Hill panel votes to delay gays in the military

  • metta

    Posts: 39146

    May 12, 2011 9:52 AM GMT
    Hill panel votes to delay gays in the military

    http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/hill-panel-votes-to-942461.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 12:47 PM GMT
    I am pondering the idea of putting duncan hunter into a set of crosshairs myself. I'll show him he isnt the only fucker who has combat experience.

    As the article says his thinking is extremely dangerous to this country but the red meat repubs (who cannot think for themselves) with think this is patriotic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 12:56 PM GMT
    Like the article said, the question seems moot because of Senate Democratic oposition. I'm not surprised that the Republican right is still pursuing a "culture war" agenda.
  • hartfan

    Posts: 1037

    May 12, 2011 12:56 PM GMT
    Why am I finding some of these provisions extremely mean-spirited?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 1:02 PM GMT
    hartfan saidWhy am I finding some of these provisions extremely mean-spirited?
    Because thats exactly what they are..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 1:02 PM GMT
    Can we get a Gay Republican opinion of this?

    Will allowing our rights to equality MAKE OUR TAXES RISE???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 1:19 PM GMT
    Lets see...

    Duncan Hunter: Baptist His Military experience is lacking and contrary to his hyperbole.
    Vicky Hartzler: Fellowship of Evangelical Churches NO military, no children until 2000 (that means she has a 11 yr old GIRL)
    Todd Akin: Christian (degree from MDiv Covenant Seminary) Air Force Reservist 8 yrs NO active duty


    Tell ya anything.. all three are FRESHMEN
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 1:49 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidLets see...

    Duncan Hunter: Baptist His Military experience is lacking and contrary to his hyperbole.
    Vicky Hartzler: Fellowship of Evangelical Churches NO military, no children until 2000 (that means she has a 11 yr old GIRL)
    Todd Akin: Christian (degree from MDiv Covenant Seminary) Air Force Reservist 8 yrs NO active duty


    Tell ya anything.. all three are FRESHMEN


    So when the teabaggers said "taking our country back" this is what they meant?

    Taking 'our' country back...apparently meant taking in back to the 1950's...like when Rand Paul said a white restaurant manager should have the right to refuse service to a black man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 1:56 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL said
    TropicalMark saidLets see...

    Duncan Hunter: Baptist His Military experience is lacking and contrary to his hyperbole.
    Vicky Hartzler: Fellowship of Evangelical Churches NO military, no children until 2000 (that means she has a 11 yr old GIRL)
    Todd Akin: Christian (degree from MDiv Covenant Seminary) Air Force Reservist 8 yrs NO active duty


    Tell ya anything.. all three are FRESHMEN


    So when the teabaggers said "taking our country back" this is what they meant?

    Taking 'our' country back...apparently meant taking in back to the 1950's...like when Rand Paul said a white restaurant manager should have the right to refuse service to a black man.
    Bingo!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    May 12, 2011 2:21 PM GMT
    I don't see this amendment as any big deal. All it does is require all four service chiefs to certify that the change won't hurt troops ability to fight. All four have already said they believe they can implement the repeal successfully with no harm to military effectiveness. I still think Duncan Hunter is an ASS, albeit a hot ASS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 3:15 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see this amendment as any big deal. All it does is require all four service chiefs to certify that the change won't hurt troops ability to fight. All four have already said they believe they can implement the repeal successfully with no harm to military effectiveness. I still think Duncan Hunter is an ASS, albeit a hot ASS!


    If it's pointless, then why are they doing it?

    Oh, I almost forgot...republicans are the party of bigots and haters. They never pass up a chance to say "FUCK YOU" to gays...even ones risking their lives for our country.
  • hartfan

    Posts: 1037

    May 12, 2011 3:21 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see this amendment as any big deal. All it does is require all four service chiefs to certify that the change won't hurt troops ability to fight. All four have already said they believe they can implement the repeal successfully with no harm to military effectiveness. I still think Duncan Hunter is an ASS, albeit a hot ASS!


    Actually that wasn't the part I was concerned about when I was reading the article. They also mentioned the part where they would not recognize any gay relationships. When I'm reading this, I'm thinking about what this means to gay servicemen, especially those who have spouses and are from a state where gay marriage is legal. When they allow families to visit, this sounds like the gay spouse would not be recognized at all. And I'm not even talking about conjugal visits or such where PDA etc etc may make some soldiers uncomfortable. But just the opportunity to even see the person you love most in your life, is that denied? What if the serviceman was wounded, would the gay spouse be allowed to visit? And if god forbid, the serviceman made the ultimate sacrifice in battle, would the spouse be given notice, be able to receive the serviceman's body or ashes when it is returned? What if the gay spouse and the serviceman's family don't get along as might be more likely expected among gay relationships?

    I know when you enlist, you gave your life away and has to make all kinds of sacrifices. But when a gay serviceman sees his or her heterosexual comrades be treated differently, wouldn't this still hurt his or her morale even if they fully expected this to happen? Yes, if you can't tough it out you shouldn't be in the military, but why are such sacrifices being demanded of gay servicemen but not straight servicemen too? What if the gay serviceman is serving under a commander who, because of his or her religious beliefs or otherwise, will not recognize the challenges facing the gay serviceman, and is not required under military law or protocol to do so? Are there other avenues for the serviceman to address his or her grievances?

    I understand that marriage may not be recognized under DOMA, but does that mean gay relationships should not be accorded the same dignity and respect? Understand that I'm not even talking about the issues related to tax, health insurance etc here.

    If I were a gay person thinking about enlisting or re-enlisting, I would be concerned about these issues, and it might give me more pause to reconsider the decision to enlist. Yet there have been countless gay men and women who even with the restrictions imposed by DADT and before, have bravely and willingly signed up just to defend their country. I admire them and I hope that the President, his administration and the military brass are thinking about how they can acknowledge these courageous men and women with the same respect they have shown our straight troops, and further enhance our military cohesiveness too.

    I know that it's all but impossible to ask there be no political flame war about this post, I just hope that both sides will treat each other with respect and civility.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    May 12, 2011 3:39 PM GMT
    "So when the teabaggers said "taking our country back" this is what they meant?"

    What they meant was, "taking it" - that is, grabbing it for themselves. They do not believe in democracy or equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2011 6:27 PM GMT
    tazzari said"So when the teabaggers said "taking our country back" this is what they meant?"

    What they meant was, "taking it" - that is, grabbing it for themselves. They do not believe in democracy or equality.



    They obviously meant - forcing their beliefs on the rest of the country.
    With all the teabagger ranting about "We the People", and how passing the HCR bill wasn't respecting "the will of the people" because a little less than a majority of Americans backed the bill - it's disgustingly hypocritical that they're trying to undo the DADT repeal, since it's back by 3/4 of Americans - an overwhelming majority.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2011 3:54 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see this amendment as any big deal. All it does is require all four service chiefs to certify that the change won't hurt troops ability to fight. All four have already said they believe they can implement the repeal successfully with no harm to military effectiveness. I still think Duncan Hunter is an ASS, albeit a hot ASS!


    Good point, CuriousJockAZ.

    Let's not look at the policy he advocates or his nasty view towards even our right to exist.

    NO, let's just recognize that Duncan Hunter is HOT.......and not worry our pretty little heads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2011 7:40 PM GMT
    PresentMind said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see this amendment as any big deal. All it does is require all four service chiefs to certify that the change won't hurt troops ability to fight. All four have already said they believe they can implement the repeal successfully with no harm to military effectiveness. I still think Duncan Hunter is an ASS, albeit a hot ASS!


    Good point, CuriousJockAZ.

    Let's not look at the policy he advocates or his nasty view towards even our right to exist.

    NO, let's just recognize that Duncan Hunter is HOT.......and not worry our pretty little heads.




    LOL!
    Clearly, curious lets his dick do his thinking.
    And clearly his dick is not too bright - and suffers from low self esteem.

    And has LOUSY taste in men!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2011 8:04 PM GMT
    I wrote to Hunter earlier this year:

    I understand that you intend to introduce a bill, the effect of which (if it had any chance of success) would be further to spin out the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I also saw that in a recent interview regarding the repeal of DADT you mentioned ‘hermaphrodites’, which strikes me as rather ignorant and scaremongering language.

    Gay service members simply wish to serve their country in their armed forces with dignity and pride, without the risk of being dismissed, simply because of their sexuality. I think you now need to show some dignity and respect by allowing the implementation of DADT to proceed without political interference. Frankly, your continued opposition to the repeal is making you appear backward and bigoted.

    Moreover, as a Captain in the USMC Reserve, your publicly stated opposition to the repeal is now in defiance of the Commandant of the Marine Corps’s intent, as stated on 19 December 2010:

    “The Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines."

    Might I suggest you either resign from the USMC Reserve or get in line with your Commandant’s intent.

    This was his reply:

    Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to my effort to overturn the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that was enacted last year. It is good to hear from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond to you on this important matter.

    As you know, The Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 passed both the House and Senate last year without my support and was signed into law by the President on December 22nd. A few weeks prior to this vote, each of the service chiefs from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force testified on the impact repealing this policy would have on the services. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force were definitive that based on their professional judgment, repeal would be difficult and distracting given the current focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Knowing of the concerns of each of the service chiefs, I recently introduced H.R. 337, the Restore Military Readiness Act of 2011. My legislation mandates that all four military service chiefs must certify that implementation of the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal does not impact combat readiness and effectiveness. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that military readiness and combat effectiveness are not adversely impacted by a hasty push to change this policy. The Service Chief's primary responsibility is to organize, equip, and train their forces to protect and defend the United States. For this reason, the heads of each branch of service must be included in the certification process to make certain that this repeal will in no way negatively impact the military's readiness, the best interests of our military men and women, and the security of this nation. While we may disagree on this important matter, rest assured I will keep your thoughts firmly in mind as continue to debate this issue.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.


    Of course, this mischievous stalling has no chance of success and the repeal will probably be fully implemented by the end of the summer.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 13, 2011 8:46 PM GMT
    Let's hear it from the republican excuses committee

    On how they or ww are not the political punching bags of this party
    Time to wake up and smell the hatred

    ya think GOProud might bring this up at the next CPAC meeting

    What a sad joke icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2011 8:53 PM GMT
    GQjock saidLet's hear it from the republican excuses committee

    On how they or ww are not the political punching bags of this party
    Time to wake up and smell the hatred

    ya think GOProud might bring this up at the next CPAC meeting

    What a sad joke icon_neutral.gif




    Why would GOProud bring this up at the next CPAC meeting?
    GOProud is a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.
    Their mission is to elect Republicans.
    PERIOD.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 13, 2011 11:12 PM GMT
    GQjock saidLet's hear it from the republican excuses committee

    On how they or ww are not the political punching bags of this party
    Time to wake up and smell the hatred

    ya think GOProud might bring this up at the next CPAC meeting

    What a sad joke icon_neutral.gif


    GOProud is shameful. They'll just let liberals do the work for them, and then suddenly experience memory loss as to who is carrying the weight.

    Like the conservatives on this site, their memory is fuzzy as to what political affiliation is largely responsible for civil unions, marriage equality,and the repeal of DADT.