Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 175

Thread: First gay soldier to be fired, for being gay, under Obama's watch

  1. #76
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    He broke an unjust rule that shouldn't exist and is trying to get it scrapped. He'll reap the consequences of his actions, but he and others don't have to. It could be suspended pending repeal. It just wasn't.

    He basically charged the hill but was KIA.. but he's made a spectacular scene and drawn attention to it, thus forcing some forward momentum or SOME kind of answer out of the powers that be as well as discussion.
    True, he broke an unjust law, but he did break the law. And the problem with having the law suspended pending repeal is that it still doesn't change the law. So, if Obama were to suspend it that wouldn't offer any protection to any gays in the military, because they would still be in violation of the law.

    When they decided to integrate the army, and allow women to serve on the battlefield they had to make sure they had legal measures in place to protect them from being targeted. If you just suspend DADT you don't have those measures in place, and anyone who gets targeted won't be able to say their rights are being abused because they're still in violation of the army's law.

    And the core problem with having Obama, or any president, just suspend it is that they can reverse the suspension anytime they wanted to and then you're back to square one. If Congress doesn't change the law then any suspension of it is pointless in the long haul.

  2. #77
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    No, it is pointing out the obvious, even though those who want change refuse to accept that he should have just gone on quietly, since the environment is changing as we speak.
    no, the environment is not changing as we speak. The issue has been put on the backburner to be "studied" even though there have been about 20 studies done on it already that conclude the same thing, that the arguments against it are a crock of shit.

    Secondly, people are STILL being discharged because of this discriminatory law, ie: they're being found out, the witch hunts continue despite some soldiers best efforts, and they are left without a career and without money to put food on the table. If there WAS any forward momentum at all, the lsaw would be suspended pending review.

    Basically, he is a damned idiot. Those in his position, but who have common sense, will keep their jobs and be able to live freely when DADT is shot down.
    IF. If it is shot down. So far, there's been no movement other than pretty words AND again people are still being discharged if they're "found out" or ratted on.

    If you believe the military is delusional enough to believe some gays haven't come in, open your eyes. Did anyone mention rape? Stop exaggerating!
    No, but that is the crux of the issue: people insecure enough to think that a gay person looking at them will somehow force themselves upon them. THAT IS THE END ISSUE. That is what it's about. That's where being 'uncomfortable' comes from and the thinking behind it.

    As a female, I would not want to share facilities with straight men, so I can completely understand how someone who is gay would pose the same feelings as a member of the opposite sex. If you can't, too bad.
    They're already sharing facilities and have been since the military was formed. What would change? That gays could simply live openly and still maintain the same level of professionalism that they have all this time, and AMAZINGLY nothing would happen differently?

    The only thing that would change is that people who were 'uncomfortable' would know who was gay and who wasn't. That's THEIR problem.

    The military goes beyond professionalism for the very reasons I explained in my post. The job requires more than professional interaction and space constraints.
    Again, gay soldiers already exist side by side with their straight counterparts. Nothing would change other than the homophobes knowing who was who and what was what. Again, that would be THEIR problem. They didn't have an issue before, but suddenly they would go apeshit?

    THEIR PROBLEM.

    Do not act as if they are not ogling, just as a straight would do a member of the opposite sex. Separation of facilities has a basis in sexuality. Having gay members doesn't make it any easier. If anything it poses a new problem, albeit one which can be worked around. Straight woman or gay guy in a room with hot males? Let's see how long either can ignore the scenery.
    So they've been oggling since the US military was formed. Amazingly, since that time, the scenery has been ignored or if not has been kept in the gay soldier's head where it belongs.

    Do you not see this? IT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE MILITARY HAS BEEN FORMED, just in secret. Nothing would change if DADT was repealed. Why would it?

    Has professionalism not been maintained? Why would that suddely vanish!? Your argument is nonsensical.

    As long as they don't wave the rainbow flag, they can continue to sleep in those tents. When they are found, its back home for them.
    Yes, and that's wrong. THey maintaiend their professionalism before anything getting repealed, and they'll do so after.

    The fear is the problem of the homophobes. It's unfoudned, hysterical, ridiculous and stupid considering they've been operating beside these same people the whole time.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #78
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    True, he broke an unjust law, but he did break the law. And the problem with having the law suspended pending repeal is that it still doesn't change the law. So, if Obama were to suspend it that wouldn't offer any protection to any gays in the military, because they would still be in violation of the law.

    When they decided to integrate the army, and allow women to serve on the battlefield they had to make sure they had legal measures in place to protect them from being targeted. If you just suspend DADT you don't have those measures in place, and anyone who gets targeted won't be able to say their rights are being abused because they're still in violation of the army's law.

    And the core problem with having Obama, or any president, just suspend it is that they can reverse the suspension anytime they wanted to and then you're back to square one. If Congress doesn't change the law then any suspension of it is pointless in the long haul.
    The suspension would keep people from being discharged pending congressional review. People would keep their careers and jobs in the meantime. That's the point.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #79
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Also, i would like to point out that a number of nations across the planet (UK, Israel, etc) have allowed gays to serve openly and AMAZINGLY there has been no loss of "unit cohesion" or whatever bullshit nonsense the wingers puke up as an excuse.

    So why would the US be a special case?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #80
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    no, the environment is not changing as we speak. The issue has been put on the backburner to be "studied" even though there have been about 20 studies done on it already that conclude the same thing, that the arguments against it are a crock of shit.

    Secondly, people are STILL being discharged because of this discriminatory law, ie: they're being found out, the witch hunts continue despite some soldiers best efforts, and they are left without a career and without money to put food on the table. If there WAS any forward momentum at all, the lsaw would be suspended pending review.
    The environment of America is not changing? Really? So New Hampshire and Iowa were all hoax news stories?

    Yes, and they will be until it is repealed. Change does not happen in a day. It takes time and gays will have to wait like every other group had to.



    IF. If it is shot down. So far, there's been no movement other than pretty words AND again people are still being discharged if they're "found out" or ratted on.
    The question is not if. The question is when. It may not be on a timetable the gay people in this country want, but it will happen. Until it does, wait!



    No, but that is the crux of the issue: people insecure enough to think that a gay person looking at them will somehow force themselves upon them. THAT IS THE END ISSUE. That is what it's about. That's where being 'uncomfortable' comes from and the thinking behind it.
    Of course you would see it that way. When women were allowed to join, those segregating measures were put in place to protect them and prevent any issues. Gay people would need the same protection. Whether you like it or not, sexuality was the basis for separating the men from the women and if it had not been done, there would have eventually been atrocious acts spurring it to happen later than sooner. You can say anything you want, but eventually, if there are no precautions taken, putting openly gay people in with straight people will spark fireworks. There are gay people who are just as forward and tenacious in their advances as some straight asses and jerks. Don't play the holier than thou card. Some jerk would make a pass and I wouldn't want to see the outcome.



    They're already sharing facilities and have been since the military was formed. What would change? That gays could simply live openly and still maintain the same level of professionalism that they have all this time, and AMAZINGLY nothing would happen differently?

    The only thing that would change is that people who were 'uncomfortable' would know who was gay and who wasn't. That's THEIR problem.
    Gays have not been in a situation which allowed for open expression. No one knows how that would affect the climate. See above, there are pushy straights and gays. I've met people from both groups.


    Again, gay soldiers already exist side by side with their straight counterparts. Nothing would change other than the homophobes knowing who was who and what was what. Again, that would be THEIR problem. They didn't have an issue before, but suddenly they would go apeshit?

    THEIR PROBLEM.
    They exist side by side, but in silence. Even now, women are facing men who can't conduct themselves properly, even in the military. Are you trying to tell me if there were no DADT or similar law preventing gays from being open, not even one gay member would act inappropriately? Gay or straight, humans do stupid and insulting things.


    Yes, and that's wrong. THey maintaiend their professionalism before anything getting repealed, and they'll do so after.

    The fear is the problem of the homophobes. It's unfoudned, hysterical, ridiculous and stupid considering they've been operating beside these same people the whole time.
    They conducted themselves in a manner which hid their real lives. When that changes, no one knows how that will affect the demeanor of the gays who are in the military, now that no threat of discharge will be hanging over their heads. You can't assure anyone nothing will happen. No one can.

    Again, comparing the military to an office job is just not plausible. The dynamics are different. Even though gay people want the military to just repeal DADT and let them serve while living openly, this will be a transition just as when women were allowed to serve. Even after all this time, women are running into aggressive morons. Some women are being the aggressors. There will be issues and not all of them will be based on homophobia, since both sides have vile members who treat others with no respect.



  6. #81
    Elite Member crumpet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    If I was up your ass you'd know where I am!
    Posts
    7,751

    Default

    I was very excited to see what Obama could bring to the table. I'm just getting sick and tired of how his sycophants who are soooooo invested in him being seen as a success no matter what her does, will consistently turn a blind eye to any promises he doesn't make good on or any bigoted decisions he makes and make excuses that they wouldn't let fly for anyone else. Of course, there is always the George Bush safety blanket to fall back on: no matter how badly Obama fucks up (I'm not saying he has) someone will always use the "well you can't expect someone to be able to undo what GW screwed up in only 4 years" . Then next election it will be "Well, he only had 8 years to undo all the mess GW created" and so on and so on. 100 years from now people will still be blaming everything wrong in the world on that one man and it's just getting stupid. It's as though Congress, the Senate, and state governments aren't even a factor. Yet, if Obama makes a misstep it will all be because the Senate or Congress didn't do this or that and sabotaged his great efforts. How convenient.

    I'm also sick of him getting a pass on the gay marriage issue when anyone else who disagrees is called all kinds of names from bigot to fundie to whatever else. Anyone else who doesn't support gay marriage should be fired from their job. A fucking beauty queen who has no real power at all should lose her title for not believing in something but the leader of the free world thinks the same way ands still manages to be held up at the savior of the earth. What's up with that? If Carrie Prejean had been smart she'd have answered that question with, "I feel the same way about gay marriage that President Obama does.....I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." I'm sure perez Hilton voted for Obama...has he ever called obama a cunt? I don't think so.
    Only the good die young.........................
    bitches like me live forever!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. #82
    Elite Member Sweetie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Den of the roving cunty bitches
    Posts
    24,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crumpet View Post
    I was very excited to see what Obama could bring to the table. I'm just getting sick and tired of how his sycophants who are soooooo invested in him being seen as a success no matter what her does, will consistently turn a blind eye to any promises he doesn't make good on or any bigoted decisions he makes and make excuses that they wouldn't let fly for anyone else. Of course, there is always the George Bush safety blanket to fall back on: no matter how badly Obama fucks up (I'm not saying he has) someone will always use the "well you can't expect someone to be able to undo what GW screwed up in only 4 years" . Then next election it will be "Well, he only had 8 years to undo all the mess GW created" and so on and so on. 100 years from now people will still be blaming everything wrong in the world on that one man and it's just getting stupid. It's as though Congress, the Senate, and state governments aren't even a factor. Yet, if Obama makes a misstep it will all be because the Senate or Congress didn't do this or that and sabotaged his great efforts. How convenient.

    I'm also sick of him getting a pass on the gay marriage issue when anyone else who disagrees is called all kinds of names from bigot to fundie to whatever else. Anyone else who doesn't support gay marriage should be fired from their job. A fucking beauty queen who has no real power at all should lose her title for not believing in something but the leader of the free world thinks the same way ands still manages to be held up at the savior of the earth. What's up with that? If Carrie Prejean had been smart she'd have answered that question with, "I feel the same way about gay marriage that President Obama does.....I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." I'm sure perez Hilton voted for Obama...has he ever called obama a cunt? I don't think so.
    Hell yeah.

  8. #83
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    The suspension would keep people from being discharged pending congressional review. People would keep their careers and jobs in the meantime. That's the point.
    True, they wouldn't get discharged or lose their careers, but they would still be in violation of the law. So, they still wouldn't have any of the protections that other minorities and women have for being targeted.

    And if you just suspend DADT then it doesn't really give Congress the incentive to reverse it. They could just say the suspension is working fine and let that drag out for months or years. And then the next president can come along and just reverse the suspension.

  9. #84
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    The environment of America is not changing? Really? So New Hampshire and Iowa were all hoax news stories?
    Re-read what i said.

    Yes, and they will be until it is repealed. Change does not happen in a day. It takes time and gays will have to wait like every other group had to.
    Waitr and be discharged, hunted down, revealed, kicked out when it could be suspended pending congressional review?

    Yeah, let's just wait. That'll somehow magically keep the witch hunts from continuing.

    The question is not if. The question is when. It may not be on a timetable the gay people in this country want, but it will happen. Until it does, wait!
    The people being discharged and hunted can't wait.

    Of course you would see it that way. When women were allowed to join, those segregating measures were put in place to protect them and prevent any issues.
    Amazing how they have to be protected from the same people who suddenly sees gays as wanting to rape THEM.

    Gay people would need the same protection. Whether you like it or not, sexuality was the basis for separating the men from the women and if it had not been done, there would have eventually been atrocious acts spurring it to happen later than sooner. You can say anything you want, but eventually, if there are no precautions taken, putting openly gay people in with straight people will spark fireworks.
    Yes, by the people who have homophobic issues. It's always them. The same way the neanderthals can't operate professionally around women.

    There are gay people who are just as forward and tenacious in their advances as some straight asses and jerks. Don't play the holier than thou card. Some jerk would make a pass and I wouldn't want to see the outcome.
    Women make passes at me all the time. Funny enough i don't beat the shit out of them.

    Amazing isnt it.


    Gays have not been in a situation which allowed for open expression. No one knows how that would affect the climate. See above, there are pushy straights and gays. I've met people from both groups.
    Again, professionalism. That's what it comes down to.

    They exist side by side, but in silence. Even now, women are facing men who can't conduct themselves properly, even in the military. Are you trying to tell me if there were no DADT or similar law preventing gays from being open, not even one gay member would act inappropriately? Gay or straight, humans do stupid and insulting things.
    Yes they do, and of course it would happen just like women serving in a platoon, flying jets, or hunkering down in a foxhole. Something is bound to happen SOMEWHERE but that's a paltry excuse and does not encompass the entire situation.

    They conducted themselves in a manner which hid their real lives.
    When that changes, no one knows how that will affect the demeanor of the gays who are in the military, now that no threat of discharge will be hanging over their heads. You can't assure anyone nothing will happen. No one can.[/quote]

    Fear based nonsense. PROFESSIONALS ARE PROFESSIONALS. Do all male soldiers go out and rape their female counterparts? No. Does it happen? Yep. Should it happen? Nope. Will it continue? Probably. Those are the exceptions.

    Again, comparing the military to an office job is just not plausible. The dynamics are different. Even though gay people want the military to just repeal DADT and let them serve while living openly, this will be a transition just as when women were allowed to serve. Even after all this time, women are running into aggressive morons. Some women are being the aggressors. There will be issues and not all of them will be based on homophobia, since both sides have vile members who treat others with no respect.
    True, but females are generally speaking at a physical disadvantage when it comes to inappropriate advances. Yes they're soldiers, but males can still overpower them in most instances. It's just a fact of physicality. Either that, or they're ganged up on.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #85
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    If someone doesn't agree with an issue, they should be fired? How hypocritical is that? Obama and Biden both made clear they do not support gay marriage. How is this a surprise now? Some of the most politically liberal people I know don't support it in any form, even civil unions.

    People in this country have the right to choose what they support. Just because they disagree does not mean they hate someone. They should also not be persecuted for daring to disagree.

    As for Carrie Prejean, blame Perez. Don't ask for someone's opinion if you may not like what you hear. The applause to her answer should have given him a clue.



  11. #86
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    True, they wouldn't get discharged or lose their careers, but they would still be in violation of the law.
    The law would be SUSPENDED, ie: powerless, not enforced, not on the books. It would be as if it did not exist for a short period of time.

    So, they still wouldn't have any of the protections that other minorities and women have for being targeted.
    Pretty sure there's a blanket protection and legal protection against assault and injury.

    And if you just suspend DADT then it doesn't really give Congress the incentive to reverse it. They could just say the suspension is working fine and let that drag out for months or years. And then the next president can come along and just reverse the suspension.
    Possible, or they jsut leave it suspended indefinitely. Lots of laws are suspended indefinitely.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #87
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    While this incident has put pressure on the Obama Administration to do something, has no one thought to mention the behind the scenes pressure? I assure you the military has its hands firmly grasping this issue.

    Obama can not, strategically speaking, move on this. Congress is just as frozen in place. It is the topic no one who values their job wants to touch.



  13. #88
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crumpet View Post
    I was very excited to see what Obama could bring to the table. I'm just getting sick and tired of how his sycophants who are soooooo invested in him being seen as a success no matter what her does, will consistently turn a blind eye to any promises he doesn't make good on or any bigoted decisions he makes and make excuses that they wouldn't let fly for anyone else. Of course, there is always the George Bush safety blanket to fall back on: no matter how badly Obama fucks up (I'm not saying he has) someone will always use the "well you can't expect someone to be able to undo what GW screwed up in only 4 years" . Then next election it will be "Well, he only had 8 years to undo all the mess GW created" and so on and so on. 100 years from now people will still be blaming everything wrong in the world on that one man and it's just getting stupid. It's as though Congress, the Senate, and state governments aren't even a factor. Yet, if Obama makes a misstep it will all be because the Senate or Congress didn't do this or that and sabotaged his great efforts. How convenient.

    I'm also sick of him getting a pass on the gay marriage issue when anyone else who disagrees is called all kinds of names from bigot to fundie to whatever else. Anyone else who doesn't support gay marriage should be fired from their job. A fucking beauty queen who has no real power at all should lose her title for not believing in something but the leader of the free world thinks the same way ands still manages to be held up at the savior of the earth. What's up with that? If Carrie Prejean had been smart she'd have answered that question with, "I feel the same way about gay marriage that President Obama does.....I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." I'm sure perez Hilton voted for Obama...has he ever called obama a cunt? I don't think so.
    Well, I voted for Obama and I want him to succeed, but I haven't agreed with everything he's done. He needs to make up his damn mind about torture and take a harder stance with the banks and Wall Street. And that has nothing to do with Bush, the Senate or Congress.

    And as far as his stance on gay marriage, he made that clear from the beginning. So, nobody should be shocked. But while he may not agree with the idea of gay marriage he doesn't view it as this 'evil thing' the same way Miss California does.

  14. #89
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    If someone doesn't agree with an issue, they should be fired?
    Who said that?

    How hypocritical is that? Obama and Biden both made clear they do not support gay marriage. How is this a surprise now? Some of the most politically liberal people I know don't support it in any form, even civil unions.
    Why are they worried about what other people do? It doesn't affect them. If they're worried about what a minority group does that has no effect on them then they're bigots and they might want to re-evaluate their 'liberal' label.

    People in this country have the right to choose what they support. Just because they disagree does not mean they hate someone. They should also not be persecuted for daring to disagree.
    They can disagree with things that affect them all they want. When they disagree with issues that HAVE NO EFFECT ON THEM WHATSOEVER, merely because they don't think some other group should enjoy the same benefits for nebulous, illogical reasons, it makes them bigots. I'm not going through this with you AGAIN.

    As for Carrie Prejean, blame Perez. Don't ask for someone's opinion if you may not like what you hear. The applause to her answer should have given him a clue.
    The question was random and could have been asked of any of them. She also didn't lose because of that.

    however, had she been asked about interracial marriage i'm sure you would have cooed and batted your eyes at her 'honesty'



    EDIT: nevermind, i thought you had just gone crazy.. didnt see crumpets post...

    *rubs eyes*
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  15. #90
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    The law would be SUSPENDED, ie: powerless, not enforced, not on the books. It would be as if it did not exist for a short period of time.
    Suspending the law isn't the same as changing it. The law would still exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Pretty sure there's a blanket protection and legal protection against assault and injury.
    Yeah, but if that person is getting injured or assaulted because they are gay then suspending DADT doesn't cover that. Because it's still a violation of the law to be gay in the military, so saying that they were targeted because they were gay isn't going to help.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Possible, or they jsut leave it suspended indefinitely. Lots of laws are suspended indefinitely.
    You can't suspend a law like that indefinitely. And like I said Obama could suspend it, and then the next president can just lift the suspension.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 07:30 PM
  2. US soldier in fight to take home war zone dog
    By Honey in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 14th, 2008, 07:52 PM
  3. Soldier survives knife to the head
    By Moongirl in forum News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 6th, 2007, 07:00 PM
  4. U.S. Soldier Goes AWOL Again
    By Laurent in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2006, 12:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •