I'm not. I'm pointing out how those memberships are consitutionally protected in the civilian world, but not in the military world.
You do support those constitutional rights?
All we've heard since the 9th Circus made it's ruling is that it's all about constitutionality. Well? Are you going to continue to be a supreme hypocrite? Or, are you going to turn to the Constituion when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't?
Your lack of actual constitutional knowledge is appalling. Being a member of the KKK is constitutionally protected. The many other actions that come with being a KKK member are not. Being a Christian is constitutionally protected. Stoning women because they are prostitutes and your beliefs say you have to stone them is not. So sure, if you want to join the military and are a KKK member of good standing(hah!) ? Why the hell not? Just know that this:
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is going to make it really hard for your career to ever take off.
The constitutional rights of a single gay individual outweigh the homophobic demands of the populace. She has the right to be gay and you have the right to ignore it and **** off.
Exactly! And the military has an outright ban on such membership. Are you ready for the military to lift that ban? Simple question.
I couldn't find the right to serve in the military in the constitution.
Lifting the ban on LGBT Americans is not the same on lifting a ban on KKK members. Plain, and simple.
Why not? Just because? Because it doesn't jive with your agenda? What?
And??????????????????????????
Why not? Just because? Because it doesn't jive with your agenda? What?
Because that could actually cause a problem for the military, especially black soldiers.
Because gay people don't have 'lynching' as an extracurricular activity.
And what? By joining the KKK, you have made a conscious choice to join a group founded on hatred and intolerance. You've made a choice to be no loner eligible for military service. And good riddance, such people will only be counterproductive to America's goals and security.
Homosexuals are not comparable in any way. Your argument is about three or four fallacies so far.
You've made a choice to be no loner eligible for military service. And good riddance, such people will only be counterproductive to America's goals and security.
Oh, well!!! Tough ****!! If they don't like it, the they can get their asses out.
That's what we've been hearing from the DADT abolitionists. Am I right?
There's also a ban on membership in the Black Panthers. So, that may, "cause a problem", with white soldiers, too?
Is, "unit cohesion", starting to take a whole new meaning for you, now?
Or, do you support the things you agree with, claiming their, "Constitutional Rights", and after that the Constitution is just a, "godamned piece of paper"?
Oh, well!!! Tough ****!! If they don't like it, the they can get their asses out.
That's what we've been hearing from the DADT abolitionists. Am I right?
There's also a ban on membership in the Black Panthers. So, that may, "cause a problem", with white soldiers, too?
Is, "unit cohesion", starting to take a whole new meaning for you, now?
Or, do you support the things you agree with, claiming their, "Constitutional Rights", and after that the Constitution is just a, "godamned piece of paper"?
The same thing could be said for people who want to be openly gay. There's absolutely no need for a person's sexuality to be an issue in the military. It's totally irrelevant to that soldier's service.
If a person's sexuality is a mission requirement, I would love for you to explain to me how so. I can't wait.
The same thing could be said for people who want to be openly gay. There's absolutely no need for a person's sexuality to be an issue in the military. It's totally irrelevant to that soldier's service.
If a person's sexuality is a mission requirement, I would love for you to explain to me how so. I can't wait.
Its not about mission accomplishment is about their individual lives and how they can live them. You don't need to have a wife to be a good soldier so why should the Army let ANYONE marry by your logic?
And tell me where in the Constitution it allows for DADT, good luck.
Oh, well!!! Tough ****!! If they don't like it, the they can get their asses out.
That's what we've been hearing from the DADT abolitionists. Am I right?
There's also a ban on membership in the Black Panthers. So, that may, "cause a problem", with white soldiers, too?
Is, "unit cohesion", starting to take a whole new meaning for you, now?
Or, do you support the things you agree with, claiming their, "Constitutional Rights", and after that the Constitution is just a, "godamned piece of paper"?
What in the hell are you talking about? Being a member of the KKK while in the military is banned because it's still listed as a terrorist organization. The same goes for the Black Panthers. The Neo-Nazis and Latin Kings are banned because they are a clearly criminal organization. The connection your are making between being gay and being a criminal or a member of an organization deemed to have engaged in domestic terrorism is a 'giganticolous' fail. Their membership is not what is in question, it is what one had to do in order to become a member of such organizations. That goes for the KKK, Neo-Nazis and Latin Kings. The Black Panthers were banned because of members who decided it was alright to kill police officers. No, no. Your arguments are bull****.
Here's the difference, with the groups you just talked about, they would be bringing in the hate, and the problems. Now with LGBT soldiers, the argument is that homophobic soldiers would have a problem with it, but in that scenario the homophobic soldiers are the problem, not the LGBT soldiers.
Black Panthers are banned from the military, too. The Panthers, "lynched", people? How's about the Crips? They're banned, as well.
The KKK is officially listed as a terrorist orginization? Since when?
As far as I know, the KKK has a constitutional right to exist, along with the Nazis and the Skin Heads.
Obviously, you support the rights of some--as long as they fall inline with your politics--and **** on the constitutional rights of others.
The same thing could be said for people who want to be openly gay. There's absolutely no need for a person's sexuality to be an issue in the military. It's totally irrelevant to that soldier's service.
If a person's sexuality is a mission requirement, I would love for you to explain to me how so. I can't wait.
Its not about mission accomplishment is about their individual lives and how they can live them. You don't need to have a wife to be a good soldier so why should the Army let ANYONE marry by your logic?
And tell me where in the Constitution it allows for DADT, good luck.
There's where you're wrong. Everything revolves around mission accomplishment, in the miltiary. Even Redress will tell you that.
And tell me where in the Constitution it allows for DADT, good luck.
Show us in the Constitution where service members can't be a member of any constitutionally protected group. best of luck!
No some Panther members decided to start killing police officers. And Crips? What about them? Drug dealers, pimps and cop killers. What exatcly are we arguing here? Why they're banned?
Where's your Constitutional right to not serve with others you don't like? GO AHEAD AND FIND IT.
That makes zero sense. You know that; don't you?
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?