BuffettNews.com

ph4ever wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

tikitatas wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

Because under the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2 he IS the commander in chief.

Really? I didn't know that. What a revelation! I feel liberated. But again, "above" is not the same as in "control of" and NO President would go against the Joint Chiefs without due process.

You know I was really just answering Cate's honest question and not wanting to enter into any kind of "debate" nor to be the recipient of any snideness.

it's ok. he gets testy that way when he hasn't seen his drunken skater-mom/stalker in a week or two to practice "double-axels", arabesques, and "camel spins"

RinglingRingling wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

tikitatas wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

Because under the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2 he IS the commander in chief.

Really? I didn't know that. What a revelation! I feel liberated. But again, "above" is not the same as in "control of" and NO President would go against the Joint Chiefs without due process.

You know I was really just answering Cate's honest question and not wanting to enter into any kind of "debate" nor to be the recipient of any snideness.

it's ok. he gets testy that way when he hasn't seen his drunken skater-mom/stalker in a week or two to practice "double-axels", arabesques, and "camel spins"

I have no idea what those are. If the last one like camel toe? If so, then ok. Did you google those terms or something? Or are you a closet figure skater fan . . . ? Impressive.

guessing the preceding post was a lame comeback by dp66. don't know, it's a blocked source and isn't worth the effort it would take to click the "read this post" link to find out.

tikitatas wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-bel ... 99070.html


Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

The policy should be changed.

Back in the 1950s, the UCMJ dictated court martial and five years incarceration for anyone proven to have engaged in oral sex or sodomy. I don't have access to statistics but I can guess that few heterosexuals were discharged for these activities.

Because the various services and military units enforced this rule to varying degrees, it was challenged in court in the 1970s. The DoD came back in 1981 with Directive 1332.14, making the application of penalties mandatory.

Bill Clinton tried to overturn this policy in 1993, proposing to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The vigorous pushback from various quarters, some military and some civilian, led to the current compromise of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Dan Choi's case makes it clear why the current policy is simply ridiculous. Fluent in Arabic? Many branches of the Federal government, including the military services and various intelligence organizations, are desperately in need of folks with this particular language facility. Not only is the current policy discriminatory against Dan Choi (although perhaps this hasn't been decided in court) it is clearly a waste of a talented individual.

This country faces many challenges. The military should have access to the largest pool of talented individuals available and willing to serve, and the current policy regarding gays and lesbians obviously doesn't allow that.

As far as the politics of the issue go, there are large parts of this benighted country where the population still thinks and acts like it was 1692 and not 2009. Maybe the country is ready for a change in the military's policy on this now. But as the gay marriage debate taking place in the various state legislatures shows, there are still a lot of ignorant nitwits out there, religious and otherwise, who think this country's social problems should be blamed on good folks like Dan Choi. I'd love to see Obama take this on and change the policy, as Bill Clinton tried and failed to do in 1993. If Obama didn't already have the immense job of cleaning up the former president's mess, plus dealing with an economy in a shambles, I'd say spend the political capital and "go for it". Under the current circumstances, I'd be inclined to make it a priority for the second Obama administration, as much as I'd like to see things change NOW.

drunkpirate66 wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

a) Obama has been in office what, about 120 days? Having inherited a massive sh!tstorm from the previous administration, he's had a couple other issues on his mind. Sorry that he hasn't had the time to undo every half-a$$ed, hosed-up, sub-moronic policy decision from 6 years of unfettered Repub rule in that time. They could have changed the policy anytime they wished as well, but maintained it.

b) given the way things are so polarized, either party in power is d*m ed if they do, and if they don't. Someone last week mentioned that Obama and the Democrats voted for $95 billion in emergency spending for the military and derided that as hypocritical. Failing to do it would have kicked off a different, but equally-foul sh!tstorm from the rabid right as well.

c) while I am pointing out that there are other things that might have affected the prioritization of this issue, that is not me saying I don't believe it is important. Nor am I saying that it should not be. I am just saying that 120 days of constant criticism for a job made incredibly-difficult by a room-temp IQ previous occupant might not be a realistic window of expectation for resolution of all problems facing us as a country.

wR2s

It sure was enough time for him to hire Lobbyists after running the most expansive campaign ever based on "change" defined by "under my administration I will not hire Lobbyists" or "Lobbyists will not be part of my office". In fact, it only took him 14 days for that lie . . .

Political realities of Washington set in. He didn't get elected simply on the "no lobbyist" platform.

Atleast we can now admit he is a liar. And you would think that a United States Senator would have some concept of the Political realities of Washington . . . maybe he wasn't ready for the job afterall - shouldn't make such bold promises if you don't know what you are talking about.

You're right.
With that line of thought, we were better served by the last guy who preferred to remain insulated from reality, the press, the public, etc., etc....

flyboy55 wrote:But as the gay marriage debate taking place in the various state legislatures shows, there are still a lot of ignorant nitwits out there

Then the current occupant of the White House is an ignorant nitwit?
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

And ...
One of Obama’s pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.” However, Obama also declared, “Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

I wouldn't regard Barack Obama as an ignorant nitwit, but I disagree with his personal assessment on same-sex marriage.

I tend to regard those who think Barack Obama to be an ignorant nitwit... to, themselves, be ... ah, well, ...you know my opinion already....

flyboy55 wrote:Dan Choi's case makes it clear why the current policy is simply ridiculous. Fluent in Arabic? Many branches of the Federal government, including the military services and various intelligence organizations, are desperately in need of folks with this particular language facility. Not only is the current policy discriminatory against Dan Choi (although perhaps this hasn't been decided in court) it is clearly a waste of a talented individual.

The irony is, he can serve as a civilian federal employee in an intelligence agency and live as an openly gay man.

Getting rid of the Clinton policy would have zero political impact. It would also be a good idea to get rid of the discriminatory policy. Ending it would get rid if the activist come outs. A large majority of the country (very large) could care less what lifestyle anyone lives. Anyone that would be bothered didn't and wouldn't vote for Obama. The sad thing is Obama can ignore this issue because the majority of the gay community wouldn't vote republican ever.

Lightning Bolt wrote:I wouldn't regard Barack Obama as an ignorant nitwit, but I disagree with his personal assessment on same-sex marriage.

I tend to regard those who think Barack Obama to be an ignorant nitwit... to, themselves, be ... ah, well, ...you know my opinion already....

So if a liberal Christian can oppose gay marriage based upon his religious beliefs and not be branded an ignorant nitwit, or worse, why isn't a conservative Christian afforded the same courtesy?

For the record, I consider myself a political independent. I've never belonged a political party since I first registered to vote in 1972 and I've voted for candidates from all points on the political spectrum over those 36 years. And I'm Christian in name only, I haven't been to church since I was 15 years old and don't plan on going back.

Skibo wrote:Getting rid of the Clinton policy would have zero political impact. It would also be a good idea to get rid of the discriminatory policy. Ending it would get rid if the activist come outs. A large majority of the country (very large) could care less what lifestyle anyone lives. Anyone that would be bothered didn't and wouldn't vote for Obama. The sad thing is Obama can ignore this issue because the majority of the gay community wouldn't vote republican ever.

Then why did gay marriage lose in the states Obama won? I think a lot of people talk one way and act another in the voting booth. Maybe LB and Flyboy are friends with covert nitwits and not even know it

LIPH wrote:So if a liberal Christian can oppose gay marriage based upon his religious beliefs and not be branded an ignorant nitwit, or worse, why isn't a conservative Christian afforded the same courtesy?

I don't recall actually labelling or branding anybody anything in this discussion, but I was just countering your response to FB's assertion; that Obama must be included in his own indictment of "ignorant twits".

The fact that Obama can offer and temper his opinion on the subject gives him credibility with me, and I agree
with his take that the states should be left to decide their status towards equality...at this point.

flyboy55 wrote:

tikitatas wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-bel ... 99070.html


Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

The policy should be changed.

Back in the 1950s, the UCMJ dictated court martial and five years incarceration for anyone proven to have engaged in oral sex or sodomy. I don't have access to statistics but I can guess that few heterosexuals were discharged for these activities.

Because the various services and military units enforced this rule to varying degrees, it was challenged in court in the 1970s. The DoD came back in 1981 with Directive 1332.14, making the application of penalties mandatory.

Bill Clinton tried to overturn this policy in 1993, proposing to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The vigorous pushback from various quarters, some military and some civilian, led to the current compromise of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Dan Choi's case makes it clear why the current policy is simply ridiculous. Fluent in Arabic? Many branches of the Federal government, including the military services and various intelligence organizations, are desperately in need of folks with this particular language facility. Not only is the current policy discriminatory against Dan Choi (although perhaps this hasn't been decided in court) it is clearly a waste of a talented individual.

This country faces many challenges. The military should have access to the largest pool of talented individuals available and willing to serve, and the current policy regarding gays and lesbians obviously doesn't allow that.

As far as the politics of the issue go, there are large parts of this benighted country where the population still thinks and acts like it was 1692 and not 2009. Maybe the country is ready for a change in the military's policy on this now. But as the gay marriage debate taking place in the various state legislatures shows, there are still a lot of ignorant nitwits out there, religious and otherwise, who think this country's social problems should be blamed on good folks like Dan Choi. I'd love to see Obama take this on and change the policy, as Bill Clinton tried and failed to do in 1993. If Obama didn't already have the immense job of cleaning up the former president's mess, plus dealing with an economy in a shambles, I'd say spend the political capital and "go for it". Under the current circumstances, I'd be inclined to make it a priority for the second Obama administration, as much as I'd like to see things change NOW.

Thanks for the information in your first paragraphs. I had not known the genesis of much of this.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:So if a liberal Christian can oppose gay marriage based upon his religious beliefs and not be branded an ignorant nitwit, or worse, why isn't a conservative Christian afforded the same courtesy?

I don't recall actually labelling or branding anybody anything in this discussion, but I was just countering your response to FB's assertion; that Obama must be included in his own indictment of "ignorant twits".

The fact that Obama can offer and temper his opinion on the subject gives him credibility with me, and I agree
with his take that the states should be left to decide their status towards equality...at this point.

I didn't say you called anybody anything. I was asking why it's acceptable for a liberal to oppose something based upon his religious beliefs but so many on the left are quick to demonize conservatives for doing the same thing. Shouldn't everybody, left, right, or in between, be free to support or oppose a particular issue based on their religious beliefs?

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:So if a liberal Christian can oppose gay marriage based upon his religious beliefs and not be branded an ignorant nitwit, or worse, why isn't a conservative Christian afforded the same courtesy?

I don't recall actually labelling or branding anybody anything in this discussion, but I was just countering your response to FB's assertion; that Obama must be included in his own indictment of "ignorant twits".

The fact that Obama can offer and temper his opinion on the subject gives him credibility with me, and I agree
with his take that the states should be left to decide their status towards equality...at this point.

I didn't say you called anybody anything. I was asking why it's acceptable for a liberal to oppose something based upon his religious beliefs but so many on the left are quick to demonize conservatives for doing the same thing. Shouldn't everybody, left, right, or in between, be free to support or oppose a particular issue based on their religious beliefs?

No objections to that principle here, counselor. This is the United States of America, after all.

...but please don't try to to sell me on the inference that lefties disproportionately demonize the poor, god-fearing church-goers. Ever watch Fox News lately?

It was the Mormon church that pumped ungodly (pun intended) numbers of dollars into California's Prop. 8 ballot initiative,
and there were a good number of lies perpetrated ("Public schools will teach homosexuality starting in '09!!"). They targeted the Hispanic communities with their message, and, frankly, their impact on the statewide tally was largely underestimated and under-respected. The margin was not large, and the validity of the actual ballot initiative as a state constitutional amendment is still being debated in the state supreme court.

Lightning Bolt wrote:...but please don't try to to sell me on the inference that lefties disproportionately demonize the poor, god-fearing church-goers. Ever watch Fox News lately?

I don't have a television, haven't had one for about a year. And when I did have one the only way to Fox News was with the sound off. They have better looking news bunnies than the other channels.

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:

Skibo wrote:Getting rid of the Clinton policy would have zero political impact. It would also be a good idea to get rid of the discriminatory policy. Ending it would get rid if the activist come outs. A large majority of the country (very large) could care less what lifestyle anyone lives. Anyone that would be bothered didn't and wouldn't vote for Obama. The sad thing is Obama can ignore this issue because the majority of the gay community wouldn't vote republican ever.

Then why did gay marriage lose in the states Obama won? I think a lot of people talk one way and act another in the voting booth. Maybe LB and Flyboy are friends with covert nitwits and not even know it

Gay marriage and gays in the military are two different issues. Personally I believe that same sex couples should have the same rights as a married couple. Get off the married term, that does have religious meaning and it does charge up the religious nuts.

It sure seems odd to me that a liberal state like California would vote against gay marriage and a more conservative state like Iowa would allow it. Could it be that the democrats prosper by oppressing their constituents?

drunkpirate66 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

tikitatas wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

Because under the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2 he IS the commander in chief.

Really? I didn't know that. What a revelation! I feel liberated. But again, "above" is not the same as in "control of" and NO President would go against the Joint Chiefs without due process.

Wait, Connie is trying to take my title of Admiral Obvious from me?

LIPH wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:But as the gay marriage debate taking place in the various state legislatures shows, there are still a lot of ignorant nitwits out there

Then the current occupant of the White House is an ignorant nitwit?
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

And ...
One of Obama’s pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.” However, Obama also declared, “Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

I don't consider Obama to be an ignorant nitwit. By extension, I should extend the same consideration to others, like Obama, who believe for religious reasons that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman. I apologize, for the use of that phrase, to those here whose religious beliefs cause them to believe that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.

I offer no apology to those who, unlike Obama, allow their religious beliefs to dominate or determine their political views, and actively oppose gay marriage.

I feel like a fish trying to wriggle off a hook . . .

I confess that Obama's response causes me some discomfort.

If folks have deeply held religious beliefs how can they not act on them in the political sphere? This is how the Christian Right has approached the political question for almost three decades. They believe the state (ie the government) must be responsive to their concerns as Christians and they have actively pursued political power and influence to make it so.

On the other hand, I think the ultimate in having religious concerns dominate or dictate political views would be a situation like that in Saudi Arabia, where Sharia law is more or less the law of the land. Not to pick on Islam, but another example would be Afghanistan under the former Taliban regime. Almost the entire history of Europe from the time of Constantine in the early 4th century provides examples of Christian domination of politics. Of course, that kind of religious domination was one of the things that Thomas Jefferson wanted to avoid in this country, hence the formalization of the idea of the separation of church and state in America.

Perhaps I shouldn't have introduced the gay marriage idea into this thread about gays in the military. I didn't want to start a fight. But I guess I see our society's religious opposition to homosexuals as being the main reason for our society's persecution of homosexuals and I think it's about time it ended.

I don't know how to reconcile my views on this with those whose religion compels them to limit the rights of gays and lesbians. Maybe there is no middle ground?

To answer Cate's previous question about Commander in Chief, we have a civilian as a "head" of the military to keep the country from becoming a military dictatorship or a monarchy (probably given the time, more like a monarchy).