Thank you very much

It’s prefectly legal for Gen. Pae to say what he did.

It’s also perfectly legal for everyone to lambast him for his remarks. Why do you hate free speech?

Actually, it’s the tacit of the rabid, slavering, fear-mongering uber-right to smear people. Don’t believe me? Just look what they did to Pres. Clinton! He’s the most investigated President in history!

Irnoically, he’s also the most exonerated.

Once again we see the fringe left going crazy because someone dare speak against what they support. But let us not forget as it is represented on this forum. The hate that the left has for religion, especially Christianity they don’t hesetitate to show and speak, but oh, oh becareful of someone from the right speaks their mind and their beleifs, then the left claims violations of all types of laws.

and one more thing, it is only a political statement to those that want to make this issue political.

Any and all people in the USA whether in the military or not have the right to publicly say, whether or not they believe acts of homosexuality are moral or immoral.

the issue at hand here is that the left hates it when anyone tells them that the things they support are immoral.

It is a very old left wing tactic to try to character assasinate or to professionally destroy anyone and everyone that speaks their mind against their beliefs.

Freedom of speech for the fring left is allowing only those that agree with them to voice their opinion, everyone else they will try to silence.

I’m pretty sure Ben disappeared after the suggestion of a penile implant!
Man, it must suck to have such inadequacies as Ben and St. Daryll.
No wonder they project such hatred towards what they don’t understand. It’s pure overcompensation for a particular short coming. (Either that, or they just won’t admit that they have an interest in exploring their own homosexuality….because, it’s a choice, dontcha know. So sayeth our hallowed Saint Daryll)

Since you’re such a follower of the Bible, tell me, do you burn everything that your wife touches when she’s having her period? It’s in the Bible, so you must do it, right?

How about killing your children when they curse at you? It’s in the Bible, so you must do it, right?

Why do you pick & choose the verses of the Bible that you follow?

That’s true. Without Progressives, as a woman, you wouldn’t have the right to vote, own property, or even speak in public. Without Progressives, as a Jew, you wouldn’t have the right to practice your religion. Without Progressives, we’d still have Jim Crow laws, which I’m sure you hate us *pissing* on. And once again, without Progressives, hatemongering wh*res of hate like you would still be “lynching” gay people without any restitution.

You’re right, we *piss* on the hate that you CONS call *tradition* all of the time. And you’re well – dum bass st*pid c*nt! You don’t deserve it, but c*nts like you aren’t why we do it!

Mocks our traditions? You mean our traditions of religious tolerance, and secularism? Because you *mock* our traditions daily – st*pid c*nt!

How about this? Male/female marriage represents far longer than 1000 years of history and relative stability on the planet – you are free, however, to mock the institution….Hypocrite. Comment by valiant venus — March 20, 2007 @ 12:34 am

So does women being *sold* into marriage, women being treated as property, slavery, and polygamy – all of which still exist in more than just Utah, and throughout the world. You are free to be *ignorant* that the institution of marriage was a way to shuffle around property (yes, that’s you – a woman) until the last century or so.

Sorry st*pid c*nt, but it’s more fun to mock YOU! Because, you’re a st*pid c*nt!

You don’t get it do you? You came to my country and insulted my Government by your crass behaviour. Sorry son but that doesn’t make me a hypocrite. Understand the meaning of the word before you sling it about.

Oh yeah, grow up a little please

Pointing out Progressives attempts to throw a wrench into society “mocks your traditions?” Pray tell. Ohhhhh….I get it…..your tradition is not to be upended. How about this? Male/female marriage represents far longer than 1000 years of history and relative stability on the planet – you are free, however, to mock the institution….Hypocrite.

The US Constitution guarantees us that Pace is free to express his opinion on any question asked unless the response contains ’secret information’ He is in the opinion that engaging in the filthy disgusting behavior of gay butt sex is not only a sin but in fact an abomination and a precursor to extinction.

Comment by Ben — March 19, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

Actually Ben, that is incorrect.

Free speech, as guaranteed by the first amendment, does exist in the military. Senior officials, both military and civilian, agree that unlimited free speech is inconsistent with command, control, and military authority on which the armed forces are based and, therefore, must be restricted in some degree if the military is to maintain its capability for immediate and unified action. An army or navy whose members are allowed to spread internal dissension and disorder constitutes a hazard with perhaps as great a potential for danger to the country as a hostile foreign power.

Within the armed forces, restraints take the form of regulations that require review and clearance for release of information by military members and prior approval for the distribution or posting of written material on a military installation. They also prohibit personnel stationed overseas from participating in demonstrations.

Enforcement of these regulations, policy restraints, and traditional restrictions affecting discipline is accomplished through seven articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Specific articles prohibit:

1. Commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the President and other senior civilian government officials.

2. Any person from behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer.

3. Insubordinate conduct (speech) toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer.

4. Willful disobedience of an order or regulation.

5. Persons from making provoking or reproachful speeches or gestures towards other persons subject to the UCMJ.

6. Conduct unbecoming an officer.

7. Conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces, or that will bring discredit upon the service.

A more recent military case that reached the Supreme Court, Parker v. Levy, has further defined the limits of military free speech. Dr. Levy was convicted for making disloyal and disrespectful comments to enlisted personnel intended to promote disaffection among the troops, in violation of articles 133 and 134, and for failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of article 92.

Although the issue on appeal was the vagueness and overbreadth of articles 133 and 134, the Supreme Court’s decision has considerable application to the issue of military free speech rights. The Court said that while members of the armed forces were not excluded from the protection of the first amendment, a different application was required because of the fundamental need for obedience and discipline. Stressing this uniqueness, the Court stated that civilian first amendment standards do not automatically apply to the military.

The Court relied on the Court of Military Appeals to explain the unique need of the military. The latter court stated in United States v. Priest:

The armed forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.

Within the military they have three distinct forums for opinion by the military professional:

1. Within the military: Opinions can be voiced freely within the chain of command. Once a final decision has been made, however, the soldier’s responsibility is to work in a creative and dedicated manner to execute the decision.

2. Before Congress: A military man can freely express personal opinion when asked. Once policy has been established, it is his duty to cite the policy and his intent to follow it. If asked, he can state an opinion at odds with the policy, so long as the opinion is so identified.

3. Dealing with the media: The officer must be aware that even before policy is established, expressing personal opinion may be contrary to the national interest. On the other hand, in some cases, discussion may be helpful in the formulation of policy. The official must be sure to state that policy has not been established or is subject to final review by military or civilian authority.

Is luv supposed to make you puke? :P

Comment by Zooey #178

I vote she gets deported back to primordial ooze.

Comment by Zooey #205

…”People let me tell ya ’bout my beest frieend”…

…”ain’t luv grand?”…

heh :-D

I vote she gets deported back to primordial ooze.

Just a note to everybody, bigots don’t have “enormous principle and integrity”.

Comment by valiant venus #67

virulent venereal,

…so YOU can worship your kings and queens…

I think I missed that film. Heh. No it’s not that bad. I was just burnt out on it.

You’ll have to tell me some of your stories. That was the best part about being around the attorneys — the stories. :)

Well done of having your money work for you. I’ve just got to the point in my life when I realised that I can’t party non-stop anymore. Very upsetting. OK, not really, I’ve got a load of stories to tell the grandkids. And they are all genius.

Surely a legal Assistant isn’t that bad? From my understanding of US films, you’re partner got shot just before retirement and you had to go out and avenge him by shooting Schandez or something? :-)