Don't ask, Don't tell, over in two days - GOP Furious

[daveman]

It makes them, on those issues, conservative. They may be liberal on other issues. There are not different types of liberals and conservatives, only different types of people.

Dave is obviously conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues. There is, as it happens, already a name for people who have that particular mix of opinions on the issues. We call them libertarians.

Damn, you just hate it that people don't dance to your tune, don't you?

You're going to go through life bitter and disappointed, kid.

That's his Modus Operandi.......Tries to tell everybody how they think and feel.....It's the only way he thinks he's succeeding in a discussion.

The ultimate sign of debating weakness.

Maybe he should threaten to hold his breath until he dies.

 

[rightwinger]

I have a feeling there's a lot of silent solidarity among those still opposed to this, and that makes me kind of happy. DADT was repealed by an out-going Congress, a (hopefully) out-going President, and based on a BS poll most of the military didn't bother to respond to. Now the media is saying "DADT repeal is causing few waves"...as if soldiers were going to riot. The military will adapt mostly because they have no other ******* choice but accept it.

I don't expect to hear anything else about this afterward, and the leftists will of course use that as proof that "nothing happened" as a result of it being repealed.

Well, the first day of a gay friendly military has passed.

Showers were still taken, men still got dressed there were no riots, no mass resignations

No big deal

 

[SFC Ollie]

The military is not a place to play politics with. Anybody who claims to speak for the military as a whole is full of shit. Like any group (especially so large) there are many people with many different views.

With that said-if a gay person wants to serve this country, and risk their life, more power to them. I don't think it'll be as big as a deal as many think it will be.

I think our nation stands for freedom for ALL first and foremost. Not just those who're like myself. Not just those I agree with, or those I like.

If you want to blast gay people serving-feel free to take their spot.

Been there, done that, drank the beer, and still wear the tee shirt............ And still believe that gays serving openly is wrong. We shall see what happens, I do hope for the best.

 

[Dragon]

Are you trying to say liberals always agree with liberals?

I am saying that people are complicated and nobody is 100% liberal. I am saying that we should judge liberal or conservative by the issue, not the person, and that to the extent a label fits for a person it's an estimate of general mass, no more.

To say "I call myself a liberal/conservative/whatever and I believe X about Y, therefore to believe X about Y is liberal/conservative/whatever" is bad reasoning. It assumes, falsely, that people cannot simultaneously hold liberal views on one issue and conservative views on another.

Tell me something, where do I fit in your ideological definitions? I think that the major problem in this country is that we have gotten more tolerant of immoral activities and drug use, I believe homosexuality is wrong, I believe marriaige is between a man and a woman. All of that makes me conservative, right?

Guess what? I also think the government should stay out of that.

As we are speaking in terms of politics, not religion, that makes you a liberal on those issues, just as a person who says "I think abortion is wrong but I also think it should be legal" is pro-choice. Whether that makes you a liberal overall I have no idea; you may be to the right of Genghis Khan on economic issues, for example. But on those particular issues, you hold liberal political views.

What am I in your little world where people fit into nice little boxes?

I am not saying people fit into nice little boxes. I am saying the exact opposite. But we were talking earlier about positions on issues. Support for gay rights is a liberal position. That doesn't mean someone who may be conservative on other issues might not support gay rights, but on gay rights that person would be a liberal.

There are different types of liberals, and there are different types of conservatives.

No, there are only different types of people, who may be liberal on one issue and at the same time conservative on another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at the moment -- I'm unemployed. Throughout my military career, however, I donated monthly to the Air Force Assistance Fund and to various charities through the Combined Federal Campaign, always above the recommended amount for my pay grade.

I start a new job Monday, however.

Say, is anyone going to explain why I'm homophobic and racist? Please note that "Because you're a white conservative!" is horseshit and will be soundly ridiculed.

I congratulate you on that. Good for you. Good luck on your new job: make a fortune.

Many white conservatives are not racist. Some so-called conservatives, unfortunately, are just that. Some white liberals are racist as well.

The point is this. Black Americans are smart enough to vote for those whom they trust, and overwhelmingly that trust is not placed in the GOP.

MOST white conservatives are not racist. Stop buying the left's bullshit.

Get suggesting, daveman, that I ever said anything to the contrary. You need to quit buying the Hard Right's crap, son. You sound stupid when you use it. Most conservatives are not racist. Many farther to the right of them are white and racist. We got such fools like Tank and USAR and the rest of the wierdos demonstrating it every day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The military is not a place to play politics with. Anybody who claims to speak for the military as a whole is full of shit. Like any group (especially so large) there are many people with many different views.

With that said-if a gay person wants to serve this country, and risk their life, more power to them. I don't think it'll be as big as a deal as many think it will be.

I think our nation stands for freedom for ALL first and foremost. Not just those who're like myself. Not just those I agree with, or those I like.

If you want to blast gay people serving-feel free to take their spot.

Been there, done that, drank the beer, and still wear the tee shirt............ And still believe that gays serving openly is wrong. We shall see what happens, I do hope for the best.

I disagree agreeably with you, SFCOllie. I believe it will work without much glitch. I do believe you (we all do) hope for the best.

 

[daveman]

I congratulate you on that. Good for you. Good luck on your new job: make a fortune.

Many white conservatives are not racist. Some so-called conservatives, unfortunately, are just that. Some white liberals are racist as well.

The point is this. Black Americans are smart enough to vote for those whom they trust, and overwhelmingly that trust is not placed in the GOP.

MOST white conservatives are not racist. Stop buying the left's bullshit.

Get suggesting, daveman, that I ever said anything to the contrary. You need to quit buying the Hard Right's crap, son. You sound stupid when you use it. Most conservatives are not racist. Many farther to the right of them are white and racist. We got such fools like Tank and USAR and the rest of the wierdos demonstrating it every day.

You said "many", moron, not "most".

Stupid leftist.

 

[rightwinger]

The military is not a place to play politics with. Anybody who claims to speak for the military as a whole is full of shit. Like any group (especially so large) there are many people with many different views.

With that said-if a gay person wants to serve this country, and risk their life, more power to them. I don't think it'll be as big as a deal as many think it will be.

I think our nation stands for freedom for ALL first and foremost. Not just those who're like myself. Not just those I agree with, or those I like.

If you want to blast gay people serving-feel free to take their spot.

Been there, done that, drank the beer, and still wear the tee shirt............ And still believe that gays serving openly is wrong. We shall see what happens, I do hope for the best.

I disagree agreeably with you, SFCOllie. I believe it will work without much glitch. I do believe you (we all do) hope for the best.

I think it is much ado about nothing. I think most males will still be reluctant to expose their sexuality until they see how things go. I believe most of those who come out immediately will be females

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am saying that people are complicated and nobody is 100% liberal. I am saying that we should judge liberal or conservative by the issue, not the person, and that to the extent a label fits for a person it's an estimate of general mass, no more.

To say "I call myself a liberal/conservative/whatever and I believe X about Y, therefore to believe X about Y is liberal/conservative/whatever" is bad reasoning. It assumes, falsely, that people cannot simultaneously hold liberal views on one issue and conservative views on another.

By telling me that my views on an issue are either liberal or conservative you are doing just that, which makes you what, exactly?

As we are speaking in terms of politics, not religion, that makes you a liberal on those issues, just as a person who says "I think abortion is wrong but I also think it should be legal" is pro-choice. Whether that makes you a liberal overall I have no idea; you may be to the right of Genghis Khan on economic issues, for example. But on those particular issues, you hold liberal political views.

No it does not. My views on those issues are consistent from a religious and a political spectrum. You are the one having trouble with the concepts here, and trying to fit me into your definitions.

Liberals believe the government should step in and regulate activities to make sure that people are safe, I don't think that is the government's job. The government exists to supply services and to protect us from the actions of others, not our own choices.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of conservatives who not only think those things are wrong, they also think the government should make sure people do not do things that are wrong. I actually understand that liberal and conservative is, like black and white, the polarity, not the reality.

Take abortion, since you brought it up. There are some who believe abortion is always wrong, even if it will save the life of the mother. Thare are those who think abortion is always right, even if it is the day before the due date. those are the extremes, and there are plenty of people who oppose abortion, and want it illegal, that are quite willing to make exceptions for various, even some that are decidedly not medical in nature. There are also people who support abortion that believe that there should be reasonable limits, like the viability of the fetus. Are the ones who oppose abortion, but willing to make exceptions, pro choice? Are the ones who support it, but want to force a woman who has a viable fetus to carry it to term, anti choice?

You cannot label people simply because it makes your brain uncomfortable not to, nor can you categorically declare that someone who has a position that you think is liberal, or conservative, on a particular issue is actually liberal or conservative on that issue. You are not omniscient, and you do not know all the factors that go into a person's decision, nor do you actually know their position unless you ask them about everything that goes into it.

I am not saying people fit into nice little boxes. I am saying the exact opposite. But we were talking earlier about positions on issues. Support for gay rights is a liberal position. That doesn't mean someone who may be conservative on other issues might not support gay rights, but on gay rights that person would be a liberal.

No they will not, they just look like they are to you.

No, there are only different types of people, who may be liberal on one issue and at the same time conservative on another.

I see, you think liberals and conservatives are not people.

That explains a lot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The military is not a place to play politics with. Anybody who claims to speak for the military as a whole is full of shit. Like any group (especially so large) there are many people with many different views.

With that said-if a gay person wants to serve this country, and risk their life, more power to them. I don't think it'll be as big as a deal as many think it will be.

I think our nation stands for freedom for ALL first and foremost. Not just those who're like myself. Not just those I agree with, or those I like.

If you want to blast gay people serving-feel free to take their spot.

Been there, done that, drank the beer, and still wear the tee shirt............ And still believe that gays serving openly is wrong. We shall see what happens, I do hope for the best.

I disagree agreeably with you, SFCOllie. I believe it will work without much glitch. I do believe you (we all do) hope for the best.

You are a fool if you actually think there will not be a glitch. It will work, but there will be plenty of glitches and missteps along the way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Been there, done that, drank the beer, and still wear the tee shirt............ And still believe that gays serving openly is wrong. We shall see what happens, I do hope for the best.

I disagree agreeably with you, SFCOllie. I believe it will work without much glitch. I do believe you (we all do) hope for the best.

I think it is much ado about nothing. I think most males will still be reluctant to expose their sexuality until they see how things go. I believe most of those who come out immediately will be females

I think you are right.

 

[Qball]

I have a feeling there's a lot of silent solidarity among those still opposed to this, and that makes me kind of happy. DADT was repealed by an out-going Congress, a (hopefully) out-going President, and based on a BS poll most of the military didn't bother to respond to. Now the media is saying "DADT repeal is causing few waves"...as if soldiers were going to riot. The military will adapt mostly because they have no other ******* choice but accept it.

I don't expect to hear anything else about this afterward, and the leftists will of course use that as proof that "nothing happened" as a result of it being repealed.

This had nothing to do with 'liberal' or 'conservative.' It has to do with the law and just action.

It was an illegal policy and had no place in the US military, just as with segregation. September 20th was indeed an historic day; and most importantly: qualified service members may continue to serve the Nation without fear of being unjustly forced out.

It was a necessary policy that was overturned simply because a group of people who don't care about our military or understand how it works in the first place lied to get it overturned.

I have a feeling there's a lot of silent solidarity among those still opposed to this, and that makes me kind of happy. DADT was repealed by an out-going Congress, a (hopefully) out-going President, and based on a BS poll most of the military didn't bother to respond to. Now the media is saying "DADT repeal is causing few waves"...as if soldiers were going to riot. The military will adapt mostly because they have no other ******* choice but accept it.

I don't expect to hear anything else about this afterward, and the leftists will of course use that as proof that "nothing happened" as a result of it being repealed.

Well, the first day of a gay friendly military has passed.

Showers were still taken, men still got dressed there were no riots, no mass resignations

No big deal

Exactly how would a military riot go? And who told you that you can just "resign" from the military? Don't be silly.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Just spent about 30 minutes or so reading the comments in a Military.com article. It makes me more worried about problems than I imagined. There are a lot of troops who did not support this. But of course many of us tried to tell you this. Anyway, read it for yourself if you are interested, there must be several hundred comments there already.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy is History

 

[Political Junky]

Just spent about 30 minutes or so reading the comments in a Military.com article. It makes me more worried about problems than I imagined. There are a lot of troops who did not support this. But of course many of us tried to tell you this. Anyway, read it for yourself if you are interested, there must be several hundred comments there already.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy is History

Fortunately, individual troops don't run the military, they follow orders.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Just spent about 30 minutes or so reading the comments in a Military.com article. It makes me more worried about problems than I imagined. There are a lot of troops who did not support this. But of course many of us tried to tell you this. Anyway, read it for yourself if you are interested, there must be several hundred comments there already.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy is History

Fortunately, individual troops don't run the military, they follow orders.

That is true on the surface. But the power in the military, the day to day operations, is in the hands of the individual NCO's. And if they turn a blind eye............. I'm just saying there could be some serious problems.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was a necessary policy that was overturned simply because a group of people who don't care about our military or understand how it works in the first place lied to get it overturned.

Just spent about 30 minutes or so reading the comments in a Military.com article. It makes me more worried about problems than I imagined. There are a lot of troops who did not support this. But of course many of us tried to tell you this.

Some seem to be under the misconception that the military is somehow above the rule of law, or not subject to the Constitution. DADT was ended because it was illegal and un-Constitutional, it had nothing to do with a ‘group of people “lying,”’ whatever that’s supposed to mean. Nor are one’s Constitutional rights subject to majority rule.

It had only to do with Constitutional law:

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. "Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just spent about 30 minutes or so reading the comments in a Military.com article. It makes me more worried about problems than I imagined. There are a lot of troops who did not support this. But of course many of us tried to tell you this. Anyway, read it for yourself if you are interested, there must be several hundred comments there already.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy is History

Fortunately, individual troops don't run the military, they follow orders.

Spoken like a person who thinks like a robot.

Troops do follow orders, but that does not mean they always like them. Not only that, there are those who actually disobey orders.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was a necessary policy that was overturned simply because a group of people who don't care about our military or understand how it works in the first place lied to get it overturned.

Just spent about 30 minutes or so reading the comments in a Military.com article. It makes me more worried about problems than I imagined. There are a lot of troops who did not support this. But of course many of us tried to tell you this.

Some seem to be under the misconception that the military is somehow above the rule of law, or not subject to the Constitution. DADT was ended because it was illegal and un-Constitutional, it had nothing to do with a ‘group of people “lying,”’ whatever that’s supposed to mean. Nor are one’s Constitutional rights subject to majority rule.

It had only to do with Constitutional law:

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. "Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Guess what genius, no one said the military is above the law.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It was a necessary policy that was overturned simply because a group of people who don't care about our military or understand how it works in the first place lied to get it overturned.

Some seem to be under the misconception that the military is somehow above the rule of law, or not subject to the Constitution. DADT was ended because it was illegal and un-Constitutional, it had nothing to do with a ‘group of people “lying,”’ whatever that’s supposed to mean. Nor are one’s Constitutional rights subject to majority rule.

It had only to do with Constitutional law:

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. "Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Guess what genius, no one said the military is above the law.

Actually there are many military regulations that if they were to be challenged some dumb ass judge could rule them unconstitutional. And our military would only suffer for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some seem to be under the misconception that the military is somehow above the rule of law, or not subject to the Constitution. DADT was ended because it was illegal and un-Constitutional, it had nothing to do with a ‘group of people “lying,”’ whatever that’s supposed to mean. Nor are one’s Constitutional rights subject to majority rule.

It had only to do with Constitutional law:

Guess what genius, no one said the military is above the law.

Actually there are many military regulations that if they were to be challenged some dumb ass judge could rule them unconstitutional. And our military would only suffer for it.

I know, I was in the Navy. Hated it at the time, but remember it fondly now, and have nothing but respect for those who choose to make a career of it and dedicate their lives serving their country.