Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: The gay generation gap

  1. #16
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mamaste View Post
    Grimm, he did explain. He said he wanted to discuss it with cabinet members before he did anything.
    No, he said he wanted the matter "Studied", which means it's on the backburner or sent off to limbo for all time. It's bullshit because there have already been 20 (20!!) other studies ALREADY DONE on the subject by the very same departments (not to mention all the ones in foreign nations) that all conclude the same fucking thing: it's non-sensical.

    He didn't say he wouldn't repeal DADT. He said it wouldn't happen until 2010. Military representatives have stated they have some concerns about a repeal.
    See above. DADT is no longer on the schedule to be 'repealed'. It is to be "changed". It's right on his website. How one CHANGES a discriminatory policy to something more acceptable is asinine. It's either there or not. What's really amusing is that the administration CONTINUES to fight ACTIVELY against the removal of DADT, despite broad public support for removing it and even the military/congress being for it. They have all the political capital they could need but they refuse.

    On top of that, he could issue a presidential order to simply suspend the law pending congressional review and it would not be out of line, it happens all the time.. however he's refused to do so , leading to 260 more service men and women being witch hunted out of the military since he took office. People with a 20 year old carer, with spotless records being drummed out just short of their retirement, destroying their careers. Linguists that translate terrorist "chatter"... leading to a severe backlog since the Bush years (when 600 were fired) of god knows how much information having not been translated.. that's a national security problem.

    How many people have to be witch hunted down before SOMETHING is done, while congress and the pres point fingers at each other?

    They never stated what those concerns are IIRC. The other issue, like I said is he can only repeal DADT when the military is under his command. I'll be honest and say I have no idea if they are or not.
    He's the commander in chief, he is the elected head of the military, pending congressional approval of any war.

    There is no war in Afghanistan. I remain confused if there is actually still one officially in Iraq. Last I heard they were "policing". So, that could be an issue. I don't know.

    Grimm, please remember our laws are different here. Our political process is different. The powers of our legislature and leader are different. I understand your anger, but your argument isn't rooted in realism at least not for America.
    It has nothing to do with differences, i'm aware of what the levels can do if they CHOOSE to, while remaining within the law. They are choosing to be selectively powerless on some issues purely out of political expediency.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  2. #17
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    No, he said he wanted the matter "Studied", which means it's on the backburner or sent off to limbo for all time. It's bullshit because there have already been 20 (20!!) other studies ALREADY DONE on the subject by the very same departments (not to mention all the ones in foreign nations) that all conclude the same fucking thing: it's non-sensical.
    You said he never explained. If you disagree with his explanation, that's one thing. But saying he never explained when he did is another.

    See above. DADT is no longer on the schedule to be 'repealed'. It is to be "changed". It's right on his website. How one CHANGES a discriminatory policy to something more acceptable is asinine. It's either there or not. What's really amusing is that the administration CONTINUES to fight ACTIVELY against the removal of DADT, despite broad public support for removing it and even the military/congress being for it. They have all the political capital they could need but they refuse.
    He hasn't reached a decision either way. From what he has said, I would think he's waiting for Congress to make the move. Like you said, they are finger pointing, but despite what the military law committee concluded, there are no clear answers as to who bears responsibility.

    On top of that, he could issue a presidential order to simply suspend the law pending congressional review and it would not be out of line, it happens all the time.. however he's refused to do so , leading to 260 more service men and women being witch hunted out of the military since he took office. People with a 20 year old carer, with spotless records being drummed out just short of their retirement, destroying their careers. Linguists that translate terrorist "chatter"... leading to a severe backlog since the Bush years (when 600 were fired) of god knows how much information having not been translated.. that's a national security problem.
    He can issue an order under certain circumstances. It might happen all the time in other places, but not here. The President does not have broad and far reaching powers in this regard.

    Those men and women were kicked out because it is military policy. As I said, there is still some debate as to who bears responsibility for changing that policy.

    How many people have to be witch hunted down before SOMETHING is done, while congress and the pres point fingers at each other?
    How many Jews were killed before something was done? How many blacks were denied equal education before somehting was done? How many gay people around the world were denied basic rights before something was done? I know of no minority or oppressed group that woke up, asked for their rights and got them that day.

    I appreciate your anger, but that really has nothing to do with what I am saying.

    He's the commander in chief, he is the elected head of the military, pending congressional approval of any war.
    He's head of the military when the military has been called to service defending the U.S. During times of peace, he is not. But he can declare war without congressional approval, at least for a short time.

    It has nothing to do with differences, i'm aware of what the levels can do if they CHOOSE to, while remaining within the law. They are choosing to be selectively powerless on some issues purely out of political expediency.
    You're obviously not aware. You ignore the Constitution and several other laws. You say they're being selectively powerless, but your source is generally someone's blog posting. What do the statutes say? What is the precedent? What does the Constitution say? That is what matters. It mattered for Bush, Clinton and every president before them.

    Again, it's not that I disagree with basics of your argument. It's that your argument is not rooted in facts about law in this country. Just because someone says he has that power, doesn't mean it's true. That is all I'm trying to point out to you.

  3. #18
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mamaste View Post
    You said he never explained. If you disagree with his explanation, that's one thing. But saying he never explained when he did is another.
    .. no i didn't.


    He hasn't reached a decision either way. From what he has said, I would think he's waiting for Congress to make the move. Like you said, they are finger pointing, but despite what the military law committee concluded, there are no clear answers as to who bears responsibility.
    Again, there are things he COULD be doing within the law that he has refused to do, and has GONE OUT OF HIS WAY TO ATTACK in his unecessary defense of DADT and DOMA.

    Why is this hard to understand? He's not just ignoring it: he's actively fighting against LGBT rights. ACTIVELY. As in, engaging in it.


    He can issue an order under certain circumstances. It might happen all the time in other places, but not here. The President does not have broad and far reaching powers in this regard.
    Again, re-read what i said. He has a number of options open to him that have been used in the past that are not out of the ordinary. He has options that he is ignoring because it's politically expedient. I've said this about 5 times now. Legal weight has been added from all sides regarding what he CAN do, but refuses to.

    Those men and women were kicked out because it is military policy. As I said, there is still some debate as to who bears responsibility for changing that policy.
    A military policy instituted from the Clinton administration that can be put on hold with a flick of Obama's pen pending congressional review, something he has already done on a number of other issues BUT AS NOTED HERE 5 TIMES, refuses to do in this instance because of political expediency.


    How many Jews were killed before something was done? How many blacks were denied equal education before somehting was done? How many gay people around the world were denied basic rights before something was done? I know of no minority or oppressed group that woke up, asked for their rights and got them that day.
    .... LOL you think this has just been going on since Obama was elected? Harvey Milk ring a bell? Stonewall riots? 2000 years of religious persecution?

    Good lord. Read.

    I appreciate your anger, but that really has nothing to do with what I am saying.
    No, what you're saying is gays are impatient (false), obama cant do anything (false).


    He's head of the military when the military has been called to service defending the U.S. During times of peace, he is not. But he can declare war without congressional approval, at least for a short time.
    He's de facto head of the military in peacetime and war, and only congress can authorize a war.

    You're obviously not aware. You ignore the Constitution and several other laws. You say they're being selectively powerless, but your source is generally someone's blog posting. What do the statutes say? What is the precedent? What does the Constitution say? That is what matters. It mattered for Bush, Clinton and every president before them.
    The blog postings take into account the various legal groups and constitutional scholars (including members of the Clinton admin) on top of advocacy groups who have all weighed in calling Obama's excuses as totally false. You should go back and read them.

    Again, it's not that I disagree with basics of your argument. It's that your argument is not rooted in facts about law in this country. Just because someone says he has that power, doesn't mean it's true. That is all I'm trying to point out to you.
    I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have any facts about how your government works.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #19
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    1. Signing an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and sending a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress
    You are aware an executive order can be deemed invalid, and subsequently STOPPED, by the Supreme Court, aren't you? Do yourself a favor and look up Executive Order 10340 under President Truman. One reason the Supreme Court can step in and invalidate the order is if it is deemed to be creating law, which in this case an EO would be, since it is trying to prevent a current active law from being carried out. Only the striking down of DADT by the Supreme Court, which obviously is not on their to-do list, or new legislation by Congress, is the legal way to change the current law.

    Unit cohesion was not what I was referring to. Just as John Doe on the street does not make the ultimate decision, John Soldier doesn't either. If gays knowingly entered the military after being well aware DADT was still active, they took the chance. They were not kept in the dark about the consequences and chose to enter a military that made it clear they would be discharged if they were found to be breaking the current law. It may not be right, and I personally do not agree with DADT, but legally I have to side with the government and interpret the law as it stands.

    Again, your arguments are based on your ethical and moral codes, and emotional investment, rather than the legal and political reality.

    I see you didn't touch quantifying "wide support", either.


    and


    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Obama refuses to do step 1. Well, he refuses to do all the steps, but particularly step 1. The Obama administration has never explained why it refuses to simply stop the discharges pending legislation. They keep saying that a partial fix now isn't enough. .
    Yes, you did say the Administration did not explain. He does not have to explain why he will not sign and executive order to suspend DADT, at least not to those who understand how the three branches work and how his executive order would be as valuable as used toilet paper. It would be invalidated, since the Obama Administration can not issue executive orders which create law.



  5. #20
    Elite Member WhateverLolaWants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    13,656

    Default

    Interesting. I don't have a large social pool to dip from, but all three of the guy-guy couples I know are a younger 30 something paired with a 50 something. It never occurred to me there would be such a 'divide' other than naturally occurring age difference-related issues you see between any demographics.

    Perhaps this guy has been spending too much time on one website? Again, pot and kettle since my own test pool is so small, but my current friends aren't the only gay friends I've had and I've always thought the older generation and the younger generation got along fairly well.
    ----------------------------
    There will be times you might leap before you look
    There'll be times you'll like the cover and that's precisely why you'll love the book
    Do it anyway

  6. #21
    Elite Member BITTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Apocalyptic
    Posts
    26,904

    Default

    Trust me, if it weren't for the older gays, things would be quite different. Maybe some people think that their impact on the federal government was minimal, but it was impact nonetheless, and they did lay the groundwork for social acceptance. Making social gains is just as important as political ones. Without them we'd be nowhere. As an African-American, I know the importance of "the first black ______" was important to bring about social acceptance, which prepared the world for changing state and federal laws.

    Grimm, you cannot and should not discount the gains made by the older LGBT community.

  7. #22
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Why is it criticism of the "don't rock the boat" segment of the older crowd means i'm discounting everything the entire older crowd did?

    There comes a point when the said old guard has to step aside after a period of ineffectiveness.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #23
    Elite Member BITTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Apocalyptic
    Posts
    26,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Why is it criticism of the "don't rock the boat" segment of the older crowd means i'm discounting everything the entire older crowd did?

    There comes a point when the said old guard has to step aside after a period of ineffectiveness.
    But what makes you think that they were all non-boat rockers? Clearly, they were not. I'd encourage you to do some more research before making a generalization like that.

  9. #24
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    "don't rock the boat" segment of the older crowd
    note the bold.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #25
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    .. no i didn't.
    You did as was pointed out by RIS.




    Again, there are things he COULD be doing within the law that he has refused to do, and has GONE OUT OF HIS WAY TO ATTACK in his unecessary defense of DADT and DOMA.
    Again, the powers granted to the President are limited. That's one of the reasons so many Americans were pissed at GWB. He went beyond his authority in many many instances.

    Why is this hard to understand? He's not just ignoring it: he's actively fighting against LGBT rights. ACTIVELY. As in, engaging in it.
    Or is the DOJ supporting state's rights? My point again is they have a duty to defend the Constituition. If the arguement made by Smelt's lawyers is against the interests of the Constitution, the DOJ has a duty to defend it. Doesn't matter if I agree or not. I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but as an American I understand defending it. I even understood when the DOJ did it under GWB.



    Again, re-read what i said. He has a number of options open to him that have been used in the past that are not out of the ordinary. He has options that he is ignoring because it's politically expedient. I've said this about 5 times now. Legal weight has been added from all sides regarding what he CAN do, but refuses to.
    As I said before, he may or may not have the authority to do anything. But Congress definitely does. I take issue with laying this all at the feet of Obama because our gov't. does not work that way.

    A military policy instituted from the Clinton administration that can be put on hold with a flick of Obama's pen pending congressional review, something he has already done on a number of other issues BUT AS NOTED HERE 5 TIMES, refuses to do in this instance because of political expediency.
    Clinton did not institute the policy. Congress did. Clinton supported the policy, but because the Gulf War was over, had no authority to institute DADT. Like I said, Obama may or may not have authority over DADT. But Congress has it whether he does or not.




    .... LOL you think this has just been going on since Obama was elected? Harvey Milk ring a bell? Stonewall riots? 2000 years of religious persecution?
    No, Grimm. I don't. You were the one who asked how many more people would be kicked out of the military. 2000 years of religious persecution? Not in this country. Hell, that isn't even true around the world.

    Good lord. Read.
    I do. It's not my fault that you don't understand.



    No, what you're saying is gays are impatient (false), obama cant do anything (false).
    Again, the law is specific. I am telling you that you do not fully understand U.S. law.


    He's de facto head of the military in peacetime and war, and only congress can authorize a war.
    No he isn't. The Constitution is specific about that. Yes, he can. There's a SC ruling and precedence to support it.



    The blog postings take into account the various legal groups and constitutional scholars (including members of the Clinton admin) on top of advocacy groups who have all weighed in calling Obama's excuses as totally false. You should go back and read them.
    Who give their opinions and analysis. They're not always right either. It's part of the discussion, but not a ruling or law.



    I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have any facts about how your government works.
    Yet I and RIS have refuted everything you say. You have not given one actual fact about gov't. policy, the Constitution or U.S. law. You've posted repeatedly about things you believe are true, but aren't. I keep saying that this is what I disagree with. You continue to frame this argument based on what you believe should be true not what actually is.

  11. #26
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mamaste View Post
    Yet I and RIS have refuted everything you say. You have not given one actual fact about gov't. policy, the Constitution or U.S. law. You've posted repeatedly about things you believe are true, but aren't. I keep saying that this is what I disagree with. You continue to frame this argument based on what you believe should be true not what actually is.
    ITA. Feeling and emotion have no bearing on law, which is misinterpreted and, possibly, not even known, considering the arguments which have been shown to be legally unsound, showing no indication of a factual basis, since fact contradicts them entirely. Until facts are presented to back up the arguments, respond to the facts I, and you, presented, or discredit the information we both presented, I am going to see it as emotionally charged hyperbole based on personal sensitivity to the subject matter.

    This is indicative of one of the Achilles heels of the gay rights movement. Emotion overshadows critical thinking and legal strategizing, opening the door to the opponents to successfully attack and neutralize arguments presented. I find it ironic those who are so vocal in keeping religion out of government can not see emotion should be kept out of law and politics.

    Another point, 2000 years of inferred religious persecution, which covered numerous cultures, nations, groups, etc., has absolutely no bearing on what is happening in US government now. The US has only been in existence as a sovereign nation for only about twelve percent of that time. Religion has no place in politics, remember? If religious persecution is the issue, the churches are the ones who need to be contacted. Also, the people alive today are not responsible for the transgressions of our ancestors. That argument is irrelevant in this situation.
    Last edited by RevellingInSane; June 25th, 2009 at 12:45 PM.



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Kanye West is the icon of this generation
    By cmmdee in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: February 19th, 2009, 08:34 AM
  2. So cool! Tweens are emerging generation
    By celeb_2006 in forum News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 6th, 2009, 08:08 AM
  3. The pornification of a generation
    By celeb_2006 in forum News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 13th, 2008, 02:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •