Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Members of the military are citizens too.
    • Churches can't be overtly political, and members of churches are citizens too. The point is that something as big as letting active-duty military people take part in the democratic process is a Big Deal, not something that should've been slid thru days just before the RNC. This reeks.
      • So I don't get to take part in the democratic process? How am I any less a citizen than anyone else?

        Who are you going to exclude next?
        • Democratic governments and uniforms don't mix.

          Ever.

          Period.

          We have already enough militarism and nontransparent structures of unquestioning obedience as it is.

          Or maybe we should just completely re-run the Spanish-American War and get this fascist [themodernword.com] spree over with. Hell, it has wrecked everywhere else on the planet about once a century; might as well get it over with here.

          • You know what scares me? Politicians attending political rallies. I mean, these people have the power and positions to put some of those ideas into reality.

            Do something on them next!

        • Maybe you missed the part brian, the one where it states that IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Not that laws matter to these folks anymore. Not like the military coup didn't take place years ago, but it's nice to try to keep up the illusion.
          • Which law are you talking about?

            Some newspaper says something and you believe it? I've read the entire Uniform Code of Military justice and it doesn't say I can't take part in a political party as a citizen. They even have officers especially appointed to let us register to vote! The horror!
            • Vets and non-active duty, sure, but active duty guys in uniform? Hey, aren't they supposed to be out shooting at something brown and vaguely menacing? this DoD directive [sdmcp.org] seems pretty clear but, then again, I guess you don't count since you were just in the National Guard and it isn't listed. The contention is on active duty officers....like having a regiment show up at a political rally or something, even if it weren't considered illegal, it'd certainly be very worrisome for this thing the US continues to c
              • That directive says that someone in the military can attend as long as they are NOT in uniform. Read it again "not in uniform". As a veteran myself I can cound zero times that I was told how or who to vote for. Facism? Hardly. Alarmist? Certainly. The reason a church cannot politicize is because there are no rules regarding it. There are plenty of rules and regulations governing the DoD and the services.
              • I don't recall anyone saying anything about people in uniform being at the convention. The law is pretty clear that that uniforms are right out, but I haven't seen any part of the linked discussion that said anything about what people were wearing. All I've seen is an unsubstantiated sentence in an AP wire report that looks like it's based on a RNC press release. That doesn't look like a credible chain of information to me.

                The RNC press release says "active military personnel will make up 3 percent" an [rnc.org]
                • Well, alright then, the more active duty military guys showing up at conventions the merrier. I don't have to care anymore as I left and I don't know why I bother. It should be very worrisome that any active personnel did in fact show up at the convention, law or not. I think people jump to conclusions because things are slipping away from democracy and when people get upset they're just told they're lefties and such.
                  • How are things slippiing away from democracy?
                    • Fascism Checklist ( source [secularhumanism.org])

                      1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
                      2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
                      3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
                      4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
                      5. Rampant sexism.
                      6. A controlled mass media.
                      7. Obsession with national security.
                      8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
                      9. Power of corporations protected.
                      10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
                      11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
                      12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
                    • 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

                      That's not a bad thing, unless combined with some of the things you mention below.

                      2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

                      Not happening, although there are some disagreements in implementation.

                      3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

                      Nobody's been used as a scapegoat, and yes, we did need to unite in the presence of enemies.

                      4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

                      Respecting the military is a bad

                      --
                      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
                • Thanks for the info, it puts the k5 story into perspective.

                  I'm certainly no expert but it doesn't smell quite like fascism to me. Bush supporters in the military now get to be extras in the RNC crowd scenes. They're not writing the platform. (Although, I wonder if we'd have fewer wars if military rank and file got to vote on these radical new doctrines for when you start a war.... yeah I know, that's not what it's about, but just saying.)

                  However, it certainly is a flagrant abuse of power by someone at the
                  • I do not agree. When not in uniform, someone in the armed forces should be able to participate in ANY political event anyone not in the military can.
                    • I don't see how your rebuttal relates to what I said. But anyway, as brian pointed out, the US military disagrees [dtic.mil] with you.
                    • I don't think I pointed that out. When not in uniform there isn't a problem.

                      I also don't see an abuse in power. Indeed, the Secretary of a cabinet level department is mandated to set policy for that department.
      • Nigga bettah get yo ass outta that ghetto before they start gassing all the registered dems in their sleep before the election.

        Yeah, those soldiers are citizens....so were Senator McCarthy, Mussolini and the brownshirts. It's illegal for them to do that since a military coup, although it has already happened, is nice to avoid giving the impression of to the young and optimistic.

        The only law, the only rule, that has stood the test of time is self-interest so follow the money or just find a good nuclea

        • Well now we know that you are at least at full mental capacity. Why not just continue your diatribe and say either Bush or Daschle is Hitler and the US is ready to take over the world!
          • Well, Bush isn't that literate or that smart so why would I suggest that and invoke Godwin? Btw, was that paragraph supposed to actually say something? :)
          • Hey, hey, hey. Nobody's saying we're ready to take over the world. We won't be ready to take over the world for a few more decades.
            --

            ------------------------------
            You are what you think.
      • So you don't want church members to participate either?

        However, you miss the situation: churches can't take part in political activities and still be considered non-profits by the IRS. They are free to be as political as they like, though they might have to pay more taxes if they go that route (and get caught).
      • It turns out that most reports of this are wrong. I first heard about it on the site of Eric Alterman, who at least framed it in the form of a question, and then I saw him correct the record with Brian Lamb on CSPAN last week: these "active duty" delegates were reserves. His web site has the correction [msn.com].

        You can still have a problem with it, if you wish, but it was and is not a violation of the DODD. And it seems to me the changes in the DODD were clarifications, not substantive changes, and not anything
      • Actually they can, it's just that they lose their tax exempt status. It's all a big racket. I never felt churches should necesarily be tax exempt, anyway.

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers