Fair warning on political posts

[ClearedHot]

Ladies,

The past few months have seen some heated discussions from both sides of the aisle and tomorrow night we will likely know who the next president of the United States is.

Let this serve as a reminder that after tomorrow, regardless of your opinion of the person elected, there are regulations that govern the military and comments on the Commander in Chief.

As military members we give up some of our rights in order to serve as protectors of this great nation.

I urge all of you to become A-Political tomorrow night and remember the oath you swore to protect and defend the constitution.

[Baseops.Net]

Actually, Article 88 of the UCMJ states (and I quote):

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Often, people don't realize this extends beyond just the POTUS (as described above). I just recently had to remind the Navy SEAL that sits next to me that we similarly cannot (publicly) denigrate the wonderful members of our Congress...

[brickhistory]

***WARNING***ATTENTION WHORE POST****WARNING******

This is the first Presidential election I've voted in since college. The years in between I wore Uncle's uniform and I never thought it appropriate to vote for my boss.

Local and state elections, yes, but not for the CinC.

*****END ATTENTION WHORE POST********

As to what CH initially posted, beside the UCMJ ramifications, talking politics - badmouthing any party/incumbent/candidate - to anyone who knows you serve, to me, lessens the professionalism of the military.

Even though we get tools in the chain of command, we took that Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution.

Don't ruin it by taking away the respect of one of the last bastions of perceived honor in our country.

Say, how'd this soapbox get so high?

[pawnman]

I would like to interject...I don't interpret the UCMJ to mean you can't ever discuss politics at all, especially in an off-duty setting. Just think about the words you choose. If you want to say "I disagree with this policy because X, Y, and Z", that's fine. If you want to say "President X is a huge douchebag", that's inappropriate (even if we're all thinking it).

[Boxhead]

I call BS on the entire premise of this thread. This is not OPSEC or mission stuff we are talking here....it political opinion and sometimes personal opinion.

This is an internet forum where no one knows who you are. If we are going to start policiing what we can and can't say on here based on "what looks good for the military" or "a reg says you can't say that", there are LOTS of thread and posts that need to be removed. Most not having a damn thing to do politics.

Not one of my troops knows who "Boxhead" is....hell, all my info on the left there is fake anyway...or is it? Holy sh!t its the internet...noone knows or cares.

BTW.....Obama's politics blow.

[M2]

I believe CH was trying to be proactive in keeping things under control, and I have to agree. As someone who served under Clinton, it is easy to get contemptuous towards the President; but like the man or not, you have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to refrain from those kinds of remarks. I have already had to change the title of a thread from “Barack Hussein” to “Obama;” and we don’t need anymore threads such as 'From Powell to Socialism and Everything Else in Between...An Obama thread gone wild!'

Yes, this is a somewhat anonymous internet forum; but don’t think for a second you cannot be tracked down if the need necessitates. Most likely you will be banned from here, as we don’t need that kind of unwanted attention; but that doesn’t mean the authorities won’t continue to take action to find you! It is easier than you may think, and the majority of people on here do not take the appropriate measure to completely hide their identities.

So, the bottom line is simple, keep it civil. No, I don’t think we need to impose the same ROE that two dudes in uniform chatting at the BX food court should observe; but we need to keep it under control. The majority has spoken and that is the democratic process we have all sworn to defend at some point in our lives. Like it or not, that is how this country works and if the elected administration fails to perform to the satisfaction of the masses, there will be another change in four years.

If you have any further problems with this, feel free to send any of the mods an email, or contact BaseOps directly.

Otherwise, we all appreciate your understanding and cooperation!

Cheers! M2

[Boxhead]

Otherwise, we all appreciate your understanding and cooperation!

Cheers! M2

I agree with the intent, I mean, just saying someone is a jerk is not really productive anyway.

I even editied my above post, as I don't know if Obama blows....I just think his politics do.

You can always disagree/discuss policies or politics, but chilling on name calling an elected official...is understandable.

[brickhistory]

I didn't take the opener as applying to baseops, but rather a skull's up to not get carried away in the 'real world.'

[M2]

I didn't take the opener as applying to baseops, but rather a skull's up to not get carried away in the 'real world.'

It would be prudent to heed it in both environments; but more so in the real world!

Personally, I try to avoid conversations on politics and religion at work.

Jeeps, guns, and porn are all fair game, though!

Cheers! M2

[brickhistory]

My post (damn work getting in the way and having to stop mid-post to deal with pesky bosses) was meant to be online prior to M2's clarification otherwise I wouldn't have bothered as I was obviously wrong.

I would differ on the appropriateness of opinions expressed here vs. the 'real world' but as it's not my site and I'm not a mod, I will play nice and follow the 'guidance.'

Can I say hypothetically that a congresswoman from California is scary and a socialist?

Can I say that I'm glad of one thing from this election, namely that this should be the final stake in Hillary's further political ambition?

Obama will be on the Democratic ticket next time and he doesn't need her for any cabinet posts, so given that she'll be 70+ by 2016, the reign of the Bubbas might finally be over.

Can I say that? Please?

[M2]

Brick (et al)

I don't think the intent was to stymie boisterous discussions on here—far from it—but to ensure that the known boundaries are not crossed. We retirees are more free to speak our minds than our active duty buds, and whereas there may be mechanisms to track down offenders I would think it would have to be a very serious remark that would generate that level of response.

No, we only ask that the criticism be constructive and none of the bashing we saw when the incoming administration were simply candidates. It was a gentle reminder of the restrictions that officers face (and I am not sure what article enlisted personnel would be charged under, as Art 88 specifically applies to officers only; but I am sure they’d find one if the need warranted!).

The best approach is to attack the issues and not the individuals. That has already started in my beloved gun thread, as those of us who exercise our Second Amendment rights to the fullest are fearful that another Clinton-like Assault Weapons Ban is on its way.

Allow me to define contemptuous…

con•temp•tu•ous [kuh n-temp-choo-uh s] adj. Manifesting or feeling contempt; scornful

Obviously this translates to angry and/or disrespectful comments towards our elected officials, down to “the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he (the officer) is on duty or present” (I guess ‘he’ applies to females as well!). So if we stick to the topics and issues at hand, and leave the individual bashings to other venues, we will all be A-OK!

Cheers! M2

[MD]

Brick (et al)

I don't think the intent was to stymie boisterous discussions on here—far from it—but to ensure that the known boundaries are not crossed. We retirees are more free to speak our minds than our active duty buds, and whereas there may be mechanisms to track down offenders I would think it would have to be a very serious remark that would generate that level of response.

Boisterous discussion is good; and IMHO a discussion or remark would have to be something pretty darn serious (ie- threat against an officia's life, etc) to even garner any level of "response" from law enforcement....or the AF (who's to busy with reflective belts, new uniforms etc anyway). I kid, but you know what I mean. Your next paragraphs below....

No, we only ask that the criticism be constructive and none of the bashing we saw when the incoming administration were simply candidates. It was a gentle reminder of the restrictions that officers face (and I am not sure what article enlisted personnel would be charged under, as Art 88 specifically applies to officers only; but I am sure they’d find one if the need warranted!).

The best approach is to attack the issues and not the individuals. That has already started in my beloved gun thread, as those of us who exercise our Second Amendment rights to the fullest are fearful that another Clinton-like Assault Weapons Ban is on its way.

....cover it well. Bash the issues of the individual if you like, and even criticize the individual as any taxpayer would, keeping in mind the "contempt" line that one would have to follow, if so restricted, and which is defined below:

Allow me to define contemptuous…

con•temp•tu•ous [kuh n-temp-choo-uh s] adj. Manifesting or feeling contempt; scornful

Obviously this translates to angry and/or disrespectful comments towards our elected officials, down to “the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he (the officer) is on duty or present” (I guess ‘he’ applies to females as well!). So if we stick to the topics and issues at hand, and leave the individual bashings to other venues, we will all be A-OK!

Cheers! M2

".....down to the Governor or legislature....."

So County Supervisors, city Mayors, and city/town councils are fair game?

[Guest Nova]

Article 88 applies to the congress as well. Good try though.

"or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Good thing I'm not on duty in Illinois

[magnetfreezer]

Article 88 applies to the congress as well. Good try though.

Had a former Navy legal type say the Congress part of 88 applies to them as a whole instead of individual reps/senators, don't know if this is the official line though.

[Guest Nova]

You are confusing congress with the state legislature. Respective clauses are underlined below.

I hope you know I'm only joking around...I'd never say anything bad about the man personally. I might not agree with every policy but that's a separate issue. I actually met Barack and Michelle this morning at the "Semper Fit" gym on Kaneohe. They were both really friendly people and seemed sincere...I'm curious to see how their next 4yrs in Washington go.

[Fud]

We had a guy on our base recently receive an article 15 for remarks against the POTUS. It was in the base paper, so there were no details, but my guess is that it was bad.

[Guest Bosshog]

We had a guy on our base recently receive an article 15 for remarks against the POTUS. It was in the base paper, so there were no details, but my guess is that it was bad.

Yesterday during my annual UCMJ brief, the PP discussed UCMJ coverage. It looks like as a reservist, when I am not getting paid (off duty), I am not covered by the UCMJ. I was somewhat surprised but glad I can complain about our socialist leaders.

Carpe Diem

[nsplayr]

Saw this today and figured it belonged here. Many people here (myself included) probably play it a little fast and loose with these rules, especially since most here are also officers and the rules for us are even more restrictive. A good reminder that others are watching and many of them are big-timers who will potentially call you out to your chain of command.

Story.

Highlight:

"Just because I'm a Marine doesn't mean I don't have free speech or can't say my personal opinion about the president or other public official just like anybody else," Stein said. "The Constitution trumps everything else."

Um...may need to go read the UCMJ and your enlistment contract again Sgt.

[Guest]

"When we know what we're fighting for, we fight harder," he said.

Seriously?

[Toro]

Story.

Um...may need to go read the UCMJ and your enlistment contract again Sgt.

Bu-bye

[nsplayr]

From Toro's story:

"I've done nothing wrong. I've only stated what our oath states that I will defend the constitution and that I will not follow unlawful orders. If that's a crime, what is America coming to?"

Sounds like somebody else that used to frequent here...

[Butters]

From Toro's story:

Sounds like somebody else that used to frequent here...

Yeah, I miss Rainman to.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Butters

[M2]

Yeah, I miss Rainman to.

WTF, Butters? Responding almost a year later?!?

And your grammar sucks ("to" --> "too").

Go find and post some appropriate visual material for the Squadron Bar Daily Pic & Video Thread NSFW thread...

[nsplayr]

WTF, Butters? Responding almost a year later?!?

Especially since that's not even who I was even talking about...+1 on the T&A penance.

[Spur38]

FINALLY, A DEFINITION OF THE TERM "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

For the last six odd years, almost all of the things I wanted to write or say, have been stymied by a recently coined term referred to as "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS"! Although I consider myself rather fluent in the English language, that term was not in my vocabulary. My curiosity got the best of me and I decided to do a little research and after two weeks of chasing fruitless leads, I found what I'd been looking for at the Truman Library and Museum in Independence Missouri. A unnamed source there sent me copies of four telegrams that were between Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur on the day before the actual signing of the Surrender Agreement. The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as received, not a word has been added or deleted!

(1) Tokyo,Japan

0800-September 1,1945

To: President Harry S Truman

From: General D A MacArthur

Tomorrow we meet with those yellow bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions!

(2) Washington, D C

1300-September 1, 1945

To: D A MacArthur

From: H S Truman

Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press, because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!

(3) Tokyo, Japan

1630-September 1, 1945

To: H S Truman

From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz

Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?

(4) Washington, D C

2120-September 1, 1945

To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz

From: H S Truman

Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!