1 hmmm

2
Bull. Shit. Judicial activism.

3
The judge is well aware the Pentagon is completing an impact analysis. But she couldn't wait -- she took upon herself to change military policy.

4 Thanks Log Cabin Republicans!

5 Got to rev up those queer voters, don't you know. All join in.

6 interesting. Imagine the Dem squirming if asked about this while on the campaign trail.

7 So now the military will become a leftists' job program like the post office, instead of a fighting force?  Will the military become unionized like most police forces already are? Will the military then go on strike? 

8 nice; I hope she can rule on what I'm making for dinner tonight too...

9 If the candidates out there on the stump have any brains or common sense, they will address this not as a gay issue but rather as a LIBERTY issue, a legal issue.  There are so many good arguments against this insane ruling that will even further motivate the base and swing moderates that we don't need to fight another culture war.

10 Honestly I am fine with gay marriage and gays serving in the military. What I am not ok with is rule by a few activist judges who create laws from the bench and work daily to undermine our republic.

11 And another few million people cement their decision to vote GOP next month as a result. I can live with that.

12 Law by fiat.  Thank God it's only a district court.  Injunctions against action can be filed until further appeals can be made.  Hopefully.  Or maybe the Pentagon will just fold.  God knows there's enough libs who work there.

13
Anyone else keeping count of these 'landmark' usurpations of justice?

We have the Arizona ruling, the Michigan Obamacare ruling, and now this. There's one more. Anyone remember?

14 > There are so many good arguments against this insane ruling that will even further motivate the base and swing moderates that we don't need to fight another culture war.


"I haets teh gheys" is never a good argument, no matter how you state it.

Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

15

"ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops"

They've been baned a lot longer then 17 years shithead

16

Democracy? we don't need no steenking De-mock-racee!

 

 

17
Clinton appointee, imagine that.

Cocksucker (no pun intended) keeps damaging the country long after he's gone.

We need to take back the judiciary.

18 So the military now has to re-implement previous policy and ask people about sexual orientation prior to enlistment and actively pursue criminal prosecutions of homosexuals on active duty?

19
Posted by: Palooka

STFU, dunce.

Jeff B is gay. Now how do you feel, jerkoff?

20 I'm buying stock in www.soaponarope.com now.

21 Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

And having someone nobody voted for decree things is democracy?

22
So the military now has to re-implement previous policy and ask people about sexual orientation prior to enlistment and actively pursue criminal prosecutions of homosexuals on active duty?

Yup.  Which means someone is going to try and sue them.

23 Honestly I am fine with gay marriage and gays serving in the military. What I am not ok with is rule by a few activist judges who create laws from the bench and work daily to undermine our republic.

Posted by: Drew in MO

Me too. I can't wait for heterosexual men to be allowed in women's barracks, and for male coaches to be allowed in girls' locker rooms. Because this ruling invalidates job discrimination by sexual orientation and will be applied equally. Right?

 

Example: Today, in the Brandywine school district, a female PE teacher who is also openly lesbian isn't allowed into the girls locker room, just as male coaches are not allowed. Once this is applied at the local level, everyone is welcome in there. Right?

24 This might be a trap - if you're a ghey servicemember, do you really celebrate this and announce that you're faaaaabulous when there's a good chance the ruling is stayed and overturned?

25 We're good enough.  We're smart enough.  And, dog gone it, people really like us.

26 The only lemonade I can make of this:

If one judge can decide that the whole nation has to ignore a duly enacted law, then it seems to me that my state's Governor or Attorney General, or LEGISLATURE certainly can decide that the citizens of our state don't have to obey certain national shit laws - like Obamacare.

And from the tone of the 10th Amendment Townhall I attended yesterday, my Gov. and Atty General would be the ones to test this theory!

Texas for Texans!

27 U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the department is under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips' ruling stand.

At one point in our nation's history the federal courts had no jurisdiction over the policies of the military.

As for that clip above from the story, I would be willing to bet that the case where this judge presided had another one of those "half-assed" federal defenses where the administration wanted to lose.

There will most likely be no appeal because the judge is doing exactly what Obama and his DOJ wants.

28
you fucking plebes.

Says it all, right there.  You think they wouldn't take you out to the kiling fields and jam a plastic bag on your head?

29
How does she tie the 5th Amendment to DADT investigations?

30 @14 What you do with your cooter or pooter is your own damn business. But forcing me or anyone else to acknowledge, and in many cases accept, your behavior to mollify your feelings is wrong.

31 She's just a woman with a small brain....a brain a third the size of ours. It's science.

32 Does a Federal judge even have legal standing to direct military policy?

Its not clear to me that they do.

33 I have no problem with gay people in the military, it's a logistical question.  We don't ask women to shower with men.  Asking straight men and women to shower with their gay counterparts is the problem.  4 showers? 

Also, the cultural issues aren't as big as you might think in combat units.  You're accepted as a member of the team or you're not; gay/straight, no one cares as long as you do your job well and don't get me kilt.

I knew tons of lesbian drill instructors who did just fine among their peers, but their troops had a real issue with them standing in the head watching them shower.  That's pretty creepy shit.

34 You know, between this, the "health care reform is legal under the interstate commerce clause", and some of the other insane court decisions of the last couple decades, I wonder when people are going to figure out we're living in as much of a judicial oligarchy as anything else.

35 Does that mean she wants Do ask and Do tell? You could take it that way. These f-ers have no idea what they are doing and they don't have the first idea what the military even does or is like.

36 I did not realize federal judges had control over internal military policy. Guess they have control over anything they want.

37 It almost seems as if the elites are taunting we the people now. Does this fool not know this will galvanize a few more anti-establishment votes? But then again, one presumes that in the social circles the judge travels in something DADT is not only wrong, but extreme.

38 We're not fascist.  Fascists are people who dress in black and force other people to do things they don't want to do by threatening to put them in jai . . . .  Ignore that or we'll put you in jail.

39 I hope it is as apparent to most voters as it is to me (and most of you folks here) how desperate the Dems are for a win on Nov 2nd.

They can't actually accomplish anything or make a stand on things like extending tax cuts.. so this is what they've got.  Jack shit.. that's what they got.

40
Rump Ranger Marching Cadence:

"your pants are tight, your step is light, your cajones swing from left to right, sound off, etc.

41 This isn't going to go well.  Code Red's will be back in fashion shortly.

42
Question: Is it a Federal crime to be openly gay in the military?

43 #10

Agree entirely.

If a Federal district court can tell the US military it has to accept open homosexuality, why cant the same court decide that women are permitted to serve in combat roles, or on nuclear subs, or dictate all sorts of other policy?

44
I knew tons of lesbian drill instructors who did just fine among their peers, but their troops had a real issue with them standing in the head watching them shower.  That's pretty creepy shit.

Posted by: tangonine

 

See post #23. I made a similar point. Lemme guess; no official action was taken, right?

45 What is "openly" gay. Holding hands in formation?

46 Trust me.  After being in the military for twelve years, I found that individual units, even down to squad size have ways to deal with "social problems".  The military is a different world with an abundance of unwritten laws of conduct.

47 In 1995, Phillips became a United States magistrate judge for the Central District of California. On January 26, 1999, Phillips was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be a district judge for the Central District, a seat vacated by William M. Byrne, Jr. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 10, 1999, and received her commission on November 15, 1999.


Good thing you Republicans in the late 90s decided not to rock the boat. I mean if you had stopped extremist judges like this, the Democrat might have held up good conservative judges too. Oh wait...they did anyway.

Never mind.

48

I don't know how I feel about it. I don't know many gays (that I know of) and when I served there was an all out ban on gays so it wasn't anything anyone thought about.

If it's going to be changed though they should let the congress do it and not some dumbass judge. If it is changed they should give those serving now the option of an early out honorable discharge if they want it.

49 If they're "openly gay troops", there's not a lot of need for asking or telling.

50
As has been stated, this isn't about gays in the military (who gives a fuck when you're getting shot at/mortared).  This is about federal judges that think they are Emperors.

51 The Judge went to Berkely.

52 23 Yes Blue Hen, allowing openly gay people to serve in the military will open the door to lesbian gym teachers molesting their female students and male coaches will be allowed to watch female athletes to get undressed. Don't we mock liberals all of the time for this sort of rationale lacking any sort of common sense?

53 A triumph of activist judges against the will of the people. That's how leftards get the things done that the people don't want done.

54 Can we pull out now?

55 Posted by: Palooka at October 12, 2010 04:24 PM (aNlIg)

Considering how fast LibTards pull this out (sorry) I'm compelled to wonder if it is not they who have the problem with homosexuality.

There are plenty of good reasons for this kind of thing to be kept private- that is, not to ask, and not to tell.  Indeed, it was DADT which allowed homosexuals in the military in the first place.  Previously, the military had a policy of asking and refusing to enlist anyone who was not heterosexual.

The military has a great number of rules regarding moral conduct of its members.  Members can be given a dishonorable discharge for adultery, for example.  Do you have a problem with those?

I have no problem with homosexuals in the military- I just don't need to know about it.  Based on my knowledge (admittedly second hand- never been in the military, but my dad and brother were, and I've known several others) no one has even been enforcing DADT as long as the violations weren't so public that command had to take notice.

So what does repealing DADT really achieve?  I haven't read the decision, but if it is just a straight (sorry again) overturning, it goes back to how it was before.  How's that going to work out for homosexuals who want to serve?  If it went beyond that, the Military is quickly on its way to becoming a Gay Pride organization, as was posted (I believe) in an article here on AoSHQ some months ago.

56
Warden & I made this point months ago: You cannot bunk with others if you introduce a sexual element in the mix.

That's why boys & girls and men & women do not share living quarters, families excepted.  

57

Maybe it is a "Drew" thing.

58 Sailors don't appreciate other sailors fucking at sea. Sorry to be so blunt. The quarters are close. It smells. It makes people uncomfortable.

59 Why is this such a pressing military issue?

60 "I haets teh gheys" is never a good argument, no matter how you state it.

Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

Posted by: Palooka at October 12, 2010 04:24 PM (aNlIg)

Yes because everyone knows saying No means you hate someone.  You don't disagree. You don't think they are wrong or misguided. You hate them.

61

The judge has no authority in this issue. None. Period. Watch it unfold.

62 Sailors don't appreciate other sailors fucking at sea. Sorry to be so blunt. The quarters are close. It smells. It makes people uncomfortable. Posted by: dagny

Yeah, but it only makes the straight sailors, representing what 98%, uncomfortable.

63 My top mission is to recognize the contributions of Muslims and gays to engineering, science, and spiffy space suits.

64

60 Why is this such a pressing military issue?

Because the military isn't the sanitation department.

65 43

Its not a Federal crime to be openly gay.

Its against military policy for any member of the military with a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts to serve.  Its also against policy for the military to try and reveal discover or uncover individuals who are closeted gays without specific evidence of disallowed behaviors.

In short, "Don't ask don't tell" says Gay people can serve, so long as they don't discuss their sexuality and don't engage in discoverable homosexual activity during the time they are in service.

Its not a perfect compromise, but I think its a reasonable one.

66 Yes Blue Hen, allowing openly gay people to serve in the military will open the door to lesbian gym teachers molesting their female students and male coaches will be allowed to watch female athletes to get undressed. Don't we mock liberals all of the time for this sort of rationale lacking any sort of common sense?

Posted by: Drew in MO

 

Nice false accusation. Inoted a clear example at the local level. ALL male teachers and a lesbian teacher were barred from te girls' locker room. If this becomes the new law of the land, then both would be permitted access, correct?

Intead of answering this, you manufactured an accusation of molestation. Should that school district bar that lesbian teacher? if not, why not? Should that same district bar all male teachers?

67

The judge has no authority in this issue. None. Period. Watch it unfold.

Posted by: DougS at October 12, 2010 04:36 PM (iBwIN)

I agree with you but it would take a CIC to appeal the judges ruling and there is no way the pussy we have at the wheel is going to do that 3 weeks before an election.

68 Because the military isn't the sanitation department.

maddogg, I guess I miss your point there.

69
Its not a Federal crime to be openly gay.

Then how is it a violation of 5th Amendment rights? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

70 Shhh, don't talk about the gheys and their subversion of democracy (not to mention the laws of nature).  We're trying to win an election here.

71

I tell you now: If I got drafted and Eric Massa tried to snorkle me I'd shoot him with a rocket propelled grenade.

72 Oh no, I just realized that Sgt. Snorkel must have been gay.

73 Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

Posted by: Palooka at October 12, 2010 04:24 PM (aNlIg)

Have you looked up the meaning of democracy lately? (The US is a representative republic btw, not a pure democracy). However, in a democracy people vote to limit or to not limit the behavior of others in order to create a civilized society. So of course voting to either extend or limit rights of your fellow citizens is "democracy". However, in our case we directly elect congressmen and senators and representatives to the electoral college who then vote to limit or extend rights.

74 RE: AllenG,

In theory, yes.  But often times DADT results in the immediate dismissal of anyone found out to be homosexual. 

If REtards could get over themselves and understand that not even remotely all homosexuals adhere to the stereotype they have constructed, then there would not be an issue.  Sex and the City openly flamboyant homosexuals aren't going to serve.  The only type of homosexual that is going to serve are the type that are serving now.  Regular men and women who happen to be homosexual and don't want to lose their jobs or livelihoods if their sexual orientation is discovered.

Not only did DADT need to be removed but the military rules overall need to be changed.

And for any peckerwood whining about "waaaah Democracy" needs to get a firm understanding of the term "Tyranny of the Majority".

75
Because the military isn't the sanitation department.

Thank you.

76 #14 Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

In fact, that would be the textbook definition of Democracy. . .majority rule.

Its a Republican gov't that grants individuals undeniable rights.

Speaking of, can you articulate which legal "right" entitles gays, women, children, albinos, or anyone else permission to serve in the military whenever they choose?

I didn't think so. . .

77 "I haets teh gheys" is never a good argument, no matter how you state it.

It was one of the key arguments the Democrats made in 2006-8 - remember? With Larry Craig and Mark Foley any time the left discussed a Republican male it was, haha you can't trust Republicans...they are all closeted f*ggots.

So, spare me the dire electoral results we face if we oppose a judge repealing DADT...

78 Secondly, the Judicial branch exists specifically to make sure laws adhere to the Constitution, not that laws adhere to the Will of the People.  Since the Will of the People can be unconstitutional.

Thirdly, the repeal of DADT has a majority of support from US citizens.  Something around 60%.

So by "will of the people" and "democracy", you people mean "will of the discriminating minority" and "fuck the constitution, we're talking about teh gays here".

79

Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

 Actually it is.

That's why they made a republic... which limited the powers of the majority.

80 #75  Regular men and women who happen to be homosexual and don't want to lose their jobs or livelihoods if their sexual orientation is discovered.

So they shouldn't let it be discovered.
These "regular men and women" as you put it know those are the rules when they sign on the dotted line.
What's so hard to understand?
Note that the US military regulates all sorts of other sexual behaviors too, including (and especially) between consenting adult men and women.

81 Speaking of, can you articulate which legal "right" entitles gays, women, children, albinos, or anyone else permission to serve in the military whenever they choose?

I didn't think so. . .

Posted by: looking closely

Howz about anyone who was given a medical discharge and was told to get out? And they demand to be restored to the ranks? Or persons who were not allowed to serve? It can be argued that people can continue to serve.

82

Regular men and women who happen to be homosexual and don't want to lose their jobs or livelihoods if their sexual orientation is discovered.

It's less about that because no one is trying to "discover" anything. It's about extending benefits to partners and housing.

83

how much power does a civilian court have over the military?

isn't the Military governed by Congress thur the UCMJ?

and if they stop enforcing DADT, wouldn't then the Military be left with no choice but to go back to pre-DADT procedures when dealing with homosexuality lacking any specific new instruction?

84 Why is this such a pressing military issue?

Posted by: kansas at October 12, 2010 04:36 PM (mka2b)

It's funny you asked that. Until this issue came up I was a very staunch Democrat. I didn't hate Reagan but I didn't love the guy either. I actually wanted Dukakis to be President. I remember distinctly being happy that Clinton won and there was finally a Democrat in the Oval Office after 12 years (really 24 because Carter sucked so bad). Surely he would right things after so long a time. And what does Clinton do as the first really substantial act of the first Democrat President in 12 years? Fucking DADT.

"Who the fuck gives a rat's fucking ass about gays in the military?" "This is important? " "This is the first thing that needs to get done?"

That is what I asked myself....and I started asking a lot more. Way more than the Democrats ever wanted me to ask I can tell you that and it's been a long time since I've voted for a Democrat.

85 Speaking of, can you articulate which legal "right" entitles gays, women, children, albinos, or anyone else permission to serve in the military whenever they choose?

The Right to be FIERCE!  Sashay!

86 #79

Come back to the big-boy table when you learn what the word "Democracy" means.

87 They have no constitutional basis for this as this is the CiC's power. But still, thanks, W, for not fighting to overcome the fillibuster for fed judges.

88
maddogg, I guess I miss your point there.

Seriously, kansas? 

It is about the mission.  Nothing else matters.  What this judge is doing is allowing the Perez Hilton's of the world to start suing the DoD for whatever reason they want.  The military has a job, it is difficult and people will be killed.  Phillips is turning them into just another Playskool setting.

89 >
It was one of the key arguments the Democrats made in 2006-8 - remember? With Larry Craig and Mark Foley any time the left discussed a Republican male it was, haha you can't trust Republicans...they are all closeted f*ggots.

Ever consider that we crack jokes because Larry Craig and Mark Foley are part of the political structure that denies homosexual rights, while they themselves are homosexuals?  We didn't laugh at their sexual orientation.  We laughed at their hypocrisy.

90 No Blue Hen, I employ common sense. Some thing I hope the school districts will employ when deciding whether male gym teachers and lesbian coaches can be in the girl's locker room. Again, don't we mock liberals for the same sort of thinking that your applying to this situation?

91
The only type of homosexual that is going to serve are the type that are serving now.

Dunce, how many types of homosexuals are there?

92 Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

Rights? You mean like your 1st amendment right to call your drill sergeant a shit for brains and then go tell the media you think your Commander in Chief is a jackass?

Those kind of rights?

Fucking dunce.

93 Democracy is for breeders.

94 Who do you gotta blow to get a drink around here?

95 Newsflash: we have an all-volunteer force.  If the ethnic Catholics, Southern evangelicals, black Protestants, and Mormons, who dominate the forces, all decide that the society of honor that they thought they were joining has been subverted by sodomites and begin to decline reenlistment in any significant numbers, that spells a major problem for the security of this nation.  How about putting country before sexual appetite?  Is anyone willing to be drafted for the "rights" of a handful of gaylords?

96

 "Tyranny of the Majority".

Now you're sounding like a Huffpo fuckwit.  Haven't you ever heard of "rule of the majority" or "social norms"?

97 Boy, this palooka fellow sure is a jackass.  I mean, it's like he's been dishonorably discharged for being gay or something.

Poor little baby.  All this does is put the rules back the way they were before, where the recruiter flat out asks, and if you refuse to answer, or answer yes, then you don't get accepted.

98
it's been a long time since I've voted for a Democrat.

I will still choke you out for being a dem, you turd.

99 Nothing like some red meat for the winger homophobes.
Palooka, how about you and me have ourselves a lemon party and afterwords, we'll cuddle and sip soy lattes?

100 See this is what I don't get. Well OK I get it, but this is what will happen. If a superior Officer comes onto me, or someone under me, and I report them, this is what will happen. If it's a gal, she will get into trouble. If it is a guy, I will probably get into trouble.

101 Palooka, DADT was implimented by a democrat president and is being continued by a democrat president with an over whelming congressional majority, which party is hypocritical again?

102

DADT is not Military policy ...  It is Federal law ... 

and for those that slept during civics class, we don't live in a democracy ...

103

Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.


Au contraire, by drama queen friend.  That is EXACTLY what "democracy" is.

A constitutional representative republic is somewhat different.

In any case, please point me to the "gay rights" clause of the constitution, because all I see is "race, color, creed, or national origin."

Fucking dirtbag federal judge.

104

All this does is put the rules back the way they were before, where the recruiter flat out asks, and if you refuse to answer, or answer yes, then you don't get accepted.

Nah, then you just lie.  We Demotards have made lying into an artform.

105 Posted by: Palooka at October 12, 2010 04:43 PM (aNlIg)

So you're saying having a policy "quite often" results in that policy being enforced?  I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

The military isn't a book club.  It's not even the Boy Scouts, for that matter.  Take a look at some of the things John Paul Jones said about the Navy back in the day.  Those military traditions exist for a reason, whether you like it or not.

If, and only if, the military were the only path to citizenship or certain other privileges (a la Starship Troopers (great book, btw)), I might see how DADT or any other policy preventing homosexuals from "openly" serving in the military would be infringing upon their rights.  However, serving in the military is not a right, and such service is often denied for a great many things.  As I'm not a military man, and haven't made enough of a study of the military cultural history, I'm not in a position to judge.  Unless you meet one or, preferably, both of those marks, neither are you.

106
Nothing like some red meat for the winger homophobes.

Nothing like a big dose of stupid from your dumb ass.  Thx,

107 Nothing like some red meat for the winger homophobes.

Posted by: beelzebub's burp at October 12, 2010 04:49 PM (7+pP9)

We don't dislike you because you are gay beelzebub, we dislike you because you are boring. You can be gay all you want.

108

 

The comic strip Cathy just ended last week. Why didn't any of you morons tell me?

109 #84

That's correct.

Furthermore, any gay service member who feels free to now reveal their sexuality because of the "strength" of this legal decision is going to be unceremoniously booted out of the military when the policy is (inevitably) re-instated on appeal.

Again, the issue here isn't whether or not gays can serve in the military (they can. . .just not openly. . .right now), the issue is WHO DECIDES.

As Commander-in-Chief President Obama can suspend DADT whenever he damn pleases, by the way.    I don't think he's going to be too happy that some pissant judge has decided to take it unto herself to do that.

110

The comic strip Cathy just ended last week. Why didn't any of you morons tell me?

Nobody cares.

111


MY RIGHTS ARE BEING OPPRESSED, palooka!

HELP ME!

112 Like the Bard said, "First, we kill the lawyers."

My standard addendum used to be that "Firstest, we kill the lawyers that are politicians."

I now amend that to "Firstest mostest we kill the lawyers that are judges."

113 Feel free to go ahead and lie then palooka.  When you get caught, the result will be a court martial and discharge at least.

114 We can have different areas for different sexual proclivities. Masterbators over there, missionaries over there, doggies over there, threesomes over there, sex toys over there, etc. Why does anyone want to define themselves by what makes them hot? And good God, why discuss it all the time. Shut the hell up and just do the job. Oh, but it's not about that is it?

115 **Nothing like some red meat for the winger homophobes.*** so what?

116 Way to fire up the winger base going into the election, Judge Phillips. Thanks

117 I question the timing.

118
dagwood, if my sexual fetish is gonna get me some special rights...

I'm all for it.

119 As Commander-in-Chief President Obama can suspend DADT whenever he damn pleases, by the way.    I don't think he's going to be too happy that some pissant judge has decided to take it unto herself to do that.

Posted by: looking closely at October 12, 2010 04:52 PM (6Q9g2)

I don't think your right on either count. Presidents can't overturn an act of congress and Obama I think is delighted some judge made the decision for him this close to the election.

120 Vaguely Related: Is Liberalism Killing the Manly Man? ( http://tinyurl.com/2boxyjg )

121 how many types of homosexuals are there?

10 - Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

122 Somebody just opened the military budget to looting by the trial lawyers association.

123 You'd think with the drab wardrobe they wouldn't want to serve.

124 We can have different areas for different sexual proclivities. Masterbators over there, missionaries over there, doggies over there, threesomes over there, sex toys over there, etc. Why does anyone want to define themselves by what makes them hot? And good God, why discuss it all the time. Shut the hell up and just do the job. Oh, but it's not about that is it?

Posted by: dagny at October 12, 2010 04:53 PM (7IU8X)

The sadists would be good at interrogation. 

125 Why are all these lefties so concerned about gaining admittance to the military when all it does is turn you into a children's-skull wearing, grandma murdering, Abu Ghraib torturing killbot?

Is the military just for dumb red-state high school dropouts? That's what left-wing hero Michael Moore says.

126 DADT being repealed by judicial fiat (apparently only being permanently enjoined from being implemented, but essentially the same thing) i think is the wrong way to go, and because of the reaction it creates. This is something to be done by the CiC or Congress, not the judiciary. Just like the desegregation of the military. Am I comparing desegregation of the military with the repeal of the DADT, no, just pointing out that desegregation was a decision by the CiC of the time (Truman) and not a court order.

127 The military is a special case. It exists for one purpose: To kill the enemy. It is not the place to push social experiments. It is not the place to push political correctness. If you let the leftards run the military, pretty soon you won't have a military, you will have another branch of the fucking bureaucracy, like the fucking Postal Service. How about we let them unionize? Mebbe have a little collective bargaining with liaisons between the "management" and the "grunt"? I mean really, unless the military is run by methods and policies that have been shown effective over centuries, that is where you are going.

128
Exactly, jukin.

Nobody knows exactly how open gays will impact our armed forces, but one thing we know for sure is a lot of lawyers are gonna get rich off it.

129 10 Honestly I am fine with gay marriage and gays serving in the military. What I am not ok with is rule by a few activist judges who create laws from the bench and work daily to undermine our republic.

Posted by: Drew in MO at October 12, 2010 04:21 PM (eu/Ap)

I agree.

130 As Commander-in-Chief President Obama can suspend DADT whenever he damn pleases, by the way.    I don't think he's going to be too happy that some pissant judge has decided to take it unto herself to do that.

Posted by: looking closely at October 12, 2010 04:52 PM (6Q9g2)

Actually he will happy. That is the entire problem with today. These guys want to slough everything off on judges so they get they want and they don't take the heat for it.

131 No Blue Hen, I employ common sense. Some thing I hope the school districts will employ when deciding whether male gym teachers and lesbian coaches can be in the girl's locker room. Again, don't we mock liberals for the same sort of thinking that your applying to this situation?

Posted by: Drew in MO

 

And still you dodge the question. Since when has "common sense" ever applied to an issue such as this? How long does common sense endure when rulings like this exist? Usually they last up until the first law suit is filed by a grievance group.

it is the actions of liberals that cause me to ask such questions.

132
96 Newsflash: we have an all-volunteer force.  If the ethnic Catholics, Southern evangelicals, black Protestants, and Mormons


What I've been saying for years.  Mainstream homosexuality and watch the actual mainstream of society check out.  Bye bye fried pie.  The civilization crumbles.

133
Somebody just opened the military budget to looting by the trial lawyers association.

Yep.   And by 'somebody' you mean 'democrats'. 

134 How does getting rid of DADT get rid of the ban on gay troops? Now they can ask, and they have to tell - right.

135 I've just got to meet up with this Palooka  You know we can do a whole lot for those military uniforms - I'm thinking those Marines would look a lot less scary with some feather boas and sequins.

Ciao luvahs! 

136

The sadists would be good at interrogation. 

Posted by: WalrusRex

 

Or logistics.

137

This is a shockingly outrageous decision, but some perspective.

Putting aside the gross over reach and usurpation of powers, this actually turns out well for the Reps.

1.  This will motivate some Social Cons who aren't very enamored of the Tea Party message of fiscal conservatism to get out and vote.

2.  DADT was going to end sooner rather than later.  I was in the military when DADT was put in place, and the generation of soldiers now are more comfortable with homosexuality than my generation was, and much more than the generation ahead of me.  It was rapidly going outdated.

So, it ends, but ends in a way the Reps can fund raise off of for years.  Not a bad trade.

138 The purpose of the military is to kill people, break things, and provide a bunch of human guinea pigs for social experimentation.

139 I LOVE "Blind" Justice.

***air kisses***

140 I just reviewed the chain of command and UCMJ and can't find a Federal Judge in there anywhere.

141 It was time for Virginia Phillips to shine!

142

The military is a special case. It exists for one purpose: To kill the enemy. It is not the place to push social experiments. It is not the place to push political correctness.


Say what?(at least the black man wasn't going to be eying the crackers with romantic intent)




-----------
off-sock

I say we re-institute the Sacred Band of Thebes, and let them have their own little lovers' army.

143
You can ask, I suppose, but you can't deny admittance because of sexual orientation because it would be discrimination and a violation of the CRA.

144 I know people on both sides hate the don't ask, don't tell for various reasons, but I always thought it seemed like a fine solution.

145 Sure there are federal judges involved in the military, there is U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

146 And for any peckerwood whining about "waaaah Democracy" needs to get a firm understanding of the term "Tyranny of the Majority".

Listen, shitdick - rights are anti-majoritarian in that they must be enforced against the majority.  But they must be identifiable rights.  Something does not become a right by virtue of the fact that a really fashionable minority really, really wants it. 

147 I want anyone I've had a relationship to get my full pension when I die not just my judge-approved-legal-significant-other that is not really a marriage partner - but I threw a big enough temper tantrum to get one through the new and improved progressive definition of marriage - or else I'll throw another temper tantrum.

Don't tempt me.  I'm a big enough of a priss to do it!

148 Lets say I am a tad overweight and outside of Military Standards ( I am not ). But it does not in any way effect the way I do my job. But the Military wants to admin/sep ( kick me out ). Can I sue and claim bias against fat people? Remember it does not effect how I am doing my job.

149 Remember this from the Washington Post back in 2009:

The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a challenge to the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy on homosexuals, leaving in place for now one of the most controversial stands of President Clinton's administration and one that continues to dog him during the presidential campaign.

The case, brought by a former Navy lieutenant who had a stellar record but declared in a letter to commanding officers, "I am gay," marked the first dispute over the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" mandate to reach the high court.

It was said at the time that the liberals and the Obamanites did NOT want that case to go forward because they did not think it could win. They had their hopes set on this particular case that the libtard judge just ruled on.

Standby, if the submit a half ass appeal it too will be rejected this time.

150 Its against military policy for any member of the military with a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts to serve. Its also against policy for the military to try and reveal discover or uncover individuals who are closeted gays without specific evidence of disallowed behaviors. In short, "Don't ask don't tell" says Gay people can serve, so long as they don't discuss their sexuality and don't engage in discoverable homosexual activity during the time they are in service. Its not a perfect compromise, but I think its a reasonable one. Posted by: looking closely at October 12, 2010 04:38 PM (6Q9g2) In short, a policy which affirms that sexuality is part of life, and not the other way around.

151 U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

How many of these wildly cheering gay rights organizations are going to drop their high paying boutique jobs to sign up for a tour of Afghanistan?

I don't think so either. This is a lefty front using this to destroy the military and the country they hate but won't leave.

152 Like Arnold failing to defend Prop 8 in California, Obama and Holder will let this one go, getting the end result they want but fear politically via judicial fiat.

153 Lets say I am a tad overweight and outside of Military Standards ( I am not ). But it does not in any way effect the way I do my job. But the Military wants to admin/sep ( kick me out ). Can I sue and claim bias against fat people? Remember it does not effect how I am doing my job.

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 12, 2010 05:07 PM (0GFWk)

If the judiciary holds that the Americans With Disabilities Act applies to the military, if we ever have to invade Normandy again, we'll need wheel chair ramps up from the beach.

154 Actually I don't think this will have any great effect on the Military. Oh there will be some touchy situations that is for sure, but I think things will be OK.

155

I want anyone I've had a relationship to get my full pension when I die not just my judge-approved-legal-significant-other that is not really a marriage partner -

And healthcare for life. Commisary privileges. PX privileges. Prescription privileges. ID privileges. National Cemetary burial privileges. O-club membership for life privilege. Military flight add on standby privilege. etc.

156 Like Arnold failing to defend Prop 8 in California, Obama and Holder will let this one go, getting the end result they want but fear politically via judicial fiat.

Posted by: nickless at October 12, 2010 05:10 PM (MMC8r)

Ahnod endorsed Charlie "Cheetos" Crist today.

157 How long till a retard sues to serve? isnt it discrimination if they dont let him in?

158
Screw you guys, I'm going to buy beer.

159
That's the one I was forgetting! The striking down of Prop 8.

Four Big Usurpations of Justice in 2010
We have the Arizona ruling, the Michigan Obamacare ruling, Prop 8 rejection, and now this.

160 How long till a retard sues to serve? isnt it discrimination if they dont let him in? Posted by: Mr. Pink at October 12, 2010 05:13 PM (/yuG/) Ask our CIC, he's a retard or did he just go bowling with them?

161 157 Actually I don't think this will have any great effect on the Military. Oh there will be some touchy situations that is for sure, but I think things will be OK.

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 12, 2010 05:11 PM (0GFWk)

No great effect, just some more bullshit to put up with in an endless parade of bullshit (that has nothing to do with killing the enemy) they already have to put up with.

162 I don't think so either. This is a lefty front using this to destroy the military and the country they hate but won't leave.


Amen.  It's no accident (as the Marxists used to say) that they ghey groups are going after marriage and the military--the institutions that protect women & children on the one hand and the nation on the other.  It's social suicide.

But if the gheys think they have it bad now, wait till civilizational collapse.  You don't often hear about a medieval Stonewall, a Dark-Ages Angels in America, or a "Queer Eye for the Barbarian Guy."

163 I'm confused as to what, exactly, you think the role of the court system is. If it's not to provide a check on the Constitutionality of laws, which, by their very nature are enacted "by the people" via their democratically elected representatives, what's the point? Are courts just supposed to be rubber stamps for the actions of the elected branches? It seems like a silly road to go down slamming this kind of ruling as "fuck democracy" while at the same time hoping (as I do) that Barrycare goes down in flames through exactly the same process. Courts exist to apply the reins of the Constitution to democratic excess. That's what they've done here. If you want to disagree about the Constitutional interpretation, that's all well and good, and a valid exercise, but to cry like a whiny leftist cunt every time a court case doesn't go your way about how democracy has been ass raped just makes you look lame.

164 No great effect, just some more bullshit to put up with in an endless parade of bullshit (that has nothing to do with killing the enemy) they already have to put up with. Posted by: maddogg at October 12, 2010 05:15 PM (OlN4e) Yup. Hope I get promoted soon since Bullshit tends to flow downward

165 Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:16 PM (vd872) I can see you've read the book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

166

Ask our CIC, he's a retard or did he just go bowling with them?

 

Ugh!  Ugh!  *wildly waving hands*

167 ###
165
Amen. It's no accident (as the Marxists used to say) that they ghey groups are going after marriage and the military--the institutions that protect women & children on the one hand and the nation on the other. It's social suicide.
###

It's kind of a stretch to say that marriage protects women or children. Other than the tax benefit, very few things about the legal institution of marriage do much to protect women in the marriage. In divorce court, sure, women make out like fucking bandits, but in terms of the benefits of the actual marriage? Not so much. And that's only modern marriage. If you look at marriage historically, that's a one way benefit to the man.

168 Good and welfare clause covers this too

169 OT:  Remember when Obama been Lying said that we needed Obamacare becuase those damn capitalist doctors would rather amputate your foot than treat you for diabetes because they could charge more?  Well, in Greece they seem to have a different idea:

"This Saturday, one of Greece's most respected newspapers, To Vima, reported that the nation's largest government health insurance provider would no longer pay for special footwear for diabetes patients. Amputation is cheaper, says the Benefits Division of the state insurance provider. . . .

Greece's National Healthcare System was created in the early 1980s, during the tenure of Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou. Papandreou, an academic, won election under the slogan, Αλλαγή, which is the Greek word for Change."

170
Posted by: DMXRoid

I'm just guessing here but you sound like a typical ignorant libertarian...who either never votes or never seems to pull the lever for the Republican.

171
unless the Republican is Ron Paul...

172 ^{Judge delays probable-cause hearing for Fort Hood shooting supect}
Col. James L. Pohl, the presiding Army judge, stopped the hearing at midday so the Army psychiatrist’s defense team could file legal arguments to back their request for an even longer delay. Lt. Col. Kris R. Poppe, one of Hasan’s military lawyers, asked for a continuance until Nov. 8 to allow time for processing of he described only as “paperwork” recently submitted to Army officials.

173 Just more bullshit.  Goes along with not being able to watch TV with my kids because either somebody's fucking or the commercials are about people with limp cocks.

I could really give a fuck anymore about what the courts say or what the knobgobblers say or what the carpet munchers say or what the various melanin classes say or what the ugly women say or what the fat people say. 

I'm immune from overstimulation.

174 The swishy homosexual Spec-4 at battalion S-1 was detrimental to unit discipline. The female PFC I walked in on fucking her platoon leader in a in a PLL truck was detrimental to unit discipline. The squad leader in my platoon no one would have pegged as gay until he got his roommate drunk and molested him was detrimental to unit discipline. (Although I'm not sure he was technically gay, because he had a kid. He probably would fuck a tumbleweed if it'd hold still). The team leader who fucked another team leader's wife was detrimental to unit discipline. The Army is not the place to fucking express your sexuality. Creepiness, fights, Article 15s, courts martial and murders regularly occur over sexual entanglements - and that's just over natural sex. Now you want to have fucking Lamar Latrell waiting at the airport with the rest of the wives to tongue-kiss his boyfriend when he gets back from a deployment? Fuck that shit.

175 It's kind of a stretch to say that marriage protects women or children.

Lead paint.  Not for breakfast.

176 Economically, our country appears to be going down the tubes and straight into the dumpster, yet 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is the single-most important issue for society to be debating??????

177 @166 - Yes, and, at the same time, no.  If something enacted really violates the Constitution, a Justice should be able to point to said law and a specific clause in the Constitution to overturn the law- or, better, point to the fact the authority taken by Congress to enact the law doesn't actually exist in the Constitution in the first place.

Based on comments here (still haven't read the opinion) it looks like the Justice somehow tried to shoehorn the issue into one about self incrimination - which since the first part of DADT is "Don't Ask" doesn't really come into play, here.

When the Supreme Court finally overturns ObamaCare (Lord, I hope that happens and soon), they will either do so on the grounds that the Individual Mandate falls outside the Interstate Commerce clause or, better, just point to the fact that the Constitution does not provide Congress with the authority to regulate individual commercial decisions at all, and that Health Care is not defined as a "right" anywhere except LibTard propaganda.

In my dream world, they also overturn No Child Left Behind, portions of the Patriot Act, and a variety of other bad law that has been foisted upon this nation because someone once decided that a farmer not buying grain to feed his cattle was "influencing the market."

178 It's kind of a stretch to say that marriage protects women or children. Other than the tax benefit, very few things about the legal institution of marriage do much to protect women in the marriage. In divorce court, sure, women make out like fucking bandits, but in terms of the benefits of the actual marriage? Not so much. And that's only modern marriage. If you look at marriage historically, that's a one way benefit to the man. Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:20 PM (vd872) So what would you have as a replacement? What institution, if any, would you trust to rear children and propagate society?

179

The U.C.M.J. has some rather antiquated and extremely strict provisions, which make for very uneven application of military justice. I don't have my copy with me right now, but I seem to recall it spoke to a earlier time. Hell, killing somebody in a duel could get you 6 months imprisonment, but a celebratory BJ gets you 5 years?

Of course there are problems with the system we have, but it the job of those wise, sage Congress critters to set the rules for the military. Not some idiot Federal judge.

180 The defense team asked again that the hearing be closed to the media because of the sensitivity of the filings – a request that Pohl again denied.

181 Ask our CIC, he's a retard or did he just go bowling with them? Posted by: nevergiveup at October 12, 2010 05:14 PM

Hey, don't try to make him one of us.  He's a lightweight.

182 ###
174
I'm just guessing here but you sound like a typical ignorant libertarian...who either never votes or never seems to pull the lever for the Republican.
###

Well, I'd argue that both in general and in my specific case, libertarians tend to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than your average major party member, because while you can default to GOP or Dem based on environmental things like your family or friends, you have to arrive at libertarianism via a process, but yes, I am fairly libertarian-ish, and no, I don't vote, and even if I were to vote, the GOP candidate wouldn't automatically get the lever pull. Even if I were to accept the concept that voting for someone who compells me to do shit that I don't want to do makes me "free" in a way that people who don't vote but still get told what to do aren't, I don't see why I should vote for a party that has done everything to expand government and curtail civil liberties, much in the same way the Dems have.

183 Head of investigator in Falcon Lake piracy case delivered to the Mexican military in a suitcase.  http://tinyurl.com/262m8kd

When are we going to invade that shithole and convert them to Christianity instead of this Aztec shit they're doing?

184 Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:29 PM (vd872)

That whole comment screams "shinebox".  Fuck off.

185 One thing this retard of a judge is overlooking is Article 125 of the UCMJ which prohibits sodomy.

The Militarty will continue to prosecute overt homosexual acts and the only civilian court that has ANY oversight of the Military Court system is the Supreme Court.

That article was challenged in 2009 in UNITED STATES v. MARCUM in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. They upheld the Constitutionality of Art. 125 and rejected the right to privacy granted in Lawrence v. Texas by SCOTUS by the Supremes.

That case was appealed to the Supreme Court and they refused to hear it.

So she can overrule DODT and Obama can lay down and die laughing in his armpit but any overt homosexual acts that are noticed will be prosecuted.

186 When are we going to invade that shithole and convert them to Christianity instead of this Aztec shit they're doing?

Never.  Aztecs work cheaper.

187 ### 182
So what would you have as a replacement? What institution, if any, would you trust to rear children and propagate society?
###

I wouldn't trust an institution to do either one of those things, because it seems like they'd be fairly bad at the job. I'd let individuals rear their own children, and the free exchange of ideas, goods, and services would probably do a better job of propagating society than any given institution would.

188 @187 - Eventually Texans will get fed up with it, and we'll remember how the Texas Rangers originally obtained their badges...

189 Now this is the kind of October Surprise that I'm sure will push another few races to the Red Team.

190 I am fairly libertarian-ish, and no, I don't vote, and even if I were to vote, the GOP candidate wouldn't automatically get the lever pull.

Politics as masturbation.  Your opinion is worth zilch, fucko. 

191

Courts exist to apply the reins of the Constitution to democratic excess. That's what they've done here.

Really?  They must've skipped the "Congress shall make no law which discriminates against homosexuals" amendment back in grade school.  I sure don't remember it.

The military discriminates based on age and physical disability- a 60 year old man in a wheelchair can't sign up- but it's somehow unconstitutional to discriminate against those who openly practice homosexual behavior?

How is this not an activist decision?

192 "If you look at marriage historically, that's a one way benefit to the man.

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:20 PM (vd872)"

You officially have branded yourself a moron with that statement.  Simply look towards the black community in this country as exhibit A.  We are not whining about these particular judges who make up their own law or thwart the will of the voter because they have an agenda. 

193
Vic, is that covered in 'conduct unbecoming' and all that?

I mean, how far can the military go with "conduct unbecoming" without getting in trouble with discrimination lawsuits?

194 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 12, 2010 05:24 PM (ssbB6)

Yup. And if the military can figure out a way to integrate homosexuals into the armed forces without damaging unit cohesion and fighting prowess and readiness...then go for it. Because I too don't really give a rat's ass. As someone pointed out up above; it's the mission!

But the idea that some idiot lawyer who sucked-off the right people to become a judge is going to make this decision for the entire country and its military is maddening. And I'll bet that lots of people who were on the fence about this issue will tip over to one side soon. And hopefully they will also vote on November 2nd.

195 I'd let individuals rear their own children,

He's so stupid, he doesn't see how stupid what he said here happens to be.  If only we could arrange for two individuals who have fucked and made a baby to "team up" and share the decisions concerning rearing their own children?

196 Heh.

197 198 - Pretty far, really.  As people have mentioned, the UMCJ is the Law for the Military, not the standard United States Code.  The rules are different (because they have to be).  Indeed, they get a pretty clear "walk" on the CRA since one of the protected classes is "age" and they won't let in anyone under 18 or over... I can't remember.  35?

If someone ever challenged that it could get dicey (as proven here) but basically the original theory was that the Law really is different if you're in the military.

198
^
oh dear

199 So now a soldier can get a blow job but not a ballot?

200 Yup. And if the military can figure out a way to integrate homosexuals into the armed forces without damaging unit cohesion and fighting prowess and readiness...then go for it. Because I too don't really give a rat's ass. As someone pointed out up above; it's the mission!

I think that the problem is for recruiting and retention, because I'm not sure how many boys from down the holler are fixin' to serve under a ghey Lieutenant what can order them to do "stuff."  

201 Vic, is that covered in 'conduct unbecoming' and all that?

No

Art 125 Sodomy

a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

 

202 ###
@181 - Yes, and, at the same time, no. If something enacted really violates the Constitution, a Justice should be able to point to said law and a specific clause in the Constitution to overturn the law- or, better, point to the fact the authority taken by Congress to enact the law doesn't actually exist in the Constitution in the first place.
###

Which is an entirely different argument than "OVERTURN DADT FUCKS DEMOCRACY". That it's a bad decision is a perfectly valid argument, one I tend to agree with from a textualist reading of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Federal Government, or by extension via the 14th amendment, the state governments, from discriminating against homosexuals, as there's no specific prohibition against doing so anywhere in the Constitution. However, whether or not we like it, the reality of Constitutional jurisprudence over the past twenty years or so, culminating in Lawrence v. Texas, has increasingly treated sexual orientation as a protected category. I'm all for overturning that trend, not because I hate the gays (they're my favorite demographic for lots of reasons), but because bad Con law is bad for everyone. This case was incorrectly decided, yes, but it wasn't uniquely incorrect, it's just another bad call in a long line of bad calls.

###
In my dream world, they also overturn No Child Left Behind, portions of the Patriot Act, and a variety of other bad law that has been foisted upon this nation because someone once decided that a farmer not buying grain to feed his cattle was "influencing the market."
###
Indeed, sir, indeed. Among other things.

203 When are we going to invade that shithole and convert them to Christianity instead of this Aztec shit they're doing?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 12, 2010 05:30 PM (5Xf3c)

But the official position is that the southern border is more secure than ever!

*spit*

204 I wouldn't trust an institution to do either one of those things, because it seems like they'd be fairly bad at the job. I'd let individuals rear their own children, and the free exchange of ideas, goods, and services would probably do a better job of propagating society than any given institution would. Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:32 PM (vd872) Thank you for your answer. And to quote Sgt. Mervin Toomey "That's a good answer. It's a bullshit answer, but it's a good answer." I'm not entirely convinced that the world was a better place back when the rule of the jungle prevailed, but as many will point out I wasn't there then so how would I know. :-)

205
Some people should stick to hanging around yootoob. Not everyone is cut out to comment at AoS.

206 157 Actually I don't think this will have any great effect on the Military. Oh there will be some touchy situations that is for sure, but I think things will be OK.



How about recruitment and retention decline to dangerously low levels?  Would that be a great enough effect for you?

One problem with my argument right now is that Obama's economy is so bad that there are no enough private-sector, civilian jobs to absorb those who might want to leave the military.  See, they're not letting that crisis go to waste.  It's Cloward/Piven, baby.

207 It's kind of a stretch to say that marriage protects women or children. Other than the tax benefit, very few things about the legal institution of marriage do much to protect women in the marriage. In divorce court, sure, women make out like fucking bandits, but in terms of the benefits of the actual marriage? Not so much. And that's only modern marriage. If you look at marriage historically, that's a one way benefit to the man.

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:20 PM (vd872)

 It governmental recognition of a marriage that does it. In fact it was the driving force behind taking registering and administering the legalities  of marriage away from churches to begin with.  Every Domestic violence law. Every child protection act out there came about first or as a result of laws to protect women and children within or leaving a marriage. As far as the government is concerned the sole function of marriage is as a vehicle to hold men legally responsible for the treatment and care of their wives and children.

208 Phillips got her JD from Berkeley.  No google search reveals a husband.

This is homo #2 to make a really stupid fucking ruling in recent months.  The law has nothing to do with it.

209 <blockquote>
201 Heh.

Posted by: nickless at October 12, 2010 05:36 PM (MMC8r)

</blockquote>

Wow. 

210 Wow, it is almost as though CPT O'bama of the USS Golfsalot wants to lose the House and/or Senate....

this bint's timing couldn't have been worse precisely because the GOP doesn't even have to comment on how brazen her overreach is to get the middle to be inflamed.

She has no authority to make a worldwide proclamation, she has no authority to command DoD to do much actually and she has forced jugears to bitchslap the ruling which will piss off the gays.

211 ### 195
Politics as masturbation. Your opinion is worth zilch, fucko. ###
And your is worth very slightly marginally more in the aggregate, and exactly as much individually, which is one of my problems with voting. I choose not to pretend that I'm any less of a slave to the state because I can play voter once every couple of years. You line up at the ballot box and pull the lever for whichever candidate you think will fuck you slightly less, and then congratulate yourself for it. I dunno how that's any less masturbatory.

212 How about recruitment and retention decline to dangerously low levels? Would that be a great enough effect for you? One problem with my argument right now is that Obama's economy is so bad that there are no enough private-sector, civilian jobs to absorb those who might want to leave the military. See, they're not letting that crisis go to waste. It's Cloward/Piven, baby. Posted by: Leo Ladenson at October 12, 2010 05:38 PM (mAm+G) I don't think it will effect recruitment. Right now they are backed up coming in because no one is getting out. And this is in the middle of a War?

213
haha, Max Robbins, the tv guy, just said Parker/Spitzer, aka The Con & The John, is doing awful in the ratings.

214 @207 - No, it's the same argument.  It's just that I had to spell it out for you because you obviously haven't caught on that, despite the fact we call ourselves "morons" we're really quite intelligent and usually pretty well educated.

It's what we call "short hand."  That is, everyone here (and, really, I expect you do, too) understands the underlying premise, but my post to you took a couple of minutes to type, and saying "this judge overturning DADT is a smack against Democracy" takes a matter of seconds (even if you type as poorly as I do).

215 Heh.

Posted by: nickless at October 12, 2010 05:36 PM (MMC8r)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.  Oh man.  That "beard" is precious.

216 Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:29 PM (vd872) That whole comment screams "shinebox".  Fuck off. Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 12, 2010 Herr Morgenholz just ruined your shit, boy. When I get home I'm gonna drop "Rock You Like a Hurricane" in the tape deck and read that again. You're fucking DISMISSED, lightweight.

217 Virginia A. Phillips was nominated for federal judge by President Bill Clinton

218
Go back to leaving comments at yootoob, kid.

219 BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.  Oh man.  That "beard" is precious.

Amish, I guess.

220 WHAT ARE YOUR FUTURE GOALS?

To create the National Institute of Stuff and Things, where people with great ideas can come and get them funded and implemented. Perfect for the idea people.

221 When are we going to invade that shithole and convert them to Christianity instead of this Aztec shit they're doing?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 12, 2010 05:30 PM (5Xf3c)

But the official position is that the southern border is more secure than ever!

*spit*

Posted by: ErikW at October 12, 2010 05:38 PM (/yhXa)

Anyway, diversity makes us stronger and if we have to suffer a few decapitations along the way, it's a small price to pay.

222 Virginia A. Phillips was nominated for federal judge by President Bill Clinton Posted by: Jose the Illegal at October 12, 2010 05:43 PM (tE8FB He was in the Oval office for 8 years. That's alot of damage

223 183

The U.C.M.J. has some rather antiquated and extremely strict provisions, which make for very uneven application of military justice. I don't have my copy with me right now, but I seem to recall it spoke to a earlier time. Hell, killing somebody in a duel could get you 6 months imprisonment, but a celebratory BJ gets you 5 years?

Of course there are problems with the system we have, but it the job of those wise, sage Congress critters to set the rules for the military. Not some idiot Federal judge.

Posted by: 141Driver at October 12, 2010 05:26 PM (LEynS)

So its like every other legal set up in existence today.

There are websites dedicated to antiquated and bizarre laws still on the books throughout the country.  6 months for a duel is one that is rather non-bizarre considering when it went into practice and that it likely hasn't been needed for over a century.

224 224 JtI,

imagine that mi amigo....

she disagrees with her boss' RELAXATION of UCMJ rules on homosexuality.....

this whole topic is an ancapsulation of why even when we have the power the donks' set the dancecard....

DADT is a softening of policy not a hardening, we fought it and lost back in the day NOW DADT is being used to pretend the GOP was too harsh on the gays....

classic mule jiu-jitsu

225 ### 197 You officially have branded yourself a moron with that statement. Simply look towards the black community in this country as exhibit A. We are not whining about these particular judges who make up their own law or thwart the will of the voter because they have an agenda. ### Well, I was more referring to marriage say, 500 years ago than I was 50 years ago, but there's a huge difference between marriage, which is nothing more than a state stamp and a set of vague guidelines on a relationship, and the family, which is an important structure in any society. Yes, part of the black problem is the dissolution of the black family, but that's completely unrelated to marriage, unless you believe that absent both state sanctions for departure and opportunity cost losses for staying, black men would still exhibit the same behavior they do today. There might be an argument for that, but I don't buy it. I think that if you removed the incentive for black men to not be in the home, regardless of whether or not there was a counterweighted punishment for them leaving, you'd see an improvement in the black family status nationwide.

226 I think that the problem is for recruiting and retention, because I'm not sure how many boys from down the holler are fixin' to serve under a ghey Lieutenant what can order them to do "stuff."

Posted by: Alec Leamas at October 12, 2010 05:37 PM (r1OG3)

A valid point, but as I said: "if the military can figure out a way to integrate homosexuals..." If they can't, oh well. U.S Armed Forces 1, Homosexuals 0.

227 BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.  Oh man.  That "beard" is precious.

It's well known that hair does a wonderful job of masking extra chins. 

Also, where do I go to get my Genitals I mean General's uniform?

228 Posted by: buzzion at October 12, 2010 05:45 PM (oVQFe)

And the martial spirit of duels was something, and is something, that the military would stamp out at its peril. And they know that!

229
Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:40 PM (vd872)

Are we punching down again or soemthing?

230

How long till a retard someone with a borderline IQ sues to serve? Isnt it discrimination if they dont let him in?  - Posted by: Mr. Pink at October 12, 2010 05:13 PM (/yuG/)

Actually, they can run for the Senate in South Carolina.....

(Sorry, had to FTFY - I have a daughter with Down syndrome....)

231 As for that clip above from the story, I would be willing to bet that the case where this judge presided had another one of those "half-assed" federal defenses where the administration wanted to lose.

There will most likely be no appeal because the judge is doing exactly what Obama and his DOJ wants.

Posted by: Vic at October 12, 2010 04:28 PM (/jbAw)

And you would be correct.  The Government did not present any evidence at all when the Judge asked if this would effect Unit moral, or military effectivness... they punted.

Now, the correct arguement to be made is that serving in the military is a Privelege, not a RIGHT.  We do not allow people to serve for a lot of reasons, from being unfit and overweight, to basic low IQ, to too many run ins with the law.... thus just like driving, where you must meet requirments, and thus while driving the Government has more power over you than normal (like DUI checkpoints, or arresting you with no Grand Jury indictment)... you SUBMIT yourself to higher Government regulation when you join...

232

"I haets teh gheys" is never a good argument, no matter how you state it.

Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.

You tell 'em. Haters!

233

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:29 PM (vd872)

 

Your post is one of the lamest I've seen on AoSHq for a long time.  I think you've even outdone the 'tard trolls.

234 Sweet, so, in response to my arguments, you guys find a 10 year old picture of me and make fun of my beard (which, by the way, is much better and much more Amish now, thank you very much)? Good goin fellas, you really nailed me, because, you know, nobody's more concerned about their physical appearance than a 30 year old fat man. I'm gonna go write in my diary about how mean you are.

235 I love that his name links to "InvisiHosting" but nickless could find a picture of him in all of his glorious teenage angst with a simple Bing search.

236 Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at October 12, 2010 05:48 PM (AAN7N)

As long as she doesn't vote for a dem she isn't a retard.

237
"...my arguments..."

Umm, do you even read what you post?

238 My name links to InvisiHosting because that's my company, and if I'm going to be spending time posting anyway, I might as well do a little bit of link juicing while I'm at it.

239 Sweet, so, in response to my arguments, you guys find a 10 year old picture of me and make fun of my beard

First, you haven't made any arguments.  You've merely engaged in an orgy of "proving" your superior intellect, and nobody does that except a fucking dumbass.  You're an imbecile.

And the beard's damned funny.  I don't care who ya are.

240
DMX, I just sent you pics of my wang. Did you get them?

241 yes, I am fairly libertarian-ish, and no, I don't vote

I'm so cool and smart that I've decided to let other people, whom I claim are less intelligent than me, decide these matters for me.

242 One of these days a Federal Judge is gonna pull the troops out of a foreign engagement.

243 I'm so cool and smart that I've decided to let other people, whom I claim are less intelligent than me, decide these matters for me.

Well, once you've seen his picture you understand that he has much better things to do with his time. 

244
One of these days a Federal Judge is gonna pull the troops out of a foreign engagement.

Indeed.  They'll be declaring ROE sometime soon.

245 Well as soon as we decide that decisions of personal behavior are constitutionally protected, this is inevitable. But, as Scalia pointed out in the Texas Sodomy case... where does it end? If you establish precedent that the United States Constitution protects people doing whatever they please sexually, where's the line going to be drawn and upon what basis?

246 One of these days a Federal Judge is gonna pull the troops out of a foreign engagement.

Not if we're in the enemy's ass!

247 162
That's the one I was forgetting! The striking down of Prop 8.
Four Big Usurpations of Justice in 2010
We have the Arizona ruling, the Michigan Obamacare ruling, Prop 8 rejection, and now this.
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 12, 2010 05:13 PM (uFokq)

I was going to say KELO, but I see that was '05.

248 Kinda OT: I saw a clip today of Gates shaking hands with the China military guy. Then the shot showed the table with everybody seated. Our side was all guys in suits - the China guys were all dressed in military uniforms. I just want to say that Gates and his group looked like pussy guys - that is all. God save us.

249 Posted by: White women with college degrees at October 12, 2010 05:54 PM (FJQB5)

That's great, Honey.  What's for dinner?

250 247 My name links to InvisiHosting because that's my company, and if I'm going to be spending time posting anyway, I might as well do a little bit of link juicing while I'm at it.

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:51 PM (vd872)

If you're going to go to a website and reveal that you are a smug asshole that lacks a brain, advertising your company is stupid.

251 He's from Cleveland.  That explains it.

252  Or maybe the Pentagon will just fold.  God knows there's enough libs who work there.

Posted by: Soona at October 12, 2010 04:22 PM (3uO7B)

That is most likely. Obama made a big show of waiting till the Pentagon finishes its report on the issue, but come on; does anybody really believe that with this administration there was a snowball's chance in hell of that coming out any other way than "cool with us!"?

253 248: ##
First, you haven't made any arguments. You've merely engaged in an orgy of "proving" your superior intellect, and nobody does that except a fucking dumbass. You're an imbecile.
## I have made arguments:
1.) It's silly to bitch and moan about how a court "fucks democracy" when it makes a decision that you think is bad, because the whole purpose of the court system is to provide a check on democracy.
2.) If you're going to bitch about the decision, do so in a way that makes sense within the context of the structure that exists. Argue that anti-discrimination prohibitions shouldn't extend to homosexuals, something like that.
3.) Marriage as a legal institution is a net loss for women and probably children (although it might be more neutral for them)
4.) The black family wasn't destroyed by the eradication of marriage, it was destroyed by social welfare policies that reward a black father for not living in the same home as his children.
I never tried to prove my superior intellect. I made two statements: a.) I'm probably smarter than average, which is very likely true, and b.) libertarians have to work to get to their ideology, as opposed to Dems and Republicans who can just default into them by association. If you don't believe the latter is true, explain to me why Democrats get 95% of the black vote.

My beard is fucking awesome.

254 255 One of these days a Federal Judge is gonna pull the troops out of a foreign engagement.

Not if we're in the enemy's ass!



Touche!

255 I just realized that's a dating site.  Howdja do on there, Cowboy?  Any hot trim hunt ya down?

256

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:29 PM (vd872)

 

You want anarchy.  Well, I hate to tell you, anarchy doesn't work.  It only opens the door to people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.  I'll take my US Constitution and republic over your "solution" anytime, under any condition.

257
Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:57 PM (vd872)

Please, whatever happens in your life, keep posting.

258
My beard is fucking awesome.

hahaha, you scored a couple of points with that one.

259 Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:57 PM (vd872)

Shinebox.

260 ###
259:If you're going to go to a website and reveal that you are a smug asshole that lacks a brain, advertising your company is stupid.
### Possibly, but even if every single reader a.) disagreed with me, and b.) was in my target customer base, it really wouldn't matter, there just aren't enough people to make a difference. On the other hand, the marginal benefit I get from Google by having my link appear somewhere that's not my site has a non-zero value.

261 One of these days a Federal Judge is gonna pull the troops out of a foreign engagement.

Indeed.  They'll be declaring ROE sometime soon.

Posted by: Dang Straights at October 12, 2010 05:54 PM (nNdGv)

They'll probably start out by replacing field weapons with wood replicas of M-1's used by the Worthington High School Marching Band Color Guard.

262

I saw many examples of heterosexual and homosexual misconduct in my 10 years of active duty.  I saw both groups get kicked out.  Officers that were having affairs with their subordinates (hetero), homosexual men getting drunk and trying to have sex with their bunk mates, etc. None of it is good and is very detrimental.

The social experimentation with our military & the feminization of our military will take the best fighting force in the world down a very bad road.

What irritates me is the majority of advocates for the repeal of DADT have no clue what military life is really like.   

263 Good goin fellas, you really nailed me,

I just think it's funny that an expert who offers 'anonymous browsing' is stupid enough to post under a nick that's so easily traceable.

264 *** I'm so cool and smart that I've decided to let other people, whom I claim are less intelligent than me, decide these matters for me*** Splitting atoms... With His Mind.

265 ### 250 yes, I am fairly libertarian-ish, and no, I don't vote I'm so cool and smart that I've decided to let other people, whom I claim are less intelligent than me, decide these matters for me. ### Policy is going to be decided by not me anyway. What I want, as a presumably free individual, is irrelevant under all circumstances. Voting doesn't make me a decision maker, it makes me a number in a tally column for someone who may or may not go and make decisions for me. There's no real autonomy there, so why should I pretend that there is?

266 So, how many more decisions like this before we can say that the court system has reached the point of total illegitimacy?

267 ### 274 Good goin fellas, you really nailed me, I just think it's funny that an expert who offers 'anonymous browsing' is stupid enough to post under a nick that's so easily traceable. ### I don't offer anonymous browsing, for that you'd want a proxy like Tor or something similar. I offer anonymous hosting, which is a completely different beast, and I do so by sacrificing my own anonymity anyway. My name is on the company, I'm the one that DMCA takedowns and legal notices get sent to, etc... Plus, what the fuck do I care if you people know who I am? What, you'll find some more good ad-hom material? Oh noez, I dunno what I'm gonna do when confronted with that!

268
What irritates me is the majority of advocates for the repeal of DADT have no clue what military life is really like.  

I'd share a foxhole with you.  Better not fart a lot, though.

269 Does today's ruling count as an Occomplishment? All in favor?

270 ### You want anarchy. Well, I hate to tell you, anarchy doesn't work. It only opens the door to people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I'll take my US Constitution and republic over your "solution" anytime, under any condition. ### Actually, statism is what opens the door to people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc... Without the massive apparatus of the state behind them, those guys would have been private, bitter assholes instead of wildly successful genocidal tyrants. I don't want universal anarchy, I don't think it would work. However, I do think that, on a limited, voluntary basis, under certain circumstances, it would. What those circumstances are and how it would work out is a discussion that I doubt many people here are interested in having.

271 1.) It's silly to bitch and moan about how a court "fucks democracy" when it makes a decision that you think is bad, because the whole purpose of the court system is to provide a check on democracy.

Actually, the primary purpose of the Court system is to decide individual cases and controversies.  SCOTUS decided of its own accord that one of its purposes was to decide the Constitutionality of laws and state acts.  We're not bitching and moaning because we think that the decision is bad, we're criticizing this Court and this Judge because she is acting in bad faith.  Additionally there are judicial doctrines which she most likely violated in coming to this decision - i.e. that the issue is non-justiciable because it is a political question. 

272

I'd share a foxhole with you.  Better not fart a lot, though.

Oops, ya got me there!

 

273 So, how many more decisions like this before we can say that the court system has reached the point of total illegitimacy?

It's really just going to come down to a case where someone says "fuck you, enforce your Order" and the Courts are shown to be paper tigers. 

274 ### 282 Actually, the primary purpose of the Court system is to decide individual cases and controversies. ### I don't know that I agree when we're talking about the federal court system. The Founders pretty clearly wanted the Supreme Court to fulfill the role of a check on the legislature and executive, and presumably, by empowering the Congress to create inferior Courts, were OK with that role extending beyond just the SC. ### We're not bitching and moaning because we think that the decision is bad, we're criticizing this Court and this Judge because she is acting in bad faith. Additionally there are judicial doctrines which she most likely violated in coming to this decision - i.e. that the issue is non-justiciable because it is a political question. ### All well and good, and I'm willing to concede that some individuals may be bitching about that, but my first comment was more in response to Ace's post than it was to the comment thread, which I hadn't read. If people are making the specific args against the ruling, bully on them. But when Ace says "But that's what we have judges for, I guess. Fixing our political decisions when we get them wrong. I'm so happy we have editors!", that can only be interpreted as a hypocritical structure whine when something went against the way he wanted it to.

275 Wow, DMXRoid. Never have I read such a reasoned and articulate exposition on the futility of exercising the franchise of citizenship and the nature of freedom in a society bereft of true direct representation. So, can you describe the caress of a woman? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA FUCK OFF!

276 Empire of Jeff - Well, first your mother, with hands worn from a lifetime of grudging household labor yet still capable of the gentle touch of a feather, runs her fingers through my hair, teasing every folicle and causing goose bumps to run down my neck and back. Should I continue?

277 Hey, anyone know where I can find a host for my NAMBLA enthusiast site?  I would prefer a host with a creepy beard, if possible.

278 285 - You said: If people are making the specific args against the ruling, bully on them. --------- Bully on them is not something I hear much in America are you even from this country. You said you don't vote is this why?

279

As long as she doesn't vote for a dem she isn't a retard.  - Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at October 12, 2010 05:50 PM (LH6ir)

CBD, I am proud to say that I have raised 3 daughters to voting age, and they are all Conservatives.  The youngest daughter is the one with DS, and she's too young to vote - but yeah, she's smarter than that......

280 290 - Naw, I'm American, I just like that phrase.

281

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 06:10 PM (vd872)

Might want to go read the Constitution.  NO where in there does it give the power for the Supremes to over ride the powers of the other branches.  That was actualy a power the Supreme Court gave ITSELF.

282 Please do. Let me know when you get to the flop-sweat and premature ejaculation part.

283

Actually, statism is what opens the door to people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc... Without the massive apparatus of the state behind them, those guys would have been private, bitter assholes instead of wildly successful genocidal tyrants.

 

You're wrong.  Statism doesn't just spontaneously appear.  In each of the countries where these monsters gained power, there was a complete collapse of the previous hierarchy, hence; anarchy.  Statism appears when people caught in lawless chaos desparately reach out to anyone or anything that assures people at least a modicum of order.     

284 293 - Go read the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued for the Supreme Court as a check, not just as adjudicator of disputes.

285 Empire of Jeff - I don't believe in premature ejaculation. Whenever I happen to splatter your mothers saggy, age splotched tits with my man seed, it was right on schedule for me.

286 Hey, you ever wonder whatever happened to Jake and the Fat Man? Well, now I just wonder what happened to Jake.

287

is Heather here?

I need to apologize for roughing up her Radishes this week.

288 Heh.

Posted by: nickless at October 12, 2010 05:36 PM (MMC8r)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.  Oh man.  That "beard" is precious.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 12, 2010 05:43 PM (5Xf3c)

Godallfuckingmighty; the comments by that douche all make sense now.

289 296 293 - Go read the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued for the Supreme Court as a check, not just as adjudicator of disputes.

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 06:18 PM (vd872)

Lots of stuff from the Federalist papers never made it into the Constitution.

Last time I checked, the Federalist papers were not the Supreme law of the Land, as ratified by the various States...

290 296 293 - Go read the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued for the Supreme Court as a check, not just as adjudicator of disputes.

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 06:18 PM (vd872)

The Federalist papers are not the Constitution.

291 ### 295 You're wrong. Statism doesn't just spontaneously appear. In each of the countries where these monsters gained power, there was a complete collapse of the previous hierarchy, hence; anarchy. Statism appears when people caught in lawless chaos desparately reach out to anyone or anything that assures people at least a modicum of order. ### Wrong again. Pre-Hitler Germany was not anarchic, he was fucking Chancellor before he decided to just take over. Pre-Stalin Russia wasn't anarchic, there was Lenin before him, and the Tsar before Lenin. The Khmer Rouge was certainly revolutionary, but there was hardly anarchy in Cambodia before they took over.

292 Part of the point of establishing a judiciary, electoral college, and those other "elitist" institutions conservatives and liberals variously (and selectively) choose to scorn, is precisely because yes, democracy can be unconstitutional. Laws and policies, and a majority of voters, can do unconstitutional things, and infringe on the rights of others. Do we need to even go through the many instances throughout American history when majority opinion, voters, and federal and state policies were simply, wrong?

293 I never argued that the Federalist Papers had any force in law, that'd be fucking retarded. I made that point to bolster my earlier argument about what the Founders wanted, not what the Constitution says. I think we can all agree that there are things that are either in the Constitution or excluded from it that the Founders would have wanted to go the other way. 3/5 compromise, for example.

294

34  This right there -- and unless you've ever been in that situation it is very hard to describe just how bad it is for morale.  And the ones who pull that shit are usually (I'd say almost always, based on personal experience) the worst freaking troop...and the ones most likely to cry descrimination if they got called on their behavior.

295

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 06:24 PM (vd872)

Hmmm... I pointed out that the Courts jurisdiction in this matter is not within its Constitutional powers.

You told me to go read the Federalist Papers.

And, I might add, BOTH sides of this issue was argued at the time... you are only siting ONE Founder... and one, who in fact, LOST that arguement, as it was NOT put in the Constitution.

296 Go read the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued for the Supreme Court as a check, not just as adjudicator of disputes.

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 06:18 PM (vd872)

Lots of stuff from the Federalist papers never made it into the Constitution.

Last time I checked, the Federalist papers were not the Supreme law of the Land, as ratified by the various States...

Posted by: Romeo13 at October 12, 2010 06:21 PM (AdK6a)

Actually he (the troll) is full of shit. The federalist papers repeatedly said the Supreme Court was the weakest of the branches and had little power.

The most common belief among all the founders was that the States, being the party that agreed to the constitutional contract, were the ones who determined what it meant. 

It was the midnight power grab by the first big government liberal Adams and his Supreme henchman who he sent to be chief justice that decided a good way top grab power was to allow a branch of that government to decide how much power it had.

That ruling was roundly denounced but sense at the time it actually did NOTHING there was little that Jefferson could do about it.

297

4.) The black family wasn't destroyed by the eradication of marriage, it was destroyed by social welfare policies that reward a black father for not living in the same home as his children.

Wanna read that over a few times and think REAL HARD about that one, and then get back to me on how marriage isn't a protection for women and children?

Marriage PROTECTS women and children so that they cannot be abandoned to the whims of a state by a man who wants to have all of the benefits, but none of the responsibilities.  The PROTECTION of marriage is what has allowed not only me, but many, many other women (and I am college-educated) to stay at home and raise our children without worrying about health coverage and saving for retirement, because we are covered under our husbands' plans.  Without the PROTECTION of marriage, we would have to leave and find work in order to have those things, or go on the government dole.

There are also PROTECTIONS that marriage affords a woman from a man just up and leaving her whenever he wants to.  So don't tell me that marriage isn't a good thing.

 

298 Am I the only one who is just tired of hearing about this right and that right.  This guy is offended and that girl is offended and let's get the judicial system involved.  I frankly am sick to death of hearing about gay rights.  People are different. I get it.  Why do I have to be accepting of every damned thing that comes down the pike.  Most folks aren't Christ or Ghandi.  Why do I have to listen to or the accept you no matter how different your desires and proclivities are?  It is just getting tedious. 

299

Wrong again. Pre-Hitler Germany was not anarchic, he was fucking Chancellor before he decided to just take over. Pre-Stalin Russia wasn't anarchic, there was Lenin before him, and the Tsar before Lenin. The Khmer Rouge was certainly revolutionary, but there was hardly anarchy in Cambodia before they took over.

 

Of course!  All orderly transfers of power with not a hint of chaos or bloodletting, burning buildings that rhyme with Bikestag, revolutions, pogroms, banishments to gulags, mass murders and forcible relocations of millions of citizens.

Drop the fucking knowledge, professor!

300 Two enlisted guys in dress uniform at the Marine Corps Ball, slow dancing, holding hands and a long passionate kiss at the end of the romantic song.  I just can't see it...well...I don't want to see it.

301

you are only siting ONE Founder... and one, who in fact, LOST that arguement,

 

When the Burr-Man rebuts a motherfucker, they STAY rebutted.

 

302 Didn't we have a revolution to stop robbed people from telling us what the law was despite the wishes of the people?

303 Do we need to even go through the many instances throughout American history when majority opinion, voters, and federal and state policies were simply, wrong?

Can we start with the election of Capn' Wonderful?

304 ### 308 Actually he (the troll) is full of shit. The federalist papers repeatedly said the Supreme Court was the weakest of the branches and had little power. ### Out of curiosity, and aside completely from the argument you make, why am I a troll? Is mere disagreement a sufficient condition? Or are there boundaries within which one can disagree and not be a troll? Do you like echo chambers? RE: the Federalists, Hamilton argued exactly what I said "the founders" did in Federalist 9. Most of the Federalist camp agreed, the anti-Federalists disagreed, the anti-'s won in the text, and the Federalists won after the fact. Thomas Jefferson was not the only Founder, nor is he a trump.

305 314 Didn't we have a revolution to stop robbed people from telling us what the law was despite the wishes of the people?

Posted by: Ellie Light at October 12, 2010 06:36 PM (PTpqi)

Indeed, but as the current Precedent well knows, EVEYTHING has an expiration date...

Time to renew perhaps?

306

but to cry like a whiny leftist cunt every time a court case doesn't go your way about how democracy has been ass raped just makes you look lame. - Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 05:16 PM (vd872)

There are some words that are NOT used in polite society, and you stepped over the line with that one.  If you want to be taken seriously not only on this blog, but by women in general, you would do well to refrain from using such an offensive term.

If you haven't figured it out by now, the ladies who are looking for long-term relationships don't really like men who show no basic respect for them.  And any man who would use that word when referring to a woman really isn't mature enough to be going out on dates with nice women in the first place. 

307

Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 06:38 PM (vd872)

But they never Amended the Constitution... it was just a power grab, and can thus be ignored.

And... as nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Govenrment the power to decide questions of Constitutionality... it is therefore a Power of the the STATES or PEOPLE, under the 10th Amendment.

308 Empire of Jeff - That's just you defining violence and revolution as anarchism, and vice versa. I mean, if you get to define what words mean, then yes, you will always win the argument, however, in the absence of your ultimate authority of Definer of Terms, some support for your claim of the equivalence between anarchism and violence would be appreciated. I don't think that a mere violent transfer of authority from one group of leaders to another is sufficient. And really, even in the examples of violence you describe (pogroms, gulags, mass murders, the burning of the Reichstag), most of those happened after the winning party was firmly in power, not during the actual revolutions, where violence tended to be less organized and directed.

309 ### There are some words that are NOT used in polite society, and you stepped over the line with that one. If you want to be taken seriously not only on this blog, but by women in general, you would do well to refrain from using such an offensive term. ### I dunno, maybe I hang out with cooler women than average, but most of them don't get all hot and bothered when somebody drops a C-bomb. It's pretty common in my circle, although that may be a result of women who wouldn't be down auto-selecting themselves out before it ever got to there. ### If you haven't figured it out by now, the ladies who are looking for long-term relationships don't really like men who show no basic respect for them. And any man who would use that word when referring to a woman really isn't mature enough to be going out on dates with nice women in the first place. ### Actually, I was referring to a man when I said "cunt" in the bit that you excerpted, unless Ace went and grew girly bits. Plus, any woman that I'd be involved with would already be part of a set of women who didn't freak out over trifling language issues.

310 Most folks aren't Christ or Ghandi.  Why do I have to listen to or the accept you no matter how different your desires and proclivities are?  It is just getting tedious. 

Posted by: Ohio Dan at October 12, 2010 06:32 PM (K03lE)

You don't have to listen.

Go find a different place if you don't like it.

 

311 Man.  My shoes sure are scruffy lookin'.

312 Munt.

313 "...as nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Govenrment the power to decide questions of Constitutionality..."

What is "the judicial power of the United States" with which the federal courts are vested in Article III?  If that phrase is devoid of meaning to you, then YOU'RE the one who isn't being a textualist.  The court was wrong in this case, but not because it didn't even possess the authority to entertain the question.

314 For $5, you can buff them on my beard while I shake my head back and forth if you bring your own polish.

315 RE: the Federalists, Hamilton argued exactly what I said "the founders" did in Federalist 9. Most of the Federalist camp agreed, the anti-Federalists disagreed, the anti-'s won in the text, and the Federalists won after the fact. Thomas Jefferson was not the only Founder, nor is he a trump.

Once again, you are full of shit. There is NOTHING in Federalist 9 that says the court has the authority to judge the powers of the federal government.

And you are troll because you argue in their manner for their point of view.

316 Why do I have to listen to or the accept you no matter how different your desires and proclivities are?

Balloon Fag!!

317

That's just you defining violence and revolution as anarchism, and vice versa.

Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth with your Cheeto-dust and dicksweat-stained fingers.

The Nazi Germany model is marginal (until you get to the Night of the Long Knives).  The Soviets and the Khmer Rouge were not handed power by the outgoing governments.  There were well-defined periods of chaos when no one was in charge, before the victors consolidated their hold on their respective government.

That's anarchy. When everyone is running around slap-ass and kill-happy, settling old scores, stealing, murdering, raping with no accountablility.  You know - libertarian Utopia, but with less pot.

318 What is "the judicial power of the United States" with which the federal courts are vested in Article III?  If that phrase is devoid of meaning to you, then YOU'RE the one who isn't being a textualist.  The court was wrong in this case, but not because it didn't even possess the authority to entertain the question.

Posted by: Dave J. at October 12, 2010 06:48 PM (DCQ0q)

Judicial power doesn't necessarily mean they can interpret their own power. I say again, the common thought at the time was that the individual States had that power, not the feds.

319 Your Mom's beard leaves 'em lookin' like fuckin' mirrors!

320 Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth with your Cheeto-dust and dicksweat-stained fingers.

And this is why I love this place.

321

That's anarchy. When everyone is running around slap-ass and kill-happy, settling old scores, stealing, murdering, raping with no accountablility.  You know - libertarian Utopia, but with less pot.

I'm pretty sure you were going for funny instead of stupid.  I could be wrong.

322 Posted by: ErikW at October 12, 2010 06:47 PM (/yhXa)

Erik, I think you might've misread what Dan meant.  Just sayin'.

323 What is "the judicial power of the United States" with which the federal courts are vested in Article III?  If that phrase is devoid of meaning to you, then YOU'RE the one who isn't being a textualist.  The court was wrong in this case, but not because it didn't even possess the authority to entertain the question.

Cough, Cough. 

324 Isn't there something in the constitution about the Legislature having some sayso over areas of judicial authority?

325 I'm pretty sure you were going for funny instead of stupid.  I could be wrong. Stupid is as stupid does. Now go home and get your fuckin' chocolate box.

326 Isn't there something in the constitution about the Legislature having some sayso over areas of judicial authority?

Posted by: buzzion at October 12, 2010 06:59 PM (oVQFe)

Fool.

327 ### Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth with your Cheeto-dust and dicksweat-stained fingers. ### If you don't let them dribble out of your mouth like a wanna-be Trig after a snow cone, you won't have to put up with the smell and taste of your mothers gully juice when I shove them back in there. ### The Nazi Germany model is marginal (until you get to the Night of the Long Knives). ### It's hardly marginal. Germany had a functioning, if poorly run, government when Hitler took over, and he took over via the mechanisms that existed within that government (before he went all RARRGGHH MY FATHERLAND, of course). ### The Soviets and the Khmer Rouge were not handed power by the outgoing governments. There were well-defined periods of chaos when no one was in charge, before the victors consolidated their hold on their respective government. ### Again, you only get to define this as anarchism if any and all violent revolutions (including the US revolution) is defined as anarchism. If that's the case, then we're arguing about definitions of a word, which is silly. If it's not the case, you've got to have some reasons why any of the scenarios you outlined fit the concept of "anarchy" in the political system (or lack thereof) sense, and not the "run around fucking and killing everything" sense. ### That's anarchy. When everyone is running around slap-ass and kill-happy, settling old scores, stealing, murdering, raping with no accountablility. You know - libertarian Utopia, but with less pot. ### I don't agree at all. There's a large body of work about idea of ordered anarchism. Again, if you're just going to define anarchy in such a way that you're not required to deal with any of the ideas of people who've put in good time on the subject, then we're just quibbling about definitions, and not advancing the argument.

328

Now go home and get your fuckin' chocolate box.

Stupid it is.

329 There's a large body of work about idea of ordered anarchism.

It's on the shelf next to "Exploring My Femininity with my Penis".

330

I dunno, maybe I hang out with cooler women than average, but most of them don't get all hot and bothered when somebody drops a C-bomb.

Plus, any woman that I'd be involved with would already be part of a set of women who didn't freak out over trifling language issues.  - Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 06:46 PM (vd872)

Let me clue you in, sunshine - those women aren't "cool", those women don't respect themselves enough to call you out when you denigrate them.  Of course, women like that come with a lot of baggage (daddy issues, mostly) and aren't mature enough to enter into a long-term relationship either, so I guess that's working out for both you and them.

What you call a "trifling language issue" isn't, plain and simple.  Until you figure that out, you're going to be spending lots of time with loser women.  Try treating a woman like she is deserving of respect, and see if you don't start attracting a nicer class of women.

You say that you are over 30?  Time to start acting like it -  

 

331 Erik, I think you might've misread what Dan meant.  Just sayin'.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 12, 2010 06:55 PM (h/zKr)

Am I the only one who is just tired of hearing about this right and that right.  This guy is offended and that girl is offended and let's get the judicial system involved.  I frankly am sick to death of hearing about gay rights.  People are different. I get it.  Why do I have to be accepting of every damned thing that comes down the pike.  Most folks aren't Christ or Ghandi. 

Posted by: Ohio Dan at October 12, 2010 06:32 PM (K03lE)

Good call, Morgenholz and apologies to Dan.

That's what I get for jumping the gun.

332

Surely this isn't the first time a judge has tried to force the military to change its practices.

Does she even have jurisdiction?

and SINCE WHEN does a district court's decision bind anyone outside its own district?

333 341: Some of it won a Nobel Prize in economics last year, Ostrom & Williamson for their work on the problem of the tragedy of the commons.

334 Plus, any woman that I'd be involved with would already be part of a set of women who didn't freak out over trifling language issues with interchangeable valve stems.

FIFY, Don Juan.

335 If you don't let them dribble out of your mouth like a wanna-be Trig after a snow cone Remember, he's not a troll.

336 ### 342 Let me clue you in, sunshine - those women aren't "cool", those women don't respect themselves enough to call you out when you denigrate them. Of course, women like that come with a lot of baggage (daddy issues, mostly) and aren't mature enough to enter into a long-term relationship either, so I guess that's working out for both you and them. ### I dunno, most of my female friends pretty much have their shit together. Normal people, jobs, no drug abuse problems, no out of wedlock kids, seem pretty confident in themselves, etc.. Maybe they're just not hypersensitive and don't see the word "cunt" as a word rape of their entire gender. ### What you call a "trifling language issue" isn't, plain and simple. Until you figure that out, you're going to be spending lots of time with loser women. Try treating a woman like she is deserving of respect, and see if you don't start attracting a nicer class of women. ### Seems like a subjective determination to me. Some women freak out about "cunt", some don't. There's no hardline requirement. Thirty years ago, the argument would've been over "bitch", and now nobody really cares other than dried up old spinsters who have so little joy in their own lives that they feel the need to play Ms. Manners instead of minding their own fucking business. ### You say that you are over 30? Time to start acting like it - ### I'm actually under 30, but close enough that it makes sense to round up for the purpose of a casual conversation.

337 Any woman he'd be involved with would need a metal skeleton like fucking Wolverine. He doesn't appear capable of keeping his weight off a gal relying on his own strength.

338 Empire of Jeff - What the fuck, Cheeto and dickstain are fine to bring up, but using the world's second most famous waterhead (behind Corky) as a reference makes me a troll? Get some fucking consistency, man!

339

If you don't let them dribble out of your mouth like a wanna-be Trig...  - Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 07:02 PM (vd872)

THAT is over the line, kid.  REAL men DO NOT cross that line, either.  REAL men take great pride in defending those who need protecting.  ANYONE who would make fun of a child with a disability who has done nothing to deserve ridicule is not worthy of engaging in discussions with adults who recognize what is right and what is not.

You know, normally I get upset when I hear that someone isn't willing to go and exercise their right to vote.  But when I think about the sacrifices that have been made by better men than you to ensure the freedoms that allow you to be ABLE to vote in the first place, I'm really kind of glad that you don't vote. 

Because I'd hate to think that someone who doesn't value his fellow man is among those who is casting a vote to elect someone to represent those of us who DO value our country and what she stands for.    

340 Well, I have enough fun for today. Arguing Constitutional law with a kid in PJs is a waste of time.

Good Night Morons. Catch ya'll in the morning.

341 Stuck both inches in it now, Mr. Arbuckle!

342 We need a judge to rule lifetime appointments for Federal judges is unconstitutional.

343 And in closing, while I'm sure "waterhead" is very amusing to you, it is a derogatiey term that describes hydrocephalus, not Down's Syndrome, which is what Trig Palin, an INFANT, is afflicted with. Hey, while you're busy using innacurate terms (and I know how you hate that) to denigrate a baby, maybe you can find a blind three-legged puppy to kick.

344 ### THAT is over the line, kid. REAL men DO NOT cross that line, either. REAL men take great pride in defending those who need protecting. ANYONE who would make fun of a child with a disability who has done nothing to deserve ridicule is not worthy of engaging in discussions with adults who recognize what is right and what is not. ### I'm not allowed to think that retards are funny? Christ, lady, you must be a real blast at a party. Buzzy McBuzzkill, I will not weep that you and I will never meet in a social circumstance, because you'd be a wetter blanket than a comforter at Lillith Fair after the tampons run out. That kid doesn't need protecting. He's got his parents to do it for him. Plus, I mean, what's he gonna do, read this post and get all offended? Unfuckinglikely. Plus, according to commercials during football games, all that's required to be a real man (or at least, one of genius) is to come up with innovative ways to drink beer. ### You know, normally I get upset when I hear that someone isn't willing to go and exercise their right to vote. But when I think about the sacrifices that have been made by better men than you to ensure the freedoms that allow you to be ABLE to vote in the first place, I'm really kind of glad that you don't vote. Because I'd hate to think that someone who doesn't value his fellow man is among those who is casting a vote to elect someone to represent those of us who DO value our country and what she stands for. ### You know, you say that, but there are people who value their fellow men a lot less than I do who still vote. Some of them probably vote the same way that you do. If you want to vote for a leader to make all your decisions for you because you need a daddy, that's fine. I don't vote because I don't need someone to make decisions for me, I'm perfectly capable of making them myself without having a gun held to my head by the mechanisms of the state.

345 Hey, while you're busy using innacurate terms (and I know how you hate that) to denigrate a baby, maybe you can find a blind three-legged puppy to kick.

Hey - watch it pal, puppies have rights!

346 Empire of Jeff: To quote Sam Kinison: "Yeah, let me go spend three years in medical school so I can write medically correct fucking jokes about AIDS". But fine, window licker. Happy?

347 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 12, 2010 07:27 PM (jI5ZS)

Every time this guy posts I say to myself "Fuck, I wish he had a blog."  And alas!

348 Sockpuppet off. 

349

I dunno, most of my female friends pretty much have their shit together. Normal people, jobs, no drug abuse problems, no out of wedlock kids, seem pretty confident in themselves, etc.. Maybe they're just not hypersensitive and don't see the word "cunt" as a word rape of their entire gender. 

I take it these girls aren't married, either?  If so, I rest my case.  Until they respect themselves enough to hold the men in their lives to a high standard, they will either remain unmarried, or they will settle for anything that comes along because they - deep down - don't think that they are worth much.

Thirty years ago, the argument would've been over "bitch", and now nobody really cares other than dried up old spinsters who have so little joy in their own lives that they feel the need to play Ms. Manners instead of minding their own fucking business.

Actually, son, I was trying to help you out.  Having raised 3 daughters to adulthood - who, by the way, respect themselves WAY too much to allow themselves to go out with anyone who would refer to them as either a c*** or a b**** - I just thought that perhaps no one had ever told you that before.

 

350 Hey, fatass.  Teresa has a kid with Down Syndrome.  That's really fucking hilarious, isn't it?

351 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 12, 2010 07:27 PM (jI5ZS)

Every time this guy posts I say to myself "Fuck, I wish he had a blog."  And alas!

Alas.  Like a true moron, the fucker posts once a month whether he needs to or not.....  Heh.

352 ### I take it these girls aren't married, either? If so, I rest my case. Until they respect themselves enough to hold the men in their lives to a high standard, they will either remain unmarried, or they will settle for anything that comes along because they - deep down - don't think that they are worth much. ### A couple are, most aren't. We're all in the same age range though, so I dunno that "ZOMFG U RNT MARRIED U SUX" really applies. It's sort of amusing that you define a woman's ability to respect herself by whether or not she's married though. I'm assuming that you don't acknowledge the possibility that a woman could be both self-confident and unmarried past the age of 17? ### Actually, son, I was trying to help you out. Having raised 3 daughters to adulthood - who, by the way, respect themselves WAY too much to allow themselves to go out with anyone who would refer to them as either a c*** or a b**** - I just thought that perhaps no one had ever told you that before. ### Maybe your daughters are lame, boring, buzzkills too, I dunno. I treat my female friends the same way I treat my male friends, and it seems to work pretty well for us. If you want to raise your daughters to act like uptight killjoys, that's fine for you, I'm certainly not going to argue against your parenting, but it seems like an overreach to declare that all women who don't conform to your ideal are somehow lacking in self-esteem and judgement.

353 363: She does? That's awesome, I wonder if he runs around the ketchup factory pooping in all the vats. Finally, my loyalty to Hunts pays off in not having little chunks of re-re stool in my burger!

354

Incidentally, DMX, we happen to have 4 daughters.  The 4th one happens to have Down syndrome.  As I said before, REAL men do not make fun of those who need protecting.

And I vote to make sure that the government does NOT have the power to make decisions for me or anyone else.  I sure as heck don't want the Secretary of HHS telling me what I can and cannot do when it comes to the care of our youngest daughter.

The reality is, though, that you don't vote because you don't want to have to take responsibility for the consequences of your vote.  And that's fine.  When you grow up, you'll hopefully do the right thing.  Until then, I hope you like living in your mother's basement. 

355 I'm pacing myself.

356 I'm pacing myself.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 12, 2010 07:40 PM (OtzOP)

Like Roid running a marathon.

357 Like Roid running a marathon.


Might I suggest that his times would improve if he discarded the size XXL Jedi robe and replica lightsaber?

358

Thanks for having my back Herr.  We run to a judge or a legislature to solve every societal problem that comes down the pike.  We can't have hate speach because someone is offended. We have hate crimes because when you bust your neighbors head with a bat thinking happy thoughts while you do it makes it less onerous.  Seatbelts, carseats, booster seats untill age twelve, helmets, kneepads and on and on. 

My experience is every law creates a new criminal class.  Every law makes more money for lawyers.  Too many laws makes it impossible to bring to justice after 17 years the terrorist that planned the Cole bombing.  People need to grow up and handle their lives themselves.

And I really am fond of balloons but not in a gay way.

359 Herr, thank you for defending my daughter.  I just now had a chance to read through the rest of the comments.  I appreciate it -

360 Thanks for having my back Herr.

Erik's a good guy.  Just misinterpreted.

And I really am fond of balloons but not in a gay way.

I hate anything that flies, but I loves me some cheerleaders.

361 Herr, thank you for defending my daughter.

That shit was banworthy.

362 ### Incidentally, DMX, we happen to have 4 daughters. The 4th one happens to have Down syndrome. As I said before, REAL men do not make fun of those who need protecting. ### Oh, so this is really just a case of "My sister's best friend's boyfriend died in a helicopter accident, so you're not allowed to make jokes about helicopters". OK, well, you should've explained that you were going to be inherently irrational and unable to take a joke about it in the first place, and we could've saved a bunch of time ignoring eachother. ### And I vote to make sure that the government does NOT have the power to make decisions for me or anyone else. I sure as heck don't want the Secretary of HHS telling me what I can and cannot do when it comes to the care of our youngest daughter. ### No, but I'm sure you're fine with the gov't having the power to make all sorts of other decisions for you, or other people. Killing an unborn baby, for example, or funding military adventurism or whatever the case may be. You vote for people that will force other people to do things that you think are good or to pay for things that you like. That's not a virtue, that's just using the power of the state for things that you like. ### The reality is, though, that you don't vote because you don't want to have to take responsibility for the consequences of your vote. And that's fine. When you grow up, you'll hopefully do the right thing. Until then, I hope you like living in your mother's basement. ### There are no consequences to or responsibility needed for my vote. A vote doesn't matter, and would be in direct opposition to my principles. Actually, the only way that a vote would matter at all to me, or have any consequences whatsoever, would be as a function of my violation of my beliefs and ideology. I live in a pretty nice house, actually.

363 Posted by: DMXRoid at October 12, 2010 07:49 PM (vd872)

Good Bye.

364

Oh, so this is really just a case of "My sister's best friend's boyfriend died in a helicopter accident, so you're not allowed to make jokes about helicopters". OK, well, you should've explained that you were going to be inherently irrational and unable to take a joke about it in the first place, and we could've saved a bunch of time ignoring eachother.

Your "jokes" aren't funny.  They're insulting. Didn't your mother teach you any manners, or was she too busy cruising the truck stops to get enough money for her electrolysis?

365 A little late to the party, but doesn't overturning DADT mean that the military can now actively BAN gays in the military???

366 375 - DickDroid I live in a BASEMENT OF A pretty nice house, actually. ----------- Go somewhere else jerkoff.

367 The problem here is that we've created another protected class, the members of which will very quickly trot out the "discrimination" card when their own personal indiscipline negatively intersects with the actual need for discipline.

Not many professional Soldiers really care about sexual orientation, so long as individual conduct and duty performance reflected core military values. That will now change, at least in the short term. Many of the Warriors - like Napoleon's Grognards - who have shouldered the load this far begin to walk away, not so much in disgust, but in the pragmatic realization that this is one of the final straws in creating a military governed by the histrionics of identity politics, and thus incapable of the discipline required to fight and win wars.

Well, future First Sergeants, and whatever you Navy types call 'em, good luck. For the rest of us, time to go.  

368

No, but I'm sure you're fine with the gov't having the power to make all sorts of other decisions for you, or other people. Killing an unborn baby, for example, or funding military adventurism or whatever the case may be. You vote for people that will force other people to do things that you think are good or to pay for things that you like. That's not a virtue, that's just using the power of the state for things that you like.

Read through my response again, Skippy.  I vote so that the government DOES NOT have too much power.  The government already takes a huge chunk of my husband's hard-earned income and tells us that we have to pay more each year for services for OTHER people.  Not only did we get to pay full price for our daughters to go to college, we got to pay for other peoples' kids - who made MUCH worse grades than ours did, I'm sure - to be able to go to college.  Heck, we're even paying for kids who aren't here LEGALLY to go to college.

I don't want the government to have the power to make ANY decisions for me - I want them to protect the citizenry using fairly-applied law so that everyone can go about their business and make their own decisions (and let them learn a lesson when they make bad decisions).

Your decision not to vote means that you don't really care one way or the other how much power the government has - if you did, you would go down to the polling place and make sure that your voice is heard EVERY SINGLE TIME.  If you don't vote, you don't get to complain.

Don't think your vote matters?  Al Franken is a Senator today because 342 people didn't cast their vote for the other guy.  Folks in Florida are STILL mad because their boy Gore didn't win in 2000.  My bet is that most of the people who are upset didn't even bother to go and vote.  THAT'S the lesson I made sure that my daughters learned from those elections - don't EVER make the mistake of thinking that your vote can't make a difference.

But by the same token, don't make the mistake of thinking that if you don't vote that you have any say in whatever happens as a result of the rest of the electorate going and making that decision for you.  By not voting, you give up the right to complain until the next election.

369 "ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops"

It's not the military's. It's Congress's. And the Executive's. You know--those pesky branches of government who have to gain the Consent of the Governed. Or at least pretend to. Unlike the Judge-Gods.

370

Unlike the Judge-Gods.

Makes you wonder why we bother voting, doesn't it?

Judge: "No, you got it wrong again, assholes. You vote again, and keep voting until you get it right, goddamit!"

371 I can vouch for DickDroid. I've been the woman in his life since he was ten years old.

372 It's been fun watching you homophobe wingers shit yourselves over equal rights again. Must be something against it in your DNA.

373 Damn.. ugly thread..

374 ### Read through my response again, Skippy. I vote so that the government DOES NOT have too much power. The government already takes a huge chunk of my husband's hard-earned income and tells us that we have to pay more each year for services for OTHER people. Not only did we get to pay full price for our daughters to go to college, we got to pay for other peoples' kids - who made MUCH worse grades than ours did, I'm sure - to be able to go to college. Heck, we're even paying for kids who aren't here LEGALLY to go to college. ### Yes, you say that you vote so that the government does not have "too much power", but what you really mean is that you vote for a government that exercises its power in the way you'd like. You might want less government in most areas, but I'm still pretty sure that you want the government enforcing things you want enforced, and spending money on things that you want it to spend money on. There's no real principle about the size or nature of government at stake, just the question of which direction it applies its force in. ### I don't want the government to have the power to make ANY decisions for me - I want them to protect the citizenry using fairly-applied law so that everyone can go about their business and make their own decisions (and let them learn a lesson when they make bad decisions). ### Fairly applied law according to whom? And what laws? What you consider fair might be grossly unjust to others, and why should your opinion win out? Because of some fucking bean counting and popularity contests? That shit was a bad way to decide high school prom queen, and it's a much worse way to run a country. ### Your decision not to vote means that you don't really care one way or the other how much power the government has - if you did, you would go down to the polling place and make sure that your voice is heard EVERY SINGLE TIME. If you don't vote, you don't get to complain. ### I don't see how one follows from the other. If I voted in every election from the time I turned 18 until now, absolutely nothing would have been different, and I would have been violating a core premise of my ideology, that no man has the right to abrogate my liberties and autonomy without my explicit consent. I reject the entire concept of voting as a legitimate exercise of individual will, why does that mean I don't get to disagree about what happens? I mean, really, your better argument here is that the fact that I'm not armed to the teeth rolling up on every institution of government I can find means I don't get to complain, but even that doesn't hold up very well. ### Don't think your vote matters? Al Franken is a Senator today because 342 people didn't cast their vote for the other guy. Folks in Florida are STILL mad because their boy Gore didn't win in 2000. My bet is that most of the people who are upset didn't even bother to go and vote. THAT'S the lesson I made sure that my daughters learned from those elections - don't EVER make the mistake of thinking that your vote can't make a difference. ### Al Franken is a Senator of a state that I've never been to, and he's a Senator because the Democrats are very very good at adding votes after the fact. If 342 more people had come out for Coleman, those votes would have disappeared, or 343 more would have magically appeared for Al. And that sort of proves my point. Why should anything ride on that sort of insignificant difference? 49.9% of people in MN get dickfucked (in their opinions) because 50.1% voted for Franken, but if Coleman had won, it would've been the same ratio, just different people taking the big dick down the Hershey highway. That's a symptom of a fundamentally broken system, not an honored institution, participation in which is considered a high civic duty. ### But by the same token, don't make the mistake of thinking that if you don't vote that you have any say in whatever happens as a result of the rest of the electorate going and making that decision for you. By not voting, you give up the right to complain until the next election. ### Again, I don't see why this is true. I can both reject the institution of voting AND think that all politicians are dickfuck assholes trying to rob me of my property and liberty. The two aren't incompatible.

375 Yeah, thanks Log Cabin Republicans.  Now I'm really all in favor of gay rights.  Don't bother with taking the military's view into account or anything.  /sarc.  As a 24 year vet I am pissed off about this unilateral decision based on one liberal judge's ruling.  Seriously, Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and any other GOP gay groups: you can all go to hell.

376 Let's reevaluate the collected wisdom of DMXRoid:

Calls ladies the c-word.

Calls developmentally disabled kids "waterhead".

Claims to live in a nice house.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Barack Obama posts here.

377

But by the same token, don't make the mistake of thinking that if you don't vote that you have any say in whatever happens as a result of the rest of the electorate going and making that decision for you.  By not voting, you give up the right to complain until the next election.

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at October 12, 2010 08:07 PM (AAN7N)

No one ever gives up the right to complain, and unfortunately most insist on exercising that right to its fullest extent.

By not voting, he's simply giving other voters greater power over his life: their votes are effectively amplified by his refusal to participate.  I am not sure why you're arguing against that outcome, as his stupidity merely gives you and me more say in the process.

378 By not voting, he's simply giving other voters greater power over his life

We were sick of carrying that load.

379 Oh shit, a fat joke? Damn son, I haven't been hearing those since I was six or anything. There's no way my gigantic rolls of fat have built up a hard outer shell against attacks against my appearance, is there? Nah, you're the first one, buddy. Good job.

380 I've also made fun of your beard and your tiny member.

For the record.

381 No shame in a small dick. It's a lot easier to cum with 2 inches than it is 2 feet.

382 But how do you get it past the belly?

383 Herr Morganholz, kicking ass and taking names.  You are on the mark tonight.

384 Well, well...  The Obama Administration will appeal the decision.  The cries of Dems on the ropes have been heard.

Drudge just posted a link

385

I learned when I was 21 that votes are meaningless.  I had just posted my picture to RateMyBody.com and after all the votes were tallied, my score was 2.37, which on the attractiveness scale is about a "Gary Busey."

Fucking voters.

That's when I decided to devote my life to regurgitating anarcho-capitalist tripe written by other maladjusted losers and copy their "knowledge", totally uninformed by any relevant life experience.

That's why I can run my man-pleaser about the military experience without having served, wax philosophical about marriage without having been married, and GAAAAAAACCCCKKK!

Sorry, sometimes the chicken bones get stuck sideways going down.

 

386

No shame in a small dick. It's a lot easier to cum with 2 inches than it is 2 feet.

It's not small.  It's "travel-size" and very convenient for my mobile lifestyle.

387 ### 398 I learned when I was 21 that votes are meaningless. I had just posted my picture to RateMyBody.com and after all the votes were tallied, my score was 2.37, which on the attractiveness scale is about a "Gary Busey." ### 2.37 is a lot more than I deserve. I'm maybe a 1.5 at best. If anything, the skewed vision of voters on a hotornot knockoff should make me pro-voting. ### That's when I decided to devote my life to regurgitating anarcho-capitalist tripe written by other maladjusted losers and copy their "knowledge", totally uninformed by any relevant life experience. ### Are you really arguing that every anarcho-capitalist is a "maladjusted loser"? What's your basis for that? Your ignorance about the vast wealth of thought and thinkers on the subject? Or just a reflexive fear of a circumstance where you don't get to use the long arm of the state to bully people around? I'm also confused as to how I'm "regurgitating" anything, except in the universal sense that all knowledge is merely a synthesis of earlier knowledge. Is it only anarcho-capitalists that regurgitate, or can adherents to mainstream political statism do it too? What's the bright line between one and the other? Certainly, many arguments I'd make for anarcho-capitalism are influenced by the work of others, but if you're implying that my own ability to construct logical arguments in defense of a position is unused when I advocate anarcho-capitalism, you're simply wrong. I think probably the most likely is that you're just doing what Republicans normally do when confronted with libertarianism, which is to disregard it as childish. Which is fine, it'd be foolish to expect more from you. ### That's why I can run my man-pleaser about the military experience without having served, ### I made not one argument about the military experience. Not a single one. Not in defense of DADT or in opposition to it. Wasn't me. ### wax philosophical about marriage without having been married, ### So then the only people who can have an opinion about a topic are those who have personally experienced it? Then no more talking about abortion until you've Wet-vac'd a baby out of your snatch, no more complaining about business taxes until you've had to meet a payroll, no more bitching about fags unless you've taken a shot in the ass, etc... That line of thought is very similar to the lefty experience-politics bullshit "You can't talk about racism because you're not black", that kind of deal. Is that who you want to be like? Bell Hooks and Cornell West?

388

This is easy to solve.

Like somebody else on HotAir said, what we need is not for DADT to be stripped away — what we need is for it to be expanded to include everyone.

If it isnÂ’t aimed at any one group specifically but is aimed at keeping everyone from discussing their sexual exploits, then it isnÂ’t unconstitutional. Furthermore, you restrict public displays of affection while on base and in uniform. However, itÂ’s nobodyÂ’s business what others do off base (while not in a uniform) and in their home - so long as it doesnÂ’t break other conduct rules.

Lastly, you allow people to get out of their contracts with an honorable discharge if they can't handle it. After all, the showers and barracks aren't gonna change - and shouldn't. Let's face it, that'd be a huge waste of time and money. If you are gonna be there, be there. If not, leave.

Let the chips fall where they may.

We need to stop twisting ourselves into knots over every freakin' issue.

389

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this....  But how is it we can pray assiduously for the courts to overturn ObamaCare--a law duly enacted by duly elected representatives--as unconstitutional, and that's not an affront to democracy; but when a court determines that an executive order is unconstitutional, why, by God, that's judicial activism, undermining what the People have decided!

Sometimes, yes, Ace, the decisions reached via "democracy" violate the Constitution.  That's not news to you, given the bullshit of the past 22 months, so I find this post, well, retarded.

390 Yeah mgd that's true, but the fact is, this decision had nothing to do with the constitution. The constitution has nothing to say about sexuality and even if it did, the military has always had broad exemptions from rights because of its nature and necessity.

Courts making decisions of this sort violate democracy because they aren't doing their proper job; they're instituting their cultural opinion and investing that with the weight of law over the will of the people.

And that's just judicial tyranny.

391 IMPEACH judges who will not follow the constitution, they have violated their oath. This asshat needs to be first on the list.

392

@14 Voting down the rights of your fellow citizens is not democracy, you fucking plebes.  -- Where in the Constitution is the right to serve in the military?  I don't dispute the right to be a butt pirate, but there is not a right to serve. 

43
Question: Is it a Federal crime to be openly gay in the military?  Yes. 

75 The only type of homosexual that is going to serve are the type that are serving now.  Regular men and women who happen to be homosexual and don't want to lose their jobs or livelihoods if their sexual orientation is discovered. -- You are way off on this.  There is no precedent that supports this argument.  There are aggressive flamers in now and there will be more if the policy changes. 

79 Secondly, the Judicial branch exists specifically to make sure laws adhere to the Constitution, not that laws adhere to the Will of the People.  -- Again, where is the Constitutional right to serve in the military? 

393 The only way to stop such judicial tyranny is to amend the Constitution to restore it to its original meanings, including an amendment restricting judges to the original plain meaning of the constitutional or statutory language and making it an impeachable offense if they don't.  See timelyrenewed dot com for more on this solution.

394

@ Christopher Taylor:  Right, well, I wasn't commenting on the ruling itself.  As far as DADT goes, I'm inclined to let the military make that decision.  I was commenting solely on Ace's criticism.  Sometime, yes, we do get political decisions wrong, and have to hope that judges have the wisdom and fortitude to overturn them, as I am hoping they do with the individual mandate--as, I suspect, most of us are.