U.S. Marine message

[OldFatGuy]

I know very well what the answer is, it's my thread.

No thread here is anyone's thread. Point of an open forum. And no, I'm not trolling you or picking on you. If I were, it would be happening after every single one of your posts, so your claim of persecution can be tossed with the trash. My sister likes to say, "if you don't understand what you're saying, have another bourbon, straight up. It might come to you."

 

[Jason Warfield]

Go back to grade school. It is common to say US Marine in this context as representing the entire Corps.

All she had to say was "A message from a US Marine." Context is everything.

No. You are wrong.

The US Marine Corps website refers to a single Marine as Marine or US Marine. When addressing the entire branch, THEN they refer to themselves as the US Marine Corps, or simply, the Corps.

So, when I read the title of this thread...I naturally identified it as referring to a Marine, not the entire Corps.

Look, just accept that you are wrong and move on. You mis-read the title, no big deal, happens to everyone.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Cut the BS.

No. You are wrong.

The US Marine Corps website refers to a single Marine as Marine or US Marine. When addressing the entire branch, THEN they refer to themselves as the US Marine Corps, or simply, the Corps.

So, when I read the title of this thread...I naturally identified it as referring to a Marine, not the entire Corps.

Look, just accept that you are wrong and move on. You mis-read the title, no big deal, happens to everyone.

 

[braindrain]

If he is still enlisted, he will answer to superior officers for not clearing his statement prior to release. Had he done so he could have had a paragraph at the end of the statement saying it was cleared. As a retiree, he has the right to wear his dress blues at any function, approved or not.

At times, my father would wear his dress blues when he was in the mood to go into a bar where young army pukes hung out, for the sole purpose of starting a fight and the pleasure of beating up young army pukes. I was on the short end of one of those beatings, along with seven recent co-graduates from OCS. My father was crippled by strokes, and we still got our rear ends handed to us. Two of my uncles in their police uniforms and one in mufti watched and applauded. I need a nap.

Oh look. More old fat guy fiction stories.

Was this before or after you saw someone throw a dart through a muggers neck.

 

[Airyaman]

Cut the BS.

Go ahead, give me one example (link please) where U.S. Marine is used to represent the group or is used in the plural.

It's truly sad you tried to nitpick but was wrong about what you wanted to nitpick about.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Singular or plural.............pfffft!

Most Marine's would kindly ask this OP to stop using their uniform for political hackery.

Some of the young one's would tell this OP to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[marke]

Marines are not immune to brainwashing today any more than Patty Hearst was 50 years ago.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Oh look. More old fat guy fiction stories.

Was this before or after you saw someone throw a dart through a muggers neck.

Was that you I hit in the flapping lip when I was aiming at a barn door?

 

[braindrain]

Was that you I hit in the flapping lip when I was aiming at a barn door?

That’s all you got. I figured with a as much fiction as you write on this forum your imagination could do better then that.

Keep trying. Maybe some day you will get published. Just need to work on making your stories more believable.

 

[HumblePi]

No thread here is anyone's thread. Point of an open forum. And no, I'm not trolling you or picking on you. If I were, it would be happening after every single one of your posts, so your claim of persecution can be tossed with the trash. My sister likes to say, "if you don't understand what you're saying, have another bourbon, straight up. It might come to you."

Education used to be much better 'back in the olden days', what happened with yours? Oh I see, you reference bourbon, that could be it.

 

[notquiteright]

He shouldn’t be doing this in uniform, but that’s just my opinion.

Prior Service men and women wear their uniform all the time at events. I'm reminded, when I was younger, of old farts sitting around condemning vets for wearing their uniforms, dress and combat, at anti-war rallies...

Are you against because he is supporting racial equality? Protesting the actions of the President? Has more medals than you? (He has more medals than me, I'm not butthurt)

There is a YUGE difference between an active service person wearing their uniform and a prior service doing so. I have never worn my uniform, I do wear my 'brownie buttons on either my shirt or ball cap... eace

 

[notquiteright]

Was that you I hit in the flapping lip when I was aiming at a barn door?

You have to AIM to HIT a BARN DOOR???? :shock:

Were you a REMF or something???? eace

 

[csense]

Are you against because he is supporting racial equality?

As I said before, there is no evidence that the event was racially motivated, and that element would need to be clear and unambiguous for his position to be honorable from the outset. Anything other than that and you are clearly in the realm of politics. Additionally, the defendant is afforded the presumption of innocence. This, above all else, is tantamount. He dishonors himself, his oath and the uniform by compromising that principle.

 

[notquiteright]

As I said before, there is no evidence that the event was racially motivated, and that element would need to be clear and unambiguous for his position to be honorable from the outset. Anything other than that and you are clearly in the realm of politics. Additionally, the defendant is afforded the presumption of innocence. This, above all else, is tantamount. He dishonors himself, his oath and the uniform by compromising that principle.

You can say no racial motivation, doesn't make it so. Your concept of what needs to happen, or not, for his act to be honorable isn't relevant to anyone but you.

The act of protest doesn't take a smidge of defendant's rights away. I took the Army version of 'the oath', and wore the uniform. I bled for my country... I see no dishonor here... (and I really don't care over much for Jarheads)… eace

 

[OldFatGuy]

Education used to be much better 'back in the olden days', what happened with yours? Oh I see, you reference bourbon, that could be it.

If only you had brain cells to destroy.

 

[HumblePi]

If only you had brain cells to destroy.

Jealous much?

 

[OldFatGuy]

Jealous much?

Of you? Not in the slightest. I have no desire to add blind and dumb to the repertoire. Deafness is inevitable as we age, your tone deafness extremely devoid of desirability.
:monkey:2dance:uch:

 

[HumblePi]

Of you? Not in the slightest. I have no desire to add blind and dumb to the repertoire. Deafness is inevitable as we age, your tone deafness extremely devoid of desirability.
:monkey:2dance:uch:

Who pays any attention to what any old fat guy says these days, or ever for that matter?

 

[csense]

You can say no racial motivation, doesn't make it so.

Assumptions are not facts, and that is all anyone has at this point. Now, that may change, but as of yet, no one has demonstrated such racial animus. My statement therefore stands.

Your concept of what needs to happen, or not, for his act to be honorable isn't relevant to anyone but you.

Relevance suggests appropriateness to current or contemporary circumstances. In that respect, my opinion is indeed relevant and appropriate, especially since I’ve worn the uniform. It is, however, only my opinion, and that is the most anybody can offer, yourself included. It is the nature of this forum, obviously.

The act of protest doesn't take a smidge of defendant's rights away.

I’m not arguing that point, but a counter argument could be made.

I took the Army version of 'the oath', and wore the uniform. I bled for my country... I see no dishonor here... (and I really don't care over much for Jarheads)… eace

I’m not a combat vet. I served during peacetime, but I always defer respect to those who are, or were, combat vets.
I know your final sentiment isn’t quite an insult, but since we’re on the topic, I have only one rule regarding such:

Call me whatever you want, but don’t ever call me a Democrat. That, I find insulting.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Jealous much?

If you saw a Marine ****ting on a Trump picture, I'll bet that a good many people would place bets on you trying to justify it.

 

[JANFU]

Who pays any attention to what any old fat guy says these days, or ever for that matter?

No one

 

[Tangmo]

Couldn’t agree more.

One of the problems I have with making pronouncements like this is that it assumes facts that are not in evidence. There is no evidence, as of yet, that it was racially motivated. Neither can we determine that there was racial indifference. The event can be wrong with or without those elements. Surely though, for this Marine’s statement to be honorable, those elements must be present, clear and obvious. Well meaning, is not enough. Additionally, the accused is afforded the presumption of innocence, and if he truly stands by his oath to the Constitution, then it would serve him well to remember this. I could go on, but I’ll leave it at that for now as to why I hold the opinion that I do...

As I said before, there is no evidence that the event was racially motivated, and that element would need to be clear and unambiguous for his position to be honorable from the outset. Anything other than that and you are clearly in the realm of politics. Additionally, the defendant is afforded the presumption of innocence. This, above all else, is tantamount. He dishonors himself, his oath and the uniform by compromising that principle.

Who does the Marine retired Todd Winn name as either the "accused" or the "defendant?"

Winn doesn't name anyone accused or suspected in connection with the killings. Winn identified the victims by name only and which was essential to the overall statement he made there and then.

Winn knew exactly what he was doing and on what authority to include what his limits were in doing it. He's sharp, knowledgeable and astute if somewhat melodramatic about standing in uniform in the heat. While Winn's act succeeded in gaining some credible prominence he did not prejudice the case in any way for when it goes to court. Winn did nothing to dishonor the uniform, the oath, the Constitution.

So your rightwing axe to grind got busted at the grindstone.

 

[dave8383]

If you saw a Marine ****ting on a Trump picture,......

I'd salute him.

 

[dave8383]

Active duty personnel are not allowed political opinions,............

Nonsense. How the hell are you going to stop the brains of service members from coming to conclusions about political matters?

 

[Glitch]

Nonsense. How the hell are you going to stop the brains of service members from coming to conclusions about political matters?

They can have whatever conclusions they want, providing they keep it to themselves. Once they separate from active duty service, they can voice whatever opinion they want. While on active duty, however, they are subject to the Hatch Act and the UCMJ. It not only applies to everyone on active duty in the military, but civilian federal employees as well, although they are less restricted.

This is the Army's position: https://home.army.mil/leavenworth/application/files/1415/3937/2555/CPAC_Hatch_Act.pdf