An Occupy protest after my own heart
I snagged this from Facebook because there are so many sociopaths here who won’t join in;
Category: I hate hippies
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Get On Board
Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.
Ack …hack…hack …cooooough.
Ah, that’s funny! Made my day, Jonn.
Nice!
Yes!!!!!
So… let’s get this straight. Shamar Thomas protesting in uniform as a civilian… bad. Protesting protesters in uniform, on duty, good.
K, just making sure we got that straight.
Funny thing this: The folks here don’t change their tags from one day to the next. Why is it that a troll would do so? Any guesses?
sar·casm
? ?[sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.
a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark:
Just trying to help you out, Moron .03.
Wonderful!
2-17 AirCav, I’m gonna say… Obama’s secret civilian national security force?
UpNorth, and?
Obviously, you don’t get the concept.
No, I just think that your premise is that since it’s funny political activism, then it’s more OK than impassioned political activism. And I think that’s just you being intentionally dense so you can support your interests while not affording the same decency to competing interests.
That about right?
They’re wearing the uniform properly, Mr Thomas looked like 20 pounds of shit stuffed into a 5 pound sack, to put it mildly. Besides, he’s an idiot. I’m sure those troops can take a minute or two out of their busy day to let the occutards know how they feel. 😉
UpNorth. I was done with the troll on the other thread it slithered into today and I’m done with it here. I distinctly recall the many attempts by a couple of regulars to get .03–as it called itself the– to ID its service but it steadfastly resisted like one of Chiroux’s victims.
Thomas is also a civilian. Do you call out all civilians who wear uniform items for being out of regs as they support something political?
Thanks, Jonn.
Signed,
Chief of Sociopathic Medicine
Yes. Especially the ones that make themselves look like total ass clowns like Mr. Thomas. Check out DoD regs before you make yourself look any dumber. (hint, they apply to prior service as well) On a side note, i’m pretty sure telling a bunch of losers to get back to work is hardly political.
So… to your mind the DoD has authority over people who are no longer actively serving. But it’s also perfectly OK to make political statements in uniform, but wait it’s not a political statement because… something something.
Man… that’s some serious yoga.
In my mind? No, I didn’t draft the DoD regulation stating that. But I figured you wouldn’t understand. I’m getting the idea you post here for the sole purpose of failing miserably. If so, you have succeeded good sir.
Ok, let’s ask the more direct question: What DoD regulation extends authority of the DoD over actions of discharged service members?
AirCav, you’re right, I’m done with the Occutard. If someone can’t tell the difference between sarcasm and “political activism”, it’s hopeless.
And, I guess I missed the Vote for ____ at the bottom of the sign, making it political activism. Hint, that’s sarcasm too, Moron .03.
If you’re not serving, why would you care?
(Hoping it is obvious that snarky remark was not directed at you UpNorth!)
*Sigh*.I was hoping you’d be able to find it on your own, guess I was expecting too much from you. Either way lesson learned. DoD directive 1344.10, dated 19 February 2008. Section 4.1.4. You must rely heavily on handouts and good will of others.
So, down below the myriad of posts referring to political activity by servicemembers ON active duty, you find this:
4.1.4. Subject to any other restrictions in law, a member of the Armed Forces not on
active duty may take the actions or participate in the activities permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.,
and may take the actions and participate in the activities prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2,
provided the member is not in uniform and does not otherwise act in a manner that could
reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or
endorsement.
So, discharged service members are, taa daa, not covered.
did you even read what you just posted dude?
you know the part that says “PROVIDED THE MEMBER IS NOT IN UNIFORM”……jeez man you’re dumb as a bag of cement.
Did you even read? It refers specifically to “members of the Armed Forces…” IOW, you are currently on someone’s alpha roster.
The intent of this is clearly to address Reservists that aren’t currently activated, not to reign in everyone who has ever been in the military.
4.1.4. Subject to any other restrictions in law, a member of the Armed Forces NOT ON ACTIVE DUTY may take the actions or participate in the activities permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.,
and may take the actions and participate in the activities prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2,
PROVIDED THE MEMBER IS NOT IN UNIFORM and does not otherwise act in a manner that could
reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or
endorsement.
Important parts are in all caps so you don’t miss them, spanky.
Now you’re just being dense. “member of the Armed Forces”. Once you’re out, you’re out. Otherwise, I’m going to be wanting my CAC so I can get commissary privs.
Then it would say Reservists that aren’t currently activated.
it clearly says members not on active duty, a phrase that covers a broad specturm of prior service military, not specifically reservisits.
Sure thing buddy, not my problem you can’t accept the truth when it’s right in front of you in black and white. No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
All I can do is el oh el on that one. Here’s your sign.
If that’s what you gotta do to comfort youself after several failed attempts at trolling, laugh lal you like. 😉 Or if it bothers you that much, you should contact the DOD and tell them to change the verbage in the directive. But we both know that probably won’t happen.
DoD directives still have to be enforced by the UCMJ. I’d really like to see how you plan on extending that one over. Maybe we’re all still subject to double jeopardy.
Oh so now it applies, but it can’ be enforced? You changing your opinion now? Weak.
Was gonna post this myself, but the hunters from Florida showed up and we’ve been doing other stuff. Like tasting ‘shine, etc.
Since moron is on this thread too I’m glad I didn’t!
No, I’m saying you have two hurdles for your legal hypothesis. It’s still interesting to me that you believe that everyone who is prior-service is still, in fact, in service.
It’s right in th directive, so which is it? Make your mind up dude you’re starting to bore me.
I think we’ve figured out the problem here; you just have a very, very short attention span. By the time you reach the bottom of that paragraph you’ve already forgotten the top.
Now you’re changing the subject. What’s on paper can’t be changed, and you’ve changed your interpretation of what’s on the paper. So, which one are you going to stick with?
Army Reg AR 670-1 In accordance with chapter 45, section 771, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 771), no person except a member of the U.S. Army may wear the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform of the U.S. Army unless otherwise authorized by law. Additionally, no person except a member of the U.S. Army may wear a uniform, any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the U.S. Army uniform. This includes the distinctive uniforms and uniform items listed in paragraph 1–12 of this regulation. Paragraph 1–12 goes on to define “Distinctive uniforms and uniform items:” a. The following uniform items are distinctive and will not be sold to or worn by unauthorized personnel: (1) All Army headgear, when worn with insignia. (2) Badges and tabs (identification, marksmanship, combat, and special skill). (3) Uniform buttons (U.S. Army or Corps of Engineers). (4) Decorations, service medals, service and training ribbons, and other awards and their appurtenances. (5) Insignia of any design or color that the Army has adopted. 10 USC 771 Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear – (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps. 10 USC 772 A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war. Ok, so I doubt Obummer said anyone could wear their uniform to this “protest”. Now its time for you to go back to beating on your drums so please give the rich guy in your camp his Macbook back and tell him thank you for giving you the chance… Read more »
There it is again!! oh this is getting better by the minute.
Unless moron went and RUNNOFT…..
Huh… interesting. And he didn’t have to destroy the English language to prove his point.
Now let’s discuss the issue of active soldiers, on deployment, holding political signs.
“please give the rich guy in your camp his Macbook back and tell him thank you for giving you the chance to get schooled.”. Gold, AR, thanks for that….
So you went down in flames on that, so please direct us all to the place on the sign that tells us who they’re campaigning for. Last I checked “quit your bitching and get back to work” wasn’t a political statement at all.
Right, the fact that that statement was directed at a political movement is. Once again, you have trouble remembering the beginning of a statement once you reach the end.
Well, yeah, it pretty much proves that they are part of the vast right wing conspiracy – they actually are supporting the concept of work. Radical, man!
They are suggesting that folks take care of themselves, so natch, they are opposed to liberalism. And THAT simply must be against the law. You know, becuase, like that’s the way I want it to be. You know. It’s all about me, you know. Like Me.
Not you.
Not at all. So now it’s “directed” at a political movement and not a political statement? You sure do get confused easily. I’m pretty sure their sole motivation was telling a bunch of filthy hippies to get a job.
Im sure you guys remember when Kerry said something along the lines that those who were joining the Army were only doing so because we were too dumb to do anything else. We had all kinds of signs up all over the place making fun of that comment and golly gee no one got in trouble for making political statements. This is the same thing. Looks to me like a bunch of guys on a smoke break found an easy way to amuse themselves. Bored Joes do all kinds of crap like this. Rueta Covorp Norom, it is quite obvious that you do not understand the barracks humor that is in play in the Army and the other branches of service. Stop sticking your nose where it doesnt belong.
Oh and yeah BTW, that would be SHE not he.
@49 – This sign never gets old…
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/ap/20007807-bae5-4b45-ac82-a3f3bfe5717b.grid-6×2.jpg