These Republicans should be chased out of Office

[Bubblehead1980]

The six "moderate" or Alleged Republicans voted to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy: Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and George Voinovich of Ohio.

I knew Brown would be trouble, when he was praising Ted Kennedy in his victory speech it set off alarm bells, he is supposed to be a Republican but votes with Dems most of the time.I can understand bucking the party once in a while but seems Brown along with Collins and Snowe should go ahead and just put a D behind their name.:damn:

[antikristuseke]

So everyone should jsut follow the party line without resorting to their personal opinion on subjects when voting for bills?
Oh sweet freedom to conform.

[Bort]

I rather enjoy the ability that our senators have to step across the line and think for themselves or vote for what they believe is right. Freedom and all that.

[Gargamel]

Yay Voinovich!

[Tribesman]

So is this the repeal of the bill that was found by two courts to be unconstitutional.
Its funny how you shout in support of the constitution one minute and reject it the next bubble.
Now would these be the Republicans who said they would wait for the US military to finish its report on gays in the services before deciding which way to vote?
Damn them ignorant politicians how dare they wait for reports on issues instead of just voting blindly.

[Armistead]

If a gay person wants to go fight in battle more power to him. Anyone that joins today knows that's a high possibility. I highly doubt you're gonna see much change, if any. If these politicians are against gays serving I have no problem with them sending their kids to war instead of Ivy League colleges.

[krashkart]

I can understand bucking the party once in a while but seems Brown along with Collins and Snowe should go ahead and just put a D behind their name.:damn:
Why not just change all the R's and D's to C's. :arrgh!:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=3415



:03:

[antikristuseke]

Yeah, calling them all c**** should make things less confusing.

[krashkart]

Yeah, calling them all c**** should make things less confusing.

Touché. :har::har:

[Platapus]

Why not just change all the R's and D's to C's. :arrgh!:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=3415



:03:

Awesome movie !

[krashkart]

Awesome movie !

I watched most of it one night and enjoyed it. Might add the DVD to the collection at some point. :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

I knew Brown would be trouble, when he was praising Ted Kennedy in his victory speech it set off alarm bells, he is supposed to be a Republican but votes with Dems most of the time.I can understand bucking the party once in a while but seems Brown along with Collins and Snowe should go ahead and just put a D behind their name.:damn:

Actually, several months ago, you were singing his praises and calling his election the greatest victory for your beloved Team R. Now you brand him an accursed 'RINO' because he voted for the repeal of a policy that never worked in the first place. I wonder how quickly your zeal for the new Weeper of the House and his band of merry men will diminish, as you begin to see how little they have learned from their time in the woods. Will you continue to blindly click the 'all R' option in the voting booth? Will you continue to see the political landscape as a game of cowboys and indians, with the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'? Or, in a reference that will make some of our sci-fi guys happy, are you starting to take your first step into a much larger world?

[mookiemookie]

Actually, several months ago, you were singing his praises and calling his election the greatest victory for your beloved Team R. Now you brand him an accursed 'RINO' because he voted for the repeal of a policy that never worked in the first place. I wonder how quickly your zeal for the new Weeper of the House and his band of merry men will diminish, as you begin to see how little they have learned from their time in the woods. Will you continue to blindly click the 'all R' option in the voting booth? Will you continue to see the political landscape as a game of cowboys and indians, with the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'? Or, in a reference that will make some of our sci-fi guys happy, are you starting to take your first step into a much larger world?

B-b-b-but Tak, this time it's different!™

You can't reason with partisan hacks. It's like trying to convince a Dallas Cowboys fan to look objectively at the Redskins.

[August]

B-b-b-but Tak, this time it's different!™

You can't reason with partisan hacks. It's like trying to convince a Dallas Cowboys fan to look objectively at the Redskins.


Yeah I know what you mean. I fail at trying to reason with you all the time.

[mookiemookie]

Yeah I know what you mean. I fail at trying to reason with you all the time.

I think the difference between our debates is that most of the time they're based on logic, reason and facts and not hysterical rantings, regurgitated Fox News talking points and a cowboys and indians view of politics.

But then again, it could be why I fail to reach you all the time too. :O:

[Growler]

B-b-b-but Tak, this time it's different!™

You can't reason with partisan hacks. It's like trying to convince a living, breathing, educated, intelligent, normal human being to look objectively at the Redskins.


Fixed.:yeah:

[Takeda Shingen]

Fixed.:yeah:

Ooooo.

Hail to the Redskins
Hail victo......ah nevermind

[Bubblehead1980]

So is this the repeal of the bill that was found by two courts to be unconstitutional.
Its funny how you shout in support of the constitution one minute and reject it the next bubble.
Now would these be the Republicans who said they would wait for the US military to finish its report on gays in the services before deciding which way to vote?
Damn them ignorant politicians how dare they wait for reports on issues instead of just voting blindly.


The Supreme Court is the only court that really matters in the end and should have ruled on this before it was enacted, but this activist, dangerous Reid/Pelosi congress just had to put it to a vote.The Federal Judge who ruled this unconstitutional is not exactly fair.Judge Virginia Phillips is was appointed by Clinton, so she is a Liberal who sees the constitution in an entirely incorrect manner.You can't exactly expect someone who attends Berkeley to come out being objective lol

I am in law school currently and we discussed her ruling in full.I believe she said it violated 1st and 5th Amendments.Perhaps in her twisted Leftist view.I mean according to Lefties, healthcare mandate does not violate the Constitution LOL.Want to talk about partisan hacks? She is one.This vote was more of a damned the military and how it affects the MAJORITY heterosexuals when all the homosexuals had to do was not tell because they would not be asked.So simple, but the gay lobby and libs have to make a big issue out of everything.Sure this locks up the gay vote for Obama and their friends, family etc.

For the record, I have no problem with the gay people, more power to them for serving in the military.However the policy was the correct one and does not violate the constitution.I may eleaborate on it further when I have time but once more, it does not violate the consitution.

Now as far as Scott Brown goes.Takeda, I was intitially happy that a Republican took the seat Ted Kennedy held for many years, esp since it took away the Dems filibuster proof majority and Coakley seemed like a real moron.However, I was alarmed and believe I may have said so in one of the posts I made at time that his praise of Ted Kennedy alarmed me.Brown did keep his promise to vote against healthcare but seen him side with the Dems too many times.Shows he is no conservative or Republican, but an Alleged Republican.Snowe, Collins etc are usual suspects and need to go.I mentioned that I understand crossing over now and then.I happen to agree with Dems on a few things and would vote with them but not nearly as much as Brown because I have true Republican and Conservative principles and I adhere to them.


The new Congress has yet to be seated but will be soon and I still believe it may be different.I could be wrong and if I am, well then I will be wrong.However, I believe the new Congress, esp the house with people like Rand Paul etc will surprise everyone.We shall see...

[Bubblehead1980]

I think the difference between our debates is that most of the time they're based on logic, reason and facts and not hysterical rantings, regurgitated Fox News talking points and a cowboys and indians view of politics.

But then again, it could be why I fail to reach you all the time too. :O:


Mookie, my opinions are my own.Obviously going to share them with other people who have similar convictions, even some of the blowhards on tv.You often sound like Lord Douche Keith Olbermann but I do not accuse of you such crap because I understand this.

[Bubblehead1980]

B-b-b-but Tak, this time it's different!™

You can't reason with partisan hacks. It's like trying to convince a Dallas Cowboys fan to look objectively at the Redskins.


The new congress has not taken over, it may be different, have to wait and see.

[FIREWALL]

It's kinda strange when a goverment tells a person their, not "good enough" to die for their country.

It's another example of the crazeys running the mad house. :nope:

[Bubblehead1980]

It's kinda strange when a goverment tells a person their, not "good enough" to die for their country.

It's another example of the crazeys running the mad house. :nope:


That is not what DADT said.DADT realized the impact of an openly gay member could have on a unit.Esp those living in close quarters, perhaps having to shower together etc.Which is a very real concern.Much easier for them to just not tell because they wont be asked.

[Takeda Shingen]

That is not what DADT said.DADT realized the impact of an openly gay member could have on a unit.Esp those living in close quarters, perhaps having to shower together etc.Which is a very real concern.Much easier for them to just not tell because they wont be asked.

Replace 'gay' with 'black' and you may see why it was a problem.

[Platapus]

I can only offer one personal data point so it is anecdotal, but I don't think my experiences were that unusual.

When I was in Korea '88/'89, my roommate was a homosexual. We lived in a 10x10 cell... uh dorm room and shared a bathroom with the next cell.

No issues. No concerns. Everyone respected one each other. :yep:

One of the misconceptions that many heterosexuals have is that homosexual men are sexually attracted to every other man. According to my roommate, that simply is not true. One of the other myths is that homosexual men have no control over their sexual actions. That is also not true. Many homosexual men have no sexual interest in heterosexual men. And no, most homosexual men are not interested in "converting" heterosexual men. Some may, but I doubt many.

Anyway, I am one data point where rooming/crapping/showering/etc with a homosexual man caused no problems. I never worried that he would sneak up on me while I was sleeping, nor did I ever worry about him seeing me naked. It simply was not a problem.

[Bubblehead1980]

Replace 'gay' with 'black' and you may see why it was a problem.


That is apples and oranges.Race and sexual preference are two different things, sorry.Segregation based on race was just wrong, segregation based on homosexuality is wrong but that is not what DADT did.DADT simply said...we won't ask, you won't tell, no problem.They lively openly gay in the military, then it became a problem.Nothing wrong with the law and we will find it's repeal was a mistake and similar law will hopefully be put in place someday, we shall see.

[Takeda Shingen]

That is apples and oranges.Race and sexual preference are two different things, sorry.Segregation based on race was just wrong, segregation based on homosexuality is wrong but that is not what DADT did.DADT simply said...we won't ask, you won't tell, no problem.They lively openly gay in the military, then it became a problem.Nothing wrong with the law and we will find it's repeal was a mistake and similar law will hopefully be put in place someday, we shall see.

No, they had to essentially live in fear of being exposed. In short, it was a de-facto ban on homosexuals in the military, as evidenced by the 13,000+ dismissals over the matter. And the assertion that having homosexual members in a unit will cause disruption was the very same argument used against racial intergration. This is a large step forward for both the military and the country.

[antikristuseke]

I can only offer one personal data point so it is anecdotal, but I don't think my experiences were that unusual.

When I was in Korea '88/'89, my roommate was a homosexual. We lived in a 10x10 cell... uh dorm room and shared a bathroom with the next cell.

No issues. No concerns. Everyone respected one each other. :yep:

One of the misconceptions that many heterosexuals have is that homosexual men are sexually attracted to every other man. According to my roommate, that simply is not true. One of the other myths is that homosexual men have no control over their sexual actions. That is also not true. Many homosexual men have no sexual interest in heterosexual men. And no, most homosexual men are not interested in "converting" heterosexual men. Some may, but I doubt many.

Anyway, I am one data point where rooming/crapping/showering/etc with a homosexual man caused no problems. I never worried that he would sneak up on me while I was sleeping, nor did I ever worry about him seeing me naked. It simply was not a problem.

We had a couple of homosexuals in my platoon while doing my national service, no issues came up. There were allso some women from the Communication batallion finishing their com specialization with the staff company who recon shared a barracs with, they bunked in the same room with the men and went to the sauna with us all, there was nudity and that also caused no issues. As long as there is mutual respect between people serving sexuality should never become an issue.

[Bubblehead1980]

I can only offer one personal data point so it is anecdotal, but I don't think my experiences were that unusual.

When I was in Korea '88/'89, my roommate was a homosexual. We lived in a 10x10 cell... uh dorm room and shared a bathroom with the next cell.

No issues. No concerns. Everyone respected one each other. :yep:

One of the misconceptions that many heterosexuals have is that homosexual men are sexually attracted to every other man. According to my roommate, that simply is not true. One of the other myths is that homosexual men have no control over their sexual actions. That is also not true. Many homosexual men have no sexual interest in heterosexual men. And no, most homosexual men are not interested in "converting" heterosexual men. Some may, but I doubt many.

Anyway, I am one data point where rooming/crapping/showering/etc with a homosexual man caused no problems. I never worried that he would sneak up on me while I was sleeping, nor did I ever worry about him seeing me naked. It simply was not a problem.


I get that, I know some gay guys, even call a few friend.I actually know an openly gay man who thinks DADT is a good idea.I've read a few blogs also where openly gay men say they are in favor of it.I can understand if a civillian company demands gays live in the closet etc, but that is far different from the issue of being openly gay in the military.

I think about the locker room in high school or in college at my my frat house.We lived in close quarters, many openly walked around nude from time to time if in transit from shower to their room etc.No one thought anything of it because as far as we knew, no one in the house was gay.Now had someone been openly gay, it would be different.Sorry, its different if you know the guy prefers the male form, even if he's not into you.Sort of like a guy being in the girls locker room kind of thing.Just basic dynamics.Now, I get your story about your roommate, perhaps it was different for you.However, I have known a lot of military growing up where I did, Officers and Enlisted and still know many.Pretty much all share the same tune, they'd rather not know if the guy in the barracks or shower is gay, because you feel different.

Another dynamic also, what new regs will accompany this that will in turn hurt morale? For example, sailors on a ship when off watch or Marines in the barracks just hanging out, talking, chewing the fat etc Lots of friendly insults get thrown around, fag, homo, ass clown etc are some of them.Will they suddenly due to the PC police not be able to say so if they know an openly gay man is in the room? Will he now be able to complain since DADT is gone? Will a good Marine or Sailor get into trouble for simple smack talking? This will affect morale.Senators and Congressman, esp on the Left side do not understand or just do not care about this dynamic.Obama has no clue because he has no backround related to military, simply a community organizer:har:

Why risk affecting morale when morale in the armed forces is already kind of low.Why not just continue the sensible policy of DADT.

[Bubblehead1980]

No, they had to essentially live in fear of being exposed. In short, it was a de-facto ban on homosexuals in the military, as evidenced by the 13,000+ dismissals over the matter. And the assertion that having homosexual members in a unit will cause disruption was the very same argument used against racial intergration. This is a large step forward for both the military and the country.


I do not feel sorry for those dimissed, they knew the policy when they joined.A career in the military is not a right, you abide by their rules, don't expect them to change for you.

Well segregation based on a race was just wrong, no exceptions.The disruption argument was just racists trying to fend off intergration.This is a whole different issue and it's rather dishonest to try and group in the civil rights struggle for blacks with gays in the military.Now, if this was say Bank of America or something saying you can't be openly gay, I would be opposed.Military is as I have said, a whole different ballgame.

[Takeda Shingen]

Another dynamic also, what new regs will accompany this that will in turn hurt morale? For example, sailors on a ship when off watch or Marines in the barracks just hanging out, talking, chewing the fat etc Lots of friendly insults get thrown around, fag, homo, ass clown etc are some of them.Will they suddenly due to the PC police not be able to say so if they know an openly gay man is in the room? Will he now be able to complain since DADT is gone? Will a good Marine or Sailor get into trouble for simple smack talking? This will affect morale.

Said the same thing about allowing women.

I do not feel sorry for those dimissed, they knew the policy when they joined.A career in the military is not a right, you abide by their rules, don't expect them to change for you.

And just how many good marines went home because of that law? It cuts both ways. You can't say that you support dismissal over regulations regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell and then oppose it when it comes to regulations regarding speech. That's not an opinion, that's cherry picking the rules.

[razark]

Bubblehead1980, what countries are you aware of that allow openly gay service members, and what issues have been seen in those militaries?

[Platapus]

As I posted in the other thread, if the military actually followed DADT, I would not have a problem with it. Unfortunately, the military did not follow DADT and considered third party reporting as self-reporting. It was not the way DADT was supposed to work.

Since the military, or at least a large portion, choose not to follow either the letter or the spirit of DADT, I can not consider it a successful program.

[Tribesman]

Sorry, its different if you know the guy prefers the male form, even if he's not into you.
So Bubble it looks like your problem with this is basicly just your own hang ups and insecurities.

[FIREWALL]

[QUOTE=Bubblehead1980;1556714]That is not what DADT said"

I know that's not what they said or meant.

I was expessing my opinion how stupid the whole thing is.

If a person is willing to sacrifice their life for their country I, don't care if their pink with purple polka dots and wear a tutu on their own time.

[Bubblehead1980]

So Bubble it looks like your problem with this is basicly just your own hang ups and insecurities.


lol wow tribes, that is a low blow. You love to get personal eh? You sir are a troll. I will not put you on ignore though, even trolls should get to say their nonsense.

No, not a hang up or insecurity, it's a real concern that I've heard people actually in the military express.I simply related a time I lived in close quarters.I wouldn't have cared that much but saying many would.Bottom line, it's better if they just don't know.

[Bubblehead1980]

[QUOTE=Bubblehead1980;1556714]That is not what DADT said"

I know that's not what they said or meant.

I was expessing my opinion how stupid the whole thing is.

If a person is willing to sacrifice their life for their country I, don't care if their pink with purple polka dots and wear a tutu on their own time.


Once more, I don't care what they do in their personal life either BUT when it comes to their military careers, should keep it to themselves.

Platapus, then instead of repeal congress should have amended the bill to exclude third party reporting if that was going on.

[krashkart]

I was expessing my opinion how stupid the whole thing is.

If a person is willing to sacrifice their life for their country I, don't care if their pink with purple polka dots and wear a tutu on their own time.


^^ Hear hear!

[antikristuseke]

Those that cant live with it need to grow the **** up, simple as. It will not happen overnight, but if you keep forcibly closeting the gays the problem will never resolve.

[Tribesman]

lol wow tribes, that is a low blow. You love to get personl eh?
It was the only possible deduction from what you wrote,
After all it does seem you have a real hang up over poofs.

Bottom line, it's better if they just don't know.
And its funny that you think wilful ignorance would somehow make it better.

^^ Hear hear!
Yep hear hear to Firewall, well said.

[krashkart]

Bottom line, it's better if they just don't know.

How are they supposed to learn anything if they're protected from it? How is society supposed to learn if it doesn't experience these kinds of growing pains? I understand where you're coming from, but nothing gets solved if people continue to deny the reality of the world we live in.

Change is a tenacious beast -- it's always there, and there is always somebody who is afraid of it. :yep:


Those that cant live with it need to grow the **** up, simple as. It will not happen overnight, but if you keep forcibly closeting the gays the problem will never resolve.

Absolutely.

[FIREWALL]

[QUOTE=Bubblehead1980;1556780][QUOTE=FIREWALL;1556774]


Once more, I don't care what they do in their personal life either BUT when it comes to their military careers, should keep it to themselves.

Is that what your daddy said about blacks serveing in WWII ?

Korean or Vietnam war too just in case your younger.

[Growler]

Ooooo.

Hail to the Redskins
Hail victo......ah nevermind

Eagles win, Ravens win, Redskins, Steelers, Giants lose... yeah, been a good football day. But I won't ask, if you don't tell.:DL

[August]

Is that what your daddy said about blacks serveing in WWII ?

That was uncalled for Firewall.

[Sailor Steve]

You can't exactly expect someone who attends Berkeley to come out being objective lol
And yet you claim to be objective? lol

I am in law school currently and we discussed her ruling in full.I believe she said it violated 1st and 5th Amendments.Perhaps in her twisted Leftist view.I mean according to Lefties, healthcare mandate does not violate the Constitution LOL.
First, I find it hard to believe that someone with your claimed educational background writes so poorly.

Second, since you claim to know what you're talking about, would you care to enlighten us on exactly how the healthcare mandate does violate the Constitution? LOL

Third, you keep claiming to be a centrist, yet you constantly tout the far-right party line. You need to be honest with yourself.

[Bubblehead1980]

And yet you claim to be objective? lol


First, I find it hard to believe that someone with your claimed educational background writes so poorly.

Second, since you claim to know what you're talking about, would you care to enlighten us on exactly how the healthcare mandate does violate the Constitution? LOL

Third, you keep claiming to be a centrist, yet you constantly tout the far-right party line. You need to be honest with yourself.


My claimed educational backround? Rather insulting Steve. I will admit to using spell check and going over things I write for school repeatedly, checking for errors.I usually find quite a few.Online forum, grammar does not really matter so I do not check.

How is the mandate unconstitutional? Two words: Commerce Clause. Simply put, the mandate is unconstitutional because the FEDERAL government does not have the power under said clause to force you or I to purchase anything aka engage in commerce.Simple but very valid argument.Obama and the Left knows this but they are Lefties and have no respect for the Constitution because it stands in their way since it was designed to prevent what they want, a large, powerful Federal government with unlimited powers to solve our problems, well mostly.

[Sailor Steve]

My claimed educational backround? Rather insulting Steve. I will admit to using spell check and going over things I write for school repeatedly, checking for errors.I usually find quite a few.Online forum, grammar does not really matter so I do not check.
I'm not talking about spelling but your lazy habit of constantly using cheats like "prob" and "esp". If you can't be bothered to write out a simple word, is your thinking any clearer?

How is the mandate unconstitutional? Two words: Commerce Clause. Simply put, the mandate is unconstitutional because the FEDERAL government does not have the power under said clause to force you or I to purchase anything aka engage in commerce.
You might want to rethink that. The Commerce Clause specifically refers to trade with foreign powers, and has nothing to do with internal commerce at all, nor does it address forcing individuals to puchase anything.

You'd probably be better off going with the 10th Amendment. If the Constitution doesn't address healthcare, the Congress has no business getting involved in it.

Simple but very valid argument.Obama and the Left knows this but they are Lefties and have no respect for the Constitution because it stands in their way since it was designed to prevent what they want, a large, powerful Federal government with unlimited powers to solve our problems, well mostly.
Every time you use terms like "Lefties", "Libs" and "Dems" you give the lie to any claims you make concerning lack of bias, and show yourself to be a hardcore, knee-jerk "Rightie", with no pretense of independent thought at all. You probably are better than that, but you never even try to show it.

Insulting? Maybe. Rude? Sure. True? Apparently. Only you can change that, and you don't seem interested in trying.

[Armistead]

The only issue that concerns me is sexual attraction. I don't know what the numbers are, but I would think some gay men serving together will no doubt find each other in a sexual way. Could that cause problems, I honestly don't know. Basically, you're opening up the door. Many marines would have a problem showering with an openly gay man.

If letting people that are sexually attracted to each other shower together, bunk together, ect..with those not sexually attracted to each other, who knows what issues arise.

So when do we get to letting men and women sexually attracted to each other shower together, bunk, ect.. It's highly likely that in combat this could happen, but we seperate the sexes for a reason, that sexual or emotional attachment could cause problems on the battlefield.

Overall, the issues would probably be very minor, but it's also a matter of equality. The services have always seperated sexual attraction. So if sexually attracted males can serve, shower, bunk together, why not sexually attracted males and females? Doe's it really come down to body parts.....I don't think so.

It's probably more a cultural issue.

[CaptainHaplo]

OK boys and girls - stop getting personal and get back on topic before a mod comes in here and fusses at ya all.

To help with that - I will return to the issue.

Should the republicans who voted to repeal be chased out of office? Considering one was Richard Burr, longtime republican senator from NC, I have some input on that. Its not about party line, its about what each senator's constituency thinks on this issue. This isn't about what the senator individually thinks, but what the will of the people of his district is.

With that said, Burr should be run out of town on the basis that this vote by him did not accurately reflect the view of the majority of voters he represents. He represents part of the "Bible Belt", and the voters of that area tend to hold a biblically based moral view of homosexuality and its acceptance.

Now if you want to debate the merits of the law being overturned, thats fine. Having served, I have reservations about the repeal, but then again the soldiers of today are not the same as the ones I served with. The younger generations have a greater acceptance for such things that we did not.

I actually never liked DADT. The reality is that in the military, your sexual preference should never be "OPENLY DISPLAYED". Your a soldier, a sailor, a marine or an airman. Thats what your there to do - your sexuality doesn't have a place in it - whether your homosexual or heterosexual. In uniform, you didn't drape yourself over your girlfriend at the PX. There isn't a soldier in the US armed forces that going "on duty" means they are supposed to be having sex or discussing sexuality. Simply put - to say that its fine for "openly gay" people to serve is the same as saying its ok for "openly straight" people to serve. Guess what - neither is correct because sexuality is a PRIVATE matter - keep it that way.

The issue I have here more than any other however, is that this isn't about the military at all. Its about a CIVILIAN SOCIAL ISSUE! There have always been gays in the military - and always will be. Let the civilian society work out its kinks - but leave the military alone to do its job.

Before one of you get your panties all in a wad by saying "So a gay person shouldn't be allowed to be themselves in the military? What is fair about that? What about their rights or individual free expression?" let me answer this way:

1) Few things are FAIR in the military
2) When you voluntarily enlist, you voluntarily abrogate certain rights and knowingly expect that your right to "individual free expression" is compromised.
3) No one said gays shouldn't be allowed in the military - but no person's BEDROOM behavior has a place being "openly" displayed.

Soldiers have a duty. Anything that complicates that is an unnecessary distraction - and those can get you killed. Repealing this was bad on the basis that sexuality has no place in the military at all. DADT could and should have been fixed.

[mookiemookie]

The only issue that concerns me is sexual attraction. I don't know what the numbers are, but I would think some gay men serving together will no doubt find each other in a sexual way. Could that cause problems, I honestly don't know. Basically, you're opening up the door. Many marines would have a problem showering with an openly gay man.

If letting people that are sexually attracted to each other shower together, bunk together, ect..with those not sexually attracted to each other, who knows what issues arise.

So when do we get to letting men and women sexually attracted to each other shower together, bunk, ect.. It's highly likely that in combat this could happen, but we seperate the sexes for a reason, that sexual or emotional attachment could cause problems on the battlefield.

Overall, the issues would probably be very minor, but it's also a matter of equality. The services have always seperated sexual attraction. So if sexually attracted males can serve, shower, bunk together, why not sexually attracted males and females? Doe's it really come down to body parts.....I don't think so.

It's probably more a cultural issue.

Are gay men forced to use the women's public restroom? I don't know how big of a deal this sort of thing would be.

[Armistead]

NC voted for Obama and is now more of a moderate to liberal state than the old fundy baptist state it once was. People here tired of the hellfire and damnation if you didn't do what the church said.

[Tribesman]

People here tired of the hellfire and damnation if you didn't do what the church said.
Maybe they got tired of hellfire and damnation preachers getting caught in positions which seem to be contrary to errrr....."a biblically based moral view of homosexuality and its acceptance."

[antikristuseke]

If this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment) didnt stop people believing in silly ****, nothing will.

[XabbaRus]

Well here's something that might be a bit too common sense, but I'm guessing, and I might be wrong here, that your average gay soldier sharing a room with other soldiers be they gay or straight will be indulging in sexual congress with his/her partner, just as I would expect a heterosexual soldier to not engage in sexual congress in the same rooms as his squad mates are sleeping.

EG, do it in private time. Or is there a thinking amongst some people that gay soldiers just won't be able to help themselves?

[August]

Well here's something that might be a bit too common sense, but I'm guessing, and I might be wrong here, that your average gay soldier sharing a room with other soldiers be they gay or straight will be indulging in sexual congress with his/her partner, just as I would expect a heterosexual soldier to not engage in sexual congress in the same rooms as his squad mates are sleeping.

Most barracks rooms even way back in my day were 2 and 4 man rooms. I could see that being real cozy if all 2/4 roomates are into that sort of thing.

I think a lot of the potential problems would be avoided if they went back to the WW2 style double squad bays.

http://www.vpr.net/uploads/photo_gallery/large/cr_barracks_interior_vpr640.jpg

[antikristuseke]

That is how things are here in Estonia.

[Platapus]

With that said, Burr should be run out of town on the basis that this vote by him did not accurately reflect the view of the majority of voters he represents.


"A representative owes his people not only his industry but his judgment. He betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion. - Sir Edmund Burke.

There is more to being a representative then just blindly voting the way the majority of the constitutes want. If we were to do that, why have a representative system at all? Just go for a straight democracy.

In a representative system, the citizens empower, through the election process, a representative to make decisions on their behalf, using the representatives experience and judgment. That decision is what the representative feels is in the best interests of not only his or her constitutes, but what is best for their state and the country as a whole.

At the next election, the citizens are free to elect another representative if they like. But the citizens do not have the right to force out a representative, mid term, who has not broken any laws, but simply made a decision that some part of the citizenry does not agree with.

[Platapus]

3) No one said gays shouldn't be allowed in the military - but no person's BEDROOM behavior has a place being "openly" displayed.




You are forgetting that homosexual activity is still against the UCMJ Article 125 and in some cases Article 120. Repealing DADT does not change the UCMJ. Homosexuals will be allowed to serve openly, but if they commit any homosexual activity, they can be tried and discharged under the UCMJ.

Nothing that has been discussed about DADT involves the changing of the UCMJ.

The only thing that is changing is that third party reporting will not subject a military member from being discharged, unless they can be court marshaled for a violation of the UCMJ and specifically Articles 120 and 125.

So if people think that with the repeal of DADT where will be rampant buggery in the ranks, they are safe.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree with the above. One of the problems any representative has is that if he goes against his constituents he's "ignoring the will of the people who elected him", but if he always checks before making a decision, he's "blowing with every wind".

I don't like politicians in general, but they do have their own set of headaches.

[August]

But the citizens do not have the right to force out a representative, mid term, who has not broken any laws, but simply made a decision that some part of the citizenry does not agree with.

I don't claim to be a law scholar Plat but i'm pretty sure the citizens can recall a rep for any reason they want.

[Platapus]

I don't claim to be a law scholar Plat but i'm pretty sure the citizens can recall a rep for any reason they want.

I do not profess to know everything about politics. :DL I would be very interested in learning how the citizens of a state can recall their representative from the House of Representatives mid-term. I have never heard that happening, nor can I find any reference to that at House.gov.

We do not have votes of non-confidence in the US. And probably a good thing or Congress would be an empty building. :D

[August]

I do not profess to know everything about politics. :DL I would be very interested in learning how the citizens of a state can recall their representative from the House of Representatives mid-term. I have never heard that happening, nor can I find any reference to that at House.gov.

We do not have votes of non-confidence in the US. And probably a good thing or Congress would be an empty building. :D

Apparently only nine states have laws that claim that right but as it hasn't ever been tested it remains unclear if the feds would allow it. Of course I can't imagine a Member of Congress refusing to resign if a large majority of his constituents were demanding his removal either. After all the SOB has to come home some time.... ;)

http://ballotpedia.com/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall#State.2C_local.2C_and_federa l

[Platapus]

Apparently only nine states have laws that claim that right but as it hasn't ever been tested it remains unclear if the feds would allow it. Of course I can't imagine a Member of Congress refusing to resign if a large majority of his constituents were demanding his removal either. After all the SOB has to come home some time.... ;)

http://ballotpedia.com/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall#State.2C_local.2C_and_federa l


Great find! That is one website worth bookmarking. Thanks for posting it.

Raises an interesting question about recall elections and federal government. That would be an argument worth listening to. :yep: