Formo
14 years ago

Seeing a uniform (and medals!) on a civilian is a slap in the face to anyone who ever served in our country's military.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Holy hyperbole, people! I have three rows of ribbons on my chest (not to mention airborne wings) and I couldn't care less who wears a uniform or awards.

Heck, the guy is 26 and was wearing major rank. It's not like anyone would have taken him seriously anyway. Who was harmed by the costume? As long as he wasn't applying for veterans benefits, I don't see what the big deal is, 10 USC 771 not withstanding. I'm amazed that law has withstood First Amendment scrutiny anyway. I know George Bush's infamous Stolen Valor Act of 2006 was struck down this past August by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech. I applaud them for their courage in handing down that decision.

"Since69" wrote:



That's nice. To you, you couldn't care less. Which is all fine and dandy but what about the vets that it DOES matter? To me, it's kind of like a traditional / sacred 'rule'. I don't know if that's the case behind the statute against it, but it's how I'd look at it.

I don't take those uniforms lightly, and I wouldn't want other citizens to do so either. Wearing someone's BDUs or any sort of Full Dress Uniforms isn't something I could condone as 'not a big deal', costume for Halloween or not.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Porforis
14 years ago

Seeing a uniform (and medals!) on a civilian is a slap in the face to anyone who ever served in our country's military.

"Formo" wrote:



Holy hyperbole, people! I have three rows of ribbons on my chest (not to mention airborne wings) and I couldn't care less who wears a uniform or awards.

Heck, the guy is 26 and was wearing major rank. It's not like anyone would have taken him seriously anyway. Who was harmed by the costume? As long as he wasn't applying for veterans benefits, I don't see what the big deal is, 10 USC 771 not withstanding. I'm amazed that law has withstood First Amendment scrutiny anyway. I know George Bush's infamous Stolen Valor Act of 2006 was struck down this past August by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech. I applaud them for their courage in handing down that decision.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



That's nice. To you, you couldn't care less. Which is all fine and dandy but what about the vets that it DOES matter? To me, it's kind of like a traditional / sacred 'rule'. I don't know if that's the case behind the statute against it, but it's how I'd look at it.

I don't take those uniforms lightly, and I wouldn't want other citizens to do so either. Wearing someone's BDUs or any sort of Full Dress Uniforms isn't something I could condone as 'not a big deal', costume for Halloween or not.

"Since69" wrote:



This is really a hard one for me, a self-proclaimed "real" conservative. One that preaches that we should never attempt to quell free speech or any of our other rights just because we disagree with the person expressing them. I do respect military service and attempting to impersonate a veteran is one of the more despicable actions I can think of at the moment, but what is the legal/constitutional argument that such an act cannot be considered free speech? I'm sure there's been constitutional cases where there's basic requirements for an act to be considered free speech (an actual message, for example), but in such a circumstance where basic requirements have been met, why is this a special case where the constitution should not apply?

What's the point of defending and respecting our veterans if we're trampling on the constitution at the same time? Again, correct me if I'm wrong about there being no constitutional basis for this protection, I'd love to be wrong in this scenario so I can go back to being angry.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
14 years ago

Seeing a uniform (and medals!) on a civilian is a slap in the face to anyone who ever served in our country's military.

"Porforis" wrote:



Holy hyperbole, people! I have three rows of ribbons on my chest (not to mention airborne wings) and I couldn't care less who wears a uniform or awards.

Heck, the guy is 26 and was wearing major rank. It's not like anyone would have taken him seriously anyway. Who was harmed by the costume? As long as he wasn't applying for veterans benefits, I don't see what the big deal is, 10 USC 771 not withstanding. I'm amazed that law has withstood First Amendment scrutiny anyway. I know George Bush's infamous Stolen Valor Act of 2006 was struck down this past August by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech. I applaud them for their courage in handing down that decision.

"Formo" wrote:



That's nice. To you, you couldn't care less. Which is all fine and dandy but what about the vets that it DOES matter? To me, it's kind of like a traditional / sacred 'rule'. I don't know if that's the case behind the statute against it, but it's how I'd look at it.

I don't take those uniforms lightly, and I wouldn't want other citizens to do so either. Wearing someone's BDUs or any sort of Full Dress Uniforms isn't something I could condone as 'not a big deal', costume for Halloween or not.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



This is really a hard one for me, a self-proclaimed "real" conservative. One that preaches that we should never attempt to quell free speech or any of our other rights just because we disagree with the person expressing them. I do respect military service and attempting to impersonate a veteran is one of the more despicable actions I can think of at the moment, but what is the legal/constitutional argument that such an act cannot be considered free speech? I'm sure there's been constitutional cases where there's basic requirements for an act to be considered free speech (an actual message, for example), but in such a circumstance where basic requirements have been met, why is this a special case where the constitution should not apply?

What's the point of defending and respecting our veterans if we're trampling on the constitution at the same time? Again, correct me if I'm wrong about there being no constitutional basis for this protection, I'd love to be wrong in this scenario so I can go back to being angry.

"Since69" wrote:



I think the courts have set aside free speech when it comes it impersonation issues. You can't have people dressed up like police. (badges, guns and so on.) They can cause real problems if someone came to them for aid. Or the impersonator tried to get people to do what they want by implying they were a police officer.
The same could be said for a person dressed in an authentic military uniform. It could cause serious problems.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
14 years ago
Formo gets a +1 from me. He summed it up quite nicely.
To serve in the military is a big sacrifice. To pretend like you did when you didn't, is wrong.
I have way too much respect for those that have served to take that lightly.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
14 years ago

Seeing a uniform (and medals!) on a civilian is a slap in the face to anyone who ever served in our country's military.

"wpr" wrote:



Holy hyperbole, people! I have three rows of ribbons on my chest (not to mention airborne wings) and I couldn't care less who wears a uniform or awards.

Heck, the guy is 26 and was wearing major rank. It's not like anyone would have taken him seriously anyway. Who was harmed by the costume? As long as he wasn't applying for veterans benefits, I don't see what the big deal is, 10 USC 771 not withstanding. I'm amazed that law has withstood First Amendment scrutiny anyway. I know George Bush's infamous Stolen Valor Act of 2006 was struck down this past August by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech. I applaud them for their courage in handing down that decision.

"Porforis" wrote:



That's nice. To you, you couldn't care less. Which is all fine and dandy but what about the vets that it DOES matter? To me, it's kind of like a traditional / sacred 'rule'. I don't know if that's the case behind the statute against it, but it's how I'd look at it.

I don't take those uniforms lightly, and I wouldn't want other citizens to do so either. Wearing someone's BDUs or any sort of Full Dress Uniforms isn't something I could condone as 'not a big deal', costume for Halloween or not.

"Formo" wrote:



This is really a hard one for me, a self-proclaimed "real" conservative. One that preaches that we should never attempt to quell free speech or any of our other rights just because we disagree with the person expressing them. I do respect military service and attempting to impersonate a veteran is one of the more despicable actions I can think of at the moment, but what is the legal/constitutional argument that such an act cannot be considered free speech? I'm sure there's been constitutional cases where there's basic requirements for an act to be considered free speech (an actual message, for example), but in such a circumstance where basic requirements have been met, why is this a special case where the constitution should not apply?

What's the point of defending and respecting our veterans if we're trampling on the constitution at the same time? Again, correct me if I'm wrong about there being no constitutional basis for this protection, I'd love to be wrong in this scenario so I can go back to being angry.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I think the courts have set aside free speech when it comes it impersonation issues. You can't have people dressed up like police. (badges, guns and so on.) They can cause real problems if someone came to them for aid. Or the impersonator tried to get people to do what they want by implying they were a police officer.
The same could be said for a person dressed in an authentic military uniform. It could cause serious problems.

"Since69" wrote:



I guess I didn't think about that one, I guess that my only concern is that while a police officer has actual authority on the homeland, a marine doesn't have that same sort of authority. But hey, at least there's some rationale to this.
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

what about the vets that it DOES matter?

"Formo" wrote:



Maybe they should chill out and not take themselves so seriously. It's just a job, people -- and one for which servicemembers are paid twice, sometimes even three times what they'd make in the civilian world for comparable work. (Try getting paid $40,000 a year to be an EMT, secretary, or truck mechanic on the civilian side -- they'll laugh in your face.) Any vet who tells you he didn't do it for the money is lying to you. There isn't a person in the military who'd show up for work if he knew he wasn't getting that guaranteed paycheck every month. Veterans screamed to high heaven when George Bush proposed eliminating all combat pays. I should know -- I was one of those who screamed.

While I certainly met quite a few jingoists in the military, I didn't meet too many true patriots, at least not any who had a genuine understanding of the principles upon which this country was founded. I did, however, meet a whole lot of people who openly admitted to being too scared to try to make it in the civilian world and whose main reason for staying in the military was that it was perceived by society as more honorable than living on welfare. (And let's face it: the military lifestyle truly is one grandiose welfare scheme.) The number-one reason given to encourage soldiers to stay in: "It's easy money." Which it truly is.

No joke.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

It could cause serious problems.

"wpr" wrote:



So deal with the problems when they arise and punish them severely. No one is harmed by someone walking around in military or police regalia. Now if the impersonator tries to use the perceived sense of authority derived from their costume to compel others to perform an action against their will, that should probably be a felony. But only a fool would attempt that stunt openly. The costume would make him so distinctive and easy to identify.

Similarly, as I said above, if someone attempted to fraudulently obtain benefits appertaining to their impersonated position, that should be punishable too. But it's not like a uniform alone is enough to get someone a pension or healthcare. One has to have documentation and paperwork. Heck, one must present a military ID just to get the military discount on a haircut or the free meal on Veterans Day at Applebee's.

Just because someone could abuse their costume in such a fashion doesn't mean that the liberty of other responsible individuals to express themselves in this manner should be restricted.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
14 years ago

It could cause serious problems.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



So deal with the problems when they arise and punish them severely. No one is harmed by someone walking around in military or police regalia. Now if the impersonator tries to use the perceived sense of authority derived from their costume to compel others to perform an action against their will, that should probably be a felony. But only a fool would attempt that stunt openly. The costume would make him so distinctive and easy to identify.

Similarly, as I said above, if someone attempted to fraudulently obtain benefits appertaining to their impersonated position, that should be punishable too. But it's not like a uniform alone is enough to get someone a pension or healthcare. One has to have documentation and paperwork. Heck, one must present a military ID just to get the military discount on a haircut or the free meal on Veterans Day at Applebee's.

Just because someone could abuse their costume in such a fashion doesn't mean that the liberty of other responsible individuals to express themselves in this manner should be restricted.

"wpr" wrote:



so you are saying we should wait until the child in the park who needs help runs up to a costumed officer to do something about it instead of not allowing the confusing in the first place?
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
I remember being terrified of a Yoda costume when I was five or six. Are you saying we should ban someone from wearing the costume of a monster because it might frighten a child -- or worse, be used to disguise the identity of a kidnapper?

While we're at it, why don't we ban computers because they might be used to purvey child porn?
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
  • Pack93z
  • Select Member Topic Starter
14 years ago
I am convinced of it.. as generations pass, the core values such as respect and honor are diminishing rapidly.

It is quickly become a society of do as I want, when I want, however I want with very little societal concern whatsoever.

Next up.. abolishing the very union of the United States because it is restricting.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Fan Shout
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.