Veterans Day face slap

[Jersey mike]

The complete lack of respect for our veterans, our flag and our nation demonstrated at Brown University

This article has a quick video that shows what appears to be a young woman with a hand full of flags and throws them at the base of a tree;

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/15/video-flags-removed-torn-brown-u-students-veterans-day?ref=yfp

This article's video shows someone trying to reason with 2 people who seem to not give a crap, the audio is low volume so I could not hear exactly what was being said.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8382

I swear I don't understand what the hell has happened to national pride.

[hubcapsc]

I don't understand why people even go to NFL games now that
some player or players are disrespecting the flag at "every" game.

I don't understand why people even go to NASCAR the way
they spit on the Confederate flag.

-Mike

[samoanrich]

Maybe they should bring back the draft and do away with anytype of deferments. Unless your seriously handicap . Do you two years and maybe that might change there attitudes. As far as that young lady from Brown U let her stand in front of a platoon that just return from a deployment and rest of them that have no respect for our flag. You go to the front of the line for the draft.

[old2soon]

I ever see some worthless scum bag sumbitches I would walk up to them calmly and state-Major James Tremayne and Corporal Vincent "Tiny" Meltzer Died in the Nam along with 58000 others so you could continue to be this effin stupid and unpatriotic.  Carry on. Least ways I PRAY I remain calm. RIDE SAFE.

[cookiedough]

free speech is one thing, but if they touch you, then that means GAME ON all bets are off to what happens next.  If they knock down, for example, an American flag,  let say you pick it back up, they do it again and again same thing,  then sooner or later someone is going to blow a gasket.

I refuse to be slapped around whether by gang bangers or even a little old lady, not going to stand for it.

One of these days, someone dishonoring America in such a way is going to end ugly, and am sure it has already 100's of times. 

[FLAVALK]

A resident liberal will be by soon to explain that it's their right to do so. That in itself will help explain the logic of these kids. They don't give a fu#k about anything or anyone but themselves 

[Oss]

Mandatory service from 18-19 is a way of life that needs to come to the USA

It doesnt have to be the Army, Navy Air Force or Marines or Coast Guard

Hopefully Trumps rebuild america plan will have a provision requiring this and also granting veterans
priority on jobs

[cookiedough]

Mandatory service from 18-19 is a way of life that needs to come to the USA

It doesnt have to be the Army, Navy Air Force or Marines or Coast Guard

Hopefully Trumps rebuild america plan will have a provision requiring this and also granting veterans
priority on jobs

I do not agree with that statement Oss with mandatory service of some kind.  NO one should be forced in todays society unlike previous war times to serve in some form. 

also,  what is the granting veterans priority on jobs mean?  I feel it should go by best candidate for the job, not because of if you belonged to a certain organization or race, etc.   

[old2soon]

cookiedough-The ONLY thing I'll say about giving a Veteran preference on a job is this-A veteran signed a contract up too and Including their life. Those two names I mentioned earlier in this post-Major James Tremayne-U S Army Infantry and Corporal Vincent Tiny Meltzer U S Marine paid the Ultimate price. They won't EVER find a job in this lifetime. RIDE SAFE.

[Moonshot_1]

Mandatory service from 18-19 is a way of life that needs to come to the USA

It doesnt have to be the Army, Navy Air Force or Marines or Coast Guard

Hopefully Trumps rebuild america plan will have a provision requiring this and also granting veterans
priority on jobs

I do not agree with that statement Oss with mandatory service of some kind.  NO one should be forced in todays society unlike previous war times to serve in some form. 

also,  what is the granting veterans priority on jobs mean?  I feel it should go by best candidate for the job, not because of if you belonged to a certain organization or race, etc.   

As to mandatory service, we are forced to pay taxes which we must work for, a mandatory service program (military, civil, full or even part-time) would be perfectly fine. As to the war part of the discussion, wouldn't be a lot better to have our society prepared for war before it occurs? I don't recall any country being able to declare a timeout in time of war so they can be better prepared.

On Veterans receiving priority on jobs. Qualified candidates should get the jobs. But there should be a value placed on being a Veteran and serving the country. So a qualified applicant who is a Veteran should make the top of the list. Should a business be required to hire a less qualified Veteran over a more qualified applicant? No. But all other things being equal, being a Veteran should add to your value in the job market.

[Jess Tolbirt]

I don't understand why people even go to NFL games now that
some player or players are disrespecting the flag at "every" game.

I don't understand why people even go to NASCAR the way
they spit on the Confederate flag.

-Mike

I have noticed a LOT of empty seats at the races

[Jess from VA]

My decades of Federal service showed me the existing Veteran's preference was, in practice, no more than a tiebreaker among other qualifications (obviously more help at entry level/unskilled positions, than professional positions).  On the other hand, affirmative action (or whatever you call it), was way more than a tiebreaker.  Certain numbers and goals were going to be met, even if the candidates were seriously less qualified than others (and this was not just hiring, but promotions to higher levels of responsibility).  I mean, I'm glad they have it, but it is more window dressing than actual help for veterans.

With the numbers of college age idiots walking around protesting and tweeting and seeking safe spaces, I can only imagine the mass protests/riots if an actual draft was brought back.  While a draft might go a long way to helping thousands of entitled babies grow up into responsible adulthood, one wonders if they would do more harm than good to the military (or peace corps or other qualifying programs).  And all of the bottom tier, no skill/unskilled jobs ought to go the the FSA, if a work requirement is brought back for welfare, as it should be.

Making people serve/work who don't want to is a very difficult task  

[Oss]

Thanks mike

You got what  I  was getting at exactly

Also after service I would like to see placement in either vocational training or college.

Kind of a back end rotc

[LandElephant]

Please don't destroy our military by forcing people to serve.  It's clear that many of you did not serve in Vietnam when there was a draft that force citizens to serve in the military.  Sometimes it was not pretty.

Job Corp yes, military no. as an all volunteer military we have the right to choose the most qualified, not get stuck with a diluted pool of candidates.

So OSS, as I watched to many unqualified Marines lose their life of parts of their bodies we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

But, where is the accountability of the parents to teach right from wrong.  Or our American society to pass down the traditions of honoring our countries emblem.  I remember in school being force to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Sing or listen to the National Hymn, even pray to show honor to this country.

These where taught in school, at home, and in church. Our history and traditions were displayed at every event.  Where has that gone?  New citizens now don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance at their swearing in ceremony to become citizens.

The problem is deeper than just showing disrespect to our countries flag.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

[The emperor has no clothes]

Please don't destroy our military by forcing people to serve.  It's clear that many of you did not serve in Vietnam when there was a draft that force citizens to serve in the military.  Sometimes it was not pretty.

Job Corp yes, military no. as an all volunteer military we have the right to choose the most qualified, not get stuck with a diluted pool of candidates.

So OSS, as I watched to many unqualified Marines lose their life of parts of their bodies we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

But, where is the accountability of the parents to teach right from wrong.  Or our American society to pass down the traditions of honoring our countries emblem.  I remember in school being force to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Sing or listen to the National Hymn, even pray to show honor to this country.

These where taught in school, at home, and in church. Our history and traditions were displayed at every event.  Where has that gone?  New citizens now don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance at their swearing in ceremony to become citizens.

The problem is deeper than just showing disrespect to our countries flag.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

And herein lies the problem with Steven Bannon. Breitbart puts out this blatantly wrong BS. And many people suck it up and believe it. IT'S NOT TRUE ! A person still is required to take the oath. There is an exception for religious beliefs (such as the Amish) about bearing arms in war. They are still required to defend the country in noncombative ways.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-changes-oath-of-allegiance/

[LandElephant]

Sorry, My mistake.

[hubcapsc]

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartJ-Chapter3.html

[The emperor has no clothes]

Sorry, My mistake.

No problem. Didn't mean it to come across as judgmental. I'm more pissed at these supposed news sites that knowingly put out BS. 

[hubcapsc]

Sorry, My mistake.

No problem. Didn't mean it to come across as judgmental. I'm more pissed at these supposed news sites that knowingly put out BS. 

Not your mistake Charlie, it's Meathead's...

Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority,  legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s Naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance.

Immigrants seeking to become citizens no longer have to pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States.” They can opt out of that part of the Oath. Nor do they have to cite any specific religious belief that forbids them to perform military service. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/25/obama-invites-18-7-million-immigrants-avoid-oath-allegiance-pledge-defend-america/

Other than that Breitbart sounds pissed about it, the above seems accurate to the uscis.gov link I posted...

-Mike

[The emperor has no clothes]

The current oath is as follows:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.[2]

8 C.F.R. 337.1 provides that the phrase "so help me God" is optional and that the words ‘on oath’ can be substituted with ‘and solemnly affirm’.

If the prospective citizen is unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant military service, they may request to leave out those clauses. The request must be based on "religious training and belief", and the CIS may require supporting documentation from the candidate's religious organization.[3] A request was denied in 1968 on the basis that "[the petitioner did not recognize] some external force greater than man's relationship to man which occupied a position in his life tantamount to a God or a Supreme Being."[4] The precedent relied upon was United States v. Seeger.

However the Supreme Court, in their 1970 ruling on Welsh v. United States, ,[5] having noted the case factually similar and controlled by United States v. Seeger, determined in respect to the provision in the Universal Military Training and Service Act that exempts from military service persons who by reason of "religious training and belief" are conscientiously opposed to war, that the Act:


This seems pretty clear to me. They are required to take the oath. They may leave out the phrase under god. They may leave out the bearing arms part, but they have to submit evidence of a religious reason.

[Moonshot_1]

Please don't destroy our military by forcing people to serve.  It's clear that many of you did not serve in Vietnam when there was a draft that force citizens to serve in the military.  Sometimes it was not pretty.

Job Corp yes, military no. as an all volunteer military we have the right to choose the most qualified, not get stuck with a diluted pool of candidates.

So OSS, as I watched to many unqualified Marines lose their life of parts of their bodies we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

But, where is the accountability of the parents to teach right from wrong.  Or our American society to pass down the traditions of honoring our countries emblem.  I remember in school being force to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Sing or listen to the National Hymn, even pray to show honor to this country.

These where taught in school, at home, and in church. Our history and traditions were displayed at every event.  Where has that gone?  New citizens now don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance at their swearing in ceremony to become citizens.

The problem is deeper than just showing disrespect to our country's flag.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

We do not know what the future holds. This Country is nothing more than an idea that common people can govern themselves. While we may be the World's ultimate Super Power, it is and always has been a tenuous privilege we have enjoyed. The ability to defend this privilege depends on those very same common people.

We make assumptions on the stability of this Country. Just this past election, if all those protesters were to have been militant, bringing out their weapons and aggression instead of crawling into safe spaces with their playdoh, anarchy and Civil war would be the story of our Day.

Perhaps a political breakdown would open the door to an actual invasion with us too wrapped up in our own domestic infighting to take it on.

The point is I don't believe mandatory military service is a bad thing. Deploying those that are not capable is another discussion and I'm not suggesting anything like that. But to at least require a minimum of Service and serve in a reserve capacity so that in a time of National emergency, or a time of National crisis, all citizens are well versed in the ability to defend their communities and themselves.

To accomplish this would likely be one of the solutions to the second part of your post. To create and support a society that holds the ideas and ideals that Our Country is based on in the Highest Regard.

We would defend nothing less.

[baldo]

And herein lies the problem with Steven Bannon. Breitbart puts out this blatantly wrong BS. And many people suck it up and believe it. IT'S NOT TRUE !

[/quote]

WHAT !!??? Brietbart is printing falsehoods  AKA LYING ????? Say it ain't so....

As far as Bannon goes, he is really bad news. If DT is serious about him being in the office next to his, get ready boys, it's gonna be a rocky ride!

[hubcapsc]

This seems pretty clear to me. They are required to take the oath. They may leave out the phrase under god. They may leave out the bearing arms part, but they have to submit evidence of a religious reason.


Modified Oath for Religious or Conscientious Objections:

deletion of either or both of the following clauses:​

Bearing arms on behalf of the United States if required by law​

and​

Performing noncombatant service in the U.S. armed forces when required by law​

Must show opposition to clause (or clauses) based on religious training and belief
or deeply held moral or ethical code. Applicant may provide an attestation
or witness statement. ​



What you typed in is pretty clear to me too. However, it is the amendment above
that Breitbart was talking about. The amended oath allows them to leave out
"bearing arms" and "performing service" basically "because they want to", it
doesn't need to be a religious objection.

"Knowingly putting out BS" is different from being partisan, as Breitbart and
Huffington post (and most media these days?) are.

I'll never forget the Supermarket checkout newspaper I saw that had the headline:

Man Cuts Off Own Head With Chainsaw and Survives

-Mike "That was BS"

[baldo]

-Mike "That was BS"

I like your signature lines.....

[hubcapsc]

I ran across some more "man cuts off own head with chainsaw and survives"
BS (political, though) in the New Yorker today...

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency

Even though it was made by Richard "Rorty, a left-leaning philosopher, who died in 2007",
they thought this quote was important to include:

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out.

That's right, we're going to bring back Jim Crow, put the Chinese to work on the
railroad and go back to rolling queers...

Yeehaa!

-Mike