Will someone please tell me why gays can't serve openly in the military?

[JohnOfSheffield]

Not fast enough. If you're dressing a wound in the field, and have a cut, which I can pull just about any soldier in the field out and find one, or wipe you eyes, wipe away sweat, and have blood spurting from a femoral artery, I'd say ...theoretically there is a risk. Of course since I took more blood test in the Army than my civilian life combined, and anyone with HIV is going to be discharged, or not let in n the first place than it's all moot.

NO one has ever been infected via subdermal contact with blood splatter.

The chance of getting herpes by looking at a skanky woman has the exact same contamination range, it's never happened.

In reality, that doesn't even mean SHIT when it comes to DADT because they will be just as gay if they don't tell as they will if they do.

Repaeal it, it's fucking retarded to discriminate based on sexuality in this day and age.

 

[Fear No Evil]

NO one has ever been infected via subdermal contact with blood splatter.

The chance of getting herpes by looking at a skanky woman has the exact same contamination range, it's never happened.

In reality, that doesn't even mean SHIT when it comes to DADT because they will be just as gay if they don't tell as they will if they do.

Repaeal it, it's fucking retarded to discriminate based on sexuality in this day and age.

Obama could have it repealed almost immediately if he wanted to. Since you are taking orders from him couldn't you just ask him to do it?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Obama could have it repealed almost immediately if he wanted to. Since you are taking orders from him couldn't you just ask him to do it?

You keep repeating that and i keep repeating that i've never served under either NATO or US flag on any mission.

But you're just trolling, every single post of yours in this forum has been a troll.

 

[Fear No Evil]

You keep repeating that and i keep repeating that i've never served under either NATO or US flag on any mission.

But you're just trolling, every single post of yours in this forum has been a troll.

Oops.. sorry.. Forgot your are under UN control.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Since you are taking orders from him couldn't you just ask him to do it?

He's a member of the SAS Anti Terror Force..........in his Mom's basement on the PS2.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAS-Anti-Ter.../dp/B000AHB1KG

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Oops.. sorry.. Forgot your are under UN control.

No, son, i haven't been under UN control since Kosovo.

 

[Fear No Evil]

No, son, i haven't been under UN control since Kosovo.

And don't lecture me on trolling, boy.

 

[xj0hnx]

He's a member of the SAS Anti Terror Force..........in his Mom's basement on the PS2.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAS-Anti-Ter.../dp/B000AHB1KG

SOCOM kicks ass!!!

 

[JD50]

NO one has ever been infected via subdermal contact with blood splatter.

The chance of getting herpes by looking at a skanky woman has the exact same contamination range, it's never happened.

In reality, that doesn't even mean SHIT when it comes to DADT because they will be just as gay if they don't tell as they will if they do.

Repaeal it, it's fucking retarded to discriminate based on sexuality in this day and age.

:thumbsup:

 

[thraashman]

Obama could have it repealed almost immediately if he wanted to. Since you are taking orders from him couldn't you just ask him to do it?

Actually no, just because George W Bush tried his hardest to invalidate laws he didn't like via signing statements doesn't mean the President has the right to just willy nilly change laws. Obama could have ordered a stop to enforcement of the law, which every conservative pundit and every moron conservative here would have squealed to the high heavens about him abusing his power. What Obama wants is for Congress to handle this properly and repeal the law that's in place. Obama's biggest problem is his unwillingness to be forceful with Congress. Of course he is president during the most obstructionist minority party in the history of the Senate. One that's filibustered more times than any other two Senates combined in history.

 

[JD50]

Actually no, just because George W Bush tried his hardest to invalidate laws he didn't like via signing statements doesn't mean the President has the right to just willy nilly change laws. Obama could have ordered a stop to enforcement of the law, which every conservative pundit and every moron conservative here would have squealed to the high heavens about him abusing his power. What Obama wants is for Congress to handle this properly and repeal the law that's in place. Obama's biggest problem is his unwillingness to be forceful with Congress. Of course he is president during the most obstructionist minority party in the history of the Senate. One that's filibustered more times than any other two Senates combined in history.

It's amazing how it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault.

 

[fskimospy]

It's amazing how it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault.

Well in this case the opposition to repealing DADT is coming primarily from the Republican party. Sure Obama could executive order it away, but that's not a very good or very permanent fix, and sure, Congressional Democrats need to man up on the issue, but one party is clearly providing more of a roadblock to this than the other.

 

[nageov3t]

It's amazing how it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault.

it kind of is.

but Obama's not wholly off the hook. there was no reason he had to appeal the court ruling that found DA/DT unconstitutional.

 

[thraashman]

It's amazing how it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault.

No I said Obama isn't being forceful enough. But listen to someone like John McCain who said he'd support repealing DADT when the military leadership said it should be. Then the military leadership said it should be and McCain said we should wait for the study. When the early results of the study were made available he said that it wasn't the study he thought we should have, he wants a different study and goes back to his comment about listening to the military leadership while conveniently forgetting they already said it should be repealed. And THIS is the man who the GOP chose to be the last candidate for President! You can't tell me that if the Democrats tried to put forth a repeal of DADT that the GOP wouldn't filibuster that shit immediately and constantly. This is the same GOP that said after winning the majority in the House in the last election that their number 1 priority was to make sure Obama doesn't serve a second term. Not getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, not fixing the economy, not improving the healthcare system.

I would gladly stop blaming the Republicans if they would stop intentionally fucking this country up for personal gain.

 

[thraashman]

it kind of is.

but Obama's not wholly off the hook. there was no reason he had to appeal the court ruling that found DA/DT unconstitutional.

Well, the government should try to defend the laws in place even if they disagree. And we all know how much bitching goes on when a law is invalidated because of a court ruling instead of a congressional act. The words "activist" and "legislating from the bench" would be thrown all over the place by conservatives (until they do things like invalidate an 80 year old rule on gun ownership and a 100 year old rule on private company campaign advertisement, then it's not activist at all). I'm not saying that I think it was right to appeal, I'm saying I think the government shouldn't pick and choose which laws it is willing to enforce so long as the laws are still valid laws. I'm more comfortable with the law being repealed by Congress myself.

 

[JD50]

Well in this case the opposition to repealing DADT is coming primarily from the Republican party. Sure Obama could executive order it away, but that's not a very good or very permanent fix, and sure, Congressional Democrats need to man up on the issue, but one party is clearly providing more of a roadblock to this than the other.

I don't disagree with this, but the Democrats had the opportunity to get rid of DADT and they didn't.

 

[JD50]

No I said Obama isn't being forceful enough. But listen to someone like John McCain who said he'd support repealing DADT when the military leadership said it should be. Then the military leadership said it should be and McCain said we should wait for the study. When the early results of the study were made available he said that it wasn't the study he thought we should have, he wants a different study and goes back to his comment about listening to the military leadership while conveniently forgetting they already said it should be repealed. And THIS is the man who the GOP chose to be the last candidate for President! You can't tell me that if the Democrats tried to put forth a repeal of DADT that the GOP wouldn't filibuster that shit immediately and constantly. This is the same GOP that said after winning the majority in the House in the last election that their number 1 priority was to make sure Obama doesn't serve a second term. Not getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, not fixing the economy, not improving the healthcare system.

I would gladly stop blaming the Republicans if they would stop intentionally fucking this country up for personal gain.

The Democrats had complete control for 2 years and you're STILL blaming the Republicans. Politicians LOVE folks like you.

I used to be a pretty hard core Republican, then after they had full control and failed to follow through with their "conservative" campaign promises I jumped ship. But go on, keep making excuses for your team, that's pretty much what they're hoping for.

 

[thraashman]

The Democrats had complete control for 2 years and you're STILL blaming the Republicans. Politicians LOVE folks like you.

I used to be a pretty hard core Republican, then after they had full control and failed to follow through with their "conservative" campaign promises I jumped ship. But go on, keep making excuses for your team, that's pretty much what they're hoping for.

And it's amazing how in that two years they passed a healthcare overhaul (it falls short of what it needs to be, but it's a start), saved the economy from complete collapse, ended a recession, and restarted economic growth. I'm not completely happy with the Democrats. There's a lot more they need to do and a lot they need to stop doing. But they're definitely a million times better than the only alternative that really has a chance of winning. Like it matters, I'm in a red as fuck state where my vote is largely pointless.

And yes the Dems did have control and for a time enough to be filibuster proof, but they didn't focus on DADT. That is a major shortcoming. There was so much they could have done for that brief time when they were filibuster proof that they failed to do which seriously disappoints me.

 

[JD50]

And it's amazing how in that two years they passed a healthcare overhaul (it falls short of what it needs to be, but it's a start), saved the economy from complete collapse, ended a recession, and restarted economic growth. I'm not completely happy with the Democrats. There's a lot more they need to do and a lot they need to stop doing. But they're definitely a million times better than the only alternative that really has a chance of winning. Like it matters, I'm in a red as fuck state where my vote is largely pointless.

The healthcare overhaul that everyone is complaining about and Democrats are blaming all of it's deficiencies on the Republicans? That's exactly my point.

You're other points are pure speculation right now.

 

[epidemis]

Haha give me a breaks. Gays and the military. Total non-issue.

 

[xj0hnx]

And it's amazing how in that two years they passed a healthcare overhaul

That's like calling an oil change an "overhaul".

saved the economy from complete collapse, ended a recession, and restarted economic growth.

LOL

 

[ProfJohn]

it kind of is.

but Obama's not wholly off the hook. there was no reason he had to appeal the court ruling that found DA/DT unconstitutional.

Technically he could have just let that ruling stand, but it would have been a mistake long term.

He had to appeal it to basically make the statement that a single federal judge cannot set policy for the US government or the military.

Now if a 3 judge circuit court of the supreme court comes up with the same ruling then I am sure Obama would be a happy camper.

 

[ProfJohn]

And yes the Dems did have control and for a time enough to be filibuster proof, but they didn't focus on DADT.

I think the dirty little secret is that they still could not have got it pass a filibuster even with their 60 seat majority. To many conservative Democrats would have voted no hence they never brought the issue up because they didn't want to force member of their own party to go on the record as being against DADT because it would have killed the "it's the Republicans fault" narrative they have been using for years.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I think the dirty little secret is that they still could not have got it pass a filibuster even with their 60 seat majority...

I thought I should give you a second thread in which to ignore facts :

Just for the record, from July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009, the Democrats held 58 seats in the Senate; the Republicans held 40, and there were 2 Independents who chose to caucus with the Democrats. One of the Independents actively campaigned for the Republican Party in the 2008 general election.
Prior to July 7 and after August 25, the Democrats numbered 57 Senators due to the delay in Senator Franken's seating and Senator Kennedy's death.
Even counting both Independents as Democrats, the Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate for approximately seven weeks, not one year.