‘
Go ahead,, pin DADT repeal on the Prez
lol

Fact: Guy that bows caries a limped wrist! He deserves it and he has fulfilled his 1st campaign promise! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ending government sponsored discrimination is always a positive thing. DADT was discrimination, just as Affirmative Action is. Now he needs to abolish that discrimination practice as well.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Guy that bows caries a limped wrist! He deserves it and he has fulfilled his 1st campaign promise! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

LOL,, i know,, i want this to hang all over his neck
i’m content on blaming the president for this
go ahead

More Liberty said:
just as Affirmative Action is. Now he needs to abolish that discrimination practice as well.

WHOA!
lol,,, that aint gonna happen!!
NOT under this administration!

You know,, he was a community organizer ,, right?
lol

Atticus Draco said:
WHOA!
lol,,, that aint gonna happen!!
NOT under this administration!

You know,, he was a community organizer ,, right?

Yeah I know. I’m simply just saying that government sponsored discrimination is bad. I know it won’t end, but just wanted to put the issue in perspective.

More Liberty said:
Yeah I know. I’m simply just saying that government sponsored discrimination is bad. I know it won’t end, but just wanted to put the issue in perspective.

well my Q was rhetorical,, i’m sure you know

and i agree,,, so should Title 9 go by the wayside

It is about time that this discriminatory and costly (in lives and money) law, that requires people to lie about themselves, is repealed. The most important factors for unit cohesion and readiness are the quality of their officers and comrades, training, and equipment, and most service members could care less who is sleeping with who when they are on or off the battlefield fighting for their lives and protecting the country. And BIGOTRY and IGNORANCE (both of which are NOT valid reasons for keeping the policy) are usually the reasons for those of you who are against repealing DADT. Historically, the majority of GOP congressmen voted against the following programs when they came out – Social Security, Medicare, the war against poverty, civil rights for African Americans, women’s rights, interracial marriage, and now gay rights. ALWAYS on the wrong side of history and equal rights. GOP, the majority of them are a joke of a party – tax cuts for the rich, going to war based on lies (IRAQ), outsourcing of jobs, and BIGOTRY (racism, sexism, anti-women, anti-gay, etc. ). I guess their next cause will be some type of bigotry against the disabled. Oh, that’s right they have already tried that. Mr. McCain and Mr. DeMint, please feel free to RESIGN in protest of the repeal of this law.

jrmedia said:
Historically, the majority of GOP congressmen voted against the following programs when they came out – Social Security, Medicare, the war against poverty, civil rights for African Americans, women’s rights, interracial marriage, and now gay rights.

Historically, you missed history class.

jrmedia said:
civil rights for African Americans

I suggest you go and look up the actual vote for the Civil Rights Act.

The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124, a vote in which 80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted “yes”.

The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting “no”.

Additionally, your false claim that Republicans were against Medicare and Social Security has been debunked. Dean, the now defunked Presidential Candidate, tried to spew this lie as well but Polifact called his lies out as well.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/howard-dean/dean-claims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/

“Nevertheless, on Aug. 8, 1935, the conference report — the final version of the bill that melds together changes made in the House and in the Senate — passed in the House 372-33, with 81 Republicans voting in support. The next day, the bill was passed in the Senate 77-6, with 16 Republicans supporting the legislation. So Social Security did pass with Republican support.

Thirty years later, a significant number of Republicans voted in favor of the Medicare bill. The House adopted the conference report on July 27, 1965, 307-116, with 70 Republicans supporting it. And on July 28, the Senate adopted the final version of the bill by a vote of 70-24, with 13 Republicans in favor of the bill. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law on July 30, 1965.”

Another lie of yours I’m going to expose is about Obama and gay marriage. He’s against it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112795-axelrod-obama-remains-opposed-gay-marriage

What other lies do you have jrmedia?

Here’s the problem with all this kind of stuff: You can’t on the one hand blame another party for being the party of “No” and then when you get help that you absolutely need to pass it from members of the same party call it “a big win for the president!”. Look; if people really want cooperation across the aisle to get things done, then “credit” needs to be equally shared. If it’s going to be a case of every time Republicans give enough support to get a piece of legislation through that it somehow becomes a big victory for Obama, why would they assist in that? Makes no sense.

jrmedia said:
the majority of them are a joke of a party – tax cuts for the rich,

Additionally, President John F. Kennedy lowered the tax rate for the top margin by 20%. His tax cut was the largest tax cut up to that point in American history.

Man…lol…it is so easy to debunk your lies.

Tommy,

While DADT needed to go away Obama does NOT deserve the credit you’re giving him.

He was, at best, passive during the whiole thing, making the correct political noises about the issue depending on his audience. Giving him credit for sticking his finger up and seeing which way the political wind is blowing before he does anything is misguided.

This bill passed kot because of him, but in spite of him. Had the political winds been blowing in another direction it would still be just a idea.

The latrines are going to become gay bath houses. There will be a flood of sexual harassment charges. If you drop the soap, for God’s sake do not pick it up. Yes, I have been in the Military and was instrumental in getting one gay discharged.

Pablo said:
Historically, you missed history class.

Pablo you need to stop listening to Fox News.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
Pablo you need to stop listening to Fox News.

News organizations have nothing to do with it. The fact is, jrmedia if mostly just wrong on his “facts.”

More Liberty said:
News organizations have nothing to do with it. The fact is, jrmedia if mostly just wrong on his “facts.”

he is ignorant of his supposed facts
in the classical sense ignorant!

Atticus Draco said:
he is ignorant of his supposed facts
in the classical sense ignorant!

Well I debunk all of his lies.

To Tommy’s point,

Presidential democracy trades efficiency for debate and considering the legacy of this issue, Obama’s use of patience to gain a victory for freedom is a strong sign of his policy savvy. Nice job to all involved and God Bless the USA.

Harry Flashman said:
Tommy,

While DADT needed to go away Obama does NOT deserve the credit you’re giving him.

He was, at best, passive during the whiole thing, making the correct political noises about the issue depending on his audience. Giving him credit for sticking his finger up and seeing which way the political wind is blowing before he does anything is misguided.

This bill passed kot because of him, but in spite of him. Had the political winds been blowing in another direction it would still be just a idea.

I agree,, i personally dont credit the president on this for exactly the reasons you’ve stated

two points:

Greg said:

“Obama’s use of patience to gain a victory for freedom is a strong sign of his policy savvy.”

That wasn’t political savvy, it was political cowardice in action. He waited until someone else did the dirty work for him, then jumped on the bandwagon.

Moderate said:

“The latrines are going to become gay bath houses. There will be a flood of sexual harassment charges. If you drop the soap, for God’s sake do not pick it up. Yes, I have been in the Military and was instrumental in getting one gay discharged.”

So, by that reasoning the entire military will turn gay? There will be sexual assaults in the showers as the troops fall prey to homosexual predators?

Hot news flash: Gays already serve, and they’ll continue to serve honorably without fear that someone (apparently some like you if your statement is true) will take away the uniform they’re willing to die in for this country. Relax. The showers are safe.

You know, I have to wonder if statements like this are planted by the far left to make conservatives look like knuckle-dragging neanderthals. As a qualifier I have to say that I spent 27 years in uniform and under arms and people REALLY DON’T GIVE A CRAP IF SOME IS GAY.

That whole “content of character” thing is more important to most people by far. Remember that?

This is 2010, almost 2011. Get over yourself or hurry up and come out of the closet, dude.

I honestly believe it’s safe to say, that if gay activists had not formed their own PACs and contributed millions to the Democrats, DADT would not even be open for debate. Money still talks in DC. Maybe the American people, as a whole, need to form their own PACS. Imagine the American people lobbying Congressional members to do the jobs they were actually hired to do, in the first place. LOL.

“Obama’s use of patience to gain a victory for freedom is a strong sign of his policy savvy.”

That wasn’t political savvy, it was political cowardice in action. He waited until someone else did the dirty work for him, then jumped on the bandwagon.

I disagree… It was a campaign promise of his, but it is a legislative repeal and the ladies and gents on the Hill had quite a bit to wrangle over what with the economic collapse. In the last two years public opinion has shifted a bit in the policies favor while Gates and Mullen were allowed to conduct a military review which largely supports a DADT repeal. Not sure what you mean by dirty work… Nor how signing legislation that you campaigned in support of is band wagon behavior. Do you not like him generally?

Greg:

I don’t dislike him generally. I dislike professional incompetence. And he is very busily proving that he is in fact incompetent.

And, yes, it was a campaign promise but note that he didn’t get his hands dirty and push openly for the bill. That’s what i mean by others doing the dirty work. He basically did what he has always done and voted “present” until people with more political will got the bill through.

He will be signing a major piece of legislation that he has supported consistently (even if unwilling to get his hands dirty) during a lame duck session, which should temper your charge of incompetence. The job got done when others have failed… And while I don’t find defending the POTUS the best use of my time… I would be cautious about getting my hands dirty in such a divisive environment… Not sure that the tone of the times calls for a fighter in chief… But I could be wrong… Cheers!

More Liberty said:
News organizations have nothing to do with it. The fact is, jrmedia if mostly just wrong on his “facts.”

Remember when the Democrats freed the slaves? jrmedia does.

Greg said:
Presidential democracy trades efficiency for debate and considering the legacy of this issue, Obama’s use of patience to gain a victory for freedom is a strong sign of his policy savvy.

You seem to forget that DADT was the result of Clinton’s executive order and not a legislative product. He could have done away with DADT on 1/20/09 or anytime thereafter with a stroke of his pen. How did that savvy patience work out on tax hikes and the DREAM Act?

Greg said:
The job got done when others have failed…

Who else failed? Who tried?

jrmedia said:
civil rights for African Americans, women’s rights

Fact: Get your facts straight! Lie!

now the real fight starts………..marriage? housing? marriage benefits? family support groups?

I am just happy that DADT was repealed now. I will be watching when the President signs it. I am also looking forward to the day when DOMA is overturned as well, and Prop 8. I just hope and it has been my prayer, that all of you Bigots and haters will also be around for that as well. It will be interesting to see how many marriages will be destroyed in the process. Will yours be next? And also let me apologize in advance for all of the murder, death kills that is likely to occur on the battlefield because of this. I know when I was in the military we could recognize the Gays because of the way they pranced around in the Gym, I would just watch them for hours, moving on.
Sometimes you have to drag Neanderthals into the next Century. Without our assistance, they would just perish, like a fish out of water. In any event, we have to protect these people from themselves, they concentrate on Gay Sex more than Homosexuals do. We have to move ahead in this country in spite of the mostly uninformed masses. No different than taking the keys away from Grandma, or taking the Flight Suit away from McCain.

Pablo said:
You seem to forget that DADT was the result of Clinton’s executive order and not a legislative product. He could have done away with DADT on 1/20/09 or anytime thereafter with a stroke of his pen. How did that savvy patience work out on tax hikes and the DREAM Act?

For someone who complains about others historical grip this is a poor showing Pablo…

Federal law, written by the national legislature, mandates restrictions on the military service of homosexuals. These specific restrictions were part of the National Defense Authorization Act (1994).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Clinton responded with a defense department directive which attempted to ensure military officials not demand information about sexual orientation.
http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/DOD1304.26.pdf
This became known as DADT.

So yes, Obama could have “done away with DADT”…” With the “stroke of a pen” as you say, but hopefully by know you understand why that is not nearly the point. The legislature was necessary in this matter as even a cursory understanding of the issue makes clear.

Wait until all the law suits start. You know, “I want my sex partner given quarters and paid just like all the other spouses.”, “I want a sex change operation”, “I want my gay marriage officially recognized by the military and federal government”, ” I was denied a promotion because I am gay”, “Somebody called me a faggot and now I am emotionally scarred for the rest of my life and need to get paid for it”, “I hear the word “gay”, now somebody has to pay” , “someone in my command looked at me wrong, the commander needs to be fired”.

chatmandu002 said:
“I want my sex partner given quarters and paid just like all the other spouses.”

They will be as soon as same-sex marriage is legalized.

chatmandu002 said:
“I want a sex change operation”

That’s transgender, not gay. There’s a really big difference.

chatmandu002 said:
“I want my gay marriage officially recognized by the military and federal government”

Which it will be once same-sex marriage is made legal on a federal level.

chatmandu002 said:
” I was denied a promotion because I am gay”

Well, that’s deserving of a law suit. It’s called discrimination.

chatmandu002 said:
“someone in my command looked at me wrong, the commander needs to be fired”

I don’t see how this is exclusive to homosexual service members.

Too funny! It will be a freak show to follow this.
>>
I wonder if they will allow “gay parades” on bases? My belief has always been that I don’t care what your sexual practices are, just don’t shove it in my face. If your actions are not against the law, go for it.
>>
I draw the line at gays raising children and marriage. Marriage has been and always will be between a man and a woman. You notice that our founding fathers did not have a section that said men should be allowed to marry men or women to marry women. That abnormality is not guaranteed anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and it has nothing to do with “equal rights.” And if you believe that superstitious nonsense in the Bible, even God hates all you gays.
>>
I actually don’t think that many gays are “gung ho” to join the military. I doubt that the total number of gay in the military is more that one-tenth of a percent.
>>
The comments I am reading about the ancient Greeks are pure overstatements at best. As far as the Spartans or the “The Sacred Band of Thebes”; they were a very small part of all the armies.
>>
“No, that is not true. It was the Theban army whose elite corps was made up of what we, today, would call “same-sex couples”. The Spartan army was not noted in any source as being in any way made up of what could be called “homosexual couples”. The ancient Greeks, as a whole, had no particular problem with homosexual acts, but would not tolerate homosexual lifestyles. Any grown man who did not take a wife and have children was looked down on in society and would have a diminished standing in the community. It was alright to have affairs with other males, or with the appropriate females, but not to maintain a homosexual lifestyle.” The Greeks were not THAT advanced…”
>>
“Theban forces ended the power of Sparta at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC under the command of Epaminondas. The Sacred Band of Thebes (an elite military unit) famously fell at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC against Philip II and Alexander the Great.”

Is repealing DADT a good thing? Under the DADT system soldiers new they had to maintain a professional appearance and performance. Does lifting DADT alter that? How long will it be before gays start demanding ulterior conditions to match their gay lifestyle? How does the common heterosexual soldier feel about to serve with an openly gay soldier? Does anybody really believe that removing the DADT policy is going to do anything other than open a can of worms?