These Republicans should be chased out of Office

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[antikristuseke]

That is how things are here in Estonia.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Originally Posted by August

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. 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.