I'm against growing executive power in the first place.

10/15/2009 10:29:22 AM

^ Nobody fucking cares. The issue is the stark contrast between what candidate Obama promised to do and what President Obama is actually doing, which, according to a growing chorus across the political spectrum, can be summed up in two words: "jack" and "squat."

10/15/2009 11:12:33 AM

where do you stand on DADT, hooksaw?

10/15/2009 11:16:53 AM

^^ Which is why he's pressuring Congress to pass a bill?

I can see the arguments from you now if he writes an executive order:

hooksaw:

"The Messiah" continues to abuse executive power to push radical policies:

http://worldnetdaily/bullshit/html

Quote :

"Blah blah blah blah blah"

So much for limiting executive power....

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 11:18:51 AM

^^ Um. . .you asked my that on the last page and I answered:

Quote :

"I thought DADT was half-baked when Clinton and Company cooked it up--and the policy came from yet another broken promise by a Democrat. FTR, I have stated here on numerous occasions that I think gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. But why do you care so much about my position? The point here is the position--or the flip-flopping positions--of the one person who could do something about DADT investigations and prosecutions right now: Obama."

message_topic.aspx?topic=565942&page=5

^ STFU, troll.

10/15/2009 11:30:13 AM

heh, you got me there

10/15/2009 11:57:21 AM

where, exactly, has Obama "pressured Congress to get a bill" through about DADT?

10/15/2009 8:31:43 PM

his people have been working with lieberman recently i believe to get a bill written up.

here:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27620

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 8:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 8:36:43 PM

not don't ask don't tell - but goes along with Gay marriage:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?hpid=topnews

Quote :

"The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care. Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city. "If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem." "

11/17/2009 7:39:36 PM

hmmm, tough pickle there. I wonder how that would play out. Churches can legally bar homosexuals from employment, IIRC

11/17/2009 7:42:38 PM

it's just grandstanding. they wouldn't stop their services because of that point. if they think extending benefits to same-sex spouses is bad, just imagine how much worse the press for them would be if they turn their backs on all the other people they help.

11/17/2009 7:49:58 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, honestly

11/17/2009 7:51:08 PM

heck of a way to follow the teachings of Jesus, and have compassion for people.

11/17/2009 7:52:56 PM

i'm sorry, but the catholic church in recent years has strayed significantly from the teachings of the bible.



(and i'm catholic - unfortunately some really bad experiences with close friends)

11/17/2009 7:54:54 PM

well, this is what happens when religious leaders misunderstand their roles. being a moral leader sometimes means you have to step away from the heat of a political battle. these folks have the right to speak their minds, and vote with their feet. but demonizing gay people makes them no better than a sean hannity or keith olbermann.

11/17/2009 7:59:40 PM

Are churches allowed to turn away prospective employees (for staff positions like receptionists, grounds-keepers, etc) based on sexual orientation?

11/17/2009 8:16:08 PM

i dont think that they legally can and keep their tax exempt status

11/17/2009 8:17:59 PM

Since sexual orientation isn't a protected class, I think a lot of places can use that as grounds to not hire someone. There are some local and state laws that make exceptions to this.

11/17/2009 8:18:37 PM

^ good point. they do have to adhere to title VII, but sexual orientation isn't in there

11/17/2009 8:23:19 PM

that said, i'd love to watch someone take a case to federal court about that, and see if it gets very far.

11/17/2009 8:28:09 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/dems-move-forward-with-pl_n_420180.html

Quote :

"DADT Repeal: Dems Move Forward With Plans Congressional negotiators and White House officials are moving forward with plans to add the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell to the upcoming defense authorization bill, Democratic sources tell the Huffington Post. [snip] "

1/12/2010 9:56:40 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/obama.gays.military/index.html?hpt=T1

Quote :

"Washington (CNN) -- President Obama will ask Congress Wednesday night to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN. The request will be included in the president's State of the Union address, Axelrod said. The issue has been a source of contention for heavy hitters on both sides of the issue, who are lining up for a fight. In a message to Pentagon leadership, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it's time to repeal the law. "As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military," said Shalikashvili. His letter was sent out Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who supports repealing the policy."

1/27/2010 6:16:21 PM

Hmm...

This is a good move, but i wonder how the Fox News types are going to respond...?

1/27/2010 6:19:44 PM

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM. Reason : it was in the quote. oops]

1/27/2010 6:47:59 PM

bout fuckin time.

1/27/2010 7:02:13 PM

so to get this straight, bryan, you're for repealing DADT but against same-sex marriage?

1/27/2010 7:04:17 PM

I'm against the federal gov't dictating either way on same-sex marriage. States can do whatever the fuck they want. And, yes, I'm against DADT.

btw, why the fuck did it take so long for Obama to deliver on such a simple campaign promise.

1/27/2010 7:07:33 PM

I still think a pretty strong argument based on equal protection can be made for gay marriage on US constitutional grounds, which would make state decisions irrelevant. Ultimately I think that's what will happen.

At present people are being discriminated upon based on gender. A law stating that only a man and a woman can jointly enter into marriage is pretty clearly discriminating based on gender if it makes it illegal for a man and another man to enter into marriage. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but hey, we'll see how it shakes out.

I also think DADT is fucking stupid. Anyone who wants to honorably serve in the military and is physically and mentally capable of doing so should be allowed to do so.

1/27/2010 7:18:11 PM

I'm gonna respond to ^ in the other thread, k?

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=585987&page=1#13692729

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 7:23 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 7:19:59 PM

Quote :

"btw, why the fuck did it take so long for Obama to deliver on such a simple campaign promise. "

haha, are you kidding?

Have you been paying attention to the media recently?

1/27/2010 7:37:00 PM

care to expound upon your incredulity? Is there anything that has kept Obama from saying "Hey, Congress, repeal DADT"? He could have said this a fucking YEAR ago, at his first SOTU-like address. Or he could have said so any time before now. He waits until NOT to do so? It smacks of political shenanigans. He has alienated his base to some extent, so he wants to try and bring them back. Plus, with the rest of the nation turning away from the liberal circle-jerk, he is trying to stoke a partisan fire to make the GOP look bad.

1/27/2010 7:41:59 PM

^ because the right has been successfully convincing people that Obama is a nigerian-born communist to help sway elections their way. Throw in Obama talking about gays being equal, and their heads, I think, would have literally exploded.

1/27/2010 7:44:25 PM

wouldn't that have been a good thing for Obama? less right-wing dingbats.

1/27/2010 7:50:32 PM

That would have been good for the entire Earth

1/27/2010 7:51:34 PM

yea this is pretty clearly a political move by Obama to try to distract conservatives with a culture-wars issue.

whatever his reasons, I'm glad its getting done and I hope he succeeds at getting rid of this stupid policy.

1/27/2010 7:51:41 PM

Quote :

"yea this is pretty clearly a political move by Obama to try to distract conservatives with a culture-wars issue."

I suspect it's more of a cheap bone to throw to his own party. "See? I did this controversial thing I said I would." The man may have flaws, but he's not an idiot, and he knows that he's not likely to win with a culture-war thing. Not only is he not likely to win that specific issue, but it will get thrown against him on other fronts.

1/28/2010 12:26:33 AM

I suppose that doing something with DADT may buy Obama some time for the growing anger by the gay-rights crowd about perceived neglect of their concerns by the administration. DADT is probably an easier sell and a quick way to score points versus bigger, more difficult issues like gay marriage.

1/28/2010 12:11:37 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/gates.military.gay/index.html

Quote :

"Pentagon plan on 'don't ask, don't tell' ready for Congress Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates will unveil the Pentagon's plan to prepare for repealing the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" law regarding gay soldiers at a committee hearing Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman said. "The Defense Department leadership is actively working on an implementation plan and the secretary will have more to say about this next week," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said on Thursday. President Obama said in his first State of the Union address Wednesday night that he would work with Congress and the Pentagon this year to repeal the law that prohibits military members from acknowledging openly that they are gay. According to the Senate Web site, the Senate Armed Services Committee has scheduled an hour to discuss the issue at Tuesday's hearing on the fiscal year 2011 defense budget, which Gates will attend."

A defense related bill seems like a reasonable place for this to be done, if the repeal isn't done as a separate bill in its own right. If it is put on the 2011 defense budget I think that means the vote would be around election time this year give or take a month or two.

1/30/2010 3:44:32 AM

Quote :

"Pentagon has taken first steps toward repealing "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Defense Secretary Gates says. "

2/2/2010 12:45:25 PM

I don't get it. There's one step: stop enforcing the policy. This should have been done a year ago.

2/2/2010 12:53:28 PM

Quote :

"This should have been done a year ago."

Agreed.

Quote :

"I don't get it. There's one step: stop enforcing the policy."

In theory yes, but a policy change of this magnitude will require terrabytes of power point slides and thousands of hours of sensitivity training.

That being said, I don't see anyone getting kicked out at this point for being openly gay. I do see them being punished non-judicially until the new policy is in place.

2/2/2010 1:03:29 PM

OF COURSE this should have been done years ago. Any American who wants to fight and die for America should be given that right.

Especially now with all these ridiculous wars we're in, why the hell wouldn't you want more people enlisted?

This shit stirs me up. This is why I stay out of SB.

2/2/2010 1:45:23 PM

My hope is that they can get this done before Nov. The GOP are going to make big gains this election, after which a legislative solution might be much more difficult.

2/2/2010 3:21:33 PM

Quote :

"At present people are being discriminated upon based on gender. A law stating that only a man and a woman can jointly enter into marriage is pretty clearly discriminating based on gender if it makes it illegal for a man and another man to enter into marriage. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but hey, we'll see how it shakes out. "

With that line of thought it follows that this sign is clearly discriminating based on gender.

Shouldn't we all be able to use any public restroom we please? what's the big deal? we're all equal right?

I understand that it's way past time to repeal DADT, but some of you are being a little bit naive to think that this wont open a few doors for abuse within the system if not handled correctly.

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2010 3:32:41 PM

Quote :

"I understand that it's way past time to repeal DADT, but some of you are being a little bit naive to think that this wont open a few doors for abuse within the system if not handled correctly."

Is your argument that if we go to fast on allowing gays to serve in the military without having to lie to their commanding officers about themselves, then next thing you know straight men are going to be perving in the women's restroom?

2/2/2010 3:47:23 PM

Quote :

"My hope is that they can get this done before Nov. The GOP are going to make big gains this election, after which a legislative solution might be much more difficult."

Well is congress even moving on this or is this simply an executive order to cease enforcement?

2/2/2010 3:48:27 PM

My understanding is that the President, as commander in chief, has told the pentagon to start preparing for a change in the law. But the legislature has to make the change in the law for it outlive Obama's presidency.

2/2/2010 4:00:05 PM

I can't see a future president bringing back DADT, mostly for political reasons.

2/2/2010 4:03:13 PM

the repubs are sounding like douchebags opposing this... "1000 retired officers have said..." who gives a fuck? They are retired. Oh, and only 1000? That's it?

Look, it's not like people in the military don't already know who is gay and who isn't. Maybe a few slip by unnoticed, but, by and large, every one knows who is gay and who is not. And somehow making the status quo the open status quo is going to somehow be different?

It's simple: treat a guy being a perv towards guys the same way you treat a guy being a perv towards girls. Tell the rest of the fuck to get the fuck over it. They already shower together naked. Knowing there are gays in the shower with them. Just fucking DO IT already

2/2/2010 8:26:19 PM

yea but they're worried that they will SLEEP together in a combat situation!!!!

this is clearly a dire problem in our armed forces.... they must be protected from their evil gay temptations or else they will all turn to an orgy in the battlefield

2/2/2010 8:42:45 PM