Enough Hyprocrisy

[Doublehalf]

Just now, Paul158 said:

Troops shouldn't follow anything a bunch of lunatic congressman say. 

They said they are bound to follow lawful orders. You disagree? 

[El Luchador]

2 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

For someone that claims they "don't like Trump much" and "never voted for him" you can't take a layup to call out something so obviously wrong.

I bet you'd swallow his load if he asked you to... Embarrassing 

I love him, voted for him, and have zero regrets. 

I won't take the lay up for you miss identifying me, I also have troubles keeping track of everyone.

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

They said they are bound to follow lawful orders. You disagree? 

The troops don't answer to congress. They answer to the Commander and Chief. Maybe the congressman should get back to work doing what the American taxpayer pays them to do. We have another shutdown looming on January 31st. Just in case they forgot.

[Doublehalf]

Just now, Paul158 said:

The troops don't answer to congress. They answer to the Commander and Chief. Maybe the congressman should get back to work doing what the American taxpayer pays them to do. We have another shutdown looming on January 31st. Just in case they forgot.

Their oath is to the American people and United States constitution and if they have orders that are unlawful regardless of who they come from, commander and chief or not, they are duty bound not to follow them.

See Nuremberg trials.

Your level of partisanship and complete disdain for Americans, service members' oath and approval of the president to call for congress members' death is reprehensible on so many levels. Glad we know now that you are incapable of ever calling out "your side" regardless of how bad a potential atrocity is that they would theoretically commit. All in the name of MAGA and owning the libs. 

[Paul158]

26 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

Their oath is to the American people and United States constitution and if they have orders that are unlawful regardless of who they come from, commander and chief or not, they are duty bound not to follow them.

See Nuremberg trials.

Your level of partisanship and complete disdain for Americans, service members' oath and approval of the president to call for congress members' death is reprehensible on so many levels. Glad we know now that you are incapable of ever calling out "your side" regardless of how bad a potential atrocity is that they would theoretically commit. All in the name of MAGA and owning the libs. 

If the President was serious, wouldn't they be in grave danger? Do you think there is any real chance that he is going to kill them? So, seditious behavior if you are a congressman is not punishable by death, but you can be fined and get 20years in prison. If you are a military, it can be punishable by death.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Paul158
missed a word

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, Paul158 said:

If the President was serious, wouldn't they be in grave danger? Do you think there is any real chance that he is going to kill them? So, seditious behavior if you are a congressman is punishable by death, but you can be fined and get 20years in prison. If you are a military, it can be punishable by death.

The beauty is, being de-commissioned officers, they can be reactivated and court martialed. 

[Doublehalf]

3 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

If the President was serious, wouldn't they be in grave danger? Do you think there is any real chance that he is going to kill them? So, seditious behavior if you are a congressman is punishable by death, but you can be fined and get 20years in prison. If you are a military, it can be punishable by death.

You keep saying seditious but I don't think you know what it means or else you're just blatantly lying.

The president saying what he did certainly empowers all the nutjob far right people out there (and there are a lot) to commit violence. 
 

Again, you are completely and morally bankrupt if you can't simply agree that the president should not be saying such incendiary and dangerous things. 

[Doublehalf]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

The beauty is, being de-commissioned officers, they can be reactivated and court martialed. 

For what? What did they do specifically to be court martialed? The level of ignorance or level at which you've all been brainwashed is extremely disconcerting. You've gone completely over the deep end.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Doublehalf

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

For what? What did they do specifically to be court martialed? The level of ignorance or level at which you've all been brainwashed is extremely disconcerting. You've gone completely over the deep end.

Incitement, insurrection, mutiny.  Their careful use of verbiage doesn’t obscure their intent.  Military courts are different than civilian courts.  These ‘veterans’ may be reminded of this and would serve as useful examples.  

[Paul158]

21 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

For what? What did they do specifically to be court martialed? The level of ignorance or level at which you've all been brainwashed is extremely disconcerting. You've gone completely over the deep end.

Larabee vs the United States

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, Doublehalf said:

Riveting response!

i note you said nothing about trying to get the military to refuse

[El Luchador]

46 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

You keep saying seditious but I don't think you know what it means or else you're just blatantly lying.

The president saying what he did certainly empowers all the nutjob far right people out there (and there are a lot) to commit violence. 
 

Again, you are completely and morally bankrupt if you can't simply agree that the president should not be saying such incendiary and dangerous things. 

The President ignoring sedition is a threat to democracy. Your moral compass is off if you can't understand the chain of command, and agree that Democrats should be held accountable for their dangerous attempts to undermine the President's authority and power. 

[red viking]

8 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

The President ignoring sedition is a threat to democracy. Your moral compass is off if you can't understand the chain of command, and agree that Democrats should be held accountable for their dangerous attempts to undermine the President's authority and power. 

Trump does one illegal act after another and practices rampant corruption. He should be in prison and will be burning for eternity in the 12th layer of hell. All that extra fluid around his ankles will boil  Probably very soon given his rapidly deteriorating physical and mental health. 

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, red viking said:

Trump does one illegal act after another and practices rampant corruption. He should be in prison and will be burning for eternity in the 12th layer of hell. All that extra fluid around his ankles will boil  Probably very soon given his rapidly deteriorating physical and mental health. 

Well it's a good thing we have checks and balances.

[El Luchador]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

Trump does one illegal act after another and practices rampant corruption. He should be in prison and will be burning for eternity in the 12th layer of hell. All that extra fluid around his ankles will boil  Probably very soon given his rapidly deteriorating physical and mental health. 

How about you add some details to those accusations that could result in another attempt against his life. Name 1 think. Maybe the Dems could impeach him.

[Doublehalf]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Incitement, insurrection, mutiny.  Their careful use of verbiage doesn’t obscure their intent.  Military courts are different than civilian courts.  These ‘veterans’ may be reminded of this and would serve as useful examples.  

You live in an alternate reality or clearly didn't watch or listen to the ad because that's not at all what they did. I don't think I can continue to repeat myself anymore since you continue to keep your head in the sand.

You are so brainwashed it would actually make an incredible case study. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Double Deuce and his TDS are in full blown mode today. 

[Doublehalf]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Double Deuce and his TDS are in full blown mode today. 

Your dementia is showing...

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Doublehalf said:

Your dementia is showing...

Maybe you can tell some more lies about someone taking a deuce on Pelsosi’s desk again huh?   Ya I’m the one with the memory problem. Bahahahahahahaha

[Doublehalf]

17 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Maybe you can tell some more lies about someone taking a deuce on Pelsosi’s desk again huh?   Ya I’m the one with the memory problem. Bahahahahahahaha

You spend a lot of time thinking about human excrement...

[mspart]

Here is an example of people saying something and not wanting what is insinuated to be recognized and discussed.   Why did these congress folks do this now?   Why haven't they done this every year for the past 85 years?  They actually said  nothing wrong legally.   However, they were insinuating that what Trump is doing is unlawful and the military does not have to follow unlawful orders.   And the insinuation is with regard to troop movements in guarding the border and national guard helping ICE etc with cleaning up cities of crime.   They didn't say they were unlawful orders, but that is the insinuation.    No clear thinking person can reason otherwise.   Otherwise you are left with explaining why they would say this now rather than previous years.   

By not specifying which orders are unlawful (and there are court cases saying Trump can't do this and can't do that) they cannot be attacked hard.   But it was the nuance as many on here like to argue is the point of the insinuation.   I believe what they did was horribly wrong.   But for some to say listen to what they said and take that at face value is not how communication is done.   It is apparent that you can say one thing and mean another.   And that is what this was.   They said you can refuse to do unlawful orders without specifying what those would be.   But then why do this?   Planting the seed of discord is why and insinuating that Trumps orders are unlawful. 

Enforcing the border is the duty of the executive branch.   Finding illegal aliens is the duty of the executive branch.   There is nothing unlawful in what Trump is doing in enforcing immigration law.   But they want to cast doubt about that and that is why they did this at this time.   It is an insidious use of media and I hope they all lose their next election.   This should not be tolerated by anyone, much less protected by some.   This should not be an R vs D issue.   It was wrong and they know it and are trying to hide behind "I didn't say anything wrong here".   Oh but they did. 

That's my opinion. 

mspart

Edited November 21, 2025 by mspart

[wrestlingguy]

Can someone please clarify what the "unlawful" order is they were referring to in the PSA?

Edited November 21, 2025 by wrestlingguy
mispelled the

[JimmySpeaks]

8 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

You spend a lot of time thinking about human excrement...

Sorry jr that’s  you.  Countless times you brought up the lie about Pelosi’s desk being dumped on.  I guess when you’re still in mommy’s basement getting your diapers changed it’s always top of mind for you huh? 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Here is an example of people saying something and not wanting what is insinuated to be recognized and discussed.   Why did these congress folks do this now?   Why haven't they done this every year for the past 85 years?  They actually said  nothing wrong legally.   However, they were insinuating that what Trump is doing is unlawful and the military does not have to follow unlawful orders.   And the insinuation is with regard to troop movements in guarding the border and national guard helping ICE etc with cleaning up cities of crime.   They didn't say they were unlawful orders, but that is the insinuation.    No clear thinking person can reason otherwise.   Otherwise you are left with explaining why they would say this now rather than previous years.   

By not specifying which orders are unlawful (and there are court cases saying Trump can't do this and can't do that) they cannot be attacked hard.   But it was the nuance as many on here like to argue is the point of the insinuation.   I believe what they did was horribly wrong.   But for some to say listen to what they said and take that at face value is not how communication is done.   It is apparent that you can say one thing and mean another.   And that is what this was.   They said you can refuse to do unlawful orders without specifying what those would be.   But then why do this?   Planting the seed of discord is why and insinuating that Trumps orders are unlawful. 

Enforcing the border is the duty of the executive branch.   Finding illegal aliens is the duty of the executive branch.   There is nothing unlawful in what Trump is doing in enforcing immigration law.   But they want to cast doubt about that and that is why they did this at this time.   It is an insidious use of media and I hope they all lose their next election.   This should not be tolerated by anyone, much less protected by some.   This should not be an R vs D issue.   It was wrong and they know it and are trying to hide behind "I didn't say anything wrong here".   Oh but they did. 

That's my opinion. 

mspart

2 hours ago, mspart said:

No clear thinking person can reason otherwise. 

That leaves him out. 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 hours ago, wrestlingguy said:

Can someone please clarify what the "unlawful" order is they were referring to in the PSA?

They did not cite or imply any specific orders, they were stating simply that military is bound, by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to not obey illegal orders.  If a service man/woman commits an illegal act, “following orders” is not a defense, they can still be charged and sentence for the crime.  This is important now that any President enjoys immunity if their action is deemed an official act, which a military order would be.  The service men and women do not enjoy this immunity.  If any president gives an order that is illegal to the constitution, to our domestic laws, or to international law, they have no consequence.  The personnel that would carry out that order would carry the consequence.  
 

There is a chain of command, but the oath of the military is to the Consitution, not to any President. And if military personnel are given illegal orders, rather it be from the President or their immediate ranking officer, they are in fact bound by law to disobey.  They carry the consequence if they do not.