Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-25-2010, 03:29 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonlion View Post
So we talked about this in theory but how will this actually affect the barracks in reality?

Anyone know any Soldiers right now, I imagine it won't change much
Well, the law won't go into effect for a while until they rewrite all the policies and decide on the best way to implement it. I'm sure they will, at least initially, allow soldiers, who suddenly find themselves with a roommate who has come out of the closet, to move to a different room in the barracks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-25-2010, 04:01 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
1) aggree
2) I would have no objection to this
3) dissagree. It was standard procedure for men to be with boys...I dont really know why, but it was prevelent in Greek Society also. One of the big Reasons Saint Paul may have mention this specifically in his letters, is because at the time he was tackling a major social situation...not like today...but where Hetrosexual Men, with families, also had some kinda boy, and it at the very least loving, at the very most sexual. But that has nothing to do with the Fall of Rome...infact the Roman Army had nothing to do with the Fall of Rome...Rome got to big, and despite a plea by the Emporar to unite in Faith...it wasnt enough, and the Empire Fragmented into two...one was Rome, one was known as Byzantine...for a while not even did they have separate Emporars...but even separate Popes!I dont think America will crumble because of this. I think she might end up not being a super power by the end of the next decade, or at least not the only one...but I dont see this being her destruction.
Sorry Dave but oyu will not find a single historian other than Catholics or Italians who will agre with you here. In fact the expert who wrote the rise and fall of Western civilization has made that the major belief until recent political correctness surged in the 1990's
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-25-2010, 04:09 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B. View Post
I hear ya man, but didn't Ron Paul basically want to abolish every single government agency, like public schools and the FBI?
no he wants the gov to stay within the powers of the US COnstitution. We do not need a Federal school department or Federal cops that is not perscribed in the US COnstitution. The local and state Govs need to cover this. The feds job is to build roads protect our bordrs and make trade treaties. That is all./
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-25-2010, 04:13 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post
You act like anyone can join the military. This is what I have found on the internet, if this not correct please tell me.

Congress and the courts have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ensures all individuals are treated equally before the law with respect to civilian employment, does not apply to the military profession. No less than seven major Supreme Court decisions support this.
The civil rights act has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is why they try so hard to label it as such. I agree totally with you Mark but until they change it the gay have every right to serve under our US COnstitution.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-25-2010, 04:15 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
The military has to be exempt from many of the equal employment requirements. Most of the people who are not allowed to serve in the military are barred for obvious reasons: physical deformities, physical disabilities (deaf, blind, etc.), mentally handicapped, obese, etc.

Women are also barred from the combat arms roles in the Army, for obvious reasons. We're not talking about the jobs that just require you to sit in a truck and push a button. We're talking about the "throw a 50-pound rucksack over your back, along with your 20-pound flak vest, helmet, web gear, 200-rounds of ammunition, your rifle and walk 5 miles uphill.... quickly, because your life depends on it!" kind of jobs.

Thus, if the military leaders believe that allowing openly gay soldiers into the Army will compromise their mission effectiveness, then I would trust their judgement.

The military exists to do a job that only a few people are capable of doing, forcing them to treat everyone equally compromises their ability to do that job.
Exactly!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-25-2010, 07:30 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
no he wants the gov to stay within the powers of the US COnstitution. We do not need a Federal school department or Federal cops that is not perscribed in the US COnstitution. The local and state Govs need to cover this. The feds job is to build roads protect our bordrs and make trade treaties. That is all./
In today's world, I think the FBI is a very important agency that is able to accomplish more than agencies on the local level are able to do. Of course, there is probably some wasteful spending going on, but that happens on every level of government. Abolishing the FBI would be a terrible decision in my opinion.

I also think the department of education serves a great purpose. Sure public schools aren't perfect, and some kids will get a much a better education in private or even home-schooling. But I totally agree with having a standardized approach to education in this country. Ron Paul's website says it should be a decision made on a "state, local, and personal level" and I can understand that view. I just don't think abolishing the department that sets the standards fixes the problems. Also, the state and local governments do handle appropriation of funds through their very own department of education, so much of the problems in some school districts are problems on the local level. We are also responsible for voting in local government officers who appoint school board members/presidents. If every state in the country feels it needs a DOE, I think it's safe to say it's probably an issue that requires federal oversight. That's just my view though.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-25-2010, 09:02 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,479
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

This is just the first step leading to this:


Biden says gay marriage 'inevitable'


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage


Quote:
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Sat Dec 25, 4:04 am ET

WASHINGTON Vice President Joe Biden is predicting that the evolution in thinking that will permit gays to soon serve openly in the military eventually will bring about a national consensus for same-sex marriage.
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Biden noted in a nationally broadcast interview on Christmas eve.
"I think the country's evolving," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so-called DOMA ([COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Defense [COLOR=#366388 !important]of [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]Marriage [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]Act[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR])." He said he agreed with Obama that his position in gay marriage is "evolving."
Gay marriage is legal in only a handful of states, mostly in the Northeast, and in Iowa. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]gay [COLOR=#366388 !important]marriage [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]issue[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] were in a state of transition. But he also said he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.


Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry, now that the change in the law will allow them to serve openly in combat.

Presidents in recent years have struggled with this issue. President Bill Clinton developed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military, and Obama promised repeatedly in his 2008 campaign for the presidency that his administration would have a more supportive attitude toward gays. But gay rights groups also have said frequently they have been disappointed with the administration's performance on this issue.

The question about same-sex marriage came at Obama's news conference Wednesday, just hours after he signed landmark legislation repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military. The law ends the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forced gays to hide their [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]sexual [COLOR=#366388 !important]orientation [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]or [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]face [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]dismissal[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. Before that, there was an outright ban on service by gays in the military.

But in letters to the troops after the new bill was signed into law, the four military service chiefs warned that the ban was still in place, and that implementing the policy change in full was still months away.
Recommendations to put the new policy into place were outlined in a report last month, and now these steps must be written into concrete regulations governing the military. Defense officials say that they still don't know how long it will take before the Pentagon completes its implementation plan and certifies the change will not damage combat readiness. Once certified, the implementation would begin 60 days later.
In his interview with ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos, Biden brought up the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that Congress passed in 1996 that [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]defines [COLOR=#366388 !important]marriage[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] as between a man and a woman.

Obama has repeatedly said he would like to see the law repealed, but the Justice Department has defended its constitutionality, which the agency is required to do.

As recently as October, the department defended DOMA, appealing two rulings in Massachusetts by a judge who called the law unconstitutional for denying federal benefits to gay marriage couples.

In two separate cases, U.S. District Judge [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Joseph [COLOR=#366388 !important]Tauro[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] in July ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state's right to define marriage and denies gay couples an array of federal benefits to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]joint [COLOR=#366388 !important]tax [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]returns[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].

Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-25-2010, 09:33 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B. View Post
In today's world, I think the FBI is a very important agency that is able to accomplish more than agencies on the local level are able to do. Of course, there is probably some wasteful spending going on, but that happens on every level of government. Abolishing the FBI would be a terrible decision in my opinion.That is what they fool you into thinking. All it does is give more power to the feds. If the states did not have to send do much money to the feds the local police would be better.

I also think the department of education serves a great purpose. Sure public schools aren't perfect, and some kids will get a much a better education in private or even home-schooling. But I totally agree with having a standardized approach to education in this country. Ron Paul's website says it should be a decision made on a "state, local, and personal level" and I can understand that view. I just don't think abolishing the department that sets the standards fixes the problems. Also, the state and local governments do handle appropriation of funds through their very own department of education, so much of the problems in some school districts are problems on the local level. We are also responsible for voting in local government officers who appoint school board members/presidents. If every state in the country feels it needs a DOE, I think it's safe to say it's probably an issue that requires federal oversight. That's just my view though.It was not till Jimmy Carter was elected that we have had a federal public scool department. And since tham our national rank in education has fallen every year. We hve ot get odoctors from India because America's schools are junk. We do not need the Dept of education. It is a waste of money
In red above
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-25-2010, 09:34 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
This is just the first step leading to this:


Biden says gay marriage 'inevitable'


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage
Exactly I am glad someone else saw that as well.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-25-2010, 11:04 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
That is what they fool you into thinking. All it does is give more power to the feds. If the states did not have to send do much money to the feds the local police would be better.
There are complex issues to consider though. Such as computer crimes and mail fraud that stretch over state and sometimes even international borders. They also police sex/human trafficking rings, organized crime, terrorism, corruption in public offices, and numerous other things.

On average each year we give the FBI less than one tenth of the amount of money we give to some other departments like the department of education or agriculture. I'm all for giving more money to local police to help their departments get better in areas they need improvement, but I don't think we need to abolish the FBI to do that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.