Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

dallaswareagle

  • ****
  • 10940
  • Standing on holy ground.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #180 on: February 08, 2010, 02:35:37 PM »
This is one of those threads that are very entertaining, as everybody has their opinion and most likely won’t ever change.

Coming from someone who is retired military let me say this; I have been in situations that I did not give a BIG RATS ASS what the person next me did with is sexual choices. I just needed rounds down range.

I have no problem with anyone, as long as they serve honorably.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.' That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.'

Godfather

  • Chapter
  • ****
  • 21263
  • He knows!
    • Tigers X
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #181 on: February 08, 2010, 03:07:42 PM »

I have no problem with anyone, as long as they serve honorably and mind the step children while giving oral.


FTFY
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Gus is gone, hooray!
                       -Auburn Fans


Auburn Forum

Tiger Wench

  • ******
  • 10352
  • Does this armour make my ass look big?
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #182 on: February 08, 2010, 04:17:48 PM »
This is one of those threads that are very entertaining, as everybody has their opinion and most likely won’t ever change.

Coming from someone who is retired military let me say this; I have been in situations that I did not give a BIG RATS ASS what the person next me did with is sexual choices. I just needed rounds down range.

I have no problem with anyone, as long as they serve honorably.


Pretty informal poll, but as far as military Xers go - we are 3-0 in favor of "Who cares as long as he can shoot/do his job."

Not saying that is the opinion of ALL military Xers - but still worth pointing out.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Token

  • ****
  • 4866
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #183 on: February 08, 2010, 04:51:30 PM »
Pretty informal poll, but as far as military Xers go - we are 3-0 in favor of "Who cares as long as he can shoot/do his job."

Not saying that is the opinion of ALL military Xers - but still worth pointing out.

The poll is flawed. 

I believe 2 of the 3 could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Pell City Tiger

  • ****
  • 7104
  • Moral Highlander
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #184 on: February 08, 2010, 06:28:27 PM »
How in the hell did you make it 20 years then?
I'm a mastermind in the ways of espionage.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"I stood up, unzipped my pants, lowered my shorts and placed my bare ass on the window. That's the last thing I wanted those people to see of me."

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #185 on: February 08, 2010, 06:31:30 PM »
The poll is flawed. 

I believe 2 of the 3 could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

Can I get their numbers?
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #186 on: February 08, 2010, 06:52:43 PM »
I'll keep this to just a few points, because both you and I have agreed that most of this is something that we just can't agree upon.

As you know full well this is not what I said, I find your attempt to stoop to this level extremely weak.  While many of your arguments have been (long-winded) but cogent, this was most definitely a step back.  Based on what I've seen from you thus far, for you to stoop to this gross misrepresentation is one of two things:  Desperation or pandering.  Since I don't sense desperation on your part, I will assume pandering.  It is, however, beneath you.

I said that sexual proclivities are not an indicator of one's intelligence or reasoning.  You said they were.  That is pretty plainly stated in your post.  If you're honestly going to deny typing that, then...well, I guess we're stuck in a situation where I've quoted the text multiple times and your response is to merely stick out your tongue and say, "Nuh uh!"  As I've mentioned to Garman, if I misquote someone or incorrectly infer something, feel free to correct me.  However, simply saying "I didn't say that!" and then not clarifying what you did say only brings the discussion to a halt, because I'm forced to go back, find your quotes, post them, and then wait for you to tell me yet again that you didn't say it even though it's sitting there in a post.
  
The decisions to restrict nudity, sexual content and adult language are based on standards of morality.  WAIT A DAMN MINUTE!! I thought the concept of "free speech" eliminated such backward morality-based restrictions.  What the fuck is going on?  Somebody better get on the horn to the FCC immediately.  The next time my daughter tunes in to iCarly, there better be some titties, some lesbians, some murder, some profanity and somebody better be fucking.

Whether the current restrictions make any sense or not is, yet again, another completely different debate.  My point was not that the current restrictions were correct or incorrect.  My point was that there is no restriction on speech simply because it's a minority view.

Fine by me.  If the military has a don't ask don't tell religious policy I'd have no objection. Given the level of mistrust that could be generated by having Islamic soldiers, I'm surprised this isn't already in effect.

They don't currently have a restricted speech policy on any other group of individuals.  Thus, there is a right that all other groups have that homosexuals do not.  Regardless of whether you'd be fine with it or not, the current status quo still denies them a right that others have, yet there is no actual justification for this or distinction of the group that warrants the restriction.
 
You never played organized sports did you?  You don't understand the dynamic of male interaction when in close quarters, do you?

Basketball, football, soccer and Austrian rules football, actually.

A homosexual in the locker room WILL interfere with the efficient function of the team.  Call it fear, call it latent whatever you want, call it ignorance, call it insecurity or brand it in any way you like but the insertion of an openly gay man into a group of heterosexual males will without fail cause some controversy. It WILL impact the performance of the team. Can it be overcome? Maybe. But no matter how you spruce it up, it adds another level of difficulty to the development of the team.  I can't imagine that it would be any different in the military, particularly since you're dealing with young men of roughly the same age and intensity as you find on the football fields on Friday night.  It won't affect all, but it will affect some.

Having open Christians in the military won't affect all, but it will affect some.  Especially if there are Christians who attempt to convert others.  Afterall, spreading the word and converting the lost is a major goal of many believers.  I know that you have stated that a restriction on religious speech in the military would be fine with you, but again, that's not what is currently being restricted.  Thus, there is only one group being restricted.  The basis for this restriction that you've put forward is that it's because their lifestyle has the potential to affect others.  If that's the case, then we either need to ban all opinionated, belief based speech from the military or none.  You can't suppress one group when there is no apparent distinction as to why they are being singled out.
 

And here you took two statements, one from GarMan and one from me, mixed them together and arrived at the conclusion that they are somehow created a single thought -- when neither of us said what you deduced.

The quote was from Garman's post; nothing was mixed.  And even if you refuse to admit that anyone's stance on this board is that homosexuals should not be in the military, there are those outside of this board and in the real world who actively advocate that stance.

But let's assume that your contention that anyone can say anything at any time is true.

I never said that anyone can say anything at any time.  Rather, what I've stated is that gay people can publicly state that they are gay.  The fact that you don't like them having gay protests, gay parades or national coming out days doesn't mean that you can restrict their speech.  Speech is restricted at different times for different reasons, but it is not restricted because of it being a minority view.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2010, 07:23:14 PM by Vandy Vol »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

Pell City Tiger

  • ****
  • 7104
  • Moral Highlander
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #187 on: February 08, 2010, 07:04:15 PM »
Quote
Austrian rules football
Played in leiderhosen on the side of a mountain?
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"I stood up, unzipped my pants, lowered my shorts and placed my bare ass on the window. That's the last thing I wanted those people to see of me."

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #188 on: February 08, 2010, 07:19:45 PM »
OK...  Let me put it this way.  Apparently unlike you, I don't blindly "rely upon others to do it for us."

I'd love to see the research that has been done.  That is not a sarcastic comment; seriously, if you've taken the time to research and have found resources that state otherwise, I'd be interested in reading them and seeing the statistics on how open homosexuality in the military has caused a drop in efficiency.

Good points…  But, I do understand group psychology.  Many-many moons ago, when in college, I did take courses in industrial and social psychology.  Since then, I’ve jumped into the IT world and climbed the ladder to the executive ranks where team management, project management and larger organizational management are necessary skills.  I don’t need to know about the military or homosexuals to know how introducing an exception to the local norm would be disruptive.  To me, it’s common sense.

It was also "common sense" one hundred years ago that minorities in the military would cause an absolute break down of efficiency due to the majority's views on minorities.  That common sense view didn't seem to pan out.  Psychology's great for theories on how people should likely interact in certain situations.  Sure, there may be statistical studies which also back up these theories (although I've yet to see any relating to homosexuals and the military other than the one I posted)...but we can't trust any studies, right?
  
EXACTLY!  BINGO!!!  And, this is exactly why introducing challenges to the local norm would be disruptive.  Military personnel should not be subjected to these types of challenges.  It’s simply not our right to impose, thereby challenging their personal values and beliefs.

Yet it's acceptable to introduce challenges by allowing individuals of different religions, races, etc. to interact within the military and freely express themselves regarding those topics?  Either way, their values have the potential to be challenged and imposed upon.  I don't see why one should be banned and not the other, at least not without some sort of objective reason other than "it will pose a challenge."

The point here is that we already “bar” military service for various reasons.

But when they place such a bar, they have to make an objective showing that the restriction is due to an actual effect on military efficiency.  Your examples of psychological conditions and religions that require sacrifices exemplify situations in which someone will be doing something to actually interrupt military efficiency overall, or make the individual incapable of performing required tasks.  Openly being able to state that you are homosexual does not affect efficiency.  In theory, yes, you can state that heterosexual males will freak out, be uncomfortable, and generally refuse to do anything with or around homosexuals.  However, that's in theory.  There are no surveys or studies which show that this has actually happened (at least none that I've found or been shown thus far).  And although we have only had posts from a limited number of retired military members on this forum, none of them indicate that this has actually happened in the United States military.

Agreed…  But there are varying extents of these ailments.  To exclude the entire group, while some may be completely capable would be just as wrong as banning all homosexuals from serving.  (Turned it around on you...)

Seizures occur in about 3-13% of Down patients.  40 to 50% of children with Down syndrome have congenital heart defects.  Having Down syndrome increases the risk of leukaemia 15-20 times.  66-89% of Down patients have some level of hearing loss in at least one ear.  The risk of pneumonia is 62 times higher than in non-Down syndrome individuals.  100% of people with Down syndrome will develop some physiologic signs of Alzheimer’s when they are over 35 years old in the U.S.  The statistics show that it is next to impossible to find an individual with Down syndrome who doesn't have a medical disability or disease which would prevent him from efficiently serving in the military.  Impossible?  Maybe not, but if you're going to make accommodations for individuals with Down syndrome by searching the nation for a handful of acceptable enlistees, then why not scour the nation for timid homosexuals who won't cause problems?  You seem to be all for making accommodations for individuals who have an astounding risk of failing to efficiently serve in the military, yet you're not willing to accommodate those who, according to studies, don't affect efficiency.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2010, 09:39:38 PM by Vandy Vol »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #189 on: February 08, 2010, 07:21:06 PM »
Played in leiderhosen on the side of a mountain?

It's Australian rules, not German rules.

EDIT:  My bad, just now saw the typo on my part.  Definitely not Austrian rules...Australian.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 02:05:16 PM by Vandy Vol »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

Saniflush

  • Pledge Master
  • ****
  • 21656
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #190 on: February 09, 2010, 07:32:59 AM »
I'm a mastermind in the ways of espionage.

You uneasy rider.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"Hey my friends are the ones that wanted to eat at that shitty hole in the wall that only served bread and wine.  What kind of brick and mud business model is that.  Stick to the cart if that's all you're going to serve.  Then that dude came in with like 12 other people, and some of them weren't even wearing shoes, and the restaurant sat them right across from us. It was gross, and they were all stinky and dirty.  Then dude starts talking about eating his body and drinking his blood...I almost lost it.  That's the last supper I'll ever have there, and I hope he dies a horrible death."

CCTAU

  • *
  • 13035
  • War Eagle!
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #191 on: February 09, 2010, 08:49:41 AM »
 You seem to be all for making accommodations for individuals who have an astounding risk of failing to efficiently serve in the military, yet you're not willing to accommodate those who, according to studies, don't affect efficiency.

Gays in the military are already being accommodated. It's called Don't ask, don't tell. Do your job and keep your personal proclivities to yourself and all is well. The military doesn't allow many other non-natural actions to occur openly either. But the whole issue came about when a VERY SMALL percentage of society started trying to force the claim of normal rights on all of us. You have already defined gays as the same as blacks and Christians, when in fact, there is no fact to back that up. And once again, this was not a debate as to whether or not they could serve, it was a debate on having to give rights to the OPENLY gay soldier and how THAT would affect overall moral.

I see that there are gay guys in the NFL, but I never see them come out until AFTER they retire. There is a reason for this, same as in the military.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Five statements of WISDOM
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

GH2001

  • *
  • 23843
  • I'm a Miller guy. Always been. Since I was like, 8
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #192 on: February 09, 2010, 08:59:07 AM »
Gays in the military are already being accommodated. It's called Don't ask, don't tell. Do your job and keep your personal proclivities to yourself and all is well. The military doesn't allow many other non-natural actions to occur openly either. But the whole issue came about when a VERY SMALL percentage of society started trying to force the claim of normal rights on all of us. You have already defined gays as the same as blacks and Christians, when in fact, there is no fact to back that up. And once again, this was not a debate as to whether or not they could serve, it was a debate on having to give rights to the OPENLY gay soldier and how THAT would affect overall moral.

I see that there are gay guys in the NFL, but I never see them come out until AFTER they retire. There is a reason for this, same as in the military.

THIS ^^^

When there are close quarters, bathrooms, latrines, etc in play - it DOES matter. It is the equivalent to letting any of us perverts (openly HETEROSEXUAL) prance freely through the women's quarters with no issue. You think that would fly? HA!!!!

Besides - unless I missed it in this thread - no one has mentioned something very obvious about this issue. This is nothing but a secondary social issue that is being used to distract the public from the truly important issues at hand, which Obama is trying to get done under the radar via socialistic and Marxist solutions with little public attention. Oh yes, its true. This has been a tactic for years by politicians that aren't exactly getting their way with policy. Public doesn't approve? Fine, we'll just distract them with a carrot on a string.

Nice write up by Dick Morris:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pelosi-reid-healthcare-obama/2010/01/24/id/347820

friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
WDE

Jumbo

  • Assistant Pledge Master
  • ***
  • 10862
  • I live on the corner of Epic & Bananas.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #193 on: February 09, 2010, 12:46:31 PM »
Tebow has a clear argument, reminds me of Kaos.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
You'll never shine if you don't glow.

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #194 on: February 09, 2010, 01:24:31 PM »
Gays in the military are already being accommodated. It's called Don't ask, don't tell. Do your job and keep your personal proclivities to yourself and all is well. The military doesn't allow many other non-natural actions to occur openly either.

If someone starts speaking about bestiality to the point that it interferes with military efficiency, then the military handles it.  There is not an outright ban upfront on speech about bestiality.  If you want to ban all opinionated  or "unnatural" speech in the military, that's fine; you'll have to define "opinionated" and "unnatural" speech in some manner that is satisfactory to all.  Otherwise, "don't ask, don't tell" currently just singles out one population, and there has been no legitimate reason given to simply ban their speech and their speech alone.

The reason that is repeatedly being given is that men in the military don't want homosexuals in the showers with them, sleeping near them, dressing near them, etc.  Well, that stance sounds like you don't want homosexuals in the military at all.  That stance has nothing to do with them being able to freely speak about their homosexuality.  That stance infers an outright ban on homosexuals so that no one is imposed by it.  Whether they speak about their homosexuality or not, they are homosexual.  And if their "unnatural" demeanor is going to cause some sort of problem in the showers or in the bunks, then it's going to cause a problem whether they speak about their sexuality or not.  Again, that's an opinion that anyone is welcome to have, but the studies and statements from military members who have served with homosexuals don't suggest that it's such an imposition as it's being made out to be.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 02:06:21 PM by Vandy Vol »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

CCTAU

  • *
  • 13035
  • War Eagle!
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #195 on: February 09, 2010, 01:35:29 PM »
If someone starts speaking about bestiality to the point that it interferes with military efficiency, then the military handles it.  There is not an outright ban upfront on speech about bestiality.  I

No shit. There's not an all out librul movement to legitimize animal lovers...yet. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Five statements of WISDOM
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #196 on: February 09, 2010, 01:36:16 PM »
No shit. There's not an all out librul movement to legitimize animal lovers...yet. 

Jumbo will lead the way.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

Kaos

  • *
  • 29513
  • Jeez
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #197 on: February 09, 2010, 04:05:33 PM »
I'll keep this to just a few points, because both you and I have agreed that most of this is something that we just can't agree upon.

I'll humor you. 

I said that sexual proclivities are not an indicator of one's intelligence or reasoning.  You said they were.  That is pretty plainly stated in your post.  If you're honestly going to deny typing that, then...well, I guess we're stuck in a situation where I've quoted the text multiple times and your response is to merely stick out your tongue and say, "Nuh uh!"  As I've mentioned to Garman, if I misquote someone or incorrectly infer something, feel free to correct me.  However, simply saying "I didn't say that!" and then not clarifying what you did say only brings the discussion to a halt, because I'm forced to go back, find your quotes, post them, and then wait for you to tell me yet again that you didn't say it even though it's sitting there in a post.
 

If I say that lawnmowers and helicopters both have engines will you infer that I need to file a flightplan for my Husqavarna lawn tractor? 

Apparently you would.
  
Whether the current restrictions make any sense or not is, yet again, another completely different debate.  My point was not that the current restrictions were correct or incorrect.  My point was that there is no restriction on speech simply because it's a minority view.

They don't currently have a restricted speech policy on any other group of individuals.  Thus, there is a right that all other groups have that homosexuals do not.  Regardless of whether you'd be fine with it or not, the current status quo still denies them a right that others have, yet there is no actual justification for this or distinction of the group that warrants the restriction.


You're wrong here, but I'll get back to it at the end.
 

Having open Christians in the military won't affect all, but it will affect some.  Especially if there are Christians who attempt to convert others.  Afterall, spreading the word and converting the lost is a major goal of many believers.  I know that you have stated that a restriction on religious speech in the military would be fine with you, but again, that's not what is currently being restricted.  Thus, there is only one group being restricted.  The basis for this restriction that you've put forward is that it's because their lifestyle has the potential to affect others.  If that's the case, then we either need to ban all opinionated, belief based speech from the military or none.  You can't suppress one group when there is no apparent distinction as to why they are being singled out.


Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times.  Rules and all.
 

The quote was from Garman's post; nothing was mixed.  And even if you refuse to admit that anyone's stance on this board is that homosexuals should not be in the military, there are those outside of this board and in the real world who actively advocate that stance.

Should have been specific.  By "nobody" I mean I'm not.

I never said that anyone can say anything at any time.  Rather, what I've stated is that gay people can publicly state that they are gay.  The fact that you don't like them having gay protests, gay parades or national coming out days doesn't mean that you can restrict their speech.  Speech is restricted at different times for different reasons, but it is not restricted because of it being a minority view.

Okay.  Whatever you say.  That has nothing to do with the military issue. 

I think it's telling that you completely skirted the concept of speech vs. consequences.  But I know why.  The fact is that as much as you'd like to portray it as such, this is not a free speech issue

Simply put, gays are not being denied the right to claim their public sexuality.  They are free to express it in any way they like.  They are not free, however, from the consequences of that action. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...

The right to speak is not being abridged in any way.  All the military does is make clear what the expression of those ideas will entail. 

Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right.  No one is guaranteed the right to serve.  Now if there were a draft and gays were being conscripted, maybe there would be a different argument.  But they are not. 

The military does not say "do not disclose" it merely says what the consequences of said disclosure would be. 

All the impassioned arguments about what a great soldier Freddy Fancypants might be become extraneous and irrelevant at that point. 

Not only does the military turn a blind eye, but it specifically says it will respect the rights of those who wish to keep their preference private and serve anyway.  That's the don't ask part. 

Suppose I walk in the living room and the lamp is lying shattered on the floor.  I ask my daughter if she broke it and tell her that the consequence of her saying she did is that she will have to pay for the damage out of her allowance, have I restricted her free speech?  No. I've merely told her what the consequence would be. 

If I followed the current military policy, I would look at the lamp, look at her, and leave the room.  If she doesn't tell me she broke the lamp, I have to assume there is no broken lamp at all because I'm not going to ask.   

Whose rights are being trampled again? 

There is no law restricting free speech in this case.  There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech. 

I told you that pony was worn out.  I told you that flag won't fly.   But you can keep on looking for Husqvarnas and Craftsmans and John Deeres zooming through the sky if you wish. 
 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

AWK

  • Caller of the "Taint"
  • ***
  • 8190
  • Damn Right.
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #198 on: February 09, 2010, 04:33:50 PM »
I'll humor you. 
 

If I say that lawnmowers and helicopters both have engines will you infer that I need to file a flightplan for my Husqavarna lawn tractor? 

Apparently you would.
    

You're wrong here, but I'll get back to it at the end.
 
 

Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times.  Rules and all.
 

Should have been specific.  By "nobody" I mean I'm not.

Okay.  Whatever you say.  That has nothing to do with the military issue. 

I think it's telling that you completely skirted the concept of speech vs. consequences.  But I know why.  The fact is that as much as you'd like to portray it as such, this is not a free speech issue

Simply put, gays are not being denied the right to claim their public sexuality.  They are free to express it in any way they like.  They are not free, however, from the consequences of that action. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...

The right to speak is not being abridged in any way.  All the military does is make clear what the expression of those ideas will entail. 

Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right.  No one is guaranteed the right to serve.  Now if there were a draft and gays were being conscripted, maybe there would be a different argument.  But they are not. 

The military does not say "do not disclose" it merely says what the consequences of said disclosure would be. 

All the impassioned arguments about what a great soldier Freddy Fancypants might be become extraneous and irrelevant at that point. 

Not only does the military turn a blind eye, but it specifically says it will respect the rights of those who wish to keep their preference private and serve anyway.  That's the don't ask part. 

Suppose I walk in the living room and the lamp is lying shattered on the floor.  I ask my daughter if she broke it and tell her that the consequence of her saying she did is that she will have to pay for the damage out of her allowance, have I restricted her free speech?  No. I've merely told her what the consequence would be. 

If I followed the current military policy, I would look at the lamp, look at her, and leave the room.  If she doesn't tell me she broke the lamp, I have to assume there is no broken lamp at all because I'm not going to ask.   

Whose rights are being trampled again? 

There is no law restricting free speech in this case.  There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech. 

I told you that pony was worn out.  I told you that flag won't fly.   But you can keep on looking for Husqvarnas and Craftsmans and John Deeres zooming through the sky if you wish. 
 

You are grasping at straws like a fat woman in a milkshake shop.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall said, "Guys don't mind hitting Michael Vick in the open field, but when you see Cam, you have to think about how you're going to tackle him. He's like a big tight end coming at you."

Kaos

  • *
  • 29513
  • Jeez
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "
« Reply #199 on: February 09, 2010, 04:43:53 PM »
You are grasping at straws like a fat woman in a milkshake shop.

Reality straws.  Chock full of common sense. 

friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.