http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives,

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm

Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person’s participation in partisan political activities.

DOD defines “partisan political activity” as “activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.”

A “Nonpartisan political activity is defined as “activity supporting or relating to candidates not representing, or issues not specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.

Issues relating to constitutional amendments, referendums, approval of municipal ordinances, and others of similar character are not considered as specifically being identified with national or State political parties.”

they aren’t suppose to engage in open support and partsian political activities while active duty.

all that said, go back to the point on the unreliabiality of the FEC reports and what they are trying to claim is “military” and the fact that none of it is verifiable and he forced his donators to pick an occupation(or picked one for them). likely so he could pull stunts like this.

Not true. All military are free to donate. They just can’t actively campaign while in an on the job or in uniform status. We still have the same basic rights as all Americans.

Big John on April 21, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Thank you Big John. I should have read all the comments first. It’s very good to know that not jp nor anyone else has been able to take constitutional rights away from the military since my long ago departure from same.

It is against Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, plus specific military regulations for active duty military personnel to participate in partisan political activities. “The troops” do not support Ron Paul because to do so would be illegal.

jp on April 21, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Please provide link showing exactly what constitutes “partisan political activities” as that could obviously logically include even denying voting to active duty military which would obviously be absurd.

its illegal for active duty to contribute, they could be court maritialed if they did.

jp on April 21, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Please link to relevant DOD regs as that is the first I have ever heard of that. Thank you. I will check back here tomorrow for your link.

Drop the attacks and character assination and give me a good reason to vote for your guy, whomever it may be.

Wyrd on April 21, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Of there is another one.

You are hilarious Wyrd.

Nice rejoinder Madison. A bit of a projection on your part though. The ad hominem attacks are a bit too liberal minded for my taste.

Wyrd on April 21, 2008 at 4:05 PM

CRASH!!!

That was the sound of me falling over as I seem to recall some things that you said. What were they now? Let me go check.

There it is!

But hey, if some people want to act like 5 year olds and throw a temper tantrum then so be it. Have fun in your corner, the adults will try to keep it all together.

Wyrd on April 21, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Maybe there is even more? Should I go and look some more? Nah. That’s more than enough. Why over do it. Was someone commenting under your name? I thought HA didn’t allow duplicate ID’s. Maybe I was in error. Nah, I doubt it.

ROFLMAO!!!

Are you going to be alright Wyrd?

You are so funny.

its illegal for active duty to contribute, they could be court maritialed if they did. Among Veterans on GOP side McCain got the most. the paul people have been trying to use a press release of theirs were they gamed some numbers to have absolute ‘moral authority’ on the issue for obvious reasons. downright shameful

jp on April 21, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Not true. All military are free to donate. They just can’t actively campaign while in an on the job or in uniform status. We still have the same basic rights as all Americans.

only thing sadder then Ron Paul are the anti McCain types

Actually, I think they are one and the same. So they are just equally sad-sack.

Misha, excelent point about the masses votin for what is right or wrong. You are correct, assuming that their is a moral structure on which to base “right and wrong”. The masses generally vote for “what is easiest”. I look forward to seeing your explanation of what a better system is, then a representational democracy.

I don’t know of one. All of the alternatives that I DO know of, at least the ones that have been tried, suck even worse.

I wasn’t addressing the merits of democracy, though. I was merely pointing out that being in the minority doesn’t equal being “incorrect.”

Out of power, yes, incorrect, not necessarily.

this comes off as the classic liberal “moral authority” play for an area they are weak on.

secondly, its illegal for active duty personel to contribute and if they did they could lose their jobs.

thirdly, OpenSecrets breaks down contibutions by Sector, McCain and Hillary are at the top $$$ wise for the Defense sector.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D

this is the first year in awhile the Dems have heldup with Repubs in this sector, likely because political history indicates its their turn for power and bet hedging going on.

fourthly, where this originates is from faulty/sloppy reporting. when donating there is the option to select a field(which you could lie about for political reasons, and get away with since no verification) and on only Paul’s site he forced contributor to pick an industry(or possibly picked one for them). When you look on the FEC reports for “NO EMPLOYER WAS SUPPLIED” the Repubs other than Paul got a majority of their contributions from that, paul got virtually NONE because he didn’t allow that option(i.e. forced donor to pick or picked one for them). How many of the “NO Employer” option McCain/Romney had do you think were military? Its also impossible to verify the employment.

And when the votes actually came in, it was clear that McCain was the military/veterans candidate. If not for the demographic McCain wouldn’t have won nomination.

whats troubling but not suprising is Paul’s attempt to wrest “Absolute Moral Authority” on what was at best, unverifiable data and basically try to use it for political gain. which of course didn’t happen.

the Lone Star Times also had a long post on this awhile back:
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/05/do-the-troops-support-ron-paul/

It is against Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, plus specific military regulations for active duty military personnel to participate in partisan political activities. “The troops” do not support Ron Paul because to do so would be illegal.

Interesting article on the milatary donations. They indicate that it is a small number, unless they have a large sample the data is fairly worthless.

jp on April 21, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Oh I see. Thanks.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM

its illegal for active duty to contribute, they could be court maritialed if they did. Among Veterans on GOP side McCain got the most. the paul people have been trying to use a press release of theirs were they gamed some numbers to have absolute ‘moral authority’ on the issue for obvious reasons. downright shameful

Apparently it’s true about the military donations. I’m not totally surprised, though. Paul is appealing to a younger voting bracket, and there are a good deal of young soldiers in the armed forces.

notice he again repeats the lie that he received the most military donations.

Who did receive the most military donations?

Wyrd on April 21, 2008 at 5:19 PM

“You people are all children, pissing in the wind and moaning about it, and you will never change anything.

…wait, why aren’t you just addressing my points? No need for attacks. I was just observing.”

In other words, mac, when you can address your desired debator with respect, and not start out a discussion by insulting them and calling them children, come on back. Until then, get bent. Whining that someone won’t stick to the issue after you insult them is redirection, the tactic of the dishonest. I have no interest in someone who’s going to play gotcha games.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:36 PM

McCain’s fundraising seems to be pretty transparent to me simply based on the fact that the media is all over it.

And I’m not concerned about where RP is getting his money from. I think that’s probably obvious. My concern is more how it’s being spent or who is spending it. One thing I’m pretty certain of is that he’s never raised this kind of money before and I’m not seeing where it’s being spent that reflects the amount raised. My other concern is that RP doesn’t seem to have a very strong grip on how his campaign is run as was evidenced in the newsletter debacle. I just don’t want there to be some scandalous revelation during the general election by his Democratic opponent that someone on RP’s campaign team made a $1M salary .. or something similar. Cause the Democrats would be absolutely foolish to let this opportunity go by to not snatch his congressional seat this year.

I’m afraid the poor man is so out of touch with reality that he would believe anything anyone in his campaign team told him and there sure is a lot of cash flowing into that office.

Madison, Can you explain to me why I am wrong in describing the anti mccain types as “pissing and moaning in the wind”?
From my point of view that is all I see. I see some people attacking McCain because they dislike him, some for valid reasos. Some of these people want to see Democrats win, in what I would term a petty display of “See? we told you! now reap what you Sow”. Does that actually help our country? Perhaps it does, but I don’t see how.

What is Wyrd doing here? Trying to get answers to those pesky facts I types above. other then some intriguing dancing and evasions around that topic I have seen very little. I will vote for McCain, I won’t campaign for the guy, I am not happy with his amnesty and torture positions. But I think he is better then the alternative. If he is not, then tell me how.