What a ******* disgrace to the uniform...

Quote:Amid the continuous national anthem protest of San Francisco 49er Colin Kaepernick, a United States Navy sailor is being investigated for following suit.

Intelligence Specialist 2nd Class Janaye Ervin, a reservist stationed at Pearl Harbor posted on her Facebook account that she will no longer stand for the national anthem because it makes her feel like a “hypocrite” knowing the lyrics “land of the free” “only applies to some Americans.”

“I feel like a hypocrite singing about the ‘land of the free’ when I know that only applies to some Americans,” she wrote. “I will gladly stand again, when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/09/2...al-anthem/

Dishonorable discharge incoming. I would dare her to try that in uniform and then pay a visit to the goat locker.

At Pearl Harbor no less. What a complete moron.

Time to put her ass in the brig

(09-27-2016 02:43 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  What a ******* disgrace to the uniform...

Quote:Amid the continuous national anthem protest of San Francisco 49er Colin Kaepernick, a United States Navy sailor is being investigated for following suit.

Intelligence Specialist 2nd Class Janaye Ervin, a reservist stationed at Pearl Harbor posted on her Facebook account that she will no longer stand for the national anthem because it makes her feel like a “hypocrite” knowing the lyrics “land of the free” “only applies to some Americans.”

“I feel like a hypocrite singing about the ‘land of the free’ when I know that only applies to some Americans,” she wrote. “I will gladly stand again, when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/09/2...al-anthem/

I was just thinking that Obama was going to do an executive to remove that from the Anthem.

Serious question, when is it that they'll "gladly stand back up"? They say "when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom", but how do they quantify that? Show me a law that is racist and needs to be changed.

They will either sit/kneel for the rest of their lives, or start standing again once the attention wears off and everyone stops caring about the false premise that something out there in the ether that they can't pinpoint needs to "change".

Morons.

(09-27-2016 03:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Serious question, when is it that they'll "gladly stand back up"? They say "when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom", but how do they quantify that? Show me a law that is racist and needs to be changed.

They will either sit/kneel for the rest of their lives, or start standing again once the attention wears off and everyone stops caring about the false premise that something out there in the ether that they can't pinpoint needs to "change".

Morons.

She deserves 6 months in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

(09-27-2016 03:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Serious question, when is it that they'll "gladly stand back up"? They say "when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom", but how do they quantify that? Show me a law that is racist and needs to be changed.

They will either sit/kneel for the rest of their lives, or start standing again once the attention wears off and everyone stops caring about the false premise that something out there in the ether that they can't pinpoint needs to "change".

Morons.

That is an excellent question. Perhaps now that they have brought you to this question, we can now have an honest discussion about it. See how wonderful protests work?

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-27-2016 03:24 PM)VA49er Wrote:  At Pearl Harbor no less. What a complete moron.

Precisely.

There were men at Pearl Harbor who stood because Japanese planes rained down hell.

They weren't given the luxury of sitting.

Dumb move. A lost clearance is a lost career.

(09-27-2016 04:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 03:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Serious question, when is it that they'll "gladly stand back up"? They say "when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom", but how do they quantify that? Show me a law that is racist and needs to be changed.

They will either sit/kneel for the rest of their lives, or start standing again once the attention wears off and everyone stops caring about the false premise that something out there in the ether that they can't pinpoint needs to "change".

Morons.

That is an excellent question. Perhaps now that they have brought you to this question, we can now have an honest discussion about it. See how wonderful protests work?

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

Impossible to have an honest discussion when one side is a lie. Kronk even said "false premise" in his post. You don't have a discussion with someone who's wrong or lying, you correct them.

As a civilian I'll give those traitors a free ride but as a serviceperson you made an oath to your country. Thousands have died wearing the uniform for civilians to have that first amendment right but bets are off for anyone wearing the uniform of an American fighting man/woman.

(09-27-2016 03:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Serious question, when is it that they'll "gladly stand back up"? They say "when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom", but how do they quantify that?

That will be determined later. Right now, they don't like your tone.

Question. Did she actually do anything?

That's skin tone.

Why is "racist" so abused and misused then not used when it actually applies?

(09-27-2016 04:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 03:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Serious question, when is it that they'll "gladly stand back up"? They say "when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom", but how do they quantify that? Show me a law that is racist and needs to be changed.

They will either sit/kneel for the rest of their lives, or start standing again once the attention wears off and everyone stops caring about the false premise that something out there in the ether that they can't pinpoint needs to "change".

Morons.

That is an excellent question. Perhaps now that they have brought you to this question, we can now have an honest discussion about it. See how wonderful protests work?

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

It's a simple answer. There's no need for the lengthy discussion you're seeking. Give us the date. Pretty simple.

(09-27-2016 08:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question. Did she actually do anything?

There was an incident "on base" while on duty.

I did some digging and referenced my own current career as a navy reservist for some insight.

Here are some facts:

She was on temporary duty in Hawaii. As a reservist that means she was performing her mandatory two weeks of annual training (AT). She's not stationed there, that command is who her reserve unit (in Los Angeles) supports.

She's an intelligence specialist 1st class with 7 years of reserve service. If she enlisted 7 years ago as an IS this would mean she is a New Accesion Trainee (NAT). NATs serve a minimum 8 year contract and at the time revived a 20k bonus. If she has not advanced to 1st class (E6) by now and has had recent poor evaluations and no civilian job leads in the intelligence community, her future looks pretty bleak so she is likely riding out the end of her contract. In other words, "she has nothing to lose". So by her doing this she really isn't risking anything, her attempt to show that this is more important than her career is probably a very good stretch. And according to her Facebook, Auntie made it pretty clear she'll support her with whatever she needs. I doubt she'll get jail time, she'll probably get a non judicial punishment and a dishonorable discharge if they even go that far. Commands like to keep stuff like this hush hush. But if she keeps egging on with media interviews and continued Facebook posts, they'll have no choice but to throw the book at her and go full court Marshall.. Now here's the kicker, she probably ISN'T aware of. If she violates any terms of her initial contract and received a 20k bonus, she will be liable to pay that back..in full. Just a little food for thought and some clarity.

(09-27-2016 10:10 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question. Did she actually do anything?

There was an incident "on base" while on duty.

I did some digging and referenced my own current career as a navy reservist for some insight.

Here are some facts:

She was on temporary duty in Hawaii. As a reservist that means she was performing her mandatory two weeks of annual training (AT). She's not stationed there, that command is who her reserve unit (in Los Angeles) supports.

She's an intelligence specialist 1st class with 7 years of reserve service. If she enlisted 7 years ago as an IS this would mean she is a New Accesion Trainee (NAT). NATs serve a minimum 8 year contract and at the time revived a 20k bonus. If she has not advanced to 1st class (E6) by now and has had recent poor evaluations and no civilian job leads in the intelligence community, her future looks pretty bleak so she is likely riding out the end of her contract. In other words, "she has nothing to lose". So by her doing this she really isn't risking anything, her attempt to show that this is more important than her career is probably a very good stretch. And according to her Facebook, Auntie made it pretty clear she'll support her with whatever she needs. I doubt she'll get jail time, she'll probably get a non judicial punishment and a dishonorable discharge if they even go that far. Commands like to keep stuff like this hush hush. But if she keeps egging on with media interviews and continued Facebook posts, they'll have no choice but to throw the book at her and go full court Marshall.. Now here's the kicker, she probably ISN'T aware of. If she violates any terms of her initial contract and received a 20k bonus, she will be liable to pay that back..in full. Just a little food for thought and some clarity.

Donny? or Donyell?

(09-27-2016 08:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question. Did she actually do anything?

Just offended most anyone who put on a uniform.

I'm a libertarian and stand up for the an individual's 1st amendment rights out of instinct but if you have not filed in for revalrie or taps you wouldn't get it. She deserves to get dragged on to the captain's carpet. She will, too.

(09-27-2016 04:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 03:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Serious question, when is it that they'll "gladly stand back up"? They say "when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom", but how do they quantify that? Show me a law that is racist and needs to be changed.

They will either sit/kneel for the rest of their lives, or start standing again once the attention wears off and everyone stops caring about the false premise that something out there in the ether that they can't pinpoint needs to "change".

Morons.

That is an excellent question. Perhaps now that they have brought you to this question, we can now have an honest discussion about it. See how wonderful protests work?

Didn't need a protest for a conversation. Moreover, an honest can't be had because one side isn't interested in solutions, just wish fulfillment.

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-27-2016 10:10 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question. Did she actually do anything?

There was an incident "on base" while on duty.

I did some digging and referenced my own current career as a navy reservist for some insight.

Here are some facts:

She was on temporary duty in Hawaii. As a reservist that means she was performing her mandatory two weeks of annual training (AT). She's not stationed there, that command is who her reserve unit (in Los Angeles) supports.

She's an intelligence specialist 1st class with 7 years of reserve service. If she enlisted 7 years ago as an IS this would mean she is a New Accesion Trainee (NAT). NATs serve a minimum 8 year contract and at the time revived a 20k bonus. If she has not advanced to 1st class (E6) by now and has had recent poor evaluations and no civilian job leads in the intelligence community, her future looks pretty bleak so she is likely riding out the end of her contract. In other words, "she has nothing to lose". So by her doing this she really isn't risking anything, her attempt to show that this is more important than her career is probably a very good stretch. And according to her Facebook, Auntie made it pretty clear she'll support her with whatever she needs. I doubt she'll get jail time, she'll probably get a non judicial punishment and a dishonorable discharge if they even go that far. Commands like to keep stuff like this hush hush. But if she keeps egging on with media interviews and continued Facebook posts, they'll have no choice but to throw the book at her and go full court Marshall.. Now here's the kicker, she probably ISN'T aware of. If she violates any terms of her initial contract and received a 20k bonus, she will be liable to pay that back..in full. Just a little food for thought and some clarity.

On point. She'll be discharged with an Other than Honorable and then will fight that in court.