What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Red Cloud said:
It's like... yes, you can eat this candy bar, but you're also going to eat this turd I put on top of it. It's a political game, and you got taken.
Click to expand...

Of course politics is a political game. Would the GOP resist the temptation to lard up a defense authorization bill with turd candy? Of course not. And they'd scream bloody murder about now supporting the brave men and women in uniform if Democrats threatened a filibuster.

DADT repeal is going to lose because it has a small constituency of decidedly non-swing voters, and Obama has already signalled that he doesn't care to spend what little political capital he has left on DADT.

The repealers are on the right side of history, and their position will win out. Time gets to all of us in the end, and the old generational gap will be replaced by a new and different one. Count on it. But right now the timing just isn't good.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Red Cloud said:
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The argument of "well, it's going to make soldiers angry to serve with a homosexual" or "what if a straight soldier gets hit on by a homosexual" are both idiotic, because that's why EO policies exist.

You've got a problem serving with a gay person? Come on, half of the women in the Army are lesbians.
Click to expand...

I notice you left out BAM's, most of whom in my day looked like they were on the East German swim team--only without the looks.:eek:

What you describe are policies that de facto accept that there are gay people serving already. So let's just go that final step. Remember that case about ten years ago where some grunts savagely beat a young guy they thought was gay to death? IIRC they unsuccessfully used the "gay rage" defense.

Cetain behaviors are prohibitted by the UCMJ. There was a case profiled on 60 minutes about the female B-52 pilot who was having an affair with her enlisted crew chief. Sayonara, baby. How is his wife supposed to deal with her husband sleeping with the official in his chain of command who endorses his annual fitness reviews?

The issue is inappropriate behavior and as you've explained, DOD is aware that it exists and has established procedures for dealing with it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

amherstblackbear said:
Of course politics is a political game. Would the GOP resist the temptation to lard up a defense authorization bill with turd candy? Of course not. And they'd scream bloody murder about now supporting the brave men and women in uniform if Democrats threatened a filibuster.

DADT repeal is going to lose because it has a small constituency of decidedly non-swing voters, and Obama has already signalled that he doesn't care to spend what little political capital he has left on DADT.

The repealers are on the right side of history, and their position will win out. Time gets to all of us in the end, and the old generational gap will be replaced by a new and different one. Count on it. But right now the timing just isn't good.
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't want to spend political capital because he wants to avoid being tied to gay issues.

That being said, you're dancing around crap. This can be raised as a standalone bill and you know it. It doesn't have to include amnesty for illegal aliens.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Red Cloud said:
No, every case that DADT supporters claim will be a problem if gays are allowed to serve openly are already occurring and are being covered under the UCMJ. Harassment is harassment no matter how it occurs, and there's already a system for dealing with it.
Click to expand...

OK, then.

I think the practical, non-ideological case for eliminating DADT comes down to 2 things:

1. In practice, servicemembers can be, and have been discharged without any real evidence of even being "out," never mind harassing others.

2. I'm sure this isn't what the folks who devised DADT had in mind, but the policy almost seems designed to create opportunities for blackmail/extortion. It's just a dysfunctional rule. From a policy perspective, there's probably more to be said for an outright ban than for weird DADT-style hybrid policy.

As for eliminating DADT and taking EO violations & harassment seriously, that approach sounds like a winner. Doubt you'll get much disagreement here, or from the majority of voters...
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

amherstblackbear said:
DADT repeal is going to lose because it has a small constituency of decidedly non-swing voters, and Obama has already signalled that he doesn't care to spend what little political capital he has left on DADT.

The repealers are on the right side of history, and their position will win out. Time gets to all of us in the end, and the old generational gap will be replaced by a new and different one. Count on it. But right now the timing just isn't good.
Click to expand...

The problem is that DADT didn't fail because of DADT this time. The voters who were the swing on cloture were two Democrats (both from Arkansas) and Susan Collins from Maine who had a problem with the extra bogus crap that Reid tried to jam through with it. All three of those people would have voted for cloture if it were just DADT, and the Senate has plenty of votes available to pass it.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

amherstblackbear said:
OK, then.

I think the practical, non-ideological case for eliminating DADT comes down to 2 things:

1. In practice, servicemembers can be, and have been discharged without any real evidence of even being "out," never mind harassing others.

2. I'm sure this isn't what the folks who devised DADT had in mind, but the policy almost seems designed to create opportunities for blackmail/extortion. It's just a dysfunctional rule. From a policy perspective, there's probably more to be said for an outright ban than for weird DADT-style hybrid policy.

As for eliminating DADT and taking EO violations & harassment seriously, that approach sounds like a winner. Doubt you'll get much disagreement here, or from the majority of voters...
Click to expand...

I hope you're not waiting for me to disagree with that.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Patman said:
Obama doesn't want to spend political capital because he wants to avoid being tied to gay issues.

That being said, you're dancing around crap. This can be raised as a standalone bill and you know it. It doesn't have to include amnesty for illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

And you're being a hypocrite, and you know it. Until Congress eliminates the use of riders and non-substantive amendments, it's blatant hypocrisy for partisans of either side to demonize the other side for taking advantage of procedural opportunities.

Why didn't the GOP use standalone votes for every issue they favored during the 6 years they controlled Congress under Bush?

The way I see it, voters should either raise hell about the practice in general, and insist on congressional reform, or shut up about it. Because using it as an argument against specific pieces of legislation lacks any credibility.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

amherstblackbear said:
And you're being a hypocrite, and you know it. Until Congress eliminates the use of riders and non-substantive amendments, it's blatant hypocrisy for partisans of either side to demonize the other side for taking advantage of procedural opportunities.

Why didn't the GOP use standalone votes for every issue they favored during the 6 years they controlled Congress under Bush?

The way I see it, voters should either raise hell about the practice in general, and insist on congressional reform, or shut up about it. Because using it as an argument against specific pieces of legislation lacks any credibility.
Click to expand...

I'm being a hypocrite for them doing things they shouldn't be doing? OK, that makes sense.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Patman said:
I'm being a hypocrite for them doing things they shouldn't be doing? OK, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yes.

It's how business gets done in congress.

If you think that isn't how business should get done, then say so.

Mentioning the criticism only with respect to a specific piece of legislation that you oppose strongly suggests that it it's the content of the legislation that bugs you. Not the procedural tactic.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

amherstblackbear said:
Yes.

It's how business gets done in congress.

If you think that isn't how business should get done, then say so.

Mentioning the criticism only with respect to a specific piece of legislation that you oppose strongly suggests that it it's the content of the legislation that bugs you. Not the procedural tactic.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's how it should be done... just because you accept it and embrace it doesn't mean its a good idea.

More to the point, you know these are elements that should be divorced from each other. You know for such an open and fair congress and and open and fair president there sure are a lot of closed and unfair actions and actors.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

amherstblackbear said:
Yes.

It's how business gets done in congress.

If you think that isn't how business should get done, then say so.
Click to expand...

Millions have been saying so repeatedly for the last two years. They're called the Tea Party, you may have heard of them.

Mentioning the criticism only with respect to a specific piece of legislation that you oppose strongly suggests that it it's the content of the legislation that bugs you. Not the procedural tactic.
Click to expand...

The content and the procedural tactic being one and the same? So you're saying that all of the GOP is just opposed to ending DADT because they wouldn't support this crapfest?
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Red Cloud said:
Millions have been saying so repeatedly for the last two years. They're called the Tea Party, you may have heard of them.



The content and the procedural tactic being one and the same? So you're saying that all of the GOP is just opposed to ending DADT because they wouldn't support this crapfest?
Click to expand...

No, nothing like that. just ignore it. That whole line of posts was directed at patman, who seems never to have met a problem that he couldn't oversimplify. (inevitably in partisan terms).
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Kepler said:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that the oft-repeated narrative you're once more repeating is, in my experience, inaccurate in some major details (though to be fair accurate in others).

I think that what happens is if you tell a story about, say, somebody at Bank of America being an idiot, people think, "wow, that guy's an idiot," whereas if you tell a story about somebody at the FBI being an idiot, people think, "wow, government workers are idiots."

To put it another way, if I made a list of all the things I would change about government work, the quality* and dedication of the personnel wouldn't even make the first page.

(* except the political appointees. They're complete morons. )
Click to expand...

And we could say that our experiences cancel each other out -

the difference with using BofA is that they at least have some metrics that can be analyzed to measure the overall effectiveness of the company, which is a reflection on the people there...sure any one person at that company or in the govt could be a genius or knucklehead but if BofA is consistently hitting it out of the park (as if), and person X has been there a while, it wouldn't be crazy to assume the people there are capable...unlikely the company could be wildly successful yet everyone there be a knucklehead.

Now, if there is any accurate method to measure the effectiveness of the government, I haven't seen it... although wild debts, spiraling spending, terrible decisions, ethics and criminal investigations, cost over-runs etc. lend some color to the situation. I noted a while back that at one agency when the new director came in something like 1,700 people got an automatic raise since their comp was tied to the director's comp.

Are all 1,700 bad people? no...but the person that seeks out and persists in that environment might not be the same person that is willing to rise or fall with the performance of the company.

So, I guess there has to be the 'most effective person' in the government...which is kind of like winning the Miss Maine title.

Sorry Mainers, but that line was first told to me by one of your fellow Maine-iacs.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

amherstblackbear said:
No, nothing like that. just ignore it. That whole line of posts was directed at patman, who seems never to have met a problem that he couldn't oversimplify. (inevitably in partisan terms).
Click to expand...

He's a statistician. Everything breaks down to a simple equation. :)
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

kinda quiet in here today. everybody reading the Woodward book?
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Our Military heroes. price of war?

http://www.adn.com/2010/07/23/1379217/soldier-pleads-not-guilty-to-murdering.html
The Fort Richardson soldier accused of shooting his wife and infant daughter dead before turning the gun on himself pleaded not guilty on Friday to murder charges.

Army Spc. Kip Lynch is charged with two counts each of first- and second-degree murder in the deaths of his wife, Raquell Lynch, 19, and daughter, 8-month-old Kyirsta, who were found dead April 26 in a South Anchorage apartment.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/national/main517033.shtml
In the past six weeks, four wives of soldiers at Fort Bragg have been murdered. Each death is blamed on the husband.

CBS News Correspondent Jim Krasula reports Fort Bragg commanders are concerned since three of the four domestic murder cases involve Special Operations soldiers who had been deployed to Afghanistan. Two of the soldiers killed themselves as well.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top