All of the information I am pulling for the survey results, is from section VII (survey results) of the PDF file I am going to link below.

First the response rate:

The overall sample was almost 400,000 Service members (split evenly among active duty and reserve component forces). The response rate for this survey (28% overall), as a whole and by Service, was typical for surveys within the Department of Defense.173 The survey sample of military spouses was similarly designed to ensure adequate representation in terms of Service and active/reserve component. The overall sample was just over 150,000 spouses (70,000 active duty and 80,000 reserve component). The response rate for the spouse survey (29% overall) was also typical for this type of survey within the military community.

Pg. 63

In other words, about 1/4 of the people that received the survey bothered to respond.

Also the practice of mixing the results of those that feel it will lead to mixed results and those that believe it will have a positive impact leads to a very misleading perception of how the survey was responded to.

In looking at the results themselves (pages 64-66, tables 2-4), it becomes quite clear that about 1/5 think it will have a positive impact, about 1/3 believe it will have mixed results, 1/3 believe it will have no impact, and about 1/5 believe it will have a negative impact.

The most profound deviation to this comes into play when a combat environment is considered. The results are 12.4% Believe it will have a positive impact, 31.4% mixed results, 25.6% no impact, 30.6% negative impact (table 4, page 66)

Now let's look at how servicemembers said they would respond in a situation where they would have to share open bay showers with an openly gay person:



Take no action 29.4%

Use the shower at a different time than the Service member I thought to be
gay or lesbian 25.8%

Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves 11.0%

Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation 1.3%

Talk to a leader to see if I had other options 17.7%

Something Else 7.0%

Don’ t Know 7.9%


Table 5, pg. 67

It appears that less than 1/3 of service members were cool about the situation. Even if you add in those that would have a frank discussion with the gay service member, that still is only 40%, and still less than half of service members.

Now, let's move on to shared living quarters:



Take no action 26.7%

Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves which
sharing a room, berth, or field tent 24.2%

Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation 2.4%

Talk to leader to see if I have other options 28.1%

Something Else 8.7%

Don’ t Know 9.9%


Table 6, pg 67

It appears that half of service members could work with it, and about half would have issues here, as well.

Now, let's look at the impact on morale...


Positively / Very Positively 4.8%
Equally as positively as negatively 13.2%
No effect 43.6%
Negatively / Very Negatively 27.9%
Don’ t know 10.5%

Table 11, pg 70

It looks like the largest group believes it will have no impact, however, far more people believe it will have a negative impact than a positive one.

If one looks at the results of opinion on unit effectiveness/unit cohesion, it also makes it pretty clear that about 1/3 believes it will have a negative impact, 1/3 believes it will have mixed results, 1/10 positive results and 1/5 no impact. On unit readiness, 1/10 believe it will have a positive impact, 1/4 mixed results, 2/5 no impact, 1/4 very negatively. That information comes from table 14, on page 73.

Then there is the impact on social cohesion (trust amongst service members) for combat units.



Positively /Very Positively 18.1%

Equally as positively as negatively 31.2%

Negatively /Very Negatively 33.1%

No Effect 17.6%


Table 17 Pg 75

From that, we can see that almost 2/3 believe it will lead to mixed or very negative results, and just over 1/3 believe it will have a positive impact or no impact.

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf

Overall, I believe the results of this survey have in the very least been misrepresented to the public, or worse case scenerio, we have been intentionally lied to in order to further acceptance for an unpopular social agenda that leftists wanted to see pushed through.

I think in surveys like this there is a self-selection effect. Those who are pissed off are way more likely to respond than those who are not.

We need a scientific survey.

If you want to talk about facts, how about the fact that it wasn't solely a "DADT Repeal Survey" as opined in the thread title? ;)

Or how about the fact that you were more than ready to at least *consider* the results of this survey... until the data failed to show the results that you would have preferred?

Thank you for posting this Jack.

If you want to talk about facts, how about the fact that it wasn't solely a "DADT Repeal Survey" as opined in the thread title? ;)

Are you denying that either the purpose of this was to gauge service member's reaction to a repeal of DADT, or that the facts were misrepresented in media releases of what the survey results indicated? Or, are you just being pissy for its own sake?

Or how about the fact that you were more than ready to at least *consider* the results of this survey... until the data failed to show the results that you would have preferred?

I was reluctant to accept what was presented, until actually being able to review the survey itself. As is often the case, when media outlets interpret polls without linking the poll itself, they tend to interpret them with a good dose of their own bias in doing so. This case was no exception.

Now that we have your red herring out of the way... Do you have something to add in keeping with the topic of this thread, or did you just come in here to engage in what is nothing more than a personal attack on the OP?

I'm outraged that there's a 266 pg report on this. How many millions did that cost?

I'm outraged that there's a 266 pg report on this. How many millions did that cost?

According to a couple sources, $4.5 million... For a survey they did not even honestly represent the results of, when releasing a statement.

According to a couple sources, $4.5 million... For a survey they did not ever honestly represent the results of, when releasing a statement.

Where's the misrepresentation?

According to a couple sources, $4.5 million... For a survey they did not ever honestly represent the results of, when releasing a statement.

Who commissioned the report? Congress? Was there a vote on it?

I was reluctant to accept what was presented, until actually being able to review the survey itself.
I seem to be missing the reluctance here (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=32816991&postcount=51):

Tell you what, when the 400K service member questionnaire is reviewed in Dec, that one I will take seriously as to the actual opinions of the men and women in uniform.

Yeah, you'll take it seriously enough to try to cry "Misrepresentation of data!" when the results aren't what you expected/hoped they would be.

As is often the case, when media outlets interpret polls without linking the poll itself, they tend to interpret them with a good dose of their own bias in doing so. This case was no exception.
Except that you provide no actual evidence of any such media outlets doing that... Only your stated opinion that they are.

Now that we have your red herring out of the way... Do you have something to add in keeping with the topic of this thread, or did you just come in here to engage in what is nothing more than a personal attack on the OP?
Ah, yes, because any challenge to your personal opinion is an "attack"...

In keeping with the topic of this thread, media outlets aren't the only ones liable to interpret poll results "with a good dose of their own bias in doing so." :coverlaf:

All of the information I am pulling for the survey results, is from section VII (survey results) of the PDF file I am going to link below.

First the response rate:

The overall sample was almost 400,000 Service members (split evenly among active duty and reserve component forces). The response rate for this survey (28% overall), as a whole and by Service, was typical for surveys within the Department of Defense.173 The survey sample of military spouses was similarly designed to ensure adequate representation in terms of Service and active/reserve component. The overall sample was just over 150,000 spouses (70,000 active duty and 80,000 reserve component). The response rate for the spouse survey (29% overall) was also typical for this type of survey within the military community.

Pg. 63

In other words, about 1/4 of the people that received the survey bothered to respond.

Also the practice of mixing the results of those that feel it will lead to mixed results and those that believe it will have a positive impact leads to a very misleading perception of how the survey was responded to.

In looking at the results themselves (pages 64-66, tables 2-4), it becomes quite clear that about 1/5 think it will have a positive impact, about 1/3 believe it will have mixed results, 1/3 believe it will have no impact, and about 1/5 believe it will have a negative impact.

The most profound deviation to this comes into play when a combat environment is considered. The results are 12.4% Believe it will have a positive impact, 31.4% mixed results, 25.6% no impact, 30.6% negative impact (table 4, page 66)

Now let's look at how servicemembers said they would respond in a situation where they would have to share open bay showers with an openly gay person:



Take no action 29.4%

Use the shower at a different time than the Service member I thought to be
gay or lesbian 25.8%

Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves 11.0%

Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation 1.3%

Talk to a leader to see if I had other options 17.7%

Something Else 7.0%

Don’ t Know 7.9%


Table 5, pg. 67

It appears that less than 1/3 of service members were cool about the situation. Even if you add in those that would have a frank discussion with the gay service member, that still is only 40%, and still less than half of service members.

Now, let's move on to shared living quarters:



Take no action 26.7%

Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves which
sharing a room, berth, or field tent 24.2%

Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation 2.4%

Talk to leader to see if I have other options 28.1%

Something Else 8.7%

Don’ t Know 9.9%


Table 6, pg 67

It appears that half of service members could work with it, and about half would have issues here, as well.

Now, let's look at the impact on morale...


Positively / Very Positively 4.8%
Equally as positively as negatively 13.2%
No effect 43.6%
Negatively / Very Negatively 27.9%
Don’ t know 10.5%

Table 11, pg 70

It looks like the largest group believes it will have no impact, however, far more people believe it will have a negative impact than a positive one.

If one looks at the results of opinion on unit effectiveness/unit cohesion, it also makes it pretty clear that about 1/3 believes it will have a negative impact, 1/3 believes it will have mixed results, 1/10 positive results and 1/5 no impact. On unit readiness, 1/10 believe it will have a positive impact, 1/4 mixed results, 2/5 no impact, 1/4 very negatively. That information comes from table 14, on page 73.

Then there is the impact on social cohesion (trust amongst service members) for combat units.



Positively /Very Positively 18.1%

Equally as positively as negatively 31.2%

Negatively /Very Negatively 33.1%

No Effect 17.6%


Table 17 Pg 75

From that, we can see that almost 2/3 believe it will lead to mixed or very negative results, and just over 1/3 believe it will have a positive impact or no impact.

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf

Overall, I believe the results of this survey have in the very least been misrepresented to the public, or worse case scenerio, we have been intentionally lied to in order to further acceptance for an unpopular social agenda that leftists wanted to see pushed through.

IMHO your analysis is misrepresenting things. This isn't about creating a positive effect its about not creating a negative one. Think of it like this..

We run a survey that asks if you should be put to death.

25% say Yes.
60% say No opinion or they have mixed feelings.
15% say No..

You can look at this two ways. Only 15% of the people want you to live or 75% of people don't want or don't care if you are executed.
IMHO, The only way I could support DADT is if it did create a negative impact. The survery doesn't show this, so it's time to repeal it.

According to a couple sources, $4.5 million... For a survey they did not ever honestly represent the results of, when releasing a statement.
They who?

Are you now not only accusing unnamed "media outlets" of such misrepresentation, but the DoD itself?

Where's the misrepresentation?

Well, to answer that question correctly, first I would need to know which you didn't bother to read, what I quoted from the survey or what the media stated they survey indicated, but did not.

Well, to answer that question correctly, first I would need to know which you didn't bother to read, what I quoted from the survey or what the media stated they survey indicated, but did not.

Huh? Could you rephrase that?

Edit: You're the one alleging misrepresentation. Where is it?

Yeah, you'll take it seriously enough to try to cry "Misrepresentation of data!" when the results aren't what you expected/hoped they would be.

I have no reluctance to call bullshit, when someone tries to feed me a big heaping dose of it. How are the results not what I expected them to be? From actually reading the survey, it seems quite clear they are not what you and other lefties thought they would be.

Nor are they as the media has presented them to be.

Except that you provide no actual evidence of any such media outlets doing that... Only your stated opinion that they are.

Which begs the question of what you have turned a blind eye to, actual quotations of the survey that I provided, or the blatantly biased and incorrect representation the media presented of the survey.

Ah, yes, because any challenge to your personal opinion is an "attack"...

No, just a series of attacks on me, that have nothing to do with the thread topic itself. You know, focusing on the person that says something, rather than what they are saying.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, media outlets aren't the only ones liable to interpret poll results "with a good dose of their own bias in doing so." :coverlaf:

Put up or shut up. Instead of just talking shit like you regularly do, why don't you actually say something of substance instead of effluviating out of your anal cavity?

Great post, Jack: this highlights what I knew was true the entire time: it's not all sunshine and roses; the left does not have the majority opinion as they claim and propagandize.

IMHO your analysis is misrepresenting things. This isn't about creating a positive effect its about not creating a negative one. Think of it like this..

We run a survey that asks if you should be put to death.

25% say Yes.
60% say No opinion or they have mixed feelings.
15% say No..

You can look at this two ways. Only 15% of the people want you to live or 75% of people don't want or don't care if you are executed.
IMHO, The only way I could support DADT is if it did create a negative impact. The survery doesn't show this, so it's time to repeal it.

Your analysis has some flaws. First the survey you created as an example is inherently flawed by mixing the no opinion with those that have mixed feelings (two answers that are not the same, as the former one doesn't care, and the latter is conflicted).

The 60% you improperly mixed gets right to the core of what is wrong with the way some people interpret polls, by mixing groups that do not belong getting mixed... Those that are conflicted are not the same as those that lack an opinion. Those that lack an opinion should be disregarded from those considered, and that number should be included separately only to show how many were ambivalent.

Engaging in something that is both costly, and time consuming should require a net benefit before it is promulgated. Particularly when more people will be disturbed by it than will be pleased, and it involves something as important as defending this country.

Huh? Could you rephrase that?

That's what I was thinking when I read your post. I'd damn near have to write something as large as the OP in response, because you were so vague in your question.

If you want a specific question answered, ask it. But, please be more definitive. I'm not going to get in an exhaustive monologue mode just because your question was vague/nebulous as to what you are really asking for.

Edit: You're the one alleging misrepresentation. Where is it?

Are you of the belief that the media representation of the polls in consistent with what I posted in the OP, with direct quotes from it?

Are you of the belief that the media representation of the polls in consistent with what I posted in the OP, with direct quotes from it?

Of course not, but it would add to your case if you provided specific examples of misinterpretation.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. The media always butchers poll/survey results. (e.g., margin of error is completely ignored) The actual poll results are available for anyone who wants to see them.

Of course not, but it would add to your case if you provided specific examples of misinterpretation.

The way things stand now, I have a good litmus test in place by those that pretend that there is no difference between the two. I would hope that anyone that bothers to open this thread is familiar with how the media has represented the results of this survey.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. The media always butchers poll/survey results. (e.g., margin of error is completely ignored) The actual poll results are available for anyone who wants to see them.

You don't think it is a big deal when the media grossly misrepresents facts, and paints its own version of "reality" that does not reflect how things actually are? That is kind of disturbing, particularly since iirc you have stated in the past that you are in education professionally.

Usually poll results are linked from articles about surveys, when they article truthfully represents the facts accurately. I always get skeptical when I don't see a direct citation of the survey itself.

You don't think it is a big deal when the media grossly misrepresents facts, and paints its own version of "reality" that does not reflect how things actually are? That is kind of disturbing, particularly since iirc you have stated in the past that you are in education professionally.

Disturbing, but, sadly, far from surprising.


Usually poll results are linked from articles about surveys, when they article truthfully represents the facts accurately. I always get skeptical when I don't see a direct citation of the survey itself.

Yup, that's what we're forced to do.

Thanks Jack. Good breakdown of the results. I'm not surprised at all to find that a minority of people in the survey had no problem with gays serving openly.....and lefties declared that an overwhelming victory.

The way things stand now, I have a good litmus test in place by those that pretend that there is no difference between the two. I would hope that anyone that bothers to open this thread is familiar with how the media has represented the results of this survey.
So "the media" is a singular unit that operates -- at least, apparently, wrt to this topic -- in a singular fashion? That's convenient.

I would hope that anyone who bothers to start a thread would be familiar with the principles of substantiation of positive claims.

You don't think it is a big deal when the media grossly misrepresents facts, and paints its own version of "reality" that does not reflect how things actually are? That is kind of disturbing, particularly since iirc you have stated in the past that you are in education professionally.
Of course.

But then, again, I feel the same way about posters grossly misrepresenting facts and painting their own version of "reality" that does not reflect how things actually are. ;)

Usually poll results are linked from articles about surveys, when they article truthfully represents the facts accurately. I always get skeptical when I don't see a direct citation of the survey itself.
And I always get skeptical when I don't see a direct citation of the supposed misdeed being alleged.

Thanks Jack. Good breakdown of the results. I'm not surprised at all to find that a minority of people in the survey had no problem with gays serving openly.....and lefties declared that an overwhelming victory.
Thanks for the convenient example of a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Thanks for the convenient example of a gross misrepresentation of facts.Really? I look forward to your proof of that with credible sources. :wink5:

Really? I look forward to your proof of that with credible sources. :wink5:
I'm sure you do. :coverlaf:

You made the positive claim that "lefties declared an overwhelming victory." So please feel free to substantiate your claim that, based on the results of the military survey in question, "lefties declared an overwhelming victory".... :whistlin:

I'm sure you do. :coverlaf:

You made the positive claim that "lefties declared an overwhelming victory." So please feel free to substantiate your claim that, based on the results of the military survey in question, "lefties declared an overwhelming victory".... :whistlin:Your old tactics....you never get tired of them do you? You made a claim in response to mine. I then asked for proof of your claim. Now you want to jump ahead in line. :shake: I suspect that is because you made a claim you can't back up. Please prove your claim. Your next response (if any) will tell the tale. :rolleyes:

Your old tactics....you never get tired of them do you? You made a claim in response to mine. I then asked for proof of your claim. Now you want to jump ahead in line. :shake: I suspect that is because you made a claim you can't back up. Please prove your claim. Your next response (if any) will tell the tale. :rolleyes:
There are no "facts" to support your claim. Therefore, to suggest that it is, in fact, accurate is to grossly misrepresent reality.

In reality, some "lefties" -- and even a few "righties" -- used the results of the military survey to bolster support for the repeal of DADT. Attempting to spin that into the overbroad generalization that "lefties declared it an overwhelming victory" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

There are no "facts" to support your claim. Therefore, to suggest that it is, in fact, accurate is to grossly misrepresent reality.

In reality, some "lefties" -- and even a few "righties" -- used the results of the military survey to bolster support for the repeal of DADT. Attempting to spin that into the overbroad generalization that "lefties declared it an overwhelming victory" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.Um....yeah....no links of credible evidence from you. Just your words. Your silly opinions and *cough* interesting *cough* wiggling to blur the fact that you made a claim you can't back up falls flat. :teehee:

Better luck next time. :comfort:

Um....yeah....no links of credible evidence from you. Just your words. Your silly opinions and *cough* interesting *cough* wiggling to blur the fact that you made a claim you can't back up falls flat. :teehee:

Better luck next time. :comfort:
Here you go... a whole page (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,27342&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=repeal+of+DADT&cp=12&qe=cmVwZWFsIG9mIERBRA&qesig=47Z3X1XtCOV3lsP35N0RFg&pkc=AFgZ2tmm_Wn2F8ARwvD_o4uM-UAdtqz5H1L9Jp6cCJTuBOVmP-PMCqM3VXHDf7WwdX4jJ3zMbj4KpEj0pdf7xvLzmc3e5y0X4A&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=repeal+of+DAD&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e64ee6e4e8056c32) full of examples of lefties *not* using the military survey results to "declare an overwhelming victory". :rolleyes:

What evidence do you have to support your claim as factual again? :whistlin:

There are no "facts" to support your claim. Therefore, to suggest that it is, in fact, accurate is to grossly misrepresent reality.

In reality, some "lefties" -- and even a few "righties" -- used the results of the military survey to bolster support for the repeal of DADT. Attempting to spin that into the overbroad generalization that "lefties declared it an overwhelming victory" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

In reality, this is primarily a leftist issue. Repealing DADT would never have happened if there was not a majority of democrats in congress and the senate right now. Which explains the rush to push it through.

There are some right wingers that support it, but really they are a minority, just as left wingers that oppose it are. Getting 15 republican congressmen (in a 63 to 33 vote) to vote in support of it is hardly earth shattering (although disappointing).

I just can't believe you are so lacking in cognitive dissonance as to claim this is not something that would not be claimed a leftist victory. Further, I have yet to see any traditional leftist posters here that have bothered to comment on the survey that did not infer the misrepresented results as a victory. While there have been a couple historically conservative posters that appear to support the repeal, they are the exception, not the rule.

If you would like to claim that my portrayal of the leftist media as being misleading and incorrectly representing the data, then by all means.. Show me a single media offering from a mainstream source that is consistent with the data I have provided directly from the survey results themselves.

Unlike the media outlets, I actually provided a link the the results of the survey (instead of merely interpreting them).

You won't be able to do it, because your entire position here that challenges my position is intellectually dishonest. So, go ahead, use your google-fu, and try to poke holes in my position directly, I dare you.

You didn't and don't want to discuss the topic at hand; you want to attempt to make me jump through hoops. Not going to do it for someone that has proven time and again that she is not interested in actually discussing issues, but instead prefers to focus on distracting tangents to hijack the discussion and personally attacking posters.

You focus on outliers, and assume that the exception invalidates the rule. Just because something is possible, does not equate to it being probable. Just because there are exceptions, does not invalidate what is true the vast majority of the time.

So, here are your two assertions, that you have yet to establish to validate your posts in this thread attacking me:


That my premise is incorrect in your opinion, and does not correctly reflect media representation of the results of the survey of service member's opinions regarding gays in the military.

That this is not a primarily leftist issue, and that a significant number of conservatives supported this repeal.


I won't hold my breath on you supporting your assertions, as you have a rather horrendous record in that regard. But, it would be a lot more interesting than your normal MO, if you actually attempted to.

Here you go... a whole page (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,27342&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=repeal+of+DADT&cp=12&qe=cmVwZWFsIG9mIERBRA&qesig=47Z3X1XtCOV3lsP35N0RFg&pkc=AFgZ2tmm_Wn2F8ARwvD_o4uM-UAdtqz5H1L9Jp6cCJTuBOVmP-PMCqM3VXHDf7WwdX4jJ3zMbj4KpEj0pdf7xvLzmc3e5y0X4A&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=repeal+of+DAD&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e64ee6e4e8056c32) [google.com (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,27342&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=repeal+of+DADT&cp=12&qe=cmVwZWFsIG9mIERBRA&qesig=47Z3X1XtCOV3lsP35N0RFg&pkc=AFgZ2tmm_Wn2F8ARwvD_o4uM-UAdtqz5H1L9Jp6cCJTuBOVmP-PMCqM3VXHDf7WwdX4jJ3zMbj4KpEj0pdf7xvLzmc3e5y0X4A&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=repeal+of+DAD&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e64ee6e4e8056c32)] full of examples of lefties *not* using the military survey results to "declare an overwhelming victory". :rolleyes:

What evidence do you have to support your claim as factual again? :whistlin:A Google link! :rofl2: Oh sh!t I can barely type because of the tears from the laughter. This is strike three. You're out.

You made a claim and I asked you to post proof from credible sources and after failing at trying to wiggle out of it you give me a Google link! :crylol:

Gotta admit I wasn't expecting that. Thanks for the Christmas present there!

:crylol: You think Smeg will actually back up any of the things she says? Rule of thumb is, if she doesn't provide a link initially with her first post, it is nigh impossible to get her to back up her claim(s) later with citation.Huh? She gave me a Google link! :lol: Should I feel special?

Here you go... a whole page (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,27342&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=repeal+of+DADT&cp=12&qe=cmVwZWFsIG9mIERBRA&qesig=47Z3X1XtCOV3lsP35N0RFg&pkc=AFgZ2tmm_Wn2F8ARwvD_o4uM-UAdtqz5H1L9Jp6cCJTuBOVmP-PMCqM3VXHDf7WwdX4jJ3zMbj4KpEj0pdf7xvLzmc3e5y0X4A&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=repeal+of+DAD&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e64ee6e4e8056c32) full of examples of lefties *not* using the military survey results to "declare an overwhelming victory". :rolleyes:

What evidence do you have to support your claim as factual again? :whistlin:

:lol: WTF was that? I clicked the link, and it led me to a blank google page. Why not actually link some citations?

Huh? She gave me a Google link! :lol: Should I feel special?

Yeah... Not that the google link established anything, but you did get something, regardless of how useless it was. She must be feeling generous, due to the holiday season. ;)

Yeah... Not that the google link established anything, but you did get something, regardless of how useless it was. She must be feeling generous, due to the holiday season. ;)What's that saying about 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters and eventually you'll get Shakespeare? Yeah I'm guessing those same monkeys would eventually provide a Google link just as well.

Jack, here's what you are misunderstanding. The point of the survey wasn't to see how much support there is to repeal DADT in the military. The basic question behind this whole exercise was: what impact will repealing DADT have on the military?

In other words, it's not like the boss was asking the employees -- do you think we should have unisex bathrooms or not? The boss was asking: If the bathrooms are made unisex, how will it impact your ability to work?

The answer to that question, the survey showed, was: "Meh".

I hadn't seen the survey report itself and learned about it mostly through "liberal" media outlets but this is exactly what I understood to be. I was only marginally interested in the whole debate so I think I only read about it in NY Times. I'm sure some liberal commentators (on TV/radio) must have presented the results as an endorsement by the military of repeal itself, but that's not the impression I got reading Times. I don't know which "media" you're referring to in the title of the thread. Here's the wording of the piece in the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/us/politics/01military.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=survey%20repeal%20dadt&st=cse).

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.


Do you see any flaw in this reporting? In my "consumption", this 70% statistic was the most reported one. It's also the first bullet (reporting the data) in the executive summary of the Pentagon's report.

When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.

That's the "meh" I was referring to.

You can argue all you want that military should have been asked straight up: Do you want Congress to repeal DADT? Yes or No. But, that's not what happened and trying to find the answer to that question in the results of the survey is a fool's errand. In fact, all these threads showing out how "the media" portrayed something unfairly are pretty boring to me. It's like someone holding a teaspoon of sea water and shouting "look, LOOK, I've found proof that sea water is salty!!"

Jack, here's what you are misunderstanding. The point of the survey wasn't to see how much support there is to repeal DADT in the military. The basic question behind this whole exercise was: what impact will repealing DADT have on the military?

In other words, it's not like the boss was asking the employees -- do you think we should have unisex bathrooms or not? The boss was asking: If the bathrooms are made unisex, how will it impact your ability to work?

The answer to that question, the survey showed, was: "Meh".

I hadn't seen the survey report itself and learned about it mostly through "liberal" media outlets but this is exactly what I understood to be. I was only marginally interested in the whole debate so I think I only read about it in NY Times. I'm sure some liberal commentators must have presented the results as an endorsement by the military of repeal but that's not the impression I got reading Times, etc.

In my "consumption", the most reported statistic from the survey was the first bullet (reporting the data) in the executive summary.

When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.

That's the "meh" I was referring to.

You can argue all you want that military should have been asked straight up: Do you want Congress to repeal DADT? Yes or No. But, that's not what happened and trying to find the answer to that question in the results of the survey is a fool's errand. In fact, all these threads showing out how "the media" portrayed something unfairly are pretty boring to me. It's like someone holding a teaspoon of sea water and shouting "look, LOOK, I've found proof that sea water is salty!!"

The largest problem I have, is that they combined the mixed effect with the positive and no effect. It genuinely misrepresents the situation, as mixed suggests a negative impact, but simply not to the degree of "very negatively".

When looked at from that perspective, only 38% indicated it would have a positive or no impact, and that 62% believed it would have a negative impact or mixed results. I believe that those that favor gays in the military improperly co-opted those respondents that believe it will have mixed results, particularly since this survey was intended to gauge how negative of an impact it would have on service members.

The largest problem I have, is that they combined the mixed effect with the positive and no effect. It genuinely misrepresents the situation, as mixed suggests a negative impact, but simply not to the degree of "very negatively". When looked at from that perspective, only 38% indicated it would have a positive or no impact, and that 62% believed it would have a negative impact or mixed results. That's a wrong interpretation of "mixed effect". "negatively" and "very negatively" both were options in the survey and their combined total was ~30%. What they called mixed used "equally as positively as negatively" phrasing in the survey. I don't think it needs interpretation.

Interestingly, by lumping mixed with "negative" and "very negative" you are doing EXACTLY what you just accused "the media" of doing.

I believe that those that favor gays in the military improperly co-opted those respondents that believe it will have mixed results, particularly since this survey was intended to gauge how negative of an impact it would have on service members.

Did you expect them to do anything different?

I have a question though: do you think the repeal had broad public support?

I have a question though: do you think the repeal had broad public support?That depends on the particular poll right? I do think Americans are just tired of the subject and that leads to apathy. Perfect recipe for repealing DADT.

Since you don't come on here that often let me wish you Happy Holidays to you and yours Neo. You're one of the good people around here and I think posters on both sides of the aisle would agree.

That's a wrong interpretation of "mixed effect". "negatively" and "very negatively" both were options in the survey and their combined total was ~30%. What they called mixed used "equally as positively as negatively" phrasing in the survey. I don't think it needs interpretation.

Interestingly, by lumping mixed with "negative" and "very negative" you are doing EXACTLY what you just accused "the media" of doing.

Valid point... Neither group should co-opt those that believe it has mixed results, truthfully.

Which would leave 38% positive or no effect, 30% negative/very negative, 32% mixed results.

Still not the windfall results reported, and leaves the impression that opinions were pretty evenly divided on perception of impact.

Did you expect them to do anything different?

I have a question though: do you think the repeal had broad public support?

I think it was pretty evenly divided, amongst non democrats.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rpkdg2rrcukkkgjlxy8baa.gif

Now 81% of democrats supported it, to 15% opposing it. Whereas amongst Republicans, 47% supported it, to 48% opposing it. Considering that Independents are such a small group, they weigh out almost into insignificance.

That tells me that only Democrats overwhelmingly supported it.

But, I also think that the public, who by and large has no idea what military life is like, should not have a say in the matter. I believe it should be based on the community that is impacted (service members). They are the ones that have to live with the results.

It's one thing for the public to have a voice in how the military is used, it is another for them to have a say in how it is managed.

Nice analysis Jack, please tell me you submitted it to your local editorial page.

1. What have been the effects in combat among military forces where gays have been permitted to serve openly? IOW Canada, Germany, France (all in Afghanistan) and Israel?

2. What percentage of the GIs who thought allowing openly gay GIs would harm the military were themselves gay?

3. What did any similar polls about race indicate before the 1950s?

I don't understand what the report has to do with DADT.

DADT is just a lame way to avoid the issue. It doesn't really solve any problems, other than trickery. It's saying, let's just pretend there are no gays in the military. It quite possibly creates new problems as it either allows gays in when it shouldn't allow gays in, or suppresses gays if it should allow gays in.

Assuming the survey has a purpose: Did the survey ask women how they would feel about sharing open showers with random men?

That depends on the particular poll right? I do think Americans are just tired of the subject and that leads to apathy. Perfect recipe for repealing DADT.

Since you don't come on here that often let me wish you Happy Holidays to you and yours Neo. You're one of the good people around here and I think posters on both sides of the aisle would agree.

no it doesnt and ur deflecting the majority of America was for repealing it ( u can take 51% to 70 % ) the results are still the same .

Also its the much the same with the wars in (60 to 70% Say leave NOW and this was last Year )Afghanistan & Iraq , the Majority want to Leave ASAP becuase they realize we Gained NOTHING from these wars , but Lost a hellva a lot ( cept for Halliburton , Xe, BLackwater they really owned that ass )


But you support the losing side of history so ymmv

The largest problem I have, is that they combined the mixed effect with the positive and no effect. ...

When looked at from that perspective, ... 62% believed it would have a negative impact or mixed results. ...This is just too precious. No sooner than you said you have "the largest problem" with combining mixed with positive effects, you go ahead and combine mixed with negative impact.

Simply precious!

But, I also think that the public, who by and large has no idea what military life is like, should not have a say in the matter. I believe it should be based on the community that is impacted (service members). They are the ones that have to live with the results.

It's one thing for the public to have a voice in how the military is used, it is another for them to have a say in how it is managed.This is just too revealing and too precious too. So according to JH, the community that is impacted is the service members. The fark with gays. Maybe you wish that the other community to just disappear.

I agree the public should not decide on choices of weapons for the military or what kinda gears they should wear or what the living arrangement should be or what kinda stalls they should use. But we the public pay their salaries and you bet your life we will tell them, nay, through our elected representatives and the CiC, will order them whether or not they can behave in a bigoted way and deprive a class of innocent people who want to serve their country from doing just that.

no it doesnt and ur deflecting the majority of America was for repealing it ( u can take 51% to 70 % ) the results are still the same .

Also its the much the same with the wars in (60 to 70% Say leave NOW and this was last Year )Afghanistan & Iraq , the Majority want to Leave ASAP becuase they realize we Gained NOTHING from these wars , but Lost a hellva a lot ( cept for Halliburton , Xe, BLackwater they really owned that ass )


But you support the losing side of history so ymmv

Do you think the majority should always get their way, or only when it suits your agenda?

Do you think the majority should always get their way, or only when it suits your agenda?

when it come to moral issues yea , Life evolves except it

but its not just my agenda , The majority of Americans want DADT repealed , and the war ended you 30 to 40% have lost the battle :nod: "You said its not the 60's any more"ur right , but also Wrong

when it come to moral issues yea , Life evolves except it

but its not just my agenda , The majority of Americans want DADT repealed , and the war ended you 30 to 40% have lost the battle :nod: "You said its not the 60's any more"ur right , but also Wrong

Ah, when it matches your own moral values, you like to follow popular opinion. Gotcha. :thumbup:

If you look at the survey (which is what this thread is about) honestly, it was pretty evenly divided on whether people feel it will have positive or no impact v. those that believe it will have negative/very negative impact. The largest group believes it will have mixed results.

I believe it will have mixed results the vast majority of the time; however in the instances where it has a negative impact, it will be a rather huge problem within that command, and have grave consequences for that command's operational readiness.

Using the military to further a social agenda is irresponsible, particularly when the disruption it causes outweighs the benefits it brings about. We are not a democracy, but a democratic republic for a reason. The tyranny of the majority should not always hold sway, particularly since it is not always motivated by reason.

We are not a democracy, but a democratic republic for a reason. The tyranny of the majority should not always hold sway, particularly since it is not always motivated by reason.Hmm. Are you not the one who has lately been advocating putting more stuff to popular vote?

Our "democratic republic" (whatever that could mean) just recently decided to allow gays in the military. So then you asked that instead of that we should put this to vote by the servicemen. And now you say this?

You seem to be willing to say anything if it furthers your position at the moment.

and deprive a class of innocent people who want to serve their country from doing just that.Gays were not deprived or prevented from serving before. But you claim they were. Show me the evidence from credible sources that gays were prevented from serving in the military before the repeal of DADT. This should be fun.

Gays were not deprived or prevented from serving before. But you claim they were. Show me the evidence from credible sources that gays were prevented from serving in the military before the repeal of DADT. This should be fun.This is a silly and childish game you are playing. Obviously I meant those gays whose orientation would be "told." The news is full of reports of gays who have been dismissed solely because they were gay.

BTW: you claimed that you "may* have outed" me. I asked for clarification and you disappeared. So I ask again: how did you "out" me?

* It sounds you are of the belief that if you include "may" you can say all sortsa nasty things about people and it is ok. Hilarious!

Obviously I meant those gays whose orientation would be "told." So you made a dishonest claim you can't back up. Gotcha.

BTW: you claimed that you "may* have outed" me. I asked for clarification and you disappeared. So I ask again: how did you "out" me?Let's cut to the chase about the 'question' of you being on the down low....do you have sex with men? (or ever had sex with men)

Let's cut to the chase about the 'question' of you being on the down low....do you have sex with men? (or ever had sex with men)So you made a dishonest claim you can't back up. Gotcha. :)

Look, you made a claim. You claimed that you may have outed me. Outted me for what? Do you have ANY basis for all you varied and sordid claims?

Earlier you claimed I had said I am black. I asked you for evidence. You refused, even though you have provided other evidences. So it seems when you are caught in a lie you pull this nonsense that you are not willing to provide evidence for your claims.

Then you claimed that you may have outted me. Outted me for what? Do you have ANY basis for these varied and sordid claims or do you think you have the license to make all sortsa insults and varied and sordid claims and are immune to Forum rules?

ETA: be a man, a woman, whatever, and if you have made these two mistakes, just admit them. No big deal.

Let's cut to the chase about the 'question' of you being on the down low....do you have sex with men? (or ever had sex with men)

:facepalm: That would explain his obsession with "otherwise straight" men that have sex with other men, and being offended when I pointed out that men that voluntarily have sex with other men are either bi or gay.

From that, we can see that almost 2/3 believe it will lead to mixed or very negative results, and just over 1/3 believe it will have a positive impact or no impact."Mixed results" is very vague. If the respondent thought that gays in the military would definitely be bad, they'd say so. "Mixed results" is the obvious answer -- Some obviously will not like it, so you can't honestly say everything will be better. But "mixed" is not a negative response.

:facepalm: That would explain his obsession with "otherwise straight" men that have sex with other men, and being offended when I pointed out that men that voluntarily have sex with other men are either bi or gay.Paperboy asked me evidence for one my claims -- one of them that JH has put me on ignore yet continues to attack me and in a way respond to me. So he wants to respond to me whenever he wants to but at the same time have the plausible deniability that he does not see my posts in which I show him to be seriously wrong. (Isn't that special!!! :)) That is kinda cowardly, imo.

Paperboy asked me to provide evidence. And here JH came to my rescue. Thanks. :-)

...

"Mixed results" is very vague. If the respondent thought that gays in the military would definitely be bad, they'd say so. "Mixed results" is the obvious answer -- Some obviously will not like it, so you can't honestly say everything will be better. But "mixed" is not a negative response.

It's not a positive or no impact response either... It means it will be equally good and bad. Which is why I adjusted my opinion on it after Neo pointed out it was equally inappropriate for it to be co-opted for the negative side; neither side should co-opt it for their purposes.

But, it was interesting to see that when it was moved to the negative side, it completely flipped the results.

Paperboy asked me evidence for one my claims -- one of them that JH has put me on ignore yet continues to attack me and in a way respond to me. So he wants to respond to me whenever he wants to but at the same time have the plausible deniability that he does not see my posts in which I show him to be seriously wrong. (Isn't that special!!! :)) That is kinda cowardly, imo.

Paperboy asked me to provide evidence. And here JH came to my rescue. Thanks. :-)

:secret: That's not an attack...

So you made a dishonest claim you can't back up. Gotcha. :)

Look, you made a claim. You claimed that you may have outed me. Outted me for what? Do you have ANY basis for all you varied and sordid claims?

Earlier you claimed I had said I am black. I asked you for evidence. You refused, even though you have provided other evidences. So it seems when you are caught in a lie you pull this nonsense that you are not willing to provide evidence for your claims.

Then you claimed that you may have outted me. Outted me for what? Do you have ANY basis for these varied and sordid claims or do you think you have the license to make all sortsa insults and varied and sordid claims and are immune to Forum rules?

ETA: be a man, a woman, whatever, and if you have made these two mistakes, just admit them. No big deal.

**Cough, Cough**

"This is a silly and childish game you are playing."

Look, you made a claim. You claimed that you may have outed me. Outted me for what? Do you have ANY basis for all you varied and sordid claims? The basis is my own curiosity (like I have said before) since you subscribe to the 'otherwise straight men having sex with other men' bit that you have posted. (here's where you deny you ever posted such and ask for proof. :lol:) That is the claim of black men that are on the down low. But you know that since I provided you quotes with sources and a pic of a book written about the subject.

You sure do work hard at not simply answering a simple question. What are you afraid of?

Earlier you claimed I had said I am black. I asked you for evidence. Here is the exchange where I got that from. http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=33802073&postcount=163

You're right you didn't come straight out and state you are black as you defended blacks in the same ways that blacks tend to do. I'll apologize for assuming if you will answer these two questions: 1) Do you or have you ever had sex with men? 2) Are you black? (these questions are only my curiosity based on your posts)

So it seems when you are caught in a lie you pull this nonsense that you are not willing to provide evidence for your claims.:rofl2: You are so pissed that I humiliated you in the 'bigots and racists' thread by exposing your numerous lies that it's funny. You didn't even address most of my requests for any evidence whatsoever because you knew you had nothing but your lies.

So tell me....why should your demands for proof be taken seriously when you fail so much to provide any proof of your own when asked?

do you think you have the license to make all sortsa insults and varied and sordid claims and are immune to Forum rules?I have stated before that the question of you being on the down low or having sex with men is simply my curiosity based on your claims in your own posts. That means it's not an attack or anything like that. Just a question based on curiosity from your posts about 'straight' men having sex with other men.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. You could simply say that you decline to answer the question and I would drop it. Instead you continue to bring it up and whine.

:secret: That's not an attack...



Really? This is not an attack?

That would explain his obsession with "otherwise straight" men that have sex with other men, and being offended when I pointed out that men that voluntarily have sex with other men are either bi or gay.


Saying I am obsessed is not an attack? Fine, if you can sleep fine at night. :-)

Really? This is not an attack?

That would explain his obsession with "otherwise straight" men that have sex with other men, and being offended when I pointed out that men that voluntarily have sex with other men are either bi or gay.


Saying I am obsessed is not an attack?
Not in the context he posted. If you have an issue with his observation, correct him, however merely pointing out something isn't an attack.

Fine, if you can sleep fine at night. :-)
So by your logic is this an attack?

"This is a silly and childish game you are playing."So he claim I am black. Then he claimed he had outted me. And the refused to back up those claims and I am playing a game?

You have sold your sold for too cheap. :(

Partisanship is not worth your soul, imo.

(And of course one of my claims that you challenged was that you guys gang up on me. Well, thanks, you are a pal.:))

Not in the context he posted. If you have an issue with his observation, correct him, however merely pointing out something isn't an attack.


Huh? So if I "merely point[ed] out" that you have acted like a jack ass, that would not be an attack?

Do you approve of people who put others on ignore and still attack them via other peoples' posts? Is that not cowardly?

So he claim I am black. Then he claimed he had outted me. And the refused to back up those claims and I am playing a game?
Ah, so when he asks you to back up a claim that's a silly and childish game he's playing, however, when you do so, it's not.

You have sold your sold for too cheap.
And you've blatantly shown you're a hypocrite.

(And of course one of my claims that you challenged was that you guys gang up on me. Well, thanks, you are a pal.:))
:lol: @ "ganging up..."

Huh? So if I "merely point[ed] out" that you have acted like a jack ass, that would not be an attack?
Depending on the context, no.

Do you approve of people who put others on ignore and still attack them via other peoples' posts? Is that not cowardly?
Do you approve of bitching about other people "attacking" whilst still attacking others yourself?

Ah, so when he asks you to back up a claim that's a silly and childish game he's playing, however, when you do so, it's not.

Huh? That did not make sense. If you rephrase, I will respond.


Do you approve of bitching about other people "attacking" whilst still attacking others yourself?No.

Now you.

Do you approve of people who put others on ignore and still attack them via other peoples' posts? Is that not cowardly?

Huh? That did not make sense. If you rephrase, I will respond.
Satan wanted to you show evidence of a claim; you responded "This is a silly and childish game you are playing." So when you wanted satan to show evidence of claims, I responded the same.

No.
And yet you do so.

Do you approve of people who put others on ignore and still attack them via other peoples' posts? Is that not cowardly?
No I don't approve, and no it's not cowardly.

Do you think it's cowardly to continually respond (and attack by your logic) to someone that you know has you on ignore?

[1] The basis is my own curiosity...

[2] You're right you didn't come straight out and state you are black as you defended blacks in the same ways that blacks tend to do. I'll apologize for assuming ...

[3] So tell me....why should your demands for proof be taken seriously when you fail so much to provide any proof of your own when asked?

[4] I have stated before that the question of you being on the down low or having sex with men is simply my curiosity ...

[5] Methinks thou doth protest too much. You could simply say that you decline to answer the question and I would drop it. Instead you continue to bring it up and whine.

1. Curiosity could be basis for a question. I normally have no problem with questions. But you did not ask a question first. You outright said that I am black and then claimed that you have outted me. And when I asked for a proof you mocked me. Just admit that you made a mistake and all will be fine. But instead you are resorting to duplicity even while you are admitting you made a mistake.

2. Finally! I accept your apology if you do not take back with one had while giving it with another hand.

3. What proof did you ask me for? Please refresh my memory. I will either provide it or admit that I cannot or maybe even take back my claim. I will also apologize if I have failed to provide proof for any claim of mine.

[4] Except that it was not a question at first. It was an outright claim. See, now you are taking back your apology.

[5]

But instead you are resorting to duplicity even while you are admitting you made a mistake.Dear Jesus god....the irony....

2. Finally! I accept your apology if you do not take back with one had while giving it with another hand.It was predicated on your honest and simple answer to two questions. But you continue to obfuscate even while you have yet another poster thinking you are gay. Hey it's Ok to be gay or black...no judgment.

3. What proof did you ask me for? Please refresh my memory.Sweet Jesus. I am truly astounded at the levels of your dishonesty. Go back to the 'bigots and racist' thread to refresh your memory. I'm not going to waste my time feeding every word to you again.

[4] Except that it was not a question at first. It was an outright claim.Proof? Gonna need proof of this claim.

[5]Well you have me here....I don't know how to respond to just a number.

Huh? So if I "merely point[ed] out" that you have acted like a jack ass, that would not be an attack?

Do you approve of people who put others on ignore and still attack them via other peoples' posts? Is that not cowardly?

Edit: Apparently it's snowing in Hell at this time...

Satan wanted to you show evidence of a claim; you responded "This is a silly and childish game you are playing." So when you wanted satan to show evidence of claims, I responded the same.

Well, you are playing the same game here. I actually continued that with answering his question.


No I don't approve, and no it's not cowardly.

Do you think it's cowardly to continually respond (and attack by your logic) to someone that you know has you on ignore?His action has no bearing one me. It has on him.

BTW, WHY do you not approve? What adjective, if not "cowardly", would you use?

His action has no bearing one me. It has on him.
Just like your actions have a bearing on you.

BTW, WHY do you not approve? What adjective, if not "cowardly", would you use?
Pointless.

[1] Dear Jesus god....the irony....

[2] It was predicated on your honest and simple answer to two questions. But you continue to obfuscate even while you have yet another poster thinking you are gay. Hey it's Ok to be gay or black...no judgment.

[3] Sweet Jesus. I am truly astounded at the levels of your dishonesty. Go back to the 'bigots and racist' thread to refresh your memory. I'm not going to waste my time feeding every word to you again.

[4] Proof? Gonna need proof of this claim.

[5] Well you have me here....I don't know how to respond to just a number.

1. Did you not say you are an atheist? If so, this is really disrespectful.

2.1 You apologized on the condition that I answer questions? Did you say that or was that in you fertile imagination? BTW: whom do you think you are, Ken (doll) Starr? :)

2.2. So say another poster thinks I am gay. Two wrongs...

3. Neither am I. (This is MY version of putting you on "ignore.")

4. I am not gonna prove that you claimed I have said I am black and then that you have outted me. I have been saying that a dozen times (some of them with your direct quotes in them and now you ask for a proof?) You even apologized for it and now you are asking for proof of it? Carry on. It is quite entertaining.

When I make a mistake, I apologizes for it. And my apology is not contingent on people being nice to me or not embarrass me. I apologize not necessarily because I respect them. I apologize because I respect me. But that is me.

5.

Just like your actions have a bearing on you.

Correct. And...?


Pointless.Hehe.

Correct. And...?
Nothing, just pointing out that your actions are equally as cowardly by your own logic.

Nothing, just pointing out that your actions are equally as cowardly by your own logic.You are entitled to your opinion but I really think this does not follow.

See, here: A has a bearing on B.

For JH: A=putting me on ignore, B=still responding to me and insulting me. Bearing=cowardly.

For me: A=???, B=still responding to him and supposedly insulting him.

Where is the A for me? Where is the symmetry? Where is the bearing?.

(BTW: why are you ganging up on me? This is between me and JH and me and Satan. Why you feel you need to interject and pound on me? And I accused you guys of just that. What horror! :))

(BTW#2: anytime I slip and insult you, please let me know so I can apologize.)

Valid point... Neither group should co-opt those that believe it has mixed results, truthfully.

Which would leave 38% positive or no effect, 30% negative/very negative, 32% mixed results.

Still not the windfall results reported, and leaves the impression that opinions were pretty evenly divided on perception of impact.

Agreed.

I read the reporting on this as follows: about a third of the people surveyed think that repeal will have a negative impact. That's also the proportion of the population that opposes the repeal in general, so basically the views within the military and in the general public are the same on this (as I assume they are on a host of other issues).

The only way the repeal train could have been stopped was if 70% within the military had said that it will have a negative impact. I'm certain it would have killed the effort. Otherwise, there's such a broad public support (as you poll numbers show) that the repeal was going to happen.




I think it was pretty evenly divided, amongst non democrats.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rpkdg2rrcukkkgjlxy8baa.gif

Now 81% of democrats supported it, to 15% opposing it. Whereas amongst Republicans, 47% supported it, to 48% opposing it. Considering that Independents are such a small group, they weigh out almost into insignificance.

That tells me that only Democrats overwhelmingly supported it. OK.

But, I also think that the public, who by and large has no idea what military life is like, should not have a say in the matter. I believe it should be based on the community that is impacted (service members). They are the ones that have to live with the results.

It's one thing for the public to have a voice in how the military is used, it is another for them to have a say in how it is managed. That's obviously NOT how our system of government is organized. Every single aspect of military life is managed by public (through its representatives, like in all other cases).

But, for the sake of argument, let's accept your recommendation. How would you like "the military" to decide on issues like this? Should they hold a referendum on an subject like this? Who picks the subject for a referendum? What should be put up to a vote (e.g., should the length of tours of duty be up for a vote too)? Or, should the decisions be made by the Pentagon ? But, Pentagon is headed by a political appointees. Should the CJCS simply pass an edict? What if one CJCS passes one edict and the next one reverses it?

You are entitled to your opinion but I really think this does not follow.

See, here: A has a bearing on B.

For JH: A=putting me on ignore, B=still responding to me and insulting me. Bearing=cowardly.

For me: A=???, B=still responding to him and supposedly insulting him.

Where is the A for me? Where is the symmetry? Where is the bearing?.

"For me: A=getting placed on ignore, B=still responding to him and insulting him."

(BTW: why are you ganging up on me? This is between me and JH and me and Satan. Why you feel you need to interject and pound on me? And I accused you guys of just that. What horror! :)))
:facepalm2: If this is between you 3, send PMs.

"For me: A=getting placed on ignore, B=still responding to him and insulting him."


You claimed MY actions has bearings one ME.

The above A is not MY action.

Please try again.

2.1 You apologized on the condition that I answer questions? Did you say that or was that in you fertile imagination? Scroll up some and you can read it for yourself since seem to have selective memory.

2.2. So say another poster thinks I am gay. Two wrongs...What makes it wrong? All you do is obfuscate and whine again and again. That often points to the suspicions of a given point being dead on accurate.

3. Neither am I.You're trying to shift focus from your rampant dishonesty. That's a common tactic you use when caught in your lies.

4. I am not gonna prove that you claimed I have said I am black and then that you have outted me.Epic reading fail. Try again.

I have been saying that a dozen times Thanks for admitting you have been the one bringing this up 'a dozen times' so you can whine. Care for some cheese?

:secret: so much for your constant whining that you are being attacked. :rofl2:

When I make a mistake, I apologizes for it.This is an outright lie.


If you can't be more honest and stop these ignorant games that fascinate your mind then you will have to be on the ignore list. So you get one more chance to reply and be upright and honest or it's down you go. I'm not going to waste anymore time with your unimaginative and ridiculous games that amount to forum masturbation.

You claimed MY actions has bearings one ME.

The above A is not MY action.

Please try again.
Getting placed on ignore is based on the actions you've taken. Please don't try to tell me you're completely innocent and Jack is ignoring based on the flip of a coin.

Getting placed on ignore is based on the actions you've taken. Please don't try to tell me you're completely innocent and Jack is ignoring based on the flip of a coin.

I did not (mean to) say things happens independent of my actions. In fact I acknowledge that my actions cause them. :whistlin:

What makes it wrong? All you do is obfuscate and whine again and again. That often points to the suspicions of a given point being dead on accurate.
I am gonna respond to this one item and leave alone the rest of "irresponsible foolishness." :)

You made a claim that I am black. Then you claimed you have outted me. Never mind that you cannot substantiate those claims and have apologized for them. Now you have added a new claim: that I am gay. I am not gonna ask you to prove this claim because we all know your routine.

Now you say another person THINKS I am gay. So I said, "two wrongs...."

My saying so does not necessarily mean you are wrong. You seem to want to substitute the fact that another person supposedly thinks I am gay as a proof that I am gay. So I gave you the logical device that two wrongs does not make a right. That is, two wrong LOGICS do not make a right logic.

Got it?

Now rather than keep getting embarrassed constantly, why don't you put me on ignore? That way you can claim victory and your gang would all comfort you and tell you what a good job you did evading proving your many claims. You will feel much better, I promise.

-------------------------------------
I have to learn this sig thing. Any help, Satan? :)
-------------------------------------
You're right you didn't come straight out and state you are black as you defended blacks in the same ways that blacks tend to do. I'll apologize for assuming if you will answer these two questions: 1) Do you or have you ever had sex with men? 2) Are you black? (these questions are only my curiosity based on your posts)

why don't you put me on ignore? Best goddam thing you've ever said but then the pickings are very slim. Bye now.

Getting placed on ignore is based on the actions you've taken. Please don't try to tell me you're completely innocent and Jack is ignoring based on the flip of a coin.Ok. I am not telling you I am innocent.

However, while being on ignore is based on my action, it is not my action.

The only way the repeal train could have been stopped was if 70% within the military had said that it will have a negative impact. I'm certain it would have killed the effort. Otherwise, there's such a broad public support (as you poll numbers show) that the repeal was going to happen.

Whereas I only feel it should have been enacted if 70% of those in the military thought it would have a positive or no impact. Which we were given to believe was the case, because the poll results were improperly represented.

Imagine how pissed the public would be, if the military made decision for how the civilian populace were going to live their lives, on something the public was only 1/3 in favor of.

But, for the sake of argument, let's accept your recommendation. How would you like "the military" to decide on issues like this? Should they hold a referendum on an subject like this? Who picks the subject for a referendum? What should be put up to a vote (e.g., should the length of tours of duty be up for a vote too)?

I think it should have been a vote that all members on active duty were required to participate in. One single issue. Things such as tour lengths are determined by operational requirements. The only real reason I oppose officers being the ones to vote only (which would be easier and cheaper to do), is that officers are greatly influenced politically within the military.

Another thing to consider, is that it would make a lot more sense to change the policy, if gays actually outnumbered the amount of people that will have a significant problem with it. I see a lot of potential detriment, with minimal potential gain.

Or, should the decisions be made by the Pentagon ? But, Pentagon is headed by a political appointees. Should the CJCS simply pass an edict? What if one CJCS passes one edict and the next one reverses it?

On the same token, gays could be banned from service yet again, the next time republicans have greater political influence. If there are significant problems in the military as a result of the repeal, I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happens.

[1] Imagine how pissed the public would be, if the military made decision for how the civilian populace were going to live their lives, on something the public was only 1/3 in favor of.

[2] On the same token, gays could be banned from service yet again, the next time republicans have greater political influence. If there are significant problems in the military as a result of the repeal, I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happens.

1. You are right. Usually people do not like military dictatorships. However, most civilian democracies control the militaries.

2. I implore you to suggest that this be included in the GOP's party platform in 2012. Thanks in advance.

.

But, it was interesting to see that when it was moved to the negative side, it completely flipped the results.It's interesting that if you analyze a survey in a biased and dishonest way, you can arrive at any conclusion you want.

Now 81% of democrats supported it, to 15% opposing it. Whereas amongst Republicans, 47% supported it, to 48% opposing it. Considering that Independents are such a small group, they weigh out almost into insignificance.

That tells me that only Democrats overwhelmingly supported it.How can you say independents are a small group when a third of all voters are registered as independents?

Show me the evidence from credible sources that gays were prevented from serving in the military before the repeal of DADT.Comedian Martin Mull was drafted for the Vietnam War but never had to serve because he kissed the doctor on the lips during his medical exam.

delete

Comedian Martin Mull was drafted for the Vietnam War but never had to serve because he kissed the doctor on the lips during his medical exam.

Well, and that whole ship with nothing but men on it too......

1. You are right. Usually people do not like military dictatorships. However, most civilian democracies control the militaries.

This is so true and the majority of the people that voted on this bill have never served a day in the military. Love how they decide what is good or bad for our service members. The majority of congress is made up of the most despised career (lawyers) there is and the majority would never serve their truly country unless you count getting paid very well to sit behind a desk and rape the country of its hard earned money.

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to." Col. Nathan Jessup (A Few Good Men)

This is so true and the majority of the people that voted on this bill have never served a day in the military. Love how they decide what is good or bad for our service members. The majority of congress is made up of the most despised career (lawyers) there is and the majority would never serve their truly country unless you count getting paid very well to sit behind a desk and rape the country of its hard earned money.



And two of the very biggest proponents of reversing DADT, Obama and Secretary Gates, have never worn the uniform to this country. It's one thing reversing the ban perhaps in the CIA and White House federal employment place. It's another when it involves people who live in close quarters that most people in federally provided/funded housing wouldn't accept.

We have a Commander In Chief who accidentally calls the Marine Corps "Corpse men" not once but twice IIRC. I have never heard anyone make that mistake let alone an Ivy League undergraduate and graduate taught Constitutional professor.

Imagine how pissed the public would be, if the military made decision for how the civilian populace were going to live their lives, on something the public was only 1/3 in favor of.

...but that wasn't the question, right? It wasn't "are you in favor of", it was "-, +, or no impact".

I'm in favor of the repeal and if I was asked this question I would've answered "no impact". You choose to count that answer as negative and the media (according to you) counts that as a positive when it's really neither.

And two of the very biggest proponents of reversing DADT, Obama and Secretary Gates, have never worn the uniform to this country. It's one thing reversing the ban perhaps in the CIA and White House federal employment place. It's another when it involves people who live in close quarters that most people in federally provided/funded housing wouldn't accept.

We have a Commander In Chief who accidentally calls the Marine Corps "Corpse men" not once but twice IIRC. I have never heard anyone make that mistake let alone an Ivy League undergraduate and graduate taught Constitutional professor.

Amazing yet is they didn't even take into account the opinions of people like Gen. James Amos Commander of the USMC. Something tells me he would know a thing or two.

And in regards to the Commander in Chief he isn't even smart enough to realize there are only 4 branches of service. He stated there were 5 at the services ball on inauguration day. The USMC is part of the Dept of the Navy and not a branch in itself. Having a Uncle that was a Col in the USMC they totally hate this fact. :P

We have a Commander In Chief who accidentally calls the Marine Corps "Corpse men" not once but twice IIRC. I have never heard anyone make that mistake let alone an Ivy League undergraduate and graduate taught Constitutional professor.This clearly calls for impeachment proceedings to be started.

Comedian Martin Mull was drafted for the Vietnam War but never had to serve because he kissed the doctor on the lips during his medical exam.His voluntary action was what disqualified him then. He wasn't prevented from serving.

We have a Commander In Chief who accidentally calls the Marine Corps "Corpse men" not once but twice IIRC. I have never heard anyone make that mistake let alone an Ivy League undergraduate and graduate taught Constitutional professor.Just think....if Obismal wasn't president he'd probably be out stealing hubcaps and poppin' caps in a brutha's ass. :)

Amazing yet is they didn't even take into account the opinions of people like Gen. James Amos Commander of the USMC. Something tells me he would know a thing or two.

Not giving one joint chief a veto is not the same as not taking his opinion into account.

He was out voted by the others and the chairman and the people who count: Congress and CiC.

Not giving one joint chief a veto is not the same as not taking his opinion into account.

He was out voted by the others and the chairman and the people who count: Congress and CiC.Obismal cast a vote in the senate for the repeal of DADT? Was he reminiscing? I'd like to see your proof.

It's interesting that if you analyze a survey in a biased and dishonest way, you can arrive at any conclusion you want.

Which is precisely my point, and contrasts how misrepresented it was to the public originally. Mixed results is equally negative and positive. Neither group should co-opt the mixed results.

Having a Uncle that was a Col in the USMC they totally hate this fact. :P

Dang, I'm sure that was quite an experience. The Marines don't promote crap officers.

How can you say independents are a small group when a third of all voters are registered as independents?

Do you have a cite to support that Independents represent 1/3 of all registered voters?

...but that wasn't the question, right? It wasn't "are you in favor of", it was "-, +, or no impact".

I'm in favor of the repeal and if I was asked this question I would've answered "no impact". You choose to count that answer as negative and the media (according to you) counts that as a positive when it's really neither.

I'm cool with no impact being combined with positive for this survey. My problem is that mixed results (equally positive and negative impact) belongs with neither positive, nor negative (which is was in the biased reporting and misinterpreted presentation by our media).

However, you also apparently completely misunderstood what I was saying or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

The point you quoted was that I believe that the public has no right, or to put it in terms a leftist would understand, the public really has no "standing" in the matter.

Just as the military should not determine policy for the public, the public should not determine policy for the military. They are two completely different cultures, which is reflected in the military having its own completely independent and separate legal system.

Obismal cast a vote in the senate for the repeal of DADT? Was he reminiscing? I'd like to see your proof.You think the CiC is in the Senate?

I'm cool with no impact being combined with positive for this survey. My problem is that mixed results (equally positive and negative impact) belongs with neither positive, nor negative (which is was in the biased reporting and misinterpreted presentation by our media).

Half-full / half-empty... There's just two ways of looking at the numbers... Which is what your thread is illustrating.

IHowever, you also apparently completely misunderstood what I was saying or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

It was not my intention to misrepresent. I wasn't commenting on that part specifically (public vs military).

...but I will now...

IThe point you quoted was that I believe that the public has no right, or to put it in terms a leftist would understand, the public really has no "standing" in the matter.

Just as the military should not determine policy for the public, the public should not determine policy for the military. They are two completely different cultures, which is reflected in the military having its own completely independent and separate legal system.

I understand the logic, I just don't agree. This is akin to saying that people that don't have children can't have an opinion/make laws that affect children. (feel free to swap out children with the handicapped or elderly..)

Here's my logic train... The military is an arm of the government, elected officials control the military, the people elect those officials, who, in turn, work for us, therefore I believe that we all have a say in how our military operates. If the people in this country want our military uniforms to include tutus, our elected officials should work damn hard towards accomplishing that goal.

Here's my logic train... The military is an arm of the government, elected officials control the military, the people elect those officials, who, in turn, work for us, therefore I believe that we all have a say in how our military operates. If the people in this country want our military uniforms to include tutus, our elected officials should work damn hard towards accomplishing that goal.

The military is not elected, they are people that signed a contract which obligates them to certain duties under specific circumstances, and have a reasonable expectation that those circumstances will not profoundly change.

What you would do to them, reduces those that are often enough considered expendable, and willing to place their life in danger on behalf of the overall safety of this country, into slaves with no input on something that profoundly impacts their existence and is contrary to the conditions of service they agreed to.

I don't object with the civilian populace having input in how the military is used, but I do have a problem with the populace attempting to micromanage how the military goes about its business. That is arrogantly disrespectful. Would you want someone that has absolutely no experience in your profession to tell you how to do business?

If our populace wants to force the military to wear tutus, I would hope our leaders have the intelligence to remember why we are a republic. Sometimes the masses are full of people that don't know WTF they are doing, and must be protected from their own ignorant self righteousness.

You make a good case for why both why our country is a democratic republic, and why we maintain an Electoral College, though.

Dang, I'm sure that was quite an experience. The Marines don't promote crap officers. Yes it was he was a fine soldier! He knew he would never make General stating it was all political and he wasn't into politics.

Not giving one joint chief a veto is not the same as not taking his opinion into account.

He was out voted by the others and the chairman and the people who count: Congress and CiC. Here's the problem with that. The Joint Chiefs aren't there because of how well they lead as much as who's political rear end they will kiss and who agenda they will promote. I would take the General's take over the Joint Chiefs any day of the year.

Here's a question for the backers of repeal of DADT. Should trans gender people be able to serve openly and be able to wear the uniform they choose (mens/womens)???

I don't object with the civilian populace having input in how the military is used, but I do have a problem with the populace attempting to micromanage how the military goes about its business. That is arrogantly disrespectful. Would you want someone that has absolutely no experience in your profession to tell you how to do business?

If our populace wants to force the military to wear tutus, I would hope our leaders have the intelligence to remember why we are a republic. Sometimes the masses are full of people that don't know WTF they are doing, and must be protected from their own ignorant self righteousness

I find it funny though that some who would never serve think it is their right to tell those who did join at their own will what they must accept no matter how immoral it is. If they wanted to mandate something stupid along the lines of tutus you would see a drop in those joining thus a draft would be needed. Those who have never served have no clue on the the ins and outs of the military.

Here's the problem with that. The Joint Chiefs aren't there because of how well they lead as much as who's political rear end they will kiss and who agenda they will promote. I would take the General's take over the Joint Chiefs any day of the year.

So I guess you don't know that Gen Amos is a joint chief. (http://www.jcs.mil/) click on Joint Chiefs-Marine Commandant

And therefore falls into the same category you've assigned to the others....


Here's a question for the backers of repeal of DADT. Should trans gender people be able to serve openly and be able to wear the uniform they choose (mens/womens)???


No, they should wear the uniform of the sex they've assigned themselves surgically.

Why not?

The military is not elected, they are people that signed a contract which obligates them to certain duties under specific circumstances, and have a reasonable expectation that those circumstances will not profoundly change.

..and the majority don't think it will, according to the survey.

I don't object with the civilian populace having input in how the military is used, but I do have a problem with the populace attempting to micromanage how the military goes about its business.

How is DADT "micro-managing"? Far from it, IMO.

Obismal cast a vote in the senate for the repeal of DADT? Was he reminiscing? I'd like to see your proof.

Proof of what? Your strawman?

You do know the CiC signed the bill repealing DADT, don't you?

Yes it was he was a fine soldier! He knew he would never make General stating it was all political and he wasn't into politics.

Here's the problem with that. The Joint Chiefs aren't there because of how well they lead as much as who's political rear end they will kiss and who agenda they will promote. I would take the General's take over the Joint Chiefs any day of the year.

Hmm. Some inconsistencies there.

Look, the US set up is that the military has to sorta "kiss the rear" of their civilian bosses. But we can change the Constitution if you are not pleased with it. We can even change US to a military dictatorship if you wish.

..and the majority don't think it will, according to the survey.

Incorrect. Approximately one third is hardly a "majority", especially when we are talking impact. I was discussing that the change itself will be profound, whereas you are discussing the repercussions for said change.

How is DADT "micro-managing"? Far from it, IMO.

This is the general public interfering in something that does not directly concern them, in circumstances they cannot grasp due to lack of pertinent experience. The problem is not that gays will be serving, but rather that they will be sharing living quarters. DADT undermined the whole thing. It was akin to letting cross dressers bunk with the women.

Micromanagement is when an employer (in this case the general public) interferes in the operation of employees, in unnecessary ways, and attempts to trod on the toes of those that have both the authority and the competence to make such operational decisions.

I believe that gays were kept from serving, because they comprise such a small segment of the population, that there is both so few of them, and that there are so few of those that desire to actually serve in the military, that it doesn't justify creating separate quarters for them and the financial cost that comes with that.

This is the general public interfering in something that does not directly concern them, ...Gay soldiers getting discharged merely/solely because of sexual orientation does not directly concern them???

Sigh!

Hmm. Some inconsistencies there.


Not really inconsistent.

The first officer to whom he referred was his uncle, a Col in the Marines.

The second was Gen Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corp.

FWIW, I really don't think the "politics" starts at General. It probably does become "hardball" there.....

IOW, he was only good enough at it to make Col.

Not really inconsistent.

The first officer to whom he referred was his uncle, a Col in the Marines.

The second was Gen Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corp.

That is not the (some) inconsistency that I was referring to.

On one hand he implied to become a general is political. On the other hand he implied he trusts generals.

No biggie.

we run a survey that asks if you should be put to death.

0.67% say yes.
99% say no opinion or they have mixed feelings.
0.33% say no..

You can look at this two ways. Only 0% of the people want you to live or 100% of people don't want or don't care if you are executed.

FIFY ;)

Jack Must Die.

FIFY ;)

Jack Must Die.

:lol: Take a number, and get in line.

Not really inconsistent.

The first officer to whom he referred was his uncle, a Col in the Marines.

The second was Gen Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corp.

FWIW, I really don't think the "politics" starts at General. It probably does become "hardball" there.....

IOW, he was only good enough at it to make Col.

They don't start calling them "Hinge-Heads" at O-4 for nothing. However, making the transition form O-6 to O-7 is VERY political. At least that is what I have gathered form my discussions with officers in the past.

Proof of what? Your strawman?

You do know the CiC signed the bill repealing DADT, don't you?

You're trying to move the goal posts again. :nono1:

You didn't say anything about Obismal signing the bill. You said he voted:

He was out voted by the others and the chairman and the people who count: Congress and CiC. You formed a string with your use of 'and'....and you included Obismal with the Congress. Of course you can squirm and claim that's not what you said but it's clear that is exactly what you said.

You do know the CIC doesn't have a vote in congressional lawmaking don't you? :teehee:

You're trying to move the goal posts again. :nono1:

You didn't say anything about Obismal signing the bill. You said he voted:

You formed a string with your use of 'and'....and you included Obismal with the Congress. Of course you can squirm and claim that's not what you said but it's clear that is exactly what you said.

You do know the CIC doesn't have a vote in congressional lawmaking don't you? :teehee:

Well, actually he does. He can veto it, or pass it.

That is, in reality, a vote. And a rather powerful one.

Well, actually he does. He can veto it, or pass it.

That is, in reality, a vote. And a rather powerful one.You're desperate and trying to save face but you still fail. You linked CIC with congress. A veto is separate and distinct. That's not what you said and no reasonable person would read your statement that way.

Come on you can admit you were wrong. Otherwise it sounds like you really don't know that Obismal doesn't cast votes with congress.

You're desperate and trying to save face but you still fail. You linked CIC with congress. A veto is separate and distinct. That's not what you said and no reasonable person would read your statement that way.

Come on you can admit you were wrong. Otherwise it sounds like you really don't know that Obismal doesn't cast votes with congress.

That's OK. You can admit that you misunderstood the meaning of vote.

Once Congress passes it, Obama gets his vote.

But go ahead and argue about your nit-picking. I couldn't care less what you think. :wave:

That's OK. You can admit that you misunderstood the meaning of vote.

Once Congress passes it, Obama gets his vote.

But go ahead and argue about your nit-picking. I couldn't care less what you think.Again that's not what you said. You don't get to move the goal posts just becasue you just now found out (courtesy of me) that Obismal doesn't get to cast a vote with congress. You might be able to enroll in a civics class at a community college in your area so you can learn more of how the process works. :comfort:


ETA: If you really couldn't care less what I think you never would have posted that reply in the first place.

Again that's not what you said. You don't get to move the goal posts just becasue you just now found out (courtesy of me) that Obismal doesn't get to cast a vote with congress. You might be able to enroll in a civics class at a community college in your area so you can learn more of how the process works. :comfort:


ETA: If you really couldn't care less what I think you never would have posted that reply in the first place.

I posted the response so the reasonable people reading this could see how you're wrong, not for you. :wave:

I posted the response so the reasonable people reading this could see how you're wrong, not for you. :wave:Or rather how you need to take a civics class. And how you can't admit when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. :wave:

Overall, I believe the results of this survey have in the very least been misrepresented to the public, or worse case scenerio, we have been intentionally lied to in order to further acceptance for an unpopular social agenda that leftists wanted to see pushed through.

So what else is new.

No, they should wear the uniform of the sex they've assigned themselves surgically.

Why not?

Why should they be discriminated against? What if they don't have the means to pay for surgery?

Here is the very original (to best of my ability) quote:

"He was out voted by the others and the chairman and the people who count: Congress and CiC."

Obviously the president does not have a vote per se. He has a veto. (Veto and vote are anagrams of each other, BTW.) I believe there is not a single person on this forum who does not know that. To pretend otherwise is reaching for straws (strawman much?)

I am reminded of this Office episode. Micheal was making fun of Toby and everyone was supporting him by laughing at his jokes. Then he said something like this: "If I had two bullets and Hitler, Bin Laden, and Toby were in the room, I would shoot Toby twice." At which point everyone turned against Michael.

Ok, perhaps the usage of the word "vote" was inartful. A claim to that effect would be supported by most. But claiming that a poster on this forum does not know that the president does not vote with the Congress (while tons of evidence is pointing to the opposite) is something like Michael did.

So what else is new.

That people refuse to revise their opinions when the truth is revealed, and additionally lack the ability to resent being lied to in the first place. People being comfortable with admitting their bias, enjoying the confirmation bias presented by dishonest "news" services, and being overall cool living and believing lies that are spoon fed to them so much that truth has become the new "lie" to be scorned.

That's a relatively new advent. Welcome to a world where "news" is like professional wrestling. More a matter of staged entertainment, than presenting an event honestly.

That people refuse to revise their opinions when the truth is revealed, and additionally lack the ability to resent being lied to in the first place. People being comfortable with admitting their bias, enjoying the confirmation bias presented by dishonest "news" services, and being overall cool living and believing lies that are spoon fed to them so much that truth has become the new "lie" to be scorned.

That's a relatively new advent. Welcome to a world where "news" is like professional wrestling. More a matter of staged entertainment, than presenting an event honestly.

Seriously, do you honestly think a government lying to its people is new???? Really?? Study some history. This has gone on throughout human history. It's nothing new. Ramses probably lied to the priests. Seriously, all governments lie to their people. It's merely a matter of degree.

Seriously, do you honestly think a government lying to its people is new???? Really?? Study some history. This has gone on throughout human history. It's nothing new. Ramses probably lied to the priests. Seriously, all governments lie to their people. It's merely a matter of degree.

No, but I think people being ambivalent to the truth when it is revealed, and blatantly ignoring it is somewhat new.

Here is the very original (to best of my ability) quote:

"He was out voted by the others and the chairman and the people who count: Congress and CiC."

Obviously the president does not have a vote per se. He has a veto. (Veto and vote are anagrams of each other, BTW.) I believe there is not a single person on this forum who does not know that. To pretend otherwise is reaching for straws (strawman much?)

I am reminded of this Office episode. Micheal was making fun of Toby and everyone was supporting him by laughing at his jokes. Then he said something like this: "If I had two bullets and Hitler, Bin Laden, and Toby were in the room, I would shoot Toby twice." At which point everyone turned against Michael.

Ok, perhaps the usage of the word "vote" was inartful. A claim to that effect would be supported by most. But claiming that a poster on this forum does not know that the president does not vote with the Congress (while tons of evidence is pointing to the opposite) is something like Michael did.

The POTUS has a vote on every law passed by Congress. He must vote yes for it to pass (unless it has overwhelming support).

"A rose by another name....."

But some here like to feel superior by nit-picking, when in reality it just makes them look desperate.

No, but I think people being ambivalent to the truth when it is revealed, and blatantly ignoring it is somewhat new.

Ironic when you consider your biased interpretation to be "the truth."

Ironic when you consider your biased interpretation to be "the truth."

It's biased to point out that only about 1/3 of people in the military believe it will have a positive or no impact? How is that biased, exactly? That the largest group in the survey was those that believe it will have both negative and positive impact (read good and bad), which when looked at rationally, really belongs neither with those in favor or those opposed?

When someone pointed out that I had done exactly what the media had by flipping it to the opposing side, I readily conceded that it was equally inappropriate. Let me guess, you believe that it was totally apropos to include people that thought just as much bad as good would come from allowing gays to serve openly as a favorable viewpoint? :lol:

It's biased to point out that only about 1/3 of people in the military believe it will have a positive or no impact? How is that biased, exactly? That the largest group in the survey was those that believe it will have both negative and positive impact (read good and bad), which when looked at rationally, really belongs neither with those in favor or those opposed?

When someone pointed out that I had done exactly what the media had by flipping it to the opposing side, I readily conceded that it was equally inappropriate. Let me guess, you believe that it was totally apropos to include people that thought just as much bad as good would come from allowing gays to serve openly as a favorable viewpoint? :lol:

Your bias is against change. Even though that involves continued discrimination against a minority.

You even justify such discrimination by the smaller number of people who are wronged by it.

Your "reason" for continuing such discrimination is nothing more than the attitude of a minority who don't like another minority getting equal treatment. Would you at least admit that your argument of an assault on your "dignity" is purely the result of your frame of mind?

When something is wrong (discrmination against a minority), the default position should be to make it right, so the burden is on those who wish to prove it problematic. That's why those who want to right a wrong, are correct in lumping the "good and bad" responses along with the "no problem" responses.

Your default position of no change is, I would argue, the result of a dysfunctional attitude. The common practice of discrimination against a minority to preserve the "superior" status of the majority.

There was at one time, good reason for the stigma attached to homosexuality. That time is long gone.

No, but I think people being ambivalent to the truth when it is revealed, and blatantly ignoring it is somewhat new.

Why do you think people ignore it? "The Truth" (as all quarters see it) is blasted into our faces constantly. We never get away from it. Of course, we're weary of it. Read through some general posts on Yahoo! and other sites, and see how little the general populace understands economics, finance, and human nature. Some of them really believe a socialist economy will work. They do not read history, have no clue about anything that has happened before they came into existence, and this is all courtesy of a government education.

No, we are not ambivalent about about what is going on, we simply choose to pick our fights, and the #1 fight we have that nobody is acknowledging is getting government out of the business of education, and possibly a few other of the 985 things government does that the Constitution has not given it the power.

Your bias is against change. Even though that involves continued discrimination against a minority.

No more than wheel-chair confined people are discriminated against - right? :rolleyes:

You even justify such discrimination by the smaller number of people who are wronged by it.

Then so you do. Unless, of course, you now wish to join the lobby which would place quadrapeligics on the field of battle? :cool:

Your "reason" for continuing such discrimination is nothing more than the attitude of a minority who don't like another minority getting equal treatment.

There is no equal treatment; there is no way to give gays an experience equal to the experience heterosexuals have in the military as it is currently constructed. You steadfastly refuse to face the facts about that.

Would you at least admit that your argument of an assault on your "dignity" is purely the result of your frame of mind?

No more so than a man's frame of mind would be affected by showering with women.

When something is wrong (discrmination against a minority), the default position should be to make it right, so the burden is on those who wish to prove it problematic. That's why those who want to right a wrong, are correct in lumping the "good and bad" responses along with the "no problem" responses.

Anyone should be allowed to serve in the military, regardless the logistic/practicality problems they create? :scratchh:

Your default position of no change is, I would argue, the result of a dysfunctional attitude. The common practice of discrimination against a minority to preserve the "superior" status of the majority.

How do you know that the dysfunctional attitude doesn't reside on your side, having elevated the idea of total elimination of discrimination, even though it isn't discriminating to do so?

There was at one time, good reason for the stigma attached to homosexuality. That time is long gone.

A good reason, you say? Please do expound.

No, we are not ambivalent about about what is going on, we simply choose to pick our fights, and the #1 fight we have that nobody is acknowledging is getting government out of the business of education, and possibly a few other of the 985 things government does that the Constitution has not given it the power.We all know that the Constitution refers to "general welfare." We also know that the meaning of this is the subject of dispute among liberal and conservatives.

I would like to know what our conservative friends think "general welfare" refers to and what kinda things it authorizes that if the term was not included they would not be authorized.

We all know that the Constitution refers to "general welfare." We also know that the meaning of this is the subject of dispute among liberal and conservatives.

I would like to know what our conservative friends think "general welfare" refers to and what kinda things it authorizes that if the term was not included they would not be authorized.


Specifically enumerated powers. I posted a great link about this topic that absolutely nails my view of this subject, and farnan danced around it like a drop of oil on a hot skittle.

Here's another link (http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html) on this, with good points to make as well. Here's a great question asked within:

The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?"

Your bias is against change. Even though that involves continued discrimination against a minority.

You even justify such discrimination by the smaller number of people who are wronged by it.

You misunderstand me, and you misunderstand your position of reference, as well.

First serving in the military is not a right; if it was, then this would have been struck down a long time ago. It is not discrimination, against a position where qualification for all facets of qualification are considered, including ability to integrate within the existent community. Failure to adapt to military lifestyle is a valid reason that people are often enough discharged.

Second, my objection does not stem from their ability to do their jobs, but rather in the living conditions the military itself offers. It is not that they cannot do their jobs, it is that they present a conundrum that should not be foisted off on the greater numbers that object to it.

The military is not some egalitarian thing where all things are equal. It is the defense of our country; unlike most jobs, it involves co-workers eating, sleeping and showering together. Everyone there needs to be able to work together, and trust one another. Anything that is contrary to that on any scale is counterproductive.

Your "reason" for continuing such discrimination is nothing more than the attitude of a minority who don't like another minority getting equal treatment. Would you at least admit that your argument of an assault on your "dignity" is purely the result of your frame of mind?

You are incorrect in both your assessment of my position, and my motivation. I have no problem with gays getting equal treatment. I have a problem with them receiving preferential treatment. They have no more of a right to access the living environment of straight men, than straight men have a right to access to the living environment of women.

You desire to demonize me, by being able to disregard what I say as simple bigotry. It's easier to deal with than accepting that I have a genuine complaint, I suppose.

When something is wrong (discrmination against a minority), the default position should be to make it right, so the burden is on those who wish to prove it problematic. That's why those who want to right a wrong, are correct in lumping the "good and bad" responses along with the "no problem" responses.

But, you also need to weigh the infringements of all parties involved, and not give preferential treatment to one party and believe its sensibilities are more important than the other. Treading all over one group by default, to satisfy the other is not the solution. Looking at the overall result, and making a determination of overall benefit/cost is.

Your default position of no change is, I would argue, the result of a dysfunctional attitude. The common practice of discrimination against a minority to preserve the "superior" status of the majority.

Incorrect. My position is based on the level of accommodation required to truly make it an equitable environment, and believing the gain is not worth the cost.

There was at one time, good reason for the stigma attached to homosexuality. That time is long gone.

I don't think such a stigma should be in place, but that does not mean that straight men should be forced to sleep and shower in the same room as gay men. There is a limit to how far you can push people in their level of acceptance, and expect them to comply.

I have no problem with the "normal" places, but when you are discussing situations where people must be in various states of undress around each other, and trust each other implicitly, having a level of distrust and suspicion is not conducive to combat readiness.

No, we are not ambivalent about about what is going on, we simply choose to pick our fights, and the #1 fight we have that nobody is acknowledging is getting government out of the business of education, and possibly a few other of the 985 things government does that the Constitution has not given it the power.

Interesting idea. Ironically, I think education is one of the few places that government should retain involvement, but it should also change its role, as well. I think government should subsidize education, but that it should not directly influence curriculum beyond stipulating subjects that must be covered. More charter schools, less of the traditional public schools.

Without subsidized education, you would end up with a very uneducated populace, and the crime rate would shoot through the roof.

Interesting idea. Ironically, I think education is one of the few places that government should retain involvement, but it should also change its role, as well. I think government should subsidize education, but that it should not directly influence curriculum beyond stipulating subjects that must be covered. More charter schools, less of the traditional public schools.

Without subsidized education, you would end up with a very uneducated populace, and the crime rate would shoot through the roof.

I don't see why that would be. There is no reason whatsoever that the education system cannot be fully privatized. The logistical problems that would or could arise have private sector solutions.

Specifically enumerated powers. I posted a great link about this topic that absolutely nails my view of this subject, and farnan danced around it like a drop of oil on a hot skittle.

Here's another link (http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html) on this, with good points to make as well. Here's a great question asked within:You are so eager to rehash your own point and slam another poster that you forgot to answer my very specific and precise question. Please try and answer it.

BTW: In another time/thread, I have given an answer to the question that you posed from that other web-site.

One effect of enumerating powers while still maintaining no boundaries is this:

If the power for A is not specifically enumerated, the SCOTUS might find it unconstitutional based on the fact that it violates some other provision. But if enumerated, the SCOTUS cannot find it unconstitutional.

I don't see why that would be. There is no reason whatsoever that the education system cannot be fully privatized. The logistical problems that would or could arise have private sector solutions.

It's less about logistics, and more about cost within a society with a plummeting economy and also about the government requiring attendance in education of children. I see no reason to justify further fostering an aristocracy within this country based on birthright (financial status), as opposed to merit.

I would not object to full privatization, with the caveat of government subsidization of bright students that do not have the financial backing to reach their intellectual and productivity potentials.

I would not object to full privatization, with the caveat of government subsidization of bright students that do not have the financial backing to reach their intellectual and productivity potentials.This sounds socialist. Social engineering run amok!

We all know that the Constitution refers to "general welfare." We also know that the meaning of this is the subject of dispute among liberal and conservatives.

I would like to know what our conservative friends think "general welfare" refers to and what kinda things it authorizes that if the term was not included they would not be authorized.

Here's what the "conservative" old white dude that was the principle architect of the Constitution said.....

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

:shake:

Sounds like one of those looney Tea Baggers.........

Specifically enumerated powers. I posted a great link about this topic that absolutely nails my view of this subject, and farnan danced around it like a drop of oil on a hot skittle.

Here's another link (http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html) on this, with good points to make as well. Here's a great question asked within:

Hey, i read the link you posted above--virtualy devoid of any constitutional arguments. The discussion about the composition of the Court during the New Deal Era was correct--and due to its conservative bent, didn't think the government's actions were constitutional. Once there were more liberal judges, that changed. All that says is that there are 2 different views and says NOTHING about the arguments themselves, nor the validity of each side's point of view. Going on and on about the amount of spending has virtually zero impact on the constitutional analysis itself.

Where is the other link? I may have a bit of time today to read/respond. Not sure why i'm going to bother--because your previous two prick-like posts just show you are more bent on "winning" the argument than you are about understanding the opposing view. I have no hope of changing your mind (just as i'm unlikely to change my mind as well). What i would aim to do is to make you better informed about the opposing view instead of the strawman/caricature -like understanding you have at this time. And i don't appreciate you raking me over the coals because i don't have time to disect a fricken treatise. The time it takes to post a link and say "I AGREE!!!" pales in comparison to what it takes to review and respond in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner. Not to mention the eventual pissing contest that would inevitably result, testing the limits of my sanity.

Here's what the "conservative" old white dude that was the principle architect of the Constitution said.....

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

:shake:

Sounds like one of those looney Tea Baggers.........

And then there was Alexander Hamilton and George Washington:

Hamilton declared unequivocally that the Federal government had the right to promote manufactures under the General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8. The objects for which Congress can raise money, Hamilton explained, ``are no less comprehensive then the payment of the Public debts, and providing for the common defense and the general Welfare.''

He continued:

``The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.''

Hamilton then says that it is left to the discretion of the legislature to determine what matters concern the general welfare, adding: ``And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of {Learning,} of {Agriculture,} of {Manufactures,} and of {Commerce,} are within the sphere of the national Councils, {as far as regards an application of money.} (emphasis in original)
In his Final Address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington endorsed Hamilton's view.

Washington noted that ``Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of Manufactures,'' and he argued that much more needed to be done, especially invoking the idea of the dangers of the country remaining dependent on foreign supply.

Washington also argued that, ``with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,'' and he proposed the creation of institutions for promoting agriculture through ``premiums, and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.''



Those COMMIES!!

Here's what the "conservative" old white dude that was the principle architect of the Constitution said.....

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

:shake:

Sounds like one of those looney Tea Baggers.........Thank you for that. But I did not see the answer to very specific and concise question.

I would like to know what that term, "general welfare", allows that is it was not there it would have been allowed. A few examples would be nice.

And then there was Alexander Hamilton and George Washington:

Those COMMIES!!

Particularly since there are observations in there, rather than just the original manuscripts, it would be good to link your citations. I doubt you are attempting to take credit for them (either the letters, or the observations), and believe it was genuinely an oversight, rather than any intention to be dishonest.

However, some of us would like to be able to see their (those who made observations, rather than just provide the manuscripts themselves) citations, in order to examine the veracity of their observations.

And then there was Alexander Hamilton and George Washington:

Well, iirc, Washington didn't write any of the Constitution, but Hamilton? Here's what he wrote:



Having now seen that the maxims relied upon will not bear the use made of them, let us endeavor to ascertain their proper use and true meaning. This will be best done by examples. The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.
Federalist 83 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm)

Let me know if you need me to look up nugatory for you........;)

I never said Washington wrote any part of the Constitution---but he was an influential founding father.

In regards to Federalist 83... Are you trying to tell me Hamilton agreed with Madison?!? That is pretty funny if that is what you're getting at. Hamilton viewed the Taxing and Spending power to be an enumerated power. Taxing and Spending power does not specifically enumerate what the government can and cannot spend money on. This legal maxim of interpretation (as opposed to what right2beararms (or whatever his handle is) called it) doesn't conflict with his views.

If you need any clarification, my Hamilton quote specifically addressed the General Welfare clause and his ultimate views on the matter are pretty well settled.

If you need any clarification, my Hamilton quote specifically addressed the General Welfare clause and his ultimate views on the matter are pretty well settled.

Oh I understand that the court sided with Hamilton's view. But they had to ignore Madison's to come to that conclusion.

Oh I understand that the court sided with Hamilton's view. But they had to ignore Madison's to come to that conclusion.

The statement i made was responding to your inference that Hamilton disagreed with the broader interpretation of the Welfare Clause.

The statement i made was responding to your inference that Hamilton disagreed with the broader interpretation of the Welfare Clause.

I understand that, but as I have shown, even Hamilton's writings are not as clear as you or the court would like us to believe. Madison's are crystal clear.

The idea that these men would risk their lives to break free from an omnipotent centralized government, only to allow the creation of another, is ludicrous.

I'm going to create another thread on the General Welfare clause, since it is unrelated to the content of this thread, and is derailing the overall relevant dialogue.

You are so eager to rehash your own point and slam another poster that you forgot to answer my very specific and precise question. Please try and answer it.

BTW: In another time/thread, I have given an answer to the question that you posed from that other web-site.

One effect of enumerating powers while still maintaining no boundaries is this:

If the power for A is not specifically enumerated, the SCOTUS might find it unconstitutional based on the fact that it violates some other provision. But if enumerated, the SCOTUS cannot find it unconstitutional.

What part of "specifically enumerated powers" are you having a problem understanding? :dontknow:

The statement i made was responding to your inference that Hamilton disagreed with the broader interpretation of the Welfare Clause.

Since I've posted information that explained Hamilton's disagreement with the majority on the Welfare Clause, this is meaningless. We also know that "the matter is settled" (:rolleyes:). The fact is that this "settled" matter has farked up our country something fierce. Hamilton being famous and dead didn't make Hamilton correct. His view was the minority; he encountered fierce - and wise - opposition to his POV.

I was ready to post a reply to your uncited post about Hamilton and Washington, and ask you to cite your source, because it is clearly a mix of quote snippets and op-ed intrusions in stream-of-consciousness form. In short: it is written by someone who supports widespread abuse of the General Welfare Clause and attempts to blur the line between what was said and what was meant. I strongly suspect that that is why you didn't cite it.

I'll go investigate whether Jack has put up a thread on this subject, and see if you've cited your source over there, so that we can properly dissect it. The fact is that all we have to truly determine what was meant by the wording in the Constitution is centuries-old evidence - but it is evidence nonetheless.

What part of "specifically enumerated powers" are you having a problem understanding? :dontknow:I have no idea how this is a response to my post.

Since I've posted information that explained Hamilton's disagreement with the majority on the Welfare Clause, this is meaningless. We also know that "the matter is settled" (:rolleyes:). The fact is that this "settled" matter has farked up our country something fierce. Hamilton being famous and dead didn't make Hamilton correct. His view was the minority; he encountered fierce - and wise - opposition to his POV.

The issue i said was "settled" was Hamilton's views on the matter.

And Hamilton, one of the main founding fathers, is just some famous dead guy? I see.


I was ready to post a reply to your uncited post about Hamilton and Washington, and ask you to cite your source, because it is clearly a mix of quote snippets and op-ed intrusions in stream-of-consciousness form. In short: it is written by someone who supports widespread abuse of the General Welfare Clause and attempts to blur the line between what was said and what was meant. I strongly suspect that that is why you didn't cite it.

First off, my lack of citation was for lack of time. But i appreciate your willingness to constantly cut a guy a break. A simple cut and past of that text into google brought it up quickly... I see your friendliness and tact are only exceeded by your resourcefulness.

And to automatically assume that this person's interpretation of Hamilton's views was skewed because of his own views is EXACTLY why i find debating with anyone like you to be completely worthless. You don't even know where this quote came from and you already question the bias of the author!! Unbelievable.

Anyways, here is the website i quoted.

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/welfare.htm

I thought it was pretty clear from the text that this was commentary on primary sources-which in this case was the writings of Hamilton: Report on Manufactures and Opinion on the Bank.

Original Sources:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp
http://www.juntosociety.com/i_documents/ah_rom.htm

enjoy

The idea that these men would risk their lives to break free from an omnipotent centralized government, only to allow the creation of another, is ludicrous.

He relied on the "checks" that they had put in place---the fact that Congress and the President are ELECTED by the people. If the people don't like what the government is spending money on, they can elect different Representatives/Senators/President. This is completely different than what they fought against--with England, they didn't have the ability elect different leaders.

We all know that the Constitution refers to "general welfare." We also know that the meaning of this is the subject of dispute among liberal and conservatives.

I would like to know what our conservative friends think "general welfare" refers to and what kinda things it authorizes that if the term was not included they would not be authorized.


Read the Constitution. It's spells out the powers the Federal Government has, and specifically states the powers allocated to it:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


I'd say that's pretty cut and dried. Just because the politicians ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there.

He relied on the "checks" that they had put in place---the fact that Congress and the President are ELECTED by the people. If the people don't like what the government is spending money on, they can elect different Representatives/Senators/President. This is completely different than what they fought against--with England, they didn't have the ability elect different leaders.

No. They also relied on the states to make their own decisions on most matters, instead of another distant, centralized, monolithic government, like they fought to be free from.

I realize it's fashionable in liberal circles to completely ignore 98% of what the Founding Fathers wrote, concentrating only on snippets to justify their positions, but that just doesn't work for me.

Interesting idea. Ironically, I think education is one of the few places that government should retain involvement, but it should also change its role, as well. I think government should subsidize education, but that it should not directly influence curriculum beyond stipulating subjects that must be covered. More charter schools, less of the traditional public schools.

Without subsidized education, you would end up with a very uneducated populace, and the crime rate would shoot through the roof.


Actually, some of the most educated populace we've had were during times when the government did not control education. Many of our fore-bearers were fluent in Latin and Greek. They were extremely educated.

Besides that, which would you consider more important to a child's welfare, food or education? Personally, I think food is a LOT more important. Yet, the Federal government does not run our food supply, nor to they feed our children out side of the government school system or DFACS system. We are able to shop in stores and feed our children as we please (at least until the food police get their wish and put a stop to that). Our government does not need to be controlling everything, and if you feel the government should have a hand in education, just look at what is being turned out of those schools. Read any of the boards online and see just how much any of those people understand about finances, economics, history, etc. They all understand social aspects because that is drilled into them, but they have no clue on the rest.

Last of all, I'm not a fan of Marxist ideas and government control of education is straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

If, after all that, you still think government should have a hand in education, how about vouchers? Vouchers would make schools that do not educate either go out of business or shape up. Either way, it's a win for the general populace.

The issue i said was "settled" was Hamilton's views on the matter.

And Hamilton, one of the main founding fathers, is just some famous dead guy? I see.

Just because he was there and contributed greatly does not automatically mean he was correct on that point. The US Constitution is very deliberately laid out, and the attitude you are looking for is simply not in there. So apparently, even if Hamilton felt that way, not enough of the others agreed with him to have that attitude included in the Constitution.



And to automatically assume that this person's interpretation of Hamilton's views was skewed because of his own views is EXACTLY why i find debating with anyone like you to be completely worthless. You don't even know where this quote came from and you already question the bias of the author!! Unbelievable.

Actually, to not question the bias of any author is foolhardy at best, completely ignorant at worst. YOu should always question the bias of an author, and the motives of the author's writings - whether you agree with them or not. Understanding their biases and motives is how you understand how and why they have written something.

Seriously, do you think it's wrong to question an author's motives and biases??

He relied on the "checks" that they had put in place---the fact that Congress and the President are ELECTED by the people. If the people don't like what the government is spending money on, they can elect different Representatives/Senators/President. This is completely different than what they fought against--with England, they didn't have the ability elect different leaders.


Actually, the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed our government to something completely different from what was envisioned. Senators were NOT supposed to be elected by a popular vote. they were to be elected by the individual state legislatures. Being elected by the legislatures meant they were beholden to their state, not the general populace.

Actually, some of the most educated populace we've had were during times when the government did not control education. Many of our fore-bearers were fluent in Latin and Greek. They were extremely educated.

You are discussing those that came from wealthy families, who just like now had a better education that was bought and paid for by their parents that could afford it.

Besides that, which would you consider more important to a child's welfare, food or education? Personally, I think food is a LOT more important. Yet, the Federal government does not run our food supply, nor to they feed our children out side of the government school system or DFACS system.

Which is more likely to be neglected by parents, food or education? The former's consequences are far more readily apparent than the latter's.

Our government does not need to be controlling everything, and if you feel the government should have a hand in education, just look at what is being turned out of those schools. Read any of the boards online and see just how much any of those people understand about finances, economics, history, etc. They all understand social aspects because that is drilled into them, but they have no clue on the rest.

Which is why I believe the public school system as it stands should be abolished in favor of a voucher system and charter schools.

Last of all, I'm not a fan of Marxist ideas and government control of education is straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

Because people lack the self discipline to avoid abusing authority, I agree that the government shouldn't have too much actual control of the curriculum itself.

If, after all that, you still think government should have a hand in education, how about vouchers? Vouchers would make schools that do not educate either go out of business or shape up. Either way, it's a win for the general populace.

I have been arguing for that, as it is the best mix of ensuring the people are educated, and that the government does not abuse the educational system as a means of indoctrinating the populace.

Actually, the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed our government to something completely different from what was envisioned. Senators were NOT supposed to be elected by a popular vote. they were to be elected by the individual state legislatures. Being elected by the legislatures meant they were beholden to their state, not the general populace.

And who elected the state legislatures and the members of the House of Representatives??

Actually, to not question the bias of any author is foolhardy at best, completely ignorant at worst. YOu should always question the bias of an author, and the motives of the author's writings - whether you agree with them or not. Understanding their biases and motives is how you understand how and why they have written something.

Seriously, do you think it's wrong to question an author's motives and biases??

Bias can be an issue--but you need to have a basis for asserting that claim. I think it is wrong to do assert bias when he hasn't even read the full article (or the writings it referenced) or doesn't have any idea who the author is. To reflexively assert bias without any basis other than disagreement with the conclusion is utterly rediculous.

How can you hope to discover the truth if you're unwilling to listen to an opposing view without discrediting them simply because they agree with what they're writing?

If, after all that, you still think government should have a hand in education, how about vouchers? Vouchers would make schools that do not educate either go out of business or shape up. Either way, it's a win for the general populace.

Except for those who can't afford school.

If, after all that, you still think government should have a hand in education, how about vouchers? Vouchers would make schools that do not educate either go out of business or shape up. Either way, it's a win for the general populace.I would have loved school vouchers when I was being educated in the public school system. Not that my schools were so horribly bad but it took a lot of work for me to be a teacher's and principal's pet so I could have a pick of the best teachers and classes. It shouldn't be that way.

Bias can be an issue--but you need to have a basis for asserting that claim. I think it is wrong to do assert bias when he hasn't even read the full article (or the writings it referenced) or doesn't have any idea who the author is. To reflexively assert bias without any basis other than disagreement with the conclusion is utterly rediculous.

How can you hope to discover the truth if you're unwilling to listen to an opposing view without discrediting them simply because they agree with what they're writing?



Except for those who can't afford school.

Since you're making excuses and dodging what I'm saying like a fat lady dodges mosquitos in a swamp....:rolleyes:

I commented upon the bias because the bias is evident. You tried to post your link as some sort of historical reference, and it wasn't; it was an op-ed piece. What you posted was a commentary from someone who took a snippet of a quote from Hamilton, and then - in a continuation of the same thought in the same sentence - blended it with another statement which wasn't attributed to the Founders. Doing so was a clever - but transparent - attempt to assign the belief that you're now supporting to both Hamilton - and to Washington - when there is no evidence that either supports what you - or the leftist author - is saying.

Liberals have literally taken even what Hamilton mistakenly endorsed to a different level; justifying everything the Government does under General Welfare. By that standard, a complete nanny state would have been just fine with the Founding Fathers. Hamilton envisaged a slightly wider scope in "general welfare"; not the all-encompassing Nanny State that we have now.

That's obvious to anyone with a pulse and a measure of intellectual honesty. A priori evidence of that includes very careful language in the Constitution enumerating powers (which themselves were for the purpose of the General Welfare; and not General Welfare as a totally separate category under which Goverment could expand its reach any direction it wanted). Further, the language of the Constitution distinctly distinguishes between "for the people" and "for the States".

It is my position that "General Welfare" doesn't have a single thing to to do with any legislation that benefits some individuals more than others. That itself is unConstitutional.

That's obvious to anyone with a pulse and a measure of intellectual honesty.

Then it's unfortunate for your view that for the last 70 years, SCOTUS justices have been either dead or intellectually dishonest. :rolleyes:

Or maybe they've just been reluctant to legislate from the bench.

Then it's unfortunate for your view that for the last 70 years, SCOTUS justices have been either dead or intellectually dishonest. :rolleyes:

Or maybe they've just been reluctant to legislate from the bench.

:lmao:

Reluctant to legislate from the bench, you say? :lmao:

:lmao:

Reluctant to legislate from the bench, you say? :lmao:

Yeah, you know.... overturn Congressional legislation....

Yeah, you know.... overturn Congressional legislation....

Why do that, when they can legislate by themselves, by reinterpreting what the constitution itself means?