• 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!

Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

For all this discrediting the source, its much easier (and more substantial) to actually interrogate the source and its "information." So let's to NP the service of taking his source seriously.
Did you even listen to the audio link in the first post?????
Yes. It's annoying, really to have to listen to something and then write about it in print, but....

This was an interview with Robert McGinnis, and the host says he'd recently written something for the New York Times (I guess that's a source we can all trust, right?) so here's a link to the "debate" blog-type page he's on: Opening the Door to Gays in the Military - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

He makes the same argument both places. But it's a bad agument, for several reasons.

1) Lt. Col. McGinnis doesn't actually bring to bear any facts. He argues that although Canada and the UK have allowed gays to serve openly, their cultures are so different from that of the US, they shouldn't count. Instead, he says we should compare ourselves to Russia, China, and India (??). He says in the interview that instead of the "anecdotes" of success that proponents bring to bear, we should look at objective facts--and then he doesn't provide any.

2) McGinnis has several problems as a source. First, he was on the panel that created DADT back in 1993 (so he has an interest in continuing the same policy he instituted), and he then promptly retired from the army. He argues in the interview that "I can't imagine" that things have changed since he was active duty. Right.

3) Since retiring, McGinnis has made his living as a speaker and analyst. Here's a webpage advertising his services: AmbassadorSpeakers.com - LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS

Note that his major employers include The Family Research Council and the Moody Radio Broadcasting Network. It's clear that Lt. Col. McGinnis is a conservative Christian who gets paid to say things conservative Christians like to hear.

4) Finally, note his argument in the Times piece, where he says that any policy "must also take into account that our volunteer force is staffed by traditional American youth..." That sounds like code for "people with values so narrow they can't possibly be expected to adapt." Language like this invites comparisons to those who didn't want to serve with blacks--they were "traditional Americans" too.

So what we have here is one guy's opinion, the same opinion he held 17 years ago when he stopped actually being an informed source. And his actual argument isn't that we shouldn't change the policy, only that we should poll the troops first.
 
Last edited:
Like I said Senior Officer and enlisted will leave the service in droves........

No one will want to enlist...............
Like they're going to find jobs.:roll:
 
Some people have morals and integrity..........
Why would serving in a military where gay people EXIST violate anyone's morals and integrity? It's not like they have to BE gay in order to serve or act in any way that is either immoral or lacking in integrity in any way. In fact, we know there are gay people in the military and always have been.

The whole point of the new policy, as its being developed, is to concentrate on behavior rather than identity. Sexual behavior between same-sex partners will be just as against regulations as is heterosexual conduct.

This talk of morals and integrity is BOGUS. It smacks of the Westboro Baptists, who condemn military people for even serving a country that condones homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
Some people have morals and integrity..........

Apparently the military doesn't. It wants people to lie about who they are so that they can serve to protect their country.
 
Why would serving in a military where gay people EXIST violate anyone's morals and integrity? It's not like they have to BE gay in order to serve or act in any way that is either immoral or lacking in integrity in any way. In fact, we know there are gay people in the military and always have been.

The whole point of the new policy, as its being developed, is to concentrate on behavior rather than identity. Sexual behavior between same-sex partners will be just as against regulations as is heterosexual conduct.

This talk of morals and integrity is BOGUS. It smacks of the Westboro Baptists, who condemn military people for even serving a country that condones homosexuality.

Read the thread please......


THe new policy has not been set yet.............That is why it will take a year to get it firmed..........
 
Last edited:
This should be fun. After all this doomsday prophesy, I wonder what the ultra cons are gonna say when none of these problems come to fruition.
 
Read the thread please......


THe new policy has not been set yet.............That is why it will take a year to get it firmed..........
I'm quite aware of how the policy is taking shape, and it is just as I've suggested. No one is interested in making sexual conduct more rampant.

And I've read other threads too. I think sleeping with another mans wife while he's away on ship (and then bragging about it on an internet forum) isn't exactly moral or a demonstration of integrity.
 
I'm quite aware of how the policy is taking shape, and it is just as I've suggested. No one is interested in making sexual conduct more rampant.

And I've read other threads too. I think sleeping with another mans wife while he's away on ship (and then bragging about it on an internet forum) isn't exactly moral or a demonstration of integrity.

Most of us do foolish things when they are young..Its called sowing oats..........I guess you probably didn't do that unless your still a kid..............
 
Most of us do foolish things when they are young..Its called sowing oats..........I guess you probably didn't do that unless your still a kid..............
I don't talk about other people's morality and integrity unless they bring it up--that's their business. On the other hand, no one will quit the service over repealing DADT because of morality or integrity. The new policy is unlikely to steal either from anyone.
 
Most of us do foolish things when they are young..Its called sowing oats..........I guess you probably didn't do that unless your still a kid..............

"Sowing oats" is a generic way to say "Committing adultry" right?
 
I don't talk about other people's morality and integrity unless they bring it up--that's their business. On the other hand, no one will quit the service over repealing DADT because of morality or integrity. The new policy is unlikely to steal either from anyone.

If and when DADT is repealed we will see..............I can't speak for the other services but senioe enlisted people will leave in the Navy at least that is what they tell me........I don't think it will be repealed any time in the near future so you won't have to worry about that..........
 
If and when DADT is repealed we will see..............I can't speak for the other services but senioe enlisted people will leave in the Navy at least that is what they tell me........I don't think it will be repealed any time in the near future so you won't have to worry about that..........

Wishful thinking. You better stake your claim on November elections, because if the Repoopicans don't retake Congress, then a repeal of DADT will be attached to the next defense spending bill and that will be all she wrote.
 
Wishful thinking. You better stake your claim on November elections, because if the Repoopicans don't retake Congress, then a repeal of DADT will be attached to the next defense spending bill and that will be all she wrote.

Do you know what it takes to repeal a law in the senate............60 votes my left wing friend.........They don't even have the votes now.......What do you think it will be like in November......:rofl
 
Do you know what it takes to repeal a law in the senate............60 votes my left wing friend.........They don't even have the votes now.......What do you think it will be like in November......:rofl

I'll try this one more time...

They will amend it to a defense spending bill.

Do you think Republicans are going to vote against a defense spending bill, especially once Obama has not only the Chief officer of the military and Joint Chiefs of Staff under his belt on this issue, but also a year long review which indicates that the policy can be repealed without any major problems? You lose Navy. Even if the Dems only had 51 seats in the Senate, they could easily pass this repeal. Your only hope is that Republicans completely retake Congress and they hold it indefinitely, because even if it takes another 17 years, the policy will end.

But I will give you a pat on the head because I really do think you are trying. Eventually you will learn how politics work.
 
Last edited:
I'll try this one more time...

They will amend it to a defense spending bill.

Do you think Republicans are going to vote against a defense spending bill, especially once Obama has not only the Chief officer of the military and Joint Chiefs of Staff under his belt on this issue, but also a year long review which indicates that the policy can be repealed without any major problems? You lose Navy. Even if the Dems only had 51 seats in the Senate, they could easily pass this repeal. Your only hope is that Republicans completely retake Congress and they hold it indefinitely, because even if it takes another 17 years, the policy will end.

But I will give you a pat on the head because I really do think you are trying. Eventually you will learn how politics work.

Not in your wildest dreams.... they are dumb but not that dumb especially when the guys in the military tell them what a bad idea this is?
 
Not in your wildest dreams.... they are dumb but not that dumb especially when the guys in the military tell them what a bad idea this is?

That isn't my "wildest dreams" that is the well publicized and public plan that they have presented and which has been reported on by virtually every news source. They already have the Chief Officer of the military on their side and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will get behind whatever the review says because they will follow the line of serving their Commander and Chief. Amending the bill to a Defense Spending bill in 2011 will be snap, and as long as Democrats have at least a simple majority, they will be able to pass the repeal because the Republicans wouldn't dream of getting in their way.
 
That isn't my "wildest dreams" that is the well publicized and public plan that they have presented and which has been reported on by virtually every news source. They already have the Chief Officer of the military on their side and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will get behind whatever the review says because they will follow the line of serving their Commander and Chief. Amending the bill to a Defense Spending bill in 2011 will be snap, and as long as Democrats have at least a simple majority, they will be able to pass the repeal because the Republicans wouldn't dream of getting in their way.

The joint chiefs will do what the men in the military want.......I can tell you it will never happen but if they decided it was ok you would never hear me complain about it again.......I told DD the same thing about gay marriage in California....

Why don't you lefties respect the will of the people..If we lost we would respect yours, at least I would.........
 
I'm going into the Army this June as a 2LT, I've never seen a single person who supported DADT and would resign their commission or leave the military if it was removed. Now that's just my experience.
 
Not in your wildest dreams.... they are dumb but not that dumb especially when the guys in the military tell them what a bad idea this is?
But they haven't. There will be hearings, that's for sure. We'll see who says its an unworkable idea.
 
Why don't you lefties respect the will of the people..If we lost we would respect yours, at least I would.........

You might, but the rest of your side wouldn't. They'd keep fighting.
 
I'm going into the Army this June as a 2LT, I've never seen a single person who supported DADT and would resign their commission or leave the military if it was removed. Now that's just my experience.

Uh oh ..butter bars ;) ..good luck to ya :mrgreen:

But NP would counter that you're not going out to sea for 6 months, therefor your observations are irrelevant.
 
Why don't you lefties respect the will of the people..If we lost we would respect yours, at least I would.........

Bull. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people is the Constitution. Until it is amended, we will fight for our rights. No simple majority in any state will ever change that.

Be ready to eat our words Navy.
 
Back
Top Bottom