• 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

texmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the mods don't like the direction the conversation has gone, they will let us know. If Vader does not like the direction this thread has gone and points it out, I will respect his wishes. You...well, why would I give a **** what your self serving opinion is on the direction the conversation has gone? If you disagree with Jallman and I's stance on DADT, feel free to try something honest like arguing your points, not trying to tell us we cannot talk about it.
 
Redress said:
If the mods don't like the direction the conversation has gone, they will let us know. If Vader does not like the direction this thread has gone and points it out, I will respect his wishes. You...well, why would I give a **** what your self serving opinion is on the direction the conversation has gone? If you disagree with Jallman and I's stance on DADT, feel free to try something honest like arguing your points, not trying to tell us we cannot talk about it.
Click to expand...

Temper temper.

I never said once you couldn't discuss anything you like so please do not be dishonest.

Jallman is on ignore for a very good reason. And I did take a peek at his latest rantings and he's rehashing the same dumbass legal argument we already put to bed pages ago that you already admitted was valid so why would I debate something with him that you already agreed was a mute point? Funny how you didn't point that out to him.

You can continue to exchange pats on the back if you like but it wont change the fact the debate is over. She did break the law, it was illegal.

Now you want to start a new argument debating a philosophical question about the law itself. No problem. Just don't get mad when the facts about the original OP are pointed out to you. :)
 
Redress said:
If the mods don't like the direction the conversation has gone, they will let us know. If Vader does not like the direction this thread has gone and points it out, I will respect his wishes. You...well, why would I give a **** what your self serving opinion is on the direction the conversation has gone? If you disagree with Jallman and I's stance on DADT, feel free to try something honest like arguing your points, not trying to tell us we cannot talk about it.
Click to expand...

And on that note, and the topic of how asinine the DADT policy is as demonstrated by this case, I don't even think it should be totally repealed. I pretty much think of it like this: there is a level of professionalism involved with every career and excluding one's sexuality from being prominently displayed is part of that professionalism. No one needs to hear about what you do in your private life.

That being said, there should be no mechanism in place to allow for a third party to inject information about your private life into your professional/military life. DADT policy should, first of all, be across the board for everyone and just a matter of common sense. Secondly, it should only pertain to disclosure between military personnel while in the capacity of performing their duties. And last, it should never be brought in effect when there are clear motives of spite, malice, or retaliation involved. Such instances of disclosure should automatically be dismissed without any regard to the complaint.
 
jallman said:
I imagine the fact that I have stomped every asinine argument you ever made into the dust probably is a good reason to you. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ah Jallman, every now and then I have to read just one of your posts and laugh.

From your hero back on the early pages which you obviously didn't read:

Redress said:
I hate to do this, but Texmaster is, in a way, right. One of the things banned by DADT is "marriage or attempted marriage" to some one of the same sex. Now the military won't look for evidence, but if presented with it, it is a done deal.
Click to expand...

Your inability to read the entire thread and your inability to admit when you have been proven painfully wrong is why you are on ignore. Especially on the gay marriage thread. Of all the far left people pushing this you are the only one I have on ignore because you refuse to answer direct questions and ignore the facts when they are presented to you as I'm sure you will once again do even when its coming from someone you think you agree with :)
 
texmaster said:
Ah Jallman, every now and then I have to read just one of your posts and laugh.

From your hero back on the early pages which you obviously didn't read:
Click to expand...

Oh I read it all. I just don't capitulate to such shoddy reasoning. Sorry you find that so inconvenient. I thought you had me on ignore?

Your lack of honesty even extends to your infantile rants about how you don't care to play with others. :lol:
 
texmaster said:
Of all the far left people pushing this you
Click to expand...

And you guys seeing this idiocy? He's calling me far left. :mrgreen:

That's very telling of what you are dealing with when you try to hold an intelligent conversation with it. :2razz:
 
jallman said:
And you guys seeing this idiocy? He's calling me far left. :mrgreen:

That's very telling of what you are dealing with when you try to hold an intelligent conversation with it. :2razz:
Click to expand...

You are far left compared to some. Imagine where that puts me.
 
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...

Any service member is as irreplaceable as a hole in water.
 
Jerry said:
Any service member is as irreplaceable as a hole in water.
Click to expand...

This is so far from true as to be hilariously ignorant. You ever heard of reenlistment bonuses and wonder why they have them?
 
Redress said:
That is not a law.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're more than capable of Googling Clinton's Executive Order for yourself :2wave:

She broke regulations so the fact that the cops exploited that is irrelevant.
 
Jerry said:
I'm sure you're more than capable of Googling Clinton's Executive Order for yourself :2wave:

She broke regulations so the fact that the cops exploited that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's entirely relevant. The police went beyond their investigation and jeopardized the employment of a third party in an effort to force cooperation when it wasn't given post haste. Cooperation wasn't denied at all, from the article, it was just delayed. That is harassment by any standard.

I foresee a payout to this young lady by the police department because this will probably get very ugly. And rightfully so.
 
Jerry said:
I'm sure you're more than capable of Googling Clinton's Executive Order for yourself :2wave:

She broke regulations so the fact that the cops exploited that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Even Redress acknowledges that. Only a few far left holdouts think you can take an oath then break it with another part of the government signing a public document and pretend it isn't illegal. It takes a special kind of lunacy to think that way but some keep on doing it :)
 
texmaster said:
Even Redress acknowledges that. Only a few far left holdouts think you can take an oath then break it with another part of the government signing a public document and pretend it isn't illegal. It takes a special kind of lunacy to think that way but some keep on doing it :)
Click to expand...

:roll::roll::roll:
 
texmaster said:
Even Redress acknowledges that. Only a few far left holdouts think you can take an oath then break it with another part of the government signing a public document and pretend it isn't illegal. It takes a special kind of lunacy to think that way but some keep on doing it :)
Click to expand...

She broke no laws. Don't be intellectually dishonest. While her discharge was perfectly legal, she did nothing of her own to get discharged. Being married to some one of the same sex is admission of being gay, which if a command learns of is a discharge, but so is saying you are gay, or being caught by some one in your command holding hands with some one at the local mall.
 
Redress said:
She broke no laws. Don't be intellectually dishonest. While her discharge was perfectly legal, she did nothing of her own to get discharged. Being married to some one of the same sex is admission of being gay, which if a command learns of is a discharge, but so is saying you are gay, or being caught by some one in your command holding hands with some one at the local mall.
Click to expand...

You don't actually expect fine details like that to matter to someone so dishonest about everything else, do you?
 
jallman said:
You don't actually expect fine details like that to matter to someone so dishonest about everything else, do you?
Click to expand...

You notice he has to constantly try and turn the conversation to the one area that he has any footing. Yes, the discharge is legal, no one is debating that. Notice he has not touched on the subjects of gay marriage or DADT, since he has repeatedly not fared well at all in those discussions, and constantly tries to turn those talks back to the one area no one is debating.
 
Redress said:
You notice he has to constantly try and turn the conversation to the one area that he has any footing. Yes, the discharge is legal, no one is debating that. Notice he has not touched on the subjects of gay marriage or DADT, since he has repeatedly not fared well at all in those discussions, and constantly tries to turn those talks back to the one area no one is debating.
Click to expand...

I know. It's a play taken directly from Charles Martel's playbook. If you can't take any ground in the discussion being had, make a completely new argument and go after that one. :lol:
 
Redress said:
She broke no laws. Don't be intellectually dishonest. While her discharge was perfectly legal, she did nothing of her own to get discharged.
Click to expand...

So you are reversing your position. No real surprise. If someone on your side pushed you enough, I knew you would.

Being married to some one of the same sex is admission of being gay, which if a command learns of is a discharge, but so is saying you are gay, or being caught by some one in your command holding hands with some one at the local mall.
Click to expand...

Sigh. We've been through this. She didn't secretly carry out a relationship.

She went out and received a public license of marriage from the state. How can you pretend that is private?



To avoid you trying to wiggle out of this in any way, answer one simple question. Do you understand a marriage license is a matter of public record yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
You notice he has to constantly try and turn the conversation to the one area that he has any footing. Yes, the discharge is legal, no one is debating that. Notice he has not touched on the subjects of gay marriage or DADT, since he has repeatedly not fared well at all in those discussions, and constantly tries to turn those talks back to the one area no one is debating.
Click to expand...

I haven't fared well? You can't even admit the very act of procreation is heterosexual in nature. You lost the gay marriage argument long ago when I destroyed any hint at it being genetic. Your response was to deny basic biological function when it comes to procreation. I'd hardly call that a win for you :)
 
jallman said:
I know. It's a play taken directly from Charles Martel's playbook. If you can't take any ground in the discussion being had, make a completely new argument and go after that one. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'd have to say it is the two of you who are steering the discussion in a new direction, having lost the debate on the topic at hand......:lol:
 
Vader said:
Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Newsome and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against the western South Dakota police department, claiming the officers violated her privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation. The case also highlights concerns over the ability of third parties to "out" service members, especially as the Pentagon has started reviewing the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law.

Full Article: Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military - Yahoo! News

What the police did to this woman is unacceptable. They have ZERO right to reveal sexual orientation to ANYBODY.

Despite the fact that the police, who have arbitrarily declared themselves innocent (can you say cover-up), I find fault in their actions.

The officers responsible for contacting the military need to be fired. The ranking officers who covered up their actions need to be fired.

I hope the victim sues the pants off the police, the city, and the State of South Dakota.
Click to expand...
Good one Vader. :lamo:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom