|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
abcnews Quote:
DREAM Act for Illegal Immigrants Faces Key Senate Vote
Opponents of DREAM Act Claim Votes to Block Bill, Deny Legalization to Students
By DEVIN DWYER
Dec. 17, 2010—
The Senate is expected to vote Saturday on a controversial immigration measure that would provide a conditional path to legal residency for hundreds of thousands of young, undocumented immigrants first brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.
The bill -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM Act -- passed the House last week. But it faces a much more difficult prospect in the Senate.
Republicans have indicated they may filibuster, presaging the same fate the bill met in 2007 when it last was brought to the Senate floor. Many call it an "amnesty" that could cost taxpayers and encourage continued illegal immigration.
If the measure fails in the Senate, it's unlikely to receive Congressional consideration for at least two more years.
"I'm always queasy before a vote," said Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, a group that has been lobbying against the measure. "We're pulling out every stop we've got. We feel we've got 42 sure votes against this thing, and we only need 41 to kill it."
But supporters, who need 60 votes to override a GOP filibuster, said the outcome is far from certain.
"Both Republicans and Democrats are feeling increasing amounts of pressure from the courage of the students and the number of allies who have come to their side," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "The Catholic Bishops, higher education leaders from across the country, business, organized labor, and even political conservatives and evangelical Christian ministers are lobbying for the act."
The DREAM Act has been championed by immigration advocates and the White House as a reform that's previously garnered bipartisan support.
Its supporters say it would bring out of the shadows a fraction of the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who have known only the U.S. as home, enhance military recruitment and give American employers access to a talented and highly-motivated pool of young workers.
Only immigrants younger than 30 who entered the U.S. before age 16, have lived here five years without a serious criminal offense, graduated high school or earned a GED and attend college or join the military among other requirements, would be eligible for legal residency.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates between 300,000 and 500,000 presently undocumented immigrants could benefit from the DREAM Act.
But many Republicans, including six who voted for the measure in 2007, are skeptical towards any show of leniency towards undocumented immigrants. And they say the bill rewards criminal behavior and could cost taxpayers millions of dollars while doing little to address the lagging U.S. economy.
"When it comes to immigration, our primary focus must remain on regaining the American people's trust by fully securing our borders that are threatened by emboldened and violent gangs, and fixing our broken immigration system," said Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, once a chief sponsor of the DREAM Act who now opposes the bill.
Fate of DREAM Act Uncertain
The bill's projected cost or benefit to taxpayers has become a focal point on both sides of the debate ahead of the expected vote.
The CBO report estimates that one version of the bill would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion in the first decade because of increased tax revenue from immigrant residents.
But the same study also projects the bill could add between $5 billion and $20 billion to the deficit by 2060 due to additional benefit program costs.
Opponents also warn it would add to competition for already scarce U.S. jobs.
"There are some compelling cases out there that deserve to be considered. But there are also 22 million Americans who have compelling cases, who want a job and can't find a job," said Beck. "What the DREAM Act does is add at least a couple million more workers to legally compete against the 22 million unemployed Americans."
"I realize these kids did not personally decide to break the law. Nonetheless, they represent law-breaking. How do you keep parents from doing this to their kids in the future? The DREAM Act does nothing about that," he said.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the leading sponsors of the DREAM Act, has said opponents of the measure are breeding "hysteria" and that lawmakers must not overlook the costs of doing nothing.
"Let us consider the alternative to legalizing DREAM Act-eligible young people," he said last week. "The young men and women eligible for the DREAM Act will still live here but can only take jobs in the black market, probably cannot afford the high costs we charge foreign students for a college education, and are barred from serving in the military.
"We want a more educated workforce fully taxed within the legitimate economy. This is why the DREAM Act, if anything, is likely to be a net revenue generator for the federal government," he said.
Senate Democrats have been under mounting pressure to bring the DREAM Act for an up-or-down vote during the lame duck session as Hispanic and other immigrant groups have grown frustrated with Democrats and the administration for relative lack of legislative action on immigration reform under their watch.
"These are young people who have been in the country, who have invested in our education system and our communities, and are the best and the brightest. And they want to continue to invest in our nation. They want to get a college degree, they want to serve in our armed forces," said Noorani. "How much more service can we ask for from immigrants to our nation?"
Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
This needs to be defeated. It's a bad bill set to hand out amnesty for illegal aliens. Sure, lets go ahead and reward the ones who actually are going to college, lets not reward the ones that will only go to college to gain citzenship so they can sponsor their family..
The way this bill is written is horrible. It only requires 2 years of college while to get the degree most valedictorians(like the ones supporters drag out) are most likely reaching for is at least a 4 year degree which is really the only one really worth it.. 2 years of college is not enough and is ripe for being abused. Give it more stringent qualifications, then I might agree with it more.
But by all records, it is most likely going to fail.
As far as DADT, I don't think it should matter what gender/sex our soldiers are going after as long as it is not interferring with their job.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 12/18/10 04:14 AM.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Not only shall we reward those who go to college .... but I bet we pay for them to go to college as well. I know we paid for those who went to High School illegally. I bet we paid for their food, medical, and clothes too.
We have almost a 10% unemployment rate ..... so instead of concentrating on creating an environment that will help business create jobs ...... instead f worrying about the massive and crushing debt that this country is adding every single second that passes .... instead of worrying about securing our southern border so that no one, terrorists, criminal, or opportunist can get through ... instead of any of those thing, let's make illegal people legal.
No wonder this country is so screwed up. Our priorities are completely and totally fubarred.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
It failed in a procedural vote today in the Senate, 55 - 41. Five votes short of what would be needed to block a filibuster. I'd say right now it's a least two years away from another vote.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
I think that I would have a problem serving with openly gay men, as far as having to dress/undress in front of them, shower, etc. It would be like requiring a woman to dress/undress in front of a man. It would be uncomfortable, at best. I just don't know how you get around this aspect. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban/Repeal of Military Gay Ban Clears Final Senate Hurdle Before Passage - FoxNews.com WASHINGTON -- After two failed attempts, Senate Democrats cleared the way Saturday for passage of a landmark bill that would end the Clinton-era ban on gays serving openly in the military and mark a major triumph for President Obama, liberals and the gay community. In an unusual weekend session, senators voted to advance a bill ending the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The repeal, which passed the House this week, could win final passage by late afternoon. Democrats are counting on support from four key Republicans to help them get the bill across the goal line: Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. With opposition from Republicans weakening, passage would deliver a resounding victory to Obama, who made repeal of the 17-year-old law a campaign promise in 2008. It also would be a win for congressional Democrats who have struggled in the final hours of the lame-duck session to overcome Republican objections, and for gay rights groups who said Saturday's vote was their best shot at changing the law because a new GOP-dominated Congress will take control in January. Advocates vowed to leave nothing to chance and stepped up lobbying efforts in the hours before the vote, including a silent protest in the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor. "We simply cannot let the clock run out and lose this historic opportunity," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, whose supporters vowed to sit in the Senate gallery until the law was repealed. Repeal would mean that for the first time in U.S. history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law. Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers -- the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- are required to certify to Congress that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, 60 days must pass before any changes go into effect. The House approved the bill earlier this week by a 250-174 vote. A small but vocal group of Republicans led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona said the law shouldn't be changed during wartime. "We send these young people into combat," said McCain. "We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness." The Democratic push for repeal was strengthened by the release of a major Pentagon study that concluded gays could serve openly without affecting combat effectiveness. The assessment found that two-thirds of troops predicted little impact if the law is repealed. The study was strongly backed by the Pentagon's top leadership, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. McCain has dismissed the study as flawed and cites concern among troops assigned to the front lines. Some personnel predicted openly gay troops would cause problems. Most of them were in combat arms units such as infantry and special operations. The chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps warned Congress that repeal could pose serious problems if the law is overturned when troops are still fighting in Afghanistan. Gen. James Amos, the head of the Marine Corps, has become the most outspoken opponent and claims letting gay troops serve openly could cost lives. Gates and Mullen say this fear is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no impact on their units' morale or effectiveness. The bill appeared all but dead earlier this month when Senate Republicans voted for a second time this year to block the measure. The language was tucked into a broader defense policy bill that many GOP senators said required more debate than Democrats would allow. They also objected to taking up any legislation before addressing tax cuts and government spending. Senate Democrats addressed many of the procedural objections, including completing the tax-cut legislation. They also stripped the repeal provision from the defense policy bill. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/.../#ixzz18U576krS
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Does the word "illegal" mean anything to these idiots in the Senate? These kids, no matter who they are ....are friggin ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!
Any, and I mean any arguement in favor of anything for someone ILLEGAL is total BS. So please save them if you have any.
My son is going to college in two years, you think the friggin democrats are going to pay his tuition? Hell no. But let some foreigner come here and it's all free. This crap drives me crazy, and will end up being the end of this country as we know it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Does the word "illegal" mean anything to these idiots in the Senate? These kids, no matter who they are ....are friggin ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!
Any, and I mean any arguement in favor of anything for someone ILLEGAL is total BS. So please save them if you have any.
My son is going to college in two years, you think the friggin democrats are going to pay his tuition? Hell no. But let some foreigner come here and it's all free. This crap drives me crazy, and will end up being the end of this country as we know it.
Well they still do need to pay for tuition... though they would be eligible for more scholarships because they normally are part of a "minority." In California, we already subsidize their college education by offering them in-state tuition even though CA has no money to pay for it. We've tried to deny them even lower education and the courts sort of struck it down. Though personally, if they were 5 when their parents brought them here, I'd have less of a problem with it.. though the Dream Act only requires them to be 14-16 at the time of entry, and only requires 2 years of college.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Passes Senate Procedural Vote ***UPDATE 3PM*** The Senate has now passed legislation ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The final vote was 65-31. WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted 63-33 on Saturday to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, defeating a 17-year policy of banning gay and lesbian service members from serving openly in the military. Five Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against the policy: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). The Senate vote is a vindication of Obama's decision to push for congressional repeal as opposed to unilateral executive action, though activists note he could have done both. The Senate will make a final vote on ending the policy at 3 p.m. "The important thing today is that 63 senators were on the right side of history," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, told HuffPost, adding he sees the bill as a "stepping stone to further advances for the gay and lesbian community." Gay-rights activists owe a small debt to their Latino brethren, as the DREAM Act, which the House and Senate have been considering at the same time, showed the way forward for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Roughly a week before a crucial cloture vote failed, said one top aide, Democratic leadership staff saw that the same legislative tactic could be used to bring a standalone version of the repeal bill to the Senate floor as was currently being used to bring DREAM up. For needlessly complex reasons, a bill that comes to the Senate as a "message from the House" faces fewer obstacles to a floor vote than one that originates in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) proposed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the House consider moving first. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) had the same idea. "Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins determined that they would introduce a bill," Hoyer told HuffPost earlier this week. "I called and talked to a number of people. I then called Senator Lieberman and said 'Joe, my intent will be to talk to Congressman Murphy' -- who's the sponsor of the amendment that was adopted in the defense bill -- 'and put this in as a free standing bill, because we can probably send it over to you more quickly than you can send to us.' And he agreed and we introduced exactly the same bill that they have in the Senate." The bill passed in the House 250-175 on Dec. 16. During debate before the cloture vote, Republicans ran through the usual list of arguments against repealing DADT, claiming it would hurt unit cohesion and that troops had not been given an adequate chance to voice their opinions on the bill. A survey on ending DADT was sent to 400,000 service members, at least 100,000 of whom responded. Of those who responded, 70 percent said they would "work together to get the job done" if there was a gay service member in their unit -- and 69 percent said they know or suspect there is a gay service member serving with them already. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the reason survey results were mostly positive because troops already thought the repeal was "a done deal" because politicians had said they planned to repeal it. Repealing DADT would harm recruitment and retention, he said. "I was shocked at how well this has worked for a long period of time," Inhofe said. "We have a saying in Oklahoma, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, this isn't broke, it's working very well." Republican senators said their opposition was not related to homophobia or lack of appreciation for those who have served or are serving in the military. "This has nothing to do with the gays and lesbians who have given valuable service to our military," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). "That's a given." Still, they rejected the idea that the military could adjust seamlessly to a more open policy. "Some people will say this is about civil rights and its time has come. The Marine Corps doesn't have that view," Graham said. "This is about effectiveness on the battle field, not about civil rights." In the end, though, support for a repeal won out. A number of Democrats made impassioned appeals for the bill in the debate. "I can't think of something more egregious to our fabric, to our military," said Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y). "If you care about national security, if you care about military readiness, you will vote against this corrosive policy." Now, though, Republicans are threatening that the vote will threaten another effort: ratification of the START Treaty, which supporters say would strengthen national security. "Some Republicans are saying they're not going to vote for the START Treaty now because we had a vote on the DREAM Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) after the vote. President Barack Obama applauded the Senate for moving toward repeal. "By ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay," he said in a statement. "And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love." Ryan Grim contributed reporting. web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
troops had not been given an adequate chance to voice their opinions on the bill.
Now, this is NOT a shot at the GOP here. This is just a general opinion to this line of thinking.
When it comes to the military, I guess I understand asking the soldiers what their opinions are. But, in the end, should the brass really care? I always thought that, in the military, "ours is not to reason why..." If your superior officer tells you that policy x is no longer in effect, and that you agree with it, you agree with it. It's not up to a soldier to question the wisdom of it, etc. Correct?
I never served in the armed forces, so I guess I'm asking those of you who have.
I guess I just always thought that when the decision comes down, whether you like it or not, you're supposed to follow it.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Yeah but ......
What happens the first time a straight soldier thinks and an openly gay soldier is checking him out in the shower? What if an openly gay soldier IS going out of his way to check out his fellow soldiers in the shower?
I would not want female soldiers showering with straight male soldiers. It's basically the same when gay soldiers shower and dress with members of their own gender. I don't know what the answer is ... but I can definitely see problems on the horizon.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Quote:
What happens the first time a straight soldier thinks and an openly gay soldier is checking him out in the shower? What if an openly gay soldier IS going out of his way to check out his fellow soldiers in the shower?
yt...maybe you don't understand...there are gays in the military and have been since the USA had a military?
Also, most of the troops already know who is gay and somehow they have managed to work through issues such as you raised above.
Honestly, there seems to be more concern from the civilian population than from the troops.
The troops will make it work...
Last edited by mac; 12/18/10 05:52 PM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Perhaps.
I hope that you're right.
However, in the end, you have a bunch of young men who may not take kindly to one of their own coming out in a demonstrative fashion.
There will be problems. I can damn near guarantee it. I just hope that they are minor problems.
I also wonder if this will effect re-enlistment?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Right or wrong, the law of unintended consequences may produce results that DADT prevented - soldiers may not deal with dissension or distractions within the unit in a socially accepted way. The absence of an official policy will place it in the hands of the individual service-members to deal with as they see fit. Heads might get busted, unfortunately, whereas, under DADT, certain behaviors (ie, unwanted advances) were prevented by the policy. The social engineering geniuses in Washington never seem to get it, probably because they are too busy pandering to special-interest, victimhood-seeking groups, and their liberal brethren.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
J/C
I'm glad this finally passed. This is one step closer for the American people to realize whatever small differences we have in religion, race, or sexual preference that we are all fighting for the good of this nation. Sure, there are a few sour apples out there who are at the fringe but this legislation needed to pass in order for our country to grow as a nation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Somewhere between 33% (Gallup Poll) and and 43% (Quinnipiac Poll) polled opposed the repeal of DADT. Clearly the minority, but hardly the "sour apple fringe". Edit: Speaking of polls, 58% of service members oppose the repeal of DADT. These are the actual people who will be asked to serve under a revised policy. http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/01/polls-...-ask-dont-tell/
Last edited by Dave; 12/18/10 06:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
yt...like I said, this is more of an issue for "civilians" than it is for the troops.
Just as the military has managed to handle the "gay issue" for decades and decades, they will continue to take care of anything that comes up.
In some respects, this should make the chain of command's job easier, ending the practice of maliciously outing of good soldiers who happen to be gay, just get them kicked out of the military.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
J/C I'm copying and pasting this from another thread because it fits better here. Having served in the Marines, here are some of my thoughts on the issue.
The military is filled with people from all walks of life. Some of these people are biased against Whites,Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. - Go tour a Marine Corps base and you will find that Black Marines tend to hang out with other Black Marines, and the same can be said for Hispanics and Whites. Some people in today's military are biased, however the governing authority in the military does not tolerate racism of any kind. - If you call somebody a racial slur, you will get punished by your commanding officer. - I saw this happen several times.
Point is, the leaders of today's military have been dealing with bias for quite some time, and they know how to handle it. Bias is something that can be rehabilitated, and the military does a nice job of weeding out people who are biased, rehabilitating them, and making great servicemen/women out of them.
However, the military does not have experience in dealing with sexual relations within combat units. - Why? Because women and men are not allowed to serve together in combat units. Like I noted before, women are not allowed to serve in ground combat units. Why? Because the military does not want sexual relations or emotions to get in the way of mission accomplishment.
Allowing people to be openly gay in the military opens the door for numerous battlefield related issues. Namely, should gay men who are involved in a relationship be allowed to be part of the same unit while on deployment? If the answer is yes, then get ready for all servicemen and women who are romantically involved to want to deploy with their significant other.
And if we do not let gay people deploy with their significant other, are we discriminating against them because they are gay? Good luck with this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,540
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,540 |
I served. I'm straight. I knew some of the guys I served with were gay. They never tried to check me out in the shower or come onto me. They were my friends. I trusted them. Knew they had my back.
The only problems I ever seen due to gays in the military was backwoods ignorant bigotry and a few flamers that wanted out and used being(or acting) gay to do it.
What most don't realize is in the bigger cities where the bases are, there is always a gay population, a gay scene and more acceptance of being gay. The real problem here is the affront to the lunatic fringe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Here's an idea Mac. Why don't we let the people decide instead of wack jobs like Pelosi and Reid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,784
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,784 |
God knows the only wack jobs in congress are Reed and Polosi and they can only be Dems, right duty?  Not saying those two aren't extreme cases, but they're not the only ones nor the only party who has them. 
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
Quote:
However, the military does not have experience in dealing with sexual relations within combat units. - Why? Because women and men are not allowed to serve together in combat units. Like I noted before, women are not allowed to serve in ground combat units. Why? Because the military does not want sexual relations or emotions to get in the way of mission accomplishment.
This may be the way the Marines are, but men and women have been serving onboard ships together for years. My ship had a crew of 1500 personnel. 750 men, 700 women, and there were various of both that were TAD and moved through our command.
Was there sexual relations on board? Yep.
Were there gay men and women on board? Yep.
Yet we still were combat ready and earned our Battle Efficiency in every single category.
Will there be issues in some commands? Absolutely, there is always conflict within a command for many issues. Race, religion, sexual orientation and more. Hell, we had everything that any neighborhood does on board. But you get past it and work through it to get the job done.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Serious question, and I don't know. If they repeal DADT, does it automatically go back to no gay personnel? That was the policy before DADT.
Personally, I think it's silly to think gay service members can't perform their jobs as well as straight enlistees.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Not really. It has to go through a due process. Both the President and the Pentagon have to review it before signing it into law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
Quote:
Here's an idea Mac. Why don't we let the people decide instead of wack jobs like Pelosi and Reid.
You mean people like DeMint and Bachman?
Seriously, the country as a majority is in front of the Congress.
I feel that our country to a more forward in seeking that elusive concept of perfection.
I could never resolve the pretzel logic of those who defend the rights of the individual, except in cases of race, religion, gender, or sexual preferance.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Yeah but ......
What happens the first time a straight soldier thinks and an openly gay soldier is checking him out in the shower? What if an openly gay soldier IS going out of his way to check out his fellow soldiers in the shower?
I would not want female soldiers showering with straight male soldiers. It's basically the same when gay soldiers shower and dress with members of their own gender. I don't know what the answer is ... but I can definitely see problems on the horizon.
It's obvious you never were in the military!!!!! Or have any idea of what military life is currently like.
Ever play organized sports???
There are plenty of gays/lesbians already serving there country in the military. It's about time that they can stop having to hide who they are and live normally. I'm ex-military and whether or not DADT is in effect, there will still be gays in the military and defending your country when you are not. So unless you in the military or going into it.... your opinion is NIL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Nope, I've never been in the military.
I do know several people who are in the military though, and those that I know say that they don't want someone openly gay in their barracks.
Maybe they'e the exception, but given that most military polls show that almost 60% of active military service people don't want DADT repealed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Dont worry i'm pretty sure they wont have a coming out parade or anything like that.
But the fact remains that these men and women put their life on the line in servitude of our country. And in this modern age its a shame that they have to hide who they are and lose there job because of it. It's discrimination and there is no argument that its not.
Everyone always argue about fair and equal but never care or will be a hater when it doesnt affect them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,870
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,870 |
This is a subject that I think is better left to those that have served or are serving in the military...
Not having served, I can't possibly understand the problems homosexuals in the military might or might not cause..
I know that in the work place, I've never had a problem interacting with gay and lesbian co-workers.. so from that standpoint, I've not been able to mak sense of the DADT rule.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Quote:
Nope, I've never been in the military.
I do know several people who are in the military though, and those that I know say that they don't want someone openly gay in their barracks.
Maybe they'e the exception, but given that most military polls show that almost 60% of active military service people don't want DADT repealed.
I've heard this claim that 60% of active duty are against the repeal, but I have yet to find out the info/poll that backs up the claim.
It may have come from this...
Pentagon Sees Little Risk in Allowing Gay Men and Women to Serve Openly
Nov. 30, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the United States armed forces presents a low risk to the military’s effectiveness, even at a time of war, and that 70 percent of surveyed service members believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.
In an exhaustive nine-month study on the effects of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 17-year-old policy that requires gay service members to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge, the authors concluded that repeal would in the short run most likely bring about “some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention.” But they said those effects could be mitigated by effective leadership.
The report, by Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s chief legal counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe, also found that much of the concern in the armed forces about openly gay service members was driven by misperceptions and stereotypes. Leaving aside those with moral and religious objections to homosexuality, the authors said the concerns were “exaggerated and not consistent with the reported experiences of many service members.”
At a news conference on Tuesday announcing the release of the report, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said repeal “would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that many have feared and predicted.” He said it was a “matter of urgency” that the lame-duck Senate vote in the next weeks to repeal the law.
If not, Mr. Gates predicted fights in the courts and the possibility that the repeal would be “imposed immediately by judicial fiat.”
In a survey of 115,000 active-duty and reserve service members, the report found distinct differences among the branches of the military, particularly in the Marine Corps, whose leaders have been the most publicly opposed to allowing gay and bisexual men and women to serve openly. While 30 percent of those surveyed over all predicted that repeal would have some negative effects, 40 percent to 60 percent of the Marine Corps and those in various combat specialties said it would be negative.
Mr. Johnson and General Ham, who briefed reporters on the report, did not offer a specific explanation for why Marines were more opposed to repeal, although General Ham said that among Marine Corps respondents, a lower percentage had served alongside someone they believed to be gay or lesbian. This summer, when the Marine commandant at the time, Gen. James T. Conway, was asked for an explanation about Marine resistance to repeal, he responded that it was difficult to answer, but “we recruit a certain type of young American, a pretty macho guy or gal.”
In his remarks to reporters on Tuesday, Mr. Gates acknowledged the higher levels of “discomfort” about repealing the law among those in the combat branches of the military. He said that those findings remained a concern to him as well as to the chiefs of the service branches, but that the concerns were not insurmountable as long as any repeal was carried out carefully and with what he said was “sufficient time and preparation to get the job done right.”
Mr. Gates refused to offer a timetable for how long that might be, and neither Mr. Johnson nor General Ham would say whether the process could take months or years. As the bill before the Senate now stands, any repeal would not be carried out until President Obama, Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, certified that the military was ready to end the ban.
Mr. Gates said much of the preparation would involve educating and training service members and their leaders.
Mr. Obama, who campaigned for president on a promise to repeal the law, hailed the study. “Today’s report confirms that a strong majority of our military men and women and their families — more than two-thirds — are prepared to serve alongside Americans who are openly gay and lesbian,” he said in a statement.
Democrats in the Senate also applauded the study, but Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has vowed to block the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” was largely silent, at least by early evening.
“Senator McCain and his staff are currently in the process of carefully reviewing the Pentagon’s report regarding the repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law,” Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Mr. McCain has said in the past that he would consider authorizing a repeal of the law once the Pentagon review was complete, but he has also cited the concerns of the service chiefs for his resistance to ending the ban.
The House passed its version of a repeal of the law this past summer, but prospects for passage in the Senate remain uncertain, with time running out this year. Mr. Gates, Admiral Mullen, Mr. Johnson and General Ham are scheduled to testify on the report to the Senate on Thursday, but a more important session will come on Friday, when the Senate Armed Services Committee is to hear testimony from the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the commandants of the Marines and the Coast Guard.
The service chiefs have all expressed reluctance in the recent past about repeal, and it is unclear how they will present themselves on Friday. Mr. Obama summoned them to the White House on Monday to talk exclusively about “don’t ask, don’t tell” and afterward told aides he would not discuss the specifics of what was said.
The Pentagon report on “don’t ask, don’t tell” also found that 69 percent of those surveyed believed they had already worked with a gay man or woman. Of those, 92 percent reported that the unit’s ability to work together was very good, good or “neither good nor poor.”
In the most strongly worded section of the report, the authors concluded that while their mandate was to assess the impact of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — and not to determine whether it should be repealed — they had done just that.
“We are both convinced that our military can do this, even during this time of war,” Mr. Johnson and General Ham wrote. “We do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in the law, but neither should we underestimate the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated service men and women to adapt to such change and continue to provide our nation with the military capability to accomplish any mission.”
The study recommended no housing or living changes as a result of any repeal, and the authors also quashed any suggestion that there should be separate bathroom facilities.
They called separate bathrooms “a logistical nightmare, expensive and impossible to administer.”
Peter Baker contributed reporting.
web page
The paragraph in red is the only information I have been able to find, that comes close to the 60% claim being cited by some. Not quite sure how the military is interpreting their data but they presented a range from...
...."40 to 60% of the Marine Corps and those in various combat specialties said it would be negative".
It "might be" a bit of an exaggeration to interpret the information in quotes above with the blanket claim
..."that most military polls show that almost 60% of active military service people don't want DADT repealed".
If there is a more recent poll or study than the Pentagon's 9 month study cited in this article, I would like to see it. I'm not saying there is not such a poll, but I have not been able to find the poll that matches the claim that 60% of active duty service members don't want DADT repealed.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Basically what needs to be understood is that there are already plenty of homosexuals in the military. Military members know who they are, majority of the time. Repealing DADT does nothing to hurt combat effectiveness because these members have and are in combat and will be in the future. The only thing it does is allow those who are serving our country to not to have to hide who they are in fear of being discharged.
The looking at someone in the shower bit is absurd. Most military installations have stall units(as far as i can remember only boot camp was open bay showers). And if your someone who is that insecure with themselves then, the military isnt the place for you in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
I hope that you guys are right, and that there won't be any problems created by this.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
I have zero military experience but I'm sure it will go over fine. It's not going to be squeaky clean but I believe these soldiers will realize they all fight for the common good of our country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
I hope so.
It seems to me to be a policy that could create a lot of problems. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I see the problems being more non-combat related.. people out drinking, things get said, somebody riles up somebody the wrong way... Just relatively innocent stuff that goes too far like some good ol' boys at the bar.. "Hey, I noticed you stayed a little longer in the shower yesterday with Joe" (Joe the open homosexual).. Hahaha, the group gets a laugh except the guy being made fun of .... guy takes offense, can't take it out on his buddies so he takes it out on Joe.... I don't think it's going to be an epidemic problem but it is only going to have to happen once or twice for the media to make it sound like the whole military is a group of homophobic neanderthals.... at work I would expect things to be professional.. my concern is when they are NOT at work.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
I see the problems being more non-combat related.. people out drinking, things get said, somebody riles up somebody the wrong way... Just relatively innocent stuff that goes too far like some good ol' boys at the bar.. "Hey, I noticed you stayed a little longer in the shower yesterday with Joe" (Joe the open homosexual).. Hahaha, the group gets a laugh except the guy being made fun of .... guy takes offense, can't take it out on his buddies so he takes it out on Joe....
That happens all the time... whether they playn with him or being serious.
One thing is for sure... If you go into the military you need thick skin. Cuz its a dawg eat dawg rag on each other world.
Hell... we once hogtied a guy up... put him on top of a transformer and left him. He started whining about getting hurt if he fell.... so we taped his hard helmet and safety glasses to his head.
Crap like that already takes place all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I see the problems being more non-combat related.. people out drinking, things get said, somebody riles up somebody the wrong way... Just relatively innocent stuff that goes too far like some good ol' boys at the bar.. "Hey, I noticed you stayed a little longer in the shower yesterday with Joe" (Joe the open homosexual).. Hahaha, the group gets a laugh except the guy being made fun of .... guy takes offense, can't take it out on his buddies so he takes it out on Joe.... I don't think it's going to be an epidemic problem but it is only going to have to happen once or twice for the media to make it sound like the whole military is a group of homophobic neanderthals.... at work I would expect things to be professional.. my concern is when they are NOT at work.
Well the other issue is that a lot of homsexual soldiers are going to be start getting disciplined for sexual harassment and people will start crying that they are being targeted because they are gay. Even though, there'll still be hetereosexual soldiers getting targeted the same because they stepped over the line.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
I'm just going to sit back and wait for the outcome of the first Gay Dance at the NCO club or other gay related events that they can't stop from happening now. Like you said, it's the non-combat issues that are going to arise first. Getting my popcorn...
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
I see no problem with gays serving openly, but I have to wonder how long before special "rights" have to be granted for them. All soldiers should be treated equally, but just like in society, once a "group" is considered "special" in any way, some lawyer will find a way of exploiting it.
My cousin was in the Navy, and he said he believed there were thousands of gay sailors, and have been for years. It never was a problem. Politicians and lawyers create the problems.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Gay people don't want "special" rights. Don't know why everyone assumes this.
Other than not allowing them to get their asses kicked for being gay, I don't see any "special" rights that could be needed. We've been in the forces forever, and unless it goes back to banning us completely, we'll continue to be.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I'm just going to sit back and wait for the outcome of the first Gay Dance at the NCO club or other gay related events that they can't stop from happening now. Like you said, it's the non-combat issues that are going to arise first. Getting my popcorn...
My guess is that there will be no such thing as "gay dances" there will only be dances where gay people are openly allowed to bring the partner of their choosing...
The first big battle now will be gay marriage (or some equivalent).. I think that most people are focusing on what will happen when 2 gay soldiers get together... well what will happen when a gay solider hooks up with a gay non-soldier? The non-soldier will not have the benefits of a spouse..... Would they be able to qualify for base housing together? Would the partner be able to shop at the commissary? Get the ID? Come and go from base? Insurance? Etc? It's the next big battle in the saga and this ruling of allowing gays to openly serve will have a much broader impact than just worrying about whether two guys are going to go at it in a fox hole.
Personally, if they are allowed to serve as openly gay, then give the partner the rights of a spouse... however they choose to do that.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Gay people don't want "special" rights. Don't know why everyone assumes this.
Other than not allowing them to get their asses kicked for being gay, I don't see any "special" rights that could be needed. We've been in the forces forever, and unless it goes back to banning us completely, we'll continue to be.
I don't think women wanted "special" rights nor did blacks... although eventually they were given "special" rights and some kick and scream if you say anything or try to take away from those "special" rights. Just saying.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Dream Act & DADT set to go
ahead for Senate vote..
|
|
