Too political

[Murray B]

This forum used to be a good place to come and find interesting things about the military. It was free from the usual faults of most forums.

As a Canadian I am neither Democrat or Republican as weren’t my parents and grandparents before me. It is pretty obvious to me when a disagreement in your country is politically motivated.

As a former educator I am sensitive to having my real identity disclosed on a forum like this. A few years ago I had a student that wanted me to add a few percent to his grade. I asked him if he wanted me to re-grade his assignments. He said no but he needed a few more percent to bring his GPA up to the next step. I refused and he said “I know where you live”. Two months later I had an 18” scratch right down to the metal on the hood of my new car. I called the police who said that since no one saw anything there was nothing they could do. Later I learned from other students that he was a gang member and a drug dealer so I guess I was lucky to just get a scratch.

The last thing I need right now is some kook damaging my car or throwing a rock through my window because they disagree with something I’ve posted.

The recent ‘feeding frenzy’ is obviously politically motivated as shown by the following:

“I only wish it was election time so he would still be in the public eye in AZ...”

“Oh you know he's trolling out there reading, sweating and most likely pi$$ing his political future away.”

“I am telling you point blank that I have full intention of contacting your local paper in AZ and giving them everything I have.”

“Your future political career is going to the toilet as well...”

As a certified network administrator [‘computer guy’] I have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of my users. I am not the admin for this forum but the obvious violation of privacy for one of your members means that I really shouldn’t be coming here anymore.

Thanks for all the interesting converstations anyway, Eh!

[Ben Shotalot]

Ummm, HE is the one who put his name and other info out there, and used his military "resume" to gain rewards. Including politics. What he did was illegal.

If someone came along and claimed to have all the certifications to be a network administrator, and used them to gain favor and benefits, only to find out later that is was all falsehood, wouldn't you want to make it publically known so that all would be forewarned?!? Wouldn't you want to see justice done?

Nobody likes a lair, especially one who tries for political office or to use unearned influence over others. No one called for something illegal or violent done to him.

Get real.

[Murray B]

Get real.

Thanks Ben, but I am so real I am unreal. Someone, not me, has already contacted the FBI.

To claim Stolen Valor you must show the claims were public and this is going to be hard since I had never heard any of this until yesterday and I pay attention.

Otherwise you must show he was never a Marine and if he has his paperwork then that won't happen.

There is a reason that active duty personnell do not express political opinions. It does not help the U.S. Army to take sides in a political debate.

Wait for it.

Good luck, Eh!

[ang1sgt]

Otherwise you must show he was never a Marine and if he has his paperwork then that won't happen.

No Sir, It is also for those that claim awards and decorations they have not earned also. Just thought you should know.

[MOM]

I would just add, Murry, that HEB many times put his own personal info out
here, even asking for campaign donations, and also he had a link to his
personal blog in his signature line. Nobody here "outted" his personal ID.
He did that on his own. And you are way off base with your post.

[txb&b]

In addition to what's already been said, I would like to point out that his exposure was NOT politically motivated. U.S. troops take their service seriously - to the point that posers and those who claim awards that weren't earned are dealt with instead of ignored. The only reason politics got drug into it was because HE was running for public office on credentials he hadn't earned and the voters have a right to know if a candidate is dishonest.

[wukong]

Are you implying that Hairyeyeball is now on a vendetta with other forum members as a target?:dontgetit:

[Ben Shotalot]

To claim Stolen Valor you must show the claims were public and this is going to be hard since I had never heard any of this until yesterday and I pay attention.

So, if a tree fell in the forest and everybody but you were there, does that mean it didn't make a noise?

Otherwise you must show he was never a Marine and if he has his paperwork then that won't happen.

Wrong.

There is a reason that active duty personnell do not express political opinions.

We don't in uniform which would make us representatives and ambassadors of the military. We can on our own accord, and out of uniform.

It does not help the U.S. Army to take sides in a political debate.

No one here took sides on his (or anyone else’s) politics. I personally agree with many, if not most, of his political views. You are WAY off base here.

Wait for it.

Good luck, Eh!

You must be from Canada where no one can say anything bad about someone else without getting into trouble by the government. Kool-aid taste good up there, eh?

[Ben Shotalot]

Thanks Ben, but I am so real I am unreal. Someone, not me, has already contacted the FBI.

Are you saying that someone from this board reported HE to the FBI, or that someone you know has reported this board to the FBI?

If the latter, then does.....Wait for it.
Good luck, Eh! mean that those on the board should watch our back?

I'm gonna error on the side of good will and think it the former, and that "Good luck" just means "see ya".

Although I still don't know what you mean by "wait for it". I haven't had my morning coffee yet.

[mtnsldr]

Thanks for stopping by. http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:tXaS5j0mpyG8hM:http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/ayzaiah_ice/smileywave.gif

[Murray B]

Five purple hearts!? It is obvious, even to a civilian like me, that the old fart is pulling your leg.

Why do some veterans insist on doing this? I sure don’t know but it seems to have gone on since the beginning of recorded history or even longer.

It was funny until it became political and then somebody literally made a federal case of it.

Now there are likely to be ramifications.

Consider these posts:

“I only wish it was election time so he would still be in the public eye in AZ...”

“...pi$$ing his political future away.”

“I am telling you point blank that I have full intention of contacting your local paper in AZ and giving them everything I have.”

“Your future political career is going to the toilet as well...”

At first I thought this was violating some unwritten rule but now I discover that it is in writing. [There are lots more on the subject but this one will do.]

Consider DOD directive NUMBER 1344.10 which clearly states, ”A Member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:...4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election...”

Your military seems to have lots of rules but maybe they won’t find out or maybe they are not strict about the rules. Oops, I forgot that the LTC (Ret) fellow has already contacted the FBI.

The wheels of military justice grind slowly but I expect they will get there eventually. Wait for it.

This was a great site and I enjoyed the dialog. So, thanks for the memories [why do I see Bob Hope’s face when I say that] but I’ve really got to go.

[Ben Shotalot]

The wheels of military justice grind slowly but I expect they will get there eventually. Wait for it.



You really don't have a clue, do you?

I await any military investigation with glee.

[-BuLL-]

I think you're misunderstanding all of those posts. They brought in politics because HEB was running for public office. They weren't taken a side, they were simply stating that they wish the elections were still going on so they could oust him publicly. Your decision to leave is ultimately yours, but I'd say you have completely misread all of these posts.

[mtnsldr]

There can only be election interference when there actually IS an election. The election that JD Schechter ran in has concluded. Therefore there is no way to interfere.

However, providing true information to Federal authorities in order to investigate someone for any crime (to include Stolen Valor) is in no way against Military protocol. In fact, providing data that may indicate lies made by a candidate to election governing bodies is not interfering with an election either, otherwise those in uniform who stood for the TRUTH with regard to John Kerry's service would be doing hard time.

Please, stay. I would love to continue to listen to you rant about a topic you've done cursory research of (at best) and your continued attempts to tell those of us in uniform we're doing something illegal. Or you could just man up, do what you said you were gonna do, and leave already.

[Drill for life]

but I'd say you have completely misread all of these posts.


Well everyone reads literature differently, Murray B just read it differently than other people on the forum (including myself). I do see how it being to "political" could have been dragged from recent threads. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

[SlightlyCatholic]

It was funny until it became political and then somebody literally made a federal case of it.

I don't think it was ever funny...I never got a laugh out of it, anyway.

Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't there be ramifications? You do something bad, you get punished for it by the appropriate authority. That lesson goes all the way back to kindergarten when little Johnny kicked over Suzy's Lego tower and had to miss recess. Every choice has consequences and bad choices have bad consequences.

[-BuLL-]

Well everyone reads literature differently, Murray B just read it differently than other people on the forum (including myself). I do see how it being to "political" could have been dragged from recent threads. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

But it wasn't political. There was no political agenda put forth, HEB simply was running for public office and they wanted to oust him so the voters would be informed. It has nothing to do with any kind of policy or politics. I don't get how this would be an issue.

[armysc_25b]

Consider DOD directive NUMBER 1344.10 which clearly states, ”A Member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:...4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election...”

Your military seems to have lots of rules but maybe they won’t find out or maybe they are not strict about the rules. Oops, I forgot that the LTC (Ret) fellow has already contacted the FBI.

I'm not quite sure I get where you're trying to go with this. If I am understanding this correctly, the retired Lt Col (assuming I know who you are speaking of), not acting in an official capacity, contacted the proper authorities on a suspected crime based on valid evidence, and you seem to imply that this is wrong? Would it have been better if instead of anyone who has worn the uniform, a civilian member of these forums had contacted the authorities?

[Mood44]

My Dear Mr. Murray:

May I call you Bill? You see Bill, you obviously do not understand the military of the United States of America (we are just below you geographically). When a member past or present discovers one who is posing as someone they were not, we believe it is our God given right to expose them.

Now, obviously you do not agree with this philosophy or, one might say, philosophical difference. My response to your disagreement is to emphasize what you have already said............

















wait for it.......



















SEE YA!

[Murray B]

I'm not quite sure I get where you're trying to go with this.

Okay, a group has clearly stated that they intend to interfere, or are already interefering, with the next Arizona election.

There is a "shall not" in regards to that and here is another:

4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

So, how important is a "shall not" to the military? They sound pretty strict to a civlian like me.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Okay, a group has clearly stated that they intend to interfere, or are already interefering, with the next Arizona election.

Assuming he runs again...

[mtnsldr]

If you think an injustice has been done to HE (man, I can't believe I got that all out at once) please feel free to sick the dogs of a military tribunal on us.

Here is the website for the Army IG:
http://wwwpublic.ignet.army.mil/

Phone numbers to the Investigation Division:
COM: (703) 601-1000
DSN: 329-1000
FAX: (703) 607-5954 FAX DSN: 327-5954

Here's his address:

Department of the Army
The Inspector General
ATTN: SAIG-AC
1700 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1700

Now, why are we still talking about this? Think we're wrong? Do something about it! I'll send you my full name and Social Security Number via EMAIL if you're serious.

Didn't you say you were leaving?

[armysc_25b]

Okay, a group has clearly stated that they intend to interfere, or are already interefering, with the next Arizona election.

There is a "shall not" in regards to that and here is another:

4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

So, how important is a "shall not" to the military? They sound pretty strict to a civlian like me.

How have the members of this board published partisan articles either for or against a member of a political party? Members of this board have stated that if elections were ongoing when the truths were brought forward, they would ensure that the public was aware of those truths. At no point, however, did any member state, in any way shape or form, that they were out to screw over one Mr. J.D. Schechter. As the public has the right to know his political beliefs, they also have the right to know the truth about his background.

[Billyd]

Murray,

Had you bothered to do a little bit of research, you would have seen that the election in question occurred in November 2008. Which means that the individual in question has already been defeated (finished third in a five man race) and therefore makes this discussion mute. This also means that no member of the United States Military has interfered with the electoral process in any way shape or form.

Simply put, sir, you jumped to a conclusion that is not supported by the facts in the case.

[wukong]

Consider DOD directive NUMBER 1344.10 which clearly states, ”A Member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:...4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election...”


There is nothing in this code that prevents an active duty person from participating in our political process as an individual. We can not participate while in uniform, infer in any way that our service endorses a candidate or provision or use our office to solicit others.

[Murray B]

Didn't you say you were leaving?

Yes, soon, but I want to make it clear that whatever happens to you people it has nothing to do with me.

As the public has the right to know his political beliefs, they also have the right to know the truth about his background.

Maybe so, but it looks like it can’t come from active service personnel.

Had you bothered to do a little bit of research, you would have seen that the election in question occurred in November 2008...This also means that no member of the United States Military has interfered with the electoral process in any way shape or form.

Actually, I did pay attention and English is my first language.

These people have clearly stated an intent to interfere with the next election in Arizona, not the last one. Is that in 2010 or 2012? Either way, active service personnel should not be involved with any of it.

There is nothing in this code that prevents an active duty person from participating in our political process as an individual. We can not participate while in uniform, infer in any way that our service endorses a candidate or provision or use our office to solicit others.

Are you saying that 4.1.2.3. only applies to messages written while in uniform? That is not what I understood it to mean.

[MOM]

Mur....why are you obsessing so much over this?

I want to make it clear that whatever happens to you people it has nothing to do with me.


You sound awfully paranoid about something....

[armysc_25b]

Maybe so, but it looks like it can’t come from active service personnel.

We, as active service personnel, are just as responsible, if not more (depending on who's opinion you're asking for) to uphold the laws of this country and to do what's the right thing. In the case of ensuring the public is aware of the truth behind Mr. Schechter's background, so long as we do not use our active status as the basis for outing him, then it is legal. He brought up his history as a Marine who had served in Vietnam during his campaign, and broke one of his own campaign promises by not living up to the following (obtained from his election website): "To put integrity and principle ahead of political gain."

Are you saying that 4.1.2.3. only applies to messages written while in uniform? That is not what I understood it to mean.

We are able to have our own political beliefs while serving, vote for our representatives, and everything else all legal citizens of this country are able to do. While in uniform, however, we are not authorized to participate in legal demonstrations or engage in activity that would discredit the uniform. As well, we cannot support a candidate solely on the grounds that we do so as a service member, as that may portray an unintended message that the service supports an individual.

[PhoenixCadet]

Yes, soon, but I want to make it clear that whatever happens to you people it has nothing to do with me.

Maybe so, but it looks like it can’t come from active service personnel.

Correct me if I'm wrong (any US folk, not you), but if you know about a false claim such as this, and you don't report it, couldn't you also be charged with "aiding and abetting"? After all, one of the key definitions of that term is "not reporting dishonest acts that are committed".

You said it yourself -- this has nothing to do with you. Why post in the first place (and then keep on posting) if that's your stance on the matter? Seems pretty contradictory to me. You simply reek of "troll", in my opinion, especially with the "I'm leaving, I just want to constantly come back until my point is made" attitude.

-PC

[Murray B]

...why are you obsessing so much over this?
You sound awfully paranoid about something....

This was my favourite forum before the political war started. Then some guy invited me to report it to the authorities. Everyone would blame me if something bad happened. It is not neccessary for me to report anything since it appears that the LTC (RET) fellow has already done that.

What none of you has figured out is that he probably didn’t report the old pensioned veteran for pulling your leg. Get serious will you. There does not seem to be much of a case for Stolen Valor either since he got the pension from being old and I expect that he really is old. What great benefit has he received for those tall tales? It’s not like he became governor or something. Not much of a case there.

If the LTC (RET) did not report the old vet to the FBI then what did he report?

The answer to that may damage this forum so badly that it may never recover and that makes me sad.

...We are able to have our own political beliefs while serving...

Actually it looks like you may NOT be allowed to EXPRESS any political belief while serving. Never in my life have I seen so many soldiers willing to drag their service into a partisan political fight. The DOD directive is completely clear on this subject and it does not seem to matter if you are wearing your colours or not.

You can get a copy of the directive at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

So how important is a “shall not” to the U.S. Army anyway?

[Ben Shotalot]

Yes, soon, but I want to make it clear that whatever happens to you people it has nothing to do with me.

Make the freaking call. I'll call them myself if you want me too. I'm right here.



Maybe so, but it looks like it can’t come from active service personnel.

Active duty can vote, they can speak there mind about a candidate, and are supported by the military to do so. Using your office, title, or uniform to affect or interfere in a election is a no-no. You still haven't figured it out. (read below for more)

Actually, I did pay attention and English is my first language.

Apparently it doesn't translate through your brain synapses very well.

These people have clearly stated an intent to interfere with the next election in Arizona, not the last one. Is that in 2010 or 2012? Either way, active service personnel should not be involved with any of it.

Active duty can voice their opinion, concerns, grievances etc. Don't be so ignorant.

Are you saying that 4.1.2.3. only applies to messages written while in uniform? That is not what I understood it to mean.

I have been involved in trying to get a Soldier who used his uniform to make a point by saying he was removing his duty uniform (did this physically), and putting on another uniform (by putting on a campaign shirt) and going to fight for a particular presidential candidate's "army". All the while bad mouthing the military, the GWOT, government in general, and showing off his military ID card and publicly identifying himself ON CAMERA, ON YOU TUBE.

Unfortunately, after an investigation, it was deemed free speech and not using his official capacity as a soldier to support a candidate, or influence an election. All we could do was to get him called onto the carpet for conduct unbecoming.

There is a difference between that and getting up in front of a crowd, in uniform, and say "I am Soldier and I believe that as Soldier's we should throw our support behind so and so, so that we can have blah blah blah...." or "I represent my fellow brothers in arms by saying that it is time to have this person in office......."

These laws that you are referring to have more to do with having the institution of the military have any power behind a candidate or to prevent a COUP.

How many Generals keep quiet during the election, but voice opinion after they retire? Look at our last election. MANY. You know why? Because the laws are written to prevent Generals having sway or influence in elections! Generals can create a situation that will lead to a COUP like in other third world countries.

A person getting up in front of the crowd, who happens to be active duty military, and tells said crowd that the candidate is a fake - is in his/her right to do so.

In fact, the military would like to "out" as many posers claiming awards, benefits, or curring favor as they can do public harm to the military and can/often STEAL from the government (the US Citizens), and they want us to do it because THAT is against the law.

[PhoenixCadet]

This was my favourite forum before the political war started. Then some guy invited me to report it to the authorities. Everyone would blame me if something bad happened. It is not neccessary for me to report anything since it appears that the LTC (RET) fellow has already done that.

What none of you has figured out is that he probably didn’t report the old pensioned veteran for pulling your leg. Get serious will you. There does not seem to be much of a case for Stolen Valor either since he got the pension from being old and I expect that he really is old. What great benefit has he received for those tall tales? It’s not like he became governor or something. Not much of a case there.

If the LTC (RET) did not report the old vet to the FBI then what did he report?

The answer to that may damage this forum so badly that it may never recover and that makes me sad.



Actually it looks like you may NOT be allowed to EXPRESS any political belief while serving. Never in my life have I seen so many soldiers willing to drag their service into a partisan political fight. The DOD directive is completely clear on this subject and it does not seem to matter if you are wearing your colours or not.

You can get a copy of the directive at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

So how important is a “shall not” to the U.S. Army anyway?

Why are you so damn stuck on this being about "politics"? If anything, that's only a small portion of the matter in the first place. The main issue is exposing a poser who claimed a plethora of awards to which he was not entitled. The posts mentioning his run for office make up a fraction of a percentage of the total posts on the subject, yet those are the ones you seem to be so focused on.

As a Canadian I am neither Democrat or Republican as weren’t my parents and grandparents before me. It is pretty obvious to me when a disagreement in your country is politically motivated.

I agreed with a good amount (if not all) of HEB's political stances as described on this website. (I've read others who have said similar things, as well.) With that said, given the evidence at hand, I am firmly against him serving in any public office. How's that politically motivated, again?

In regard to military folk expressing their political opinion, either you're blind, or simply stupid.

Actually it looks like you may NOT be allowed to EXPRESS any political belief while serving.

Uh, yeah... This is from the regulation you refer to quite a bit:

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

Emphasis mine.

Yeah... no expressions allowed. Period. :sleepy:

My original opinion still stands - and is even stronger now: You're a troll. A stupid one, at that. I won't expect a response to this, though.

-PC

[mtnsldr]

I tell you what Murray, start using NAMES. Since you're going to keep calling "someone" out, use their names.

1) The only retired Lt Col on this forum that I know, its Wukong. The only other LTC on this forum that's Army is active, and was here only briefly. (If I missed someone, I'm sorry, I don't know everybodies ranks...)

2) Who is you're "secret source" who says we've done something wrong? If he's man enough to throw stones, he should be man enough to come here and face us.

3) Stop trying to interpret our regulations for us. Many of us are familiar with this topic, as Ben said, some directly due to our status as leaders. I've had to deal with Soldiers attempting to participate in state elections in an official capacity.

4) In the end, the actions here were not politically motivated, you're completely misinterpreting everything. The intent was to out a poser and make him known for his lies. Why an election is beneficial for this is that it gets much more widespread attention if it is a candidate running for office. In the end, I don't think anyone would side with you that identifying the lies of a candidate is doing anything more than promoting the truth. Certainly it isn't "influencing" a campaign to support the other side, especially when none of the people sending the information reside in that State, and none have anything to gain from the outcome.

[Grunt]

As a certified network administrator [‘computer guy’] I have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of my users. I am not the admin for this forum but the obvious violation of privacy for one of your members means that I really shouldn’t be coming here anymore.

I realize it's already been mentioned by others in this thread, but I wanted to reiterate this fact just to be perfectly clear; in no way did I release any personal information or breach any privacy/trust as an administrator of this site. If our members (aged over 18) choose to make their names, beliefs, claims, service histories, favorite colours (that 'u' was just for you, my northern friend) public, then that's entirely up to them, as was the case to which you're referring. You're of course entitled to your other opinions regarding what's happened here but in this instance you're simply wrong. And please know I'm not stating that with any kind of malice, just fact.

[armysc_25b]

Actually it looks like you may NOT be allowed to EXPRESS any political belief while serving. Never in my life have I seen so many soldiers willing to drag their service into a partisan political fight. The DOD directive is completely clear on this subject and it does not seem to matter if you are wearing your colours or not.

You can get a copy of the directive at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

So how important is a “shall not” to the U.S. Army anyway?

PhoenixCadet beat me to proving what we are able to do. There's other documents out there that support the quoted regulation. Selective reading's a b#&@h, ain't it?

[CAPSmith]

Seems to me that the "shall not interfere with elections" is one of those "original context" things to examine.

Does it infer that military personnel can not participate in elections? No, because they can and still do vote. However, they can't make "recommendations" for any particular individual on behalf of "the military."

I would also suggest that it is what covers the "no military at polling stations, coups, etc" - to me, that is "interference in an election."

Every US citizen has the obligation to report alleged crimes to the proper authorities, even if they happen to be in the military. I don't believe anyone has overstepped their bounds in reporting this incident for investigation - even if it were still election time.

Remember also that there are numerous retired military and civilians on the board - either of which would be well within their rights as a US citizen to make a call to the local media agency (freedom of the press is another check against the government we have) to inform them that someone running for office is doing so using credentials they did not indeed earn.

[MarineNephew]

I find it quite "interesting" that someone from CANADA would be so concerned about what people associated with the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES might or might not be doing that could affect a person's electability in ARIZONA.

If I am not mistaken, in Murray B's profile, he states that one of his interests is "correcting history". That is exactly what we did in regards to HEB. HEB lied about his history, in public and we, as a board, CORRECTED history.

One of the benefits of remembering our history and correcting misdeeds is that it gives us the opportunity to insure that those misdeeds are not repeated in the future. And by members being proactive, by contacting those who need to be contacted, by insuring those LIES are not used to further a political agenda, we insure that misdeeds are not repeated.

I would be real interested in seeing the IP associated with MurrayB's posts. I would say that odds are pretty good that MurrayB's posts are not really coming from Canada, but rather somewhere in the Southwestern US. For someone who is so adamant that HEB was "wronged" - even though they never bothered chiming in while it was happening - leads me to believe that someone may have had an alter-ego on the board.

[SlightlyCatholic]

This place gets weirder every day...

I would be real interested in seeing the IP associated with MurrayB's posts. I would say that odds are pretty good that MurrayB's posts are not really coming from Canada, but rather somewhere in the Southwestern US. For someone who is so adamant that HEB was "wronged" - even though they never bothered chiming in while it was happening - leads me to believe that someone may have had an alter-ego on the board.

I guess this is a possibility, since HEB's IP address was never actually banned...but why go through the trouble of maintaing the account and the identity for so long? The account was created on Sept. 22nd of last year...that's a long time to maintain an "altar ego". Weird...

[Outsider]

As a Canadian I am neither Democrat or Republican
Nor do you have ANY interest in how we deal with American business As a Canadian you should concern yourself with Canadian issues

As a former educator I am sensitive to having my real identity disclosed on a forum like this.
Um, at what point were you EVER asked to reveal your real identity?
If you reveal that info ANYWHERE on the net I'm sorry,
but that makes you an idiot!
Even doing an IP trace doesn't show who you are or your exact location it only gives a general location of your Internet provider.
I know the government can find that info but they have the tools for that most webmasters do not.
Even if grunt does I'm sure he would never reveal it in a public manner because that would be a liability for him.

The last thing I need right now is some kook damaging my car or throwing a rock through my window because they disagree with something I’ve posted.
See my comment above

The recent ‘feeding frenzy’ is obviously politically motivated as shown by the following:

“I only wish it was election time so he would still be in the public eye in AZ...”

“Oh you know he's trolling out there reading, sweating and most likely pi$$ing his political future away.”

“I am telling you point blank that I have full intention of contacting your local paper in AZ and giving them everything I have.”

“Your future political career is going to the toilet as well...”

As a certified network administrator [‘computer guy’] I have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of my users. I am not the admin for this forum but the obvious violation of privacy for one of your members means that I really shouldn’t be coming here anymore.
The member in question was running for a public office
that pretty much opened his life up for public scrutiny
and as American's we have the right to know what our elected oficials
and those seeking public office stand for PERIOD!
If the said member would lie about earning medals he did not earn
what else would he lie about?
I'd say pretty much ANYTHING they decided to.
As far as those who called him out
it doesn't matter if they are currently active duty or not.
The Marines have a saying
"Once a Marine ALWAYS a Marine!"
That means even after their service has been up for years
they,
well MOST of them live by that saying and they hold anyone claiming to
be a Marine to the standards they lived by as active duty personel.
You can bet if someone is suspected of lying about their Marine service
another Marine has NO reservation about calling it into question.
I've seen it a couple of times in the 5 years I've been around military style forums.
I suspect I'll see it again in the future.
As long as there are posers there will be those who are going to seek them out and expose them for who they really are

[MOM]

Then some guy invited me to report it to the authorities. Everyone would blame me if something bad happened. It is not neccessary for me to report anything since it appears that the LTC (RET) fellow has already done that.

So you are saying that someone here "invited you to report "it" to the authorities"? I'm not sure what "it" refers to, and I'm not sure why anyone here would think it important that a Canadian report anything, and to what authority?

What none of you has figured out is that he probably didn’t report the old pensioned veteran for pulling your leg. Get serious will you. There does not seem to be much of a case for Stolen Valor either since he got the pension from being old and I expect that he really is old. What great benefit has he received for those tall tales? It’s not like he became governor or something. Not much of a case there.

None of that above even makes sense to me. You keep talking about an old retired LTC, or are you talking about old retired HEB? What great benefit has he received for those tall tales? That's a good question, and exactly what the FBI should be looking into. Maybe nothing, maybe something. Maybe nothing more than a bloated ego through this forum, or maybe more than his share of VA benefits and some extra votes and campaign donations from the false claims. That's why it's called an investigation to find out. He is of course, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and everyone here knows that. But the damning proof was posted, and there was no attempt from him to refute it, so guilty is the assumed verdict by this jury unless the defendant can produce evidence to that will exonerate himself.

You are aware I'm sure, since you've been so closely involving yourself in all this, that HEB's self-promotion to Sergeant of Marines, when he was actually only a LCpl extends way beyong this forum. He signed that way on several sites all over the internet, including newpaper forums and opinion pages. I even have a picture of him wearing a Sergeant's Drill Instructor hat that he told me was the very one he wore when he was one. I suspect it came from the Army surplus store he used to work at. Did we falsely accuse him? Not according to the DD214 we have. Can he prove otherwise? Possibly, but not likely or he already would have when the whole think started.

If the LTC (RET) did not report the old vet to the FBI then what did he report?

The answer to that may damage this forum so badly that it may never recover and that makes me sad.

I still don't see your logic here. It was the best thing that could have happened to this forum in my opinion. It got rid of the two oppressors who were dragging it down and keeping it from growing if you ask me.

Actually it looks like you may NOT be allowed to EXPRESS any political belief while serving.

I'm no legal expert, and certainly not when it comes to the UMCJ, but I think you are flat out wrong on this one. The First Amendement is something every American has. The time and place you do it, and the manner in which you do it (as in not in uniform, not while on duty, not inciting public riot against the POTUS, etc) may have restrictions, but the right to expressing your own political beliefs on your own time is a right that can not be taken away.

At least 10 characters.

[MarineNephew]

Believe you me, as a moderator of several Yahoo boards dealing with showing dogs, I come across people using multiple accounts all the time. When people get called out for being stupid/saying stupid things, they fire up a new account, use that "alter ego" to support their original persona's point, and then keep them active.

Who knows... could be sometime in the past, HEB was under fire for something on the board, created a new account, and then left it there for a rainy day. I'm wondering how long, before this recent round of posts MurraryB started making, was his last set of posts. I guess it's pretty easy to find out.



This place gets weirder every day...



I guess this is a possibility, since HEB's IP address was never actually banned...but why go through the trouble of maintaing the account and the identity for so long? The account was created on Sept. 22nd of last year...that's a long time to maintain an "altar ego". Weird...

[-BuLL-]

Okay, a group has clearly stated that they intend to interfere, or are already interefering, with the next Arizona election.


Because HEB was running for public office in Arizona. They wouldn't do it for the hell of it.

[MarineNephew]

Okay, a group has clearly stated that they intend to interfere, or are already interefering, with the next Arizona election.


Murray B,

Some quick, simple questions - maybe you can consider answering - from your brain and from your experience, instead of using Google or Wikipedia to find single, out of context, oddball passages from some military regulation to formulate your answers.

1) Explain/show where anyone said they would "INTERFERE" with the next Arizona election.

2) Explain/show where bringing out the TRUTH about a candidate can or should be construed as "INTERFERING".

3) Explain/show any military regulation that precludes FORMER military personnel from participating in the election process... including providing information that shows that a candidate lied about his military experience/awards to further his campaign.

4) Have you looked at the make up of the members of this board? Maybe 10% are currently on active duty. The rest are either former, retired, or considering joining the military. Explain how you came to the conclusion that military regulations dealing with Active Duty personnel apply to those who have served their time or have not even joined yet.

5) Since you are so concerned with how a former military person is/was treated by the members of this board, please expound upon your military service and how you have contributed to the "well being" of your country.

6) Since you have neither served in the U.S. Military, since you do not live in Arizona or the United States, please explain how this affects you in the least.

7) Or.... you can just.... wait for it....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AND GO AWAY LIKE YOU PROMISED TO DO THE OTHER DAY!

[Murray B]

1) The only retired Lt Col on this forum that I know, its Wukong. The only other LTC on this forum that's Army is active, and was here only briefly. (If I missed someone, I'm sorry, I don't know everybodies ranks...)

Well I do not know everybody's rank either and sometimes they make no sense to me. It thought he was an LTC but it looks like he was a Captain.
[Is there such a thing as a Lieutenant Captain?]

Anyway the post I was referring to is this one:

“After placing a phonecall to the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the FBI (MOPH referred me)...,

Semper Fidelis
CaptRetd, former GySgt USMC"

Now even if this fellow did not call the FBI I expect those supercomputers in Virginia flagged the term and the FBI cyber people took a look.

They would not find much for their agency since there is nothing illegal about some old vet with a bodacious mustache spinning yarns. Maybe it is something for military.com to put in the "Tall Tales" section but that is about it.

Something, however, must be happening since there have been more than 14,000 hits on that thread.

I'm a civilian and it took less than a minute to google "USMC political" and get pointed to the DOD directive. It is very clear. Any active service person "shall not" connect their service to anything in a partisan way. That is in the actual written regulations.

Of course, as a civilian, I have no idea what they will do if someone violates a "shall not" regulation. Do they have to polish toilets, peel potatos, pay a fine, or what? To me it says "shall not [or else]" where you don't really want to know what the "else" part is.

The old board was a real gem thanks to the tireless efforts of volunteers like HairyEyeball.

Strangely, he never made any unusual claims to me. He said he was a Vietnam vet, preferred the M-14 to the M-16, and sometimes went drinking with the Australians. Nothing about five purple hearts or anything like that. Of course that may be because I asked politely and with the respect that all veterans deserve.

The volunteers kept away the trolls and it used to be possible to have serious adult discussions. That is why I joined the old board in the first place. Now the trolls have taken over and the board is a wasteland where little trace of the original gem remains.

[MarineNephew]

And yet, when asked to provide your "thoughts" instead of relying on an internet search, and to answer some questions... you fail to do so.

You know nothing about the military, yet you continue to post drivel about some military regulation you found via some silly search.

You are in way above your head. Swim back to the shallow end of the pool, get back on the short bus, and go back home, eh!

[MOM]

It thought he was an LTC but it looks like he was a Captain.
[Is there such a thing as a Lieutenant Captain?]

Kinda says it all right there.

[armysc_25b]

Strangely, he never made any unusual claims to me. He said he was a Vietnam vet, preferred the M-14 to the M-16, and sometimes went drinking with the Australians. Nothing about five purple hearts or anything like that. Of course that may be because I asked politely and with the respect that all veterans deserve.

Strangely, those claims were never made to me, either. Just so happens, however, that a couple individuals on this forum were made privy to those claims, and have stated that they were suspicious of them however did not act at that point in time. As other individuals came onboard, they sniffed out his lies, his claims were proven to be false, and appropriate action was taken. Then again, doesn't seem you would know that since you seem to pick and choose what you read and respond to.

They would not find much for their agency since there is nothing illegal about some old vet with a bodacious mustache spinning yarns. Maybe it is something for military.com to put in the "Tall Tales" section but that is about it.

Oh, really? I suggest you research the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Better yet, allow me to bring the act to you:

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3352

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to protections for the Medal of Honor, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 19, 2005
Mr. SALAZAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to protections for the Medal of Honor, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Stolen Valor Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--

(1) fraudulent claims surrounding receipt of the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished-Service Cross, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, the Purple Heart, or any other medal or decoration awarded by Congress or the armed forces damage the reputation and meaning of these medals;

(2) Federal law enforcement officers are currently limited in their ability to prosecute fraudulent claims of receipt of military medals; and

(3) changes to the current statute are necessary to allow law enforcement personnel to protect the reputation and meaning of these medals.

SEC. 3. MILITARY MEDAL PROTECTIONS.
Section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by inserting `purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt,' after `wears'; and

(B) by inserting `attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters or exchanges for anything of value' after `sells';

(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting `or (b)' after `subsection (a)'

(3) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);

(4) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:

`(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Medals- Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.'; and

(5) by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Other Medals- If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Distinguished Service Cross awarded under Section 3742 of title 10, an Air Force Cross awarded under section 8742 of section 10, a Navy cross awarded under section 6242 of title 10, a silver star awarded under section 3746, 6244, or 8746 of title 10, or a Purple Heart awarded under section 1129 of title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal as authorized by statute, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.'.

[PhoenixCadet]

It is very clear.

That is it - which makes me wonder why you've got such a hard time comprehending the regulation.

I'm still waiting for you to keep to your word and leave, troll.

-PC

[Redleg]

From a personal perspective, if the collective "blanket job" continues on persons who some may disagree there will never be a diversity of opinions which are the foundations of our great nation.

The tyrants have been deposed and now do we turn on each other?

"The humans look like the pigs and the pigs are looking like the humans."
-Animal Farm

[Desert Sapper]

I agree that this forum used to be a place for educated discussion, and that such discussion was the primary reason I joined Grunts over other forums back in 2004. I also agree that HE and o3 used to be the soup nazis that kept it that way. However, the two gentlemen in question would not have misinterpreted the cited regulation, and would have been just as virile (if not more so) than the rest of the membership in slapping down anybody and everybody that would be so grievously misinterpreting the right of military members to participation in the political process (so long as such participation does not prejudice their service).

The DODI is very clear. It is impossible to apply this regulation and its inherent intent to the outing of a 'Stolen Valor' violator. This has nothing to do with politics (I'm not even sure what political affiliation Duke Schechter is?). This has everything to do with trust, betrayal, dishonesty, and protecting the integrity of the most important decoration in the United States Military - The Purple Heart.

If you fail to understand all of this Murphy, I'm sorry. Just accept the FACT that the DODI has not been violated in any way, and intelligent discussion is still encouraged on this forum. Please be willing to bring such discussion to other threads and stick around.:)

[Ben Shotalot]

Desert Sapper,

You Sir, should be a moderator. ;)

[Desert Sapper]

Nah, I think I'll just continue to read and comment at my leisure with the rest of the peons.;)

[mtnsldr]

If we had two Army Mods we'd have to add a third, then we'd have a fireteam and this place would go downhill quick...

[Desert Sapper]

If we had two Army Mods we'd have to add a third, then we'd have a fireteam and this place would go downhill quick...

My thoughts, exactly. I think the forum did just fine without a bazillion modadors before (although I think the two that got booted were like the Vietnamese Secret Police by themselves). The more diversity in the ranks we have, the better. Less chance of service group think that way.

[armysc_25b]

If we had two Army Mods we'd have to add a third, then we'd have a fireteam and this place would go downhill quick...
Well, me and Phil already keep the "kiddie pool" policed. Now we got DS for this half of the room. Still need another Infantry grunt though, since this Signal Soldier would be ineffective in a combat role right now (two years in a strategic unit where training is a complete joke will do that).

[mtnsldr]

Well, me and Phil already keep the "kiddie pool" policed. Now we got DS for this half of the room. Still need another Infantry grunt though, since this Signal Soldier would be ineffective in a combat role right now (two years in a strategic unit where training is a complete joke will do that).

Thats why you're in the back of the stack with the SAW. Facing out. I said OUT!

[MOM]

The more diversity in the ranks we have, the better. Less chance of service group think that way.

Exactly, and it's still heavily Air Force.
What is needed still is a representative from the Navy, and the Marine Corps.

[Leobold11]

......Get serious will you. There does not seem to be much of a case for Stolen Valor either since he got the pension from being old and I expect that he really is old. What great benefit has he received for those tall tales? It’s not like he became governor or something. Not much of a case there.......

The Stolen Valor had nothing to do with whether or not he was deserved of a pension, it all has to do with HEB claiming honors he did not receive.

There is an EXCELLENT case against HEB. The guy has made the mistake of posting his fraudulent information on an open internet website and emailing the fraudulent information to various members of the site.

As for what benefits has he received for his tall tales? We may never know that, but if he did it here to us, you can bet he most likely did it in the real world as well. And who knows what he got for his lies. See the article below that shows that the U.S. takes Stolen Valor serious. (Arizona seems to attract some of the posers)

Man Accused of Impersonating a War Hero
June 12, 2009
Associated Press

PHOENIX - A man has been accused of pretending to be a highly decorated Marine by wearing a uniform with ribbons representing prestigious military honors, authorities said Thursday.

John William Rodriguez, 31, was arrested Wednesday and faces 13 charges of felony fraud schemes, state public safety officials said. He was being held at the Maricopa County jail, and it was not immediately known whether he had an attorney.

Rodriguez also may face a federal charge of violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which makes it a misdemeanor to lie about getting a military decoration. If convicted on the federal charge, he faces up to a year in prison and $200,000 in fines.

DPS Detective Roger Wilson said it was unclear why Rodriguez was posing as a war hero, but that he got discounts on airline tickets, didn't have to change the registration on his car from California to Arizona and made friends by introducing himself as a Marine.

Wilson said Rodriguez, who is unemployed, had been living in the Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale, at the home of a man he met on a flight to Phoenix, without paying for his stay. Rodriguez is originally from California but has been living in the Phoenix area for the past two years.

He also said Rodriguez cited an upcoming deployment to Iraq to get a court hearing on a drunken-driving charge postponed.

DPS officials arrested Rodriguez after he got off a flight from Sacramento, Calif., where they found Marine uniforms, a medal and ribbons representing the Navy Cross and the Silver Star at the Scottsdale home. Authorities did not know how he obtained the ribbons.

Wilson said the department learned of Rodriguez from a former Marine who saw him being introduced as a decorated war veteran. He said the former Marine noticed Rodriguez's military dress jacket was missing service stripes and thought it was odd that a young man would be wearing ribbons that represent the Navy Cross and Silver Star.

The Cross is the Navy's highest award for combat valor, and the Silver Star is the Army's third highest award for combat valor.

Authorities said they have interviewed people who told them Rodriguez had been posing as a Marine for two years.

Wilson said the impersonation of a military officer who can access bases or certain documents "can be very serious" and that officials were investigating whether he had posed as a Marine to enter a military base.

Last month, a 31-year-old man accused of fabricating an identity as a former Marine captain was arrested in Colorado. Richard Glen Strandlof, who used the name Rick Duncan, founded the Colorado Veterans Alliance, which voted to disband amid the allegations. No charges have been filed but the FBI were investigating whether he falsely represented himself to obtain money.

The U.S. government does not maintain a national database for recipients of military honors. Doug Sterner, a military historian in Pueblo, Colo., has asked Congress to establish such a record because "if we keep track of the real heroes, the phonies are immediately exposed in the light of the truth," he said.

[MarineNephew]

snip....... If you fail to understand all of this Murphy, I'm sorry...... snip

That's MURRAY, not Murphy. As much of a stickler as he seems to be for "regulations"... at the "top the letter" level, if you address it to the wrong name, he may not be able to determine you are addressing him.

[Redleg]

I agree that this forum used to be a place for educated discussion, and that such discussion was the primary reason I joined Grunts over other forums back in 2004. I also agree that HE and o3 used to be the soup nazis that kept it that way. However, the two gentlemen in question would not have misinterpreted the cited regulation, and would have been just as virile (if not more so) than the rest of the membership in slapping down anybody and everybody that would be so grievously misinterpreting the right of military members to participation in the political process (so long as such participation does not prejudice their service).

The DODI is very clear. It is impossible to apply this regulation and its inherent intent to the outing of a 'Stolen Valor' violator. This has nothing to do with politics (I'm not even sure what political affiliation Duke Schechter is?). This has everything to do with trust, betrayal, dishonesty, and protecting the integrity of the most important decoration in the United States Military - The Purple Heart.

If you fail to understand all of this Murphy, I'm sorry. Just accept the FACT that the DODI has not been violated in any way, and intelligent discussion is still encouraged on this forum. Please be willing to bring such discussion to other threads and stick around.:)

Di-Wee, I believe everyone has had their say on this subject and perhaps its a matter of agreeing to disagree on certain details?
What is certain is not everyone will agree on every aspect in lock-step detail of what the final disposition of the fraud should be.
This is what trials and due process are all about in our society no matter how the deck is stacked against you. The accused has taken the position not to defend himself and that is in itself is not an admission of guilt in a court of law, but is not perceived by his peers nor is it an honorable position to take.

My concerns are more broadbased where I see witchhunts against persons on this site because they refuse to go along, to get along. I'm not sure I subscribe to going along with the flow as I did not see the sign at the post gate stating: "You must state your business and resume here or be subject to an internal Article 15".

I trust that all our resident members wish to build up the Grunt's site and to attract additional members, and not to give the perception to outsiders of running off strays when someone does not agree with the majority point of view.

[Desert Sapper]

That's MURRAY, not Murphy. As much of a stickler as he seems to be for "regulations"... at the "top the letter" level, if you address it to the wrong name, he may not be able to determine you are addressing him.

Noted for future reference.;)

Di-Wee, I believe everyone has had their say on this subject and perhaps its a matter of agreeing to disagree on certain details?

...

Why'd you quote me, boss?

[Redleg]

Why'd you quote me, boss?

Because I agree with this statement.

"I agree that this forum used to be a place for educated discussion"

[Desert Sapper]

Because I agree with this statement.

"I agree that this forum used to be a place for educated discussion"

Hooah. I was just making sure I didn't have a FO calling in adjustments on my head to the FDC. ;)

I also had no idea what the Di-wee thing was. Thought maybe you were getting ready to Kung Fu chop my neck. Glad to see that's not the case. :D

[MarineNephew]

I trust that all our resident members wish to build up the Grunt's site and to attract additional members, and not to give the perception to outsiders of running off strays when someone does not agree with the majority point of view.

RedLeg,

I don't think anyone wanted to/pursued running MurrayB off because he did not agree with the consensus on HEB.

What irritated me (and I can only speak for me), what the fact someone with absolutely no ties to, no background in, or no knowledge of the military (pretty much by his own admission), tried to find some obscure passages in a military regulation manual, as his argument against what happened to HEB and tell us that we were all violating some regulation... regardless of how many times that point was proven incorrect.

He had no dog in the fight, he had no intelligence on the matter, and yet, he argued that what was done was wrong. And even when given the information anyone with any military background would have, he continued to use the same, inane arguements.

After the first set of discussions back, Murray was the one who said he was going to take his ball and go home, yet, he couldn't even honor that promise.

It wasn't anyone trying to chase him away because of his non-agreement with what was done with HEB... but just like dealing with people throughout life, after you try so many times, you finally give up and pray the idiot just goes away.

[Redleg]

Hooah. I was just making sure I didn't have a FO calling in adjustments on my head to the FDC. ;)

I also had no idea what the Di-wee thing was. Thought maybe you were getting ready to Kung Fu chop my neck. Glad to see that's not the case. :D

:D:D No Danger Close and I've never hit a friendly.

Di Wee = Captain in Vietnamese. A compliment.

[Redleg]

RedLeg,

I don't think anyone wanted to/pursued running MurrayB off because he did not agree with the consensus on HEB.

What irritated me (and I can only speak for me), what the fact someone with absolutely no ties to, no background in, or no knowledge of the military (pretty much by his own admission), tried to find some obscure passages in a military regulation manual, as his argument against what happened to HEB and tell us that we were all violating some regulation... regardless of how many times that point was proven incorrect.

He had no dog in the fight, he had no intelligence on the matter, and yet, he argued that what was done was wrong. And even when given the information anyone with any military background would have, he continued to use the same, inane arguements.

After the first set of discussions back, Murray was the one who said he was going to take his ball and go home, yet, he couldn't even honor that promise.

It wasn't anyone trying to chase him away because of his non-agreement with what was done with HEB... but just like dealing with people throughout life, after you try so many times, you finally give up and pray the idiot just goes away.

MarineNephew....I copy that and if he were military he would know better than try to put out the fire on two frauds now cooking in their own fat.
But since he is a PFC, maybe we need to make allowences for his lack of expertise and outrage in military regs and the personal insult on those who did walk the walk.
I believe anyone who ends up on the business end of several residents TOT will surely understand their folly. If not, then I support your premise that the village is missing one of its idiots.

I have found that guys like Murray who do not serve are some of the military's best supporters, dispite their inability to understand the personal sacrifices made by those who serve or have served in our military.

[MOM]

I have found that guys like Murray who do not serve are some of the military's best supporters, dispite their inability to understand the personal sacrifices made by those who serve or have served in our military.

Murry is a dweeb. But I like this statement you made Redleg, it is so true and it's something I wish some in the military community would keep in mind more than they do. Certainly, those of us who have not served, but love the military dearly, can become a pain in the ass and an irritant to those who have served by asking dumb questions, or overstepping like Mur is doing here. For the most part, that is because we look up to you as our heros. Don't forget that while y'all are off overseas, it is these very people that are doing battle on your behalf in the PR war, writing to their congressmen, bashing libtarded anti-war idiots all over the intarwebs, mailing out care packages, holding the Cindy Sheehan's of the world at bay....etc. All it takes is one brush off from an active duty guy to sour someone on the whole military altogether - just as all it takes is one act of inclusion from an active duty guy to get someone involved on the homefront. (That's MOM's USO speech for the day).

So I see the Redleg's point.
But Murry is still a dweeb for all the reasons MarineNephew said.
He's run it in the ground here and broke it plumb off.

[armysc_25b]

What irritated me (and I can only speak for me), what the fact someone with absolutely no ties to, no background in, or no knowledge of the military (pretty much by his own admission), tried to find some obscure passages in a military regulation manual, as his argument against what happened to HEB and tell us that we were all violating some regulation... regardless of how many times that point was proven incorrect.

Ditto. If you're going to try to explain to US what OUR rules are, you should in some way understand them. Military or not, the regulations are written so they can be read and understood. If you just read one or two lines from a regulation, you won't understand it, which is what I think Murray did.

[Desert Sapper]

I think MurrayB is just now coming to terms with what many of us that were Grunts veterans came to terms with a few weeks ago. It is inconceivable that anyone you know (especially a vet) is claiming something they didn't earn. How many of us came to HE's defense before all the cards were shown? Murray is just joining the game a little late.

[ChestyMulletPuller]

This forum used to be a good place to come and find interesting things about the military. It was free from the usual faults of most forums.

As a Canadian I am neither Democrat or Republican as weren’t my parents and grandparents before me. It is pretty obvious to me when a disagreement in your country is politically motivated.

As a former educator I am sensitive to having my real identity disclosed on a forum like this. A few years ago I had a student that wanted me to add a few percent to his grade. I asked him if he wanted me to re-grade his assignments. He said no but he needed a few more percent to bring his GPA up to the next step. I refused and he said “I know where you live”. Two months later I had an 18” scratch right down to the metal on the hood of my new car. I called the police who said that since no one saw anything there was nothing they could do. Later I learned from other students that he was a gang member and a drug dealer so I guess I was lucky to just get a scratch.

The last thing I need right now is some kook damaging my car or throwing a rock through my window because they disagree with something I’ve posted.

The recent ‘feeding frenzy’ is obviously politically motivated as shown by the following:

“I only wish it was election time so he would still be in the public eye in AZ...”

“Oh you know he's trolling out there reading, sweating and most likely pi$$ing his political future away.”

“I am telling you point blank that I have full intention of contacting your local paper in AZ and giving them everything I have.”

“Your future political career is going to the toilet as well...”

As a certified network administrator [‘computer guy’] I have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of my users. I am not the admin for this forum but the obvious violation of privacy for one of your members means that I really shouldn’t be coming here anymore.

Thanks for all the interesting converstations anyway, Eh!


Well MurrayB, I will tell you, even thought I am quite certain that you are HEB and/or know HEB. That I am the primary instigator on this, I have contacted the FBI and others and will continue to pursue this matter to its appropriate close.

As for Political motivation, HEB and I are almost identical in our political beliefs. I am a died in the wool, NRA, Gun nut, Midwestern Republican.

I am also still active in the military and am 110% that I am not violating any military laws. I feel more compelled to report HEB because he is running in my party of choice. If we turn a blind eye, we only hurt ourselves.

1stSgt Davis

[Redleg]

Chesty, you need an avatar. My compliments...

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh83/RedlegFN/82ni6ip.jpg

[Saint Marc]

Alright who has a sitrep on HE and the FBI? I called the Feds once and it was on a company I was working for that was committing fraud. The Feds looked into it and I was impressed, but since the people who got ripped off refused to press charges the Feds said they couldn't do anything. I was disappointed.

I speculate the same with HE. I saw someone say he was using his fictional character to gain rewards in politics? Did he finally get elected to something besides forum moderator? Most military people make shitty politicians anyway.

Personally the military background has hurt me more than help me with jobs I think. There are plenty of employers out there who just don't like ex-military, even if you have a degree. Sure they wn't say it, but few are pro-military, Home Depot is pro-military, one of the few.

[PhoenixCadet]

Did he finally get elected to something besides forum moderator?

IIRC, he lost the election he was running for (AZ State Leg.) last year, and said if he did lose, he wouldn't be trying again.

-PC

[Saint Marc]

Damn so he lost his election and then got outed? Wow!

[Machine]

Personally the military background has hurt me more than help me with jobs I think. There are plenty of employers out there who just don't like ex-military, even if you have a degree. Sure they wn't say it, but few are pro-military, Home Depot is pro-military, one of the few.

Military background hasn't helped with promotions in the civilian world. Your knowledge of all things Diversity, with a minor in financial ass wizardry is what raises you in the ranks of corporate management. For a long while I thought I wanted to move up the ladder here, but shit I like what I do and am a non conformist. It will take a Director who appreciates good old fashioned painful truth to get me to shoot for a higher paygrade of asshole around here. Really though, I'm shocked that they can even figure out which way to spin the turbines, let alone generate megawatts.

[Saint Marc]

I agree Machine, I know guys who have cost my company hundreds of thousands by damaging equipment. All never got fired or much more than a letter if that, but I've known plenty of guys who got fired over sending insensitive e-mails.
The corporate world is a daycare and it isn't about performance as much as it is about behavior modification and conformity to social agendas. The whole military advantage only works at the post office and again for certain minority groups and even then they are treated as tainted goods.

Most places really don't like ex-military because they do tend to speak from a frightening point of view called reality drawn from an equally frightening background called experience. And most military types are leaders, not manager material. The corporate world fears leaders. Where I am we have leads (meaning leader) working under Managers. You manage diseases, you lead people, and they wonder why things are fk'd up.

Managers are not real decision makers and are only bean counters, the heroes of innovation and industry in the country have already died, today we just have managers trying to squeeze every penny they can for the boards of directors.

I think managers are sad sacks of shit. I work with plenty of ex-military and not one of them has made it past lead to manager and we have guys right out of college 22 years old one year with the company promoted to manager positions. And true like you say they know nothing about what we do or what products we offer and how they work, not even basic stuff.

I hope the hope and change leads to collapse. I don't wish this retard system on my kids. Even my dad whose been with his company 34-36 years says the same. And HR? What the hell? HR is not the employees friend, no way.

[DaveIn3D]

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=1501&page=8

Read MurrabyB's post near the bottom...

I guess HEB does have an alter ego... or atleast a very 'loving' fanclub..

-3D