/dev/null Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/n...-ask-dont-tell/ So is this Change® we didn't need afterall or Change® we shouldn't have believed in?
Dante Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Not that I give a $h1t one way or the other. It's just funny to see campaign promises designed to get votes are already starting to get compromised. Like anyone with a semblance of intelligence couldn't see this coming.
The Dean Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Not that I give a $h1t one way or the other. It's just funny to see campaign promises designed to get votes are already starting to get compromised. Like anyone with a semblance of intelligence couldn't see this coming. Did he promise to do it "day one"?
Dante Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Did he promise to do it "day one"? Probably not, but it kinda appears the foundation for putting it on the back burner is being laid down. After that, fades to black unless pushed on it. And btw, why should it be deferred? Should be a relatively black and white issue to put through quickly. I mean, he's so charismatic this would be the perfect simple issue to demonstrate his awesomeness.
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 I know, Obama wouldn't shut up about "Don't ask, don't tell" while on the campaign trail and then he mentioned it about one million times during each of the debates.
Chump Change Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Why even change the policy in the first place? It sounds like it works good the way it is, why change it if it isn't broke?
The Dean Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Why even change the policy in the first place? It sounds like it works good the way it is, why change it if it isn't broke? It is broken. It makes grown men live a lie, and clearly marks being gay as something other than OK and normal. Like it or not, the military has to get into the 21st Century, too.
John Adams Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 He should repeal it but if it's a priority, he's nuts. From that story, it looks like it's on his "to do" list, but way down that list. Makes sense to me.
Chump Change Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 It is broken. It makes grown men live a lie, and clearly marks being gay as something other than OK and normal. Like it or not, the military has to get into the 21st Century, too. What if you believe that gay is something other than OK and normal? What lie are they living? They just can't have a rainbow flag or walk around holding hands with other gays. Why should straight people have to shower with openly gay people? Should men be able to now shower with women? You may not like my questions but aren't they valid?
Erik Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 What if you believe that gay is something other than OK and normal? What lie are they living? They just can't have a rainbow flag or walk around holding hands with other gays. Why should straight people have to shower with openly gay people? Should men be able to now shower with women? You may not like my questions but aren't they valid? No...it's ok for straight people to shower with gay people if they are in the closet but it's not if they are openly gay? What's the difference?
Chump Change Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Then they won't openly be able to drool over your schwantz. Why can't men shower with women then? Another somewhat related question: Why can women reporters have open access to a mens locker room, but a man can't go into a female locker room to get an interview?
The Dean Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 He should repeal it but if it's a priority, he's nuts. From that story, it looks like it's on his "to do" list, but way down that list. Makes sense to me. Exactly. And it is something that has to be done properly. Past presidents (Clinton, for one) gave up on it, because there will be some blowback. Obama has to simply be firm, and say we will do it, there will be blowback, but too bad. Put together your best plan. What if you believe that gay is something other than OK and normal? What lie are they living? They just can't have a rainbow flag or walk around holding hands with other gays. Why should straight people have to shower with openly gay people? Should men be able to now shower with women? You may not like my questions but aren't they valid? The same questions were asked about White men having to shower and live with Black troops. Don't believe me? Go look it up. The time for tolerating stupid bigotry has to come to an end. There are a lot of things that I don't like, that make me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean they should be banned or hidden, does it? As it is, a gay man doesn't have the same freedom to be who he is, as a straight man, in the service. For example, he can't show pictures of his lover back home, to other guys, as that violates "don't tell". I would think that, if they didn't feel like a dirty secret, more able gay men might join the armed services...and they could use the help.
The Dean Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Then they won't openly be able to drool over your schwantz. Why can't men shower with women then? Another somewhat related question: Why can women reporters have open access to a mens locker room, but a man can't go into a female locker room to get an interview? Are you twelve years old? Gay men have showered with straight men for many years. The only ones who didn't know were the straight ones. As for your second question, I don't really know. I believe it is up to the individual locker room, whether to admit reporters. I'm not sure why ANY reporter would be admitted to a locker room when the athletes were naked.
Chump Change Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Then why not let men shower with women? Isn't this the same kind of progressive viewpoint as allowing gays to shower with straights? There is no difference. Until it is scientifically proven to be a genetic trait, I think it is an aquired behavior. That's just my viewpoint, but it is what it is.
John from Riverside Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Then why not let men shower with women? Isn't this the same kind of progressive viewpoint as allowing gays to shower with straights? There is no difference. Until it is scientifically proven to be a genetic trait, I think it is an aquired behavior. That's just my viewpoint, but it is what it is. They did it in Starship Troopers and that seemed to work out ok
/dev/null Posted November 21, 2008 Author Posted November 21, 2008 Then why not let men shower with women? Isn't this the same kind of progressive viewpoint as allowing gays to shower with straights? There is no difference. Until it is scientifically proven to be a genetic trait, I think it is an aquired behavior. That's just my viewpoint, but it is what it is. So you think people choose to live a lifestyle that is frowned upon by the majority of society, may alienate themselves from members of their own family, has a much higher rate of health risks, and drives some to suicide?
Chump Change Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 They did it in Starship Troopers and that seemed to work out ok I agree. No distractions there. After a few days of seeing boobs and snapper they would get used to it. What were we talking about?
/dev/null Posted November 21, 2008 Author Posted November 21, 2008 They did it in Starship Troopers and that seemed to work out ok I wouldn't mind showering with Denise Richards
Chump Change Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 So you think people choose to live a lifestyle that is frowned upon by the majority of society, may alienate themselves from members of their own family, has a much higher rate of health risks, and drives some to suicide? You know they weren't born with that lisp. Talk to me Goose!
Recommended Posts