Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Is Obama a pussy? (3 Viewers)

[Jeee]

You do know that you don't have to get e-mail notifications for every thread you post in, right?

LOL, yeah. I know. I'm automatically suscribed to all threads, and I cbb changing it atm.

Edit: I feel sorry for Obama. His eye bags tell all.

 

[kami]

Obama's less of a pussy than most other politicians of today, of any country. he recently condemned african leaders and claimed they were the main problem that their countries were so poor (something previous presidents failed to do).
Obama would lose votes, fundamentalist christian america wouldn't like it very much. Let's hope he looks at it more in his second term, but obama's got a hell of a lota stuff to do in the meantime

Really, he wouldn't lose much over it. The conservatives are in a shambles and heck, we've had UK, Aust, Canada and NZ which are all similar countries, take it in its stride. Obama handling this in his second term would put the US twenty years behind Australia in allowing LGBT service men and women; are you honestly trying to tell me that modern day US with an African American president is more socially conservative than Australia twenty years ago? Even John McCain supported a review of the DADT policy so no, Obama will not lose votes over it.

 

[Tully B.]

Iron, we are a secular society, yes? These morals are justified only by your interpretation of your religion, and since the military is run by the Government, these religious quarrels should play no part in it.

You keep on saying that the "immorality would lower the morale" when people in this thread have shown you the statistics that disproves this bigoted view.

We have the facts, you have religion (and Lentern has both). Apart from going on about how homosexuality is the devil's work, can you come up with any real reason to support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

 

[Charizard]

cuz he's a troll.

 

[absorber]

Really, he wouldn't lose much over it. The conservatives are in a shambles and heck, we've had UK, Aust, Canada and NZ which are all similar countries, take it in its stride. Obama handling this in his second term would put the US twenty years behind Australia in allowing LGBT service men and women; are you honestly trying to tell me that modern day US with an African American president is more socially conservative than Australia twenty years ago? Even John McCain supported a review of the DADT policy so no, Obama will not lose votes over it.

Well it's good to hear you think this is the case...I reckon myself 'don't ask don't tell' is a horrible policy. Obama might be in, and the conservatives might not be the greatest opposition right now, but I just would've thought that the lobbying power of fundamentalist christians would have been too great a loss.

 

[kami]

Well it's good to hear you think this is the case...I reckon myself 'don't ask don't tell' is a horrible policy. Obama might be in, and the conservatives might not be the greatest opposition right now, but I just would've thought that the lobbying power of fundamentalist christians would have been too great a loss.

Well, yes and no. They've become more and more fringe lately, especially after the humiliation suffered over Palin so that while they're still a power they're not one Obama should really fear, especially since they'd be mostly against him by principle anyway (omg muslim terrorist President Hussein rhetoric ~).

 

[Empyrean444]

the arrogance of your self-love logic

I thought hypocrisy was a sin to Christians

 

[Dilan1]

Including gays is an easy way to relieve tension, imo. A mouth is a mouth, amirite?


A hole is a hole.

 

[Tully B.]

I thought hypocrisy was a sin to Christians

No, just homosexuality.

 

[Sprangler]

Let the sodomites into the great Satan's terrorist force, me and my muslim brethren will have fun torturing them for their misdeeds.

 

[123ash]

yep, i agree with you kami. Obama is more like a reactive reactive leader than i proactive leader.
i have been keeping up with his moves and it seems to me that he makes is decisions after he examines the initial reactions of people.
Since is is the president of the U.S., we can't really do much about his psychology and how complex he thinks in handling gays in the military or the catchy heading "Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

 

[kami]

Recently, an Army National Guardsman and Arabic translator who openly challenged the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, was recommended for discharge by a military administrative board because he has publicly said that he is gay. Yet a watchdog group claims dozens of US military personnel have been spotted on a white supremacist social networking Web site in an apparent violation of Pentagon regulations prohibiting racist extremism.

Well, it's nice to see that the KKK wannabes are being removed. OH WAIT!

Nice priorities there.

The Raw Story US military: Gays not welcome; white supremacists ‘OK?’

^ full story

 

[xeuyrawp]

Well, it's nice to see that the KKK wannabes are being removed. OH WAIT!

Nice priorities there.

The Raw Story � US military: Gays not welcome; white supremacists ‘OK?’

^ full story

...?

That's a complete strawman. It's not that 'gays' aren't welcome; it's that you're not allowed to talk about it, and in return for doing that, you get protection from being asked about it.

I think you'll find that the US military generally has a policy against outspoken racism the same way that it does against outspoken homosexuality.

If you don't want to cut your hair, don't work in retail. If you don't want to stop swearing, don't work for a school. If you don't want to not discuss your sexuality, don't join the military. In any case, I wish the queer community would get over it to be honest. Who gives a fuck who the US military does and does not let in, especially given that there are numerous cases of queer military servicemen/women who just don't talk about it while at work. You're not being paid and trained to talk about your sexuality.

 

[kami]

...?

That's a complete strawman. It's not that 'gays' aren't welcome; it's that you're not allowed to talk about it, and in return for doing that, you get protection from being asked about it.

I think you'll find that the US military generally has a policy against outspoken racism the same way that it does against outspoken homosexuality.

If you don't want to cut your hair, don't work in retail. If you don't want to stop swearing, don't work for a school. If you don't want to not discuss your sexuality, don't join the military. In any case, I wish the queer community would get over it to be honest. Who gives a fuck who the US military does and does not let in, especially given that there are numerous cases of queer military servicemen/women who just don't talk about it while at work. You're not being paid and trained to talk about your sexuality.

That's not an entirely accurate representation of the issue.

A crime, and the impending charges, are non-existent in every situation so long as there is no evidence and a similar case has been set up with LGBT persons within the military in that it's permissible so long as no one can prove it (by your own statement or other means). To say homosexuals are welcome and permitted in the military so long as no one knows you are one is slightly contradictory.

The protection from being queried about it is also meager - you cannot be officially queried on the topic by a recruiter or superior but that is as far as it goes. Anything from a peer is permissible and it's going to come up, especially during an experience like boot camp. The sole purpose of boot camp is not to train and equip people with skills but to break them down in this experience and force them into a unit and the close quarters of this experience invites some degree of interpersonal communications.

Making the protection even more flimsy is the fact that you don't need to 'tell' to be uncovered and discharged from service. An allegation can be made which the military may be obliged to follow up and this places an uncomfortable amount of power in the hands of a peer - to lodge an accusation of homosexuality as a way to disparage a rival or someone for whom they have distaste.

To complicate matters, there are a number of public benefits that you need to be out to claim and as a military serviceman or woman, you cannot claim them at risk of losing your job. A primary example is partner benefits which every person in US public service positions is entitled to. Other examples include marriage and civil unions in the states that permit them, joint adoptions, government recorded de facto arrangements and so on. You cannot claim these and be a part of the military.

This is why your comparison with swearing at schools doesn't work, you can still swear outside a school, you can still get access to all of your benefits if you swear like crazy outside of a school and the anti-swearing thing is universally applied, not applied to a minority.

And the reason people give a damn about it is because it would be so so so easy to make happen, it's the most realistic step forward that can be made - 'We're willing to die for you while it saves you money' - with only one signature being required.

 

[xeuyrawp]

To say homosexuals are welcome and permitted in the military so long as no one knows you are one is slightly contradictory.

Er, again, that's a complete strawman.

Firstly, it's not that homosexuals are welcome. I clearly said

It's not that 'gays' aren't welcome

-- ie they are neither welcome nor unwelcome because it's not to be discussed. You obviously don't understand this law is there to ensure that homosexuality is not an issue because it can neither be asked (thus protecting soldiers) nor be told (thus protecting the military from alleged problems it causes).

Secondly, it's not saying that no-one can know. They're saying that you can't tell anybody or act as such.

You clearly don't understand that without this law, discrimination would be much more of a problem simply because superiors could and would ask. Despite the fact that GLBT groups invariably rank the findings differently, it is shown that the presence of a queer soldier causes negative morale in almost half of the reported cases. [I can't find the link atm, but it is a report that is often referred to. I'm sure I can find it later if you care.]

I agree that this law is not ideal -- I personally know that I could serve in the military and being queer wouldn't be a problem. That being said, I would hope that I would be protected with some sort of right; a right which (all things being equal) should come with an obligation of me to act in such a way that my sexuality doesn't effect other soldiers. I don't see how that would be unfair.

In that sense, I think this law needs to be replaced and not removed.

 

[SashatheMan]

During his campaign President Obama promised to repeal Don't ask, Don't tell (DADT) which is a military policy in the US forbidding LGBT persons from serving openly in the military. However, in the wake of his being inducted into office, Obama has completely back pedaled on the issue despite near unanimous supporting for the repeal of the policy by the military itself and LGBT groups. Recently Obama has also disclaimed the fact that he has the authority to repeal DADT, despite him being Commander in Chief of the armed forces and all that.

So wth is up with Obama? Is he that scared of the conservatives? This move would lose him pretty much no political capital at all so why is he upholding a policy that puts the US up there with Russia, China and Iran in its handling of gays in the military? Is Obama that much of a pussy?

I personally think it's political rather then the view that Obama shares. He is a very smart politician. The tide is turning and the policy is becoming more and more unpopular, but i guess it's not a major one issue policy, and so Obama doesn't have an insentive to change it, because it might cause him other problems.

It seems like when the people who supported the policy don't hold their old government positions anymore, they are now free to express their real views, in that it should be overturned. Most prominent people that come to mind are Bill Clinton and Colin Powell