Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course he's going to say that. We all know that Obama loves the gay vote. But, Obama has never served in the military, so he's not really the expert witness is he. What does John McCain say? Now, you will probably say that McCain is old, white, and a republican, and that he lost the election. Those are all true... But, he served his country honorably. And, he has served in the Senate for 25 years. But, it's ok to discredit his opinion because he's an old white guy.
Did you say something about prejudice?
They discredit him because he stands on both sides of the issue. Whichever side seems to be likely to get him more votes in Arizona is where he plants his flag.
It has nothing to do with him being old, white, and republican. It has everything to do with him flip flopping and constantly changing his benchmark for change. Basically, he was for it before he was against it, and his reasons for being against it became further and further removed from reality the closer this bill came to being reality.
The new law isn't going to cause headaches or discipline problems. What the new law does is makes sure that everyone can honorably serve without lying.
Smash, what happens when a drill sergeant finds out that private Richard has been sneaking peeks at his new recruits in the shower?
Whatever he does is not going to have a happy ending for the gay private. If you thought that gays had it tough before, then just think how tough it will be when they want to be open about their sexuality.
I don't know who you have been hearing it from (my guess is the media)
but, the military has been very fair to gays. The "don't ask" part of the law was rarely a problem at all. That leaves us with the "don't tell" part, which is solely the responsibility of the gay soldier.
You seem to think that gays can't do their job without telling people that they are gay? If that is so hard then maybe they shouldn't be in the military in the first place.
You seem to be under the impression that the majority of Americans support gay rights. I am impressed to the contrary. We shall see in future elections and legislation.
I am not sure if you understand how the government works.
For DADT to be reinstated, then the house and senate would need to work in tangent to draft new DADT legislation, then when Obama Vetoed it, they would need to get a 2/3rd majority in BOTH houses to overturn his presedential veto. That is if he doesn't just pocket veto it.
The only other way to reinstate DADT is for the supreme court to step in and say that the DADT repeal legislation is unconstitutional. That would be difficult for two reasons. 1) The supreme court cannot overturn a negative. They cannot say your repeal is unconstitutional because then they are saying that the absence of a law needs to be addressed. The supreme court doesn't do that. They state when congress has gone out of bounds, they don't dictate to congress when they should be passing laws. And 2) The supreme court has almost ALWAYS allowed the commander in chief (the president) to determine military procedures. It is not in their constitutional perview to dictate military policy.
So yes, I guess we shall see what future elections bring us, but I bet you will be surprised. Are you also one of those people that insist the next congress will make abortion illegal? Becuase people have been convinced of that since 1973.
It is a fact of life that once a civil right is recognized, once equality is given, it is almost impossible to take it away.
Smash, what happens when a drill sergeant finds out that private Richard has been sneaking peeks at his new recruits in the shower?
Whatever he does is not going to have a happy ending for the gay private. If you thought that gays had it tough before, then just think how tough it will be when they want to be open about their sexuality.
I don't know who you have been hearing it from (my guess is the media)
but, the military has been very fair to gays. The "don't ask" part of the law was rarely a problem at all. That leaves us with the "don't tell" part, which is solely the responsibility of the gay soldier.
You seem to think that gays can't do their job without telling people that they are gay? If that is so hard then maybe they shouldn't be in the military in the first place.
The same thing the drill seargent does not when a female recruit comes to him and says that the boys have been pinching her ass? Or a black recruit comes to him and says he is the victim of racism?
The drill seargent will address the BEHAVIOR that is unacceptable.
The reasons you give against gays in the military are the EXACT same reasons that were given to keep women and blacks out of the military.
Basically the argument is "I am small minded, and so is everyone else in the military, and we should cater to their ignorance."
I am not sure if you understand how the government works.
For DADT to be reinstated, then the house and senate would need to work in tangent to draft new DADT legislation, then when Obama Vetoed it, they would need to get a 2/3rd majority in BOTH houses to overturn his presedential veto. That is if he doesn't just pocket veto it.
The only other way to reinstate DADT is for the supreme court to step in and say that the DADT repeal legislation is unconstitutional. That would be difficult for two reasons. 1) The supreme court cannot overturn a negative. They cannot say your repeal is unconstitutional because then they are saying that the absence of a law needs to be addressed. The supreme court doesn't do that. They state when congress has gone out of bounds, they don't dictate to congress when they should be passing laws. And 2) The supreme court has almost ALWAYS allowed the commander in chief (the president) to determine military procedures. It is not in their constitutional perview to dictate military policy.
So yes, I guess we shall see what future elections bring us, but I bet you will be surprised. Are you also one of those people that insist the next congress will make abortion illegal? Becuase people have been convinced of that since 1973.
It is a fact of life that once a civil right is recognized, once equality is given, it is almost impossible to take it away.
You might be right about DADT. BUT, as we just saw in the mid-term elections... there are consequences. Obama may have secured the gay votes, but that won't be enough in 2012. It is quite telling that they passed the repeal of DADT during a lame duck session just days before Christmas. Obama & Reid basically held congress hostage until they voted for it. Obama will not have that nice majority for the next 2 years. The conservative majority of voters will still be angry... it's not looking all that rosy for Obama.
You might be right about DADT. BUT, as we just saw in the mid-term elections... there are consequences. Obama may have secured the gay votes, but that won't be enough in 2012. It is quite telling that they passed the repeal of DADT during a lame duck session just days before Christmas. Obama & Reid basically held congress hostage until they voted for it. Obama will not have that nice majority for the next 2 years. The conservative majority of voters will still be angry... it's not looking all that rosy for Obama.
I disagree. Obama beat McCain by a landslide. It was not exactly a squeaker. When Pennsylvania was called we were all in bed by 9.30 knowing who our next president was. That was a far cry from the nail biters that GWBush has on both his elections. It wasn't just the gay vote that clinched it for Obama.
It is natural and historically repetitive for whichever party controls the White House to be disposed in Congress. It happened to both Bushes, to Clinton, to Nixon. It would have happened to Reagan but the Dems already had congress when he came in and kept it the whole time.
What I am saying is, I don't see the 2010 elections as an indictment on the popularity of Obama. If Republicans don't turn the country around like they have been saying they could do for the last 2 years, then I would imagine that things will look QUITE rosy for Obama in 2 years. And, to be frank, who do you think is going to give Obama a hard time in 2012? Is there a Republican shining star I am unaware of? Surely you don't think Huckabee, Palin, Romney or Santorum are going to appeal on a national stage? I understand that they greatly excite the Republican base, but no person wins the presidency simply from exciting their base. They have to get independants to vote for them, and independants DEEPLY dislike the above politicians. You are working from the assumption that anyone can beat Obama. And that's not the case, the Rebublicans actually need to float a good candidate with broad appeal. Who will that be?
As for Reid holding congress hostage, are you kidding me? Look at how many times the Republicans fillibustered in the last 2 years. Regardless of your political leanings, the numbers don't lie. You can't accuse Reid of hostage taking and pretend you don't see what Cantor/McCain and Graham were up too.
The same thing the drill seargent does not when a female recruit comes to him and says that the boys have been pinching her ass? Or a black recruit comes to him and says he is the victim of racism?
The drill seargent will address the BEHAVIOR that is unacceptable.
.
You fail to see the problem. yes, in theory the drill sergeant should address the behavior. But, thats why we implemented DADT. Now, gays are free to be open homosexuals. So, gays are free to be open, but gay behavior is unacceptable? It seems like you just took the authority to discipline homosexual behavior and threw it out the window?
The military does not play that game! If gays want to bring the gay lifestyle into the military then they will not even make it out of boot camp.
Do you remember the girl who made such a HUGE media spectacle about wanting to join the Citadel? She finally wins approval to go, and then she can't even handle it and flunked out! A waste of taxpayer money
You fail to see the problem. yes, in theory the drill sergeant should address the behavior. But, thats why we implemented DADT. Now, gays are free to be open homosexuals. So, gays are free to be open, but gay behavior is unacceptable? It seems like you just took the authority to discipline homosexual behavior and threw it out the window?
The military does not play that game! If gays want to bring the gay lifestyle into the military then they will not even make it out of boot camp.
Do you remember the girl who made such a HUGE media spectacle about wanting to join the Citadel? She finally wins approval to go, and then she can't even handle it and flunked out! A waste of taxpayer money
Yes, one girl sued to join the citadel and quit. The next year 4 girls joined and passed with flying colors. Hardly a waste.
I dont fail to see the problem you are mentioning. I just don't believe it's a problem.
If a recruit came up to a drill seargent and said "I don't like going to the bathroom in front of other people. I am pee shy. Can I have a private bathroom?" then the drill seargent would tell him to suck it up and act like a man or get the hell out of the military. The army doesn't take into account a soldiers sexual or social hang ups. They think that if you are a soldier, you have to deal with living in close quarters around people you may not like. And if you don't like it, don't join the military.
What you are asking is for the military to make special concessions to homophobic soldiers. And that is not right. If a recruit came up to a drill seargent and said "I am a racist and my bunk mate is black, can you reassign me" then you wouldn't expect the army or the drill seargent to make a concession for the racist soldier. You would tell him to shut the hell up.
But you don't fill that way with homophobic soldiers. Why?
The army is responsible for correcting inappropriate BEHAVIOR. If a soldier is simply gay, and not breaking any rules, neither he nor the army need to deal with the hang ups of homophobes.
You fail to see the problem. yes, in theory the drill sergeant should address the behavior. But, thats why we implemented DADT. Now, gays are free to be open homosexuals. So, gays are free to be open, but gay behavior is unacceptable? It seems like you just took the authority to discipline homosexual behavior and threw it out the window?
The military does not play that game! If gays want to bring the gay lifestyle into the military then they will not even make it out of boot camp.
Do you remember the girl who made such a HUGE media spectacle about wanting to join the Citadel? She finally wins approval to go, and then she can't even handle it and flunked out! A waste of taxpayer money
Heterosexuals are free to be open in the service too, and their behavior while on duty or in the barracks is unacceptable when it crosses the line into sexual harrassment. The same will be true of homosexuals.
The Army is very good at eliminating sexual problems of all kinds in the duty environment. There are procedures and rules contained in the UCMJ to preserve good order and discipline which will apply to homosexuals, just as they do to heterosexuals.
I don't know what you're expecting, but as a former Drill Sergeant myself, I think I can assure you that gays won't be allowed to "get out of hand" any more than are heterosexuals.
Of course he's going to say that. We all know that Obama loves the gay vote. But, Obama has never served in the military, so he's not really the expert witness is he. What does John McCain say? Now, you will probably say that McCain is old, white, and a republican, and that he lost the election. Those are all true... But, he served his country honorably. And, he has served in the Senate for 25 years. But, it's ok to discredit his opinion because he's an old white guy.
Did you say something about prejudice?
Did I mention McCain or his opinions? No. Obvious strawman.
The opinions of the majority of servicemen and servicewomen are that they have no problem with gays not having to lie anymore, and not having to serve in fear of being discharged if someone finds out they are gay.
Did I say something about prejudice? Yes. Yours. It's very evident in all your posts that you consider gay people are somehow "less than" straight people.
You claimed that by repealing DADT, gay people are "putting their sexual orientation above their service". This statement doesn't even make sense.
A person doesn't have to be an "expert witness" (not that McCain is any "expert") to acknowledge that under DADT, gay soldiers lived under added burdens that straight people did not. Now that burden will be lifted. Without those added burdens, I would imagine they will be able to perform their duties even better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, Obama has never served in the military, so he's not really the expert witness is he. What does John McCain say? Now, you will probably say that McCain is old, white, and a republican, and that he lost the election. Those are all true... But, he served his country honorably. And, he has served in the Senate for 25 years. But, it's ok to discredit his opinion because he's an old white guy. 
