qwertyuiop
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Of course you think that's what it means.
But, actually, I'm talking about how be violated Army regulations in his crusade against DADT.
Here is a photgraph of Lt. Choi attending a political rally, in uniform. A violation of Army Regulations.
Another photograph of Lt. Choi egaging in unauthorized political speech. Another violation of Army Regulations.
And, another of Lt. Choi enagaging in political activities, while in uniform. Again, an illegal act, in accordance with Army Regulations.
Any officer that doesn't conduct himself IAW with the regulations and laws of the United States military, is a piece of **** and therefore a substandard officer. It doesn't matter which regulation and laws that are being violated.
Your time line is all wrong. He was discharged after he came out on Rachel Maddow's show in March 2009. Those rallies were after his discharge.
Those laws are unconstitutional. He has every right to speak out against a bigoted and unfair practice. And calling him a piece of **** for challenging a homophobic policy that got him kicked out of the Army.
I also have a question. About 65 years ago, blacks were not allowed in the US military. If, hypothetically, you couldn't tell that African-Americans were African-Americans by sight, and those laws were still in place, and someone like Lt. Choi was speaking out against these racist regulations, would you call him a piece of **** because he did so while in uniform?
In my opinion, "uncomfortable" is just sanitized code for "homophobic". What is there to be "uncomfortable" about?
Well, then there's another charge against: illegally wearing the uniform of a United States officer. He's requested re-enlistment, which is being considered. He has an arrest under his belt, so I think that his re-enlistment should be denied.
Ya see, you don't get to chose which regulations you want to follow and which ones you don't. Anyone who does, doesn't need to be in the service.
Not as a member of the United States armed forces, he doesn't.
Well, then there's another charge against: illegally wearing the uniform of a United States officer. He's requested re-enlistment, which is being considered. He has an arrest under his belt, so I think that his re-enlistment should be denied.
Ya see, you don't get to chose which regulations you want to follow and which ones you don't. Anyone who does, doesn't need to be in the service.
Evidence?
This guy:
Is he active duty? :shock:
It's not working for those who can't be themselves and talk about the ones they love.
Is it legal for a civilian to impersonate a commissioned officer of the United States Army? It's a felony. Right?
If a female soldier is uncomfortable sharing a shower with male soldiers, is she male-phobic?
If women aren't uncomfortable showering with lesbian soldiers, why should men be with homosexual males?
[/b]You can't wear the uniform after you get out?
Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to wearing even after they retire to any political function, but I mean for retiree balls and such.
If women aren't uncomfortable showering with lesbian soldiers, why should men be with homosexual males?
Since according to Critical Thought there are only an estimate of 66,000 gay or lesbian service members I continue to wonder why people like you and others not in the military are so passionate on this issue. If it is repealed are you going to join?
There is no question that you can always find exceptions to almost every rule or situation so what exactly is your point. You believe that by posting one case that strengthens your position?
This really is a frustrating thread in that nothing I say is going to change your mind or vice versa. We have an all volunteer military and a low that has been on the books for 17 years. Now all of a sudden such passion again but mostly by people who I don't believe are serving or have served.
I know you don't agree with DADT and want gays to serve openly, the question is why such passion over this issue and why not just let the military and Congress decide?
Who says that all straight women aren't uncomfortable showering with lesbians? You'll have a hard time proving that one.
Cause men have sexuality Tissues.
Cause men have sexuality issues.
At this point, you are just evading the question. Is your problem with it just the rules, or is it homophobia?
Who says that all straight women aren't uncomfortable showering with lesbians? You'll have a hard time proving that one.
Cause men have sexuality issues.
If a female soldier is uncomfortable sharing a shower with male soldiers, is she male-phobic?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?