http://www.news4jax.com/news/Army-veteran-kicked-out-of-Old-Navy/-/475880/15185148/-/10nt1v9/-/index.html
I would never shop at old navy again....oh never did before anyway.
silly...of the veteran, to be so easily offended. The old navy employee, I'm sure, had everyone fooled as he walked around the store folding t-shirts, all while impersonating a marine.
What a douche. The douche in question being the Army vet who complained.
Yeah, wearing military dress gear as "fashion" is kinda tacky and rude but for this guy to have been banned or whatever? He must've been making a hell of a scene about it. If he had issue with it, he could have brought it up to the person directly in a respectful manner, not run up to the manager and whine to them.
Now Toby Keith is going to write a song about Old Navy.
Yea, much easier to blame the veteran than for Gap brands to take any responsibilty for their employee.
Quote from: Adam W on June 21, 2012, 03:15:25 AM
What a douche. The douche in question being the Army vet who complained.
Sorry Adam... gotta disagree here. If the employee felt the need to wear a marine corps uniform... then remove the rank insignia and medals and ribbons. I would not have done what the Vet did... but he was right.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 21, 2012, 07:34:58 AM
Quote from: Adam W on June 21, 2012, 03:15:25 AM
What a douche. The douche in question being the Army vet who complained.
Sorry Adam... gotta disagree here. If the employee felt the need to wear a marine corps uniform... then remove the rank insignia and medals and ribbons. I would not have done what the Vet did... but he was right.
Seems like there is a whole lot we don't know about this story. And I doubt we'll find out since Old Navy will keep it in the PR department. I'm sure we can expect a "resignation"/firing, which is unfortunate too.
I just find it hard to believe that approaching the manager and "just informing" him that it was inappropriate for the employee to wear the jacket, would result in security and expulsion from the store. But again, we'll never know what transpired.
Quote from: Bridges on June 21, 2012, 08:07:03 AM
I just find it hard to believe that approaching the manager and "just informing" him that it was inappropriate for the employee to wear the jacket, would result in security and expulsion from the store. But again, we'll never know what transpired.
I do as well. And the fact that he doesn't even accept the apology from Old Navy's parent company makes me believe he just wants the attention.
Personally, I believe I'll reserve judgment on this incident until more information is available, preferably factual.
First of all, I find it very hard to believe the guy was banned from the store for simply "reporting the incident to management." Retail stores go WAY out of their way to avoid any type of a confrontation or controversy, and move quickly to resolve situations as they arise. The news media LOVES stories like these and will "fuel the fire" to create more sensationalism, regardless of whether or not there's any credibility present. How did they get the story in the first place? How old was the employee....was he aware of the consequences? Did he remove the uniform? Funny, how none of this was reported by the media.
Secondly, I recently began working retail and until I did, never understood the dark side of society. Many patrons (not all mind you) seem to feel the employee of a retail store is sub-human and will be treated accordingly. Retail employees are subjected to the ire of any disgruntled customer and sometimes receive the blame for any store discrepancies, both real and imaginary. "YOU DON'T HAVE THIS IN MY COLOR???" "WHY IS THIS SOLD OUT, DIDN'T YOU KNOW I WAS SHOPPING TODAY??" "OKAY, SO I DID BUY THIS AT ANOTHER STORE, YOU SHOULD STILL HONOR MY RECEIPT AND GIVE ME A REPLACEMENT AT A 50% DISCOUNT, EVEN THOUGH I BOUGHT IT 2 YEARS AGO."
You think I'm kidding?
I don't agree with the inappropriate use of the uniform either, but there's too many cogs missing from this gear, which is probably why this incident is making so much noise.
Quote from: NavyRet on June 21, 2012, 10:50:03 AM
Secondly, I recently began working retail and until I did, never understood the dark side of society. Many patrons (not all mind you) seem to feel the employee of a retail store is sub-human and will be treated accordingly. Retail employees are subjected to the ire of any disgruntled customer and sometimes receive the blame for any store discrepencies, both real and imaginary. "YOU DON'T HAVE THIS IN MY COLOR???" "WHY IS THIS SOLD OUT, DIDN'T YOU KNOW I WAS SHOPPING TODAY??" "OKAY, SO I DID BUY THIS AT ANOTHER STORE, YOU SHOULD STILL HONOR MY RECEIPT AND GIVE ME A REPLACEMENT AT A 50% DISCOUNT, EVEN THOUGH I BOUGHT IT 2 YEARS AGO."
You think I'm kidding?
I worked retail as a college kid. Nothing will open your eyes to the absolute worst humanity has to offer than working retail.
Having read the story, there's a ton of information not in there. You don't go from "talking to a manager" to "you're thrown out of the store."
Also, having been a high school kid not that long ago, I had friends who wore this stuff as a fashion statement - heck my grandpa was in the Navy in the 1940s and my dad used to wear some of his old stuff (until grandpa found out about it...!).
Much ado about nothing.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 21, 2012, 07:34:58 AM
Quote from: Adam W on June 21, 2012, 03:15:25 AM
What a douche. The douche in question being the Army vet who complained.
Sorry Adam... gotta disagree here. If the employee felt the need to wear a marine corps uniform... then remove the rank insignia and medals and ribbons. I would not have done what the Vet did... but he was right.
Fair enough, though it's more a matter of personal preference than a matter of law. He wasn't impersonating anyone, he was just going for a look or whatever.
But I get tired of (some, not all) military types thinking they're heroes or special or something. They're people who get paid to do a job, most of which is not dangerous at all. And like pretty much everyone, they have their own self-interested reasons for joining the military. No one just joins the service out of some selfless desire to help everyone else - and if they do, that's self interested in its own right. But I've not asked anyone to join the Army, so that's your choice and your problem, not mine.
When I was in Jax last, I saw an ad for some country concert (didn't recognise the performer) and it was billed as "military appreciation day". Are you kidding me? Every day in the USA is military appreciation day.
In the interest of full disclosure, my father served 28 years in the USN.
Anyway - back to the story at hand. I don't know very much about this particular case, so I don't know why he was banned from the store. I do, however, know he decided it was his place to voice his opinion to the guy at the store. He apparently felt it was his job to do something. So he kinda brought it on himself. But again, without more info, it's hard to know if the reaction was proportionate to the offence.
As another poster brought up, working in retail is a sure-fire way to get abused. I put up with lots of it back in the day. People treat you like you're a servant or something and feel that "the customer is always right". As a boss of mine told me, "the customer may not always be right, but they are still the customer". Anyway, I digress....
Quote from: NavyRet on June 21, 2012, 10:50:03 AM
Personally, I believe I'll reserve judgment on this incident until more information is available, preferably factual.
First of all, I find it very hard to believe the guy was banned from the store for simply "reporting the incident to management." Retail stores go WAY out of their way to avoid any type of a confrontation or controversy, and move quickly to resolve situations as they arise. The news media LOVES stories like these and will "fuel the fire" to create more sensationalism, regardless of whether or not there's any credibility present. How did they get the story in the first place? How old was the employee....was he aware of the consequences? Did he remove the uniform? Funny, how none of this was reported by the media.
Secondly, I recently began working retail and until I did, never understood the dark side of society. Many patrons (not all mind you) seem to feel the employee of a retail store is sub-human and will be treated accordingly. Retail employees are subjected to the ire of any disgruntled customer and sometimes receive the blame for any store discrepancies, both real and imaginary. "YOU DON'T HAVE THIS IN MY COLOR???" "WHY IS THIS SOLD OUT, DIDN'T YOU KNOW I WAS SHOPPING TODAY??" "OKAY, SO I DID BUY THIS AT ANOTHER STORE, YOU SHOULD STILL HONOR MY RECEIPT AND GIVE ME A REPLACEMENT AT A 50% DISCOUNT, EVEN THOUGH I BOUGHT IT 2 YEARS AGO."
You think I'm kidding?
I don't agree with the inappropriate use of the uniform either, but there's too many cogs missing from this gear, which is probably why this incident is making so much noise.
^ To me, it seems strange that Mall security and a Clay County Deputy got involved to inform this man he was banned from the store.
Not to say I think it was appropriate for the Old Navy Employee to be wearing such decor on his clothing. I get that the Service man would take issue to that and would be completely within his right to. But something more had to have happened to warrant his removal from the Store. It was not as simple as approaching the employee and the manager about the issue. I cannot see just these two things alone , requiring measures taken to ban him.
QuoteTo me, it seems strange that Mall security and a Clay County Deputy got involved to inform this man he was banned from the store.
I couldn't agree more. There's more to this story than is being reported...but if ALL the facts came out concerning this incident, it ptobably wouldn't be such a viral sensation, or at the very least newsworthy.
QuoteBut I get tired of (some, not all) military types thinking they're heroes or special or something. They're people who get paid to do a job, most of which is not dangerous at all. And like pretty much everyone, they have their own self-interested reasons for joining the military. No one just joins the service out of some selfless desire to help everyone else - and if they do, that's self interested in its own right. But I've not asked anyone to join the Army, so that's your choice and your problem, not mine.
I also agree with you....to an extent. I don't know of too many military VETs who consider themselves a "hero" and tend to shy away from much of the publicity they have no control over (even the ones without legs). Most agree with you, however....they're only doing their job. Of course it's a job...otherwise we wouldn't be able to feed our families. But the last time I checked, the guys serving in Afghanistan, Pakistan and/or Iraq are doing so BY CHOICE. They didn't HAVE to join the Army, Marines, Seals, Guard or enter a rating with a higher propensity to enter hostile activity. They could have opted out for a less dangerous position which would be less likely to receive combat assignments, but they didn't and nobody is being drafted because we have enough volunteers committed to a perspective that most people wouldn't understand.
Our government is far from perfect. You can slant, spin, contort and misreport most policies, agendas and actions, depending on your views and/or political ideals.
But the majority of those serving in combat in today's military are doing so for a reason...and if anyone has lost sight of that reason....here's a refresher:
http://attacked911.tripod.com/ (http://attacked911.tripod.com/)
Quote
But the majority of those serving in combat in today's military are doing so for a reason...and if anyone has lost sight of that reason....here's a refresher:
http://attacked911.tripod.com/ (http://attacked911.tripod.com/)
Sorry dude, but 9/11 has nothing to do with why the USA is in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere) - nothing except it was used as a convenient excuse.
The US military is part of the reason why 9/11 happened in the first place. Sure, the average soldier, sailor, etc doesn't make the policy, but they carry it out. It's a choice they make - and so they're not completely innocent, either.
Quote
But the last time I checked, the guys serving in Afghanistan, Pakistan and/or Iraq are doing so BY CHOICE.
Exactly. I didn't ask them to do it, so I don't owe them anything.
Quote from: NavyRet on June 21, 2012, 01:59:59 PM
See what I mean about perspective?
I never said 9/11 was the reason why the USA is anywhere....I posted that is what compelled much of our military members to place themselves in harms way. You're talking government....I'm talking people.
Anyways...this debate would never end....it has been going on since Al Gore created the internet. I concede that you have your opinion.....and now I'm going to Old Navy to buy some shirts.
Later, dewd.
Ah well, I think you're right - it wouldn't have gotten either of us anywhere with the other. Have fun at Old Navy - I think that place went seriously downhill once Magic died :(
I just hope that an example is made of the employee, impersonating a soldier is not any different than impersonating a police officer, FBI agent, CIA, and the penalties should be the same. civilians will think twice.
Quote from: suntea14redolf on June 22, 2012, 12:44:55 PM
I just hope that an example is made of the employee, impersonating a soldier is not any different than impersonating a police officer, FBI agent, CIA, and the penalties should be the same. civilians will think twice.
Uh, yeah, it's quite different. I don't think the clerk was trying to fool anybody that he was actually in the military.
Quote from: finehoe on June 22, 2012, 01:21:24 PM
Quote from: suntea14redolf on June 22, 2012, 12:44:55 PM
I just hope that an example is made of the employee, impersonating a soldier is not any different than impersonating a police officer, FBI agent, CIA, and the penalties should be the same. civilians will think twice.
Uh, yeah, it's quite different. I don't think the clerk was trying to fool anybody that he was actually in the military.
Be careful... I don't think he/she will understand and your post might elicit a rambling, creatively-spelled reply.
Quote from: thekillingwax on June 21, 2012, 04:09:58 AM
Yeah, wearing military dress gear as "fashion" is kinda tacky and rude but for this guy to have been banned or whatever? He must've been making a hell of a scene about it. If he had issue with it, he could have brought it up to the person directly in a respectful manner, not run up to the manager and whine to them.
Now Toby Keith is going to write a song about Old Navy.
Illegal, actually.
Story's been picked up by HUffington Post on Facebook:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/army-veteran-old-navy_n_1618422.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
and includes a mention of MJ:
QuoteOthers refuse to take Bennett's side, like one writer on the Metro Jacksonville forum: "Wearing military dress gear as "fashion" is kinda tacky and rude but for this guy to have been banned or whatever? He must've been making a hell of a scene about it. If he had issue with it, he could have brought it up to the person directly in a respectful manner, not run up to the manager and whine to them."
I'm still not buying any of this until more information is presented. There's NO WAY a guy was banned from a store by the manager, mall security and a deputy from the Clay County Sheriff's office for "pointing out" a uniform discrepancy.
I'm a 20-year Retired Navy Veteran and still a supporter of Old Navy until I'm given more information from other sources. The news lady who's boyfriend took "45 minutes to put on his military name tag" did not possess the degree of credibility I require to join a movement to put a couple hundred teenagers out of a job.
Tomorrow, I'm wearing my Old Navy t-shirt to work. neener neener
Not that it makes it right but is it POSSIBLE, that employee had no idea that wearing these medallions was a violation of the act of valor law? just plain ignorance? So.. because this person , unknowing wears these and a Military Vet , takes issue with it ( which I do understand) , what ? should the employee be put to death for it or what would be suitable?
There is no way that it could be as simple as an employee wearing these, and a vet taking issue. Some kind of commotion ensued which led to a deputy and mall security removing the vet. I would not think especially a deputy would just go against the military code and escort the Vet out of Old Navy. Likewise , I doubt Old Navy would knowingly cause such a scene to as to knowingly hurt their image. I would think Old Navy would have security camera , which might shed light on the actual events .
As to those of us who supposedly would not take the side of the military, never served and are yellow-bellied, I might point out that through no wrong on the behalf of some of us NOT ALLOWED to serve in the US armed services, that does not quite constitute your attitude towards nonmilitary . I don't think ANYONE here (or Old Navy or their employee), KNOWINGLY disrespected the valor code. The employee is most certainly aware now, and I doubt would do it again.
This situation would not sway me from purchasing from Old Navy and I personally think it has been blown so incredibly far out of perportion, that it is , quite frankly, pathetic.
If I had anyone to blame, I believe that the media deserve to be held responsible for these 'outrage of the day' stories in which they sensationalize an incident before the facts are all gathered for consideration. By the time cooler heads enter the picture with a rational version of the story that includes the facts, the general public has already moved on to another outrage of the day. This does a disservice to those who were portrayed in a negative light. It can be difficult to add new light to these kind of stories once the media have run the narrative into the ground with superficial 'facts' that only serve to inflame public feelings but do little to expose the whole truth.
Quote from: Jaxson on June 23, 2012, 01:59:57 AM
If I had anyone to blame, I believe that the media deserve to be held responsible for these 'outrage of the day' stories in which they sensationalize an incident before the facts are all gathered for consideration. By the time cooler heads enter the picture with a rational version of the story that includes the facts, the general public has already moved on to another outrage of the day. This does a disservice to those who were portrayed in a negative light. It can be difficult to add new light to these kind of stories once the media have run the narrative into the ground with superficial 'facts' that only serve to inflame public feelings but do little to expose the whole truth.
^ Agree wholeheartedly. Also as mentioned before , I think security footage might well shed light on what actually happened. Old Navy should not have to go belly up over this. The employee very well could have been unknowing that he/she violated anything by doing this
It is one thing when something is malicious and intentionally done as disrespect, and I just cannot fathom an Old Navy Employee putting their job on the line by such an act.
I have complete and total respect for any person who ever has or ever does serve in the Military. But that does not mean I think they should be able to make a huge scene and use internet outlets to tarnish the reputation of a retailer. They did not get removed simply for pointing this out... No way.
Ok, I am a bit confused. I keep reading replies that the guy was banned from the store, however Old Navy, Orange Park Mall, and the Clay County Sherriff (the entities who allegedly banned him) all say that he wasn't.
Also, I understand that wearing a military uniform and honors, AND claiming that you are/were in the military and those honors are yours, is illegal. HOWEVER, using any part of the military uniform as a fashion is not. If it were then the military would not continue to unload its surplus of these items, ribbons denoting honors included, to businesses that they know turn around and sell them to the general public.
The store employee WAS NOT claiming to have served in the Marines nor was the employee laying any claim to the honors. The employee was completely within his (I'm assuming the male gender due to the Marine jacket, however I apologize if I am wrong) rights as a US citizen to dress in whatever fashion he desires. It is within the Army vet's rights to disagree with that fashion, but NOT within his rights to demand the employee conform to his version of what fashion is. In fact, the only thing that may have been violated besides the employee's personal freedom would be the Old Navy employee dress code, but I doubt it because it is quite liberal.
There is not enough being said about what actually happened, and until security camera footage can shed some light on the matter, all of this is only hearsay.
Also, before any “silly civilian†comments are thrown my way, I served in the United States Navy.
I rarely inject my opinion in these threads because so many of them turn into “I’m right†“No, you’re wrong, I’m right†arguments without much thought being put into what is actually being said. This is my take on this particular issue and I will not comment any further and will not respond to comments made about my reply.
Quote from: rjr120 on June 23, 2012, 04:02:56 PM
Ok, I am a bit confused. I keep reading replies that the guy was banned from the store, however Old Navy, Orange Park Mall, and the Clay County Sherriff (the entities who allegedly banned him) all say that he wasn't.
Also, I understand that wearing a military uniform and honors, AND claiming that you are/were in the military and those honors are yours, is illegal. HOWEVER, using any part of the military uniform as a fashion is not. If it were then the military would not continue to unload its surplus of these items, ribbons denoting honors included, to businesses that they know turn around and sell them to the general public.
The store employee WAS NOT claiming to have served in the Marines nor was the employee laying any claim to the honors. The employee was completely within his (I'm assuming the male gender due to the Marine jacket, however I apologize if I am wrong) rights as a US citizen to dress in whatever fashion he desires. It is within the Army vet's rights to disagree with that fashion, but NOT within his rights to demand the employee conform to his version of what fashion is. In fact, the only thing that may have been violated besides the employee's personal freedom would be the Old Navy employee dress code, but I doubt it because it is quite liberal.
There is not enough being said about what actually happened, and until security camera footage can shed some light on the matter, all of this is only hearsay.
Also, before any “silly civilian†comments are thrown my way, I served in the United States Navy.
I rarely inject my opinion in these threads because so many of them turn into “I’m right†“No, you’re wrong, I’m right†arguments without much thought being put into what is actually being said. This is my take on this particular issue and I will not comment any further and will not respond to comments made about my reply.
I'd be willing to bet he threatened the guy who was wearing the jacket. A friend of mine had that happen once. But who knows. It's all so silly, really.
Quote from: Rynjny on June 21, 2012, 12:41:48 AM
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Army-veteran-kicked-out-of-Old-Navy/-/475880/15185148/-/10nt1v9/-/index.html
RJR.... This story is the origin of the thread. it is from this that it was stated the Vet was removed / banned from Old Navy.
With regard to your post. I agree . completely. Seriously doubt the Old Navy employee wanted /intended to offend anyone , especially a Veteran.
Of course then there is the ensuing post from another Veteran, essentially siding with the Vet in the story, and for that I take no issue either.
I did take issue with his comments that followed ,which essentially said that everyone should be on the side of the Vet who was removed from the store (to an extent.. I agee) but then the comments after that , I definitely take issue with.. and those being that those who never served basically are yellow-bellies, etc etc etc. So in that regard, I do not side with the Poster.
As the previous poster just said, Most likely there is something about this that was not presented ..like the WHOLE story. and it is ridiculous that either Vet thinks boycotting Old Navy is appropriate, but hey, to each their own. Would not make me want to. :)
The Channel 4 Story states that he WAS banned and was escorted out by Clay County Sheriff's Deputy and Mall Security. I have not read or heard otherwise. Not to say it is not true. IF the story is true, it only makes sense that something ensued other than him asking the employee about the jacket and speaking to a manager.
Look, the guy was wearing it as fashion, not impersonating or passing himself off as someone who earned the medals. I think that any reasonable vet would know the difference. Was he in full dress from top to bottom? No. He had a jacket on he got at a thrift store. Probably had a Ramones tshirt on underneath..lol...nobody was going to mistake this kid for a vet/war hero. Besides, most vets/true heroes that I've met are the least likely to flaunt it.
Gimme a break. We've got more important things to worry about, like the fact that we're turning into a country of crybabies.
Sorry, Ock, but no soldiers have gone to their deaths defending my freedom or anyone's, for that matter. At least not for a over 100 years.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have been involved in WWII, but our involvement had a lot more to do with geopolitics than 'freedom.' The guys killed on the Arizona were 'collateral damage' resulting from American policy towards Japan. Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor because they wanted to deny Americans their 'freedom,' they attacked Pearl Harbor to knock out the Pacific Fleet so they could continue to rape China and SE Asia.
Again, I'm not saying we didn't do good there in the long run, but we certainly didn't get involved out of a sense of altruism. And most who ran out to enlist did so as a result of sabre rattling on the part of the Gov't.
And, after the war, Americans have continued to give their lives to ensure many around the world don't have any freedom. We've used our military might to thwart democracy and ensure open markets for American goods and military hardware.
You can't complain about 'a war we should never have been in' and then turn around and talk about people taking a bullet to protect my freedom.
America's freedom has never been challenged. And that's not because of the military - it's in spite of the military.
I know they're people who are just doing their jobs, but I don't see the difference between guys getting blown up in Iraq and Soviet soldiers getting blown up in Afghanistan. We cheered Rambo in the cinema, yet fail to see how are actions are no different than the Soviet baddies in the movies. That's sick.
and a conversation about a scuffle in an old navy store matures into conversations about wwII strategery.
Quote from: Adam W on June 25, 2012, 03:11:28 AM
As I said, it's silly to try and envision what would've happened. That said, that is quite an impressive list you compiled and I appreciate the research.
I would say, however, that the numbers don't tell the whole story. There's also the cost of occupation (fiscal as well as other resources, chief among those being manpower).
Italy couldn't manage to successfully conquer Ethiopia and was a complete failure in its European campaigns. Germany never managed to do much of anything in Yugoslavia and Hitler got cold feet and scuppered Operation Sea Lion.
I think a far more likely result would've been an uneasy peace or cold war. But as I said before, we'll never know.
What we DO know is that we entered the war and eventually helped put an end to the holocaust. Which is probably the high-point for us. It's a shame that the victorious powers ended up being total pricks to each other and to everyone else after the war.
I for one am glad most of the world at the time thought differently than you do now. Enjoy your revisionism.
Quote from: suntea14redolf on June 22, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
I am a veteran,. and I would be very pissed if a civilian (against the act of valor law) dressed in honor's he or she did not earn. For those of you that apparently knows nothing of chain of command in or out of the military., you never confront an employee ,always go to manager on duty,. ANY ONE THAT DOES NOT STAND ON THE SIDE OF RIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE VET,WHO EARNED HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPION ON THIS MATTER, (YOU SIR. OR MISS HAVE NEVER GIVEN ONCE OUNCE TO PROTECT, THIS NATION,. BUNCH OF PANSIESM,YELLOW BELLY'S. MR. Aaron Bennett, I salute you,. one vet to another.
My god you're right, they ought to shut down Old Navy immediately, seize its assets, arrest the CEO.
It's calling itself the navy, and it's not. The humanity!
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2012, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Adam W on June 25, 2012, 03:11:28 AM
As I said, it's silly to try and envision what would've happened. That said, that is quite an impressive list you compiled and I appreciate the research.
I would say, however, that the numbers don't tell the whole story. There's also the cost of occupation (fiscal as well as other resources, chief among those being manpower).
Italy couldn't manage to successfully conquer Ethiopia and was a complete failure in its European campaigns. Germany never managed to do much of anything in Yugoslavia and Hitler got cold feet and scuppered Operation Sea Lion.
I think a far more likely result would've been an uneasy peace or cold war. But as I said before, we'll never know.
What we DO know is that we entered the war and eventually helped put an end to the holocaust. Which is probably the high-point for us. It's a shame that the victorious powers ended up being total pricks to each other and to everyone else after the war.
But Adam. Imagine what would have happened if we had not directly intervened in the Napoleonic wars.
We were hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned at the time, and Napoleon repeatedly announced that he planned on conquering to entire world.
Good god man, he'd already installed a cousin on the throne of Mexico.
And unlike that little German failure, Adolph, Emperor Bonaparte had actually succeeded in European dominance. He was busy renaming things and administering state by the time the United States----dangerously over run with liberals who were pursuing a policy of free trade for all and non entanglement in European Wars--- decided on the massive military response to Napoleon.
After he defeated Europe, do you really think he would have wasted any time building an even vaster army in Mexico, sailing up through the Gulf, joining with the French descended rebels in Louisiana and completely over running the United States with an army of Continentals, Mexican, ans Cajun guerillas?
Our large scale entry into the wars and eventual bombing of Marseilles followed by the Occupation of Paris and the rebuilding of the nation state of Corsica is the only reason we are even having this conversation in English, my friend.
So please spare us all the crap about what "might" not happen wherever and whenever the US military gets involved in conflicts across the globe that might one day, no matter how far fetched--- result in a defensive war US Shores!
Remember the siege of Corsica!
I actually thought you were serious for a second. Very clever! ;D
While we're at it, don't we have to arrest Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and every other actor who plays military characters in uniform? I mean, I always thought A Few Good Men was just one of my favorite movies, I never realized it was really a crime scene.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 25, 2012, 01:25:47 PM
While we're at it, don't we have to arrest Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and every other actor who plays military characters in uniform? I mean, I always thought A Few Good Men was just one of my favorite movies, I never realized it was really a crime scene.
:o ^Good point! Guess Tom Hanks is added to the list .
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2012, 10:42:22 AM
Incidentally what the boy did wasn't illegal.
Do we know it was a boy? I don't see any mention of gender in the news article.
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2012, 12:17:32 AM
Fireman Richard Angelo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Angelo
Look, a hero in our own backyard!
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-06-25/story/jacksonville-firefighter-charged-raping-woman-downtown-alley (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-06-25/story/jacksonville-firefighter-charged-raping-woman-downtown-alley)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 25, 2012, 01:25:47 PM
While we're at it, don't we have to arrest Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and every other actor who plays military characters in uniform? I mean, I always thought A Few Good Men was just one of my favorite movies, I never realized it was really a crime scene.
If embracing the Stolen Valor Law is what it takes to get Tom Cruise arrested, then sign me up!
Wow. Now that we have discussed the history of modern warfare, did we ever find out what really happened in the Old Navy store?
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 25, 2012, 06:37:45 PM
Wow. Now that we have discussed the history of modern warfare, did we ever find out what really happened in the Old Navy store?
Well I think that's rather the whole point, nobody really cares, except maybe the guy who got kicked out of old navy. The whole thing is so silly, much ado about nothing.
Quote
I for one am glad most of the world at the time thought differently than you do now. Enjoy your revisionism.
For the record, I never said the USA shouldn't have been involved in WWII. I said that American soldiers, etc had not been killed to protect our freedoms in at least 100 years. That ignited a debate about how our freedom would've been impacted had we not gotten involved - and the original comment and perspective kind of got lost.
But, even if we say that WWII was indeed a war to defend the freedom of Americans (which I don't necessarily agree with), I don't and cannot accept that WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan (and the myriad other conflicts and engagements US troops have been involved in) in any way a) protected our freedom and b) were motivated by the desire to protect American freedom.
That was my point.
Not to change the subject or anything, but it's raining like hell here.
Quote from: NavyRet on June 26, 2012, 06:44:06 PM
Not to change the subject or anything, but it's raining like hell here.
Its raining pitchforks and sawlogs here too Navy R
(http://www.claycountysounder.com/temp/hijack.jpg)
Apparently this is the jacket.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s720x720/180284_3760767951155_1162335873_n.jpg)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3760767951155&set=p.3760767951155&type=1
This the caption that went with the photo:
Chris RyanStolen Valor
I would just like to say in regards to old navy removing the army veteran after he confronted the employee about the jacket he wore, Myself and a few of my fellow marines confronted the employee not even a week ago in Jacksonville, Fl while he was working. We refused to leave the store until the jacket was removed and explained the entire situation and blatant disrespect it showed. Now seeing that he put the jacket back on afterwords shows his complete lack of respect for our jobs, and our uniforms. This was a picture taken right before we confronted him last weekend.
Yep....saw that. The guy was wrong to wear that uniforn, no question about it. BUT, he wasn't trying to convince anyone that he was military or had earned any ribbons or medals displayed. Just an innaproppriate wearing of the uniform.
According to all MOST of the internet rhetoric currently going on, it's no longer "about the jacket," but of Old Navy's response to the VET who "pointed out" the infraction. HE said he was banned, and Old Navy management, mall security and Clay County Sheriff's office said he wasn't. It's now a game of he-said-she-said...
I'm not prepared to follow a movement calling on the boycott-to-bankrupt a company, which would effectively put hundreds of young Americans out of work. To me, the rights of these kids outweigh the sensationalism of this whole story. A guy got his feelings hurt....Old Navy issued SEVERAL appologies...what the hell do they want?
To me it seems like the employee was "asked" on at least two separate occasions to remove the jacket. it further seems, to me, that round one and round two are connected. Round 1 failed and round 2 tried again. Round one refused to leave until the employee removed his jacket. Probably the same for round 2, and that would explain why the vetran was escorted off of the premises.
If you read the caption on the image it says "me and a few others". At least three, probably four military personale are in the store and they want this employee to remove his jacket. Sounds like a bit of intimidation, whether they realize it or not.
If this illegal, what happened to calling the police? Are military members super citizens in which their demands supersede domestic law and order. Of course not. They Absolutly do not have the right nor the authority to demand that anyone do anything, especially within the context of an old navy store.
It feels like these guys are stalking this kid.
In two months we'll find out that the one claiming to be the offended veteran was really the one pretending to be a veteran.
Quote from: NavyRet on June 27, 2012, 11:13:19 AM
Yep....saw that. The guys was wrong to wear that uniforn, no question about it. BUT, he wasn't trying to convinve anyone that he was military or had earned any ribbons or medals displayed. Just an innaproppriate wearing of the uniform.
According to all MOST of the internet rhetoric currently going on, it's no longer "about the jacket," but of Old Navy's response to the VET who "pointed out" the infraction. HE said he was banned, and Old Navy management, mall security and Clay County Sheriff's office said he wasn't. It's now a game of he-said-she-said...
I'm not prepared to follow a movement calling on the boycott-to-bankrupt a company, which would effectively put hundreds of young Americans out of work. To me, the rights of these kids outweigh the sensationalism of this whole story. A guy got his feelings hurt....Old Navy issued SEVERAL appologies...what the hell do they want?
^+1 !!!!
Quote from: NavyRet on June 27, 2012, 11:13:19 AM
Yep....saw that. The guys was wrong to wear that uniforn, no question about it.
I think there
is a question about it. It's not illegal unless he is trying to pretend he is actually in the military, which he clearly is not. Some people obviously have an issue with him wearing it, but that doesn't make it "wrong". He has every right to wear whatever he pleases.
My dad let my brother wear his old WWII Army jacket to school in the 1960's. The kids thought it was cool. But I think it's fine for a vet to (nicely, not rudely) express an opinion if he or she feels that way. As in, "I don't think that's respectful, and as a veteran, I wish he would remove the jacket." Belligerence and intimidation are something else entirely. Refusing to leave until you get your way? You are looking for trouble on purpose. It is that attitude that will bring the disrespect upon you.
That said, do we know yet what happened? I haven't seen it anywhere on this thread, and we are on page 4. :-)
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 27, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
My dad let my brother wear his old WWII Army jacket to school in the 1960's. The kids thought it was cool. But I think it's fine for a vet to (nicely, not rudely) express an opinion if he or she feels that way. As in, "I don't think that's respectful, and as a veteran, I wish he would remove the jacket." Belligerence and intimidation are something else entirely. Refusing to leave until you get your way? You are looking for trouble on purpose. It is that attitude that will bring the disrespect upon you.
That said, do we know yet what happened? I haven't seen it anywhere on this thread, and we are on page 4. :-)
By the looks of the general flow of posts on the Old Navy Face Book group, it appears that Old Navy would like nothing better than to let all this just die down and go away....can't say that I blame them. It is very probable that we will
never know the full story of this incident. The news media won't report any more on it unless something sensational or shocking happens. They like to spin stories into frenzies.... That was evident on the way the reporter was reporting this one. No mention of what anyone elese had to say except the "vet"......and that her military boyfriend takes 45 minutes to put on a name tag. REALLY?
I say we all go have a couple brewskies and shoot some darts. By Monday everyone will be looking for something else to gasp about.
(http://www.claycountysounder.com/temp/daycare.jpg)
Quote from: finehoe on June 27, 2012, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: NavyRet on June 27, 2012, 11:13:19 AM
Yep....saw that. The guys was wrong to wear that uniforn, no question about it.
I think there is a question about it. It's not illegal unless he is trying to pretend he is actually in the military, which he clearly is not. Some people obviously have an issue with him wearing it, but that doesn't make it "wrong". He has every right to wear whatever he pleases.
Exactly. Nobody's mistaking that guy for a vet. ::)
Woo hoo! page 5... can we make it 6?? Cmon guys... I know you have it in you... ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 27, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
Woo hoo! page 5... can we make it 6?? Cmon guys... I know you have it in you... ::)
Works for me :)
Heck, I can do 6 pages by myself. ;D
Quote from: TheCat on June 27, 2012, 11:14:57 AM
To me it seems like the employee was "asked" on at least two separate occasions to remove the jacket. it further seems, to me, that round one and round two are connected. Round 1 failed and round 2 tried again. Round one refused to leave until the employee removed his jacket. Probably the same for round 2, and that would explain why the veteran was escorted off of the premises.
If you read the caption on the image it says "me and a few others". At least three, probably four military personale are in the store and they want this employee to remove his jacket. Sounds like a bit of intimidation, whether they realize it or not.
If this illegal, what happened to calling the police? Are military members super citizens in which their demands supersede domestic law and order. Of course not. They Absolutely do not have the right nor the authority to demand that anyone do anything, especially within the context of an old navy store.
It feels like these guys are stalking this kid.
That is exactly how I would take it. If this is not in violation of the Valor act and it is legal for the kid to wear it ( particularly if he bought it , and is NOT trying to impersonate a Military service person), to me that is the end of the discussion. If these military people do not like it, then don't return to Old Navy. :P
Most of us will still continue to patronize Old Navy.
I wish they still had the Antique Truck in some of the Stores
Well that didn't last long.
The Supreme Court agreed with pretty much everyone with any common sense who weighed in on this thread, if someone wants to play pretend, then so be it. Free speech.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/supreme-court-rules-that-lying-about-military-medals-protected-by-constitution/2012/06/28/gJQAllBD9V_story.html?tid=pm_pop
I know, interestingly enough, the very same two self-professed consititional scholars who always want to give us lectures on how we don't understand the constitution. It's getting to be quite comical indeed.