Posted on 11/07/2010 12:15:43 AM PDT by Rastus
The constitutional argument is that the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the military. They gave the CINC job to the President.
The constitutional argument is a good one in that we don’t want a judge putting an injunction on “a surge” if that’s what a CINC were to decide as the best strategic move in a war. Could a judge dream up a logic for putting a hold on a surge? Sure he could. I could. If everything else fails, use the commerce clause.
The same with the Congress. War issues should be decided on the basis of winning wars and not on whether it meets equal opportunity interpretations or not to ban gays from service.
I have pointed out one of many battlefield reasons why gays should be banned....the blood-borne pathogen issue.
So, this REASON (blood) is premised on Congress exercising its Constitutional authority to provide a WINNING military, and not just any old military it can throw together.
Fat people are banned from serving not because we hate fat people, but because they are more vulnerable in a fast-moving wartime environment.
Zackly.
There was a troll that was zotted that made the same statement recently. It'll come to me who, sooner or later.
The left is trying to destroy our Republic and you think the answer is humor?
But there was another point to it. Gays didn’t just start signing up yesterday. And whether or not gays served in Washington’s army...Well, I’d rather not know about it.
First of all, in Washington's time homosexuality was a capital offense.
Secondly, as I said earlier, the fact that a law is being broken IS NOT a reason to legalize something; "it's happening anyway" is nothing more than the libertarian push for anarchy.
I think Gates is merely taking advantage of this situation. He found this issue thrust into his lap and he’s making his move for whatever is next.
NO, Gates is urging Congress to allow open homosexuality in the military.
He has chosen to see how well he fits in with this administration.
If he had integrity he would have resigned by now.
This is your personal agenda if you don’t see the big picture.
No, it isn't.
Much more integral to the principles of Conservatism is Rule of Law and the Rights of the Individual. The gays in the military issue is a much more ancillary issue. If you want to make the changes you seek you need to find the best arguments and make ‘em...and make ‘em heard by the people that count.
Spoken like a true libertarian, libertarians love to dismiss socially conservatism as ancillary.
If you can’t convince me, then I promise you, you are not going to be convincing to General or a Senator. You will find your whining falls on deaf ears.
I think your mistaken, I'm not actually trying to convince YOU of anything.
You have decided to make this personal and that also makes it part of your personal agenda.
No, that would be YOU.
You mistake me even more than you mistake conservatism.
If it wasn’t funny, it wasn’t funny. But you need to check yourself. Mountains or molehills, buddy. I was trying to de-escalate this conversation...Nothing more, nothing less.
And you’re exactly right. In the times of yore in the Navy, a thief and a homosexual would be treated the same way, tied to the masthead and beaten to pieces.
I have no problem with that.
So, how do we get to this from here? Seriously. What is your enlightened suggestion?
I did not use the “it’s happening anyway” argument. Its stupid and I condemn it roundly when I see it.
I am saying that there are correct measures that can be taken to fight this.
Whining about it is not the answer.
And if I remember correctly, you started the name calling...You made it personal.
My suggestion...Don’t drink when you do this. Apparently, you’re an angry drunk and it’s unbecoming.
I wish I could remember. However, it still seems likely that we are dealing with a retread.
Yup. They made the same statement.
I doubt that.
I've been on here a long time and none of the people who know me have ever suggested that I'm not a conservative. As a matter of fact, even the people on the anti-FReeper sites have never suggested that I'm not a conservative.
But something strikes me as odd, you seem surprised by what I'm saying, yet you claim to have lurked here for years. Are you telling me that you were unfamiliar with the fact that I dislike those who dismiss social conservatism? I'm not exactly an unknown entity on here.
I did not use the “it’s happening anyway” argument. Its stupid and I condemn it roundly when I see it.
Then why have you repeatedly made reference to the fact that there were probably homosexuals in Washington's army?
And if I remember correctly, you started the name calling...You made it personal.
No, I suggested that you might be a retread troll, NOTHING I have seen since has caused me to alter that opinion.
My suggestion...Don’t drink when you do this. Apparently, you’re an angry drunk and it’s unbecoming.
First of all, I haven't had anything to drink in twenty years.
Secondly, I'm not angry.
Finally, if you think I give a damn what you think of me you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Then we have something in common. I don’t give a damn for what you think either.
I don’t give a damn for what you think either.
_____________________________________________________
What about me? Do you give a damn what I think?
I think you’re a re-tread troll. I’m sure you know by now that Wagglebee is responsible for outing more trolls here at FR than anyone I know.
I’ve just briefly scanned your posting history.
And I smell lightning in the air.
You sure sound angry to me.
I know this guy. He’s solid. And he has been around as long as I have, if that’s anything to ya. He takes this Constitution thing seriously...and he has little tolerance for small minds that don’t.
I’ll call him and calm him down. You got him all wrong. In fact, I am pretty sure you just made an enemy out of someone you’d rather have on your side.
He usually only speaks up when he sees a big hole, otherwise he’s been cheering for our side for a long time. His newsletter was pretty good too.
On the topic at hand, Gates needs to resign. But he won’t. We’ll have to take out that trash when we take out the rest in 2012.
Good, be sure to inform whatever anti-FReeper site you frequent that I still don't give a damn about libertarians.
WAW
Since Sep 17, 2010
view home page, enter name:
~ About ~ Links ~ Contact ~ In Forum ~ Mail To ~
Return
WAW hasn’t created an about page.
_____________________________________________________________________
If he has been around as long as you, what is his previous screen name?
Serious arguments get taken seriously by serious people.
So far, I haven’t seen where he’s said anything controversial.
How do you know him?
He joined September 17, 2010, that was seven and a half weeks ago!
Even if he really did lurk for years, how do you know?
Really?
WAW: If you can’t convince me, then I promise you, you are not going to be convincing
This is conservative site, not libertarian etc. He seems to disagree with conservative values. Do you?
Worked together 5 years. Subscribed to his newsletter for 3 years. He often cut out articles from FR - and often included users comments that he thought best supported whatever it was... He’s converted a number of my former liberal friends by finding persuasive ways to show that not all conservatives are bigoted monsters.
Now would you rather talk about our personal lives or get on with this dumb thread?
That wouldn't surprise me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.