• 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

Conservative said:
So still I am waiting for exactly what the Republicans obstructed with regards to the Obama Agenda and more to the point, why is this issue(DADT) now? It has been in effect since 1993 so what difference does another few months make? If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen and I am still waiting for the national implications of this and why we are now into our 64th page on this thread. Sure is a lot of passion for something so irrelevant and something that affects about 4% of the population.
Click to expand...

If you choose not to read my posts where I explain things repeatedly, it's not my fault. Did the republicans, or did they not, block voting on DADT repeal post the DoD report? See, you can even answer your own question.
 
Conservative said:
I don't get it, 65 pages of "debate" on a topic that affects 4% of the population in a country that has 9.8% reported unemployment, probably more like 17% unemployment, a 14 trillion dollar debt and an administration that has added 4 million to the unemployment roles and 3 trillion to the debt in two years. It was these results that led to the shellacking Democrats took in Nov. and yet 65 pages of debate on DADT. Some people really have their priorities screwed up.
Click to expand...

Maybe you did not know this, but people can be passionate about more than one issue at once.
 
Conservative said:
Just a reminder Bill Clinton signed it and a Democrat Congress passed it. It has been in place for 17 years. When it is repealed my bet is you are going to see a lot of retirements in the military. This is an all volunteer military that if someone doesn't like the rules, then don't enlist. Guess I don't see the injustice in this all volunteer military, but you would have a point if there was a draft.
Click to expand...

This is the same thing people predicted for the British military, that totally failed to happen. No evidence to back up your prediction at all, but there is evidence it will not happen.
 
Redress said:
If you choose not to read my posts where I explain things repeatedly, it's not my fault. Did the republicans, or did they not, block voting on DADT repeal post the DoD report? See, you can even answer your own question.
Click to expand...

Nor is it my fault that this is a huge issue for yhou and whether or not they GOP filibustered DADT repeal or not doesn't answer the question as to why it wasn't brought up when then Democrats had a filibuster proof Congress. You only insult your intelligence by claiming it was Obama trying to compromise with Republicans.
 
Political platforms are sometimes a collaboration of single issue voters, Conservative.
 
Kelzie said:
Well you can't just quit when you want, you do have to serve out your contract.

My prediction, as someone who's more closely tied to the military than I want to be right now, is that there will be a lot of hooplah (found some!) in the military for about 2.5 days. Until they realize that no one's coming out! I mean really, would you? From there, attitudes will slowly (I'm talking decades) change so that a homosexual could come out if they wished too, but that doesn't really seem to be the type that is attracted to military service. You're not going to get a lot of Jacks (a la Will and Grace) signing up for the Marine Corps.

There was much, much worse opinions about integrating blacks and it ended up just fine after an adjustment period.
Click to expand...

When RAND did their study on gays in the military, this was something they learned. Many gays, while no longer actively hiding being gay, don't actually make a big deal out of it and just quietly go about their lives in the military.
 
Conservative said:
Let me know how many that is and when that happens. Until then keep building the strawman. there are approximately 8 million LGTG in the country today and if half of them are in the military which we know isn't true that would equal the amount of jobs Obama has lost since taking office.
Click to expand...

You base that number on what? No one knows how many gays there are in this country, with good estimates between 2 and 10 %.
 
Redress said:
This is the same thing people predicted for the British military, that totally failed to happen. No evidence to back up your prediction at all, but there is evidence it will not happen.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that it won't happen either as this isn't England regardless of your opinion.
 
Conservative said:
Quite interesting, did you even review the bills and know what their status letter means? Let me know which one of those bills would have reduced unemployment and lowered the deficit?
Click to expand...

That has what to do with DADT?
 
Redress said:
You base that number on what? No one knows how many gays there are in this country, with good estimates between 2 and 10 %.
Click to expand...

Google it and find out the best estimate. You do know how to Google, right?
 
Conservative said:
Nor is it my fault that this is a huge issue for yhou and whether or not they GOP filibustered DADT repeal or not doesn't answer the question as to why it wasn't brought up when then Democrats had a filibuster proof Congress. You only insult your intelligence by claiming it was Obama trying to compromise with Republicans.
Click to expand...

I intelligently answered that democrats delayed repealing DADT to wait for the DOD report on the request of republicans. I have mentioned that to you about a dozen times. How do you keep missing that?
 
Conservative said:
There is no evidence that it won't happen either as this isn't England regardless of your opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually, the experience of other countries in similar situations is evidence. What it is not is proof. Nice try though.
 
apdst said:
Don't ask those kinds of questions, if you don't want to be challenged. Obviously, you said loud and clear what you really think of the will of the people. Never mind that repealling DADT isn't, "the will of the people".
Click to expand...
It is so.
:2razz:
 
To recap this whole thing as I understand it (since as everyone knows, MY opinion is highly respected and followed...right):

Congress suggests a bill that would eliminate DADT.

Military says "hold up a sec, we want to run a question form past the troops to see how they would react to this" (since it's the military, they don't ask their subordinates whether or not they should issue a given order, but rather what they would do if said order was issued, and how it would affect their plans, etc. And even then, it's only because this is such a far-reaching type of order.).

Congress says, "sure, that makes sense" (I agreed with that part).

Military comes back with "well, looks like most of our troops don't give much of a damn."

Congress says, "we won't support this plan."

I say, WTF?!?!
 
Redress said:
I intelligently answered that democrats delayed repealing DADT to wait for the DOD report on the request of republicans. I have mentioned that to you about a dozen times. How do you keep missing that?
Click to expand...

Did you type it very slowly?

That might have been the problem. :lol:
 
The Mark said:
To recap this whole thing as I understand it (since as everyone knows, MY opinion is highly respected and followed...right):

Congress suggests a bill that would eliminate DADT.

Military says "hold up a sec, we want to run a question form past the troops to see how they would react to this" (since it's the military, they don't ask their subordinates whether or not they should issue a given order, but rather what they would do if said order was issued, and how it would affect their plans, etc. And even then, it's only because this is such a far-reaching type of order.).

Congress says, "sure, that makes sense" (I agreed with that part).

Military comes back with "well, looks like most of our troops don't give much of a damn."

Congress says, "we won't support this plan."

I say, WTF?!?!
Click to expand...

Perhaps someone clued the Democrats in, that if DADT was lifted, gay soldiers wouldn't have any protection.

There seems to be a huge misinterpretation as to what DADT is and the actual ban on gays in the military. I think it's a basic lack of understtanding about the las standing order and what not.

In my opinion, the Joint Chiefs were suckering the Dems.
 
apdst said:
Perhaps someone clued the Democrats in, that if DADT was lifted, gay soldiers wouldn't have any protection.

There seems to be a huge misinterpretation as to what DADT is and the actual ban on gays in the military. I think it's a basic lack of understtanding about the las standing order and what not.

In my opinion, the Joint Chiefs were suckering the Dems.
Click to expand...

Who requested the Pentagon report on DADT?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Who requested the Pentagon report on DADT?
Click to expand...

Why did they wait until after the mid-terms to issue their findings?

I got a better question: why are DADT abolitionists only concentrating on DADT and not Defense Directive 1332? DoD Directive 1332, as the last standing order, will immediately take effect, upon the repeal of DADT (DoD Directive 1304). To my knowledge, 1332 hasn't been withdrawn. Without whitdrawinf, or countermanding 1332 and changing the UCMJ, you've only made things worse for gays serving in the military.

I think someone probably advised the Dems of the mistake they were fixing to make. I've purdy much been saying this all along, but hey, I only spent 12 years in the Army, attaining the rank of E-7. What could I possibly know about the regulations, what they say and how the system works. Right?
 
apdst said:
There's no need for them to shove it down peoples's throats, either. No point whatsoever.

But, all them homohpobes have to be made to accept it, whether they like it, or not.

At the end of the day, that's really what it's all about.
Click to expand...

Since when is not having to hide an aspect of the self "shoving it down peoples's throats"? Are you shoving your own agenda down people's throats by openly stating your opinion that they shouldn't shove THEIR agenda down people's throats? No, you're just being honest about it.
 
Conservative said:
How Many Gay People Are There? - Gay Population Statistics
Click to expand...

2006 American Community Survey? That is a bit out of date. According to the findings from the largest nationally representative study of sexual and sexual-health behaviors ever fielded that was released just this year, "7% of adult women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual" which means we are talking closer to 21 million people. Given that this study was specifically geared towards studying sexual behavior and ensuring that its results were nationally representative, I feel pretty good about its findings.

National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior
 
CriticalThought said:
2006 American Community Survey? That is a bit out of date. According to the findings from the largest nationally representative study of sexual and sexual-health behaviors ever fielded that was released just this year, "7% of adult women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual" which means we are talking closer to 21 million people. Given that this study was specifically geared towards studying sexual behavior and ensuring that its results were nationally representative, I feel pretty good about its findings.

National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior
Click to expand...

21 million Americans out of 310 million is 7% of the population. Thanks for the latest survey and although 21 million is a large number in the overall population it remains relatively small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom