• 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!

Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' - WSJ.com


WASHINGTON -- Congress could be receptive to President Barack Obama's pledge to end a 16-year-old policy banning gay people from serving openly in the military, a top Democratic lawmaker said. The Pentagon also signaled openness to a change.



Mr. Obama's comments could spark criticism from conservatives and some supporters who say the administration must set different priorities.
.Speaking at a human-rights dinner in Washington Saturday, Mr. Obama pledged to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. The president, who made a similar pledge during the campaign, didn't provide a timetable for reversing the policy.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said it was now possible "to get a buy-in from the military" to end a policy opposed by gays and many liberals since it was passed by Congress in 1993. But Mr. Levin, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, cautioned that the effort had to be handled "with thoughtfulness and with care."




Look, Once again, Obama is demonstrating an inability to deal with priorities. While troops await his decision on how we are going to proceed in A-stan, Obama re-pledges to end the DADT policy in the military...


Now as one who doesn't care about who you do, I don't care about DADT, and prefer we did not make our service about our genitalia. That said. I think this is an ill time to start addressing the DADT policy. At least make a decision on what we are doing in A-stan before you start changing social policies in the military.
 
Look, Once again, Obama is demonstrating an inability to deal with priorities. While troops await his decision on how we are going to proceed in A-stan, Obama re-pledges to end the DADT policy in the military...


Now as one who doesn't care about who you do, I don't care about DADT, and prefer we did not make our service about our genitalia. That said. I think this is an ill time to start addressing the DADT policy. At least make a decision on what we are doing in A-stan before you start changing social policies in the military.

This one can be added to your (growing) list of invalid criticisms....once again diluting from any valid ones.
 
This one can be added to your (growing) list of invalid criticisms....once again diluting from any valid ones.




you can simply choose not to post. I mean, take your hands off Obama's junk for once in your life.


DADT is a legitimate issue, Obama spoke at a gay meeting on it, and they are pissed at him for not keeping his promise.


I think when he ends it, it will be the right thing to do. But, BUT, when we have troops sitting in A-Stan waiting for a mission. Monkeying around with social policies in that same military, is ill timed.


If you have nothing intelligent to add but you hyper-partisan mantrums, perhaps you should find some sand and go pound it. :shrug:
 
you can simply choose not to post. I mean, take your hands off Obama's junk for once in your life.


DADT is a legitimate issue, Obama spoke at a gay meeting on it, and they are pissed at him for not keeping his promise.


I think when he ends it, it will be the right thing to do. But, BUT, when we have troops sitting in A-Stan waiting for a mission. Monkeying around with social policies in that same military, is ill timed.


If you have nothing intelligent to add but you hyper-partisan mantrums, perhaps you should find some sand and go pound it. :shrug:

This original post is nothing other than a hyper-partisan mantrum....much like most of your threads.

The whole premise that a President can only focus on one issue at a time is just plain silly.

Like I said....add this to your list of invalid criticisms. If you spent a fraction of your energy focusing on legitimate criticism...
 
This original post is nothing other than a hyper-partisan mantrum....much like most of your threads.


Funny how you only go after right wingers supposed "hyper-partisanism".... Kinda Ironic, no?


The whole premise that a President can only focus on one issue at a time is just plain silly.


Strawman, I never made this argument.


Like I said....add this to your list of invalid criticisms. If you spent a fraction of your energy focusing on legitimate criticism...



Please provide me a list of "legitimte critisizm", crying like a toddler everytime I mention your god king demonstrates you as nothing but an obama apparachik. :shrug:
 
If you spent a fraction of your energy focusing on legitimate criticism...

From what I can see, you don't consider ANY criticism of Obama to be legitimate. :shrug:

It's not Obama's job to detail troop movements & strengths, but it is his job to work with the DOD to determine what the goals in Afghanistan are, and what we will consider "winning." Until he's done that, he isn't doing his job, and he's keeping the military from doing theirs.

From what I can tell, the most valid criticism of Obama that I can offer is that he thinks he's a spokesperson, and not commander in chief and/or CEO of this country. He's about giving speeches and making public appearances, but he appears to have no grasp of the administrative aspects of his job.

And I'm saying this as someone who voted for him.
 
Last edited:
From what I can see, you don't consider ANY criticism of Obama to be legitimate. :shrug:

It's not Obama's job to detail troop movements & strengths, but it is his job to work with the DOD to determine what the goals in Afghanistan are, and what we will consider "winning." Until he's done that, he isn't doing his job, and he's keeping the military from doing theirs.

From what I can tell, the most valid criticism of Obama that I can offer is that he thinks he's a spokesperson, and not commander in chief and/or CEO of this country. He's about giving speeches and making public appearances, but he appears to have no grasp of the administrative aspects of his job.

And I'm saying this as someone who voted for him.





:yes:



:thumbs:
 
Once again, I think Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time. The increase of 20,000 forces he okayed six months ago in AFG is still being deployed, so it's not like there's 40,000 troops waiting on the sidelines to be parachuted in should he decide to go along with McCrystals' plan.

This could be a good thread to stay on the topic of DADT, a silly policy whose time needs to end. We ask our gay soldiers to fight and even die for our freedom and rights, but then want to deny them theirs?
 
On the fair side of things, though, I have to say that I think he is waiting to allow the military to propose the ending of DADT, and I think that's the right approach.




I agree with this. What I don't like is his stump speaches about it like he's a canidate still. All while they sit thier waiting to find out what the mission is in A-stan.
 
From what I can see, you don't consider ANY criticism of Obama to be legitimate. :shrug:

It's not Obama's job to detail troop movements & strengths, but it is his job to work with the DOD to determine what the goals in Afghanistan are, and what we will consider "winning." Until he's done that, he isn't doing his job, and he's keeping the military from doing theirs.

From what I can tell, the most valid criticism of Obama that I can offer is that he thinks he's a spokesperson, and not commander in chief and/or CEO of this country. He's about giving speeches and making public appearances, but he appears to have no grasp of the administrative aspects of his job.

And I'm saying this as someone who voted for him.

I've already listed what I think valid criticisms of Obama are.....this is just Rev's game to avoid the issue.

I believe that his promise to make his administration more transparent is not being kept.

I don't like what I see as far as his promise to have us out of Iraq within a year.

His continued bank bailouts were a mistake in my opinion.

I also think that he misjudged how bad the economy was and has not been as effective as I would like him to be on the economy at this stage of his presidency.

There are valid criticisms to be made...however, some people find every and any little thing to create a thread about.....it gets a little silly.
 
Once again, I think Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time. The increase of 20,000 forces he okayed six months ago in AFG is still being deployed, so it's not like there's 40,000 troops waiting on the sidelines to be parachuted in should he decide to go along with McCrystals' plan.

Strawman. It's not about multitasking. Never made this argument.


This could be a good thread to stay on the topic of DADT, a silly policy whose time needs to end. We ask our gay soldiers to fight and even die for our freedom and rights, but then want to deny them theirs?



I agree, we shouldn't make our service about our genitalia either.


Timing though, is off. Make social change, when we are not at war.
 
This could be a good thread to stay on the topic of DADT, a silly policy whose time needs to end. We ask our gay soldiers to fight and even die for our freedom and rights, but then want to deny them theirs?

DADT needs to end, and the impetus for it ending needs to come from the military hierarchy (which is--slowly--happening). I don't think this should be imposed externally by Obama. A week ago, I was castigating Obama for his inaction on this issue, but after reading the recent editorial in the DOD, I think that it will come from inside, without external pressure, and that the military will deal with this better if it comes in that way.

Essay in DoD journal urges repeal of gay ban - Military News, News From Iraq & Afghanistan - Military Times
 
I've already listed what I think valid criticisms of Obama are.....this is just Rev's game to avoid the issue.

I believe that his promise to make his administration more transparent is not being kept.

I don't like what I see as far as his promise to have us out of Iraq within a year.

His continued bank bailouts were a mistake in my opinion.

I also think that he misjudged how bad the economy was and has not been as effective as I would like him to be on the economy at this stage of his presidency.

There are valid criticisms to be made...however, some people find every and any little thing to create a thread about.....it gets a little silly.


So that's the list, and the only valid critisizms? That's it? :lol:



I mean I thought it would be valid to you given your threads: :ssst:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ooting-against-america-10.html#post1058299868
 
That's my list....there may be others. However, your list including what beer he chose precedes you.

Do you feel that there are legitimate criticisms to be tendered in Obama's failure to set goals for the military in Afghanistan, to define the mission in real terms, and to define what victory would look like? Because, as CiC, THAT IS HIS JOB.
 
Do you feel that there are legitimate criticisms to be tendered in Obama's failure to set goals for the military in Afghanistan, to define the mission in real terms, and to define what victory would look like? Because, as CiC, THAT IS HIS JOB.

Sure....but to say that he can't do anything else at the same time is just a ridiculous claim.
 
I agree with this. What I don't like is his stump speaches about it like he's a canidate still. All while they sit thier waiting to find out what the mission is in A-stan.

That's a bit disingenuous, they are carrying out virtually the same mission they've been doing for eight years. McCrystals plan basically involves adding more protection for the population, not some drastic change in strategy.
 
The problem is that he HASN'T done this, yet. And, he is the one who SHOULD do it.

Do you understand that?

It has not been that long since the General asked for additional troops.
Those crying the loudest are the ones who believe that we should on a whim send in the additional troops.
I actually am glad that Obama hasn't done that. Its a complicated issue. We've already lived through one administration that didn't think things out before playing our soldiers like pawns. Do we really need another one?
 
That's a bit disingenuous, they are carrying out virtually the same mission they've been doing for eight years. McCrystals plan basically involves adding more protection for the population, not some drastic change in strategy.




No actually, they are in a hold pattern with no direction. This hold pattern started under Bush, and continues under Obama.

It became a noted "hold patttern" when We learned Obama obly spent 25 mins with McChrystal in 70 days, and will take "weeks" to respond to a request for more troops.


Ever been in a situation, where you are being shot at, and you have to wait weeks to find out if you are going to fight back, or retreat?


Not a fun situation, especially when you see the guy making this decision, on leno, and 50 other appearances, going to the olympics, and now discussing DADT.


It's about appearances, he is the CiC, he needs to start acting like it.
 
That's a bit disingenuous, they are carrying out virtually the same mission they've been doing for eight years. McCrystals plan basically involves adding more protection for the population, not some drastic change in strategy.

The problem is that for 8 years, the military has not had a clearly defined mission, goal, or terms of victory leading to withdrawal of U.S. forces. If Obama is continuing Bush's ill-conceived and ill-defined strategy, that's f'ing scary.

Do you know what it reminds me of? Clinton & Somalia. That's what scares the pee out of me.
 
Back
Top Bottom