Like always, when something bad happens, the most important thing to decide is who is to blame. When something good happens, the most important thing to decide is, who not to credit.
Anyway. Well done USA :)
Printable View
Like always, when something bad happens, the most important thing to decide is who is to blame. When something good happens, the most important thing to decide is, who not to credit.
Anyway. Well done USA :)
You miss the point of how we got here. The 'Obama' way to repeal DADT was dead in the water because he attached it to a military spending bill that the Republicans weren't going to vote on in this Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Once his glorious approach failed, everybody thought DADT was going to stay for the time being. Then two senators took the initative and did something really bold: They proposed a stand-alone bill in order to repeal DADT, they succeeded where Obama failed. They succeeded where everybody thought success was impossible because the previous attempt was such a huge failure.
The only contribution to this success will be his signature on the bill. Other than that his efforts (if any) led to nothing.
Likewise with the 9/11 responders billQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...esponders-bill
Democrat President took lead, Republican Partisans blocked it. Democrat President stepped back and said Congress should still resolve it, Multi-party Senators took lead and a cross-party super-majority passed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That's politics, not cowardice. As for being dead in the water, the idea of a stand-alone bill proposed by the Senators who proposed it was mooted in this thread earlier so that's odd. It isn't the Presidents job to control the Senate, he's done his job here.
<facepalm>Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
A President's job is just to sit and await bills to hit his desk? He saw this as just another political ouchie and ran screaming from it.
If Collins and Liberman did not bring this up as a stand alone...it would have stayed dead.
Rand, he dropped this like a hot potato, the he did nothing to get this through. Congress and the Senate pushed this through.
Kudos to the Senate and Congress...Obama gets to sign the bill...that he did not fight for. He like is, but did not fight for it.
If he'd lost the election and we had President McCain now, would DADT be getting cancelled via the democratic process?
Rand is right. Obama's administration should be credited with this monumental civil rights progression.
I was angry and frustrated that it seemed to take so long, that Obama had campaigned on this issue but left it to congress. But that's because our congress has been so lame (duck) and polarized since November elections. There were obvious political maneuverings and power plays in the background, and the time element, and that itself was rather disgusting.
But the point is, DADT was reversed under the Obama administration, with a Democrat majority in house and senate. If this had been suspended until 2011 with more Republicans in power, we all know it would have been put on the back burner. John McCain + the Tea Party would have made sure of that.
Depends on if he'd have the balls to veto any attempt to cancel it. A good portion of McCain's hostility towards canceling it *along with pretty much every other Republican* is purely that it's a Dem issue and the GOP is in Opposition, which means it has very little to lose by automatic opposition to Dem initiatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well, I have a problem with that. Not just that McCain has become a shell of his former self, contradicting what he said five or ten years ago, or being a flip-flopper for his personal political gain as Arizona elected more conservative legislators.....but that this was our modern challenge to Civil Rights. Those rights shouldn't be a majority vote, yea or nay.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And it's a basic concept that makes me wonder what the hell the conservative "constitutional lovers" are really all about. :confused:
Ostensibly they would support a legislative framework that would be constitutionally sound, regardless of the political issue at hand. Cultural conservatives, (members of the moral majority) don't always equal "constitutional lovers," despite how you might seek to paint them, or how they would paint themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And who among us doesn't support a constitutionally sound framework of law? Cultural conservatives (aka the Moral Majority, aka the Christian Right) often use our Constitution to support their argument. They also, in general, don't view that as a living document that can change and evolve over time. It's a brilliant political tactic, if you think about it, since some want to repeal several Amendments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
The constitution has built in measures for evolving, it doesn't need your help. These measures are called amendments. You seem aware of them, yet you don't seem to grasp their either their purpose, or intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I get the impression that most Americans have forgotten about this particular element of the constitution.
Hello, I'm just trying to feel you up as the new guy on the block. Do we know you under another name? You seem a bit familiar, but not sure why. :hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Not exactly a new guy, but as I've said elsewhere, I've been out of the loop for awhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I used to post on AtariCC as GE.
I think that was before you started considering property holders to be slave owners and rule of thumb followers though.
First off I think it is "constitutionally sound" for their to be equal rights between straights and gays in the military, secondly it disgusts me that these rights would be labeled "a dem issue" and that becuase of that the GOP just "opposses it" for the sake of making it so the democratic party doesn't pass anything/get anything done so they look worse. It's a childish tactic inspired by greed... This is why I like idealists, harder to corrupt.Quote:
The constitution has built in measures for evolving, it doesn't need your help. These measures are called amendments. You seem aware of them, yet you don't seem to grasp their either their purpose, or intent.
Lastly, I agree they paint themselves "constitutional lovers" or defenders of morality, or society, or America... but in all reality they're supporting their own agenda and that of their constituents. That's why I think the, at least the current, GOP party is a joke. They need to move from their emotional platforms. "Figting Terrorists" and "defenders of America" etc... etc...
I don't think anyone disagrees that the constitution is a flexible document, and invites the possibility of amendments to fit the issues at hand. I think geegee is saying is that sometimes people want to downplay this adaptability of the constitution and just interpret the constitution in a certain way to support their view so they can call themselves "supporters of the constituion"Quote:
The constitution has built in measures for evolving, it doesn't need your help.
I completely agree, and I don't believe I've ever said otherwise. It is morally reprehensible for anyone, Republican or Democrat, to oppose gay and lesbians from serving in the military, especially for the sake of realpolitik, and there is certainly no constitutional basis for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
See the difference between lovers of the constitution and cultural conservatives.Quote:
Lastly, I agree they paint themselves "constitutional lovers" or defenders of morality, or society, or America... but in all reality they're supporting their own agenda and that of their constituents. That's why I think the, at least the current, GOP party is a joke. They need to move from their emotional platforms. "Figting Terrorists" and "defenders of America" etc... etc...
OMG it's Ghost! Wow, where the hell have you been? I've missed you, really really missed you! :heart:
As I've watched myself become more lib'rul over time, and loathing what people like McCain and Palin have done to defining conservatives....Conservative became a new dirty word because of people like them, ya know.....I'd wonder to myself what Ghost would say, then lament that you weren't around. You used to be the most logical and rational "conservative" of our old group. And not out of greed for money or power or authority, but out of a deep respect for Privacy and Individualism.
I'm so happy you're back!
:jumpclap:
oh, well that wasn't the emoticon I was looking for after all. maybe :cheerleader: or :cheers: or just
:heart:
The current operating GOP (not people who vote republican) but the active senators and representatives. They tend to act as one unit, and speak as one unit, and they call themselves both lovers of the constitution and cultural conservatives. When it comes down to republicans on a individual level (while they're voting behavoir may not reflect it) there will definitely be a plethora of niches and different types of republicans, and for them it wouldn't be the same to be a hard core constitutional supporter, and to be cultural conservative, in fact inheriantly those two likes have little to do with each other. I Think the constitution is so open, and free that one can be a staunch supporter of it and it wouldn't neccessarily make you a republican or a democrat, there is a lot of leeway. When analyzing the GOP's voters we should break the groups up more carefully. When looking at the GOP representatives they have a cohesive campaign that they all seem to be sticking to, and they're very hard to distinguish one niche from the other when there all speaking out, voting, and acting out in unison with whatever the current party message is at the time. Maybe on the actual representative level for the GOP party the two are the same group. Though we did see some breaking from party line as more moderate republicans did vote to repeal DADT.
Short answer, they techincally aren't the same group, effectively it looks like the GOP in power is acting together and advertising itself as both of those, and so effectively they're the same group of people were talking about. Even though arguably those are more slogans of propaganda than accurate categorical descriptions of the current GOP party.
Well, shucks. I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss you too.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I don't consider myself a conservative per se, and I certainly wouldn't lump myself in with the likes of McCain or Palin, so I wouldn't be terribly offended if you considered it a dirty word. You have nailed my personal philosophy though, which was never a problem for you. :)Quote:
As I've watched myself become more lib'rul over time, and loathing what people like McCain and Palin have done to defining conservatives....Conservative became a new dirty word because of people like them, ya know.....I'd wonder to myself what Ghost would say, then lament that you weren't around. You used to be the most logical and rational "conservative" of our old group. And not out of greed for money or power or authority, but out of a deep respect for Privacy and Individualism.
At first blush I'd have expected you to post in other threads about privacy, like WikiLeaks or Assange, or fixing the internet. But it makes sense you'd post in DADT because that combines both privacy and individualism. The crux is being an individual, and sometimes that means declaring one's self-identity in public. And if ever there was something from gummint you respected, it was protecting individual civil rights, so people didn't have to "hide" who they are, for fear of their gov't exploiting that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
But maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, in my excitement that you've returned. :flail:
Ghost Enigma. :up:
We asked, he told. :noob:
Hey GE. I remember you still from the old days. Nice to have an old one back :)
Everyone seems to love this guy, I remember him vaguely, the name sounds familiar, I know i know it. That said, I want it to be known this person of fame and fortune, and who everyone adores agreed with a statement I made, and therefore by proxy, by extention, vicariously, through means direct and indirect all awesomeness he possess I hereby now possess, and have complete and total irrevocable rights over.
Obama and the HRC were about as useful as a sack of doorknobs in getting this passed.
I dunno...I could inflict a lot of damage with a sack of doorknobs (or use then in a home project), so don't insult it too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel_Mapper
He signed the Bill, and supported it, even if he didn't formally draft it himself. McCain would be vetoing, if it even got this far.
So? Again, he didn't really lead on this. By all appearances, he was a follower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
You really like to bring out boogey man McCain every time somebody doesn't like Obama. It's not like McCain was the only alternative for this useless President you've got in the White House right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
So?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
The law is repealed, that is all that matters.
It isn't when you are talking about who achieved that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Jesus, when did you turn into Loki?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm tickled that my fellow knob gobblers (and carpet munchers) can soon serve our country openly...but that is NOT all that matters.
Obama's lack of moving and shaking is less important to me than to my fellow interior designers as I was never a fan anyway, but my brothers (and sisters) in pink (flannel) may put this on the scales in 2012. Not that the majority will vote for the next nitwit with an R at the end of their name, but they may decide to NOT vote for the big O.
So I should be praising the my local county supervisor for it, correct? She didn't do anything for it either, but it got repealed which is all that matters, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's nothing to criticise the county supervisor over, especially if had another county supervisor been in power they'd have had the power to veto the repeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Sigh...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm beginning to see why Ness drinks.
I don't give a rats ass over IF in this case. No shit McCain would have vetoed it...that's not relevant.
We are being pissy because Obama managed to not really have anything to do with this other than appeal (through his agents) the ruling of a judge that made DADT unconstitutional.
Now he may have acted behind the scenes...but if that was the case then the press has managed a real screw up in not covering it.
So what if he let Congress do its job, I really don't see what there is to get pissy over?
Then we agree that Congress did this and not PresBo?
Excellent.
I don't think anyone's disputing that, I just don't see why we should care about that?
Because he will try to claim this as a victory to help keep the limp wristed vote, when he in effect had nothing to do with it aside from signing the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
His election pledge has been fulfilled and he has signed the bill into law, for the first time ever in America's history the limp wristed can freely and openly serve. Is that not a victory? And what else did he need to do that wasn't done?