• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

jallman said:
There was no violation. No matter how many stupid and idiotic winkies you use.




There was no violation. No matter how many stupid and idiotic winkies you use.



As stated before, there was no violation. No matter how many stupid and idiotic smilies you use.

You fail. Again.
Click to expand...

If there was no violation, she wouldn't have been discharged...;)
The fail is all yours, embrace it.....:lol:
 
Partisan said:
If there was no violation, she wouldn't have been discharged...;)
The fail is all yours, embrace it.....:lol:
Click to expand...

She didn't announce anything to her superiors. She was outted by harassment from the cops.

You still fail, despite the smilies. Deal with it.
 
Partisan said:
If there was no violation, she wouldn't have been discharged...;)
The fail is all yours, embrace it.....:lol:
Click to expand...

The fail is in DADT and the UCMJ rules. And her being married to the woman she is living with wouldn't have any more affect on good order and discipline then her just living with the woman.

Now I'm not going to say that she wasn't violating the rules, because she was, but that doesn't make the rules right.
 
jallman said:
She didn't announce anything to her superiors. She was outted by harassment from the cops.

You still fail, despite the smilies. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You call it harassment, I call it doing their job.....;)
Maybe next time she will cooperate fully with the authorities while they are attempting to apprehend a felon.........;)
Ah, the long arm of justice & all that...;)
 
Partisan said:
You call it harassment, I call it doing their job.....;)
Click to expand...

Yes. I call it what it is and you make excuses for wastes of tax payer time and money.

We know you are wrong. You don't have to keep convincing us.
 
jallman said:
Except to those of us who actually do think, it's not a public service. It is a total waste of public funds for the sole purpose of harassment. Real conservatives would find that wrong. But then, no one has ever accused you, texmaster, or charlse martel of being real conservatives. LOLOLOLOLOL
Click to expand...

I wonder if those people have any idea how much value some one with 9 years experience in the military and aviation has to the military. It may not grind the military to a halt, but such losses hurt.
 
Redress said:
I wonder if those people have any idea how much value some one with 9 years experience in the military and aviation has to the military. It may not grind the military to a halt, but such losses hurt.
Click to expand...


Just in training dollars alone I wonder how much is invested in this lady.
 
Redress said:
I wonder if those people have any idea how much value some one with 9 years experience in the military and aviation has to the military. It may not grind the military to a halt, but such losses hurt.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part of the story where it said she's GAY. Whatever minimal value she had was far outweighed by the fact that it destroyed unit cohesion because people she served with could have looked her marriage up on Lexis and then got the heeby-jeebies*.





(*technical term)
 
RightinNYC said:
I guess you missed the part of the story where it said she's GAY. Whatever minimal value she had was far outweighed by the fact that it destroyed unit cohesion because people she served with could have looked her marriage up on Lexis and then got the heeby-jeebies*.





(*technical term)
Click to expand...

The "heeby-jeeby" argument is one of my favorites. There is a grand total of zero evidence to back up the thought that gays in the military will cause a decline if unit cohesion and morale. All evidence points to the primary factor to unit morale and cohesion would still be the quality of the chain of command even if gays could serve openly.
 
Partisan said:
That still doesn't make them guilty of any privacy violation issues....;)
They may or may not have been required to report the violation of military code, but they were well within their rights to report a matter of public record to the proper authorities....:2wave:
Think of it as a public service......:lol:
Click to expand...

As a retired member of the military and somone that supports DADT...I dont see why the police felt the need to report her to the police. It doesnt appear she broke a criminal law.

That being said...she did violate the terms of DADT by getting married. If she wanted to keep her career she shouldnt have done that. arguing the merits of DADT is immaterial. It is what it is and she violated what it is.
 
Redress said:
The "heeby-jeeby" argument is one of my favorites. There is a grand total of zero evidence to back up the thought that gays in the military will cause a decline if unit cohesion and morale. All evidence points to the primary factor to unit morale and cohesion would still be the quality of the chain of command even if gays could serve openly.
Click to expand...

You've already admitted I was right about this so why are you still debating?

Its over, she broke the law.
 
texmaster said:
You've already admitted I was right about this so why are you still debating?

Its over, she broke the law.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that the military acted appropriately under their rules. The larger issue of whether those rules should be in place is a perfectly valid discussion. Trying to hush those up who disagree with you is not going to work real well.
 
Redress said:
I pointed out that the military acted appropriately under their rules. The larger issue of whether those rules should be in place is a perfectly valid discussion. Trying to hush those up who disagree with you is not going to work real well.
Click to expand...

Hush up by pointing out what you actually already admitted to?

How is that hushing you up?

And you'll forgive me for actually debating the OP and not making up a new debate like you are :roll:.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Hush up by pointing out what you actually already admitted to?

How is that hushing you up?
Click to expand...

I think redress means "hush up" in terms of your transparent attempts to turn the discussion away from the legitimacy of the policy at all and focus it directly on this particular woman. It's because in the most grossly simplistic terms where this woman is concerned, specifically, you actually have a point this time. But in terms of the greater question of the legitimacy of DADT, you are still light years away from having a sound opinion on the matter.
 
texmaster said:
You've already admitted I was right about this so why are you still debating?

Its over, she broke the law.
Click to expand...

texmaster said:
Hush up by pointing out what you actually already admitted to?

How is that hushing you up?
Click to expand...

The discussion is not over, and trying to claim it is, is to my mind trying to hush up the legitimate debate, whether DADT is a worthwhile policy. I think it is clear that it is not.
 
Redress said:
The discussion is not over, and trying to claim it is, is to my mind trying to hush up the legitimate debate, whether DADT is a worthwhile policy. I think it is clear that it is not.
Click to expand...

Where is that in the OP? Oh thats right, it isn't there.

So you lost the OP and now want to change the argument. Got it.
 
texmaster said:
Where is that in the OP? Oh thats right, it isn't there.

So you lost the OP and now want to change the argument. Got it.
Click to expand...

I guess that would be true if you were unable to juggle more than one thought at a time.

Oh...wait...
 
texmaster said:
Where is that in the OP? Oh thats right, it isn't there.

So you lost the OP and now want to change the argument. Got it.
Click to expand...

She was not discharged due to DADT? We cannot discuss the very regulation that she has been removed from service over?
 
Redress said:
She was not discharged due to DADT? We cannot discuss the very regulation that she has been removed from service over?
Click to expand...

Again I point back to the OP. Nothing of what you are arguing was being argued.

You are trying to change the subject of the thread to suit a new argument instead of going into the general politics section and actually doing it right.
 
texmaster said:
Again I point back to the OP. Nothing of what you are arguing was being argued.

You are trying to change the subject of the thread to suit a new argument instead of going into the general politics section and actually doing it right.
Click to expand...

No. You are simply trying to restrict the topic to the one, finite point you actually have and avoid a larger discussion of why your "point" indicates there being something morally and ethically wrong with the whole situation you support.

That's not gonna fly here.
 
texmaster said:
Again I point back to the OP. Nothing of what you are arguing was being argued.

You are trying to change the subject of the thread to suit a new argument instead of going into the general politics section and actually doing it right.
Click to expand...

No, we are continuing the discussion, which covers a number of actual topics, from the actions of the police, to the actions of the sergeant to the policy under which she was discharged.
 
Hey Jallman, nice to be actually on the same side of a discussion with you again.
 
Redress said:
Hey Jallman, nice to be actually on the same side of a discussion with you again.
Click to expand...

True. But I mean...this is common sense. Not even a point of real debate and we are both intelligent people. It stands to reason we would be on the same side.
 
Redress said:
No, we are continuing the discussion, which covers a number of actual topics, from the actions of the police, to the actions of the sergeant to the policy under which she was discharged.
Click to expand...

You can try and spin it all you like Redress. The facts are this was not the OPs argument and you are formulating a new argument instead of beginning a new thread in the proper section.

But go right ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom