State of the Union Discussion.

The popular support for Ned Lamont supports smpahn's claim.

The irreverent stupidity of Connecticut shows that the strength of the uninformed masses, combined with a narcissistic wrecking ball of an asshole candidate, will more than likely win in the end, but Lamont came *awfully* close.

Harry Reid is a bigger boon to Republicans than they'll (or he'll) ever admit. He's absolutely spineless as a legislator, wholly ineffective as a leader, and will roll over for the Republicans no matter if they're the majority or minority party.
 
[quote name='spmahn']But if the Democrats only problem is that they are being weak and ineffectual, wouldn't the solution be to run primaries to find new candidates who won't be so weak an ineffectual, rather than supporting lame duck candidates like Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, and Arlen Spector who are almost certainly going to lose?[/quote]

That isn't their only problem, it is important however and it certainly isn't going away. What Will Roger's said decades ago "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." still applies today.

However the biggest problem is an opposition party made of disingenuous lunatics who treat politics like a game or as myke is wont to say a wrestling match.

Just because liberals and Democrats don't like their candidates and find them weak and ineffectual, doesn't mean that they're going to turn over and support Republicans simply out of spite.
Click to expand...

But it does mean that the base won't bother to turn out.
 
If the MA election is so directly indicative of how Americans overwhelmingly disagree with the ideas of the Democrats, I don't understand why Obama won in the first place running on essentially the same platform.
 
Obama won in the first place because his Democrat campaign hot-rod was sporting some pretty sexy slightly conservative rims (thanks Axelrod) to coral the center, which were promptly abandoned on the side of the road last January.

That, and in our lifetimes, we probably have never had a Presidential candidate speak with such flamboyant (but impotent) conviction on a regular basis, which always gives the public a boner.
 
Democrats look weak and ineffectual because there are actually four (and possibly more) parties running under the "Democrat" banner. Republicans only have to deal with two or three different factions at any any given time.

Blue Dogs will never agree with Socialists (the smart ones that run as Dems so they can actually win) while the Republican Party lives and dies with No. Everyone from neocons to borderline Libertarians can agree that anything that the President, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid said over the last year was just another Communist plot to limit freedom and kill business.
 
The Democrats wound up doing what Schumer wanted and electing Senators/Congressman who were electable as opposed to being everything they want.

Ideally they would probably want most Senators to be pro-choice. You get a Senator like Bob Casey from PA who is progressive on all issues but is very pro-life, he is easily electable in a state like PA.
 
And he's not even a Blue Dog. Way too many factions. I love the diversity of the new Democratic Party and think the political process has places for pro-life progressives, Blue Dogs, and Socialists but it leads to what we just saw for a year. Democratic majorities in everything but the Supreme Court and nothing accomplished.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Obama won in the first place because his Democrat campaign hot-rod was sporting some pretty sexy slightly conservative rims (thanks Axelrod) to coral the center, which were promptly abandoned on the side of the road last January.[/QUOTE]

How is that? And I remember healthcare being prominent as well, something spmahn says America doesn't want in the first place.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Obama won in the first place because his Democrat campaign hot-rod was sporting some pretty sexy slightly conservative rims (thanks Axelrod) to coral the center, which were promptly abandoned on the side of the road last January.[/QUOTE]

Back this statement up.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Back this statement up.[/QUOTE]

http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/rims for sale.jpg

rims%20for%20sale.jpg


Check and Mate.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Everyone from neocons to borderline Libertarians can agree that anything that the President, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid said over the last year was just another Communist plot to limit freedom and kill business.[/QUOTE]
Not at all.
I think the President was trying to improve aggregate health care and is failing nicely.
I think the President can't accept "L"s in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. So, he will continue bankrupting the country over them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Help me understand how cap and trade is leftist. perhaps an easy place to start is from me saying that I don't see how it's very different from the current emissions credit system, where companies have credits distributed they are allowed to sell/trade if they are not used, and they must pay fines or face further sanctions if they exceed their allotment without acquiring other credits.

To me, C&T sounds very similar, and creates a phony market of trading pollution as a commodity - so it won't do anything to curb emissions, and will help people turn a profit from a giant shell game of industrial waste.

It doesn't sound leftist at all to me - but relative to GOP policies that start from the premise that either (1) refuses to believe the science of pollution harming our lives and harming the planet or (2) simply forgoing all that in favor of short-term gratification, or (3) simply couldn't care less if the planet or mankind are harmed, everything is leftist. Can their be anything more right than the GOP solution?[/QUOTE]

Firstly, carbon dioxide is not pollution.

Cap-and-trade is stupidity whether you think global warming is a serious problem or a hoax. Treasury estimates costs to be $100-400 billion per year to the economy. By 2100, according to supporters, cap-and-trade will reduce global temperatures from what they otherwise would be (according to models which have been proven wrong - every one of them) by...0.1 degrees C. Not 10, not 1, 0.1. 0.1! Utterly laughable, yet this plan passed the House of Representatives!

So, to sum up:

(a) you feel we need to do something about global warming = this bill does what amounts to nothing, for a large expense
(b) you feel we don't need to do anything = this bill amounts to a large expense

All pain, no gain, so to speak.
 
so it's essentially the same idea used for pollution credits, then, only applied to CO2 emissions?

Eh, well, I'm kinda on the ambivalent path of "you're in absolute denial if you don't believe in global warming, but you're loud and angry and pro-corporation, which means you'll win in the end, so go right ahead mr and mrs free-market flag waving dipshits, vote to hasten the end of life on this planet so you can keep your job making those plastic containers for "Lunchables" you no-good no-long-term-vision having sons a bitches," so whatever, I guess.

We should all drive Bigfoot trucks. And you know Big Macs tasted so much better in styrofoam containers. Bring 'em back.

Me me me, my my my. Seven generations? fuck 'em, I'll be dead. Give me my jack link's beef jerky and hummer h2 now, god bless america and pass the gravy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']so it's essentially the same idea used for pollution credits, then, only applied to CO2 emissions?

Eh, well, I'm kinda on the ambivalent path of "you're in absolute denial if you don't believe in global warming, but you're loud and angry and pro-corporation, which means you'll win in the end, so go right ahead mr and mrs free-market flag waving dipshits, vote to hasten the end of life on this planet so you can keep your job making those plastic containers for "Lunchables" you no-good no-long-term-vision having sons a bitches," so whatever, I guess.

We should all drive Bigfoot trucks. And you know Big Macs tasted so much better in styrofoam containers. Bring 'em back.

Me me me, my my my. Seven generations? fuck 'em, I'll be dead. Give me my jack link's beef jerky and hummer h2 now, god bless america and pass the gravy.[/QUOTE]

As I've said in previous threads, I think Americans as a whole want to help the environment, and don't want to destroy the earth. The problem is that Global Warming somehow got away from being a matter of science, and was painted into being a black and white political issue, rather than the shades of gray it really is. There's just as much rhetoric and nonsense coming out of the Pro-Environment lobby as there is in whatever the lobby that is in opposition to them calls themselves. Al Gore and his kind use the same scare tactics as the people he opposes, and is mostly a hypocrite in my opinion, who is motivated by financial gain and a political agenda rather than actually wanting to help the environment.

Global Warming or Climate Change or however you want to frame the issue needs to go back to being about the science, and less about the politics.
 
The problem is that it can't, whether because the cultural climate refuses to let it not be a political issue or because the science is so mired by special interests (far, far, far, far more heavily energy industries, of course, than anybody else - I have yet to come across anything even remotely resembling a compelling logical explanation of the "profit motive" of the green movement that is the conspiracy underlying Gore).

It simply can't. It's also a matter of individuals not being willing or able to take responsibility for their actions. People don't even realize they contribute to the traffic problem as they sit in their autos pointing at everyone else for fucking things up - you think we're going to convince people to do away with the unnecessary convenience packaging (and the distribution that coincides with that) that has ruled their lives for the past century or so?

They're inseparable anymore - and I have no idea how people are uncertain because of the science. I can see how they're confused, because they aren't scientists - but the "shades of gray" stems from the political undercurrent that fought against data that dared suggest the modern industrialists take, exploit, and destroy natural resources with reckless, permanent, abandon (just like workers themselves).
 
The reason people are uncertain is because the science is uncertain. Now I understand that part of that is due to the nature of what science is, it's always changing, always evolving, but the problem with politicizing it is that it no longer become science. Agenda driven science will find a way to reach the predetermined conclusions before it even reaches them, and that goes for the entire political spectrum, from the people who say we're all going to die in a big flood next year when the Ice Caps melt all the way to the people who say fuck it the environment can fix itself.

It's all about how you frame the issue, which is why a few years ago they changed the name of the paradigm to "Global Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming", because Climate Change is far more encompassing and allows you to draw conclusions no matter what the data says. It's like the weather man telling you that there's a 50% chance of rain tomorrow. Any time a credible scientist comes out with a study that in any way goes against the conventional wisdom of the environmentalists, they are marginalized, smeared, and lumped in as being funded by oil companies, or Republicans, or whatever boogie man the environmentalists have convinced people is trying to destroy the earth.

There are plenty of respected scientists and institutions out there that while not outright denying the existence of climate change, are certainly skeptical of it's causes and effects. To claim that the Science is clear and obvious and that there is no debate is just patent nonsense. The Science is uncertain at best, and there is definitely a lot of legitimate debate to be had.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']so it's essentially the same idea used for pollution credits, then, only applied to CO2 emissions?

Eh, well, I'm kinda on the ambivalent path of "you're in absolute denial if you don't believe in global warming, but you're loud and angry and pro-corporation, which means you'll win in the end, so go right ahead mr and mrs free-market flag waving dipshits, vote to hasten the end of life on this planet so you can keep your job making those plastic containers for "Lunchables" you no-good no-long-term-vision having sons a bitches," so whatever, I guess.

We should all drive Bigfoot trucks. And you know Big Macs tasted so much better in styrofoam containers. Bring 'em back.

Me me me, my my my. Seven generations? fuck 'em, I'll be dead. Give me my jack link's beef jerky and hummer h2 now, god bless america and pass the gravy.[/QUOTE]

It is the same idea applied to CO2 emissions, correct. There are some fundamental differences, though.

Actual pollution, when this idea was implemented (such as SO2), was able to be cleaned up because there were technologies available to do so (they were just expensive). So it made some sense to force costs to where the pollution-controlling scrubbers and the like were made to be used by polluters. As someone who feels the air we breathe is a commonly owned resource, I have no problem with the government protecting our common property from companies exploiting it at the expense of our health.

CO2, OTOH, is emitted by just about every economic activity, not to mention every animal on earth, including humans. There is no proven way to "capture" or "scrub" CO2 emissions from things like coal or gas power plants ("carbon sequestration" is a developing technology at best at this point, and an expensive one at least in the near future). Also, it's simple for whole industries to pull up the stakes and move to China/India/Mexico/wherever if they are subject to cap-and-trade, which is exactly what is predicted will happen. In fact, the estimate I pointed to above (0.1 degree C reduction by 2100) doesn't take into account that many people believe worldwide emissions will actually INCREASE due to cap-and-trade as CO2-intensive industries, such as cement making, move to China or elsewhere (as happened in the EU when they implemented a similar policy).

So leaving the science aside, this is a stupid policy. Hell, many environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, are against it because it does virtually nothing to stop CO2 emissions. What cap-and-trade really amounts to is a huge giveaway to moneyed interests who have successfully lobbied for free CO2 credits, which they could then resell at 100% profit (minus the lobbying costs, I guess).
 
[quote name='spmahn']It's all about how you frame the issue, which is why a few years ago they changed the name of the paradigm to "Global Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming", because Climate Change is far more encompassing and allows you to draw conclusions no matter what the data says.[/QUOTE]

I understand what this argument is, but I can see why the science would reveal that, rather than warming as a single trend, it could also lead to increased temperatures at the peaks - we're still losing ice caps as an alarming rate, though.

I don't buy the strategic reframing. "Global Warming" has a good "we're all gonna die by being boiled alive!!!!" fearmongering tinge to it, white "GCC" has, to me, a more pleasant intonation. "Climate Change," who wouldn't want that? It's a little cool right now, I'm in the mood for some climate change.

As for uncertainty in the science, the existence of GCC is not in denial to the scientific community. And the relationship between mankind's use of industry as a cause? Well, that's in as much debate as rehabilitative effects for prisoners is in the criminological community. There are people who seem to constantly find a cynical "nothing work" platform to stand on in their research (David Farabee is a name that comes to mind), but they're anomalous. They're largely on the periphery in their findings, coming to conclusions (treatment doesn't work, programs don't work, rehabilitation doesn't work) that the rest of the community doesn't buy into. So is the science uncertain? No, it's not. Research that shows what programs do work and in what contexts they work vastly outweighs science that can't seem to identify a good treatment program. But if you're watching from the sidelines, it can easily appear to just be that the "science is uncertain."

...and that's largely without accusations of vested financial interests backing research efforts (largely).
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Who is for cap and trade again?[/QUOTE]

It was originally proposed by Enron as a scheme to rake in profits from emissions credits. The people who want it now are big electric utilities and others like agriculture interests who have been promised free CO2 credits, which they can then turn around and sell for $$$. Of course, the people who get screwed are manufacturers and consumers, who have drastically increased costs (such as doubling of electricity prices and gasoline prices).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I understand what this argument is, but I can see why the science would reveal that, rather than warming as a single trend, it could also lead to increased temperatures at the peaks - we're still losing ice caps as an alarming rate, though.[/QUOTE]

We're not losing ice caps at an alarming rate. There has been a 30-year downward trend at the North Pole and a 30-year upward trend at the South Pole. The North Pole minimum was 2007; in 2009 the ice extent was about the same as 2002. Observe:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png[\img]
[img]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png[\img]
[img]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
 
[quote name='elprincipe']We're not losing ice caps at an alarming rate. There has been a 30-year downward trend at the North Pole and a 30-year upward trend at the South Pole. The North Pole minimum was 2007; in 2009 the ice extent was about the same as 2002.[/QUOTE]

Oh I'm sure this study was co-sponsored by Exxon, the GOP, People in favor of clubbing baby seals Inc., and the styrofoam lobby, so therefore it has to be invalid junk science. /sarcasm
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I don't get why he feels the need to appeal to the middle with tax cuts and half-asses spending freezes (while omitting the Pentagon, the worst offender). Anybody who hates him has already decided in their mind that he's big government and raised their taxes a bajillion percent even if he has not. There's a disconnect between reality and how those on the right perceive their world having been changed since a year ago that's immune to any dose of reality, facts, or data.

He was a socialist muslin half-breed yesterday and he's still one today.

My reaction was that I liked how he took the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to task for their inability and unwillingness (respectively) to get things done in Washington re: health care.


Of course I'm totally down with restructuring student loan repayment plans. And I'm glad to see him push to repeal DADT this year. I hope he does.[/QUOTE]


Finally got around to watching it on my DVR last night. I agree with most of what Myke said here.

Other than the middle class tax cuts--it's not like the whole middle class is on the right and thinks he's a socialist muslim. Hell, most of those uneducated idiots are probably lower class. The biggest block of democrat voters is probably in the middle class (and urban lower class) since the upper incomes skew conservative (at least fiscally) as does the rural lower class (fiscally and socially conservative).

So democrats always have to appeal to the middle class to have a chance. I'm fine with it, the middle class is what makes the the country go. They should get tax relief while the upper class sees tax cuts expire and/or gets hikes. That's just the way it should be IMO. The lower class can't afford to pay much, the middle class should pay a good bit, and the upper class should pay a lot more as their success allows them to carry more of the burden.


Like Myke, I liked him taking both democrats and republicans to task for not getting things done, and hope the DADT goes through along with the student loan restructuring.

I also liked the increase in education spending in the budget announcement a couple days after the SOTU speech as well.
 
The military wants DADT repealed, but not for the reason many want it repealed and think that's why they're going to try and repeal it. The military wants it repealed so you can't use it as a get out of the military free card, plain and simple.

Also, asking for a spending freeze is a nice thing to say until the budget total comes out and refutes the idea.
 
DADT being repealed is a good thing period, regardless of motivation on the inside. On top of your reason, some of it is sheer practicality too. With the military hurting in recruiting, it doesn't make sense to exclude segments of the population for eligibility as they need every willing and capable body they can get.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jon Stewart on O'Reilly Factor tomorrow night (and the night after). We'll see if he's got the guts to call out FOX & Billo while in the lions den.

Seriously though FOX has NO justification for cutting away from such an unprecedented event. It's not like some event happened that they had to cover, they just said 'oh he's lecturing' and had that dumbass peter king 'analyze' what was going on.

Peter king is the dumbass who said giving obama an honorary degree would put him in an 'exalted' position. Really? That's what would put him over the edge? You'd think being the leader of the most powerful country in the world...nah.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']DADT being repealed is a good thing period, regardless of motivation on the inside. On top of your reason, some of it is sheer practicality too. With the military hurting in recruiting, it doesn't make sense to exclude segments of the population for eligibility as they need every willing and capable body they can get.[/QUOTE]

You can be gay and join the military right now if you wanted to. Just make sure the Government doesn't know about it. Besides, repealing DADT isn't going to magically get hundreds of thousands of gay people to join the military.

Also, news channels can pull away from whatever the hell they want, when they want. Fox is #1, so whatever they're doing, they're going to continue to do it because they're dominating.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']DADT being repealed is a good thing period, regardless of motivation on the inside. On top of your reason, some of it is sheer practicality too. With the military hurting in recruiting, it doesn't make sense to exclude segments of the population for eligibility as they need every willing and capable body they can get.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me?

Recruitment is hitting and exceeding ALL its goals right now.
 
KingBroly, there's no rationale behind it though. If you're going to claim you're 'fair and balanced' but cut away from an unprecedented political event, there's a disconnect with reality. And when you choose to air the scripted GOP response in full, there's a further loss of credibility.

It begs the question 'WHY did you cut away???' This question was posed to FNC CEO Roger Ailes by Ariana Huffington, and his non-response was 'we're the most trusted name in news'. He could have said 'because FNC shits gold for me' and it would have been just as logical a response.

By the way I really RUV the references to FNC being #1. As if #1 makes them the most credible news organization. If I remember correctly, Hitler was #1 in Germany for a time. Godwin's law, LAWL!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']DADT being repealed is a good thing period, regardless of motivation on the inside. On top of your reason, some of it is sheer practicality too. With the military hurting in recruiting, it doesn't make sense to exclude segments of the population for eligibility as they need every willing and capable body they can get.[/QUOTE]

Not sure where you're getting that the military is hurting in recruiting. Maybe certain branches might be having trouble, but I know a few people that are on waiting lists for the Navy, Marines, etc, because they have more applicants now that want to join than they have space. With the economy as it is, and jobs being as hard to find as they are, many people are turning to the military as an option simply because they have no other options.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']DADT being repealed is a good thing period, regardless of motivation on the inside.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. Let people be bigots as long as they don't impact other peoples' lives. Motivation schmotivation, repeal DADT now.

[quote name='IRHari']It begs the question 'WHY did you cut away???' This question was posed to FNC CEO Roger Ailes by Ariana Huffington, and his non-response was 'we're the most trusted name in news'. He could have said 'because FNC shits gold for me' and it would have been just as logical a response.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't believe my eyes when he gave that tautological nonsense as his response. It was a "it's got what plants crave/it's got electrolytes" moment if there ever was one.

And Jon Stewart single-handedly assassinated the television show Crossfire. I hope he can do the same with O'Reilly. I'll be watching for sure - but is O'Reilly's show live or taped?
 
It's going to be taped, shown in 2 parts, one on Wed. one on Thurs. Stewart has more rational discussion with Huckabee than with O'Reilly. I'd rather watch him debate Huckabee on some substantive issues, but honestly, I'm looking forward to it.

sidenote: wkc this week, right? i should get mine tomorrow or thurs.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Also, news channels can pull away from whatever the hell they want, when they want.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how you can construe that as a reason or justification though. The "they can do what they want" line is used a million times for a million reasons and it doesn't make sense in any context. Nobody says they can't cut away from it, it's not like we're proposing legislation to bar such actions. It's just that cutting away from it seems nonsensical for a news outlet since it was a unique, live event. The action is just demonstrative of the fact that they don't intend to show things that go against their narrative, which is what they're selling - not news, but a political narrative.
 
Right. If it was breaking news of some importance, then it wouldn't be an issue.

As it was, they were cutting away from the video feed because too much blood was being shed. They were putting their hands over the viewers' eyes and ears and saying, "its okay, it's okay. our narrative is still true."

Does anyone truly believe that FOX is a "Fair and Balanced™" channel still? Do you believe they're a reasonable counterbalance to the other media? That they don't have an agenda, that they aren't trying to become kingmakers by having contracts with the top current Republican presidential prospects? Which up-and-coming Democrats are on their payroll? Geraldine Ferrarro? Tee-hee-hee.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The military wants DADT repealed, but not for the reason many want it repealed and think that's why they're going to try and repeal it. The military wants it repealed so you can't use it as a get out of the military free card, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]
The brass want out because we don't live in a world where it makes sense anymore. The Israeli military does perfectly fine with openly gay soldiers and has for a good long time.

The Israeli military that the war hawk conservatives secretly wish our military was just like. No holds barred, war crimes be damned. Ask one how they feel about the Israelis (especially a conservative that hasn't served in the military) and they'll gush for days, having no idea gays openly serve.
 
I remember hearing about a few arabic translators being discharged because they were gay. Because you know, the military has no need for people who speak arabic.

And just because its gold...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

edit- I forgot how much of a man-child Tucker Carlson looks like, wtf is with those bow ties...
 
Bow ties are pretty cool - don't wear 'em myself, but wouldn't knock someone for wearing them.

Tucker's on another station now (MSNBC?) and ditched the bow ties. Last time I saw him I didn't recognize him because he was wearing a necktie. :lol:
 
nah he was fired from MSNBC. He's done a few 'liberal brainwashing in our schools' specials and the like on FNC but I don't think he has a job there.

I read on Politico he launched some new website recently. Like a Breitbart style thing. Dunno what its about, don't care.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Not sure where you're getting that the military is hurting in recruiting. Maybe certain branches might be having trouble, but I know a few people that are on waiting lists for the Navy, Marines, etc, because they have more applicants now that want to join than they have space. With the economy as it is, and jobs being as hard to find as they are, many people are turning to the military as an option simply because they have no other options.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's gotten better, and the stories I read (and heard from recruiters etc.) a couple years back dealt with the Army and Army reserves. They were struggling to recruit as people didn't want to get sent off to Iraq or Afghanistan.

I don't think ending DADT will have any big impact, but...

1. It ends a discriminatory policy. People shouldn't have to lie about who they are to serve their country if they want to.

2. The military shouldn't be turning away willing and able bodies for such a stupid reason with two wars going on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']1. It ends a discriminatory policy. People shouldn't have to lie about who they are to serve their country if they want to.[/QUOTE]

I'm all for ending DADT. It was a stupid policy for stupid reasons. However, no one has to "lie" about who they are. It's "Don't ask, don't tell" for a reason. Ideally, you can't ask/I can't tell you if I'm gay or straight or bisexual or whatever. An enlisted member doesn't have to claim to be one way or another - in fact, they're outright not supposed to. However, I'm not sure I ever read about someone being dismissed for being outright heterosexual.

It was a stupid and unnecessary ruling.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bow ties are pretty cool - don't wear 'em myself, but wouldn't knock someone for wearing them.

Tucker's on another station now (MSNBC?) and ditched the bow ties. Last time I saw him I didn't recognize him because he was wearing a necktie. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Aww, he's all grown up.:lol:
 
It's alla bout having to hide who you are, not about physically telling anyone. Imagine a gay solider going out with some fellow soldiers to a bar, they're hitting on women all night and the gay guy is put in an awkward situation. If they knew he was gay and they were ok with it, it wouldn't be an issue. Instead, if they catch him putting the moves on some guy and it gets around, he could get discharged.

Its just not something anyone should have to worry about, they have more important things to worry about than whether anyone knows they're gay.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']It's alla bout having to hide who you are, not about physically telling anyone. Imagine a gay solider going out with some fellow soldiers to a bar, they're hitting on women all night and the gay guy is put in an awkward situation. If they knew he was gay and they were ok with it, it wouldn't be an issue. Instead, if they catch him putting the moves on some guy and it gets around, he could get discharged.

Its just not something anyone should have to worry about, they have more important things to worry about than whether anyone knows they're gay.[/QUOTE]

*Technically*, the straight guys hitting on women at the bar would then be breaking DADT (at least, at the same level the gay guy would if he was hitting on men at the bar).

Again, though, it was a stupid ruling and, so far as I know, it was never actually applied to someone letting people know they were straight.
 
The word, dear friend, is heteronormativity.

This is indeed a case of separate but equal, there's no two ways about it.

The policy is specifically aimed at homosexuals - it's not a policy that prevents you from discussing your family life or sexual conquests at all...just if you're gay. That's why it wasn't applied to heterosexuals, because they were *exempt* from the policy.

You didn't really think this policy extended to all members of the military talking at all about their sexual identity, did you?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']*Technically*, the straight guys hitting on women at the bar would then be breaking DADT (at least, at the same level the gay guy would if he was hitting on men at the bar).[/QUOTE]

That might be the silliest thing you've said on these boards and shows that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Technically? Does that mean that heterosexual behavior is against DADT? Does it say that ANYWHERE in the actual text?

Please read this and then come back and make an informed post for once.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html

You'll note that the entire law is set up in regards to homosexual members of the military. There is not one mention of prohibited heterosexual activities that might get you in discharged.
 
Wow. I will totally admit to epic fail on my part here. It was my understanding that DADT covered all sexual behavior.

My opinion on it stays the same though - it needs to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top