• 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

Conservative said:
Hey, who knows, it gets reversed and we lose a lot of posters here as I am sure they will willingly join the military to serve this great nation, but I doubt it. Since when did the will of the people matter to liberals? Liberals don't like the will of the people, they go to the courts to get it overturned.
Click to expand...

:spin::rofl:spin:
 
Redress said:
Well, since it cannot get past a republican filibuster, I think that answers your question pretty easily. Democratic mistake was trying to be reasonable on the issue and actually doing the right thing in sending it for a review of the DoD/Pentagon.
Click to expand...

So again, what exactly did the GOP prevent Obama from implementing? Maybe had they done a better job Democrats wouldn't have taken a shellacking in November.
 
winston53660 said:
I brought it up in the context of the thread. You went to a whole nother place.
Click to expand...

Don't ask those kinds of questions, if you don't want to be challenged. Obviously, you said loud and clear what you really think of the will of the people. Nevermind that repealling DADT isn't, "the will of the people".
 
Redress said:
You can prove this charge? I am sure you can since you made it. You would never make a wild unsubstantiated charge...
Click to expand...

Not a charge. An observation and an opinion, based on that observation. I can look at things from a multi-demensional point of view, unlike, well, you know.
 
TurtleDude said:
What does the military actually believe Redress. I never served in the military so I am not going to suggest DADT or its repeal is either good for the military or they support it. Seems silly to get rid of well trained people-especially ones that aren't say sharing a foxhole or submarine bunk with other men. As I believe I noted many many posts ago, our law school had a librarian who had been a top graduate of Annapolis. ONe day we were sitting around shooting the bull and I asked the guy why he left the navy.

He said he got booted for being gay. I didn't know the rules so I said-why? He said "the navy thought I could be blackmailed by being gay" SO I said how can you be blackmailed if you were not hiding it? He said-well that was what I thought too.

after that I sort of figured the rules-especially with out of the closet guys-was stupid. Its also stupid. FOr example, I used to date a bi-sexual woman. She and I remain threads. at 25-30-when we dated, she was very feminine and only people who were very very close to her knew she was bi. NOw in her mid 40's she is involved in a lesbian domestic relationship. She's also in the army. I am sure that most of those she serves with knows this. But no one asks. What a silly facade.
Click to expand...

Honestly, what the military believes depends on who in the military you ask. It's not some absolute thing. Opinions vary from person to person. What the military has found out is that repeal of DADT would be relatively painless(note relatively does not mean entirely) and should not effect readiness overall. Since the argument used against repeal was that it would hurt readiness, that finding alone, along with shifts in attitudes both in the military and the country at large make this an appropriate time to get it done.

The rules, as you point out, are stupid. We can get rid of those stupid rules without hurting our military.
 
apdst said:
Don't ask those kinds of questions, if you don't want to be challenged. Obviously, you said loud and clear what you really think of the will of the people. Nevermind that repealling DADT isn't, "the will of the people".
Click to expand...


Polls seem to support the idea that the will of the people does support repeal.
 
apdst said:
Not a charge. An observation and an opinion, based on that observation. I can look at things from a multi-demensional point of view, unlike, well, you know.
Click to expand...

So you think it's true just because you want it to be true, with no actual backing evidence. Got it.
 
Conservative said:
So again, what exactly did the GOP prevent Obama from implementing? Maybe had they done a better job Democrats wouldn't have taken a shellacking in November.
Click to expand...

It's been answered repeatedly: The democrats made the mistake of trying to work with republicans. Can you show any evidence at all this was an issue that worked against democrats in November, or is it just a random comment designed to draw attention away from your continuing to dodge facts?
 
Conservative said:
Hey, who knows, it gets reversed and we lose a lot of posters here as I am sure they will willingly join the military to serve this great nation, but I doubt it. Since when did the will of the people matter to liberals? Liberals don't like the will of the people, they go to the courts to get it overturned.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that Obama is NOT a liberal. :rofl
 
winston53660 said:
Polls seem to support the idea that the will of the people does support repeal.
Click to expand...

The polls indicate that most people don't see a problem with gays serving in the military. That's not neccessarily the same thing as, "the will of the people is to repeal DADT".

I think you're making the same mistake Obama made since day one of his presidency: seeing a mandate, where one doesn't exist.
 
disneydude said:
I didn't say that it does. I say that a policy that does not exclude, allows everyone to serve and does not disqualify people who might othersie be some of the most qualified people out there.

Bigots may be qualified....but not having their hatred and bigotry as a distraction would be a benefit to our military
Click to expand...

I agree wit this post, but the one I had commented on certainly implied that 'bigots' were 'less qualified' to serve.
 
Redress said:
It's been answered repeatedly: The democrats made the mistake of trying to work with republicans. Can you show any evidence at all this was an issue that worked against democrats in November, or is it just a random comment designed to draw attention away from your continuing to dodge facts?
Click to expand...

So you cannot answer the question, not surprising. You even started a thread on the Nov. 2 election so did you forget the results already? Had the Republicans stopped the Obama agenda the results would have been better thus the election results better for Democrats. DADT wasn't a big issue on Nov. 2 but the unemployment results and debt were.
 
apdst said:
The polls indicate that most people don't see a problem with gays serving in the military. That's not neccessarily the same thing as, "the will of the people is to repeal DADT".

I think you're making the same mistake Obama made since day one of his presidency: seeing a mandate, where one doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


:shrug: thats your take on it which really doesn't mean jack **** to me
 
Redress said:
So you think it's true just because you want it to be true, with no actual backing evidence. Got it.
Click to expand...

Nope, just an opinion. Is there a rule against expressing an opinion on this forum, now?
 
apdst said:
Nope, just an opinion. Is there a rule against expressing an opinion on this forum, now?
Click to expand...

You are still posting here aren't you?
 
disneydude said:
I didn't say that it does. I say that a policy that does not exclude, allows everyone to serve and does not disqualify people who might othersie be some of the most qualified people out there.

Bigots may be qualified....but not having their hatred and bigotry as a distraction would be a benefit to our military
Click to expand...

What they do on their own time is their business. Isn't that the argument used to support a repeal of DADT?
 
apdst said:
Jus' wonderin'.

Seems when I offer an opinion, Redress isn't far behind with, "care to prove that? can you prove that? blah blah, blah? nag nag nag, nag?"
Click to expand...

That's because you frame it as a fact without any evidence. You do understand that in formal debate you are supposed to support your claims, right?
 
To the OP: I wouldn't have said "bad guys." "Misguided and amoral" would seem less inflammatory and appropriate imo.

Among my reasons for supporting DADT, one would be based on what Britain is foinf to its troops. Forcing them to act as homosexuals. Are we naive enough to think that won't happen here? Perversion, at an intensifying rate, is why I support DADT.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
That's because you frame it as a fact without any evidence.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is, several people on this forum don't have enough common sense to be able to tell the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact.

You do understand that in formal debate you are supposed to support your claims, right?
Click to expand...

Yes.


Is this a formal debate?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
That's because you frame it as a fact without any evidence. You do understand that in formal debate you are supposed to support your claims, right?
Click to expand...

Even without facts, opinions still matter in debate; why do you think evolutionists are allowed to debate here?
 
Wake said:
To the OP: I wouldn't have said "bad guys." "Misguided and amoral" would seem less inflammatory and appropriate imo.

Among my reasons for supporting DADT, one would be based on what Britain is foinf to its troops. Forcing them to act as homosexuals. Are we naive enough to think that won't happen here? Perversion, at an intensifying rate, is why I support DADT.
Click to expand...

They aren't acting gay. They are just British!
 
apdst said:
I think the problem is, several people on this forum don't have enough common sense to be able to tell the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact.
Click to expand...

The difference is "Something is bad." versus "I think something is bad."

apdst said:
Yes.


Is this a formal debate?
Click to expand...

Not when you are participating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom