Don't ask don't tell

[Hazir]

Eighty percent of Americans consider Don't Ask Don't Tell to be unfair.

And you are wrong about him being held in a deadlock by Congresses gridlock. This is the one policy where he could have made a change, where he promised a change but where he won't deliver change. The argument he uses for that boils down to 'I'd rather have Congress do my bidding, even though I know they won't than do it myself despite the fact that I could change things virtually singlehandedly'.

He has a golden opportunity to end this policy as he has promised, he won't even have to take responsability because a judge did it, and still he won't.

I never liked him, now I despise him. I hope his presidency will go down in flames and it's only out of pity to your normal Americans that I don't pray for the person the chuck him out to be Sarah Palin.

[GGT]

Eighty percent of Americans consider Don't Ask Don't Tell to be unfair.

And you are wrong about him being held in a deadlock by Congresses gridlock. This is the one policy where he could have made a change, where he promised a change but where he won't deliver change. The argument he uses for that boils down to 'I'd rather have Congress do my bidding, even though I know they won't than do it myself despite the fact that I could change things virtually singlehandedly'.

He has a golden opportunity to end this policy as he has promised, he won't even have to take responsability because a judge did it, and still he won't.

I never liked him, now I despise him. I hope his presidency will go down in flames and it's only out of pity to your normal Americans that I don't pray for the person the chuck him out to be Sarah Palin.

Your mean side is now very apparent (I'd never really noticed it before). I don't really care about Obama or his time in office when it comes to DADT, as much as I care about DADT. It's a stupid and descriminating policy. Sexual orientation isn't something people choose, any more than women can choose being born women. This whole thing makes me mad, because it seems so simple. Congress can repeal this. And they should.

[Dreadnaught]

Generals have already said this is no big deal. Gays have always been in our military, serving well and proudly. We don't need a "STUDY" to tell us what's the right thing to do. It's not about who showers with whom, but it may be about who's homophobic. Seems to me we have more homophobic senators or voters, than homophobic military personnel.

Sleep alert. Almost everyone here doesn't agree with DADT. We're complaining that this is totally under the president's purview, but he refuses to change the policy.

If it is under the President's power, and Bama did nix it right now, this way, what exactly would stop Palin from having all openly gay soldiers executed/thrown out/painted pink come January 2013?

The courts. In this case, a federal court told the President he had to stop DADT in the military because it was highly discriminatory. But somewhat astonishingly, Obama told the court he intends to appeal their ruling and wishes to continue to hunt gays in the military while the appeal makes its way through the courts.

[GGT]

I still maintain that it wouldn't be left to presidential intervention, by default, if congress had done their job.

[littlelolligagged]

You know, even the people who don't think gays should be in the military don't like DADT. Getting rid of that may be the one issue everyone can agree on - of course, some people would like the next step to be an instant dishonorable discharge for anyone who is a homosexual, but no one likes DADT.

[Nessus]

The courts. In this case, a federal court told the President he had to stop DADT in the military because it was highly discriminatory. But somewhat astonishingly, Obama told the court he intends to appeal their ruling and wishes to continue to hunt gays in the military while the appeal makes its way through the courts.

But it's been my impression that DADT was the pussified solution to circumvent the moral code demanded of the soldiers; without DADT gays will be excluded because they're gay, no matter whether they tried to hide it. Right?

[Hazir]

But it's been my impression that DADT was the pussified solution to circumvent the moral code demanded of the soldiers; without DADT gays will be excluded because they're gay, no matter whether they tried to hide it. Right?

The reality is that DADT isn't even practised. People are being sought out on the one hand even if they don't tell. On the other hand people are being kept in the service untill their tours of duty have ended. Which oddly enough means that if they are on a tour (where they supposedly are most harmfull to the interests of the armed forces and which is why there is a DADT at all) they are not discharged for being gay even if they do tell.

[Hazir]

Congress is in gridlock, Uncle Tom doesn't want to upset ... well... somebody ...so he sits on his hands.

Uncle Tom shows himself a historical faillure at leadership. Given the fact that it took them this long to ask for that shamefull stay you can be certain that he personally is behind the decision to defend Don't Ask Don't Tell. That makes him besides a failure also a liar. No deference to Congress is going to take away from the fact that he could have stopped it right there and then and the vast majority of all Americans would have agreed.

[Hazir]

I still maintain that it wouldn't be left to presidential intervention, by default, if congress had done their job.

And Congress not doing anything means that he's covered when he actively defends a policy he has promised to scrap.

[Nessus]

Just because he ran on the hopey changey platform doesn't mean he has to perform pointless gestures of good will that will amount to nothing.

[LittleFuzzy]

Why aren't they being criticized for pawning off the hard decisions to the supreme court or the President's cabinet?

They ARE. No one gets blamed or held responsible more than Congress. It is a truism in US electioneering that you don't run for Congress, you run against it.

edit: Oh wait, sorry. You were just holding another of those three-sided conversations with yourself.

[Hazir]

Just because he ran on the hopey changey platform doesn't mean he has to perform pointless gestures of good will that will amount to nothing.

What do you mean 'that will amount to nothing'? If he would be good for anything at all he could end this policy right here and now. The wildly funny thing is that even the military is not willing to indicate that a stay is what is needed. They are simply stating they will obey the law, which at the moment is that DADT is unconstitutional. But even the armed forces not giving a damn is not good enough for Uncle Tom to keep his promise.

[Nessus]

What do you mean 'that will amount to nothing'? If he would be good for anything at all he could end this policy right here and now.

Which Palin will un-do come 2013. Pointless gesturing to pander to the hopey-changey crowd, who're mostly comprised of the GOP hawks gearing for Bama's failure through fabricated foibles such as this. It's too bad Low-key won't tear into you for this particular bit of hopey-changey, it doesn't serve any of his goals, quite the opposite.

[Dreadnaught]

But it's been my impression that DADT was the pussified solution to circumvent the moral code demanded of the soldiers; without DADT gays will be excluded because they're gay, no matter whether they tried to hide it. Right?

Actually, you are right. However in the face of this court the decision, the president effectively has the ability to walk away from both DADT and the underlying code that fueled it.

[Nessus]

Actually, you are right. However in the face of this court the decision, the president effectively has the ability to walk away from both DADT and the underlying code that fueled it.

Wait. So the US president had the power all along to tell the military to stop kicking fags in the face? And they just chose not to say that out loud? What?

[Hazir]

Which Palin will un-do come 2013. Pointless gesturing to pander to the hopey-changey crowd, who're mostly comprised of the GOP hawks gearing for Bama's failure through fabricated foibles such as this. It's too bad Low-key won't tear into you for this particular bit of hopey-changey, it doesn't serve any of his goals, quite the opposite.

You are mistaken. It will be extremely easy to scrap this policy. It will be near impossible to re-instate it for a new president. It would take a religious nut in the White House, a religious nut majority in the House and supermajority of religious nuts in the Senate. And let's not forget that nobody is going to bother to try to bring back a policy that's about as popular with regular people as the common cold.

[Hazir]

Wait. So the US president had the power all along to tell the military to stop kicking fags in the face? And they just chose not to say that out loud? What?

In theory yes, in practise it was not so easy. But the way things have changed if you read 'Obama only' for 'The President' then the answer to your question is; yes and as of this week all he needs to do is nothing. Actually, he now has to actively work on getting it back in place.

The reason why I am so angry at that asshole is that what he's doing right now is not just keeping things as they are any longer. He is actually fighting against abolishing DADT. If he wouldn't be fighting so hard against DADT being abolished, actually it would have been history earlier this week already.

I hope the courts won't grant him a stay.

[GGT]

We actually have a candidate running for US Senator of Colorado (Buck) who believes that homosexuality is a life choice, and compares it to alcoholism:

(NewsCore) - Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck of Colorado said Sunday that homosexuality is a choice, but allowed that being gay -- “like alcoholism” -- has a genetic component to it.

“You can choose who your partner is,” Buck, a Tea Party favorite, said on NBC’s "Meet the Press" program.

Buck has stirred up the Colorado race by supporting the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the military. Being gay, he has said in the past, is a “lifestyle choice.”

Asked Sunday by "Meet The Press" host David Gregory whether sexual orientation is determined at birth, Buck replied, “I think birth has an influence on it like alcoholism and other things, but I think that basically you have a choice.”

Bennet, who also appeared on the program, shot back, “I absolutely believe he’s outside of the mainstream of views on this.”

Buck has a slight edge over Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, a close ally of President Barack Obama, according to an aggregate of recent polls by RealClearPolitics.com.

President Obama said last week that he doesn’t consider sexuality a choice. “People are born with a certain makeup,” he said at a youth town hall supported by MTV, BET and CMT, adding “We are all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love.”

White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett apologized last week for saying in a Washington Post interview that a gay teenager who committed suicide in Minnesota had made a “lifestyle choice” about his sexuality.

“Sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice, and anyone who knows me and my work over the years knows that I am a firm believer and supporter in the rights of LGBT Americans,” Jarrett said in a written statement.

go go USA #1!

[RandBlade]

Bullcrap, most people want this retracted and don't give a flying shit for how that is done.

Actually I suspect you'll find most American people don't give a flying shit whether this is retracted or not, nor how it's done if it is done. I think this is probably ranked somewhere between zero and nowhere on most American's list of priorities.

[Ominous Gamer]

Actually I suspect you'll find most American people don't give a flying shit whether this is retracted or not, nor how it's done if it is done. I think this is probably ranked somewhere between zero and nowhere on most American's list of priorities.

Was just reading a book that had a poll showing that gay marriage was the 14th out of 14 priorities for people in the 2004 election (abortion was 13th).

I highly doubt its changed much in these short years.

[Loki]

As do I. I really would like to know how many people would seriously vote for or against someone based on their position on abortion or gay marriage. The issues people are most concerned about are always the economy (almost always #1) and the state of any ongoing military conflict.

[GGT]

As do I. I really would like to know how many people would seriously vote for or against someone based on their position on abortion or gay marriage.

I might. Not as a single-issue voter, but as a someone who's leery of candidates who run on platforms that restrict civil rights.

[Loki]

I might. Not as a single-issue voter, but as a someone who's leery of candidates who run on platforms that restrict civil rights.

You probably wouldn't vote Republican anyway. Let's be honest, most lefties who support the above strongly wouldn't vote for a Republican who supported abortion and gay marriage. And most right-wingers would find a reason to vote against a Democrat even if he opposed abortion and gay marriage.

[GGT]

You probably wouldn't vote Republican anyway. Let's be honest, most lefties who support the above strongly wouldn't vote for a Republican who supported abortion and gay marriage. And most right-wingers would find a reason to vote against a Democrat even if he opposed abortion and gay marriage.

I've voted for Republicans before. Probably more Republicans than Democrats overall, actually. I'm registered as an Independent, and consider myself a moderate. Neither party seems able to be responsible with money or budgets. Maybe living in PA has turned me cynical, though.

What worries me more than debt or taxes is having legislators that seem to support a neo-conservative, white, male, fundie Christian, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, misogynist, fear mongering type of government. All the while claiming to tout freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

[GGT]

Also, I don't recognize the GOP any more. When it comes to party politics, they've lost any cohesive message they used to have. It's confusing. They would rather support candidates like O'Donnell or Angle, and pump money behind those campaigns, than distance themselves from their bizarre and hypocritical positions. Same for McCain, who's changed (and denied) his "maverick" style in order to get re-elected. Even Steele seems to be part of the machine, but a glitch in the machinery, and no one dares say so.

[Loki]

You do realize that the people you mention beat out candidates put forth by the actual Republican Party, right? Of course, the GOP isn't going to oppose these people once they won the primary. And I'm not sure why being a religious fundy is any worse than being a rabid union supporter. At least the former haven't bankrupted large parts of our country.

[GGT]

The GOP deciding to embrace and include the Tea Party shows they just want power, not that their power is connected to principles.

And our nation's debt isn't only from unions or their supporters, but also Bush's administration, and undeclared/unfunded wars.

[Loki]

The GOP deciding to embrace and include the Tea Party shows they just want power, not that their power is connected to principles.

Every political party wants power; that's why they're in politics.

And our nation's debt isn't only from unions or their supporters, but also Bush's administration, and undeclared/unfunded wars.

Luckily, Bush is gone, and the wars are winding down. There' no excuse for electing people who seek to bankrupt the country. Christian fundies are all bark. They haven't accomplished anything substantive in decades.

[GGT]

Every political party wants power; that's why they're in politics.

Exactly! And that's what this mid-term is all about---capitalizing on populist anger and frustration. Too bad that the urge to "throw the bums out" also means installing some kooks. Because of the way our primaries and two party system works.

Luckily, Bush is gone, and the wars are winding down. There' no excuse for electing people who seek to bankrupt the country. Christian fundies are all bark. They haven't accomplished anything substantive in decades.

They also haven't delineated exactly what expenses they'd cut. They just keep saying "cut taxes, cut spending". But for the most part, they want to continue funding wars and nation building. Just not our nation. Political Platitudes, wrapped up in the flag and the Bible. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Supermarioman]

Too bad that the urge to "throw the bums out" also means installing some kooks. Because of the way our primaries and two party system works.

This is why I want the libertarians to sweep the house and senate.

Just a random super late night thought