• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Don't ask' repeal fails in Senate

DrunkenAsparagus;1059148935[B said:
]Obama needs to grow a pair and repeal DADT himself. [/B] The argument that a future president will simply reverse the decision is unlikely when you consider that a large majority of people support ending DADT, and no future president is likely to expend political capital by repealing it.
Click to expand...

Not in a million years. it would be political suicide and he knows it....
 
Navy Pride said:
Not in a million years. it would be political suicide and he knows it....
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Besides, Obama has more important issues to deal with. Let the military deal with the military, the economy should be his main focus, enough of this nonsense. People need to get back to work, but Obama just can't stop scheming on more social experiments he can perform.

Its sickening to see him trying this during a time of war.
 
Navy Pride said:
Not in a million years. it would be political suicide and he knows it....
Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that, well inside a million years from now, it would be political suicide NOT to...If it's still an issue then.

But I could be wrong.
 
MegaRepublican said:
Agreed.

Besides, Obama has more important issues to deal with. Let the military deal with the military, the economy should be his main focus, enough of this nonsense. People need to get back to work, but Obama just can't stop scheming on more social experiments he can perform.

Its sickening to see him trying this during a time of war.
Click to expand...

Welcome to DP, we can always use another conservative voice to fight radical liberalism....Looking forward to your input...........
 
Navy Pride said:
Welcome to DP, we can always use another conservative voice to fight radical liberalism....Looking forward to your input...........
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Welcome Navy! I look forward to posting here.
 
Would you please answer my question? I'm curious to know why you feel homosexuals are incapable of combat.
 
The military has too serious a job to have to worry about political correctness. As it stands, gay people can serve, just keep it to yourself. I don't get how that's so unreasonable.
 
There were loads of republicans that wanted to repeal it, problem was that they had the dream act added to it. The dream act is not as popular as the repeal of don't ask don't tell policy. That's why it failed.
 
Navy Pride said:
Welcome to DP, we can always use another conservative voice to fight radical liberalism....Looking forward to your input...........
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, the terrorists we're all fighting...they're radical conservatives
 
X Factor said:
The military has too serious a job to have to worry about political correctness. As it stands, gay people can serve, just keep it to yourself. I don't get how that's so unreasonable.
Click to expand...

What about when they want to bring their partners to military functions but can't? Or if they get stationed at a military base and want their partner to move in with them? They are denied rights due to DADT and deserve equality within the military. The military isn't about sexuality or declaring what you find attractive, but homosexual families have their rights denied due to DADT. I think this is unreasonable.
 
digsbe said:
Would you please answer my question? I'm curious to know why you feel homosexuals are incapable of combat.
Click to expand...

We are not. LGBT soldiers are already fighting in combat right now. It's a shame that these brave men and women are not treated the same as heterosexual soldiers.
 
Camlon said:
There were loads of republicans that wanted to repeal it, problem was that they had the dream act added to it. The dream act is not as popular as the repeal of don't ask don't tell policy. That's why it failed.
Click to expand...

Lieberman and Collins are introducing a stand-alone repeal of DADT. We'll see how that goes.
 
X Factor said:
The military has too serious a job to have to worry about political correctness. As it stands, gay people can serve, just keep it to yourself. I don't get how that's so unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Its that they have to lie about who they are, and can be outted for it that's wrong with DADT.
 
It's not that DADT failed to be repealed in the Senate, it's that the Senate failed to repeal DADT...

Subtle difference, perhaps, but...
 
why did obama prioritize START ahead of dadt, dream, even the 2011 income tax, when he doesn't need lower house to ratify a treaty?

he can get start in the spring, he controls senate, probably more than a dozen R's (led by dick lugar) agree with republican secties of state baker and kissinger and rice and powell and bush 41 and president obama that start should be expanded

boehner can't touch it, and john kyl is happy to proceed if he simply gets his two weeks of debate and amendments

the leader has every right to insist on input

obama wanted start cuz he had to go to g20 in seoul and nato in portugal, and he didn't want to show up empty handed

both were disasters, g20 was sabotaged by bernanke's pump of 600B 3 days prior

nato's not gonna give him anything for afghanistan and the lunches at lisbon were mostly preoccupied with residual resentment against the fed's qe

he put start at the top of his lame duck even tho he still holds senate, astonishing

he doesn't know what he's doing

his house mutinied

sorry
 
Last edited:
I respectfully ask that you answer my question please. Why do you feel homosexuals are incapable of combat? What proof do you have? Because it simply isn't true, they already serve along side others.
 
digsbe said:
I respectfully ask that you answer my question please. Why do you feel homosexuals are incapable of combat? What proof do you have? Because it simply isn't true, they already serve along side others.
Click to expand...

It's also a shame that people who don't want DADT repealed are not giving these brave soldiers the respect they deserve.
 
Your Star said:
It's also a shame that people who don't want DADT repealed are not giving these brave soldiers the respect they deserve.
Click to expand...

They are heroes too. As I mentioned in a previous post they give up rights wrongfully due to DADT. Their partners can't live with them on the base, their families are split up. Their partners can't attend military functions, dinners, or even fun things. Their partner will receive no military benefits that married heterosexuals enjoy. It's just wrong and I can't believe we treat our heroes in the military like this.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am just glad its over and morale and troop readiness will not be affected.........
Click to expand...

I agree, I couldn't care less if a guy is homo or not, but other straights, not as tolerant, could exaggerate it all out or proportion. It may not be the hot button it once was, but I can still remember straights beating up homos just for kicks, and that kind of prejudice never dies.

ricksfolly
 
CriticalThought said:
Ah yes, because a gamble on McCain would have been all the wiser.
Click to expand...

If LGBT people had been honest with themselves they would have acknowledged neither the Bamster nor John McCain would come through for them. They gambled on the notion that putting money, time, energy and resources into Obama would pay off. It didn't.
 
Deuce said:
And the country has suffered for it. To the GOP, it's not about governing, it's about winning.
Click to expand...

For me it's not about winning because winning is hard to do.

It's about preventing you from winning. That's much easier.

Those are two very different things.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
If LGBT people had been honest with themselves they would have acknowledged neither the Bamster nor John McCain would come through for them. They gambled on the notion that putting money, time, energy and resources into Obama would pay off. It didn't.
Click to expand...

And your point is? I didn't vote for Obama because he doesn't support marriage equality. I committed absolutely nothing to him. Furthermore, I imagine those members of the LGBT community who did committ to him did so for more than just his stance on gay rights. So other than you attempting to taunt people, I don't see what point you could possibly be making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom