X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 And why not? Apparently X. Benedict thinks everything the Pentagon writes is sacrosanct. Including everything that came out during the Bush years, including the WMD findings. Hardly the case. BTW, I am not sure I'm at all decided about the best course with this. I think however that eventually a repeal is inevitable. I also don't think it needs to be a logistical nightmare - but I could see it becoming one. I talked to two colonels (army) in the last week. When DADT came up it, they seemed to shrug: "The army I joined isn't going to be the one I'm leaving, and the army that the recruits are joining won't be the one they leave either. That's military life." (paraphrase) Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly, I'm not above having some prejudices against a repeal. But at the same time, I haven't found a well-honed logical reason for not resolving this.
DC Tom Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Hardly the case. BTW, I am not sure I'm at all decided about the best course with this. I think however that eventually a repeal is inevitable. I also don't think it needs to be a logistical nightmare - but I could see it becoming one. I talked to two colonels (army) in the last week. When DADT came up it, they seemed to shrug: "The army I joined isn't going to be the one I'm leaving, and the army that the recruits are joining won't be the one they leave either. That's military life." (paraphrase) Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly, I'm not above having some prejudices against a repeal. But at the same time, I haven't found a well-honed logical reason for not resolving this. My rationale against DADT at the time was pretty solid: I don't think national security resources should be used as agents of social change, and fundamentally DADT was ridiculous (a typical Clinton solution to a problem: neither party's satisfied, but agree to shut up, delay the reckoning until later, and leave Bill alone. DADT gave the appearance of addressing an issue it steadfastly and cowardly avoided). Now? 20 years later, American society's more accepting of gays, so my first rationale is less applicable. And my second applies just as much - it's a stupid !@#$ing policy that should be ditched.
UConn James Posted December 18, 2010 Author Posted December 18, 2010 UPDATE: WP: Senate Votes to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Heading to the Resolute Desk for signature. And the sun will rise the day after.
/dev/null Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 UPDATE: WP: Senate Votes to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Heading to the Resolute Desk for signature. And the sun will rise the day after. That's not all that will rise Sorry, couldn't resist such an awful pun.
KD in CA Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 Can people stop talking about this now? I'm sure our country has another completely insignificant issue to obsess over while our citizenry becomes ever dumber and less productive and our country moves closer to being a second rate economic power.
Magox Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 So basically gays who hate everything that war stands for, now have the right to fight in what they hate?
RkFast Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 (edited) I cant wait to see the first gay solider to get kicked out for !@#$ing his buddy sue the US Military on the basis of "discrimination." Edited December 18, 2010 by RkFast
IDBillzFan Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 Can people stop talking about this now? I'm sure our country has another completely insignificant issue to obsess over while our citizenry becomes ever dumber and less productive and our country moves closer to being a second rate economic power. Exactly. I cant wait to see the first gay solider to get kicked out for !@#$ing his buddy sue the US Military on the basis of "discrimination." Not fer nuthin', but if the military allows straight soldiers to screw each other, then it WOULD be a case of discrimination, and if they have a policy forbidding soldiers from screwing each other, then it's not. I'm no lawyer, but it seems pretty simple.
RkFast Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 (edited) Not fer nuthin', but if the military allows straight soldiers to screw each other, then it WOULD be a case of discrimination, and if they have a policy forbidding soldiers from screwing each other, then it's not. I'm no lawyer, but it seems pretty simple. Thats kinda the point. They dont. BIG trouble if you get caught having relations, even consensual. But I still think a lawsuit will be brung by the first to get his or her ass kicked out for it. Becuase when youre a member of the victim class and enjoying its benefits, its pretty damn hard to give it up. See: Card, Race. Shame is...serious soldiers, stragith and gay, wil be the ones to suffer from the assclowns who will play the victim card. Bradley Manning, anyone? Edited December 18, 2010 by RkFast
Fastback Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 I wonder how long it will be until they prohibit Chaplains from teaching that homosexuality is a sin. It will soon likely be considered hate speech and who knows what the punishment will be...
drnykterstein Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 So basically gays who hate everything that war stands for, now have the right to fight in what they hate? You win "The Most loaded crap statement of the day" award! Can people stop talking about this now? I'm sure our country has another completely insignificant issue to obsess over while our citizenry becomes ever dumber and less productive and our country moves closer to being a second rate economic power. Allow gay marriage, and it will go away as an issue.
Booster4324 Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 So basically gays who hate everything that war stands for, now have the right to fight in what they hate? I have respect for you as a poster, but lay down that paint brush brother, you are getting that **** everywhere.
Alaska Darin Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 I have respect for you as a poster, but lay down that paint brush brother, you are getting that **** everywhere. No kidding. Thats kinda the point. They dont. BIG trouble if you get caught having relations, even consensual. But I still think a lawsuit will be brung by the first to get his or her ass kicked out for it. Becuase when youre a member of the victim class and enjoying its benefits, its pretty damn hard to give it up. So persecuting adults having consensual sex is OK by you? No possible slippery slope there. See: Card, Race. Nice strawman. Shame is...serious soldiers, stragith and gay, wil be the ones to suffer from the assclowns who will play the victim card. Bradley Manning, anyone? The real shame are all the people who like to preach about freedom only when it applies to them. I'm quite sure I could do a search on your posts and find plenty of victimology for "conservatives" and "Christians". I guess it's OK when it your group is the supposed victim.
RkFast Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 Military rules and guidelines = "persecution." Wow.
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 The real shame are all the people who like to preach about freedom only when it applies to them. I'm quite sure I could do a search on your posts and find plenty of victimology for "conservatives" and "Christians". I guess it's OK when it your group is the supposed victim. Start with "Ground Zero Mosque."
RkFast Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 Good luck finding a post where I said they should..by law...be prevented from building at GZ. I figured some gay with a complex would prove my point some time in about a year. AD does it in a day. Nice.
Alaska Darin Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 Good luck finding a post where I said they should..by law...be prevented from building at GZ. Because that somehow absolves you... I figured some gay with a complex would prove my point some time in about a year. AD does it in a day. Nice. There's so much beauty in the way you idiots respond when you're getting an ass whipping. To many it would seem it's because you're too stupid to understand it but you're inability to formulate a real point for your bigotry belays that. Connor cries and screams about everyone else being stupid. You throw out "he doesn't agree with my pin-headed, narrow world view, therefore he's a homosexual with a complex." Stinging.
erynthered Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 While I dont give a flaming !@#$ either way, I think the recruiters in SF might have an issue or two.
Adam Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) So basically gays who hate everything that war stands for, now have the right to fight in what they hate? I am not going to slam you for this, like a few others have, but anyone who doesn't hate war is a moron. Hardly the case. BTW, I am not sure I'm at all decided about the best course with this. I think however that eventually a repeal is inevitable. I also don't think it needs to be a logistical nightmare - but I could see it becoming one. I talked to two colonels (army) in the last week. When DADT came up it, they seemed to shrug: "The army I joined isn't going to be the one I'm leaving, and the army that the recruits are joining won't be the one they leave either. That's military life." (paraphrase) Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly, I'm not above having some prejudices against a repeal. But at the same time, I haven't found a well-honed logical reason for not resolving this. There will be logistical problems- like housing. Why not exempt the war in Afghanistan, since it is ongoing. Other than that, there is no reason for the law, which never should have existed in the first place. I wonder how long it will be until they prohibit Chaplains from teaching that homosexuality is a sin. It will soon likely be considered hate speech and who knows what the punishment will be... That will be ok on the day that it is illegal to consider it a hate speech. Exactly. Not fer nuthin', but if the military allows straight soldiers to screw each other, then it WOULD be a case of discrimination, and if they have a policy forbidding soldiers from screwing each other, then it's not. I'm no lawyer, but it seems pretty simple. Agreed- it is either ok for both or neither. No double standards, even if thats what the all-knowing majority wants. Well, back to sleep for me, as I continue to recover from my sinus infection/pneumonia Edited December 20, 2010 by Adam
Magox Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) You guys are idiots, if you can't see that that was a joke then I don't know what to tell ya. It's one thing for Conner not to get it, because, well, he's a moron, but Booster?? Edited December 20, 2010 by Magox
Recommended Posts