Fantasy Football Cafe Forum

by **deluxe_247** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:56 pm

hmmm seems pretty lame to me. let them do what they want.

now everyone will just go get tats before they sign up....problem solved.

my grandpa fought and served our country in the navy in world war II proudly wearing a tat on his forearm. ;-D

by **deerayfan072** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:19 pm

danielrp wrote:Yeah, I do not like the new rule either. Like other services, there should be regulations concerning tats below the elbow and knee, but a ban is not the way to go.

Having tats has no effect on the way we work, fight, or serve the people of this great country. As far as tarnishing the image of the Marine Corps, I think that is crap as well. The image most people have of Marines is in Dress Blues (this is our best dress). Guess what???? In this uniform, you cannot see below your elbow or knee.

Like you said, once we sign up, we belong to the US Govt. For instance, when I was in Hawaii, a friend of mine was given Non-Judicial-Punishment for having to miss work due to a severe sunburn. The punishment stated "Destruction to Government Property".

With that said, there are many other ways that they could control my life....but they don't.

thanks Daniel i wanted to hear from you. My buddy just got out of the Marines after serving in Iraq and now is a firefighter. He has a Tat on his left arm above the elbow that has to deal with his platoon

by **SwiperNoSwiping** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:24 pm

Guess I think the people that serve and protect our country should be able to do what they want. If they want a tattoo, let em have it.

by **deerayfan072** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:29 pm

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
danielrp wrote:For instance, when I was in Hawaii, a friend of mine was given Non-Judicial-Punishment for having to miss work due to a severe sunburn. The punishment stated "Destruction to Government Property".

That's great.

that is ridiculous

by **Redskins Win** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:35 pm

I always thought there were regulations regarding tats that were visible while in uniform. as roy said destruction of government property.

but oh well the government own your a$$ when your in the service and it's not democracy.

by **knapplc** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:00 pm

Redskins Win wrote:I always thought there were regulations regarding tats that were visible while in uniform. as roy said destruction of government property.

but oh well the government own your a$$ when your in the service and it's not democracy.

Where the heck have you been?

by **joelamosobadiah** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:03 pm

knapplc wrote:
Redskins Win wrote:I always thought there were regulations regarding tats that were visible while in uniform. as roy said destruction of government property.

but oh well the government own your a$$ when your in the service and it's not democracy.

Where the heck have you been?

LOL, I was about to ask the same thing. :-b

by **Metroid** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:09 pm

joelamosobadiah wrote:
knapplc wrote:
Redskins Win wrote:I always thought there were regulations regarding tats that were visible while in uniform. as roy said destruction of government property.

but oh well the government own your a$$ when your in the service and it's not democracy.

Where the heck have you been?

LOL, I was about to ask the same thing.

Remember he got laid off? I imagine he doesn't have as much computer access anymore. Or he's just not sitting in front of a computer all day anymore. :-b