Ok, I'd vote for Obama over Santorum

[Bern80]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

Yeah. Santorum is definately the biggest douche of the bunch. When they left says religious right, that's the guy they're talking about.

 

[Seawytch]

Um, because the military establishment has been appointed to insure the well functioning of the military so anything that effects that ought to be very important?

You need to check the roles of the military again. They are given a mission, they are not given autonomy.

Or do you think every citizen is a general?

That's a false choice. Of course every citizen isn't a general.

Yes, they are given a mission. And they are asked what they need to accomplish that mission. This is why they submit requests for different weapons programs, why they maintain their own courts and justice system, their own regs etc etc.
Thanks for proving that. Individual conduct is the purview of the military. That Congress over-rode that authority proves that this is nothing more than social engineering and feel-goodism. It certainly has nothing to do with military readiness.

So taking a qualified, trained soldier out of combat and discharging them simply for the consenting adult they have sex with doesn't harm military readiness? On what planet?

It was also called "social engineering" when the military desegregated. That seemed to have worked out for us pretty well, despite the OVERWHELMING majorities of the military and civilian world being opposed to integrating the Armed Forces.

There are no majorities opposed to allowing gays to serve honestly. In fact, most Americans support it.

The civilian Congress has authority over the military. It was designed that way on purpose.

 

[The Rabbi]

Married with foreign port girlfriends is immoral too. Shall we kick out a few hundred thousand folks on that basis? The rule is still on the books.

Except we aren't talking about a reg that isn't enforced. Deflection.

Isn't not a deflection. Doesn't matter, the policy is gone. Santorum is wrong and we won't have to see where his dumb logic leads us.

Of course it is a deflection. The debate isn't about wives in foreign ports. It is about fudge packers in the military. It matters because the law could be changed back, and Santorum made his position clear.

 

[Google]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

This whole issue goes back to the false premise that the homosexual political movement has been pushing since the 80's, and that is that the homosexual lifestyle is healthy.

Back in the 80's during the rise of the AIDS epidemic the political homosexual movement constantly fabricated the risk to heterosexuals and attempted to deny any link between the disease and the homosexual lifestyle.

Today, just as it was in the 80's, homosexual men are 75 times more likely to contract the AIDS virus. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the American population, yet constitute over 60% of all new AIDS cases. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide and have mental health problems.

But any medical professional that attempts to report these facts are demonized with incredible vitriol and hatred.

We will see the results of allowing this lifestyle to infect the United States military, and it will be too late to reverse by that time.

 

[Vanquish]

Um, because the military establishment has been appointed to insure the well functioning of the military so anything that effects that ought to be very important?

You need to check the roles of the military again. They are given a mission, they are not given autonomy.

Or do you think every citizen is a general?

That's a false choice. Of course every citizen isn't a general.

Yes, they are given a mission. And they are asked what they need to accomplish that mission. This is why they submit requests for different weapons programs, why they maintain their own courts and justice system, their own regs etc etc.
Thanks for proving that. Individual conduct is the purview of the military. That Congress over-rode that authority proves that this is nothing more than social engineering and feel-goodism. It certainly has nothing to do with military readiness.

Ahh Rabbi. Stabbing about in the dark with a brain as sharp as a butter knife. So desperate for someone to respond to him...despite 3 or more posts with no one caring.

Here. I'll throw you a bone. (Easy now, I dont mean have sex with you...though I know that's what you were hoping to get)

1. Your definition of general isn't valid.
2. You really don't know what the purview of the military is.
3. If you want a military that can't be overridden by Congress - a) get the fuck out of the country; b) you disagree with the founding fathers and c) you love unfettered militarism. On all counts you suck.
4. You continue to avoid all the other examples you've been given (gender, race etc.) of similar changes in the military. Until you address them, you're a buffoon.

Wait, you already are. But it's fun to school you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

This whole issue goes back to the false premise that the homosexual political movement has been pushing since the 80's, and that is that the homosexual lifestyle is healthy.

Back in the 80's during the rise of the AIDS epidemic the political homosexual movement constantly fabricated the risk to heterosexuals and attempted to deny any link between the disease and the homosexual lifestyle.

Today, just as it was in the 80's, homosexual men are 75 times more likely to contract the AIDS virus. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the American population, yet constitute over 60% of all new AIDS cases. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide and have mental health problems.

But any medical professional that attempts to report these facts are demonized with incredible vitriol and hatred.

We will see the results of allowing this lifestyle to infect the United States military, and it will be too late to reverse by that time.

Excellent points. Homosexuality was only redefined from being a disease because of threats by homosexual activists at the meeting of the APA. They gay agenda constantly pushes the idea that gays are really straight people with different tastes, like a man might prefer blondes or something.
The truth is that gays have their brains wired wrong, so not merely decisions about sexual preference but their entire range of health decisions are simply wrong.
The military will become even more politiicized and ineffective than it is. ALready one cannot subject a muslim to more scrutiny, despite the record of muslims killing their own comrades.

 

[The Rabbi]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

This whole issue goes back to the false premise that the homosexual political movement has been pushing since the 80's, and that is that the homosexual lifestyle is healthy.

Back in the 80's during the rise of the AIDS epidemic the political homosexual movement constantly fabricated the risk to heterosexuals and attempted to deny any link between the disease and the homosexual lifestyle.

Today, just as it was in the 80's, homosexual men are 75 times more likely to contract the AIDS virus. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the American population, yet constitute over 60% of all new AIDS cases. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide and have mental health problems.

But any medical professional that attempts to report these facts are demonized with incredible vitriol and hatred.

We will see the results of allowing this lifestyle to infect the United States military, and it will be too late to reverse by that time.

oh good your one of those idiots.

The irony is too rich, Scumball.

 

[Vanquish]

This whole issue goes back to the false premise that the homosexual political movement has been pushing since the 80's, and that is that the homosexual lifestyle is healthy.

Back in the 80's during the rise of the AIDS epidemic the political homosexual movement constantly fabricated the risk to heterosexuals and attempted to deny any link between the disease and the homosexual lifestyle.

Today, just as it was in the 80's, homosexual men are 75 times more likely to contract the AIDS virus. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the American population, yet constitute over 60% of all new AIDS cases. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide and have mental health problems.

But any medical professional that attempts to report these facts are demonized with incredible vitriol and hatred.

We will see the results of allowing this lifestyle to infect the United States military, and it will be too late to reverse by that time.

oh good your one of those idiots.

The irony is too rich, Scumball.

And the stupidity of you looking down on anyone should cause an implosion at CERN.

All the the bullshit about homosexuals being unhealthy is entirely unsupportable. Not that you ever wanted to support anything you post.

Trying to back someone up in an attempt to get a supporter yourself? I doubt it will work. But keep trying. Watching your pathetic attempts at making friends is comedy gold.

 

[Flopper]

I disagree.

Anyone serving their country in the military deserves to be treated according to their effectiveness in accomplishing the mission of the military.

I agree with your statement. However, the treatment should be based on the effectiveness of the individual without regard to sexual preference, race, gender, or religion.

 

[asterism]

Um, because the military establishment has been appointed to insure the well functioning of the military so anything that effects that ought to be very important?

You need to check the roles of the military again. They are given a mission, they are not given autonomy.

Or do you think every citizen is a general?

That's a false choice. Of course every citizen isn't a general.

Yes, they are given a mission. And they are asked what they need to accomplish that mission. This is why they submit requests for different weapons programs, why they maintain their own courts and justice system, their own regs etc etc.
Thanks for proving that. Individual conduct is the purview of the military. That Congress over-rode that authority proves that this is nothing more than social engineering and feel-goodism. It certainly has nothing to do with military readiness.

Individual conduct is certainly NOT the purview of the military. Tailhook anyone?

While I agree with the intent behind the activists and their friends about how DADT was removed, that doesn't change the reality that when you have a shortage of linguists and you discharge trained highly competent linguists for stuff they did on leave or liberty the mission is hampered.

The real stupid part is that I know of some linguists that immediately got hired as contractors and augmented their old units in the same roles.

 

[asterism]

Except we aren't talking about a reg that isn't enforced. Deflection.

Isn't not a deflection. Doesn't matter, the policy is gone. Santorum is wrong and we won't have to see where his dumb logic leads us.

Of course it is a deflection. The debate isn't about wives in foreign ports. It is about fudge packers in the military. It matters because the law could be changed back, and Santorum made his position clear.

Your basis for supporting DADT was on morals. Is it not immoral to fuck around on your wife? Not only that, but it's still against the UCMJ but rarely enforced.

 

[asterism]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

This whole issue goes back to the false premise that the homosexual political movement has been pushing since the 80's, and that is that the homosexual lifestyle is healthy.

Back in the 80's during the rise of the AIDS epidemic the political homosexual movement constantly fabricated the risk to heterosexuals and attempted to deny any link between the disease and the homosexual lifestyle.

Today, just as it was in the 80's, homosexual men are 75 times more likely to contract the AIDS virus. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the American population, yet constitute over 60% of all new AIDS cases. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide and have mental health problems.

But any medical professional that attempts to report these facts are demonized with incredible vitriol and hatred.

We will see the results of allowing this lifestyle to infect the United States military, and it will be too late to reverse by that time.

Perhaps.

Although openly gay servicemembers hasn't had any impact on the effectiveness of the British Royal Marines, the Aussies, the Italians, and certainly not the French Foreign Legion.

 

[asterism]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

This whole issue goes back to the false premise that the homosexual political movement has been pushing since the 80's, and that is that the homosexual lifestyle is healthy.

Back in the 80's during the rise of the AIDS epidemic the political homosexual movement constantly fabricated the risk to heterosexuals and attempted to deny any link between the disease and the homosexual lifestyle.

Today, just as it was in the 80's, homosexual men are 75 times more likely to contract the AIDS virus. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the American population, yet constitute over 60% of all new AIDS cases. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide and have mental health problems.

But any medical professional that attempts to report these facts are demonized with incredible vitriol and hatred.

We will see the results of allowing this lifestyle to infect the United States military, and it will be too late to reverse by that time.

Excellent points. Homosexuality was only redefined from being a disease because of threats by homosexual activists at the meeting of the APA. They gay agenda constantly pushes the idea that gays are really straight people with different tastes, like a man might prefer blondes or something.
The truth is that gays have their brains wired wrong, so not merely decisions about sexual preference but their entire range of health decisions are simply wrong.
The military will become even more politiicized and ineffective than it is. ALready one cannot subject a muslim to more scrutiny, despite the record of muslims killing their own comrades.

You don't actually know any gay Marines do you? It's obvious you've never been in combat with one.

 

[The Rabbi]

You need to check the roles of the military again. They are given a mission, they are not given autonomy.



That's a false choice. Of course every citizen isn't a general.

Yes, they are given a mission. And they are asked what they need to accomplish that mission. This is why they submit requests for different weapons programs, why they maintain their own courts and justice system, their own regs etc etc.
Thanks for proving that. Individual conduct is the purview of the military. That Congress over-rode that authority proves that this is nothing more than social engineering and feel-goodism. It certainly has nothing to do with military readiness.

Individual conduct is certainly NOT the purview of the military. Tailhook anyone?

While I agree with the intent behind the activists and their friends about how DADT was removed, that doesn't change the reality that when you have a shortage of linguists and you discharge trained highly competent linguists for stuff they did on leave or liberty the mission is hampered.

The real stupid part is that I know of some linguists that immediately got hired as contractors and augmented their old units in the same roles.

You mean Tailhook where people were brought up on charges after the story leaked? You prove my point.
Not every homosexual discharged was a linguist, although they all probably could do a pretty good job with their tongues.
In any case, anyone who was discharged wanted to be. The military would not discharge people on the suspicion of homosexuality. That was the basis of DADT. They had to be blatant about it.

 

[The Rabbi]

This whole issue goes back to the false premise that the homosexual political movement has been pushing since the 80's, and that is that the homosexual lifestyle is healthy.

Back in the 80's during the rise of the AIDS epidemic the political homosexual movement constantly fabricated the risk to heterosexuals and attempted to deny any link between the disease and the homosexual lifestyle.

Today, just as it was in the 80's, homosexual men are 75 times more likely to contract the AIDS virus. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the American population, yet constitute over 60% of all new AIDS cases. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit suicide and have mental health problems.

But any medical professional that attempts to report these facts are demonized with incredible vitriol and hatred.

We will see the results of allowing this lifestyle to infect the United States military, and it will be too late to reverse by that time.

Excellent points. Homosexuality was only redefined from being a disease because of threats by homosexual activists at the meeting of the APA. They gay agenda constantly pushes the idea that gays are really straight people with different tastes, like a man might prefer blondes or something.
The truth is that gays have their brains wired wrong, so not merely decisions about sexual preference but their entire range of health decisions are simply wrong.
The military will become even more politiicized and ineffective than it is. ALready one cannot subject a muslim to more scrutiny, despite the record of muslims killing their own comrades.

You don't actually know any gay Marines do you? It's obvious you've never been in combat with one.

That has what to do with this discussion? Just because someone can maintain function in some controlled environment doesnt mean they are capable of doing so across the board. There are successful homosexuals in every endeavor, including politics. That doesn't mean they are normal.

 

[Political Junky]

Santorum would require service men and women to lie. This goes against what the military stands for.
While heterosexuals display pictures of their spouses and discuss holiday plans, a homosexual is forced, by DADT, to lie.

 

[asterism]

I disagree.

Anyone serving their country in the military deserves to be treated according to their effectiveness in accomplishing the mission of the military.

I agree with your statement. However, the treatment should be based on the effectiveness of the individual without regard to sexual preference, race, gender, or religion.

No, there are no "rights" with regards to service and I think it should still be that way and those attributes are most definitely rightly considered in some situations, as well as others.

You don't send a Christian to infiltrate Jamaat Islamiya. You don't send a Muslim to infiltrate Sinn Fein (the political arm of the former IRA). You don't fly a woman pilot over Sudan, you don't send a black anything as an attache in Oman, you don't send a gay guy as an observer in Kenya, and you absolutely never send a white southern evangelist to Russia. Conversely, you don't send a 6-5 blonde stud into low level negotiations with a base commander in Turkey. You send an Ivy League educated 30ish blonde female with an ass that won't quit.

These are very specific roles, but from there (and many thousands of other specific roles) a certain force capability needs to be maintained. Women cannot operate on a mortar team currently. Sure some women can carry the big heavy plate over long distances but the chances are so low that it's not worth the bureaucratic effort to include them in screening.

I'm not sure if I'm making my point correctly, but the overall concept is that there are no "rights" with regards to who can and cannot serve in the military and there should not be. The priority is accomplishing the mission. The makeup of the armed forces has to reflect that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Santorum would require service men and women to lie. This goes against what the military stands for.
While heterosexuals display pictures of their spouses and discuss holiday plans, a homosexual is forced, by DADT, to lie.

They don't have to lie. THey don't have to say anything. THey don't have to serve either.

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagree.

Anyone serving their country in the military deserves to be treated according to their effectiveness in accomplishing the mission of the military.

I agree with your statement. However, the treatment should be based on the effectiveness of the individual without regard to sexual preference, race, gender, or religion.

No, there are no "rights" with regards to service and I think it should still be that way and those attributes are most definitely rightly considered in some situations, as well as others.

You don't send a Christian to infiltrate Jamaat Islamiya. You don't send a Muslim to infiltrate Sinn Fein (the political arm of the former IRA). You don't fly a woman pilot over Sudan, you don't send a black anything as an attache in Oman, you don't send a gay guy as an observer in Kenya, and you absolutely never send a white southern evangelist to Russia. Conversely, you don't send a 6-5 blonde stud into low level negotiations with a base commander in Turkey. You send an Ivy League educated 30ish blonde female with an ass that won't quit.

These are very specific roles, but from there (and many thousands of other specific roles) a certain force capability needs to be maintained. Women cannot operate on a mortar team currently. Sure some women can carry the big heavy plate over long distances but the chances are so low that it's not worth the bureaucratic effort to include them in screening.

I'm not sure if I'm making my point correctly, but the overall concept is that there are no "rights" with regards to who can and cannot serve in the military and there should not be. The priority is accomplishing the mission. The makeup of the armed forces has to reflect that.

You're making the point that you're a bigot.
If any private company held to the rules you laid out they would be sued out of existence.

 

[Political Junky]

Santorum would require service men and women to lie. This goes against what the military stands for.
While heterosexuals display pictures of their spouses and discuss holiday plans, a homosexual is forced, by DADT, to lie.

They don't have to lie. THey don't have to say anything. THey don't have to serve either.

So, they have less rights, thanks.