Originally Posted By Mr X Apologies in advance if this is hard to read through, I did a boatload of cut and paste to try and capture some of the lunacy of the exchange while at the same time not wanting to copy EVERY comment nor link to a discussion which also includes some offensive homophobic language and the like. It's easy enough to find in its' entirety on the Hannity Forums if anyone wants to wade through there (it's some 20 pages and growing...mostly typical right wing garbage if you ask me). The debate centers around whether or not the Federal Judge who struck down DADT has jurisdiction over "military matters". What I found most fascinating was the way that they argue with no regard for facts being piled up high PROVING their argument to be ridiculous. Nope, can't let facts stand in the way! Just keep yelling louder "YOU'RE WRONG!". Really, fascinating. And a good example of why it's an exasperating excersise in futility to try and have a real discussion with these people. The capper, of course, is when the Moderator steps in to "fix" the argument, a novel solution to say the least! Unfortunately, the reasonable guy in his exasperation gave all the reason they needed to pull the plug on his fact filled argument...but then again that's also how those guys roll instead of ever admitting they might be wrong, and worse, ignorant of the facts they are trying to argue against. The exchange begins below (screen names were adjusted, mostly for my amusement, but I didn't add anything else except a couple of ( ) informational notes... Dummy - The judge has no powers over military matters. That is how the judge's ruling is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...but you didn't care about facts Moron - Somebody help me out here, when did DADT become LAW? I thought it was just a DoD policy. And if that's the case, what jursdiction does this judge have over it? Moron - Don't Ask Don't Tell was *never* a LAW. The judge has absolutely NO JURISDICTION over it. Liberals though...they make **** up as they go along. Try to play along if you can Informed Person - I'd suggest reading Article III Section II again Dummy - (first pastes Article III, Section II for reference) Nothing there giving authority to this judge over military matters. What did you think made it such a thing? Fairly Reasonable Guy - My god you are ignorant. Federal courts have the authority to review ALL federal laws. DADT is a federal law. The judge did not order a military exercise, she adjudicated solely on the question of constitutionality of a federal law. That is very clearly within her power. Dummy - "Can anyone show how this law..." IN order for there to be such a law, there needs to be a Senate Bill, a House Bill, and the bill sent to the President. Moron - DADT isn't a law. You really don't know what you're talking about at all. Your claim that I'm "ignorant" is too ironic. Sadly, you just can't grasp the issues at hand. You don't even know what the issues *are*.. Dummy - You've proven you don't understand the Constitution, yet again. Fairly Reasonable Guy - “DADT isn’t a law” Huh? Your ignorance just pegged out the absurdo meter man. You are clearly unqualified to give any opinion on this issue. DADT most certainly is a federal law. 10 U.S.C. § 654 It was signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. Moron - My god you are ignorant. It's not ANY type of law, much less a federal one. It's a Department of Defense POLICY. (rolls eyes icon) Fairly Reasonable Guy - Good grief, how many totally ignorant people do we have on this forum? DADT IS A FEDERAL LAW. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...654.html</a> Again, it was signed into law by Clinton in 1993. Moron - What's worse is that you're even MORE ignorant than him. 10 U.S.C. § 654 : US Code - Section 654: POLICY concerning homosexuality in the armed forces Fairly Reasonable Guy - LMAO. Anything in the US Code is federal law. "Policy" is the title of that subheading. It's still a law. If it was just a military policy Obama could have gotten rid of it on day 1, since he is the CiC. That's the whole reason why the debate in Congress has been going on over whether to repeal it? It's a law so it required legislative (or court) action to repeal it. Random Idiot - Now this is FUNNY...Your link states POLICY....NOT law...read it again...NO where in there does it say LAW! Fairly Reasonable Guy - Holy crap! Everyone on this forum is a damn idiot! DADT is a federal LAW. It was signed into law by Clinton. Good lord I'm out of here, I can't take this level of ignorance. It's useless to even have a discussion on this when people start from this level of ignorance. Informed Person - So, Article III makes it clear: This judge is not acting improperly. Dummy - Yeee gawd you're thick. Okay, let's take baby steps. Moron asked Informed Person a question which hasn't been answered. I'll relay it to you. House bills have an HR suffix Senate bills have an SR suffix Before any bill can be signed into LAW by the President they must pass the House and Senate. What are the House and Senate bill numbers that passed DADT and the President signed into law? Fairly Reasonable Guy - You need a history lesson. <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=336" target="_blank">http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilita...ocID=336</a> DADT was signed into law by Clinton in 1993, yes after passing the House and Senate. That's the whole reason Congress has been debating whether to repeal it. It is a federal statute. That's why it was up to Congress and not the President. The President has control over the military, if it was just a military directive he could have changed that anytime. Informed Person (a bit confused) - I answered the question. It was never signed into law. It was added as policy in the Defense Authorization Act in 1994. Fairly Reasonable Guy - It was added as an amendment to that bill, which was SIGNED INTO LAW BY CLINTON in 1993! What is so freaking hard to understand about this? The US Code is federal law. DADT is a federal statute. good grief this is not that hard. "Originally Posted by Fairly Reasonable Guy Holy crap! Everyone on this forum is a damn idiot! DADT is a federal LAW. It was signed into law by Clinton. Good lord I'm out of here, I can't take this level of ignorance. It's useless to even have a discussion on this when people start from this level of ignorance." Stupid Moderator To The Rescue! - Well since you are too stupid to read and adhere to our rules I will help you out with your departure.... Banned for abuse and contempt of the entire board.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Why do you think I deregistered from the GOP as a voter? What's truly amazing is that they are going to win the House and maybe even the Senate this November, even though they have no new ideas to fix the economy and will probably start to clamor for the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare once elected.
Originally Posted By Mr X Hopefully not the Senate...the house seems pretty inevitable at this point (with stalwarts like Rand Paul and perhaps even Sharon Angle coming to power!). At least in the case of the Senate, even a 50/50 still falls in favor of the Democrats (for now). It seems VERY unlikely they'll get the 51, but recent notes I've read from "regular folks" I'm acquainted with have left me feeling apathetic...the average, "moderate" voter is not only idiotic, they have no apparent memory whatsoever. It's NOT just the teabaggers (I wish it were!). I should know better than to expect more rationality after 8 years of Bush somehow getting into power. ***will probably start to clamor for the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare once elected*** Don't forget impeachment investigations! As for killing S.S. and Medicare, I have to say (with a feeling of regret for those who will be harmed) that this will be something I will actually enjoy watching. *I* have my medical coverage, and my retirement under control (assuming Japan doesn't implode in similar fashion...not out of the realm of possibility to say the least!), and my heart bleeds for those who've paid into the system and will get screwed...BUT, I can't help but feel as though "You get what you vote for", and so many idiots have been voting against their own dire interests for so long that I'm forced to conclude that only the right wing directly harming them will teach them what they've done wrong all these decades. And learn, they will. And they'll group up and kick the bastards out and vote in the Democrats. And then it will all happen all over again. Only each time, they'll lose a little more of the FDR safety net that worked so well for so many decades.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Don't forget impeachment investigations! << Subpeonas for everybody! A highly likely outcome if GOP takes the house majority.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>As for killing S.S. and Medicare, I have to say (with a feeling of regret for those who will be harmed) that this will be something I will actually enjoy watching.<< It will be fascinating to watch the lemmings cheer as SS and Medicare are "reformed". They have already been indoctrinated into believing that they will get "nothing" from SS when they retire. Not a reduced benefit mind you, but "nothing" which makes no sense unless the payroll tax is repealed. and that isn't going to happen. I'm guessing that SS will be converted into a "lump sum" payout that will be much smaller than most will be expecting. And with ZIRP being the current fiscal policy at the Federal Reserve, good luck living off the interest earned from that lump sum. Even annuities will pay peanuts. A lot of people are going to have to work until they are too feeble to continue. Meanwhile, TeaBaggers march around with signs saying "Gov't keep your hands off my SS and Medicare." in one one hand while carrying a "Smaller Gov't Now!" sign in the other hand. The sad thing is they will get neither. I predict that once SS and Medicare have been "reformed" that there will once again be huge Social Security surpluses which will be used to feed the War Machine.
Originally Posted By gadzuux That's why the vague term of "smaller government". Nobody wants to expand on where exactly this smaller government will get smaller. And yet, given the generations long track record of the GOP, it's clear that it will be social programs - chiefly medicare and SSI. So who's in favor of that? And why? Do you plan on being young and healthy forever? Or rich? And what about those 'other' people who aren't as rich and famous and good looking as you? What do you think we should do with them - let them starve? Republicans are already demogoguing against food stamps (ferchrissakes!) and voting to deny unemployment benefits. For the life of me I will never understand why people would support this agenda - talk about cutting off your own nose. You and I have been paying into these programs for the entirety of our adult lives, and I for one am not willing to forego these benefits when I'm old and/or infirm.
Originally Posted By DAR The Democrats will have only themselves to blame if they lose this election. They did nothing but tuck their tails between their legs these last two years.
Originally Posted By Donny Here is my observation..Many times in the military it seems to me the UCMJ trumps federal law. Examples The military can deny handicap people the right to join The military does not follow health standards. STK (Shoot to Kill) orders can be ordered to defend any encampment even on American soil Name another government entity that if you decide to quit you get arrested if you walk off the job ???? So I can see where people would think that the military does not follow Federal law. In other words Mr X is being a jerk who I would love to meet some day and compare life accomplishments
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So I can see where people would think that the military does not follow Federal law*** Civilian control mean anything to ya? As to your "examples", handicapped people can be rejected from plenty of jobs for qualification purposes...have you ever met a blind bus driver? Not sure what you mean by "health standards", but there are plenty of high risk jobs in the civilian world too if that's what you're driving at (toxic accident rescue personnel, for instance). Police can shoot to kill. I assume they can be ordered to do so as well (even on U.S. soil). As far as quitting, you got me. That's one pretty uniquely military situation. And I'm sure there is some Congressional legislation regarding it, too. ***In other words Mr X is being a jerk*** Whatever. ***who I would love to meet some day and compare life accomplishments*** I'm not interested in meeting bloviating right wingers, thanks. It's bad enough encountering you guys online!
Originally Posted By Donny When police cordoned off an area they can only shoot people who represent a physical threat everyone else they can only arrest and detain.The military can give STK orders to an area they have cordoned off as controlled military space. Mr. X can you just try to be nicer to people and their opinions ?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The military can give STK orders to an area they have cordoned off as controlled military space*** Wrong. Research "illegal kill" and get back to me. ***Mr. X can you just try to be nicer to people and their opinions?*** Thanks for the advice.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Mr. X can you just try to be nicer to people and their opinions?> Donny, it's worth noting that you were the first one to get personal and throw out "jerk." Mr. X on this thread did not call anyone here an idiot, though he did provide examples from another site of certain people BEING idiots--and then when a more reasonable person tried to point out their errors, they predictably remained convinced they were correct (instead of, you know, looking it up or something), and called HIM an idiot. As for #11, don't forget that we do have civilian control. So anything the military can and cannot do that may be different from the civilian world does not "trump" federal law; it IS federal law.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 Why don't people understand that two years is a a short time to get changes in the goverment.It seems as if the dems are falling into a self-full filling mode of thinking.
Originally Posted By mele <<Why don't people understand that two years is a a short time to get changes in the government.It seems as if the dems are falling into a self-full filling mode of thinking.>> Using that logic, it seems more that republicans are expecting too much, too soon. (And they're doing their part by dragging their heels over stupid minutia and BS birther claims.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 The news seems full of the Dems talking about how they know that they are going to take a big hit in 3 weeks rather then saying that the coming mid terms will show that they have the support they need. No sense in trash talking yourself.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Nothing will happen to SS, or Medicare, or any other darned thing for that matter. Even if the Republicans get control of both the house and the senate, they won't have the votes to over-ride a presidential veto. They will be in the same place the Democratic congressional majority was in from 2006-2008. With the current animosity between the two parties nothing in this country will EVER get done no matter what happens. And we can thank the right-wing noise machine for that.
