After Hours

General discussion

Locked

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:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3376274&tag=content;leftCol

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Congress overturning the law.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Congress, courts, preside ...

You mean the same Congress whose members routinely make opposition to gay marriage a point of their campaigns?

Collapse -

Yeah, them's the ones

by DelbertPGH In reply to Congress overturning the ...

There are probably enough people in the House of Representatives to pass a law affirming gay rights (or invalidating a law that suppresses them,) despite the noise that "family defenders" keep making. However, in the Senate, it only takes one person to put a hold on a piece of legislation, no doubt done solely in the interest of military readiness, and that requires 60% of Senators to override.

Collapse -

" . . . the President is not at liberty to ignore the nation's laws. . . "

by maxwell edison In reply to Congress, courts, preside ...

Except, apparently, immigration laws - and specifically in the state of Arizona, where that state's governor pleaded with him to enforce those very laws.

And, apparently, voter intimidation laws - and specifically in the state of Pennsylvania where activities of Black Panther activists were swept under the rug.

Collapse -

I expect evenhanded enforcement

by DelbertPGH In reply to " . . . the President is ...

Immigration laws are enforced by the INS and Border Patrol, within the budget allotted by Congress to that purpose, and consistent with their policies of enforcement over the years. In an election year, Arizona's governor chooses to stamp her feet and tell Barack Obama how he should be enforcing laws. Well, she's got that right. Admittedly, Arizona has a bigger illegal immigrant problem than other states. They do like to dramatize it, I notice.

The Black Panther voter intimidation case was two guys who showed up at one Philadelphia polling station on election day in 2008, one of them carrying a night stick, who both shot off their mouths for a while while wearing urban militia costume. A cop was called, the guy with the night stick was told to leave, and did. The other one stayed for a while. Although some peripheral figures said this was part of a national Black Panther initiative, it doesn't look as there was ever more that two guys at one polling place in Philadelphia. Charges were filed by the Department of Justice, then dropped. There has apparently been some sort of investigation:
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/10/25/civil-rights-commission-spent-almost-175000-in-black-panthers-probe/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

The Tea Panthers at work:
http://www.redstate.com/anitamoncrief/2010/10/21/uncle-sam-funds-acorn-poll-workers-but-tea-party-group-investigated/

My guess is that a few blockheads went out in both cases, trying to be important and intimidate some voters. Voters refused to cooperate; nobody was intimidated. Nobody will be prosecuted. A lot of partisans will feel just terrible about that, and will keep yakking on and on. Ho, hum. Doesn't seem like much of anything real happened.

Collapse -

Your "ho hum" attitude

by maxwell edison In reply to I expect evenhanded enfor ...

You should be ashamed of yourself, Delbert.

Two extremist right-wing white supremacists dressed in military garb, carrying night sticks, pounding them into their palms, who, by their very presence and demeanor, were attempting to intimidate voters - and you call it Ho Hum?

Are you serious? You should be ashamed of yourself!

Oh my, did I get my colors mixed up; and did I confuse left and right?

P.S. Who else shares Delbert's Ho Hum attitude about this obvious voter intimidation case?

Collapse -

Funny that you ask

by santeewelding In reply to I expect evenhanded enfor ...

You don't want to know from someone who knows how to do it.

Collapse -

Santee:

by maxwell edison In reply to I expect evenhanded enfor ...

Changing black to white and left to right seems to paint a different picture, don't you think?

In reality, however, one's the print and the other is the negative, but both exposing the same thing.

Collapse -

Have to hand it to you

by santeewelding In reply to I expect evenhanded enfor ...

You are no slouch.

You land on your feet.

Collapse -

Ho, and hum again

by DelbertPGH In reply to I expect evenhanded enfor ...

If there was some actual voter intimidation going on, I'd be upset about it.

What you have in Philadelphia is two clowns who wanted to seem tough and intimidate voters. They dressed the part, talked the lines, and one of them carried a stick, and acted scary, but I haven't got information that they actually scared anyone, or impeded or influenced anyone's vote. The guy with the stick went quietly away when a cop told him to leave. Unless I'm misinformed, the rest of the day proceded without incident.

The DoJ evidently considered bringing charges against these bums and/or the Black Panther organization, and then dropped it. Black guys who want to get black people agitated would probably like to see them charged and hauled around by cops. White guys who want to get white people agitated are happy to see them not prosecuted at all, so they can complain about prejudice. "We white/black folks are being stomped upon and having our rights violated by a conspiracy of black/white criminals at the highest levels of government!" If you want to play the game, just repeat the preceding sentence to yourself, selecting your racial preference as appropriate.

The option to prosecute may have seemed like a non-starter for Justice. If some voter got hit with the stick, if somebody got pushed or threatened, if there was some defining action (instead of a malefactor who just "seemed threatening" and belonged to a militant group,) then you'd have a felony or major misdemeanor issue with jail time attached. Instead, there were two guys wearing beret caps, one stick, some words, and a man who left when asked. Try and make a case with that. A good defense attorney could make that look like half of nothing. The Civil Rights Commission has investigated the failure of the government to prosecute. It will be mildly interesting to see what fault they find.

Collapse -

Who else shares Delbert's Ho Hum attitude about this obvious voter intimida

by Oz_Media In reply to I expect evenhanded enfor ...

AlQaeda, 'nuff said I guess.

If you can equate the US military to Middle Eastern terrorism, it falls right into place.

If not, then I suppose one must frown upon such actions, regardless of who did it or IF they actually scared anyone. It's no different to me than standing outside a church trying to intimidate people of faith.

I may have issues with the US government but I sure as **** respect democracy and equal treatment of all citizens.

Related Discussions

Related Forums