The Tea Party Terrorists

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Look at the vote on DADT.  Despite the fact that the top brass and a substantial majority of rank and file in the military supported repeal, the G.O.P. overwhelmingly opposed the effort.  What other explanation could there be than just basic bigotry?   Civility is still a value I uphold, but that does not mean you don't call out people when they engage in moral wrongdoing.  AND I am not putting cross hairs on anyone or talking about second amendment remedies to deal with the problem.  Stupid people need to be taught, not shot.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    DADT is not a right, i.e. you don't have a right to be anything you want in life and expect everyone else to accomodate you.   Saying it is does not make it so. 

    Don't go back to the 2nd amendment remedies.  Cleaned the floor with you on that one, and the crosshairs.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Who is fighting for DOMA in the courts as we speak? Is RIGHT NOW going too far back for ya?
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    We have been over this before: the president is obliged to defend the laws of the land.  AND a Democrat (Coakley) is pushing the case to the next level.  So it is a mixed bag.  Lastly, DOMA is going no where given the current House.

    Now explain why you don't call out the G.O.P. for their immoral opposition to DADT.  You are still ducking that issue.  Can't you criticize your own for their failings?  Or is it always about the "other guy"? 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : DADT is not a right, i.e. you don't have a right to be anything you want in life and expect everyone else to accomodate you.   Saying it is does not make it so.  Don't go back to the 2nd amendment remedies.  Cleaned the floor with you on that one, and the crosshairs.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Equal protection is a right.  Get used to it.  You might want to read the Constitution some time.

    You haven't "cleaned the floor" with anyone.  But you do have an active fantasy life.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Equal protection is a right.  Get used to it.  Yo might want to read the Constitution some time. You haven't "cleaned the floor" with anyone.  But you do have an active fantasy life.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    They were equally treated.  Now they are unequally treated.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Look at the vote on DADT.  Despite the fact that the top brass and a substantial majority of rank and file in the military supported repeal, the G.O.P. overwhelmingly opposed the effort.  What other explanation could there be than just basic bigotry?   Civility is still a value I uphold, but that does not mean you don't call out people when they engage in moral wrongdoing.  AND I am not putting cross hairs on anyone or talking about second amendment remedies to deal with the problem.  Stupid people need to be taught, not shot.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]
    Reuben, though not a Republican, I generally vote that way. I come from a family that not only has voted for a Kennedy EVERY time they have appeared on the ballot but has worked on John, Robert and Teddy's campaigns with pictures to prove it. I am in political terms the anti-Christ in my family.
    My very liberal mother and sisters couldn't come to their grand-daughter/nieces wedding because she was marrying another woman!  They 100% support both DADT and DOMA. You are WAY over generalizing this and I assure you it is NOT a D and R thing!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists


    [QUOTE] They were equally treated.  Now they are unequally treated.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Ohhh this should be good for a laugh.

    By all means, explain how it is that the military treated homosexuals and heterosexuals equally under DADT and 10 USC 654(b). 


    Good lord.  You make LSD look boring.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]Ohhh this should be good for a laugh. By all means, explain how it is that the military treated homosexuals and heterosexuals equally under DADT and 10 USC 654(b).  Good lord.  You make LSD look boring.  
    Posted by WhatIsItNow[/QUOTE]

    I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on boston.com...but it seems to me that if DADT prohibited the military from investigating an individual's sexual orientation then regardless of preference military personnel would be, for investigative purposes, treated equally.  Removing the restriction, it would seem, could allow for investigations into lyfestyle preferences...thus unequal treatment since I doubt any investigation would take place to see if a guy likes girls or vice versa.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on boston.com...but it seems to me that if DADT prohibited the military from investigating an individual's sexual orientation then regardless of preference military personnel would be, for investigative purposes, treated equally.  Removing the restriction, it would seem, could allow for investigations into lyfestyle preferences...thus unequal treatment since I doubt any investigation would take place to see if a guy likes girls or vice versa.
    Posted by Rushfan2112[/QUOTE]

    Bingo!  give this man a prize!

    equal treatment has been replaced with special treatment.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : A.  Show me where the executive branch is obliged to challenge ANY decision by the judicial branch.  Load of horsesht. Of course, President, "I am not in favor of gay marriage", directing his DOJ to challenge the court's ruling against DOMA could be unrelated, since a flying pig just went by my office window. B.  I called everyone of them out, PERSONALLY, and DIRECTLY.  Ten bucks says you did no such thing, for either party.
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    To my knowledge this is the first time that you have challenged you conservative brethern on their abysmal showing on DADT. Congratulations.  However, I don't believe for a minute you called each and every Republican who voted against DADT and chastised them for their immoral actions.  And if you don't understand the idea that the Executive enforces the law (he doesn't make the law), you were sleeping in Civics class. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : They were equally treated.  Now they are unequally treated.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  Before only gays could be fired for admitting their sexuality. Now they can't.  That is being treated equally, not unequally. Duh!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Reuben, though not a Republican, I generally vote that way. I come from a family that not only has voted for a Kennedy EVERY time they have appeared on the ballot but has worked on John, Robert and Teddy's campaigns with pictures to prove it. I am in political terms the anti-Christ in my family. My very liberal mother and sisters couldn't come to their grand-daughter/nieces wedding because she was marrying another woman!  They 100% support both DADT and DOMA. You are WAY over generalizing this and I assure you it is NOT a D and R thing!
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    No I don't disagree. It is a conservative issue and a generational difference (being gay to a young person is like being left handed) and that cuts across party lines.  But the DADT vote shows it is also a Republican and Democrat matter.  The G.O.P. was overwhelmingly against the DADT repeal without any real rational reason behind their effort.  If the military did not oppose it why did the Republicans???  Prejudice... maybe gussied up under the pretense of religion or tradition, but pretty much prejudice.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on boston.com...but it seems to me that if DADT prohibited the military from investigating an individual's sexual orientation then regardless of preference military personnel would be, for investigative purposes, treated equally.  Removing the restriction, it would seem, could allow for investigations into lyfestyle preferences...thus unequal treatment since I doubt any investigation would take place to see if a guy likes girls or vice versa.
    Posted by Rushfan2112[/QUOTE]

    Sexuality is constitutionally protected under substantive due process and privacy cases.  The restrictions on gays in the military were already under court attack and now they are gone by legislative action.  . DADT went far beyond asking and telling it made being gay illegal in the military.  All of it is now gone. How you can then conclude that further challenges along these lines can be made is simply beyond me.  There is no law to allow it and there are rights to stop it
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Sexuality is constitutionally protected under substantive due process and privacy cases.  The restrictions on gays in the military were already under court attack and now they are gone by legislative action.  . DADT went far beyond asking and telling it made being gay illegal in the military.  All of it is now gone. How you can then conclude that further challenges along these lines can be made is simply beyond me.  There is no law to allow it and there are rights to stop it
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    I didn't think that logic was too difficult to follow.  I was looking at it without taking into account acceptance of openly gay service.

    Did DADT really make it illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military?  I thought it prohibited investigation into lifesyle choices, and UCMJ was the tool that made it illegal, and still does in some cases...if information gleaned online can be trusted...

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : I didn't think that logic was too difficult to follow.  I was looking at it without taking into account acceptance of openly gay service. Did DADT really make it illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military?  I thought it prohibited investigation into lifesyle choices, and UCMJ was the tool that made it illegal, and still does in some cases...if information gleaned online can be trusted...
    Posted by Rushfan2112[/QUOTE]

    DADT is sometimes used as a term to cover all of the gay related legislation in regard to the military and sometimes to refer to the actual "Don't ask" part.  The don't ask/don't tell part was actually a reform as it halted the practice of conducting investigations to throw gays out under existing laws forbidding them to be in the service.  But people were still thrown out if the authorities discovered your status in some other way.  All the laws have now been revoked so you can serve regardless of orientation.  There is one caveat: sodomy is still on the list of military crimes although such laws have already been declared unconsitutional in a civil context.  Hope this helps.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists



    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Ridiculous.  Before only gays could be fired for admitting their sexuality. Now they can't.  That is being treated equally, not unequally. Duh!
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    I think your logic is tortured.  Brass couldn't ask, gays couldn't tell.  As pointed out.  Now Gays can tell, I assume brass can ask.  To what end?  I mean, what is the impact of knowing someone is gay under your command?  Sounds like this is a set up for being denied promotions and special treatment, based on  reasonable accommodation due to being gay.  This, my friend, is special treatment.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : I think your logic is tortured.  Brass couldn't ask, gays couldn't tell.  As pointed out.  Now Gays can tell, I assume brass can ask.  To what end?  I mean, what is the impact of knowing someone is gay under your command?  Sounds like this is a set up for being denied promotions and special treatment, based on  reasonable accommodation due to being gay.  This, my friend, is special treatment.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Huh?  Old law: gays got fired for being gay.  New law: gays don't get fired for being gay.  There is now no need to ask about sexuality because it does not matter.  If someone is denied promotion just for being gay that would be a lawsuit since our society believes in punishing bigotry.  Or do you want to protect bigots?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Huh?  Old law: gays got fired for being gay.  New law: gays don't get fired for being gay.  There is now no need to ask about sexuality because it does not matter.  If someone is denied promotion just for being gay that would be a lawsuit since our society believes in punishing bigotry.  Or do oyu want to protect bigots?
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    You upside down on this one.

    Gays only got discharged if they made a case of it, period.  No one was out to get them DADT enforced a policy of not caring one way or another.  Trust me, the brass would walk a country mile around someone before trying to discharge them for announcing they are gay.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : You upside down on this one. Gays only got discharged if they made a case of it, period.  No one was out to get them DADT enforced a policy of not caring one way or another.  Trust me, the brass would walk a country mile around someone before trying to discharge them for announcing they are gay.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Lots of people were fired when the information came to light.  And the information can come out in any number of ways.  Why should they lead secret lives?  Most in the military know the status of those they serve with and most don't care.  Why should you?  Or anyone for that matter?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]Now Gays can tell, I assume brass can ask.  To what end?  ------------------------- Yes they can ask, and Sodomy is still a court martial offense.  Thats a problem, or at least could be. UCMJ Article 125 - Sodomy Text . “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    I well lay money on that law being doomed at least for private consensual activity that doesn't impact some other law like fraternization.  Lawrence v. Texas is pretty clear and with all the anti-gay laws being revoked for the military there is no real legal ability to make a distinction.  Could anyone show a rational basis to prosecute a soldier for the same behavior that is protected for civilians? 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : Sexuality is constitutionally protected under substantive due process and privacy cases.  The restrictions on gays in the military were already under court attack and now they are gone by legislative action.  . DADT went far beyond asking and telling it made being gay illegal in the military.  All of it is now gone. How you can then conclude that further challenges along these lines can be made is simply beyond me.  There is no law to allow it and there are rights to stop it
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]
    Well put, Reubenhop!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : There was a senator in recent times that was a liberal, a democrat, and a member of the KKK.  Can't seem to put my finger on his name...
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Thats alright you cant seem to put your finger on what recent time is either.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: The Tea Party Terrorists

    In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Tea Party Terrorists : You upside down on this one. Gays only got discharged if they made a case of it, period.  No one was out to get them DADT enforced a policy of not caring one way or another.  Trust me, the brass would walk a country mile around someone before trying to discharge them for announcing they are gay.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Skeeter, are you a veteran?
     

Share