Obama Does It Again. He Jumps On An Issue That Will Soon Blow Up In His Face

[Jarhead]

Gay and lesbian soldiers to you apparently can't win either way: If they join wanting to serve their country and they follow the rules, they suck just for wanting to join - or they're liars because of a stupid forced policy.

Either way you get to spew hatred upon them.

We know how this story goes and it's pretty clear where it comes from.

Due to discrimination in this world, it has always been an uphill battle for the gay community.
What the political rhetoric seemd to have clouded was the reason for DADT.
It was not designed to create or cater to discrimination. Yes, it DID cater to discrimination, but that was a side affect of the reason for it.
People discriminate. It is the way it is. And until discrimination is eliminated, we need to have ceretain policies that are designed to protect those that are discriminated against.
DADT was designed to protect the gay community in the military.
If yoiu recall...the law was not "no gays allowed".
The law was "dont tell"
Why?
Becuase you dont want someone who's mission is to protect you to "not care" becuase of his hate for what you are.

So please...understand the reason for the law before you chastise those that agree with the law.

Me? No gay bias at all. Those that discriminate? I show them the door.
But I respect why the DADT law was designed to begin with.

Well DADT is all over now, so there's no need to fret anymore.

Fret?
I never fretted over DADT.

But I feel bad for the guy that opens up to his fellow soldiers and then finds out that some of them discriminate agianst him....and no, most soldiers wont do anything that would put them in the brig....

But the thought of knowing the guy that has your back sees you as a fag? It would certainly give me reason to be less aggressive at a time I need to be MOST aggressive.

DADT was designed to save lives...not enocurage discrimination.

You, Paperview, have never been in a life and death situation where the one who is going to give you better odds of survival also hates you for who you are.

Sometimes you need to put ideology aside to see the dangers of a policy.

 

[MarcATL]

Due to discrimination in this world, it has always been an uphill battle for the gay community.
What the political rhetoric seemd to have clouded was the reason for DADT.
It was not designed to create or cater to discrimination. Yes, it DID cater to discrimination, but that was a side affect of the reason for it.
People discriminate. It is the way it is. And until discrimination is eliminated, we need to have ceretain policies that are designed to protect those that are discriminated against.
DADT was designed to protect the gay community in the military.
If yoiu recall...the law was not "no gays allowed".
The law was "dont tell"
Why?
Becuase you dont want someone who's mission is to protect you to "not care" becuase of his hate for what you are.

So please...understand the reason for the law before you chastise those that agree with the law.

Me? No gay bias at all. Those that discriminate? I show them the door.
But I respect why the DADT law was designed to begin with.

Well DADT is all over now, so there's no need to fret anymore.

Fret?
I never fretted over DADT.

But I feel bad for the guy that opens up to his fellow soldiers and then finds out that some of them discriminate agianst him....and no, most soldiers wont do anything that would put them in the brig....

But the thought of knowing the guy that has your back sees you as a fag? It would certainly give me reason to be less aggressive at a time I need to be MOST aggressive.

DADT was designed to save lives...not enocurage discrimination.

You, Paperview, have never been in a life and death situation where the one who is going to give you better odds of survival also hates you for who you are.

Sometimes you need to put ideology aside to see the dangers of a policy.

Those were the same arguments used AGAINST integration in the military.

 

[Jarhead]

Well DADT is all over now, so there's no need to fret anymore.

Fret?
I never fretted over DADT.

But I feel bad for the guy that opens up to his fellow soldiers and then finds out that some of them discriminate agianst him....and no, most soldiers wont do anything that would put them in the brig....

But the thought of knowing the guy that has your back sees you as a fag? It would certainly give me reason to be less aggressive at a time I need to be MOST aggressive.

DADT was designed to save lives...not enocurage discrimination.

You, Paperview, have never been in a life and death situation where the one who is going to give you better odds of survival also hates you for who you are.

Sometimes you need to put ideology aside to see the dangers of a policy.

Those were the same arguments used AGAINST integration in the military.

Yes...I am aware of it.

And whether they were valid arguments or not...they were arguments for the safety of the soldiers...not meant to cater to or encourage discrimination.

 

[paperview]

Fret?
I never fretted over DADT.

But I feel bad for the guy that opens up to his fellow soldiers and then finds out that some of them discriminate agianst him....and no, most soldiers wont do anything that would put them in the brig....

But the thought of knowing the guy that has your back sees you as a fag? It would certainly give me reason to be less aggressive at a time I need to be MOST aggressive.

DADT was designed to save lives...not enocurage discrimination.

You, Paperview, have never been in a life and death situation where the one who is going to give you better odds of survival also hates you for who you are.

Sometimes you need to put ideology aside to see the dangers of a policy.

Those were the same arguments used AGAINST integration in the military.

Yes...I am aware of it.

And whether they were valid arguments or not...they were arguments for the safety of the soldiers...not meant to cater to or encourage discrimination.

Here's a newsflash for you Jarhead: They weren't valid.

That's not up for debate.

 

[mudwhistle]

If you feel dissed by the fact people find it abhorrent an America soldier serving in Iraq gets booed because he is gay, or even if we believe your retelling, because he asked a question - then I'm not sure what can be said to you.

Try this.

"I wish someone had spoken up but they didn't".

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion".

How's that sound????

Better than "this is the thanks I get."



I do believe I have thanked you for your service before, and if you need to hear it again, I will: Thank you for your service.

If that's what you were getting at.

I don't need your thanks. It is an expression.

If you're looking for thanks or recognition you're serving for the wrong reasons.

I did my job because I wanted to challenge myself, do the job very few could do. Knowing that I could is all I needed.

And saying a soldier should be thanked for being Gay is BS. Being Gay shouldn't matter. You just wanted to thank him because he's brave. I don't envy what he's set himself up for.

 

[paperview]

...
And saying a soldier should be thanked for being Gay is BS. Being Gay shouldn't matter. You just wanted to thank him because he's brave. I don't envy what he's set himself up for.

Unless you can point out a post where someone said he should be thanked for being gay....that's a pile of bullshit you just laid down there.

 

[Ravi]

...
And saying a soldier should be thanked for being Gay is BS. Being Gay shouldn't matter. You just wanted to thank him because he's brave. I don't envy what he's set himself up for.

Unless you can point out a post where someone said he should be thanked for being gay....that's a pile of bullshit you just laid down there.

Oh, yeah.

 

[Jarhead]

Those were the same arguments used AGAINST integration in the military.

Yes...I am aware of it.

And whether they were valid arguments or not...they were arguments for the safety of the soldiers...not meant to cater to or encourage discrimination.

Here's a newsflash for you Jarhead: They weren't valid.

That's not up for debate.

they were very valid....just difficult to prove one way or the other.

Just becuase you dont want to debate it doesnt mean it is not up for debate.

So use your arrogance on someone else.

 

[paperview]

Yes...I am aware of it.

And whether they were valid arguments or not...they were arguments for the safety of the soldiers...not meant to cater to or encourage discrimination.

Here's a newsflash for you Jarhead: They weren't valid.

That's not up for debate.

they were very valid....just difficult to prove one way or the other.

Just becuase you dont want to debate it doesnt mean it is not up for debate.

So use your arrogance on someone else.

You want me to debate the realities and efficacy of a racially integrated Armed Forces??

Huuuuuuuunnnnnhhhgggn?

 

[mudwhistle]

...
And saying a soldier should be thanked for being Gay is BS. Being Gay shouldn't matter. You just wanted to thank him because he's brave. I don't envy what he's set himself up for.

Unless you can point out a post where someone said he should be thanked for being gay....that's a pile of bullshit you just laid down there.

Being Gay is one of the reasons you're so wrapped around the axle about this.

I seriously doubt you'ed be in the GOP's ass over this if he wasn't Gay, so don't attempt to act innocent.

 

[paperview]

...
And saying a soldier should be thanked for being Gay is BS. Being Gay shouldn't matter. You just wanted to thank him because he's brave. I don't envy what he's set himself up for.

Unless you can point out a post where someone said he should be thanked for being gay....that's a pile of bullshit you just laid down there.

Being Gay is one of the reasons you're so wrapped around the axle about this.

I seriously doubt you'ed be in the GOP's ass over this if he wasn't Gay, so don't attempt to act innocent.

I guess that's your way of admitting there isn't a single post here where someone said he should be thanked for being gay.

Something to wrap yourself around: You shouldn't say things that aren't true.

 

[mudwhistle]

Unless you can point out a post where someone said he should be thanked for being gay....that's a pile of bullshit you just laid down there.

Being Gay is one of the reasons you're so wrapped around the axle about this.

I seriously doubt you'ed be in the GOP's ass over this if he wasn't Gay, so don't attempt to act innocent.

I guess that's your way of admitting there isn't a single post here where someone said he should be thanked for being gay.

Something to wrap yourself around: You shouldn't say things that aren't true.

I'm on my Blackberry.

I could cut and paste quotes that show the obvious, that this would not even be an issue if he wasn't Gay.

You want to force everyone into conforming. Force them into activism.

Not everyone feels that way.

Some of us feel that you get more results by using kindness instead of "Yield...Heel....Do what we say or be subjected to 4 more years of suffering under Obama".

 

[Ravi]

Being Gay is one of the reasons you're so wrapped around the axle about this.

I seriously doubt you'ed be in the GOP's ass over this if he wasn't Gay, so don't attempt to act innocent.

I guess that's your way of admitting there isn't a single post here where someone said he should be thanked for being gay.

Something to wrap yourself around: You shouldn't say things that aren't true.

I'm on my Blackberry.

I could cut and paste quotes that show the obvious, that this would not even be an issue if he wasn't Gay.

You want to force everyone into conforming. Force them into activism.

Not everyone feels that way.

Some of us feel that you get more results by using kindness instead of "Yield...Heel....Do what we say or be subjected to 4 more years of suffering under Obama".

You're right about one thing. This wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't gay. The idiotic Republican candidates would have told the booers to stfu if this soldier wasn't gay.

 

[paperview]

Being Gay is one of the reasons you're so wrapped around the axle about this.

I seriously doubt you'ed be in the GOP's ass over this if he wasn't Gay, so don't attempt to act innocent.

I guess that's your way of admitting there isn't a single post here where someone said he should be thanked for being gay.

Something to wrap yourself around: You shouldn't say things that aren't true.

I'm on my Blackberry.

I could cut and paste quotes that show the obvious, that this would not even be an issue if he wasn't Gay.

You want to force everyone into conforming. Force them into activism.

Not everyone feels that way.

Some of us feel that you get more results by using kindness instead of "Yield...Heel....Do what we say or be subjected to 4 more years of suffering under Obama".

I think you meant to say this wouldn't be an issue if the dolts in the audience hadn't booed him in the first place, and you subsequently started a thread on the subject...where Obama held a similar view to some of those republican candidates (after the fact) -- it was wrong they booed him, and they should have spoken up.

If you want to piss and moan about the loss of DADT, there's an app for that.

 

[paperview]

I guess that's your way of admitting there isn't a single post here where someone said he should be thanked for being gay.

Something to wrap yourself around: You shouldn't say things that aren't true.

I'm on my Blackberry.

I could cut and paste quotes that show the obvious, that this would not even be an issue if he wasn't Gay.

You want to force everyone into conforming. Force them into activism.

Not everyone feels that way.

Some of us feel that you get more results by using kindness instead of "Yield...Heel....Do what we say or be subjected to 4 more years of suffering under Obama".

You're right about one thing. This wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't gay. The idiotic Republican candidates would have told the booers to stfu if this soldier wasn't gay.

There's that too.

 

[blastoff]

I'm not aware of the facts of the case...but the Cambridge police acted stupidly.

With a track record like the above nothing the clown in chief says should surprise anyone.

 

[mudwhistle]

I guess that's your way of admitting there isn't a single post here where someone said he should be thanked for being gay.

Something to wrap yourself around: You shouldn't say things that aren't true.

I'm on my Blackberry.

I could cut and paste quotes that show the obvious, that this would not even be an issue if he wasn't Gay.

You want to force everyone into conforming. Force them into activism.

Not everyone feels that way.

Some of us feel that you get more results by using kindness instead of "Yield...Heel....Do what we say or be subjected to 4 more years of suffering under Obama".

You're right about one thing. This wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't gay. The idiotic Republican candidates would have told the booers to stfu if this soldier wasn't gay.

I doubt it.

But it's nice that you will admit that the issue is about homosexuality.

Personally I felt one isolated asshole didn't deserve anything more then zero attention.

 

[paperview]

More than one isolated asshole.

Agreed, not that many - but more than one:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwoh6g05hj4]Republican Crowd Boos Soldier During Debate - YouTube[/ame]

Santorum's answer (which the audience applauded) SUCKED.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not aware of the facts of the case...but the Cambridge police acted stupidly.

With a track record like the above nothing the clown in chief says should surprise anyone.

I agree with the exception of one thing.

He is not the Clown in Chief.

He is the Commander in Chief and calling him otherwise is an insult to our military.

Call him the clown who is the commander in chief...Im good with that.

But referring to him as the Clown in Chief is implying he is the chief of all the clowns....implying our military commanders are clowns.

They are not.

 

[mudwhistle]

I guess that's your way of admitting there isn't a single post here where someone said he should be thanked for being gay.

Something to wrap yourself around: You shouldn't say things that aren't true.

I'm on my Blackberry.

I could cut and paste quotes that show the obvious, that this would not even be an issue if he wasn't Gay.

You want to force everyone into conforming. Force them into activism.

Not everyone feels that way.

Some of us feel that you get more results by using kindness instead of "Yield...Heel....Do what we say or be subjected to 4 more years of suffering under Obama".

I think you meant to say this wouldn't be an issue if the dolts in the audience hadn't booed him in the first place, and you subsequently started a thread on the subject...where Obama held a similar view to some of those republican candidates (after the fact) -- it was wrong they booed him, and they should have spoken up.

If you want to piss and moan about the loss of DADT, there's an app for that.

You might want to take your own advice about telling lies.

I never agreed with DADT. I felt it was a sham from the get go.

Here's what I believe:

It was wrong for that asshole to boo, but that sometimes happens, it's a free country...last time I checked.

The candidates shouldn't be faulted for not speaking up because it wasn't necessary, and because of the time limitations. So many candidates, so little time.

That soldier didn't deserve extra consideration because of his Gayness. He's lucky he wasn't caught and now that he's not breaking regulations he can consider himself lucky. However coming out wasn't very bright, nor was it classy. I also feel he will pay a price for it, which isn't fair, but life never is.

Also, Rick Santorum, the prick that he is, said if elected would repeal it, which I think is horseshit.
Leave it alone. Let the issue die. This is why I can't stand his ass.

Obama should stay out of this. Instead he takes advantage of the situation and says that supporting the troops is what a POTUS must do, forgetting that he never supported them before, unless it was before the cameras.

He doesn't really support the troops. Instead he hogties them with ridiculous ROEs, wants to coddle the enemy and prosecute interrogators. He wants to leave them hanging out in FOPs in the middle of nowhere while the enemy takes their time picking them off one at a time because they have terrain superiority and tactical advantage. He wants to gut their funding and give it to union thugs and special interest groups. He wants to freeze their pay and cut their benefits.

That's what I think.