- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,695
- Reaction score
- 32,332
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Okay, then I think your opinion about PTIF219 opinion being worthless is worthless.No it isn't and no you wouldn't.
Okay, then I think your opinion about PTIF219 opinion being worthless is worthless.No it isn't and no you wouldn't.
Okay, then I think your opinion about PTIF219 opinion being worthless is worthless.
I suspected as much, so here's my question, do you include your own opinion in your assessment at all opinions are worthless or is it only those opinions that disagree with yours? To be honest, CC (can I call you that?), I did think telling ptif219 that his opinion is worthless was kinda crappy (and not very courteous at all).
Which, of course, would be a matter of opinion. Think back, do you find that opinions that happen to agree with yours are the ones that more readily meet your standards for "worthiness"?An opinion presented as fact is worthless, to me. That's what ptif did.
As far as opinions go, their worthiness, to me, is based on their ability to be supported and how they are presented.
Only your worst nightmare. Just kidding. Is there something specific you want to know?But enough about me. Who, may I ask, are you?
Which, of course, would be a matter of opinion. Think back, do you find that opinions that happen to agree with yours are the ones that more readily meet your standards for "worthiness"?
Only your worst nightmare. Just kidding. Is there something specific you want to know?
Well there is also "very conservative" people doing the same thing now
Besides I was 15 in 05, and actually thought I would be a conservative when I started to vote, then I started paying attention to things :lol:
It took me a while to grow up and realize that liberalism is a pipe dream that in reality never works.
Mine would be being that old person.No. Those that have some factual basis, whether I agree with them or not have more worthiness, to me.
No, my worst nightmare is an old person driving in front of me. :2razz:
Nothing in particular. Where do you stand on the issue being discussed in this thread?
It took me a while to grow up and realize that liberalism is a pipe dream that in reality never works.
And the troops are for repeal.
Mine would be being that old person.
You miss the point of the trust factor in combat. I take it you know nothing of military life
Most conservatives are liberals that have just grown too old, lost their mind, and have difficulty forming logic.
As for the DADT, hopefully this is repealed rather quickly given the Pentagon's facts and studies.
Hey look, random links that don't address the topic at all and have been refuted before. Obama has stated, consistently, that the repeal of DADT should come from legislation, not the courts. Damn him for being consistent and wanting to do something the best way...
Consistent with whom? weren't blacks integrated with an EO?
Consistent with whom? weren't blacks integrated with an EO?
In 1993, President Bill Clinton nearly derailed his presidency with an early move to end the military’s ban on gay service members. Aides scrambled to craft the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as a compromise to get the politically radioactive issue off the new administration’s back.
President Barack Obama’s aides were intent, above all else, on not repeating that experience when it came to carrying out their campaign promise to open up the military to gays, so they moved cautiously.
The result: Obama now faces his own political crisis over the issue that threatens his support from key Democratic constituencies, undermines his relationship with the Pentagon and puts him in the odd position of defending a practice he has denounced as discriminatory and harmful to national security.
“It’s crazy that all this is happening 2½ weeks before a national election,” said Richard Socarides, an adviser to Clinton on gay issues during the ’93 fiasco. “The timing could not be worse for them, but it was fairly predictable that their strategy of postponing and delaying getting into this stuff was, at some point, going to come back to haunt them.”
The White House’s Plan A involved a Pentagon study for release in December 2010, followed by legislation thereafter. But in May, advocates won the White House’s public support for conditional repeal legislation that attempted to work around the next-Congress problem by giving Obama, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs power to end the policy when the studies were complete.
Even that contingent plan was awkward for the White House, since it upended Obama’s initial agreement with Gates, who faces service chiefs staunchly opposed to repeal. “It started getting real messy,” said one person close to the talks. “The president was in a very tough spot.”
This would be a horrible policy. I guarantee that you would have some people getting out just because they could. Many of those would care less about the policy.
If someone is uncomfortable with a change in military policy that allows gays to serve openly that makes them not want to serve anymore, then they can either wait til their time is up and just not reenlist.
No one joined the military with a quarantee that policies would never change. And no one has joined the military in this day and age without knowing DADT was in place, and that they very well may have to serve with a gay person.
I would agree with all of that, with only one more request which would give hetero service members the option of showering with the opposite sex they are sexually attracted to, in order to have the sames rights as gay people will have, by being openly gay in the military. Universal showers and then we have a deal...
I remember when DADT was instituted by the Clinton administration. It a compromise to the full ban on gays serving in the military. Honestly, I think it's a reasonable compromise. What I don't get is that gays claim they just want their private life to remain that way and that they want the government to stay out of their bedrooms. You remember that, right? So why now, when it comes to the military do they seek to trumpet their gayness?No. Those that have some factual basis, whether I agree with them or not have more worthiness, to me.
No, my worst nightmare is an old person driving in front of me. :2razz:
Nothing in particular. Where do you stand on the issue being discussed in this thread?
I remember when DADT was instituted by the Clinton administration. It a compromise to the full ban on gays serving in the military. Honestly, I think it's a reasonable compromise. What I don't get is that gays claim they just want their private life to remain that way and that they want the government to stay out of their bedrooms. You remember that, right? So why now, when it comes to the military do they seek to trumpet their gayness?
Still doesn't work. Gays shower with straights now. Men and women do not shower together now.
The only difference that will come from allowing gays to serve openly will be that, some straights that didn't know about some of the gays that worked with them might now know. The amount of attraction a gay guy has for a straight guy in his unit will not magically change if he is allowed to say he is gay without fear of discharge. The gay guy will not magically physically change into a different gender or start having a monthly cycle. Gay girls will not grow a penis or start having to shave off facial hair (if they didn't have to already).