Is Repealing DADT Not Important To Obama?

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Sep 22, 2010 2:07 AM GMT
    Countdown: Pres. Obama's 'discouraging silence' on the US Senate's DADT FAIL.




    Did he want it to fail?


  • Little_Spoon

    Posts: 1562

    Sep 22, 2010 3:04 AM GMT
    WE ALL NEED TO BE LADY GAGA!

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 22, 2010 4:45 AM GMT
    Getting re-elected is almost every President's top priority.
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Oct 04, 2010 9:58 PM GMT


    Either White House Got Played on DADT, or They Lied

    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/10/04/morning-joe-either-white-house-got-played-on-dadt-or-they-lied/

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:08 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidGetting re-elected is almost every President's top priority.

    That's right.

    If you will all just vote for Obama once more in 2012, he'll do everything the gays want!



    Every single Republican senator voted AGAINST the repeal of DADT.
    That tells the truth about the Republican party's anti-gay rights agenda.
    Period.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:14 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidGetting re-elected is almost every President's top priority.

    That's right.

    If you will all just vote for Obama once more in 2012, he'll do everything the gays want!



    Every single Republican senator voted AGAINST the repeal of DADT.
    That tells the truth about the Republican party's anti-gay rights agenda.
    Period.


    Actually, the truth is probably better shown at the state level, such as Texas.

    1. Re-criminalize sodomy.
    2. Make officiating at a same-sex civil ceremony a felony, with jail time.
    3. Take away their foster kids or adopted children.

    http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:17 AM GMT
    Regardless of Obama's snail-like pace on LGBT issues, I still place more stock in Democrats than anyone else. They're still the only party that even comes close to being interested in our cause. icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:28 AM GMT
    north_runner saidRegardless of Obama's snail-like pace on LGBT issues, I still place more stock in Democrats than anyone else. They're still the only party that even comes close to being interested in our cause. icon_evil.gif



    Absolutely.

    And, for anyone to ask "Did he want it to fail?" and insinuate that Obama actually was trying to manipulate events so the repeal would fail, without a shred of proof that that's the case - is just nuts.
    It's fair to wish that the president would push harder and faster to get DADT repealed, but it's fantasy to imagine that he's out to deliberately prevent the repeal.

    Let's leave the loony whacko nuttiness to the teabaggers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:37 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    north_runner saidRegardless of Obama's snail-like pace on LGBT issues, I still place more stock in Democrats than anyone else. They're still the only party that even comes close to being interested in our cause. icon_evil.gif



    Absolutely.

    And, for anyone to ask "Did he want it to fail?" and insinuate that Obama actually was trying to manipulate events so the repeal would fail, without a shred of proof that that's the case - is just nuts.
    It's fair to wish that the president would push harder and faster to get DADT repealed, but it's fantasy to imagine that he's out to deliberately prevent the repeal.

    Let's leave the loony whacko nuttiness to the teabaggers.


    These. Honestly- I hate that I wind up casting my vote based on social rather than economic issues.

    Then again- I'm pretty much a bleeding heart in the end anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:39 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    north_runner saidRegardless of Obama's snail-like pace on LGBT issues, I still place more stock in Democrats than anyone else. They're still the only party that even comes close to being interested in our cause. icon_evil.gif



    Absolutely.

    And, for anyone to ask "Did he want it to fail?" and insinuate that Obama actually was trying to manipulate events so the repeal would fail, without a shred of proof that that's the case - is just nuts.
    It's fair to wish that the president would push harder and faster to get DADT repealed, but it's fantasy to imagine that he's out to deliberately prevent the repeal.

    Let's leave the loony whacko nuttiness to the teabaggers.


    Yup. I think that he's much less in control of the issue than LGBT people would like to believe he is, at least in regards to the Senate. The court case from California seems to have caught him off guard, and I don't necessarily take the appeal of the case to be a sign of the Administrations favor of DADT. IMHO it seems they're more worried about the implications of a court implementing the integration of 65k LGBT service members who all of a sudden have families, partners and spouses who may not be recognized outside the service in their home states.

    It it will be interesting to see how the Senate (as a whole) reacts to the Armed forces survey that they have so willingly clung to. I cannot expect that it will show soldiers in favor of the policy, and if it concludes that it is unnecessary, they will have nowhere else to go. (Especially those who oppose the policy on the idea that its good for morale: the few Dems and the entire Republican contingent.)
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Oct 05, 2010 5:44 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidGetting re-elected is almost every President's top priority.


    Except Obama's. He has stated a couple times he'd rather be a good one term president than a so-so two term pres. So far it is not looking great for two term and jury still out on whether this term could be called good...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:50 AM GMT
    Bullwinklemoos said
    rickrick91 said
    north_runner saidRegardless of Obama's snail-like pace on LGBT issues, I still place more stock in Democrats than anyone else. They're still the only party that even comes close to being interested in our cause. icon_evil.gif



    Absolutely.

    And, for anyone to ask "Did he want it to fail?" and insinuate that Obama actually was trying to manipulate events so the repeal would fail, without a shred of proof that that's the case - is just nuts.
    It's fair to wish that the president would push harder and faster to get DADT repealed, but it's fantasy to imagine that he's out to deliberately prevent the repeal.

    Let's leave the loony whacko nuttiness to the teabaggers.


    These. Honestly- I hate that I wind up casting my vote based on social rather than economic issues.

    Then again- I'm pretty much a bleeding heart in the end anyway.


    That's cause there's supposedly easier answers when it comes to social questions...at least sometimes.icon_neutral.gif

    Personally, I come from Alaska and will be casting an absentee ballot in this years senatorial election. I have a 3rd place democrat, a Republican write-in-candiate, and a rabid tea party candidate for my choices. Economically, its for the Republican, socially, its for the Democrat. Odds are, the Democrat won't win, not with the margins he's got against him right now. So its looking like the Republican, who has never been pro-LGBT rights or used it as a wedge issue to grab votes. Yet. (And of course, the Tea Party candidate, Miller, is a little out there on all social or economic issues)

    So right now I'm just crossing my fingers for the Democrat to gain some ground. And I donated to his campaign.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:51 AM GMT
    Why should it be, it's a creation of the democrats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:53 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidGetting re-elected is almost every President's top priority.

    That's right.

    If you will all just vote for Obama once more in 2012, he'll do everything the gays want!



    Every single Republican senator voted AGAINST the repeal of DADT.
    That tells the truth about the Republican party's anti-gay rights agenda.
    Period.


    But is it not a creation of Bill Clinton?

    So what have the democrat ever done for the advancement of the homosexuals of America?

    Other than lip service, at least the republicans are open and transparent on the topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 5:57 AM GMT
    north_runner said
    Bullwinklemoos said
    rickrick91 said
    north_runner saidRegardless of Obama's snail-like pace on LGBT issues, I still place more stock in Democrats than anyone else. They're still the only party that even comes close to being interested in our cause. icon_evil.gif



    Absolutely.

    And, for anyone to ask "Did he want it to fail?" and insinuate that Obama actually was trying to manipulate events so the repeal would fail, without a shred of proof that that's the case - is just nuts.
    It's fair to wish that the president would push harder and faster to get DADT repealed, but it's fantasy to imagine that he's out to deliberately prevent the repeal.

    Let's leave the loony whacko nuttiness to the teabaggers.


    These. Honestly- I hate that I wind up casting my vote based on social rather than economic issues.

    Then again- I'm pretty much a bleeding heart in the end anyway.


    That's cause there's supposedly easier answers when it comes to social questions...at least sometimes.icon_neutral.gif

    Personally, I come from Alaska and will be casting an absentee ballot in this years senatorial election. I have a 3rd place democrat, a Republican write-in-candiate, and a rabid tea party candidate for my choices. Economically, its for the Republican, socially, its for the Democrat. Odds are, the Democrat won't win, not with the margins he's got against him right now. So its looking like the Republican, who has never been pro-LGBT rights or used it as a wedge issue to grab votes. Yet. (And of course, the Tea Party candidate, Miller, is a little out there on all social or economic issues)

    So right now I'm just crossing my fingers for the Democrat to gain some ground. And I donated to his campaign.
    Isn't Alaska pretty terrible in the unemployment department? I wouldn't be surprised if the dem lost.

    Also- I'm just wondering, but is American Politics like high school? Seriously- why can I picture Michelle Bachmann writing about Nancy Pelowsi on the stall walls of the ladies room of the Congress building?

    @ Aunty_Jack- not true! There are some third parties such as the Green Party that are for LGBT rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 6:09 AM GMT
    Bullwinklemoos said
    north_runner said
    Bullwinklemoos said
    rickrick91 said
    north_runner saidRegardless of Obama's snail-like pace on LGBT issues, I still place more stock in Democrats than anyone else. They're still the only party that even comes close to being interested in our cause. icon_evil.gif



    Absolutely.

    And, for anyone to ask "Did he want it to fail?" and insinuate that Obama actually was trying to manipulate events so the repeal would fail, without a shred of proof that that's the case - is just nuts.
    It's fair to wish that the president would push harder and faster to get DADT repealed, but it's fantasy to imagine that he's out to deliberately prevent the repeal.

    Let's leave the loony whacko nuttiness to the teabaggers.


    These. Honestly- I hate that I wind up casting my vote based on social rather than economic issues.

    Then again- I'm pretty much a bleeding heart in the end anyway.


    That's cause there's supposedly easier answers when it comes to social questions...at least sometimes.icon_neutral.gif

    Personally, I come from Alaska and will be casting an absentee ballot in this years senatorial election. I have a 3rd place democrat, a Republican write-in-candiate, and a rabid tea party candidate for my choices. Economically, its for the Republican, socially, its for the Democrat. Odds are, the Democrat won't win, not with the margins he's got against him right now. So its looking like the Republican, who has never been pro-LGBT rights or used it as a wedge issue to grab votes. Yet. (And of course, the Tea Party candidate, Miller, is a little out there on all social or economic issues)

    So right now I'm just crossing my fingers for the Democrat to gain some ground. And I donated to his campaign.
    Isn't Alaska pretty terrible in the unemployment department? I wouldn't be surprised if the dem lost.

    Also- I'm just wondering, but is American Politics like high school? Seriously- why can I picture Michelle Bachmann writing about Nancy Pelowsi on the stall walls of the ladies room of the Congress building?

    @ Aunty_Jack- not true! There are some third parties such as the Green Party that are for LGBT rights.


    @ Bullwinkle: Probably. Ironically, if I were to bet on it, it'd be for the Republican. Murkowski is sane, as a reputation for hard work/honesty, and has proven to be fair-minded when it comes to economic issues. She voted against the DADT bill, to be honest I can't say if it was for personal reasons or against the other issues they had riding on the same Defense spending bill.

    @ Aunty_Jack: I guess its a point where one thinks there's more or less to work with. I tend to be a bit more optimistic, and think that Dems offer more to LGBT people than Republicans, despite their inability to deliver thus far.

    DADT might be a product of a Democrat, but it's standing today because of the Republican party. (Although Dems loading the Defense bill with all the other hot-button issues pretty much made it anathema to any Republican Senator)
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 05, 2010 6:44 AM GMT
    aunty_jack saidWhy should it be, it's a creation of the democrats.




    Simpleton, stick to the sideline!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 3:30 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidGetting re-elected is almost every President's top priority.

    That's right.

    If you will all just vote for Obama once more in 2012, he'll do everything the gays want!



    Every single Republican senator voted AGAINST the repeal of DADT.
    That tells the truth about the Republican party's anti-gay rights agenda.
    Period.


    That's funny because I would have voted against it too. Not because I'm not vehemently in favor of repealing DADT, but because of the other things attached to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidThat's funny because I would have voted against it too. Not because I'm not vehemently in favor of repealing DADT, but because of the other things attached to it.


    Which "things" specifically?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 3:36 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidThat's funny because I would have voted against it too. Not because I'm not vehemently in favor of repealing DADT, but because of the other things attached to it.


    Which "things" specifically?


    The Dream Act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 3:42 PM GMT
    aunty_jack said
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidGetting re-elected is almost every President's top priority.

    That's right.

    If you will all just vote for Obama once more in 2012, he'll do everything the gays want!



    Every single Republican senator voted AGAINST the repeal of DADT.
    That tells the truth about the Republican party's anti-gay rights agenda.
    Period.


    But is it not a creation of Bill Clinton?

    So what have the democrat ever done for the advancement of the homosexuals of America?

    Other than lip service, at least the republicans are open and transparent on the topic.


    You need to learn some American history sweetie. It was a Republican authored bill used as a compromise by Bill Clinton to stop the military from actively searching out and dismissing gays. Was it perfect? No. But it was better than continuing an outright ban and witch hunt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 4:42 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidThat's funny because I would have voted against it too. Not because I'm not vehemently in favor of repealing DADT, but because of the other things attached to it.


    Which "things" specifically?


    Hmmmm.... Let me guess.... Amnesty for illegal aliens? Just a hunch.

    You do know what "poison pill" means, don't you?


    The Dream Act wasn't a poison pill and isn't amnesty. It requires children of undocumented workers - who are here through no fault of their own - to serve in the military or attend a four-year college in return for consideration of permanent residency. They can still be deported if they do not fulfill their obligations, and the college is not paid for by the gov't.

    Stop lying about legislation that would actually improve our immigration issues.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Oct 05, 2010 4:50 PM GMT
    I think he wants it to pass, I just don't think he is showing the best leadership skills in terms of seeing that this gets done. I do, however, think it will get repealed on his watch
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2010 4:58 PM GMT
    Obama is "meh" on it, the Republicans are absolutely fucking terrible. I mean really, cuntishly evil. Any gay person who doesn´t condemn the Republicans on their LGBT policies needs an intervention.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Oct 05, 2010 5:07 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidObama is "meh" on it, the Republicans are absolutely fucking terrible. I mean really, cuntishly evil. Any gay person who doesn´t condemn the Republicans on their LGBT policies needs an intervention.



    Personally, I think we should reserve judgment on Republicans and how they vote on repealing DADT until after the Pentagon investigative data is completed and it is voted on at the appropriate time. It was inappropriate that it was called up for vote a few weeks ago, and Obama should have prevented that from happening. The Democrats shot themselves in the foot on that one.