Let's say they don't.
You have to have some sort of statistics to back up your statements. Or it's just like, your opinion, man.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Why Do They Hate Our Soldiers?
- Thread starter mrjarrell
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Let's say they don't.
You have to have some sort of statistics to back up your statements. Or it's just like, your opinion, man.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Based on what? In my era, Tailhook and several scandals with DI's having sex with female recruits were caused by straights, gays were at best in "don't ask, don't tell" mode.
Then gems like this:
According to a 2011 Newsweek report, women are more likely to be assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in combat. In 2010, according to the Department of Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office there were 3,158 military sexual assaults reported, however the Pentagon’s statistics say that that represents just 13.5 percent of the estimated 19,000 assaults that actually occurred that year.[SUP][11][/SUP] During that period, only 575 of the cases were processed. Of the cases processed, only 96 went to court-martial.[SUP][1][/SUP] Another investigation found that only one in five females and one in 15 males in the United States Air Force would report having been sexually assaulted by service members.[SUP][2]
Sexual assault in the United States military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know this is radical for a lot of you, but gay people are still people. They have the same foibles as straights, the same capacity for good or evil as straights, etc.
[/SUP]
SaintsNSinners
Shooter
They are also passing that lets dig dead soldiers up from national cemeteries law as well... I guess we need to dig every confederate soldier up as well.
Stupid treasonous southern rebels. This will teach you 152 years later
Stupid treasonous southern rebels. This will teach you 152 years later
You think he should be open minded about people who are not the least open minded?
Did you hear that noise? That's my Alanis Morissette branded irony meter with automatic reset nearly chattering itself off the shelf. I'm glad I got the deluxe explosion proof model. The standard one would have blown up, and those flying plastic shards can be dangerous.
indiucky
Grandmaster
So allowing someone to live instead of being sucked out of what used to be considered the safest place for a child on earth ("Safe as in the Mother's womb" used to be an actual saying...I know...Sounds kind of funny now.) is the same as allowing two people to get married? So marriage is now a right? Really? So single people who have had a hard time finding a spouse can now demand one because it's a "right'?
Simplistic first year College Freshman logic to be sure.
"Are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life is an "inalienable right" according to the Declaration of Indpendence...Nowhere does it say that marriage is...
Last edited:
indiucky
Grandmaster
The most intolerant, close minded bigots on Earth are the left..Even John Stewart recognizes this and did a great skit at the DNC convention that showed this close minded, bigotry in full bloom...That one dude from Texas really looks like Bill Murray...I mean he even talks like him...I love the smugness of intolerant liberals...They are such sheeple...Follow the Pop Stars and the movie moguls...
"Oh Mommy and Daddy, Harvey Weinstein and Lady Ga Ga get it...Why can't you??
[video=youtube;Pksug2a3H54]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pksug2a3H54[/video]
Last edited:
One group's close mindedness makes another groups close mindedness better how? I have to regularly remind Democrats that Bush = bad does not mean Obama = good. In that spirit, let me remind you that liberal = bad does not mean anybodyelse = good.
The old irony meter is really getting a workout.
Both my wife and my son have spent a lot of time around theater, both musical theater and other types. Being around "artistic types" we've known our fair share of homosexuals and have managed to interact rationally with them without having to resort to hating them. That we don't approve of their lifestyle - for whatever reason - is our choice. Their apparent desire to overturn institutions in place for thousands of years for their personal pleasure - and their determination that EVERYONE ELSE must be bullied or shouted down or sued until everyone else believes the way THEY do is just exactly as reprehensible as any persecution of them in the past.
Trololol
So it is better to punish all those spouses that want to apply for benefits to stop a few that you do not like? Makes perfect sense.
Interesting how sometimes some of us don't want the feds telling the states what they have to do and sometimes some of us do.
Homosexual marriage is not a protected right by the Constitution and is left to the states and the people to decide how they wish to govern themselves. Oklahoma has made a decision. If you feel a state-recognized homosexual marriage is a necessity in your life, there are plenty of other states that will oblige you. To look to the federal .gov to impose some current populist cause dejour on a state with regards to an issue not protected by the US Constitution is a form of tyranny many seem to support.
Homosexual marriage is not a protected right by the Constitution and is left to the states and the people to decide how they wish to govern themselves. Oklahoma has made a decision. If you feel a state-recognized homosexual marriage is a necessity in your life, there are plenty of other states that will oblige you. To look to the federal .gov to impose some current populist cause dejour on a state with regards to an issue not protected by the US Constitution is a form of tyranny many seem to support.
That has Chris Cooper in American Beauty written all over it ha
probably NSFW
[video=youtube;8QIqX_UDoIg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QIqX_UDoIg[/video]
The 9th and 14th Amendments say you're on the wrong side of the argument. The feds should withdraw federal money for their treatment of the soldiers and their spouses in the NG. There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the states funding for their militias. The courts and military have ruled that spousal benefits are to be given to all soldiers, gay or straight. This woman just wants to cut off her nose to spite her face. Way to show respect to the serving members and their families.
This is certainly the progressive interpretation and winning strategy of advancing their agenda of the last 100 +/- years.
Because the 10th amendment clearly leaves powers not delegated to the feds or prohibited by tbe US Constitution to the states or the people. The 14th was intended, in part, to prevent the states from treating people differently regarding their laws, not surrender states' autonomy to the feds. But you are right, the "winning argument" is to tend towards federal .gov tyranny over the states and the people.
These days some folks are confusing "libertine" with "liberty." The first is a life-style choice; the second is worth dying for.
