So he loaded down her tweeted speech about abortion rights with his snark that relates to recent discourse about transgenderism.
I don't think he was "mocking Jill Biden’s support of abortion rights." I think he was observing her use of "women" in the abortion context and tying it to this separate "What is a woman?" issue. It's annoying when someone uses your social media speech to give visibility to something they want to say about a different topic.
But should a high-level politician — such as the First Lady — who chooses to do social media — want punishment for someone who uses the mechanism of that very social media to participate in conversation? A tweet can be responded to, so isn't a person using Twitter to make a statement essentially inviting others to talk back? Isn't that part of the game?
The retired 3-star general, Gary Volesky, who had "earned a silver star for gallantry while serving in Iraq," was making "$92 an hour advising military officers, staff and students who were taking part in war games and other similar activities." Maybe people with jobs like that should limit their public speech, but he did what he did, and it wasn't as bad as Jill Biden taking revenge on him for weighing down what she wanted to look good saying.
Speaking of looking good, I'd like to talk about her dress:
Is that an opium poppy centered over her lower belly?
Know your poppies. That is not an opium poppy. It's an Oriental poppy. Papaver orientale.
ADDED: Back in 2018, when Donald Trump was President and an active user of Twitter, he used the mechanisms of Twitter to block people he didn't want elevating their writing by responding to him (the way Volesky responded to Jill Biden). He got sued, and the judge said it was unconstitutional for him to block them.
From "Trump’s Blocking of Twitter Users Is Unconstitutional, Judge Says" (NYT, May 23, 2018):
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, addressing a novel issue about how the Constitution applies to social media platforms and public officials, found that the president’s Twitter feed is a public forum. As a result, she ruled that when Mr. Trump or an aide blocked seven plaintiffs from viewing and replying to his posts, he violated the First Amendment.
If the principle undergirding Wednesday’s ruling in Federal District Court stands, it is likely to have implications far beyond Mr. Trump’s feed and its 52 million followers, said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight First Amendment Institute’s executive director and the counsel for the plaintiffs. Public officials throughout the country, from local politicians to governors and members of Congress, regularly use social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to interact with the public about government business.
“This ruling should put them on notice, and if they censor critics from social media accounts used for official purposes, they run the risk that someone will sue them and win,” he said of public officials.
पोस्ट्स
९८ टिप्पण्या:
It's annoying when someone uses your social media speech to give visibility to something they want to say about a different topic.
It might be annoying but it is certainly that person's prerogative to do so after you submit your content to the world.
I think what the General was pointing out is how a United States Supreme Court justice committed perjury in order to get onto the court.
This person was asked if she could define what a woman is and she inexplicably claimed that she couldn't "because I'm not a biologist." She most certainly knows what a woman is. Biologically and in every other way we can define what a woman is.
That was perjury, as she lied under oath about this in order to obtain a lifetime job at a very, very high salary.
She should be impeached.
He will be replaced by someone who uses appropriate and approved language, has proper thoughts, and backs proper policies in our New Army, where pronoun standards have replaced training standards.
At least he didn't call Jill Biden's doctorate laughable.
“It's annoying when someone uses your social media speech to give visibility to something they want to say about a different topic.” But it is not a different topic. We have been told by our betters that this is all intersectional. If Jill doesn’t like it, then she can take it up with her husband’s crazy base.
He was fired for mocking a Democrat.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Sigmund Freud
He should have known that discretion is the better part of valor, but he's being punished for replying to someone who isn't an elected official and is not in his chain of command. It only makes her (and the whole administration) look weak and petty.
Ol wikipedia has a Georgia painting entry.
No talking-back to the queen, evidently.
'Dr.' Queen, I guess we're supposed to say.
You wonder how their kids could be so royally f'd-up, but then the parents remind you of the reasons. A truly horrid family!
It's Important to note, that he was NOT active duty. He was retired
Active Duty personnel are required, BY LAW not to criticize the government
(is Dr Jill the government?)
So, an American Citizen, was FIRED from his job for making a political comment about a politician.
He made this comment on his Own time, not at work.
Serious Question. Was it him making comments, or the content of his comments that got him fired?
If his comment had been "Hurray Dr Jill! America SURE IS LUCKY to have you!!!" ..
Would he have been fired? If Not.. Why Not?
Do we now have a rule, that government employees MUST not criticize the government on personal time?
I'm assuming that we DIDN'T have this rule under Trump??
Is that an opium poppy centered over her lower belly?
That is her "flower," the one she gave to Joe, or rather, to her first husband.
The retired 3-star general, Gary Volesky, who had "earned a silver star for gallantry while serving in Iraq," was making "$92 an hour advising military officers, staff and students who were taking part in war games and other similar activities."
Great gig. How many hours of "Call of Duty" do I have to log before I can get it?
He should have criticized her parenting skills instead.
Mocking the Supreme Court is OK, if not expected.
Mocking Lady MacBiden is treason.
Maybe he was just reassuring the Chinese that America does know what "women" are and that everything is under control over here.
"... it wasn't as bad as Jill Biden taking revenge on him for weighing down what she wanted to look good saying."
Revenge: It's what the Biden Democrats are all about, isn't it? January 6th pretrial incarcerations, arrest of Trump associates on bogus, or no, charges, predawn searches by FBI swatters, Mueller and his button men, etc.
Constitution? What Constitution?
The fascists who think they can control public conversations on Twitter crack me up. If that’s the Fake Doctor’s choice of forum she shouldn’t be surprised when responses highlight her word choices. Just publish your work on the White House web site if you can’t handle the open forum of social media. Others may wish to mock your selective and silly habit of simultaneously denying “woman” can be commonly accepted to mean adult female and using it casually as if it does. Your cognitive dissonance disturbs me.
Hunter is right about Jill.
So why no "Golden Poppies" on your American "Know your Poppies" site?
Nearly all thei poppies were Asian.
The Golden: Its native habitat includes California and extends to Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora and northwest Baja California.[3]
"... it wasn't as bad as Jill Biden taking revenge on him for weighing down what she wanted to look good saying."
Revenge: It's what the Biden Democrats are all about, isn't it? January 6th pretrial incarcerations, arrest of Trump associates on bogus, or no, charges, predawn searches by FBI swatters, Mueller and his button men, etc.
Constitution? What Constitution?
"It's annoying when someone uses your social media speech to give visibility to something they want to say about a different topic."/"It might be annoying but it is certainly that person's prerogative to do so after you submit your content to the world."
When someone uses the reply function and appends something to YOUR TWEET, you have the power within the mechanisms of Twitter to block their comments. That's different from just tweeting on your own feed and talking about them. That's what I mean by "uses your social media speech to give visibility." You get more visibility because people who are following her suddenly see YOU. You get to leverage THEIR readership.
That's the situation here, when I write a post. I have a readership that I have worked for a long time to cultivate. But anyone could just plop down in my comments and write about their own hobbyhorse. That's why I have the direction "Comments should respond to material raised in the post" above the comments window.
And, obviously, I can and do choose to moderate out comments that change the subject.
On the original issue:
Jill stepped beyond her political non-combatant role, to make a political tweet about abortion.
She is fair game.
Volesky had every right to reply to her tweet.
The Army is out of line, covering for their political masters. If the WH called thir attention to it, more the worse.
As for the UCMJ, the wife of POTUS is not a covered person and Volesky was not in uniform, , on his own time and is not some lesser class of citizen due to his honorable service.
shame shame on Biden and the Army
..and in other Army news. The Army is recruiting only about 40% of the manpower it needs.
Awash in wokeness the word has gone out to white, hetero, middle-class males that are the backbone of the Army that they are frowned upon. The word is out and they are not showing up.
This is how a fascist illegitimate regime acts.
The pendulum is swinging back.
Jill Biden is a fascist. She should be treated that way. So should the rest of the members of this regime and their terrible fascist supporters.
So here's this former general, with the usual spoils system job either through gummint or the defense industry, who is biting the hand that feeds him. For this perspective this response to him is not appropriate.
Mayor Daley the First, when questioned by some reporter about the rewarding of patronage city jobs to campaign workers and such, responded "Well, of course I give these jobs to my friends. Am I supposed to give them to my enemies?"
It doesn't matter if he's right.
"When someone uses the reply function and appends something to YOUR TWEET, you have the power within the mechanisms of Twitter to block their comments"
Up to and including the right to strip them of their post-retirement income, punish them in public in a demeaning way from a position of high privilege, put a black mark on their service record, which incidentally includes meritorious awards for bravery in battle? I'm surprised you would express the thought without completing it, but: One is not equal to another.
"Only describe, don't explain
It's annoying when someone uses your social media speech to give visibility to something they want to say about a different topic.
Just means your intellectual construction is weak and it's foundations cannot stand criticism. Attacks that have no merit will have no merit and be judged that way.
But the same people trying to defend Roe and "Women's Rights" also want to eliminate women. You are just annoyed that one of the foundations of your argument, "women's rights," are vulnerable because of a lack of consistency.
Isn't there an assumption built into all of this- that Jill "Shit-For-Brains" Biden asked for him to be fired? I doubt she did that- even as stupid and vapid as she is, I don't think she reads (or writes for that matter) her own Twitter posts. It is possible one of her's or her husband's flunkies did so, but it is far more likely it was one of the flunkies in the Department of Defense, most likely Austin.
Shame on this administration. This was a comment directed at Judge Browne Jackson who couldn't define what a woman was because she isn't a biologist. It was a joke, and the left can't handle when the joke is on them.
It’s more annoying when public figures, government officials, and politicians try to have it both ways. They defend a Supreme Court justice who either cannot define “what a woman is” or who will not give the definition because of woke political reasons. Someone should ask “Dr.” Jill Biden the definition of what a is a woman. I would love to hear her answer. She speaks about women and abortion so she knows something about the subject.
This administration and its supporters want to castrate the military and make it into a woke group of people who are charged with defending the rights of a small group of Americans who believe they need “special” treatment due to their sexual identity, race, social status, etc.
The General is taking a hit because he exposed the hypocrisy of the current occupants of the WH.
At one time the expression, Caesar's wife must be beyond approach" meant she must lead a spotless existence.
Now, apparently, she can do as she damn well pleases, but everyone must agree she is innocent of all evil.
I mean, after all, she IS the President.
(Is that changing the subject?)
Althouse said
But should a high-level politician — such as the First Lady
Thank you so much for this accurate description. A high level politician, not elected but with enough power to get generals fired.
I'm so old I remember when military leaders mocking the Executive was a good thing.
Wilbur said...
So here's this former general, with the usual spoils system job either through gummint or the defense industry, who is biting the hand that feeds him.
$92/hr is a fairly low salary for a consultant with 37 years of directly relevant experience. What we don't know:
Was he being paid indirectly (as an employee of a firm)? If so, the firm has lots of expenses to cover, including, MGT, HR, IT, FISA, SSA, taxes, etc. Most firms, and I have done work at Ft L, would mark up his actual salary by 1.8 (80%) to cover all those real costs.
Was he a direct consultant to the Army in a personal services contract? if so, he has to pay his on medicare, SSA, and tax withholding out of that.
was he full time or just brought in for 8 or 16 hours at a time to run a wargame?
$92/hr is low in my estimation.
There's a word, "woman" and an issue. Perhaps the General was switching issues but he was using one word. Wasn't he entitled to point out that the same word, the SAME word, was being used under different rules? Was this a switch or a meta statement? Meta? Metaphysics? Have we sunk so low as to need some metaphysics? Perhaps today's reality is simple illustration as in a child's picture book that philosophy matters. Back in the day when the Sophists were all the rage as teachers in Athens, Socrates came along. In the Western tradition we have always followed Socrates, not the Sophists, but the battle is constantly renewed.
Today our Sophists have rules which include the proposition that under one set of rules we don't know what the word "woman" means while under another set we do. And when "woman" is being used under the one set of rules one can lose important jobs - Supreme Court justice, military consultant - for improper use while under the other set the US President or his xxxx can use the same word with the same meaning to great applause. And this is senseless. It's just political so far but when it comes time to build a bridge or fight a battle we will find that some with no idea of logical coherence are signing off on incoherent bridge designs or battle plans and others are dying from the incoherence of the incoherent. It's the Sophists, back again aiding the aristocracy to oppress the rest.
Will she buy him a house?
Or does that sort of response to being offended only apply to Hunter's drug addiction shenanigans
no bishop rooker, pentagon zampolit did,
The "what Is a woman" is not separate from the abortion issue. There are multiple angst-filled twitter threads about the plight of male-presenting trans people who are turned away from abortion clinics because they need an abortion and the abortionists say the clinics are only for women.
The term "birthing person" is used in the abortion debate so as not to exclude all the male-presenting trans people who get pregnant or have babies or abortion. So in part his tweet pointed out the ridiculousness of the progressive word police. "Women" gets replaced by "person", unless you need to remind women they are being victimized.
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome general?"
“ I'm surprised you would express the thought without completing it, but: One is not equal to another.”
You shouldn’t be surprised. I don’t write extra sentences to restate what is already there for a good reader. I don’t get out the sledgehammer. I think trusting the reader is the way to go. It’s what I do, anyway. Expect that and you won’t need to be surprised.
But actually I am happy to be surprising rather than pedestrian and tedious.
$92/hour for a decorated general?
He must really love what he is doing...that is peanuts.
Should have a board seat at Raytheon...that's where the money is.
His firing is an outrage but I'm with Yancy Ward, how do we know Jill Biden got him fired. Oops! that's Dr. Jill Biden. Please don't cancel me.
The general is lucky he didn't wind up in the Garland archipelago. This fascist regime is not kidding about control.
"Her tweet was: "For nearly 50 years, women have had the right to make our own decisions about our bodies. Today, that right was stolen from us.""
How mind-numbingly selfish. A fetus isn't your body any more than a feasting wood tick is.
'Jill stepped beyond her political non-combatant role, to make a political tweet about abortion.'
Until she runs for office and wins, I don't give a fuck about her opinions on anything.
She can just feed them to her puppet and let him look like an idiot...he's used to that.
"Do we now have a rule, that government employees MUST not criticize the government on personal time?"
At least he didn't compare her to Winnie the Pooh. That can get one disappeared in some locals.
"The retired 3-star general, Gary Volesky, who had "earned a silver star for gallantry while serving in Iraq,""
Isn't gallantry considered sexist these says?
Speaking of Dr. Jill's dress, Carol Burnett wore the window curtains better.
What would our government do if everyone made a concerted effort of always referring to her as Dr. Jill "the cunt" Biden? Works for me.
Long live Dr. Jill "the cunt" Biden! Hip, hip, hooray!
“But should a high-level politician — such as the First Lady — who chooses to do social media — want punishment for someone who uses the mechanism of that very social media to participate in conversation?”
Was Jill Biden responsible for the retired general’s suspension? Did she ask the Army to act on her behalf or does the Army have the right to discipline their employees for posting things on social media that may embarrass them? Maybe the Army doesn’t approve of their contractors engaging in public political discourse?
JOYFUL PROMISE OF SUMMER (YAY!) is expressed in this season's multicolor floral print, also, don't forget that this a time of war and global peril.
https://www.oscardelarenta.com/shop/p/multicolor-floral-twill-pencil-dress-22489?utm_source=affiliate&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=21181&source=pepperjam&click=4025972147&publisher=21181&clickId=4025972147&publisherId=21181
The good General ought to be on the hiring list of the next Republican president.
In fact, it's time too start lots of such lists. J6 protester who was charged? Conservative teacher who was cancelled? Wokies ought to be fired to make room for all of these people somewhere, in partial recompense for the pain they bore for our benefit.
"Turn the other cheek." Bah. I'm tired of that. Let's be them.
$92 an hour is shockingly low for an expert consultant.
I bill out professional services roles from beginner through the highest levels of specialty expertise. I also hire off shore developers and testers for software development.
My company’s most common flexible billed staff (ie not an FTE contract but true hourly consulting style work) goes down to about $100 an hour. These are people with a few years experience.
I bill 5-10 year experience general project managers at $140-$220 an hour.
Experts - including MDs- usually bill $250-500 an hour (some of the most highly prized experts bill out more than that.
When I hire an offshore developer resource it’s closer to $35-45 an hour from a very low cost country.
In relevant comparison $92 an hour is kinda like….why is he so low.
I meant "inappropriate", not "appropriate". Sorry.
Thanks for posting this Anne, I did not know that 30 years after retiring from the military I am still subject to possible prosecution under The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
From the linked article,
“On Saturday, an army spokesperson said the commander of the military branch’s combined arms center, Lt Gen Theodore Martin, had suspended Volesky from his consultancy pending an investigation into whether the tweet in question violated decorum rules for retired officers.”
What the hell, violated decorum rules for retired officers”? I had never heard of this so I looked and according to Army Regulation 27–10 Legal Services Military Justice - Retired members of a regular component of the Armed Forces who are entitled to pay are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ (see UCMJ, Art. 2(a)(4)). Retired Soldiers are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations of the UCMJ that occurred while they were on AD or while in a retired status.
In a nutshell, if you were active duty, did your 20 years and take any retirement money you can be prosecuted under the UMCJ. If you retire from a reserve component and receive a retirement pension this rule doesn’t apply to you. Not fair.
Why weren’t all the retired generals who castigated Trump investigated by the Army?
The military is so woke now that you don't need the Doctor stepping in to banish the politically incorrect. You don't even need General Milley getting involved.
"something they want to say about a different topic."
Yes just about every post everywhere now elicits at least one whiny reference to the Dobbs decision.
Well, is a general allowed to criticize the President or his family, or not? Either you can fire him for that or you cannot.
I bet she had a sweet smile as she demanded the general be fired. She was probably thinking she wished he was Hunter Biden who she could do nothing about for calling her a c#nt.
Biden et al think that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. The exquisite dysfunction of an ethical religion.
Maybe the Army doesn’t approve of their contractors engaging in public political discourse?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Depends.
Pure political retaliation against the consultant exercising free speech.
Jill Biden is not in the chain of command. Even if chain of command applied to a retired general simply commenting on something said to by the president or senior chain of command official.
Go after the career contracting officer who is responsible and who is the only one who could have removed him, although likely acting on political orders filtered through a lot of career DoD employees
"...the principle undergirding Wednesday’s ruling in Federal District Court stands, it is likely to have implications far beyond Mr. Trump’s feed and its 52 million followers, said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight First Amendment Institute’s executive director and the counsel for the plaintiffs. Public officials throughout the country, from local politicians to governors and members of Congress, regularly use social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to interact with the public about government business.
“This ruling should put them on notice, and if they censor critics from social media accounts used for official purposes, they run the risk that someone will sue them and win,” he said of public officials."
None of those other people are Donald Trump. So the ruling has no value as precedent.
Given the military’s inability to recruit, all consultants should be fired, the Secretary of Defense should be fired, the joint chiefs should be fired, and Biden should be fired.
The House and Senate members of the armed forces committee should be removed from those committees.
Then the draft should be reinstated with the sole focus of making women and transgender combat soldiers to remedy the past discrimination against them.
AOC is military age. Send her to Ft Benning.
“US army general suspended for mocking Jill Biden’s support of abortion rights/Gary Volesky, three-star general who took on lucrative consulting role, suspended over Twitter post that appeared under his name."
A three-star general should know better than to engage on ground completely controlled by the enemy. He was fired for dumbness.
"It's annoying when someone uses your social media speech to give visibility to something they want to say about a different topic."
And who would know that better than Ann Althouse?
But as I was saying on another blog ...
So I conclude from all this kerfuffle that men who seek abortions for themselves are the hardest hit by the recent Dobbs decision, right? Or am I missing something here?
So he loaded down her tweeted speech about abortion rights with his snark that relates to recent discourse about transgenderism.
Um, no
He pointed out that her abortion speech is hypocritical if not completely dishonest.
If abortion is a "women's issue" then "trans women are NOT real women".
You can't have it both ways.
Since the Democrats have been trying to have it both ways, he was correctly pointing out that her claim is false under current Democrat orthodoxy
Neither life nor politics are al la carte, you don't get to take one position one day, and then expect not to be called out on it when you take the diametrically opposite position a week later.
But should a high-level politician — such as the First Lady — who chooses to do social media — want punishment for someone who uses the mechanism of that very social media to participate in conversation?
Well, when you're a hypocritical and dishonest piece of shit like Dr Jill, and all your positions are total crap, if you can't censor people you've got nothing.
She certainly doesn't have an actual counter argument to what the general wrote
So just to recap...
IF you're on Active Duty (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), you can Publicly Brag (In Uniform) about
A) Planning on Refusing Lawful Orders,
B) Contacting the Communist Chinese about A,
C) Tell the Communist Chinese, that in the event of a war, you will alert them while doing A..
And everything will be Just Fine!
BUT!
If you're a retired officer, working as a civilian contractor for the government, and you
*) make note of the fact that Dr Jill is apparently SMARTER than a Supreme Court Justice..
Then you will be FIRED from your job.. Because Dr. Jill is LITERALLY TOO STUPID to take a compliment
Does that about wrap it up???
I don't think he was "mocking Jill Biden’s support of abortion rights." I think he was observing her use of "women" in the abortion context and tying it to this separate "What is a woman?" issue. It's annoying when someone uses your social media speech to give visibility to something they want to say about a different topic.
==========
Professora : again with sentence construction that does not make any sense!
who is annoyed? you or Ms FJB?
I can understand KBJ being annoyed
Your dopey commenters are running wild today.
Sports stars: Shut up and dribble. Corporate hacks: Shut up and make stuff we want to buy. Military officers: Shut up and go back to thinking about how to make the rubble bounce.
It was silly for a retired LtGen to make this comment if he expected no reaction from those paying his fees. I have valuable law firm clients who I am pretty certain would disagree strongly with that hairy ape troglodyte Trump-voter, Krumhorn, but would fire me in a heartbeat. He being a doggie, I'm not surprised that he was that dopey.
- Krumhorn
"He was fired for mocking a Democrat."
He was fired for publicly mocking his boss's wife.
"...and in other Army news. The Army is recruiting only about 40% of the manpower it needs."
Why is more manpower needed?
"At one time the expression, 'Caesar's wife must be beyond approach***' meant she must lead a spotless existence.
"Now, apparently, she can do as she damn well pleases, but everyone must agree she is innocent of all evil."
***Reproach
How do you know that expression was not a sardonic way of saying "everyone must agree she is innocent of evil"? After all, no one is beyond reproach in some way.
"I'm so old I remember when military leaders mocking the Executive was a good thing."
When was that? In what context and by what audience was it considered a good thing? Also, this guy wasn't mocking the Executive, but the Executive's wife.
"Do we now have a rule, that government employees MUST not criticize the government on personal time?"
Do you think that employees of private businesses who publicly criticized or mocked their employers (or their employers' spouses) on personal time would not be fired for doing so?
Earnest Prole said...
Your dopey commenters are running wild today.
Sports stars: Shut up and dribble.
Corporate hacks: Shut up and make stuff we want to buy.
Private sector. If they want our money, they don't get to offend us
Military officers: Shut up and go back to thinking about how to make the rubble bounce
Person being harmed by a government that is bound by the US Constitution and it's Amendments
IF you can't see the difference, you might look into how the word "dopey" applies to you
Earnest Prole said...
Your dopey commenters are running wild today.
Sports stars: Shut up and dribble. Corporate hacks: Shut up and make stuff we want to buy. Military officers: Shut up and go back to thinking about how to make the rubble bounce.
Sports stars play for teams that have fans. When we tell them to shut up and dribble that means we stop watching their games.
Corporate hacks produce products they want us to buy. When they get political we stop buying their shit.
A retired military officer is being paid by taxpayer dollars to provide a service to the military.
You are trying to be smart.
You are not really that smart. You are kinda dumb and your stupid snarky comments are usually surface level garbage and conflation just like this.
Person being harmed by a government that is bound by the US Constitution and it's Amendments
There are a series of Supreme Court cases that say you’re wrong. With some curiosity and a web browser you can find them in about seven seconds.
Robert Cook said...
"I'm so old I remember when military leaders mocking the Executive was a good thing."
When was that?
When Trump was president moron.
Funny, I don't remember any military official, retired or active duty, being punished for mocking or insulting Donald Trump. Who elected "Dr. Jill in the first place? Just Jill being petty, just like she blew a gasket about not being called a doctor.
"'When was that?'
"When Trump was president moron."
Were military officers openly mocking or insulting him while he was in office? If so, they should have been dismissed. (I say this despite my contempt for Trump.)
Do you think that employees of private businesses who publicly criticized or mocked their employers (or their employers' spouses) on personal time would not be fired for doing so?
So, he was working for DOCTOR Jill Biden ? He is probably lucky that the Stasi/FBI didn't raid his house at 5 AM.
Earnest Prole said...
Me: Person being harmed by a government that is bound by the US Constitution and it's Amendments
There are a series of Supreme Court cases that say you’re wrong. With some curiosity and a web browser you can find them in about seven seconds.
Wow, you're going hard for "dopey".
Whether or not the US Government in it's role as employer can fire people for their speech, this is STILL a case of the US Government firing someone for his speech.
"Glad to see you finally know what a woman is"is not a personal attack.
If the US military was currently firing every single person connected to the DoDo who was making left wing political comments in public, that would be one thing
But we all know they're not doing that
So what this is about is politicizing the US Military.
And if you think we're not going to return the favor on this one, you're even more stupid than I thought you were
A back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP.
A virtual vaccine, a mutagenic, persistent, non-sterilizing medical treatment with near-term observable data and excess short-term safety signals.
A girl. Not rape... rape-rape. h/t Whoopi
A boy. A trusted trans/homo male groomer and rapist.
A woman... woman-woman, deplorable, cancelled.
A baby, a "burden" h/t Obama if you're wicked, a fetus for social distance.
Affordable, or subsidized with shared progressive prices.
Immigration reform in lieu of emigration reform.
Diversity in color judgment and class-based bigotry.
Human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes, again, and again, and again.
A few of the handmade tales and semantic plays in a cargo climate.
Sorry, but I am really, really tired of "DR." Jill. I still say that Joe is "Dr. Joe," and Hunter is "Dr. Hunter." They both have JDs, yes? As do the large majority of the Senate, and likely of the House, though I haven't checked the latter. There are even a few REAL doctors, as in MDs.
Why don't we just grant the title to anyone with a degree that might be described as a doctorate? Sure, it wouldn't help "Dr. Jill" to be surrounded by many hundreds of people bearing the exact same rank. But think how newly elevated those hundreds will feel!
Whether or not the US Government in it's role as employer can fire people for their speech, this is STILL a case of the US Government firing someone for his speech.
A three-star general who picks a twitter fight with his commander-in-chief’s wife is a man who belongs in another line of work. I suspect that would be glaringly obvious to you if he’d called out a First Lady named Melania.
To an outsider, such as myself, the Left looks pretty monolithic.
If there are internal disagreements, they tend not to make it into the mainstream media. So when The Left won't define what a "woman" is - to score political points, and The Left also uses the word "woman" in its original sense - to score political points, an outsider might be forgiven for concluding that all leftists really want to do is score political points.
And that The Left is either hypocritical or incoherent.
"That was perjury, as she lied under oath about this in order to obtain a lifetime job at a very, very high salary.
She should be impeached."
Only if you impeach the justices who, at the very least, misled us about how they would vote on Roe V Wade. Wherever you stand, they lied in response to questions relating to that issue. And, really, almost any prospective justice since Bork has decided that the way to answer questions related to issues that might come before the court is to not actually answer them.
Earnest Prole said...
Whether or not the US Government in it's role as employer can fire people for their speech, this is STILL a case of the US Government firing someone for his speech.
A three-star general who picks a twitter fight with his commander-in-chief’s wife is a man who belongs in another line of work. I suspect that would be glaringly obvious to you if he’d called out a First Lady named Melania.
There's a metric buttload of Lefties in gov't that went after either the President or his wife when said President was Trump.
I can count the number who were fired for it without taking off my mittens.
"Dr. Jill", unlike Melania, deliberately stepped into the political realm with that post. That made her a valid target for attack
guitar joe said...
Only if you impeach the justices who, at the very least, misled us about how they would vote on Roe V Wade.
Oh, bullshit.
They said "I will always consider Stare decisis"
Well, they did
And it was very clear that stare decisis provides no protection for such a wretchedly dishonest ruling as Roe, or Casey.
Not one of them ever said "I will not overturn Roe / Casey." They all very explicitly refused to answer the question "would you overturn Roe."
Get over yourself.
And, do the world a favor, and pull your head out of your ass. Every single one of those justices had hundreds of lefties saying during the confirmation fight "(s)he will vote to overturn Roe." If you left their confirmation hearings confused on it, it's because you choose to be
guitar joe said...
Only if you impeach the justices who, at the very least, misled us about how they would vote on Roe V Wade. Wherever you stand, they lied in response to questions relating to that issue. And, really, almost any prospective justice since Bork has decided that the way to answer questions related to issues that might come before the court is to not actually answer them.
1: None of them lied about repealing Roe. https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/04/no-conservative-justices-did-not-commit-perjury-in-confirmation-on-reversing-roe/
2: Jackson didn't say "I can't comment on what a woman is, because that might come up in a case before me". She said "I can't define what a woman is because I'm not a biologist".
The first would be a true statement (pathetic, but true).
The second was a lie
"There's a metric buttload of Lefties in gov't that went after either the President or his wife when said President was Trump."
Well, there aren't actually a "metric buttload of Lefties" in government, but that aside, who are you referring to? Military officials? Members of Congress? Civilian employees of federal departments? Employees (which includes military officers) can be fired for public (or private) insubordination to their superiors, (which includes insulting or mocking their superiors' family members), but members of Congress cannot.
Robert Cook said...
Me: "There's a metric buttload of Lefties in gov't that went after either the President or his wife when said President was Trump."
Well, there aren't actually a "metric buttload of Lefties" in government, but that aside, who are you referring to? Military officials? Members of Congress? Civilian employees of federal departments?
Good old "no one to the Right of Mao or Stalin is a Leftie" Cookie
Quick search found this:
https://www.westernjournal.com/military-law-experts-warn-retired-officers-denounce-trump-court-martial-offense/
Retired U.S. military officers who trash President Donald Trump could face consequences for violating the rules of the Code of Military Justice, according to a new report.
“Retired officers can’t make contemptuous remarks of the commander-in-chief,” said John Dowd, a former legal adviser to Trump who has also served as a Marine Corps Judge Advocate, told the Just The News website.
“They’re all subject to recall. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until they die,” he said.
“It’s stunning to me. I guess the law doesn’t apply to them,” he said.
Then there was Gen Miley trash talking then President Trump to the Communist Chinese gov't.
So, by all means, punish this General for making a perfectly respectful and reasonable statement about the First Lady's political statement.
Just understand that what goes around comes around
"And, obviously, I can and do choose to moderate out comments that change the subject."
Your house, your rules. I was skeptical about moderation in the beginning, but it has improved the place.
It's annoying when someone uses your body, your sex organs, your life experiences relating to your gender -- to make demands upon society that minimize and erase your existence as a woman.
Twitter is a place where people riff off each other.
Jill isn't a real doctor, but she is an adult choosing to use social media. Who cares what the response turns out to be?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा