Obama: I will end Dont ask Dont tell.


yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
This could be resolved so quick, don't understand why he just doesn't do it. There is simply no reason for it.
Uh, Congress?

It would make it through the House no problem, and Obama would of course sign it, but I think the senate is where it would run into roadblocks. Remember, we don't really have 60 senators thanks to a few DINOs and without 60 for cloture, the GOP will filibuster anything.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Yes, it is. The Republicans will block ANYTHING Obama wants to do. They don't care who they hurt as long as he gets nothing done. They are interested in themselves, not the United States of America or it's people. They have proven that so many times over, I can't believe anyone still votes for them. Does no one remember Karl Rove or the Bush administration? It's only been 10 months.
 

thegoldenmackid

macrumors 604
Dec 29, 2006
7,777
5
dallas, texas
Uh, Congress?

It would make it through the House no problem, and Obama would of course sign it, but I think the senate is where it would run into roadblocks. Remember, we don't really have 60 senators thanks to a few DINOs and without 60 for cloture, the GOP will filibuster anything.
He can effectively end it with an executive order to ban its provisions.
 

thegoldenmackid

macrumors 604
Dec 29, 2006
7,777
5
dallas, texas
Didn't he state before he wanted it in law so that the next president can't just easily undo the order?
I am not sure about that. He could easily make a chance instantly, after a year or so make it law through congress when there is evidence that the negative effects are non-existent.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
And if there are negative effects...?
It'll just prove that once again, America cannot handle social progress like the rest of the world. What in the hell could possibly happen besides our soldiers ganging up against gay soldiers?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
There are those soldiers (I have met some) that hate gays, and having them openly around them, invites disaster.
Those soldiers have no place our military if they cannot do their job without their bigotedness getting in the way.
 

Jaffa Cake

macrumors Core
Aug 1, 2004
19,801
6
The City of Culture, Englandshire
There are those soldiers (I have met some) that hate gays, and having them openly around them, invites disaster.
I would suggest then that the problem is with these soldiers, not their potential gay comrades.

If these folk are prepared to take out their prejudices on those who they're supposed to be fighting alongside, are they really the sort of people you want serving in the military?
 

thegoldenmackid

macrumors 604
Dec 29, 2006
7,777
5
dallas, texas
There are those soldiers (I have met some) that hate gays, and having them openly around them, invites disaster.
This has been empirically disproven. There are also soldiers that hate blacks and hispanics, not everyday we hear about random private going on a racist killing spree. The fact is, we are one of the last militaries to not allow non-heterosexuals the opportunity to serve openly and the more concerning fact is the high percentage of translators we lose because of this policy.
 

djellison

macrumors 68020
Feb 2, 2007
2,228
4
Pasadena CA
And if there are negative effects...?
There are none. It's a none issue all together. Indeed - 'Don't Ask' should remain - someones sexuality is fundamentally irrelevant for their ability to do a job. Why would one ask at all?

Your signature and your first post in this thread infer a personal opinion on the matter - would you care to stop beating around the bush and share it.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
What about the reverse bigotedness, of the gays against the anti-gays. It IS bigotry as well...
Do you really think that those who are serving in the closet are suddenly gonna start beating up others now that they are free to be themselves?
 

thegoldenmackid

macrumors 604
Dec 29, 2006
7,777
5
dallas, texas
Do you really think that those who are serving in the closet are suddenly gonna start beating up others now that they are free to be themselves?
I don't believe that was the point being made, more that what defines bigotry. Whatever the case is, it does not matter. If being a bigot prevents you from doing your job, you should be fired. As opposed to, because you are a homosexual, you should be fired.

Seems to me, Gays in general at protests, are the ones that became violent...
Since those defending the status quo have reason to be violent. Once again, you wanna cite examples.
 

Gray-Wolf

macrumors 68030
Apr 19, 2008
2,602
1
Pandora, Home Tree
I don't believe that was the point being made, more that what defines bigotry. Whatever the case is, it does not matter. If being a bigot prevents you from doing your job, you should be fired. As opposed to, because you are a homosexual, you should be fired.



Since those defending the status quo have reason to be violent. Once again, you wanna cite examples.
California elections, with California Proposition 8 was the center of violence, and threats made by the gay community agains the Mormons and others.