olyclimber Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 I can't say this wasn't an issue that I "pinned on Obama". I was more looking for an intelligent person to lead. The other choice didn't seem that good (an old dude and cariboo barbie). I never thought he was perfect, but given our current political climate at the time he seemed (and still does to me) the best choice. If anything, this demonstrates that Obama is someone who can see both sides of the coin. I'm not saying he is right on this issue, but maybe he is more "centrist". Of course this doesn't line up for people who can only see the world in black and white, or can only see and understand one point of view. Maybe if the conservative could come up with some better candidates and get away from the tea party wackos I would consider supporting a centrist and changing my vote. Move to the center a bit, they lost after all. But that doesn't seem to be happening. There was a time when I thought Gramps might make a good president. But then, with his very FIRST decision as a presidential candidate(selecting veep), he eats shit. Fine to criticize what Obama has done, but don't think there was a better electable choice running against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 You tards crack me up with all your rationalizing. So FW. Do you think DADT is a good idea? Would you like to keep this policy? You miss my point entirely, which is this: you and other liberals who voted for Obama seem to be born-again pragmatists these days. What you have isn't really what was advertised, is it? Don't get me wrong, patience is just fine. But this is one of the key issues Obama ran on--and it was in the bag! A Done deal. A win. And the guy you pinned your hopes on tossed it out the window. And you still sing his praises like the willing dupes you are. As for the issue itself: I couldn't care less about what two people who love each other do in private. You did not answer the question. Is it ok, in your opinion if gays serve openly in the military? Yes or no. Second...I do not praise Obama. I am incredibley dissapointed in him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 You tards crack me up with all your rationalizing. So FW. Do you think DADT is a good idea? Would you like to keep this policy? You miss my point entirely, which is this: you and other liberals who voted for Obama seem to be born-again pragmatists these days. What you have isn't really what was advertised, is it? Don't get me wrong, patience is just fine. But this is one of the key issues Obama ran on--and it was in the bag! A Done deal. A win. And the guy you pinned your hopes on tossed it out the window. And you still sing his praises like the willing dupes you are. As for the issue itself: I couldn't care less about what two people who love each other do in private. You did not answer the question. Is it ok, in your opinion if gays serve openly in the military? Yes or no. Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Obama isn't going to reverse DADT, it isn't in his best interest politically. Regardless what the popular opinion is in the PNW, gays in the military isn't popular by in large around the country. The gays didn't get Obama elected, they'll vote for him no matter what, and the voters that matter to Obama aren't overwhelmingly behind the issue. You can either get behind the ACLU propping up a shitbird against DADT or you can continue to whine at town hall meeting without affect. Those are pretty much your only two options in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 You tards crack me up with all your rationalizing. So FW. Do you think DADT is a good idea? Would you like to keep this policy? You miss my point entirely, which is this: you and other liberals who voted for Obama seem to be born-again pragmatists these days. What you have isn't really what was advertised, is it? Don't get me wrong, patience is just fine. But this is one of the key issues Obama ran on--and it was in the bag! A Done deal. A win. And the guy you pinned your hopes on tossed it out the window. And you still sing his praises like the willing dupes you are. As for the issue itself: I couldn't care less about what two people who love each other do in private. You did not answer the question. Is it ok, in your opinion if gays serve openly in the military? Yes or no. Yes. Just wait until everyone finds out the monetary cost of letting gays in the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Just wait until everyone finds out the monetary cost of letting gays in the military. The US military is like 80% homo already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Just wait until everyone finds out the monetary cost of letting gays in the military. how is that even relevant? do agree w/ your analysis on why obama is acting the way he is, but disagree w/ your only 2 options - DADT is going to disappear, through the courts if the congress refuses to act - it has to be the supreme court to do it though, and so they might as well keep the shitty policy in place till then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 You miss my point entirely, which is this: you and other liberals who voted for Obama seem to be born-again pragmatists these days. What you have isn't really what was advertised, is it? Don't get me wrong, patience is just fine. But this is one of the key issues Obama ran on--and it was in the bag! A Done deal. A win. And the guy you pinned your hopes on tossed it out the window. And you still sing his praises like the willing dupes you are. for a guy who hates "strawmen" you seem remarkably obtuse in understanding your opposition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 how is that even relevant? Because there is an unintended consequence of ending DADT so abruptly. Allowing gays in the military comes at a very large price tag and making the change in a single day is problematic. This is why DADT should be ended via legislation and why if I'd voted for Obama I'd be so pissed he isn't keeping his promise. Most people don't understand how complicated the issue is, its not just about the morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Because there is an unintended consequence of ending DADT so abruptly. Allowing gays in the military comes at a very large price tag and making the change in a single day is problematic. This is why DADT should be ended via legislation and why if I'd voted for Obama I'd be so pissed he isn't keeping his promise. Most people don't understand how complicated the issue is, its not just about the morality. i agree w/ all that, though i think the point regarding expense is that the congress has known since 1992 that it needed to deal w/ the issue, and after 18 years of waiting, the expense of how its implemented can be pretty much be damned, b/c IT'S TIME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Because there is an unintended consequence of ending DADT so abruptly. Really? Please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Because there is an unintended consequence of ending DADT so abruptly. Really? Please explain. dude, they're gonna have to print new forms! make new recruiting posters aimed at gays (the navy should lead the way on this) and design/produce more gay-friendly uniforms (marines got this one covered)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Because there is an unintended consequence of ending DADT so abruptly. Allowing gays in the military comes at a very large price tag and making the change in a single day is problematic. This is why DADT should be ended via legislation and why if I'd voted for Obama I'd be so pissed he isn't keeping his promise. Most people don't understand how complicated the issue is, its not just about the morality. i agree w/ all that, though i think the point regarding expense is that the congress has known since 1992 that it needed to deal w/ the issue, and after 18 years of waiting, the expense of how its implemented can be pretty much be damned, b/c IT'S TIME! There is also that pesky paradigm shift that has to take place in TRADOC. What a mess. Wait until we start burning through command. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Because there is an unintended consequence of ending DADT so abruptly. Really? Please explain. Because there is no plan in place to make the change. Everything from UCMJ to TRADOC has to change in a day. Where do you plan to billet the new "out" troops? What are the new training procedures? How will deployments be run? What are the new UCMJ rules/laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Where do you plan to billet the new "out" troops? w/ the ladies of course! how many guys will sign up gay in order to get "cured?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 When the bullets start flying, no one gives a shit if you eat pussy or suck dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) There are other militaries that either integrate gays openly, or have no policy either way. It's not as big of a problem as you are trying to pretend. And even if it was, oh fucking well. It's a civil rights issue. The cost? Are you kidding me? Would you have complained about the cost of integrating public schools in the 50's? I hope not. I can't believe how much rationalization there is on this issue. It's NOT a complicated issue. It's pretty fucking clear. Desegregate the military. Duh. "WAAAAH. The cost! It's too expensive to live up to our American ideals of freedom and liberty. WAAAAAH!" Edited October 22, 2010 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Well said Rob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 are they seriously talking about separate living quarters or is Nitrox making it all up as is customary for him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Why would they need separate living quarters, anyway? As far as I know, nobody (except Nitrox) is discussing that. The gays are already among them, they're just silent. It's not like suddenly gay people are going to fall out of the sky and there will be NEW problems. They're already there. Anyway, problems be damned. What's right is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 There are other militaries that either integrate gays openly, or have no policy either way. It's not as big of a problem as you are trying to pretend. And even if it was, oh fucking well. It's a civil rights issue. The cost? Are you kidding me? Would you have complained about the cost of integrating public schools in the 50's? I hope not. I can't believe how much rationalization there is on this issue. It's NOT a complicated issue. It's pretty fucking clear. Desegregate the military. Duh. "WAAAAH. The cost! It's too expensive to live up to our American ideals of freedom and liberty. WAAAAAH!" cost is a secondary concern, but shouldnt' be totally ignored - as i said, after 2 decades of being on notice, the time is up to complain about figuring out the cost and the transition process though there was a considerable cost associated with the americans w/ diasabilites act too, not that the 2 issues are much related - it was intelligent, w/ that case as w/ this one, to figure out the best way to implement the law in the most economical fashion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Electrolytes It's what plants crave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Nah, this is a civil rights issue, and as such, it couldn't happen fast enough, imo. Obama resisting this court decision would be like resisting Brown vs. Board of Education back in the 50's. i agree, it's morally indefensible - what about politics has ever been moral though? Politics re gays has changed a lot since Clinton. Obama's just being a pussy, that's all. Pretty much true to his nature, IMO. Still, it beats voting for an out and out moron with a proven, failed non-agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 You tards crack me up with all your rationalizing. So FW. Do you think DADT is a good idea? Would you like to keep this policy? You miss my point entirely, which is this: you and other liberals who voted for Obama seem to be born-again pragmatists these days. What you have isn't really what was advertised, is it? Don't get me wrong, patience is just fine. But this is one of the key issues Obama ran on--and it was in the bag! A Done deal. A win. And the guy you pinned your hopes on tossed it out the window. And you still sing his praises like the willing dupes you are. As for the issue itself: I couldn't care less about what two people who love each other do in private. What about two people who just wanna fuck each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 I can't say this wasn't an issue that I "pinned on Obama". I was more looking for an intelligent person to lead. The other choice didn't seem that good (an old dude and cariboo barbie). I never thought he was perfect, but given our current political climate at the time he seemed (and still does to me) the best choice. If anything, this demonstrates that Obama is someone who can see both sides of the coin. I'm not saying he is right on this issue, but maybe he is more "centrist". Of course this doesn't line up for people who can only see the world in black and white, or can only see and understand one point of view. Maybe if the conservative could come up with some better candidates and get away from the tea party wackos I would consider supporting a centrist and changing my vote. Move to the center a bit, they lost after all. But that doesn't seem to be happening. There was a time when I thought Gramps might make a good president. But then, with his very FIRST decision as a presidential candidate(selecting veep), he eats shit. Fine to criticize what Obama has done, but don't think there was a better electable choice running against him. You're looking for an Rfuck agenda that's more than 'librul=evil'? Don't hold your breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.