Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 235

Thread: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

  1. #41
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    DADT is an executive order. Obama should just repeal it himself. I know that a Republican President could reinstate DADT, but these kinds of things usually die after they've been done, and I'd doubt that a Republican President would want to expend all of the political capital on a wedge issue like this.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  2. #42
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,127

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    DADT is an executive order. Obama should just repeal it himself. I know that a Republican President could reinstate DADT, but these kinds of things usually die after they've been done, and I'd doubt that a Republican President would want to expend all of the political capital on a wedge issue like this.
    If it doesn't pass in the lame duck, I guess we will see whether Obama has the balls to pull that kind of move.

  3. #43
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Tell ya what...show me a poll that indicates that 70-80% of Americans want to allow members of extremists groups to serve and another survey indicating that most troops would not care and that it would not hurt war efforts, and then you could argue that this is comparable. Until then, it is a pretty pathetic argument.
    I don't need a poll, nor any documentation, to demonstrate that the opposition to DADT isn't about constitutional rights, or what's good for our armed forces. It's about nothing, other than, "I'm gay and I'm in your ****ing face". Which makes the entire anti-DADT crowd a buncha hypocrites.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    ^ Makes unfounded assumptions about the opposition and cannot concede to the fact that most gays are normal people living and minding their own business and want equal right.


    WHat thread is this?

  5. #45
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,127

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't need a poll, nor any documentation, to demonstrate that the opposition to DADT isn't about constitutional rights, or what's good for our armed forces. It's about nothing, other than, "I'm gay and I'm in your ****ing face". Which makes the entire anti-DADT crowd a buncha hypocrites.
    If you had read the OP you would have seen I didn't argue that DADT was just about Constitutional rights. To quote...


    To recap, the DADT policy has been found...

    -By a federal court to be unconstitutional in how it is enforced
    -By a federal court to endanger national security as a resulting of losing vital units
    -To be opposed by 70-80% of Americans
    -To be irrelevant to most troops
    If anyone were only arguing that this was about Constitutional rights, then your argument might have some merit, but its worthless given that the ban on allowing gays to openly serve has been found to endanger national security, is opposed by most Americans, is irrelevant to most troops, and will likely have no effect on current war efforts. Feel free to provide evidence to show that allowing extremists to serve meets those criteria.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 11-11-10 at 09:14 PM.

  6. #46
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    DADT is an executive order. Obama should just repeal it himself. I know that a Republican President could reinstate DADT, but these kinds of things usually die after they've been done, and I'd doubt that a Republican President would want to expend all of the political capital on a wedge issue like this.

    Which is why it blows my mind that the DADT abolitionists won't listen to what I've said a gazillion times: Leave Don't ask, don't tell in place and just lift the ban on gays. Otherwise, a Republican president will simply re-instate the outright ban, via executive order and, "DADT", will turn into, Do ask, do tell.

    For a buncha folks that claim to be so much smarter than the rest of us, they sure as hell do seem to lack any kind of ability to see past their own nose.

    Incredible! Trully incredible!
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #47
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    If you had read the OP you would have seen I didn't argue that DADT was just about Constitutional rights. To quote...




    If anyone were only arguing that this was about Constitutional rights, then your argument might have some merit, but its worthless given that the ban on allowing gays to openly serve has been found to endanger national security, is opposed by most Americans, is irrelevant to most troops, and will likely have no effect on current war efforts. Feel free to provide evidence to show that allowing extremeists to serve meets those criteria.
    But, as has been argued, members of extremist hate groups already serve in the armed forces. That's the same exact argument that you all have used to justify allowing gays to serve in the military.

    Why do constitutional rights only go so far?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #48
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,127

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    But, as has been argued, members of extremist hate groups already serve in the armed forces. That's the same exact argument that you all have used to justify allowing gays to serve in the military.

    Why do constitutional rights only go so far?
    Ah...you are trying to make a strawman...so cute.

    Has a federal court found that not allowing extremists to serve hurts national security?
    Has any poll found that most Americans are opposed to a ban on allowing extremists to serve?
    Has any survey found that most troops don't care about extremists serving or that allowing extremists to serve would not hurt war efforts?

  9. #49
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    ^ Makes unfounded assumptions about the opposition and cannot concede to the fact that most gays are normal people living and minding their own business and want equal right.


    WHat thread is this?

    There are plenty of people who are members of extremist groups that live normal lives, minding their own business.

    Some of your closest friends may be klan, black panthers, communists; you don't know. Are you going to stop being friends with them, if you find out that they are?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #50
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Ah...you are trying to make a strawman...so cute.

    Has a federal court found that not allowing extremeists to serve hurts national security?
    Has any poll found that most Americans are opposed to a ban on allowing extremists to serve?
    Has any survey found that most troops don't care about extremists serving or that allowing extremists to serve would not hurt war efforts?

    What hell does a Federal court know about national security?

    And, most polls are bull****.

    Your point, is?

    Stop the hypocrisy!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •