Galefan2004, I have been following your UUMM “spirited dabate” with Tank. Exactly how many personaoities do you have? So many points of view disguised as the same one?

Your psychologolgical gamesmanship is just sub-par. Whatever message you had was lost in your rhetoric and unbeleivable self-contradictions.Tank(no offence,totally your side) may be a hothead but atleast he or she(I don’t who I’m typing to so I will not assume anything)stayed on point rudely but consistantly. Are you a politicain?: You may not Know our Presient but you Obamasize worse than he ever has.

What does “most likely” Mean in that sentence? Because it doesn’t deal with probability, I can tell you that much. What do you base this on? He hasn’t said it’s illegal, and no member of his staff has, either.

But you’re right, the to obama bit must’ve been lost in your belief that in order to do it, a congressional declaration of war must be issued (which would mean you believed it wasn’t legal), and saying that obama’s not just going to break the law like bush because he wants to… But that “to obama” part (which is absurd in its own right as he was a con law professor) is really relevant to distancing yourself from your own beliefs.

I also never used the word illegal. I used the words “BREAKING THE LAW.” By this I mean that a stop loss, to Obama, would render DADT void for the remainder of his presidency. What can be breaking the law more than rewriting it for the next three years?

“Second, you said that he won’t do it. Well, if you do nothing to pressure the administration to do it, it won’t happen. That is what you’re suggesting…that it is impossible to get this to happen. I disagree. Continued pressure with the full support of the majority of americans as a constant reminder can get him to move on this.”

I quoted the full paragraph, but its really the ending of it that matters. You said, “continued pressure with the full support of the majority of Americans”. I responded with the fact that we don’t have “FULL SUPPORT”. I made the argument that 75% of the population accepting it is not the same as 75% of the population fully supporting it.

I meant to say that Obama is NOT Bush and will not… It was a typo. I just ignored it because it was quite obvious based on the rest of the paragraph that I meant to put the word NOT in there.

Yes, he said he would work to have DOMA repealed when he was running for office. I’m not even aware that he has said that since he has been elected. It was a campaign promise. I already pointed out that Obama the candidate and Obama the president are as different as WJC and GWB. He has said that he thinks that Congress should act first every time he has been asked since he got elected. Also, even using that argument it is quite obvious that pushing him on the matter did more harm than good because he went from working to get DOMA appealed to straight out defending DOMA after the gays and lesbians started on this, “You have been in office for a week and we don’t have all of our rights!” diatribe (which later turned into 6 months instead of a week).

Keep laughing. Justify your laughter the day he signs a stop loss. Till then I think I’m in the right here.

He also said he’d work to have DOMA repealed and a host of other things that haven’t materialized. That is to say, what he says and what does are two very different things. So, in essence, it’s up for grabs still and pressure needs to be put on this administration to issue a stop loss on dadt.

That means he isn’t going to be the first to act. That means there won’t be a stop loss until Congress passes a repeal. That means there won’t be a stop loss.

LMAO!

Where did I argue this? This is a strawman. I never said it would cost him the 2012 election.

And you also claimed that obama isn’t bush and will enforce the laws as he sees fit…well…the two are unrelated, as bush enforced the laws as he saw fit, too.

Are you sure about that? This,

What you are missing here is that even if there is a provision enabling the stop of DADT during TIMES OF WAR, this country is not currently during a time of war.

and:

He isn’t Bush, he won’t break the law just because people ask him to. Issuing a stop order to supercede DADT, to Obama, is simply breaking the law.

Seem to imply that you believed it was illegal to issue the stop loss. Since you agree that “to obama” it’s illegal to issue the stop loss is now off the table, we’re left with one alternative–you believed it was illegal, and made that claim…and the comparison to bush’s abuse of EP cinches it.

I was responding to someone said that DOMA allows certain actions during a time of war and pointing out that this is not a time of war.

I also never said that it would cost him political capital. I said that not doing it won’t cost him 75% of the population like you seem to have argued. I also said that there would be POSSIBLE political fall out not that it is a guarantee.

I said that Obama isn’t Bush and is going to enforce the laws as he sees fit. I never said that it was illegal for him to issue a stop loss. I said that, unlike Bush, he isn’t going to ignore DADT because he considers it a law.

I can see how you misread everything I said, but I just gave some insights into what I believe Obama is feeling. I didn’t give any insights at all into my personal views on the matter. I didn’t say that I personally think it is illegal or shouldn’t be done. You read that into it. You have a great ability to read between the lines based on false assumptions. I’ll give you that.

My reasoning isn’t that he hasn’t yet. My reasoning is that he has said COUNTLESS times for 6 freaking months that he won’t. His position has stayed steadfast that he refuses to do it. Its not because he hasn’t yet, its that every single opportunity he has to deny that he is willing to do it has denied it.

You know I think the issue is that you think using philosophy. You see things as black and white. You don’t see shades of gray. The problem with that is that humanity acts in shades of gray. Obama could very well support DADT and still not sign the stop loss and be completely consistent as well. You simply just don’t see it that way.

He has consistently said that Congress must act first. That means he isn’t going to be the first to act. That means there won’t be a stop loss until Congress passes a repeal. That means there won’t be a stop loss.

He has repeatedly said this? Explicitly? That? Instead of “durable legislative process”? Well, that can be true as well as signing the stop loss. It seems pretty politically vague–the rhetoric–and it seems like obama can be brought to the table if, once again, continued pressure on the admin through public exposure is brought to this issue.

THIS IS NOT A TIME OF WAR. Any assumptions made that this is a time of war is wrong. The war ended with that nice little ship that had that nice little “Mission Accomplished” banner on it. We are not currently at war with Iraq. We are currently acting in Iraq as peace security. Time of war means there is a war declared. Currently, the United States has no wars declared. Just because Bush over looked that fact and abused the hell out of his power doesn’t mean Obama will be willing to do the same. It doesn’t matter who thinks Obama is wrong, including myself personally, he believes that congress must over turn DADT, and that means he simply is not going to do it.

Based on the false assumption that a congressional declaration of war is required for the stop loss to be issued.

and

Obama is the only elected official elected by the American people. The rest are elected by the people of their districts. Its much easier to stay in power as a congressman then as a president because of this. In fact, in most districts its almost impossible to lose as congressman unless you do something really screwed up. So, in short, its a lot easier for the congress to take he hit on the DADT if there is political fall out and Obama, who you can claim is a lot of things but stupid is NOT one of them, realizes this and that is why he wants congress to act so that he can doesn’t have to get his own hands dirty.

Based on the assumption that there’d be a loss to his political capital if he were to spend it on this. Which you’ve since reversed…and contradicted yourself with

I never said there was a political cost

Oy vey. And then, you claimed that Obama somehow sees it as illegal or an abuse of executive privilege to act within the letter of the law in issuing a stop loss on DADT (and implied that if he were to do so, he’d be abusing his executive privilege), below–

The president and the commander and chief of this great nation are both bound to the LAWS of this country. I know Bush didn’t think that, but Obama does. Obama sees DADT as a LAW of this country. He doesn’t necessarily agree with it, but because he sees it as a LAW he sees himself bound to it. He isn’t Bush, he won’t break the law just because people ask him to. Issuing a stop order to supercede DADT, to Obama, is simply breaking the law.

Now, since you admit that obama’s not stupid, and knows the law, he also knows that it’s entirely legal for him to issue the stop loss, you’ve reversed your position again. For someone who’s never argued that he shouldn’t issue the stop loss, it sure seems that way given your likening it to bushco’s abuses of EP, and calling it illegal, saying it will cost him political capital…and on and on and on.

As to the latest “he won’t issue the stop loss because he hasn’t yet” reasoning, those are unrelated. Him saying that he wants congress to repeal it and him issuing the stop loss are consistent, too (both can happen). Continued pressure needs to be placed his administration to issue the stop loss.

You feel that Obama is rational? What exactly has Obama done to make you believe he is rational? He went from Obama the candidate to Obama the president on one day in January. Nothing he said while he was being voted into office has rang true of the man once he got into office. I don’t agree that Obama is rational.

I never argued that he should not issue a stop loss. That has never come out of my mouth. My argument is that he has said countless times that he will not issue a stop loss. He has said this when people more gifted than myself have made very valid arguments to him that he should. He simply refuses to listen to reason on this issue. So, I don’t see a reason to bang my head on the Obama wall.

I’m not defending Obama, but has it occurred to you that maybe one of the reasons he won’t take action on this issue is that him taking action on this issue allows Congress of the hook. You see, America is pissed, gay people aren’t going away and they want the same rights as everyone else, America feels gays should have these basic human rights. However, if Obama signs a stop loss it takes heat off of Congress. I just feel that our heat is misdirected. It should be directed at Congress to repeal DADT not at Obama to make it go away for the next 3 years (which will undoubtedly just cause Congress to not worry about it for 3 years…its much easier to argue for equal rights when you don’t have the rights). Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a stop loss simply protect the troops already in the military? It doesn’t do anything for people coming into it. My other feeling is that the military is going to be a very nasty place when the people that want the gays out can’t remove them because they are gay. Those bigoted assed generals (many of whom were serving when DADT was passed) are going to be hell on those troops in my opinion.

The reason I have no argument for why he shouldn’t issue a stop loss is because I never said he shouldn’t and feel that he should. Are you really that lost on this whole argument. Did you honestly think I was implying that he shouldn’t. I said he won’t and brain stormed some ideas why he wont. Those are two very different things.

I never said that his action on stop loss will affect his outcome in 2012. I said, I personally think he has a very good chance of being defeated in 2012. The reason I feel this way is because Obama the president is not the same man that Obama the candidate was and there are glaring discrepancies. That normally doesn’t bode well when you are running for re-election.

But you are…

He keeps up with the polls and apparently that is not enough to make him care about issuing a stop loss.

Oh boy. YET. HE hasn’t done it YET. That doesn’t mean that it is impossible. Do you understand? By your logic, Obama is concerned about the deficit because it still exists.

He has said that he will work with Congress to pass a repeal when they actually come up with one.

Once again, continued pressure for issuing the stop loss needs to be put on the administration. Your solution is no solution at all. Congress needs to be pressued to pass the MREA, too. These are two very distinct issues. However, the passage of the MREA will happen a lot faster if obama issues the stop loss. In fact, it can be argued that unless obama issues the stop loss, the MREA will not pass regardless of how much pressure is placed upon congress by us.

Not true. There are a lot of allies who aren’t directly “related to the cause”.

The gay/straight/ally population.

And that’s a lot bigger than the democrats have traditionally underestimated it.

That is much less than the 75% you tried to use as a number. You are also ASSUMING that this will cost him votes.

Well, you admit that it will cost him some votes, but have said that acting has no cost. So it appears that if he were rational, he’d act and issue the stop loss to retain votes.

Perhaps it will cost him the vote of you and people that feel like you do; however, I’m willing to bet that the majority of the `gay population will vote for Obama regardless because they simply don’t base their opinion of the man completely on his unwillingness to issue such a stop loss.

Wow, this entirely the misses the point. So, you’ve evolved from arguing that obama does not understand that it’s legal for him to issue the stop loss, to issuing the stop loss has no political gain or cost for him, so there’s no reason for him to do it. LOL! Well, if that’s your argument, it’s pretty weak. It needs to be sold to him, you see. You don’t sell the stop loss to obama by saying that he shouldn’t issue it (which is what you’re arguing). It needs to be sold as the ethical thing to do (which it doubtless is), and that it has no cost…obviously if something has no downside and is the ethical thing to do, then it should be done and done immediately. Anyone who would fail to do that is a pretty lousy human being…especially when there’s no cost–just imagine if there were a cost. Second, if he actively gets involved in the passage MREA as he said he will, it can be sold to him that there will be a higher political cost than if he were to simply issue the stop loss, demonstrate to congress that there concerns are unfounded, and actually do something to substantiate his rhetoric that he’s opposed to dadt…he wouldn’t have to actively lobby congress during the MREA, for he’d have already done his part.

In presidential elections, we often vote not for who we want in office, but against who we don’t want in office. If the choice comes down to Pailn vs Obama I’m willing to bet the majority of the community will look right past DADT. I don’t like that idea, but that is simply the way it is.

That’s not the point. You have no argument for why he shouldn’t issue the stop loss. I have provided several arguments why he should (including a political cost of votes).

You are now taking this to absurd heights that I said that obama will lose the 2012 election because of his failure to issue the stop loss, when I clearly never said nor implied any such thing.
It’s called a strawman.

Ok, I agree that the will of the people is against Obama. I just don’t think we can force him to sign a stop loss when he is unwilling to do so. If he does sign a stop loss then I will completely and utterly admit to being wrong. In the mean time, I will work with the people that have shown the ability to support our rights (my state senator and congressman) to get a fire under their ass to do it.

No. I said that we could use polling data which shows that the majority of americans are in favor of repealing dadt to get him to move on the stop loss.

I pointed out that a poll that shows 75% of the country in favor of DADT doesn’t mean that the will of the people is to force Obama to change his mind.

On this issue, the will of the people is at odds with obama’s inactivity, and should (as I said all along) be demonstrated to obama time and again until he acts.

However, the argument is not that. The argument is, and will be framed by anyone running against him as, that even on the issues near and dear to Democrats Obama is a failure. He and the Democrats have already lost the majority support of Independent voters on the economy and foreign policy (traditionally weak areas for Dems). The huge spending increase in bailouts and budget are having little quantifiable effect and the public is growing uncomfortable with debt. The promised assistance to those in mortgage crisis is belittled as too little for too few. There is growing unease that the Democrats won’t even be able to pass Obama’s healthcare plan: Remember Clinton’s criticism during the primary that his plan was wildly expensive and naive? He can’t take the party by the balls and shake up Reid and Pelosi despite his lofty rhetoric. Obama can’t control the message within the party, and wants to “work across the aisle”? Republicans will never respect weakness. So what change, exactly, did we vote for?

So, by keeping some of the focus and heat on Obama we are achieving our goals. We will force his hand one way or another. As everyone knows, the only thing a politician cares about is getting re-elected and there are darkening clouds on this president’s horizon.

Through all this the message should be clear that queers are no longer satisfied with being mentioned.

As I said before, the only people that won’t be voting for Obama (and again this is an assumption just like we assumed the DNC fund raiser would be a failure) would be the people directly related to the cause. The gay/straight/ally population. That is much less than the 75% you tried to use as a number. You are also ASSUMING that this will cost him votes. Perhaps it will cost him the vote of you and people that feel like you do; however, I’m willing to bet that the majority of the `gay population will vote for Obama regardless because they simply don’t base their opinion of the man completely on his unwillingness to issue such a stop loss. In presidential elections, we often vote not for who we want in office, but against who we don’t want in office. If the choice comes down to Pailn vs Obama I’m willing to bet the majority of the community will look right past DADT. I don’t like that idea, but that is simply the way it is.

Pretty much. I honestly don’t believe that it will harm or hurt him in 2012 if he does or does not act on DADT what-so-ever. You see, things have a way of getting glossed over at election time, and the vast majority of this country still doesn’t even follow politics at all except when election time comes up and normally only about less than half them even bother to follow politics then.

You’ll notice that I corrected your polling data with mine after you’d already posted your own under the premise that the support of the majority isn’t behind us. So this is impossible…

So, so there’s no political gain or loss in obama issuing the stop loss, according to you. Then he can move on this with impunity, it seems. Why wouldn’t he? It’s the right thing to do, and it can be sold to obama that he will lose support (contrary to your assertion, he very well might of he continues to do nothing)–or at least will in the long run if he is positioned to pressure congress to pass the mrea when it is up for vote without having issued the stop loss (he won’t have to lobby congress at all, in fact, if he issues the stop loss, and doesn’t have to get involved in the congressional repeal of DADT).

Why wouldn’t there be a political loss? Oh, that’s right, because you think that no pressure should be put on obama to issue the stop loss, and that everyone will vote for him anyway if he (and we) does nothing.

Really? Because it seems like–to me and anyone else reading your posts–that you’re saying that it would be costly for obama to issue the stop loss RE:Please point out where the full support of the majority is behind this. Its not.

And then, you assert (because you don’t argue), that it wouldn’t cost obama votes if he ignores DADT. Well, that’s not true as many people won’t be voting for obama if he doesn’t act on this instead of sitting on his hands and allowing high profile lesbian and gay servicemembers to be discharged.

And further, if it’s your contention that it won’t cost obama votes if he doesn’t act on it, and won’t cost him votes if he does act on it (which it won’t), then he can definitely do without losing political capital. If it’s your contention that he will lose votes by issuing a stop loss, where’s your argument?

So now you’ve gone from obama falsely believes it’s illegal to issue the stop loss, to it won’t harm him if he doesn’t issue the stop loss.

Also, Obama seems to have his head up the ass of this “bridging the aisles” concept, and that is possibly one reason he wants Congress to act first on this issue. He doesn’t like making it seem that he is forcing Congress to act on anything. He is much more about meeting with people and getting ideas from both sides of the aisle.

I’m not apologizing for Obama, I have written multiple letters to my Congressman about getting behind MRA. I will meet with my Congressman in October to discuss gay rights issues (including DADT). You see, unlike some of the population of “self hating homophobic closet cases” (terms of endearment from Tank) I actually believe that getting involved directly with the cause is very important.

I can’t personally get to Obama, but I have a direct line to my Congressman (given the fact that I put about 500+ hours into getting him elected in 2006 and about 200+ hours into getting him re-elected in 2008). I choose to fight my battles when I know that I can win them and influence change by doing so. I simply don’t think Obama is going to change his mind, and I don’t see a point to force the issue. If I felt Obama would change his mind then I would be all for making him do so. However, instead of wasting my time trying to force Obama to change his mind I would rather work around him by going through Congress.

Wow, you’re wrong again. According to polling data, between 75-77% of americans support openly gay servicemen and women, and a repeal of don’t ask don’t tell. This seems like a pretty big majority to me. And, given that the remainder likely wouldn’t vote for obama anyway…there’s no real political cost.

I respect your willingness to speak your mind but your logic is flawed. Read your reply to Tank regarding the Gallup poll on gays serving: You assert that a clear majority of the country supporting gays in the military has no bearing on politics. Are you daft? There is ZERO political risk in beginning the repeal of DADT. NONE. In fact the political capital that the president would enjoy from keeping his promise far outweights any political negative. The people that wouldn’t support that will never support it. There is significant political risk in being perceived as a liar and a homophobe. The results of late that you vaguely refer to seem to be much more a result of the direct confrontation that Obama and his administration is encountering than any concerted efforts against Congress. As the only nationally elected official, other than VP, Obama deserves every bit of the anger, frustration and negative consequences for his (in)action that he earns.

Homespun laundromat wisdom…front porch “memes”… “He got hisself a fa-antsy physics degree but he can’t bail no hay! har har har” I think they’re popular amongst people like yourself because putting down formal education must be comforting in justifying your laziness and lack of formal education (and yes, in the u.s., the vast majority of people without college educations are LAZY–for they’re there to be had).

My you are dumb. Obama will do what suits obama’s political interests. That needs to be sold to obama so he’ll do it. And issuing the stop loss suits obama’s political interests rather than pressuring congress to pass the MREA.

But it doesn’t matter to the fact that murder is against the law…LOL! You’re absurd.

Murder is the act of killing another person.

Not necessarily. Involuntary manslaughter isn’t murder.

However, we have so many different degrees of murder (from involuntary manslaughter to first degree)

Involuntary manslaughter isn’t murder.

because of the way the actual act is interpreted.

Wow, this really does miss the point entirely. The act, we’ve supposed, is murder. Murder is illegal…regardless of whether or not it’s first degree or second degree. Are you getting it? Let’s say someone commits first degree murder. The unlawful killing of a person with intent. That is illegal. It doesn’t matter how many ways it can be “interpreted”–it is illegal.

We also have juries because it can also be interpreted as guilt or innocent.

But that doesn’t address the point, stupid. Guilty people go free; that doesn’t mean that they’re not guilty. Further, if they are guilty, then they’ve broken the law–they just weren’t convicted. The law itself doesn’t say that x is guilty of murder; it says that murder is illegal. You’re simply retarded. Obama knows that he has the authority to issue the stop loss and that it is legal for him to do it.

In all cases a murder happened, but the law allows for different interpretations.

But murder is illegal regardless of the interpretation…once again, MURDER is illegal regardless of the intrepretation. Do you understand yet? Murder is illegal…one more time: MURDER is ILLEGAL. And obama issuing the stop loss is LEGAL.

Not saying that is necessarily the case with you. Just saying that you still haven’t been able to dispute my argument that although Wall Street is a very flawed system when you don’t back it its not the CEOs of Wall Street that suffers its the millions of workers that they decide to get rid of to sure up their own bottom lines.

This is a strategy of defeat and failure. It is your strategy of choice as exhibited on other threads where you’ve said that emailing an nbc affiliate airing an extremely antigay bigoted show is “hopeless” because (and I kid you not people) “if the channel airs it, then the channel airs it”.

Once again, if continued pressure is placed upon this administration, with arguments that detail how issuing this stop loss would cost him less political capital than pressuring congress to move through with the MREA–it will get done. When obama is made aware that the majority of americans are against this law, and that consulting with the same bigoted clueless people in the military responsible for crafting DADT is entirely inappropriate–this will be done. Your defeatist attitude has no place at the table, and should not be taken seriously.