• 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!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

So, you're average civilian understands tactical readiness? I kinda doubt that.

The average military person does not understand the details of tactical readiness.
 
It will. You are absolutely correct. The study currently underway will ensure as smooth a transition as possible. But what some of these people don't seem to realize, despite me beating it into their stubborn little faces, is that after the military has become comfortable with the issues, gays in the civilian sector will still be the source of ridicule in the media, hollywood, and television. The military will be fine. It's the civilian world that will have to have it's legal battles and marches just to catch up with what we enforce.

Yeah, it's funny how people will behave how they please when nobody has the authority to order them to do otherwise. :lol:
 
Well, hell, while we're at it, let's just ignore all regulations for evrey person that puts their life on the line for the country. We can force females to sahre showers with males, even if they don't want to. We can force married couples to allow a single soldier to live in their quarters, even if they want to. We can even stop enforcing hygene standards, because if a soldier doesn't want to take a shower, he doesn't have to.

Really there is no need for the hyperbole. Gays would simply go in do their job like they already and everybody else does but they wouldn't have to fear being caught in a gay bar or whatever when off duty.
 
It will. You are absolutely correct. The study currently underway will ensure as smooth a transition as possible. But what some of these people don't seem to realize, despite me beating it into their stubborn little faces, is that after the military has become comfortable with the issues, gays in the civilian sector will still be the source of ridicule in the media, hollywood, and television. The military will be fine. It's the civilian world that will have to have it's legal battles and marches just to catch up with what we enforce.

Every stereotype is open to media ridicule. For the most part, gays are no longer the butt of jokes. In fact, mostly gay stereotypes are used by the media to highlight the stupidity of those stereotypes. There are exceptions of course, but gays are actually treated pretty well by the media, far better than the military treats them currently. The truth is, the military is way way behind the times in terms of gay issues.
 
No thanks. I'd rather just elect leaders who have the authority to tell you what you're going to do differently, and the moral fiber to actually do so.

Oh.....but President Clinton told us to follow DADT. Did you elect him?

Remember earlier when I stated that President Obama won't be quick to force the military to turn on a dime because he needs our support and you gave me the "nu-uh" attitude? Here is a third hypocracy from you. You state he compromised, but why did he have to? Could it be that the lack of support he got from the military at a time when he tossed it around the world into situations it was ill-equiped and untrained for forced it?
 
Oh.....but President Clinton told us to follow DADT. Did you elect him?

Remember earlier when I stated that President Obama won't be quick to force the military to turn on a dime because he needs our support and you gave me the "nu-uh" attitude? Here is a third hypocracy from you. You state he compromised, but why did he have to? Could it be that the lack of support he got from the military at a time when he tossed it around the world into situations it was ill-equiped and untrained for forced it?

Loaded statement. There is no turning on a dime. This has been coming for some time. Further, the threat about needing the military's support is juvenile and not of any value.
 
Oh.....but President Clinton told us to follow DADT. Did you elect him?

I wasn't old enough to vote for Clinton the first time, and I didn't give enough of a damn yet to do it the second time.

Remember earlier when I stated that President Obama won't be quick to force the military to turn on a dime because he needs our support and you gave me the "nu-uh" attitude?

I don't see why any President needs the support of the military. If you are in the military, your job is, ultimately, to carry out the President's orders. To do otherwise falls under a host of unsavory crimes that are definite career-enders.

Here is a third hypocracy from you. You state he compromised, but why did he have to? Could it be that the lack of support he got from the military at a time when he tossed it around the world into situations it was ill-equiped and untrained for forced it?

I don't think he had to. I think what he had to do was have the balls to tell the generals how it was going to be. He didn't have the balls, and that sucks.
 
Something tells me that if military personnel can take desegregation and the relative danger of their job and still do it about as well as anyone else on Earth, they can handle serving with people who are openly gay (which many of our allies already allow).
 
The average military person does not understand the details of tactical readiness.

The average military person in a tactical unit understands it.
 
Every stereotype is open to media ridicule. For the most part, gays are no longer the butt of jokes. In fact, mostly gay stereotypes are used by the media to highlight the stupidity of those stereotypes. There are exceptions of course, but gays are actually treated pretty well by the media, far better than the military treats them currently. The truth is, the military is way way behind the times in terms of gay issues.

But once it enforces an end to the prejudice, it will be the civilian sector that lags. This is historical. I've shown this before.

Next time a Republican gets outed remember what you just stated about the media treating them kindly. If sexual orientation isn't an issue of ridicule or a source of cash flow, the media wouldn't use it. And despite all stereotypes across the entertainment world, rarely has a gay ever been shown as being anything more than a princess. This is unlike other stereotypes, which are more are more then balanced out. Even the sterotype of the weak and helpless woman has an extreme source of balance of dominate and powerful heroins. Keep in mind that any dominate and powerful homosexuals you may think of (which I can't off hand) are the exception.
 
Really there is no need for the hyperbole. Gays would simply go in do their job like they already and everybody else does but they wouldn't have to fear being caught in a gay bar or whatever when off duty.

All the more reason to lift the ban and keep DADT in place.
 
The average military person in a tactical unit understands it.

No, not really. Civilians can, if they care to, understand tactics as well as or better than most soldiers.
 
But once it enforces an end to the prejudice, it will be the civilian sector that lags. This is historical. I've shown this before.

Next time a Republican gets outed remember what you just stated about the media treating them kindly. If sexual orientation isn't an issue of ridicule or a source of cash flow, the media wouldn't use it. And despite all stereotypes across the entertainment world, rarely has a gay ever been shown as being anything more than a princess. This is unlike other stereotypes, which are more are more then balanced out. Even the sterotype of the weak and helpless woman has an extreme source of balance of dominate and powerful heroins. Keep in mind that any dominate and powerful homosexuals you may think of (which I can't off hand) are the exception.

The civilian sector does not discriminate against gays except very rarely. The best the military can hope to do is be as good in this area as the civilian sector.
 
No, not really. Civilians can, if they care to, understand tactics as well as or better than most soldiers.

I'm not talking about tactics. I'm talking about tactical readiness, basically, "what makes a tactical unit tick". The civilian that understand that is the exception, not the rule.
 
I'm not talking about tactics. I'm talking about tactical readiness, basically, "what makes a tactical unit tick". The civilian that understand that is the exception, not the rule.

Again, most people in the military do not really understand that, nor do you need to be in the military to understand it. In point of fact, it's easier to understand social dynamics when looking from the outside in.
 
Again, most people in the military do not really understand that, nor do you need to be in the military to understand it. In point of fact, it's easier to understand social dynamics when looking from the outside in.

It's pratically impossible for someone that isn't, or has never been, in the military to understand the social dynamics of a combat arms unit. Anyone who does, doesn't share your view on DADT.

You're not even familiar with the directives that banned gays and put DADT in place, but you're an expert on everything else? I don't buy it, sorry.
 
Loaded statement. There is no turning on a dime. This has been coming for some time.

Exactly. Even Obama has been slow to impliment this change. He knew that this is transitional and not a simple flip of the switch.

Further, the threat about needing the military's support is juvenile and not of any value.


Ask Clinton about that. Obama sure paid attention. "America Between the Wars" is a great book that sources what I've stated. There was a great rift between the Pentagon and the White House until half way into his second term. His need to compromise with the military over DADT is an obvious case for what I'm talking about. He did not receive support and thusly compromised his political grandstanding in front of the entire world. His visitations to military bases were few and he relied heavily upon Colin Powell as a liaison. When it came to dropping the military into one humanitarian mission after another, he remained shy about his orders.

Or are the duo non-partisan writers of this book also "juvenile?" These are truths that require more than a baseless opinion of things, which I am always beyond.

As far as Obama, slyly working with the military to impliment change is a tell on how far he is willing to go to create a rift. He has addressed this issue differently than Clinton for an obvious and bold reason. He learned from Clinton. Even firing that General was a touchy and sensitive issue handled with great political care.

"Juvenile" is the simpleton thinking that a lack of military support implies a sitin or a rebellion.
 
I wasn't old enough to vote for Clinton the first time, and I didn't give enough of a damn yet to do it the second time.

Well this explains some of your attitude.
I don't see why any President needs the support of the military. If you are in the military, your job is, ultimately, to carry out the President's orders. To do otherwise falls under a host of unsavory crimes that are definite career-enders.

You'll never understand this. If you were old enough to pay attention to what went on between the White House and the Pentagon under Clinton then you may undersatand what I mean. If you read, read this...."America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11 ."

A lack of military support does not mean rebellion. But it will damn sure screw up your policy.

I don't think he had to. I think what he had to do was have the balls to tell the generals how it was going to be. He didn't have the balls, and that sucks.

Obviously, the most powerful man in the world felt that he did. I wonder why. Perhaps a lack of military support and a need for it in his future presidency meant something.
 
Last edited:
No, not really. Civilians can, if they care to, understand tactics as well as or better than most soldiers.

There's a grave difference between theory and practice. You may as well state that the veteran of the classroom trumps the veteran of the battlefield. This is why civilians have been screwing up ourpolicies and military activites since WWII. They think a book makes them experts.
 
Last edited:
Well this explains some of your attitude.

Are you questioning my maturity? Really?

You'll never understand this. If you were old enough to pay attention to what went on between the White House and the Pentagon under Clinton then you may undersatand what I mean.

Oh, blah blah blah. I guess we'd better stop teaching history in high school in college, since unless you lived it and paid attention to it at the time, your opinion doesn't mean squat.

A lack of military support does not mean rebellion.

I never said it did. I was talking about following orders.

Obviously, the most powerful man in the world felt that he did. I wonder why. Perhaps a lack of military support and a need for it in his future presidency meant something.

No President needs the support of the military, unless the military is willing to rebel, execute a coup, and throw out the Constitution.
 
The civilian sector does not discriminate against gays except very rarely. The best the military can hope to do is be as good in this area as the civilian sector.

Sure, and when gays serve openly in the military, free from the threat of being fired, civilians will still be in courts defending their rights.
 
Sure, and when gays serve openly in the military, free from the threat of being fired, civilians will still be in courts defending their rights.

Whereas it's currently illegal for gays to serve openly, versus the civillian world where discrimination is already illegal and still will be by the time the military catches up.
 
Sure, and when gays serve openly in the military, free from the threat of being fired, civilians will still be in courts defending their rights.

Civil rights are a never ending battle.
 
Are you questioning my maturity? Really?

.......Oh, blah blah blah.

You tell me. I was talking about age experience, but maturity seems more fitting now.

I guess we'd better stop teaching history in high school in college, since unless you lived it and paid attention to it at the time, your opinion doesn't mean squat.

I gave you a book. There are plenty. I can only lead a horse to water..... You will find that more truth comes from reading outside of a prescribed text book.

I never said it did. I was talking about following orders.

Yet....

No President needs the support of the military, unless the military is willing to rebel, execute a coup, and throw out the Constitution.

Like I stated, you are all over the place and unsure of your own thoughts. 8 years of rift between the White House and Pentagon was about a lack of military support. I lived it. You can read about....or not. The last thing Obama needs now is more Generals speaking out to the media about how they feel about the administration. Clinton didn't have the luxury of only having to deal with one to fire. He dug his hole quick. Obama learned. This is why his opinions about Iraq had been less defiant after he took office. This is why his beliefs on gays in the military have been slow to the draw and have been eased into our world. He's not the dip**** Republicans want him to be and he's not the bold leader Democracts pretend him to be.

Most of this is common sense.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom