Comments on: Democrats Delaying Repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell

By: GayPatriot » Does Obama Care About the Gays?

GayPatriot » Does Obama Care About the Gays? — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:35:06 +0000

[...] controlling both houses of Congress, why has the President put this on the backburner? And why do certain prominent gay Democrats give him cover when he does [...]

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:26:55 +0000

Like many conservatives, once the election was over, we hoped Obama might just might be a different guy. That he would in fact bring us together, work across isles and not be a polarizing figure.

With respect, Gene, that’s just absurd. Maybe you had some slight glimmer of hope that he would be different, I’d believe that. However, you had to know long before November what exactly he was going to be in that respect.

But then I knew he was an idiot, but I didn’t know he was that colossal an idiot.

Itâ€™s been 100 days, and has Obamessiah done ANYTHING for the Gays?

Has he done anything useful for anybody?

By: Ted B. (Charging Rhino)

Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:37:57 +0000

Of course the Dhimmicrats are going to postone ANY action on DADT ’til at-least 2010; they need it as an issue in 2010 to milk campaign cash out of their unquestioning and passive G/L supporters for “…just one more election against the GOP, who are entirely-responsible for blocking it’s repeal. So give ’til it hurts, or else the Haters will win…again.”

It’s been 100 days, and has Obamessiah done ANYTHING for the Gays?

It’s been over two years since Pelosi and Reid took control of the Hill, and have they done anything for the Gays? They haven’t even delivered on ENDA,…which was supposed to be a slam-dunk.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Question, …just send lots of money.

By: Kristo Miettinen

Kristo Miettinen — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:17:09 +0000

A few points:

(1) The headline to this post is disingenuous: “Democrats Delaying Repeal of Donâ€™t Ask/Donâ€™t Tell” gives the impression that this is a Democrat/Republican issue, but it was a democrat-majority House and Senate (and a democrat President) who passed it in the first place. Among the many things that are confused in this issue, party lines are one.

(2) How can Frank’s claim, that “we havenâ€™t done the preliminary work”, be true? The day of at least considering repeal of DADT must surely have been anticipated by those with the will to do the up-front spadework. This should have been going on since at least the elections of 2006, if not earlier. Unless… those who claim to care had higher priorities.

(3) The military does not “root around in the private lives of soldiers”. That is the “don’t ask” part.

(4) Contrary to popular belief, the President cannot repeal DADT (well, not legally, anyway). Yes, the implementation policies are an executive branch issue, but the policies implement a discriminatory requirement set in law. Change has to begin in Congress.

By: Gene on Pennsylvania

Gene on Pennsylvania — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:08:54 +0000

#9 Matt You are right. In the 70’s when I served in the Army, drug abuse was unreal and out of control. After reaching critical mass, they fixed the problem. I guess when the services were segregated, eventually when they chose to change, they did and blacks now serve honorably side by side with whites and hispanics and no one blinks an eye. Once the change is put in place the serivices are amazing at saluting and saying “yes sir it will be done”. When gays openly serve there might be a few bumps in the road but don’t underestimate how well the services can institute changes in a closed envirnment, with their control and discipline.

By: Gene on Pennsylvania

Gene on Pennsylvania — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:02:09 +0000

I think I know why Obama lied about some of his other promises. On this one I am just plain sad. He’s got everything all lined up for him to make a change. In other words there is no excuse. Like many conservatives, once the election was over, we hoped Obama might just might be a different guy. That he would in fact bring us together, work across isles and not be a polarizing figure. I’m truly sad that we were wrong. If he can’t change DADT in his first 100 days, it means he never meant to in the first place. I’m just plain sad.

By: Dark Eden

Dark Eden — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:50:13 +0000

“Face it- itâ€™s George Bushâ€™s fault DADT exists. He had 8 long years and he did nothing. You canâ€™t expect BO to help â€˜teh gaysâ€™ when he has much bigger problems that George Bush left him.”

Really? Did Bush use a mind control ray on Clinton to make him sign DADT?

Get it through your head, the Democrats do not care about your gay ass, but they will buy your votes with cheap empty promises.

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:37:29 +0000

#17 – “Hey Pete, you left out the Daffy Duck like spittle.”

From which liberal? They ALL have that reflex!

Regards,
Peter H.

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:58:48 +0000

We havenâ€™t done the preliminary work, the preparatory work.

I should think that if they truly gave a damn about it, they would have done this long ago. I kept asking, during the campaign, that if Hillary or Chumpy Obamalini were serious about it, they would have done something about it while in the Senate. But then that would require Il Douche to have actually done something in the Senate.

Hey Pete, you left out the Daffy Duck like spittle.

I think one of the few good things about â€œStarship Troopersâ€,

I know. I always think about that scene whenever there’s a DADT discussion. I like that movie, yeah it’s bad in so many ways, but overall, I think it’s pretty cool. Of course Casper Van Dien and NPH are pretty cute.

On a side note, my brother was required to read it at The Citadel. Apparently there’s a lot of good material about leadership in the book. He said, of course, the book was a lot better.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:07:38 +0000

Yeah, let’s get rid of all sexual taboos and just force which ever ones we want on other people. DADT was one of the more humanizing events in history…. do what you do privately and don’t try to wave your sexuality (whatever it is) in everyone’s face. I love the “Starship Troopers” idea…. just goes to show that nowadays people are more into theory than reality. They should publish the real rape rates for the military now that there are so many women … people would be very surprised. Not reporting reality (in the MSM) is the way a lot of this theoretical nonsense gets a foothold.

By: sandy

sandy — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:40:21 +0000

Face it- it’s George Bush’s fault DADT exists. He had 8 long years and he did nothing. You can’t expect BO to help ‘teh gays’ when he has much bigger problems that George Bush left him.

By: JorgXMcKie

JorgXMcKie — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:51:05 +0000

My experience in the military in the 60s was quite telling. As a rural (or hillbilly) type I had never been exposed to many black people or even many city folk. I quickly figures out that it was the individual that counted and not much else.

I suspect that allowing gays to be open about there preferences would have much the same effect for most. It’s hard to understand others if you never interact with them.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:37:20 +0000

I think that the left does not want repeal of DADT, as that policy is the bedrock public rationale for their highly institutionalized anti-military views and policies. For example, DADT is the reason that Harvard cites for its policies of exluding ROTC and harrassing military recruiters. Without DADT to blame, institutions like Harvard would be naked in their hostility to the military generally, and it would be clear to the world that they think it socially demeaning to have to interact with, or even tolerate the presence of, military people.

By: V the K

V the K — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:21:41 +0000

In 2005 video, Bawney Fwank claims the housing bubble will never burst, encourages more bad loan-making.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:21:09 +0000

I think one of the few good things about “Starship Troopers”, the movie, was how it showed male & female troopers showering together, and how they were “matter of fact” about it. It sort of brought home that we weren’t actually looking at 20th century Americans.

I remember also being impressed by a “let gays openly serve” advocate on NPR several years ago who,when the conversation (it was a “talk” show) came around to “how is the sexual attraction a gay man feels for men different from that a straight man feels for women”, said “yes, men & women should bunk together” — most won’t follow the logic all the way.

By: Dark Eden

Dark Eden — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:56:57 +0000

This is one of the things that cemented me for the Republicans. Clinton totally backstabbed gays with DADT and then acted like he did us a favor. And all the gay left groups went right along with it and only criticized DADT once a Republican was president. Now a Democrat’s back in office, they’ll take the crumbs they can get and keep silent about it.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:43:10 +0000

While I do support lifting the ban on gays in the military and women in combat arms, I would be hesitant to cite “studies” that “prove” that they will not effect the performance of the military. I say this not because the studies are false, but because studies are so often misused and conducted to provide a desired result that I think people are hesitant to believe them anymore. Especially in this case when you say that other countries don’t have a problem… the counter argument is of course they don’t their militaries are second rate by our standards.

In this instance, I think it is sufficient to say that it is the right thing to do and it is time to do it. I am a very big supporter of our military and I can say without hesitation that they will be able to adapt to this… and they need to. This was a bad policy Clinton agreed to and there is no defensible reason for Obama (and Frank) to allow it to continue.

Time to keep at least one campaign promise Mr. President.

By: Geoff Brown

Geoff Brown — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:34:29 +0000

I served as an Air Force enlisted member for 20 years. I had straight and gay roommates. Never saw a reason for annoying people who were gay or straight, don’t see a reason for segregation now. In field conditions, people need to respect privacy as much as they can anyway — this might actually help on peripheral issues.
We’ve had close to thirty years of discussion about gays in the military. I think Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton or George Bush should have gone to Congress and asked for the repeal long ago, and stopped enforcement if that’s within their authority (it may not have been). Since His Hopeful Changeness thinks everything is within his authority, this is the only policy I want him to get on with. Now. I think it’s going to take an act of Congress or a presidential order, as racial integration finally did.

By: Shipwreck

Shipwreck — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:13:42 +0000

I served on active duty from 1970-1990. I believe that the ban on gays in the military was appropriate at the time. I could cite anecdotes (that would take up too much space here) to demonstrate why. But times have changed and I would now like to see gays be allowed to serve openly. The bad news: a female relative currently on active duty in the Army says that she and the folks she hangs with are opposed to gays in the military. So it’s still a long haul folks.

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:59:48 +0000

I for one can’t wait for this discussion on The View:

Baba Wawa: We have Bawney Fwank with us today. Bawney, what will it be wike for the miwitawy to wepeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Teww?”

Bawney Fwank: Well, Baba, it will be a weawwy wich expewience. But first we have to do the pwoper gwoundwork.

Baba: Oh, weawwy? Pwease ewaborate.

Bawney: We havenâ€™t done the pwewiminary work, the pwepawatowy work. It would be a mistake to bwing it up without a wot of wobbying and a wot of convewsation.

Joy Behar (screaming): IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT!

Back to your reguwarwy – excuse me, regularly – scheduled program.

Regards,
Peter H.