for amerika.


Show me where they are being denied their First Amendment rights that they haven't voluntarily allowed certain restrictions upon themselves?


Sounds like classic double think here. Rights can not be waived. It is voluntary only if it is not coerced. Being told its a violation of dod bla bla bla makes it no longer voluntary.



I signed freely and willingly; without coercion. But I get it, you don't want to attempt to answer the question.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Haha.. wow.
Well.. I wasn't talking to you, so I don't know why you are being so condescending, but I actually am not sold on the idea that the military did this for the purpose of hurting RP's campaign however I think I am completely correct in what you referred to as my "ill-fated assumption" and a lot of government reports would agree with me. The libertarian ideology is feared by the government and the idea that a military trained vet might embrace it after their service isn't something the the government/military is very fond of.

So cut out the condescending attitude re-think your position and pay up Mr. Doubledown.

You have the exact kind of attitude that I would prefer we didn't have vouching for us overseas.
edit on 17-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


What about all those Bush photo ops where he paid Military to look adoringly at him from ships and canteens worldwide?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
... a lot of government reports would agree with me. The libertarian ideology is feared by the government and the idea that a military trained vet might embrace it after their service isn't something the the government/military is very fond of.


Ha! "...a lot of government reports..." state that Government doesn't like this or that. Or that unemployment is down. Or that the economy is moving along just fine. Or that....

I am sure you see what I am getting at here.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Not reports. Poor wording on my part. The government doing things to deter gun owners, and free speech advocates is action it's not the government misleading with false information. I am talking about government agencies coming up with new definitions for what they consider enemies. So it isn't something you can dismiss as easily as you just attempted. You are way too confident though, and it's making you come off really obnoxious. So unless that changes I really don't want to talk with you about this.

It is a fact that the government doesn't want it's soldiers coming home embracing this kind of ideology. They are always afraid it leads to an ex soldier committing some atrocity. They train police against it. It's a real fact of life, but I don't really want to stick around so you can condescend to myself and other posters.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
www.usatoday.com...


The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers"Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times "and "Marine Corps Times." (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.

edit on 17-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.


So the army times is allowed to have a survey of who active duty soldiers will vote for but soldiers cant voice their choice in person? This confuses me because i would hav expected soldiers to have the same freedom as everyone else. No one told me, support the troops, they give you freedom they themselves signed away.
edit on 17-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Members of the military can vote and support any candidate they want, even Ron Paul. The order only stipulates that they cannot be in uniform at a parade or rally for a candidate. The military is not allowed to perform a ceremonial honor guard for a political rally. The military is not allowed to hand up political posters in office spaces nor are they allowed to campaign for a certain candidate or party.

That said, if they want to go to a rally or go door to door in support of a candidate, they can, as long as they are NOT in uniform and they don't say, "Hi, I'm Specialist Jones with the US Army and we support candidate X."

Years ago, during a Jerry Springer taping, there were several Coast Guardsmen in the audience. Springer put a microphone in front of one and said, "What's the Coast Guard think about this?" The guy responded and created quite a buzz because, in essence, he was speaking for everyone in the Coast Guard.

Now, that said, if a member of the military shows up at a political rally for any candidate, then, in essence, they are stating that everyone in that service is backing that candidate.

People really get freaked out over things they don't understand. No wonder the gov't doesn't divulge their relationship with the reptilians.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


It says they can't be in a parade for candidates in uniform OR out of uniform.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Try reading the actual instruction located here: www.dtic.mil...

Basically, no inference that the military is supporting a certain political candidate. I see nothing that states, Military members may not support Ron Paul. By the way, not everyone in uniform supports Ron Paul, some actually support President Obama.

Military members can have political bumber stickers on their cars! Oh my, you mean someone can have a Ron Paul sticker on their car? I guess the military isn't that restrictive!



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


Man.. I guess everyone feels like being condescending and smartass today. I was just restating what was said in this thread. It's not like this is the nearest dearest topic to my heart, I am just reading a long and posting and people are getting all flustered.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
While I disagree with military personnel not being allowed to publicly support a candidate, it doesn't sound like ONLY Ron Paul supporters are affected. The cult of Ron Paul is strong. I would vote for the guy but some of the supporters are really turning me off.

Oh I just read more of the thread. So they CAN support any candidate as long as they don't make it seem as if the military is endorsing. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I feel its an important directive. Active duty personell shouldnt take part. How would you feel if the military, maybe even in uniform, supports, oh say, Mitt



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrSpad
 


I think you missed the point. He is implying that the order was issued because Ron Paul is the candidate most popular with military personnel. I actually don't get how you came to your thinking on this? He isn't saying it should be different for Paul, but simply that the order wouldn't have been issued if it was known that someone else was most popular with the military.

I don't know if it's true, but I would bet that the military isn't fond of having a lot of their personnel subscribing to libertarian ideology.


Uh no, it has to do with the UCMJ. They are merely restating this because it's happening so much. It's not allowed, it's never been allowed and it's for a damn good reason. You would allow the military to be a political force if they were allowed to campaign for politicians. That's just not a good thing.



new topics




 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join