Picking on Barack ..............

mak2 said:

OK. Ithink you are wrong but I was never in an Office Hours or a Courts Martial with that exact circumstance. But I bet he would get busted.

Click to expand...

Mak with all due respect you are giving your opinion , You can't be right or wrong all the time , but you just seem to think you are allways right & everyone else is allways wrong . It does get a lil tiring & you do loose some credibility because of it IMHO.

I am not trying to argue with you because I have never served in the armed forces but I'll ask you again what is disrespectfull about the wording on the tire cover ?

Also you are guessing from a rear view pic that he is still in the service because of his haircut . Maybe he is a hiway patrol officer .

loboloco said:

Oh, out of curiosity, I ran this one past my brother, who was Judge Advocate for a division for a time. He thought this would be unactionable, because of the way it was worded.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I'd hate to be the one to test that theory. It seems to be open to interpretation as to whether it is generic (the Presidency in general) or specific (the Obamessiah). I believe a halfway competent JAG could make a pretty good case that it was meant to be specific.

Danang Sailor said:

Maybe so, but I'd hate to be the one to test that theory. It seems to be open to interpretation as to whether it is generic (the Presidency in general) or specific (the Obamessiah). I believe a halfway competent JAG could make a pretty good case that it was meant to be specific.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I thought. I just bet the guy would get busted.

Cowboy said:

Mak with all due respect you are giving your opinion , You can't be right or wrong all the time , but you just seem to think you are allways right & everyone else is allways wrong . It does get a lil tiring & you do loose some credibility because of it IMHO.

I am not trying to argue with you because I have never served in the armed forces but I'll ask you again what is disrespectfull about the wording on the tire cover ?

Also you are guessing from a rear view pic that he is still in the service because of his haircut . Maybe he is a hiway patrol officer .

Click to expand...

Cowboy, this is a discussion forum. You have no idea about active duty anything, so you are telling me I have some character flaw because I express my opinion. I think I am always right? I usually have some rationale for what I think, is that what you are talking about? Do you have any idea what military bearing and/or deportment is? Nevermind. I really dont care even a little bit about creditiblity with a guy who admits he has never been in the service and could not really possibly understand something that is pretty much drilled into you in any boot camp. Yet insist on explaining it to me.

Cowboy that haircut appears to be a medium tight, a few days old. Most of us former Marines either have very long hair or very short, but not that short. Haircuts is one of the ways we identified each other while out in town. Oh that's right, I think I am always right. I'm sure you know.

The UCMJ refers to a "superior commissioned officer." Is the POTUS a "commissioned officer?"

mak2 said:

Cowboy, this is a discussion forum.

Click to expand...

That's right! It is a discussion forum for anyone and everyone to discourse and opine upon any and all topics. What was your point there?

You have no idea about active duty anything,

Click to expand...

But, I'm a little confused here... what has this discussion got to do with active duty? The way I see it is that the Jeep displayed a message that was truthful, whether one agrees with that message or not. The fact of the matter is that any official, no matter how high, is first and formost a Public Servant. Generally indecently overpaid, at the publics expense.

It wasn't an 'opinion' as such, the message, it was a statement of fact! One cannot get away from the truth of the message posted on the back of the Jeep.

so you are telling me I have some character flaw because I express my opinion.

Click to expand...

Are you not implying that Cowboy has a character flaw also, because he, and others I might add, disagree with you?

Do you have any idea what military bearing and/or deportment is? Nevermind. I really dont care even a little bit about creditiblity with a guy who admits he has never been in the service...

Click to expand...

Ahh, I see, a thinly disguised assault on someone for not having military experience! You know, there are many reasons for why one might not have such experience, or have joined any military establishment; very few of which are not for genuine reasons.

Our troops, wherever they are, should be respected and admired for what they do for us and their country, but we should not tolerate or accept anyone's distain for others opinions, nor their disregard for the truth, whether he/she is a Marine, or President of this country!.

and could not really possibly understand something that is pretty much drilled into you in any boot camp. Yet insist on explaining it to me.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but once again I believe you are wrong, and offensive in your contempt for those who do not share your vocation. I've personally never been a member of the armed forces, but I would take deep offence at you telling me that because of my lack of experience or knowledge of military proceedures, I cannot differentiate between a truthful statement of fact, and a derogatory comment, supposedly displayed on a poster.

Whether one supports Obama or not, he is a Public Servant! Get over it!

Peace!

jpr62902 said:

The UCMJ refers to a "superior commissioned officer." Is the POTUS a "commissioned officer?"

Click to expand...

The president is the Commander in Chief. That would make him a superior officer. When I was in I was trained I could vote against him, I could participate in the political process opposing him, but I could not be disprectful to him, even if I did not like him. The argument he was not talking to or about the potus is a silly game I cant imagine a CO playing. I am sure I am wrong and that mainly is because you guys dont like Obama. Fine. If GWB was in we would not of even had this discussion.

Cowboy said:

Mak with all due respect you are giving your opinion , You can't be right or wrong all the time , but you just seem to think you are allways right & everyone else is allways wrong . It does get a lil tiring & you do loose some credibility because of it IMHO.
I am not trying to argue with you because I have never served in the armed forces but I'll ask you again what is disrespectfull about the wording on the tire cover ?

Also you are guessing from a rear view pic that he is still in the service because of his haircut . Maybe he is a hiway patrol officer .

Click to expand...

Lia said:

That's right! It is a discussion forum for anyone and everyone to discourse and opine upon any and all topics. What was your point there?



But, I'm a little confused here... what has this discussion got to do with active duty? The way I see it is that the Jeep displayed a message that was truthful, whether one agrees with that message or not. The fact of the matter is that any official, no matter how high, is first and formost a Public Servant. Generally indecently overpaid, at the publics expense.

It wasn't an 'opinion' as such, the message, it was a statement of fact! One cannot get away from the truth of the message posted on the back of the Jeep.



Are you not implying that Cowboy has a character flaw also, because he, and others I might add, disagree with you?



Ahh, I see, a thinly disguised assault on someone for not having military experience! You know, there are many reasons for why one might not have such experience, or have joined any military establishment; very few of which are not for genuine reasons.

Our troops, wherever they are, should be respected and admired for what they do for us and their country, but we should not tolerate or accept anyone's distain for others opinions, nor their disregard for the truth, whether he/she is a Marine, or President of this country!.



I'm sorry but once again I believe you are wrong, and offensive in your contempt for those who do not share your vocation. I've personally never been a member of the armed forces, but I would take deep offence at you telling me that because of my lack of experience or knowledge of military proceedures, I cannot differentiate between a truthful statement of fact, and a derogatory comment, supposedly displayed on a poster.

Whether one supports Obama or not, he is a Public Servant! Get over it!

Peace!

Click to expand...

Read the bolded part. We were discussing a topic. Cowboy has no idea what he is talking about, so he says I have the problem. That is why I said something to Cowboy. No, what I said to Cowboy was not about the topic we were discussing, it was about him telling me I think I am always right or some such silliness. I did not take the thread of topic. I merely responded to his statement about me always being right. That was the only problem. No, I was not dissing him for not serving.

How many Marine Corps Commanding officers do you know? I never met one who would play a silly word game about the message on the back of the Jeep. And by the way, I bet a lot of Marine's voted for Obama.

mak2 said:

The president is the Commander in Chief. That would make him a superior officer. When I was in I was trained I could vote against him, I could participate in the political process opposing him, but I could not be disprectful to him, even if I did not like him. The argument he was not talking to or about the potus is a silly game I cant imagine a CO playing. I am sure I am wrong and that mainly is because you guys dont like Obama. Fine. If GWB was in we would not of even had this discussion.

Click to expand...

I was just talking about the UCMJ code provision you cited. Aren't officers commissioned by Congress? I'm just sayin' that the POTUS isn't a commissioned officer (though clearly a "superior").

mak2 said:

How many Marine Corps Commanding officers do you know?

Click to expand...

I don't believe that I have many male relations (barring those who are underage), who have not served in both countries... All of them officers of varying ranks. But what has that got to do with anything?

I never met one who would play a silly word game about the message on the back of the Jeep.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps Copwboy was right then. Does the above staement mean that because YOU never met one, there couldn't possibly be any? Boy, you really should do summat about your shocking lack of self confidence!

And by the way, I bet a lot of Marine's voted for Obama.

Click to expand...

And, who would determine the winner of such an bet, you? A 'bet' is hardly relevant to the debate, nor conducive to a reasoned conclusion to anything!

Lia said:

I don't believe that I have many male relations (barring those who are underage), who have not served in both countries... All of them officers of varying ranks. But what has that got to do with anything?



Well, perhaps Copwboy was right then. Does the above staement mean that because YOU never met one, there couldn't possibly be any? Boy, you really should do summat about your shocking lack of self confidence!



And, who would determine the winner of such an bet, you? A 'bet' is hardly relevant to the debate, nor conducive to a reasoned conclusion to anything!

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

http://cape.army.mil/repository/materials/WhenSoldiersSpeakOut.pdf

Read the conclusion part.

mak2 said:

http://cape.army.mil/repository/materials/WhenSoldiersSpeakOut.pdf

Read the conclusion part.

Click to expand...

Using that article as a guide, the sign would not be chargeable unless the individual was an officer in uniform.
Mak, and Danang, the thing you have to remember is that there has been a major cultural shift within the US Military since your service dates. The US Military has become an entirely different structure culturally than it was in the 60's, 70's, and early 80's. Thus making it impossible to make or sustain charges or punishments that were acceptable then.

Ok Lobo. I think he would probably get busted, you dont think so. I enclosed that article because I googled it once and that was on the first page of hits and I think it agreed with exactly what I had been saying the entire thread.

By the way, Article 15 is 100% at the discresion of the CO.

mak2 said:

Ok Lobo. I think he would probably get busted, you dont think so. I enclosed that article because I googled it once and that was on the first page of hits and I think it agreed with exactly what I had been saying the entire thread.

By the way, Article 15 is 100% at the discresion of the CO.

Click to expand...

And any officer or enlisted can refuse to accept an article 15, forcing the CO to either drop the matter, or charge for courts-martial. An article 15 is non judicial punishment and the SM has the legal right to refuse it.

Usually, refusal of an Article 15 is a really bad idea, but I have seen it happen and in two cases backfired badly on the CO attempting to Article 15.
In one case, a soldier had a weapon(M60) discharge causing physical damage out of proportion because the round set some fuel cans on fire. The SM refused an article 15 because the weapon was 'safed', but fired anyway. This rendered the weapon inoperative. The soldier was exonerated by a battalion level review board and the CO had a letter of letter of reprimand placed in his record.

In a second case, SM's were issued experimental equipment and caused a lot of physical damage and injury to several other SM's. Two SM's accepted Article 15's,but a third refused and forced a court. The SM was exonerated because there was no doctrine and insufficient training for the equipment. The CO was courted and discharged for a failure of command (no training on equipment) and abuse of his authority (attempting to article 15 a SM for his failure). Miltary Law is strange and weird. There are very few 'clear cut' cases of what will or won't work in front of a court, or in where the limits of a officers authority are. In some circumstances an officer has a duty to order killed, or to kill his subordinates. In other circumstances, a subordinate has a legal duty to refuse orders or even to shoot the offending officer.

And they can refuse a summary too. But the speical is a felony conviction, so most people avoid them if they can. Why do you insist on arguing this? IF this Marine's CO reccommended this for Special Courts Martial, he would be convicted, there is photographic proof, unless it was photoshopped or something. There is absoluty no evidence the Marine was talking about the president of the local bird watching group or someting and no Marine CO or CG would even listen to that silliness. Again, you dont think he would be busted, I do. THe ability to refuse office hours is not germane to the discussion.

mak2 said:

And they can refuse a summary too. But the speical is a felony conviction, so most people avoid them if they can. Why do you insist on arguing this? IF this Marine's CO reccommended this for Special Courts Martial, he would be convicted, there is photographic proof, unless it was photoshopped or something. There is absoluty no evidence the Marine was talking about the president of the local bird watching group or someting and no Marine CO or CG would even listen to that silliness. Again, you dont think he would be busted, I do. THe ability to refuse office hours is not germane to the discussion.

Click to expand...

And Mak, the sign is not, under the UCMJ, derogatory, defamatory, or detrimental to discipline. It does not meet the criteria for a court. I realize that you don't get it, but a SM has the legal right to express an opinion. The very fact that there is 'expressed' doubt as to it's derogatory nature would make it non chargeable. The military today has more important things to worry about than trying to illegally force silence on an SM.
And, I don't 'think' it is non chargeable, from 21 years of experience, and a working knowledge of what is and isn't allowed under the UCMJ I know it is not a chargeable offense. I have pointed out to you where your logic is wrong, but you simply refuse to accept that a SM has a legal right to express an opinion as long as he doesn't cross the line. This sign does not cross that line.

mak2 said:

Cowboy, this is a discussion forum. You have no idea about active duty anything, so you are telling me I have some character flaw because I express my opinion. I think I am always right? I usually have some rationale for what I think, is that what you are talking about? Do you have any idea what military bearing and/or deportment is? Nevermind. I really dont care even a little bit about creditiblity with a guy who admits he has never been in the service and could not really possibly understand something that is pretty much drilled into you in any boot camp. Yet insist on explaining it to me.

Cowboy that haircut appears to be a medium tight, a few days old. Most of us former Marines either have very long hair or very short, but not that short. Haircuts is one of the ways we identified each other while out in town. Oh that's right, I think I am always right. I'm sure you know.

Click to expand...

"but I'll ask you again what is disrespectfull about the wording on the tire cover ? "

OK lobo, you are right, I am wrong.

It's "We the People", not Me the President.

Do I really need to explain to you how that is disrespectful?

You would have to explain it to me. Seems to me like Obama is a lying motherf***er would be a true, but disrespectful statement.
"We the people" is found in a couple of decidedly not disrespectful documents that I know of. "not me the president", is political discourse and an opinion. You do not lose your right to either by devoting your life to defending them.

I am bored. I still think if an active duty Marine rolled around that on his spare tire he would get office hours.

You made more sense to me than I made, to me. Well you know what I mean.

Danang Sailor said:

I have had issues with Mak on many occasions; in my view he often posts his personal opinions as fact and "cherry picks" items that tend to support those opinions. In this case, however, I must say that he is completely correct. And while I would not have thought it so, it obviously does make a difference whether or not a poster has military experience.

First, while the POTUS is not a commissioned officer he definitely IS in the Chain of Command. The oaths of enlistment and office both place obedience to orders of the POTUS second only to support of the Constitution, and before obedience to the orders of superior officers. All of the nitpicking about this is both silly and totally pointless.

Second, there has been a lot of talk about "citizen soldiers" and the idea that SM are still citizens and entitled to the rights accruing thereto. Once again, this is a concept held almost exclusively by civilians with no military experience and it is false. By voluntarily accepting the oath SM give up nearly all of the rights associated with citizenship; they become the servants of a democratic republic rather than full members thereof. This seems absurd to civilians, but it is the way things must be in order to maintain a military organization. [Should A Company, Second Battalion have a debate and then vote on whether or not to assault that Al Queda stronghold?]

Finally, as I noted in a previous post any JAG worth even half a damn could make a good case that this spare tire cover is, and is meant to be, a personal jab at Barrack H. Obama, the currently sitting POTUS, and is thus extremely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Hell, I could make such a case in front of a Court, and have a good chance of prevailing, and I happen to agree with the sentiment expressed!

The very least this grunt should expect is a stern talking to by his immediate supervisor, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that he had slipped on a bar of soap and fallen down the shower room steps.

Oh and Lobo, it's true I've been out for a while and that things change; they were changing (not necessarily for the better) long before I retired. For the record, many of those not-so-good changes have reverted since 9/11/01. The thing you are not taking into account is that, unlike one-termers, most retirees are pretty well wired into the system and thus have a very good idea what's going on, even today. I fancy that I, and possibly Mak, are more in tune with the current status of our forces that most of the posters here.

Click to expand...

Won't argue, Danang, as I am well wired in also. My service has been more recent than yours though, and I agree many of the changes were for the worse.
I, as I have stated, would love to face a court over this. I would greatly enjoy making any JAG officer dumb enough to try to prosecute it look like the idiot he would be, It is not derogatory(no name calling), defamatory(it doesn't accuse him of anything) or prejudicial to discipline(it has exactly zero content in reference to the military). If you want to make a case, you would have to have more than that sign. As a soldier, you do not give up all, though you do give up some, of your first amendment freedoms.
I don't know if you, or I. are more "in tune" with the modern forces, but I do know that no CO or court wold wast time on this given the more pressing and blatant violations occurring at G.O rank and F.O. rank presently.

mak2 said:

I hope that Marine is not on active duty. The POTUS is his CIC, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Looks like he has been out since the seventies if I read the Lic. Plate correctly....

Besides, the statement is only inflammatory if you read it that way, just a statement of facts... There has been a lot of "Presidents", so how do you know he was talking about "Obama"....

What, you don't like Obama?

He also needs to get office hours for having a brake light out. Shitbird. We will have him a bad conduct discharge before long.

it's a turn signal

Big Dog said:

........... e-mail forward from a state trooper friend!

This picture captured on the back of a Marine's jeep


View attachment 53262


I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-- Winston ChurchillView attachment 53263
This is so good !!!
Hwy 59 at Hwy 43 - across from Marshall High School
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign at Hutchinson, KS, 35 miles SE of Wichita

Obama's honeymoon is over !!

Would love to know the Patriot who paid for this sign!

W O W !!!

I wonder how long this will be allowed to stand?
Sign POSTED on Hwy 61, Hutchinson , Kansas ..

View attachment 53264
E-mail andpass this around keep it going let the countryknow that we cannotafford Obama or his CHANGE!!!
IF you don't agree, delete it!
That is "one" of the few rights we still have left.​

Click to expand...

back to the OP -- Hutchinson is NW of Wichita...