I guess you could call me mildly obsessed with the salty off-color remarks by R. Lee Ermey over the years
I wish there was an un-rated version. I still have his Full Metal Jacket speech on my iPod.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 07, 2010, 12:25:51 PM
I wish there was an un-rated version. I still have his Full Metal Jacket speech on my iPod.
Might have to get that from ya, I lost it when my old phone decided it was tired of life and commited phone suicide.
Bad thing is when I leave my iPod on shuffle in my office and go to lunch. Sometimes I get back to a group of very upset co-workers. ::)
"You gotta be shitting me Pyle!"
How do you do that without cracking up?
Did your mommie not pay enough attention to you ?
And why arent you stomping the living sh** out of Pvt. Pyle ?
Ya gotta love R.Lee.
I wish I could have him on a GPS..
"TURN LEFT YOU MAGGOT!"
I thought it was excellent casting to make him Dr House's father too.
Quote from: sgrizzle on July 07, 2010, 07:10:42 PM
I wish I could have him on a GPS..
"TURN LEFT YOU MAGGOT!"
I thought it was excellent casting to make him Dr House's father too.
The female voice on my GPS is already condescending enough!
"Heavy sigh. . .Recalculating?!?"
Here's another Geico gem:
R. Lee Ermey GPS! Fantastic.
I still wish NOAA weather radio would have Max Headroom read the forecasts and warnings.
Quote from: buckeye on July 22, 2010, 03:54:07 PM
R. Lee Ermey GPS! Fantastic.
I still wish NOAA weather radio would have Max Headroom read the forecasts and warnings.
Or maybe KMODs Dick Slexik.
Here's one with Randy Johnson:
I think the guy at the begining of these commercials would be perfect as a detective in a film noir setting, a cross between Humprhey Bogart and Robert Mitchum.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 30, 2010, 09:40:37 AM
I think the guy at the begining of these commercials would be perfect as a detective in a film noir setting, a cross between Humprhey Bogart and Robert Mitchum.
Mike McGlone
Saw him in a few movies in the '90's. The Brothers McMullen was one I liked alot.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0569458/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0569458/)
Quote from: Townsend on July 30, 2010, 09:50:49 AM
Mike McGlone
Saw him in a few movies in the '90's. The Brothers McMullen was one I liked alot.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0569458/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0569458/)
Thanks for the info.
Ermey dumps on Obama (2:30):
Like any other American actor, Ermey is entitled to speak his mind. But if he were still in the Marine Corps, he'd have to shut his mouth and carry out his orders, orders which presumably could originate with that civilian atop the chain of command, the commander in chief.
I firmly believe the right is entitled to more than one heavy hitter like Steven Baldwin.
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2010, 08:20:22 PM
Like any other American actor and highly decorated war veteran, Ermey is entitled to speak his mind. But if he were still in the Marine Corps, he'd have to shut his mouth and carry out his orders, orders which presumably could originate with that civilian atop the chain of command, the commander in chief.
I firmly believe the right is entitled to more than one heavy hitter like Steven Baldwin.
Fixed it for you. Oh, and "shut his mouth"? Is that what leftie first amendmenters are all about? :P
My marine-for-life brother-in-law was at my home over the holidays and he says the military is happy with President Obama.
His reason is that the Pentagon has been given the two largest budgets in history under Obama and that the top leadership slected or kept by Obama are all the right ones.
I was surprised to hear that because he usually rants about my crazy liberal politicians.
Have you noticed, Guido, that active service military personnel studiously avoid discussing politics in public? They generally remain mum until they're no longer in the military. Now, from over here on the left end of the political spectrum, it's troublesome that they have to give up their free speech rights as part of their government service.
Baldwin and Ermey have the same right to speak their minds that you and I enjoy. But their positions as actors, and in Ermey's case, a decorated veteran, doesn't mean their opinions carry more weight that your's or mine. There's a name for that particular fallacy, though it escapes me just now.
Are you suggesting that active military personnel should be permitted to criticize their commander in chief in a public forum? If so, I'd be very surprised. Like I said, it's troublesome that they have restricted free speech rights, but perhaps someone with more direct experience with the military will comment on that.
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2010, 09:40:38 PM
Now, from over here on the left end of the political spectrum, it's troublesome that they have to give up their free speech rights as part of their government service.
To some extent, everyone gives up their right to criticize their boss unless they are willing to find a new job. The military has a bit of a "disadvantage" in that they have given up their constitutional rights and agreed to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). At least that is what they told me in boot camp. Sometimes it can work to a servicepersons advantage.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 29, 2010, 09:38:00 PM
My marine-for-life brother-in-law
The way I understand it is that Officers are "for life" with a few exceptions in any of the services. Enlisted are usually given a discharge, hopefully honorable, and are not subject to recall except under the most dire circumstances. The Marines have a brotherhood above and beyond the law to be Marines for life but I don't think it is actually a legal obligation.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 29, 2010, 10:43:09 PM
The way I understand it is that Officers are "for life" with a few exceptions in any of the services. Enlisted are usually given a discharge, hopefully honorable, and are not subject to recall except under the most dire circumstances. The Marines have a brotherhood above and beyond the law to be Marines for life but I don't think it is actually a legal obligation.
A female supervisor of mine many years ago was a Major in the Marine Corps. She was in the reserve, but not active duty. I never asked the details of her leaving the Corps, but I'm guessing that she wasn't a 'lifer'. Explained to me that, at least back in the late 90s, once you were no longer active duty, then you served as a reservist for 16 years, which means essentially the same as a reservist for the police force. She didn't have to do what the Guard does, and go to training once a year. I believe she was out from active duty after 6 years, by my math, but, as I said, I never asked her about it. She never wore her service to her country on her sleeve, unlike some (ok, one) in here that do and feels it empowers them.
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2010, 08:20:22 PM
Like any other American actor, Ermey is entitled to speak his mind.
I guess he has the same rights as Jane Fonda...
But as far as professional decorum, even past commander-in-chiefs dont even dump on sitting ones.
it makes me think of my step-dad, the ex-marine. I had made a comment about our President, and his response was "He's not my President". He really didn't like it when I responded, "Oh, so you renounce your citizenship? Excellent!"
Quote from: Hoss on December 29, 2010, 10:58:14 PM
A female supervisor of mine many years ago was a Major in the Marine Corps. She was in the reserve, but not active duty. I never asked the details of her leaving the Corps, but I'm guessing that she wasn't a 'lifer'. Explained to me that, at least back in the late 90s, once you were no longer active duty, then you served as a reservist for 16 years, which means essentially the same as a reservist for the police force. She didn't have to do what the Guard does, and go to training once a year. I believe she was out from active duty after 6 years, by my math, but, as I said, I never asked her about it. She never wore her service to her country on her sleeve, unlike some (ok, one) in here that do and feels it empowers them.
I was enlisted so I am not positive but....
The way I understand it is that even though an Officer is not on active duty, they are subject to recall at any time (not sure of the details) since they are not discharged from the service, they just don't have a present commission.
My obligation was for 6 years, 4 years active duty, 2 years inactive duty (no weekends etc). I received my honorable discharge about 1 yr and 9 months after I finished active duty since I went in on a delayed entry program. I signed up but did not report for boot camp for 3 months.
Some of you are completely burnt up....
Quote from: patric on December 29, 2010, 11:57:53 PM
I guess he has the same rights as Jane Fonda...
But as far as professional decorum, even past commander-in-chiefs dont even dump on sitting ones.
Someone forgot to tell former Presidents Carter and Clinton about that protocol. Maybe that didn't count since Bush stole the 2000 election and he was not legitimately our President.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 30, 2010, 09:24:42 AM
Someone forgot to tell former Presidents Carter and Clinton about that protocol. Maybe that didn't count since Bush stole the 2000 election and he was not legitimately our President.
You are forgetting about the political criticism diode.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2010, 11:59:52 AM
You are forgetting about the political criticism diode.
I do tend to suffer from selective amnesia. Much like libs when you get them into a debate
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2010, 09:40:38 PM
Have you noticed, Guido, that active service military personnel studiously avoid discussing politics in public? They generally remain mum until they're no longer in the military. Now, from over here on the left end of the political spectrum, it's troublesome that they have to give up their free speech rights as part of their government service.
Baldwin and Ermey have the same right to speak their minds that you and I enjoy. But their positions as actors, and in Ermey's case, a decorated veteran, doesn't mean their opinions carry more weight that your's or mine. There's a name for that particular fallacy, though it escapes me just now.
Are you suggesting that active military personnel should be permitted to criticize their commander in chief in a public forum? If so, I'd be very surprised. Like I said, it's troublesome that they have restricted free speech rights, but perhaps someone with more direct experience with the military will comment on that.
Look Ed, all I did was post a vid of Ermey criticizing your man and you (and a few others) got your collective nuts all twisted up over it. Did I say or suggest that his opinion means more than yours? Come on, you are so much better than this.
As for criticizing the government while active duty, I did write a letter to my base commander when I was in my first year critical of something I do not really recall. I do know it was critical of the government though. I got a very thoughtful and respectful response from the CO. So, no, you really do not give up your first amendment rights when you go in.
Quote from: guido911 on December 30, 2010, 02:44:07 PM
Look Ed, all I did was post a vid of Ermey criticizing your man and you (and a few others) got your collective nuts all twisted up over it. Did I say or suggest that his opinion means more than yours? Come on, you are so much better than this.
As for criticizing the government while active duty, I did write a letter to my base commander when I was in my first year critical of something I do not really recall. I do know it was critical of the government though. I got a very thoughtful and respectful response from the CO. So, no, you really do not give up your first amendment rights when you go in.
Nuts twisted up? Hardly. I just pointed out a few obvious problems, but chief among them is the false authority fallacy (and yeah, I had to go look it up!) with a secondary comment about the inability of active duty personnel to publicly criticize their civilian superiors. Alec Baldwin, Stephen Baldwin, R. Lee Ermey, and Jane Fonda are all equals when it comes to political commentary. That is, they're each well beyond their area of expertise.
As for your letter to the commander, I have to assume it wasn't meant for public consumption. Otherwise, the CO may have taken a different tack. You're no doubt aware of that.
So while you and I are authorities in our fields - your's is law, I think, while mine is...um...women - our opinions are of little consequence outside our specialties.
Quote from: Ed W on December 30, 2010, 05:07:06 PM
Nuts twisted up? Hardly. I just pointed out a few obvious problems, but chief among them is the false authority fallacy (and yeah, I had to go look it up!) with a secondary comment about the inability of active duty personnel to publicly criticize their civilian superiors. Alec Baldwin, Stephen Baldwin, R. Lee Ermey, and Jane Fonda are all equals when it comes to political commentary. That is, they're each well beyond their area of expertise.
As for your letter to the commander, I have to assume it wasn't meant for public consumption. Otherwise, the CO may have taken a different tack. You're no doubt aware of that.
So while you and I are authorities in our fields - your's is law, I think, while mine is...um...women - our opinions are of little consequence outside our specialties.
"Hanoi Jane" Fonda=R. Lee Ermey?
(http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050331/050331_hanoijane_vmed1p.grid-4x2.jpg)
I cannot believe you would draw such a disgusting comparison.
Quote from: guido911 on December 30, 2010, 07:11:51 PM
"Hanoi Jane" Fonda=R. Lee Ermey?
I cannot believe you would draw such a disgusting comparison.
Sorry, Guido. I didn't intend to get your nuts all twisted up. But are you saying that Ermey and Fonda do not have the same right to speak their minds, or are you saying that one or both are well within their area of expertise when they've commented on geo-politics?
Quote from: Ed W on December 30, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
Sorry, Guido. I didn't intend to get your nuts all twisted up. But are you saying that Ermey and Fonda do not have the same right to speak their minds, or are you saying that one or both are well within their area of expertise when they've commented on geo-politics?
Show me a pic of Ermey hanging out with the enemy in Vietnam (probably can't since he was busy fighting them), because Ermey's take on the problems with our economy is nowhere near the same as aiding our enemies.
Is the reason your comparing a traitor to a decorated war veteran because Hanoi Jane once twisted your nuts or something? ;)
Quote from: guido911 on December 30, 2010, 08:07:52 PM
... because Hanoi Jane once twisted your nuts or something? ;)
Maybe he was an extra in Barbarella. :)
You sidestepped the questions very nicely, Guido, but what I think of Fonda, Ermey, or the Baldwins is irrelevant. So I'll ask again. Do they enjoy the same right to speak their minds as you and I? Does their fame and positions as actors lend them greater credibility when speaking on geo-politics?
Quote from: Ed W on December 30, 2010, 08:45:35 PM
You sidestepped the questions very nicely, Guido, but what I think of Fonda, Ermey, or the Baldwins is irrelevant. So I'll ask again. Do they enjoy the same right to speak their minds as you and I? Does their fame and positions as actors lend them greater credibility when speaking on geo-politics?
If you equate what Fonda did during a time of war with what Ermey said about the economy, I can't help you. Nor will I answer whatever question you are positing because such is indeed a mega-false equivalence. Hell, even that moron Fonda eventually concluded her behavior was wrong.
One other thing, do you really believe that Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese AA gun used to shoot at our soldier's planes was an expression of speech? If so, I don't ever want to hear another TNF b!tch about
Citizen's United.
Quote from: Ed W on December 30, 2010, 08:45:35 PM
You sidestepped the questions very nicely, Guido, but what I think of Fonda, Ermey, or the Baldwins is irrelevant. So I'll ask again. Do they enjoy the same right to speak their minds as you and I? Does their fame and positions as actors lend them greater credibility when speaking on geo-politics?
What did you expect, Ed? He's a registered Reeepublican AND an attorney at that? They're good at spinning.
Quote from: Hoss on December 31, 2010, 11:39:45 PM
What did you expect, Ed? He's a registered Reeepublican AND an attorney at that? They're good at spinning.
Cute.... but irrelevant.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 31, 2010, 11:50:16 PM
Cute.... but irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? Ed asked him a question. He skirts the answer by asking Ed another question. How's that not relevant? He's good at spinning. He's an attorney and a Republican. Pretty damned relevant. To me. Maybe not to a fellow Republican spinner.
Quote from: Hoss on December 31, 2010, 11:54:14 PM
How is it irrelevant? Ed asked him a question. He skirts the answer by asking Ed another question. How's that not relevant? He's good at spinning. He's an attorney and a Republican. Pretty damned relevant. To me. Maybe not to a fellow Republican spinner.
You found a song with the word "spinning" in it. Big deal. Now, if you found a video of a ballet dancer or figure skater spinning, that would have been good. Just my opinion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 01, 2011, 11:23:30 AM
You found a song with the word "spinning" in it. Big deal. Now, if you found a video of a ballet dancer or figure skater spinning, that would have been good. Just my opinion.
Ah, I see. OK, next time, I'll run my choice of A/V aids by you before I post.
::)
Quote from: Hoss on January 01, 2011, 12:52:41 PM
Ah, I see. OK, next time, I'll run my choice of A/V aids by you before I post.
::)
That should work. ;D
Quote from: guido911 on December 31, 2010, 09:50:17 PM
If you equate what Fonda did during a time of war with what Ermey said about the economy, I can't help you. Nor will I answer whatever question you are positing because such is indeed a mega-false equivalence. Hell, even that moron Fonda eventually concluded her behavior was wrong.
One other thing, do you really believe that Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese AA gun used to shoot at our soldier's planes was an expression of speech? If so, I don't ever want to hear another TNF b!tch about Citizen's United.
I've stated that the Baldwiins, Fonda, Ermey, and even you and I have an equal right to speak our minds. Evidently, since you disagree vehemently with what some have to say, you believe that those who disagree with you should not have that right. It's typical of many of the authoritarians on the right, where ideology trumps a commitment to the rule of law and our Constitution.
So let's try another tack - if we have a right that we do not exercise for whatever reason, do we still have that right?
Quote from: Ed W on January 01, 2011, 01:41:23 PM
I've stated that the Baldwiins, Fonda, Ermey, and even you and I have an equal right to speak our minds. Evidently, since you disagree vehemently with what some have to say, you believe that those who disagree with you should not have that right. It's typical of many of the authoritarians on the right, where ideology trumps a commitment to the rule of law and our Constitution.
So let's try another tack - if we have a right that we do not exercise for whatever reason, do we still have that right?
I think we are in apples and oranges territory. First, I of course believe we each have the right to speak, and no one's opinion means more than another when it comes to that right. HOWEVER, my position as to solely Hanoi Jane Fonda--a person's name you both threw out there and later compared to Ermey--is where we are not connecting. I cannot see how riding on the enemy's AA gun is "speech", which if it is not, then we are not talking about the same thing. As for comparing the likes of Baldwin to Ermey, I am on board with that.
I asked you earlier if you thought Fonda's actions was "speech"? Do you have an opinion?
Quote from: guido911 on January 01, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
I asked you earlier if you thought Fonda's actions was "speech"? Do you have an opinion?
I believe the Supremes ruled that actions constitute speech even if no words are exchanged. I think it resulted from an anti-nuclear protest where some activists chained themselves to a gate, but I could be mistaken. So yes, Fonda's actions were speech, perhaps ill-advised and even stupid, but speech nonetheless. If we outlawed stupid speech, there are a slew of politicians, celebrities, pundits, and most of the comments section of the Tulsa World that would have to go away. And I'm sure you and I would have totally different ideas about whose name should be on the list.
I believe Jane Fonda violated travel restrictions by going to N. Viet Nam. I don't remember what the penalty was supposed to be.
I found this early this morning. It's supportive of Guido's position (I think) regarding restrictions on speech, but it's highly critical of the SCOTUS decision that permits those restrictions:
DID former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Tom Ridge, a former homeland security secretary, and Frances Townsend, a former national security adviser, all commit a federal crime last month in Paris when they spoke in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq at a conference organized by the Iranian opposition group's advocates? Free speech, right? Not necessarily.
The problem is that the United States government has labeled the Mujahedeen Khalq a "foreign terrorist organization," making it a crime to provide it, directly or indirectly, with any material support. And, according to the Justice Department under Mr. Mukasey himself, as well as under the current attorney general, Eric Holder, material support includes not only cash and other tangible aid, but also speech coordinated with a "foreign terrorist organization" for its benefit. It is therefore a felony, the government has argued, to file an amicus brief on behalf of a "terrorist" group, to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group's "terrorist" designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03cole.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03cole.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212)
Quote from: Ed W on January 02, 2011, 09:27:49 AM
If we outlawed stupid speech, TulsaNow forum would go dark.
FIFY
Ermey apologizes.
"A Message from the Gunny
'I recently appeared at a fundraising event designed to collect toys and raise awareness for underprivileged children. While that event succeeded in raising thousands of dollars and hundreds of toys for this cause, I regret that I delivered a monologue that was inappropriately critical of the President. I was trying to be entertaining and simply went too far in this instance. I am mindful that my success as an entertainer relates in part to my experience in the Marine Corps, my devotion to its members, and the deep respect I have for members of all our Armed Forces. My comments should not be seen as reflecting on them or their views. I was just very disappointed in the amount of success that we were having raising toys and money for the underprivileged children this season. The poor economy has greatly hampered our efforts. My comments were misguided, and emotionally based, and for that I am truly sorry.'
Semper Fi"
http://www.alan.com/2011/01/01/geico-chief-uses-usotoys-for-tots-event-to-slam-obama-for-destroying-this-country/
That's what a stand-up guy looks like.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
That's what a stand-up guy looks like.
Agreed. Wonder who told him he should do it?
;)
It certainly seems more sincere than the common 'non-apology apology.'