Obama and the Gay Military...

[BobTheDonkey]

The study is a delaying mechanism, nothing more.

The U.S. military will never do the right thing on its own, and Obama lacks the moral fiber to lead it and congress into better times.

ETA: Delay? You mean, delay till after UHC is passed and the economy has started turning around? That kind of delay?

 

[cwalner]

The study is a delaying mechanism, nothing more.

The U.S. military will never do the right thing on its own, and Obama lacks the moral fiber to lead it and congress into better times.

Sorry, but I disagree with you on all three claims.

1. The study will provide support to help enact the desired changes
2. While the military is a very entrenched organization and resistant to change, never is a very long time.
3. more iffy. He has shown more moral fiber than most politicians, but he is still a politician.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

2. While the military is a very entrenched organization and resistant to change, never is a very long time.

Honestly, my experience is that the Military isn't so anti-this-change as Right-wing extremists would have us believe. In fact, this very thread is a perfect example of that. None of the vets who have posted in this thread feel the Military couldn't handle the change.

 

[Complexity]

ETA: Delay? You mean, delay till after UHC is passed and the economy has started turning around? That kind of delay?

Delay as in pushing things out to the future, past the elections, hopefully (on Obama's part) past his presidency.

 

[cwalner]

Honestly, my experience is that the Military isn't so anti-this-change as Right-wing extremists would have us believe. In fact, this very thread is a perfect example of that. None of the vets who have posted in this thread feel the Military couldn't handle the change.

While I agree with you on individual servicemen and servicewomen, the sheer size and structure of the DoD makes it institutionally resistant to change.

I remember a while back a joke my father told me about his workplace (IBM).

What is the difference between IBM and Jurassic Park?

One is a high tech zoo filled with dinosaurs in which people run around trying to avoid the next disaster. The other is a movie by Steven Spielberg.

Now increase the organization about 10-fold and move it from private to public sector and you have the DoD.

Resistance to change in an organization has nothing to do with politics or bias of the individual members.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Yep.

The right thing to do for the United States military is to keep Western Civilization from falling to the hands of radical theocrats. If that requires them to walk backwards and hit each other with wooden poles, so be it.

What is the right thing to do for you is not the right thing to do for the US military.

Burdening the military with political correctness, to them, is the WRONG thing to do.

You know, color blind people cannot fly in combat. Maybe that is a rule that goes to far and we should protest it. of course, if you are wrong, there will be dire consequences. Oh, but what the hell, it is the right thing to do, right?

Dude, there is too much at stake if you are wrong.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ok. Seriously. Chill out. This is (was?) a friendly discussion. No need to be combative. We're, mostly, on the same side.

You're frustrated because the U.S. doesn't treat you the same as everyone else - I get that. But for some reason you think your cause is greater than the cause of any other - even a cause that extends far beyond your (relatively) small group.

Obama doesn't need a great amount of political backing to repeal DADT as there's no real laws he must have passed - he does, however, have to play his hand right. He has an incredibly strong amount of backing - enough backing to accomplish something that's not been accomplished for many generations.

Of course, this just brings us to: even if we agree that he has squandered his political backing - which of the two issues is the greater one: One that affords rights to the entire population of the Nation or one that affects a (relatively) much smaller percentage?

Give it time.

But that's the problem. When will there not be a "big problem"?

For me, gay rights are more important than most of the near meaningless, compromised, lobby-written legislation that shifts public funding to various private firms by mysterious means, and whose effects are difficult to discern from doing nothing at all.

There is always the threat of terrorism, the rouge nations, etc.

The HRC follows the coddling path of "working with" Democrats, and even they've had to basically admit recently that they are impotent.

I'm disappointed in Obama, but I can't judge him just yet. It is always "wait your turn". By then, I expect another "big issue", but I could be wrong.

I don't think I am valuing this too much, I think they are valuing it too little. And if the "American people" don't want it, then I know when I'm not wanted.

And yes, the study and recent DADT news are simply attempts at making a show while doing nothing. It can't show anything new, and opponents have shown that they are perfectly happy ignoring studies and other contradictory evidence.

 

[Complexity]

But that's the problem. When will there not be a "big problem"?

For me, gay rights are more important than most of the near meaningless, compromised, lobby-written legislation that shifts public funding to various private firms by mysterious means, and whose effects are difficult to discern from doing nothing at all.

There is always the threat of terrorism, the rouge nations, etc.

The HRC follows the coddling path of "working with" Democrats, and even they've had to basically admit recently that they are impotent.

I'm disappointed in Obama, but I can't judge him just yet. It is always "wait your turn". By then, I expect another "big issue", but I could be wrong.

I don't think I am valuing this too much, I think they are valuing it too little. And if the "American people" don't want it, then I know when I'm not wanted.

And yes, the study and recent DADT news are simply attempts at making a show while doing nothing. It can't show anything new, and opponents have shown that they are perfectly happy ignoring studies and other contradictory evidence.

Wonderful!

 

[cwalner]

The right thing to do for the United States military is to keep Western Civilization from falling to the hands of radical theocrats. If that requires them to walk backwards and hit each other with wooden poles, so be it.

Bzzzt!! Wrong. Thank you for playing.

So we need to defend ourselves against radical theocrats, by catering to a different group of radical theocrats?

 

[D'rok]

The right thing to do for the United States military is to keep Western Civilization from falling to the hands of radical theocrats. If that requires them to walk backwards and hit each other with wooden poles, so be it.

Team America: World Police!

Western Civilization can do without. Please pack up and go home. You are starting to resemble that which you claim to oppose.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But that's the problem. When will there not be a "big problem"?

So your view is that DADT is way more important that a few tens of thousands of deaths from people who get denied by insurance companies?

 

[cwalner]

So your view is that DADT is way more important that a few tens of thousands of deaths from people who get denied by insurance companies?

No, but if we simply use the numbers affected to decide importance, than things like equal rights for minorities will never be addressed, because congress will always be considering something that affects the entire US population.

I happen to agree, in this case, that HCR is more important than DADT, but I can also understand the rejection of the simple numbers argument for why that should be.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, but if we simply use the numbers affected to decide importance, than things like equal rights for minorities will never be addressed, because congress will always be considering something that affects the entire US population.

I happen to agree, in this case, that HCR is more important than DADT, but I can also understand the rejection of the simple numbers argument for why that should be.

Because it is not just a numbers argument, it is also an argument about consequence. At least Tsukasa Buddha and Complexity can find some common ground with republicans, that is that the poor and uninsured are scum and we shouldn't care if they die.

 

[Complexity]

Because it is not just a numbers argument, it is also an argument about consequence. At least Tsukasa Buddha and Complexity can find some common ground with republicans, that is that the poor and uninsured are scum and we shouldn't care if they die.

Where the hell did that come from?

I have no common ground with Republicans and little with Democrats.

I've been uninsured for several months. I don't let my personal problems drive me into supporting bad plans just because there might be something in it for me.

I am truly unimpressed, ponderingturtle.

 

[pgwenthold]

WTF? pg, I am at a loss as to why the Cops went out of their way (civilian cops??) to do this.

Not sure what it has to do with DADT, other than once the USAF was aware of "caught at it" (does this make any sense) they may have come to the conclusion that they could not do other than discharge her. I'd have to ask a current JAG, I know one, what he thinks of this. What a weird case.

I find it flabbergasting. The accusation is basically that the cops retaliated against her because when they called her (at work on base) to come home to help them find/arrest her partner, she refused.. Some defend the police on the grounds that "she was harboring a fugitive" which I find to be kind of silly. "Not coming home to help the cops track down the location of your spouse" is not quite the same as harboring a fugitive. You want to arrest my spouse? You do it, don't rely on me.

It most certainly is a question of DADT, because that is why she is being discharged, although I am stuck asking, who asked? Who told? She certainly did not tell, nor did she do anything (publicly) that could be construed as advertising. They got married in Iowa, but did not do anything else that would be construed as a public indication of homosexuality.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where the hell did that come from?

That you don't care about thousands of dead.

I have no common ground with Republicans and little with Democrats.

No you hate so many of the same things, that is common enough ground, they are party that is at least currently based on fear.

I've been uninsured for several months. I don't let my personal problems drive me into supporting bad plans just because there might be something in it for me.

Good then if you have any existing conditions you should know that they should never be covered again.

 

[Dancing David]

Just a reminder, Obama can not overturn DADT by fiat, it is legislation. He can tell people to disregard it to a certain extent.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just a reminder, Obama can not overturn DADT by fiat, it is legislation. He can tell people to disregard it to a certain extent.

In the past month or so, Obama's strategy seems to have revealed itself. The CJCS Admiral Mullen addressed this:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Tuesday said allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is "the right thing to do." Adm. Mike Mullen's statement is the strongest to date from a top military official at the Pentagon in support of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law.

"We have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Mullen said. "For me, personally, it comes down to integrity: Theirs as an individual, ours as an institution."

What it will change into I am not certain of, but between VP Biden and ADM Mullen, the water carriers for this policy change have been chosen.

DR

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because it is not just a numbers argument, it is also an argument about consequence. At least Tsukasa Buddha and Complexity can find some common ground with republicans, that is that the poor and uninsured are scum and we shouldn't care if they die.

How could you care about healthcare when thousands are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How could you care about healthcare when the deficit is ballooning out of countrol?

How can you care about healthcare when our schools are failing our children?

Humans have developed the ability to prioritize and multitask, the government can do the same. In fact, we have different committees for that very purpose.

And as my mother always told me, if something is important to you you make the time, otherwise it won't happen.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How could you care about healthcare when thousands are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How could you care about healthcare when the deficit is ballooning out of countrol?

How can you care about healthcare when our schools are failing our children?

Humans have developed the ability to prioritize and multitask, the government can do the same. In fact, we have different committees for that very purpose.

And as my mother always told me, if something is important to you you make the time, otherwise it won't happen.

Yes, you make the time...but you don't get ahead of yourself or nothing will happen either.