America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by gringococolo. 25 replies replies.
Don't ask/Don't tell
GD320 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 07-22-2009
Posts: 277
New dilema for Obama. Does he let a liberal judge dictate global policy by not challenging the ruling eliminating DA/DT creating a horrific precedent of judicial legislation? Or does he challenge a ruling he agrees with and alienate his base, on the basis of preventing a bad precedent? All at mid-term election time. Hope and Change is alot easier when you don't have to be accountabe for it.
jackconrad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
He won't do squat
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,601
Obama considers fast appeal of gays-military order

WASHINGTON – The White House weighed a quick appeal of a judge's order abruptly allowing gays to serve openly in the military as Pentagon chief Robert Gates warned on Wednesday of "enormous consequences" for men and women in uniform if the ruling stands.

A day after the federal judge in California ordered the Pentagon to cease enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repealing the law should be a question for Congress — and only after the Pentagon completes its study of the issue.

Allowing gays to serve openly "is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates said. "It has enormous consequences for our troops."

In Tuesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation" or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members. The 1993 law says gays may serve in the military but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation.

Phillips wrote that the law "infringes the fundamental rights" of current and prospective service members.

Gay rights advocates cautioned gay service members to avoid revealing their sexuality for fear that the Phillips ruling could be tossed out on appeal and they would be left open to being discharged.

Defense Department officials would not say what was happening to current discharge cases, or even confirm how many pending cases there might be. A Pentagon spokesman, Col. David Lapan, said no written guidance had been issued to commanders on how to deal with the court order.

An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said Wednesday he will continue using a pseudonym out of concern that he could still be discharged.

"Can I come out right now and be OK? And if I made a statement would it be held against me?" asked the officer, who calls himself JD Smith and said he is an Air Force Academy graduate. He said service members are hoping the Pentagon will clarify the meaning of the court ruling.

Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., said he'd love to re-enlist in the Army two years after being discharged in the middle of a tour in Iraq. But he's being cautious and patient.

"I think it's still way too soon," said 28-year-old Arbury, now a university student. "If I was to hear news that automatically everything would be reinstated, I'd be the first one in the door."


Arbury said he wants to know more about how the military would reintegrate gay ex-soldiers: "If I go back in I want to know, Do I get my rank back? Do I get any damages or compensation?"

The uncertainty extended overseas. When asked by a reporter whether the ruling had had any impact yet, a two-star U.S. Army commander in eastern Afghanistan suggested he was unsure anything would change and said it was unlikely that his soldiers even knew about the court order.

"If that law is changed, they'll abide by the law," but "that's probably the farthest thing from their mind" as they fight, said Maj. Gen. John Campbell, commander of the 101st Airborne Division.

The Justice Department is considering whether to appeal the Phillips ruling, and its first response may well be another trip to the judge's courtroom in Riverside, Calif., to seek a stay, or temporary freeze. If Phillips turns down the request, the Justice Department probably would then turn to the federal appeals court in California.

If the government does appeal, that would put the Obama administration in the position of continuing to defend a law it opposes.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said time is running out for the ban on gays serving openly.

"This is a policy that is going to end," he said.

Gates, who supports lifting the ban once the Pentagon puts in place a plan for minimizing disruptions, said that besides developing new training for troops, regulations will have to be revised.

Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, face disagreement by some senior general officers on whether lifting the ban would cause serious disruption at a time when troops are fighting in Afghanistan and winding down a long war in Iraq.

The incoming Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, and his predecessor, Gen. James Conway, both have told Congress that they think most Marines would be uncomfortable with the change and that the current policy works.

In part to resolve the question of how the troops feel, Gates has ordered a study due Dec. 1 that includes a survey of troops and their families.

Gates has said the purpose isn't to determine whether to change the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which he says is probably inevitable, but to determine how to end the policy without causing serious disruption.

Cultural values in the U.S. have shifted since the law was passed, yet there remains a powerful rhetorical weapon for opponents of lifting the ban — fear that it would weaken a military at war.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins accused Phillips of "playing politics" with national defense.

"Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda, disregarding the views of all four military service chiefs and the constitutional role of Congress," he said.

Perkins urged the Justice Department "to fulfill its obligation to defend the law vigorously through the appeals process."

President Barack Obama worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of the Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop morale wouldn't suffer. That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

Democrats could revive the legislation in Congress' lame-duck session after the midterm election.

Film at 11...
donutboy2000 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
IMPEACH THE GAY HATER OBAMA NOW!!!
chiefburg Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-31-2005
Posts: 7,384
As a member of the military, I agree with Gates. The impact study needs to be completed first. Some yahoo judge can't make that sort of decision without understanding the consequences. If Obama agrees and just lifts the ban, I think he and the judge should be held accountable for any deaths that occur. If gays listen to the judge and come out, people will get hurt, some will die, and chaos will ensue. It will disrupt the chain of command, our readiness will drop, internal fighting will break out, and we'll lose American lives from within.

I'm not opposed to gays serving in the military. But, this needs to be done properly with as little impact as possible. You just can't wave a wand and call it "rescinded" without figuring out the impact and how to deal with the issues. The Navy has been around for 235 years and is steeped in tradition and values. We need to change 235 years of running things a certain way and we just can't change that in a few days.
GD320 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-22-2009
Posts: 277
Chief, I agree. Obama has to appeal this ruling and find an orderly path to a solution. Does he have the will? That is the question that he needs to answer on alot of issues.......all too often it's NO!
tweoijfoi Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
chiefburg wrote:
As a member of the military, I agree with Gates. The impact study needs to be completed first. Some yahoo judge can't make that sort of decision without understanding the consequences. If Obama agrees and just lifts the ban, I think he and the judge should be held accountable for any deaths that occur. If gays listen to the judge and come out, people will get hurt, some will die, and chaos will ensue. It will disrupt the chain of command, our readiness will drop, internal fighting will break out, and we'll lose American lives from within.

I'm not opposed to gays serving in the military. But, this needs to be done properly with as little impact as possible. You just can't wave a wand and call it "rescinded" without figuring out the impact and how to deal with the issues. The Navy has been around for 235 years and is steeped in tradition and values. We need to change 235 years of running things a certain way and we just can't change that in a few days.


In politics, they say if you don't get your way, delay... indefinitely if you are lucky. Is that how you'd like it? This is going to make some waves so matter how you cut it or examine it. The sooner it's implemented the sooner people can start adjusting to the change. Will some people hate it? Yep. Will some people bitch and moan about how they're worried about being checked out by gay men? Yep. Will some people say it will violate the unity of the unit? Yep. Will they get over it? Most definitely.

We had slavery in America for about 216 years. No, this is not the same as slavery, but tradition is no reason to keep inequality around when it values the comfort of some at the expense of others.
Charlie Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
As a US Naval Officer, I support "Don't ask, don't tell"
chiefburg Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 01-31-2005
Posts: 7,384
tweoijfoi wrote:
In politics, they say if you don't get your way, delay... indefinitely if you are lucky. Is that how you'd like it? This is going to make some waves so matter how you cut it or examine it. The sooner it's implemented the sooner people can start adjusting to the change. Will some people hate it? Yep. Will some people bitch and moan about how they're worried about being checked out by gay men? Yep. Will some people say it will violate the unity of the unit? Yep. Will they get over it? Most definitely.

We had slavery in America for about 216 years. No, this is not the same as slavery, but tradition is no reason to keep inequality around when it values the comfort of some at the expense of others.



I'm guessing you have difficulty reading. As I said, I don't care if gays serve openly. I'm not suggesting to postpone indefinately (where did you get that idea????). Are you in the military? Do you hear what military people say every day about gays? Do you support the senseless death of gays for the purpose of just rescinding DADT without proper preparation? Trust me - this will be rescinded and gays will be able to serve openly. But, we need do our homework first. We need to educate and prepare the million-plus military people so mayhem doesn't ensue.

Are you ready to have Obama stand trial for murder? He'd surely be responsible for the countless deaths if he thinks a stroke of the pen will fix thousands of years of hate and discontent towards gays.
gringococolo Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
The policy works.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/15/retiring-marines-chief-warns-uncomfortable-serving-openly-gay-troops/

Then again, I guess 90 - 95% of the current force of Marines that are fighting every day are just a bunch of homophobes and immature babies. What would they know.


I did notice that the head thailor (Mullen) thought a repeal was a great idea.... Bam! Right in the mouth Chief, Ron, Charlie, MACS and all you dern sailors!!!

But seriously shipmates, I would share a communal shower with you guys any day. Hell I might even let you, let me, ride on one of your boats!!


robertknyc Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2003
Posts: 5,475
A good discussion. A point that hasn't been made is that the military is there to "kill people and break things," not serve as an employment opportunity. The military also discriminates against fat people, old people, women in combat, etc. Thanks to all the good guys here who served/are serving.
fishinguitarman Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,156
I think we should ask Jade, since he's gay
jpotts Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Every communist and radical socialist leader I've ever heard of hated homosexuals. So, I'm thinking Idi Amin Jr. will go to the mattresses over Don't Ask Don't Tell.
gringococolo Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
Is back in effect.
TMCTLT Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Should remain in effect...................
andytv Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-23-2002
Posts: 40,991
chiefburg wrote:
If Obama agrees and just lifts the ban, I think he and the judge should be held accountable for any deaths that occur. .



I would much rather see the actual murderers be held responsible for killing gay soldiers.
HockeyDad Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,219
Obama could be charged as an accessory! That would be a rockinng episode of "Law. And Order"
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
next thing will be a demand that we mix different races

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUwbZ9AlSPI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ESaZSB3h2k

gringococolo Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
I demand that women serve in direct combat. Anybody that disagrees with me is a chauvinist. Your daughters should die for country. If there is a draft, women and sole surviving sons should not be exempt either. Showers, rooms, and all units should be co-ed.

I also believe that homosexuals have the right to move into your house and if you do not like their behavior, too bad you need to get over it.

I think Gov Palin should move into RICKAMAVENS house. If you don't agree with her - too bad. You should be mature enough too handle it, and I have the right to tell you who and what values you should accept in your house.


If you do not accept any of these assumptions you are a liar and do not support either the American Soldier or DADT.

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
gringococolo

half a term sarah, and half ass parent. didn't even know her daughter well enough to teach her how to avoid prenncy
donutboy2000 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
gringococolo

half a term sarah, and half ass parent. didn't even know her daughter well enough to teach her how to avoid prenncy


rick,

She's inside of your head !

THE VOICES ARE SARAH PALIN !!!!!!
tweoijfoi Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
gringococolo wrote:
I demand that women serve in direct combat. Anybody that disagrees with me is a chauvinist. Your daughters should die for country. If there is a draft, women and sole surviving sons should not be exempt either.


Women are--generally--physically weaker and less agressive. This makes them inferior to men for physically challenging tasks (like fights). Men, overall, are simply better for the front-line role.

Can you say the same about gays? Have there been any proof that they are inferior soldiers?

gringococolo wrote:

I also believe that homosexuals have the right to move into your house and if you do not like their behavior, too bad you need to get over it.

Move in to my house? Huh?

If you are referencing how they will be moving into the barracks, since when have soldiers had a choice about who moves in or not? Maybe racists would like to keep blacks out of the barracks. Maybe they have to get over it.


gringococolo wrote:

I think Gov Palin should move into RICKAMAVENS house. If you don't agree with her - too bad. You should be mature enough too handle it, and I have the right to tell you who and what values you should accept in your house.


Again... ???

gringococolo wrote:

If you do not accept any of these assumptions you are a liar and do not support either the American Soldier or DADT.


tweoijfoi Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
chiefburg wrote:
I'm guessing you have difficulty reading.


Sometimes yeah. Anxious

chiefburg wrote:
As I said, I don't care if gays serve openly. I'm not suggesting to postpone indefinately (where did you get that idea????).


My appologies. I make assumptions sometimes. Forgive me? Pray

chiefburg wrote:

Are you in the military?


No.

chiefburg wrote:

Do you hear what military people say every day about gays?


No.

chiefburg wrote:

Do you support the senseless death of gays for the purpose of just rescinding DADT without proper preparation? Trust me - this will be rescinded and gays will be able to serve openly. But, we need do our homework first. We need to educate and prepare the million-plus military people so mayhem doesn't ensue.


I'm all for education. They should start it now. But how much education do you propose? More than a day's worth? How much is enough to convince those you claim will murder countless gays to not murder them?

chiefburg wrote:

Are you ready to have Obama stand trial for murder? He'd surely be responsible for the countless deaths if he thinks a stroke of the pen will fix thousands of years of hate and discontent towards gays.


Will Bush stand trial for murder? (I don't want him to, just saying...)
HockeyDad Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,219
Will Bill Clinton stand trial for "The List"?
gringococolo Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
Marines' leader: Keep policy on gays in military
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press Elliot Spagat, Associated Press
28 mins ago

.SAN DIEGO – The new commandant of the U.S. Marines Corps said Saturday that now is the wrong time to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military, as U.S. troops remain in the thick of war in Afghanistan.

"There's risk involved; I'm trying to determine how to measure that risk," Gen. James Amos said. "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That's what the country pays its Marines to do."

Last month, the Pentagon was forced to lift its ban on openly serving gays for eight days after a federal judge in California ordered the military to do so. The Justice Department has appealed, and a federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of the injunction.

Amos said the policy's repeal may have unique consequences for the Marines, which is exempt from a Defense Department rule for troops to have private living quarters except at basic training or officer candidate schools. The Marines puts two people in each room to promote a sense of unity.

"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," he said. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness."

Amos, who began his assignment last month, said he was reviewing preliminary findings of an internal Pentagon survey of the policy that was sent out to about 400,000 troops and another 150,000 family members. He will make recommendations to Defense Secretary Robert Gates later this month.

Amos declined to comment on the survey results, though portions have been leaked to reporters. Most troops and their families think the policy could be done away with, according to officials familiar with its findings who spoke on condition of anonymity because the results had not been released.

Amos said his top priority was success in Afghanistan — no matter how many people or how much equipment is required — and that he didn't expect any pullback in Marine forces over the next year.

President Barack Obama wants to start to reduce the number of U.S. troops in July, if conditions on the ground allow.

Amos said the U.S. effort is showing progress, pointing to improved security in the Nawa district, but that more work lies ahead in allowing the Afghan army and police to gain control of the country.

"The Marine Corps will stay the way it is (in Afghanistan) right now for probably at least the next year," he said.

He said he expects the Marines to shrink from its current size of 202,000 after leaving Afghanistan, but that "we need (the current numbers) now."

Amos, 63, spoke with reporters in a wide-ranging interview during a Southern California visit to mark the Marines' 235th birthday. He addressed other subjects:

• A living Marine who served in Afghanistan has been recommended for a Medal of Honor. The Marine Corps has had only one Medal of Honor recipient, stirring controversy due to its heavy fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Amos' predecessor, Gen. James Conway, made the recommendation last month to the secretary of the Navy, and it must eventually be approved by Obama. Amos said a report on the Marine's actions brought tears to his eyes.

• The fate of the amphibious Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle should be known in January or February. Gates, who is scrutinizing military spending in a search for roughly $10 billion in annual savings, has expressed doubts about a $13.2 billion plan for the Marines to buy large number of vehicles starting in 2012.

• The number of suicides in the Marines this year is "markedly below" the same period last year. In 2009, the Marines had 52 suicides, the highest rate of any branch.

"I don't want anyone to walk out of here and say we've turned the corner and the Marine Corps has figured it out," he said. "That is not the case. This is hard."






But I suppose he will just be called a homophope for it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest