- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
For all those gunning the Democrats, I would like to point out that the House actually passed legislation repealing DADT. It was the Senate that shot it down with a 56 and 43 vote with 60 needed to win. That means even if every Democrat had voted for it, it would have still failed because the Republicans unanimously voted against it.
But they didn't. More pass giving for the left? :roll:
Oh I certainly condemn the 3 or so Democrats that voted against it, but I'm not going to blame the entire Democrat party when John McCain, who previously favored repeal, lead a charge against it.
You certainly have a really dichitomous of thinking Rev.
Nah, I just see when someone is being rather hypocritical with his crusade. :shrug:
Are you doing the hypocrite game again? :roll:
Seriously, I pwned you in the other thread when you played this game, I don't know when you are going to learn.
For all those gunning the Democrats, I would like to point out that the House actually passed legislation repealing DADT. It was the Senate that shot it down with a 56 and 43 vote with 60 needed to win. That means even if every Democrat had voted for it, it would have still failed because the Republicans unanimously voted against it.
But they didn't. More pass giving for the left? :roll:
Allowing members of extremist groups won't hurt the war effort, either. So, we might as well allow people, who are members of extremist groups, to serve openly and lift the ban on such memberships. Afterall, those people are already serving and are a valuable part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Besides, it's a violation of their constitutional rights to have such a ban in place.
Allowing members of extremist groups won't hurt the war effort, either. So, we might as well allow people, who are members of extremist groups, to serve openly and lift the ban on such memberships. Afterall, those people are already serving and are a valuable part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Besides, it's a violation of their constitutional rights to have such a ban in place.
Wasn't there some kinda bull**** tied to that legislation, that insured a unanimous Republican vote?
Can you find me evidence of one Republican Senator who would have voted for it?
Allowing members of extremist groups won't hurt the war effort, either. So, we might as well allow people, who are members of extremist groups, to serve openly and lift the ban on such memberships. Afterall, those people are already serving and are a valuable part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Besides, it's a violation of their constitutional rights to have such a ban in place.
I believe Snowe was willing to vote for it, but procedural crap involving the DREAM act kept her from doing so.
DADT is an executive order. Obama should just repeal it himself. I know that a Republican President could reinstate DADT, but these kinds of things usually die after they've been done, and I'd doubt that a Republican President would want to expend all of the political capital on a wedge issue like this.
Tell ya what...show me a poll that indicates that 70-80% of Americans want to allow members of extremists groups to serve and another survey indicating that most troops would not care and that it would not hurt war efforts, and then you could argue that this is comparable. Until then, it is a pretty pathetic argument.
I don't need a poll, nor any documentation, to demonstrate that the opposition to DADT isn't about constitutional rights, or what's good for our armed forces. It's about nothing, other than, "I'm gay and I'm in your ****ing face". Which makes the entire anti-DADT crowd a buncha hypocrites.
To recap, the DADT policy has been found...
-By a federal court to be unconstitutional in how it is enforced
-By a federal court to endanger national security as a resulting of losing vital units
-To be opposed by 70-80% of Americans
-To be irrelevant to most troops
DADT is an executive order. Obama should just repeal it himself. I know that a Republican President could reinstate DADT, but these kinds of things usually die after they've been done, and I'd doubt that a Republican President would want to expend all of the political capital on a wedge issue like this.
If you had read the OP you would have seen I didn't argue that DADT was just about Constitutional rights. To quote...
If anyone were only arguing that this was about Constitutional rights, then your argument might have some merit, but its worthless given that the ban on allowing gays to openly serve has been found to endanger national security, is opposed by most Americans, is irrelevant to most troops, and will likely have no effect on current war efforts. Feel free to provide evidence to show that allowing extremeists to serve meets those criteria.
But, as has been argued, members of extremist hate groups already serve in the armed forces. That's the same exact argument that you all have used to justify allowing gays to serve in the military.
Why do constitutional rights only go so far?
^ Makes unfounded assumptions about the opposition and cannot concede to the fact that most gays are normal people living and minding their own business and want equal right.
WHat thread is this?
Ah...you are trying to make a strawman...so cute.
Has a federal court found that not allowing extremeists to serve hurts national security?
Has any poll found that most Americans are opposed to a ban on allowing extremists to serve?
Has any survey found that most troops don't care about extremists serving or that allowing extremists to serve would not hurt war efforts?
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?