• 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!

'Don't ask' repeal fails in Senate

roguenuke said:
If you had to stand more watches because of an outdated, discriminatory policy that never had any proof to support it being in place in the first place, you'd see how it can affect some people.

Not to mention, we are supposed to live in the greatest, most free country in the world, yet we still have this policy that promotes intolerance and discrimination. That looks really bad on our country.
Click to expand...

I served in the military from 1970-1976 so I have a pretty good idea about standing watch. There are a lot of things that some found discriminatory in the military and when there was a draft they may have had a point but not with the all volunteer military. No one is forcing anyone to enlist.
 
Conservative said:
DADT isn't going to be repealed. Why is this such an issue for you? Are you looking for the benefits the military has to offer? That would be the only reason for such passion.
Click to expand...
I'm going to ask you for the last time what the hell that has to do with whether or not DADT should remain American policy.

Are you going to actually argue a point, or just keep psychoanalyzing people? Trying sticking to the issue, honey.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The rhetoric, namecalling, and acting out by people on both sides of this issue needs to end now. This thread is on zero tolerance. You push the limits or cross the line, you will be infracted and be thread banned.
 
roguenuke said:
The fact that they offer huge enlistment and reenlistment bonuses is the evidence that they have shortages in some fields. And I have given you at least one field in particular that it affects. Deny all you want, but it is true.
Click to expand...

Could be, so provide bonuses to fill those fields.
 
Conservative said:
DADT isn't going to be repealed. Why is this such an issue for you? Are you looking for the benefits the military has to offer? That would be the only reason for such passion.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think Scott Brown will be the deciding vote on this issue. With his support, we would be only 1 vote shy of repeal. That means the entire weight will be falling on Sen. Joe Manchin's shoulders. If the stand alone bill gets passed by the House in time, then it would still be anyone's game.
 
Conservative said:
The point is that the majority in this country don't believe that this issue is serious enough to warrant a lot of concern. Only a small vocal minority are fighting for this issue and the question is why?
Click to expand...

Because we are recovering from one of the worst recessions in American history and focus is on economic issues rather than social issues. Was that a serious question?
 
Ockham said:
And I'll never sit back and let the socialist elites force their moral diversity on an all volunteer military without speaking out about it. I think you need more God in your life.
Click to expand...

Oh...I have plenty of God in my life....and the God that I worship does not preach hatred, bigotry and intolerance. In fact, he taught the exact opposite. Perahps it is you who needs a little God in your life.
 
CriticalThought said:
Because we are recovering from one of the worst recessions in American history and focus is on economic issues rather than social issues. Was that a serious question?
Click to expand...

I think that's true to a point but taking away the economic issues will still not make this a much bigger issue which touches every single person in America, it would only touch those who are in or are part of an active military family.
 
Conservative said:
I served in the military from 1970-1976 so I have a pretty good idea about standing watch. There are a lot of things that some found discriminatory in the military and when there was a draft they may have had a point but not with the all volunteer military. No one is forcing anyone to enlist.
Click to expand...

much has changed in the ensuing 40 years.
 
liblady said:
much has changed in the ensuing 40 years.
Click to expand...

Right, in my time there was a draft, today it is an all volunteer military. One doesn't like the policies of today's military then don't enlist.
 
Redress said:
Personally, I don't see where orientation has anything to do with believability.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't at all, but you just know that the first time a straight soldier objected to unwanted advances by a gay soldier, libs would be claiming the straight guy is just a homophobe trying to get the gay guy out of the military.
 
Conservative said:
I served in the military from 1970-1976 so I have a pretty good idea about standing watch. There are a lot of things that some found discriminatory in the military and when there was a draft they may have had a point but not with the all volunteer military. No one is forcing anyone to enlist.
Click to expand...

They should still be able to enlist and serve openly. No one forces those who might be uncomfortable serving alongside a gay person to enlist either. But we seem to be catering to their feelings with a discriminatory policy.
 
Conservative said:
Right, in my time there was a draft, today it is an all volunteer military. One doesn't like the policies of today's military then don't enlist.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean people shouldn't fight to get discriminatory policies changed, which is what we are doing.
 
Conservative said:
Right, in my time there was a draft, today it is an all volunteer military. One doesn't like the policies of today's military then don't enlist.
Click to expand...

i was referring to attitudes. they have changed, and it seems the enlisted aren't too worried about serving with gays. why are you worried about them, when they don't care?
 
X Factor said:
It shouldn't at all, but you just know that the first time a straight soldier objected to unwanted advances by a gay soldier, libs would be claiming the straight guy is just a homophobe trying to get the gay guy out of the military.
Click to expand...

B.S. Unwanted advances by a gay soldier on a straight soldier or a straight soldier on another straight soldier or a gay soldier on a gay soldier should be properly dealt with.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
where were you when Obama said we white folks were typically racist?

Where were you when Biden suggested that obama was articulate for a black man?

Where were you when Obama stated marriage is between a man and a woman?

Where were you when Obama stated his support for DOMA?
Click to expand...


Mr. Disney??
 
X Factor said:
It shouldn't at all, but you just know that the first time a straight soldier objected to unwanted advances by a gay soldier, libs would be claiming the straight guy is just a homophobe trying to get the gay guy out of the military.
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation, just like when it comes to women. The rules that are currently in place may not completely take care of all issues, but at least they would be fair. And eventually, the military would figure out the best ways to deal with problems for everyone. And I highly doubt that there will be so many of these incidents that it will be a major problem.
 
roguenuke said:
They should still be able to enlist and serve openly. No one forces those who might be uncomfortable serving alongside a gay person to enlist either. But we seem to be catering to their feelings with a discriminatory policy.
Click to expand...

Yep, that normally happens in a free society where the majority actually make the laws and since this isn't a democracy the rules are DADT.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, that normally happens in a free society where the majority actually make the laws and since this isn't a democracy the rules are DADT.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait a second. America isn't a democracy? Excellent, can you stop claiming to spread it then.
 
disneydude said:
B.S. Unwanted advances by a gay soldier on a straight soldier or a straight soldier on another straight soldier or a gay soldier on a gay soldier should be properly dealt with.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to buy that you believe that now. The reality would be different, though, and straight soldiers would know it (from all the sensitivity training they'd be forced to attend) and would know to either keep quiet or handle it themselves.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Mr. Disney??
Click to expand...

1. misquotes what Obama said. If you want to discuss what was actually said in the context that it was said then I would be happy to engage in that debate. However, here you are just being blatantly dishonest (should have I expected better?)

2. Again...taken out of context, that isn't what Biden said, you have phrased it in a dishonest manner to try to prove a point that you couldn't have otherwise proven.
Try being a little honest and he can discuss it.

3. As far as Obama's views on marriage, I would put him in the same category as the other bigots that feel the same way. I think that Obama, is bigoted in his view.

4. Same as #4. I think Obama has argued for a bigoted policy. I would note, however, that Obama spoke out against Prop 8 in California.
 
X Factor said:
I'm willing to buy that you believe that now. The reality would be different, though, and straight soldiers would know it (from all the sensitivity training they'd be forced to attend) and would know to either keep quiet or handle it themselves.
Click to expand...

Just more BS. Sure...I think there would be people on both sides trying to manipulate to prove their points.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Wait wait wait a second. America isn't a democracy? Excellent, can you stop claiming to spread it then.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware America has to be a Democracy for America to want to encourage other countries to be a Democracy. Can you show me where that rule exists please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom