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: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


No one EVER said it was only RP supporters effected. They just said that it seemed that the rule was instituted because there are so many RP supporters in the military. It effects them all, but it is less damaging to the others because RP has like 70 percent of military support.




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


I understand that, but if they really can't participate in parades even out of uniform it is a little beat over reaching IMO. I think that is what most people have a problem with.

Again that is if that is the case. I'm not greatly invested in this topic as I am not in the military.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 





US Military Issues Warning to Ron Paul Supporters,


That's what I took the title of the thread to mean.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by antonia
 


I understand that, but if they really can't participate in parades even out of uniform it is a little beat over reaching IMO. I think that is what most people have a problem with.

Again that is if that is the case. I'm not greatly invested in this topic as I am not in the military.


I've been around the military all my life. I have doubts about this e-mail, but if you are not in uniform you can campaign if you'd like. Most soldiers I know are too busy to do that anyway. Shoot, my poor husband did Warrior Stakes this week and didn't get home till midnight the other day.

But yeah, when you sign the papers there's rules to abide by. If you don't like, don't sign it. It's got nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with people constantly breaking that rule lately.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Ah.. my bad, and I apologize, some people in this thread have gotten me a little touchy I guess.
In the actual thread and what I have gathered from all the posts is that it effects them all and there are no questions about that, but a rule like that will always hurt the majority more and in this case RP supporters appear to be a huge majority.
edit on 17-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


It isn't condescension, it is having to deal with chain-letters, Facebook posts, water-cooler talk, etc that is passed off to feed an agenda without the great ignorance denying machine of ATS to even bother fact-checking.

The DoD directive isn't new yet this clown (from the OP) is peddling this nonsense and inferring that it must be because they don't want military members to support Ron Paul. The MSM is bad enough at this tactic and now we get to cut through the utter BS such as this.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


And what about how I addressed this thread made you think I must be completely believing this as gospel? You were definitely being condescending. I was asking questions and in some cases repeating what had been said in the thread it get a response and you came at me like I was an idiot that just believed this as fact blindly. I have no idea whether it was a new thing they were imposing, or a non existent thing, i was just talking about it as it was presented.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I was asking questions and in some cases repeating what had been said in the thread it get a response and you came at me like I was an idiot that just believed this as fact blindly.


Here is what I responded to in an open forum (I don't understand when people take issue when others respond to a statement that wasn't directed at them):
"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 see no questioning and only rationalization without even attempting to find out what the Directive is, how long has it been around, is this normal operating procedure, etc?


I have no idea whether it was a new thing they were imposing, or a non existent thing, i was just talking about it as it was presented.


Why not attempt to find out what it is about? Like I said, Ron Paul need not worry about anything except his own supporters (the guy who posted the Facebook nonsense)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Because I just stopped by the thread out of slight interest saw the OP was being misinterpreted and stopped to defend him and then got sucked in by others addressing me addressing someone else..

I never intended to get into this thread that much honestly. I didn't go out searching because I didn't care, I was just trying to help keep the OP straight.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Because I just stopped by the thread out of slight interest saw the OP was being misinterpreted and stopped to defend him and then got sucked in by others addressing me addressing someone else..


Or where you....


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrowI was asking questions....


I am slightly confused then...if you stepped in to defend wouldn't you want to have the facts straight? And where are these questions you refer to; yes you can think of me as a condescending prick all you want because this is the level of intellect that we all get to enjoy.

Edit To Add:
Generally speaking and not towards your intellect. The whole of the board itself. I mean, I flat out asked one poster here to point out what First Amendment rights were being taken away from military members and they just moved the goal post because it goes against their narrative, their philosophy and diluted perception of the world.




edit on 18-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


No I didn't need any more info because extra info wasn't required to clear up what OP was indicated. Whether what OP was right or wrong was irrelevant. He may have still ended up wrong about the whole thing, but what the poster I replied to had going on was a complete misinterpretation of what the OP was saying. After he get that right then he could have looked up whether OP was right or wrong.

That's really more explanation than I needed to give. I'm out for the night.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 
Bull-dookey.
I'm stationed in Germany.
I've received a warning not to visit Wurm or Dresden this week end (protests about the bombing in '45) but nothing about Paul.



I think I'm going with what Breezer said, the links you gave me just keep sending me in loops. My cousin is in the Army to and just got back from class in San Antonio (pschy something or another) So I'll ask him too if he got the email. I support Paul as much as the next guy but If theres one thing I hate more than anything its being lied to especially if its by something I love. Its Paul supporters that Fabricate things that make the rest of us look like loons and Paul look bad.

Also Breezer, my uncle served in Germany back in the cold war. Do the kids still love those MRES




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Am I the only one completely sick of this guy and how gets a free pass for every thing?


Except when it comes to fair treatment by the media, or his supporters votes being counted. He clearly got a free pass in the state of Maine. And compared to Mittens Romney, Mr. corporate raider over here, who's buying his way to the nomination... well I guess he's getting a paid pass.


Oh yea, Obama; who was funded by Goldman Sachs & other special interest; who nobody knew about up until the previous election...clearly didn't get a free pass.




edit on 18-2-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
In part, this is proper.

It isn't appropriate for the military to back a specific candidate. Think of the potential implications.

However I do feel that active personnel should be free to support candidates as individuals, out of uniform.
edit on 18-2-2012 by Fiberx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mcupobob


Also Breezer, my uncle served in Germany back in the cold war. Do the kids still love those MRES

No, but my 8 year old sure does!

Basically we're told the same thing we're always told. Support who you want, but don't use offcial email, don't do it in uniform, or attach your name to any political endorsements.

With all the contraversy this year, I'm thinking of starting the "Sad Bunny Party".



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


hmmmm.. i'm former National Guard and I've voted ALOT way after i got out..

unless this is before 1988



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


This shouldn't be construed as a threat towards RP supporters.

It is military policy that affects all personnel.

That means that a service member cannot publicly march for ANY candidate, whether it be RP, Santorum, Romney, Obama, etc.


edit on 18-2-2012 by The Sword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
The Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps Times are not endorsed by the military. There is information sharing to an extent and the publication is sold worldwide to Service Members through local businesses and Post/Base Exchanges but the Military has a love/hate relationship with the paper. It has often printed rumors that were unsubstantiated and misleading. It is not the spokesperson of any branch of military, it just utilizes the branch's name to market itself as being endorsed, it most certainly is not.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx
In part, this is proper.

It isn't appropriate for the military to back a specific candidate. Think of the potential implications.

However I do feel that active personnel should be free to support candidates as individuals, out of uniform.
edit on 18-2-2012 by Fiberx because: (no reason given)


And they are. No one is saying that a person who is serving cannot back a particular candidate. What is restricted is the participation in partisan political events.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


No I didn't need any more info because extra info wasn't required to clear up what OP was indicated.


Yes it did need to be clarified! The linked article leads readers to believe that this directive is new and aimed at Ron Paul supporters; when in fact it isn't new and is not aimed at any particular member of the armed forces nor candidate!

Look, I understand. It goes against the narrative and standing of RP supporters.


Whether what OP was right or wrong was irrelevant. He may have still ended up wrong about the whole thing, but what the poster I replied to had going on was a complete misinterpretation of what the OP was saying. After he get that right then he could have looked up whether OP was right or wrong.


Fair enough in the "misinterpretation" (based on your understanding and bias), but the fact is it is relevant if the OP is right or wrong. Based on your writings it is okay to spread biased and white lies, and we can claim irrelevancy, while not bothering to check to see if the information is correct or even prevalent to the situation at hand.

See, assumptions are fun. Then again I am being a condescending poster who dares question the Paulistas agenda!


That's really more explanation than I needed to give. I'm out for the night.


Now you will see the true condescending nature I can occupy.
edit on 18-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join