On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

Thanks for the conversation. I’m glad we could talk in a civil way about the ethics and legalities pertaining to the tenets of DoD Directive 1344.10 and AR 600-20 that specifically deal with how Service Members (specifically, Soldiers, in my case) can and can’t/shouldn’t participate in the political process and political activities.

Ive been clear on this point. Because my military status is known on this thread, I do not wish to share that opinion because I don’t want there to be confusion that my opinion that of the military or federal government

Oh bull. Thats an out and out lie – and a sccummy evasion. I just SHOWED that you were in error per the DOD directives, etc. And you repeat the lie that you cannot reply plainly and take a solid position.

BULL!

You are in NO WAY considered as representing, or being an official presence of, an official position of the military, so you CAN express a solid opinion here if you had the courage to do so. You are at the moment arguably a poser, not a real service member, due to your behavior.

That’s what I’m calling you out on – I showed that you are not legally constrained, and yet you continue to dodge and evade.

That marks you as disingenuous, or a poseur or else flat out stupid.

I’ve seen this pattern before, and its almost always because the person at the other end is a faker, someone pretending to be in the military, and using oblique techniques and innuendo to slur a position or person without having the courage to stand and do so outright, then hide behind bogus reasons of “I’m in the service I cant say specifically anything”.

Sorry, your actions and reasoning don’t pass the smell test. Your evasions are suspect, making you suspect.

Stand. One way or the other.

At least have the courage to stop this BS evasion and hiding behind military service (which I showed is NOT credible nor required on your part, be you a PFC or a Major General). What pisses me off is you using alleged military service for both credibility and a shield to cover your innuendo and half-truth based attempts here.

Or do you want to end up like Jesse MacBeth?

Or maybe you ARE him, philosophically thinking.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 am, Ordinary Coloradan said:
You CAN say you are for someone, you CAN express publicly an opinion for them, you CAN attend a rally (in civilian clothes)

Absolutely, but you cannot go there and say, “as a member of the United States Army/Air Force/Navy/Marines, I believe in this, that or the other candidate/policy/party.” I can’t go on the news, sit there and tell them that I am in the military, give them my rank, position, and unit, and give them my political opinions. Sure, I can comment all day long on message boards like this, but it’s wrong for me to say that I am a Service Member and make that opinion known.

you can put a bumpersticker on your car,

Yep. You’re right. I see it all the time. While legal, I don’t agree with the practice, just from a good order and discipline standpoint, but I digress.

you can even argue for or against a candidate in letters to the editor (this board is covered by that rule).

Yep, right again; however, my point was that I cannot say that I am an agent of the military and, therefore, I’m voting for such and such. Just the same, I cannot put my name, rank, unit, or position or use a DoD letterhead on a letter to the editor, political campaign, etc. expressing my political opinions.

You just cannot do it in uniform or while acting in performance of your duties or as a representative of the US Military.

This is my whole point. Perhaps you misunderstood my intentions. I do not mean to imply that I cannot have political opinions because I’m in the military. I do have them, I consider myself very independent, not associated with any political party, and argue strongly for the positions I support. But, I do not do this by saying, “As a Service Member, I support this political idea or that politician.” That is where it crosses the line. The military is an apolitical organization, and as such we (folks in the military) are told to keep it that way, both through the regulation you quoted, as well as through policy letters from our commanders. I can, and do, argue political points on this blog (you can do the search yourself.) I just don’t do it under my military status.
As you pointed out: I can do anything a civilian can do, so long as there is:
–No use of Government property or resources;
–No interference with duty;
–No implied Government position or involvement.
That is all that I have been saying. If you feel that I’ve mislead someone, please, show me why you think that, and we can discuss it.

You are either lying your butt off about being active duty, or you have been grievously misinformed.

False dichotomy. Perhaps you may have misunderstood what I was saying or I was not clear enough.

So stop hiding behind false pretenses and take a stand.

I’ve been clear on this point. Because my military status is known on this thread, I do not wish to share that opinion because I don’t want there to be confusion that my opinion that of the military or federal government. If you want my opinion, just do a simple search for my screen name on other threads and I’m sure you’ll find it.

I’m calling you out as a lying poser or an massively ignorant. Which are you?

You’re entitled to your opinion (it’s not like I can post my records to prove you wrong). But I will say, again, that there is another option you’re not considering. Perhaps I have not been clear enough or you misunderstand what it is I’m saying. Either way, you’re entitled to your opinion.

You CAN say you are for someone, you CAN express publicly an opinion for them, you CAN attend a rally (in civilian clothes), you can put a bumpersticker on your car, you can even argue for or against a candidate in letters to the editor (this board is covered by that rule).

You just cannot do it in uniform or while acting in performance of your duties or as a representative of the US Military.

I served. I know. I did it.

Here is the regulation and rules summary. I hilighted a couple for you.

DoD Directive 1344.10 (reprinted in the Joint Ethics Regulation, DoD 5500.7-R, Chapter 6) and SECNAVINST 5370.6, which provides guidance of permitted/prohibited political activities by active duty personnel. Basic rules are:

-Does not preclude personal participation so long as:
–Not in uniform;
–No use of Government property or resources;
–No interference with duty;
–No implied Government position or involvement.

-Permitted political activities include but are not limited to:
–Register, vote and express personal opinions;
–Encourage other military members to exercise voting rights;
–Join a political club, and attend political organization;
–Make monetary contributions to a political organization;
–Sign petitions for specific legislative action or place candidate’s name on the ballot;
–Write letters to the editor expressing personal views;
–Bumper stickers on private vehicles.

-Prohibited political activities. A military member may not:
–Use official authority to influence/interfere;
–Be a candidate for civil office;
–Participate in partisan political campaigns, speeches, articles, TV/radio discussions;
–Serve in official capacity/sponsor a partisan political club;
–Conduct political opinion survey;
–Use contemptuous words (10 U.S.C 888);
–March or ride in partisan parades;
–Participate in organized effort to transport voters to polls;
–Promote political dinners or fundraising events;
–Attend partisan events as official representative of Armed Forces; note that this does NOT preclude attending as long as you are not representing the Armed Forces
–Display large signs/banners/posters on private vehicles.

You are either lying your butt off about being active duty, or you have been grievously misinformed.

So stop hiding behind false pretenses and take a stand.

I’m calling you out as a lying poser or an massively ignorant. Which are you?

The same thought was mentioned in our household. Some thought Fred’s heart wasn’t fully in the race because he didn’t really want to step on his friend John McCain’s second chance for the Office.

I just don’t think he felt like playing the stupid games of politics. That’s why I felt his answer to the Global Warming question was classic. Honestly, I’d darn near be asleep too during most of this media-hoopla. He wanted to be serious about this when most folks wanted the drama and excitement instead. Well, we certainly don’t have a drama shortage…

I do think that Fred Thompson would make one tough and loyal Chief of Staff though.

If I’m not mistaken he’s already played a Chief of Staff in a Clint Eastwood movie.

…if he’d displayed the same fire during his campaign for the nomination as he did tonight, it’d have been McCain giving the “warm up” speech tonight for Thompson and not the other way around.

The same thought was mentioned in our household. Some thought Fred’s heart wasn’t fully in the race because he didn’t really want to step on his friend John McCain’s second chance for the Office.

I do think that Fred Thompson would make one tough and loyal Chief of Staff though.

I found myself more than once exclaiming at the television screen, “Give ‘em hell, Fred!” And he delivered.

Which is too bad, in a way: if he’d displayed the same fire during his campaign for the nomination as he did tonight, it’d have been McCain giving the “warm up” speech tonight for Thompson and not the other way around.

Hope this helps.

Indeed, your comments did help. I enjoyed our conversation, even though I was a little out of sync with your responses.