Corporal Jesse Thorsen is getting attacked for supporting Paul in uniform!

Being a Army vet myself there is no way around it. It doesnt matter what your good intentions are.

If you snuck away and went AWOL to watch the birth of your first child and then comeback you still would be screwed. UCMJ does not turn a blind eye. This was shown on national tv.
 
Good for him.

Nothing is changing in this Country without people sticking their necks out.
 
He was excited, caught up in the moment and his enthusiasm got the best of him. Guy has already done two tours in Afghanistan, right? I imagine he'll be reprimanded, but the military is lucky to have guys like the Corporal willing to serve.
 
The next time he does it he will seal the deal on being called a "former military memeber". Not to mention getting a dishonarble discharge and losing his veteran benefits.
 
He screwed up, and he can rightly be disciplined. If he were drafted, I would feel differently.

He volunteered once. He's been drafted ever since.

If you want to say he should have never signed a dotted line, I'll agree with you. But let's not pretend that these troops who have gone back two or three or more times somehow have the freedom to just say, "Oh well, this isn't fun anymore. I'm just gonna go home."
 
Let me add as well that Corporal Jesse's actions last night are the only thing that's made me feel good since we did not win Iowa. I was feeling rather let-down this morning when I saw the results, but I'm inspired to keep fighting now.

"hoo-ah!"
 
He is Ranger tabbed with no CIB (combat infantry Badge) after 2 tours in the ghani?
 
Gunny is correct. No two ways about this.

The nay-sayers haven't been in the military. I have.
Look at it this way, civilians -- When you join the military, you become USDA grade A MEAT, belonging to the USA.
You do what they say.....and you WILL like it!
Ignorance is no excuse either .... you'll get punished for NOT KNOWING.
 
If it comes up in an interview, I think I would appreciate Dr. Paul owning all responsibility for any unintended consequences of the emotional moment- to ‘stand in harm’s way’ so to speak for the soldier.
However making it clear not compromising the corporals personal liberty to make a choice, and sometimes a man’s got to do what a man’s got to do.
 
My view

A soldier is willing to face punishment from the military industrial complex because he believes in Ron Paul that much

also is this the same guy that got cut off by cnn when he said israel?
 
Maybe i just didnt see that alot during my time. I saw former infantry going to other mos's and you can still wear your badges.
 
What the guy did took balls, and I fully support him in his effort. HOWEVER-if this was for any other candidate and for any other reason, I would not support him at all. Those rules are in place for a reason, and the current choices the troops have(other than Ron Paul) for their next CIC being that very reason. I would honestly be scared if someone like Santorum had the support from the troops that Ron Paul does, in the same political climate we are in now....:eek::toady::eek:

This is different. Our politicians are setting American history on a course into the treacherous waters of tyranny, and I will support any "crew member" on this "ship" of ours that is America that stands up and says "listen to me".

If that entails everyone of them showing up at Ron Paul's next rally in uniform, so be it.
 
Last edited:
What the guy did took balls, and I fully support him in his effort. HOWEVER-if this was for any other candidate and for any other reason, I would not support him at all. Those rules are in place for a reason, and the current choices the troops have(other than Ron Paul) for their next CIC being that very reason. I would honestly be scared if someone like Santorum had the support from the troops that Ron Paul does, in the same political climate we are in now....:eek::toady::eek:

I hear what you are saying, and after thinking about it, I think I'd still support the troops if they ended up becoming politically involved with another candidate than Ron Paul, although I'd be questioning their judgement while simultaneously acknowledging their right to speak.

I don't see this simply as an issue of right or wrong, or rule breaking.

I see this as a pressure relief valve. Point being:

Limit the troops in their ability to change government through the election process, and all it does is build up pressure that has no where to go until the lid pops off and they reach for their guns. As JFK once said, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

Having said all that, I'm glad to see that so many servicemembers support the one true defender of the Constitution in Washington. It's comforting that they're on our side. I'm glad to see that the opportunity for peaceful revolution still exists.

Somewhat off topic:

What really perplexes me are those servicemen and women who seem to take pride almost in the fact that they'll fight but they won't vote. I mean, is there supposed to be some point to that? What was the purpose of serving and taking an oath if they won't even try to defend the Constitution through elections (yeah I know it hasn't proven to be very effective in protecting the Constitution so far, but it beats going back home and staring at some medals hung on the wall)? I'm glad to see that the idea that freedom can only be defended by taking up arms and traveling across the world is slowly losing popularity. I hope even more troops realize that they could do more to preserve freedom by getting involved here at home than they ever could in downtown Baghdad.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top