Republican politicians may be awfully concerned about how allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve might disrupt the military, but the vast majority of the troops on the ground… not so much.
The Pentagon has concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the United States armed forces presents a low risk to the military’s effectiveness, even at a time of war, and that 70 percent of service members believe that the impact of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would be either positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.
[…] The report also found that a majority — 69 percent — believed they had already worked with a gay man or woman, and of those the vast majority — 92 percent — reported that the unit’s ability to work together was very good, good or “neither good nor poor.”
Hear that? 70 percent of service members couldn’t care less about the sexual orientation of their buddies serving next to them. So can we put this bullshit manufactroversy to rest already, repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and just move on?
So what Goldy is saying is majority opinion should rule. So then he also must believe that the Bush tax cuts should be extended since 54% of Americans believe they should be.
The NY Times Article says–
Goldy says–
Goldy takes the Blogger liberty of assuming “mixed” means “care less”.
And who is running the military?
ImamObaMao is Kommander in Chief.
Why is this somehow about Republicans?
ImamObaMao could have changed the policy for nearly 2 years….and hasn’t. And he is hardly a Republican Goldy.
One of your worst threads ever…
Cynical and Troll hate gay people.
@2: Actually, Goldy cites exactly that passage before paraphrasing/editorializing. Duh.
And last time I checked, the President doesn’t have the authority to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and thus cannot authorize openly gay soldiers to serve. Until the UCMJ is changed, the best he could do would be to order the military not to court-martial or otherwise punish homosexuals (i.e. directing the entire military to violate the existing law). The UCMJ can only be changed by Congress, and Congressional Republicans have done a great job of sabotaging anything that would give the President a victory, regardless of whether or not that victory would be good for the U.S.
Think, then speak. Of course, anyone who resorts to childish name-calling on a regular basis has little or no interest in a rational, adult conversation.
No.
Goldy hates the truth.
Goldy loves to misrepresent the facts.
That’s more like it.
Xar–
I know he did.
I just repeated it so it was easier to contrast and see the liberty’s Goldy takes with something like this.
How do you reconcile Goldy’s expansion of the statement with the statement from the NY Times Xar? That’s the point.
Goldy hates the truth.
Simply because the Republicans have taken an openly atavistic stance to Constitutional law, and other laws made by the people over the years, and have repeatedly demonstrated that without manufactured controversy or superstitious fear, they have nothing else to campaign on.
They oppose a general system of public education, they oppose the right of the people to petition the government, they actively oppose the 17th amendment, and they see the 4th and 5th amendments as being contrary to their own ideals of a police state controlled by purely private interests.
The GOP is a fascist party, and the teabagger psychopath types are the dog that is whistled at.
Brownshirts are brownshirts, no matter the color of their ties. All they really did to appear different was to replace the swastika with a picture of Jesus. Everything else is the same.
But Deathfrogg–
Your guy Obama has had the power to overturn this for 2 years…and hasn’t.
That is my point.
It’s about more than Republicans.
That comment makes no sense.
It’s about power & control.
The Democrats & Obama have it…and didn’t use it.
Aren’t they just as “guilty”??
Why should they get a pass?
You are a treasure, Mr. Frogg.
Forget all the silliness, these are the facts.
The majority of the military doesn’t care.
The majority of the generals don’t care.
The majority of the military families don’t care.
The majority of Republicans don’t care.
The majority of Democrats don’t care.
So WHY is this a “debate” or “controversial”? Of course the neo-nazis, KKK are against this, duh. And 25% of the public (Tea Party) are against this. But the VAST majority don’t give a shit. Just change it and move on. How can something have majority support from nearly EVERY group and STILL be a “hotly debated” issue? Grow up.
@ 8
uhh, wut?
The President has never had the power to arbitrarily change the Uniform code of Military Justice. That requires an act of Congress. Both houses of Congress have always had a majority of corporatists and phony religionists since the late 1940’s. There has not been a non-corporatist liberal majority in either house since the 1940 election.
While Democrats had a slim majority for the last four years, many of them are conservatives, and openly express their support and caucus with the GOP. The so-called blue dog democrats. Without a clear majority to go along, there is no power. No power to call for a vote, no power to change a law.
Obama is hamstringed by a totally corrupt legislative body that has consistently refused to police itself except in cases where the the poop hits the papers for everyone to see. The total corruption by the largest corporations of the Fourth Estate (the press) has resulted in an entirely manufactured system of public information that is totally controlled for the benefit of those companies and their hand-picked Representatives in Congress, rather than the people who need the information to make decisions about how the country should be run, and who they hire to run it.
When there is institutionalized corruption, the primary purpose of the institution is to maintain that corruption at any and all costs, except to the corrupt. Laws are merely reduced to weapons the various corrupting institutions use to gain or increase share in the marketplace of ideas. Everything becomes propaganda, and real, factual information is suppressed or vilified by the organizations or individuals who have the money and political wherewithal to have their positions stated in the news.
Money talks, and the biggest money can make the most talk, while shouting down the people who are negatively affected by their endeavors.
Our so-called “free press” is as tightly controlled as that of the Soviet Union. Just because that control is exercised by private companies working toward their own interests instead of a state body doesn’t change the fact, or the obvious and intended result.
Dead-enders are dead-enders. They’d rather die than admit they’re wrong. Typical Rethuglicans. No different than al-Qaeda.
No…this fucking ass-klown hates Americans and American Ideals.
Like Freedom…LIfe, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Of course MISTER Cynical-ASS-Klown and the big p’dumbski won’t SAY how being gay can possibly harm the institution of marriage more than all of the prominent right wing religionist freaks have harmed their own marriages over the last few years…but that’s par for that course.
As is the hypocrisy that our fighting Men and Women give a whether their comrade in arms is Gay or not.
Such a hateful prick.
@12…
True that.
Republican heads will explode when confronted with the choice of either appearing to support gays or of going against the troops they use as props all the time.
Let the rationalizing begin.
Mr. Cynical @8
“Your guy Obama has had the power to overturn this for 2 years…and hasn’t.”
Exactly what part of, “President doesn’t have the authority to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and thus cannot authorize openly gay soldiers to serve.” (@4) do you not understand?
Here it is in different words:
You see, Mr. Cynical, unlike you fascist wingnutjobs, our President understands that there is something call “the rule of law.” While he may be able to circumvent the law in a similar way that former acting-President Dick Cheney, used to do, Obama choses not to. You see…he actually takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.
Darryl:
And if the President did try to Cheney the Constitution as Cynical suggests he should on DADT, you know who would be the first in line to denounce him for it.
That is, if Troll or one of his fellow idiots didn’t beat him to it.
@16 UNLESS Obama wasn’t to go all Dick Cheney! Viva La Unitary Executive!
Remember when George W. Bush was in power and the Republicans then argued that the President has nearly unquestioned universal power to do anything he wants since we’re in “a time of war”. Obama could bug all the Republicans Senate offices, arrest Rush Limbaugh and water board Ann Coulter as traitors for “attacking our Commander in Chief at a time of war” and giving comfort to our enemies. They couldn’t say anything, since these are the powers they argued the President has…ROTFLMAO
Of course Obama isn’t going to do that, it’s crazy and illegal, but it would be funny! Hey Republicans (and Democrats), be careful what you ask for, you might get it!
@1
Troll, DADT should have been repealed long ago on moral principle alone. Remember the whole all men are created equal idea that this nation was founded on? Arbitrary discrimination flies in the face of our founding principles.
However, now that both moral principle and the majority opinion are on the side of repeal, only an idiot or a Republican would say that it should still be kept in place.
@2) No. DADT was established via an act of Congress. The president does not have the power to strike down laws passed by the legislative branch. It needs to be repealed by Congress.
Essay assignment:
Please compare and contrast the posts set forth above from Cynny and Mr. Froggy with regard to the instant issue. Your analysis should address factual and legal assumptions set forth in such posts, as well as the quality and maturity of writing styles.
I personally don’t care either way.
Both parties are making this political.
Republicans could have changed the rules 2003-2006
Democrats could have changed the rules 2006-
If the military says its ok, no problem, then what’s the big deal?
Change 10 U.S.C and be done with it.
So, McCain claims that a survey involving 115,000 soldiers and 44,000 spouses is not comprehensive enough for him support repealing DADT.
He was grasping at straws to find practical reasons to support DADT before this study. There are absolutely no practical arguments against DADT remaining, but McCain still supports it. Makes you wonder what is his real motivation in supporting DADT.
23
McCain has become a buffoonish, befuddled, and bitter old bastard. His true colors have come out since Obama beat him–he is conservative as hell, unprincipled, a poor loser, about as independent as a sheered sheep, and just not very smart. He has ruined his legacy in the past few years–for what? To carry water for wingnuts? The reputation he had in the Naval Academy was really who he is–a party boy, who is not serious, and who is ambitious beyond his abilities. Thank God, Obama kicked his ass.
@24
Well put.
Darryl @ 16
DADT is actually NOT part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). DADT is contained in 10 USC 654 “Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces”, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton on November 30, 1993.
The UCMJ does contain an Article 125 (10 USC 925), which prohibits all acts of “unnatural carnal copulation”. Article 125 has not been enforced for sexual acts between consenting adults in many, many years. It is still used as a basis to prosecute “sodomy” that is non-consensual or involves minors.
Ironically enough, prior to DADT being passed in 1993 (by a Democratic Congress), there were NO LAWS restricting the service on the basis of “homosexuality” in the armed forces. There was only Article 125 of the UCMJ, which criminalizes “sodomy”.
(By the way, DADT was passed in the House on 11/15/1993 by 273-135: Democrats 223-15 and Republicans 50-120. DADT was passed in the Senate on 11/17/1993 by 77-22, with 18 of the 22 NO votes coming from Republicans.)
So if DADT had not been enacted into law at the urging of President Clinton and the Democrats in 1993, President Obama would be perfectly free to administratively allow service members to serve without regard to “homosexuality”. Article 125 would still be there, but prosecutions for purely consensual “sodomy” would be likely be held unconstitutional. And Obama could always amend the regulations implementing the UCMJ to impose an extremely minor penalty for purely consensual “sodomy” or even narrow the definition of the “crime” to encompass only nonconsensual acts of this nature.
@26: Thank you for the correct citation. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it requires an Act of Congress to change. Rules can’t contradict statutes, and there’s no way the administration could promulgate rules overtuning DADT without being sued by a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-homosexual group.
It is true that DADT was Clinton’s policy, and it remains a black mark on his Presidency. It’s one of the many reasons that Clinton was effectively the best Republican President in the last thirty years (as he cut spending, balanced the budget, kicked gays out of the military, etc., all things the Republicans claim to want to do but never actually DO).
Congress has to fix this mess, and Republicans in the Senate will do ANYTHING to try to prevent Obama from getting a victory of any kind. And, as we saw today, the Senate won’t be able to do anything unless Democrats completely cave to Rs on the upcoming Republican tax hikes. It’s a sad day when Republicans prioritize screwing the President over fixing an economy in a tailspin.
@1 “So what Goldy is saying is majority opinion should rule.”
If you don’t like this system go live in North Korea.
“So then he also must believe that the Bush tax cuts should be extended since 54% of Americans believe they should be.”
100% of Democrats believe 99% of the Bush tax cuts should be extended. It’s the budget-busting, deficit-deepening, tax cuts for the rich that benefit 1% of the population but are 85% of the tax cut dollars, that Democrats don’t support. We have a duty to reign in the big spending, budget busting, deficit creating Republican prolifligates who lied when they told the tea party mobs they were serious about reducing the deficit.
@27 28
DADT and taxes could have been addressed by democrats anytime since 2006.
This is especially true since Jan 20 2009.
To complain about republic5ans now is really pathetic.
@29: Actually, they couldn’t. First, there’s no way Bush would have signed it. So, no chance until Jan 20, 2009. Second, McCain et. al. (and one or two conservative Ds) refused to even consider repealing DADT until this report was out. Since we have minority rule in the Senate and a Republican caucus who is willing to abuse it to score political points at the cost of the average American citizen, we’ve not had that opportunity.
Now, if McCain is intellectually consistent (which I doubt), he and some of his fellow conservatives ought to be willing to support the repeal. This is the first time since 1993 where it’s possible to repeal DADT.
If you disagree, please explain when/how it could have been done before.
@29: (oh, and deriding my response as “pathetic” is not a real answer)
@30
Democrats in congress could have passed the law in 2006-2008 and forced GWB to veto it…
They could have done it and didn’t.
BS. Democrats had a firm majority in both houses. Democrats were able to get healthcare thru….It was a lack of will, plain and simple. President Obama could have let this but didn’t. Again, lack of will.
So to repeat, to blame the non-repeal of DADT on republicans is pathetic AND intellectually dishonest unless you first blame democrats who failed when they had every opportunity to change it….
@32…
Crapola from a right-wing idiot.
Thanks to the fabuloso Senate Rules any asshole banana-republican can place a “hold” on any item up for Senate consideration.
However…the feckless Obama administration could have tried to do SOMETHING with DADT instead of pretending the banana-republicans would work with them on anything.
@33
And that’s how Obamacare was stopped…..Oh wait a minute, I recall the President signing that one…..
Exactly, I do not recall the President signing that bill…..Not a priority for them.
Oh God, Senator McCain’s comments are terrible to Secretary Gates.
***
“I couldn’t disagree more,” Mr. McCain shot back. “We send these young people into combat, we think they’re mature enough to fight and die. I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on th…eir battle effectiveness.” Mr. McCain, a naval aviator in the Vietnam War who was shot down and imprisoned in Hanoi, then added: “Mr. Secretary, I speak from personal experience.”
***
I didn’t realize that he was thinking about the sexuality, race, religion, or economic standing of his fellow soldiers while in combat. Let’s ask General Clark’s thoughts from when he was shot in Vietnam. Maybe he’ll say he was also preoccupied with the sexual orientation, credit standing, and ethnicity of his soldiers then and he couldn’t think quickly.
@34: BS. Show me 60 votes in the Senate for repeal in 2006-2008. Because that’s what it takes.
Health care reform was passed because there were sixty Senators who ultimately agreed with it (since 60% seems to be the new majority in the Senate).
I agree that the President could have made a stronger case for it or made it even slightly a priority from 2009-2010, but all it took was a single Democrat who was opposed to block the bill (by preventing cloture from succeeding). There’s always at least one. The repeal could have made it through the House, but never the Senate. This month is the first time that it would be possible, if people like John McCain would actually keep their word and follow the DoD’s recommendations instead of accusing Admiral Mullen and (Republican appointee) Robert Gates of bias.
XTGyhg http://gb93gJd4OodnW3v7NcYsl.com