Page 34 of 39 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 382

Thread: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

  1. #331
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    That refers to the individual's commander (commanding officers) in his/her direct chain of command and has absolutely NOTHING to do with who his or her command-in-chief is

    You really stretched that one, buddy.

    Anyway, some time ago when all of this birther crap first presented itself, someone mentioned how each political party committee, RNC and DNC, both have procedures in place whereby they verify the eligibility of their respective presidential candidate. So, out of curiosity I did a search for the 2008 DNC bylaws, which can be read in its entirety here. Per paragraph 12K:



    To be fair, the following outlines the criteria for the RNC presidentical candidate nomination:



    The RCN 2008 rules can be read here.

    It's kind of ironic really when you stop and think about it that the criteria for the DNC presidential candidate are stronger than those for the RNC presidential candidate. Anyway, my point is the DNC rules are very clear. Before a Democratic presidential candidate can be placed on any state ballot, he (or she) must have voted in the last presidential election. And as we all know, only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in such elections. Before one can register to vote, he (or she) must show proof of residency, i.e., valid state driver's license and other residency documentation, such as a utility bill. The key here is the individual's driver's license. Even at age 15.5 everyone has to show some form of birth verification document to your local DMV/Driver's Ed instructor whether you provided same yourself or it is provided by your local high school administration. It all goes back to common sense, folks. Too bad some people choose not to exercise it.

    Show me the DoD regulation, rule, law, document, manual, pamphlet, or within the UCMJ that a soldier's right to have a grievance heard stops at any point in the chain of command, or...

    There's also something called the chain of command right?
    ...that a grievance has to go completely through a chain of command.

    A soldier has the right to file a grievance against anyone from his company commander, on.

    Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.

    A good commander would address the grievance immediately and lay the matter to rest, forever. A good commander would, that is.

    BTW, the DNC, nor the RNC set the rules for how the UCMJ governs our military...thank God!
    Last edited by apdst; 04-24-10 at 11:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #332
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Show me the DoD regulation, rule, law, document, manual, pamphlet, or within the UCMJ that a soldier's right to have a grievance heard stops at any point in the chain of command, or...



    ...that a grievance has to go completely through a chain of command.

    A soldier has the right to file a grievance against anyone from his company commander, on.

    Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.

    A good commander would address the grievance immediately and lay the matter to rest, forever. A good commander would, that is.

    BTW, the DNC, nor the RNC set the rules for how the UCMJ governs our military...thank God!
    Conversely show us where every soldier has a right to appeal straight up to the president and have their case heard. So many soldiers? 2? How big is the military again? There aren't so many soldiers pulling this ****.

  3. #333
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    And, no where does it say that the grievance have to be legitimate, only that a soldier has the right to have his grievance addressed. It's a soldier's right after all.
    His grievances were addressed and he was denied.

  4. #334
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Show me the DoD regulation, rule, law, document, manual, pamphlet, or within the UCMJ that a soldier's right to have a grievance heard stops at any point in the chain of command, or...



    ...that a grievance has to go completely through a chain of command.

    A soldier has the right to file a grievance against anyone from his company commander, on.
    You are correct. Any elisted personnel or commissioned officer whether on active or inactive duty has the right to file a grievence and have it heard up the chain of command. However, the individual's commanding officer has every right to hear such a grievence OR consider same "resolved" or "unsubstantiated", thus denying it altogether. And at that point, the issue is laid to rest; the grievence has been heard. He could appeal it, but there is a process in place whereby it is up to his immediate chain of command to hear his proposed case and act on it accordingly. But that doesn't mean that an individual in the military has the right to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, per sa. That's ridiculous!! In this case, based on the evidence presented (or the lack of standing in this case), if I were Lt.Col Lakin's CO I'd deny his grievence mainly because the basis of his argument as I understand it does not in any way hamper his ability to perform his duties as assigned. Besides, he'd have to prove that the President is ineligible to be president. And since he cannot...CASE CLOSED...COURT MARTIAL ON!!!

    Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.
    You call 2 or 3 court cases by reserve officers an embarrassment? I call it derelection of duty and loonicy especially considering these are low ranking officers mainly from the inactive reserve corps. Now, if one of his high ranking officers within DoD had filed such a grievence on these same grounds (lack of confidence as you've pointed out) then I'd be worried.

    A good commander would address the grievance immediately and lay the matter to rest, forever. A good commander would, that is.
    Again, you are correct. That's why, IMO, I think Lt. Col Lakin's CO should drop kick this greivence all the way to this guy's court martial and throw the book at him for derelection of duty and conduct unbecoming.

    BTW, the DNC, nor the RNC set the rules for how the UCMJ governs our military...thank God!
    My point in posting that information on the DNC and RNC wasn't to address how the military conducts its business, but rather to show how obsurd this entire birther argument really is. Candidates, especially those from the DNC, are vetted (and it appears more strengently than their RNC counterparts I might add) long before their names even go on the ballot. It's stupid to bring up the argument of a president's eligibility based on his citizenship long after he has been duly elected. There are procedures fully in place within each political committee to ensure their candidate is viable and qualified to run for office. Otherwise, we're talking THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY KNOWN TO MAN if Pres. Obama's U.S. citizenship isn't valid and hundreds of people KNOWINGLY involved. And if you've followed any of the birther threads on this board you'd know this issue has been proven moot. You and every other birther, truther, doubters, sore losers or whatever you're calling yourselves these days need to just give it up, get a life, find something else to bitch about because you're not getting this man out of office based on the perceived ineligibility of his U.S. citizenship.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 04-25-10 at 11:26 AM.

  5. #335
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.
    How many of them feel this way exactly and how do you know?

  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Dishonorable Discharge for conduct unbecoming an intelligent person.

    NEXT!

  7. #337
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    His grievances were addressed and he was denied.
    Where were they addressed? Please be specific. It appears to me that he was ignored and sent straight to a courts martial. I guess he had to be silenced, before he made too much noise.

    Liberals are calling tea partiers seditious and court martialling anyone who dares question The One. This country is looking more and more like the Soviet Union, everyday.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #338
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    You are correct. Any elisted personnel or commissioned officer whether on active or inactive duty has the right to file a grievence and have it heard up the chain of command. However, the individual's commanding officer has every right to hear such a grievence OR consider same "resolved" or "unsubstantiated", thus denying it altogether. And at that point, the issue is laid to rest; the grievence has been heard. He could appeal it, but there is a process in place whereby it is up to his immediate chain of command to hear his proposed case and act on it accordingly. But that doesn't mean that an individual in the military has the right to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, per sa. That's ridiculous!! In this case, based on the evidence presented (or the lack of standing in this case), if I were Lt.Col Lakin's CO I'd deny his grievence mainly because the basis of his argument as I understand it does not in any way hamper his ability to perform his duties as assigned. Besides, he'd have to prove that the President is ineligible to be president. And since he cannot...CASE CLOSED...COURT MARTIAL ON!!!


    You call 2 or 3 court cases by reserve officers an embarrassment? I call it derelection of duty and loonicy especially considering these are low ranking officers mainly from the inactive reserve corps. Now, if one of his high ranking officers within DoD had filed such a grievence on these same grounds (lack of confidence as you've pointed out) then I'd be worried.


    Again, you are correct. That's why, IMO, I think Lt. Col Lakin's CO should drop kick this greivence all the way to this guy's court martial and throw the book at him for derelection of duty and conduct unbecoming.



    My point in posting that information on the DNC and RNC wasn't to address how the military conducts its business, but rather to show how obsurd this entire birther argument really is. Candidates, especially those from the DNC, are vetted (and it appears more strengently than their RNC counterparts I might add) long before their names even go on the ballot. It's stupid to bring up the argument of a president's eligibility based on his citizenship long after he has been duly elected. There are procedures fully in place within each political committee to ensure their candidate is viable and qualified to run for office. Otherwise, we're talking THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY KNOWN TO MAN if Pres. Obama's U.S. citizenship isn't valid and hundreds of people KNOWINGLY involved. And if you've followed any of the birther threads on this board you'd know this issue has been proven moot. You and every other birther, truther, doubters, sore losers or whatever you're calling yourselves these days need to just give it up, get a life, find something else to bitch about because you're not getting this man out of office based on the perceived ineligibility of his U.S. citizenship.


    You're completely misinterpreting the law. A soldier's grievance isn't heard by his chain of command, nor necessarily by his immediate commander. A soldier, enlisted or officer, have the right to have their grievance addressed by the commander that that soldier has the grievance with. That's what Article 138 specifically says. For further reference, read Chapter 10 of FM 27-1 where it says that a soldier's right to excercise Article 138 shall not be discouraged, nor interfeared with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #339
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Where were they addressed? Please be specific. It appears to me that he was ignored and sent straight to a courts martial. I guess he had to be silenced, before he made too much noise.

    Liberals are calling tea partiers seditious and court martialling anyone who dares question The One. This country is looking more and more like the Soviet Union, everyday.
    Yeah that was addressing his grievance. They apparently took a look at the merits and denied his requests. That is addressing it.

    He had to be silenced? He missed his movement. Are you suggesting that all soldiers should just disobey orders just because?

    This country is looking like the soviet union? That has to be one of the most unamerican sore loser things I've ever seen you write.

  10. #340
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You're completely misinterpreting the law. A soldier's grievance isn't heard by his chain of command, nor necessarily by his immediate commander. A soldier, enlisted or officer, have the right to have their grievance addressed by the commander that that soldier has the grievance with. That's what Article 138 specifically says. For further reference, read Chapter 10 of FM 27-1 where it says that a soldier's right to excercise Article 138 shall not be discouraged, nor interfeared with.
    Can you point to any existing precedence where a soldier was allowed to have their grievance addressed directly by the president? Especially anyone below a general

Page 34 of 39 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •