Obama to end military gay policy

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Crazy people? Because it's crazy to expect that congress can debate two bills at once? My only mistake in this thread is buying into Broomstick's retarded fallacy of insisting that congress taking up DADT and DOMA would actually slow down work on UHC and arguing based on that instead of just calling it out for what it was, a retarded fallacy. In real people land, congress debates multiple issues at once. And this isn't just about marriage, it's also about DADT and about the ending of employment discrimination and about hate crimes and countless other issues which do result in people getting killed.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

How much political capital would it have cost Obama had he given some reference to a timeline on an issue that is close to universal agreement in the country? I honestly wasn't expecting Obama to remove DADT anytime soon but I was hoping he would give us some kind of timeline. But instead there was absolutely nothing new in his speech that we didn't already know months ago. It feels like people are acting as if it's still 1993. There is so much more support for repealing the gay military ban now than there was 16+ years ago. I'm not really buying into this Health Care or DADT argument. In fact, it's sounding a lot like a false dilemma considering Obama would have satisfied a huge block of the LGBT activist movement had he at least given some kind of time frame to his plan. And again, I'm not convinced that that would have cost him significant political capital. If anything, it could have also potentially reinvigorate trust in a increasingly disillusioned portion of his liberal base. I understand that he can't do anything without political capital but no politician should abandon ever his/her base. The base is what starts the movement and is what keeps it moving.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If you'll notice, I wasn't advocating anything at all, just trying to pin Broomstick in her own hypocrisy by asking her pointedly if she ever supported violence to effect social change, and how was it different to let others die because of your focus on that social change, than to actively revolt? It isn't; and if you consider people getting beaten to death because of a genetic brain condition they have, then we do live in medieval times more or less. Are there better ways of going about this? YES, there are--but Broomstick intentionally created a false analogy in which there are none; so, in that case, fuck her, we'll take our rights and the sick people can rot and die. But that's only a response to the creation of the false analogy which presupposes that Congress can't debate more than one issue at once. In fact, having multiple controversial issues before Congress simultaneously would be more likely to wear down Republican opposition to at least one of them.

[Aaron]

Crazy people? Because it's crazy to expect that congress can debate two bills at once? My only mistake in this thread is buying into Broomstick's retarded fallacy of insisting that congress taking up DADT and DOMA would actually slow down work on UHC and arguing based on that instead of just calling it out for what it was, a retarded fallacy. In real people land, congress debates multiple issues at once. And this isn't just about marriage, it's also about DADT and about the ending of employment discrimination and about hate crimes and countless other issues which do result in people getting killed.

No it's not crazy to expect Congress to debate more then one thing at once (gay marriage is probably pushing it though) but you sure as shit came off as crazy with your "violent resistance" bit. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens every time there is a thread involving your personal issues. If you would suck back and reload before you start typing maybe folks wouldn't look at you as a loonie.

That said, Obama should without a doubt ditch DADT as soon as possible. For everything else, remember that the guy still has three years left. Gays are going to get their marriage and rights eventually, you can already see the writing on the wall.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No it's not crazy to expect Congress to debate more then one thing at once (gay marriage is probably pushing it though) but you sure as shit came off as crazy with your "violent resistance" bit. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens every time there is a thread involving your personal issues. If you would suck back and reload before you start typing maybe folks wouldn't look at you as a loonie.

That said, Obama should without a doubt ditch DADT as soon as possible. For everything else, remember that the guy still has three years left. Gays are going to get their marriage and rights eventually, you can already see the writing on the wall.

Bleh, you're intentionally taking the point out of context. There was no suggestion there that violent resistance was appropriate, but rather that, letting people die from a lack of healthcare and violent resistance are morally equivalent. So a case in which violent resistance is ethically justified, would also be a case where putting gay rights first would be ethically justified. People then interpreted my insistence on making gay rates the primary issue as a prima facie endorsement of that, but in doing so they actually accepted Broomstick's "one or the other" fallacy at face value.

[SirNitram]

Crazy people? Because it's crazy to expect that congress can debate two bills at once?

Congress this week:
H.R. 2647 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
S.251, Safe Prisons communications Act
H.R. 3590 - Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009
H.R. 2997 - Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
H.R.1037, Veterans' Insurance and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009, as amended with the text of S.728, as amended with Akaka amendment to the committee substitute amendment
S.942, Prevent Abuse of Government Charge Cards
H.R. 1016 - Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009

13 amendments
1 confirmation

Along with numerous speeches, resolutions, delays, and several other appropriations bills still needing done, and debate on HCR.

Goes, one bill at a time, indeed!

[Aaron]

Bleh, you're intentionally taking the point out of context. There was no suggestion there that violent resistance was appropriate, but rather that, letting people die from a lack of healthcare and violent resistance are morally equivalent. So a case in which violent resistance is ethically justified, would also be a case where putting gay rights first would be ethically justified. People then interpreted my insistence on making gay rates the primary issue as a prima facie endorsement of that, but in doing so they actually accepted Broomstick's "one or the other" fallacy at face value.

Your a student of history are you not? You should know full well that sometimes you have to pick your battles. Could Obama get gay marriage and UHC through at the same time? Probably, the question is how many bridges are going to burned, how much "political capital" is going to be lost doing it, how much will it sabotage other efforts down the road?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Exactly, Martin. And I'm sorry for being sufficiently acerbic as to hurt you. I have no desire to see anyone die over this issue, least of all you.

The point I was trying to make during the controversial paragraph, I'll more clearly state:

"As a question, do you categorically reject any kind of violent resistance to oppression? Because your argument only makes sense in that context. If no form of oppression is ever worth killing people over, then it's certainly true that UHC takes precedence over gay rights, but if there are cases where oppression demands action, even violent action, then telling dying people that they're dying because their government oppressed a minority, is perfectly viable. If 625,000 people were killed to free the slaves in America, why are a few already gravely ill people slipping away in the meantime suddenly an issue for which we should wait?"

This was a statement clearly predicated on my accepting Broomstick's initial premise, and then pointing out that it was unethical to demand gay people to sit quietly and suffer when others have actively resisted oppression. But in reality I don't accept Broomstick's initial premise; I believe that UHC and repealing DADT can be achieved simultaneously, the later representing real progress on the issue. Certainly my comment was an expression of considerable anger, but the anger did serve to illustrate a point--and since gay rights is an issue far deeper than just service in the military or marriage, but also about homophobic violence which does result in deaths (and Congress has discussed bills related to that issue recently, so I'm not bringing in a tangent), Broomstick is basically asking queers to put their own deaths on a lower rank than the deaths of people due to a lack of health insurance.

Now, this makes sense since Broomstick's own personal issues are based around a lack of healthcare, but that just means that she should admit she thoughtlessly put herself first, and that's why I answered as I did--if you want us to wait for your issues, why shouldn't we try to force you to wait for our issues? Or maybe she could wake up and smell the fact that Congress regularly debates 13 - 14 issues simultaneously like you just noted, Martin, and replacing one of those with a repeal of DADT would be trivially easy, and just serve to further split Republican resources which would be even better.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Your a student of history are you not? You should know full well that sometimes you have to pick your battles. Could Obama get gay marriage and UHC through at the same time? Probably, the question is how many bridges are going to burned, how much "political capital" is going to be lost doing it, how much will it sabotage other efforts down the road?

My original argument was meant to be over the SUBJECT OF THE THREAD, DADT, which would require considerably less political capital than a repeal of the DOMA, but is still an effective step forward toward overall equality.

And there is No Excuse Whatsoever to defend why DADT repeal and UHC can somehow magically not be debated at the same time.

[Darth Wong]

Why do you deserve to live when we don't deserve to marry?

Are you fucking insane? Or are you just being a goddamned idiot who needs the most elementary principles of ethics explained in exhaustive detail?

No, gay rights does take precedence, because it's an openly discriminatory thing. It's targeted against a specific minority population, and hey, guess what? Universal healthcare isn't going to help me with any of my medical bills.

Ah, so "openly discriminatory" is more important than human life? What ethical principle is this based on?

For many years part of the reason I opposed UHC was because I didn't think anyone else deserved healthcare when I wasn't going to get it within a hundred years of UHC being enacted. Now I've become less vindictive in general, but still, Broomstick, this is a fundamental ethical blight on our civilization, and removing it, just like the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s, takes precedence. Your argument makes me think a lot of the "Vietnam First" debate in the black civil rights movement in the 1960s, really, and it's no surprise that MLK's efforts began to crack the moment he ignored what the fundamental, core goal of his movement was to involve himself in other things.

MLK was not the President. A President cannot be a blinkered ideologue. He has to think of what he can practically achieve.

Sorry, but the economic situation and healthcare simply aren't relevant to very real and legal discrimination against a minority. By all means, solve them, but it would take two fucking days for a single intern to copy and paste amended language onto the current law to create a bill, and it could be brought before the appropriate Senate committee and dealt with in a week, and then go back to work on your hot-button issues or whatever.

Bullshit. The opposition against Obama right now is against the man more than it is against his ideas. Most of his most vehement critics don't even know that much about his ideas. It is critically important for him to suppress the widely circulated right-wing notion that he is some kind of radical leftist. This is fucking US politics, not a theoretical debate among rational participants.

[Darth Wong]

And there is No Excuse Whatsoever to defend why DADT repeal and UHC can somehow magically not be debated at the same time.

Nice strawman. The point is not that people are physically incapable of debating both at once. The point is that UHC is on a razor's edge and anything which further galvanizes Obama's fervent opponents will probably take UHC with it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's just defensive thinking, Mike, which shows how progressive issues in the US have been crippled for so long. To me it's an opportunity to force the Republicans to attack multiple things at once and weaken their strength and resources on any one issue. There's no offensive spirit in the American left, which is really what this is all about.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Are you fucking insane? Or are you just being a goddamned idiot who needs the most elementary principles of ethics explained in exhaustive detail?

The later, most likely. I was given no ethical education beyond might makes right, and death is the solution to virtually every problem. That still influences how I see the world, and has repeatedly injured me far more than it will in this thread.

Ah, so "openly discriminatory" is more important than human life? What ethical principle is this based on?

There is none.

MLK was not the President. A President cannot be a blinkered ideologue. He has to think of what he can practically achieve.

DADT isn't beyond practicality.

Bullshit. The opposition against Obama right now is against the man more than it is against his ideas. Most of his most vehement critics don't even know that much about his ideas. It is critically important for him to suppress the widely circulated right-wing notion that he is some kind of radical leftist. This is fucking US politics, not a theoretical debate among rational participants.

And there's nothing radical about DADT, which has the support of more republicans than any UHC measure does...

[Pick]

Hey, I still think UHC should take priority. I just get the feeling that once we get comfortable with the idea of shelving something, though, it's going to stay shelved.

Whatever. I still expect Obama will take care of this at some point, and even if he doesn't, progress is, well, progressing.

[Aaron]

That's just defensive thinking, Mike, which shows how progressive issues in the US have been crippled for so long. To me it's an opportunity to force the Republicans to attack multiple things at once and weaken their strength and resources on any one issue. There's no offensive spirit in the American left, which is really what this is all about.

How well do you suppose that is going work? The American left is more a patchwork of different groups and issues then the right, they have more people to please and less leeway to do it (which is probably why Obama can't seem to reign in his own party) then the right who are more then happy to vote in lockstep.

You can't have an offensive spirit if you can't decide what the hell your supposed to attack.

Whatever. I still expect Obama will take care of this at some point, and even if he doesn't, progress is, well, progressing.

Like I mentioned before, from the outside looking in; America will get gay right eventually. The writing is all ready on the wall with several states legalizing it.

[Serafina]

That's just defensive thinking, Mike, which shows how progressive issues in the US have been crippled for so long. To me it's an opportunity to force the Republicans to attack multiple things at once and weaken their strength and resources on any one issue. There's no offensive spirit in the American left, which is really what this is all about.

Again, i agree with that.

You can say that the democrats have no resources left to spend on gay rights, and you may be right - but then, the gay community has every right to complain about the dems, because then they are not only unwilling but unable to further the cause.

Oh, and just for the record:
I do not think that gay rights are more important than health care, simply because:
-HC affects more people
-HC is often a matter of life and death, and hence more important.

But i can completely understand the feeling that it is swept under the rug, just because "oh, well, we have better things to do" - because, apparently, thats what happens it the US for decades now.
And in Marinas situation, i would get quite agitated, too.

Regards
Fina

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How well do you suppose that is going work? The American left is more a patchwork of different groups and issues then the right, they have more people to please and less leeway to do it (which is probably why Obama can't seem to reign in his own party) then the right who are more then happy to vote in lockstep.

You can't have an offensive spirit if you can't decide what the hell your supposed to attack.

Then purge ideologically disparate members and retain cohesive focus on a core group of issues with vicious attacks. It's worked for the Right from Reagan straight up to 2008, why can't we have a 28 year long run of progressive successes by imitating their political strategy?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And yes, the entire issue is conceded. Giving two shits about American politics is a fool's errand, anyway, and so I have been the fool here.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Now I'm having doubts. Because apparently all this isn't enough; my life should last in limbo or even end, because marriage isn't here yet. Frankly, I can't do more.

The Duchess is speaking for crazy people, not gay people. Please, just, try to remember that. I can't afford any health insurance either, and while I'd love to marry my boyfriend (entirely for the MONETARY BENEFITS), I have no fevered delusions about which one takes priority.

I am in the same boat (sans boyfriend). I can get health insurance through the university, but is is useless (TX, go figure). The max annual payout is not much more than what I would pay in on an annual basis. I could not afford having my appendix removed with this policy. On my stipend, I cant afford the policy anyway. I am even in a dangerous line of work. If in the field, I step in the wrong place, overturn the wrong log with my hand too far forward or miss ID a snake, I am out 100 thousand USD, which is the usual cost for a course of Crofab and a hospital stay in the US.

At the same time, I am a second class citizen. Hell, I am not even allowed to donate blood let alone organs (to my knowledge Obama has not even bothered to fix that regulation, which he CAN do with a stroke of a fucking pen. I would love to be wrong here.)

On these issues, I dont even have a congress person to write or call. Why? because I live in TX, District 6. Joe Barton is my representative. My two senators are just as bad. My pleas go unanswered because in the eyes of my representatives and senators, I am not a person. My Senator John Cornyn referred to gay marriage rights as being equivalent to a man marrying a box turtle.

[Darth Wong]

Are you fucking insane? Or are you just being a goddamned idiot who needs the most elementary principles of ethics explained in exhaustive detail?

The later, most likely. I was given no ethical education beyond might makes right, and death is the solution to virtually every problem. That still influences how I see the world, and has repeatedly injured me far more than it will in this thread.

Ah, so "openly discriminatory" is more important than human life? What ethical principle is this based on?

There is none.

Then don't argue ethics. You should shut the fuck up about things you don't understand or have never given much thought to.

MLK was not the President. A President cannot be a blinkered ideologue. He has to think of what he can practically achieve.

DADT isn't beyond practicality.[

And you say this based on what?

Bullshit. The opposition against Obama right now is against the man more than it is against his ideas. Most of his most vehement critics don't even know that much about his ideas. It is critically important for him to suppress the widely circulated right-wing notion that he is some kind of radical leftist. This is fucking US politics, not a theoretical debate among rational participants.

And there's nothing radical about DADT, which has the support of more republicans than any UHC measure does...

So? There is absolutely nothing radical about his pitiful watered-down UHC package either, and that doesn't mean it is guaranteed to pass or that it will cost no political capital to fight for it. Hell, some Republicans were even involved in writing the goddamned thing, and yet they're out there fighting tooth and nail to ram the blade in his guts over it.

[Aaron]

Then purge ideologically disparate members and retain cohesive focus on a core group of issues with vicious attacks. It's worked for the Right from Reagan straight up to 2008, why can't we have a 28 year long run of progressive successes by imitating their political strategy?

How do you purge "ideologically desperate members" when the Dems can't agree on what their core focus is? I'm not trying to be a dick here but the fundamental problem with the Dems is they appear to have nothing that they agree on. Before they can imitate the Right (assuming thats what they want to do) they need to agree on what they want to accomplish other then "change".

[Darth Wong]

The idea that the left can necessarily copy strategies from the right is like saying that atheists need a "radical fundamentalist" wing just like the Christians have. The very concept of radical fundamentalist can only be applied to atheism in the loosest sense, by converting it into "most activist", even though that is an extremely poor analogue.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you say this based on what?

That it is a binary issue that has the broad support of the entire electorate. Essentially only the people who approved of Bush at the end of his term are against repealing it. It would be a political belly wound ("Why do you hate our troops?") for people outside bumfuck bible belt districts to oppose it.

[Darth Wong]

And you say this based on what?

That it is a binary issue that has the broad support of the entire electorate. Essentially only the people who approved of Bush at the end of his term are against repealing it. It would be a political belly wound ("Why do you hate our troops?") for people outside bumfuck bible belt districts to oppose it.

Once more: some kind of UHC also has fairly broad support (and was even written with partial help from his opponents), yet Obama is having a hell of a time implementing it, and it's costing him dearly to do so. Give me ONE fucking reason (and no, your passion does not count as a reason) why we should believe that it's a good idea to try this before he gets some kind of UHC bill passed.

[Broomstick]

UHC has been waiting since the Nixon administration (he first proposed it). Is it news that things take time? Healthcare has been pushed to the back burner plenty of times, too.

FDR, actually. Look for his 'Second BIll Of Rights' speech.

Sorry.

I'll attribute that to actually remembering the Nixon presidency, as opposed to FDR, who I had to learn about entirely through history books.