• 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!

Army discharges don't ask critic who told

Doesn't support your statement that he spent more time being an activist than a soldier now does it?

Care to retract that statement or would you like to try again?

Obviously, Army Regulations meant nothing to Dan Choi. Any officer who ignores the regulations in such a manner isn't fit for duty and shouldn't be serving in the military.

If you can't depend on an officer to follow a regulation as simple as not wearing his uniform to a political function; then how can you depend on him to obey the rules of war on the battlefield?
 
Dan Choi obviously violated Army Regulations. He is a discredit to his unit, his service and sets a piss poor example for his men.

Any leader that doesn't live by the same standards that he expects from his men, is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.

I have to wonder if you would be this foul, acidic, and bilious in your posting if it were a straight officer protesting gay marriage or supporting DADT at a rally...
 
I have to wonder if you would be this foul, acidic, and bilious in your posting if it were a straight officer protesting gay marriage or supporting DADT at a rally...

You're goddamned right I would. The regulations apply to everyone, no matter what their politics are.

Anyone, regardless of rank, who doesn't live by and enforce the regulations and the standards of the service, no matter the reason, is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.

How does that go about answering your question?
 
You're goddamned right I would. The regulations apply to everyone, no matter what their politics are.

Anyone, regardless of rank, who doesn't live by and enforce the regulations and the standards of the service, no matter the reason, is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.

How does that go about answering your question?

I'm not sure that I buy it...but if its true....good for you!
 
I'm not sure that I buy it...but if its true....good for you!

When it comes to Army Regulations, I'm unflexible, just I was unflexible when I was on active duty. Are you one of those Libbos that is always harping about the rules of war and the Geneva Convention and crying about how our soldiers are violating those rules and they should go to prison for it? Well, how can you call for the rigid enforcement of those rules, yet ignore Dan Choi's violations of regulations that are far more simpler to comply with?

If you can't depend on a soldier to do things as simple as cut their hair, maintain military bearing and wear their uniform in accordance with Army Regulations; how can you depend on that soldier to perform the proper tasks on the battlefield; where people's lives are at stake. Conventional wisdom would tell you that you couldn't. Right?
 
You're goddamned right I would. The regulations apply to everyone, no matter what their politics are.

Anyone, regardless of rank, who doesn't live by and enforce the regulations and the standards of the service, no matter the reason, is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.

How does that go about answering your question?

It makes an effort to answer it. However, I would be lying if I said I believed your rant would be as strong were it something other than this.
 
It makes an effort to answer it. However, I would be lying if I said I believed your rant would be as strong were it something other than this.

I don't give a **** if you believe me, or not. I guess only time will tell.
 
I don't give a **** if you believe me, or not. I guess only time will tell.

I didn't really care if you did, sport. I simply find your mouthfoaming rant a bit too impassioned over this issue to be about the regulation and not the circumstance. If it walks like a duck and all that.
 
I didn't really care if you did, sport. I simply find your mouthfoaming rant a bit too impassioned over this issue to be about the regulation and not the circumstance. If it walks like a duck and all that.

I guess the same could be said for you, if this issue didn't hit so close to home. Eh? The next time a birfer refuses to deploy, you gonna give him a break?
 
I guess the same could be said for you, if this issue didn't hit so close to home. Eh? The next time a birfer refuses to deploy, you gonna give him a break?

I am not the one breaking down into rants and noxious cussing over the issue. And no, I am not going to cut the birfer a break. I also don't think you can show me one post where I insisted that Choi be offered a break either so the point you thought you were making...well, you didn't.
 
I am not the one breaking down into rants and noxious cussing over the issue. And no, I am not going to cut the birfer a break. I also don't think you can show me one post where I insisted that Choi be offered a break either so the point you thought you were making...well, you didn't.

IAW, you're arguing, just to argue? Isn't there a term for that?
 
IAW, you're arguing, just to argue? Isn't there a term for that?

Yes...it's called "D-E-B-A-T-E"...you know...as in the name of the web site.

Oh, dude...I thought you knew....
 
Yes...it's called "D-E-B-A-T-E"...you know...as in the name of the web site.

Oh, dude...I thought you knew....

Of course it's called, "debate", but since when did my feelings become the topic of debate? I thought this thread about Dan Choi and his opposition to DADT. I thought you new.
 
Of course it's called, "debate", but since when did my feelings become the topic of debate? I thought this thread about Dan Choi and his opposition to DADT. I thought you new.

The presentation of your points is worthy of comment, especially when filled with so much vitriol and colorful language. It brings into question just how objective you are being and how much of your position is nothing more than flimsy, emotional rant.

My commentary on how it seems more the latter stands.
 
Doesn't support your statement that he spent more time being an activist than a soldier now does it?

Care to retract that statement or would you like to try again?

It does show he doesn't give a damn about the rules.
 
You didn't answer my question. How does DADT strengthen the military?

That isn't the OP. He broke the rules. Doesn't matter if it is DADT or uniform code. Stop making excuses.
 
You didn't answer my question. How does DADT strengthen the military?

You aren't going to get a reasoned debate. He's latched on to some grossly simplistic truth that no one even cares to disagree with, shifted the debate to him repeating that truth over and over with an undeserved sense of accomplishment, and you are going to be left lacking the intelligent and stimulating conversation you are seeking.

I would put to rest any notion that you will have your question honestly answered. I've seen this drama unfold before.
 
Last edited:
Having fun reporting posts, aptsd? report away, my friend. LOL
 
That isn't the OP. He broke the rules. Doesn't matter if it is DADT or uniform code. Stop making excuses.

Actually, that IS in the OP. DD posed that question in his post, so it is not only a viable question, but certainly a part of the thread. If you choose not to answer, just say so, but saying it is not part of the OP is flat out wrong.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's cease the personal attacks and focus on the thread topic.
 
Actually, that IS in the OP. DD posed that question in his post, so it is not only a viable question, but certainly a part of the thread. If you choose not to answer, just say so, but saying it is not part of the OP is flat out wrong.

I'm talking about the story not the opinion of the OP. Had I been referencing the poster's opinion I would have stated that.
 
That isn't the OP. He broke the rules. Doesn't matter if it is DADT or uniform code. Stop making excuses.

It is part of the OP. And to be honest, if they discharged him for uniform violation, then fine. There's evidence for that, and they should enforce the rules. But the difference between breaking the uniform rule, and DADT is that one is a blatant discriminatory rule, and the other isn't.

So please, forget about this guy, this situation, and explain to me how does DAD strengthen the military? Oh, yeah thats right you won't.
 
Back
Top Bottom