Sorry for the confusion...I was referring to the A-ghan situation not DADT. Obama should be more worried about giving the troops support and purpose there instead of giving speeches to the gay community (a relative minority).
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Attn: El Homo's. El Presidente (aka CIC) says you're now SAT.
- Thread starter CAMike
- Start date
- Status
Sorry for the confusion...I was referring to the A-ghan situation not DADT. Obama should be more worried about giving the troops support and purpose there instead of giving speeches to the gay community (a relative minority).
Clux4
Banned
And how in your infinite wisdom did you deduct this? National Security policy decisions are not made overnight. How does a speech to the gay public deter from his efforts or priority of work.
Granted, but I guess we're back to that whole multi-tasking thing. Can we please stop singling out topics or issues we don't like that get attention by our government and pretend that issues we do like (I.E. Afghanistan) require 110% of the President's attention? It's stupid and pathetic - seriously.
At any rate, there are a whole lot more people interested in repealing DADT than just the gay community (like the Democratic base), so to the extent that the public is interested in it, it deserves attention from elected officials.
Brett
greatbridge
Member
Worste economy since the great depression, unemployment heading North of 10%, soldiers dying in the Middle East, global warming nuts about to push cap and trade through congress, congress close to eliminating the secret ballot for unionizing, US manufacturing in slow decay and our President is distracted by a campaign promise for a "how we have sex" special interest group
We'll have to allow gays to serve openly in the military because there won't be any good paying jobs in the private sector for anyone.
We'll have to allow gays to serve openly in the military because there won't be any good paying jobs in the private sector for anyone.
Read the post right above yours. It might save you from posting this same stuff again.
Quick aside: That secret ballot myth has been debunked repeatedly...a little research, please.
greatbridge
Member
Secret ballot "myth" debunked? That must explain why organized labor is fighting so hard for the EFCA. (A little research please!)
My first post was an emphasis on priorities. The more important ones.
The DADT situation is a matter of priorities.
My first post was an emphasis on priorities. The more important ones.
The DADT situation is a matter of priorities.
In that case, could you list for us the President's top 10 priorities along with the percentage of time that he and his staff devote to each in the course of a week? No? Can't do it? Then STFU about priorities.
Brett
greatbridge
Member
Brett,
You've got to relax.
Let's say I'm the crew cheif for your aircraft. You've done the equivalent of going ballistic because your canopy is dirty while a massive hydraulic leak is putting fluid all over the flight deck.
Okay, we'll focus on the clean canopy while we have a fire hazard growing, putting everyone else at risk. But bygod, your canopy will be clean!
Do you get it yet? I'm not judging the President on what I "think" he is doing, I'm am making a judgement on what he "is" doing.
Maybe he was working on our economic problems on his way to Copenhagen?
You've got to relax.
Let's say I'm the crew cheif for your aircraft. You've done the equivalent of going ballistic because your canopy is dirty while a massive hydraulic leak is putting fluid all over the flight deck.
Okay, we'll focus on the clean canopy while we have a fire hazard growing, putting everyone else at risk. But bygod, your canopy will be clean!
Do you get it yet? I'm not judging the President on what I "think" he is doing, I'm am making a judgement on what he "is" doing.
Maybe he was working on our economic problems on his way to Copenhagen?
All of the talk about priorities and executive level time management would ring a lot more true if it looked like (there I go making a judgment again) ANYTHING was getting done.
Other than "Cash For Clunkers" (creating billions more in public and private debt), there is not much for this administration to hang it's hat on.
For all of the Campaign talk regarding how screwed up the Bush Administration was, and how Obama assured us all that he had a better plan, why is it now to much to ask for him to let us in on what his plan is? It's not like the Goldwater-Nichols Act requires him to publish his National Security Strategy or anything (oops, it does). If the Bush strategy was so fucked up, how about the guy who has been in office for nearly a year now publish his own strategy?
I guess he has been to busy with other things. :sleep_125 You know, time management, and priorities and everything.
Other than "Cash For Clunkers" (creating billions more in public and private debt), there is not much for this administration to hang it's hat on.
For all of the Campaign talk regarding how screwed up the Bush Administration was, and how Obama assured us all that he had a better plan, why is it now to much to ask for him to let us in on what his plan is? It's not like the Goldwater-Nichols Act requires him to publish his National Security Strategy or anything (oops, it does). If the Bush strategy was so fucked up, how about the guy who has been in office for nearly a year now publish his own strategy?
I guess he has been to busy with other things. :sleep_125 You know, time management, and priorities and everything.
Responses like this are why I love Airwarriors.
We all latch on to one tiny segment of someone's argument, take it from being 100% white to 100% black w/ no regard for anything in between, then claim victory.
The Wizard of Oz called, it wants it's straw man back...
Edit: I doubt even the President himself could clearly define a top 10 list w/ percentages of time allocated to each over a period of time. He maybe has a few, and all others are just competing for the 25th hour in a 24 hour day...
Quick question for those of you who serve in our military: How much difference will it make in day to day operation by allowing openly homosexual men/women in (makes me think of the rather heated debate about manning issues of women on subs), and do you think it will increase the number of homosexuals in the military, or only make those already in it more visible?
I can think of plenty of people I knew in high school/college who never officially "came out", but pretty much everyone knew they were gay. I figured even with DADT, peers of gays in the military probably know anyway, unless the gaydar is malfunctioning.
Not trying to argue repealing DADT won't cause significant issues, just looking for insight beyond my civilian perspective.
I can think of plenty of people I knew in high school/college who never officially "came out", but pretty much everyone knew they were gay. I figured even with DADT, peers of gays in the military probably know anyway, unless the gaydar is malfunctioning.
Not trying to argue repealing DADT won't cause significant issues, just looking for insight beyond my civilian perspective.
I'd like to know where they would stay on a ship or who they would room with in a barracks? We don't currently room male and female together. A gay male can't stay with another male, straight or gay. But he can't stay with a female either. So does that mean they get a separate room? I believe that is why we have DADT, because of the "forced intimacy" our military demands.
I'm not sure I agree with that. To quote Otto:
I honestly think I'd be equally uncomfortable with this whether the others are straight or gay.
Besides, under DADT, these people might already be gay, right? The only thing that would change is that you'd know about it.
- Status