On 10/9/2017 at 7:07 PM, ChouDoufu said:

can i start?

 

i think i'd begin with this here quote:

 

" Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

and then i'd explain that "freedom of speech" applies when the GOVERNMENT is trying to restrict it, although even then, it's

not absolute.  see "yelling fire in crowded theater".  see "incitement

to riot".

 

and finally i'd mention that EMPLOYEES do NOT have a right

to free speech AT WORK.  employers CAN restrict your speech

at work, and potentially outside of work, depending on

contractual provisions.

 

HUH!  that was easy!  ..........next.

We see how the government is trying to define patriotism as what it likes and what it wants from Americans. That is, the Americans the government does not like -- those who Constitutionally take a knee during the anthem.

We see the militarization of the civilian society by the Pentagon and by military veterans and by active duty military personnel. Their idea is to make the civilian society more like the military in attitudes, demeanor, conduct, behaviors, thought. The rightwing advocates actively for both the administration and the veterans on the right who dominate the veterans discourse.

The military voted for Trump by a huge margin. So did veterans of the All Volunteer Force. So did other rightwingers.

The players were required by owners in 2009 to come onto the field for the pre-game national anthem after the Pentagon gave a $200,000 contract to the league to promote, ahem, "patriotism." Now we have come to this because surely a suit will be filed in U.S. District Court.

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Legal-experts-split-on-if-NFL-can-punish-for-12270268.php

Civilians employ the military to protect us, not to order us or to boss us into being more like the military. If the NFL is going to change in fan popularity let's have it happen without the government, the military, veterans, and other rightwingers targeting it for an absolute extinction rather than an adjustment. (If an adjustment is what might be occurring among fans.)

This is yet another made in America to-do that is likely headed for the courts to clarify.

13 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Why doesn't the UK or someone build another artificial island in the South China Sea?

It murders the reefs they are built on. Neither do I want to be doing the same violations of UNLOS that the CCP Dictator-Tyrants are doing.

Besides, the artificial islands are ducks on a Chinese pond. The artificial  islands are specks that get taken out by USN between breakfast and morning coffee break. Between breakfast and lunch on a Sunday.

The Reuters article omits some important factors.

One is that the Paracel islands where USS Chafee did its FON OP Tuesday are in Vietnam territorial waters as established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. CCP Boyz signed UNLOS in 1997 and have since declared the Convention null and void in the SCS.  Beijing and Pyongyang have similar notions about negotiating agreements and signing treaties, i.e., each say yes then do as they please.

Pentagon chose the Paracels in VN waters for this FON now because CCP Dictator-Tyrants in Beijing had told Hanoi in August to get its drilling rig out of the Parcels or CCP would do a military attack "immediately" to destroy the rig.  Hanoi withdrew the rig. During summer SecDef James Mattis announced a FON schedule for SCS to normalize the OPs so this one by the USS Chafee is how it happened.

Further, after the new year the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and its  USN Strike Group 1 will dock in Cam Ranh Bay where VN has constructed new piers and facilities to accommodate aircraft carriers (that are not Chinese or Russian). France and the US are already operating aircraft carriers in the SCS with UK coming very soon with one of its two new carrier strike groups. 

It would be good too if the whimp Australia government joined in with the allies to resist the CCP Dictator-Tyrants in Beijing. So far all we get from PM Malcom Turnbull is a yellow streak.

Another Reuters omission is that the Chafee did not sail inside the 12-mile limit of any Paracel islands because they are natural islands. As natural islands they do have the 12 mile jurisdiction under the UN ILOS. USN ships sail inside 12 miles of CCP artificial islands because ILOS says artificial islands have no territory or zone of jurisdiction. Zilch. This is a major point as CCP Dictator-Tyrants are claiming sovereign jurisdiction of 200 miles from each  of the seven artificial islands they have constructed, in addition to the natural islands they have invaded to take possession of, such as the Paracels since back in the 1970s and 1980s.

CCP Boys have trashed completely and willfully their own myth of a "Peaceful Rise." We are seeing instead a noisy stall of CCP belligerence and aggression in the face of organized and determined opposition throughout the region. The Boyz are swell-headed and wrong to think that in the 21st century they can simply swat away the opposition that is occurring against 'em by virtually every maritime neighbor they have. 

CCP are in fact the neighbor from hell. Same as always over the past thousands of years.

5 hours ago, Kim1950 said:

From my underground bunker I'll keep my eyes on those Trump Nazi Active Military. Got my anti-tank rockets and two year supply of InfoWars food supplies. Shit, just Expat to Pattaya and spend my remaining days with paid company half my age.

 

Nothing like a Thai Gal, ask Obama. He had a few human rights issues with Thailand over those student demonstrators. Easily overcome with a smile from the land of smiles. 

 

Keep us posted thx.

After all, NFL in USA and militarily deposed Thai prime ministers and other Thai women are central to the thread. Not to mention your antitank rockets you ascribe yourself as having -- tongue in cheeks of course.

Have a good one thx.

2 hours ago, Kim1950 said:

"ESPN’s Jemele Hill suspended from network for two weeks." One more time, she's toast. Just like, Colin Kaepernick. Forget all your principled ideals, the NFL's  'Thank You For Your Service' pulp drama and I am a disabled veteran it's about the Benjamins. This is how it will come down on the players. Just like how all the feminist actresses, liberal actors, and politicians got down on Harvey Weinstein. Where were all the knees before the Iraq War.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/09/espn-s-jemele-hill-suspended-from-network-for-two-weeks.html

My "principled ideals?"

Cops are killing unarmed black people for free.

Trump's Nazis were in Charlottesville again Saturday night.

Trump's Troopers love it to include the vast majority of politically active military veterans who are rightwingers through and through.

15 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

               The N.Korean people are an amazing study in group think.  When in NK, they all act the way they're required to act.   Whether they all think the same way is debatable.   If a survey taker were to ask them, that person would get all the same answers.  Yet people can say things which are different than what they really think.   It's called lying.  It's easy.   Trump and Pence do it every time they emit noises from their mouths.

 

                     Personally, I think the real thoughts of the N.Koreans fall into two categories;   Those who genuinely like the group-think structure they're saddled with, and those who secretly yearn to think freely.   I could even go so far as to compare them to Americans; Those who genuinely want Trump to give them direction, and who want to believe all he says. ......and those who are able to think freely.

 

Things are more polarized in N.Korea.   .....or are they?

 

 

 

 

Indeed and I offer an illustration from when I was university faculty in China.

I put an essay question on a final exam asking the differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party in USA. This was in a course on native English speaking society, culture, political and economic systems; civilization -- each of the six countries that we populate.

I expected the same-same 'no' answer but I had been wondering if any one or a few PRC learners might vary. I not only got the fully predictable 'no' answer, but I got it word for word. From every paper.

That's the CCP-PRC. All indications are NK is far worse. I read a piece and watched a  CNN video interview of Suki Kim who taught English in Pyongyang to the children of the elites. Her experience sounds like zombie land. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/undercover-reporter-north-korea-cult-cnntv/index.html

I'd just emphasize the bottom line of history about Korea to include the three kingdom period, i.e., the Korean people don't rebel nor do the Korean people fight hard to resist invaders. The Korean people are docile and they submit. Korea has no actual military heroes. They'd rather switch than fight. It is only since Since World War II for the NK rulers, and the Korean War for the SK elites, that a warrior class has developed on each side. The people themselves submit no matter who or what.

Caligula's First Consul was also a horse.

35 minutes ago, Kim1950 said:

What's that the NPHCWAUBA? You make that up. You would think there is a Secret Police Society. A 'Crime Wave' over the top. 

It is national from coast to coast and border to border.

When gangsters do it it's call a crime wave. When the police do it publicly without any secrets it gets called by this poster as the National Police Homicide Crime Wave Against Unarmed Black Americans.

If it isn't catchy so what. It is meant to get people's attention as a way to express what the NFL and others are drawing attention to and objecting to. If it displeases some people, well, homicide has nothing pleasant about it, especially when the police do it and it is understood by 'em to be free of charge(s).

The 8 year old football players who took a knee in the video I posted had asked their coach about the riots occurring in neighboring St. Louis where an assassin homicide cop got acquitted for killing a black guy....

Coach, parents support 8-year-old football players kneeling during national anthem to protest racial injustice

They decided to take a knee to support St. Louis protestors who are protesting the acquittal of a white cop who was accused of killing a black man

The team’s coach, Orlando Gooden, said that he was having a discussion with the team about the protests during practice.

“One of the kids brought it up and asked, ‘What’s going on in St. Louis? Why are they demonstrating and rioting?'” Gooden told the Belleville News-Democrat.

One of the kids told Gooden: “Because black people are getting killed and nobody’s going to jail,” Fox 2 St. Louis reported.

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/09/video-coach-parents-support-8-year-old-football-players-kneeling-during-national-anthem-to-protest-racial-injustice/

38 minutes ago, amvet said:

You wrote, " Protesting demonstrators never said they "don't like the USA."

Kaepernick used words to that effect when he said he had no pride in America and would not stand for the Anthem.  That's all I said.

 

I was replying to another poster when you interposed to include wanting an apology for nothing substantiated and which you did not get. 

I myself see the protests and demonstrations as being against the National Police Homicide Crime Wave Against Unarmed Black Americans.

In the country we all love. 

1 minute ago, amvet said:

Nothing wrong with not liking America but that's what the football players are saying and you might as well admit it.  We fought a war over issues that many in the country didn't like and it has always been legal to protest. 

 

Am I a super patriot because I don't think the black panther salute is appropriate for the National Anthem? I don't think so.  But, of course I would fight for their right to sit or give the black panther salute to the National Anthem if that is what they wanted to do. 

I do of course reject others trying to put words in my mouth. And I reject others wanting me to admit to the words others tried to put in my mouth. The thread is indeed continuing to slip and slide downhill. 

Pence in Indianapolis was a farce so it should not be a surprise that trying to defend his stunt takes us to the same. Pence traveled from Las Vegas to Indianapolis to San Diego in one big swing. San Diego was the fundraiser, not for the trip but for Pence Himself. 

1 hour ago, amvet said:

I'Il repeat it.  Kaepernick said, " am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game"

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem

 

You wrote, " Protesting demonstrators never said they "don't like the USA."

Since he did say in so many words that he didn't like the USA don't you think you owe us all an apology? 

 

No I haven't stopped beating my wife. A loaded question is an illegitimate question that gets dismissed immediately. The rightwing meanwhile has not stopped reading anti-Americanism into the Constitutionally motivated protesters and their Constitutional demonstrations. 

Pence and Trump need to get down on their knee before the Constitution which is superior to the anthem and the flag together. Very many of the military veterans need also to learn to respect civilian citizens in their daily life, to include of course NFL. This would mean the overbearing veterans of the military recognize the UCMJ does not apply to civilians no matter how much and how hard youse try to bring it about. Youse need to recognize and accept civilians run the country while the armed forces are employed by us to defend it. 

This thread too is starting to go far afield as the superpatriots begin to scramble all the more. The topic has backfired as Pence is taking serious heat for spending a lot of other people's money to fly from Nevada to Indiana and to San Diego all in one big swing. In San Diego was the rah rah fundraiser. The way I figure the Pence fundraiser, they did the pledge of allegiance, played and sang the national anthem then the money basket got passed around. 

45 minutes ago, amvet said:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people, and people of color,"

 

You wrote, "Protesting demonstrators never said they "don't like the USA.""

 

Kaepernick said, " I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people, and people of color,"

 

 

You are saying he said something he did not say. Still trying over there to read into and misrepresent the statement.

Here is what Kaepernick did say...

"This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t."

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/09/video-coach-parents-support-8-year-old-football-players-kneeling-during-national-anthem-to-protest-racial-injustice/

White guyz with power and money.

Maybe Pence could have gone to this protest demonstration in Oakland where 8 year old players, their parents and coaches agreed on taking a knee. Trump and Pence do in fact need to take a knee before the Constitution which is the law of the land the flag represents. 

The Constitution is btw predicated on the principle that the government that governs best governs least. Methinks therefore Trump and Pence should play more golf. And travel abroad more.

55 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

The problem here is, this is NOT an issue about free speech.  The issue is about teamwork, unity.  When members of a group act in ways not in common with the team, the team suffers.  Protesting during the national anthem is just improper.  Not because it is the national anthem.  I don't want anybody to have to do anything that is arbitrarily pressured on them.  But if you have something to protest about, go join a protest group, form a society, create a web page, donate money to some cause, donate your time to helping that cause. So you were prejudiced against, put down, discriminated against, saw something the USA did that you didn't like? Join the club.  Life is not perfect.  But Don't now start saying you don't like the USA after all the opportunities it gave you.  You got football scholarships, you get paid reasonably well.  You don't have to sit and write, and create software code, or design complex engineering things as I and other technical people do.  Play the game, work on your team unity.  You are hurting your teams, and organizations.  I assure you many people, in measurable amounts will be spending less money watching football.  Good luck with your choices

Protesting demonstrators never said they "don't like the USA."

The premise in the post is a 100% fail.

It is the case anyway two-thirds of Americans surveyed disapprove of the job Trump is doing as Potus. This is a major reason Trump is standing on ceremony and wrapping himself in the flag. The NFL protests are further revealing Trump-Pence-Putin as a Big Fail. Each day now when I see Trump I see our next unindicted co-conspiritor.  

4 hours ago, RandolphGB said:

Blacks need to respect the country that has made them great. They'd be nothing without the USA. This is a country that allows them to become millionaires for throwing a ball around. 

Police are already proud they are in a country where they can turn traffic stops into homicides and get away with it.

13 hours ago, Srikcir said:

To "declare war" - yes.

To mobilize the military against a foreign power - no to some extent.

 

War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President to commit armed forces to military action for up to more than 60 days without a Congressional authorization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Possible_repeal

In terms of nuclear and non-nuclear attacks, 60 days is a lifetime.

 

Recently Rep. Sen. Rand Paul attempted to repeal the WPR but defeated 61 to 36.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/war-powers-aumf-rand-paul-senate-242662

This curb on Presidential power has never been tested in Court, ie., as to its constitutionality. It is notable that President Clinton allegedly violated the law with military action in Kosovo in 1999, but no legal action was taken against him.

 

Of course.

Several times since 1973 members of the House have filed suit in federal court to stop the Potus executing provisions of the WPR as approved by Congress or not approved by Congress. Scotus has thrown out every suit. Scotus said it is indeed a Constitutional question but the answer(s) are provided by Congress and the Executive Branch. War and peace are not within the realm of Scotus to determine or decide. 

The bottom line is the WPR is Congressional action informing Potus what he can or can't do with the military, why, and under specified conditions to include timeframes. Yes Congress could have impeached Clinton over Kosovo and yes again it did not, but only because impeachment would have been a serious Constitutional undertaking with legacy issues of war and peace. It is indeed up to Congress to act or not to act in war or peace.

Congress has specifically granted Potus power to commit armed forces or Congress has ceded by inaction powers to Potus to engage military forces. Just about the only thing everyone accepts or, more accurately expects, is that Potus has authority to launch a massive retaliation in the event of a full first strike of nuclear weapons inbound against the United States.

Recall also Potus/CinC nominates the most senior military and naval commanders whose appointment is determined by vote of the Senate. When generals and admirals appear before the Senate for their nomination hearings they are responding to their Constitutional appointing authority. Bottom line is that If the Senate were to vote to appoint me commanding general of something I'd know who provides the bucks for my paycheck and who appointed me. Congress did not impeach Truman when he fired McArthur because Congress knew Truman was right to fire him. Had Congress decided instead to impeach Truman then Truman would have found himself impeached -- etc.

Moreover, the Senate and the House vote on the promotion of every officer from lowly lieutenant to four-star commander. This makes each officer of the armed forces appointed to his rank by the authority of the people through their representatives in Congress. Potus is a bystander administrator only. Potus is in fact CEO of paperwork to include paperclips. Lots of it.

A Senate committee has refused to approve a promotion to admiral for a Navy officer.

The Senate Armed Service Committee took no confirmation vote on the nomination of Capt. Timothy W. Dorsey. Because the Senate did not act, the nomination goes back to the White House. The Navy has the option of trying to resubmit his nomination.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/3/senate-balks-at-promotion-for-navy-officer-who-sho/

5 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Well let's hope we never have to find out but I think most senior officers have a very strong code of 'follow orders' and it's unthinkable that any would treasonably disobey a lawful command from CiC. 

The military officer oath is to the Constitution only.

Potus is not in the military officer oath -- no one is in the military officer oath. This is by the design of the Founders. The Founders wanted the officer corps of the armed forces to have their loyalty to the three branches of the government, not to any one man or any single official. Washington's oath written for the Continental Army and Navy in 1777 was to the thirteen states assembled in the Continental Congress -- only (Washington being appointed by same). 

The title of commander in chief that is in the Constitution is an administrative position and nothing more. It makes Potus chief executive of the armed forces too. However, it does not make Potus a general or an admiral, nor does it make Potus/CinC Caesar and it certainly does not allow for a Caligula. 

Officers learn this while cadets at West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs and at USCGA New London CT. It is a part of the curriculum in university Rotc and at the private military academies such as Citadel, VMI, Texas A&M, Norwich and the many others. 

The Founders were explicit that military officers not be bound to any one official of the government, namely, Potus. The Founders feared tyranny in one man, one person, one official. The oath of the military officer to the Constitution only is a bulwark against this occurrence conceived and designed by the Founders.

Yes, there are officers in the armed forces who see Potus as literally commander in chief and who give him their supreme and ultimate loyalty and obedience. These officers are few however and it may well be they miss the entire point of the Framers. The vast majority of military officers rather know that Potus/CinC is not their supreme potentate plenipotentiary regal highness lord chancellor and absolute ruler. Military officers' loyalty is to the Constitution and they know this. Military officers are dedicated to the three branches of the republican government.  Period.

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

There have been many instances of executive power being used in US if there is a direct threat. You are wrong. Nor do i believe that any General or Admiral would disobey the President.

 

Your last sentence is just foolish. Military OBEY lawful orders and it is not for them to decide how 'wise' or 'sane' they are period.

Potus does not have the Constitutional authority to launch a first use nuclear strike against North Korea. His only Constitutional means is to gain the specific approval of the Congress. Without the authorization of the Congress Potus would be violating his oath of office and subject to the consequences.

20 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I agree there are no good option re; NK.  But one less-than-awful option would be as follows:

 

Surgical strike to take out Kim and as many of his top brass as possible.  In the ensuing turmoil, Chinese, S.Koreans, US and others come rolling in to try to establish order.  The incursions would be military, but primarily carrying multitudes of aid packages for regular people:  food, clothing, small appliances, gifts and so on. 

 

When the N.Korean people realize two things are happening at once:  A. the heads of the serpents are cut off, and B. they're inundated in food/clothing/gifts, ......they may start on the long path to recovery. 

 

The biggest impediment to that is the NK military.   They're all primed to mindlessly fight, similar to hornets whose nest is breached.  

 

Admittedly, it's a screwy scenario, but perhaps the less so than other scenarios.

 

Best would be an internal uprising, but that's near impossible, because everything Kim and his closest aides do is designed to protect against that. 

Well intended and motivated but several governments would need to coordinate in advance of a surgical strike by one of 'em for all of 'em to move into NK into already agreed zones of possession to distribute the goodies. All the initiating governments would need to take out any and all NK military forces before they could destroy Seoul and launch against Japan. U.S. has 70,000 forces and a lot of families in each place in addition to the 150 million civilians living in the two places. Putin and all Russians would be hopping mad not to be included -- and that would be only if all the governments could work as the allies did in WW II. 

There are no good options. I wish there were some hope or optimism but the way I hear it the Pentagon has worked through a couple of dozen options and each one of 'em is a stinker. Methinks and fears it might make Trump believe all the more he has the magic bullet/bomb and that it is all on him to set things straight in his own unique way.  

22 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

This is NOT Thailand and military will do as they are told. Any more provocation and I think they should do a limited strike. Take out those scum before he gets even stronger.

Everyone is well aware the USA is not Thailand. In the USA the power to declare war is vested in the Congress, not the Executive. USA has no monarch with sole war making powers nor does USA have a Caesar with same. That USA has a Caligula in the White House does change the equation however.

The oath of the U.S. military officer is to the Constitution only and exclusively. That means the officer oath is to the Government of the United States -- all three branches of the government. The military officer oath excludes Potus as the Founders designed it to be exclusionary of Potus the executive. There is no person/official in the military officer oath. The military officer oath establishes an exclusive direct line from the military officer to the Constitution, i.e., the three branches of the Government.

If the general/admiral in command of the War Room of the Pentagon receives an order from Potus Trump to launch first use of a nuclear weapon against North Korea, the officer can have the option to call the SecDef. Or the Speaker of the House. Or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Or to call all of 'em....and others. He/she can determine what the other heads of the branches of the government might say about a Potus Caligula ordering the first use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

No court would convict the general or admiral who showed this kind of exemplary and courageous professionalism. We know that no one in the military is required to obey an unlawful order. Equally, no officer in the U.S. military is required to obey a lawful order that is either blatantly unwise or questionable of its sanity.

On 10/6/2017 at 9:59 AM, tonray said:

I think what would have to happen is NK divided up into "east and west berlin" so to speak. the top half would be Chinese sector with the lower section American/SKorean. this would maintain Chinese border integrity with no western troops on its doorstep.

Kim would never allow or accept it. He and his elites would turn to NK long term supporter Russia to include for strategic military support.

As has been pointed out in scrolling, the CCP Boyz in Beijing would see this as yet another super high risk option if might they think of it as an option, which I doubt entirely.  Further, Chinese and Americans staring at one another across yet another cold war "Berlin border" would be inviting new risks.

There are no good options. There is only the very bad status quo or the very bad alternative to the very bad status quo. Nor could I imagine any U.S. commander accepting a launch order from Trump for first use of a nuclear weapon.

One could wonder what advice Trump might get sooner or later from Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, the seven members of the joint chiefs and chairman, to include perhaps retired four-star armed forces commanders. Methinks the chaos of the Trump administration has only begun to begin.

Special Ops general: The government is in 'unbelievable turmoil'

General Raymond Thomas commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

Raymond Thomas testifying on his nomination to be general and commander of the US Special Operations Command during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 9.

Speaking at a military conference in Maryland, Gen. Raymond Thomas told attendees: "Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil. I hope they sort it out soon because we're a nation at war."

When asked later about his comments, Thomas told The Times: "As a commander, I'm concerned our government be as stable as possible."

http://www.businessinsider.com/socom-commander-government-unbelievable-turmoil-2017-2

Let's look at the military officer oath as the Founders proscribed it:

I, _____, (name; SSN) having been appointed an officer in the _______ (branch of service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

The exact wording has changed since General Washington first wrote the oath for officers of the Continental Army and Navy. The Founders further proscribed the officer oath to be to the Constitution and to the Constitution only, i.e., to the government of the USA. The officer oath since 1789 has consciously and deliberately excluded Potus from it. The officer oath is instead to the government of the United States. Which means the three branches of the government. The idea was to protect against one man becoming a tyrant, or as a safeguard to a Caligula becoming Potus.

Well thought through I'd say. 

So what music is played over there when youse run up the white flag and heads explode.

1 hour ago, amvet said:

I said, "football players disrespecting the traditions of the America" You are grafting or grifting the thread to mean something I didn't say like constitutional or legal or military.  It is a cultural tradition in the United States and every other country in the world to stand for the National Anthem.  Black footballers in America are thumbing their nose at the dominant culture because they are rich and spoiled and think they can insult people who they perceive have or are insulting them. 

 

OK good for them.  It will serve two purposes.  1.  Media profit.  2.  Anger in both the white and black communities. 

This poster continues to post to The Endless and Meandering Thread for a couple of specific reasons and particular purposes.

One is to focus on the National Police Crime Wave Against Black American Citizens which is inextricably intertwined with the NFL protest and demonstrations.

Another is to correct the many veterans of military service who seek determinedly to impose their views and attitudes on the civilian citizen society and culture, to include whenever possible the laws.

Although I served voluntarily for a regular tour of honorable active duty and I am a veteran, I among other vets do not identify as an active or professional veteran. That is, I do not believe or feel I come from a superior position from which I must impose a kind of military order and discipline on the thoughts or behaviors of the supposed aimless and decadent civilian society of disrespectful liberals.

In the military services the flag is prominent daily -- 24/7, in one way or another. The flag and the anthem are especially sacred, honored, respected. Daily. They are a joined point of UCMJ unity, discipline, pride, motivation. Civilian life is a direct contrast, i.e., we don't see the flag much nor do we hear the anthem much. We don't stand at attention at all, much less salute. One reason is that neither the anthem nor the flag are the property of any single group to define or to own.

Admiral Mike Mullin who retired with 43 years-in has high praise for Mattis, McMaster, Kelley and also the lifelong civilian SecState Tillerson. It's having the country rely on four-star military brass for its stability that sets him up in his chair. 

Americans' Trust in Generals Problematic: Former Joint Chiefs Chairman

Admiral Mike Mullen (retired) served two terms as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2007-2011. He was chief of Naval Operations from 2005-2007. Adm. Mullin is professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and Studies at Princeton University where he also advises informally U.S. Naval ROTC.

5 Oct 2017

"I am increasingly -- I'm not surprised, but I am concerned about the dependence of the American people on Jim Mattis, H.R. McMaster, John Kelly and Rex Tillerson," he told an audience at the U.S. Naval Institute's 2017 Naval History Conference in Annapolis.

"The question that I ask is how did we get here, to a point where we are depending on retired generals for the stability of our citizenry," he said. "And what happens if that boulder breaks, first of all, and when."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/10/05/americans-trust-generals-problematic-ex-joint-chiefs-chairman.html

Former Joint Chiefs Chairman says Trump White House "self-generating" crises

"I don't have a lot of problems with the president and the administration disrupting D.C. because I think it has not  functioned well for a long time, but there has to be a process, there has to be a way to get through the issues in some reasonable way," said Mullen.

Mullen added, "clearly there is one issue after another, and to the degree the administration feels it's under siege, they keep generating the crises. If you continue to press hard on the intelligence community, the worry is the intelligence community may pull back on what they share with the president."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-mullen-former-joint-chiefs-of-staff-chairman-trump-white-house-self-generating-crises/

Admiral Mullin who did not attend the retirement ceremony of LTG Michael Flynn admonished Flynn after the "lock her up" rant Flynn led at the Republican National Convention last year. Mullin reacted this way when he heard Flynn was appointed national security adviser to Potus....

"When I knew him, he clearly had the temperament. If it's the 'lock her up' temperament, that's not who I'd want to advise me from a national security perspective," Mullen said.

"Certainly the trip to Russia where he's sitting next to President Putin and his comments about Russian media tied to that raise questions, with respect, from my perspective and I think that's obviously something that will unfold pretty quickly," Mullen said.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mullen-isnt-sure-flynn-still-has-temperament-to-be-national-security-adviser/article/2607930#!

Flynn was as we know gone after a couple of weeks from his farcical appointment as national security adviser to Potus Donald Trump. Fortunately and by the design of the Founders, the military officer oath is to the Constitution only -- Potus is not included in the officer oath of loyalty. No person or official is in it. The officer oath is to the Constitution only, i.e., the three branches of the government.

2 hours ago, amvet said:

The topic is kneeling and sitting and giving the black power salute not - are black people denied rights.  I'd be more than happy to debate if there is a homicide crime wave against blacks but I don't think it is the topic except to mention in passing as the reason for the protests and angering half of the population is not going to make it go away. 

 

You think there is a homicide crime wave against black people and I don't.  OK that's one thing. 

 

What I perceive this thread is about is what has football players disrespecting the traditions of the America got to do with helping them sell the dominant culture on change for minorities?

While the Constitution was ratified in 1789 the thirteenth amendment wasn't proposed and ratified until 1865. Mississippi did not ratify the 13th Amendment until 1995. Fortunately of course the Amendment had taken effect in 1865.

There has never been a Constitutional or Constitutionally legal tradition in America to stand during the national anthem....or to salute the flag...or to pledge allegiance to the flag...or for civilians to obey the military or to adopt the military's codes, traditions and values, to include those embedded in so many of the veterans of the military.