Quote :

"The military shows you pictures of Eva Longoria naked and tests to see if you got an erection? "

Ha, even a gay guy would have a similar response in that situation, right?

Quote :

"1) Don't get cocky, it's worked out badly for us before, and 2) Fine, but they're still the most comparable, and even then it's for the reasons I mentioned. "

It's not being cocky. It's just that the reality is that it's a fight for 2nd place, by a significant margin.

5/12/2009 7:09:55 AM

Quote :

"smoking pole "

This is a new one on me lol

I though do not see a problem with DADT. While in uniform a solider should be acting in a professional manner. I am sure there are plenty of
other public policies a solidier can disagree with but can not publicly endorse without facing consequences. This solidier Choi
decided to publicly announce his gayness as part of a military flaming gay club. Surely soldiers would face similar consequences
if they had a West Point pot smoking club, anti-war hippy festival, etc. Smoke all the pole you want to while on your own time;
but I do not see why you need to be openly gay while in uniform. On that note CO's should not be going out of their way to finding
one of their direct reports playing butt darts with their b/f off base while on leave. At work I may have slept with 4 female
strippers doing lines of blow the night before; but this does not mean i'll openly discuss it with my collegues.

BTW you would think people like hooksaw or aaronburro would be applauding Obama for diverting from the
liberal policy train and maintaining the status quo. Instead once again they spin it to attack Obama. Guess it truly shows what
the GOP really cares about; playing partisan hacks trying to line up 2012 more than working to better the country.

5/12/2009 9:01:20 AM

nah I think it's more of "if Bush was the worst president in history and Obama hasn't done all that much differently so far, why isn't everybody jumping on his case too"

with Bush, it was incompetence... with Obama, it's calcuated political strategy and principle adherence?

5/12/2009 9:09:55 AM

No one made that acusation against Bush until well into his first term.

5/12/2009 9:31:16 AM

I never said otherwise and I'm not sure how that's relevant.

5/12/2009 9:36:42 AM

It's relevant because, despite how stupid americans are, as a whole, people are still able to understand that a new president needs more than 4 months to undo the damage done by the previous administration.

DADT is small potatoes. There's no point in worrying about a paper cut when you have a severed artery.

5/12/2009 9:43:04 AM

Fair enough... I agree about DADT - I guess it would have made more sense to clarify my comment was referring more to the general attitude, rather than this specific issue. Things like the wiretapping issue could have been immediately reversed by Obama and didn't need more than four months.

5/12/2009 9:51:45 AM

agreed. I strongly suspect that measures introduced in the previous administration that give the government more power over US citizens will either be sustained or very slow to be reversed. Republican or Democrat, nobody in washington wants to give up any power. It's like getting an addict off the pipe.

The nice thing for the Obama administration is that they can drag their feet on this kind of stuff and simply point their finger at Bush if/when it's brought up.

5/12/2009 11:32:43 AM

Quote :

"I though do not see a problem with DADT. While in uniform a solider should be acting in a professional manner."

This presupposes that being in a homosexual relationship and disclosing it is somehow unprofessional while disclosing being in a heterosexual relationship is nothing of the sort. Required a subset of soldiers in consenting relationships to conceal or lie about their relationships, loved ones, and families makes no sense at all.

5/12/2009 12:04:39 PM

i really really get a kick out of you guys actually believing what obama said was what he'd remotely do...

5/12/2009 12:44:39 PM

Quote :

"I though do not see a problem with DADT. While in uniform a solider should be acting in a professional manner. ... Smoke all the pole you want to while on your own time; but I do not see why you need to be openly gay while in uniform. "

It isn't just kicking people out who can't control themselves enough to not mention they are gay, or get caught being gay, it is also not letting someone join who is married to a member of the same sex who would be willing to not discuss it while wearing the uniform.

The way you word it, it sounds like you are supporting DADT b/c it only removes the weak willed people who can't help but discuss or engage in sex in uniform when people shouldn't be doing that in the first place, but the ban isn't just on such people.

Assume Congressman Barney Frank (an openly gay congressman or cCongressman Jared Polis, or Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin) decided to join the military. He wouldn't be allowed. Even if he was willing to be 100% closeted about it while in the military. It doesn't just ban gay people who can't control themselves in uniform, it bans any gay person who has been caught telling the truth even once even if it pre-dates any attempt to join the military such that they were never unprofessional while in uniform.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 2:33:27 PM

Quote :

"1. Why doesn't Obama 'suspend prosecutions and investigations while [the DADT policy] review' is completed?"

This is a completely legitimate question that nobody has answered.

And I would add: When will Obama rehire discharged Arabic linguist Dan Choi?



http://tinyurl.com/oteddj

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : PS: Let's put a human face on this. ]

5/12/2009 4:38:39 PM

^No one reads Post 49.

Quote :

"Quote: "1) ..." Isn't there a particular idiom that goes "When in doubt, err on the side of caution"? He's probably being cautious. If reviews turn up that this new policy could in fact fuck things up (unlikely but still possible, in my opinion), then it's better to have kept the status quo than throw in an unreviewed and untested new policy in the meantime. Of course, there's another idiom that goes "When in doubt, err on the side of liberty" ...but given that Obama isn't even remotely libertarian I would not expect him to follow this one."

Not that I fully agree with what he's doing, but if I have to give what I expect are his reasons for it, I'd call it caution.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 4:54:09 PM

^^You are right Hooksaw, & Obama is in the wrong here. Unfortunately I don't expect him to make DADT a priority any time soon. But if I was voting in a presidential election based on this issue alone, and McCain ran against Obama again at the end of his first term, I'd still vote for Obama b/c at least doing the right thing is on Obama's to-do list (even if it isn't near the top) whereas with a McCain doing the right thing wouldn't be on there at all.

Obama does deserve the criticism he gets for going slow on this & he getting it from some on the left who feels like he is ignoring equality for political gain, from some of the libertarian leaning people who think the government shouldn't get into legislating who can serve in the military based on sexual orientation so long as they are professional, and from some on the right who will bash him at any opportunity regardless of the issue.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 4:59:31 PM

Quote :

"Surely soldiers would face similar consequences if they had a West Point pot smoking club, anti-war hippy festival, etc. "

Come on, you know those three things are all completely different.

I mean, I agree that DADT is a good solution to a problem where no perfect solution exists. It doesn't need stupid arguments like that to support it.

5/12/2009 5:18:27 PM

Quote :

"This is a completely legitimate question that nobody has answered. And I would add: When will Obama rehire discharged Arabic linguist Dan Choi? "

If Obama did rehire Choi all the conservative flag waving gun touting armchair republicans would be blabbing about how obama does not give a fuck about the military and is turning our armed forces into a sissy fest; since he is a LBGT supporter.

Not even sure why this even deserves headlines. I love all politicians enjoy making a big deal out of low priority
issues in this country to distract people from the real problems at hand.

Why do we need to worry about problems with the economy, war in Iraq, state of the health care system when....

Gays want to get married and join the military!
Joe Schmoe senator got caught having an affair with another woman!
Some MExicans have the flu!
People smoke Marijuana!

5/12/2009 5:19:15 PM

Just to prove to Hooksaw or anyone who don't thinks there isn't enough anti-Obama outrage coming from the left & the gay community in particular, here is a post from a nationally followed lgbt themed blog ran out of Durham by the blogs owner (I think she has a small staff, she writes for a Newspaper in durham sometimes, & she has spoken on CNN from time to time too)

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10924/report-obama-can-stop-the-discharge-of-openly-gay-and-lesbian-service-members-now

Quote :

"I would love to see a White House response to the arguments in this study, but I'm sure we'll continue to get chirping crickets. It makes the excuses for why the Obama Administration thinks it can do NOTHING about DADT is pure baloney. A new report released today, "How to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment," sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, clearly presents a way the President can stop the discriminatory discharge of gay and lesbian service members without Congress passing a law. It boils down to three points (the full release is below the fold). "

Quote :

"Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said "The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light." "

Here is the report:
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops.pdf

5/12/2009 5:26:48 PM

damn , grumpy
you fell the fuck off. you're pretty much a floating pygmy-fairy now. you drop the soap or something

5/12/2009 5:48:36 PM

The thing is, I'm very, very uncomfortable with homosexuality, and yet I keep finding myself defending it on the wolfweb.

5/12/2009 5:55:45 PM

its ok i still love you

5/12/2009 6:14:27 PM

haha, in a completely platonic way, I assume.

5/12/2009 6:17:01 PM

not that there's anything wrong with that

5/12/2009 6:34:07 PM

Quote :

"You are right Hooksaw, & Obama is in the wrong here."

WOW! That must've stung a little--but I truly thank you for your honesty, Supplanter. And despite the ridiculously distorted caricature of me that some here perpetuate, I believe you know where I stand on this issue: Gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.

^x5 LOL!

5/13/2009 2:47:02 AM

hilzoy weighs in on this one:

Quote :

"That said, I am wary of asking Obama to simply set aside a law, however misguided. I didn't like it when Bush did that, and I don't like it now. The idea of suspending it while the administration "studies" it seems like a disingenuous way to get around the law. The Palm Center (pdf) has (what might be) a better idea: "The President has the authority to issue an executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305 ("Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation"), Congress grants the President authority to suspend the separation of military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty." I am not a lawyer, so I don't know whether this would work, but if it could, Obama should use it. (Unlike the idea of studying DADT, this would not be a dodge: we do need, for instance, Arabic linguists like Lt. Choi.) Whether or not Obama can legally suspend DADT, though, Congress plainly can. HR 1283, which would repeal DADT, is still in committee. Nancy Pelosi should move it as quickly as possible. While Congress dawdles, people's careers are being ended. And that's not right."

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/05/repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell.html

5/13/2009 9:46:28 AM

Quote :

"Gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. "

Wow hooksaw and I agree....

5/13/2009 10:29:28 AM

Quote :

"And it's tedious to whine and jump up and down and complain when a wand isn't waved and everything is made right by the first candidate who really seemed to get it, who was even able to address black church congregations about homophobia. And obviously patience is necessary; and legislative work takes time; and there are real challenges on so many fronts, especially the economy and the legacy of war crimes and the permanently restive Iraqi and Afghan regions we are constantly in the process of liberating from themselves. No one expects a president to be grappling with all this early on, or, God help us, actually leading on civil rights. That's our job, not his. But I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away. Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all). And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days. "

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-fierce-urgency-of-whenever.html

5/13/2009 12:57:14 PM

Jon Stewart picked up the story tonight. Called Obama out on it too.....

5/14/2009 11:10:14 PM

http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt

Quote :

"Since the law’s 1994 implementation, more than 12,500 women and men have been discharged. According to a 2005 Government Accountability Office report, nearly 800 of those discharged were ‘mission-critical’ specialists--including pilots, intelligence analysts, medics and linguists. A Blue Ribbon Commission Report found that the cost to replace and train service members discharged from fiscal years 1994 through 2003 exceeded $363.8 million. "

I don't see how anyone can think this is money well spent.

5/15/2009 4:41:44 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't need stupid arguments like that to support it."

Well, it is a very stupid argument, but it gets to the heart of the issue here: the people who argue in favor of DADT, they believe that this issue is primarily about sex.

Honestly from my perspective the pro-DADT positions put forth on this thread, and in general, are unserious. They are the equivalent of arguing that Mitt Romney shouldn't be President because he wears funny underwear.

Here's reality: the brave guys who leave their families behind get lauded as heroes in their communities and the media for their service. The gay men and women who leave their families behind -- of the same sex, as it were -- must put that life in a bottle and hide it away.

And for that reason personally I find the unit cohesion argument preposterous on its face. I am an employee in the private sector and we have our own notions of unit cohesion. When you're not out of the closet, you're a cipher, people don't know who you are, they can't quantify you. They can't relate. When you are, you're a known quantity and people are able to relate.

See: http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2007/10/08/gays-who-are-out-of-the-closet-at-work-have-stronger-careers/ ("Gays who are out of the closet at work have stronger careers")

Quote :

"This makes sense because it's hard to come across as a "normal" when people don't know a thing about your personal life. Or worse yet, you get pegged as the person defined by work and nothing else."

I have long experience with this, and one may argue that it does not translate directly to the military. Given the nature of human relations, I highly doubt that -- but it's a starting point for a realistic "costs/benefits" analysis that isn't based only on pointless discussions of sex. The sex question has already been answered because there are already plenty of gays in the military. The real question about DADT is how people of unlike mindsets get along in close quarters.

5/16/2009 10:22:09 PM

As Commander-in-Chief, Obama could end DADT tomorrow if he really wanted to. Maybe he hasn't done it yet because he believes in due process, not dictatorial leadership.

I agree with his overriding of the torture policies because those were executive orders in the first place. But Congress came up with DADT. It's not appropriate for the President to just ignore the other branches of government. That's what Bush did - remember how it turned out?

5/16/2009 11:27:28 PM

^

Quote :

"Maybe [Obama] hasn't done it yet because he believes in due process, not dictatorial leadership."

Just wow. Frankly, that spin is unbelievable--tell it to former U.S. Army First Lieutenant Dan Choi.

Quote :

"But Congress came up with DADT. It's not appropriate for the President to just ignore the other branches of government."

Completely wrong. It was a compromise policy originally called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" developed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton and Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). Clinton was attempting to fulfill a campaign promise, but he never did--and neither has Obama.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turns 15
Jan. 28, 2008

Quote :

"It was 15 years ago, Tuesday, that President Clinton rolled out the policy that came to be known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which relaxed the long-standing bar against gay men and women serving in the U.S. military. While the move was initially hailed as progress for the rights of gays in the military, today many see it as a liability."

Quote :

"The issue exploded during Clinton's first week as President, triggered by those in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill opposed to his campaign pledge to reverse an executive order barring gays and lesbians from serving."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html

Quote :

"Unfortunately, the combined efforts of Senator Sam Nunn and a group of military commanders within the Defense Department torpedoed any efforts to achieve the compromise sought by CMS [Campaign for Military Service]. Instead, following the lead of the military commanders, President Clinton announced a different compromise: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue.' (For an extensive description of the efforts of CMS and other civil rights groups during the six-month moratorium, see 'Friendly Fire' by Chandler Burr.) In fall 1993, Congress codified President Clinton's compromise into law. (For the text of the law, see The Solomon Amendment.)"

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html#history

And Obama isn't going to repeal DADT anytime soon either.

Barack Obama Will Not Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell
May 10, 2009

Quote :

"While campaigning for America's highest office, Barack Obama told prospective voters he would, without a doubt, repeal the discriminatory policy we know as Don't Ask Don't Tell. His assertiveness on the subject was profound; his no-nonsense approach, so appealing. Gays continued rallying behind a person they expected to begin getting the government to treat them equally when, before Obama's inauguration, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs took questions on the administration's s transition website. The answer to whether the incoming president would repeal DADT? 'You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much,' he wrote. 'But it's "Yes".' Fast forward to March, when Defense Secretary (and Bush administration holdover) Robert Gates backtracked on his new boss' stances; Gates said the repeal would happen 'down the road' because 'that dialogue [to repeal DADT] though has not progressed very far.' Huh. That didn't sound like the imminent repeal Obama had us thinking about. And for the definitive 'WE JUST GOT FUCKED' moment? When Obama's National Security Adviser General James Jones said 'I don't know.' As in: I don't know if DADT will be repealed. Why doesn't Obama just suspend investigations of gays in the military? That's the 'stroke of the pen' tactic DADT opponents say Obama could do right now, while getting Congress to repeal the code. Says Jones: 'Welp, maybe that's an option that eventually we'll get to, but we're not there now.' Jones' statement, and his bullshitting through a response, is not an accident. He is not speaking out of turn. He was appearing on This Week With George Stephanopoulos representing his office. And it can only be inferred — because that's how these things work — that his words are part of a coordinated backpedaling on Obama's campaign promise."

http://www.queerty.com/barack-obama-will-not-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-20090510/

The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know. --Harry S Truman

5/19/2009 5:05:51 AM

OK so Clinton "came up" with the idea but it was passed into law by Congress

it's not the President's job to investigate the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative body.

5/19/2009 6:53:33 AM

^ Um. . .

1. Clinton made a campaign promise--just like Obama did--and then couldn't/wouldn't fulfill his promise. This broken promise is what gave us the chimera-like policy known as DADT.

2. Congress introduces various types of bills and resolutions. The president signs them into law or takes no action on the bill for ten days while Congress is in session and the bill automatically becomes law.

If a president is opposed to a bill, he/she can veto it. If he/she takes no action on the bill for ten days after Congress has adjourned their second session, the bill dies. This action is called a "pocket veto."

3. Who said anything about "constitutionality"? I didn't.

It's quite simple: President Obama made a campaign promise to end DADT and he hasn't done so. In the meantime, qualified men and women are being discharged from the military under Democrats' original policy that is being maintained by Democrats!

And, as I've outlined here already, Obama could end implementation of DADT TODAY!

Quote :

"A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have statutory, stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. Obama could simply invoke his authority under federal law (10 U.S.C. §12305) to retain any member of the military he believes is essential to national security. Or he could take advantage of a legal loophole. The 'don't ask, don't tell' law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality. An executive order would not get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html

Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Hypocrisy

Quote :

"Gay [soldiers] are being dismissed not because the president of the United States feels they should be discriminated against, which would be bad enough. Instead, they're being dismissed because the president doesn't feel like doing anything about it."

Quote :

"On the campaign trail, Obama was clearly committed to ending discrimination in the military. 'We’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military,' he observed, 'some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need.' [LOL!] Ever since the New Year, however, Obama and his team have been slow-walking the implementation of their promise."

Quote :

"The game being played here is easy enough to understand. Obama's decision on a variety of fronts has been guided by a clear desire to avoid some of the early missteps made by Bill Clinton. And conventional accounts of Clinton’s early presidency put the way he got into an early dispute with the military brass over treatment of gay and lesbian servicemembers high on the list of missteps to be avoided."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-10/obamas-dont-ask-dont-tell-hypocrisy/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p62nklIRajs

5/19/2009 7:33:51 AM

Quote :

"It's quite simple: President Obama made a campaign promise to end DADT and he hasn't done so. In the meantime, qualified men and women are being discharged from the military under Democrats' original policy that is being maintained by Democrats! "

Damned if he does; damned if he does not

Currently

hooksawObama is a hypocrit for support DADT, the military is losing qualified valuable personnal, Obama horrible president for not following his
campaign promises rable rable rable

Had Obama acted to rid DADT, because we all know with all the economic problems as well as fighting in Afghanistan surely Gay rights is
at the top of Obama's agenda for his first 5 months in office!

hooksaw

Obama is a damn heart felt liberal and is ruining the quality of our military by filling it full of fairies. He is soft on national
defense and proves his incompotence by hurting our troops morale by turning our regiments into Cher concerts. Next he will be fighting for gay marriage
rabel rabel rabel

Not that i support or oppose Obama's DADT policy b.c honestly i see it as a distraction issue. Perhaps if the GOP stopped the partisan hackery
people beyond the rush limbaugh crowd may actually pay attention and give heed to GOP criticism regarding an important issue which the OBama
adminsistration truly is taking the wrong path for. As of now it seems no matter what the issue is the Republican front has something to bitch
about or have some problem with Obama's direction. Frankly I think a lot of people are just going to get habituated to the GOP objections, to the point
where their voice might get lost when it really counts. Let's not forget that even though the GOP had a "strong" voice in opposition
to the Porkulus bill but in reality they legislated 40% of the pork!

[Edited on May 19, 2009 at 9:48 AM. Reason : i]

5/19/2009 9:48:07 AM

^ Please stop trolling.

5/19/2009 7:58:31 PM

Its not trolling i'm telling it how it is. You would find a way to criticize a .... *gasp Democrat Liberal president no matter what he did.

Yet everything homeboy Bush does is infallible hooksaw

5/19/2009 11:17:54 PM

did you somehow miss the part where he's been arguing the leftist position on this?

Quote :

"it's not the President's job to investigate the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative body. "

I just wish SOMEBODY would investigate, or at least give a damn about, the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative body!

5/19/2009 11:23:47 PM

^^ Yeah, you're right.

Quote :

"There are a number of issues that I have disagreed with President Bush about: spending, border enforcement, stem cell research, and so on."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=504034

I have been trying to discuss Obama's hypocrisy and broken promises--and these are many. I simply think that he should be held accountable for by his constituents and the American people for discharging gays from the military, but he probably won't--just like Bill Clinton.

FACT: DADT is the creation of Democrats--even though Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise of something very different.

FACT: DADT is a broken policy that has done more harm than good.

FACT: DADT is being maintained by Democrats--even though he Barack Obama campaigned on a promise of something very different.

FACT: Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress are hypocrites and have broken numerous campaign promises--and many on the left are beginning to realize this.

^ Well, I haven't actually been arguing constitutionality, but you're correct. Supplanter and I agree--this should say a lot about DADT going bye-bye.

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 6:09 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2009 6:08:27 AM

Quote :

"I simply think that he should be held accountable for by his constituents and the American people"

I get what your saying but on the other hand I think many many people put gay rights and DADT pretty low on the campaign promises or issues that would like the president (any president to fill). Unless I enjoy smoking poll; what the fuck would i even give a shit that of all the important matters, Obama made sure within his first 5 months of office that gays could all come out of the closet and not worry about getting kicked out of the military.

Would McPalin or another GOP leader be furthering the cause of homosexual rights if they were in office? doubtful....
Sure Obama made this one of his campaign promises and in my opinion i think its unethical that politicians say shit in the campaign speeches which they have no intention of following through with. This though can be found on both sides of the aisle. I am sure we could make a hefty list of issues Bush said in 2000 campaign trail....

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 7:35 AM. Reason : l]

5/20/2009 7:33:06 AM

5/20/2009 3:52:19 PM

Is it really a good idea to immediately dispense with DADT? I'm inclined to think that having openly gay service-people is something that needs to be eased into, not mandated with the simple stroke of a pen. Am I wrong for thinking that there could be problems if every service-person came out at once, right now?

5/20/2009 4:58:55 PM

Quote :

" I just wish SOMEBODY would investigate, or at least give a damn about, the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative body!"

If only their were a branch of government that had as one of their primary responsibilities to do this...

5/20/2009 5:29:25 PM

http://www.military.com/news/article/af-boots-decorated-pilot-for-being-gay.html?col=1186032310810

Quote :

"An 18-year Air Force officer and fighter pilot is being booted under the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays, the officer revealed last night during a prime-time television interview. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot assigned to Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, where he called an investigation board's finding that his homosexuality harmed unit morale, good order and discipline "absolutely false." "About 4,000 people are assigned to Mountain Home Air Force Base, and only about 10 people on the entire base even knew of my case up until this very moment," he said. "Those were my immediate chain of command, a couple of attorneys in the legal office, and a couple of officers in the Office of Special Investigations. Not one single person that I'm assigned with in my squadron, or that I fly with in my fighter squadron, knew about this case until this moment.""

5/20/2009 5:32:16 PM

Quote :

"Is it really a good idea to immediately dispense with DADT?"

Yes.

Quote :

"I'm inclined to think that having openly gay service-people is something that needs to be eased into, not mandated with the simple stroke of a pen."

Why?

Quote :

"Am I wrong for thinking that there could be problems if every service-person came out at once, right now?"

Yes. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with any particular member of the military immediately coming out. It's not like all gay guys outside of the service are outed.

5/20/2009 5:34:12 PM

Quote :

"FACT: DADT is a broken policy that has done more harm than good."

I promised myself that I was going to shy away from this thread but statements like this are ludicrous. This is not a fact, it is a very biased opinion.

I think the problem I have with many opinions stated is that they are based on idealism. Ideaslistically, gays and handicapped people and people who like to have sex with chickens could all add something valuable to the military. But in practice, it just won't work.

You have two people with practical experience both in the officer and enlisted ranks with Josh and I telling you why it won't work. You have 1000's of the highest ranking people in the military telling you it won't work. Yet you sit back with your idealistic views and think you have all the answers to a perfect society. The fact is you don't have to deal with the consequences, but the people who are saying you are full of shit, would in fact have to deal with them. So it's very easy for you to rant and rave about how things are unfair and promote changes that experts say will cause problems and that you don't have to deal with. Idealism is so easy.

I know it sounds like I am trying to take away people's free speech yadda yadda yadda.... that's not at all the case. I am just saying use your heads for something besides idealistic views, because we live in a real world unfortunately. I would never dream of going into Peyton Manning's locker room and try to give him coaching tips based on what I thought. Why, because he is the expert in the field and he knows what the hell he is doing. You have 1000 Peyton Mannings telling you that you're fucked up, yet you turn a blind eye and deaf ear to them all because the perfect world scenario you have set up in your head tells you that your plan will work. It won't.... but that's not your problem because you don't have to actually deal with the consequences.

5/20/2009 8:00:19 PM

^^You think the whole military is going to turn gay-friendly the instant Obama makes the decision? You don't think there ought to be a carefully adjusted plan for introducing homosexuality to a culture that has been indoctrinated against it?

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM. Reason : ^^]

5/20/2009 8:02:37 PM

They're adults. They can fucking deal with it.

5/20/2009 9:45:13 PM

Quote :

"If only their were a branch of government that had as one of their primary responsibilities to do this... "

Yeah, IF ONLY!

Quote :

"Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot "

Wow, I know him. He was an instructor in my flight school squadron for advanced jet training. Callsign "Stain". Good dude.

FYI, I'm pretty sure he's a WSO, not a pilot (although in the Strike Eagle, the WSO has a set of controls and often shares in the flying from what I hear).

Quote :

"You think the whole military is going to turn gay-friendly the instant Obama makes the decision? You don't think there ought to be a carefully adjusted plan for introducing homosexuality to a culture that has been indoctrinated against it?"

I think that that there are largely 2 problems. Maybe 3 in a few cases.

1. "Regular dude" homosexuals--even out of the closet--would probably be OK. Prancing, flaming, fabulous types would not. I'm not sure how to implement any change that would welcome the former while barring the latter--that's why I said that DADT is a flawed policy, but it's an acceptable compromise. I think I described it as an imperfect solution where no perfect solution exists.

2. Ditching DADT would open a big can of worms in terms of equal opportunity cases. I don't think I've ever personally known of any racial problems of any kind in the military. I have seen some careers get ruined over some STUPID stuff due to sexual harassment charges (stuff that nobody should've even given a damn about, much less taken legal action over). I've seen 2-3 cases where the same women threw the EO flag once every couple of years (typically every time they weren't getting their way on something, or were about to get shitcanned because they sucked, and needed a trump card to play).

This would further complicate finding a solution to the dilemma I outlined in my first concern. How are you going to say "This one guy loves the cock, but he conducts himself in a way that does not present any problem", then say "This other guy acts like a raging faggot and needs to skip along to somewhere else." There would be discrimination charges all over the place.

One other thing, as a side note (but due to this issue)--I suspect that a gay person would have to make it very clear that he's "one of the guys", in the "good-motherfucker club", if he wanted to be treated as such. The same burden of proof is on women, from what I've seen, due to the number of women who've caused all kinds of problems on the EO front. For example, there are women whom I hang out with, joke around with, and treat like anyone else--because they've put everyone at ease...I know that they're (collectively) one of us, except for female. There are other women who get the "strictly business" approach (and sometimes no more of that than is absolutely necessary), because I don't trust them any further than I could throw them.


3. I'm an officer in an attack jet squadron. I've done 6 months of infantry training (plus SERE school, etc) where we'd go to the field for a week, etc. I've never been a junior enlisted sailor on a submarine, or a young enlisted Marine out in the field for a few weeks. My perspective is significantly different from some others--I think that in most units, having "regular guy" (other than the liking dudes thing) homosexuals would work out OK, but I can't speak for every community in the military, because there are some of them that I have no experience in that have some unique considerations.

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 10:25 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/20/2009 10:22:48 PM

When DADT is repealed I could see some flamer suing that its his right to wear Pink Fatigues.

5/20/2009 10:48:04 PM

Quote :

""Regular dude" homosexuals--even out of the closet--would probably be OK. Prancing, flaming, fabulous types would not."

How many of these over the top queers are in the service, and, if they are indeed suffering from such acute cases of mincing faggotry, how are they able to conceal that in the first place?

5/21/2009 11:43:25 AM