American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts

[TrackerNeil]

That's interesting. I've seen a few articles on this lately and I was a bit surprised, as I was under the impression that Obama simply needed to sign an Executive Order to end this policy, just as Truman signed one to desegregate. Why is there any need for debate, when Obama has executive authority over the DoD?

Or, more bluntly, what am I missing?

The reason Congress must act is, ironically, because of sometimes-friend to the gay community Bill Clinton. Back in the early 90's he very hamfistedly tried to end this discrimination but only ended up getting Congress to pass legislation that perpetuated that discrimination. The legislation must be repealed before Obama or the DoD can make any substantive change.

I can't tell you how many times I have defended Obama's approach on DADT to my gay friends. I try to explain that when you mishandle an issue like this you can end up worse than when you started, as Clinton did. Better to move slowly for a victory tomorrow than to rush to a defeat today. But try telling that to a liberal!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP, Tracker, Shryke,

I'm what you would label a "Conservative" I've supported allowing Homosexuals in the military since the turn of this century and I've been supporting legalized Homosexual Marriage for some time now. Please don't paint with too broad a brush when you talk about what "conservatives will remember in 20 years."

[Ormond]

TP, Tracker, Shryke,

I'm what you would label a "Conservative" I've supported allowing Homosexuals in the military since the turn of this century and I've been supporting legalized Homosexual Marriage for some time now. Please don't paint with too broad a brush when you talk about what "conservatives will remember in 20 years."

Uh, Scot, I know you label yourself a "conservative."

But you do realize that there are probably a few million Americans out there who label themselves "conservative" who would deny you that designation precisely because of your positions on gay rights, don't you?

In fact, I would guess the majority of all Americans would say you are not a "conservative" on social issues simply because of your position on gay rights.

You really need to be addressing those other "conservatives" on this more than you need to be addressing Tracker if you want comments like his to go away. You have to convince the majority of those who call themselves "conservative" than they should not use this issue as part of their definition of "conservatism" before you have a chance of getting those who do NOT label themselves as "conservative" to be convinced.

[TrackerNeil]

TP, Tracker, Shryke,

I'm what you would label a "Conservative" I've supported allowing Homosexuals in the military since the turn of this century and I've been supporting legalized Homosexual Marriage for some time now. Please don't paint with too broad a brush when you talk about what "conservatives will remember in 20 years."

I take this comment seriously and I'll respond seriously. Let me start by saying I'm not in any way accusing you, Ser Scot, of bigotry on this issue. You have been a consistent supporter of gay rights in terms of marriage, military service, etc., and you should be proud of yourself for it. However, I don't think it's a stretch to say that most people who define themselves as social conservatives part company with you on that issue and, as Ormond pointed out, define conservatism itself largely by that issue. Therefore, with my previous clarification in mind, I stand by my statement.

[harrol]

There certainly is room for openly gay service members in the military at all levels of service. I do not know why the Pentagon is holding out on a study. The only concern I can think that they could have is concerning military fraternization policy which can be sever depending on where you are stationed. For example in Great Lakes IL at the Navy's boot camp an E-7 was dating and E-5. The E-5 went to Captain's mast and the E-7 to court marshal for violating the no dating policy and because an E-7 as per policy can't date below themselves in rank. It seems extreme but it is done to avoid favoritism.

[CloudFlare]

Out of curiosity, what is the NA population in Arizona? I mean, are we talking several million, several hundred thousand, or what? My point being, to what extent would a solid voting block of NA voters be able to influence a statewide election?

About a quarter million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Arizona and another link. About half are Navajo live in the far northeast corner of the state.

On a statewide level, they could have a bit of an impact. Turnout rates are pretty low though. In county elections they'ed have a low impact as well because a lot of the reservations are split amongst different counties.

[BloodRider]

Shit like this is why I no longer wish to be affiliated with the Republican party. They have jumped the tracks, and quite frankly I find them disgusting. I can in no way relate to their "logic" such as it is.

[Lord Mord]

I would have liked the chance to participate in that thread. I'm actually pretty sad those types have fled this board, or else have chosen to go silent.

EDIT: I was wrong. The thread is still open for posting.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Shit like this is why I no longer wish to be affiliated with the Republican party. They have jumped the tracks, and quite frankly I find them disgusting. I can in no way relate to their "logic" such as it is.

Reading the comments... it's sometimes hard to understand how much bigotry, hate, and outright stupidity there is in this country.

Bits like this:

No one on the Fascists Dem party had EVER better try to tell me they love this country or our military. NO ONE!!!!!! This is an official act of Obama hating America and not being a patriot.

highlighting stupidity, whereas this:

BTW – the black cow looks more like Whaarf from Star Trek dontcha’ think?

Hes not going because at this point he is probably going to get booed and jeered for his insincerity.

Everybody knows by now that he only has feelings for allahs death squads.

demonstrate a horrifying level of bigotry.

Honestly, things like that make me a little ashamed to be American. I'm all for freedom of opinion, but ... there are a lot of opinions that I could personally do without.

[harrol]

The bigotry demonstrated is both wrong headed and horrifying but do not think such things are confined to America alone. Just because of these idiots I am not ashamed to be from America.

[Lord Mord]

The only way in which I have any respect for that forum at all is under the heading of, everyone gets to blow off steam from time to time, with the subheading, being angry and blowing off steam doesn't have to make a lick of goddamn sense to anyone.

I just find it disappointing how quickly they leap to such extraordinary conclusions. Where do they get the idea that such thin bases are sufficient to silence all reasonable questions?

[Ormond]

Shit like this is why I no longer wish to be affiliated with the Republican party. They have jumped the tracks, and quite frankly I find them disgusting. I can in no way relate to their "logic" such as it is.

I am in no way defending that site.

However, is "Weasel Zippers" run by any official of the Republican party, or has it been endorsed by any Republican elected official?

I am no longer a Republican myself because of disagreement on policy issues. However, since in the USA "party membership" is simply a self-designation (one is a Republican or Democrat simply by registering as one, and the parties themselves have absolutely no control over who chooses to register as a member), I would be reluctant to attribute opinions on any one particular website to the "party".

[Mad Monkey]

Also, it's an Internet comment thread. Those are always a big stinking bag of crazy, and there is nothing that the Republican Party can do to tone it down.

[BloodRider]

Also, it's an Internet comment thread. Those are always a big stinking bag of crazy, and there is nothing that the Republican Party can do to tone it down.

Right - no I get all of that. Its just that - well - it just seems like the departure from logic is now so very ingrained in that party. There is no longer even an effort to try and parse facts. They start with Obama (or Reid or Pelosi) is evil, and work back from there. Its maddening and stomach churning.

And I get that this site is not part of the official Republican oeuvre. But dammed if they don't play footsie with them. When / if the left did it it would disgust me too. Best thing about Reagan was that he didn't concede to the nuttier side - even as they worshiped him. Bush senior, too.

And as much as I disliked Bush jr. I only came to that realization 3 years in. And only after he had several miserable failures under his belt. Even then, I never, for instance, thought that Bush was to blame for the Shuttle disaster. But I have a sneaky feeling that were that tragedy to happen under Obama's terms....

All of that is anecdotal - but go out there and search for Obama and Arlington. Look at the silliness out there - starting last year, where a picture taken on a different day was proof that he hated the troops, etc. etc.

Or pick a different topic. How about how he hates America because he signed the nuclear treaty. Total lies spread there. Or this gulf spill thing. Calling it Obama's Katrina is just crazy. It is all so disgusting, as I said before.

Here is something else. If Obama does screw up, I want to know about it. I prefer to make informed decisions when voting. There is just so much silliness to sort through. I see very little real criticism.

[Mad Monkey]

Here is something else. If Obama does screw up, I want to know about it. I prefer to make informed decisions when voting. There is just so much silliness to sort through. I see very little real criticism.

The best part is, you'll never be able to tell when it is Obama's fault and when it isn't. Because the media often (not always, but often) uncritically reports nonsense from the craziest segments of political opinion as being equally valid as scientific reports, investigative journalism, or statements made by members of either party. If Obama was secretly planning to murder the elderly, I would never believe it because CNN covered morons spewing that bullshit for a year and a half with the same credulity that you would give to, say, the Watergate scandal.

Even then, I never, for instance, thought that Bush was to blame for the Shuttle disaster.

Some people did blame him for Katrina though, as if the President has any control over natural disasters. Sure, his response could have been a lot better, but he was working with his hands tied behind his back because so many people were convinced that there was no role for government to do anything, anywhere. How could you justify more money and resources to effect a faster and more successful response when half the country (hyperbole alert!) thinks that the government should be so small that you can drown it in a bathtub (but not so small that it can't tell you who you can marry or what you can do with your body)?

We should get upset about Congressman Issa invoking impeachment language over this Sestak thing which is much ado about nothing. I've read a decent amount about this thing, and there is nothing illegal whatsoever about this "offer" that they made to Sestak. But of course it's time to start acting like this is an impeachable offense isn't it? Wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to stir up the base.

I think that "impeachment" has always been more or less a political tool rather than a law enforcement procedure. Bush and Cheney were threatened with impeachment so many times that I'm almost positive they made it onto the FBI's Most Wanted List at least twice. It's actually milder these days than it was back in the old times; the Radical Republicans actually dragged President Johnson to the brink before pulling him back. Of course, I can't complain about their reasoning for doing that to him, but it was definitely a hardball tactic and not the meaningless pap that we're dealing with nowadays.

[Smashing Young Man]

Shit like this is why I no longer wish to be affiliated with the Republican party. They have jumped the tracks, and quite frankly I find them disgusting. I can in no way relate to their "logic" such as it is.

Oh please . . . man up. Surely you aren't ignorant of the kinds of things posted on liberal blogs and forums about conservatives (like this very forum)? I think it's time for both sides to drop the pretense of having the moral high ground, and just admit that they use whatever ammo puts itself at hand to tear down the other side.

[Lord Mord]

Trisk,

We should get upset about Congressman Issa invoking impeachment language over this Sestak thing which is much ado about nothing. I've read a decent amount about this thing, and there is nothing illegal whatsoever about this "offer" that they made to Sestak. But of course it's time to start acting like this is an impeachable offense isn't it? Wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to stir up the base.

Not only is there nothing illegal about it, but there isn't even anything reasonably unethical or unfair or remotely improper about it.

An offer was made. The offer could be refused. The candidate could change to a party that will support his candidacy with more fervor. And with parties simply an expression of the will of people with similar political interests, if the candidate can't find a party that supports him, then arguably we're better off without him.

With what part of this does anyone even have a rational objection?

[jurble]

Off subject, but I was just thinking recently,

You know, I'm always amazed by Tea Partiers. They support Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but I really don't think they understand what those guys stand for. They hear them lash out against the Fed, and government spending, and are like YEAAAAAH. But they don't understand Libertarian ideology. And when Rand Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, everyone goes "OMG", but it makes perfect sense in a Libertarian context - private businesses can discriminate all they want. For Right-Libertarians (Minarchists), ending discrimination stops at public levels. Government can't discriminate, but private citizens can. Furthermore, I don't think these Tea Party people understand how far Ron and Rand would go. They love their Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and military spending. Ron and Rand would cut the budget down to nothing. They love their paved highways, gone. Their public education, gone. They're against gay marriage, but Ron Paul's against government recognition of marriage, so yeah. Drugs? Legalize 'em. If by some sorcerous pact with Mephistopheles the tea part were able to elect Ron Paul to the presidency, I don't think they'd like what they would get. The fact is, the tea party doesn't actually know the people they're supporting, and that's what bothers me. It's all pathos, no logos.

[TrackerNeil]

If by some sorcerous pact with Mephistopheles the tea part were able to elect Ron Paul to the presidency, I don't think they'd like what they would get. The fact is, the tea party doesn't actually know the people they're supporting, and that's what bothers me. It's all pathos, no logos.

Honestly, I don't really know what the Tea Party wants. They scream about government spending even while many of their members receive Social Security payments. They rail against "socialized medicine" even though they gleefully accept Medicare. They are angry about using taxpayer money to bail out the financial industry even while they oppose any sort of government regulation of said industry. It's completely unfocused and makes no sense.

As best I can tell, the Tea Party is simply angry because the president is black and a Democrat, and that the Democrats control Congress.

[Nymeria Sand]

As best I can tell, the Tea Party is simply angry because the president is black and a Democrat, and that the Democrats control Congress.

Ding, ding! We have a winner!