All Right, I won't say anything more.
Printable View
All Right, I won't say anything more.
:) Thanks Kidlife.
<mod hat>
You seem to have reached an understanding with lolli, so that's good enough for now, just please don't make posts like this in the future. The report button is there if you need it, as is the forum's ignore functionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by KidLife10200
Please don't try to start up old fights, even by proxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
</mod hat>
If you're asking technically, then I'm not sure. The post numbers in the upper right of the post contain the direct URL for a particular post, and should work.Quote:
Hey, why can't I link to the thread? Or individual posts?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11736549 Looks like most troops don't care.
With due respect, Wraith, I never had a fight with Hazir on the subject. I don't think even the most liberal interpretation could call it that.
And if some guy gets bent out of shape because Hazir drops the N-bomb, how am I out of line in saying "oh, that's not the first time he's done that." Pray tell, what rule have I broken here?
Agreed by saying something about the N0bomb in an unrelated thread is unappropriate. But the same guy (Hazir) did the same offensive thing yet again, in this thread. That makes it relevant, no? Why must I not say anything? If anything, it's Hazir that should belay that shit.
It was a month ago. It was old. You don't need to be fanning flames or encouraging others to start flame wars. The report button is there if you need it, as is the forum's ignore functionality.
Looks like no one cares but McCain and some of his old fogies. This is has become so absurd. We know Obama wants congress to deal with this instead of the judicial, but their heads are up their asses so far that nothing is being accomplished. Lame ducks quacking around? No, they're turkeys!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As POTUS maybe Obama could just issue an Executive order and end the mess once and for all. Isn't that what happened with integrating blacks into the military? I know they didn't wait around until the Civil Rights Act was passed.
wow apparently not even old soldiers are opposed to the gayos...
Actually there are several ways he could have acted or act now. But since he doesn't really care he won't do any of the below.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
1. not appeal (nothing is served by it anyway)
2. appeal but only formally without grounds, maybe even stating that the government deems DADT non-constitutional
3. appeal and let the injunction go (obviously the government can't have an interest in the injunction now that it has been proven it will have no serious effects on the military, making DADT being something of the far past by the time we get a ruling. And even if that ruling was positive for DADT that doesn't have to mean the executive re-instates it.
It's not like this hasn't come up in previous administrations. Does this really boil down to appeal/not appeal? As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, can't Obama just say DO IT ! ?
(That's a legal question, not a political one.)
I'm not 100% certain he can scrap it. He could probably change its interpretation to what Clinton thought it would be; a real don't ask don't tell policy. Meaning that there would really be no attempts on behalf of the military to broaden the understanding of telling to the point that being gay is almost reason enough to be dismissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It doesn't help anything, though. The whole study was useless and pointless to begin with (militaries are not democracies), and as was to be expected, the opponents such as McCain are already calling the study biased, wrong and pointless. The whole point of this exercise in stupidity and government waste was to give the GOP good time to prepare their case for denying basic human rights to some people; the Dems will be neutered in the coming elections and had the Dems pushed for this to be changed when Pelosi first wanted to, it might've worked? Now? Faggots can forget about serving their country with any sense of pride for the next 20 years. Yay GOP!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Coming elections?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Anyway, gays in America can thank Obama if this policy isn't scrapped any time soon.
Dems in general have very little spine; how hard is it to call the Party of Bug-Shit Insanity out on their bull-shit? Pretty damn hard, evidently :/
Well, what can I say, the Coward in Chief is such a change from politics as usual as not to be been by us mere mortals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Wait. Didn't a POTUS simply proclaim that the troops would be integrated, and they were? Was that during WWII or Korea or what? I'm too lazy to look it up.....
I don't really know how much of the segregation in the US army was the result of actual formal regulation rather than the result of plain prejudice.
There were actual regulations. We had separate black battalions.
Look what I found! Clifford Alexander, first black man to serve as Secretary of the Army.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...show/#40464082
He says integration was uneven historically, and even between military services. Suppose that means separate battalions during the Civil War or WWII doesn't mean shit in the 21st century?
"An issue of moral importance." "Address it straight on." (Bigots are bigots who use fear to justify their bigotry?)
I like that the initial commercial was about "the human network". :D
This really is a very childish and unsophisticated way to think about politics. The terminology itself is so dumbed down and simplified that it holds no real merit in argument. I understand this is meant to be humorous, but even the joke's point is dumb.Quote:
Well, what can I say, the Coward in Chief is such a change from politics as usual as not to be been by us mere mortals.
I will be surprised if DADT is not pushed for repeal by president Obama, and the Dems. I think they waited in an effort to push for other bills, and Obama I think may have wanted to get credit for the repeal so he wanted it revoked on his terms.
I don't buy your proposition that Obama is really in agreement with the GOP that gay's right to be treated equal in every regard aren't worthwhile, and more so I don't think he holds the GOP stance that not only are they not worth pursuing but that gays don't deserve to be treated equal in every regard.
The idea something about them being gay makes them less equipped to certain tasks and entitlements.
If Obama wants to get it forced, I suppose he does have ways through judges.
My position is that he just doesn't care. And the notion that a piece of legislation has to wait because other legislation is being finalized is too ridiculous for words; the legislative process is not like a car factory assembly line. Or do you really want me to believe that the Pentagon had a significant role in the passing of Obama care and that all committees dealing with the military were iceboxed during the first two years of this shining new presidency?
The fact of the matter is that - like LF said - Obama has proven himself to be a political coward. The US made the senator that didn't vote the president who doesn't govern.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-dont-tell/?hp
GG for the party of gay hatred.
Morons.Quote:
“Today leaders of both parties let down the U.S. military and the American people,” said Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign. “Instead of doing what is right, ‘the world’s greatest deliberative body’ devolved into shameful schoolyard spats that put petty partisan politics above the needs of our women and men in uniform.”
Mccain is a moron, he said he agreed with his wife (which he doesn't) and he stipulated that if extensive study was conducted regarding the sentiments felt by the straight officers in regards of homosexuals serving alongside with them, he'd change his views accordingly (which he hasn't).
is there any way I can increase the probability of inducing a heart attack without it directly being labeled as "murder"?
Hold up some playboy pictures while he's giving a speech.Quote:
is there any way I can increase the probability of inducing a heart attack without it directly being labeled as "murder"?
McCain is a lowlife anyway.
Northeast Republicans pushing for a last ditch vote:
Quote:
December 18, 2010
Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Advances
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — Capping a 17-year political struggle, the Senate on Saturday cleared the way for repealing the Pentagon’s ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military.
By a vote of 63 to 33, with six Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate acted to cut off debate on a measure that would let President Obama declare an end to the Clinton-era policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which allows gay members of the armed forces to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. The vote indicated that there was easily enough support to push the measure to final passage.
The vote put Congress at the brink of a historic moment that some equated with the decision to end racial segregation in the military. It followed a review by the Pentagon that found little concern in the military about ending the ban and that was backed by Pentagon officials as a better alternative to a court-ordered end.
Backers of the repeal said it was long past time to end what they saw as a discriminatory practice that cost valuable personnel and forced troops to lie to serve their country.
“I don’t care who you love,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as the debate opened. “If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn’t have to hide who you are.”
Mr. Wyden showed up for the Senate vote despite saying on Friday that he would be unable to do so because he would be undergoing final tests before his scheduled surgery for prostate cancer on Monday.
The vote came in the final days of the 111th Congress as Democrats sought to force through a final few priorities before they turn over control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans in January and see their clout in the Senate diminished.
It represented a significant victory for the White House, Congressional advocates of lifting the ban and activists who have pushed for years to end the Pentagon policy created in 1993 under the Clinton administration as a compromise effort to end the practice of banning gay men and lesbians entirely from military service. Activists said it represented an emotional moment for members of the gay community nationwide.
Opponents of lifting the ban said the change could harm the unit cohesion that is essential to effective military operations, particularly in combat, and deter some Americans from enlisting or pursuing a career in the military. They noted that despite support for repealing the ban from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other military commanders have warned that changing the practice would prove disruptive.
“This isn’t broke,” Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said of about the policy. “It is working very well.”
Other Republicans said that while the policy might be need to changed at some point, Congress should not intrude on the issue now when American troops are fighting overseas.
“In the middle of a military conflict, is not the time to do it,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia.
The vote to lift the ban came after the Senate blocked — and effectively killed for this year — a measure that would have allowed some younger illegal immigrants to gain legal status by attending college or serving in the military.
Backers of that measure, known as the Dream Act, said it would have aided those who, through no fault of their own, were brought into the country illegally by their parents. But opponents said the initiative had the potential for fraud and amounted to a path to amnesty. The vote was 55 to 41, five votes short of the 60 necessary for the measure to advance.
Only a week ago, the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy seemed to be dead and in danger of fading for at least two years with Republicans about to take control of the House. The provision eliminating the ban was initially included in a broader Pentagon policy bill, and Republican backers of repeal had refused to join in cutting off a filibuster against the underlying bill because of objections over the ability to debate the measure.
In a last-ditch effort, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, encouraged Democratic Congressional leaders to instead pursue a vote on simply repealing the ban. The House passed the measure earlier in the week.
The Senate must take a second vote to approve the repeal and send it to President Obama for his signature. The repeal would not take effect for at least 60 days while some other procedural steps are taken. In addition the bill requires the defense secretary to determine that policies are in place to carry out the repeal “consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.”
Mr. Lieberman said the ban undermined the integrity of the military by forcing troops to lie. He said 14,000 members of the armed forces had been forced to leave the ranks under the policy.
“What a waste,” he said.
The fight erupted in the early days of President Bill Clinton’s administration and has been a roiling political issue ever since. Mr. Obama endorsed repeal in his own campaign and advocates saw the current Congress as their best opportunity for ending the ban. Dozens of advocates of ending the ban — including one wounded in combat before being forced from the military — watched from the Senate gallery as the debate took place.
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed Republican complaints that Democrats were trying to race through the repeal to satisfy their political supporters.
“I’m not here for partisan reasons,” Mr. Levin said. “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us...cs/19cong.html
Well hell then, don't hold back! Call him something racist!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Repeal of this vile "Don't Ask" policy passed the Senate and the House, now it's for Obama to sign. :up:
It's about damn time! yay! :D
Let's see if the White House has the gall to claim victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I hope so, he's achieved his pledge via Congress as planned, that's more than I expected 2 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Except that he didn't. The White House wasn't part of the effort for this stand-alone bill. His efforts went nowhere and so much so that people thought the policy would stay in place untill the courts did away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
An interesting point...the White House certainly didn't push for it. Though I imagine they will use passing this as a message to various elements of their "base" come 2012. Candidly, this is one of the few completely good things to come out of the 111th Congress.
He's President and pushed for Congress to repeal the bill; Congress repealed the bill. Job done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Where was he pushing again? What leverage did he bring to bear? A lot of us homos have Sen. Collins and Liberman to thank more than Pres. ObamaQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So I hope Obama doesn't claim sole credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Or any for that matter. If it were for his efforts DADT would still be fully in place. Cole and Liberman had the guts to try something that everybody thought impossible to achieve. Not something the Coward in Chief is known for.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't think by the way this entirely voids the cases that are in court at the moment.
I garuntee you he'll sign the bill into law. I garauntee that he wants DADT to be repealled. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if part of why he allowed the current taxation bill to move foreward as planned was to show compromise and get the republicans to pass some democratic motions. Was this at the top of his list, was this important for him to do? Yes for two reasons, one it refreshes the TBGT community support, and two he wanted to pass it.
Also, I think part of the reason he stopped the judges motion was because he wanted it to be done through the politcal system, and for him to get more credit for its repeal.
Hazir Most Dems expected this to get passed relatively soon and it did get passed. I don't see why Obama wouldn't want to support it, in fact i'm sure he does.
It was repealed within the first half of his watch, I don't see how that's cowardice, not withstanding your long-standing hatred of the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Had the political system failed to repeal this then your allegation could stick, but it didn't in the end so it doesn't.