These Republicans should be chased out of Office

[Gargamel]

Yay Voinovich!

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.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

[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.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[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]

[QUOTE=FIREWALL;1556774]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

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!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.