Bormio Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 Federal employees are prohibited from campaigning on duty, they are not prohibited from expressing political opinions however. They can campaign on their own time and can contribute $. The military has its own legal code - I am not a lawyer but it has its own rules. And military personnel very often express their political views without consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, Bormio said: Federal employees are prohibited from campaigning on duty, they are not prohibited from expressing political opinions however. They can campaign on their own time and can contribute $. The military has its own legal code - I am not a lawyer but it has its own rules. And military personnel very often express their political views without consequence. Read this... (1) sets the tone. Serving the constitution is paramount. Hell, that's the foundation of what we do in the fed government. and those uniformed mil that do express their views...shouldn't. Just bc they do doesn't make it right. I knew of a few that were reprimanded for doing so. https://energy.gov/hc/ethics-fourteen-principles-ethical-conduct-federal-employees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Read this... https://energy.gov/hc/ethics-fourteen-principles-ethical-conduct-federal-employees That in no way prohibits expressing political opinions - although campaigning as part of official duties is a no-no (not stated in those principles). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 Just now, Bormio said: That in no way prohibits expressing political opinions - although campaigning as part of official duties is a no-no (not stated in those principles). Stating folks should be fired for exercising their constitutional right is not a political view. Ive said this before and it's quite clear what he's doing. simple question, is kneeling as a protest during the national anthem a constitutional right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCalRuss Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 Remember when Obama said he would fire BPs CEO? Remember when Obama said Republicans not supporting budget for Obama care is like disgruntled workers going on strike and should be fired? Im pretty sure Horsefly didn't bust out any codes on what laws were broken. Trump is white Obama is black Pretty simple to see why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 And it is not prohibited, as long as he does not threaten, bribe, give something in return. Recommending a boycott is perfectly legal as well. You might not like it - feel free to vote against him, contribute $ etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, NorCalRuss said: Remember when Obama said he would fire BPs CEO? Remember when Obama said Republicans not supporting budget for Obama care is like disgruntled workers going on strike and should be fired? Im pretty sure Horsefly didn't bust out any codes on what laws were broken. Trump is white Obama is black Pretty simple to see why. just bc you make decisions based on race doesn't mean others do. Some of us have integrity. For the record, I didn't even vote for Obama. those I admire in this admistration are Gen Mattis and Kelly. I like Colin Powell too and hoped he would have ran. I respect military leaders of integrity and commitment...more need to throw their name in the hat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bormio said: And it is not prohibited, as long as he does not threaten, bribe, give something in return. Recommending a boycott is perfectly legal as well. You might not like it - feel free to vote against him, contribute $ etc. You still dont get an oath taken to uphold the constitution, not surprising. That stuff is meaningless to you and your type. the difference between me and you, is I take my oath seriously and my rights as a citizen...I would do whatever is necessary to protect those rights...you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Horsefly said: You still dont get an oath taken to uphold the constitution, not surprising. That stuff is meaningless to you and your type. Trump did not restrict their freedom of speech - there was no government act that did so. He specifically said their protest was protected speech. He also thinks the owners should fire them - those positions are not inconsistent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCalRuss Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Horsefly said: You still dont get an oath taken to uphold the constitution, not surprising. That stuff is meaningless to you and your type. the difference between me and you, is I take my oath seriously and my rights as a citizen...I would do whatever is necessary to protect those rights...you? But you don't stand up for them when Obama was "breaking them". Wonder why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, NorCalRuss said: But you don't stand up for them when Obama was "breaking them". Wonder why? How do you know what I did or didn't do? My actions are not defined by what I post or don't post on the national football site. I'm not loyal to color, but to character...No candidate has exemplied that...NONE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, Bormio said: Trump did not restrict their freedom of speech - there was no government act that did so. He specifically said their protest was protected speech. He also thinks the owners should fire them - those positions are not inconsistent. He only has one purpose to preserve, support and defend it. It's not a political position Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 34 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Stating folks should be fired for exercising their constitutional right is not a political view. Ive said this before and it's quite clear what he's doing. simple question, is kneeling as a protest during the national anthem a constitutional right? Being a racist is a constitutional right. Run your analysis on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, Bormio said: Trump did not restrict their freedom of speech - there was no government act that did so. He specifically said their protest was protected speech. He also thinks the owners should fire them - those positions are not inconsistent. It's really not fucking hard to understand. The mental gymnastics that folks make to squeal about Trump are sometimes mind-boggling. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, concha said: Being a racist is a constitutional right. Run your analysis on that. yes it is, so what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 Just now, Horsefly said: yes it is, so what? Would you be upset about a president condemning racists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 minute ago, concha said: It's really not fucking hard to understand. The mental gymnastics that folks make to squeal about Trump are sometimes mind-boggling. . yes, those are contrasting views and inconsistent with any other protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, concha said: Would you be upset about a president condemning racists? Racist views run counter to liberty for all. They typically don't advocate constitutional equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Racist views run counter to liberty for all. They typically don't advocate constitutional equality. The constitution protects all views, even those counter to the constitution. What you are saying is racist views are quite unpopular - so restricting them is easy. But the constitution does not protect just popular opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bormio said: The constitution protects all views, even those counter to the constitution. What you are saying is racist views are quite unpopular - so restricting them is easy. But the constitution does not protect just popular opinions. I didn't say it wasn't protected, but it doesn't have to be supported. You guys are just arguing silly loops. Either the constitution is for all or it is not. Racists typically don't have views that are inclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Racist views run counter to liberty for all. They typically don't advocate constitutional equality. They exercise their constitutional rights and therefore should not be condemned by president, using your logic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Horsefly said: I didn't say it wasn't protected, but it doesn't have to be supported. You guys are just arguing silly loops. Either the constitution is for all or it is not. Racists typically don't have views that are inclusive. It does not have to be supported, condoned or anything. It just cannot be restricted by the government - period. Inclusive views are not the only ones protected from restriction. That is just some legal gibberish coming from the Left now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, concha said: They exercise their constitutional rights and therefore should not be condemned by president, using your logic. this is not about exercising rights to protest but racists having views they want to restrict and diminish rights of others. These views should be condemned and not allowed to come to pass. Ive listen to Richard spencer and he believes all rights and privileges should be given first and foremost to white citizens. He can have the view, he can protest for them but they should be condemned as those views are counter to equal rights for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 Just now, Horsefly said: this is not about exercising rights to protest but racists having views they want to restrict and diminish rights of others. These views should be condemned and not allowed to come to pass. Because you or a majority of people want to condemn a particular view does not mean the government can restrict it. ALL views are accorded the same protection. Otherwise you get tyranny of the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted September 23, 2017 Report Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Bormio said: Because you or a majority of people want to condemn a particular view does not mean the government can restrict it. ALL views are accorded the same protection. Otherwise you get tyranny of the majority. Yes I'm going to condemn racism. Would you like to live under a Jim Crow law for whites? That's the result of passivity in condemning policies that aren't all inclusive. Folks can have prejudice views, they just can't act on them. My position has not changed. That's why the national anthem protests are benign. The purpose is equal judicial rights not removing or lessening laws for any other group. Racism does that, to elevate one group over another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.