|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
David Zephyr (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 10:55 PM Original message |
Obama's Statement on DADT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Q. Citizen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:04 PM Response to Original message |
1. good thing Trumen wasn't all bipartisan or we might still have a segragated military. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Renew Deal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:05 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Bullshit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
liberation (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:56 AM Response to Reply #2 |
30. Huh... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Q. Citizen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 11:30 AM Response to Reply #2 |
46. it was my understanding that Harry Truman ordered the military integrated even though many |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:13 PM Response to Reply #46 |
49. Did Truman have an act of Congress standing in his way? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bushisanidiot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:56 PM Response to Reply #49 |
51. crickets |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Q. Citizen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:56 PM Response to Reply #49 |
52. Obama is no longer commander in Cheif, and Truman was? I know Obama |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 01:04 PM Response to Reply #52 |
53. I notice you didn't answer the question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:11 PM Response to Reply #1 |
4. +1000% -- Exactly ... !! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fearless (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:09 PM Response to Original message |
3. Maybe he's hearing the base screaming at him now and offers them a bit of cheese. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bodhi BloodWave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:15 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. for the love of all thats holy and unholy, how many times have it been pointed out here on DU |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fearless (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:19 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. Executive order. You don't remove the law, you end the practice. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FedUp_Queer (679 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:32 PM Response to Reply #7 |
9. No. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:34 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. He can end the practice on his watch. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:48 PM Response to Reply #10 |
11. But he has done something |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:54 PM Response to Reply #11 |
14. Yes, he had his DoJ challenge a stay in court and he got behind |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:59 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. Yes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:03 AM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Good. 8 more people a week who serve in a military |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 08:45 AM Response to Reply #11 |
37. 14,000 DADT discharges since Obama took office. Many not dischaarged, but required to live a lie. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:37 PM Response to Reply #37 |
50. Sorry but you're wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RBInMaine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 06:46 AM Response to Reply #9 |
34. Have you ever considered criticizing the ones actually obstructing this? i.e. REPUBLICANS. Get real. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 08:33 AM Response to Reply #9 |
36. Yes. The next President won't touch it. Besides, you could say the exact same thng |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fearless (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 10:48 AM Response to Reply #36 |
44. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:05 PM Response to Reply #36 |
48. Where are you getting your 14,000 number at? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 08:26 AM Response to Reply #5 |
35. And it's been bs every single time. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LonePirate (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:16 PM Response to Original message |
6. The words from him and his mouthpieces are hollow. His actions tell the real story. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:54 PM Response to Reply #6 |
13. Please see comment #11 ABOVE. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:27 PM Response to Original message |
8. So is he going to tell the DOJ to drop their appeal? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
county worker (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-09-10 11:50 PM Response to Original message |
12. I have pledged to repeal this discriminatory law, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:02 AM Response to Reply #12 |
16. I think what Obama has had Gates do is very significant. See comment #11. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
county worker (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:11 AM Response to Reply #16 |
18. I should have said, Obama could use executive privilege to allow |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:14 AM Response to Reply #18 |
19. But, remember ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
county worker (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:18 AM Response to Reply #19 |
20. And that trumps Obama's ability to use executive privilege? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alcibiades_mystery (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:21 AM Response to Reply #20 |
21. You don't even know what executive privilege is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:36 AM Response to Reply #21 |
27. I think he/she meant 'executive order' not privilege. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 08:56 AM Response to Reply #21 |
38. Yes, he can. An please see Reply 36.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
county worker (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 03:03 PM Response to Reply #21 |
55. I was tired last night so I waited until today. I made an error in my thought process. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:25 AM Response to Reply #20 |
23. No, it doesn't. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:26 AM Response to Reply #19 |
24. That's a distinction without a difference. The point is that in the face |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:29 AM Response to Reply #24 |
26. Worse, his administration went with that bogus study that ran out the clock. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:39 AM Response to Reply #26 |
28. Obama went along with doing the study in order to get the chiefs of the miliarty on board. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:51 AM Response to Reply #28 |
29. The term is Commander in Chief. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 09:21 AM Response to Reply #28 |
42. Your own post upthread speaks of what Obama had Gates do, a much |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tx4obama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 11:52 AM Response to Reply #42 |
47. Yes, Obama ordered the study because that was part of what he needed to do to get the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-11-10 07:23 AM Response to Reply #47 |
59. Saying it does not make it so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 01:27 PM Response to Reply #42 |
54. Just because you are Commander in Chief doesn't mean you don't consult with your military advisors |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-11-10 07:27 AM Response to Reply #54 |
60. See Reply ##s 8 and 59. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:28 AM Response to Reply #19 |
25. That's hooey. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 09:01 AM Response to Reply #19 |
39. Not really. See Reply 38. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 09:05 AM Response to Reply #16 |
41. "Had Gates do." Yep. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 09:04 AM Response to Reply #12 |
40. Please see Replies 36, 37 and 38. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Safetykitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 12:23 AM Response to Original message |
22. Well...so much for that. Let's get together again in 2020 or so after another republican era. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bhikkhu (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 01:41 AM Response to Original message |
31. Perhaps if they bundled it with an estate tax repeal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jamastiene (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 11:13 AM Response to Reply #31 |
45. That would work, actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DeSwiss (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 02:00 AM Response to Original message |
32. TO: Barack |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Shining Jack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 10:21 PM Response to Reply #32 |
58. ROFL! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
keopeli (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 03:04 AM Response to Original message |
33. Blah de blah. Blah de blah blah blah blah. DADT blah de blah, blah de blah, blah de blah... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Backlash Cometh (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 10:42 AM Response to Original message |
43. I'm afraid that Obama won't be able to rally the troops. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueIris (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 07:41 PM Response to Reply #43 |
57. Why is this so hard for people to see? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-10-10 03:22 PM Response to Original message |
56. What filibuster? It was the whisper of a threat of a filibuster. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 11th 2024, 04:40 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC