Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one has a right to serve in the military.Period.
No one has a right to serve in the military.Period.
You are correct that military service isn't a right, but a privilege. That said however, you can't deny that privilege based on someone's sexual orientation anymore than you can deny someone that privilege based on their race or religion.
DADT allowed gays and lesbians to serve...as long as they did it under a different, more restrictive set of rules than those that heterosexuals had to serve under. How does that pass anyone's constitutional muster?
"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on homosexuals serving in the military from December 21, 1993 to September 20, 2011.[1][2] The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The restrictions were mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."[3] The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces".[4]
The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass."[5]
A congressional bill to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period.[6] A July 6, 2011 ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members.[7] President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT for September 20, 2011.[8] Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No one has a right to serve in the military.Period.
You are correct that military service isn't a right, but a privilege. That said however, you can't deny that privilege based on someone's sexual orientation anymore than you can deny someone that privilege based on their race or religion.
DADT allowed gays and lesbians to serve...as long as they did it under a different, more restrictive set of rules than those that heterosexuals had to serve under. How does that pass anyone's constitutional muster?
It was a Stepping Stone Moron, that allowed them to serve Conditionally, rather than be Discharged.
You are correct that military service isn't a right, but a privilege. That said however, you can't deny that privilege based on someone's sexual orientation anymore than you can deny someone that privilege based on their race or religion.
DADT allowed gays and lesbians to serve...as long as they did it under a different, more restrictive set of rules than those that heterosexuals had to serve under. How does that pass anyone's constitutional muster?
It was a Stepping Stone Moron, that allowed them to serve Conditionally, rather than be Discharged.
I'm not sure what a Stepping Stone Moron is, but that doesn't change what I said.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Commas-Difference/dp/0399244913"]Eats, Shoots & Leaves: Why, Commas Really Do Make a Difference![/ame]
I served prior to and during DADT. Guess what changed for me when DADT was enacted? (Hint: Starts with "N" and ends in "ing")
I'm not sure what a Stepping Stone Moron is, but that doesn't change what I said.
Eats, Shoots & Leaves: Why, Commas Really Do Make a Difference!
I served prior to and during DADT. Guess what changed for me when DADT was enacted? (Hint: Starts with "N" and ends in "ing")
And Democrats said soldiers in a war zone and their leader were betraying us.On September 13, a GOP debate audience cheered loudly at the idea of letting sick patients die.
At the Thursday night debate, they topped their own sick selves, booing an American soldier serving his country in Iraq.
Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater
Then get the hell out?
Yes, during DADT and before any homosexual, who was not supposed to be in the military to start with, if they were feeling so persecuted as yo seem to think, then they should get out.
No one has a right to serve in the military.
That help?
Ah, no they shouldnt have gotten out. They should have continued to serve despite the persecution.
Oh well, those days are over.
You know who has the right to be open about their sexuality in the military now?
Homosexuals.
The bigots lost.
Once again conservatives are on the wrong side of history.
The willful blind are sad to see.Yes, during DADT and before any homosexual, who was not supposed to be in the military to start with, if they were feeling so persecuted as yo seem to think, then they should get out.
No one has a right to serve in the military.
That help?
Ah, no they shouldnt have gotten out. They should have continued to serve despite the persecution.
Oh well, those days are over.
You know who has the right to be open about their sexuality in the military now?
Homosexuals.
The bigots lost.
Once again conservatives are on the wrong side of history.
Same as it ever was, and ever shall be. They fight advances. They fight change. Therefore they cannot adapt and are perforce left behind.
The willful blind are sad to see.Ah, no they shouldnt have gotten out. They should have continued to serve despite the persecution.
Oh well, those days are over.
You know who has the right to be open about their sexuality in the military now?
Homosexuals.
The bigots lost.
Once again conservatives are on the wrong side of history.
Same as it ever was, and ever shall be. They fight advances. They fight change. Therefore they cannot adapt and are perforce left behind.
I bet you want to call me a ****, too, right, trailer trash?
So now "bripat" knows that serving in Afghaniston does not excuse one from being condemned as a "child molester" - something that was already obvious to anyone and everyone - except him!This is a classic example of "bait and switch" - a typical conservative ploy.If the soldier said it should be legal to molest children, would you still be attacking the people who booed what he said?
Since "bripat" can't present a convincing argument based on the facts, he's forced to substitute another one involving "molest(ing) children" as a diversion.
As "bripat" well knows, it wasn't "molest(ing) children" that the people booed, but the soldier's sexual orientation.
Wrong, it's not an example of "bait and switch." It's a test to see if you actually believe in the things you say. The claim was made that any criticism of a soldier "WHO FOUGHT IN AFGHANISTAN" is automatically wrong. I'm just trying to understand how far this principle extends.
Obviously, you realized how idiotic it was and now you're dodging.
Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.
USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke
Oh, stop the hysterical bullshit. You're such a fucking idiot.... no one is a 'traitor' because they disagree with your moronic crap.
Twit.
No one who boos an American soldier can call themselves a patriot.
Barry Goldwater said it best:
"Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
I thought the entire idea behind America was "freedom" and "the pursuit of happiness". I guess I was wrong, according to Republicans. Tell me again why we were in Iraq? Oh, it was about the oil. Sorry, I forgot. Ok, now that China has the oil, what's next on the "Republican agenda"?
Oops, I just remembered. Destroy the economy so the black guy doesn't get re-elected.
Some "agenda".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHG
yet again the GOP is stuck on the WRONG side of history
According to historians, it was the Democrats who fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it. From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. After the Civil War, Republicans amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans also passed the civil rights laws of the 1860′s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as well as the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.
The Democrat Party: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and Socialism | All American Blogger
ON the 28th day of March in this year, Mr. BRYANT, a Democratic member of the New York Legislature, supported in an able speech the proposition that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery would be the truest conciliation, securing a peaceful and perpetual Union. Mr. ALVORD, one of the most faithful Democrats in the country, followed him, declaring that this atrocious rebellion of Aristocracy against the Democracy can be radically suppressed only by destroying slavery, and that Free Labor is the only corner-stone of an enduring Democratic government.
On the same day Messrs. CHANLER, HERRICK, GANSON, PRUYN, STEELE, and other Democratic representatives in Congress voted against a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery; and, of course, in favor of retaining the system which has brought the war upon the country, and which must always hereafter, as always heretofore, prevent a true and hearty and untroubled Union.
Between these gentlemen let the country and mankind judge. " We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal," said the father of Democracy in this country. Who are his true descendants? who are Democrats? the men who ask to abolish slavery constitutionally, or those who refuse to abolish it at all?
Democrats Vote Against Abolishing Slavery
Fortunately we don't recruit and retain based on the bible. If we did...all those drunkards, adulterers, and shellfish eaters would be discharged.
Thou shalt not eat shellfish, it is an abomination unto the Lord????
According to the Old Testament it is...the same OT that religious extremists like to bludgeon gays and lesbians with.
Then why did he act against those righteous Christians by eliminating DADT? No. Obama isn't the American Taliban. Those who want to carry their stilted, stifled, ossified notions of sin, crime, morality and bigotry all cloaked buy some perverted view of the Bible. That's the American Taliban.I had no idea that the Bible constituted the law of the land! When did the American Taliban take over?
In 2009, when Obama was sworn in.
Those who would impose what they see as "Christian Values" on all of America. That's the American Taliban. What is the difference between forcing a woman to wear a burka because they interpret the Koran one way and booing an American service man because he is gay?
Conservatism: our link to an oppressive history whether we want it or not.
why is it the some on the right cant figure out that the bible is not part of the constitution?
Because many of the religious conservatives think it is perfectly okay to legislate morality when it comes to issues like abortion or equality for gays and lesbians, but think it is sacrilege to legislate things like actually helping the poor.
Many "religious conservatives" believe it's wrong to force taxpayers to pay for someone else's immorality.
The primary reason they may fight against helping "The Poor" is because many times the solution is wasteful and expensive......and most of all.....DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!!!!!
Because many of the religious conservatives think it is perfectly okay to legislate morality when it comes to issues like abortion or equality for gays and lesbians, but think it is sacrilege to legislate things like actually helping the poor.
Many "religious conservatives" believe it's wrong to force taxpayers to pay for someone else's immorality.
The primary reason they may fight against helping "The Poor" is because many times the solution is wasteful and expensive......and most of all.....DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!!!!!
case in point, should a poor person use federal assistance to buy a new plasma high definition television set? What of those who are willing to work, but instead choose to "live off the government" and not work to support their OWN way of life? Is the left really afraid to use the words "personal accountability and responsibility" with respect to the poor in America?
Wealth redistribution is the pathway that exchanges hard work and self reliance (self respect and character), . . . . . . to complacency and apathy.
Then why did he act against those righteous Christians by eliminating DADT? No. Obama isn't the American Taliban. Those who want to carry their stilted, stifled, ossified notions of sin, crime, morality and bigotry all cloaked buy some perverted view of the Bible. That's the American Taliban.In 2009, when Obama was sworn in.
Those who would impose what they see as "Christian Values" on all of America. That's the American Taliban. What is the difference between forcing a woman to wear a burka because they interpret the Koran one way and booing an American service man because he is gay?
Conservatism: our link to an oppressive history whether we want it or not.
He wasn't booed because he was gay, that's the "spin" that's currently being projected. It was a boo from a select few in a crowd towards their view of the QUESTION being asked. Does the left also view anti-military groups as being unpatriotic, because they choose to stand up for what THEY believe is their right to free speech? Where was the outrage then? I might not agree with the views of a select few, but that's why we have the freedom to choose who it is we will vote for and support. Why is the left always so quick to call out and try to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they don't happen to agree with?
Then why did he act against those righteous Christians by eliminating DADT? No. Obama isn't the American Taliban. Those who want to carry their stilted, stifled, ossified notions of sin, crime, morality and bigotry all cloaked buy some perverted view of the Bible. That's the American Taliban.
Those who would impose what they see as "Christian Values" on all of America. That's the American Taliban. What is the difference between forcing a woman to wear a burka because they interpret the Koran one way and booing an American service man because he is gay?
Conservatism: our link to an oppressive history whether we want it or not.
He wasn't booed because he was gay, that's the "spin" that's currently being projected. It was a boo from a select few in a crowd towards their view of the QUESTION being asked. Does the left also view anti-military groups as being unpatriotic, because they choose to stand up for what THEY believe is their right to free speech? Where was the outrage then? I might not agree with the views of a select few, but that's why we have the freedom to choose who it is we will vote for and support. Why is the left always so quick to call out and try to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they don't happen to agree with?
The overwhelming number of queers are not only liberals, but being abnormal .... they are extreme liberals.
Every politician distorts, or lies more than the average person. However the Dems, especially with the bizzarely arrogant almost pathological El Supremo LIAR Obama as their leader, are light years beyond the distorting and the lying of the average Republicans for no other reason that the overwhelming number of Republicans are usually extremely religious, or more religious, than the average Dem, and they have an exaggerated fear of the fantasy of otherworldly punishment.
But when it comes to the liberal Dems, and what's worse, the extreme Liberal Dems amongst whom are usually the abnormals, i.e. queers, then you have reactions and agendas that are not only blatantly self-serving and palpably unacceptable but ludicrous in their attempts to distort and twist reality into a bizarre fantasy pretzel.
