• 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!

Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

jallman said:
No, that's not saying much for some individuals. And like it or not, there is a resentment against the repealing of DADT in our military and that resentment is prone to amplifying the false justifications that irrational individuals use to talk themselves into acting.



That doesn't negate safety issues from within. Just because it's not a stray bullet doesn't mean it may not be a stray beating or stray blunt object or any number of things. Don't be daft in focusing on a single hypothetical minutiae in an effort to deflect from the broader point.

If this were being changed during peace time, I would be 100% behind it because focus could be made on a transition process. However, I dont see that happening in a war zone.
Click to expand...

Yeah. True. I can see those points, especially during war time. Still it's sad that anyone (in the military or not) would be capable of that type of attack against someone serving beside them. But I'm not going to argue against it and say it couldn't happen.

But still... is THAT the reason not to end DADT? I don't know. Maybe it would be best to wait until peace time to end it. But with the "war on Terror" being open ended peace time may never come.
 
Winnb said:
That's not saying much for our soldiers and marines.

What about the Navy or Air Force? They rarely have stray bullets since they rarely engage in the close combat and small arms fire that soldiers and marines do.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the all the Navy guys whose names are on that wall in DC........In adition to Navy Corpsman there were Navy fast boats up and down the rivers and in the Me Kong Delta manned strictly by Navy personnel that suffered many casualties..............



Probably way before your time.........
 
Navy Pride said:

Tell that to the all the Navy guys whose names are on that wall in DC........In adition to Navy Corpsman there were Navy fast boats up and down the rivers and in the Me Kong Delta manned strictly by Navy personnel that suffered many casualties..............



Probably way before your time.........
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the past. I'm talking about the present and the future.

We're discussing the potential of someone acting out violently against a fellow service member because that other member is gay.
 
Winnb said:
Yeah. True. I can see those points, especially during war time. Still it's sad that anyone (in the military or not) would be capable of that type of attack against someone serving beside them. But I'm not going to argue against it and say it couldn't happen.

But still... is THAT the reason not to end DADT? I don't know. Maybe it would be best to wait until peace time to end it. But with the "war on Terror" being open ended peace time may never come.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong...I think it should be ended at the first safe opportunity. Hell, I am gay man, myself and I find it infuriating that our service is diminished by DADT. I just worry about doing it in the middle of an ongoing conflict.
 
Winnb said:
I wasn't talking about the past. I'm talking about the present and the future.

We're discussing the potential of someone acting out violently against a fellow service member because that other member is gay.
Click to expand...

Well since there are nor rivers that is out but there are still many navy corpsmans there without weapons add that to the many Navy Seals there you still have plenty of Navy Casualties in fact recently a Navy Seal got the Medal of Honor when he fell on a gernade smothering it, dying himself and saving the lives of all around him.............

Guess you did not hear of that either..........
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Don't get me wrong...I think it should be ended at the first safe opportunity. Hell, I am gay man, myself and I find it infuriating that our service is diminished by DADT. I just worry about doing it in the middle of an ongoing conflict.
Click to expand...

Well I'll say this, so far you're the only person who has a real reason for keeping DADT, even if it's only temporary.

Thank you.
 
I wonder how ya'll would feel when gay soldiers discriminate against straight soldiers. Just curious.

I'm sure some would believe the straight soldiers had it coming.
 
apdst said:
I wonder how ya'll would feel when gay soldiers discriminate against straight soldiers. Just curious.

I'm sure some would believe the straight soldiers had it coming.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about this?
 
apdst said:
It's wrong. How do you feel about it?
Click to expand...

I agree. Tit for tat never helps any one. It's good to see that you agree with this. I suppose that means that you are someone who would NEVER go after liberals simply because they went after conservatives during the Bush years and "had it coming", right? ;)
 
apdst said:
I wonder how ya'll would feel when gay soldiers discriminate against straight soldiers. Just curious.
Click to expand...

What kind of situation would you be talking about? A gang of ganys going around beating up heterosexuals or something?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Regardless of how you think executive orders work, it is not a simple as coming up with a new executive order to reverse and old one.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, Executive Orders can be revoked by another executive order. However, of course, if the Congress on a separate action turn what is in the Executive Order into law/codify them, that is a different story. So, bottom-line: whatever is still an Executive Order, can indeed be changed by another Executive Order.

"Revoking An Executive Order

In 1988, President Reagan banned abortions at military hospital except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is threatened. President Clinton rescinded it with another executive order. A Republican Congress then codified this restriction in an appropriations bill. Welcome to the Washington, D.C. merry-go-round.

Because executive orders relate to how one president manages his executive branch team, there is no requirement that subsequent presidents follow them. They may do as Clinton did, and replace an old executive order with a new one or they may simply revoke the prior executive order.

Congress can also revoke a presidential executive order by passing a bill by a veto-proof (2/3 vote) majority. For example, in 2003 Congress unsuccessfully attempted to revoke President Bush's Executive Order 13233, which had rescinded Executive Order 12667 (Reagan). The bill, HR 5073, did not pass."
Presidential Executive Orders - What Is A Presidential Executive Order?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree. Tit for tat never helps any one. It's good to see that you agree with this. I suppose that means that you are someone who would NEVER go after liberals simply because they went after conservatives during the Bush years and "had it coming", right? ;)
Click to expand...

You bastard! You owe me a cup of coffee since I spilled mine in my lap when I read this from laughing.
 
Redress said:
You bastard! You owe me a cup of coffee since I spilled mine in my lap when I read this from laughing.
Click to expand...

You know you might stop going 30+ hours without sleep if you lay off the coffee. :rofl
 
apdst said:
I wonder how ya'll would feel when gay soldiers discriminate against straight soldiers. Just curious.
Click to expand...

Like what? Picking on them for not having impeccable style and taste? Hello...they're all wearing the same damned uniform. :roll:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree. Tit for tat never helps any one. It's good to see that you agree with this. I suppose that means that you are someone who would NEVER go after liberals simply because they went after conservatives during the Bush years and "had it coming", right? ;)
Click to expand...

So, are you trolling and flame baiting because you like it, or because you're a mod and can just get away with it?
 
Redress said:
You bastard! You owe me a cup of coffee since I spilled mine in my lap when I read this from laughing.
Click to expand...

I saw it an I just said to myself, "gotcha". Sorry apdst... it was there and I took it. Logged in my files for future reference. :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
So, are you trolling and flame baiting because you like it, or because you're a mod and can just get away with it?
Click to expand...

Don't like being shown to post as a hypocrite? Don't do it. Analogies are completely reasonable debate tactic. I like consistency. I call people out on it when I don't see it. I'll remember your post.

I just like the fact that you agree that doing something just because they "had it coming" is the wrong move. ;)
 
jallman said:
Like what? Picking on them for not having impeccable style and taste? Hello...they're all wearing the same damned uniform. :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno, like when Perez Hilton discriminated against Carrie Prejean, because he didn't like the answer he got to his question. Like that.

You're ok with that sorta thing?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Don't like being shown to post as a hypocrite? Don't do it. Analogies are completely reasonable debate tactic. I like consistency. I call people out on it when I don't see it. I'll remember your post.

I just like the fact that you agree that doing something just because they "had it coming" is the wrong move. ;)
Click to expand...

More flaming, really?
 
jallman said:
Like what? Picking on them for not having impeccable style and taste? Hello...they're all wearing the same damned uniform. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, they would pick on them for not using product in their hair.
 
apdst said:
More flaming, really?
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting that you indicate someone is flaming when you get pwned in debate. It ain't working, apdst. You got caught. Don't like it? Be consistent.
 
apdst said:
Oh, I dunno, like when Perez Hilton discriminated against Carrie Prejean, because he didn't like the answer he got to his question. Like that.

You're ok with that sorta thing?
Click to expand...

OK, so when straight soldiers aren't given a tiara and a bouquet of roses for the performance of their duties because the gays don't like their answer to the "world peace" question, by all means, raise a ruckus.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I always find it interesting that you indicate someone is flaming when you get pwned in debate. It ain't working, apdst. You got caught. Don't like it? Be consistent.
Click to expand...

You're a mod. Set the example. Probably too much to ask, I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom