Taliban Jack shares gay pride in Vancouver
- Thread starter Exarecr
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,170
- Points
- 1,160
Read some posts elsewhere about the intense internal politics within the Vancouver Gay community where the radical gays are quite harsh on the more moderate conservative ones. Anyone who tries to rock the boat is excluded or harassed into compliance.
Taliban Jack is quite selective in his audience, however I think his support for the radical side of the gay culture will effect their chances with the immigrants who generally are more conservative.
So if us gun owners had a “gun pride” parade carrying are securely locked, non-restricted firearms to help bolster are rights and self esteem, do think Jack would walk with us?
Taliban Jack is quite selective in his audience, however I think his support for the radical side of the gay culture will effect their chances with the immigrants who generally are more conservative.
So if us gun owners had a “gun pride” parade carrying are securely locked, non-restricted firearms to help bolster are rights and self esteem, do think Jack would walk with us?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
R22Reg said:
I know as a civilian this is probably one of those threads I should duck away from, but you all know me by now when something bugs me enough I can't just shut up. As a cilivian interested in perhaps one day joining the Canadian Forces I find the suggestion that once one puts on a military or paramilitary uniform that one is supposed to become some sort of heartless, soulless android without an opinion more than a little disturbing. Yes you follow LEGAL orders and respect the chain of command, but I think that one still has the right to respectfully, at the appropriate time and place, express one's opinions.
In the approximately one year and two months since I joined army.ca I have been enriched by exposure to the diverse opinions shared by Canada's men and women in uniform. I have disagreed with some of those opinions from time to time, and often this has led to heated exchanges between other army.ca members and myself. But you know what? this has increased my respect and admiration for the CF and its members tenfold. For I have learned that Canada's warriors, from private to major, are highly intelligent individuals who are able to intelligently articulate their opinions. Sometimes on this site they (and I for that matter) say stupid things, but that's human. More often than not however, I have been able to learn from an opinion intelligently expressed and well defended, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
I'd much prefer to join a military like Canada's where members feel free to have and express an opinion while still maintaining their loyalty, rather than join one like say Zimbabwe's, where the military just toes the party line.
M
mudrecceman
Guest
2 Cdo said:
You said what I was trying to say only better than I did!
+1
Mud Recce Man said:
That's not it at all.
As a citizen of Canada, you are allowed to believe whatever you want. That does not change when you put on a uniform. You get to vote your conscience at all times.
But as a soldier, you are not allowed to publically express that opinion, because the general public does not differentiate between the "citizen" and the "soldier" - in other words, opinions expressed by soldiers are commonly taken to represent Canadian forces policy
And that's a big no-no.
One of the core principles of a democratic republic is that the military is ultimately answerable to the civilian authorities. THEY run the show, NOT US. History has shown over and over again that a military force that is allowed to become independently political can and will choose to exert force in the pursuit of its political aims - after all, we've got the guns, who could stop us?
Part of being a professional soldier is maintaining public silence on political issues. You can *think* what you like, but don't express those thoughts publically.
Furthermore, getting too public about politics can be corrosive to good order and discipline within a unit. If soldier A is a lifelong Liberal, and soldier B is a bleeds-blue Tory, political discourse between them is likely to result in divsion, not unity. We have enough to fight over internally without adding politics to the mix.
Keep quiet, stay in your lane, and keep your politics to yourself until you retire.
DG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
RecceDG said:
That is the traditional line, but what has that gotten us so far? A quarter century of Lieberal military destruction and a bunch of clowns erroding public support with lies and misinformation about a righteous mission in Afghanistan for their own selfish political gain. That being said, if it was a Liberal mission and the CPC were ripping on it, that would be equally disappointing and they would deserve the same sort of critisizm. However, that would be pretty unlikely.
Everyone keeps saying "we aren't doing a good job of selling this mission to the Canadian public" yet if we are perpetually afraid of speaking our minds, then no one is going to ever get our inside view on the military. And even worse, all they will tend to see is footage of the American military, since that fills more of our tv channels than our own. (that isn't a rip on the US, just they are having a worse go in Iraq. Many people tend to lump all military into one big place in their minds)
In a sadly realistic scenario though, the sheeple will go back to hollow Liberal promises and strive for mediocredity at some point. Then the Lieberals can go back to tax cuts weeks before elections and pumping billions of dollars into Quebec. At that point they will punish the CF for ever speaking ill of them, and we'll be wearing blue helmets and driving Iltis in Darfur for the next ten years.
"We stand on guard for thee...
"
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,170
- Points
- 1,160
ZC I love it, I will suggest to the NDP that this should be their party line. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Colin P said:
Thanks, although for them it would be "Strive for Mediocrity, and Fail to Achieve It"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
George Wallace said:
Okay, read the Wikipedia summary. As unreliable as Wikpedia can be, I think they at least summarize a book properly.
My opinion - not likely. Science fiction scenario it is and will remain.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"The veterans learn that, to curb overpopulation, which led to world-wide food wars, homosexuality has become officially encouraged by the world government." -wiki
I guess thats easier than giving everyone the pill or condoms (which gays would need anyways).
How about we just encourage all the other guys to be gay besides me.... that sounds like a good plan
;D
I guess thats easier than giving everyone the pill or condoms (which gays would need anyways).
How about we just encourage all the other guys to be gay besides me.... that sounds like a good plan
;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
technically, if you have 14,801 members up to 14,801 members of this site could be G/L/B/T.
(sorry, couldnt help my self)
(sorry, couldnt help my self)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If the issue is "we don't do a good job of selling the mission to the public" (and there is an element of truth to this) we can find better ways to highlight the good we are doing - and that can be apolitical. The truth has no politics. Correction of error is nonpartisan.
But we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into the maelstrom of party politics. We cannot afford to place a duly elected government in the position where it rightfully fears that the military would not follow its commands because the politics of the military are those of one of its political rivals. Like it or not, whoever is in power are our rightful masters, be they red, blue, orange, green, or rainbow. We took an oath to that effect, and that oath holds larger sway than whatever our personal politics might be.
If it doesn't, then Other Careers Beckon.
You are, of course, free to privately express your concerns to your elected representative.
DG
If the issue is "we don't do a good job of selling the mission to the public" (and there is an element of truth to this) we can find better ways to highlight the good we are doing - and that can be apolitical. The truth has no politics. Correction of error is nonpartisan.
But we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into the maelstrom of party politics. We cannot afford to place a duly elected government in the position where it rightfully fears that the military would not follow its commands because the politics of the military are those of one of its political rivals. Like it or not, whoever is in power are our rightful masters, be they red, blue, orange, green, or rainbow. We took an oath to that effect, and that oath holds larger sway than whatever our personal politics might be.
If it doesn't, then Other Careers Beckon.
You are, of course, free to privately express your concerns to your elected representative.
DG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
RecceDG said:
Yer killin' me. BJ ain't payin' you to look that stuff up ;D
RecceDG said:
Now yer super-killin' me. I would agree that truth has no politics, in as much as there is rarely truth found in politics. But look at how much misinformation and outright lies the opposition are putting out. How do you "correct" that without openly seeming critical of that group? Especially when they refuse to acknowledge correction that has been provided in order to pursue their own myopic line of garbage?
Okay, this isn't exactly Maximus sending the message to the Northern Army to advance on Rome. We take an oath of loyalty to Queen and Country. So when the elected shills are doing things counter to the betterment of our country, what then? I'm not saying go Pol Pot on them, but certainly some informed direction from senior officals in the face of misinformation would help. If only there was a branch of the military that did operations with a view towards the collective psychology of people. (I know, nothing domestic. Sheesh.)RecceDG said:
RecceDG said:
Because politicians clearly pay attention to views that they haven't been spoon fed from their handlers. I would like to be in that happy place
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
zipperhead_cop said:
That branch is called "Public Affairs"
So politicians tend to listen to "groups" as opposed to individuals, and we are in a "group" which by law and custom, remain silent. You can share your concerns with friends, family and neighbours (in a non partisan fashion; "these are the facts, and they seem to lead to this conclusion") and they can speak to the politicians. One of you might not have clout, but six or seven letters from voters attracts some attention, and if your friends and neighbours each tell one of their friends and neighbours (and so on), then real attention gets paid.
If this translates into action, great. If not, you cast your ballot accordingly......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
RecceDG said:
That's why I said in my post that soldiers have a right to express their opinions AT THE RIGHT TIME AND PLACE. I'm not talking about publicly shouting your views from the mountain top, I was responding to R22Reg's attempt to shut down people trying to express an opinion on a website that was specifically created to enable members of the CF to express opinions that the rules of conduct of their job prevent them from expressing elsewhere. If CF members (and supporters) can't express political opinions here in a respectful manner, what's the purpose of the existence of army.ca then?
Well, you want to be careful about that.
This site (and Facebook, and MySpace, etc etc) is not the mess. It's not private, no matter how much it might seem to be "just us chickens"
This is a public site; anybody can come by and read whatever is posted here. Anything you post on the Internet is functionally identical to a posted letter to the editor in the Globe and Mail - perhaps even worse, because this site specifically identifies itself as being associated (however informally) with the Canadian Forces.
Increasingly, sites like these *are* the public face of the CF (much, I suspect, to the consternation of Public Affairs Officers everywhere)
As such, it behooves those of us still serving to keep control of whatever partisan opinions we may or may not hold; it really is part of our sworn duty.
I feel - and share - the frustration that we as an institution don't seem to be communicating what the mission is about and how well we are doing it back to the public at large. I actually see it as a form of information warfare - the bad guys seek to undermine public support for our operations, because they know that any democratic society will withdraw its troops once public support drops too low. We need to be able to counter these operations, every bit as much as we counter IEDs or any other military tactic. If I Were CDS (TM) I'd seriously consider increasing the size of the PA branch and start thinking about writing doctrine that treats PA as a defensive tactical weapon.
But I also note that I'm seeing signs that while we may not be getting the truth of the mission out very well, we *do* seem to be getting the truth that we can't get the truth of the mission out through. The lead article on Canoe.ca today on the return of troops back to Edmonton had a series of quotes from Gen. Grant on that very subject.
In any case though, we need to refrain from straying into partisan waters. Firstly, because it is our duty. Secondly, be cause it is in our own self-interest to do so. And thirdly....
....I worked in the US for ten years. I soaked in US politics for a decade. And let me tell you, Canadian politics at its worst is US politics on a good day. I don't want to see my country go down that road. I don't want to see a political climate in Canada where lowlifes like Anne Coulter can thrive and flourish.
DG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ah yes Anne Coulter, i've read some of her work, pretty out there and just more than a tad bit nasty. One would wonder of she's PMSing all year long. Like when she said this to a disabled veteran.
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html
Read on there plenty more from the PMS queen. Basically this woman has a hate on for the world or at least for everybody in it.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html
Read on there plenty more from the PMS queen. Basically this woman has a hate on for the world or at least for everybody in it.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp
Similar threads
