226189 Bullies, 3941 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 31 to 40 of 56
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 56 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Tameshiwhaty? is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    163

    Posted On:
    6/28/2012 7:28pm


     Style: Shotokan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    If you think about it "warning slippery slope argument" What happens when the government can decide what a lie is, I mean ya never know when a law will be passed saying that any thing not approved by a group of senators is a lie so you have to check the daily paper to find out what you can say, Is this extreme yes, is this possible who knows, apparently a Corporation is a person, but what I'm saying is that while the act of lying about your service a horrible act and the person who does should be shunned, we can't let those in power decided what is the truth.
    Last edited by Tameshiwhaty?; 6/28/2012 7:49pm at .
  2. Hanniballistic is offline
    Hanniballistic's Avatar

    By the Hoary Hand of Hoggoth.....

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Qo'noS
    Posts
    2,166

    Posted On:
    6/28/2012 7:37pm


     Style: JKD & Mok'bara

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    If a truth is an absolute - and in this case it is - then it is not just a matter of semantics
  3. Tameshiwhaty? is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    163

    Posted On:
    6/28/2012 7:48pm


     Style: Shotokan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanniballistic View Post
    If a truth is an absolute - and in this case it is - then it is not just a matter of semantics
    And I agree that this particular case the idea of a person claiming something not earn is absolutely horrible my point is that the law would open up a avenue that could lead down a road that no one wants, but always remember that the court apparently told the congress to rework it so there may be something to replace this ruling.
  4. MarJoe is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NE Oklahoma
    Posts
    100

    Posted On:
    6/30/2012 10:22am


     Style: Western Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The attroneys will only go after the big money frauds. The VA is paying out MILLIONS of our tax dollars to phoney POWs and combat injuries that did not happen in combat. Free speech, victimless crime ? Remember Tim Poe? Please , check the Mil Blogs. Research this like a Mcdogo and you will find these posers are guilty of other crimes also. Please do some some checking.
  5. daishi is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    733

    Posted On:
    7/01/2012 2:01am


     Style: Aikido/JJJ/Judo/GoJu Ryu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Looks like this repeal is under scrutiny and modifications may be forthcoming. Article found here:
    I will warn that its from a Fox News website, which will likely turn people off right away. Anyway, here are some highlights that are relevant to the discussion in this thread so far:

    "The retooled Stolen Valor Act of 2011 wouldn't stop barroom boasting about bogus service, but would take aim at people who benefit financially or otherwise from their phony claims."

    “Now that the Supreme Court has laid down this marker, I will be pushing for a vote on a version of the Stolen Valor Act that will pass constitutional scrutiny,” said Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., a colonel in the Army Reserves."

    "Heck's bill has 52 bipartisan co-sponsors, and Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., has introduced the Senate companion bill. Violators of the law, if passed, would face up 1 year in jail for the misdemeanor offense of lying about serving in a combat zone, serving with special operations force or being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In any other case, offenders would be fined or face up to 6 months behind bars."

    Informed of the renewed push for action on the 2011 version of the law following Thursday’s ruling, Burkett said he found the term “anything of value” to be problematic since very few military impersonators he’s found have received “tangible” benefits.
    “In terms of benefits, is it a benefit or of value if the town of McKinney makes you the grand marshal of its town parade?” Burkett asked.


    “If you benefit materially, and not just by getting a free drink, but something consequential — lying on a job interview, maybe you lie in the commission of another fraud — then you have a different set of circumstances,” Agg said. “It’s not just free speech. We’re going to ensure that the integrity of our military awards are protected and the interests of our veterans are served.”

    This will be an interesting development to see how a high profile law is reprocessed and developed. The SVA, in its original form, was written and sponsored by Democratic politicians and signed off on by a Republican president (G Bush). Now the retooled SVA is being spearheaded by a republican with democratic support. Should be an interesting development of law.

    In summation; this law was developed due to a stated problem of people misrepresenting themselves and their military service. Its purpose is to make a special case in maintaining the integrity of military service, and the invariable authority that comes with making these claims. In the cited case used in the Supreme Court, Mr. Alvarez made claims of being a 25 year war veteran, medal of honor recipient, and purple heart recipient, while campaigning for political office. He was summarily exposed as a fraud and sentenced under the SVA, a federal misdemeanor, put on parole, forced to do community service, and fined. This was an extreme case of this law put to use. Mr. Alvarez also made false claims not related to military service which, to my knowledge, were not punished. One has to simply decide if military service and awards should have special/exceptional protection...vice other forms of lying, boasting, and misrepresentation...if that rates as a special circumstance that should be recognized in law. In my opinion it should just pass the "who gives a ****" rule of thumb. If someone is simply boasting to friends or on Facebook then "who gives a ****." If someone is actually receiving undue honors (outside quantifiable benefits), that benefits them in other ways then I kind of give a ****.
  6. slamdunc is online now
    slamdunc's Avatar

    Extraordinarily Ordinary

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,167

    Posted On:
    7/01/2012 4:46am

    supporting member
     Style: TKD, CMA & American Kenpo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daishi View Post
    Looks like this repeal is under scrutiny and modifications may be forthcoming.
    At least they are working on an alternative.
    Quote Originally Posted by daishi View Post
    I will warn that its from a Fox News website, which will likely turn people off right away.
    Fox News, CNN, HLN, we have to get news from somewhere. I generally toggle between all three.
    Quote Originally Posted by daishi View Post
    In my opinion it should just pass the "who gives a ****" rule of thumb. If someone is simply boasting to friends or on Facebook then "who gives a ****." If someone is actually receiving undue honors (outside quantifiable benefits), that benefits them in other ways then I kind of give a ****.
    IMHO, if the people who lie about their military service and / or awards gain from their lies, they have lied about valor and stolen goods or services. They should, of course, be prosecuted for the theft by deception, and be sentenced accordingly.

    The ones who just brag in bars and on FaceBook, etc., should at least be outed. It would be great if they could be prosecuted under SVA, and sentenced to volunteer in a VA hospital or nursing home. If an elected official lies about his or her service, they should be forced to resign from office.


  7. bobyclumsyninja is offline
    bobyclumsyninja's Avatar

    :)

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bahstun
    Posts
    7,057

    Posted On:
    7/01/2012 11:12am

    supporting member
     Style: Ex-Tiger KF, ex-SanDa

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    granting more authority to federal law enforcement officers;
    broadening the law to cover false claims whereas previously an overt act had to be committed;
    covering the mailing and shipping of medals; and
    protecting the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals

    The Act made it illegal for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade, or manufacture "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."
    U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn issued his decision rejecting the prosecution’s argument that lying about having military medals dilutes their meaning and significance. “This wholly unsubstantiated assertion is, frankly, shocking and, indeed, unintentionally insulting to the profound sacrifices of military personnel the Stolen Valor Act purports to honor,” Blackburn wrote. "To suggest that the battlefield heroism of our servicemen and women is motivated in any way, let alone in a compelling way, by considerations of whether a medal may be awarded simply defies my comprehension."
    This law was just one more attempt to further militarize US society.
    Last edited by bobyclumsyninja; 7/01/2012 11:14am at . Reason: from Wiki
  8. hungryjoe is offline
    hungryjoe's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,407

    Posted On:
    7/01/2012 12:02pm

    supporting member
     Style: judo hiatus

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by bobyclumsyninja View Post
    This law was just one more attempt to further militarize US society.
    ???whut???

    Seriously, what/how exactly do you see any militarizing of US society?
  9. slamdunc is online now
    slamdunc's Avatar

    Extraordinarily Ordinary

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,167

    Posted On:
    7/01/2012 2:50pm

    supporting member
     Style: TKD, CMA & American Kenpo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by bobyclumsyninja View Post
    This law was just one more attempt to further militarize US society.
    What is your definition of militarization? The entire military is comprised of volunteers which means no more draft. Some sign up for the college money, some sign up for the adventure, some because they are patriots, whatever their reason, they volunteer. The world we live in today is a gimme society; the entitlement mentality is commonplace.


  10. mike321 is online now

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,482

    Posted On:
    7/01/2012 4:35pm


     Style: kenpo, Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by bobyclumsyninja View Post
    This law was just one more attempt to further militarize US society.
    If anything the us society is getting less militarized as we fund an increasingly large military made up of professionals that are not part of day to day society. We fight two wars at the same time and we go about our lives like normal. No draft. No rations. No martial law. No special taxes. Just increased debt and professionals doing the hard and dangerous work.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 56 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.