Plenty of political and legal experts are telling the Obama administration that yes, in fact, the president can end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell via executive order. Except President Obama keeps saying he wants Congress to take action to repeal the law. Obama insists he’s committed to killing DADT, and yet he won’t use the one tool in his power to do so?
This week the Center for American Progress shared a report on how the White House can wind down DADT. In fact, it’s actually a list of how he must do it: Issue an executive order to temporarily halt dismissals; form a presidential panel to strategize on how to implement a full-blown repeal; get Congress to repeal the law; change the military guidelines; follow up with the military to make sure they’re following the new rules.
Great stuff, right? Too bad the White House still refuses to budge. From Thursday’s press briefing, Mother Jones‘s David Corn speaks to Robert Gibbs:
Clearly, the White House has its own strategy, and it involves both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. To some, it’s a winning M.O.; Nancy Pelosi and The Three Gays met this week to plot course on gay legislation like DADT. But as CAP Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb argues, “A presidential suspension on further dismissals on the basis of DADT is not only within the authority of the president but is necessary to begin the process of repealing this counterproductive, costly, and unnecessary law.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Necessary?
John Santos
If they kill DADT, or give us any of the equality we have been asking for, the Dems no lobnger have a carrot to dangle in front of our faces when asking for money and votes. The Dems will draw out equality for as long as possible, until we either cut off the money, or start voting for another party. Then we will see quick action. The Dems know that the only thing that keeps many queers voting Democrat, is the belief that they will give us our equality. As long as they keep putting it off, we keep coming back
timncguy
when will a reporter ask “WHY” they won’t do this instead of “IF” they will do it? And, don’t accept because it’s only temporary. We know it’s temporary. That’s the point, suspend it while congress works to repeal it.
galefan2004
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.
Karly
Day after day the writers on this blog show their complete lack of understanding of the political process. Could Obama issue an executive order repealing DADT? Sure, he can issue an executive order that says anything he wants. That DOES NOT, however, mean that it would withstand constitutional scrutiny. The President does not have the constitutional right to unilaterally overturn legislatively enacted statutes, and should not overstep his power under the separation of powers doctrine, especially for such a politically charged issue.
I realize your frustration and share the expectation that Congress and the President will work to overturn DADT and DOMA in addition to extending marriage rights on a federal level. But the continued and misguided pressure on the President to unilaterally fix everything with one swoop of the pen is ridiculous.
You want change? CALL YOUR CONGRESS MEMBERS. The President cannot and should not act in place of the legislative body. The previous president was well known and widely criticized for such actions, and this President should not make the same mistakes merely because members of the gay community are frustrated with the lack of legislative action.
Wondermann
@Karly: agreed…if he does this it would send a powerful message that if you don’t like something just use your superpower to erase it.
Now what if Bush had done that? What if he made the ban on gay marriage an amendment? We would be upset.
Obama does not want to set that example. Let Congress repeal it with his full support.
Idle Thought
Obama’s hypocrisy on gay marriage and issues GLBT frankly makes me wonder if like Sanford, Ensign, Haggard, Fossella, Vitter, Craig, Edwards et al he too is cheating on his wife.
Hannah
My worry is that if Obama does sign the Executive Order, Congress will continue to drag their feet on the issue. They won’t see it as a pressing need, because, hey! the discharges aren’t happening anymore. Then come 2010, they’ll tell the gays to vote Democrat so that they can end the actual law.
I’m tired of Congress and Obama playing fucking hot potato with DADT, that’s for sure.
Karly
@Idle Thought: and these are related in what way?
Cam
This way they can plan for it to fail and blame it on the Republicans and still ask us for our money.
Bertie
and for this reason Obama and his DEM party get ZERO donations or support from me.
Karly
I have a general question for all: If you have chosen to withdraw financial and/or other types of support from the Democratic Party, to whom have you redirected your efforts? Gay organizations? A different party? Nowhere?
Again, I am in full agreement that anti-gay laws must be repealed as soon as possible. However, it seems counter-intuitive to take myself out of the discussion by withdrawing support for the only viable political party that gives a damn about me and my community. In my opinion, trying to change things from the INSIDE always works better than trying to force change as an outsider.
Bill
Why ANY Gay or Lesbian American would even CONSIDER serving a country that does not treat them as EQUAL citizens is just BEYOND me.
Markie-Mark
You said: “trying to change things from the INSIDE always works better than trying to force change as an outsider.”
What makes you think that you are on the “inside?” Obama has spent more time picking out his dog than he has spent advocating lgbt issues. Obama has been in office for 6 months and NOTHING has happened. Seems like waiting is not working.
My money and votes will be going to the Green Party in the future.
SM
@Karly:
You are exactly right.
If Obama suspended DADT executive order, you can pretty much guarantee Congress would act like the problem was solved and blow it off which would not make it permanent.
Everyone who want a President to do things fast and easy by executive order….be careful…because you won’t have much to say when there is a President in office who does not like you.
M Shane
I begin to wonder if gay people pay any attention whatsoever to the technicalities of politics as they spin out in reality. Karly is entirely correct and one of the most imposing reasons for getting rid of presidents like Bush is that they pay no attention to their Constitutional Powers.
Does anyone know what the ‘separation of powers’ is and how important that is to keeping a democratic republic.
Well , if you don’t quiet down and read about why the president doesn’t go whole hog and do what ever he wants because someone wants him to or because he wants to.
Few people realize how amazingkly close this country came to colapse, because Bush didn’t give a fuck about playing by the rules. Obama is a Constitutional scholar and knows what he can do and not do. Don’t make fools out of yourselves and believe that because you are gay the Constitution should be kicked and shit on. You’re not that important that you should ruin the nation.
TANK
That he hasn’t is indefensible. That he won’t is just wrong. Any excuse is inexcusable. All that this amounts to is the stroke of pen.
TANK
@Karly:
I guess Truman didn’t do it when by executive order, he desegregated the military…ah huh.
TANK
Any queer who is an apologist for obama’s refusal to issue a stop loss order is an enemy of this community. THere is no reasonable way to disagree here when people’s lives are being ruined by discrimination and the public overwhelmingly supports this ban’s repeal.
thatguyfromboston
@Tank. There wasn’t a law in place that segregated the military. What was in place were military manuals and operational procedures. Things that Truman, as Commander in Chief was free to change at will. DADT is an actual law, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by WJC. Now, the only way to get rid of a law is to pass another law that repeals or nullifies the first law, or have it stricken down in the courts as unconstitutional.
wondermann
@M Shane: Great point, M Shane. It’s scary how foolishness runs freely among us.
It’s truly silly to blame Obama. Do most of you understand politics? Oh, why am I asking that, only a few of us do.
These rants about not supporting the Dems and going elsewhere is ridic. And please don’t label me as an apologist, I’m a realist. I know these issues take time. Why is that a problem?
I’m sorry to be snarky, but it’s pains me to see how lost some of our community folks are. We need to gain a realistic sense of things and stop being so myopic.
AverageJoe
@ Karly, last time I checked, an Executive Order, relating to the military, would trump congresses power specifically because of his constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military. Perhaps you should examine the history of EO’s, perhaps the best example is the emancipation proclamation, which was an order that essentially re-interpreted the constitution by freeing the slaves in the rebellious states. Separation of powers is a lame argument, specifically because it is within his power as the chief officer of the military to say, ‘stop discharging personnel regardless of DADT’. The memorandum Obama recently signed extending some additional benefits to some partners of his employees is another great example of when a president uses the EO to get around bad legislation, DOMA specifically says that Federal benefits can only be provided to a certain class of couples, which Congress defined as heterosexual married couples.
Anyway, i hear your critique about pressuring legislators, i just wish all the things he promised on the campaign trail to do as president, that he now says must be done legislatively, would have at least been attempted by him when he was in the Senate.
Brian Miller
If you have chosen to withdraw financial and/or other types of support from the Democratic Party, to whom have you redirected your efforts? Gay organizations? A different party? Nowhere?
This attempt at a rhetorical question is so incredibly retarded that I cannot believe the Democratic Party shill in question is attempting to ask it.
One of the consistent markers of the Democrats is that apparently they believe that not only are their LGBT supporters rich, but they also think they’re as dumb as a box of rocks.
Brian Miller
@M Shane: Few people realize how amazingkly close this country came to colapse, because Bush didn’t give a fuck about playing by the rules. Obama is a Constitutional scholar and knows what he can do and not do.
Oh give me a fucking break.
Obama is so concerned with “the rules” that he used federal pressure to nullify the rights of secured creditors in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies — in unprecedented fashion.
And he’s using money from the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” specifically allocated to purchase troubled mortgages from banks to bail out automakers, broadcasters, etc. — in direct contravention of the intention of the law AND its express purpose.
Trying to pass off Obama as some constitutional literalist who scrupulously follows the rules no matter what is a great example of Democrat Party partisans who assume that LGBT Americans are incredibly naive.
The verbal insults to gay people who aren’t willing to swallow your bullshit are far less offensive than the insults to intelligence you guys keep committing.
TANK
@thatguyfromboston:
“Yes, the president will get some sympathy from those of us who understand his legal tack as a mechanism for buying time until he ends the ban through political avenues instead. But Obama could already have done this by executive order, obviating the need to put himself in a position of writing a dishonest defense of the ban. The Palm Center released a study this spring showing that the president has the power of “stop-loss” which he could use to halt all discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While some worry this would be a temporary solution, it would actually be the wisest way to lift the ban permanently, as part of a one-two punch: Obama could suspend discharges using stop-loss and then, six months down the line, point to the success of openly gay service and ask Congress to repeal the policy once and for all.”
I guess both the palm center and nathaniel frank are wrong, then…and some anonymous douchebag who posts on queerty (YOU) is right about the legality of the stop loss? Go fuck yourself.
SFNative
@galefan2004:
“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.”
Tell that to President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson who risked their political careers devoting a staggering amount of time to push through civil rights into law for African-Americans.
Then I tell Barack Obama: “I call on you to show me you have the courage to follow the steps of those before you, to progress the morals of freedom, equality and justice, and to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
TANK
@Brian Miller:
And given that the democratic lgbt fundraiser broke expectations by a quarter million bucks, they’re justified in so believing.
Karly
In reading all of these comments, all I can really do is laugh.
“Any queer who is an apologist for obama’s refusal to issue a stop loss order is an enemy of this community.”
Really? We’re you recently appointed King of the Gays through some divine intervention that I was not privy to?
The idea that I might be a shill for the Dems is pretty fun for me to imagine, but sadly not the case. I am a law student from Minnesota and a lesbian who believes in institutional change that has actual legitimacy. I have a full understanding of how executive orders work, and agree with where you’re coming from, AverageJoe. However, I did not say that he COULD NOT do it, but simply that it would be difficult to defend in front of a decidedly conservative judiciary who would have the ultimate say as to its constitutionality.
I take solace in my knowledge that many members of the LGBT community are not radicalists but instead understand the reality of the political climate in which we live. You have the choice to continue complaining on internet message boards or actually go out into the community and try to actually enact the change you seem to passionate about. I will choose the latter every time.
SM
@TANK:
Why don’t you all find people to run for Congress and and give your money to them. Put more LGBT in the House and Congress.
….not so sure you all could do that with you arguing though.
TANK
@Karly:
You were disproven in your claim that obama cannot issue a stop loss. You lied to defend bigotry. You are an enemy of this community.
TANK
And a law student who knows how executive orders work would have better reasoning than
“The President does not have the constitutional right to unilaterally overturn legislatively enacted statutes, and should not overstep his power under the separation of powers doctrine, especially for such a politically charged issue.”
Apparently he does have the constitutional right and you’re wrong…
TANK
I realize who difficult it is to admit that you’re wrong when you’re an aspiring lawyer, but you are…
TANK
And politically charged issue? Your rhetoric is a vacuous as it is false…you do realize that the vast majority of americans support DADT’s repeal, don’t you? I mean, if DADT’s “poitically charged” than moving forward on any lgbt issue would be impossible.
TANK
@TANK:
then even. Corrosive proud stupidity such as yours does not improve one’s grammar when responding to it…
BrianZ
@Karly: You show a complete lack of understanding of the US military and its authority structure. That you choose to wrap it up under the blanket of constitutional authority is a complete joke. Oh and look you got the support of some of the most hated, hetero-facists that come here to post. Good job!
Honestly, you sound like one of those people who are paid by a campaign to help “control the message” in and through the blogosphere. I hope you are a volunteer because that would be donation dollars wasted.
@M Shane: Perhaps in some other discussion I might agree with your assertion that people don’t take in to consideration the nature of the seperation of powers. Here, however, you are wrong. While a sitting President does not, ever, have the authority to do modify or otherwise tinker with a law passed by Congress he DOES have rights of authority over the armed forces as the highest ranking civilian. Some constraints are placed on that authority due to Senate confirmation requirements, budgetary issues through Ways and Means, etc. In times of war his authority over policy and personnel is nearly bullet-proof. It is through this authority that the current president could, and SHOULD, issue a directive to the Secretary of Defense to cease all dismissals under DADT. That you go around the bus, downtown and over the bridge to excuse his empty rhetoric tells me you are not personally touched by this policy.
@wondermann: “Community folks”? “Superpower”? And you go on to suggest that a president would have any authority to enact a constitutional ammendment and then want to be taken seriously as one of the few who understand politics? What a joke. Stick to the Huffington Post dear, you’re much less likely to be called out there.
Karly
@TANK:
I respect your right to wallow in your anger and misunderstanding of constitutional law. It will be easy to tell in the end which strategy evokes the change you seem so passionate about obtaining.
TANK
@Karly:
Oy…yeah, I guess the contingent of constitutional lawyers who are behind the stop loss tactic don’t get constitutional law, either…and you, an aspiring law student…has it all wrapped up. You’re embarrassingly arrogant and ignorant.
TANK
But you’re a bright shiny reminder of why I would have preferred to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger than go to law school. I’d be surrounded by douchenozzles like you…literally being forced to deal with them day in and day out….
Karly
@TANK:
I certainly never said that reasonable people couldn’t disagree on constitutional issues, or that scholars may have a different view of the best way to move forward with repealing unsavory statues. It’s probably true that I’m arrogant, but you make it so easy when your statements are so patently incorrect.
@BrianZ:
“While a sitting President does not, ever, have the authority to do modify or otherwise tinker with a law passed by Congress he DOES have rights of authority over the armed forces as the highest ranking civilian…In times of war his authority over policy and personnel is nearly bullet-proof.”
Your comments highlight the constitutional issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. Whether we like it or not, we are NOT officially in a “time of war,” even if the reality of the situation would argue otherwise. The President, as you said, does not have the constitutional right to unilaterally overturn acts of Congress.
TANK
It’s probably true that I’m arrogant, but you make it so easy when your statements are so patently incorrect.
So now you, an aspiring lawyer, are a constitutional scholar? LOL! Now if only you could prove my statements “Patently incorrect”.
TANK
I think you’re right, brianz–karly is one of those “manage the message” or “contain the message” kind of propagandists.
Karly
@TANK:
I actually didn’t say that I was a scholar, but instead that scholars may disagree with me. However, I am a student, thus a scholar, so whatevs.
It’s pretty difficult to prove a negative, but I’d love to see one Supreme Court case or treatise that argues that the President is allowed to unilaterally overturn acts of Congress.
It would be so awesome if I could be a shill for the Dems. Let me know if you see any job openings.
TANK
I actually didn’t say that I was a scholar, but instead that scholars may disagree with me.
Red herring.
However, I am a student, thus a scholar, so whatevs.
False. One doesn’t imply the other.
It’s pretty difficult to prove a negative,
Nonsequitur.
but I’d love to see one Supreme Court case or treatise that argues that the President is allowed to unilaterally overturn acts of Congress.
Pertaining the military, and not necessarily in times of war–though, given the rhetoric behind afghanistan and iraq and how this policy weakens our preparedness from the obama administration, this qualifies.
It would be so awesome if I could be a shill for the Dems. Let me know if you see any job openings.
More spin?
Cam
“”@M Shane: Few people realize how amazingkly close this country came to colapse, because Bush didn’t give a fuck about playing by the rules. Obama is a Constitutional scholar and knows what he can do and not do.”
________________________________________________
Janet Napolotano just issued an order stopping the deportation of spouses of American citizens who’s spouses had deid before they were married the required 2 years. Here is the release on this…
“The widows’ and widowers’ plight came to the attention of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano within days of her taking office. That according to her spokesman Matt Chandler. He says broader immigration and border policy has proven quite complicated. But this was something Napolitano decided to take an early stab at.
Matt Chandler: “There were some sad cases there. We had a responsibility to not only enforce the laws of this country as they are written, especially as it pertains to immigration. But we also have a responsibility to do so in a practical and commonsense way.”
Napolitano has ordered deportations of surviving spouses and their children deferred for two years. That gives Congress time to fix the law if it chooses to.””
_______________________________________________________________
So when it comes to hetrosexual relationships the Administration has no problem halting a program that was put into law by congress……..
Karly
@TANK:
“I actually didn’t say that I was a scholar, but instead that scholars may disagree with me.
Red herring.
However, I am a student, thus a scholar, so whatevs.
False. One doesn’t imply the other.”
schol?ar
–noun
1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
2. a student; pupil.
3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholar
“It’s pretty difficult to prove a negative,
Nonsequitur.
but I’d love to see one Supreme Court case or treatise that argues that the President is allowed to unilaterally overturn acts of Congress.
Pertaining the military, and not necessarily in times of war–though, given the rhetoric behind afghanistan and iraq and how this policy weakens our preparedness from the obama administration, this qualifies.”
You asked me to prove that you were patently incorrect, hence the difficulty in proving a negative.
You still, however, have not given any showing of a constitutional basis for the President unilaterally overturning an act of Congress.
TANK
1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
2. a student; pupil.
3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholar
So you can that I’m right, yes? Scholar, in the ordinary usage, does not imply “student”.
“It’s pretty difficult to prove a negative,
Nonsequitur.
but I’d love to see one Supreme Court case or treatise that argues that the President is allowed to unilaterally overturn acts of Congress.
Pertaining the military, and not necessarily in times of war–though, given the rhetoric behind afghanistan and iraq and how this policy weakens our preparedness from the obama administration, this qualifies.”
You asked me to prove that you were patently incorrect, hence the difficulty in proving a negative.
That’s not proving a negative. Look up what that means. Proving a statement false is not, by itself, proving a negative. Proving a negative would be proving a negative statement true (e.g., barack obama is not in this room right now with me or it is not the case that barack obama exists in this room right now). Subtle difference that’s not so subtle.
You still, however, have not given any showing of a constitutional basis for the President unilaterally overturning an act of Congress.
Apparently there is a constitutional basis for the commander in chief to issue a stop loss on dadt if it poses a threat to national security, for example… or else so many constitutional lawyers wouldn’t be supporting it as a legitimate constitutional mechanism for ceasing DADT firings…now would they?
TANK
Unfortunately, you have no argument that Obama cannot issue a stop loss…
4getit
we should repeal the army
Karly
@TANK:
I feel like I should just continue to grind at you just to piss you off because it is so fun!
The argument that a lot of people follow a certain constitutional interpretation does not necessarily prove its truth. There were PLENTY of Bushies that argued the constitutionality of many of his actions, including his attempts at abusing Executive Orders.
My argument, as I have stated numerous times, is that while the President has the right to issue an Executive Order for whatever he may deem worthy, that does not necessarily mean that such an order could withstand constitutional scrutiny. Thus, a prudent president, such as Pres. Obama, will enact change through the appropriate channels rather than risking intervention from the judiciary.
TANK
I feel like I should just continue to grind at you just to piss you off because it is so fun!
This is you trying to derail the conversation and “manage the message”. You are propagandist plant defending obama policy…poorly.
The argument that a lot of people follow a certain constitutional interpretation does not necessarily prove its truth. There were PLENTY of Bushies that argued the constitutionality of many of his actions, including his attempts at abusing Executive Orders.
So now you’re comparing those who are in favor of a stop loss on the highly unethical and bigoted policy DADT to Bushco’s abuse of executive privilege? WOW, you’re pretty despicable…and this isn’t an argument at Obama can’t legally issue a stop loss on DADT.
My argument, as I have stated numerous times, is that while the President has the right to issue an Executive Order for whatever he may deem worthy, that does not necessarily mean that such an order could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
But apparently it could if it were deemd a threat to national security which the Obama administration has said it is…
Thus, a prudent president,
And there it is. This apologism is a propaganda tactic. This isn’t prudential; this is bigoted and downright unethical. Obama only cares about his political career–that is all.
such as Pres. Obama, will enact change through the appropriate channels rather than risking intervention from the judiciary.
Not necessarily, and apparently not considering he hasn’t issued the stop loss when he could. If anything, that would be a step in the right direction by modeling executive disapproval of the policy.
TANK
You know, beyond merely paying lip service…
Karly
@TANK:
Okay, awesome! Do you think they should be paying me or something? I could certainly use the money…
As I said previously, I respect your right to hold the opinions you do. It will be easy to tell which approach is more successful in the end.
wondermann
@TANK: The true enemies of our community is ignorance, misinformation, assumptions and foolishness.
Cam
The problem with being a student is the tendency to overintellectualize everything. It is common knowledge that Obama CAN issue an executive order to halt expulsions under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Additionally, even conservative papers have printed articles on the situation on how the White house is “Swatting Away” suggestions that it issue an executive order halting expulsions. Here is a blurb from the Washington Times…
“Mr. Korb, of the Obama-friendly Center for American Progress, detailed a report Wednesday with “practical steps” to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” starting with an executive order to end the discharges and then sending or endorsing legislation to repeal the law.” If this report was going to break the Law THAT paper would have jumped all over it. They could simply point out, if it was true, that he is legally unable to do that? Your problem was you were focusing too intently on answering one questions when what you should have done is thrown out a wider net and focused on solving the problem.
I.E. Obama CAN issue an Executive order halting Investigations and expulsions under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, not ending the law, but making it irrelevent. he can order an investigation into the law to determin it’s usefulnees, which would take an average of 2-3 years. At the end of that time, it would be apparent that the world hadn’t collapsed with gays serving openly, just like it didn’t when MA legalized marriage.
BrianZ
@Karly: “My argument, as I have stated numerous times, is that while the President has the right to issue an Executive Order for whatever he may deem worthy, that does not necessarily mean that such an order could withstand constitutional scrutiny. Thus, a prudent president, such as Pres. Obama, will enact change through the appropriate channels rather than risking intervention from the judiciary.”
So then, let us suppose your arguement is correct. Who would you suggest would be party to the suit that would grant the judiciary any basis of action? What class might step forward to deem the presient’s actions in violation of his constitutional authroity over the armed services? Are you suggesting that you believe the Democrats in Congress would file such a suit when they couldn’t muster the nerve to do so against the prior administrations clear expansion of presidential authority? Or are you suggesting that it’s simply altruism on the part of the president?
Karly
@wondermann:
Are you a shill, too? Or are you one of the hetero-facists I’ve heard so much about?
TANK
@wondermann:
Yes, all of which you exmplify…RE: Now what if Bush had done that? What if he made the ban on gay marriage an amendment? We would be upset.
You be the judge…Bush made the ban on gay marriage an amendment…as if that’s a parallel to the stop loss order, or even possible…
Karly
@BrianZ:
I disagree that following constitutional mandates for their own sake is simply “altruism,” but even if so, there are quite a number of people/groups who would have standing to sue. Groups of soldiers who would argue some type of harm from the order jump immediately to mind…
BrianZ
@Karly:I certainly hope that you are pursuing your JD to teach, because I find it highly unlikely you’d get far on your powers of persuasion and wit in a court or boardroom.
Yes, because altruism would indicate doing the right thing regardless of the consequences and in this case, that would be issuing an executive order stopping DADT dismissals.
I’m sure given enough time you’ll be able to prepare something more weighty in a reply as to a class that might legitimately have standing to challenge the president’s EO, given your assertion of their sizeable number.
OhYeah
Okay, it’s time to admit that Obama gave nothing but lip service to the gays. I voted for him, but we got played. At worst he’s a homophobe, at best he just doesn’t care about gays. The gays who were celebrating like lunatics when he was elected- thinking he’d be a gay advocate- look like silly naive boobs. The big question now is………….do we blow off this administration completely and wait for the next or try to work with it in a hardass way ?
reluctant commenter
@Karly: I regard to your earlier comments:
The central point of this post was the Center for American Progress Report which states that the Obama Administration can, and needs to take certain initial steps to begin the repeal of DADT… through the legislature.
– Signing an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and sending a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress.
-Forming a presidential panel on how to implement the repeal.
Even barring the Executive Order you disagree with, Obama hasn’t taken the other two steps to encourage Congress to move. And please correct me if I’m wrong; if he has. So YES, the Obama Administration is sitting on their hands when it comes to DADT. They don’t even list it as a goal on the White House website, which is so transparently political.
Perhaps this argument does become diluted with political naiveté, but the facts still indicate that it’s fair and reasonable to be disappointed with Obama.
wondermann
@Karly: I’m a Cylon
Karly
@reluctant commenter:
I agree with you and am similarly frustrated with the lack of action in Washington. I simply disagree with the best way to fix it. I CERTAINLY would like to see President Obama be more a vocal and powerful advocate for the LGBT community, and will continue to use all the means I have to encourage him to do so. However, I think that it is counterproductive for people to simply complain that the President isn’t doing enough when he’s not the only one that should be acting. I am not accusing you of doing so, but am simply annoyed at the tone that the national conversation has taken.
Still Sucks
@ ALL THE READERS: I stopped coming to this site months ago, but thought maybe things had changed. Little did I know! How can you guys tolerate this TANK character and the few others like him on this site? She is here ALL day, still angry and always the bitter queen. How fat and ugly is she? I suppose she cannot afford to get out of the house because 1)she is too poor, or 2)they will have to tear down a wall to get her out. Give it a rest already. No one cares about you or what you have to say. This is sick that you guys let this loathsome bitch ruin an otherwise good web site. It was a good idea to stay away–one doesn’t need such negativity in their life.
TANK
@Still Sucks:
That’s not true; I’m not here all day–in fact, for most of it, I’m not here. I spend way too much time here, though. Around scum like you. Now clearly you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. And no, I’m not fat nor am I poor, anonymous douchebag who I probably corrected.
TomEM
@Karly: “That DOES NOT, however, mean that it would withstand constitutional scrutiny”
– Nor does it mean that it would necessarily not though.
“and should not overstep his power under the separation of powers doctrine, especially for such a politically charged issue.”
– Are you implying “should not” according to you?
“But the continued and misguided pressure on the President to unilaterally fix everything with one swoop of the pen is ridiculous.”
– The language employed above is emotionally charged an ill-suited to logic.
“The previous president was well known and widely criticized for such actions, and this President should not make the same mistakes merely because members of the gay community are frustrated with the lack of legislative action.”
– Invoking the near-worldwide consensus on President Bush’s many failures is very clever, although irrelevant. Why would one qualify an assertion with the insertion of the word “merely”??
Karly
@TomEM:
“That DOES NOT, however, mean that it would withstand constitutional scrutiny”
Nor does it mean that it would necessarily not though.”
– That is certainly true.
“and should not overstep his power under the separation of powers doctrine, especially for such a politically charged issue.”
Are you implying “should not” according to you?”
– Totally. Only based on my understanding of the progeny and my opinion of how it should be interpreted and utilized.
“But the continued and misguided pressure on the President to unilaterally fix everything with one swoop of the pen is ridiculous.
The language employed above is emotionally charged an ill-suited to logic.”
– That’s probably true. Again, my opinion not an assertion of fact.
“The previous president was well known and widely criticized for such actions, and this President should not make the same mistakes merely because members of the gay community are frustrated with the lack of legislative action.
Invoking the near-worldwide consensus on President Bush’s many failures is very clever, although irrelevant. Why would one qualify an assertion with the insertion of the word “merely”??”
– I disagree that it’s irrelevant to compare mistakes of the past to potential mistakes of the future. I used the qualifier “merely” because I don’t believe a that anger from the LGBT communtiy, however warranted it is, allows for unconstitutional action, which is what I believe such an order would be.
TomEM
@Karly: – That is certainly true.
Indeed.
– Totally. Only based on my understanding of the progeny and my opinion of how it should be interpreted and utilized.
So your “should not” was predicated upon your knowledge and not mere opinion? Fair enough.
– That’s probably true. Again, my opinion not an assertion of fact.
Good point. Were I to have addressed all posters on this thread about the misuse of affect-laden arguments I’d probably be here all night.
– I disagree that it’s irrelevant to compare mistakes of the past to potential mistakes of the future. I used the qualifier “merely” because I don’t believe a that anger from the LGBT communtiy, however warranted it is, allows for unconstitutional action, which is what I believe such an order would be.
I thought that you penned “merely” to mean “only” (i.e. Why should the President invoke executive privilege “only (for)” GLBT folks?)
Though is it not “begging the question” to conclude that said supposed action would be ‘de facto’ unconstitutional because of the way “unconstitutional action” was defined at the outset?
Danny
@John Santos: I think that is an astute and accurate observation. However, I do also think that plain ol’ apathy is another huge factor.
Mark in Colorado
Is this really surprising? He has a little Napoleon at the puppet strings.
Who knew that Rahm was such a paranoid little fuckhole.
Brian Miller
Wow, Obama’s apologists aren’t only arrogant, insulting, tedious, and vacuous, but they’re persistent too.
michael
I went to a gathering about overturning prop-8 while visiting California last week. One of the topics up for discussion was whether or not to go for 2010 or 2012 to put a repeal on the ballot. What I found interesting was one of the reasons for when to place it on the ballot was Obama. Many, well in fact the majority felt that putting it on the ballot along with Obama up for re-election was asking for disaster. There was not any passionate demonizing of Obama or outlines of his pros and cons but just an overwhelming sense that the gay people in that room did not see him as our friend and most actually expect him to be a one term president that will not be able to achieve anything during his first term in office and that folks will go back to Republicans anyway. Its basically how I feel. He’s just sucking up to moderates on the right because he knows that if he wants to be re-elected he is going to have to get them on his side. Non gay Democrats will vote for him definitely. The Republican party is going to be the party of far right wing nut cases and the Democrats are going to be the new Republican party with a moderate stance. There is no more Democratic party they are gone and what we have in the oval office is moderate Republican wearing black mask.
Bill Perdue
@Karly: Work from the inside? That’s a loser’s view. It’s like smacking a cop so you can get sent to prison to improve conditions there. It’s a really, really stupid idea.
The Democrats, with the laughing support of the Republicans gave us DOMA and DADT and refuse to repeal them. They gutted ENDA and dropped the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill in 2007 so they could effectively pander to bigots. They and Obama in particular learned to out-Rove Rove and recaptured a lot of the bigot vote from the Republicans.
They want to keep that vote and we’re paying for it.
What it really means Karly is that you want to be inside the bus that runs us over. That worships jebuzz and his sky pixies.
D-Sun
Yes we can!
But we won’t.
wondermann
@Brian Miller: We are smarter and probably the ones to clean up this mess
AL
@Bill: Why would a gay person serve the country that doesn’t accept them? Hmmmm, you are talking about Saudi Arabia, aren’t you? Every self-respecting gay person has to realize the need to fight against Islamofascism. That’s why they join and root for the right team, instead of whining about “evil AmeriKKKa”.
AL
I am not a bit surprised that Obama won’t repeal DADT. I have more respect for religious right-wingers for being at least honest about their views on DADT, while other, supposedly ‘liberal’, politicians (I won’t point fingers) make false promises to buy your votes and then refuse to act once they get elected.
timncguy
@Karly: here is the part of DADT legislation you don’t understand.
At the same time that DADT was passed and signed into law, it also gave the president authority to SUSPEND (not repeal) DADT in a time of war because we need the military personnel. Congress specifically gave this power to the president.
In fact, the power has ALREADY been used in the past.
So, get off your soap box about whether the president has the authority to suspend DADT. He does. You’re wrong.
timncguy
@TomEM: just how wrong can one person be?
Thw law that put DADT into effect also granted the president the power to “suspend” (not repeal) it during a time of war. There would be nothing unconstitutional in the president using this power granted to him by congress to suspend DADT during this time of war.
In fact, it was done before. Known gay soldiers were sent to the battlefields during the gulf war when bodies were needed. ONce the bodies weren’t needed anymore, they began discharging gays again.
dlpca
FYI: The Gay blogs are infiltrated, like everywhere else, by troublemakers who often have no other agenda or goal but to disrupt, agitate, annoy and upset. Many times there statements have no logic and make little sense. Who they are and what their purpose for occupying our communications is somewhat apparent, if you think about it: sabotage.
The battle is serious; so serious that “they” hope to sabotage our communications with each other. They are trying to make every aspect of our existence unacceptable, illegal, if not immoral. Now that we have a somewhat sympathetic administration, who “kinda” acknowledges our search for equal rights, well just say, the heat is on. Those opposed to us are doing all they can, great and small, to make life difficult for us. This is the nature of war. Make no mistake about it, we are in war for equality.
So when you read this or any Gay blog, know that we are not the only ones. “They” are aware of our thoughts, writings and dialogues. However, their presence on our blogs is interesting. Consider perhaps they are threatened by our collective voice. And consider their lack of success to quiet us, since we are now communicating more than ever (especially via gay blogs). Keeping us apart, disconnected to prevent a network of Gay solidarity is their true goal. But coming together is our strength. They know this. And we have to believe it and spread this among ourselves.
My advice to my Gay brothers and sisters is to keep discussing, keep talking, keep fighting the good fight. Ours is a victory of eventuality because our goal is freedom to Love, Marry and Live. Our destiny is at hand. Stay the course with conviction and fervor. Do not let the trouble making “hater” comments throw you off center. Let your voice of dissent be heard, many times over. This is the land of the free and we are the brave.
Raymond S. Decelles-Smith
The Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership and majority in Senate and House are centrist moderates to conservatives with a few “celebrity liberals” who have no power in the DNC or White House. That includes faux Democrats like Barney Frank. Yes, THAT Barney Frank of MA.
It is time for us, as GLBT citizens, to advise the Democrats that we have a formal and legal separation…no votes, no money, no volunteering, no dinners…..and unless they start giving us FULL AND UNADULTERATED CIVIL MARRIAGE RIGHTS, DADT AND DOMA REPEAL, ETC.. the divorce decree will be final.
Jeffrey
@DLPCA- You are absolutely right. These blogs ARE being infiltrated and it is so easy to pick them out when you read the comments above. They are either apologists for Obama or right wingers who are scared to death of us getting our equal rights and they are trying to quiet us down. Tank pointed that out, too.
We are not falling for it.
SM
Congress needs to repeal DADT and DOMA? But there are few threads that say protest Congress or that Pelosi, Reid and company have FAILED to act in the many YEARS they have been in Congress? Why ignore the stalled bill repealing DADT in the House?
You all are sooooooooo obvious 🙂
SM
So are all the Obama haters going to him and Michele credit for the fact they are far different than Reagan towards issues like HIV awareness?
i doubt it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/GetTested/
adamblast
This is a lack of moral courage or a lack of empathy.
Obama would rather continue to oppress us and feign washing his hands than use his power on our behalf. That is the only conclusion I can draw from his half-hearted words and his offensive actions.
EMK1970
@Wondermann: And what if Bush had real tried to do something like that.
One-it would only be tempory and changable by Congress or the nest President
Two-Any Executive Order given by the President would have to word to conform with standing law as defined by the H ouse and Senate of the Day.
No, he can not just repeal DADT, but as Comanderand Cheif of the Armed Force, he has the legal and should have moral authority to halt all further dismasals from a certain point onward until Congress decides to make it law or make it gone.
The generals who disagree with this?: THEY CAN BE DISMISSED(FIRED) BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Who needs or wants a President who is too timid to challenge those whom he commands.
EMK1970
@Karly: If it mean that Democrats finally get the message that the LGBT community is not conscripted to or trapped within the confines their party or party politics then I say vote third-party, vote no party, or vote Republican( if you can stomach it) We have to do something to make them not only listen but care for once.
EMK1970
@SM: Nowe are not. Why? Because the A.I.D.S. pandemic is worldwide health issue that all(both Heterosexual and LGBT peoples)should be concerned with.
While many of us have suffered greaat and tragic losses to it in our community not all LGBT people are infected with the pandemic. If all LGBT people are sffected by the A.I.D.S. pandemic then so are Heterosexuals. We are all part of the Human Race after all.
They did not truly do this for the LGBT people inving with and dying withe the pandemic but for the children and Heterosexual donors and voters who are living and dying with it as well.
How dare you hate yourself so much such a predudiced assumption.
LGBT rights NOW
More MONEY for expanded A.I.D.S. research and to a broadend, rational and more inclusive dialogue it’s treatmant options.
galefan2004
@SFNative: So, just to get this straight, your examples of men that spent political capital, without regard to getting re-elected, are Kennedy who was assassinated and Johnson who didn’t even get re-elected after his first actual term as president. Plus, Johnson was relatively directly responsible for getting our country even deeper into Vietnam.
So, in short, you basically just backed up exactly what I was saying with your examples while disagreeing with me. Thanks!
galefan2004
@TANK: SHE NEVER SAID HE COULDN’T. SHE SAID HE SHOULDN’T. I would not expect you to understand the difference though.
galefan2004
@Karly: I’m loving the fact that Tank is getting taken to task. However, he has this overwhelming ability to twist words while trying to look less stupid than he actually is. However, his ability to keep fighting until he annoys the hell out of you is unmatched.
galefan2004
@michael: It has very little to do actually do with Obama. It has to do with record turn out (especially from the black community) in 2008 which will happen again in 2012. You increase your chances of getting an issue to pass in an off season election because fewer voters turn out in general allowing you to get more of your voters to the polls. That is just basic politics rather the person running for election is Obama or Hitler.
galefan2004
@D-Sun: We should have voted for Hilary when she said, “Yes we will!”
galefan2004
@timncguy: 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.
strumpetwindsock
@galefan2004:
If he doesn’t want to change his mind on something he won’t even if you put the facts right in front of him.
It’s a lot less frustrating though if you just talk over his head to others who are reading, and more open to ideas.
galefan2004
@SM: The second highest affected group in the United States (the highest if you add the world) is black women. Obama would look like a total jack ass to the black community if he ignored HIV/AIDS. Hell, HIV/AIDS is also a huge issue in the country where Obama was actually raised (and most likely born if you believe any of his family).
galefan2004
@strumpetwindsock: Yes, but not as fun.
SM
@galefan2004:
No offense IDIOT….My brother has been Hiv+ for over 20 years. Obama gets a HUGE THANK YOU for that. Trust me, I know stats about hiv you idiot.
GROW THE HELL Up….such babies around here.
TANK
@galefan2004:
You’re a tedious uneducated person. Shouldn’t was not justified.
TANK
It’s as simple as that. Karly had no argument for whether or not it shouldn’t be done.
TANK
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf
TANK
the above is the legal argument, explaining how it is possible for obama to issue a stop loss with regard to DADT. Everyone arguing the contrary has failed on a magnitude unmatched.
TANK
And yes, one tires of dicking around with you simple minded fools.
SM
Obama made over 500 campaign promises. You can track them. Promises kept category includes the LGBT agenda while hundreds of others are still waiting too.
You all just have a lot of misplaced anger and his Administration has way to many things to deal with at one time.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
TANK
@TANK:
Bump to get around the propaganda from the “message manager” above me.
SM
@TANK:
It’s not propganda…its the truth. Don’t read it TANK, won’t bother me a bit.
You are just a “character” that needs attention. Not my problem.
TANK
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf
Again. This shouldn’t get lost in the haze of the obamaton hopium.
SM
@TANK:
Who says I’m in a haze on Obama? I just listened to him and knew I would be in it for the long haul. Go back and LISTEN to his speeches and not just what you want to hear. Do Americans listen anymore?
I also know if the LGBT Equality fight was ORGANIZED and productive, you all would be breaking down barriers much faster. You all can’t come up with your own agenda and yet you slam the Democrats?(trust me – I’ve obviously tried to see it from your point of view)
The web site on Obama’s promises has DADT as stalled. Figure out why and fix that. It’s a lie to say he broke the
Promise or ignored it.
Out of the 500 Promises Obama made to Americans, he has MOVED MORE ON LGBT ISSUES THAN OTHERS. Its all there to look up. Even the promises he has broken.
SM
LOL at the Obama bashers here…Obama has paid MUCH MORE attention to LGBT Promises than the Promises he made to Women. He has put you as a priority over several other groups when you start looking.
Keep on hating!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/gays-and-lesbians/
adamant
SM is a paid propagandist from the Obama spin machine.
wondermann
@SM: this is a den of Jackals. We know what’s up. Y’all can continue your hater party. The truth is Obama and his team will handle the issues.
We need to be patient and work with the system. This myopic stance y’all are taking is embarrassing.
All of the anger and foolishness is silly and destructive of our community.
Please stop this now
SM
@wondermann:
Dude…if you all are complete idiots to act this way on a PUBLIC internet…then go look in the mirror when you wonder why people will not step up for you.
Also..you all want to bash a President that is helping America out…ITS WAR.
SM
@adamant:
FACT…Obama has moved faster on LGBT Equality issues than issues for people with Disabilities…
and you all cry like BABIES!!!!!!!
SM
@adamant:
No…I’ve posted the info here you need to contact people to get laws changed.
People in Iran are dying for their Freedom. You all have temper tantrums. The people in Iran would LOVE to have someone like Obama. You all are a joke.
People in Iran are DYING for a chance at what you all BITCH ABOUT.
SM
@adamant:
I’ve been following 2 issues. LGBT Equality Issues and the Issue in Iran.
If any of you are on twitter, follow the tweets of Persiankiwi.
He or she is in Iran. Although the tweets have stopped in the last 24 hours and people think he-she has been arrested, injured badly, or killed. That is someone who wants freedom.
….and then there are the kind people on Queerty who know it all.
UNREAL.
Brian Miller
@wondermann: We are smarter and probably the ones to clean up this mess
Oh yeah, I mean, you’ve done so WELL so far.
Brian Miller
@SM:
Oh my fucking God.
Did Obama apologists just compare themselves to Iranian democrats?!?
Seriously?!?
The linked post above needs to be requoted in its entirety at this site.
Brian Miller
@SM: Obama has paid MUCH MORE attention to LGBT Promises than the Promises he made to Women.
Well it’s understandable.
I mean, women are like pedophiles, or incestuous people.
Oh, he didn’t say that about women?
Silly me.
SM
@Brian Miller:
OMFG…..ITS A FACT..LOOK IT UP….FUCKING IDIOT.
Maybe when you all can report FACTS instead of acting like a bunch of Perez Hiltons people will take you seriously.
SM
LOL…there is HOPE…Thank GOD there are people out there calling out drama posted on Queerty…because that is all it is.
FUCK ALL OF YOU FOR TRASHING a President who has done nothing but what he HAS TO DO UNTIL THE LAWS ARE CHANGED. The Democrats put the most civil rights President possible in the White House and you trash him. Congratulatons on proving you are FIRST CLASS IDIOTS.
Go.To.Hell.
Out of all the people I have encountered in my life….the most INTOLERANT have been GAY!
—————-
Dumb Article of the Day: Queerty’s: THAT’S IT: Obama Has Spat and Shit In the Faces of Gay America
by Maybe It’s Just Me… on Jun 13, 2009
Lord, here we go.Clueless. (Actually, that’s what I was thinking about this article) That’s the only explanation for why President Obama not only actively promotes the Defense of Marriage Act, but defends its implementation at all costs. With utter…
Dumb Article of Day: Queerty’s Look, Obama Gave Gay Hate a Shout Out!
by Maybe It’s Just Me… on Jun 8, 2009
Whoever is allowing these articles to surface, should be ashamed of themselves.Here’s dumb article number 2Sure, the president only had a one-word mention for the gays during his speech at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp in Germany, but it’s more t…
Dumb Article of the Day: Queerty’s “Barack Obama Had 5772 Words for the Middle East. None of Them About Gays”
by Maybe It’s Just Me… on Jun 4, 2009
I know I run out of things to talk about, but this is too much.Queerty is a gay blog that usually showcase hot boys, jokes and gay stuff. But recently, they have had way too much Haterade and lost their God damned minds. They usually attack Obama wit…
Prop 8 is In…What’s Next?
by Maybe It’s Just Me… on May 26, 2009
So Prop 8 is upheld. Now it’s time to move forward.During our rallies, I hope we think about how to change this mess of a proposition. I know folks are angry, but let’s not run around in circles. As we prepare for a new battle, there are some things…
Why I’m sticking with Obama through the Gay Rights Drama
by Maybe It’s Just Me… on May 7, 2009
So in the news, we are hearing about the pressure Obama getting for gay equality and rights. And if you go over to Queerty, you get the daily (sometimes twice a day) hate-o-drama about Obama’s lack of support.However, I’m not going to bash him; t…
Raymond S. Decelles-Smith
Here are my stats: 63 years old….41 years in national and international (Canada)GLBT activism….33 years partnered and 6 years married….6 year old son….dual nationals US and Canada…member of Mattachine Society and Gay Liberation Front and ACT UP…and “veteran” of every GLBT struggle in two nations.
Result is that Canada is one of eight nations on earth where marriage equality is the law of the land, and the United States has GLBT rights where either Native American or Black rights were in the days of Plessy v Ferguson and Jim Crow – with the Dixiecrat racists and bigots – then Democrats and now Republicans -kept laws divergent between certain regions of the nation. Bigotry existed everywhere, but certain laws, like anti-miscegenation, died a SCOTUS death in 1967, even several years after Civil Rights legislation omitted it.
We now live in two nations, literally across a highway. We live in QC, so that we can experience full freedom before we expire, and in MA, where we were, as always, “deployed for duty” there as well. The former and latter is home during school year, and the latter is where summer on Cape Cod is enjoyed.
OK, Barack Obama…both gave him the maximum amount in primary and in general election, and helped “bundle” other contributions. Give to GLAD, Lambda Legal, ACLU, and PFAW, and Soulforce, and will add GLAAD when Jarrett Barrios is CEO. I do NOT give to HRC, and haven’t since Cheryl left the helm. I also gave to DNC, and the House and Senate campaign committees, and the Commonwealth party and certain legislative seats while fighting for MA marriage.
The Democratic Party, after Civil Rights, traded our great AA leaders for the Dixiecrat racists, who followed Strom into the new southern GOP. The Reagan Democrats, the DLC, the Blue Dogs took control of the DNC, and ultimately congressional leadership.
My friend, Brian Miller, described it accurately. The Congress is centre right on social issue matters and corporatist enabling on economic matters. Their support of the MIC is the same as the GOP. The answer to the GLBT community has been since Carter, but since Clinton, is that you should be a “silent minority” and accept the crumbs we give you, when we give it to you, so STFU, and we want your volunteerism, your vote, and your money. Keep your queenly drama to a minimum, you rich queers.
The UCMJ was changed by Truman by executive order. Wanting a second term despite his WH blow jobs, Clinton and Gingrich signed the DOMA and early on, with a DLC majority, the DADT. The military issue was now a Congressional law. However, and this is key, the POTUS can issue a stop-loss order. A liberal would do this, and a pragmatic centre moderate to conservative will not.
In forty years, I have realised that the US is a tenuous union of regions and special interests. The Corporatists have two wings, and neither is liberal or progressive. The GLBT activism is divided between GAY INCORPORATED LED BY POWER GAYS WITH OBSCENE SALARIES, AND WELL-OILED TONGUES AND WELL-GREASED ANUSES FOR THE DEMOCRATIC POWER BASE. You can flame and discuss until my mailbox is full of triangulation and DNC talking points, but 41 years has taught me all I need to know.
The facts are simple. Obama will act only if the DNC treasurer and political consultants tell him that it will endanger a second term. 304 million Americans……and remove about twenty-five percent for children….and you have the total voting population…and take your ten percent….which if inaccurate, will deduct the GOP gay vote and include our friends and family.
Those votes are substantial…..conservatively 20 million voters and hundreds of millions of dollars, pissed off and staying home.
Smells like a one termer to me. This is more than just cold facts, it is warm bodies of families….kids without protection because their parents are legal strangers…..ACT UP, OR CANADA WILL CELEBRATE TEN PLUS YEARS OF TOTAL FREEDOM AND YOU WILL STILL BE BEGGING OR HAVING SHILLS OR ENABLERS RECITE TALKING POINTS.
KyleR
One of the main arguments that I’ve heard AGAINST Obama signing a Executive order ending DADT is that it oversteps his authority as President.
One, the President of the United States of America is not just the President. He is also the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. The head boss of the military. And as such CAN issue an Executive Order that would end the DADT policy due to National Security. Consider that the majority of the US personnel separated from the military have been in critical jobs. Arabic translators and such.
Two, there is precedent regarding the President issuing an executive order that overturns the US legal code with regards to the US Military. Such as the Executive Order issued by President Truman ending the segregation of the US Military in 1948. Again, he issued an Executive Order. 16 YEARS before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ending the Jim Crow laws.
Therefore, saying that the President doesn’t not have the authority by means of his position or the Constitution or whatever is FALSE. Obama CAN write a Executive Order ENDING DADT.
The question shouldn’t be can or will he. It should and needs to be WHY DOESN’T HE? And I know the first answer that will come from people. He doesn’t do it because he needs the political capital to fight for Health Care Reform, TARP and all that crap. And it’s only been 6 months in his Presidency, give him time.
BULLSHIT!!!! This fight for Equal Rights and protections across the US has been going on longer than I’ve been alive. And under the US Constitution and the Deceleration of Independence all people inside the US are CREATED EQUAL and ARE ENTITLED to the SAME PROTECTIONS as EVERYONE ELSE. If Obama is a Constitutional scholar as some have said, why doesn’t he use THAT argument for LGBT rights? That’s because he doesn’t GIVE A SHIT ABOUT OUR RIGHTS. As nearly every other politician. They are only there to line their own pockets.
Randi Hubatch
@Karly: Normally your argument would stand up, but what you are missing here is the fact that there is a provision written into DADT allowing the president to issue an executive order suspending it durring times of war, so the president would not be abusing his power to do so.
galefan2004
@SM: I’m sorry your brother is HIV+. I just don’t think that I did anything to get him that way. You see, I control my sexual habits, and I don’t act stupidly when it comes to sex. I’m sorry that most men in this country are incapable of that, but we have come a long way since HIV+ people are that way because of blood transfusions, so they are victims of their own stupidity at this point. It still doesn’t change the fact that AIDS is much more an issue of stupidity and much less an issue the regards gay rights. However, the gay community is the only one that actually fights for the cause.
galefan2004
@TANK: You don’t tire of dicking around with us Tank. You enjoy it. You simply can’t get enough of it. However, its fun for us to piss you off, so that is what the new focus on this board is by many. These are now the piss Tank off board. It doesn’t matter that Obama CAN issue a stop loss. It matters that Obama doesn’t think that is the correct course of action. Obama simply is just not going to do it. He obviously has his reasons (rather that is because he is a bigoted homophobe or not is irrelevant). We need to change our tactics and start going after Congress to get rid of DADT instead of wasting our energy attacking Obama. It doesn’t do us any good, and it just let the more main stream conservatives on the issue see Obama as the good guy being attacked by the gays and that gets him even more support. I wouldn’t be surprised if right now the mainstream conservatives on this issue see Obama as a victim of his own party, the “liberal” media, and those offensive gay rights groups. Say what you want about Obama, but he knows how to spin every single situation to his own political success. The man is brilliant at looking out for himself.
galefan2004
@Raymond S. Decelles-Smith: I totally see how Congress is corporate enabling on economic matters. I mean, after all that is why they supported Obama as both Chrysler and GM (you know two of the biggest corporations in this country) filed bankruptcy just to survive. Oh wait!
galefan2004
@KyleR: 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.
galefan2004
@Randi Hubatch: 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.
BrianZ
@galefan2004: You don’t do a very good job at arguing your case for sparing Obama of the anger he deserves. The media, most other gay news sources, many in the gay blogosphere, even Colbert and Stewart are all highlighting the FACT that this president has ignored HIS campaign promises to the LGBT community. The fact that you choose to stamp that as “OK” in your book, because he ” obviously has his reasons” (a page from the Bush years, yes?) due to your personal attachment to a man you’ve never met is your business. That the rest of us are willing to stand up and demand that politicians do more than just pay lip service to LGBT rights is our right. If you choose to make excuses, that is your right. However, please do so without making up facts such as anything that supposes you have special knowledge of Obama’s logic and reasons i.e. you cannot know what Obama thinks, only relate what he has said.
That you chide Tank for being an instigator of arguements and then admitt that doing the same is your objective really detracts from anyone being able to take you seriously. Good on you for standing up to SM though.
galefan2004
@BrianZ: Maybe that is because I am not trying to spare Obama the anger he deserves. Make no doubt about it, I don’t like Obama. I’m more than angry at him. My issues have much more to do with other promises he hasn’t kept such as bringing troops home from Iraq though. I’m just offering up my opinion as to what Obama believes and why he feels DADT repeal must come through Congress before he acts. We aren’t doing a damn thing to help the situation by simply blaming Obama. He has said that once the legislation to remove DADT makes his desk he will sign it. What we need to do is light some fires under the buts of congress until legislation makes to the president’s desk.
I don’t stamp it as ok that he has broken promises. I personally can’t stand the man. I personally would like to see him end his presidency in 2012. I never fully supported Obama, I voted for Clinton in the Ohio primary (which she won) then took the lesser of two evils. I simply understand that no matter how much energy we direct that Obama he isn’t going to change his mind, so I feel that energy is better directed at Congress right now. We can bitch about Obama all we want, but if that isn’t going to accomplish a damn thing, then why do it. We started bitching at Congress and look how fast things changed. Also, I chose not to meet Obama. I did meet Joe Biden in person though. I’m from Ohio, everyone in Ohio has the chance to meet every presidential candidate every time there is an election because Ohio is seen as a must have for an election.
Funny, but I don’t remember making up shit. I based my conclusions on what he has said over and over and over and over and over again. He has said that he is not GW and that he will not act on his own against the given laws of the land. He has said this while discussing the DOJ brief and while discussing just about everything else in his presidency. Obama upholds the law of the land as he sees it. Its people that claim he is a radical homophobe hell bent on destroying the promises he made to gays/lesbians without paying any attention to their votes or their money that are making up wild assed allegations against the man with absolutely nothing to base it on.
This is a gay/lesbian chat board. I don’t ask to be taken seriously on it. I don’t take anyone to seriously either. Its my experience that the way people act on the internet is in no way related to the way people act off the internet.
Raymond S. Decelles-Smith
@galefan 2004 – You are a predictable sort, aren’t you? LOL. You re-frame other commentaries, and answer your own narrowly-defined questions.
Yes, Obama is a corporatist. Detroit was NOT his concern. Wall Street is the concern. For decades, GM and Chrysler (especially the latter through several sales and ownerships) has been “saddled” with costs related to retirement and health issues. Besides, the foreign automobile dealers migrated their manufacturing to Dixiecrat South without unions or nothing but 401K’s with loopholes out of shared compensation for those instruments. When it was time to give GM and Chrysler the Wall Street bailouts, southern GOP senators with Toyota, Hyundai, Daimler, etc…plants in their states did not support Detroit. The Blue Dog and Dixiecrat GOP coalition determines much in the US Senate. The House liberal caucus meets in a phone booth, while the centrists, moderate and conservative DINO’s that govern the WH and DNC keeps everyone in line.
So, please, do not insult us by suggesting that because he allowed a “banktruptcy” with special hooks rather than give a Wall Street bailout, that he is not a corporatist, is ridiculous on its face. Raymond S. Decelles-Smith, PhD.
TANK
@galefan2004:
NO, stupid, issuing a stop loss for DADT is well within his legal purview. An act of war does not have to be issued by congress for him to be able to issue the stop loss, as the stop loss is issued right now with active service members whose retention and deployment is against their will–that is, the 93,000 soldiers who are in the active or nonactive reserve who have no choice as to whether their service terms are extended. That’s all that’s required.
galefan2004
@Raymond S. Decelles-Smith: Am I honestly supposed to be all impressed that you can put PhD after your name? I’m not, but I’m asking if I’m supposed to be. What you fail to realize is that while the Wall Street system is borked, its the little people that always suffer. We need to keep corporations floating because if not those corporations simply cut jobs until they can float again on their own. They don’t cut pay of their CEOs they cut jobs. On the other hand, when Obama restructured Chrysler/GM he cut the hell out of CEO pay. That is something Wall Street would never do. I’m interested in hearing your argument regarding that, but don’t even try to use the fact that you went to school for 8 years to try to force your opinion.
galefan2004
@TANK: No stupid, I never said he can’t. I SAID HE WON’T. I tried to give some insight to his reasoning. I never said I find his reasoning acceptable. I simply said that we are wasting our energy trying to get Obama to change his mind when he simply has said over and over and over and over and over and over that he will NEVER issue a stop loss. Instead of trying to crucify Obama on his position (it takes a lot of work to make someone pick up a cross march down a street and be hung on it) we need to be working with congress to issue an amendment to end DADT and to get it passed. I’m not giving Obama an out. I’m simply stating that the strategy of spending all of our resources attacking Obama isn’t going to make him suddenly stop feeling the way he feels on the issue.
TANK
SO now this galefan is talking about the economy and corporate bailouts in defense of obama, who has demonstrated with those bailouts and stimulus that he simply doesn’t now what he’s doing? Doesn’t galefan have a hot landlord that rents to him regardless of the fact that he’s a self loathing homosexual? This is obviously relevant to “discrimination” and dadt somehow. Christ, laundromat wisdom.
TANK
No stupid, I never said he can’t. I SAID HE WON’T.
No, actually what you said is the following:
Issuing a stop order to supercede DADT, to Obama, is simply breaking the law.
This is rubbish. Proven rubbish.
TANK
And further, it’s incoherent. Things don’t appear to be “breaking the law” to obama. They either do or they don’t…appearance has nothing to do with it.
galefan2004
@TANK: I realize your brain only allows for one switch and that switch only allows you to see someone as an Obama lover or an Obama hater, but I am actually not in the category of any of those. I dislike a great deal of what Mr. Obama has done. I just feel that Mr. McCain would have been ten times worse. I don’t accept Obama’s stance on gay issues, I just realize nothing is accomplished by banging our heads (the gay rights movement) against the wall (Obama). The wall doesn’t move and our heads start to hurt.
Also, Obama is not directly responsible for any of the bail outs. He is only responsible for the stimulus. GW is directly responsible for all of the bail outs. The stimulus hasn’t even kicked in the majority of its programs yet, so its a little early to say it simply will not work. It also is a 2-5 year plan, so we won’t know the effectiveness of it for the next 2-5 years. If you honestly expected Obama to fix the mess, that it took this country the last 20 years to get into, in 2 months you must have bought his promise that he could walk on water.
Tank dude, its so fun to fuck with you. You are like a raging bull. Did you have to have muscles so bad that you decided steroids is the only way to get them? You have only one switch. That switch doesn’t allow you to see reason. That switch only allows you to see hate or like. Apparently, you don’t believe in gray areas. So, either you are brain damaged or 12. Which one is it?
TANK
I simply said that we are wasting our energy trying to get Obama to change his mind when he simply has said over and over and over and over and over and over that he will NEVER issue a stop loss.
And right here you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. It is not a waste of our efforts to get this stop loss pushed through. It is part of the strategy to have DADT repealed in congress by showing that neither morale nor performance is hampered in any way by having out lesbian and gays serve, and that the president is actively against DADT (the popular president). In fact, he doesn’t have to expend as much political capital pushing the MREA through congress in issuing a stop loss without it.
galefan2004
@TANK: I said that TO OBAMA IT IS BREAKING THE LAW. I didn’t say it is breaking the law. I said that it seems to be the stance Obama has taken on the issue. I know its easier to believe he is the gay hating president then to think he might have motivations that have nothing at all to do with us though.
TANK
@galefan2004:
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. None of what you’ve said here is true. Do you ever read and have facts at your disposal before issuing your opinion?
TANK
I don’t consider saying things like “if it happens, it will happen” and “obama won’t issue a stop loss because he won’t do it” (it’s up for grabs at this point) as “reasoning”. Similarly, I don’t consider vacuous pseudo facts in support of a non argument as reasoning, either…and outright lies–though I don’t think you’re lying, for to do that, you at least have to know what the truth is.
galefan2004
@TANK: Yes it is because this stop loss WILL NOT BE PUSHED THROUGH. If you knew anything about Obama you would realize that this is a man that stands behind his convictions. He is convicted, for some reason that I don’t even claim to understand other than I honestly believe he sees it as illegal, to never push a stop loss through. Trying to force him to do it isn’t going to do any good at all, but keep trying to force a black man (and I’m not being racist here) to change his mind and see what happens. Every black man I have ever met gets very fucking nasty when they are tired of being attacked.
You just can’t wrap it around your head that there is more than one way to skin a cat can you? There are multiple different ways to do things in government. You honestly think that DADT repeal has to be pushed through Congress or that we have to prove our worth to them and only a stop loss allows that to happen? The nation 60+% in favor of the repeal of DADT. If a bill makes it to the floor under Obama, it will pass and be signed. However, it hasn’t made it to the floor yet because instead of demanding that the Congress get that legislation out of committee (it has already been introduced and seems to be stalled in committee) we would rather bang our head against Obama.
TANK
@galefan2004:
Okay, this just underscores the massive stupidity that is this opinion. First of all, how do you know that “to obama” issuing a stop loss is against the law? He hasn’t said that. Secondly, if it, in fact, isn’t against the law (and it is not), then how stupid would obama have to be to believe that it is? I mean, he’s a constitutional law professor…and is the pesident of the united states with access to top legal minds… Are you calling him retarded or something? You see, things don’t “appear” to be illegal or legal in contexts that involve presidents of the united states and stop loss orders (stop loss orders are already issued right now…with reservists called to duty against their will)–they either are or they’re not, even if it takes the supreme court to determine it.
galefan2004
@TANK: Funny because Barney Frank basically says the same thing I say. That Obama will never issue a stop loss and that we need to focus on our Congress not our president. However, I know how hard it is for you to understand logic, so I don’t expect you to understand what Frank is saying. It just doesn’t occur to you that someone that has been in Congress for over 20 years might possibly know a little bit more about how DC works than you. However, keep banging your head on Obama and let me know when it starts bleeding.
TANK
Yes it is because this stop loss WILL NOT BE PUSHED THROUGH.
Not with attitudes like this it won’t. Continued pressure needs to be put on this administration to do this. Contra what you’re suggesting.
TANK
@galefan2004:
I don’t care what barney frank has said. Barney Frank says whatever obama tells him to say. He has zero credibility to me.
This derails. First, you said that according to obama, issuing a stop loss is illegal. That is, he falsely believes that it’s illegal to issue a stop loss with regard to dadt. I think this is rubbish, as he’s not stupid and understands that he has the authority to do it, and that it is entirely legal for him to do it and not an abuse of his executive authority.
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.
galefan2004
@TANK: Ok, laws in this country can be taken very many different ways by very many different people. That is why we have courts. We don’t have courts so that we can pay judges to dress up in pretty robes. We have courts because every single law has many different interpretations. I’m going to drop that Obama thinks its against the law because honestly I only brought that up as one possible explanation. The truth is that it doesn’t matter why Obama won’t issue a stop loss. It just matters that he won’t. He isn’t going to. He never will. No amount of force will ever cause him to. We can beat our head on the Obama wall until we are completely brain dead, but its not going suddenly make the wall move. On the other hand, we can get on Congress about the fact that they haven’t taken up the Military Readiness Act that is currently in the House and we might actually get somewhere because Obama actually supports it. Instead of fighting against Obama to accomplish something because some think tank says that is the way it HAS to be done (nothing has to be done any single way in government) it makes much more sense to get Obama’s support when it comes to getting the Military Readiness Act onto the House floor and passed through Congress.
TANK
Ok, laws in this country can be taken very many different ways by very many different people.
No. It’s not all up for grabs. Obama issuing the stop loss is, in fact, entirely legal and it is entirely within his executive privilege to do so.
It is illegal to commit murder. How many ways do you think that law can be interpreted by different people? And further, does it matter to whether or not it’s illegal to commit murder that people may interpret it as legal? Of course not.
galefan2004
@TANK: Tank dude, lets face it, the only one that has any credibility to you is you. That is why it is fun for me to troll you. Its like therapy. Maybe I should get a job working with children.
Please point out where the full support of the majority is behind this. Its not. You think one single poll saying that the majority of Americans would support it suddenly means that they are behind it. All that poll showed is that 67% of the country feels that gays should be allowed to serve. That has no bearing in politics. It doesn’t mean that 67% of America will back the issue. It doesn’t mean that 67% of America will vote against Obama if he doesn’t stop DADT. It simply means that 67% of the country would be willing to allow it to happen. There is a HUGE political difference between allowing it to happen and basing their vote on it. Lets be honest, the only ones SUPPORTING the repeal of DADT are the gay/lesbian community and its supporters. Rather we like to admit it or not that number in political terms (gays/lesbians/supporters that will actually base their vote on issues) is about 5% of the entire vote.
galefan2004
@TANK: Actually that law can be interpreted in vastly different ways. Murder is the act of killing another person. However, we have so many different degrees of murder (from involuntary manslaughter to first degree) because of the way the actual act is interpreted. We also have juries because it can also be interpreted as guilt or innocent. In all cases a murder happened, but the law allows for different interpretations.
TANK
The truth is that it doesn’t matter why Obama won’t issue a stop loss. It just matters that he won’t.
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.
Raymond S. Decelles-Smith
@galefan- When unaware, uninformed individuals cannot discuss the merits, they engage in ad hominem attacks. Bait and switch.
I earned my bona fides, and I earned my credentials. I do not need to become a virtual legend in my own mind.
galefan2004
@galefan2004: Apparently, you like banging your head against the wall. No wonder you like the idea of forcing Obama to do something he said he is unwilling to do. Because although it won’t happen, much like I will never stop arguing with you (because its fun for me), you just don’t give up when you think something should happen do you?
Raymond S. Decelles-Smith
It seems that in 153, Galefan forgot to change his personna and is fighting with himself……
galefan2004
@Raymond S. Decelles-Smith: Which is why instead of countering the argument you decided to stick up for the fact that you could sit in class for 8 years and pass a test. Unfortunately, some of the most educated minds in this country are also some of the most stupid.
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.
galefan2004
@Raymond S. Decelles-Smith: It seems that such a brilliantly educated man such as yourself can’t come to the actual common sense conclusion that that was meant to be directed at Tank. I never claimed to be perfect.
TANK
Actually that law can be interpreted in vastly different ways.
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.
TANK
@galefan2004:
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.
TANK
Unfortunately, some of the most educated minds in this country are also some of the most stupid.
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).
BrianZ
@galefan2004: For someone who believes we should be concentrating on Congress, you spend a majority of yours talking about Obama. Whether you profess otherwise or not, you defend him and his (in)actions. Obama is the leader of the country and arguably the leader of the party. If you believe that turning up the heat on him, exposing his double-talk and highlighting that what he SAYS does not match his actions then you are a fool. I don’t argue that Congress needs attention and should be held to the same standard. However, there is a single point-person who can, and should, stop the bleeding of highly-qualified gays and lesbians under a policy that a clear majority of the country does not support. And whether you choose to admit it or not, Gallup has been tracking public support for gays/lesbians serving opening for years, this is not just simply “a single poll” as you suggest.
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.
TANK
@galefan2004:
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.
galefan2004
@BrianZ: Ok, so it has been polled for years that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve. I’m not against gays and lesbians serving. I’m simply saying that there is a huge difference between people believing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve and people basing their votes on DADT. Just because they support us doesn’t mean they aren’t going to re-elect Obama simply because he doesn’t make it happen. Its not political suicide for Obama (I never said it was). Yet Obama just doesn’t seem to want to do it. I’m simply stating that if you can’t get Obama to go along its a wasted effort trying to make him go along when we can be putting heat on Congress to get the Military Readiness Act passed.
galefan2004
@TANK: I never said there was a political cost. I said that there is no real pronounced political gain. Obama is motivated by political gain not political cost. Actually, it was Tank that tried to claim some political cost using a poll that shows 75%-77% of the people are for us. I simply pointed out that that poll doesn’t mean there is any political cost to Obama not issuing a stop loss other than from the fall out of the gay/lesbian/trans/ally community.
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.
TANK
I’m simply saying that there is a huge difference between people believing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve [the majority of people in the united states, and vast majority of democrats] and people basing their votes on DADT
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.
TANK
I never said there was a political cost
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.
TANK
Actually, it was Tank that tried to claim some political cost using a poll that shows 75%-77% of the people are for us
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…
galefan2004
@TANK: Are you daft? Seriously? You are the one that claimed that we will use the will of the people to force Obama to change his mind. 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. I understand how it might be hard for you to put the two together though.
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.
BrianZ
@galefan2004: I agree. The mass majority of those polled in favor of allowing gays to serve are not single-issue voters.
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.
BrianZ
@BrianZ: no longer satisfied with *just being mentioned.
galefan2004
@BrianZ: I agree with pretty much everything you said. I even agree that Obama will have a problem reaching the base in 2012. Honestly, I don’t think Obama will be re-elected in 2012. The man that we elected and the man that is now in office is not the same one. That is the case on pretty much every single issue. Unless Obama straightens out radically in the next 4 years he will have problems. However, you are assuming that the situation we are in now is going to be the situation we are in in 4 years. That very likely won’t be the case. Also, Clinton got re-elected after the health care fiasco. On top of that, the moderates are still much more willing to side with the Democrats than they are the Repugs. Bush left a legacy of stains that simply isn’t going to be turned around any time soon.
TANK
Are you daft? Seriously? You are the one that claimed that we will use the will of the people to force Obama to change his mind.
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.
galefan2004
@TANK: The problem with that is like you pointed out Obama is not an idiot. He keeps up with the polls and apparently that is not enough to make him care about issuing a stop loss. He has said that he will work with Congress to pass a repeal when they actually come up with one. Maybe the emphasis should be that Obama should force legislation not that he should issue a stop loss. I honestly lost all respect that I did have (and it wasn’t very little) for Obama after the DOMA DOJ brief. I even support him signing a stop loss. I’m just willing to realize that he simply has no interest in doing it. I’m not trying to make excuses, I’m trying to think of other ways to accomplish our goals without making our head bleed against the Obama wall.
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.
TANK
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.
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.
TANK
The problem with that is like you pointed out Obama is not an idiot.
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.
TANK
rather, obama ISN’T concerned about the deficit because it still exists.
galefan2004
@TANK: I consider allies directly related to the cause, because in many cases those people are our allies because their friends or a member of their family is lgbt. I consider allies to be part of the community.
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.
TANK
Obama needs to be and can be persuaded to issue the stop loss–contra your position that it is not possible.
galefan2004
@TANK: If you honestly think it is possible to persuade Obama to do something that he has said repeatedly he will not do then all the power to you. Keep fighting that fight. In the mean time please put some of your intense heat on Congress. I have very little respect for Obama. I never really liked the man. I was a Clinton supporter that only voted for Obama because I though McCain was either a liar or senile or both. However, if you think Obama can be persuaded please do it.
TANK
And your “argument” has shifted dramatically throughout the course of this exchange, from you basically saying that issuing the stop loss would against the law, to issuing it would be unpopular and cost him political capital, to that he perceives it as illegal, to now, simply that he won’t issue the stop loss, and that we shouldn’t try to get him to…all of which have been disproven.
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.
TANK
@galefan2004:
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.
galefan2004
@TANK: Your lack of reading comprehension has remained constant through out. I never said issuing a stop loss was against the law. I never made that claim. I said that it is POSSIBLE that Obama believes that it is against the law. I’m not Obama, I don’t believe it be against the law, but its very possible Obama feels differently on the issue.
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.
TANK
I never said issuing a stop loss was against the law.
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.
TANK
If obama were to believe that issuing a stop loss were illegal, he has no business teaching con law…or being president with access to top legal scholars and minds who can easily inform him that it isn’t. It’s not plausible, to say the least.
TANK
I said that not doing it won’t cost him 75% of the population like you seem to have argued.
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.
TANK
He has consistently said that Congress must act first.
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!
galefan2004
@TANK: Seriously, did you miss that whole “TO OBAMA” part. I said that Obama most likely feels that way. That doesn’t say anything at all about the way I feel unless you are very good at reading assumptions into stuff that was never said which I already gave you credit for. Not to mention, I seriously went there to back Karley cause she was already pissing you off. I simply said that to piss you off. Its fun for me to troll you like I have already admitted countless times.
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.
TANK
Seriously, did you miss that whole “TO OBAMA” part. I said that Obama most likely feels that way
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.
wondermann
@SM: Thanks for the shout out, SM
EMK1970
@wondermann: Has President Obama made any public statements of intent or isued any definitive timelines of action in any form of media. Has he ever publicly(himself on camera) appologized for the the DOJ’s apauling chice of words and enthusiasmin it’s defence of DADT? Has he publicly fired anyone inthe the DOJ for it. I am serious. If any of this has happened and I missed it,please immediately.
EMK1970
@EMK1970: The last part shuold shoul have been: Please tell me immediatly. I suck at typing.
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.