• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hegseth intends to rename USNS Harvey Milk

Captain Adverse said:
Wrong.

"In 1955, he (Milk) resigned from the Navy at the rank of lieutenant, Junior Grade*, forced to accept an "other than honorable" discharge and leave the service rather than be court-martialed because of his homosexuality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

*(equivalent to a First Lieutenant in the Army).

Bottom line, he did nothing in military service to deserve a ship of any size be named after him. Nor IMO anything during his subsequent employment and political career.

SecDef Hegseth is simply doing what he has stated, i.e. seeking to make the Military an organization for War Fighters, not social justice warriors.
Click to expand...
Is our military more effective by doing this?
Is this money well spent? This will cost money that could be spent elsewhere, correct?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Wrong.

"In 1955, he (Milk) resigned from the Navy at the rank of lieutenant, Junior Grade*, forced to accept an "other than honorable" discharge and leave the service rather than be court-martialed because of his homosexuality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

*(equivalent to a First Lieutenant in the Army).

Bottom line, he did nothing in military service to deserve a ship of any size be named after him. Nor IMO anything during his subsequent employment and political career.

SecDef Hegseth is simply doing what he has stated, i.e. seeking to make the Military an organization for War Fighters, not social justice warriors.
Click to expand...

Military service is irrelevant to having a USNS ship named. Such ships are frequently named for people with zero military experience.
 
ncguy said:
Is our military more effective by doing this?
Click to expand...

IMO? The answer is yes. There are many areas of concern that the military command has to deal with, and pride in service is one of them.

ncguy said:
Is this money well spent? This will cost money that could be spent elsewhere, correct?
Click to expand...

How much money do you think it costs to rename a ship? I ask because I presume you must have some source since it was YOU who raised the issue of cost.
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMO? The answer is yes. There are many areas of concern that the military command has to deal with, and pride in service is one of them.



How much money do you think it costs to rename a ship? I ask because I presume you must have some source since it was YOU who raised the issue of cost.
Click to expand...
So it's ok to waste money if it's not a lot? Stupid attitude
Or do you think this is magically free? Maybe you do lol

And you actually think this makes our military more effective? Lolololololol
 
MAGAnificent said:
I happen to be a veteran and I don't think all veterans should have ships named after them simply for having been a veteran. Only those with special accomplishments.
Click to expand...
So we should rename, for example, The Sullivans. The only thing they did was die...
 
Safiel said:
Military service is irrelevant to having a USNS ship named. Such ships are frequently named for people with zero military experience.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the rest of the post, or do you only see what you think is important?

Ships are usually named for someone related to honorable naval service, or in government holding public office with some connection to the service deserving of the honor of a ship being named after them.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Did you miss the rest of the post, or do you only see what you think is important?

Ships are usually named for someone related to honorable naval service, or in government holding public office with some connection to the service deserving of the honor of a ship being named after them.
Click to expand...
In July 2016, Ray Mabus, then United States Secretary of the Navy, advised Congress that he intended to name the John Lewis-class oilers after prominent civil rights leaders

His service wasn't honorable? Other than being gay?

I saw where you think this waste of money makes the navy more effective lololololol
 
Captain Adverse said:
I read that same article before I posted. Are you suggesting that he earned the ship naming honor simply for being the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California?
Click to expand...

Didnt read it very well then.

"A John Lewis-class oiler — a group of ships specifically to be named after prominent civil rights leaders and activists — Harvey Milk has officially been in service since November 2021 when she was christened and launched." link​

Captain Adverse said:
Bottom line, he did nothing in military service to deserve a ship of any size be named after him. Nor IMO anything during his subsequent employment and political career.

SecDef Hegseth is simply doing what he has stated, i.e. seeking to make the Military an organization for War Fighters, not social justice warriors.
Click to expand...

That you might not agree with his political significance and activism isnt the point. The point is he completely fits the naming criteria of that group of ships. And I'd guess that's a solid reason they chose to use such criteria for a group of ships...to remind people of the significance of public service and efforts for change and equality.

No surprise there that an unfortunate number of Americans dont believe in that. Women, blacks, gays, etc. shoulda all stayed at the back of the bus.
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMO? The answer is yes. There are many areas of concern that the military command has to deal with, and pride in service is one of them.



How much money do you think it costs to rename a ship? I ask because I presume you must have some source since it was YOU who raised the issue of cost.
Click to expand...
Pride in service is why the ship should be named after him.

Tell us why you disagree.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Did you miss the rest of the post, or do you only see what you think is important?

Ships are usually named for someone related to honorable naval service, or in government holding public office with some connection to the service deserving of the honor of a ship being named after them.
Click to expand...
The USNS Harvey Milk is a John Lewis class ship.

What did John Lewis do?

Should we rename the whole class for it being too woke?
 
ncguy said:
So it's ok to waste money if it's not a lot? Stupid attitude
Or do you think this is magically free? Maybe you do lol
Click to expand...

You are the one asserting it is a waste of money. I have pointed out both why I think the action was taken, and why it is a valid one IMO.

ncguy said:
And you actually think this makes our military more effective? Lolololololol
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, have you served in any branch of the U.S. Military? I ask because your posts don't give the impression that you have because it's clear you have no idea about the importance of individual pride, esprit de corps, and high morale among the services.

ncguy said:
In July 2016, Ray Mabus, then United States Secretary of the Navy, advised Congress that he intended to name the John Lewis-class oilers after prominent civil rights leaders

His service wasn't honorable? Other than being gay?

I saw where you think this waste of money makes the navy more effective lololololol
Click to expand...

His service was not "honorable" because he received an "OTHER than honorable discharge." Do try to pay attention. :coffee:
 
Captain Adverse said:
You are the one asserting it is a waste of money. I have pointed out both why I think the action was taken, and why it is a valid one IMO.



Out of curiosity, have you served in any branch of the U.S. Military? I ask because your posts don't give the impression that you have because it's clear you have no idea about the importance of pride, esprit de corps, and high morale among the services.
Click to expand...
Feel free to prove this waste of money improves the fighting ability of the navy lol

I am asserting it costs money
Do you disagree? Yes it no?
 
Captain Adverse said:
You are the one asserting it is a waste of money. I have pointed out both why I think the action was taken, and why it is a valid one IMO.

Out of curiosity, have you served in any branch of the U.S. Military? I ask because your posts don't give the impression that you have because it's clear you have no idea about the importance of individual pride, esprit de corps, and high morale among the services.
Click to expand...

Are our military services not proud of our gay, female, minority, etc. service people? What about our gay, female, minority service people...arent they proud to serve their country? Making the same sacrifices? Paying the same prices?
 
Jezcoe said:
The USNS Harvey Milk is a John Lewis class ship.

What did John Lewis do?

Should we rename the whole class for it being too woke?
Click to expand...

It's not just the gay guy whose name they want to erase from the stern of a US Navy ship. Of course, this tale is from one of the worst lame-stream librul media so it may not be true.

Navy set to rename USNS Harvey Milk, mulls new names for other ships named for civil rights leaders​

The U.S. Navy plans to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a fleet replenishment oiler named after the slain gay rights leader and Navy veteran, and is considering renaming multiple naval ships named after civil rights leaders and prominent American voices, CBS News has learned.
[. . .]
The documents obtained by CBS News also show other vessels named after prominent leaders are also on the Navy's renaming "recommended list."

Among them are the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Dolores Huerta, USNS Lucy Stone, USNS Cesar Chavez and USNS Medgar Evers.

CBS News found that a December 2024 web article from Naval Sea Systems Command about the laying of the keel for the future USNS Thurgood Marshall has been deleted.
Click to expand...
 
ncguy said:
Feel free to prove this waste of money improves the fighting ability of the navy lol
Click to expand...

Anything that improves morale and fighting spirit improves the combat abilities of the service members. I begin to think you have no military service in your history.

ncguy said:
I am asserting it costs money
Do you disagree? Yes it no?
Click to expand...

Everything costs money. In this case, money determined to be well-spent by the Sec-Def.

Let me know when you hold said Office, and then you can act accordingly.

I am done with you. Tagline time. :coffee:
 
MAGAnificent said:
To be fair, what did Harvey Milk do that should have given him the honor of having a Navy ship named after him? His highest achievement was getting elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was actually more known for his murder giving Diane Feinstein notoriety that ultimate led to her Senate career.
Click to expand...
Yeah; somebody needs to scrub Anne Franke and Rosa Parks from the history books, too, those two did nothing !
 
As if we needed any more proof that republicans hate gays. 🤷‍♂️
 
Captain Adverse said:
Anything that improves morale and fighting spirit improves the combat abilities of the service members. I begin to think you have no military service in your history.



Everything costs money. In this case, money determined to be well-spent by the Sec-Def.

Let me know when you hold said Office, and then you can act accordingly.

I am done with you. Tagline time. :coffee:
Click to expand...
I begin to think you can't prove your claim of higher morale.
Multiple posts, zero proof

Lol, hegseth says it's well spent? Lolololololololol
And you mindlessly believe that? Lololololololol
 
Captain Adverse said:
Wrong.

"In 1955, he (Milk) resigned from the Navy at the rank of lieutenant, Junior Grade*, forced to accept an "other than honorable" discharge and leave the service rather than be court-martialed because of his homosexuality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

*(equivalent to a First Lieutenant in the Army).

Bottom line, he did nothing in military service to deserve a ship of any size be named after him. Nor IMO anything during his subsequent employment and political career.

SecDef Hegseth is simply doing what he has stated, i.e. seeking to make the Military an organization for War Fighters, not social justice warriors.
Click to expand...

Why do you despise the sacrifice that Harvey Milk made?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom