• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Politics - They Play With People's Lives

jpccusa said:
Maybe, just maybe, he has underlying reasons why not to want to repeal DADT. Homophobia, confusion about his own sexuality, IDK... :shrugs:
Click to expand...

You would actually be surprised how many military members do not want DADT repealed. I think before we repeal anything like that, how about we take a vote from the people it will affect the most.
 
jpccusa said:
Maybe, just maybe, he has underlying reasons why not to want to repeal DADT. Homophobia, confusion about his own sexuality, IDK... :shrugs:
Click to expand...
[sarcasmfont]Yes because leaping to that assumption and allowing politicians to decide is twofold wisdom! Right, got it.[/sarcasmfont]

I am not saying allow one Marine General to decide the outcome. But ignoring his opinion about his troops is down right ludicrous.

I think the decision on how to handle the repeal needs input from those in the military at all levels. Their opinions should be weighted as 99% of the deciding factor on how to proceed. They will be the ones to know what will and won't work as the repeal is carried out. They are the ones that will live with the outcome. And I don't think some random poll of a couple hundred members showing 70% as ok with it counts. It needs to be an engaging process. Use suggestion programs etc. and USE the input given.

Politicians should have little or no input on how to do it period.
 
tsst said:
[sarcasmfont]Yes because leaping to that assumption and allowing politicians to decide is twofold wisdom! Right, got it.[/sarcasmfont]

I am not saying allow one Marine General to decide the outcome. But ignoring his opinion about his troops is down right ludicrous.

I think the decision on how to handle the repeal needs input from those in the military at all levels. Their opinions should be weighted as 99% of the deciding factor on how to proceed. They will be the ones to know what will and won't work as the repeal is carried out. They are the ones that will live with the outcome. And I don't think some random poll of a couple hundred members showing 70% as ok with it counts. It needs to be an engaging process. Use suggestion programs etc. and USE the input given.

Politicians should have little or no input on how to do it period.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I have no problem repealing DADT. Some of my very favorite people on this earth just happen to be gay. But I am not in the military. I have no idea what life is like in the military or in battle. I want what is best for ALL involved.
 
starsevol said:
My thoughts exactly. I have no problem repealing DADT. Some of my very favorite people on this earth just happen to be gay. But I am not in the military. I have no idea what life is like in the military or in battle. I want what is best for ALL involved.
Click to expand...
From my experience in the military and now talking with those that still serve(many friends)...

Politicians decisions about the military are 99.999% (perception not actual data though probably not far off) politically self-beneficial based and not based on what is best for our service members. I have ABSOLUTELY no confidence that the folks in DC would decide how DADT proceeds based on what is best for those affected but rather on what secures more votes. Call me cynical. :shrugs:
 
tsst said:
From my experience in the military and now talking with those that still serve(many friends)...

Politicians decisions about the military are 99.999% (perception not actual data though probably not far off) politically self-beneficial based and not based on what is best for our service members. I have ABSOLUTELY no confidence that the folks in DC would decide how DADT proceeds based on what is best for those affected but rather on what secures more votes. Call me cynical. :shrugs:
Click to expand...

Having served myself, I agree with this. Not much of what comes down from the top actually has or had myself and my fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines at the top of the priority list. And, that goes for most of all legislation pertaining to the military, from any and all politicians, from any party.
 
Well, I'm thrilled DADT passed.
I am sure there won't be any major changes since most servicemen already KNOW or SUSPECT someone they know is gay.
This law was just stupid anyway. I'm glad it is over.
Homophobes in the military will have to deal with it.
Fortunately it was done through Congress and not through the Judiciary so the troops have time to adjust to the idea and the implementation can be planned out and maybe phased in. ;)
 
Some reading material to make your blood pressure go up.

Deficit: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80327/mcconnells-brilliant-new-plan-shrink-the-deficit

McCain: http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/john-mccains-lasting-anger-1670138.story

McConnell: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/mitch_mcconnell_says_the_darnd.html

START Treaty: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/22/5697487-mccain-was-a-no-on-start (for those who don't know what START treaty is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/start-treaty-senate-vote_n_800238.html)

Food Safety: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/22/132253904/the-nation-republicans-for-salmonella

9/11: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...inst-911-responders-bill/?partner=rss&emc=rss

And to summarize, Christmas: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/dec/21/early-holiday/
 
Reading what some of you nut jobs present raises my blood pressure.. Thank Christ I am doing my best to pull from these type of "discussions".. this is the type of retoric that is always played because someone just has to be right by forcing their opinion/agenda on others.. I wish these threads would just disappear to a political board..
 
Oh believe me, I am trying and don't think I am in a world of regret for doing so.. I just can't stand loaded agendas... Of course, there comes the egg me on posts..

I know I can survive with or without eithier party ruling the country.. Might be because my sainity is a very small and fragile thing...
 
Loaded agendas can be a problem for some people. For others it is just a way of raising awareness and expressing one's points of views. Many people try (and succeed) to stay away from political threads like this one. They may read it, but still they don't post anything. Many others, like me, enjoy (very much) political threads and are avid contributors. And no one in an open forum forces opinions/agendas on anyone else since participation is voluntary.

And like my nut job (;)) idol Dr. Rachel Maddow says, I'm just trying "to increase the amount of useful information in the world."
 
And like my nut job (;)) idol Dr. Rachel Maddow says, I'm just trying "to increase the amount of useful information in the world."
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion young man.. I was actually shocked to find out you were male, would have put a pay check on it you were female ...

Regards.. Tim of T and J
 
TandJ said:
Thats your opinion young man.. I was actually shocked to find out you were male, would have put a pay check on it you were female ...

Regards.. Tim of T and J
Click to expand...

Exactly... it has been my opinion (and research) since MY OP... ;)

I ranted on my OP and I will continue to do so on this thread as soon as I learn something that makes me want to rant. That's the beauty of open forums (unless Cornsnakes.com come up with a new policy forbidding political threads) - I opine on something, some people read and move on, others read and rep me, and others decide to reply.

As for you being shocked to find out I'm a male, I am actually intrigued to know what the shocking factor is. Please do tell.
 
As for you being shocked to find out I'm a male, I am actually intrigued to know what the shocking factor is. Please do tell.
Click to expand...


Because IMHO, you seem to act rather fem.. *shrugs* Although way to much can be read in this, it really doesn't matter to whom or what I am talking to, so please don't waste your time trying to make something out of nothing...

Regards.. Tim of T and J
 
You never saw me acting, and like you said, you being shocked by realizing I am a man instead of a woman doesn't change anything.

With that said, let's go back to what really matters: Post #47 - so outrageous!

To Aaron: She has a doctorate in Philosophy in Politics
More info about this brilliant person many call nut job here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow
 
Oh, I still think she is a nut job. There are many people out there with many degree's, and they are nuts. Having a degree does not mean you are all there, or know what you are talking about, even if it is a doctorate.
 
Anyone need a good laugh or maybe cry?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl0FPMdaA2c&feature=related

During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence.
 
Outcast said:
Oh, I still think she is a nut job. There are many people out there with many degree's, and they are nuts. Having a degree does not mean you are all there, or know what you are talking about, even if it is a doctorate.
Click to expand...

Agreed! I work with a few of those... :cheers:

tsst said:
Anyone need a good laugh or maybe cry?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl0FPMdaA2c&feature=related

During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence.
Click to expand...

The reason for the spending is debatable. Perhaps we need a breakdown of all the spending to see where the money is mostly going. Without that, I can only guess most of it is going to fight 2 wars?

Let's not forget that inflation plays a big role on your last sentence. People can't live with the same amount of money they could 50 years ago, not to mention 220. Everything costs a lot more money nowadays. Perhaps we should use the inflation index to calculate and compare the numbers, taking also into consideration population and economic growth (GDP). That could be a true measurement of spending.

And let's also not forget Nancy Pelosi started during the Bush administration, and after that, the economy sunk big time. A lot of money was/is being spent in an attempt to jump-start the economy back to life (bailouts, stimulus, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top