Looking at the memorandum specifically, because I'm just going to safely assume that LGBTQ2IA+ activists are communists and liars, I can see their complaint about what he was looking into.
Apparently congress wanted employers to straight up provide them with lists of people the employers believed could have been gay.
It's literally a gay op.
If the feds are explicitly demanding employers give them lists of people to investigate and purge from society, that's a huge problem.
The irony that progressives are complaining about this being done to gays while explicitly doing this to Conservatives is not lost on me.
Security vulnerability to whom, the employers? That's their problem, not the federal government. If we were talking about federal military contractors, sure. But it seems like the question was about any employers.
By that same logic, so is drug use, alcohol consumption, gambling, alimony/child support payments, and prostitution. All of those vices (or punitive actions) are methods of making someone dependent on your for power and protection and they are way more common than dick sucking.
It's a legitimate method of control, but just because someone has a vice, it doesn't make it the government's job to try and 'cure' you of it. Especially when politicians a) have the same vices, b) exploit other people with those vices for the same reason.
And you know the other side doesn't think purges are bad.
We both know that. Hell, the left intentionally outs gays.
Looking at the memorandum specifically, because I'm just going to safely assume that LGBTQ2IA+ activists are communists and liars, I can see their complaint about what he was looking into.
Apparently congress wanted employers to straight up provide them with lists of people the employers believed could have been gay.
It's literally a gay op.
If the feds are explicitly demanding employers give them lists of people to investigate and purge from society, that's a huge problem.
The irony that progressives are complaining about this being done to gays while explicitly doing this to Conservatives is not lost on me.
"No bad tactics. Only bad targets."
Homosexuality was a massive security vulnerability at the time because they were so easy to blackmail. It made sense to scrutinize them more closely.
And you know the other side doesn't think purges are bad. They are just crying about it because "their guys" were under the microscope.
Security vulnerability to whom, the employers? That's their problem, not the federal government. If we were talking about federal military contractors, sure. But it seems like the question was about any employers.
By that same logic, so is drug use, alcohol consumption, gambling, alimony/child support payments, and prostitution. All of those vices (or punitive actions) are methods of making someone dependent on your for power and protection and they are way more common than dick sucking.
It's a legitimate method of control, but just because someone has a vice, it doesn't make it the government's job to try and 'cure' you of it. Especially when politicians a) have the same vices, b) exploit other people with those vices for the same reason.
We both know that. Hell, the left intentionally outs gays.
I thought we were talking about NASA
I was talking about the commission that Webb was on back in the 50's, which is why NASA wants to change the name.