Takerial Posts

And no one leaves you alone.

Oh he's absolutely horrible too.

None of the candidates are ones I would ever want anywhere near any sort of office of power much less the presidency.

But I think Trump wouldn't be able to do near as many horrible things in office as Hillary. He would end up literally just being the figurehead portion of it. I think that's all he really wants out of it anyways.

I'm just shocked that Hilary actually said anything resembling the truth.

Cause she goes so far out of her way to hide the shit out of it even for things that she doesn't have to.

Watched episode 1 of two new animes for the season.

Bloodivores - I must admit I was not very interested in this anime. The name is fucking ridiculous and doesn't inspire much faith in me. But I figured I would give it a shot despite my reservations.

I absolutely hate the main character after one episode. It is literally impossible for me to care about this character in a way that doesn't make me want to choke the bitch to death.

I didn't develop any attachments to them and honestly it just seems like a hastily done obvious plot.

I will not be continuing this piece of shit further.

0/10 first episode.

Shuumastu no Izetta - I was a little more interested in this one, but I was also a little unsure of it going into it. The synopsis just seemed a little meh to me.

Overall, the first episode left a pretty good impression on me. The art is pretty decent. The story is interesting and involving to a point. And the characters don't make me want to just choke a bitch to death.

While the plot is kind of so so, it has a hint of evolution possibility to make it really interesting.

It was enough of a success in my mind to continue the series.

7/10 first episode.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-audio-clinton-refers-to-sanders-fans-as-frustrated-basement-dwellers/article/2603353

Hilary told the truth about something.

http://www.mangahere.co/manga/seito_kaichou_desu_ga_josou_hajimemashita/

You answered your own question wrongly, and you refuse to actually listen to someone who knows more about what you're trying to argue about.

I wouldn't expect anything more from you Waar.

Are you seriously just not reading things?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, IS A SET OF LAWS.

Article 92 of the UCMJ, IS A LAW.

By not following the regulation as per Article 92 of the UCMJ, she broke, A LAW.

The law you posted, the one you seem to think matters doesn't at all in this circumstance. All that law does is authorizes retired vets and service members to salute the flag in their civies.

She is not likely to actually get a dishonorable discharge. What she is most likely facing, is an other than honorable discharge if the decide to discharge her. They might not even discharge her over it. They might punish her in another manner. It's hard to say until they actually punish her.

You also do not seem to understand.

When you are wearing the military uniform, YOU ARE CONSIDERED A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MILITARY. End of story. If you are in civies it's one thing. But when you have the uniform on you are expected to damn well keep your military bearing and act like a representative of the military. It doesn't matter if you are on some sort of official duty or not. If you don't understand the logic behind this maybe this will help you.

If you go to a store. Let's say it's your favorite grocery store cleverly named Groceries. In it, there's a guy who fucks up by putting milk on top of your eggs. Let's call this guy Steve.

Now imagine if you will, that you are rightfully upset and decide to complain to your friends about this. Do you say "Man, that steve guy fucked up my eggs."

Absolutely not. You go "Fuck man, Groceries is a fucked up place. They put milk on top of my eggs." Just like Steve is a representative of Groceries in your mind, so would she, in her uniform, be considered a representative of the Navy.

She was in said uniform when she did this protest.

I never said she was going to face a dishonorable discharge. Again, she might not even face a direct discharge as punishment over this. And I don't know enough about the Canadian Military to really say how severe of a punishment they would give, I imagine it would be comparable honestly.

But she did lose her security clearance. She was intel so she most likely had a Top Secret. She will not get this back and will find it impossible to do her current job in the Navy. Even if she isn't discharged, she will be barred from continuing her service. She will not get the option to reenlist. (She's an E5 which means she is a relatively new non-commissioned officer.) She could potentially lose her rank and be busted down to E4 or below for this meaning reduced pay and she would hit her RCP. So she wouldn't even have to be separated by the military directly, she would be indirectly separated due to RCP.

Because of the UCMJ, she wouldn't receive an Honorable Discharge. She could at best receive a General Discharge. Which doesn't sound too bad until you consider a couple of things.

Intel is strongly tied to the government. By losing her Security Clearance, she in ineligible to hold any position like that.

Which means that her last 8 years will amount to no experience in a job was she gets out.

Which again, leads me back to my original post.

It was a highly stupid thing for her to do on a point that isn't worth it to make and it was something she damn well knew she was doing when she did.

Your last post suggested you had already found the reason despite stating you were unaware of what law she had broken.

And despite it being a law, it's not like she is going to go to prison. It's not that crazy. She had her security clearance revoked and is going to be discharged, most likely as an other than honorable. It's not that much different than if a company fired you for violating their company policy. It's just that it's actually a law versus just a policy.

And the Canadian Military also has their own separate justice system, just like the American Military. So I don't really know why you think it's just an American thing. Most military do.

It's not like her constitutional right to protest was denied her. What was denied her was the right to make statements in the military's name. What was denied her was the right to renege on her pledge to protect the country and constitution.

The military actually makes a lot of concessions to allow it's personnel to maintain a lot of their individual freedoms. But when you pledge to be a soldier, you do so in the knowledge that you are a soldier 24/7 (unless you're national guard or reserve) and that you are expected to be able to act like a soldier at any notice.

And as a soldier you are held to higher standards. You have to be. And that's true of any military because of the amount of discipline you need to have to operate as a unit.

Are you being serious right now? I told you what law she broke.

Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.

I even posted the regulations that she did not obey.

That is a law. And it's not unconstitutional because of what you have to willingly swear to to become part of the military. It wouldn't make sense to not hold someone in the military to a higher standard.

It's not like she doesn't have the right to protest. She just doesn't have the right to protest while in uniform.

When you wear your military uniform, you are representing the military. So anything you say or do, is basically saying that the military is saying and doing that.

That's why it's a big deal that she did this. Because not only did she violate one of the oldest custom and courtesy in the military, she did in a way that said the military support BLM. Why do you think she shouldn't get in trouble for this?

And she was no ignorant to what would happen when she did this. She knew exactly what she was doing. And she was wrong to do it. Stop trying to justify something you know little about.

It's failure to obey an order or REGULATION.

Those are Regulations. She failed to obey them.

Article 92: Failure to obey an Order or Regulation.

There are actually two things that she as a service member did that are against this.

The first being being that with customs and courtesies, she is required to stand and render a salute during the National Anthem.

The second being that you are not allowed to conduct business such as protesting while in uniform and/or on duty as while you are uniform and/or on duty you are not considered yourself but as a representative of the military.

In addition to the above she would also be placed under suspicion of other allegations than to the united states (which she would have pledged to have and protect when enlisting) and this would automatically result in her security clearance at the least being revoked. Which it did.

edit:

Here is the customs and courtesies regulation for the Navy http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/documents/united_states_navy_regulations_chapter_12.pdf

Here is the DoD instruction stating when it prohibited for a Service Member to wear their uniform. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133401p.pdf

She violated BOTH of these regulations.

I'm not.

I was linked it by a fellow friend in the military to point out how dumb it is.

Under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

It's the additional laws that Military Personnel have to follow while they are in the service.

It is not unconstitutional.

It's probably more the regulations than necessarily a CO order.

I believe it would be under Article 92, Failure to Obey an Order and Regulation.

True.

But it's not a matter of her not being patriotic or honorable (which I wouldn't even suggest) it's about the idiotic idea that she was above the law she willingly agreed to adhere.

Claims injustice with her friends when punished.

Can people really be this dumb?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/man-mugged-playing-pokemon-captures-attack-live-video/story?id=42240566