Fixed.:yeah:

Ooooo.

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

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Said the same thing about allowing women.

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.