Posted on 12/19/2010 12:59:21 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
“Sorry, but her, Huckabee..and all the rest have shown dereliction of duty on this issue. Unless she or others change course....you are putting your trust in the wrong person(s)”
I submit you are wrong about Palin. True, she did say she was against changing the policy at this time (during a war). That does not imply that she would ever favor it. And among all the potential candidates she alone loves the military the most. I believe she will do the right thing for uniformed soldiers at the end of the day. I am very sure of this. I trust her on this as much as I would trust Reagan.
I generally agree with you on many to most things, but I think you want to guard against being too demanding and parsing and construing a candidate’s statements too finely beyond what they actually say. Read St. Jerome’s refutation of Helvidius on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and how he scolds Helvidius for construing “until” in the infancy narrative of Matthew to mean that Joseph had relations with Mary AFTER the birth of Jesus. I think you are making the same mistake as Helvidius in the context of “not at this time.” That does not imply that there will ever be a time.
Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. You don’t deny that Palin loves the military, do you? It was not Palin who caused the cultural degradation of the past 40 years in the United States that has brought us to the sad state we find ourselves in. And she will not be able to remedy it overnight. You are going to have to trust that her love for the military and her integrity will guide her. I do.
No, I see the trees and the forest, just fine.
What you can't understand, apparently, is that Congress can't ignore prior precedent. I'm not sure how better I can explain it. You are clearly incapable of understanding it.
Congress cannot pass a law that directs lower courts to ignore previously established Supreme Court precedent, even if Congress removes appellate review from the Court. Really, it's not that complicated. Lower Courts are bound by Supreme Court precedent, now and forever - until such time as the Court reverses itself.
"I assume you concede this fact as you have failed to rebut it."
Not only did I not rebut it, I stipulated to it in my very first post to you when I mentioned that I didn't want to get into a discussion about judicial stripping. Why did I say that? Because people who are internet lawyers always have problems with the exception clause. In this regard, you haven't failed to disappoint.
Yes, I understand full well your argument - You believe that Congress can pass legislation that directs lower courts to ignore prior precedent. You're not the first person to assert such an argument, and you won't be the last, unfortunately. However, that doesn't mean you're right.
I absolutely agree that many do cause harm.
I also believe that there are many who do not. I believe that there are many homosexuals who support DADT, in fact.
However, in dealing with this situation, straight members of the military are not without protection.
Thanks for including me in your ping. I stand in awe.
Perfectly stated. Wow.
“I submit you are wrong about Palin. True, she did say she was against changing the policy at this time (during a war). That does not imply that she would ever favor it. And among all the potential candidates she alone loves the military the most. I believe she will do the right thing for uniformed soldiers at the end of the day. I am very sure of this. I trust her on this as much as I would trust Reagan.”
Then why doesn’t she plainly state she NEVER for repealing DADT? By the way....I did not single out Palin. Huckabee and the rest are waffling on this as well. Whether it be Huckabee, Palin, or the rest....none of them measure up to Ronald Reagan.
I’m not saying YOU shouldn’t support her, but I am asking you to hold her feet to the fire lest she stray too far off the pathway. I would say that to those that support the other candidates....I supported Huckabee in the primary last time.....I won’t again because of this issue.
Palin, Huckabee, whoever, must EARN my vote and monetary support this time. They will do so by being clear on where they stand for a start on this issue and then moving harder right if they are trying for the mushy middle. I don’t like coy talk.
In the last primary I was initial high on Fred Thompson until I read where he had hired an openly homosexual campaign manager he got from, I believe, Sanatorium. It sent the wrong message, in my mind, that he would not be firm on issues of this nature. I am certain that President G.W. Bush, a POTUS I respect, was badly influenced by V.P. Cheney who was compromized by having a homosexual daughter - too many conflicting interests. It is tough being a parent in tha situation.
We are NEVER going to get the perfect candidate in that the Lord Jesus won’t be running for office. However, I’m insisting on something better than the imperfect candidates we have now.
Take care. BTW - I would be the first to cheer Sarah IF she would be more straightforward.
Until I hear from her to the contrary, I’m going to continue to assume that Sarah Palin is opposed to the repeal of DADT.
“I was very glad to see you did not use the word “REPUBLICAN” in that concluding sentence.”
If i had used the word “Republican”, it would have included Mitt Romney in the case of whose election the cure would be worse than (or at least as bad as) the disease.
Who knows what kind of Marxist President a Romney administration would spawn.
My honest query about lesbians who are serving, and asking if anyone here had served with known (privately known?) lesbians, made you want to “tell on me” to Jim? Wow, were you very popular in school?
I was only wondering aloud.
I have NEVER EVER EVER supported the gay agenda. Ever. I have only supported the children: effeminate boys through no fault of their own, and masculine little girls, and have read up on how certain plastics and environmental toxins MAY be affecting pregnancies. That is ALL.
What a mean thing to do, to try and get an 11-year-long FReeper thrown off FR by “tattling” to Jim one day after he has said he will throw off anyone supporting the gay agenda, by calling him in, and TELLING HIM I support the gay agenda. Where’s your holiday spirit?
One of the highlights of my life was meeting JimRob, because I understand the service he has performed in creating and keeping FR, to protect and save our country. I admire him with all my heart and I do not cross his rules.
Wow, that is the kind of story I was interested in. It is far more egregious to use rank to bully people with your homosexuality than just to “hit on” a fellow soldier of the same rank.
I was thinking MAYBE the gay women were not as much of a problem. I guess they are just as much of one.
I don't know, but see #43. Apparently some officers are using rank to lesbian-bully subordinates.
Question… Does this mean Obama, after apologizing and bowing to the world, striving to make friends with the enemy will now have to sign off allowing UCMJ sodomy rule change (sticking a male penis into another man’s butt) as being ‘acceptable’?
All that friendship gesturing will then be for not, they will hate him more for it.
I served on a base where I was close friends with a protestant chaplain. That chaplain told me that he had on average been approached twice a week by different females who complained of sexual advances from other females in the barracks. I assume the advances will be more overt once this policy is lifted and it will result in many ‘normal’ men and women leaving the service or not participating to begin with.
Huckabee won’t repeal it.
Romney won’t repeal it.
Next? =.=
“Until I hear from her to the contrary, I’m going to continue to assume that Sarah Palin is opposed to the repeal of DADT.”
This isn’t about singling out Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee. I chose those two because they are supposed to be the “values” candidates. The have both been vague on the issue:
The wise person never “assumes” anything. When we assume, it allows us or someone to make an “ass out of u and me).
“I was thinking MAYBE the gay women were not as much of a problem. I guess they are just as much of one.”
They are most definitely a problem. And I know of cases where they have made the lives of normal people a hell in the Army.
Not mentioned in their contract, sure. Everyone knows they will lose some of their personal freedoms when they join the military. It's a necessary thing to maintain military discipline. But working with someone who is homosexual and having to live with someone who is openly homosexual are two different things. If gays want to serve in the military, they have to be willing to give up some of their personal freedoms, just like everyone else.
*free legal services for same-sex partners
*able to live in on-base military family quarters with same-sex partners
*what other benefits will they be eligible for? Family separation allowance? Shopping at the PX/BX/NEX?
*what about joint duty assignments such as when one’s partner is also in the military?
*will there be “goals” or “quotas” for promotions or assignments?
*increased claims of sexual harrassment
And if the DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) gets repealed or declared unconstitutional, G&L servicemembers will be eligible for:
*BAH at the with-dependents rate for same-sex partners
*healthcare benefits for same-sex partners
The legislation does not contain an affirmative statement that sexual orientation cannot be used as a reason to deny enlistment, commissioning, or reenlistment. Really odd, and poor drafting unless that leaky language was necessary to get to 60 votes.
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.