http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gays_military
QuoteWASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.
"I don't think it's going to be — it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately," James Jones said.
The Democratic-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn't expected on the issue until early next year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently wrote Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked to share their views and recommendations on the contentious policy. In Sept. 24 letters, Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.
"At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country," Reid wrote.
Jones said Obama "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on."
As a candidate, Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their sexuality.
Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.
The largest number of gays who were ousted under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged, or .089 of the force.
The House is considering legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow people who have been discharged under the policy to rejoin the military.
Jones appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."
Ok, okay...
I have to say, I am impressed Obama has pretty much taken away any incentive for me to vote for the Democrats on a national level.
No need to worry. When we've won the WoT these oppressive medieval regimes will be but a memory. Modern Western values will be the order of... Oh wait, this is America doing this ridiculous shit? For real? LOL at least they're not afraid of being laughed at.
Is the right time right after the last gay Arabic speaker has been kicked out?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 04, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
Is the right time right after the last gay Arabic speaker has been kicked out?
Listen, he's busy sailing finance reform, health care, and climate change through Congress. Given that, and his success in getting the Olympics for Chicago, I think we can cut him some slack.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 04, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
Is the right time right after the last gay Arabic speaker has been kicked out?
Indeed, of those that were discharged, a disproportionate number of them worked in intel.
I don't even see why this would need to go through Congress. I'd think the CinC could just "make it so".
I hope they come up with a statistic of homos in the forces as part of their fact-finding. The sound of conservitards collectively choking on their kool-aid will be well worth it. :D
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 04, 2009, 11:56:36 AM
I don't even see why this would need to go through Congress. I'd think the CinC could just "make it so".
Clinton tried this, and there was an uproar over it which led to the policy "Don't Ask Don't Tell," passed by legislation.
There are ways for the president to decide, given that it's a war, to not to carry out the policy and prosecute people for this, but. Well. You know.
What was the law before DADT that Obama wants to return to? Hmm?
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 04, 2009, 11:56:36 AM
I don't even see why this would need to go through Congress. I'd think the CinC could just "make it so".
Assuming he's even really interested in doing so
It's racism to suggest that black people are homophobic.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 04, 2009, 12:04:09 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 04, 2009, 11:56:36 AM
I don't even see why this would need to go through Congress. I'd think the CinC could just "make it so".
Assuming he's even really interested in doing so
Since it's come out that he sabotaged an effort to repeal the bill in the house, he probably isn't.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 04, 2009, 12:04:09 PM
Assuming he's even really interested in doing so
But he had that rainbow Obama logo...:weep:
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 04, 2009, 11:56:36 AM
I don't even see why this would need to go through Congress. I'd think the CinC could just "make it so".
Quote from: The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;...
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 04, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 04, 2009, 11:56:36 AM
I don't even see why this would need to go through Congress. I'd think the CinC could just "make it so".
Quote from: The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;...
:yes: POTI never take huge dumps on the constitution.
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2009, 12:12:32 PM
:yes: POTI never take huge dumps on the constitution.
First...
QuotePOTI
:bleeding: Your faux Latin makes baby Sulla cry.
Second, for sure they do, but the lower commanders can refuse illegal orders, and the POTUS would also probably get his pee-pee smacked once Congress found out that he tried to go over their heads so blatantly.
Someone who stayed in my apt this weekend told me that people should be happy that Obama spoke to this issue...
Gotta admit, so far Obama has been a bit of a disappointment in terms of actually doing stuff.
Quote from: Malthus on October 05, 2009, 02:58:44 PM
Gotta admit, so far Obama has been a bit of a disappointment in terms of actually doing stuff.
He's good at making promises, it seems :cool:
Next time around, why not elect a televangelist? They're also good at that.
Quote from: Malthus on October 05, 2009, 02:58:44 PM
Gotta admit, so far Obama has been a bit of a disappointment in terms of actually doing stuff.
Identity politicians frown on your shenanigans. :mad:
I can sort of understand Obama's hesitation, even if it is very cynical in nature. Repealing DADT would cost him political capital, and he wants to preserve it for the big fights. Healthcare and financial reforms are ultimately more important.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2009, 02:10:31 PM
Someone who stayed in my apt this weekend told me that people should be happy that Obama spoke to this issue...
This reminds me of an old communist era joke about Stalin.
Comrade Stalin was walking down a street in Moscow when a group of little children ran up to him and started to ask him for candies. Comrade Stalin looked at them angrily instead and said "Fuck off you little brats".
Question: Why does this story demonstrate the good people-loving nature of Comrade Stalin?
Answer: Because he could have killed them instead.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
I can sort of understand Obama's hesitation, even if it is very cynical in nature. Repealing DADT would cost him political capital, and he wants to preserve it for the big fights. Healthcare and financial reforms are ultimately more important.
It kinda sucks though, being gay, to be thrown under bus so consistently by the very people that are supposed to be your allies. I guess it's hard to offer any political retort to that, other than shaking an angry fist, I guess.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
I can sort of understand Obama's hesitation, even if it is very cynical in nature. Repealing DADT would cost him political capital, and he wants to preserve it for the big fights. Healthcare and financial reforms are ultimately more important.
It kinda sucks though, being gay, to be thrown under bus so consistently by the very people that are supposed to be your allies. I guess it's hard to offer any political retort to that, other than shaking an angry fist, I guess.
Stop your innuendo please.
I wonder if the "right time" will happen after or before he achieves the world peace and develops the cure for cancer.
The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that. As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure. But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that. As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure. But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.
Only that by 2012 he will probably not have a majority in the Congress.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that. As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure. But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.
Only that by 2012 he will probably not have a majority in the Congress.
So solly!
And to be serious for a moment, before Mart explodes in a rage.
I always figured it'll be the courts doing most of the work, tossing out various state constitutional amendments. The Magic negro is worthless.
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that. As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure. But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/Conservatives-Shift-Favor-Openly-Gay-Service-Members.aspx
QuoteThe finding that majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%), conservatives (58%), and Republicans (58%) now favor what essentially equates to repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy implemented under President Clinton in 1993 is noteworthy for several reasons
Obama doesn't have to worry about gays voting Republican, though he might if Huntsman was running. He might, however, have to worry about them staying home and not donating. Though that's a bigger issue with the progressive wing of the party as a whole.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 05, 2009, 03:38:38 PM
And to be serious for a moment, before Mart explodes in a rage.
I always figured it'll be the courts doing most of the work, tossing out various state constitutional amendments. The Magic negro is worthless.
Wouldn't DADT fall within the purview of military courts, though?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 05, 2009, 03:38:38 PM
And to be serious for a moment, before Mart explodes in a rage.
I always figured it'll be the courts doing most of the work, tossing out various state constitutional amendments. The Magic negro is worthless.
I would think that a state court wouldn't be able to throw out an amendment--it would have to be a federal decision granting the right to marry (or forcing states without gay marriage to recognize gay marriages from states that have them).
Quote from: Faeelin on October 05, 2009, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that. As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure. But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/Conservatives-Shift-Favor-Openly-Gay-Service-Members.aspx
QuoteThe finding that majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%), conservatives (58%), and Republicans (58%) now favor what essentially equates to repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy implemented under President Clinton in 1993 is noteworthy for several reasons
Obama doesn't have to worry about gays voting Republican, though he might if Huntsman was running. He might, however, have to worry about them staying home and not donating. Though that's a bigger issue with the progressive wing of the party as a whole.
I'm guessing Obama's inaction might have something to do with the realization that if you win the issue, you don't have the issue anymore.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 05, 2009, 03:38:38 PM
And to be serious for a moment, before Mart explodes in a rage.
I always figured it'll be the courts doing most of the work, tossing out various state constitutional amendments.
That has started to happen with DOMA, only the first test case resulted in the Obama Justice Department putting in a rather aggressive brief supporting DOMA, notwithstanding the White House official position that DOMA should be repealed by Congress.
Black men hate faggots. Why would anyone expect Obama to be the exception?
God bless America.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that. As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure. But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.
Only that by 2012 he will probably not have a majority in the Congress.
So? Presidents and presidential candidates make campaign promises about single-handedly affecting change all the time, as if the POTUS is a dictator or something.
This weekend I read, either in Time or the NYT, that some Army colonel examined the effect of gays serving openly on small unit cohesion (which is the sole substantive argument against) in various armies around the world. They mentioned Israel, the UK, and several others, and determine that gays did not harm small unit cohesion. Can anyone verify this? First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
This weekend I read, either in Time or the NYT, that some Army colonel examined the effect of gays serving openly on small unit cohesion (which is the sole substantive argument against) in various armies around the world. They mentioned Israel, the UK, and several others, and determine that gays did not harm small unit cohesion. Can anyone verify this? First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?
Well I don't have studies on unit cohesion, but the UK military has been sending fucking floats to gay prides, so yes gays have been serving openly in the UK military for a rather long time now.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US wasn't the last Western NATO country (I exclude the recent NATO entrants from Eastern Europe) that doesn't allow gays to serve openly in the army.
"Rum, Sodomy and the Lash". :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
This weekend I read, either in Time or the NYT, that some Army colonel examined the effect of gays serving openly on small unit cohesion (which is the sole substantive argument against) in various armies around the world. They mentioned Israel, the UK, and several others, and determine that gays did not harm small unit cohesion. Can anyone verify this? First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?
I actually could see the argument that America's different, because the military is likely to be more right wing and Christian than the nation at a whole.
Quote from: Malthus on October 05, 2009, 04:42:30 PM
"Rum, Sodomy and the Lash". :D
Yes, Winnie had a turn of phrase, didn't he? :D
Although he was referring to the navy, not the army, here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2009, 04:11:39 PM
That has started to happen with DOMA, only the first test case resulted in the Obama Justice Department putting in a rather aggressive brief supporting DOMA, notwithstanding the White House official position that DOMA should be repealed by Congress.
The Obama administration had no idea about that. Honest.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 05, 2009, 04:51:12 PM
I actually could see the argument that America's different, because the military is likely to be more right wing and Christian than the nation at a whole.
I was thinking that another difference could be that other militaries already have more social cohesion. For example it seems that the Golani Brigade is recruited from the an extended family. And aren't British units recruited regionally?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 05, 2009, 04:51:12 PM
I actually could see the argument that America's different, because the military is likely to be more right wing and Christian than the nation at a whole.
I was thinking that another difference could be that other militaries already have more social cohesion. For example it seems that the Golani Brigade is recruited from the an extended family. And aren't British units recruited regionally?
Not to the extent they used to be (the "super regiments" have rather a wide catchment area compared to the old County regiments for the sort of cohesion you talk about, plus we have a fairly large percentage of Commonwealth citizens in the army) but you do still have a point. The basic recruitment structure is still regional.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 05:30:54 PM
Not to the extent they used to be (the "super regiments" have rather a wide catchment area compared to the old County regiments for the sort of cohesion you talk about, plus we have a fairly large percentage of Commonwealth citizens in the army) but you do still have a point. The basic recruitment structure is still regional.
Do you have any info on my previous question? Do gays serve openly in British combat units?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 05:30:54 PM
Not to the extent they used to be (the "super regiments" have rather a wide catchment area compared to the old County regiments for the sort of cohesion you talk about, plus we have a fairly large percentage of Commonwealth citizens in the army) but you do still have a point. The basic recruitment structure is still regional.
Do you have any info on my previous question? Do gays serve openly in British combat units?
Yes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/world/europe/16iht-gays.4.5740115.html
Thanks for posting that. Btw, I love the distinction between the nav and the other armed forces:
QuoteThe military actively recruits gays and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, last summer, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride rally in London. (Army and air force personnel could march, but had to wear civilian clothes).
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?
Gays are required to serve in Israel - just like everyone else. The only NATO country that doesn't have gays openly serving in the military, aside from the USA, is Turkey. I mean there's been a gay soldier (recently back from Afghanistan) on the front of the British forces magazine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 07:12:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?
Gays are required to serve in Israel - just like everyone else. The only NATO country that doesn't have gays openly serving in the military, aside from the USA, is Turkey. I mean there's been a gay soldier (recently back from Afghanistan) on the front of the British forces magazine.
I strongly suspect that gays can't serve openly in countries like Poland, the Baltics etc either - it's just that the level of homophobia is so high this has not become an issue before because no gay soldier would dare to come out in the first place.
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2009, 07:17:09 AM
I strongly suspect that gays can't serve openly in countries like Poland, the Baltics etc either - it's just that the level of homophobia is so high this has not become an issue before because no gay soldier would dare to come out in the first place.
They may not be able to practically, because of culture. But legally they can in Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic and Slovakia - at least. I don't know about Latvia or Poland.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 07:27:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2009, 07:17:09 AM
I strongly suspect that gays can't serve openly in countries like Poland, the Baltics etc either - it's just that the level of homophobia is so high this has not become an issue before because no gay soldier would dare to come out in the first place.
They may not be able to practically, because of culture. But legally they can in Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic and Slovakia - at least. I don't know about Latvia or Poland.
yeah there is nothing preventing them from serving legally in Poland. I suspect though they would be seriously bullied and forced to resign/leave by their bosses.
Let's not beat the dead horse anymore. America is ridiculously backwards and they don't even recognize it themselves. Laughing stock of the world. Hope it's worth it.
QuoteGays question Obama 'don't ask, don't tell' pledge
By CHRISTINE SIMMONS, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama restated his campaign pledge to allow homosexual men and women to serve openly in the military, but left many in his audience of gay activists wondering when he would make good on the promise.
"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. He offered no timetable or specifics and he acknowledged some may be growing impatient.
"I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough," Obama said. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach."
Some advocates said they already have heard Obama's promises and now they want a timeline. Cleve Jones, a pioneer activist and creator of the AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Obama delivered a brilliant speech, but added "it lacked the answer to our most pressing question, which is when."
"He repeated his promises that he's made to us before, but he did not indicate when he would accomplish these goals and we've been waiting for a while now," said Jones, national co-chair of a major gay-rights rally scheduled for Sunday on the National Mall.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said he was encouraged to hear Obama's pledge but added "an opportunity was missed tonight." He said his group "was disappointed the president did not lay out a timeline and specifics for repeal."
Obama also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners.
He expressed strong support for the HRC agenda of ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.
"My expectation is that when you look back on these years you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination ... whether in the office or the battlefield," Obama said.
Obama's political energies are focused on many issues, including managing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic crisis and his ambitious plan to reform the health care system.
The HRC holds out hope of seeing more action.
"We have never had a stronger ally in the White House. Never," Joe Solmonese, the group's president, said at the dinner before the president spoke.
Which is pretty much the same as the intro article for this thread except now Obama said it...<_<
On the other hand, the gays and lesbians who marched today are part of the left lunatic fringe. So, :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2009, 07:29:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 07:27:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2009, 07:17:09 AM
I strongly suspect that gays can't serve openly in countries like Poland, the Baltics etc either - it's just that the level of homophobia is so high this has not become an issue before because no gay soldier would dare to come out in the first place.
They may not be able to practically, because of culture. But legally they can in Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic and Slovakia - at least. I don't know about Latvia or Poland.
yeah there is nothing preventing them from serving legally in Poland. I suspect though they would be seriously bullied and forced to resign/leave by their bosses.
You wouldn't know though, because you bribed a doctor to dodge the draft.
Why do you hate Poland? :mad:
Quote from: Fireblade on October 12, 2009, 12:24:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2009, 07:29:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 07:27:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2009, 07:17:09 AM
I strongly suspect that gays can't serve openly in countries like Poland, the Baltics etc either - it's just that the level of homophobia is so high this has not become an issue before because no gay soldier would dare to come out in the first place.
They may not be able to practically, because of culture. But legally they can in Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic and Slovakia - at least. I don't know about Latvia or Poland.
yeah there is nothing preventing them from serving legally in Poland. I suspect though they would be seriously bullied and forced to resign/leave by their bosses.
You wouldn't know though, because you bribed a doctor to dodge the draft.
Why do you hate Poland? :mad:
Lol, really? :lol:
Wow, that's low.
He does realize he's not going to get a second term? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2009, 12:33:56 AM
Lol, really? :lol:
Wow, that's low.
Not really. I have a medical condition. Either way we abolished draft last year, and spending 9 months in dirt- and lice-ridden barracks with social rejects wasn't my idea of a good time.
You're the social reject, fag.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2009, 08:28:57 AM
You're the social reject, fag.
So you are now an expert on the conditions in and the social make-up of the Polish conscription force? Where do you get this knowledge from?
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 08:45:17 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2009, 08:28:57 AM
You're the social reject, fag.
So you are now an expert on the conditions in and the social make-up of the Polish conscription force? Where do you get this knowledge from?
:lmfao: This coming from the self-appointed expert on the intelligence and competence of the US military and their recruits.
Until, of course, I conclusively proved that you were talking out of your ass, as usual.
Marty, you have no place to be bitching about anyone else claiming to know anything about the military, much less about someone who was actually IN the military.
BAN BERKUT FROM OTR HES OUT OF LINE!!1
It really is amazing. The Power of Marty to make me actually think that maybe shit like "dadt" is not such a bad idea is truly impressive.
That isn't really fair though - he does the same thing for lawyers, I guess. Which is even more unfair, actually, since I am completely certain that he is actually gay.
Well, I know about the situation in the Polish military under conscription. Due to being underfunded, the living conditions of conscripts were atrocious (stuff like being able to take a shower once a week; or having 13 bullets per person per 9 month training to use in an actual combat training). Couple that with the fact that people who were at college/university and people over 25-28 (it depended from a year to a year) were exempted, which meant only people who did not manage to go to college and could get no medical certificate of some sorts ended up there.
The result was a bunch of social rejects and lowlifes who essentially had nothing better to do and could not afford bribes and didn't mind living in third world conditions who ended up there.
Fortunately this travesty was finally abolished last year.
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 08:56:46 AM
It really is amazing. The Power of Marty to make me actually think that maybe shit like "dadt" is not such a bad idea is truly impressive.
That isn't really fair though - he does the same thing for lawyers, I guess. Which is even more unfair, actually, since I am completely certain that he is actually gay.
Hey Jeffy, I would respond with a similar adhom but since I have no fucking idea what it is that you do for living, I'd have to conclude this must be actually a job that requires so little skill even you can perform it.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 09:00:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 08:56:46 AM
It really is amazing. The Power of Marty to make me actually think that maybe shit like "dadt" is not such a bad idea is truly impressive.
That isn't really fair though - he does the same thing for lawyers, I guess. Which is even more unfair, actually, since I am completely certain that he is actually gay.
Hey Jeffy, I would respond with a similar adhom but since I have no fucking idea what it is that you do for living, I'd have to conclude this must be actually a job that requires so little skill even you can perform it.
lets deconstruct this sentence.
You are saying you "would" respond with an ad hom, but then proceed to in fact respond with an ad hom. Did you change your mind in the process of stringing together this verbal diarrhea?
But don't worry about it - nobody knows what you do for a living either.
People who matter actually do. :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 08:57:50 AM
Well, I know about the situation in the Polish military under conscription. Due to being underfunded, the living conditions of conscripts were atrocious (stuff like being able to take a shower once a week; or having 13 bullets per person per 9 month training to use in an actual combat training). Couple that with the fact that people who were at college/university and people over 25-28 (it depended from a year to a year) were exempted, which meant only people who did not manage to go to college and could get no medical certificate of some sorts ended up there.
The result was a bunch of social rejects and lowlifes who essentially had nothing better to do and could not afford bribes and didn't mind living in third world conditions who ended up there.
Fortunately this travesty was finally abolished last year.
What percentage of your age group attended college? I can't imagine it was very high. And maybe the culture is different, but someone who's parents are unwilling or unable to bribe a doctor is not my definition of a social reject or lowlife.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2009, 09:24:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 08:57:50 AM
Well, I know about the situation in the Polish military under conscription. Due to being underfunded, the living conditions of conscripts were atrocious (stuff like being able to take a shower once a week; or having 13 bullets per person per 9 month training to use in an actual combat training). Couple that with the fact that people who were at college/university and people over 25-28 (it depended from a year to a year) were exempted, which meant only people who did not manage to go to college and could get no medical certificate of some sorts ended up there.
The result was a bunch of social rejects and lowlifes who essentially had nothing better to do and could not afford bribes and didn't mind living in third world conditions who ended up there.
Fortunately this travesty was finally abolished last year.
What percentage of your age group attended college? I can't imagine it was very high. And maybe the culture is different, but someone who's parents are unwilling or unable to bribe a doctor is not my definition of a social reject or lowlife.
It's cultural difference. And people who do not get college education are considered social rejects in Poland, since it is free.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2009, 08:54:08 AM
BAN BERKUT FROM OTR HES OUT OF LINE!!1
Judging from his other comments made, I think he kind of has a thing for you, and it trying to hide it.
It would explain a lot. Perhaps some kind of soldier fetish that is in conflict with his pseudo elitism which in itself is just an attempt to hide his guilt over dodging his obligations?
For the record, 48% of Poles go to college.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2009, 12:33:56 AM
Lol, really? :lol:
Wow, that's low.
Draft in Eastern European countries is not quite the same thing as draft in Western countries. In Russia or Ukraine, only the destitute or unfit parents do not bribe their sons out of the draft. You're better off fighting a war in the American army than living in peace in the Russian conscript barracks.
Quote from: DGuller on October 12, 2009, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2009, 12:33:56 AM
Lol, really? :lol:
Wow, that's low.
Draft in Eastern European countries is not quite the same thing as draft in Western countries. In Russia or Ukraine, only the destitute or unfit parents do not bribe their sons out of the draft. You're better off fighting a war in the American army than living in peace in the Russian conscript barracks.
Finally someone who knows what he is talking about.
Quote from: DGuller on October 12, 2009, 09:36:10 AM
Draft in Eastern European countries is not quite the same thing as draft in Western countries. In Russia or Ukraine, only the destitute or unfit parents do not bribe their sons out of the draft. You're better off fighting a war in the American army than living in peace in the Russian conscript barracks.
Destitution I can see, but since when has having poor parents equated to being a lowlife?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2009, 09:38:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 12, 2009, 09:36:10 AM
Draft in Eastern European countries is not quite the same thing as draft in Western countries. In Russia or Ukraine, only the destitute or unfit parents do not bribe their sons out of the draft. You're better off fighting a war in the American army than living in peace in the Russian conscript barracks.
Destitution I can see, but since when has having poor parents equated to being a lowlife?
Ok maybe it's a language issue. I used "lowlife" to mean "lower class" or the "poor".
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
Ok maybe it's a language issue. I used "lowlife" to mean "lower class" or the "poor".
Ah. Same confusion with "social rejects" then?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2009, 09:41:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
Ok maybe it's a language issue. I used "lowlife" to mean "lower class" or the "poor".
Ah. Same confusion with "social rejects" then?
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2009, 09:41:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
Ok maybe it's a language issue. I used "lowlife" to mean "lower class" or the "poor".
Ah. Same confusion with "social rejects" then?
Pretty much. I guess I just don't get your American egalitarianism. :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 12, 2009, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2009, 12:33:56 AM
Lol, really? :lol:
Wow, that's low.
Draft in Eastern European countries is not quite the same thing as draft in Western countries. In Russia or Ukraine, only the destitute or unfit parents do not bribe their sons out of the draft. You're better off fighting a war in the American army than living in peace in the Russian conscript barracks.
Finally someone who knows what he is talking about.
That Poland and Russia are the same!
Neil has been saying that for a long time now.
Hey, I've never been a big fan of Poland, to be honest. When I support it, it's because I live here, not because I think it is some great country.
If I wasn't a Pole, I'd have been definitely against Poland joining the EU 5 years ago.
Neil may be an abrasive boor trying desperately to troll a reaction out of me, but he is no idiot. Many of his more generalist observations are pretty spot on.
How much did it cost to bribe your way out of the draft? And for purposes of comparison what was average wages at the same time?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2009, 09:50:26 AM
How much did it cost to bribe your way out of the draft? And for purposes of comparison what was average wages at the same time?
I didn't bribe my way out of it. First of all I went to college, so I would have been exempted anyway. Other than that, in my childhood I had a medical condition (mild epilepsy which disappeared when I was like 7 or 8 and the doctor who was treating me when I was a kid gave me a certificate about this stating it may recur at a later age (which is true albeit hopefully not very likely). This was enough to get me out of the draft. Anyway at the time people got out of draft for being gay too so I wouldn't have to serve anyway if I needed to.
I know my very conservative nationalistic work colleague paid a bribe of about 2000 zlotys few years ago, though. This is about $600 and is about 70% of the average monthly pay in Poland, after taxes.
I wonder if my avatar colors the perception of my opinions somewhat. :lol:
Truman did it with an Executive Order - something Obama doesn't want to do.
I wonder how the 'softly, softly' approach will play out.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 12, 2009, 11:27:21 AM
Truman did it with an Executive Order - something Obama doesn't want to do.
Truman didn't have a statute passed by Congress keeping the armed forces segregated to contend with.
Meh, the finer points of law regulating the military can sometimes be ignored.
After all, we don't court martial people for (hetero) blow jobs.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 12, 2009, 11:27:21 AM
Truman did it with an Executive Order - something Obama doesn't want to do.
I wonder how the 'softly, softly' approach will play out.
He did it with an executive order, but Obama wants to avoid that because that's technically verbot- the President can issue orders, but the Constitution is pretty explicit that Congress is in charge of policies and regulations.
I think we should ban all posters without military experience.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2009, 12:39:22 PM
I think we should ban all posters without military experience.
I dated a couple of women who were in the military so I guess I am safe.
so the "right time" I guess would be close enough to the next election to help sway voters?
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2009, 12:39:22 PM
I think we should ban all posters without military experience.
My knowledge of war movies, wargames, military history and military fiction would still ban me under your definition of what a poster should be, so all I can say to your idea is :bash:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 12, 2009, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 12, 2009, 11:27:21 AM
Truman did it with an Executive Order - something Obama doesn't want to do.
I wonder how the 'softly, softly' approach will play out.
He did it with an executive order, but Obama wants to avoid that because that's technically verbot- the President can issue orders, but the Constitution is pretty explicit that Congress is in charge of policies and regulations.
My understanding is that Obama can direct the Pentagon not to enforce the order, no?
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 09:56:50 AM
I wonder if my avatar colors the perception of my opinions somewhat. :lol:
Not the current one. Your Joker avatar, maybe.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 12, 2009, 01:26:43 PM
My understanding is that Obama can direct the Pentagon not to enforce the order, no?
It seems Presidential authority to issue orders is per instance. A lot of the Constitution is vague, but here's the conflicting passages:
Article 1, Section 8 - Legislative Powers
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"
Article 2, Section 2 - Presidential Powers
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"
My opinion, for what it's worth: the President's position is
in the armed forces, while Congress' power is
over the armed forces, so the POTUS is subordinate to Congress in this case.
I dunno. It sounds like it's the president's job to execute the orders and regulations, just as it's his job to execute laws. So why can he say "don't enforce laws against drug use by medical marijuana growers?" but can't do so here?
Article II requires the President to faithfully execute the laws. This means (in my view) that the President has to enforce the laws of the United States in good faith regardless of his personal views, with two exceptions:
1) The President can take his own view (different from that of Congress) as to a law's constitutionality, and legitimately choose not to enforce an enactment he or she in good faith believes to be unconstitutional, up until the point that the Supreme Court pronounces otherwise (there is still some argument about the latter point but the more accepted view at this point in history is that the Supreme Court has the final word on such matters barring an amendment)
2) The President and the Attorney General, in their role as law enforcement officers, can legitimately make decisions about how to allocate limited law enforcement resources - and therefore choose not to focus enforcement efforts in a particular area.
I agree with MM, and think that gives plenty of latitude for the CiC to simply instruct the DoD to not spend precious resources enforcing "dadt".
He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.
Hell, if he can free the slaves using that argument, surely he can quit persecuting homos.
I would like to call this "don't ask, don't tell, and we won't listen even if you do so get back to work".
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 03:16:03 PM
He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.
I suppose we've seen the military use the stop loss to keep 60k troops in the military after their enlistment was up. What's the hold up in using it for the gays and lesbians he ostensibly wants to remain in the military?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 12, 2009, 04:28:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 03:16:03 PM
He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.
I suppose we've seen the military use the stop loss to keep 60k troops in the military after their enlistment was up. What's the hold up in using it for the gays and lesbians he ostensibly wants to remain in the military?
Those 60k troops were actually useful. The gays and lesbians will negatively effect the military.
Quote from: Fate on October 12, 2009, 04:44:10 PM
The gays and lesbians will negatively effect the military.
The real Fate would vehemently disagree. Not to mention certain studies. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 03:16:03 PM
He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.
This seems completely reasonable... whatever the law is in peacetime, the US is knee deep in two wars that aren't ending anytime soon. turning away anyone (let alone all your translators) who is physically capable is beyond stupid unless you reinstate the draft.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 12, 2009, 09:37:02 PM
This seems completely reasonable... whatever the law is in peacetime, the US is knee deep in two wars that aren't ending anytime soon. turning away anyone (let alone all your translators) who is physically capable is beyond stupid unless you reinstate the draft.
That's part of the problem; the bureaucracy surrounding military regulation doesn't really do "reasonable."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 12, 2009, 09:39:24 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 12, 2009, 09:37:02 PM
This seems completely reasonable... whatever the law is in peacetime, the US is knee deep in two wars that aren't ending anytime soon. turning away anyone (let alone all your translators) who is physically capable is beyond stupid unless you reinstate the draft.
That's part of the problem; the bureaucracy surrounding military regulation doesn't really do "reasonable."
oh yeah I'm (an army brat) aware. That's why the term SNAFU comes directly from said military.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:11:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2009, 12:33:56 AM
Lol, really? :lol:
Wow, that's low.
Not really. I have a medical condition. Either way we abolished draft last year, and spending 9 months in dirt- and lice-ridden barracks with social rejects wasn't my idea of a good time.
If you had a medical condition why did you need to bribe the doctor?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2009, 12:11:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:11:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2009, 12:33:56 AM
Lol, really? :lol:
Wow, that's low.
Not really. I have a medical condition. Either way we abolished draft last year, and spending 9 months in dirt- and lice-ridden barracks with social rejects wasn't my idea of a good time.
If you had a medical condition why did you need to bribe the doctor?
Can you fucking read?