Reply With Quote
Because I've actually researched the issue before spouting off at the mouth.
Get rid of it.
Keep it in place.
I don't give two shits about it.
Right.
What I hear is that the goal is for sexuals and lesbians to be able to serve without having to hide their sexual preference. That implies that whatever needs to be done in order for them to keep on serving would get done.
Because I've actually researched the issue before spouting off at the mouth.
Then you have a link available, right?
Kind of hard to link to articles and essays I've read on actual paper. My interests extend beyond interweb arguments.
You should be able to backup when you say you researched something. You didn't read 10 USC 654. Did you?
you must have read propaganda or bull .
From LE 10 > Sub le A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654:If you did any meaningful research, you also found this:(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a sexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the cir stances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular cir stances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in sexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a sexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in sexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
103D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, H. R. 2401
This is what authorized DADT.
I don't have to prove all to you. Sorry.
You asked within your own post if your assumptions were correct and I responded that they weren't. If you're genuinely curious about the ramifications of DADT policy and/or its repeal, you'll do your own legwork. If you'd rather post your noncommittal assumptions for the sake of argument, I'm not going to waste my time looking for links on a subject in which I'm already fairly well versed.
Eh, okay I don't follow human/equal rights issues specific to gays. Better?
I think they should keep someone who practices sexual acts openly out of the same jobs as they keep women out of-combat arms.
Yes, WC. They're going to declare DADT uncons utional and then allow them to OPENLY violate the equal protection clause. Or better yet, they're going to pass legislation that repeals it but moves backward instead. Sounds like a completely plausible political scenario you've thought out there.
You know, its really ing hard not to go off on rants when you're such a blatant ing re .
There are assumptions then there is flat out idiocy.
What do you think their just going to start sucking each other off in the middle of a fire fight if DADT is repealed.
I just showed you current law, and you don't have the integrity to say you were wrong.
Bye.
She's not wrong. You linked the current law which has just been found uncons utional earlier this month and you think falling back to a harsher stance is actually a possibility?
integrity, you don't have the intelligence to realize when you're obviously wrong yet again.
Maybe you should read the USC I linked, and understand law a bit better.
Serving is a privileged. Not a right. Equal protection as you imply does not apply.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-21-2010 at 02:35 AM.
Maybe you should read the ruling on Log Cabin Republicans vs United States of America. You're right about one thing - its not the 14th amendment in question but the 1st and the 5th. But the fact that it pretty much slams the door on your epic stupidity in this thread simply confirms your condition as a blind ass squirrel.
@ you asking anyone to understand better in this thread.
Which court found it uncons utional? That would be wrong. it wasn't the SC, was it.
If they found that having standards for acceptance are uncons utional, then there is no longer any line for anything.
Section 8 of article I of the Cons ution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-21-2010 at 02:35 AM.
And you know, if that doesn't satisfy you perhaps you could read the actual language of the amendment to real the law you're linking. You know, the one thats about to be voted on very shortly.
Which court found it uncons utional?
HERE'S AN IDEA YOU STUPID : GO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR AMAZINGLY IGNORANT MOUTH.
How about linking it so we can all see it, or is it as real as the democrats keeping the bush tax cuts for the lower tax brackets?
All talk and no backup, and you call me the idiot?
Dog. You are a fool.
Link please.
Are you incapable of using Google, reading a newspaper, or turning on a ing TV? This isn't exactly something that is buried on some obscure server that only a few select people can get to.
If I claim the sky is blue do I need to back that up with a link too?
The court ruling is not even two weeks old and has been in the news. The bill to repeal is in the senate RIGHT NOW.
You don't deserve a link after you ran your mouth off without in such a ridiculous manner. I'm almost 100% certain that nearly everyone in this thread but you is aware of all of this and they somehow managed to find these things without a link from anyone else on this site because ITS FRONT PAGE NEWS.
News.google.com
There's your link.
Except in this case where it's a gay issue
President Obama on signing the repeal into law:
"This legislation will make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity,"
Quick! Someone tell them that Wild Cobra figured out they were all wrong!
Idiot.
Case CV 04-08425-VAP is a joke. A central California court doesn't have the authority. The ruling will never hold up in higher courts that do have the authority.
Yes, WC. Everyone is an idiot but you. You've got it all figured out and the rest of us are just here taking up space in your world.
Bravo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions