Posted on Jan 29, 2015
29
28
1
I get a lot of static for being openly critical of this Administration. As a retiree, I have more latitude to say what I'm thinking and I have the ability to say things without fear of losing my job.
For active duty, not so much. Not that long ago, a Marine Sgt was given an OTH discharge for using his Facebook page to criticize the Cmdr-in-Chief.
I'd like to get your opinions on General James Mattis and other General Officers being openly critical of the failures of this Administration. Are they right to do so? Or should they just gloss over the mistakes and do their utmost to make the Administration look good?
For active duty, not so much. Not that long ago, a Marine Sgt was given an OTH discharge for using his Facebook page to criticize the Cmdr-in-Chief.
I'd like to get your opinions on General James Mattis and other General Officers being openly critical of the failures of this Administration. Are they right to do so? Or should they just gloss over the mistakes and do their utmost to make the Administration look good?
Chain of Command
Politics
Leadership
UCMJ
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 110
54
54
0
Capt Jeff S., here are President Theodore Roosevelt's thoughts on the subject. He made this statement to the Kansas City Star newspaper in the last year of his life (c.1918), so his comments, in my opinion, were directed to the general public, a civilian population. They are weighty words, but from one who once served as President.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Cpl Jeff N., PO2 William Allen Crowder, SGT (Join to see), SGT Jim Z. and SSG (Join to see)
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Cpl Jeff N., PO2 William Allen Crowder, SGT (Join to see), SGT Jim Z. and SSG (Join to see)
(54)
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
LCDR (Join to see), this forum did not exist when Bush was President, so that is a ludicrous comment to make. You have no idea what I was saying when Bush was president. Incidentally, I assume you mean "quite suspect" and not "quiet suspect".
Roosevelt made his comment in 1918. He made no reference to party or president then nor did I in my comment recently. Roosevelt was clear that it was the duty of each citizen to make known the GOOD and the bad of each president regardless of their affiliation, so your suspicion that I'm bringing it up now that Obama's in office to criticize what is bad about him is even less merited. I made no comment as to Obama's performance in any way. In my comment, I impugned no president's integrity, current or past. However, you chose to slam Reagan and Bush, so who's the one exhibiting bias? You stated the comment was racist as well, which is simply beyond absurd, it's insulting and preposterous, yet you did not explain how you came to that conclusion either. Quite simply, both of your responses are poorly conceived and irrelevant.
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" CW5 (Join to see) Capt Jeff S. COL Jean (John) F. B.
Roosevelt made his comment in 1918. He made no reference to party or president then nor did I in my comment recently. Roosevelt was clear that it was the duty of each citizen to make known the GOOD and the bad of each president regardless of their affiliation, so your suspicion that I'm bringing it up now that Obama's in office to criticize what is bad about him is even less merited. I made no comment as to Obama's performance in any way. In my comment, I impugned no president's integrity, current or past. However, you chose to slam Reagan and Bush, so who's the one exhibiting bias? You stated the comment was racist as well, which is simply beyond absurd, it's insulting and preposterous, yet you did not explain how you came to that conclusion either. Quite simply, both of your responses are poorly conceived and irrelevant.
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" CW5 (Join to see) Capt Jeff S. COL Jean (John) F. B.
(5)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
LTC Stephen C. - It is a waste of time to have a discussion with someone who has had an Obamatomy and drinks the Kool-Aid of the Democrat Party.
(6)
(0)
SPC Les Darbison
I only wish the media would tell the truth about President Donald J. Trump. The last President said we would have to get used to a GDP at or below 2%! He gave aid to Iran while they supplied IEDs and weapons to Islamists around the world. And Iran is responsible for the deaths of over 600 troops in Iraq and hundreds more being named by aforementioned IEDs. Obama did his little bit where he dropped the Mic as he said what does Trump have magic waned to bring back manufacturing to America, No magic waned just big pare of BALLS. And a tactical skill set to get things done.
(1)
(0)
PO2 David Hawthorne
As usual their is a proper channel and ultimately the President is commander. I don’t think the problem was the critic but instead the method. Ultimately any of those officers would hold their same subordinates accountable to the same. The problem now is a new administration replacing command structure with hand chosen activists. Military are career positions and as such should not have decisions on arbitrarily related to political parties. Ultimately they serve the nation to guard against tyranny as well. Despots garner military power to control the masses.
(1)
(0)
33
33
0
The same liberal folks that personally and viciously attacked President G.W. Bush (who I'm not a total fan of) are now wondering what has gotten into people that they think they can criticize our (p)Resident. For the record, I think he's a phony and a fraud and his presence in the White House is a testament to the stupidity of American voters.
I grew up in Illinois and both my parents were Democrats. My father was a union employee. And then he began to see that unions had outlived their useful purpose and were serving themselves moreso than their members. He remarked that he would rather not be in a union if given the option. My brother voted for Obama both times.
When I first heard about Obama, I was living in South Carolina and not really paying too much attention to what was going on in Illinois, but Obama had just given a speech at the 2004 DNC and what he said sounded good and I thought to myself, "He's going to be a fast rising star in the Democratic Party." Little did I know that he would be their candidate in the 2008 General Election.
So in 2008, when I saw that Obama was running, I vetted him. And within 30 sec of vetting I had already dug up so much dirt on the guy that I realized he wasn't who he said he was and was more than likely ineligible. The fact that Obama, when questioned about his eligibility, became very evasive and hid behind technicalities instead of being up front and straight forward... and the fact that he wasn't being transparent on this issue, told me he's hiding information that would make him unelectable if the public knew about it.
How can anyone vote for empty promises coming from a guy with no background and whose Academic credentials have never been disclosed?
And as bad as it was that he got elected (with the help of election fraud AND voter fraud), and after his poor performance in the first four years where he never even passed a budget (because even the Democrats couldn't vote for the budgets he was proposing), people voted for him again. And again with the taint of corruption everywhere and using the IRS and other gov't agencies to suppress his opponents, and with the help of more election fraud, Obama was re-elected. One has to wonder what people were thinking when they voted for him. Even the blacks were worse off under his watch yet they voted for him again albeit not as overwhelmingly as before.
Now we're six years in and the only promise Obama has made good on is that he is transforming America. Into what is debateable. He has shredded the Constitution, bypassed Congress at will, says he will use his pen and phone to accomplish his goals, and ran the national debt up even higher (almost doubling it!).
Our national security has been compromised, we have traded a deserter and are releasing Al Qaeda prisoners taken off the battlefield so that they can attack us again, and even Cuba is demanding reparations for the embargos we slapped on them for their human rights violations. Our military has been decimated and we have lost many of our best high ranking officers, our police are being militarized, and the people's voice in gov't is being ignored.
Further, our (p)Resident has weighed in on cases before the evidence was collected when it is not his job to render judgment and we have seen him divide the public with his race-baiting and the help of his race-baiting cronies Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson who are simply extortionist political hacks that have no churches that call them their preacher. I really don't see much positive coming out of this Administration.
I grew up in Illinois and both my parents were Democrats. My father was a union employee. And then he began to see that unions had outlived their useful purpose and were serving themselves moreso than their members. He remarked that he would rather not be in a union if given the option. My brother voted for Obama both times.
When I first heard about Obama, I was living in South Carolina and not really paying too much attention to what was going on in Illinois, but Obama had just given a speech at the 2004 DNC and what he said sounded good and I thought to myself, "He's going to be a fast rising star in the Democratic Party." Little did I know that he would be their candidate in the 2008 General Election.
So in 2008, when I saw that Obama was running, I vetted him. And within 30 sec of vetting I had already dug up so much dirt on the guy that I realized he wasn't who he said he was and was more than likely ineligible. The fact that Obama, when questioned about his eligibility, became very evasive and hid behind technicalities instead of being up front and straight forward... and the fact that he wasn't being transparent on this issue, told me he's hiding information that would make him unelectable if the public knew about it.
How can anyone vote for empty promises coming from a guy with no background and whose Academic credentials have never been disclosed?
And as bad as it was that he got elected (with the help of election fraud AND voter fraud), and after his poor performance in the first four years where he never even passed a budget (because even the Democrats couldn't vote for the budgets he was proposing), people voted for him again. And again with the taint of corruption everywhere and using the IRS and other gov't agencies to suppress his opponents, and with the help of more election fraud, Obama was re-elected. One has to wonder what people were thinking when they voted for him. Even the blacks were worse off under his watch yet they voted for him again albeit not as overwhelmingly as before.
Now we're six years in and the only promise Obama has made good on is that he is transforming America. Into what is debateable. He has shredded the Constitution, bypassed Congress at will, says he will use his pen and phone to accomplish his goals, and ran the national debt up even higher (almost doubling it!).
Our national security has been compromised, we have traded a deserter and are releasing Al Qaeda prisoners taken off the battlefield so that they can attack us again, and even Cuba is demanding reparations for the embargos we slapped on them for their human rights violations. Our military has been decimated and we have lost many of our best high ranking officers, our police are being militarized, and the people's voice in gov't is being ignored.
Further, our (p)Resident has weighed in on cases before the evidence was collected when it is not his job to render judgment and we have seen him divide the public with his race-baiting and the help of his race-baiting cronies Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson who are simply extortionist political hacks that have no churches that call them their preacher. I really don't see much positive coming out of this Administration.
(33)
(0)
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The hypocrisy is what gets me. Liberals had no problem bashing Bush. He was a coward because he served in the NG instead of going to Vietnam. But if you bring up the fact that Obama never served in the military, you're a racist. It was a "failure of leadership" when Bush raised the debt ceiling. But if you mention that Obama raised the debt ceiling 3 times, you are only saying it because he is black. Bush ignored the constitution and abused his executive authority. But if you complain about Obama using executive orders to bypass congress, you are a racist. Apparently it is a character flaw because Trump was married to a super model and there are racy pics of her on the internet. But it was none of our business what Clinton did in his personal life when he was molesting women and abusing an intern in the Oval Office. Trump isn't qualified to be POTUS because he isn't giving us a detailed plan on how he plans to make America great. But it was perfectly fine when Obama was making vague promises of "hope and change".
(4)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
I am not a fan of Trump's ego or his blue collar mouth. That said, what do we have to choose from?
Hillary Clinton: A pathological liar and evidence hoarder who was booted off the Watergate Investigating Committee for lack of ethics, who as First Lady fired the White House travel staff and put all her friends in there, who as Secretary of State ignored 600 requests for additional security and got our Ambassador killed -- and then obfuscated investigations into the matter. She has learned nothing from the mistakes of her past and is STILL an unethical liar. This time around, it's looking like she WILL be indicted (assuming Tom Delay is correct) for her use of a Private Email Server which had Top Secret information on it. Whether AG Lynch chooses to prosecute or not is not going to stop this from blowing up in the courts. If AG Lynch refuses to prosecute, she will go down as well. We can only hope...
Bernie Sanders: Would be the oldest self-loathing white guy the Democrats ran for office in my lifetime. I might be able to stomach the hypocrisy of that from a party that claims to be multicultural but runs Sanders, Clinton and Warren (aka Pocahontas)... but a Socialist who promises to raise taxes and increase the role of the Federal Government in our lives? Uh, no thanks. Our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
Donald Trump: Is a big mouth with a big ego to match. Soooo, if you voted for Obama, why does this bother you? The difference between Trump and Obama (besides Trumps 150 IQ, business savvy, and negotiating skills) is that Trump wants to Make America Great Again. Trump has a sensible policy for immigration (enforce Federal Immigration Law and deport illegals). Meanwhile, Obama has opened our borders and is flooding America with refugees who will further strain our already overburdened welfare system. Obama goes around apologizing for American exceptionalism and is doing everything he can to marginalize America's international influence. Trump intends to reverse that and he has the savvy and background to pull it off.
Dr. Ben Carson: Intelligent, soft-spoken, competent and accomplished, though the least experienced of the GOP candidates in dealing with politicians. His background suits him well to a cabinet level position where he can gain experience and perhaps run again after making a name for himself in politics. He would make an OUTSTANDING Surgeon General.
The next two GOP Candidates are unfortunately Constitutionally unqualified to serve -- just like our present Commander-in-Chief.
Ted Cruz: A brilliant, Harvard educated lawyer who is Constitutionally ineligible (just like Obama). How can Ted Cruz claim to be for the Constitution if he chooses to ignore the Constitutional qualifications for POTUS. He is qualified in every way except that he wasn't born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. That's Vattel's definition of Natural Born and that happens to be the one our Founding Fathers referenced often. It's a no-brainer. The 14th Amendment does not make Cruz eligible. It does not supercede the Constitutional requirements of office spelled out previously. A person as smart as he should know better than to think he's eligible. Why let the media think for you? It's all there in black and white, for those willing to investigate for themselves. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that Canada is not U.S. sovereign territory, and that parents, being plural, means both. See reference below.
Marco Rubio: Soft on immigration, bought and paid for. Unlike Ted Cruz, Rubio was born in the U.S. so he meets Blackstone's definition of Natural Born, which our Founding Father's rejected. According to Blackstone, natural allegiance is permanent; a subject can not renounce their allegiance. But since Rubio is an anchor baby and was born in Miami to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, he is not Natural Born according to Vattel.
So do two wrongs make a right? Chester Arthur was ineligible but it wasn't known till AFTER he died. We know enough about both Cruz and Rubio to know they aren't qualified... so why are they running? If either of them gets elected, they can not charge Obama with fraud seeing they are equally guilty of ignoring the Constitutional qualifications of office. Why go there?
===============================
Vattel Link: (referenced by our Founding Fathers)
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Vattel, Book 1, paragraph 212...
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackstone Link: (which the British used, and our Founding Fathers rejected)
http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-110/
Blackstone Book 1 Chapter 10. Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
Pay close attention to the 2nd paragraph...
"Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. "
... "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.12 For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature.13 An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king to England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law,14 that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."
Hillary Clinton: A pathological liar and evidence hoarder who was booted off the Watergate Investigating Committee for lack of ethics, who as First Lady fired the White House travel staff and put all her friends in there, who as Secretary of State ignored 600 requests for additional security and got our Ambassador killed -- and then obfuscated investigations into the matter. She has learned nothing from the mistakes of her past and is STILL an unethical liar. This time around, it's looking like she WILL be indicted (assuming Tom Delay is correct) for her use of a Private Email Server which had Top Secret information on it. Whether AG Lynch chooses to prosecute or not is not going to stop this from blowing up in the courts. If AG Lynch refuses to prosecute, she will go down as well. We can only hope...
Bernie Sanders: Would be the oldest self-loathing white guy the Democrats ran for office in my lifetime. I might be able to stomach the hypocrisy of that from a party that claims to be multicultural but runs Sanders, Clinton and Warren (aka Pocahontas)... but a Socialist who promises to raise taxes and increase the role of the Federal Government in our lives? Uh, no thanks. Our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
Donald Trump: Is a big mouth with a big ego to match. Soooo, if you voted for Obama, why does this bother you? The difference between Trump and Obama (besides Trumps 150 IQ, business savvy, and negotiating skills) is that Trump wants to Make America Great Again. Trump has a sensible policy for immigration (enforce Federal Immigration Law and deport illegals). Meanwhile, Obama has opened our borders and is flooding America with refugees who will further strain our already overburdened welfare system. Obama goes around apologizing for American exceptionalism and is doing everything he can to marginalize America's international influence. Trump intends to reverse that and he has the savvy and background to pull it off.
Dr. Ben Carson: Intelligent, soft-spoken, competent and accomplished, though the least experienced of the GOP candidates in dealing with politicians. His background suits him well to a cabinet level position where he can gain experience and perhaps run again after making a name for himself in politics. He would make an OUTSTANDING Surgeon General.
The next two GOP Candidates are unfortunately Constitutionally unqualified to serve -- just like our present Commander-in-Chief.
Ted Cruz: A brilliant, Harvard educated lawyer who is Constitutionally ineligible (just like Obama). How can Ted Cruz claim to be for the Constitution if he chooses to ignore the Constitutional qualifications for POTUS. He is qualified in every way except that he wasn't born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. That's Vattel's definition of Natural Born and that happens to be the one our Founding Fathers referenced often. It's a no-brainer. The 14th Amendment does not make Cruz eligible. It does not supercede the Constitutional requirements of office spelled out previously. A person as smart as he should know better than to think he's eligible. Why let the media think for you? It's all there in black and white, for those willing to investigate for themselves. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that Canada is not U.S. sovereign territory, and that parents, being plural, means both. See reference below.
Marco Rubio: Soft on immigration, bought and paid for. Unlike Ted Cruz, Rubio was born in the U.S. so he meets Blackstone's definition of Natural Born, which our Founding Father's rejected. According to Blackstone, natural allegiance is permanent; a subject can not renounce their allegiance. But since Rubio is an anchor baby and was born in Miami to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, he is not Natural Born according to Vattel.
So do two wrongs make a right? Chester Arthur was ineligible but it wasn't known till AFTER he died. We know enough about both Cruz and Rubio to know they aren't qualified... so why are they running? If either of them gets elected, they can not charge Obama with fraud seeing they are equally guilty of ignoring the Constitutional qualifications of office. Why go there?
===============================
Vattel Link: (referenced by our Founding Fathers)
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Vattel, Book 1, paragraph 212...
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackstone Link: (which the British used, and our Founding Fathers rejected)
http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-110/
Blackstone Book 1 Chapter 10. Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
Pay close attention to the 2nd paragraph...
"Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. "
... "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.12 For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature.13 An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king to England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law,14 that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."
Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I
A NATION or a state is, as hasbeen said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of menunited together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantageby their combined strength.
(0)
(0)
SGT Dayna Tappe
So well spoken. It's funny, because I was also in SC and took a PolySci class at USC-S. Even with my right wing roots, my young teacher had me almost drinking the kool-aid about him. I even almost voted for him, but after I did my own "vetting" process, I completely changed my mind... But being AD, I simply did what all people do and save that info in triplicate. Just thinking about the things you didn't mention and the lives that were needlessly lost makes me sick. I'm surprised to see this well written/ worded statement. The minute I said something online. I'd be locked out of accounts, etcetera. Anyways, nice to stumble across someone else who did what I did and thinks the same thing. Cleverly worded!
(0)
(0)
24
24
0
I think veterans and retirees have the right to say what they want depending on their position. But definitely not for those that are still serving.
I also think that it should be done in good taste and a professional manner. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Sometimes people are just argumentative. When people take that approach, walls go up immediately.
I also think that it should be done in good taste and a professional manner. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Sometimes people are just argumentative. When people take that approach, walls go up immediately.
(24)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
PV2 (Join to see) I'm retired/self-employed. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about such things...
(1)
(0)
CPT James Burkholder
Retired career military personnel have the same rights as any other citizen, providing they do not express information they have that is/was classified. Veterans fall into the same group.
There are millions of veterans who have opinions, sometimes based on their experiences during combat or non-combat service. Should these people not be able to express them. NO. The country is better hearing from them.
There are millions of veterans who have opinions, sometimes based on their experiences during combat or non-combat service. Should these people not be able to express them. NO. The country is better hearing from them.
(2)
(0)
SPC James Bertino
Above all else our oath of service is to the US Constitution FIRST and the President second.
(0)
(0)
PO2 David Hawthorne
I believe those that have served honorably have earned the right and responsibility to speak more so than any other. However if in active service your fury is to serve the Commander.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google