This Guy is a Sham

[Riot]

Obama may be a sham in your view, but he's far better than those that actively politic against that in our society. That think being gay shouldn't be legal, that deny gays their rights, that call being gay an abomination, etc.

Obama has always been strongly anti-gay marriage, unfortunately, I don't expect him to change - although change would put him where the majority of society is now (in favor of it) I do appreciate he ended DADT.

[clyde]

But doesn't your neck hurt??

[clyde]

It hurts.



But she won't admit it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama may be a sham in your view, but he's far better than those that actively politic against that in our society. That think being gay shouldn't be legal, that deny gays their rights, that call being gay an abomination, etc.

Obama has always been strongly anti-gay marriage, unfortunately, I don't expect him to change - although change would put him where the majority of society is now (in favor of it) I do appreciate he ended DADT.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...nt-ask-policy/

June 3, 2011, 6:21 PM ET.

Post-Repeal, Airman Discharged Under ‘Don’t Ask’ Policy.

In December, Congress repealed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. But the policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” remains in effect: The president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must still certify that lifting the policy does not affect military readiness, and full repeal takes effect 60 days after that.



i wonder how long it will take for that certification??

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder how long it will take for that certification??

I didn't realize that hadn't been done. They mentioned the need at the repeal - why isn't it done is a very good question.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't realize that hadn't been done. They mentioned the need at the repeal - why isn't it done is a very good question.

because this way he can have his cake and eat it too. obama is the 'good guy' but it's the mean ole' pentagon who won't let it move forward. yeah, so much for his avowal that he would 'do what's right, even if it means i only serve one term'.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because this way he can have his cake and eat it too. obama is the 'good guy' but it's the mean ole' pentagon who won't let it move forward. yeah, so much for his avowal that he would 'do what's right, even if it means i only serve one term'.

The cynic in me wonders if the administration is taking their time with this in order to keep it an issue as long as possible.
Most Americans believe DADT should be permanently and completely repealed. And at the last Republican debate all (or all but one, can't remember for sure) of the candidates said they wanted DADT completely reinstated.
So - politically speaking - the later the final removal of DADT comes, the better it is for the administration. It will force leading Republicans to take their increasingly unpopular pro-DADT (anti-gay) stance even closer to the 2012 election.

If this is actually the case (and again, this is just pure speculation on my part) it obviously sucks that the administration is willing to sit back and let people be discharged simply to help their political situation. On the other hand....at least it is a good sign for this society that it is the ANTI-gay position that one side is trying to force the other side to take publicly.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because this way he can have his cake and eat it too. obama is the 'good guy' but it's the mean ole' pentagon who won't let it move forward. yeah, so much for his avowal that he would 'do what's right, even if it means i only serve one term'.

He sure can still be one term. I think his gay marriage rights view is just another tell that he's not as progressive as many thought.

I would hope to think Obama isn't happy with any delay, but I've seen zero public pressure. If it's needed, it has to be done.

I can't find any current status on the certification. From Wiki:

On December 18, 2010, the Senate voted to end debate on S.4023, the Senate's bill identical to H.R.2965, via a cloture vote of 63-33.[61] Prior to the vote, Sen. Lieberman gave the final argument in favor of repealing DADT and Sen. McCain argued against repeal. The final Senate vote was held later that same day, with the measure passing by a vote of 65-31.[62]

U. S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a statement following the vote indicating that the planning for implementation of a policy repeal will begin right away, led by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley, and will continue until Gates believes he can certify that conditions are met for orderly repeal of the policy.[63]

President Obama signed the repeal into law on December 22, 2010.[4]

The passage of the repeal act does not result in the immediate repeal of DADT. Under the terms of the new law, the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify in writing that they have reviewed the Pentagon's report on the effects of DADT repeal, that the appropriate regulations have been reviewed and drafted and that implementation of repeal regulations "is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces". Once certification is given, a 60-day waiting period will begin before DADT is formally repealed.[64]

Representative Duncan D. Hunter announced plans in January 2011 to introduce a bill designed to delay DADT repeal. Should his bill be adopted, all of the chiefs of the armed services would need to submit the certification currently required only of the President, Defense Secretary and Joint Chiefs Chairman.[65]

In January 2011, Pentagon officials stated that the training process to prepare troops for the repeal would begin in February and would proceed quickly, though it might not be completed in 2011.[66] In May 2011, the US Army reprimanded three colonels for performing a skit in March 2011 at a function at Yongsan Garrison, South Korea that mocked the repeal.[67]

[Riot]

PS New York is voting tonight on gay marriage.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

He sure can still be one term. I think his gay marriage rights view is just another tell that he's not as progressive as many thought.

I would hope to think Obama isn't happy with any delay, but I've seen zero public pressure. If it's needed, it has to be done.

I can't find any current status on the certification. From Wiki:

the airman who was cited in the article i posted-he was just discharged at the beginning of this month. so, even if certification occurred tomorrow, they could still actually kick people out based on their sexuality. when is a change not a change? the process could take years.
this issue isn't one that would garner obama any more votes than he has already-there's nothing in it for him to push it.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43660098/ns/us_news-life/

Appeals court orders immediate halt to gay military ban
Ruling comes after Obama administration says 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is unconstitutional


SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. government on Wednesday to immediately cease enforcing the ban on openly gay members of the military, a move that could speed the repeal of the 17-year-old rule.

..A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the "don't ask, don't tell" policy must be lifted now that the Obama administration has concluded it's unconstitutional to treat gay Americans differently under the law. The appeals court noted that Congress repealed the policy in December and that the Pentagon is preparing to certify that it is ready to welcome gay military personnel.



...well, that's good news. i figured this would end up being handled by the courts. no politician has the balls to stand up for equal rights. god forbid that the religious right get their panties in a wad and perhaps vote against a politician.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama may be a sham in your view, but he's far better than those that actively politic against that in our society. That think being gay shouldn't be legal, that deny gays their rights, that call being gay an abomination, etc.

Obama has always been strongly anti-gay marriage, unfortunately, I don't expect him to change - although change would put him where the majority of society is now (in favor of it) I do appreciate he ended DADT.

did you watch the video? He's only been anti-gay marriage since he's been running for office. and now that the tides are turning, he might change his opinion. not because it's morally right to do so, but because he needs the most votes he can get.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

did you watch the video? He's only been anti-gay marriage since he's been running for office. and now that the tides are turning, he might change his opinion. not because it's morally right to do so, but because he needs the most votes he can get.

Obama's always been anti-gay marriage from a personal belief point of view - all the various "yes" and "noes" regarding what he'd do as a lawmaker were the flip-flop politicizing based upon current expediency. There's multiple quotes from him about his personal views, going way back.

But Obama doesn't make law - he signs it, yes. Now we have a Congress (House) filled with Republican religious zealots completely and actively and proudly against it, as is every single Republican Presidential candidate (perhaps not Huntsman, would have to check) Not good. And those people, the "big government control of your life, take away your individual rights" group, are the big danger.

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama's always been anti-gay marriage from a personal belief point of view - all the various "yes" and "noes" regarding what he'd do as a lawmaker were the flip-flop politicizing based upon current expediency. There's multiple quotes from him about his personal views, going way back.

But Obama doesn't make law - he signs it, yes. Now we have a Congress (House) filled with Republican religious zealots completely and actively and proudly against it, as is every single Republican Presidential candidate (perhaps not Huntsman, would have to check) Not good. And those people, the "big government control of your life, take away your individual rights" group, are the big danger.

Yeah democrats don't fall in that group...just Republicans.

Isn't that right, Republican?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Yeah democrats don't fall in that group...just Republicans.

Isn't that right, Republican?

Coming as a response to me pointing out a Democrat in "that group", not a very brilliant personal insult. Try again.

Originally Posted by Riot

Coming as a response to me pointing out a Democrat in "that group", not a very brilliant personal insult. Try again.

You moved the blame to congress and didn't single out any democratic congressman, just piled the responsibility on Republicans. You won't address it like an adult so you do the typical nitpick routine and try to convince others that Obama is the same as Congress. He's not.

If you'd like I can take the first paragraph out for you. That way you can comprehend which part of your post I'm singling out. But then we couldn't have these mundane troll replies over semantics because you're consistently wrong and deceptive.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You moved the blame to congress and didn't single out any democratic congressman, just piled the responsibility on Republicans.

I didn't "move to blame" anybody. Re-read it. I simply pointed out, outside of Obama, the current political reality, and yeah, it's that the GOP has moved so far to the right that their public position is overtly anti-gay.

You won't address it like an adult so you do the typical nitpick routine and try to convince others that Obama is the same as Congress. He's not.

Oh, bullshit. Yip, yip, yip, with some obvious lack of reading comprehension added on top.

No, I did not say or imply Obama was the same as Congress. I said Obama was personally anti-gay marriage, but politically he waffles. I said the GOP are stringently anti-gay.

I other words, I made a contrast between Obama and the current GOP.

Sorry - I'm not responsible for the nonsensical assumptions you make up in your head about what your imagination thinks I meant, but that I didn't actually say.

If you'd like I can take the first paragraph out for you. That way you can comprehend which part of your post I'm singling out. But then we couldn't have these mundane troll replies over semantics because you're consistently wrong and deceptive.

It must be so difficult for you to live with such a constant hate-on.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama's always been anti-gay marriage from a personal belief point of view - all the various "yes" and "noes" regarding what he'd do as a lawmaker were the flip-flop politicizing based upon current expediency. There's multiple quotes from him about his personal views, going way back.

But Obama doesn't make law - he signs it, yes. Now we have a Congress (House) filled with Republican religious zealots completely and actively and proudly against it, as is every single Republican Presidential candidate (perhaps not Huntsman, would have to check) Not good. And those people, the "big government control of your life, take away your individual rights" group, are the big danger.

Huntsman, pro civil unions as are many. I am, I wish I was in civil union. It is just like being Puerto Rico. All the benefits, none of the cons. Lucky gays.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Huntsman, pro civil unions as are many. I am, I wish I was in civil union. It is just like being Puerto Rico. All the benefits, none of the cons. Lucky gays.

LOL. Good point.

Some (Ron Paul) want to take "marriage" out of government all together, and put it only in churches. Which I guess means atheists can't marry?

The first question is should the concept of legal marriage be recognized on a federal or state level. State is the obvious answer, but that's given us the disaster we have now. So against what I've always thought (that it's a state thing), I'm thinking the feds have to recognize and define what constitutes a civil union-marriage (all the religious stuff needs to be out of it) and yeah, gay couples can be part of that and equal to heteros.

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL. Good point.

Some (Ron Paul) want to take "marriage" out of government all together, and put it only in churches. Which I guess means atheists can't marry?

The first question is should the concept of legal marriage be recognized on a federal or state level. State is the obvious answer, but that's given us the disaster we have now. So against what I've always thought (that it's a state thing), I'm thinking the feds have to recognize and define what constitutes a civil union-marriage (all the religious stuff needs to be out of it) and yeah, gay couples can be part of that and equal to heteros.

Baseless claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...on_legislation

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[192] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[193] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[194] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[195][196] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[195]

In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.