In a bold display of judicial activism, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips has declared the miltary's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is unConstitutional. Actually, I should be more clear. It wasn't actually the military's policy, it was Bill Clinton's, suggested when he lacked the spine to take a real stand on the question of whether or not the military has the sole duty to determine what is best for the military. The military's policy is much more plain and direct: homosexuals need not apply.
With this ruling, provided the hag has the right to even make such a declaration regarding the military, recruiters will now be able to question a candidate's sexuality and expect an honest answer. I would imagine the court martial, if found to be lying, should be a tad more severe.
The UCMJ prohibits homosexuals from the military. This issue was never clearly adressed with the implementation of "don't ask, don't tell". It didn't trump the code. It merely allowed for a way to get around it. In either case, a homo could enlist and serve, if service to the country really was a priority, as opposed to service as an open homosexual. ALL enlisted personnel are required to abide by the code. But, as in every other area of life, the homos demand special privileges. That part of the code that pertains to them specifically must be purged to satisfy THEIR demands and desires, which, of course, take precedence over all else, including the military's determinations regard what constitutes military readiness and unit cohesion. How dare the military make such determinations without first consulting with the homo lobby!!!
"In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services."
How the hell would she know? Unless of course she means the direct and deleterious effect is a result of having to accept homos without knowing who is one while hoping that one doesn't cause problems should one "out" himself at an inoportune time.
"The Log Cabin Republicans said more than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994.
"This decision will change the lives of many individuals who only wanted to serve their country bravely," said the group's attorney, Dan Woods."
It will only change the lives of those who will only serve their country if it's on their terms, not the military's. They don't deserve to wear the uniform if they're unwilling to give of themselves in the manner expected by the military and its UCMJ.
Woods said that Obama claimed that "DADT" weakens national security. How the hell would Barry know? He doesn't give a rat's ass about the military and he hasn't a clue about national security.
I am so sick of the selfishness of this community and the spineless enabling of those who refuse to stand up to their self-centered demands.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
18 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here's Marshall and his "their desires" thing. I hereby dub thee "the sex Nazi".
ReplyDeleteI think you are really, really afraid of something, Marshall.
Typical Jim, if you don't agree with something so turn it into a thought killing euphemism.
ReplyDeleteThe military doesn't allow crippled, overweight, short or old people. All those things are unconstitutional. Why should this be any different? Our military is the most powerful this world has ever seen, why change a good thing?
Unless you don't like the idea of having a power military. Which sadly is probably the case for most libs.
"I think you are really, really afraid of something, Marshall."
ReplyDeleteI am. I'm afraid more idiots will pretend there are no downsides to enabling bad sexual behavior while we are suffering the effects of that behavior already. I'm afraid more idiots will pretend that one's sexual perversion is more important than anything else. I'm afraid more idiots will dismiss the tons of data showing what's better for kids in favor of the sexual whims of weak-willed crotch thinkers. I'm afraid of idiots who will support such mentally and emotionally defective people to the point that Constitutionally protected rights to speech and religious expression, as well as the right to free association, will be denied in favor of homo "rights". I'm afraid of the consequences of idiots uniting to change our culture to appease sexual deviates, such as the natural demand by other deviates to be considered in the same way as THESE deviates.
YOU, and those you enable with your blindly ignorant support are the true "sex Nazis" in that you are forcing our culture to bend to the demands of sexual perverts in much the same way that the actual Nazis of the 1930's and the Islamo-Nazis of today hope(d) to bend the culture to their demands.
While I encourage people to transcend their base human proclivities in favor of a higher purpose, you demand that we legislate the acceptance of any low behavior to which one may feel entitled.
Hey Droooood!
ReplyDelete"The military doesn't allow crippled, overweight, short or old people. All those things are unconstitutional."
WTF. You don't see military with prosthetics? You don't see military men weighing 300 lbs? You don't see troopers who are 5 feet tall? Fifty years old or sixty years old? Unconstitutional? Do you have ANY clue?
"turn it into a thought killing euphemism." No, I'm merely point out that MA is all about what, when, where and why people do things with their sexual organs. You know--sex Nazi.
Well actually the word nazi in english means socialist. So your euphemism of "sex socialist" is really dumb. But then again you're really dumb so we can't be surprised.
ReplyDeleteI've been in the military and I didn't see any fat people (except the ones that were getting kicked out). 4'8" is the minimum height, even then you won't qualify for most jobs. I believe 42 is the oldest you are allowed to join the military. You can't join the military if you are missing limbs, can't walk, can't hear well or can't see well. All those things are violations of the constitution when applied in the private sector. Also in the military your not allowed to quit, in the private sector that would be called involuntary servitude (which is unconstitutional).
By the way dumb ass the soldiers with prosthetics didn't have them when they joined.
One more thing, since you're a dumb ass I feel compelled to explain. I brought up all those examples to show legal precedence for discrimination in military recruitment. The same way we discriminate by sexual orientation.
One more thing. The US doesn't have "troopers" in the military. That alone shows you don't know anything about the military. Star Wars maybe, but US military? No.
ReplyDeleteED (afflicted):
ReplyDeleteIn a statement, Petraeus said, "Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan—and around the world—to inflame public opinion and incite violence," according to the Washington Post. "Such images could, in fact, be used as were the photos from [Abu Ghraib]. And this would, again, put our troopers and civilians in jeopardy and undermine our efforts to accomplish the critical mission here in Afghanistan."
But then, what does General Petraeus know. You dumb ass.
"I brought up all those examples to show legal precedence for discrimination in military recruitment." Fine, but you said nothing about "recruitment" when you posted.
ED (afflicted): You're apparently lacking in cultural knowledge. See "soup Nazi" from Seinfeld for context.
Obviously he mis-spoke. What branch of the military do Troopers serve in? Soldiers , Sailors, Airman and Marines. No troopers. Obama said there were 57 states; can I use that as evidence? So now I guess we have 57 states. It must be true "appeal to authority" is a totally valid.
ReplyDeleteAt this point you should google "appeal to authority" so you can find out how stupid you are.
Your stupidity aside, the don't ask don't tell is a law that mostly pertains to recruitment in the military. Something else you didn't know I guess.
The list of things you don't know is getting pretty long, maybe you should just quit.
"Obviously he mis-spoke. What branch of the military do Troopers serve in?"
ReplyDeleteED (afflicted): Apparently Gen. Petraeus "mis-spoke" more than once. Here he is on ABC News this past Thursday:
GENERAL PETRAEUS: We fear it could. This could provide indelible images, images that in an internet age will be non-biodegradable. They will always be in cyberspace and available for extremists to use to incite and inflame public opinion against our troopers and civilians.
Here he is again on September 8th:
Petraeus said he believed morale among U.S. troops in the field remains high despite repeated deployments.
"We started predicting as far back as Bosnia that the deployment pace was really high and we had less than a single division deployed," he said. "The resilience our troopers have shown has been remarkable."
Looks like the good general uses this all-inclusive term on a regular basis. I think I'll appeal to his authority.
How big a dumb ass are you now, ED?
"Your stupidity aside, the don't ask don't tell is a law that mostly pertains to recruitment in the military. Something else you didn't know I guess."
Really? Then why is the issue about our service members being kicked OUT of the military and not about NOT getting in?
How stupid are you, really, ED?
"The list of things you don't know is getting pretty long, maybe you should just quit."
The list of things you THINK you know and DON'T is even longer. But you won't quit no matter how stupid you look.
What about current service members being kicked out for being gay. They get kicked out for lots of things that would be unconstitutional in the private sector. Go back a re-read my previous posts if you've already forgotten what those things are.
ReplyDeleteAnswer this Jim; why is it ok to kick people out of the military for some things that are protected by the constitution and its not ok to kick them out for others? Or is your tiny brain still under the impression that people serving in the military still have the same constitutional rights as American civilians?
I personally know a guy who was kicked out for getting fat.
A guy who was kicked out for cheating on his wife.
A woman who was kicked out for getting pregnant.
Several who where discharged for injury.
While I was serving in Mississippi I read in the base paper about a guy who was forced out for winning the lottery.
Take your time to work this out, I understand your "expertise" is limited to late night television and sitcoms.
ED (afflicted): You really are some kind of a dick, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that the argument against DADT is about civil rights or ADA or something. I've never heard anybody make that argument. What tree are you barking up? Who's arguing that someone physically unqualified for military service should be granted some kind of exemption? The voices in your "tiny brain"? There is no argument about Constitutionality in this issue. You are obviously confusing this issue with same-sex marriage. Not the subject of this thread, is it?
Thousands of gay men and women have served capably and honorably in the US military for over two hundred years. Obviously they had no physical disqualifications. They just had to make sure that nobody found out their sexual preference.
"I personally know a guy who was kicked out for getting fat."
Wow! Really? I'm shocked. But not every over-weight service person gets kicked out. Still off topic.
"A guy who was kicked out for cheating on his wife."
Um, yeah! UCMJ anyone?
"A woman who was kicked out for getting pregnant."
Wow! So?
"Several who where discharged for injury."
Duh!
"While I was serving in Mississippi I read in the base paper about a guy who was forced out for winning the lottery. "
Interesting but. Not relevant.
"Take your time to work this out, I understand your "expertise" is limited to late night television and sitcoms."
You understand very little.
Sorry Jim, I forgot to spell it out for you. Thats my fault, because I did point out what an idiot you are.
ReplyDeleteADA like the Constitution is a law that grants us certain rights.
The Judge in this case said DADT is unconstitutional. This means that "troopers" rights are being violated.
The military doesn't apply civilian rights to it's "troopers".
This Judges ruling and your opinion can be classified as "No Shit everyone knows its unconstitutional" and the overwhelming majority of "troopers" are cool with it.
You're right about one thing, I do turn into a dick when I argue with dumb asses like yourself. But for the record you're that one that dragged this into petty name calling (which is typical for your kind). I just went along for the ride.
And your whole Seinfeld sex nazi thing really fell flat, the soup nazi was all like "no soup for you" and MA's point is "no military for you". As far a pop-culture references go you phoned that one in. I can't think of anything more worthless than a liberal who can't make good pop culture references. Thats the one thing you guys are supposed to be good at.
First of all, the question on the term "troopers" is something that can be easily conceded. Military personnel are often referred to as "troops", as in "sending our troops...", "the deployment of troops...". Thus, to refer to them as "troopers" is a minor point not worthy of any further debate.
ReplyDeleteDADT is indeed an issue of recruitment. If a homo is found out and discharged, it is because he enlisted on false pretenses. He did not fess up during the recruitment process. If he keeps his mouth shut and his proclivities to himself for the duration of his service, he can retire with something noble upon which to look back. How foolish to throw that all away because of some sexual fetish! Such people deserve dishonorable discharge, whether their fetish involves same gender or opposite. Indeed, such devotion to perversion shows not MY obsession, but theirs and it is their obsession to which I object. How typical for a lib to try and turn it around to reframe the issue as an obsession of mine.
And Jim, this whole issue is definitely being framed as one of civil rights being violated by the military as if a homo is being denied a right to serve. Service is a privilege, perhaps a duty, but not a right. One must abide the military's determinations regarding fitness to serve, not the opinions of some idiot in a black robe.
OK, I'll make a confession here. I had read very little about the decision. My comments were based on the broader issue of gays in the military rather than DADT. Based on that, I wasn't thinking about constitutionality, but more along the lines of what Judge Phillips wrote as reported by AP:
ReplyDelete"The policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training"
Having said that, after reading the AP article, I concede that IN THIS CASE the issue IS one of constitutionality. HOWEVER, the constitutional issue decided in this case is not whether gays have the right to serve, but whether they are allowed to speak honestly and freely about their sexuality, like any other trooper, (First Amendment) and whether they incriminate themselves by doing so (Fifth Amendment).
"Service is a privilege, perhaps a duty, but not a right."
I think that is debatable so I won't get into that argument here.
"some idiot in a black robe" - def. A judge whose decision you don't like.
As to the sexual fetish thing, that's really YOUR thing MA, and there is no use debating that either.
ED (afflicted) said:
"But for the record you're that one that dragged this into petty name calling"
I beg to differ. I humorously referred to MA as the "sex Nazi" because he pretty much says "no sex for you", which I think is a very apt adaptation of the Seinfeld usage. Had nothing to do with the military issue per se.
As to name calling, I offer the following:
"you're really dumb", "By the way dumb ass", "you're a dumb ass", "Your stupidity aside".
For some reason, Jim's last attempt to post a comment did not publish. I got the following from him three times in my email inbox and present it now:
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------
OK, I'll make a confession here. I had read very little about the decision. My comments were based on the broader issue of gays in the military rather than DADT. Based on that, I wasn't thinking about constitutionality, but more along the lines of what Judge Phillips wrote as reported by AP:
"The policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training"
Having said that, after reading the AP article, I concede that IN THIS CASE the issue IS one of constitutionality. HOWEVER, the constitutional issue decided in this case is not whether gays have the right to serve, but whether they are allowed to speak honestly and freely about their sexuality, like any other trooper, (First Amendment) and whether they incriminate themselves by doing so (Fifth Amendment).
"Service is a privilege, perhaps a duty, but not a right."
I think that is debatable so I won't get into that argument here.
"some idiot in a black robe" - def. A judge whose decision you don't like.
As to the sexual fetish thing, that's really YOUR thing MA, and there is no use debating that either.
ED (afflicted) said:
"But for the record you're that one that dragged this into petty name calling"
I beg to differ. I humorously referred to MA as the "sex Nazi" because he pretty much says "no sex for you", which I think is a very apt adaptation of the Seinfeld usage. Had nothing to do with the military issue per se.
As to name calling, I offer the following:
"you're really dumb", "By the way dumb ass", "you're a dumb ass", "Your stupidity aside".
Now my response:
ReplyDelete"OK, I'll make a confession here. I had read very little about the decision. My comments were based on the broader issue of gays in the military rather than DADT."
I don't think it matters. The reality remains unchanged. Regarding the judge's comments:
"The policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training"
I don't think it is up to her to judge how the military's policies help or hurt readiness. Has she spent any time in the military immersed in such policy decisions. Of course, DADT isn't a military policy. It was forced upon them. They already have a policy that works for them in the UCMJ. And despite the fact that I constantly hear Michael Medved report that all branches of the military continue to meet their recruitment quotas (I'll leave it to others to research that), it isn't the policy that would be to blame here, but the recruits who have enlisted fraudulently or have decided that their sexual fetishes are more important than military standards. I believe, and veterans can verify this if they so choose, that it is the duty of every soldier to put the military first, above their own agendas. I believe that to some extent, rights normally protected for civilians are put aside for the benefit of military readiness and cohesion. To the extent that this is true, again, I defer to actual veterans for verification. But I believe one does not have the right to free speech in the same manner as a civilian, and the 5th Amendment involves not incriminating one's self after arrest or while on trial. If one incriminates one's self while in uniform by proclaiming in some way his homosexuality, he is not protected by the 5th for that. As far as that goes, however, I don't think merely stating one is a homo is enough to be discharged, lest disgruntled personnel use that to get out of their commitment, in the same way that Klinger tried to use Section 8.
""some idiot in a black robe" - def. A judge whose decision you don't like."
No. A judge who decides not on the rule of law or the Constitution, but on what he/she would prefer the Constitution said. Like this broad.
"As to the sexual fetish thing, that's really YOUR thing MA, and there is no use debating that either."
Not so and you damned well know it. As I said earlier, and continue to say, it is not ME who is hung up on sex. It is not ME who is trying to change our culture and our laws to legitimize abnormal sexual attractions and to force others to accept it and to change Scripture to lessen its sinfulness. What I am doing is to protest against the sexual fascism, the naziism, the deviant-fetish-as-acceptable agenda of the homos and those who support them, like you. To insist that I have the problem is simply a blatant and unvarnished lie. Such does not speak well for you.
"it is not ME who is hung up on sex."
ReplyDeleteI'll just let the rest of that paragraph speak for itself and rest my case.
RE: Troopers. Back in the day the army had a branch called Calvary, the guys who rode the horses. Calvary morphed into armor (tanks), then into air Calvary (helicopters). Calvary was broken down into troops, hence the name troopers. This is in fact a "correct" way to refer to army personnel, and probably wouldn't be out of line for others as well. MA you are correct this shouldn't have been an issue, but I hope this is OK.
ReplyDelete