[VIDEO] - Breaking News! "Obama says he will end 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[Reason]

YouTube - Obama Says He Will End 'don't Ask, Don't Tell' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKOTX0OmlNk)

[Reason]

imo, he saved this for when he needed a political boost.

smart politician is smart.

I was in the military, and I can say with 100% conviction that this is a good move.

[Reason]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Statistics

In the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced (1993), the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

so he boosts support for the war by ending DADT?

[Reason]

so he boosts support for the war by ending DADT?

I think it's more of a boost for him overall than it is a specific boost for the war.

It seems obvious tho that he saved it to be used at a specific time of his choosing.

[YumYum]

imo, he saved this for when he needed a political boost.

smart politician is smart.

I was in the military, and I can say with 100% conviction that this is a good move.

Does this mean that the gays and straights will have to use seperate but equal restroom facilities?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't mind this as long as the Military now creates Gay showers. Guys are attracted to Guys, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attacted with. Women are attracted to Women, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attracted with. Guys are attracted to Women, yet, aren't allowed to shower with people they are attracted with, and vice versa. Double standard.

So, you either create a Gay shower room, or, you allow Women and Men to shower together. That's my take on it, otherwise I'm all for it.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

YouTube - Full Metal Jacket [BEST QUALITY] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPvsPBd5Feg&feature=related)

[emazur]

Countdown in 3, 2, 1... for the RPF bigot brigade to say:
- now our military men won't be able to concentrate on their missions when then find out they are knee deep in homosexuals!
- Further proof of Obama furthering the gay agenda!
- we need to go back to the old days when we beat the ***** to set them straight! (seriously, I've seen that posted here before)

[Pauls' Revere]

LOL...I lost it!

Wipe that grin off your face!

[cheapseats]

Does that mean we can ask about Larry Sinclair?

Inquiring Minds want to know.

[MGreen]

In the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced (1993), the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.
I'm now in favor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I don't know why we'd favor having an even larger military.

[BuddyRey]

Wow...I can't believe this but I actually have to give Barack Obama kudos on something for once.

Way to go, Obama!

[sratiug]

Crock of shit. He's the commander in chief, he can fight wars with no declaration but he needs Congress to end don't ask don't tell???? If he was doing it it would just announce it was ended.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Crock of shit. He's the commander in chief, he can fight wars with no declaration but he needs Congress to end don't ask don't tell???? If he was doing it it would just announce it was ended.

executive order anyone?

[zach]

Eh, popularity's dropping. Next, he'll make gay marriage part of his progression package.

[klamath]

I don't mind this as long as the Military now creates Gay showers. Guys are attracted to Guys, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attacted with. Women are attracted to Women, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attracted with. Guys are attracted to Women, yet, aren't allowed to shower with people they are attracted with, and vice versa. Double standard.

So, you either create a Gay shower room, or, you allow Women and Men to shower together. That's my take on it, otherwise I'm all for it.

This is my take on it as well. They need to go to complete shower and barracks integration. The separation of males and females would be a huge discrimination against hetro miltary members.

It needs to be like starship troopers:D

[pcosmar]

It will eliminate claiming to be gay as a defense to the DRAFT..

[ClayTrainor]

it will eliminate claiming to be gay as a defense to the draft..

qft!

[Baptist]

I don't mind this as long as the Military now creates Gay showers. Guys are attracted to Guys, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attacted with. Women are attracted to Women, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attracted with. Guys are attracted to Women, yet, aren't allowed to shower with people they are attracted with, and vice versa. Double standard.

So, you either create a Gay shower room, or, you allow Women and Men to shower together. That's my take on it, otherwise I'm all for it.

Yeah, and after feminists pass the Equal Rights Amendment I expect bisexual restrooms and for women to pay 50% of child support cases. Ohhhh.... you mean special rights. Nevermind.

Anyways, one unintended consequence of your scenario is that the phrase "blanket party" would no longer have a negative connotation

[LibertyEagle]

Countdown in 3, 2, 1... for the RPF bigot brigade to say:
- now our military men won't be able to concentrate on their missions when then find out they are knee deep in homosexuals!
- Further proof of Obama furthering the gay agenda!
- we need to go back to the old days when we beat the ***** to set them straight! (seriously, I've seen that posted here before)

Ron Paul is for Don't Ask Don't Tell. Is he part of your bigot brigade as well?

[LibertyWorker]

This is good,The more we can move away from identity politics the better off we all are.

[zach]

So what are the pros and cons of having DADT and not having it?

[Reason]

So what are the pros and cons of having DADT and not having it?

Pros = Nothing, DADT is completely unneccesary because there is a retarded amount of gay/lesbian people in the military that are blatantly obvious.

When asked they will lie, but it's obvious.

How it works is that you have what's called "military bearing" which is your attitude/demeanor.

If you're a gay or straight person that has a problem with your military demeanor then you will be disciplined regardless.

Ending DADT won't change the fact that military bearing will be required for the military. Commanders and TI's do their job and take it seriously.

It's so amusing when ignorant people that have not been in the military or don't know many gay/lesbian people personally pop off with comments about this issue.

So many people have only had exposure to the Hollywood stereotype of how a "gay/lesbian" acts.

If every gay/lesbian person that acts completely normal and keeps his private life to them self came out tomorrow I guarantee you would be amazed at how many people you know through family/work/school are gay/lesbian and you had no idea.

Cons = Good men and woman get fired after having tens of thousands spent on them for training.

Not to mention the emotional trauma of being forcibly removed from your chosen career.

In many cases men & woman have been very close to their 20 year retirement which is a big deal, only to have the rug swept out from under them because a nosy roommate found a letter.

Many foreign language linguists have been fired which is a desperately needed position.

I won't get into the issue of should we care that the military is smaller because of it because I hope that soon we can return to fighting only defensive wars.

[Reason]

Ron Paul is for Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Slightly more complicated than just a blind supporter.

Ron Paul on Don't ask, don't tell In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) "don't ask, don't tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell)" policy:
"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[204] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-nhdebate-203)
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.[203] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-atgoogle-202) Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) case in which sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws) were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell) website he described his opposition to "ridiculous" sodomy laws, but his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the constitution, and setting a dangerous precedent of legislating from the bench, by declaring 'sodomy' a constitutional right.
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."[205] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-204)



--


I understand where paul is coming from and considering he and I were both in the Air Force I can't say I disagree with his position too much.

However, people are being discharged for being gay/lesbian regardless of their behavior/demeanor.

This is where I have a big problem with DADT.

I am a very logical person and there is nothing logical about destroying someones career because someone saw a private letter (which has been the case many times).

[Bruno]

Ron Paul is for Don't Ask Don't Tell. Is he part of your bigot brigade as well?

I know you weren't asking me, but absolutely not. That does not, however, mean that I necessarily agree with him:

Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army
Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?
A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem

Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

I don't believe he answered the question as to why it is a good policy.

Everything he says after the first sentence I agree with. But it still does not answer why it is a good policy to not ask people about their sexual behavior, but to discharge them if the military finds out they have sex with persons of their own gender. Heterosexuals are not discharged when it is discovered they have sex with people who are not of their own gender, so therefore homesexuals are being grouped and not being treated individually, something he argues should not be done.

According to his rationale, they should not be discharged unless they are being "disruptive". I don't think it would be logical to allow the knowledge about someone's sexual habits to be "distructive" in an of itself. Being black used to be "distruptive", and for decades we have successfully had an integrated military.

[Bruno]

Slightly more complicated than just a blind supporter.

Ron Paul on Don't ask, don't tell In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) "don't ask, don't tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell)" policy:
"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[204] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-nhdebate-203)
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.[203] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-atgoogle-202) Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) case in which sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws) were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell) website he described his opposition to "ridiculous" sodomy laws, but his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the constitution, and setting a dangerous precedent of legislating from the bench, by declaring 'sodomy' a constitutional right.
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."[205] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-204)



--


I understand where paul is coming from and considering he and I were both in the Air Force I can't say I disagree with his position too much.

However, people are being discharged for being gay/lesbian regardless of their behavior/demeanor.

This is where I have a big problem with DADT.

I am a very logical person and there is nothing logical about destroying someones career because someone saw a private letter (which has been the case many times).


jinx! You owe me a Coke! :D ;)

[Meatwasp]

Don't drop your soap in the shower. Heh

[Bruno]

Don't drop your soap in the shower. Heh

badum tish!

[Meatwasp]

badum tish!

old joke but still funny

[Anti Federalist]

It will eliminate claiming to be gay as a defense to the DRAFT..

We have a winnah!

[james1906]

When I heard about this, I figured it's a backdoor draft (no pun intended) to force discharged people back into the service.

[YumYum]

It will eliminate claiming to be gay as a defense to the DRAFT..

You hit the nail on the head. Next will be gun control then the draft. Then real revolution.

[emazur]

Ron Paul is for Don't Ask Don't Tell. Is he part of your bigot brigade as well?

Not at all, but he would be if he parroted those 3 points I mentioned. Other posters here summed up his position pretty well, but as Bruno stated: "But it still does not answer why it is a good policy to not ask people about their sexual behavior, but to discharge them if the military finds out they have sex with persons of their own gender."

Question for those here who support Don't Ask Don't Tell: would you support allowing open gays in the military if they were in their own segregated units?

[haaaylee]

I don't mind this as long as the Military now creates Gay showers. Guys are attracted to Guys, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attacted with. Women are attracted to Women, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attracted with. Guys are attracted to Women, yet, aren't allowed to shower with people they are attracted with, and vice versa. Double standard.

So, you either create a Gay shower room, or, you allow Women and Men to shower together. That's my take on it, otherwise I'm all for it.

A military shower room full of lesbians? Sounds like a good porno idea. . .

[Rael]

wonderful, now gays can kill innocent civilians too!

[Bruno]

wonderful, now gays can continue to kill innocent civilians too!

Fixed.

You act as if that is something new. Our military already has gay members.

[amy31416]

Only neocons should be allowed to serve in our current military, gay or straight.

All the rest of us should be in militias. :)

[rpfan2008]

I felt 'don't ask, don't tell' was about Israel's nuclear weapons.

[Anti Federalist]

Only neocons should be allowed to serve in our current military, gay or straight.

All the rest of us should be in militias. :)

PCosmar took first in this thread.

But that's a close second.;)

[amy31416]

PCosmar took first in this thread.

But that's a close second.;)

PCosmar said exactly what I had initially intended upon seeing this thread, so I modified my initial sentiment a bit.

Like your new Latin descriptor, by the way. :)

[BlackTerrel]

Is this really a pressing concern? With all the issues we have in this country what we need is gays in the military? Dumb idea...

[bossman068410]

YouTube - 'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ)
We must protect them !!!

[denison]

The Onion News Network is better than CNN. :D

[angelatc]

It will eliminate claiming to be gay as a defense to the DRAFT..

Bingo!

[Reason]

I don't think this has anything to do with any possible "draft" angle.

amazingly enough, the amount of people that would comply with a draft is insanely high

all it would take is another 9/11 style event and everyone and their grandma would be signing up to "defend der country from the terrerizers" directly after purchasing their American flag bumper sticker (made in china) from the illegal immigrant on the corner.

[Danke]

http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html

[Reason]

http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html (http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html)

touche, edited. ;)

[Captain Bryan]

There goes one fake way to get out of a draft, great.

[sevin]

I don't mind this as long as the Military now creates Gay showers. Guys are attracted to Guys, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attacted with. Women are attracted to Women, yet are allowed to shower with people they are attracted with. Guys are attracted to Women, yet, aren't allowed to shower with people they are attracted with, and vice versa. Double standard.

So, you either create a Gay shower room, or, you allow Women and Men to shower together. That's my take on it, otherwise I'm all for it.

I agree. Well put.

[Promontorium]

No one is bringing back the draft.

The military too thoroughly enjoys its "standards". When the draft was in place, it was really hard not to qualify. I guarantee you, if they brought back the draft, DADT would be only a piece of what would be out the window. No high school? That's fine! Killed a man? Excellent! Still snorting coke, even as we speak? Hey you missed a spot! 350 lbs and you can't do 1 push up? You'll make a good desk man. Gay? Come on out!

I really hope he ends Don't ask, don't tell. I watched a very good man, a man who was better at his job than anyone else he worked with, a man who absolutely loved America and wanted to serve, get booted right on his ass because his (legal) husband was dying, and he wanted to see him. So they fired him instead.

Which brings me to the next problem. Even if Don't ask, don't tell is repealed, gays still won't have any equality when it comes to their legal marriages and unions. The federal government doesn't recognize homosexual marriage, or unions, so a heterosexual married couple will get extra money for being married, extra money for housing, extra money for separation (deployment), and special privileges in many instances. The gay married couple won't get a damn thing, and that includes Red Cross emergency leave.

Obama is against gay marriage, so that won't be changing any time soon.

[YumYum]

No one is bringing back the draft.

The military too thoroughly enjoys its "standards". When the draft was in place, it was really hard not to qualify. I guarantee you, if they brought back the draft, DADT would be only a piece of what would be out the window. No high school? That's fine! Killed a man? Excellent! Still snorting coke, even as we speak? Hey you missed a spot! 350 lbs and you can't do 1 push up? You'll make a good desk man. Gay? Come on out!

I really hope he ends Don't ask, don't tell. I watched a very good man, a man who was better at his job than anyone else he worked with, a man who absolutely loved America and wanted to serve, get booted right on his ass because his (legal) husband was dying, and he wanted to see him. So they fired him instead.

Which brings me to the next problem. Even if Don't ask, don't tell is repealed, gays still won't have any equality when it comes to their legal marriages and unions. The federal government doesn't recognize homosexual marriage, or unions, so a heterosexual married couple will get extra money for being married, extra money for housing, extra money for separation (deployment), and special privileges in many instances. The gay married couple won't get a damn thing, and that includes Red Cross emergency leave.

Obama is against gay marriage, so that won't be changing any time soon.

The draft is coming back. My professor told my class he has a friend who is a top dog in the Pentagon, and this general told him that not only is the draft coming back but we are going to war with Iran. My professor doesn't spread misinformation. Pretty scary. As far as gay marriage goes, the gays are "in like Flynn". The gays who got married in states where gay marriage is legal can relocate to a state where it is not legal, and sue the state for their rights as a married gay couple. This will eventually go to the Supreme Court and the gays will win.

[RM918]

The draft is coming back. My professor told my class he has a friend who is a top dog in the Pentagon, and this general told him that not only is the draft coming back but we are going to war with Iran. My professor doesn't spread misinformation. Pretty scary. As far as gay marriage goes, the gays are "in like Flynn". The gays who got married in states where gay marriage is legal can relocate to a state where it is not legal, and sue the state for their rights as a married gay couple. This will eventually go to the Supreme Court and the gays will win.

Tenuous source aside, I don't see the draft happening. The rage is still too great since the Dems flip-flopped on the issue, and it's still too raw to attempt something like that. If any specific event is going to trigger a massive anti-government backlash, it'll be the draft.

[Krugerrand]

Nothing, DADT is completely unneccesary because there is a retarded amount of gay/lesbian people in the military that are blatantly obvious.

When asked they will lie, but it's obvious.


So many people have only had exposure to the Hollywood stereotype of how a "gay/lesbian" acts.

If every gay/lesbian person that acts completely normal and keeps his private life to them self came out tomorrow I guarantee you would be amazed at how many people you know through family/work/school are gay/lesbian and you had no idea.


Please clarify. It sounds like you're saying that you or some other 'enlightened' people can identify gay people without them identifying themselves while in another line are suggesting that it is impossible to identify if a person is gay/straight without their volunteering that information.

I once worked for a US airline that added 'homosexual' to their list of groups that would get consideration for maintaining a diverse workforce. I could not figure out how they were supposed to implement this from a practical standpoint. We never had to complete a sexual preference survey. How were they to know their current percentage straight/gay to know which way it might need balancing?