After Hours

General discussion


Gays Serving in the U.S. Military - Who should decide?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Disclaimer: My personal position is two-fold:

One: A person's sexual preference and/or practice is his/her own business. I don't know whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or birth, nor do I care. It's not my business what you do; it's not your business what I do.

Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed discriminate for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong. The mission of the military is to be the most effective fighting force - no more, no less.

Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I'd yield to their opinion.

What's yours?

Edited to change the title and add the following content:;leftCol

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

they get caught

by Oz_Media In reply to You speak like its the fi ...

that's the great thing about our government, well it's not bad anyway, and about all that it's got going for it. The minority party keeps the majority in check and the majority KNOWS they will be toppled in a heartbeat if they screw up.

Other than that, they are all bullspit politicians who don't merit a moment's credibility. But at least we all know it and don't defend the creepy baystards, no matter what party we voted for.

Collapse -

They get pied in the face

by Slayer_ In reply to You speak like its the fi ...

when they get caught

Collapse -

Obama is still in office, isn't he?

by Oz_Media In reply to That's true enough

From what I understand, campaign promises unless specified to date, are a list of objectives the candidate will seek to impart during a four year term in office.

If I am not wrong, he is almost halfway through that term now (Nov. 2008, right?)
In the first half of his term, did he not finish implementing national health care and start reallocating troops from Iraq to Afghanistan (and a bunch of other stuff I am sure some oppose and some support)?

My point is, from what I understand he still has two years to make good on campaign promises, or is he supposed to have it all sorted in the first year or two then just surprise everyone with his actions for the next two years?

Collapse -

Point of clarification

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Obama is still in office, ...

Oz, Obama (and all presidents these days) was indeed elected in Nov 2008. However, presidential terms begin in January (20th?) of the following year; in this case 2009. Originally the term didn't begin until March of the following year. I've forgotten when it was changed, but at some point someone realized the newly elected no longer needed four months to relocate.

Collapse -

Fair enough

by Oz_Media In reply to Obama is still in office, ...

I knew there was a period of a few month before they were actually "handed the keys" so to speak. But doesn't that make his time actually IN office even shorter so far?

So he's been in less than 2 years, yet is expected to have upheld all campaign promises already? Is this the way all presidents are viewed? "You said you'd get it done so do it already!"

When I give an employer a time frame that I will reach a goal, I usually do it within that time frame but not in the first few weeks or even first few months.

Collapse -

Two points:

by maxwell edison In reply to Obama is still in office, ...

Obama continued the Bush strategy, almost to the letter, regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama promised to close Guantanamo in his first year. I predicted that he would not; and he has not.

I will suggest, however, that he made the promise under a cloud of ignorance and cluelessness. He would if he could, but once in the position, he discovered that he just couldn't. But even I knew that. Why didn't he know it?

"Sorry, American people," he should say. "I didn't know what I was talking about when I made the promise to close Guantanamo. Once I got into this office, I came to discover that the Bush policy regarding Guantanamo wasn't that bad after all."

Collapse -

Your brilliance is a beacon of righteousness to us all

by Oz_Media In reply to Obama is still in office, ...

It is amazing how you know hat the president doesn't, given the teams of people he has that are supposed to know better. How your wisdom has not been imparted on the millions of Americans already is beyond me. Simply put, the world, erm, America, would be a better place tomorrow if they'd only give you the keys.

I know you would change it all in a few days, sure people would be wearing white wigs and knickers, carrying jewel adorned snuff boxes while peasants dumped their soiled toilet bowl into the streets each morning but it would be a better place for many.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Obama is still in office, ...

And then the PM grabs the guy, who pied him in the face, by the throat and threatens him. LOL

You's better not be tikin' aboot doin that again ya-noo!?

Collapse -

Is the military superior to citizenship?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Who should decide? No one ...

Is belonging to a military organization something that replaces wholesale the basic citizen liberties?
Or is the reduction of liberties a specific and goal-based one, one delineated by law?

If it's the former then the military can do whatever the **** they like, and then the militias out in the woods start to make a lot more sense.
If it's the latter, then the decision lies within the government of law; and that's a triune one; legislative, judicial, executive.
Be they forever kept seperate and independent of each other *ahem*.

Collapse -

Is the military superior to citizenship, you ask?

by maxwell edison In reply to Is the military superior ...

Superior is not the right word. Different would be more applicable.

Is belonging to a military organization something that replaces wholesale the basic citizen liberties?

Remove the word wholesale and replace it with some of, and I would answer with a definite yes. Anyone who's served in the military, including yours truly for six years, knows that to be true. There are scores of things a civilian can do that a soldier can't. The military (in the U.S.) even has its own justice system (UCMJ).

The rest of your message is just nonsense based on the flawed foundation you established in those first two comments - rather those first two comments disguised as questions.

Related Discussions

Related Forums