• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thank you Tulsi

mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Estro Felino said:
Yes, there is.
And I would like to find out if there is conflict of interest between the Democratic Party and the big weaponry industry.
A sector that gains billions from the sale of weaponry, during world wars.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, but it is not that simple. There are other factors. You reduce all of the world down to your duality. I do it differently.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Estro Felino said:
I have been following the Ukrainian question for years. I know who funded the Ukrainian Government of Poroshenko, I know who funded both Poroshenko and Zelensky. The very same élites whose goal is probably to destroy the European Civilization, undo European Nations to take possession of all their resources.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah? Which elites are these?

Can you be more specific?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Estro Felino said:
Everyone has the right to choose whom to side with. ;)
Click to expand...

And everybody has the right to reject a yes/no question and choose another frame, but not when you are involved because you speak for the people, because you own it as it is your people. I do get you and I do that differently.
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
esmith said:
Obviously you have never been in the military, or didn't have esprit de corps if you think that those who served with her wouldn't take offense to someone degrading her like @tytlyf is.
Click to expand...

I have not, however, I was under the impression that the military was disciplined and trained to follow orders, not just react to being offended.

esmith said:
And it is not within the military purview to directly protect free speech.

Officers
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So, help me God.”

Enlisted
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Click to expand...

Free speech is in the Constitution, which these oaths swear to defend. I don't see anything about reacting to offenses here. That would in fact be undisciplined and violate these oaths.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
esmith said:
Obviously you have never been in the military, or didn't have esprit de corps if you think that those who served with her wouldn't take offense to someone degrading her like @tytlyf is.
And it is not within the military purview to directly protect free speech.

Officers
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So, help me God.”

Enlisted
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Click to expand...

As long as you don't treat the US military as the only military and the only constitution you have a point.
So in effect as from a different country my understanding of esprit de corps is not the same as yours.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Guitar's Cry said:
I have not, however, I was under the impression that the military was disciplined and trained to follow orders, not just react to being offended.
Click to expand...
I don't know about todays military; however I do remember some dust-ups over slights against ones command, honor, and disagreements among individuals.
Sure we were trained to follow lawful orders, and if we violted any article of the UCMJ we could find oneself being punished for not doing so; however somethings were just "overlooked".


Guitar's Cry said:
Free speech is in the Constitution, which these oaths swear to defend. I don't see anything about reacting to offenses here. That would in fact be undisciplined and violate these oaths.
Click to expand...
Sorry to say you have got it wrong when it comes to what the military can and can not do, not even law enforcement defends free speech. Only the courts determine what is and is not free speech.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Estro Felino said:
With all due respect, we spoke about Poroshenko, yesterday.
As far as I have understood, you are more informed than me about him. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, you deflect when your sources don't work on the rest of us. I do get that. That is okay what you do, but it still doesn't work as evidence for me.
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, you deflect when your sources don't work on the rest of us. I do get that. That is okay what you do, but it still doesn't work as evidence for me.
Click to expand...

Whatever source I link, they tell me it's either fake news or conspiracy theorist media.
So, honestly, I prefer to avoid. :)
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Estro Felino said:
Whatever source I link, they tell me it's either fake news or conspiracy theorist media.
So, honestly, I prefer to avoid. :)
Click to expand...

You made a link to an article about a law, that wasn't signed into law according to the article and acted as if it was signed into law according to the article. I pointed that out and you ignored.
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
ImmortalFlame said:
These all seems very general, whereas you seem to be indicating that they are a specific group.

Could you give some more specific examples?
Click to expand...

I give you a practical example.
European Commission is not elected by the people. It is indirectly elected by the European Parliament.
But it is not a real election, because in real elections, anyone can be a candidate.

In that election, the members are considered eligible by an elitist group. So the EP will elect the commissioners from a list.
If that's not elitist, what is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top