Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Quick search, couldn't find this posted...kind of surprised. If I missed it, and it has been posted, one of you asshole mods can remove it.

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/top ... on-t-tell-

Discuss.

ASUMountaineer wrote: Discuss.

Good. It was a dumb law. There were gays in the military. We knew who they were. As long as they weren't trying to slap us with their dick, we didn't care. Contrary to wack-job beliefs, gays do not drag down military morale.

Not sure what's taking so long - should've been an Executive Order more than a year ago and we should be in Year 2 of going through the change. Should've used Truman's desegregation of the military as a template.

Seems like Obama dropped the ball, or soap in this case, on this one thus far

clenz wrote:Seems like Obama dropped the ball, or soap in this case, on this one thus far

How?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

clenz wrote:Seems like Obama dropped the ball, or soap in this case, on this one thus far

How?

Seems like something he could have pushed through rather quickly and easily with the majority that his party holds.

GannonFan wrote:Not sure what's taking so long - should've been an Executive Order more than a year ago and we should be in Year 2 of going through the change. Should've used Truman's desegregation of the military as a template.

Desegregation is not the same as gays in the military. There is a federal law that has to be overturned and only Congress can do that. Segregation of the military was a military policy and one that the President, as Commander in Chief, could overturn on his own. The President can't overturn federal law with an Excecutive Order. He'd have near limitless power if he could.

clenz wrote: Seems like something he could have pushed through rather quickly and easily with the majority that his party holds.

It hasn't even been a year and a half.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

clenz wrote: Seems like something he could have pushed through rather quickly and easily with the majority that his party holds.

It hasn't even been a year and a half.

How long does it take for a bill to get introduced into congress to pass?

I'm not a big political guy, but does it really take a year, or more, for a bill to make it through congress?

clenz wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
It hasn't even been a year and a half.

How long does it take for a bill to get introduced into congress to pass?

I'm not a big political guy, but does it really take a year, or more, for a bill to make it through congress?

Only in really unusual circumstances like the health care bill.

But, his term is four years and he has shitloads of initiateves (as does Congress) that they have to get through. They can't just do it all at once. May of '10 is relatively early in his first term.

And they've been working with the military for months to prepare for the transition.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

Six days later, Obama's top Pentagon officials offered the Senate Armed Services Committee details on how Obama's pledge will be carried out.

“The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” said Gates. “We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly."

Gates and Mullen cautioned that the switch would not be immediate. Not only does Congress need to change the current law, but the Pentagon will first carry out a detailed "implementation plan" led by Pentagon legal counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who commands the United States Army in Europe. It's likely to take months for the Pentagon to complete its plan.

In the shorter term, Gates said that the Pentagon would move toward enforcing the current policy "in a fairer manner." Gates established a timeline of 45 days for those changes.

"We believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform,” Gates said.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pro ... ll-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:

clenz wrote: How long does it take for a bill to get introduced into congress to pass?

I'm not a big political guy, but does it really take a year, or more, for a bill to make it through congress?

Only in really unusual circumstances like the health care bill.

But, his term is four years and he has shitloads of initiateves (as does Congress) that they have to get through. They can't just do it all at once. May of '10 is relatively early in his first term.

And they've been working with the military for months to prepare for the transition.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

Six days later, Obama's top Pentagon officials offered the Senate Armed Services Committee details on how Obama's pledge will be carried out.

“The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” said Gates. “We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly."

Gates and Mullen cautioned that the switch would not be immediate. Not only does Congress need to change the current law, but the Pentagon will first carry out a detailed "implementation plan" led by Pentagon legal counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who commands the United States Army in Europe. It's likely to take months for the Pentagon to complete its plan.

In the shorter term, Gates said that the Pentagon would move toward enforcing the current policy "in a fairer manner." Gates established a timeline of 45 days for those changes.

"We believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform,” Gates said.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pro ... ll-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Long story short it would take almost no time at all for the bill to be put into the box for congress to look at. How much "transition" needs to be gone through for someone to be able to say "I'm gay"?

I get there is a ton of shit that needs to get done, but this would take a couple days at the most would it not? You have a democrat/liberal majority. Vote it through.

About time slobama........

Bullshit, skjelly

Obama could have issued an order suspending discharges - as C-I-C he could have had the order waiting for his signature two seconds after he was inagurated.

He COULD have gotten this done in the first 100 days with little effort. Polls show 80% of Americans support this.

Obama doesn't GIVE A SHIT about equality - proven time and time again.

And a big FUCK YOU to those that voted against this.

Only 5 Republicans voted for it in the house - bunch of fucking bigots.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

clenz wrote: How long does it take for a bill to get introduced into congress to pass?

I'm not a big political guy, but does it really take a year, or more, for a bill to make it through congress?

Only in really unusual circumstances like the health care bill.

But, his term is four years and he has shitloads of initiateves (as does Congress) that they have to get through. They can't just do it all at once. May of '10 is relatively early in his first term.

And they've been working with the military for months to prepare for the transition.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

Six days later, Obama's top Pentagon officials offered the Senate Armed Services Committee details on how Obama's pledge will be carried out.

“The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” said Gates. “We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly."

Gates and Mullen cautioned that the switch would not be immediate. Not only does Congress need to change the current law, but the Pentagon will first carry out a detailed "implementation plan" led by Pentagon legal counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who commands the United States Army in Europe. It's likely to take months for the Pentagon to complete its plan.

In the shorter term, Gates said that the Pentagon would move toward enforcing the current policy "in a fairer manner." Gates established a timeline of 45 days for those changes.

"We believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform,” Gates said.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pro ... ll-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there anything Barry does that you won't defend?

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, skjelly

Obama could have issued an order suspending discharges - as C-I-C he could have had the order waiting for his signature two seconds after he was inagurated.

He COULD have gotten this done in the first 100 days with little effort. Polls show 80% of Americans support this.

Obama doesn't GIVE A SHIT about equality - proven time and time again.

That's what I thought. I don't understand how something as simple as allowing someone to openly be gay in the military could take this long to get through as a bill.

dbackjon wrote:And a big FUCK YOU to those that voted against this.

Only 5 Republicans voted for it in the house - bunch of fucking bigots.

Agreed on this as well. I don't see many incumbents that I will be voting for this November.

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, skjelly

Obama could have issued an order suspending discharges - as C-I-C he could have had the order waiting for his signature two seconds after he was inagurated.

He COULD have gotten this done in the first 100 days with little effort. Polls show 80% of Americans support this.

Obama doesn't GIVE A **** about equality - proven time and time again.

Agreed - plenty of work could've been done on this from day one, without Congress, but it wasn't. And since Congress had to be involved, one would've thought that getting to this while the supermajority was in place would've been the best time. There wasn't a single obstacle in Obama's way for more than a year and he didn't tackle it. That's a missed opportunity that he's only now trying to fix.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, skjelly

Obama could have issued an order suspending discharges - as C-I-C he could have had the order waiting for his signature two seconds after he was inagurated.

He COULD have gotten this done in the first 100 days with little effort. Polls show 80% of Americans support this.

Obama doesn't GIVE A **** about equality - proven time and time again.

Agreed - plenty of work could've been done on this from day one, without Congress, but it wasn't. And since Congress had to be involved, one would've thought that getting to this while the supermajority was in place would've been the best time. There wasn't a single obstacle in Obama's way for more than a year and he didn't tackle it. That's a missed opportunity that he's only now trying to fix.

Meh. He was hosed either way - if he'd moved on it we'd be hearing a different whine from the same people, all about esprit du corps, and unit cohesion, and Barry never served in the military and isn't an American anyway. Please.

Now, having said that - I think he misplayed it from a purely political perspective because he lost support from the only constituency that was in play. His enemies were going to hammer him regardless so why not strengthen his position in the Gay community?

houndawg wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Agreed - plenty of work could've been done on this from day one, without Congress, but it wasn't. And since Congress had to be involved, one would've thought that getting to this while the supermajority was in place would've been the best time. There wasn't a single obstacle in Obama's way for more than a year and he didn't tackle it. That's a missed opportunity that he's only now trying to fix.

Meh. He was hosed either way - if he'd moved on it we'd be hearing a different whine from the same people, all about esprit du corps, and unit cohesion, and Barry never served in the military and isn't an American anyway. Please.

Now, having said that - I think he misplayed it from a purely political perspective because he lost support from the only constituency that was in play. His enemies were going to hammer him regardless so why not strengthen his position in the Gay community?

Indeed - politically, he took the worst option available. The people against this were always going to be against it, and the people for it wanted it done much, much sooner. Politically, he disappointed everyone without making anyone happy.

Not sure if everyone here realizes this (doesn't appear so from the comments above) but the full Senate still needs to approve this bill which may not happen because of fillibuster rules. The Senate may not have 60 votes in favor of the repeal. The full House passed it today.

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, skjelly

Obama could have issued an order suspending discharges - as C-I-C he could have had the order waiting for his signature two seconds after he was inagurated.

He COULD have gotten this done in the first 100 days with little effort. Polls show 80% of Americans support this.

Obama doesn't GIVE A **** about equality - proven time and time again.

These 2 recent polls a majority, but no where near 80%
57% here in this poll from Feb:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32787.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

54% from this Center for American Progress Poll:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... _poll.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Meh. He was hosed either way - if he'd moved on it we'd be hearing a different whine from the same people, all about esprit du corps, and unit cohesion, and Barry never served in the military and isn't an American anyway. Please.

Now, having said that - I think he misplayed it from a purely political perspective because he lost support from the only constituency that was in play. His enemies were going to hammer him regardless so why not strengthen his position in the Gay community?

Indeed - politically, he took the worst option available. The people against this were always going to be against it, and the people for it wanted it done much, much sooner. Politically, he disappointed everyone without making anyone happy.

That's the problem. Playing politics. He should have done it because it was the right thing to do.

Certain MOS's in the military, front line combat arms, basically your grunts, you have mostly late teens-20 something non pc, gung ho, full of machismo young men. I remember in my national guard infantry unit back in the mid 90s-early 00s you would constantly hear harsh locker room banter. Guys all the time calling each other f*cking cocksuckers, faggots, homos, you can suck my cock, etc, etc. If there had been an openly homo in our unit it wouldn't have been pretty. And I doubt it was any different with active duty combat grunt units. (Heck, about 1/3rd of my Nat Guard company was prior active duty). And I doubt these guys are any more enlightened than they were 10-15 years ago.

If for example you're in one of these front line combat arms units (granted which only make up a fraction of the military) on an FTX or at an FOB, you're working, eating, sleeping, and spending any downtime with the same guys literally 24-7. Same open barracks, tent, foxhole, etc. What happens during a wartime deployment to the guy who is forced to share a tent with or foxhole with the known homo, when people's lives are at risk? I know my old guard unit has had 2 deployments since after I left, and if it was the same guys/type of guys, it wouldn't have been good. Sure it may not be a problem for these non grunt units in the rear with the gear so to speak. This is something that has the potential to f*ck up unit cohesion and morale in these front line grunt units, which will put peoples lives at risk, and defintely should not be implemented in time of war.

The majority of the US history has been peacetime. If we're going to have any social experiments with the military, it should be then, not during time of war. Nothing wrong with waiting a few years until major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have stopped.

Jesus fucking Christ y'all are some whiny bastards.

Nothing is done quickly in government (unless it's a dictatorship or there's OVERWHELMING consensus).

It's being done. And all y'all can do is bitch about it not being done sooner. He could cure cancer and y'all would find something to bitch about.