CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home

 Total visits to this poll: 4976

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
AllThis Forum

Since 'fake news' has become an (inter)national problem, should journalists be licensed?

Here's another thought ...

Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
Return to Today's Poll

Sort By Oldest Sort By Oldest 233-224 of 233 223-214 >>  Last >

233. David Tate CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/5/2017 11:16:49 PM)
     Message ID #293058

View All Related Messages
The first amendment would prohibit the licensing of the press. Rather the managers need to provide oversight for the people in the press room. We have had too many instances of the press taking sides, making things up, and being silly. Also the people need to vote with their wallets. In fact the people do have a say given the number of print magazines and newspapers that are failing. Three cheers for the Constitution and Liberty!

232. Joseph Lischka CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/5/2017 11:07:38 PM)
     Message ID #293057

This message is in response to Andy White ( message id #293055 )  View All Related Messages

Who exactly do you accuse of pretending to have served in the military?

231. M Bathurst
     (11/5/2017 10:58:31 PM)
     Message ID #293056

This message is in response to Andy White ( message id #293055 )  View All Related Messages


230. Andy White CEOExpressSelect Member
     Forum Moderator
     (11/5/2017 10:08:17 PM)
     Message ID #293055

View All Related Messages

The more I think about the subject of an active duty or retired officer disparaging superior officers, the more I think about Occam's Razor.

For the Illiterati, Occam's Razor says the simplest solution most often is the correct answer.

For someone to retire from the military as a commissioned officer, he or she must have served 20+ years (or left mentally or physically disabled with a a approrpriate retirement). During that time, he or she would have learned never to disparage a superior officer — whether in writing, in conversation, or in the latrine. It's the culture, and junior officers learn it, or they don't become senior officers. That's the first test.

To do otherwise, and especially to disparage senior leaders publically or to boast about it, implies something akin to stolen valor. Stolen valor is not free speech — it's bragging about serving but never having served. It's showing up at the Veteran's Day parade in a uniform never worn, wearing medals never earned, talking about battles never fought.

Article 88 of the UCMJ specifies that a commissioned officer may not disparage a superior whether under the guise of free speech or simply wanting to show one's ass.

If one wants to parse active duty vs retired service (in the inactive reserve where you can be recalled to active duty,) that tells me that the pretending officer never inculcated the lessons of active duty, never learned officership, and, thus, probably never served. And if he or she served, I thank God I never served with them.

Let me be clear: If a retiree is receiving retired pay — otherwise, legally known as deferred compensation — he or she is subject to recall and the UCMJ. Don't believe it? Please give CID a call.

So, for the pretenders, there are no worries. To my knowledge, no one who has not served has been prosecuted under the UCMJ for disparaging a superior by confirming their own inferiority.

If the braggarts want to bloviate, fine. If they want to take it to the next level, I hope, in time, the appropriate service CID will pay them a visit. I remain hopeful.

There are a lot of laws on a lot of books that are there if they're needed but rarely are enforced. As an example, you can't let an ass sleep in a bathtub in Arizona, but what will we do when the asses and Arizonans awaken?

Finally, if the malcontents had served, it follows that they would find better and more gentlemanly ways to disagree. But since it's unlikely they served, they mean nothing, and they do not deserve our attention.

229. D James
     (11/5/2017 9:36:50 PM)
     Message ID #293054

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #293052 )  View All Related Messages

Sorry but, no. If an address is unsafe then maybe they don't trust YOU any longer. But thanks anyway for validating what I set forth posts back. Why is it that mealy mouthed and feckless spend more time and muscle parsing that which is actually very direct and clear? Have a nice evening.

228. Noel Meyer
     (11/5/2017 8:39:39 PM)
     Message ID #293053

This message is in response to D James ( message id #293048 )  View All Related Messages

"Words do mean things. A pity the Poll Gawd is unable to address that black and white verbiage "

What a Great Pity that America's current Commander-in-chief does not realize that his words have meaning, especially from originating from the 'bully pulpit'.

Would it not be 'presidential' for the president to control his words rather than 'letting Trump be Trump'?

He who would be first must be the servant of all, laws exist for all especially those with power.

227. D Robb
     (11/5/2017 8:33:44 PM)
     Message ID #293052

This message is in response to D James ( message id #293051 )  View All Related Messages

My virus software says your site is unsafe. It is not worth the risk for me to go there. Copy and paste whatever you think you want me to read.
I could be hit by an asteroid or abducted by aliens but I don’t waste time worrying about that happening. The service attempted to court martial a retired service member nearly one hundred years ago and he was acquitted. If you are enjoying this exercise knock yourself out.
Military prosecutors have limited discretion to proffer charges against retirees for violations of the UCMJ. For example, AR 27-10, Military Justice, states, “Army policy provides that retired Soldiers ... will not be tried for any offense by courts-martial unless extraordinary circumstances are present. Prior to referral of courts-martial charges against retired Soldiers, approval will be obtained from the Criminal Law Division ... of the Assistant Secretary of the Army.”

226. D James
     (11/5/2017 7:55:31 PM)
     Message ID #293051

This message is in response to D James ( message id #293050 )  View All Related Messages$FILE/Article%201.pdf

Attention is directed to near the end of the attached regarding retirees.


Editor's Note: Here's more information:
It explains why the public are blocked. Military will understand.

225. D James
     (11/5/2017 7:46:23 PM)
     Message ID #293050

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #293049 )  View All Related Messages

Selective reading (or not) of statute does not absolve you of their scope.

Have a good day.

224. D Robb
     (11/5/2017 7:06:57 PM)
     Message ID #293049

This message is in response to D James ( message id #293048 )  View All Related Messages

Recall an officer!! You cannot prosecute an officer who expresses his political views when he is on active duty if he does them off duty and out of uniform. Again, you do not give up your Constitutional rights when you join the military. It is prejudicial to good order and discipline for any military person who is on duty and in uniform to disparage those placed in authority above him. Period, full stop, and end of sentence.
It always amazes me that those who profess to want to free the individual from the tyranny of government are the first to embrace authoritarian measures to repress free speech and dictate what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors.
  233-224 of 233 223-214 >>  Last >