no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:09 PM
Original message |
On Hardball just heard Obama say DADT needs to be disbanded "orderly" |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 04:11 PM by no limit
What's disorderly about simply stopping the firing of people from our military because of their sexual orientation?
|
Radical Activist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:11 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Reprisals against LGBT service members would not be orderly. |
|
Public defiance by top military leaders would not be orderly.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. There are no LGBT service members in the military now? |
|
and lets pretend that will happen. If there are people that hateful in our military how is a couple of months going to change that?
|
Radical Activist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Of course there are LGBT members there now. |
|
That's the point of doing it in a way that minimizes the chance of reprisals against them.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. How does a couple months minimize the chance of reprisals against them? |
|
please be a little more specific
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
And making it harder to re-up such stupid legislation is a good idea as well.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. If Obama didn't appeal the court's ruling this law could not be re-upped |
msongs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
19. depends on whether the commander in chief believes in equality and is up to the job eh? nt |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 05:23 PM by msongs
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:15 PM
Response to Original message |
4. He also said "The Senate passed a law prohibiting th WH from |
|
changing DADT and it must be done now through the legal system. Those weren't his exact words but close.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. It doesn't matter what the senate passed. You didn't answer my question |
|
the reason what the senate passed doesnt matter is because the federal courts just gave him a way out. And he won't take it.
But I asked you what is disorderly about stopping this policy, can you answer that?
|
Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. It has already been ruled unconstitutional -- |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 04:22 PM by Hell Hath No Fury
the law the Senate passed is crap and the Court has said that -- repeatedly. :shrug: O simply refuses to have this become an issue right the GOPers can latch onto before the midterm -- he is (sadly) trying to kick it down the road for purely poliical reasons.
|
Cali_Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Orderly meaning legislation must originate in Congress and then should be signed by Obama |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 04:22 PM by Cali_Democrat
Standard operating procedure when you want to change the law. Of course many folks don't understand how our government works and think Obama is some sort of dictator.
Or they want Obama to issue an executive order, which is not the right way to go about changing a law like this. Besides, we used to attack Bush for his executive orders and now we want Obama to do the same? :shrug:
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. So you think 21 democratic senators are total idiots that shouldn't be senators? |
|
Because they said Obama could simply not appeal the judge's ruling and this would be over. What is disorderly about that?
|
Cali_Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. With sensitive issues like these, it would be wise to pass legislation |
|
so that it can never be reversed.
|
GodlessBiker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. You mean sensitive issues like abortion? Legislation is much better, right? |
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. How would it get reversed? Be specific. Who is your plaintiff and what is his claim |
Cali_Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
21. I mean by specifically changing the law with new legislation |
|
Rather than relying on a judges ruling that could be overturned anyways by a higher court.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
22. So your argument is that if a court rules against a law congress just passes the same law again? |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 05:36 PM by no limit
and how does that happen with a senate that has waaaaay more than 40 democratic senators (58 as of today)?
Again, please, be specific. Thanks.
|
donco6
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
18. Legislation can be reversed. Happens all the time. n/t |
VMI Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message |
15. He's "concerned" they will get bullied for their "lifestyle choice"? |
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. Apparently, judging by this thread, he's not alone. |
donco6
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Orderly means, sometime after an election season. |
|
And it's ALWAYS election season.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. Yup, to this administration elections are more important than equal rights for all |
rug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message |
23. He's also pusuing an oderly end to the war in Afghanistan. |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message |
24. I hope you never have to deal with any legal case |
|
Or anything that involves the law in any way.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
25. I can safely say I will never deal with any legal case. You know why? |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 05:45 PM by no limit
Because I don't pretend to be a lawyer, like certain people around here do. Amirite treestar?
Have you had a chance yet to look up what precedent means and what legal consequances federal district courts have on the country? I believe I gave you a link to a government website describing all this. Did you read it?
|
donco6
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
26. God, does that ever go both ways. n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 12:04 AM
Response to Original message |