T1B

The answer is obviously Congress, except to those who are dumb, being intentionally obtuse, or just want DADT repealed, regardless of the legality of the means.

mvscal wrote:And when a judge says that an individual's 1st amendment rights is more important the need for operational security?

Not even in the same ballpark. There is a longstanding legally recognized need for operational security that supersedes your right to post your location on Facebook when you are a member of the armed forces. NADT is justified based on the argument that it is needed for "unit cohesion." The problem with that theory is that it is demonstrably false, meaning the military has no justification for banning gay servicemen.

BSmack wrote:The problem with that theory is that it is demonstrably false, meaning the military has no justification for banning gay servicemen.

I too don't have my GED in law...


But, is it not reasonable to assume that a goodly percentage of heterosexual men would be uncomfortable being in the shower and other intimate settings with a man who is sexually attracted to men?

And assuming Reasonable Assumption #1 is true (it is), would that not æffect "unit cohesion"?

Furthermore, would not your interpretetation, taken to its logical conclusion, have both male and females ultimately showering together (since it's also logical to conclude the reason we shower seperately is due to an attraction to the southern territory of members of the opposite sex, which leads to discomfort on the part of the "receiving" party when the feeling isn't mutual)?


Since we're all offered equal protection under law, shouldn't the same protections from unwanted Irieing apply equally to people of all sexual orientations, including us good ol' fashioned heterosexual males?

If I hypothetically were in the military, would I not be entitled to the same "protections" under both the laws of the land and common decency, which are pretty much SOP?

Oh, and BTW, addressing your statement that I quoted... where in DADT does it mention "banning" gay servicemen? Maybe we should let COMMON FUCKING SENSE pass judgement on this one -- the "scope thy neighbor's junk all ye like, just keep it on the QT" policy has been pretty æffective for the last, say... human history.

Dinsdale wrote:unwanted Irieing

Solid.

Dinsdale wrote:And assuming Reasonable Assumption #1 is true (it is), would that not affect "unit cohesion"?

If we were talking about some kind of abstract concept, then maybe you would have a point. However 35 countries, including most or all of our coalition partners in Afghanistan, allow gays to serve and there have been absolutely no issues with "unit cohesion." Which means, absent any other pressing military need, none which has been demonstrated, the policy is unconstitutional.

BSmack wrote:the military has no justification for banning gay servicemen.

They aren't banned, just expected not to advertise and flaunt their perversion. Is that asking too much?

BSmack wrote:However 35 countries, including most or all of our coalition partners in Afghanistan, allow gays to serve and there have been absolutely no issues with "unit cohesion."

How would you know that and why should we care?

Which means, absent any other pressing military need, none which has been demonstrated, the policy is unconstitutional.

uh, nice reach.

How the fuck do other countries allowing gays to serve make the U.S. policy unconstitutional?

BSmack wrote:However 35 countries, including most or all of our coalition partners in Afghanistan, allow gays to serve and there have been absolutely no issues with "unit cohesion." Which means, absent any other pressing military need, none which has been demonstrated, the policy is unconstitutional.

Remind me when NATO dictated US domestic policy?

"Because NATO says so" isn't American policy. Yet, here you are, arguing that it should be...


Please leave MY country. Last I checked, WE make the rules for the USA. "Because NATO said so" ain't cutting it for me.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:And when a judge says that an individual's 1st amendment rights is more important the need for operational security?

Not even in the same ballpark.

Try again, you piss-stained dumbfuck. It is exactly the same principle.

BSmack wrote:...the military has no justification for banning gay servicemen.

That is an opinion not a fact and meaningless opinion at that.

Do I really have to point this out to you guys?

Follow along. This might get complicated.

1. The justification for the US military banning openly gay, or unwillingly outed gay people from serving is based entirely on the idea that allowing them to serve will have an negative effect on unit cohesion.

2. 35 other countries, including many of our partners in Afghanistan, already allow openly gay people to serve.

3. None of these countries have suffered any unit cohesion issues.

4. We conduct joint exercises with our NATO partners regularly

5. American units have not suffered unit cohesion issues during these instances of working side by side with openly gay soldiers

6. It therefore is obvious to anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex that NADT has ZERO impact on unit cohesion. NONE, NADA, ZIP.

7. Lastly, if there is no impact on unit cohesion, the rationale for enforcing NADT is gone. If there is no demonstrable military need for the policy, then the military is subject to the same constitutional standards as the rest of the Federal Government. This doesn't mean that NATO is setting policy. Only a drunk or stoned person would even think that.

It's DADT, dimwit. Please try to get that acronym straight in your numb skull before preaching anymore about how other countries allow faggotry.

What part of we aren't European went sailing over your pointy little head? Euros can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag anyway. Why would we want to emulate a bunch of worthless pussies? If they want fags in their so called "armies," that's their business.

In any event, the fact remains that the dumbfuck judge in this case is way out of bounds in taking it upon herself to dictate military policy.

What part of you side lost are you failing to comprehend? The policy will be overturned.

Oh, sorry guys, special delivery. Don't mind me.. is this the veterans day thread? Could someone sign for this stuff?







I'm sure you'll look just fabulous invading Iran

Dr_Phibes wrote:I'm sure you'll look just fabulous invading Iran.

Well, it will create jobs. And we've pretty much got the logistics worked out, 'cept for that pesky Pakistan... say! We could kill two birds with one stone.

Dinsdale wrote:But, is it not reasonable to assume that a goodly percentage of heterosexual men would be uncomfortable being in the shower and other intimate settings with a man who is sexually attracted to men?

Can we put this homoerotic "dong-gazing group showers" thing to rest? Newsflash: The military has these newfangled contraptions called "shower stalls" that come with this nifty accessory called a "curtain". Therefore the only way that a dude is going to be showering with another dude IS IF HE STEPS INTO AN OCCUPIED SHOWER STALL. Jesus, this is like being in junior high sex ed where the goofy kid giggles every time the teacher says "penis"...

And assuming Reasonable Assumption #1 is true (it is), would that not æffect "unit cohesion"?

Look, you're operating under several equally retarded premises here:

1. Every gay man is irresistably drawn to every penis and simply MUST stare at it with googly eyes, thus making everyone uncomfortable. I think you can rest assured that you would be just as shunned by homosexual men as you are by attractive heterosexual women.

2. The military is chock full of rednecks and hispanic and black gangbangers. Knowing that those three groups would beat the living shit out of you to "save face" if they caught a gay dude eyeballing their junk, ass or whatever, if you were gay, would you eyeball jethro's unit?

3. I worked with a gay dude in the Navy. Shocker, I know. Guess what, no one gave a shit. The only thing that fucks with "unit cohesion" is people who don't get their fucking job done and dealing with assholes. If the gay dude is neither of those two things, no one really gives a shit if he's sniffing dude taints on his off time.

WarWagon wrote:They aren't banned, just expected not to advertise and flaunt their perversion. Is that asking too much?

You do realize that most of our straight servicemen have been boning 15 y/o prostitutes in the South Pacific for the better part of the past 50 years, right? But I guess that's cool, because it involves heterosexual sex, but a Tom Brady poster in someone's locker is just fucking sick, right?

Face it, you and 90% of the people beating their chests have zero clue on this topic. Gays have been serving in the military since this country has been in existence and people who serve know just about everyone that is gay in their division/squad/workplace.

There are some legit concerns about repealing DADT, and you're so blinded by shower dong-gazing fear that you don't even know that they're economic and not social in nature.

OCmike wrote:serving gay dudes was business as usual

Oh, do tell...

OCmike and a few well-placed strokes of my backspace key wrote:a dude is going to be showering with another dude IN A SHOWER STALL. Jesus, this is like junior high sex where the teacher says "penis"... Every man is irresistably drawn to every penis and simply MUST stare at it with googly eyes.

I'm sure you and BSmack and JustSucked810Cocks will be very happy together.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:However 35 countries, including most or all of our coalition partners in Afghanistan, allow gays to serve and there have been absolutely no issues with "unit cohesion." Which means, absent any other pressing military need, none which has been demonstrated, the policy is unconstitutional.

Remind me when NATO dictated US domestic policy?

Dinsdale wrote:

OCmike wrote:serving gay dudes was business as usual

Oh, do tell...

OCmike and a few well-placed strokes of my backspace key wrote:a dude is going to be showering with another dude IN A SHOWER STALL. Jesus, this is like junior high sex where the teacher says "penis"... Every man is irresistably drawn to every penis and simply MUST stare at it with googly eyes.

I'm sure you and BSmack and JustSucked810Cocks will be very happy together.

Nah, it'd never work. Every relationship can only have one cripple and I can't compete with JSC.

I'm on my way to Court, so no time for more than a driveby. I'll have more to say later.

But for now, there is this: http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/re ... _continues

Ya think DADT might be interfering with operational readiness? Just a tad? Bueller, anyone?

OCmike wrote:The only thing that fucks with "unit cohesion" is people who don't get their fucking job done and dealing with assholes.

You're really contradicting your stance with statements like that.

Dinsdale wrote:I'll let you in on another secret (secret to dunderheads, anyway) -- a current or former member of the US military can't sue the military, except in very rare cases, usually due to extreme willful negligence, or paycheck squabbles (which the military ALWAYS wins, but it's one of the few things you can sue over).

Of course, there is that thing about soverign immunity. It's largely been waived in the U.S. by statute, to the point that most lay people probably don't even know about it. But where it hasn't been waived, it still exists.

True story, btw . . .

In 1990, I was in the Navy, and was getting ready to come back from an overseas deployment. I was stationed on a CV, so the ship had its own dental department. I get a call from the dental department telling me that I was due to come down for a checkup. I go down there, they examine my teeth, then the conversation went pretty much like this:

Them: Your wisdom teeth have to come out. Or at least, two of them do. You might have enough room in your gums to save the other two.

Me: I'm getting out of the Navy in three months, and I don't want to have to pay for this later. Let's take them all out now.

So I make an appointment for a few weeks down the road. Come back for the appointment, they pull my wisdom teeth. Thing is, with one of the teeth, they pull out some of the bone underneath my gums with it. They even showed it to me.

Of course, in the private sector, that has all the makings of a dental malpractice lawsuit. Even if we're talking about state or local governments, or even the civilian portion of the feds, it's a possibility. Not in the military, though.

I fully understand why a current/former service member can't sue the military for, say, sending him into a combat situation. But it's always struck me as a bit ponderous that something as mundane as dental malpractice, especially under non-combat circumstances, is also subject to the same rules. But even if that weren't the case, it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome at all. The way the Navy operates, a lawsuit would've ended his career, and I knew that. I liked the guy, I didn't want to be responsible for that, particularly if the best that would've come my way was a little bit of money.

Dinsdale wrote:If I hypothetically were in the military,

I'll finish that thought: you certainly wouldn't last very long. The military does test for drugs.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:you certainly wouldn't last very long. The military does test for drugs.

It's notm so much a "drug test," as it is an "intelligence test" -- if you're not smart enough to figure out a way around it, you're probably not very bright.

Back in the 80's, one of my good friends fell into an extremely lucrative career as a drug dealer while in the Army in Germany. Sure, he did a stint in military prison... but never failed a drug test. Hid his ill-gotten gains very well, too, and came home to a pile of cash.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Ya think DADT might be interfering with operational readiness? Just a tad? Bueller, anyone?

Not a bit. Maybe if they were more focused on their mission rather than trolling gay chat rooms for cock you might have a point.

Jan 21st...

88 wrote:Would it be appropriate to tip back a glass of wine and be appreciative that the Court did it's job and prohibited Congress from taking fundamental rights away from its citizens?

Now...

88 wrote:But I'm not one of those people who has the ability to get "living documents" to tell me when they now mean something different than when they were written.

Make up your mind asshat.

BDumbfuck wrote:1. The justification for the US military banning openly gay, or unwillingly outed gay people from serving is based entirely on the idea that allowing them to serve will have an negative effect on unit cohesion..

No, it's only based partly on that.

BSmack wrote:Jeb Thurmond wrote:
The star of Lazy town is Julianna Rose Mauriello. Yes, that's right, despite the show being from Iceland, which is thousands of miles from Mexico, a Mexican still managed to illegally immigrate there and steal a white person's job.

She's an American you puss-filled quarter-wit.

Buttsy wrote:I'm not saying all fags should be shot and killed

Safe to come out, Felix.

Papa Willie wrote:Not only should fags not be in the military, but LIBERALS should not be in the military - certainly right now. Why? Most liberals want to coddle the cocks of Muslims. What's their motivation to want to kill one? How many conservative fags have you ever seen? I never have seen one. Ahh - there might be a couple of hundred or so, but why would you want prick-pinchers in the fucking military? Why is it okay for a fag to take showers with heterosexuals, when hetero dudes can't take showers with female heteros?

Just another way in which the cunt-spliced government is trying to dumb down and pussy out people. Absolutely god damned pathetic.

I'm not saying all fags should be shot and killed, but they don't have proper motivation to even function in a military environment.

Keep foaming at the mouth there, Corky.

Dinsdale wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:you certainly wouldn't last very long. The military does test for drugs.

It's notm so much a "drug test," as it is an "intelligence test" -- if you're not smart enough to figure out a way around it, you're probably not very bright.

Back in the 80's, one of my good friends fell into an extremely lucrative career as a drug dealer while in the Army in Germany. Sure, he did a stint in military prison... but never failed a drug test.

I've read this one over several times, and I've concluded that you're going to have to explain to me exactly how this proves your friend's intelligence. I just don't see it. Sounds a bit like winning the battle but losing the war to me.

88 wrote:My mind has been made up for years.

Then you are an idiot.

You haven't got a fucking clue.

We'll see about that.

Citizens United, I suspect, has your panties in a wad. Since we're having some fun and all, go ahead and explain where Congress gets the power to prohibit the exercise of political speech.

You are so fucking stupid. The issue of constitutionality was not even before the court but they ruled on it anyways and you jump on it like it was some great ruling when it was judicial activism at its worst. Then you rail on and on and on about how you hate the whole living constitution thing. You are a hypocrite and a farce. As far as the ruling goes only an idiot (like you or team nut sack) would tell Castro (or a collection of Castros) this it was ok to give money that funds political speech in the USA. It is not a long standing principle that ANYBOBOY on the face of the earth can, from the comfort of their own country, pay to promote or tarnish candidates in the USA. YOU say the judiciary should only rule on longstanding principles and then when a case comes before the court that is the opposite you hail its downfall. You are a fucking joke.

Here's a link to the SCOTUS opinion:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... pinion.pdf

I've read it asshole. I actually understood it. Too bad you can't say the same.

Let me know when you find the Constitutional authority bestowed upon Congress to limit political speech.

By all means sell air time to N Korea you Commie fuck.

Seems to me that you are the one with the inconsistent positions.

Seems to me your dumb ass needs to learn how to read because I'm the ONLY one here with the consistent positions.

In your view, the 5th and 1st Amendment prohibit Congress from exercising its power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" notwithstanding that Congress is expressly conferred that power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the US Constitution.

Link me up fuckhead. Show me where I said that. I think DADT is a stupid policy and that it is also constitutional and even if it wasn't this Justice had no power to overturn it. That is called having principles. See how I disagree with a policy and don't then bend over backwards to try and justify banning it. You should try it sometime assfuck.

Yet you believe that Congress is permitted to make laws abridging the freedom of speech notwithstanding that the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution expressly states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Sort that one out for me, deep thinker.

I believe that only an idiot would give the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to make a movie about what a shit candidate Sarah Palin is and then let him freely show it any where and at any time here in the USA. I believe slander is also abridgeable as are threats and even some obscenity in front of certain people or groups of people.

Now go pull that corporate cock out of your ass (and their money out of your bank account?) and try and be an American for one shining moment.

Dinsdale wrote:It's notm so much a "drug test," as it is an "intelligence test" -- if you're not smart enough to figure out a way around it, you're probably not very bright.
Back in the 80's, one of my good friends fell into an extremely lucrative career as a drug dealer while in the Army in Germany. Sure, he did a stint in military prison... but never failed a drug test. Hid his ill-gotten gains very well, too, and came home to a pile of cash.

That's the OLD military method of drug testing. You basically had to walk up to an officer and yell, "I'm so wasted!"/Spicoli, to even get tested.

That all changed when 3 US Navy Gunnner's Mates double-loaded the breech on a 5-inch gun during a live-fire exercise in the Mediterranean Sea and blew themselves to pieces in the late 80's. They tested the sailors' remains and they all popped positive for every drug on the menu. Prior to that you would only be tested if you were known to be high while on watch.

When I joined in 1992, my ship did an annual test every December when everyone came home from Christmas leave and did occasional random testing with two ten-sided dice. Your last two digits of your SSN determined if you had to piss or not. If it came up 1 & 6, everyone whose SSN ended in 16 or 61 had to piss. But they still had almost no funding for the actual testing. Therefore the rule was, if someone had some yellow/orange/dark colored piss, they tested the whole box.

So you still had to be pretty stupid to get busted, as more people got busted at the annual Christmas piss test than any other, but you could still get caught if your bottle was clear (but positive for pot), but happened to be in the same box as some tweeker whose pissed looked like Tang.

But if "being smart" to you means taking shitloads of niacin, goldenseal or a prescription diuretic, testing positive for any of those three masking agents was the same as a positive for pot, meth, etc.

One of my co-workers, who did so many nose drugs that his nickname in The Pit was "8-ball" got busted during the Christmas piss test. He was standing behind me in line and fidgeting and cursing under his breath and basically wigging out. I asked him what was up and he said, "Dude...I'm fucking tweeking RIGHT NOW." But really, with a nickname like 8-ball, it's not like any of the rest of us thought his enlistment would end any other way.

88 wrote: You really should read the decision before you start blathering.

You can't even read a few word post and interpret it correctly and I'm suppose to take your advise on what Citizens United says?

The Court did not rule in Citizens United that foreign corporations are permitted to "give money that funds political speech in the USA" (your words). Quite to the contrary, the Court expressly stated that it did not need to address 2 U. S. C. §441e(a)(1), which provides that foreign nationals may not directly or indirectly make contributions or independent expenditures in connection with a U. S. election. On this issue, the Court clearly stated: "We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process." (see p. 46 of Kennedy's majority opinion). Citizens United struck down 2 USC §441b, but left 2 USC §441e untouched, thereby it continues to be unlawful for foreign nationals to directly or indirectly make contributions or independent expenditures in connection with a U.S. election. Shove your Castro and Ahmadinejad references back up your ass, being the place from where you pulled them in the first place.

First off the only way 441e is constitutional is if you use the living Constitution model because it is clearly a law passed by congress that abridges the free speech of Castro.
Second, the only way the USSC can rule against 444b is if you use the living Constitution model because it has never been legal to do what the USSC has now ruled is legal. What they did was rule in favor of something that has never been legal before, that is not “protecting core principles that transcend ages and which are expressly embodied in the Constitution.” It’s judicial activism.
Third, you are an idiot if you think it is possible to regulate who gives what to whom and who owns what company which is giving what to whomever. That is the system that is now in place thanks to Citizens United. It is un-workable and a stupid thing to even try, unless you suck multi-national corporate cock, then it is a pretty good idea.
Fourth, you must be a pretty shitty litigator if you didn't see those points being brought up when you were typing your response. Hook line and sinker.

You can't address the merits of Citizens United without looking as stupid as you normally do.

You couldn’t read a few word post from me without completely falling on your fat head nor could you see the forest for the trees in Citizens United and you have the nerve to call me out? You are a joke.

So you contend that the Court should not have addressed the Constitutional issue (you used the phrase "judicial activism"). This was the argument advanced by Justice Dissent (Stevens). He couldn't defend Congress's censorship of political speech under the Constitution (even the living breathing one), so he argued that the Court should not reach the Constitutional issue.

He could and he did. You read his dissent right?

A lame swing and another miss.

Because team nut sack said so? Ha!

Why do you hate freedom?

Why are you sucking Castro’s cock?


Now go ahead and show me where I said DADT was unconstitutional you stupid lackey fuck.

OCmike wrote: That's the OLD military method of drug testing. You basically had to walk up to an officer and yell, "I'm so wasted!"/Spicoli, to even get tested.

That all changed when 3 US Navy Gunnner's Mates double-loaded the breech on a 5-inch gun during a live-fire exercise in the Mediterranean Sea and blew themselves to pieces in the late 80's. They tested the sailors' remains and they all popped positive for every drug on the menu. Prior to that you would only be tested if you were known to be high while on watch.

When I joined in 1992, my ship did an annual test every December when everyone came home from Christmas leave and did occasional random testing with two ten-sided dice. Your last two digits of your SSN determined if you had to piss or not. If it came up 1 & 6, everyone whose SSN ended in 16 or 61 had to piss. But they still had almost no funding for the actual testing. Therefore the rule was, if someone had some yellow/orange/dark colored piss, they tested the whole box.

So you still had to be pretty stupid to get busted, as more people got busted at the annual Christmas piss test than any other, but you could still get caught if your bottle was clear (but positive for pot), but happened to be in the same box as some tweeker whose pissed looked like Tang.

But if "being smart" to you means taking shitloads of niacin, goldenseal or a prescription diuretic, testing positive for any of those three masking agents was the same as a positive for pot, meth, etc.

One of my co-workers, who did so many nose drugs that his nickname in The Pit was "8-ball" got busted during the Christmas piss test. He was standing behind me in line and fidgeting and cursing under his breath and basically wigging out. I asked him what was up and he said, "Dude...I'm fucking tweeking RIGHT NOW." But really, with a nickname like 8-ball, it's not like any of the rest of us thought his enlistment would end any other way.

I was in that "old" navy you speak of, active duty from 84-90 and you are, well, let's be nice and say misinformed.

Regular, random drug screening through out the military was well underway prior to my enlisting. I believe it started somewhere around 80-82 and the event that triggered it was a crash aboard nimitz. The event you speak of sounds a lot like the Iowa explosion which happened around 89-90. In that case it was an explosion in the 16 inch turret which killed everyone in there at the time.

You are correct about testing after returning from leave, but, in addition to it, there was regular random testing and occasional unit wide sweeps. I know this for a fact as I had the pleasure of standing Irie duty numerous times while TAD to the MAAs. For you non squids, that means a 6 month stint working for the shipboard rentacops who run the urinalysis ops.

88,
Care to respond to my post you asslicking cumball?

smackaholic wrote: I was in that "old" navy you speak of...

I was in an Old Navy once...

Tons of MILFS, dude. TONS OF FUCKING MILFS.
I practically had to pull a pair of pleated khakis off the shelf to hide my boner!

:o

Martyred wrote:I was in an Old Navy once...

Tons of MILFS, dude. TONS OF FUCKING MILFS.
I practically had to pull a pair of pleated khakis off the shelf to hide my boner!

:o

But that's not how it really went down in the "Old Navy," Marty, now was it?

"'Have some more rum, boyo! says Bo'sun Diego and then 'e's at 'im. I couldna done n'er but hold the wee monkey's arms and wait m'taarn, gov."

--The British Navy

88 wrote:No. You don't have the mental horsepower to make it interesting enough.

Oh I see, it's MY fault that you are out in Constitutional right field with no hope of backing up any of the shit you have said about your idea of a 'dead' Constitution. Face it assbeenie your vapid hate the 'living Constitution idea' is a stupid right wing talking point that breaks down the second someone asks even the simplest questions about what it means to hate the living Constitution idea.
You are a dumb assed right wing fuckhole.