The original YouTube video - http://youtu.be/3TSxm2V8aVQ - already has over 326,000 views!
The main counter is still stuck at 305, which is normal for new videos (though they typically update after 12 hours...but I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt for now).
ANYWAY, you can check out the most recent view count on the search page, which I screen captured: http://i.imgur.com/mdBHM.jpg
Matthew said "you're not supposed to campaign in military clothes"
Yes, that is a standard guideline. However, you are allowed to if you have gotten your chain of command's prior approval. Shoot, when I was in the Navy (2002-2006) you weren't allowed to wear your uniform anywhere off base without prior approval, unless you were traveling on orders.
@Anon 5:31, Interesting link. According to "defense sources" he is not active duty, which would seem to be of some importance. Since clearly he is not presenting himself as representing the military, the only possible indiscretion seems to be wearing the uniform to a political event. Yesterday there were some posters here who suggested that he had disgraced the uniform by his actions. That seems a bit much. I think one could argue more forcefully that by obeying unconstitutional orders and fighting illegal and immoral wars he had disgraced the uniform. or perhaps that is what wearing a US military uniform is all about.
Hey Yankees, I thought it was "Land of the free and home of the brave...", ra ra ra. They interview that chicken hawk, Gingrige, the Vietnam War dodger, and you all just love him, the coward.
bunch of crap is what it is, I saw it live and I thought finally they will have a soldier stating truth and then whammo, I knew it would be all over you tube and twitter
During Ron Paul's speech later, Ron Paul got him back up there to finish his talk. CNN covered it in its entirety. I was at a place that also had Fox News on at the same time and guess what? When the soldier got introduced, Fox News pulled away!
What a joke. Blitzwolf didn't even wait to see if the feed would come back. I've seen that same thing happen many times before and they always hang on waiting for a bit to wait for it. Not this time though. The instant the soldier started speaking against the approved policy of MoreWar they cut the feed. I'm glad I trashed my teevee four years ago.
I have heard some of the sheeple say that Ron Paul is a fraud because it goes against the constitution for him to do this.
But I ask this:
How is this a violation of the constitution? The constitution doesn't say anything about soldiers in uniform making political statements. And the only place in the Bill of Rights that says soldiers do not apply is Article V (commonly known as the Fifth Amendment) that states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
If the other amendments don't apply to soldiers then why is this the only one the authors said doesn't?
My Googling on the rules: Apparently, only if you claim to speak for the service are you in trouble... Obviously, he made no such claim. After all, he IS a citizen.
This is the least important comment that will be posted here all day -- it's just some administrative business -- but I need to go ahead and post it:
Is there any way to tweak or re-code this site so that clicking the "Comments" link on a given post will take one to the START of the comments thread -- rather than to the bottom (where the posting box sits)?
With all due respect (because I do love this blog), it's a constant irritant, particularly with lengthy comments threads. One must maneuver back up the page to start reading the conversation, which is a waste of a few clicks and scrolling time.
I saw it live and was shocked they got a soldier in uniform to speak about Ron Paul...when it was cut off I was not shocked or surprised AT ALL.
ReplyDeletehttp://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2012/01/04/exclusive-military-investigating-army-reserve-corporal-who-campaigned-for-ron-paul-in-uniform/
ReplyDeleteApparently, you're not supposed to campaign in military clothes, but I'm not convinced that explains the convenient cut off.
ReplyDeleteDigusting isn't it? How much more obvious could they be?
ReplyDeleteThe original YouTube video - http://youtu.be/3TSxm2V8aVQ - already has over 326,000 views!
ReplyDeleteThe main counter is still stuck at 305, which is normal for new videos (though they typically update after 12 hours...but I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt for now).
ANYWAY, you can check out the most recent view count on the search page, which I screen captured: http://i.imgur.com/mdBHM.jpg
But Ron Paul is anti-troop and anti-America! That's what the prime time pundits on major media outlets say.
ReplyDeleteHow can this soldier be telling the truth?
Matthew said "you're not supposed to campaign in military clothes"
ReplyDeleteYes, that is a standard guideline. However, you are allowed to if you have gotten your chain of command's prior approval. Shoot, when I was in the Navy (2002-2006) you weren't allowed to wear your uniform anywhere off base without prior approval, unless you were traveling on orders.
@Anon 5:31, Interesting link. According to "defense sources" he is not active duty, which would seem to be of some importance. Since clearly he is not presenting himself as representing the military, the only possible indiscretion seems to be wearing the uniform to a political event. Yesterday there were some posters here who suggested that he had disgraced the uniform by his actions. That seems a bit much. I think one could argue more forcefully that by obeying unconstitutional orders and fighting illegal and immoral wars he had disgraced the uniform. or perhaps that is what wearing a US military uniform is all about.
ReplyDeleteHey Yankees, I thought it was "Land of the free and home of the brave...", ra ra ra. They interview that chicken hawk, Gingrige, the Vietnam War dodger, and you all just love him, the coward.
ReplyDeletebunch of crap is what it is, I saw it live and I thought finally they will have a soldier stating truth and then whammo, I knew it would be all over you tube and twitter
ReplyDeleteDuring Ron Paul's speech later, Ron Paul got him back up there to finish his talk. CNN covered it in its entirety. I was at a place that also had Fox News on at the same time and guess what? When the soldier got introduced, Fox News pulled away!
ReplyDelete###
What a joke. Blitzwolf didn't even wait to see if the feed would come back. I've seen that same thing happen many times before and they always hang on waiting for a bit to wait for it. Not this time though. The instant the soldier started speaking against the approved policy of MoreWar they cut the feed. I'm glad I trashed my teevee four years ago.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the guy in the pink tie in the background on the left @ 1:18
ReplyDeleteEven he is laughing...Observation...
I have heard some of the sheeple say that Ron Paul is a fraud because it goes against the constitution for him to do this.
ReplyDeleteBut I ask this:
How is this a violation of the constitution? The constitution doesn't say anything about soldiers in uniform making political statements. And the only place in the Bill of Rights that says soldiers do not apply is Article V (commonly known as the Fifth Amendment) that states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
If the other amendments don't apply to soldiers then why is this the only one the authors said doesn't?
My Googling on the rules:
ReplyDeleteApparently, only if you claim to speak for the service are you in trouble...
Obviously, he made no such claim.
After all, he IS a citizen.
This is the least important comment that will be posted here all day -- it's just some administrative business -- but I need to go ahead and post it:
ReplyDeleteIs there any way to tweak or re-code this site so that clicking the "Comments" link on a given post will take one to the START of the comments thread -- rather than to the bottom (where the posting box sits)?
With all due respect (because I do love this blog), it's a constant irritant, particularly with lengthy comments threads. One must maneuver back up the page to start reading the conversation, which is a waste of a few clicks and scrolling time.
"The Federal Election Commission reports have indicated that Ron Paul raised the most money from those in active military service."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287127/what-iowa-means-nro-symposium?pg=3
Seconding ThomasDP's comment. The "comments" link should link to #comments and not #comment-form.
ReplyDelete