Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Gay adoption = Raising puppies?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Gay adoption = Raising puppies?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 135 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #81140

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Well, at least according to one of the Right leading ex-guv’s (there seem to be a lot of those lately).

    Huckabee breaks record number of foot inserts in mouth.

    Even I was surprised about how much ignorance Huckabee can pack into a single article, and I’m pretty cynical. Still, the one part that stood out the most, at least in terms of historical ignorance was this:

    Quote:
    “I think we certainly should be very sensitive to the fact that the purpose of the military is not to see if we can create social experiments,” Huckabee warned.

    I take it Huckabee just forgot about this: Truman desegregates military, or maybe he’s still sore about it.

    A dixiecrat to the bitter end…

    #360584

    berdawn
    Member

    maybe he’s really really trying to get the nom

    #360585

    myliftkk
    Participant

    I don’t know if he can out-folksy Palin with her “schoolyard bully – nuclear treaty signatory” metaphoric equivalences.

    But hey, Ron Paul almost won the SRLC straw poll (which has to give the Mittster fits), and when RP is the voice of reason, next stop is crazytown.

    #360586

    Bear
    Participant

    gotta love primary season.

    #360587
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Well, you’re not arguing that the military’s main purpose is to advance a predetermined social agenda?

    #360588

    myliftkk
    Participant

    rus wrote >>
    Well, you’re not arguing that the military’s main purpose is to advance a predetermined social agenda?

    Huckabee’s doing the arguing, in ignorance of, the historical use of the military to advance a social agenda. I’m simply pointing out the obvious situational hypocrisy.

    #360589
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    Well, you’re not arguing that the military’s main purpose is to advance a predetermined social agenda?

    Huckabee’s doing the arguing, in ignorance of, the historical use of the military to advance a social agenda. I’m simply pointing out the obvious situational hypocrisy.

    Well, I agree with Huckabee.

    The purpose of our military is to kill people and break things. Advancing any social agenda is secondary, at best.

    #360590

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>
    I don’t know if he can out-folksy Palin with her “schoolyard bully – nuclear treaty signatory” metaphoric equivalences.
    But hey, Ron Paul almost won the SRLC straw poll (which has to give the Mittster fits), and when RP is the voice of reason, next stop is crazytown.

    I would love another opportunity to vote for RP. Some of the stuff may be a bit extreme but at least he is willing to say what he means and not pander for votes.

    #360591

    In my opinion, if the gays want to join up and fight, let ’em.

    #360592
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>
    I don’t know if he can out-folksy Palin with her “schoolyard bully – nuclear treaty signatory” metaphoric equivalences.
    But hey, Ron Paul almost won the SRLC straw poll (which has to give the Mittster fits), and when RP is the voice of reason, next stop is crazytown.

    I would love another opportunity to vote for RP. Some of the stuff may be a bit extreme but at least he is willing to say what he means and not pander for votes.

    Gotta be an improvement over what we’ve got now.

    #360593

    myliftkk
    Participant

    rus wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    Well, you’re not arguing that the military’s main purpose is to advance a predetermined social agenda?

    Huckabee’s doing the arguing, in ignorance of, the historical use of the military to advance a social agenda. I’m simply pointing out the obvious situational hypocrisy.

    Well, I agree with Huckabee.
    The purpose of our military is to kill people and break things. Advancing any social agenda is secondary, at best.

    Uh, gov 101, the purpose of the military is to extend the political will of the state through the projection of force, either explicit or implied. That said, the military serves and operates at the will of the political state, unless you’re arguing it does not, and hence is subservient to its political masters, unless you’re arguing it should not be. Since society makes up both the political class and the military, the military ultimately projects a social agenda whether Huckabee admits it or not (and has ever since it’s permanent founding). That he doesn’t like what current political leaders might want as the military’s inheritently-projected social agenda doesn’t surprise might me. What does surprise me is that with a straight face, he claims there should be no politics involved in another area where there’s always been politics involved (rather than just admit he doesn’t like his odds on the politcal scale right now).

    #360594
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>
    Uh, gov 101, the purpose of the military is to extend the political will of the state through the projection of force, either explicit or implied.

    Exactly.

    Glad to see you agree with me.

    #360595

    myliftkk
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>
    I don’t know if he can out-folksy Palin with her “schoolyard bully – nuclear treaty signatory” metaphoric equivalences.
    But hey, Ron Paul almost won the SRLC straw poll (which has to give the Mittster fits), and when RP is the voice of reason, next stop is crazytown.

    I would love another opportunity to vote for RP. Some of the stuff may be a bit extreme but at least he is willing to say what he means and not pander for votes.

    Paul’s about the only non-interventionist left in the party, though he’s a bit too close of the Buchanan wing for my taste. He does have a perchant for personal honesty, which certainly makes him stick out in that crowd.

    #360596
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>

    lifeontwowheels wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>
    I don’t know if he can out-folksy Palin with her “schoolyard bully – nuclear treaty signatory” metaphoric equivalences.
    But hey, Ron Paul almost won the SRLC straw poll (which has to give the Mittster fits), and when RP is the voice of reason, next stop is crazytown.

    I would love another opportunity to vote for RP. Some of the stuff may be a bit extreme but at least he is willing to say what he means and not pander for votes.

    Paul’s about the only non-interventionist left in the party, though he’s a bit too close of the Buchanan wing for my taste. He does have a perchant for personal honesty, which certainly makes him stick out in that crowd.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

    #360597

    Bear
    Participant

    rus wrote >>
    Well, you’re not arguing that the military’s main purpose is to advance a predetermined social agenda?

    Sure. But which predetermined social agenda?

    If the military’s purpose is to “kill people and break things,” shouldn’t they select people based entirely on their ability to do that? Failing to allow the perfect killing machine to serve his country because he’s also gay strikes me as precisely advancing a predetermined social agenda at the expense of the military’s mission.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 135 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: