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
Zero2Cool (3m) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (16h) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (22h) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (22h) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (22h) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (22h) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (23h) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Other times, it's turtle ass
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
beast (23-Jul) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
beast (23-Jul) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
wpr (23-Jul) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : SSL might be settled now.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
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
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

11h / Around The NFL / beast

21h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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