• 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!

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

For all those gunning the Democrats, I would like to point out that the House actually passed legislation repealing DADT. It was the Senate that shot it down with a 56 and 43 vote with 60 needed to win. That means even if every Democrat had voted for it, it would have still failed because the Republicans unanimously voted against it.



But they didn't. More pass giving for the left? :roll:
 
But they didn't. More pass giving for the left? :roll:

Oh I certainly condemn the 3 or so Democrats that voted against it, but I'm not going to blame the entire Democrat party when John McCain, who previously favored repeal, lead a charge against it.

You certainly have a really dichitomous of thinking Rev.
 
republicans didn't make promises, republicans didn't PLAY an important consituency

obama's dept of justice compared gay relations to incest and being intimate with a 16 year old

sorry
 
Oh I certainly condemn the 3 or so Democrats that voted against it, but I'm not going to blame the entire Democrat party when John McCain, who previously favored repeal, lead a charge against it.

You certainly have a really dichitomous of thinking Rev.



Nah, I just see when someone is being rather hypocritical with his crusade. :shrug:
 
Nah, I just see when someone is being rather hypocritical with his crusade. :shrug:

Are you doing the hypocrite game again? :roll:

Seriously, I pwned you in the other thread when you played this game, I don't know when you are going to learn.
 
Allowing members of extremist groups won't hurt the war effort, either. So, we might as well allow people, who are members of extremist groups, to serve openly and lift the ban on such memberships. Afterall, those people are already serving and are a valuable part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Besides, it's a violation of their constitutional rights to have such a ban in place.
 
For all those gunning the Democrats, I would like to point out that the House actually passed legislation repealing DADT. It was the Senate that shot it down with a 56 and 43 vote with 60 needed to win. That means even if every Democrat had voted for it, it would have still failed because the Republicans unanimously voted against it.

Wasn't there some kinda bull**** tied to that legislation, that insured a unanimous Republican vote?
 
But they didn't. More pass giving for the left? :roll:

You should check out the vote. I believe it was 2 democrats voted against it in the senate, and one of those for procedural reasons. So it hardly is "the left". Nice try though.
 
Allowing members of extremist groups won't hurt the war effort, either. So, we might as well allow people, who are members of extremist groups, to serve openly and lift the ban on such memberships. Afterall, those people are already serving and are a valuable part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Besides, it's a violation of their constitutional rights to have such a ban in place.

You seem to really care about letting KKK members into the military, you bring it up in every single thread. This thread is not about members of groups that the government labels extremist or terrorist. It's about homosexuals serving openly. So please, don't derail another thread. We've hashed this over and over.

Congress needs to pass a repeal of DADT as a stand-alone bill. It's always attached to some other crap that pisses off one or both parties and ensures the bill fails. Almost like they're doing it on purpose so they can keep their wedge issue. Congressmen love wedge issues.
 
Allowing members of extremist groups won't hurt the war effort, either. So, we might as well allow people, who are members of extremist groups, to serve openly and lift the ban on such memberships. Afterall, those people are already serving and are a valuable part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Besides, it's a violation of their constitutional rights to have such a ban in place.

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.
 
Wasn't there some kinda bull**** tied to that legislation, that insured a unanimous Republican vote?

Can you find me evidence of one Republican Senator who would have voted for it?
 
Can you find me evidence of one Republican Senator who would have voted for it?

I believe Snowe was willing to vote for it, but procedural crap involving the DREAM act kept her from doing so.
 
Allowing members of extremist groups won't hurt the war effort, either. So, we might as well allow people, who are members of extremist groups, to serve openly and lift the ban on such memberships. Afterall, those people are already serving and are a valuable part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Besides, it's a violation of their constitutional rights to have such a ban in place.

Do you have any source to support that, other than you ass?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
^ 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?
 
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:
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!
 
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?
 
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?
 
^ 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?
 
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!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom