Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105
  1. #101  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    That was always my understanding of the rule. Just because someone served doesn't make them above criticism for their political opinions, imo. But I have seen others take the position that you can't call an asshole an asshole, simply because he wears/wore the uniform.
    It is happening on both sides of the isle too.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    That was always my understanding of the rule. Just because someone served doesn't make them above criticism for their political opinions, imo. But I have seen others take the position that you can't call an asshole an asshole, simply because he wears/wore the uniform.

    Since I am the one that originally developed the “no veteran/military bashing rule” on CU let me explain the intent to you.

    During the initial invasion of Iraq the Liberals would attack American military men and women for being dumbshit lackeys of Bush. I and others explained that the military people were doing their duty and if the Liberals had a problem with the reasons for invading Iraq they needed to take it up with the civilian leaders that issued the orders. We felt it was demeaning to the brave men and women that served to be used as hateful pawns for the filthy anti war morons.

    The rule was never designed to protect any veteran or active duty personnel from criticism for legitimate reasons. It was not to protect anybody from challenge when they said something really stupid. It was not designed to protect anybody that put the interest of a foreign country ahead of the interest of the US. It was simply a rule to keep the hateful Left Wing agenda off of CU.

    Now since I stepped down from my Admin role on CU other people may have expanded or changed the rule but that was the original intent established probably six or seven years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,106
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    Since I am the one that originally developed the “no veteran/military bashing rule” on CU let me explain the intent to you.

    During the initial invasion of Iraq the Liberals would attack American military men and women for being dumbshit lackeys of Bush. I and others explained that the military people were doing their duty and if the Liberals had a problem with the reasons for invading Iraq they needed to take it up with the civilian leaders that issued the orders. We felt it was demeaning to the brave men and women that served to be used as hateful pawns for the filthy anti war morons.

    The rule was never designed to protect any veteran or active duty personnel from criticism for legitimate reasons. It was not to protect anybody from challenge when they said something really stupid. It was not designed to protect anybody that put the interest of a foreign country ahead of the interest of the US. It was simply a rule to keep the hateful Left Wing agenda off of CU.

    Now since I stepped down from my Admin role on CU other people may have expanded or changed the rule but that was the original intent established probably six or seven years ago.
    Admin hasn't changed it but in practice some of the posters seem to think it has a different meaning.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    Since I am the one that originally developed the “no veteran/military bashing rule” on CU let me explain the intent to you.

    During the initial invasion of Iraq the Liberals would attack American military men and women for being dumbshit lackeys of Bush. I and others explained that the military people were doing their duty and if the Liberals had a problem with the reasons for invading Iraq they needed to take it up with the civilian leaders that issued the orders. We felt it was demeaning to the brave men and women that served to be used as hateful pawns for the filthy anti war morons.

    The rule was never designed to protect any veteran or active duty personnel from criticism for legitimate reasons. It was not to protect anybody from challenge when they said something really stupid. It was not designed to protect anybody that put the interest of a foreign country ahead of the interest of the US. It was simply a rule to keep the hateful Left Wing agenda off of CU.

    Now since I stepped down from my Admin role on CU other people may have expanded or changed the rule but that was the original intent established probably six or seven years ago.
    I understood the intent quite well, but thank you for confirming it. Personally, I haven't seen it interpreted it differently in quite some time, but I'm definitely not around here that much. I can remember a couple of years ago when some people (and a very few mods) took it to mean that people that were retired/active duty, could not be criticized. But, for the most part, those people are gone, or at least not in current leadership positions, as far as I know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    This brings up a question for me, I had thought the rule against attacking servicemen referred to incidents like when our Vietnam veterans were called baby killers and how soldiers are attacked merely because some think it is evil just to be a soldier . Recently here it has been used if you have any dissagreement as to a military mans view or call into question a soldiers behavior in activities and opinions that have nothing to do with their service.
    Are we cheapening the intent of the rule?
    I don't consider myself above reproach if I say something that is out of line. I interpret the rule to mean that we cannot demean people for being in the military, the nature of the service that we do or our loyalty to the United States (the last of which implies a violation of our oath). The obvious exception to that is when someone who has served honorably turns his back on that service for base motives, such as Benedict Arnold's betraryal of America or John Murtha's comments about the Marines in Haditha. Charlie Rangel's attempts to reinstitute the draft in order to undermine operations by fomenting campus radicalism are pretty close. Anything else is fair game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Lord have mercy on my wretched soul!:eek::eek:
    Just say the Pledge of Allegiance and the Gettysburg Address, and you are absolved. :D
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •